|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:44 pm
I am called Leavaros. This thread is mainly made in response to the comments about Tolkein's writing style. Enjoy.
*****
I think that it is unfair to cluster Tolkein into the "wordy" category. He is considered by many people, myself included, as one of the founding fathers of Fantasy.
Like Narnia, the style is archaic at best, but in their prime they were amazing books, and are still beloved by many people.
The differences between the two of course, are rather large. On one hand, Lewis drew much of its plot, characters, and settings directly from the Christian bible. While entertaining, this makes for some rather "cookie cutter" characters.
On the other, Tolkein drew his inspiration from the realms of ancient Celtic and Nordic Paganism, sometimes clumped into "Northern European Mythology". The very setting, Middle-Earth, comes from one of the nine worlds of NEM, Midgard, where humans resided. The elves, dwarves, and humans, at least, are directly derived from this long dead faith.
While many modern fantasists seem to ignore the power of word choice and inflection, Tolkein's style was to use it like a paintbrush. That is--to paint color, humanity, and realism into a world on a written page. This style has won many fans. It won me.
*****
Besides, Lewis was considered radical in its time,
/
who inspired Tolkein--also considered radical when it was first published.
/
Ursula LeGuin read these as a child and fell in love with fantasy. Her best known work is the Earthsea Cycle, which was pivotal, even revolutionary, to the genre--it was easy to read. If your parents read them, ask them: Harry Potter wasn't the first series to sport a school for wizards.
/
Guess who read LeGuin when she was a little lass in the UK? J.K. Rowling! We all know how big she is. And like those before her, was considered radical. The word Satanic was thrown around quite a bit as well....
Please tell me I've enlightened somebody?!?
Or did anyone bother to read though at all...?
...
*sigh*
Why do I even bother?
-Leavaros
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 7:24 pm
I have certainly become enlightened, well, more informed is probably the better word. Though being a cinical universtiy english major I am prone to wanting sources, as my prof says... "If you can't cite it, clearly you made it up." This is rather discouraging considering that if you follow that logic there are no original ideas left in the world, only cloned and improved upon modifications that were once original.
I'm just blathering though, I thought it was interesting! I'd never heard of LeGuin before, I think I might even try and track down that Earthsea Cycle that she wrote just to confirm your thesis...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:46 pm
Dont worry, I'm basically obsessed with this sort of thing.
And its very simple, really, as to the sources part. Read the books, look at the dates of publishing and the author's age at the time of writing, and above all, read biographies and watch documentaries about these authors. As you'll see, a little goes a long way.
Cynical does seem to be the word of the day. neutral But remember, additions to the genre--and to everything, really, are made with each passing generation. Look how far Fantasy has come in such a short time. I think it is a bit... disrespectful to say that all ideas are recycled. I don't think that it does the authors justice to pass such a quick and harsh judgement. For example, where did Socrates get his thoughts? From another, I suppose. But where would we be now, if he had never been born?
Still, a part of me agrees with you. Many fantasists just steal other ideas from authors and rename them, making the genre cliched and boring. I mean how many crappy dragon books stole from Mercedes Lackey?
A truly powerful fantasist weaves together a tale of many garmets, using bits and pieces from other works, but making it unique and--put simply their own. It may be true that many ideas have been used--sometimes overused, but that many ideas have NOT been used: that is the heart of this genre.
After all, if you take that ideal, that fantasy from Fantasy, what is left, but a row of books with blank pages?
Sincerely in response,
-Leavaros Dapple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:44 pm
I didn't mean my statement about sources literally, I was just kidding, I'll be a stickler once I become a teacher.
I also didn't mean everything was recycled, but you can't over look the fact that the core ideas, philosophies etc., were all derived from ancient texts and myths created by men and women thousands of years ago. I'm not saying no one has a good take on any of it, I think the fantasy genre has come a long way since the likes of Beowulf but I see most of the stuff getting written is just a new name and label.
When I see fantasy writing today, a lot of it is hashed and half thought out, writers add in cosmically challenged beings without any sort of merit and heroes that are far too cliche to be believable to a reader. I do just what you said about weaving ideas together. I'm not saying others don't but I know from experience that a there isn't anything better than solving a stereotypical fantasy mystery or problem only to have solved two in the process. My novel is a massive collection of ideas from all genres, classes and mediums. I take ideas from movies, books, paintings and even sketches and throw them into my idea scrap book. My only problem is I think that if I don't chill out a bit I might fill up the tank a little too full if you catch my drift.
Oh, I really don't know anything about Socrates. I take it he was a great thinker of his time. Socrates though, and many other thinkers, because the world was relatively new to them, drew on outward experiences of the world to draw their knowledge from. They've been refined over the years, most of their ideas have been abandoned and proved incorrect.
