posted
What does everyone think? My personal preference is Tolkien. Is there still a market for a similar style? Have we gone so far from the Epic that fantasy now sounds like a lesson in psychology? Do we lack grandeur, majesty and sweeping scenery? or does no one really care about: "a sombre land of shattered boulders and overgrown gulleys that sliced into the grim hillside, full of tangling thorns and black pools fed by slow streams dark with silt."
I just dont seem to read this kind of thing anymore. Is it dead? Should I stop writing it?
posted
One thing I've found irritating with Tolkien is his omniscient viewpoint. It irritates me no matter who writes it, and I much prefer to be locked into one viewpoint for a scene than to float around and see what everyone's thinking. I feel too distant that way. Other than that, no probs. If you write that way, don't let anyone try and stop you. Kudos to you, mate. JK
Posts: 503 | Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted
I have heard comments that if Tolkein were trying to publish today, there is no editor who would take it without a lot of revision, "too long and too long winded," was the exact comment, as I recall. However I am not so sure. Call me old fashioned, but if you write something that grips an agent or editor, I believe they will go for it. "Ground-breaking" work is, in some cases, the book that the first eight dozen editors were too scared to touch.
Posts: 4 | Registered: Oct 2001
|
posted
I admit it... I've not read Tolkien, although I am now working on TFOTR since seeing the movie (loved it, btw). But, I don't think epic fantasy is dead, and there are still authors that create sweeping and majestic vistas that are rivaled by the power of the characters that inhabit them. George RR Martin has done so, I think, with his trilogy that begins with Game of Thrones.
I also find the omniscient viewpoint annoying and without a doubt it makes for difficult reading. When one viewpoint leaps to another even within a single conversation. I think it weakens any story. I agree that most editors would want revision if Tolkien was writing today, however that just goes to prove that editors and the literary public are one thing, people who buy and read books are another. I actually went back over a few chapters this morning before I went to work and discovered one that was 22000 words long. My Saturday will mostly be spent cutting it away like a gardener who hates flowers!
posted
i don't think there is anything wrong with Tolkien's style per se (sp?), but the audience you're shooting for isn't the same as his was. people today are used to the fast-paced action of modern movies and TV.
the reason Tolkien still sells so well is that his work was the first of its kind. NOT the best. as for using that style, think of this:
if you were a farmer, would you invest your money in a steel plow because it was an amazing innovation in the feild, or the latest plowing machinery?
i think you should write the way you're comfortable with, but i don't think it will sell the way Tolkien did.
jmho
TTFN & lol
Cosmi
PS: personally, i find imagery more stunning if a lot of it is left to the imagination and not droned on and on about!
PPS: not that i didn't thoroughly enjoy _The Hobbit_ or the _Lord of the Rings_ (saw the first movie on opening night!), but i don't think i'd read more of the same style--including Tolkien's other books.
posted
The style you should choose depends on the story you are trying to tell, I think.
Tolkein's story was about Middle-earth, you can see that he loved the land, the culture, the peoples. As the One Ring is brought to Mount Doom, he closely chronicles the world in turmoil as Sauron's victory draws closer. The main focus isn't how the journey changes the characters, it's the successful ending of the quest to save Middle-earth. Thus the omniscient viewpoint leaves the emphasis firmly on the land and the errand instead of on the characters themselves.
Most stories today are about individuals, and that's why the modern viewpoint is so character driven. Take the Wheel of Time for instance. Yes, we realize it's bad if the Dark One takes over the world. But the journey to the Last Battle is about how it affects Rand, Elayne, Egwene, Perrin, etc, more than the world itself. As Tarmon Gai'don draws near, Jordan closely chronicles how the world in turmoil impacts the characters. The end of the quest isn't the main focus, the focus is more on the characters as they endeavor to reach that end.
Just because the current trend is character-driven fantasy doesn't mean there isn't room for other stuff. If your story is about the quest instead of the questors, Tolkein's style may be more for you. However, that doesn't mean that character-driven fantasy isn't every bit as epic as the Lord of the Rings. I think choosing between the two styles depends on the focus of your story, and if you can't decide you should ask yourself this: What is more important to you - The person saving the world or the world he's saving?
Then you can go on from there.
[This message has been edited by Masuri (edited January 04, 2002).]
posted
Personaly, I find Tolkien's omniscient style far more better than todays most novel's limited povs. In an epic fantasy you don't care about one character; you care about many and the whole situation that developts. So I find the omniscient pov more suited for this kind of stories. Also it's more difficult to handle it without confusing the reader, so it needs more skill from the writer's part. The reader must know when you're just narrating objectivly, when you're showing person's A thought, person's B, or group's C.
