So you may have heard of Eragon by the teen writer Christopher Paolini. It topped the bestseller list and spawned a movie most notable for special effects
( Read more... )
No, Eragon, I am your father. I am Aragorn, son of Arathorn. Ooops, funny how that slipped in there.
While there is certainly a lot of shared source material in fantasy (I'd add the Arthur legend to the mix, as it has served as a cultural cornerstone for English literature for centuries), some of it is surely Campbellian or Jungian in nature: ordinary person gets called to adventure, aided by elder mentor, gains a talisman, you can fill in the rest based on high school English.
The kicker is what you do with your source material. Shakespeare wasn't inventing new stories. He was melding them into something new, same with Marlowe and the rest (you're telling me "Is this the face that launched a thousand ships" was new?). Tolkien was heavily, heavily influenced by Beowulf and the Kalavala -- so much, in fact, that I've argued before that one could almost consider it fanfic. The Matrix is a re-packaging of "Neuromancer" , "Johnny Mnemonic", "Ghost in the Shell", and a few other anime/cyber-punk stories. What makes these re-tellings interesting, fun, and valuable is the originality they insert and the way they do their nods to the sources.
Edding's "Belgariad", though derivative, retains some value because of what he does with the standard fantasy ensemble of innocent called to adventure, elder wizard in disguise, sly rogue, northern warrior, and snooty princess. That he does nothing new with those characters in the "Mallorean" is why I place a black mark next to Edding's name.
Jordan's "Wheel of Time" is a giant rip-off of Tolkien -- if you tell me that Trollocs and Myrradheal aren't based on Orcs and Nazghul, I'm going to lose a lot of respect for you. In his first book, he introduces some concepts from other sources and he melds them in entertaining fashion. It's only after the next books when he shows himself to be an utterly abysmal writer -- one who wasted all his original ideas in the first book and is now prolonging the series simply to turn a buck -- that I lose respect for him and his work.
Martin, despite the Tolkien-esque "G.R.R." authorial prefix, does deviate from the norm. His "Fire and Ice" series does have some swashbuckling, but the strong presence of political maneuvering makes his work a different beast from others in the genre.
Other hacks though? Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony, Kevin J. Anderson, and, now, Christopher Paolini.
Not hacks? Vernor Vinge, Frank Herbert (mostly), Neal Stephenson (even if his endings need work).
Yeah, Eddings has pretty much one set of characters that he deploys with minor variations in this and other series (the Sparhawk books read pretty similarly) To his credit, the books are fairly entertaining, but after a while they all blend together.
I've not been able to get into either Terry Brooks or Jordan, and am willing to put that down to good taste. ;) I did actually skim through about six of the Wheel books before giving up. Yawn.
Terry Goodkind has by all accounts descended into hackery, though Wizard's First Rule was a pretty decent book.
Stephen R. Donaldson isn't a hack, though I learn he's started another series in the Thomas Covenant story arc that I haven't read. Beware sequels released 20 years later!
Tad Williams' novice series Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn is a decent entry into the "inspired by Tolkien" category, and his subsequent works haven't really been totally in-genre so it's hard to make a direct comparison. His later, unrelated work War of the Flowers was uninspiring.
I've got your back on your other designations. I'm not sure whether Martin really falls into the same category, though. There seems to be a different category of "history-like" fantasy that involves the conflicts of characters against each other for their own ends. I'm willing to hear arguments about how this evolved from the Tolkein formula, but I need to think a bit more about the distinctions.
It seems like some people have one good series or novel in them, and they just keep writing that novel or series again and again. In general, as much as I yearn to know more about the characters in a good story, endless sequels really just kill off the joy eventually.
Now I want to start categorizing books and authors. Sheeesh :)
While agree that the Elenium and its twin suffered the same problems as Eddings' other efforts, I found the political aspects, along with the more innovative approach towards magic, refreshing. That said, still a bit of a repetitive hack.
Sadly, I find myself inexplicably drawn to Jordan when in airport bookshops and finding nothing else to read (Hudson News has appalling selection, unsurprisingly). Also, sadly, I actually almost enjoyed his last effort, as the story actually moved forward. I say almost enjoyed, as it did nothing to remove the utter disgust I had at his previous book where, literally, nothing happened for 900+ pages. Setup, schmetup.
I don't think Martin is that similar to Tolkien but in name. There are dragons, yes. But that's about the extent of the similarity. I think you're apt in your description of Martin as in the historical fantasy genre that isn't mainly about magic, wizards, conflicts with gods, or similar things in the general fantasy genre.
Isle of View, MathavengerrobertmaprilApril 15 2007, 16:03:52 UTC
I'm gonna step in and defend Piers Anthony here just for a moment, him being such an influence on me as a kid. I think his Xanth books did quite a bit, much of it tongue-in-cheek, with their setting, while the Incarnations series, while it puttered off and became boring and incomprehensible, was also fantastic in its setting and in the anthological nature of its story, which upset me as a sixth grader expecting to follow Zane through all the books, but strikes me as pretty ballsy now.