In any case, I personally don't mind if a writer goes after an idea already on the market a hundred times. I don't mind as long as I'm not thinking about the other book while reading theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:26 am
Yes, cynical indeed.
Clearly you don't know too much about Socrates, but in any case, I'm sure you'll be a fine writer. Just try to be a tad less dark with your presumptions about Fantasy, and I'm sure a whole new world will fall right into your lap. You merely have to let it.
Hoping For Your Success,
Vale,
-Leavaros Dapple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:37 am
Clearly, I already said I knew nothing about Socrates.
And writing is what I'm best at, I also have nothing but respect for fantasy writers, well, writers in general. Creating a world is the easy part, creating everything in it is the hard part. The fun part is writing about it 4laugh .
Believe me, the best stories are the dark ones, having a dark view helps you see the brighter side of things and ideas, lets you enjoy what you like all the more.
I already have my world, and my character to traverse its every inch of it. I got more loop holes, happy endings, sad endings, bagabonds, warriors, lovely ladies and evil war lords to last me until I die. I don't really need success, if I can get out what's in my head, who cares about being published.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:16 pm
It's good that you are writing, and believe me, I am happy that you have so much that you can put on paper. wink
Still.... While dark stories generally do shed some light on things--especially those things that matter most--I always like to remember that the most beautiful, meaningful night is that one when the full moon christens the land with her silver light. Complete dark shows nothing, but the mysterious glow gives everything new life, and with dawn--and dusk--the sun streaks majesty onto all he touches.
Remember this, and no doubt you'll be a fine writer.
-Leavaros Dapple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 11:45 pm
You rely far too much on your sense of sight, and seem to enjoy abusing the gift of sight as well as reading about it. The most fulfilling experience is being able to stand in complete darkness out in the middle of nowhere and just become your surroundings. Sight is merely a secondary feature to the human body. You can't feel a cold breeze, you can't see the rustle of pine needles and the patter of feet over dewed leaves and smell what air really smells like. An eclipsed moon shows you more than any two moons at peak reflection. Even if you are in the middle of a city, and all the lights are off, and if you're lucky and there are no cars, lean up against a building and wait for the breeze. Sight means nothing, it is merely how we gauge the world, nothing more, our other senses do so much that we take for granted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 20, 2006 8:23 pm
Ummm.... I meant it metaphorically. I understand what you're saying, but I think you are evading my point.
In any case, you seem to wish for the upper hand. So there. You win. That is what you wanted, isn't it? A white flag? Well you got it, bud. It is pointless, I think, discussing this with you any further.
I think that, in the end, we simply have views that are nearly opposite each other, and neither one of us wishes to concede the point that one of us is wrong. Because neither of us is wrong, not really. Certainly you can look at the world like it is a hopeless failure, that there are no new ideas and our morals are deteriorating. We know that the world isn't a perfect place.
Or we can break the viscious cycle of what Hemingway refers to as "Nada". I know, an idealist calling on a man who committed suiced--with the gun his father committed suicide with, no less--is a bit unusual. But even so, if we feel that the world is a place worth living in, a place where good can grow and be nurtured in the human heart, where peace and democracy rule the Earth; then maybe, just maybe, we can begin.
Only so much time is allotted to each life, and I, at least, intend to use it to the best of my ability for the betterment of this world, and all of its citizens.
Even the cynics among us.
-Leavaros Dapple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:56 am
I never said I was or wanted to be right, I'd rather be wrong, I learn more that way you see!
This is a polite discussion, there is no need for upper hands. I didn't catch what you meant in a metaphorical sense, understandably, it's hard to judge tones when you're reading text.
I don't view the world as a hopeless failure, nor a world full of hopeless failures. I see it in a darker light so that when I come across good things and people I can appreciate them more than if I took a neutral view and simply didn't care, or a positive view and ended up undervaluing that which is good with the world.
The point you made about good growing and being nurished in the human heart is almost entirely what my serial is about. My character interacts with a corrupt and unjust feudal society, becomes part of it and then realises what he's actually doing much later on. That's what I enjoy, the build up to the world shattering epiphany where one realises all that was right in the world is now for the most part gone but still he/she is in some way redeemable.
Democracy is just a double-edged sword, in reality, nothing gets done. But if you get enough like minded people together it just turns into a social dictatorship, but that's another story.
