Who's the American Tolkien?

[Bainespal]

This question could be approached in several directions, and I'm not going to try to dictate which approach should be taken.

You could decide what American author writes the best high fantasy, worthy to be compared to Tolkien. You could think about what American writer uses a literary style most like Tolkien's. You could think about how Tolkien used British cultural values, and which works of American mythopoeia use American values in a similar way. You could base your decision on the depth or type of worldbuilding that the author used. You can consider widespread popularity and cultural penetration if you wish, because Tolkien's works definitely are popular and have infused the culture.

Note that the author you vote for doesn't necessarily have to be a "writer" in any specific sense. The person definitely does not need to be a novelist. Rather, the person needs to be someone who made a contribution to mythopoeia or to literature in general, who "refracted" the Light as Tolkien did.

[metalikhan]

My little "other" vote looks awful lonely.

But I cast it for Nancy Springer who writes fantasy, mystery, YA lit, and SF. She's a multi-award winner/nominee. Her style is literary, somewhat Tolkienesque but she's got a tighter weave with her stories and drop-dead-stunning language. Her "Book of the Isle" quintet has awesome worldbuilding and her affiliated stories bring new dimensions to that world.

Unfortunately, she's not as well known as most of the others listed, but she should be.

[Bainespal]

Springer's Isle Trilogy looks interesting. I don't think I had heard of her before.

I can't decide whether to vote for Robert Jordan or Gene Wolfe.

[newburydave]

I believe it would be hard for any American to fill Tolkien's shoes. He may have been a man unique to the British society and educational establishment. It also strikes me that his age was unique, we don't have any analog in the modern world that I know of.

IMHO he was born for his time and generation, as was Lewis and we are born for our time. The challenge for all of us is to be living witnesses to our generation, in a sense to fill up the sufferings of Christ in reaching our peers.

No one else in history is as qualified to do this as we are. I don't believe channeling a famous witness from the past will do it. We must confront our own generation's sins and deamons in the name and power of Christ just as former prophets confronted their generation's with the True Christ.

I could nominate several authors who have done that task very successfully, but I doubt any of them could fill up the measure of men like Tolkien or Lewis. Our generation doesn't respect the kind of towering intellects or academic excellence the way the British did during those blessed men's tenure. We must weave a different kind of web in the Spirit to catch the souls of our fellows for Christ, methinks.

Write on beloved Siblings

SGD
dave

[cdeb]

I think Dave is right, its difficult to draw parallels.

In the end I decided to vote anyway (for Gene Wolfe) as he's my favourite writer, and below I list some of the similarities with Tolkien.

They are both practicing Roman Catholic Christians.

They both have an interest in language and the use of words is important in their writing.

Although Wolfe is seen often as and SF writer most of what he has written is fantasy and the series he is best know for The Book of the New Sun, is SF dressed up as classic fantasy.

Their faith influences their works but neither is keen on the use of allegory (unlike Lewis).

A number of key writers in the modern Fantasy field cite Wolfe as a key influence.

(As an aside I didn't know Robert Jordan was a Christian...interesting, I assume that because I cannot see an American equivalent of Tolkien without Christian faith).

But as Dave says, equivalents are difficult to make!

[Bainespal]

Jul 25, 2012 21:30:08 GMT -5 newburydave said:

I could nominate several authors who have done that task very successfully, but I doubt any of them could fill up the measure of men like Tolkien or Lewis.

You are right, of course. The concept of a "modern American Tolkien" is only for tabloids trying to promote the new blockbuster fantasy novel or to generate popular attention. However, having read on Wikipedia that George R.R. Martin has been called an "American Tolkien" (apparently by fellow contemporary fantasy author Lev Grossman), I thought I might see who our crowd would name with that honor, undeserved though it may ultimately be.

Aug 10, 2012 6:08:26 GMT -5 cdeb said:

(As an aside I didn't know Robert Jordan was a Christian...interesting, I assume that because I cannot see an American equivalent of Tolkien without Christian faith).

I don't think all of the writers I included in the poll are Christians. I don't think Martin professes to be a Christian, for one. I agree with you that Tolkien's Christianity is inseparable from his writing and the impact and beauty of his work.

