Fantasy Standards created by Tolkien

[Yora]

I was just wondering. So often you hear people ask "Why is it always done that way?" and the answer is "because Tolkien did it that way".
But how many staples of fantasy really go back to Tolkiens work and where not something that already existed when he used it in his stories?

He actually used a lot of material from myth. Should we include those with things he establisehd as standard for fantasy worlds, or should they be excluded together with things that were already common in literature?

#1: The Five Races: Common Humans, High Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits. You really find those everywhere. Maybe not by that name, but you'll have a very easy time telling which one of these got replaced with something only slightly different with a different name.

[bloodtide]

#1: The Five Races: Common Humans, High Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits. You really find those everywhere. Maybe not by that name, but you'll have a very easy time telling which one of these got replaced with something only slightly different with a different name.

You do find the races everywhere, but the Tolkien Version has become the standard.

Take elves. The Tolkien elf is human sized and is wise and knows magic. That does not mesh with most of the 'elven kind' from myth. Most European Elves were the tiny Fey creatures.

Or dwarves. Tolkien goes for the non-magical hard working folk that like to fight and live underground. But, again that is only one type of dwarf of legend.

[hamishspence]

The Tolkien elf is human sized and is wise and knows magic. That does not mesh with most of the 'elven kind' from myth. Most European Elves were the tiny Fey creatures.

Go back far enough, and elves get bigger- and often, meaner. The small "fairy" elf is more modern in that respect- Tolkien was harking back to older myths.

[Kindablue]

I want to hear Elvish jazz now...

I don't read much modern fantasy, so I don't really have anything to say except that anyone who hasn't already should check out Lord (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8395) Dunsany (http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8183), who practically invented high fantasy as a genre of fiction.

[DomaDoma]

Tolkien's elves definitely count as his, for the tree-hugging if nothing else.

Also, I'm pretty sure he coined the trend where there's a big epic war while the key characters are haring after something MacGuffin-related.

[Ravens_cry]

Go back far enough, and elves get bigger- and often, meaner. The small "fairy" elf is more modern in that respect- Tolkien was harking back to older myths.Indeed, he wrote a huge essay on the subject, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Fairy-Stories) concerning both that and the formation and purpose of myth and legend itself.
It is really worth reading.

[bloodtide]

Go back far enough, and elves get bigger- and often, meaner. The small "fairy" elf is more modern in that respect- Tolkien was harking back to older myths.

Note that this still is stuck on the European Elf. That is just one continent of the whole world. Small 'fairy' beings are found all over the world.

Though most fairies all around the world are mean. You could actually say that Tolkien started the idea of 'noble, good elves'.

[Ravens_cry]

Even that . . .well, it depends on the fairy.
While it is true that fairies tend to be capricious, there is good, or at least helpful fey beings of Tolkien elf size.
Take, for example, the fairy godmother in Cinderella.

[Eakin]

I'd credit Tolkien with orcs as well, as the unstoppable horde of subhuman monsters that seek to destroy good protagonists. They've started to ascend out of this cliche, but if you need a race of innumerable baddies that are threatening as a whole but still weak enough for your heroes to slaughter en mass without feeling all that bad about it, orcs are still your go-to.

[Kato]

I'd credit Tolkien with orcs as well, as the unstoppable horde of subhuman monsters that seek to destroy good protagonists. They've started to ascend out of this cliche, but if you need a race of innumerable baddies that are threatening as a whole but still weak enough for your heroes to slaughter en mass without feeling all that bad about it, orcs are still your go-to.

Orcs weren't really created byhim, though, were they? I mean, just wondering. I wouldn't know where they show up in Western culture but I thinkthe more pig like Japanese/Asian version has another origin.


Tolkien was if not the first to use all these mythological creatures in one big opus by far the most influential. He made these things look lke he wanted them to and 9 out of 10 present works use them for the same purpose... even parodying authors like Pratchett stick rather close maybe except when it comes to elves and trolls.