Posts: 80 | Registered: Sep 2001
|
posted
It took me three tries to read Tolkien; the third time, I skipped the first 150 pages or so, then read straight through all three books.
No matter who wrote it or who edited it, the beginning of the "Fellowship" was poorly done; however, the rest was so ground-breaking that it overshadows the poor beginning.
posted
I think it's interesting to read the perception here that Tolkien used omniscient point of view in LORD OF THE RINGS.
My perception, on the other hand, is that he carefully chose his point of view characters so they would be the individual in each scene who was closest to an "everyman" character for at least two reasons: he wanted his readers to identify as closely as possible to the point of view character as he revealed the wonders of his world, and he wanted the larger-than-life characters to always be awe-inspiring and mysterious.
In every scene where there is a hobbit, the point of view character is a hobbit. In the first book, that's mostly Frodo, but in the second book, it moves among the hobbits as they are separated from each other, and in the third book, Frodo becomes, in his way, larger than life, and the point of view in Mordor stays with Sam.
In the scenes were there are no hobbits, Tolkien uses the most human-like character for his point of view. When Aragorn struggles to decide whether to follow and assist Frodo or to go after and try to rescue Merry and Pippin. he is the point of view character, but later, when he decides to take the Paths of the Dead, and claim his destiny as king, Tolkien has to use a dwarf as the point of view character, and some of that is even told by an elf, because Aragorn has become larger than life and mysterious.
The actual style may seen omniscient, but my perception is that it is very limited in the actual point of view character the reader experiences the story through.
I'll have to go back and read the books again to see what gives the impression that the point of view is omniscient. (As if I needed an excuse to reread the books....)
posted
I must admit that considering my own story (stories would be more accurate as the thing is putting out roots into the past and branches into the future)that considering it I feel the quest to be more important than the characters. But the characters are very important to me as well.
The entire thing begins with a single characters' viewpoint and how his small world is devastated and the place in which he lives is tragically ruined. It then moves in part to the point of view of a second character (also a man) but whose world is wider and includes the region in which the former lives. To him the invasion is even more devestating and his loss is the beloved Empire that is being destroyed. Encompassing the whole of this are The Druids who have many concerns and to whom the tragedy unfolding is part of a much greater threat. The innevitable meeting of both men (from opposite sides of the class divide) and desperate quest, or race, takes them a long way from home and to new lands, and so the world opens about them and they understand the wider politics of it and also its peril. It is a story of revenge, love of the homeland, hatred of those who impose their will by force and of halting the advance of the Great Enemy. It falls just short of world war as is told in the Lord of The Rings, but is a prelude to the next book. Something even more epic than the first(trusting this one gets anywhere near to print. It is already quite huge!)
I need therefore to gain a balance between character sympathy and the reader caring about the world. It appears to me sometimes nowadays that fantasy worlds (I will take the example of maps) are just a rough drawn sketch with a few names that are chosen simply because they are kind on the ear. I have not seen anything except the old classic LOTR that has a history much worth considering, even the simplest rudimentary language structures, a mythology of its own or anything but to fulfil a very basic bare bones credibility. I am not saying that to have the above would make any book a good read, but without it there cannot be much sympathy for the world in which it is set. It's hard to care about something that the creator has only spent half an hour over. Thats the kind of depth I want to create. Help! The advice so far has been brilliant and I am indebted to you all for taking time to type it. I value it a great deal. More needed. What are your thoughts?
[This message has been edited by Heimdall (edited January 04, 2002).]
posted
I have to agree with Cosmi about the details. One of the first things I learned about creative writing was from teachers who impressed upon us "details, details, details!" and I've found that yes, you need some details or else the story goes nowhere because the reader gets lost.
But I've also found that a lot of writers tend to overdescribe. I do some reviewing over at the delrey writing place and one of the things that turns me off a story is when a writer tries to describe EVERY SINGLE detail.
I had a guy (who shall remain anonymous) who's first paragraphs were just describing the window, the table, the flowers on the table. He took up an entire paragraph describe a flower vase and flowers.
The flowers not once entered into the story after that!
Reading that story was like trying to trudge uphill, on a cold day through a river of thick molasses.
To Heimdall:
About balancing character/world, why does there have to be a balance? Why can't you care for both?
If the reader cares about the characters, then the reader will care about the things the characters care about. Which mean the world. The characters love their world, so by showing that love for their world, you get both. You get closer to the character and the world.
Like when I was reading Anne McCaffrey's "Rowan" and "Damia". I cared about both those characters, but through them I also came to be excited by the Tower, the planets they were on, the places they were.
