|
|
Post by theeclipse on Mar 24, 2010 2:52:44 GMT -5
It's not been given permission to post it freely, just on NiH, but I thought some of you might be interested in this essay on what fantasy writers can learn from Tolkien. Feel free to argue just like the members of that forum have! www.notebookinhand.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11178 |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Mar 29, 2010 22:23:25 GMT -5
So, what's the main point? What are these things we should learn from Tolkien? I'm not sure if I'll agree or disagree, but I'm way too lazy to read an entire essay on a writer I'm not even a fan of.
|
|
|
|
Post by theeclipse on Apr 5, 2010 17:58:48 GMT -5
Oh well.
|
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Apr 6, 2010 9:33:47 GMT -5
So, what's the main point? What are these things we should learn from Tolkien? I'm not sure if I'll agree or disagree, but I'm way too lazy to read an entire essay on a writer I'm not even a fan of. Yet the writer that influenced that makers of your favorite video game series. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 23, 2010 0:27:01 GMT -5
So, what's the main point? What are these things we should learn from Tolkien? I'm not sure if I'll agree or disagree, but I'm way too lazy to read an entire essay on a writer I'm not even a fan of. Yet the writer that influenced that makers of your favorite video game series. You wanna cite that? Because I know enough about Lord of the Rings to know that it & Final Fantasy aren't that similar at all, with the exception of the fact that they're both fantasy series. Final Fantasy is much more influenced by Dungeons & Dragons & Star Wars. Of course, Dungeons & Dragons or Star Wars could be influenced by Tolkien, I don't really know. Also, what exactly is your point? As I said up there, FF is inspired by D&D, but I don't really give a shit about D&D. And I'm not a very big Star Wars fan, either. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 23, 2010 0:30:18 GMT -5
The original DnD came almost directly from Tolkien. Hell, the halflings were originally called hobbits. Most fantasy has either been directly or indirectly been influenced by Tolkien.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 23, 2010 0:34:09 GMT -5
That I can believe. I still fail to see the point, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 23, 2010 11:29:38 GMT -5
The point is that Tolkien's writings are the basis of all modern fantasy. Even if it's not a direct influence, it's an indirect influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by kristine on Apr 23, 2010 14:49:54 GMT -5
Tolkien ripped off most of his ideas from mythology - some of the dwarven names came directly from norse myth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Apr 23, 2010 23:23:15 GMT -5
The Norse ripped off most of their ideas from the elves and faeries.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Apr 24, 2010 1:13:45 GMT -5
Bullshit, those pointears are only famous for being cowards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Apr 24, 2010 15:21:36 GMT -5
Pointears?
And basically, I'm not seeing what Nickerson is getting at. Yes, I see what he SAID, but how does what he said relate to the comment he quoted?
Also, I'm still in the dark about what these things are that writers can learn from Tolkien.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Apr 24, 2010 15:32:42 GMT -5
This:
There's a balance between fleshing things out with background and adding pages of sidetrack and description which adds nothing to the story. I loved the Hobbit. I still have yet to read past the first half of The Fellowship of the Ring without feeling like my guide is suffering from excessive amounts of ADD.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 24, 2010 15:35:08 GMT -5
I think Nickerson was saying that knowing more about Tolkien's fantasy would give you new perspectives on the fantasy it influenced. Knowing more about the influence gives you a greater understanding of the genre and the individual works.
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 24, 2010 17:30:03 GMT -5
I like Tolkein, mostly because he created a world, rather than just stories. But Terry Pratchett does that too, and frankly I think he does far more enjoyably than Tolkein did.
The difference is that Tolkein's world is what the stories about; they aren't really about themselves. The plot is "look at this world I have made through the lens of these events". Middle Earth, I gather, was made specifically so that the conlangs Tolkein built had a place to live. That's groovy. People love his work, and rightly so, because it had this original and creative and fully-realized setting. I think that the essay's author reflects this pretty well: good arguments, decently reasoned, but positively glacial in getting to the point. Maybe this can't be avoided in dealing with Weighty Topics, but it was a slog getting through the essay no less than it was a slog getting through Tolkein's books.
Pratchett, by comparison, makes stories that are pretty much just stories. They do have references and explanations of the world, often in little foot notes, and occasionally they influence each other because they have a shared universe. But that's not what they're about. They're about whatever it is that's going on in the story, not the setting. They're punchy. They're engaging. When they bring up seemingly-unrelated facts, it is usually to set up a joke or make some kind of wry point; when Tolkein does, it's just, basically, to bring up the points.
Part of this might just be the way that writing has evolved as an art form in the past fifty or sixty years, especially since Tolkein's training came in the 1910's and 1920's, when writing was FAR more pendulous and weighty, and Pratchett's came in the 1960s and 1970s, when writing had been shaped by influence and competition from television and movies and, to a lesser extent, radio.
Tolkein was undeniably a powerful force in modern fantasy - he virtually invented it - and was a brilliant creator of worlds, but I'd still rather have modern fantasy writers be informed by the irreverent satire of Pratchett than the ponderous academics of Tolkein.
|
|
