The new Tolkiens!

[Cpt. Soup]

Greetings to all! let this thread be the fist of my expansion into the media discussions section!

I shall begin with two words, book reviews! Those lovely little things on the back of every book and where ever else they can stuff the things in recent times. I've always found official reviews to be extremely annoying, even more so when don't remotely match the books they're attached to.

The most vile ones of all as I see it are those that are pretentious enough to compare a fantasy writer to Tolkien. One reviewer called Time magazine or some such has declared George R. R. Martin the American Tolkien. Now I'm not by any means attacking the GRRM in fact I'll be in the vanguard when the time comes to take this world of the infidels that praise the likes of Salvatore and Cunningham, may GRRM strike them down!!

My point is that Tolkien's world is as far removed from GRRM's as can be! I doubt its possible to find two fantasy writers further apart in style! While Tolkien created the highest of high fantasy, as far removed from the physical world as can be, GRRM is happily munching up the filth and squalor, creating of low fantasy of high fantasy proportions!

The way reviewers so casually toss around Tolkien's name leads me to believe they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, but then I remember that this is all part of the job, if any of them payed attention to what they were payed to praise I expect the suicide rate of literary critics would rise sharply.

----------------------------------------------

While this may appear to be a meaningless rant, one of many more I'm sure to spew out as my contempt for all things in this world demands, there is another meaning for this thread and its reason for existence.

I call upon you posters and site members to seek out your books , raid the shelves of indigo and other related bookstores! I ask you all to skim through book-back reviews for any mention of Tolkien. Let us see how far this corruption has spread! Has Tolkien's name become nothing more then a marketing ad!? Find examples and bring them to this thread!!

[Capn Con]

When a reviewer calls Martin the new Tolkien, they're not talking about the world he creates, they're talking about the innovation and creativity in his books. I completely agree with you otherwise, though.
Hell, review snippets in general are idiotic BS and are best ignored so that they don't interfere with your enjoyment of the book.

[Satyr]

I am probably the only one here on the board who would say that reducing Martin to the niveau of Tolkien does him no justice - Martin is certainly the worse linguist but the better author of the two by far. Even though he himself would almost immediately disagree with this.

Tolkien is one of the forefather of fantasy literature, yes, even a pioneer. That does not mean though that he was unreachable good. The Benz Patent Motorwagen was also an awesome piece of innovation and a pioneer product. It is certainly not the best car ever built.

Through this role as a pioneer - which is often falsely expanded into a role of the first fantasy author ever nd the source of all things fantasy - makes him an ideal marketing tool. He is the one fantasy author who probably everyone knows, and that makes his name an exploitable tag. That isn't beautiful and in my view completely exagerates his role and the quality of his works, but it is understandable.

[WalkingTarget]

Hell, I don't even read the plot synopsis on book covers/dust jackets until after I'm done (I'm not really the target audience of cover snippets anyway, either it's an author I like so I'm likely to have heard something about the book already or it's a book recommended to me by a friend whose judgment I can usually count on; I like finding out what the plot of a book is by reading it).

Review people tossing about names like Tolkien are providing snippets for this exact reason (i.e. quotes to put on the cover to catch the eye of prospective buyers). It's like reissuing a book after The Movie is in production. I hate it when my books have that "soon to be a major motion picture" plastered on the cover and I won't buy it if that's there (it took me forever to find a copy of the first volume of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen for that reason).

[Post-Man]

I agree.

Noone deserves to be compared to Tolkien, no matter how much you despise their work.

[Newspaper]

Noone deserves to be compared to Tolkien, no matter how much you despise their work.

Exactly! It's like comparing a bucket of mud to the finest New England clam chowder!

Especially when they compare good books such as Frank Herbert's "Dune" and Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea series. They also make the comparison on the back of Eragon but I don't know if that should be brought up. :smalleek:

[RTGoodman]

I know exactly what you're talking about - my Modern Fantasy professor back in college mentioned this phenomenon (if you want to call it that - the use of "the new Tolkien" on any old fantasy novel), and it's true.

Go to your local bookstore, and go to the fantasy section. Find the book that looks so cliched and stupid that no one could possibly want to read it. There's probably an elf somewhere, or a half-naked woman (with or without a chainmail bikini). Look at the back - I'd say half the time, the name Tolkien is on there somewhere. :smallsigh:

[Nerd-o-rama]

Oy oy, no need to bash anyone but the pretentious book reviewers here. On that subject, though:

Dear American book reviewers,

STOP LIKENING EVERY NOVEL FROM GREAT BRITAIN TO HARRY POTTER, PLEASE.

Thank you,
Nerd-o-rama

PS Seriously, in what way does the Thursday Next series resemble Harry Potter? At all? One's a young adult fantasy novel about tweenage wizards and boarding school and the power of friendship. The other's about a 30something sci fi cop who fights megacorporations and can travel into the plots of public domain novels. Unless and until they decide to fight crime (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheyFightCrime), stop comparing them!

