Wot, no Tolkein?

[Cantousent]

It's impossible and fruitless to even try and predict how things would turn out, as the only certain thing we could say is that "High Fantasy just wouldn't exist". Which is an obvious conclusion when you kill one off one of the genre's founding authors, AND assume that there will be no replacement for him.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

...And yet you yourself are a practitioner of the same exercises you deride in others. If "t's impossible and fruitless to even try [sic] and predict..." then why do you predict how things would turn out in the first place?

 

snip

 

...And yet, with all the letters and words bouncing around in your skull, you continue to argue the point. This is the point you find "impossible and fruitless to even try and predict." The fact is, you've entered the fray, and so you can only expect that others will target your statements.

 

Moreover, I've always tired of the idea that someone else would have done it if [person x] hadn't. It's a cheap way of devaluing any person's accomplishment. The fact that such a view has so great currency in some circles doesn't change the fact that it's an insulting position in the first place.

 

It's always easy to claim someone else would have done it in the long run. In the meantime, someone did. So, claiming that the whole genre would have come about and that it would have been largely the same is easy to argue after the fact, but the fact still remains that Tolkien stands there, even with folks deriding his role. Even folks who lack the intestinal fortitude to come right out and admit that their position devalues the person's contribution, however obliquely.

 

Frankly, your arguments, on their face, devalue Tolkien's contribution by suggesting that it was anyone's to make but he happened to make it. Well, meta is right. Be Tolkien he says. By your argument, someone else would have been Tolkien if Tolkien hadn't existed. The problem with that argument is that Tolkien existed.

 

The rest is just your particular brand of mental gymnastics. If it comes to that, I'd rather watch Gromnir's gymnastic routine. It's not that he isn't irritating, but he's far more entertaining for all that, and he turns a much better performance.

[Azarkon]

I doubt any single person would duplicate Tolkien's effort, and certainly not his peculiar tastes and biases.

 

Tolkien's tastes and biases were not so much the tastes and biases of an individual as they were of a society. If Tolkien was eccentric and exceptional, then his ideas would not have been widely embraced. Popularity, and thus legacy as a cultural icon, only comes from a writer's ability to match the sensibilities of a nation or, at the very least, the cultural elite. His success, therefore, came about for the same reason Harry Potter did - because he captured the imagination of the masses.

 

Principle to any discussion of popularity must be the following premises: that the artist does not "invent" the market. Desire is intrinsic, sensibility predetermined by culture and circumstance. The only caveat lies in an author's (or a director's, or a musician's) ability to satsify such desires with his or her craft. If Tolkien had not played his pipe to the rhythm of Anglo-Saxon solidarity, embraced its mythical and religious traditions, and sounded the notes of Western destiny, he would not have been popular, and "high fantasy" would have been created by another who did exactly that.

 

My argument has always been thus: without Tolkien, the artifice of "high fantasy" might have been different (and it likely would have arisen in popularity later), but its core principles, sources, and themes would have remained the same. I have no reason to believe that if it were not for Tolkien, high fantasy would be dethroned by dark fantasy, low fantasy, SF, eastern wuxia, or whatever else you might come up with. LoTR is too archetypal, its roots too deeply mired in Christianity and the Manichean world view of the West, for that to have happened.

 

A single man cannot change the direction of the wind. But he can set his sails and ride to history's platonic shores. He can be the first to lay claim to the uncharted land. Yet never make the mistake of assuming that he's the only sailor of the throng, the only captain who ever distantly gazed. As long as the wind blows, men will set their sails and engrave their legacies. History does not care: any name will do.

[Cantousent]

Any name might do, but one did, Azarkon. My argument has always been thus: It's easy to suggest that any name can do, but the place of honor will always go to the name that did.

[metadigital]

If the hero wasn't a halfling, then a lot of the point of the story is void. Ergo, not Tolkien.

Exactly. Not Tolkien. We're in a world where Tolkien is DEAD, remember?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, yes, which was my point. You seem to be arguing both sides. If halflings, for example, are quintessentially Tolkien, and Tolkien never existed, then neither would halflings.

But it would *still* be High Fantasy. And I don't think the current state of High Fantasy would be much different in the situation I proposed.

...