If I'm reading a book about a man who just loves his home town, as I get to know him, I get to know what he loves about that town, and I start to love the town.
See? No need to balance, only to combine.
Depth comes not from details alone, but from caring about what you're creating. The depth of Tolkien's world comes from it's uniqueness (well...at one point it was unique, before the copycats got on the scene).
Make your world special, unique, fascinating and the reader will care. Don't copy Tolkien, because if I want to read about hobbits, rings, and elves I can go pick up Lord of The Rings and get the original.
BTW, I saw Lord of the Rings. I loved it and if nothing else, the scenery was breathtaking.
As for omniscient point of view, it takes a careful author with a highly developed skill set to pull it off. I find that when I'm debating omniscient vs. other povs, while a limited pov is more personal, the view scope is much wider.
It's the arguement between do you want to see many things far away or one thing close up?
I've seen a lot of terrible first person, too. I hate it when people who write in first person feel the need to either go on long reveries, curse endlessly, or forget the plot and just have one character thinking and doing things randomly.
Also, I'd be very interested to see this work. If you want some one to take a peek at it, you can email me.
- Meg
***** "We are only one generation away from ignorance. You want to make the dark ages? Just don't teach one generation of children how to read and write." - Robert Briley "After The Fall of Rome"
posted
I dont find Tolkien at all original, only that he took Norse, Germanic and Medditeranean myths and put them together into a unique story. I laughed when Bilbo stole the cup from Smaug (Beowulf did the same) and when he talks about the Elves he is speaking of the Norse Vanir or the Celtic Danaan. I love his work as a reader but as a writer he often gets on my nerves, encompassing all like a greedy hoarder anxiously gathering every story and thread of idea. I would love some kind of advice about the world I am creating as I want it to be that of the mythic old world of Europe, but to stand apart from LOTR, to be based on the Norse, Germanic, Celtic and Slavic but unique.
I include nothing of Hobbits or rings, orcs, balrogs, riders of Rohan, Ents and the like.
The Dwarves (Dwarrows) hardly appear in it until near the end. The Evil soldiery of the enemy are a race entirely apart though closest in kin to Men and they do not come from the East. The closest similarity is with the Elves, but they are not immortal, only much longer lived than Men. Their world is shrinking as the world of Men grows.
My greatest fear is of it being likened to Tolkien, rather than looking further back beyond history at the very same source material that made Tolkien want to write.
I think that a lot of fantasy just doesnt work because it has no basis in history. There is nothing to recognise in it. No language structure, familiar peoples, legends or folk tales. I want it to have strong roots.
posted
Heimdall wrote: "My greatest fear is of it being likened to Tolkien, rather than looking further back beyond history at the very same source material that made Tolkien want to write."
Sometimes I think writers need to give credit to readers as being intelligent enough to figure these things out for themselves. I am an Arthur legend freak, and I read any story I find that is based on that myth/legend/scant history. However, my favorite version of the story will always be The Once and Future King, by TH White. I may think of him, and Mallory, of course, as being the first to write down the legend, but I do not think Mary Stewart or TA Barron are just copycats. They tell the story in different ways, and with different voices, and I get into the story, not the comparison. If your story is good, even if there are elves, dwarves, and orcs, i will like it and appreciate it and give you credit for your story. Most readers are just readers, not writers, so they will read your stories because they like fantasy stories. They may even read them BECAUSE you use similar story elements to Tolkien.
posted
You're actually quite right there. I did a bit of thinking today and discussed the plot in all its intricacies and similarities with someone. I have been looking it from a writers point of view and suddenly remembered exactly how I felt when I first read LOTR. I wanted something similar, there was a gap and no matter where I have looked since I have not found anything to fill it. Good advice: cheers.
Posts: 30 | Registered: Dec 2001
|
quote: I think that a lot of fantasy just doesnt work because it has no basis in history.
Amen! That's why I can hardly stand (most) fantasy. May I suggest people might enjoy reading Poul Anderson? He normally has a strong historical basis. (Consider, for example, his essay http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm ).
A little bit of history, mixed with well-thought fantasy, goes a long way. The video game "Age of Empires 2" is a swords-and-magic-beseiging-castles kind of game, but the military units and technology are so well researched it's a history lesson just playing it -- and very enjoyable.
posted
Great link-- thanks for posting it! For myself, the fantasies that I enjoy the most are the ones that "ring true" and are easy for me to suspend my disbelief. Whether the story is set on a mythical world, a space station, under the sea, or whatever, it has to be grounded in a realism that transcends a genre.
posted
The link doesnt help me much as I am already cursed with that kind of eye for detail. I have already spent days worrying about the phases of the moon, location of the sun during different cycles, distance able to be travelled by a mounted man, those on foot, how easy it is to pick up basic mountaineering, what star was where 2000 plus years ago. I have just become even more fickle. Drat!