Robert Jordan was an Episcopalian, apparently a seriously practicing one. He was also a Freemason, which may be why he seems to be one of the authors whose Christianity the CSF community seems to doubt, along with Madeleine L'Engle and George MacDonald (who had universalist beliefs) and J.K. Rowling.

[This Baron of Mora]

I imagine it impossible for an American to ever match Tolkien. I, while agreeing with Dave in this regard, will take it even farther and say, that though the fantasy genre existed before Tolkien, he started the genre as it is today, and as such really any fantasy author today is to some degree or another emulating Tolkien and it is rather hard to compare anyone to such a stature.

On worldbuilding I think no one can compare until they spend decades refining, rewriting, and changing their world and works thereof as Tolkien did.

[cdeb]

Sitting on my shelves at home in the reading queue is a book by an author that when he emerged was considered to be the "successor" to Tolkein. He's American and he's not even on the List: Stephen R. Donaldson!

Just to throw another hat into the ring

[Bainespal]

Aug 13, 2012 23:46:07 GMT -5 This Baron of Mora said:

I imagine it impossible for an American to ever match Tolkien. I, while agreeing with Dave in this regard, will take it even farther and say, that though the fantasy genre existed before Tolkien, he started the genre as it is today, and as such really any fantasy author today is to some degree or another emulating Tolkien and it is rather hard to compare anyone to such a stature.

I love Tolkien, too. He's my favorite writer, almost certainly (at least for fiction, Lewis is my favorite for non-fiction). However, there comes a point when we have to admit that Tolkien was merely human, that his achievements, though of rare brilliance, are not completely unmatchable. Tolkien and his works should be forever honored by all Christians who love the fantastic, but Tolkien's culture and time are growing further and further from our own every moment. My sister wouldn't even try to read The Lord of the Rings because it sounded too wordy and Victorian for her. That's surely her problem and not Tolkien's, but the fact remains that we have to be able to look past Tolkien and find the spark of the inspiration that made his works so beautiful in writers from our own time. If none of the writers of our day have bothered to refract the Light through sub-creation in the same brilliant manner as Tolkien and other great writers of old did, then that is a problem that needs to be rectified. Simply saying "no one can ever be like Tolkien" dismisses the problem. There will never again be any great epics if we take that attitude.

On worldbuilding I think no one can compare until they spend decades refining, rewriting, and changing their world and works thereof as Tolkien did.

True. And today's fantasy authors should spend those decades on their worldbuilding, just as Tolkien did. The reason I like The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan so much is for the vast scope of its worldbuilding. The Wheel of Time has more complicated worldbuilding than Tolkien's, because Jordan drew from practically every major culture in the whole world and reorganized them into his own world, whereas Tolkien mainly drew from North European cultures. Jordan's worldbuilding is definitely not more careful or more beautiful than Tolkien's, but it is more complicated and at least equally detailed, and that is something.

Aug 14, 2012 6:29:08 GMT -5 cdeb said:

Sitting on my shelves at home in the reading queue is a book by an author that when he emerged was considered to be the "successor" to Tolkein. He's American and he's not even on the List: Stephen R. Donaldson!

You're right. Donaldson should have been on the list. I haven't read him, but I've heard that he was one of the early post-Tolkien fantasy authors.

Now, a word about Gene Wolfe. Cdeb here introduced me to Wolfe in the thread about him from last year (link). I recently read The Knight, which has one sequel that I haven't read yet. I have not yet read anything else by Wolfe. When I made this poll, I was just getting into The Knight, and I was struck by his lofty tone but great readability. The central concept of the fantasy world -- that there are seven worlds layered on top of each other -- seems unique and wonderful. Wolfe definitely captures the mythopoeic essence that Tolkien embodies, but the world in The Knight didn't seem quite as rich and detailed as Tokien's and Jordan's worlds. His world seemed more like Lewis's Narnia, where the details are less important. Wolfe actually seems most like George MacDonald and Phantastes. Part of the reason for this is that The Knight is portal fantasy; someone from our world enters the fantasy world. In The Knight, the portal element seemed almost irrelevant to me, even though the narrative is completely framed around it. In some ways, the style seemed just a bit too lofty for its own good.

Long story short, I still can't decide whether to vote for Wolfe or for Jordan.

