Friends of mine got to arguing the other day about what the hell happened to fantasy fiction, about how it had all turned into boring multi-volume epics and Tolkien-derived trash. I gave my opinion like so: Yes, a lot of this is due to Tolkien becoming canonized, meaning that people see him as being the model for this sort of thing. But how we got there is a little tricky.
Before J.R.R. Tolkien became canonized, and even to some degree after, the term "fantasy" covered a broad range of writers and styles. Mervyn Peake and C.S. Lewis (and of course Peter S. Beagle) come to mind — the former a drastically underrated writer, the latter probably overrated but at the very least demonstrating a style and POV as distinct from Tolkien's as Tolkien's was from other authors. Tolkien was only one voice among many. And Beagle is about as essential a writer as you get in any realm, but that's another essay. The Wizard of Oz and Alice in Wonderland were and still are other examples of where else this sort of thing can go, but they get routinely labeled as children's stories: nice if you're a kid, but not "serious" fantasy (whatever that means).
Then came the fantasy explosion of the Seventies and Eighties. I credit a lot of this not to fantasy writing as such but to the rise of tabletop RPGs — Dungeons and Dragons being the big one, obviously. If you were into RPGs, you were almost certainly into fantasy fiction and vice versa. The two functioned as revolving doors into each other's showrooms.
Then the makers of D&D started publishing fantasy fiction that used the prepackaged settings in the game as backdrops for various adventures. People who cut their teeth on fantasy by playing D&D or by reading the D&D setting novels soon had a working definition of fantasy that was D&D, period. And since the model for a lot of what happened in D&D was the Tolkien Quest, Tolkien and all of his fourth-rate imitators came way into the foreground. Peake and Lewis and Beagle and all the rest faded back quite a lot, and before you knew it along came The Wheel of Time and the rest of that dismal scrapyard of thrice-recycled ideas and settings. The whole idea of what constituted fantasy fiction has become damaged, its scope narrowed and its branches pruned.
I am not arguing that the Tolkien model is bad or that it should be junked. I am simply saying it is only one possibility among many, and that when we ignore the others we make ourselves all the poorer.
I'm reminded of Michael Tolkin (no relation, ha ha) and his spiel about how one of the worst things to happen to filmmaking — Hollywood or otherwise, really — was the introduction of the Syd Field school of template-driven screenwriting. Not only were screenwriters falling all over themselves to master this cookie-cutter three-act / twelve-beat structure, but producers and executives were taking the exact same screenwriting classes so they would know what scripts to look for. The problem I have with distilling storytelling down to a formula or a template is not that I don't believe in the old canard of "all successful stories have something in common"; it's that I don't believe such things can be extruded by the yard and shrinkwrapped to order. When you think in terms of a formula, that's all you end up seeing; when you have Tolkien as your only model, everything looks like the One Ring.
Despite all of this, there have been signs of life outside the usual channels; authors like China Mieville come to mind, and Beagle himself is enjoying a bit of a revival thanks to the brouhaha over The Last Unicorn. But I worry that the damage has been done for keeps.
Follow me on
Friend me on
Friend me on
Also on 




I so agree with you. One of the things I love about "children's lit" is that it is so different than cookie-cutter fantasy. I grew up on Tolkien - my dad gave my first set of Hobbit/LoTR when I was like 9 or something - and I was one of those D&D kids. But fantasy books are all so similar, that it's hard to get in to the story sometimes, because you know where it's going as soon as you finish the first chapter. I've found a few good ones over the years, though. Attanasio's Arthur series (starting with Dragon and the Unicorn) was good, though occasionally dense. The Uglies series (maybe more sci-fi than fantasy) is a good entry into the YAF genre. And you can always rely on Neil Gaiman - I just bought the Graveyard Book, and I'm looking forward to it.
[Reply to this comment]
Things have definitely gotten better as of late, partly due to more of the older material being out of copyright and easier to get a hand on or reissue, and a few folks who deserve the attention finally receiving it. Gaiman's a perfect example: he's a touch hit-or-miss for my taste, but when he's on he's better than most anyone else out there.
(He also has this terrible tendency to quote-gush on flap copy for other people's works, which makes him seem about as fine-grained in his critical senses as Harry Knowles, but that's entirely separate from his merits as a writer.)
[Reply to this comment]
What's kind of ironic is that 'High Fantasy' has come to be completely synonymous, not just with Tolkien's style of writing, but with the style and scope of writing Tolkien used in The Lord of the Rings... and the irony of it is that Tolkien, and in LotR especially... wasn't writing 'high fantasy', he was writing fantastic history. His world was very much grounded in the real world. His legendarium was intended, much like Howard's work, as 'forgotten Ages' of our world.
And I think that similarity, in fact, may be part of why the focus of fantasy has narrowed: the 'hero's quest' of mighty warriors battling hideous monsters is an incredibly old one, and there's just a whole mess of it to regurgitate out in pre-packaged (and in the last 20-30 years, film-ready) form. Gilgamesh, Heracles, Beowulf, Sigfried, and of course, Arthur, all provide the easy-access to 'product'. If anything, at least Tolkien's main hero (in Rings, at least) wasn't a mighty-thewed warrior who hacked his way to happily-ever-after.
I don't think you have any doubt about whether I like Tolkien's writing. But yeah, there needs to be a greater breadth in 'fantasy' out there. Maybe you could wri... oh, wait... right. nm. ;)
[Reply to this comment]
Exactly! I don't dislike Tolkien for what he is -- I have a beef with the way his work's become the be-all / end-all / do-all for so much fantasy writing.
I also like the distinction you draw between "high fantasy" and "fantastic history" -- I think it's a distinction that's been obscured over time with a concomitant loss of understanding about what each one is. The first is "this is something else, somewhere else"; the second is "this is what we were and maybe still are". (At least that's how I saw it.)
[Reply to this comment]
Perhaps this is why I stopped reading regular fantasy. I grew tired of whole epic against evil quests. I admit, I never really thought about it before.
One thing I do know, and something I learned from anime and manga, is that I definitely prefer character-driven stories. I'm tired of the evil-because-they're-evil villains. I like villains with personality, and conflict. And I like heroes with issues, and self-doubt. Shades of gray are good.
But mostly I like stories about people, rather than quests. I don't care how engaging a quest is. If the characters are boring, then so's the book. *raspberries*
(Forgive my non-literary comment. This is what occurred to me to say, so...yeah.)
[Reply to this comment]
All of this is exactly why I started writing my books, so you've hit it right on the head. All the best stories are about people and not things, and especially not plots.
[Reply to this comment]
Leave a comment