[KnightDisciple]

Yes, please, why can't you just tell us "It's a great book! It's creative! Etc."
Let Tolkien be Tolkien, and Martin be Martin

Edit: Bad KD, Bad!

[Nerd-o-rama]

ITT: complaining about books you don't like.

[RTGoodman]

ITT: complaining about books you don't like.

Not necessarily. I don't think it's hard to imagine a publisher out there slapping a "review" on a cheap fantasy novel that says "the next Lord of the Rings" or whatever just to push product. I mean, they know Tolkien/LotR is a cornerstone of the fantasy genre, so why not try to make the book seem like that? (Just Google "The Next Tolkien" or "The Next Lord of the Rings" and you get sites/people comparing them alongside Stephanie Meyers, The Golden Compass, and a TON of completely things that are only similar in that they're books.)

[Remmirath]

It bothers me a bit when people give "the next Tolkien" or "as good as Tolkien" reviews, mostly because it's usually something that the reviewer just slapped on and they are either so different that it doesn't make sense to compare then or simply not as good (although, of course, everybody has their own opinions about what books are better than other books).

What really gets me, though, is the one review quote I read (on the jacket of one of the Wheel of Time books, I believe; I forget which) which was similar to "he has made great steps in revealing the world that Tolkien began to unveil".

Eh? Did they even read the book? It's not at all the same world, or very much like Middle-earth at all, in fact. And if they were simply trying to imply that it was in a similar vein, then they kind of failed to do that. (I would also say that he did a bit more than 'begin' to unveil it, but that's a bit beside the point.)

Side Complaint:

The Wheel of Time series is something I've got a bit of beef with, actually. People complain about Tolkien being too wordy? Read the Wheel of Time. It's longer, whole books feel as though nothing whatsoever was accomplished, and I can count the number of vaguely sympathetic characters on one hand. I do not understand why some of the same people who say that they couldn't get through The Lord of the Rings because it was too hard to read or it was too long like the Wheel of Time series. It is very strange. But hey, to each their own.

Generally speaking, though, the quotes on the book jacket are best ignored. I can't even recall a time I've seen one that was really meaningful.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Not necessarily. I don't think it's hard to imagine a publisher out there slapping a "review" on a cheap fantasy novel that says "the next Lord of the Rings" or whatever just to push product. I mean, they know Tolkien/LotR is a cornerstone of the fantasy genre, so why not try to make the book seem like that? (Just Google "The Next Tolkien" or "The Next Lord of the Rings" and you get sites/people comparing them alongside Stephanie Meyers, The Golden Compass, and a TON of completely things that are only similar in that they're books.)I wasn't talking about the topic (which I responded to normally in my other post), I was pointing out that people were going on a tangent of attacking/defending Tolkien.

[KnightDisciple]

This post should never have existed. :smallredface:

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It's very unfortunate. Especially because of the light it casts on Tolkien, as being related to all the cheap fantasy out there. His world was far richer, deeper, textured, than any of them, and I would even argue that it has a mythology of its own.

Furthermore, I don't think it's possible to invoke the name of Tolkien upon a current author, considering that LOTR was published quite a few decades ago. Current authors need to be judged by the passage of time. Is anyone going to remember GRRM in 40 years? Considering that Tolkien's books met with a far more active reception than GRRM's did, at the time, I'm willing to guess no.

But oh well. People do this thing all the time in all media. The next Alfred Hitchcock. The next Van Gogh. The next Rush. Yeah. It happens.

[Satyr]

In other words, let Tolkien be a fine linguist and world builder, giving us stories of hope. Stories that stir us to greater things. Stories that echo so many deep, timeless truths.

Timeless truths? That evil is evil, no matter what? That ugliness and physical impediment is a result of evil, and therefore deserved by those inflicted with it? That character and personality is a result of ethnical background all people belonging to the same ethnic background share similar character traits? That evil people "look like Mongols"? That morals are clearly black and white? That the best thing you can have in life is a pittoresque small village idyll full of bourgois gentrymen?

No. Just No.


...let Martin be the guy obsessed with making the absolute worst world ever, with no heroic characters, but hey, it's cool because it's "gritty". He's realized that we don't need to aspire to anything! We just need to be better than these mud-wallowing murderous rapists in his books!

I don't know in which world you live, but compared to many extremely real events of the last two or three decades, Martin's works are outright postive and almost euphemistic. What he depicts quite correcctly is, that morals are no simple matter and often a very intricate adn complex structure; that good intents alone are not sufficient to create good results; that the world can be a scary place and sometimes people who are friendly and polite to their neighbours are able to commit the vilest attrocities when they are abroad.
Fantasy does not necessarily involve "complete lack of connection to reality". In fact, "it's fantasy is neither license nor excuse for the lack of respect for the readers' - or players', in the case of RPG's - intellgence.