By the way, I realized that it's probably terribly ethnocentric of me to only talk about modern American fantasy writers, since even British culture is very likely moving away from the culture that the Inklings knew, and there are many other cultures in this world that deserve to have their own "modern Tolkien." Sorry.

[aurorawatcher]

I can think of a few authors in the other category. Kate Elliott and Katharine Kerr come close in the world building upon historical foundations category, but (to my knowledge) neither is a Christian (Kerr definitely is not).

So, I'm going to vote with Stephen Lawhead. He writes NOTHING like Tolkein and I don't think he's as good as the two ladies above, but he is a Christian and he has great writing chops and the amount of research he must do for his novels boggles my mind.

[rjj7]

I will begin by saying that I believe there is not, and never will be, another Tolkien. Now, that is not to say that there will never be an author as good as Tolkien (there may very well be several that are even better!). In fact, such authors probably exist nowadays. I haven't found one yet that was consistently as good as Tolkien, but most authors are at a disadvantage there because they wrote much more volume, so I'm not going to judge and I'm not going to put Tolkien on a pedestal and say "nobody writes as good as he did!"


However, Tolkien brought his world to life in a way that no other author has ever done. Middle-Earth is filled with music and poetry. The sorrows of the people and the toll of the years is expressed in a way that puts to shame every other fantasy story I've read. A few authors have tried to have song or poetry in their world, but it often comes across as amateurish imitation. Middle-Earth is alive and sorrowing, but just as importantly, there is hope as well.

Tolkien also had unequaled depth to his world**, a strong cast of characters, some intricately woven Christian themes, and a decent plot (most of Tolkien's failings are found in his plot, which is why I describe it as merely decent). Other authors have beaten his plot, or his characters, or maybe his world building, but in the end, none of them captured that spark that causes Middle-Earth to still resonate after all these years. If you will permit me a somewhat pretentious analogy:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." ~ Genesis 2:7

Other authors have formed much better works, but none have 'breathed life' into their works to the same extent. They've all stopped after the forming process; they get the story, send it off to the publishers, and there's an end of it. The world is developed as much as is immediately pertinent to the story, and very little beyond that.

This doesn't make Tolkien better; while alive, his work is flawed, far from perfect, and other authors have crafted 'better' works. We don't require a painting to be a moving picture to acknowledge it as a masterpiece. But this does, in my opinion, preclude any 1 to 1 comparisons between Tolkien and other authors. We shouldn't try and identify anybody as 'the next Tolkien', but rather simply identify people as acknowledged masters in their field. Just like Jordon isn't Tolkien, so Tolkien isn't Jordon.

I would say, however, that there isn't a modern author who monopolizes and overshadows the genre like Tolkien did. This is partly because of the comparative number of writers in the field now compared to then. No one will ever hit as high as Tolkien simply because now we have a healthy and thriving community of fantasy writers, and no one is going to rise up and dominate the others.


DISCLAIMER: My fantasy reading has been much more limited than most people's, and I'm not familiar with about half the people in the poll. My opinion is thus uninformed, and no doubt open to any number of criticisms from those more educated members. No need to pull any punches if you feel like addressing it.


**There are two halves to the scope of a world. Breadth and Depth. I will insist till my dying day that Tolkien had unequaled depth to his world; the history, culture, and backstory of Middle-Earth is staring you in the face wherever you go, from the Shire to Mordor and everywhere in between. But I will also acknowledge that writers such as Robert Jordon beat him hollow when it comes to breadth. Tolkien only had two or three real countries in LotR, whereas Jordon created a dozen, give or take, and political intrigues and interactions to go with each. Which world is 'richer'? That's a matter of opinion and is also dependent on the story you're telling. Robert Jordon's world wouldn't have suited LotR at all, but neither would Tolkien's world have suited Jordon's work. Different stories, different vehicles to convey them.

(I personally don't care for Jordon, but that's neither here nor there )

[Bainespal]

Oct 30, 2012 16:11:01 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

However, Tolkien brought his world to life in a way that no other author has ever done. Middle-Earth is filled with music and poetry. The sorrows of the people and the toll of the years is expressed in a way that puts to shame every other fantasy story I've read.

And I might add, seems to put to shame even our own real-world history. Maybe it's blasphemous to say that, but Tolkien's world seems more real and meaningful and beautiful than reality, and I have to believe that his fantastic portrayal is an insightful capturing of invisible truth that really exists, or else I can't find life in this disappointing world to be worthwhile.