I'm glad you've decided to use yourself as a tool for the betterment on mankind, or the world as you put it, well, actually both. It takes anyone to say they want to do good, but it takes a special someone to actually do that good, even if it's just a little. I don't wish to undertake something so drastic. I am taking the subtle root of fixing the greater issue by becoming a teacher. My goal is try and mould impressionable youth into someone who is going to follow the greater path and like you, do something about the world and its people. I realise that's an awefully objective statement, and my intentions could go either way on the good and evil scale, but in truth, reality and the world have no room for good and evil. All I want my future to know is that being true to ones self is more important than anything else in the world, because it allows for a greater acceptance of truth about the world and its dealings.
Demon
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 21, 2006 8:28 pm
Demon,
To you I say this: "Well done." It takes an impressive writer to not only salve a certain pride, but breed like-mindedness as well. I think I understand what you mean now, about the dark light. I couldn't have done it; I suppose that is my own flaw as a writer: that is, not being able to tie ends together.
My goal, of course, has not changed. In this mission I remain steadfast in "slow reform". Still, we should save the discussion about democracy for another day, hmm?
Mother and Father agree more with you, of course. The Father is a teacher, and a damn good one. The Mother believes that if she herself is a kind person, she can influence others to be kind as well.
Well, anyway, if anyone can destroy ignorance and cruelty, it is those two. If I could change, then, truly, anything is possible.
Vale,
-Leavaros Dapple
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:47 pm
I also see Tolkien as one of the founding fathers of the modern fantasy novel and I love his books. Lewis is another one of my favorites and his books will always be classics, cherished forever. However, I have not read the Earthsea Cycle. Do you think it is a good read? Because I am, and have been for a while, very interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 5:29 pm
Its worth a read through, but don't expect 5 star material.
The first is called "A Wizard of Earthsea".
Vale,
-LD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:08 pm
Hehehe! Leavaros, and demon, you were entertaining to read. You both have two very different views on what is good in a book. Being of both the dark and the light time, and having read more than my share of books; I can sincerely say you are both right. You just value two different things in books. I enjoy both being in the dark, and having the sight light brings as well. A good book, you two, has both. Remember that. wink
Back to the topic, that was a very informative history Leavaros. I knew some of it, but most was very unknown to me. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:58 am
Cat fight XD I actually know little about Tolkien and never read any of his books, so yall can tell me all about him if you want wink But I found more interesting topics within this discussion.... Don't let all my periods and commas scare you. I use them to be legible and easier to understand *found all the semicolons and commas from Demon, Leavaros, and Kiyome the Dragon intimidating* Demon Democracy is just a double-edged sword, in reality, nothing gets done. But if you get enough like minded people together it just turns into a social dictatorship, but that's another story. I've never thought of that O.o but, yeah...that does seem to ring true to me. Demon Believe me, the best stories are the dark ones, having a dark view helps you see the brighter side of things and ideas, lets you enjoy what you like all the more. I already have my world, and my character to traverse its every inch of it. I got more loop holes, happy endings, sad endings, bagabonds, warriors, lovely ladies and evil war lords to last me until I die. I don't really need success, if I can get out what's in my head, who cares about being published. First, I LOVE happy endings. "Too happy" ones suck. They sicken me and I start wishing for somebody to die twisted domokun Especially in movies...even though movies and writing are different in my view. I agree very much that a dark stories are very good and can get points across better. If it's so dark, you just kinda stare and ask, "Why!? Why does Jane have to die!? Why can't they get married and have many kids!? crying gonk " Darkness provokes questions. Like a deformed or ugly person gets your attention more. You ask why they're deformed and you want the details and the story. And happy stories...hmm...They're so happy and just caught up in the "happy feelings." Think about when you're just SO happy. You can't think much past that feeling of happiness. You're content and smile and don't ask questions. I think, the same think is true with a story... I find it shocking you don't want to get published. Most people want to get published, even I do. But I do kinda understand...You don't want to clutter up the libraries of the world with more sappy, half baked stories, correct? I would want to be published for pats on the back, fame, have fans, etc. Less for bettering mankind and their libraries, more for "Oh, Carol! You're WONDERFUL! WE LOVE YOU!!!" But in order to get that effect, I might have to write stories that attempt to better mankind, reveal truths to them and show them things about themselves. But...if I could just write for myself like I did when I was a kid, then I'd have a whole library full of stories, some sappy, some about a floating dead kid in a river XP (wrote a very short story about that once when I was like 9. I must have been a demented kid...) I even enjoy going back and READING my old stories. And, aren't these sappy self-libraries where the great ideas come from? Great writers started with ideas, wrote a bunch for their self-library, then went back and pulled out those stories and ideas to write a book for the World to read. Now I've open up more a lot more cans of worms mrgreen Ugliness and beauty, movies vs. writing, why does one write, and more. Somebody make a mountain out of a molehill with me. domokun
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