Re: Isle of View, MathavengerlockholmApril 15 2007, 16:18:11 UTC
I really enjoyed the Incarnations series and a number of the Xanth books. The Incarnations books are not in themselves examples of hackery. They were an amusing and novel take on an unusual subject.
I see the question of hackery to some extent separate from enjoyability. Piers Anthony's books descend in quality over time while retreading the same formulas. (To be fair, I haven't read anything of his in a long while.)
Nothing like a spirited discussion of our favorite FantasiesrobertmaprilApril 15 2007, 16:32:45 UTC
I read the Xanth books in Junior High and enjoyed the puns and so forth, and read the Incarnations books around that time too, so they may not have aged as well. I tried to follow his virtual reality series but found it sucked out loud. I agree too that hackery should be separate from enjoyability since as long as something is enjoyable, it is because it's contributing something to the genre. Stepping away from fantasy for a tick, the Romantic Comedy genre in movies is about as overdone as it gets, and yet there still is the occasional romantic comedy which is quite enjoyable.
While there is certainly a lot of shared source material in fantasy (I'd add the Arthur legend to the mix, as it has served as a cultural cornerstone for English literature for centuries), some of it is surely Campbellian or Jungian in nature: ordinary person gets called to adventure, aided by elder mentor, gains a talisman, you can fill in the rest based on high school English.
The kicker is what you do with your source material. Shakespeare wasn't inventing new stories. He was melding them into something new, same with Marlowe and the rest (you're telling me "Is this the face that launched a thousand ships" was new?). Tolkien was heavily, heavily influenced by Beowulf and the Kalavala -- so much, in fact, that I've argued before that one could almost consider it fanfic. The Matrix is a re-packaging of "Neuromancer" , "Johnny Mnemonic", "Ghost in the Shell", and a few other anime/cyber-punk stories. What makes these re-tellings interesting, fun, and valuable is the originality they insert and the way they do their nods to the sources.
Edding's "Belgariad", though derivative, retains some value because of what he does with the standard fantasy ensemble of innocent called to adventure, elder wizard in disguise, sly rogue, northern warrior, and snooty princess. That he does nothing new with those characters in the "Mallorean" is why I place a black mark next to Edding's name.
Jordan's "Wheel of Time" is a giant rip-off of Tolkien -- if you tell me that Trollocs and Myrradheal aren't based on Orcs and Nazghul, I'm going to lose a lot of respect for you. In his first book, he introduces some concepts from other sources and he melds them in entertaining fashion. It's only after the next books when he shows himself to be an utterly abysmal writer -- one who wasted all his original ideas in the first book and is now prolonging the series simply to turn a buck -- that I lose respect for him and his work.
Martin, despite the Tolkien-esque "G.R.R." authorial prefix, does deviate from the norm. His "Fire and Ice" series does have some swashbuckling, but the strong presence of political maneuvering makes his work a different beast from others in the genre.
Other hacks though? Terry Brooks, Piers Anthony, Kevin J. Anderson, and, now, Christopher Paolini.
Not hacks? Vernor Vinge, Frank Herbert (mostly), Neal Stephenson (even if his endings need work).
Reply
I've not been able to get into either Terry Brooks or Jordan, and am willing to put that down to good taste. ;) I did actually skim through about six of the Wheel books before giving up. Yawn.
Terry Goodkind has by all accounts descended into hackery, though Wizard's First Rule was a pretty decent book.
Stephen R. Donaldson isn't a hack, though I learn he's started another series in the Thomas Covenant story arc that I haven't read. Beware sequels released 20 years later!
Tad Williams' novice series Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn is a decent entry into the "inspired by Tolkien" category, and his subsequent works haven't really been totally in-genre so it's hard to make a direct comparison. His later, unrelated work War of the Flowers was uninspiring.
I've got your back on your other designations. I'm not sure whether Martin really falls into the same category, though. There seems to be a different category of "history-like" fantasy that involves the conflicts of characters against each other for their own ends. I'm willing to hear arguments about how this evolved from the Tolkein formula, but I need to think a bit more about the distinctions.
It seems like some people have one good series or novel in them, and they just keep writing that novel or series again and again. In general, as much as I yearn to know more about the characters in a good story, endless sequels really just kill off the joy eventually.
Now I want to start categorizing books and authors. Sheeesh :)
Reply
Sadly, I find myself inexplicably drawn to Jordan when in airport bookshops and finding nothing else to read (Hudson News has appalling selection, unsurprisingly). Also, sadly, I actually almost enjoyed his last effort, as the story actually moved forward. I say almost enjoyed, as it did nothing to remove the utter disgust I had at his previous book where, literally, nothing happened for 900+ pages. Setup, schmetup.
I don't think Martin is that similar to Tolkien but in name. There are dragons, yes. But that's about the extent of the similarity. I think you're apt in your description of Martin as in the historical fantasy genre that isn't mainly about magic, wizards, conflicts with gods, or similar things in the general fantasy genre.
Reply
Reply
I see the question of hackery to some extent separate from enjoyability. Piers Anthony's books descend in quality over time while retreading the same formulas. (To be fair, I haven't read anything of his in a long while.)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment