High Fantasy: Why always so generic?

[Raapys]

Feist > *

 

[sheek]

Apparently, someone told me once, liking Tolkien has something to do with being English. Or something. I've no idea, some Tolkien fans are bizarre.

Agreed. The whole chanting stuff in Elvish over his grave is rather... eccentric to say the least. I suppose it's better than doing heroin, or something. As for the English thing... well I don't know, because of the aforementioned mountains thing, I tend to associate him with Wales, myself. But Wales is only next door, so, close enough.

The guy was a Polish Catholic-Conservative Nationalist... who developed an obsession of idolizing Anglo-Saxon mythology, a mixed up guy.

Even stranger is that he becomes a cult author of and due to the Hippies.

 

[Lesifoere]

Agreed. The whole chanting stuff in Elvish over his grave is rather... eccentric to say the least.

People... people do that? Oh man. I wonder what people will do after JK Rowling's bitten it. Mouth butchered Latin over her tombstone?

I was just reacting to your statement that:

People need to read better fantasy. I can fairly quickly name a number of titles that don't revolve around D&D rip-offs, saving the world, and all that old, stupid shit. I can even name some where the ending isn't all magical happiness rainbow wheeee.

I may be misinterpreting your words, but I took this statement at face value: equating better fantasy with inverting basic tropes. I have no doubt your personal views are far more complex than this, but as a blanket statement, it was easy fuel for a general polemic.

I should've quoted and replied to specific posts to make it clear what I'm responding to; my bad. Perhaps I should say "People should read more fantasy"? But that's no good. The market's flooded with trite shit--reading more may very well turn the person off from the genre forever. But if people are tired of basic tropes, then my statement applies.

Hell, his prose is drier than Dickens'--it takes itself very, very seriously.

I agree, but I don't consider Dickens' prose that dry. Dickens' prose is very wordy and rambling, but it has a lot of verve and colour to it.

I don't, either. Dickens can be witty and funny. That's why I was using him as a counter to your defense of Tolkien's prose as a product of its time. It's not really. Even for the time he was writing, Tolkien's writing was self-consciously, pointedly archaic.

Remember, I'm the Codexer that likes cute doggies, and BG, and various other stupid things. :D

You're too disarming for your own good. Let's go watch anime together and squee at bishie boys.

 

[afewhours]

The guy was a Polish Catholic-Conservative Nationalist... who developed an obsession of idolizing Anglo-Saxon mythology, a mixed up guy.

Even stranger is that he becomes a cult author of and due to the Hippies.

Heh heh. Yeah, I always got the impression he'd absolutely despise the cult that surrounds him. I keep thinking that one day he's going to climb out of his grave to silence the chanting.

EDIT:

You're too disarming for your own good. Let's go watch anime together and squee at bishie boys.

I'm glad. I'm not sure if I could stand you being angry at me - I'm too brittle and squishy for a laydee's wrath.

 

[Gragt]

Time to watch Record of Lodoss War!

 

[kingcomrade]

I remember watching that when I was little.

 

[Fez]

I am not sure if I want to know what a "bishie boy" is. If it has anything to do with Japan, I'm better off not knowing. Otherwise, feel free to enlighten me.

 

[Jasede]

Bishie boys? Can I join? I'll bring Cosmopolitans!

 

[kingcomrade]

Bishi is just an androgynous twink-lookin guy. Just think your generic skinny ass animu protagonist with stupid hair.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Bishonen

 

[Fez]

Two more nukes.

 

[Radisshu]

I think traditional fantasy art is horrible, so I won't comment.

 

[kingcomrade]

Here's a way to spice up your fantasy a bit

Don't miss this one, behind a link because of NSFW and seriously disturbing pic
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f284/ ... 489954.jpg
I especially like the hand scraping the floor, dragging along desperately trying to stop it's progress into the vaginal maw

 

[Azarkon]

My memory of LoTR is hazy, but I do recall reading the Silmarillion around the age of ten. It didn't seem particularly dry, then, and I'm not English.