First of all, I doubt even if anyone did it, it'd still be very different from Tolkien, because in order to create High Fantasy you'd need Epic and Fairy Tales. You'd have to draw from classic European epics and Fairy Tales, and Tolkien basically did just that: he ran the whole gamut of mythic literature. Emulating that would only result in minor variations... which I really don't see the point in listing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But everyone would interpret the myths in their own way. Without the weight of work done by Tolkien there aren't any halflings, specifically, for example, and no broad Tolkien flavour.

 

Take out all the Tolkienesque fantasy fiction, and assume it never existed. Would it somehow spontaneously appear, under the pen of someone else? Doubtful. Certainly not in it's present form, and probably even taking a lot more time it would never be so. We'd have more of the non-Tolkien-fantasy, definitely. Would this take some of Tolkien's popularity? Maybe, and maybe not.

 

Your comments are two-fold, either:

1. Tolkien did nothing special, everyone else would have been able to do it, given sufficient motivation (all the myths are there to read, after all); or
    
   
2. Tolkien had no lasting impact, the genre of fantasy would be almost identical without his magna opera (it's just more of the same stuff that's out there).
   

... Although humans do tend to have a fetish for pointy ears (Mr Spock, anyone), so they probably would be in any fantasy setting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ther is no mention of pointy ears in lotr.

 

that is the thing 'bout lotr... tolkien describes physical aspects of elves and dwarves and orcs n' such very little. he gets credit for inventing, but recognize at least that without no physical dscription offered by tolkien, his readers seemed to come to similar conclusions 'bout those appearances nevertheless... 'cuse as tolkien expected, those things were already part of the collective mythology o' english speakers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I certainly agree he certainly was more interested in the cultures: poems, songs, languages; rather than the physical attributes like hair styles and ear sizes.

 

I think it's the cat-like pointiness of the ears that so bewitches people: the looks are very animal-hybrid.

[metadigital]

I doubt any single person would duplicate Tolkien's effort, and certainly not his peculiar tastes and biases.

Tolkien's tastes and biases were not so much the tastes and biases of an individual as they were of a society. If Tolkien was eccentric and exceptional, then his ideas would not have been widely embraced. Popularity, and thus legacy as a cultural icon, only comes from a writer's ability to match the sensibilities of a nation or, at the very least, the cultural elite. His success, therefore, came about for the same reason Harry Potter did - because he captured the imagination of the masses.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So Tolkien just tapped into a zeitgeist demand?

 

What a load of horsefeathers. I don't know too many other Professors of Anglo-Saxon, still fewer who can write children's (or adults') fiction, and even less who can be bothered to write anything for anyone else's consumption.

 

Have you actually read The Lord of the Rings? There are hundreds of pages of appendices containing extra histories and language details. And not stupid languages like those in SW; proper linguistic analyses based on actual detailed studies of actual languages. The story was just a (at times poorly written) container / presentation device.

Principle to any discussion of popularity must be the following premises: that the artist does not "invent" the market.  Desire is intrinsic, sensibility predetermined by culture and circumstance.  The only caveat lies in an author's (or a director's, or a musician's) ability to satsify such desires with his or her craft.  If Tolkien had not played his pipe to the rhythm of Anglo-Saxon solidarity, embraced its mythical and religious traditions, and sounded the notes of Western destiny, he would not have been popular, and "high fantasy" would have been created by another who did exactly that. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So all this fuss over Mozart is unwarranted? Beethoven is pass

[Azarkon]

So Tolkien just tapped into a zeitgeist demand?

 

What a load of horsefeathers. I don't know too many other Professors of Anglo-Saxon, still fewer who can write children's (or adults') fiction, and even less who can be bothered to write anything for anyone else's consumption.

 

Have you actually read The Lord of the Rings? There are hundreds of pages of appendices containing extra histories and language details. And not stupid languages like those in SW; proper linguistic analyses based on actual detailed studies of actual languages. The story was just a (at times poorly written) container / presentation device.

 

Tolkien did not purposefully tap into the demand. He indicated so himself afterwards by estranging himself from the "popular" fantasy movement, which he labeled as the cult-like dredge that inevitably latches onto greatness. What you fail to understand, however, is that Tolkien's detailed studies in appendices had little to do with his popularity and influences on high fantasy. As the good professor himself observed, people were not so much interested in depth as they were interested in surface archetypes. Hobbits, elves, wizards, orcs, and the struggle between good and evil (often characterized as West vs. East), nature and industry, all set against a medieval "epic" time - these were Tolkien's so-called "legacies" on high fantasy. The rest wasn't popular, and therefore are no more than footnotes in history.