Other authors have beaten his plot, or his characters, or maybe his world building, but in the end, none of them captured that spark that causes Middle-Earth to still resonate after all these years.

I think you're right that Tolkien's greatness is much more than worldbuilding. As you say, it's the way his world lives, so sincerely.

Other authors have formed much better works, but none have 'breathed life' into their works to the same extent. They've all stopped after the forming process; they get the story, send it off to the publishers, and there's an end of it. The world is developed as much as is immediately pertinent to the story, and very little beyond that.

I think fantasy readers can tell when a world is only developed as far as is needed for the immediate story. Although I'm sure few fantasy writers devote their whole lives to building one sub-creation as Tolkien did, many others have spent years to develop rich and thorough worlds. No other writer could create exactly the same kind of world as Tolkien, but I think high fantasy writers can and should try to be as thorough and as sincere.

This doesn't make Tolkien better; while alive, his work is flawed, far from perfect, and other authors have crafted 'better' works. We don't require a painting to be a moving picture to acknowledge it as a masterpiece.

Strange. I would think it would be more accurate to say that we don't require a moving painting to be a technical masterpiece. And Tolkien's books definitely are probably not technical masterpieces, especially when evaluated by the standards of modern narrative styles.

We shouldn't try and identify anybody as 'the next Tolkien', but rather simply identify people as acknowledged masters in their field. Just like Jordon isn't Tolkien, so Tolkien isn't Jordon.

You're right, of course. Let's acknowledge the individual masters, then.

I would say, however, that there isn't a modern author who monopolizes and overshadows the genre like Tolkien did. This is partly because of the comparative number of writers in the field now compared to then. No one will ever hit as high as Tolkien simply because now we have a healthy and thriving community of fantasy writers, and no one is going to rise up and dominate the others.

One of the special qualities of Tolkien's mythopoeia is the way it has passed into culture myth. Everyone knows about Frodo's quest, and people talk about him and use him in analogies all the time. The same is also true to some degree of Star Wars, although I wonder if that might be due to the continuing cash flow of that franchise.

Obviously, not every fantasy can become cultural myth. Maybe that's part of the reason why we see Tolkien's world as so unique. We view it through the lens of mythology, and it's not possible for us to see contemporary works through the same lens. Even if today's authors have the potential to create cultural myth, the next generation will have to make the decision as to whether today's fad will be tomorrow's myth.

**There are two halves to the scope of a world. Breadth and Depth. I will insist till my dying day that Tolkien had unequaled depth to his world; the history, culture, and backstory of Middle-Earth is staring you in the face wherever you go, from the Shire to Mordor and everywhere in between. But I will also acknowledge that writers such as Robert Jordon beat him hollow when it comes to breadth. Tolkien only had two or three real countries in LotR, whereas Jordon created a dozen, give or take, and political intrigues and interactions to go with each.

I don't think I see the difference between "breadth" and "depth," unless you mean external worldbuilding elements versus deeper mythic elements. I also disagree that Jordan "beats Tolkien hollow" even in "breadth" -- where by "breadth" we mean the quantity of external worldbuilding. Yes, Jordan does have more countries, and he does a wonderful job at portrayal lots of minute details of the various cultures of his world. However, Tolkien has more languages than Jordan does, and Tolkien went into excruciating detail in crafting his languages. Would you consider languages a matter of "breadth" or "depth"? In the end, I agree that Jordan does have a broader and perhaps more "realistic" world than Tolkien's, but only narrowly broader.[/quote]

(I personally don't care for Jordon, but that's neither here nor there )

If you think Tolkien has plot problems, then I con certainly understand why you don't care for Jordan. The plot in the later Wheel of Time books is so terrible that only indiscriminate fans could say that those books are completely problem-free. The plot becomes a knotted, messy, convoluted monster. Even in the earlier books, the plot is derivative and unremarkable. But I still like Jordan, because in the long run I don't care very much about plot.

[waldenwriter]

I agree with rjj, I don't think there will ever be another Tolkien. But he does give us something to aspire to.

I wish I could spend a decade on worldbuilding like he did, but I doubt I could handle it.