[Pokonic]

Evil never creates, only twists what already exists.

Now, let me say that the idea of evil changing creatures is by no means new. Evil things corrupting people is hardly new. Yet, the idea that evil essencialy works with used tools is presented here. Before, there where as many direct creations of evil deities and others present in older works as side-by-side with the forces of Good. Look at any mythic script and you can find evil practicly popping out it's spawn, from the original Timat and her many, many spawn too evil artifacts present in varyingtexts from around the globe.

Orcs may or may not be corrupted elves, trolls are twisted Ents (Somehow), and dragons are basicly the result of generations of twisting a serpent vi breeding experiments. Heck, you could even grasp out and say that the Fell Beasts are corrupted Eagles. On the good side..... every race was made by the gods, some with more care than others. To put it one way, Evil is impotent.


As for what it effected, look away from fantasy and look at Space-age stuff. Halo, Dead Space, all those have foes that are primarly corrupting, killing other creatures and animating the bodies. Mass Effect even has a race that is created from a human body impaled on a stick, and there bosses are made from organic substances, to be exact the distruction of a entire race.

[The_Snark]

Evil never creates, only twists what already exists.

Not sure you can credit Tolkien with that one, as this theme was a reflection of his personal religious beliefs. Can't explore this further due to board rules, but said beliefs have been very influential in Western society for a long time.

[Pokonic]

Not sure you can credit Tolkien with that one, as this theme was a reflection of his personal religious beliefs. Can't explore this further due to board rules, but said beliefs have been very influential in Western society for a long time.

Well, yes, but he basicly applied it to fantasy for the first time. Before hand, there was no real "limit" on what evil could do in the works that primaraly served as a inspertation to him. Nothing ould stop the primaraly antagonistic Dwarves seen in Norse myths (ohgoshhopfulynotpushingit) from making beautful things, for instance.

[factotum]

Orcs weren't really created byhim, though, were they? I mean, just wondering. I wouldn't know where they show up in Western culture but I thinkthe more pig like Japanese/Asian version has another origin.

The name was definitely his--"orc" used to refer to a whale or large fish, from Latin "orca"; it was Tolkien who specifically used it to refer to a species of larger, more aggressive goblins.

[Pokonic]

The name was definitely his--"orc" used to refer to a whale or large fish, from Latin "orca"; it was Tolkien who specifically used it to refer to a species of larger, more aggressive goblins.

Or goblins are simply smaller, quicker orcs.:smalltongue:

[The_Snark]

Well, yes, but he basicly applied it to fantasy for the first time. Before hand, there was no real "limit" on what evil could do in the works that primaraly served as a inspertation to him. Nothing ould stop the primaraly antagonistic Dwarves seen in Norse myths (ohgoshhopfulynotpushingit) from making beautful things, for instance.

Oh, you can certainly find examples of progenerative evil if you look at older stories (Echidna, Tiamat, Ymir). I'm just pointing out that there's an older, more influential source for the creation-versus-corruption theme; I think Tolkien is a symptom rather than the root cause.

Moving on!

I can't help but think that the fantasy genre's fascination with the past is in part due to Tolkien. Magic is fading, the elves are leaving the world, even the evil things that lurked in the dark are dying off. The world is moving on, and there's no place for these things in the age to come. This is less prevalent recently, with magical realism and urban fantasy asking the question "why are these things incompatible? Why can't we have elves and magic AND guns and television?" But even so, the genre is still chock-full of once-glorious empires in decline, ruins left by ancient civilizations whose wisdom is now lost, and past golden ages of all stripes. Old things are wiser/better/more powerful than modern things. The world is less than it used to be.

Now, people like feeling nostalgic, so this can't all be traced to Tolkien; but I think his use of it struck a chord with a lot of fantasy readers (and authors).

