Would LOTR be as succesful and ground breaking now as then?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-09-01 12:44am

A simple question as I watch the TTT DVD for the 5th time this weekend. Many of the fantasy elements in LOTR seem a tad trite now to a well read fantasy reader and the main reason these works hold such a special place in our hearts is because Fantasy sort of began in earnest with LOTR (By that I mean modern Fantasy)

If LOTR were published now, would it have the same special place in our hearts, considering that many modern fantasy novels borrow heavily from LOTR (and in my opinion WOT is almost a direct rip off and retelling) is it possible for LOTR to be as successful?

When you REALLY read the novels and get past the nostalgia and the like, Tolkien was not very good at characterization as some other fantasy writers. He was most certainly NOT a romance writer, many of the fans of the movies would be shocked to read on and see that Aragorn's romance with Arwen is virtually non existent in the book absent any tension, etc we see so wonderfully done in the movies.

I guess it might be unfair to compare LOTR to the modern novels it has inspired but it is an interesting question regarding writing styles and whether such a novel could be successful now.

Also related to that is whether fantasy needs to shake itself loose of the almost slavish devotion to LOTR paradigms. Like Star Wars and the way it reinvented sci fi does fantasy need a similar shakeup?

Post by **Dalton** » 2003-09-01 01:15am

I agree with you, more or less. If LOTR was released now, it certainly wouldn't do as well; it'd probably be labeled as a derivative work. However, I must impress that Tolkien's story isn't as much about the characters as it is about the events, culture and history. Also, you'll find in the back of Return of the King, in the Appendices, a segment concerning the pre-LOTR relationship between Arwen and Aragorn, which I assume he added there for completeness's sake; however, from what I remember of Faramir and Eowyn at the Houses of Healing, Tolkien was rather ham-handed and stuffily Shakespearean when it came to romance.

Fantasy does indeed need to be shook up a bit. Pratchett managed to do it quite well, but he's not a writer of dramatic fantasy.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-09-01 03:17am

The book wasn't exactly a hit when it was first published; it didn't really catch on until the 60's. Its success was likely due in part to the popular unrest of the time. Young people were rejecting the heroes and myths of the older generations, and becoming disillusioned as they saw lying politicians and assassinations and soldiers shooting college students. Tolkien provided them with new, clear cut heroes who were also very normal and modernistic along with the more traditional heroes. It might not be as successful today. Especially since most people, especially young people, just don't read much anymore.

I would disagree that Tolkien is not as good at characterization. He does not do it the same way most writers do today: by letting us hear lots of the characters' thoughts. However, the characters are pretty well defined and three dimensional. Frodo was done quite well, I thought. It seems to me that many authors today exaggerate their characters to make them more memorable. It is hard to make a character seem like a real person, and I think Tolkien did a good job at that.

Of course, I am not a great fan of fantasy. Most of the books I have tried just don't seem very good. It's almost like comparing King to Koontz. Koontz is a decent writer, but after a while you begin to realize that 95% of his career has been spent rewriting "Fire Starter" over and over. Or comparing "Psycho" to modern slasher flicks. Similarly, when I was younger and tried to read other fantasy authors, they all seemed pale and imitative. It's not just the basic plot but the style. Tolkien was a great master of language, and he was able to use all sorts of styles, ranging from very formal or even archaic to very casual vernacular, and it never seemed artificial or contrived. Not many authors can create authentic sounding archaic dialogue. It almost always come across as sounding stilted and fake. Or at least it did years ago.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-09-01 05:05am

The question is rather moot, as there would be no modern fantasy without Tolkien, but no, it would not do as well today had everything else been written prior.

Still, Tolkien's world has a sort of mythic scope you just don't have anywhere else. The closest thing I've seen are the hints of similar in Robert E. Howard's Conan stories with the references to the histories, just nothing as extensive and polished. In modern fantasy, nobody has managed that aspect as well, in my opinion. Silmarillion is a flawed work, because it was unfinished when Tolkien died, but I've yet to get such an epic feeling from anything else I've read as I got from the struggles of the elves against Morgoth, particularly the Fingolfin side of the House of Finwe.