 

As far as my credentials with LOTR goes, I would refrain from making impossible suppositions, metaldigital.

 

 

So all this fuss over Mozart is unwarranted? Beethoven is pass

Edited March 7, 2006 by Azarkon

[Lyric Suite]

Mozart was a genius - yet would he be less so because classical music is a thing of the past?

 

Hey, classical music is still alive.

 

Just because we haven't had a 'popular'' composer since Shostakovich died doesn't mean the genre went belly up...

Edited March 7, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Azarkon]

Mozart was a genius - yet would he be less so because classical music is a thing of the past?

 

Hey, classical music is still alive.

 

Just because we haven't had a 'popular'' composer since Shostakovich died doesn't mean the genre went belly up...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point exactly.

[Pidesco]

Mozart was a genius - yet would he be less so because classical music is a thing of the past?

 

Hey, classical music is still alive.

 

Just because we haven't had a 'popular'' composer since Shostakovich died doesn't mean the genre went belly up...

 

 

My knowledge of new classical music is sketchy at best, but it seems to me that no living classical composer is as good as any of the greats.

Edited March 7, 2006 by Soulseeker

[metadigital]

So Tolkien just tapped into a zeitgeist demand?

What a load of horsefeathers. I don't know too many other Professors of Anglo-Saxon, still fewer who can write children's (or adults') fiction, and even less who can be bothered to write anything for anyone else's consumption.

 

Have you actually read The Lord of the Rings? There are hundreds of pages of appendices containing extra histories and language details. And not stupid languages like those in SW; proper linguistic analyses based on actual detailed studies of actual languages. The story was just a (at times poorly written) container / presentation device.

Tolkien did not purposefully tap into the demand. He indicated so himself afterwards by estranging himself from the "popular" fantasy movement, which he labeled as the cult-like dredge that inevitably latches onto greatness. What you fail to understand, however, is that Tolkien's detailed studies in appendices had little to do with his popularity and influences on high fantasy. As the good professor himself observed, people were not so much interested in depth as they were interested in surface archetypes. Hobbits, elves, wizards, orcs, and the struggle between good and evil (often characterized as West vs. East), nature and industry, all set against a medieval "epic" time - these were Tolkien's so-called "legacies" on high fantasy. The rest wasn't popular, and therefore are no more than footnotes in history.

 

As far as my credentials with LOTR goes, I would refrain from making impossible suppositions, metaldigital.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That depends on whether you make ludicrous statements that cloud any learned wisdom you may have.

 

I don't know why you think that the details are not important to Tolkien's popularity. How can anyone say that: has there been a study done to explain the popularity, or is it just a bunch of speculation by certain individuals?

So all this fuss over Mozart is unwarranted? Beethoven is pass

[Dark_Raven]

Mozart was a genius - yet would he be less so because classical music is a thing of the past?

 

Hey, classical music is still alive.

 

Just because we haven't had a 'popular'' composer since Shostakovich died doesn't mean the genre went belly up...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

My knowledge of new classical music is sketchy at best, but it seems to me that no living classical composer is as good as any of the greats.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No not even close in my opinion. I blame it on society, we do not educate our children in the fine arts and music like we should. We would rather have them stay occupied in entertainment like the tv and games.

[metadigital]

Which just proves the point about Zeitgeist Demand being an innane hypothesis.

[Laozi]

Plus Tolkien smoked a pipe, I mean, how cool is that. :cool:

 

And I have no hidden agenda in that statement

[metadigital]

I've often been tempted to take up smoking a pipe. Despite having given up smoking years and years ago.

[Laozi]

Something like a sherlock or a corn-cob?

[Azarkon]

I don't know why you think that the details are not important to Tolkien's popularity. How can anyone say that: has there been a study done to explain the popularity, or is it just a bunch of speculation by certain individuals?

 

The details may or may not be important to his popularity. What I *know* they're unimportant to, though, is his *legacy* in the form of high fantasy. Tolkien spent pages upon pages detailing every single aspect of his various cultures, and yet every fantasy world that's been created post-Tolkien reinvents the wheel in a different fashion. Are D&D elves Tolkien elves? They share surface physical and "skill-based" similarities - straight from Legolas's skill with the bow and the elvish "grace" and infravision. But Tolkien's High Elves were not snobbish Englishmen or druidic hippies! Are modern fantasy orcs related to Tolkien's orcs? Certainly - but Tolkien's orcs were "fallen" elves that looked more like ghouls than the green-skinned, stupid Warhammer orcs of this day and age.