Unfortunately, some of them miss the counterpoint in Tolkien's work - namely, that the new is not necessarily bad. Yes, the elves are gone, but so is the threat of Sauron; Rohan and Gondor flourish, the wild North is tamed, peace is made with the men of the South. The Shire is scourged, but afterward it prospers and grows in ways that it never has before. You're not actually supposed to wallow in the nostalgia.

[hamishspence]

The name was definitely his--"orc" used to refer to a whale or large fish, from Latin "orca"; it was Tolkien who specifically used it to refer to a species of larger, more aggressive goblins.

He derived it partly from orks- a kind of ogre in European mythology.

[Jolly Steve]

I was just wondering. So often you hear people ask "Why is it always done that way?" and the answer is "because Tolkien did it that way".

I think it's really "Tolkien via D&D" rather than just Tolkien.

[Jolly Steve]

I'm pretty sure fantasy stories didn't routinely have maps in the front until Tolkien's books popularised them (although the maps weren't drawn by him).

[DomaDoma]

Did not know that. Who drew the maps?

[WalkingTarget]

Did not know that. Who drew the maps?

His son, Christopher.

[The Glyphstone]

I can't say I've ever seen both 'Humans' and 'High Humans' in any non-Tolkein work, even renamed/reskinned versions...

[Man on Fire]

I'd credit Tolkien with orcs as well, as the unstoppable horde of subhuman monsters that seek to destroy good protagonists. They've started to ascend out of this cliche, but if you need a race of innumerable baddies that are threatening as a whole but still weak enough for your heroes to slaughter en mass without feeling all that bad about it, orcs are still your go-to.

But Tolkien Orcs are the opposite of everything current stereotype of an Orc is about. They weren't horde of dumb barbarians that are always chaotic evil, but organized military force with relatively advanced technology and their anligment was closer to Lawful Evil.

[Tirian]

I'm pretty sure fantasy stories didn't routinely have maps in the front until Tolkien's books popularised them (although the maps weren't drawn by him).

Fantasy stories didn't typically have enough locations need a map. For the record, Oz had one many decades before Tolkien. (ETA: The original Winnie the Pooh was also published with a map. I'm inclined to call shenanigans on this fact.)

On a perhaps unrelated note, Tolkien is also responsible for our modern spellings of the words "elvish" and "dwarves". For instance, the 1937 Disney movie was "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs".

[factotum]

They weren't horde of dumb barbarians that are always chaotic evil, but organized military force with relatively advanced technology and their anligment was closer to Lawful Evil.

I think it depends which Orcs you're talking about. The group of Orcs who took the hobbits at the end of Fellowship were split into Saruman's and Sauron's, and I'd say the Sauron orcs were far more chaotic and less organised than Saruman's.

[hamishspence]

We do see a lot more squabbling from Sauron's, at least. Shagrat & Gorbag (and their companies) fighting over Frodo's coat, and other scenes in Mordor.

[Ravens_cry]

I think it depends which Orcs you're talking about. The group of Orcs who took the hobbits at the end of Fellowship were split into Saruman's and Sauron's, and I'd say the Sauron orcs were far more chaotic and less organised than Saruman's.
Of course, Sarumon's orcs could, at least in D&D terms, be considered half-orcs.
Or not, the lore is a bit confusing.

[hamishspence]

I think there were both "orc-men" and "Uruks" in Saruman's army- at least, those are the terms Unfinished Tales uses.

"Uruks" are a fairly new breed of orc- first seen in the service of Sauron, in 2475 when they invaded Osgiliath.

"Orc-men" or "half-orcs" tend to be described differently from "Uruks" - and only in the context of Saruman's forces.

[Jolly Steve]

But Tolkien Orcs are the opposite of everything current stereotype of an Orc is about. They weren't horde of dumb barbarians that are always chaotic evil, but organized military force with relatively advanced technology and their anligment was closer to Lawful Evil.

This is probably an example of Tolkien being filtered through D&D.