Edi.

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2003-09-01 07:34am

If Tolkien had written today he would be a latecomer rather than a pioneer and that would probably have dampened his success significanly.

Also the book likely to be released would be the completed Silmarillion trilogy rather than LotR ending ominously when Isildur claimed the one Ring for himself.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-01 08:49am

Edi wrote:The question is rather moot, as there would be no modern fantasy without Tolkien, but no, it would not do as well today had everything else been written prior.

What about Lord Dunsany, the various pulp-writers inspired by Howard and so on??

Johonebesus wrote: Young people were rejecting the heroes and myths of the older generations, and becoming disillusioned as they saw lying politicians and assassinations and soldiers shooting college students. Tolkien provided them with new, clear cut heroes who were also very normal and modernistic along with the more traditional heroes. It might not be as successful today.

Strangely enough, some of the grassroot socialists of today often accuse Tolkien of promoting feudalism and elitism while their 1960s predecessors had the completely opposite attitude.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-09-01 12:46pm

Go take alook at George Martin's series, A Song of Fire and Ice. IMHO, it shook up the normal fantasy genre. It starts with more or less a political intrigue and then more traditional elements of fantasy are worked in later.

The characters are well written as well, each with heroic qualities and less than admirable ones too. He's not much on battles, though they are in there, but the interactions between the multitudes of characters keeps you going back too them. That and he's not affraid to do unexpected things. If you like a character, he might not make it through the book let alone the series.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-01 02:39pm

The main draw with A Song of Ice and Fire is Martin's complete ruthlessness.

Until A Storm of Swords, you don't know who the 'heroes' will be.

And even then, one or more of the hero candidates may well end up as villains, or alternatively hideously mutilated..

Oh, and he does a marvellous line in utter bastards as well.

zombie84 · Post by **zombie84** » 2003-09-01 03:07pm

If you're talking about the novels, they'd probably be regarded as well written and structured but ultimately derivative; I'm sure they'd impress some and be regarded as excellent fantasy fodder but would be forgotten by the years end; disposable fantasy, make way for the next horde of equally-derivative pulp fiction.

Now, LOTR as films, thats another matter. Seeing as the only truely great sword 'n sorcery film out there is the original Conan, LOTR as a film series would probably be praised as a glorious and highly creative epic fantasy masterpiece (which it pretty much already is regarded as). Pretty much every flaw the film series has stems from its literature source, and if it was conceived strictly for the screen so that it could be more competantly structured it would probably recieve even more praise than it already does.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-09-01 04:52pm

Vendetta wrote:The main draw with A Song of Ice and Fire is Martin's complete ruthlessness.

Until A Storm of Swords, you don't know who the 'heroes' will be.

And even then, one or more of the hero candidates may well end up as villains, or alternatively hideously mutilated..

Oh, and he does a marvellous line in utter bastards as well.

Exactly, there is not static hero or villian. Each character has their flaws and does good deed and bad to accomplish what is need.

Great series, next one comes out soon.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-01 05:30pm

The world of LOTR is extremely compelling. However, I never liked Tolkien's writing style even when I first read LOTR as a youth. There were whole sections of tediously detail-obsessive description that I just sort of skimmed over.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2003-09-01 07:44pm

Knife wrote:Great series, next one comes out soon.

As if....

"Soon" is an infinitely expadable concept with this series.

Hell, the next book was never even meant to exist, until Martin realised that if he hadin't written it as a seperate volume, well over half of A Dance With Dragons would have been flashback.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-09-01 08:03pm

I don't know if modern fantasy lit would exist without Tokien. Orcs, elves, hobbits and dwarves, none of them would exist in their modern incarnations without LOTR and Tolkien's creativity.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-01 08:32pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I don't know if modern fantasy lit would exist without Tokien. Orcs, elves, hobbits and dwarves, none of them would exist in their modern incarnations without LOTR and Tolkien's creativity.

