bf252264   
   XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.fan.tolkien   
   From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid   
      
   In message   
      
   Count Menelvagor  spoke these staves:   
   >   
   > On Jul 25, 7:38 am, Öjevind Lång    
   > wrote:   
   >>   
   >> "Nicholas Young"  skrev i   
   >> meddelandetnews:i2fpk5$4r t$1@speranza.aioe.org...   
   >>>   
   >>> "Troels Forchhammer"  wrote in   
   >>> message news:Xns9DBCC9A22E81CT.Forch@130.133.4.11...   
   >>>>   
      
      
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> I must respectfully disagree here. Tolkien used many narrative   
   >> devices th at simply had not been invented back in the times of   
   >> the great myths and legends. They were of course an inspiration   
   >> to him, but his writing is actually very different from them.   
      
   You are, obviously, free to disagree, but I don't think that the   
   objection you raise, with which I fully agree, serves as an argument   
   against my opinion here.   
      
   Possibly it depends on which elements of the 'air' of Tolkien's   
   writing (a phrase that is more a vague hand-waving than a useful   
   help in a discussion, I'm afraid) that you focus upon, but Tolkien   
   often deliberately imitated the narrative style of the old myths and   
   legends -- and, IMO, quite ably so (this is, I would say, the most   
   obvious in the lost tales, and growing less prononced later on, but   
   it is, again IMO, still very much in evidence in LotR where you have   
   passages that read as recontextualizations of passages from old   
   tales). This does not mean that he didn't bring anything new to the   
   table, but it does mean that his writing shares many traits with the   
   ancient mythologies and legends. Possibly these very elements tend   
   to loom larger in my perception, so that, in the end, these old   
   myths, tales, legends, lays etc. is where I find tales that seem, to   
   me, the closest to Tolkien.   
      
   This element is probably the thing that I most lack in the other   
   authors of fantastic fiction that I have read. E.g. Rowling, though   
   she relies heavily on elements of folk-lore to assist her   
   sub-creation, fails to draw upon the narrative style of the old   
   tales from which she draws the elements of her Wizarding World.   
      
   Again, it depends obviously on what you mean by 'narrative style'   
   and similar phrases, but I would say that Tolkien's narrative style   
   draws rather heavily on the old myths and legends, but that his   
   narrative is nevertheless solidly anchored in the twentieth century.   
   So much so that while I am sure that any of my ancestors of a   
   thousand years ago would understand the Tolkien's way of telling his   
   stories better than almost any other author from the twentieth   
   century, he would understand little or nothing of the story as a   
   whole or its thematic contents (there are other modern authors whose   
   narrative style may be more innovative, but which has nothing to say   
   that hasn't been said better more than a thousand years ago . . .).   
      
   > yes. indeed, the whole project of creating a secondary world is a   
   > relatively modern one, i think.   
      
   Well, both yes and no ;-)   
      
   As a deliberate effort by a single man it is certainly a new thing,   
   but Tolkien was consciously imitating the sub-creations of old myths   
   and legends (though these were collaborative efforts -- systems of   
   non-conscious sub-creation that evolved slowly over centuries rather   
   than years or decades).   
      
   > and tolkien has an interesting narrative approach highlighting the   
   > inconclusiveness and contradictoriness of the reception of   
   > tradition from the "elder days."   
      
   Are you thinking of his 'it is said that', 'the Elves tell that',   
   and other devices? Or are you thinking of something else?   
      
   > that said, there are elements of direct imitation of myths and   
   > legends in tolkien, which can be redolent of sagas, etc. perhaps   
   > that's what the writer had in mind.   
      
   Yes, it was, thank you :)   
      
   To me, this is such a strong element of Tolkien's writings (I am   
   here thinking mostly of LotR) that, because of this, I find that the   
   old myths, legends etc. from which he drew are still that which   
   comes closest in 'air' (another vague and indefinable word, I'm   
   afraid) to Tolkien.   
      
   I am sorry that I don't have a better vocabulary for discussing this   
   kind of literary criticism -- I think it would be preferable to be   
   able to distinguish better between different aspects and elements of   
   Tolkien's writing.   
      
   >>> So ... those I can think of at present who seem to share   
   >>> something of the Tolkien spirit,   
      
   Given the above, I can't help wondering what is meant here by the   
   'Tolkien spirit'?  (Possibly the same kind of vague hand-waving for   
   which I use 'Tolkien air')   
      
   >>> 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,   
      
   Personally I am rather ambiguous towards Rowling -- I am rather   
   enthusiastic about in particular books three and four of the Potter   
   series, but I can't bear the thought of re-reading the last book.   
      
   However, even at her best I can't see Rowling as having any of the   
   'spirit' or 'air' of Tolkien's writing: hers are, in my opinion, a   
   very different kind of stories from Tolkien's   
      
   >> and I'm not too fond of Terry Brooks either. On the other hand, I   
   >> love Urusula K. Le Guin's Earthsea trilogy   
   >   
   > i'd add le guin, too.   
      
   I've only read the four Earthsea books (and though I recognize that   
   _Tehanu_ is a quite different kind of story from the first books, I   
   don't understand the denouncements for political [presumably   
   feminist] correctness that have been levied against it: I quite   
   enjoyed it, though in a different way than the preceding books).   
      
   However, despite her rather successful sub-creation and though I am   
   aware that le Guin is very fond of Tolkien, I am not sure that I   
   would include her in a list of authors that remind me of Tolkien. I   
   am also very fond (to say the least) of Pratchett, but again I   
   wouldn't mention him as someone whose writing reminds me of Tolkien.   
      
   > i like rowling, but wish she had edited better. she is a pretty   
   > good storyteller, though.   
      
   More than anything I think that she needs to constrain herself. I   
   don't think she handles long stories very well -- neither in terms   
   of individual books, nor in terms of the series' story-arch. But   
   this, I think, is not the place to discuss Rowling's faults and   
   virtues ;-)   
      
      
      
   --   
   Troels Forchhammer     
   Valid e-mail is    
   Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)