Anyway, joking aside, the link says it all doesnt it. Even with Tolkien there are some very silly parts. His battles no matter how terrible are over with in at the most a couple of pages. No one gets very hurt and they dont seem to eat!
quote: I have already spent days worrying about the phases of the moon, location of the sun during different cycles, distance able... (etc)
Good for you! More writers need that; it seems the SF and fantasy are both somewhat flooded by lower-quality work. I always calculate my spaceships orbits, effects the air mix has on the crew's physiology, etc., simply because I like to know it really COULD happen!
how do you go about calculating ship orbits? any book on such things you could recommend for the math deprived? (only a sophomore--in high school {sigh})
Windows. Buying the game will get you their manuals and online documentation, which has lots of history. However, just running a web search will give you some history hits.
quote: any book on such things you could recommend for the math deprived?
Not really. To be honest, the math really stretches me to my limits. When I say "calculate," I mean "Estimate to within maybe 30% or so and hope for the best."
Some things, like using a planet's gravity to turn a spaceship's path without expending fuel, are easy to calculate. Things like a transfer between two planets' orbits are really tough to calcuate; there are programs (web-based, free, or costly) you can look for.
posted
Hey Chad! Amazing you would post that message today, I was just thinking of sending you a message related to it.
Those of us who really appreciate a good, hard science fiction tale sure wish that there were more resources tailored to hard sci-fi writers. Among the best resources I know are "The Physics of Star Trek" by Dr. Lawrence Krauss and the copycat books that followed. However, those books are essentially science discussions, not reference books.
Someone ought to write a series of science references for sci-fi writers. For example, the physics reference could give formulas for orbital velocty, escape velocity, time dilation, heat due to aerobraking, etc.
Chad, I bet you could write a decent physics reference and have it published ahead of any of us.
If the series existed, I know I would buy them.
Alternately, someone could collect a bunch of websites that make good references. I know that this has been done before, but never very effectively.
Maybe the best of all possible solutons (though not the most profitable) would be a website with calculation forms. Plug in the mass of a planet and the form calculates escape velocity. Plug in the mass of the spacecraft and the type of fuel and the form calculates the size of the booster needed to achieve escape velocity. And so forth.
Such a resource would raise the bar of hard science fiction significantly. Anyone reading any book could go to the website and say "My oh my, Flash Gordon's rocket couldn't possibly do that . . ."
posted
Interesting ideas, Doc, but I'm not an expert at space science, nor a programmer.
I refer everyone to my post in the "Weird science" thread for a number of books.
Ben Bova edited a series of books along these lines, including "World Building" (Highly recommended), "Space Travel" (Recommended, with reservations), and "Time Travel" (which I haven't read).
(My amazon.com user name is cmpst52 ; check some of my reviews for details.)
I don't think I should write the physics reference; I'm self-taught at everything but materials. (Maybe somebody will edit a book, and I could contribute the chapter on how to choose steels or vapor-deposited-diamond coatings for your spaceship?)
quote: Plug in the mass of a planet and the form calculates escape velocity. Plug in the mass... (etc)
I've built an Excel spreadsheet to do this for planet-building; if I became motivated, I could do it (perhaps...?) for the rocket equations. Orbital mechanics, I admit, is beyond my programming ability.
Want my world builder for Excel, anybody? Email me.
Let me recommend two books to everyone:
-Handbook for Space Colonists, G. Harry Stine -Spacefaring: the Human Dimension, Albert A. Harrison
They discuss how being in space effects the human mind and body. They were the primary references for the serial my group is reviewing. (My group members are saying, "What?" Wait for the next installment.)
[This message has been edited by chad_parish (edited January 09, 2002).]
posted
I checked with a friend of mine who does number-crunching to help with worldbuilding for the SF and Fantasy Workshop, which I also run, and he had this to offer (the >parts are my questions to him):
>You don't happen to know of a website where they give you the formulas for calculating your own worldbuilding stuff, do you?
"Er... No, not exactly... I have seen some very lovely sources...that have errors in them...
>The writers I coordinate at Hatrack (Orson Scott Card's website) were wishing for some kind of physics reference site that gives them formulas so they can, for example, plug in the mass of the planet and crank out the escape velocity, and so on.
"That sort of thing falls out very nicely from the "vis viva" equations, and those are covered in any decent Astronomy textbook.