It's interesting, though...I re-read The Hobbit back in March for Tolkien Reading Day. It was the first time I'd read it since I first read it back in 2001 while waiting for The Fellowship of the Ring to be available in the school library. Some of the book still seemed familiar, but for the most part it seemed new, considering I hadn't read it in 11 years. And reading The Hobbit after having read the LOTR trilogy is interesting. I could totally see places in The Hobbit where Tolkien was clearly still working things out regarding both hobbits and Middle-Earth itself. The elves in The Hobbit particularly seem different, even ones that also show up in the LOTR trilogy, like Elrond. An interesting study in the development of Middle-Earth to be sure!

[rjj7]

One of the special qualities of Tolkien's mythopoeia is the way it has passed into culture myth. Everyone knows about Frodo's quest, and people talk about him and use him in analogies all the time. The same is also true to some degree of Star Wars, although I wonder if that might be due to the continuing cash flow of that franchise.

Obviously, not every fantasy can become cultural myth. Maybe that's part of the reason why we see Tolkien's world as so unique. We view it through the lens of mythology, and it's not possible for us to see contemporary works through the same lens. Even if today's authors have the potential to create cultural myth, the next generation will have to make the decision as to whether today's fad will be tomorrow's myth.

Ah. I like this. You've successfully countered every one of my points and demonstrated how we can have a one-to-one comparison between Tolkien and a more modern person. Bravo. Now a good chunk of the young novel I slapped up is of dubious merit to the discussion.

Thinking along these lines, I'm tempted to say that George Lucas is the American Tolkien. Part of it is, as you say, that the franchise is continuing to push itself in the consumer market. However, when all is said and done, Star Wars is going to be a part of the culture's thinking for a long time yet. None of George Lucas' stuff is anywhere near the level of excellence of Tolkien (in my opinion, which isn't near so humble as it should be ), but no matter how much one may hate it, it's still there. Like Monopoly.

(for the record, I don't hate Star Wars, though I do hate Monotony Monopoly).

Robert Jordon and George R.R. Martin have done a good job at carving out followings, but I think they're somewhat handicapped by the fact that A) their stories are a lot more complex than Tolkien's and B) they don't have a child-friendly prequel to lead into them. I actually haven't read Martin, but know his work by reputation.

I don't think I'd use this criteria to label someone as an "American Tolkien", so some of my points remain, but it is a way we could objectively compare artists, so a good many of them topple down.





Regarding "Breadth" vs "Depth":
I should really stop coming up with my own vague definitions for things, then using them in conversation.

Breadth, in my mind, is anything that makes the current situation more complex. Now take LotR. You have Sauron vs the good guys. There really isn't that much to it. You have a few minor eddies in the flow, like Saruman, Denethor, and Wormtongue that try and create 'third parties'. But these guys don't really change the situation that much. It's like World War II. Essentially a very simple situation .

Contrast this with, say, The Wars of the Roses. That was a tangled mess of conflicting allegiances and goals. While one could boil it down to two sides, one would lose nearly everything that makes it such a notable period in English History.

I guess what it comes down to is that making a more complex 'here and now' is breadth. Making a more complex history is depth. Culture is where things start getting muddy. I'd consider language to be part of depth, because it's really a semantic (just like a thoroughly developed history) rather than a practical plot-influence (like a thoroughly developed intrigue). Perhaps that's the definition: Breadth is concerned with practical, present day plot influences. Depth is concerned with how the world has led up to this point.

Of course, one could argue that history can create present-day plot influences, but this is where we get into authors who develop their histories only enough to satisfy the plot; these guys have some depth, but not much. They're more focused on developing here and now, rather than having history for history's sake. And now I'm going to shut up. I've rambled too long as it is. I hope that helped clarify what I was getting at.

[Bainespal]

There was an American mythopoeic work that perhaps could have rivalled anything written by Tolkien, drawing from American religious culture, folklore, and legends about the history of the Americas. It's called the Book of Mormon. I think it could have been a great historical/mythological fantasy, probably building the foundation for fantasy fiction well before Tolkien and giving American legends an edge that only European legends have in the publishing world nowadays. Instead, it was used as false scripture to deceive people. A story that makes no claim to literal truth can turn out to have many powerful truths. Alas for what could have been!

(No, I haven't read it, yet. This observation is based on some casual research.)