[Flickerdart]

I can't say I've ever seen both 'Humans' and 'High Humans' in any non-Tolkein work, even renamed/reskinned versions...
Quite a few fantasy worlds have drugs. [/missingthepoint]

[The Glyphstone]

Quite a few fantasy worlds have drugs. [/missingthepoint]

www.instantrimshot.com

[hamlet]

Tolkien's elves definitely count as his, for the tree-hugging if nothing else.

Also, I'm pretty sure he coined the trend where there's a big epic war while the key characters are haring after something MacGuffin-related.

Tolkein's elves were not tree huggers. Not even remotely.

Forest dwellers, maybe. In some instances.

But for the most part, they were effectively immortal beings that had lived long enough too see everything that they knew and loved grow old around them and pass out of the world. They were lonely and desperately unhappy in general, those that came out of the West originally, and even those who had never gone West in the first place were beginning to realize that their time in the world was at an end and they would either have to leave, or dwindle into something like the elves we think of as "Standard" in mythology (i.e., shoe makers).

Most of the problem with "Tolkienien" works is that the people who ape Tolkein tend to miss entirely what the man was on about. They pick up some superficial elements and call it done, but they entirely ignore the deeper aspects. It's not a simple story of Good V. Evil with Good triumphant. It's a lot deeper, sadder, and more difficult than people give it credit for.

[Jolly Steve]

Tolkein's elves were not tree huggers. Not even remotely.

All the good guys are associated with the forest, and all the bad guys with machinery.

[hamlet]

All the good guys are associated with the forest, and all the bad guys with machinery.

The Gondorians were not associated with the forest.

Neither Shelob nor the Southrons were associated with machinery.

Being associated with the pastoral does not equate to being good. Evil beings using technology for war does not make Tolkien a technophobe. If anything, Tolkien was talking more about technology originally intended for good put to evil purposes. The Palantiri are a prime example of that. Not to mention the explosives and rockets that Saruman uses, which are originally used by Gandalf as fireworks to entertain and delight.

Tolkien (and his world) wasn't about the evils of technology and the good of the pastoral realm. It was all about what you did with them.

[factotum]

All the good guys are associated with the forest, and all the bad guys with machinery.

Sauron spent an awful lot of time as the Necromancer in southern Mirkwood, which is a forest last time I checked...and as hamlet points out, not all the bad guys were associated with machinery. Saruman definitely was; Sauron, not so much.

[The Glyphstone]

Sauron spent an awful lot of time as the Necromancer in southern Mirkwood, which is a forest last time I checked...and as hamlet points out, not all the bad guys were associated with machinery. Saruman definitely was; Sauron, not so much.

No, but almost the machinery was associated with the bad guys. Tolkein wasn't a Luddite, but he did disapprove of industrialization apparently.

[Dienekes]

No, but almost the machinery was associated with the bad guys. Tolkein wasn't a Luddite, but he did disapprove of industrialization apparently.

From what I remember reading (so about 50% chance of actually being right), he wasn't even against industrialization so much as against the taking of forest land and greenery and turning it into industrial complexes.

[Ravens_cry]

The man went through the trenches of World War 1, he knew first hand the horrors of war and the devastation it wrought to the countryside at the front. Moreover, he was born and lived through a time of rapid industrialization, and saw the devastation that brought as well.

[hamlet]

The man went through the trenches of World War 1, he knew first hand the horrors of war and the devastation it wrought to the countryside at the front. Moreover, he was born and lived through a time of rapid industrialization, and saw the devastation that brought as well.

Exactly. Not so much technology as what humans did with it (i.e., became very proficient at destroying things on a massive scale).

Also, he tended to be helpless when it came to technology. An old anecdote about him was that he marvelled late in life when somebody wanted to record him reciting one of his own poems. When it was explained to him just what that meant and demonstrated, he reputedly still didn't quite grasp it and chalked it up, on some level, to magic. Clarke's laws and all one supposes.