Anyways, it's well-accepted that the appeal of Tolkien has always been in his world-crafting. In this aspect, he remains peerless among the writers of high-fantasy. Not particularly surprising, given that nearly all of high-fantasy is derivative of him, but what was unique about Tolkien is precisely that he took himself seriously. He was a writer of myth in an age of reason, yet never wrote as if he was conscious of the fact, or the genre (perhaps because he did not see himself as writing in the "fantasy" genre). These days, such a sentiment is hard to attain - most writers are very conscious of the market of their work and the conventions underlying those markets, to the extent that they are, themselves, unable to truly believe what they're writing. This trend, unfortunately, cuts across the talent spectrum: the greats are saddled by the subtle shame of being associated with fantasy, and cannot believe. The hacks, on the other hand, believe too easily - and make a farce out of it.

Tolkien, by comparison, thought he was creating a genuine myth - a proverbial origin story for the Western world (and in particularly the British). In this pursuit, he was sincere, unfeigned, and tireless. That's why his world stands up to scrutiny while something like, say, Midkemia, simply doesn't.

 

[afewhours]

Bishie boys? Can I join? I'll bring Cosmopolitans!

No you can't, but I always prefer it when you do things without my permission.

@kingcomrade: You have made my day with that Black Tokyo page. In return, I will write the words Hillary and Clinton in this post so you can indulge in one of your famous LIBERLULZ one-liners.

Tolkien, by comparison, thought he was creating a genuine myth - a proverbial origin story for the Western world (and in particularly the British). In this pursuit, he was sincere, unfeigned, and tireless. That's why his world stands up to scrutiny while something like, say, Midkemia, simply doesn't.

I couldn't have stated it better. This is what I've come to like about Tolkien, though I'd be lying if I said that went through my head when I first read LotR. (I was only a nipper at time) I just enjoyed it as a ripping yarn.

 

[Longshanks]

but what was unique about Tolkien is precisely that he took himself seriously. He was a writer of myth in an age of reason, yet never wrote as if he was conscious of the fact, or the genre (perhaps because he did not see himself as writing in the "fantasy" genre).

Tolkien, by comparison, thought he was creating a genuine myth - a proverbial origin story for the Western world (and in particularly the British). In this pursuit, he was sincere, unfeigned, and tireless. That's why his world stands up to scrutiny while something like, say, Midkemia, simply doesn't.

This is the point many miss (not meaning anyone on this board, more those young things who only know Tolkien as massively mainstream), whether or not you enjoy the narrative of his works or not (largely subjective), the scholarly achievement is undoubted. In fact, Middle Earth began with the creation of the Elvish languange, and Tolkien worked on it for 50 years.

There is simply no "fantasy" work that compares with Tolkien on this level.
I agree, that this focus on myth creation, may at times detract from the story (though it does also add to it), but for Tolkien this was a secondary concern.

With Tolkien's LOTR, we have a novel with good prose, symbolic meaning, but most importantly a work that resonates with the depth of its mythology. Most other fantasy has good or worse prose (mostly worse), but it is in the other two aspects (particularly depth of mythology) where they are lacking in comparison to LOTR.

Tolkien saw myth as truth (splintered fragments of the one "true myth"), and Middle Earth was not written wholly as fantasy. It is our world when still inhabited by "higher beings", the Elves are Adam before the fall.


Having said that, I don't rate LOTR amongst my favourite novels (or any fantasy for that matter), but I do respect it as a great work.

 

[Stella Brando]

...Also, Aragorn is an arrogant fuck.

Aragorn arrogant? What do you mean exactly? Was he too confident he deserved to be king? Not cynical enough about the idea of monarchy? Just not a people person? I always liked Aragorn, the original flavor more than Filmagorn.

 

[FatCat]

Low fantasy > High fantasy
The Witcher >>>>>>> LOTR

High fantasy is just pure putrid , but again it depends on what reader likes.Not to mention that that Tolkien riped-off European mythology mostly Scandinavian , added some sparkle and rainbows out of his ass and you get LOTR.