 

And of course, the wizards? Tolkien's wizards are akin to angels. They're not physically decrepit but mentally acute mortals that conveniently mirrored the geek's conception of himself. Balrogs are fallen angels, not balor demons from another dimension. The list goes on.

 

Why ever not? That is an arbitrary distinction. Why are you so keen to isolate genius: trying to customise your criticism to Tolkien? And in what universe do you live where Mozart is not popular and still regarded and evermore so, a genius.

 

Here's a question: why does it matter whether Tolkien was a genius or not? You keep throwing out the term as if it related to the discussion of his influence on high fantasy, and cite musical geniuses as your examples. But genius is neither an indicator of popularity among the masses (ie Joyce, Melville) nor vice versa (ie Britney Spears).

 

No, but it sure as hell has a lot to do with HOW "high fantasy" would look if Tolkien had died in the war.

 

And how exactly would it look? What's the source of your conviction other than doubting the other side? I believe that high fantasy would have undertaken the same motifs and world views with or without Tolkien because of its symbolic relationship with the zeitgeist of our time. The Western thirst for a "struggle" between Good vs. Evil dates all the way back to Christianity and was bound to manifest in a mythological "fantasy" during a time when religion was being phased out of society. It makes perfect sense that Tolkien, a British author, would be the one to write LOTR and not an American - because Britain's faith in Christianity was shaken deeper than the US's and had a much richer tradition of myths and legends. If not for Tolkien, another British author - perhaps Lewis - would have attempted the same and the product, though not exactly matching Tolkien's version, would have been similar enough to serve the same functions. Why? Because the underlying desire high fantasy attempts to assuage is fundamental to Western society.

 

The rise of SF and popular fantasy at the turn of the century is a well studied phenomenon in modern criticism. I suggest you pick up some books on the matter - the underlying relationship between the two genres is exactly the same nexus of changing societal values manifest in two opposed, but mutually dependent world views (namely, a secular belief in progress vs. a fantastical nostalgia towards the bygone past).

 

WTF? So you are positing that there is some sort of Jungian collective consciousness that ejaculates genius into a (randomly chosen) person, who is merely the embodiment of this phenomena? Is that it?

 

The recognition of their genius, or rather their popularity to be more exact (for many are the geniuses that are not acknowledged), is based on the zeitgeist. History creates (artistic/literary) geniuses, not the other way around. Of course, I'm being a bit loose with my definitions: here, "genius" indicates a person of great *impact*, rather than a person of great talent. This is a necessary compromise of the definition, for we'd not know people of great talent unless they also had great impact.

Edited March 8, 2006 by Azarkon

[Laozi]

I thought you already lost this thread

 

 

Joking, of course

Edited March 8, 2006 by Laozi

[metadigital]

I'm leaning towards the Sherlock.

[Laozi]

Ya, sherlocks are definitely cooler, unless you're a sea captain or american president, then theres no beating the corn cob

[Surreptishus]

Is popeye's pipe a corn cob?

[Laozi]

yep

[metadigital]

Let's be sure about this: it's a close contest.

[Laozi]

between not smoking and smoking a pipe or between corncob and sherlock?

[metadigital]

Corncob and Sherlock.

 

Sherlock has the advantage that I can think of the correct word for what I am saying as I tend to the pipe ... normally I stand looking stupid during such mental gymnastics, and give the audience time to but in and change the subject! :angry:

[Ginthaeriel]

The point is that the term 'Sword & Sorcery' was coined after the work of Robert Howard.

 

He is the pivotal focus of the 'genre'. What you refer to as 'S&S' today is nothing but a flawed derivate of the type of 'epic' pulp Howard was known for (among other things).

And is there anything I've said that disputes that? I did infact say that Robert Howard can be seen as the father of Sword & Sorcery if one looked at contributions by High Fantasy as the development.

In short, Howard IS the quintessential Sword & Sorcery writer.

I wouldn't go that far however.

Michael Moor**** proposed "epic fantasy" for Howard's tales. "Sword & Sorcery" was a term invented on the spot to be used to cover stories ranging far greater than simply Conan.

As for the development of the conception of 'arcane' magic in modern fantasy, i'd say Howard had by far a greater role here. You should know this if you had read any of his tales.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Define "Arcane" then. I see the more complex, ritualized high magics prominent in Tolkien as more embodying "arcane" than the magic in Conan.