XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien   
   From: ojevind.lang@bredband.net   
      
   "Nicholas Young"  skrev i meddelandet   
   news:i2ia4e$6e3$1@speranza.aioe.org...   
   > "Öjevind Lång"  wrote in message   
   > news:8b2m1vF4oqU1@mid.individual.net...   
      
   [much unmarked snippage]   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> Sounds like an excellent idea.   
   >   
   > We seem to have started ;-)  Though I note, that as Troels warned, this   
   > could become simply a list of our favourite authors rather than those who   
   > display "Tolkien-esque" characteristics.   
      
   And I can't promise to stay completely away from such behaviour in the   
   future either. :-)   
      
   >> Imitations remain just that - imitations, with no independent life. The   
   >> only exception I can think of is Edward Eager, who back in the '50s and   
   >> '60s wrote books that were very obviously imitations of E. Nesbit's   
   >> stories, and yet quite good. His story about a toy city come to life is   
   >> actually better than Nesbit's. (I suspect Nesbit was writing the   
   >> instalments of her story with the boy from the newspaper waiting at the   
   >> door for them, as was often the case with her.) Eager's "Half Magic" is   
   >> particularly good.   
   >   
   > I like Eager and agree that he has a merit of his own; but actually I   
   > think   
   > he's distinctly inferior to Nesbit.   
      
   Oh, I agree, with the single exception of his book about a toy city come to   
   life. I thought Nesbit's version was very feeble, clearly written in great   
   haste. Pity, because it's such a good idea for a story.   
      
   [snip]   
      
   >>  However, Asimov did write one short story which I think is truly moving   
   >> and engaging on the human plane, and that is "The Ugly Little Boy".   
   >   
   > Again agreed, though actually it's not very much about the characters as   
   > such, which are not very well developed, more the situation.  (I do quite   
   > like Susan Calvin as a character.)   
      
   I can't think of a single character of Asimov's that can be called a fully   
   developed personality. His strength lay elsewhere.   
      
   >>> 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)   
   >>   
   >> I'd omit Rowling, whom I don't care for,   
   >   
   > ... but see above: this is not just about personal preference; do you   
   > think   
   > she is in the Tolkien mould or somewhere completely different? ...   
      
   I'd say that she could never have written her books without the vogue for   
   fantasy, which was triggered by Tolkien and, to some extent, Robert E.   
   Howard. Her idea of "a chosen one" is pure Tolkien. (As is the case with   
   Eddings' Garion and a host of others.)  In an interview in "Time", Rowling   
   claimed that she did not realize she was writing fantasy when she first   
   started to write about Harry Potter. I don't take that claim seriously. It   
   was simply an attempt to distance ehrself from he fantasy category, which   
   some literary snobs still put up their noses at.   
      
   >> and I'm not too fond of Terry  Brooks either.   
   >   
   > Again agreed; again see above and also my previous point about Brooks   
   > finding his own (limited) voice.   
      
   Oh, I agree that his books are a knockoff of Tolkien, to the extent that   
   they aren't knockoffs of other knockoffs of Tolkien, so to speak.   
      
   >> On the other hand, I love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy - though   
   >> not the later Earthsea books. In my opinion, Le Guin sacrificed her great   
   >> talent on the altar of politics.   
   >   
   > Yes - I totally forgot her and should have included her in exactly the   
   > same   
   > way as you have.  Though in fact I think her very latest work is better   
   > than   
   > what precedes it: for instance, I enjoyed _The Other Wind_ (the fifth book   
   > of Earthsea) *very* much more than _Tehanu_.   
      
   I can't posibly dislike it more than "Tehanu". Perhaps I'll give it a try.   
   It's just that after having enjoyed so many of her books, I was then   
   subjected to one rude disappointment after another beginning with "The Eye   
   of the Heron".   
      
   >>  Clifford D. Simak (an old favourite of mine) once tried his hand at   
   >> fantasy and produced an extremely good book called "Where the Evil   
   >> Dwells." I recommend it highly. He seems to have taken some elements from   
   >> Rosemary Sutcliff's novels about Roman Britain and transplanted them to   
   >> the realm of fantasy, adding... I won't say anything more. I love it.   
   >> (Must reread that book soon.)   
   >   
   > Never enjoyed Simak much except on a superficial level; and again, is this   
   > just a recommendation or do you think he writes in the same spirit as   
   > Tolkien?   
      
   There are definite elements of high fantasy in the book. I don't think it   
   could have beenw ritten if LotR had never been written. But there is also a   
   lot of other stuff. For example... I'll put this at the end, after a spoiler   
   space.*   
      
   >>> [Stephen Donaldson's] 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.)   
   >>   
   >> I can't say I care for Donaldson and his Sad Sam of a hero.   
   >   
   > OK.  Do me a favour: read any of _Reave the Just_ in the collection of   
   > that   
   > name, or _Daughter of Regals_ or _Unworthy of the Angel_ in the collection   
   > _Daughter of Regals_.  Then let me know what you think ;-)   
      
   OK! Actually, I have now remembered that I read and enjoyed his two Mordaunt   
   books. I was just overhelmed by my dislike of Thomas Covenant, the   
   Unbeliever.   
      
   >>> Agreed.  The person whom Donaldson brings to mind for me is Susan   
   >>> Howatch - does anyone else read both, and if so do you agree?  The   
   >>> genres   
   >>> are completely different but there is something fundamentally similar; I   
   >>> think it is the fact that they both write essentially and compellingly   
   >>> about redemption, though Donaldson might not use that word as a general   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)