[Ravens_cry]

His description of the Goblins (Orcs) in The Hobbit about sums it up.
"They make no beautiful things, but they make many clever ones . . . It is not unlikely that they invented some of the machines that have since troubled the world, especially the ingenious devices for killing large numbers of people at once, for wheels and engines and explosions always delighted them."

[Yora]

Also, he tended to be helpless when it came to technology. An old anecdote about him was that he marvelled late in life when somebody wanted to record him reciting one of his own poems. When it was explained to him just what that meant and demonstrated, he reputedly still didn't quite grasp it and chalked it up, on some level, to magic. Clarke's laws and all one supposes.
That sounds entirely made up. The technology already existed for 15 years when he was born. When he died, the Beatles had already ended their career.

[hamlet]

That sounds entirely made up. The technology already existed for 15 years when he was born. When he died, the Beatles had already ended their career.

Can't vouch for the veracity of it, just repeating a story I've heard.

[TARDIS]

I think one of Tolkien's lasting influences on fantasy comes down actually to language - specifically Dwarven and Elven languages. I would say that most, not all but most, fantasy settings base their Dwarvish and Elvish off of Tolkien's work. While human languages will vary from setting to setting - and few will take their cues from Westron or Rohirric, I daresay most of the Elven tongues look a bit like Quenya or Sindarin and most interpretations of Dwarvish look not dissimilar to Khuzdul.

Now if you consider that when quickly cobbling together cultures people tend to use languages that sound like the real-world equivalents, so a Rome-spinoff will have Duronium, or an Arab-spinoff will have al-Haraz, or a Japan-spinoff will have Ikuza (general madeup names off the top of my head) - and you then consider that a dwarven fortress is named Targrath or an elven city named Lhellwynn and, well... you can still see the hand of Papa Tolkien directing our creative actions :smallwink:

[Montanto]

I can't say I've ever seen both 'Humans' and 'High Humans' in any non-Tolkein work, even renamed/reskinned versions...

None mentioned by name but the Númenor certainly fit the bill especially when compared to the "normal" humans like the Bree Folk.

On another note while much of the elements of Middle earth came from European mythology and folklore much of the more original bits came from Tolkien's linguistic background and his study of Anglo-Saxon.

For example "Ent" was just another word for giant. Treebeard and company comes from Tolkean embellishing on top of that and creating something specific. "Orc" apparently comes from a word he found in Beowulf meaning demon (It's similarity to the Latin "Orcus" was a perk)

[The Glyphstone]

None mentioned by name but the Númenor certainly fit the bill especially when compared to the "normal" humans like the Bree Folk.


Um.

Aren't Numenor and Bree Folk both.....from a Tolkien work?

[DomaDoma]

The elven theology places a heavy emphasis on primeval trees. Tolkien rhapsodizes heavily about all the awesome elven vegetation and how much less awesome it will be absent the elves. Kindly do not act as though I don't know what I'm talking about, Hamlet.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

True, but even then, you can't argue that it's been flanderized to a great extent. Elves in less well-written works care less about the spiritual side of the whole affair and are either hippies moaning not to cut down the trees or eco-terrorists attacking logging camps. They essentially can't see the forest for the trees. :smallamused:

[WalkingTarget]

True, but even then, you can't argue that it's been flanderized to a great extent. Elves in less well-written works care less about the spiritual side of the whole affair and are either hippies moaning not to cut down the trees or eco-terrorists attacking logging camps. They essentially can't see the forest for the trees. :smallamused:

Yeah, Lothlorien was a tree-city, but while Thranduil's kingdom was in Mirkwood, they lived in a cave system (similar to Doriath in the First Age: a kingdom in a big forest, but with the "capital" in a large cave system). Mithlond, Gondolin, and even Rivendell aren't generally noteworthy for their trees and are more similar to what we might think of as "normal" (houses and whatnot).