What you call "stories of hope" I call "naive narratives of infantile and oversimplified morals with a hint of racist representation of other cultures".

Besides, contents are rarely a good measrue for quality of an athor. The ability to create deep characters, plausible plots and a versimile scenario are much more important. None of which was in the grasp of Tolkien.


I don't think it's possible to invoke the name of Tolkien upon a current author, considering that LOTR was published quite a few decades ago. Current authors need to be judged by the passage of time. Is anyone going to remember GRRM in 40 years? Considering that Tolkien's books met with a far more active reception than GRRM's did, at the time, I'm willing to guess no.

It is a fallacy to argie that a pioneer role allows any conclusions on the pioneer product's quality. Yes, Tolkien created a stir and begun something new. That's all. There were better fantasy authors before him, there were better fantasy authors after him. This whole personality cult just marginalises them.
It was already mentioned, but Harry Potter does the same thing to children's literature -the books become so exagerated, that other, less intrusive yet better books are completely overshadowed.

[KnightDisciple]

The point of my post ultimately was, let the author stand on their own without comparing them to someone else. Since, obviously, different people have different reactions to different authors.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The pilot thing to do is not start or participate in random flame wars about two guys you've never met based on shallow analysis of both of their bodies of work. At least, not without starting a different thread to do it in.


It was already mentioned, but Harry Potter does the same thing to children's literature -the books become so exagerated, that other, less intrusive yet better books are completely overshadowed.I said no such thing. I believe it, but that's not the subject of this thread.

[KnightDisciple]

The pilot thing to do is not start or participate in random flame wars about two guys you've never met based on shallow analysis of both of their bodies of work. At least, not without starting a different thread to do it in.
....

You're right. I apologize to the rest of the participants in the thread. I spoke without thinking, as it were.

I do believe my original main point, of simply letting works stand on their own, rather than incessant comparisons, is valid.

[Nerd-o-rama]

And I agree with that.

Hm. I haven't read much lately that wasn't sci fi or fantasy. Do they do this often for other genres? Is every conspiracy theory novel author (shudder) Dan Brown? Every horror author King? Every militech nerd service author Clancy?

[Aotrs Commander]

I agree that one should compare like with at least broadly like and that most critics (meaning unilaterally, pertaining to all media) should get into their heads that fantasy covers a very broad range of not-likes (same as, I don't know, crime fiction) and that the number of people being miserable and/or asshats to each other is not, in fact, the sole measure of high quality...

I wouldn't compare, for example, David Eddings to Steven Donaldson as aside from the presence of magic and lack of technology, the Belgariad has about as much in common with the Thomas Covanent trilogy as Red Dwarf does with the newest series of Battlestar Galactic or Cadfael, the Three Investigators and CSI: Miami...



Side topic: I'm inclined to believe the quality of an author is largely determined by how many people actually enjoy their work. Everything else is just personal opinion. (I personally find a lot of preportedly mature (or 'critically acclaimed') books/films/entertainment media to by often unrealistic by my personal experience and mind-shatteringly tedious to boot. Each to their own...)

[Dacia Brabant]

Timeless truths? That evil is evil, no matter what? That ugliness and physical impediment is a result of evil, and therefore deserved by those inflicted with it? That character and personality is a result of ethnical background all people belonging to the same ethnic background share similar character traits? That evil people "look like Mongols"? That morals are clearly black and white? That the best thing you can have in life is a pittoresque small village idyll full of bourgois gentrymen?

No. Just No.


Um...not saying that this is correct about Tolkien's writing or not, but you do know that all of these things you complain about were largely believed in as true and held as values by peoples who lived before the present day, right? And let's not fool ourselves, in most places of the world they are still largely regarded as true. They just don't fit your First World moral system, which is pretty darn new and unique historically speaking.

And what's wrong with gentlemen farmers? :smallconfused:



I don't know in which world you live, but compared to many extremely real events of the last two or three decades, Martin's works are outright postive and almost euphemistic.

More like the last two to three millennia, and real life is always grimmer and darker than Art since Art is a fabrication, unless we're talking about documentaries but that's an entirely different thing.


Besides, contents are rarely a good measrue for quality of an athor. The ability to create deep characters, plausible plots and a versimile scenario are much more important. None of which was in the grasp of Tolkien.

Different writing styles serve different needs. Would you open up the Enuma Elish expecting it to read like Jane Eyre? Is the Volsungasaga not of good quality just because it doesn't have the same level of characterization as the Brothers Karamazov? I'm not saying the Silmarillion, LOTR and the rest of the Legendarium are the equals of ancient and classical myths and epics, but they are intentionally writen in that style. Tolkien's lighter stuff like Farmer Giles of Ham and even the Hobbit show he could write in more popular styles.


Apologies for going off-subject, and for what it's worth I agree with the OP that this is a problem among lazy book reviewers who, frankly, need to read more.