"I, personally, couldn't live without George O. Abell's _Exploration of the Universe_, and I also dote on William K. Hartmann's _Astronomy, the Cosmic Journey_.
"(It doesn't hurt any that Hartmann is a science fiction fan!)
"Vis Viva...
"For any two mutually revolving bodies of mass m1 and m2, with a relative orbit of semimajor axis a, the velocity v, or one object with respect to the other (that is, the orbital velocity), at an instant when the two bodies are at a distance r apart is --
"v squared = G(m1 + m2) ( (2/r) - (1/a) )
"If the orbit is a circle, with r = a, then
"v squared = G(m1 + m2) (1/r)
"If the orbit is a parabola, that is, exactly escape velocity, then
posted
All of that is covered in the "World Building" book by Gillett in Bova's Science Fiction Writing series. As I said, highly recommended.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jun 2001
|
posted
As a major Tolkien fanatic, I had to jump into this one! :-)
Regarding POV, I always saw Tolkien as more a cinematic POV than an omnicient POV. He rarely gives any deep thinking in any of the characters, let alone many of them in one scene. Usually it is just throwing a thought in here and there. I think this has the effect that it allows the characters to be more defined by their actions. Definitely LOTR is not a deep penetration POV by any means.
As to the slow start of the Fellowship, I recently had a sort of a revelation about this. As like some of the rest of you, I used to find it rather non-exciting (but pleasant enough, and Bombadil is cool). But since I have read OSCs books on writing, I have since reread it and now I find all these new purposes in every scene that I never was conscious of before. People might think I am silly, but I now see the genius of Sam talking to Sandyman in chapter 1. :-) Also how Bombadil is relevant to the rest of the plot, etc. These things, to me at least, add significantly to the setup for the ending in ROTK, and setting Sam up as the character he needs to be. Anyway, too complicated to explain here...
It always saddens me when I hear that other people can't get the sheer joy out of LotR that I do. I've read 4-5 hundred sf/fantasy novels, including Jordan and Game of Thrones, and these are good, as are many others. But to me, Tolkien is in a class by himself. Not because he was first, but because there is a moral and historical and mythical depth there that is not as present in the others. Of course, a lot of people enjoy it for other reasons--they just like Middle Earth or the elves, for instance.
Many of the essays in Meditations on Middle Earth (including OSCs) get this. Also Tolkien: Man and Myth (I think), etc. And his letters are very insightful.
If I decide not to write a story like LotR, it will not be because of the style, it would be because of sheer intimidation: nothing I could do would even come remotely close to its greatness.
BTW, loved the movie.
Erk
[This message has been edited by epiquette (edited January 09, 2002).]
posted
Thank you for the interesting resources, Kathleen. I do refer to my college physices textbook while I am writing, as well as the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, searching for data and formulae.
But I was wishing for something more specialized than that. I envision it as a set of references, maybe one in physics, one in chemistry, one in biology, and one in geology. It would concentrate purely on the limitations that science puts on speculative fiction.
For example, any physics text will tell you that when water turns from liquid to gas at normal atmospheric pressure, it must gain 539 cal/gram. But what if I want to create a world in which a normal human can touch a glass of water and their body heat will cause it to boil? I need a lot of information! How much heat does a human hand give off? What are the effects of blood sugar level, blood oxygen level, and blood pressure on this heat quantity? What material must I use to make the glass so that it can conduct that much heat? Finally, what would be the atmospheric pressure of that world?
I could find all this data and perform all these calculations, but I would need to consult quite a few books and the search would not be efficient. A dedicated writers might do it, but few readers would appreciate the effort.
The reference set I envisioned would also act as a resource to readers. It would help them to appreciate the work of writers like Chad, who really do their homework.
posted
I will just throw this in because I feel I must. Tolkien knew his work was not perfect, but you must realize that he had alternative meanings in the books. These books stood as a way to portray the happenings of the time. As for the mythology part of his books, he did create an entire language and if you can find that any where else I will abandon all hope in writing.
As for the style of writing, I have written stories in every style and in that way I discovered what I'm good at and I have stayed with that. Do what works for you.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted
I desperately want to bring Heimdall off the subject of LOTR. But first let me reply to the previous post: Tolkien himself refuted the idea that his stories were allegorical in any way. They were not specifically meant to reflect the time in which they were written.
That being said; I think Heimdall's original question was about the epic qualities and vivid detail of Tolkien's work. Is there still a place for those components in contemporary fiction?
I think maybe the language of the epic has changed. Heinlein's the Moon is a Harsh Mistress was an epic, nyet? Spasebaw, Gospodin Heimdall.
Or maybe there aren't any storytellers left, just us writers.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
