Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England • Hacker News Board

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#61

Post by saalweachter » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:35 PM UTC

macleginn wrote: post #34

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did it so well that most "high" fantasy that came out after him felt derivative of Tolkien. I'd really like to see counter-examples though; I feel like I haven't dived into the genre enough, in part because I'm turned off by the sheer volume of some book (series) on the one hand, and the juvenile tropes (generic hero's journey formula) on the other.

One way to avoid Tolkien’s shadow was to branch into related genres. Cue weird/ubran fantasy (e.g., Perdido Street Station), historical fantasy (e.g., The Spirit Ring), or pseudo-fantasy (the Ghormengast series, The Buried Giant). Interestingly, it seems that only works from last category have some real literary value.

I've fallen for the LitRPG genre, in all its variety.

A lot of it is very Tolkien-esque, given Tolkien's influence on D&D and its influence on RPGs that followed, but it has a different feel than the fantasy of the 70's-90's that lived deep in his shadow.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#62

Post by Forgeties79 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:38 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

macleginn wrote: post #13

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

He did it so well that most "high" fantasy that came out after him felt derivative of Tolkien. I'd really like to see counter-examples though; I feel like I haven't dived into the genre enough, in part because I'm turned off by the sheer volume of some book (series) on the one hand, and the juvenile tropes (generic hero's journey formula) on the other.

You should check out the “Mistborn” series by Brian Sanderson. You’ll recognize some tropes/themes but it’s really different from what I’ve usually read and the characters are absolutely fantastic. It’s 3 books and they’re a bit lengthy but it’s a self-contained, satisfying story.

Elevator pitch for you: you know the epic good vs. evil showdown where the good guys charge epically against the likes of Sauron and his evil army? Well, the good guys lost. It’s 1,000 years later and the evil dark lord is running the show. Now a team of magic wielding (illegal) misfits is planning an ocean’s 11 style heist to get filth rich and topple the evil empire at the same time!

Again, fantastic series. I was hooked just a few dozen pages in. The Magic also has a crazy interesting mechanic/rule set that makes it more of a strategy issue in some ways.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#63

Post by gambiting » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:40 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #51

macleginn wrote: post #13

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

So this is a weird question, but I am actually serious....

Isn't all "good" literature meant to be "long dull and badly written[to the untrained eye]"? The more I think about what you said, the more I realize that the image of "nobel winning" literature that I have in my mind is by definition long, boring, impossibly allegorical and it must feel like you have to be superhuman to read it and understand it. Equally, in my mind anything that's easy and pleasant to read must be trash(because anything I have ever read that was enjoyable was dismissed later as easy-reading garbage). My only experience with "great works of literature" is of that by Polish writers since that's where I grew up, anything by Sienkiewicz or Mickiewicz is considered almost sacred, literature with the "big L" as they say, those are big names with international renown, yet their books are the most soul destroying thing I have ever read, it's just so dull. Hell, Władysław Reymont won a nobel prize(!) for his novel "Chłopi"("Peasants") yet I'd rather stab myself with a fork that try reading that again. Same with more modern authors, Umberto Eco is impossible to read unless I'm actively trying to sleep, and he's considered a "good" author.

So my immediate thought after reading Lord of The Rings was....wow, it must be good(because it's so dull to read). It's almost like pavlov's instinct at this point, years of education has trained me to think dull book = great work of art.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#64

Post by macleginn » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:42 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #45

macleginn wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so I hope it was okay with him when Lloyd Alexander took LOTR, watered it down, combined it with everything he could profitably extract from Mabinogion, and published the end result as the Chronicles of Prydain. On a more serious note, I would suggest that Tolkien with his unabashed traditionalism was actually a major figure in the 20th c. postmodernist tradition. The "Cauldron of Story" is not very far removed…

So out of all the lousy ripoffs of Tolkien in the world you decide to beat up Lloyd Alexander?! on edit: obviously I ask because I find him miles better than some of the better known ones.

The Chronicles started appearing less than 10 years after the Return of the King, so Tolkien could have actually read them. Perhaps there were other notable ripoffs in the 60s, but I am not aware of them; this is just what came to mind.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#65

Post by Forgeties79 » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:43 PM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

macleginn wrote: post #13

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

He did it so well that most "high" fantasy that came out after him felt derivative of Tolkien. I'd really like to see counter-examples though; I feel like I haven't dived into the genre enough, in part because I'm turned off by the sheer volume of some book (series) on the one hand, and the juvenile tropes (generic hero's journey formula) on the other.