 

[J_C]

Not to mention that that Tolkien riped-off European mythology mostly Scandinavian , added some sparkle and rainbows out of his ass and you get LOTR.

Sure, it was that easy.

While I like the world of Sapkovsky's Witcher, it doesn't even come near the detailed, well thought world of Middle-Earth.

 

[Destroid]

I'm surprised there were never any Dragonlance gold box games made.

 

[J_C]

I'm surprised there were never any Dragonlance gold box games made.

How about these?
Champions of Krynn

Death Knights of Krynn

Dark Queen of Krynn

 

[Destroid]

Any good?

 

[Johannes]

Sorry for my spontaneous, stupid and mostly incoherent rant, but I guess you get what I'm getting at. High fantasy nowadays just has become the epitome of genericness because it's lost its creativity that it used to have back then. At least when it comes to RPGs.

Yeah I get it. You don't actually want nongeneric or creative high fantasy, you just want the kind of generic high fantasy that you like.

If "noble knights in shining armor, sexy warrior-chicks with incredibly ridiculously revealing armor and clothing, huge dragons flying above the skies, great cities with huge walls", or these pictures in OP, are not generic to the max I don't know what is.

 

[octavius]

but what was unique about Tolkien is precisely that he took himself seriously. He was a writer of myth in an age of reason, yet never wrote as if he was conscious of the fact, or the genre (perhaps because he did not see himself as writing in the "fantasy" genre).

Tolkien, by comparison, thought he was creating a genuine myth - a proverbial origin story for the Western world (and in particularly the British). In this pursuit, he was sincere, unfeigned, and tireless. That's why his world stands up to scrutiny while something like, say, Midkemia, simply doesn't.

This is the point many miss (not meaning anyone on this board, more those young things who only know Tolkien as massively mainstream), whether or not you enjoy the narrative of his works or not (largely subjective), the scholarly achievement is undoubted. In fact, Middle Earth began with the creation of the Elvish languange, and Tolkien worked on it for 50 years.

There is simply no "fantasy" work that compares with Tolkien on this level.
I agree, that this focus on myth creation, may at times detract from the story (though it does also add to it), but for Tolkien this was a secondary concern.

With Tolkien's LOTR, we have a novel with good prose, symbolic meaning, but most importantly a work that resonates with the depth of its mythology. Most other fantasy has good or worse prose (mostly worse), but it is in the other two aspects (particularly depth of mythology) where they are lacking in comparison to LOTR.

Tolkien saw myth as truth (splintered fragments of the one "true myth"), and Middle Earth was not written wholly as fantasy. It is our world when still inhabited by "higher beings", the Elves are Adam before the fall.

Well said.
I can only add one other thing that adds to the greatness of Tolkien's works. The meta story of Lord of the Rings is that it is not something Tolkien made up; no, it his own translations and dramatization of the works and diaries written by Bilbo, Frodo and Sam which they wrote in The Red Book of Westmarch, of which copies were made in Gondor. And Silmarillion is Tolkien's translation of Bilbo's own "Translations from Elvish". And all of this material came from a copy of The Red Book of Westmarch that somehow Tolkien had aquired.
How many other fantasy writers go to such lengths to make their work "real"?

Any good?

The Dragonlance Gold Box games are IMO the best of all the GB games.
The world is a bit less generic, there are more classes (like Knights), there are not such draconian level restrictions for non-humans so most of the races are viable, there are three different "schools" of magic and the clerics acually worship named dieties that affect their spells selections and abilities.

 

[Destroid]

Well, JarlFrank should play those then, since he is posting Dragonlance art as an example of what he wants.

 

[DraQ]

Not to mention that that Tolkien riped-off European mythology mostly Scandinavian , added some sparkle and rainbows out of his ass and you get LOTR.

Sure, it was that easy.

While I like the world of Sapkovsky's Witcher, it doesn't even come near the detailed, well thought world of Middle-Earth.

Well, witcher-verse seems to have started out with generic fantasyland which was then refined and partially deconstructed by adding internal logic and all the nasty shit.