Not all modern fantasy lit requires orcs, elves, hobbits, and dwarves. Many writers do just fine with sorcerors, knights, dragons, and maidens.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-09-01 09:15pm

Indeed; many writers(Glen Cook comes to mind, as always), deviate quite a bit from the normal fantasy, LOTR-inspired standards.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-09-02 02:38am

Knife wrote:Go take alook at George Martin's series, A Song of Fire and Ice. IMHO, it shook up the normal fantasy genre. It starts with more or less a political intrigue and then more traditional elements of fantasy are worked in later.

The characters are well written as well, each with heroic qualities and less than admirable ones too. He's not much on battles, though they are in there, but the interactions between the multitudes of characters keeps you going back too them. That and he's not affraid to do unexpected things. If you like a character, he might not make it through the book let alone the series.

Contrary to what many people say, Martin is not the best thing since sliced bread, as it were. If you go and take a look at this thread, you'll find that I have a few things to say about George R.R. Martin's writing, both good and bad. His series is good, it is one of the more compelling fantasy worlds out there, in a way that many others are not, but there are several things in his writing that piss some people off.

If you want some more really kick-ass modern fantasy series, you should try reading J.V. Jones's Book of Words (not spectacular, but quite passable) and then her Sword of Shadows trilogy (two volumes out so far), which is just as good as Martin and in quite a few respects a lot better. Of course, these books do have a somewhat different slant as they are more focused on individuals and the political machinations (of which there is plenty) aren't quite as grand in scope as in Martin's books. You need to read the Book of Words trilogy before the Sword of Shadows trilogy, as otherwise some things are going to be really confusing. Set in the same world, different regions and different characters (bar two, so far), and Sword of Shadows takes place some 16 or 17 years after the Book of Words.

Janny Wurts is also a great author, I just recently read Curse of the Mistwraith, and now I need to get my hands on the second volume, which is the only one I'm missing from that series. It's really kick-ass writing. Her way of handling the same things I find offensive in Martin's writing leaves no similar sense of disappointment and bad taste in the mouth either, because she knows how to handle it.

Then there is Glen Cook's Black Company series, which I'm going to have to reread sometime, that's also great.

Edi

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-02 09:36am

Darth Wong wrote:The world of LOTR is extremely compelling. However, I never liked Tolkien's writing style even when I first read LOTR as a youth. There were whole sections of tediously detail-obsessive description that I just sort of skimmed over.

Maybe Tolkien is one of those authors who has too many good ideas.

Not all modern fantasy lit requires orcs, elves, hobbits, and dwarves. Many writers do just fine with sorcerors, knights, dragons, and maidens.

And some do even better with sticking to monsters of their own invention.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-09-02 09:51am

Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The world of LOTR is extremely compelling. However, I never liked Tolkien's writing style even when I first read LOTR as a youth. There were whole sections of tediously detail-obsessive description that I just sort of skimmed over.
Maybe Tolkien is one of those authors who has too many good ideas.

Tolkien had good ideas, but he's a product of his era, and as such, his writing style is defined by what was standard back then. in my experience, it is normal to find British writers dealing obsessively in detailed description, be it characters or scenario.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-02 11:37am

Warspite wrote:
Simon H.Johansen wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The world of LOTR is extremely compelling. However, I never liked Tolkien's writing style even when I first read LOTR as a youth. There were whole sections of tediously detail-obsessive description that I just sort of skimmed over.
Maybe Tolkien is one of those authors who has too many good ideas.
Tolkien had good ideas, but he's a product of his era, and as such, his writing style is defined by what was standard back then. in my experience, it is normal to find British writers dealing obsessively in detailed description, be it characters or scenario.

Another example of "products of their era" is 1920s/1930s pulp sci-fi, which usually seems horribly outdated today.