You should really check out Brian Sanderson’s “Mistborn” trilogy

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#66

Post by yters » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:49 PM UTC

macleginn wrote: post #13

One fascinating aspect of Tolkien’s oeuvre is that his writings are, how to put it, endlessly derivative. Not only did he use words from different languages, motifs from different mythologies, and images from different poetical traditions. He also mercilessly raided the writings of George MacDonald for characters and plot elements (try reading ‘Phantastes’ or ‘The Princess and the Goblin’ to appreciate just how freak…

How much does MacDonald rely on medieval literature for his characters and plots? I've read a fair amount of both Tolkien and MacDonald, and I can see some similarities, but nothing obviously stands out as Tolkien copying wholesale from MacDonald. OTOH both of their writings remind me of medieval stories, e.g. faerie queen, arthurian legends, beowulf, etc.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#67

Post by jhauris » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 12:54 PM UTC

Forgeties79 wrote: post #62

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He did it so well that most "high" fantasy that came out after him felt derivative of Tolkien. I'd really like to see counter-examples though; I feel like I haven't dived into the genre enough, in part because I'm turned off by the sheer volume of some book (series) on the one hand, and the juvenile tropes (generic hero's journey formula) on the other.

You should check out the “Mistborn” series by Brian Sanderson. You’ll recognize some tropes/themes but it’s really different from what I’ve usually read and the characters are absolutely fantastic. It’s 3 books and they’re a bit lengthy but it’s a self-contained, satisfying story. Elevator pitch for you: you know the epic good vs. evil showdown where the good guys charge epically against the likes of Sauron and his e…

Minor correction, it's Brandon Sanderson. He is a fantastic fantasy author. The Stormlight archives is another series by him that is really good.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#68

Post by Kye » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #63

dash2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

So this is a weird question, but I am actually serious.... Isn't all "good" literature meant to be "long dull and badly written[to the untrained eye]"? The more I think about what you said, the more I realize that the image of "nobel winning" literature that I have in my mind is by definition long, boring, impossibly allegorical and it must feel like you have to be superhuman to read it and understand it. Equally, in…

The thing about contests/awards is they're judged by people at the peaks of their careers who have seen and/or done basically everything. It's hard to impress them. So the easy stuff is cool and fun to both see and make, but also doesn't surprise the judges.

Example: photography contests.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcxcGBbLIwk

The cool, pretty, easy to access photos aren't surprising to someone who's seen it all. Anyone with enough money and time can take those photos, just as anyone with enough time and little concern for popularity can sit there and write something that surprises the people who give out writing awards.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#69

Post by arkades » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #53

gvjddbnvdrbv wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read UKLG's Earthsea. They are objectively quite simple books (targeted at teens) but they are fantastic. As a side note in my opinion this series is an example of how the current phase of thinking someone has to be of a group to understand the group is wrong. The female author brilliantly captures a young male's journey towards a strong, compassionate, brave and very masculine manhood with all the mistake…

> the current phase of thinking someone has to be of a group to understand the group is wrong. > Or maybe men and women are even more similar than I'm accounting for and a young woman's journey is just that similar to a man's You're almost there; the point is not that you have to be in a group to understand a group, but that because of the power structure some are much more visible and celebrated than others. A femal…

> You're almost there; the point is not

I take issue with this statement. It's essentially a variant of the No True Scotsman. I constantly see the OP's statement asserted, in various contexts, by various parties, in the same way he worded it.

I don't doubt that you've seen a more refined version of it. "People" are a fairly heterogeneous bunch, and when it comes to race/gender stuff I constantly see nuanced (whether or not agreeable) arguments filter out from academic circles into the general public and to activists, where they're distorted or simplified.

You're absolutely welcome to raise a more refined version of the argument and point out where it's more valid - I think that's a healthy contribution to any discussion. But you don't get to unilaterally assert that the version of the argument that is constantly being put forward ... isn't being put forward, or isn't "the real" argument.

Re: Tolkien’s Mythic Plan for England

#70

Post by Kye » Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

aikinai wrote: post #59

dash2 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps, one can say that Tolkien is 20th century‘s Shakespeare Hmm, I doubt it. The Hobbit is fun, but many adults returning to LOTR think "gosh, this is long, dull and badly written". Here's an example, which is also a more interesting review than the unherd one: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v23/n22/jenny-turner/reasons...

It is long, dull, and badly written, but there’s clearly some magic there; why else would millions of children and adults take to the books so deeply despite those flaws? And this was true even before it had the movies to drive marketing. My mom picked them up at a yard sale when I was nine or so, and without even knowing they were famous, I devoured them and then bought every other Tolkien book I could find. Now I c…

I think it's the novelty of it. Friends with kids report losing their minds after sitting through the nth replay of a Disney movie. To the kid, everything in it is new and they enjoy seeing new details each time. The adult can guess their way through any new Disney movie because they all stick close to a formula anyone with a passing interest in writing can recite.

I did the same rewatching all the Star Treks, Stargates, and other '90s sci-fi TV several times. Now it's kind of...dull. It's all too familiar. Now I'm more impressed with newer scifi that tries to evolve the genre without being too different. Like: The Expanse, Farscape, Dark Matter, Another Life.