XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien
From: n.a.y@com.btinternet
"Troels Forchhammer" wrote in message
news:Xns9DBCC9A22E81CT.Forch@130.133.4.11...
> In message
> Weland spoke these staves:
>> Nicholas Young wrote:
[...]
>>> Tolkien was by his own admission, as I think someone else quoted:
>>> "a man of limited sympathies (though well aware of them)." He
>>> would probably have disliked most of the genre in which his work
>>> is placed,
>
> On the other hand he appears to have liked some of the science
> fiction that was published including Asimov.
>
> How much, I wonder, can be derived from what (quite possible very
> little) we know about his sym- and antipathies? Can we begin to get
> some idea of what it was that he liked in a book and what he actively
> disliked? Hmmm -- perhaps a new thread devoted to Tolkien's literary
> tastes?
I'm up for it - though my participation is and will remain erratic.
>>> including that small number of works that Tolkien-lovers consider
>>> close in stature to the master
>
> I wonder which authors might fall in this group at all?
I have two or three ... well, maybe one - see below.
>> Yes, I have to say that most Tolkien imitators fail utterly.....
>
> I'm not as widely read as some in these groups, but I can't think of
> any Tolkien _imitator_ that does not fail utterly: possibly because
> there is something in the very attempt to imitate _Tolkien_ that
> makes it impossible?
Of course, I carefully didn't say "imitators" ... I agree with you, Troels,
that imitators will always pretty much fail, though not so much because
there's anything unique about Tolkien _in this respect_; merely because
imitation implies a lack of original thought. (Tributes of course are
another matter; there authors may acknowledge their debt to a master and yet
have something of their own to say.)
>> the closest in feel is Kay in my view, though Kay is also using
>> his own voice to tell his tales....but I think he gets closer to
>> the real spirit of Tolkien than most others.
>
> Christopher Tolkien seeking Kay's advice when compiling and editing
> _The Silmarillion_ certainly implies a recognition of certain common
> traits.
Out of Kay's work I have only read _Fionavar_. I enjoyed it and agree there
was something Tolkien-esque about it, but didn't think it was a patch on
Tolkien himself. The secondary world was not ultimately convincing and I
particularly remember thinking that the talisman (I think a dagger?) was not
at all up to the significant job that it was given. However, it was a long
while ago: perhaps I should re-read it.
>> It might be interesting to compile a list of authors others think
>> capture "tolkienian spirit" in their novels....not your favorites
>> per se, but those authors you think get Tolkien.
>
> I presume we're talking about reasonably modern authors (twentieth
> and twentyfirst centuries)? One of the best places, in my opinion, to
> go for stories that contain much of the same 'air' as Tolkien's work
> is to read the old myths and legends: sagas, eddas, Kalevala, etc.
> etc.
>
> Asimov, in my opinion, is one of the authors (of those that I know)
> that come closest in terms of the sub-creation's power to command
> Secondary Belief.
I'm very fond of Asimov, but (as with Agatha Christie whom I also enjoy)
it's rather difficult to explain why. The characters are, with a very few
exceptions, one-dimensional and unconvincing; the writing is good but far
from excellent; the societies are not usually plausible and the science is
good but again not wonderful, especially when he gets away from physics. I
think it's simply the extent of his imagination that compels one, but of
course more is needed than just that. _Foundation_ is arguably his greatest
work, but once outside the gripping narrative it's clear what a load of
nonsense the foundational principle of psycho-history really is, and the
inconsistencies that abound in the descriptions of the power of the mind.
That doesn't stop me re-reading it with great enjoyment, but I would need
something more to call it really great.
Probably the real issue with Asimov is that his work doesn't engage the deep
emotions; one doesn't actually learn anything important from him . And this is true of a large number of writers of both
hard SF and fantasy.
So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share something of the
Tolkien spirit, while not necessarily achieving the same level of mastery,
are:
C.S.Lewis
Charles Williams (possibly)
E.R.Eddison (but only in _The Worm Ouroborous_)
John Christopher (children's writer, notably _The Tripods_ and _Prince in
Waiting_ trilogies)
Lord Dunsany
Terry Brooks
Poul Anderson (ranges between hard SF and fantasy)
Garth Nix (again a children's writer, _The Old Kingdom_ series)
J.K.Rowling (in my view outstanding; time will tell)
And then there is the only person who to my mind approaches the stature of
the master: Stephen Donaldson. He is one of the very few writers who has
the power to cause one to utterly suspend disbelief. His debt to Tolkien is
unfortunately rather obvious in the first book, not so much in the ring he
uses as in some of the names: Berek Halfhand, for instance. (He
acknowledges that debt, not so much as direct influence but in the fact that
Tolkien created almost singlehandedly the environment in which his work is
possible, and he has written tributes of his own.) But as the influence
fades and his own writing grows stronger, reading his work gives one the
impression of being not only gripped but taken by the throat and rattled ;-)
One does not emerge unchanged from it.
His largest body of work is _The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the
Unbeliever_, but there are also other series and some absolutely wonderful
short stories, of which _Reave the Just_ is perhaps the most remarkable
while being very accessible. (If you don't know his writing, begin with
Covenant; *do not* start with the _Gap_ series.)
> Eddings is a bit comical: for all his denunciations of Tolkien, he
> obviously couldn't really manage to tear himself free from the
> Tolkienian tradition, though he, IMO, failed to capture any part of
> the 'Tolkienian spirit' as you call it. I'm not sure that it's quite
> a fair way to put it, but from his own statements one can get the
> impression that he tried to avoid attempting to imitate Tolkien --
> and failed. And failing he tried -- and failed :-/ (there is, again
> IMO, some enjoyable humour in his books that one doesn't really find
> in Tolkien's works, though for humorous fantasy I'd recommend
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