It's worth pointing out that the elves of Lorien are referred to as the Galadhrim, or "tree people", which implies that even other elves think that they're a bit obsessed with trees (ok, maybe "obsessed" is a bit strong, but you get what I mean). It's just that this group is the one that we get a detailed description for. Add in a bit of Flanderization of Legolas' preferences for forests (when speaking of Fangorn) to caves and that's people's take-away of elves' personalities.

[Avilan the Grey]

Regarding elves: Britain and Ireland's "Fair Folk" mythology is vast and unique as far as I understand it; almost everything is considered part of the Seelie, be it huge warriors, small pixies, Goblins and Trolls. We do not have the same, at all, here in Sweden for example, where all these beings (trolls, giants, seductresses in the woods...) are unique individual "species" that has nothing to do with each other.

[Telonius]

I'd credit Tolkien with orcs as well, as the unstoppable horde of subhuman monsters that seek to destroy good protagonists. They've started to ascend out of this cliche, but if you need a race of innumerable baddies that are threatening as a whole but still weak enough for your heroes to slaughter en mass without feeling all that bad about it, orcs are still your go-to.

H. G. Wells had his Morlocks (probably the closest thing to orcs, with their love of machines, degraded subhuman nature, and penchant for eating Eloi) back in 1895. The Wizard of Oz had its Winkies and Flying Monkeys in 1900. Before that, at least in Europe, the hordes of evil were mainly real-world cultures at war with the author's country at the time.

[hamlet]

The elven theology places a heavy emphasis on primeval trees. Tolkien rhapsodizes heavily about all the awesome elven vegetation and how much less awesome it will be absent the elves. Kindly do not act as though I don't know what I'm talking about, Hamlet.

You're misinterpreting those scenes.

The elves are not "tree huggers" in any real sense of the word.

The woods are beautiful because the very presence of the elves, and in more than one case, a Ring of Power, enhances the beauty and majesty of the woods. The two rings in question are creative and connected with life, which naturally/magically flows into the land around them creating more breathtaking forests.

The elves of Mirkwood are quite contrary to this. Mirkwood is, for the most part, an average forest, though it has some evil pockets in it. The elves just happen to live there.

Tolkein's most flowing descriptions were reserved for the elves themselves and their lands under the influence of the Rings of Power. The beauty of the landscape was a hint as to the presence of said rings, not that elves were nature hippie lovers.

EDIT: And for the record, I did not at any time say "you don't know what you're talking about" or anything like it. I was disagreeing with you and supporting my assertion. Do please learn to tell the diffference.:smallannoyed:

[Telonius]

Elves are not the guardians of the forests in Tolkien; those are the Ents. Elves could certainly be respectful of the Ents (as Galadriel was when she met Fangorn) but "making sure the forests are clear of axes" wasn't the Elves' thing.

When the Ents were first created, Aule had said, "Nonetheless, they [the Dwarves] will have need of wood." This was dwarf-specific, but it could really be applied to any of the Middle-Earth races. I think this is a pretty clear indication that Tolkien himself wasn't a complete tree-hugger. Just using wood isn't the problem. It's the wholesale destruction of nature for evil purposes that bothered him.

[HeadlessMermaid]

#1: The Five Races: Common Humans, High Humans, Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits. You really find those everywhere. Maybe not by that name, but you'll have a very easy time telling which one of these got replaced with something only slightly different with a different name.
I disagree. You don't find these everywhere. Not in Africa, not in Japan, not in the Mediterranean and the Middle East, not in the Americas, not in Asia. In fact, you don't find them anywhere all at once, except in a part of Europe. You may say that hey, that's fantasy. I say that's a popular but very narrow interpretation of fantasy, and no wonder it all looks regurgitated and old and tired from some point on.

So, while Tolkien did a mash up of myths from neighboring cultures and didn't actually invent anything new, I'll give him full credit for the result. It's a mash up but it's concise, it's specific, and it makes for a nice, errr... ensemble cast. If Tolkien hadn't been born, and someone today started collecting myths and building a fantasy world from scratch, the result would be completely different.