# Never finish your own revolution. . .did Tolkien end his?



## HLGStrider (Feb 7, 2005)

I just finished reading Irving Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy about the life of Michelangelo, and I drew some comparisions between Leonardo Di Vinci's warning to Michelangelo and Tolkien's work as compared to those who have followed after him. 

After viewing the Sistine ceiling, Da Vinci warns his contemporary that he has taken anatomical painting to its limits, and it would tempt those who followed after him to take it to an extreme and paint all anatomy rather than art. Later, when looking on a statue carved by a younger sculptor, which is all muscle with no craft, M. remembers the warning, and gives himself the advice "Never finish your own revolution."

I am setting forth a theory that, in some ways, Tolkien finished his revolution by completing a work so perfect within itself, so uncopiable, that no author can learn from it without going seriously astray. . .

Ok, ok, ok, I don't mean that. You can learn from Tolkien BUT there are serious mistakes you can learn from studying Tolkien and trying to up it to the next level in one particular area.

I recently was reading two reviews of two seperate authors of two seperate series. One was, I'll name it just to get some controversy because I know it has on site fans, the Wheel of Time series. I am not totally sure if I remember correctly, but I think the other was that King series, Dark Tower, but I don't know if I just read another review of that at the same time and am attributing the quote to that because I can't remember the name of the book, so I wouldn't quote me on that.

A grain of salt should be taken because in both cases the reviewer was not a "fantasy" reviewer but a general reviewer who was just making a short blurb on each book that had made some best seller list. He was reviewing romance and mystery novels at the same time, anything that had reached the top ten, but in the case of both books, the reviewer warned that if you are not a fan and not willing to follow every detail, you will quickly become confused and lost because of the complex cultures and details outlined and the complicated plots.

Now, Tolkien has a detailed history behind his work, a whole other language, etc. I haven't read King's work, but I have read Jordans, and I would somewhat agree that he has taken the "culture detail" and history that adds so much depth to Tolkien to a near extreme. I have said elsewhere that I stopped reading the Jordan books for various reasons I think two books before the last one, and I have been afraid to pick them up again because I know I will have forgotten what is going on. The whole thing is very complex, and you have to be devoted to follow it. You can't read these books casually.

Is it possible that Tolkien, by adding so much rich history into his books, has upped the anty too far for those getting into the business. Does everyone now have to have a language and a back ground history? Or am I just going too far with this?

HLG


----------



## Starbrow (Feb 16, 2005)

I agree with much of what you say, Elgee. I think many fantasy writers try to build their own world too, but they can't match Tolkien's masterpiece, LOTR. I think part of that is because Tolkien doesn't try to include all of Middle-Earth's history in LOTR; he saves it for the appendices and the Silmarillion. I believe you have to have a good head for detail to keep all the elves straight in the Sil. I haven't read an author that treats the historical background the same way Tolkien does. 

One feature in my LOTR books that I wish other series would have is a synopsis of the previous books at the beginning of each new book. I can't possibly remember all those characters for 1-2 years waiting for the next book in the series to come out. Especially when I'm reading more than 1 series.


----------



## scotsboyuk (Feb 17, 2005)

@HLGStrider

Steven King was much more inspired by H.P. Lovecraft than by Tolkien. Lovecraft has a rather detailed, if somewhat slapdash background to his stories, his 'Mythos'. Tolkien's background came about through a concerted effort, Lovecraft's would appear to have been developed more in the stories he wrote.

Some of Lovecraft's stories tie in with one another and he paints a very wide ranging, in terms of both space and time, and dramatic background picture.


----------



## HLGStrider (Feb 17, 2005)

I haven't read King's work, and it may not have been him the reviewer was reviewing. Like I said I read that one particular review about a year ago, and I can't remember the author or title, only that it was part of a long series of fantasy.

I haven't read Lovecraft either of course. I am ashamed to admit it, but as a fantasy fan, I like the Junvenielle shelves better than the Adult sections of the library. Whereas I like my "real" stories written more grown up than the teen section. My second favorite fantasy author is Lloyd Alexander for his Prydian cycle. Alexander tends to simply take a real world culture and change the name of the country and redraw a map. Prydia was the only book he ever got around making a real background for, and it is his richest series, but you get the idea that the background was not because he felt it needed one but because he truly loved writing in Prydia.

Similiarly, Ursula Le Guin probably does the best of those I have read of following in Tolkien's footsteps with a proper balance of history and not over doing the detail. I have only read a little of her work, however.


----------



## Mike (Feb 21, 2005)

> My second favorite fantasy author is Lloyd Alexander for his Prydian cycle. Alexander tends to simply take a real world culture and change the name of the country and redraw a map. Prydia was the only book he ever got around making a real background for, and it is his richest series, but you get the idea that the background was not because he felt it needed one but because he truly loved writing in Prydia.




LLoyd Alexander rocks! I love the Prydain books, second favourite fantasy novels after "The Lord of the Rings."


----------



## Starbrow (Feb 21, 2005)

LeGuin is my second favorite author. Along with her Earthsea fantasy books, she has some excellent science-fiction. By the way, did anyone see the Earthsea mini-series on the Sci-Fi channel in December?


----------



## Gothmog (Feb 22, 2005)

There is one major difference between Tolkien and those authors that try to learn from him, or even copy his style. Tolkien never set out to write stories about Middle-earth, he set out to invent languages for his own enjoyment. In doing this he needed to give these languages a history and development along the lines that did happen to languages in the real world.

It was this development and history that became what we know as _The Silmarillion_ and _The History of Middle-earth_. In _LotR_ and also in _The Hobbit_ it is Tolkien's knowledge of this history rather than his inclusion of detail that gives the stories their depth of time.

Some authors may try to put too much historical detail in the stories they write which can cause problems in following the plot.


----------



## Mike (Feb 22, 2005)

> Some authors may try to put too much historical detail in the stories they write which can cause problems in following the plot.




True, true. I couldn't agree more. That's what makes the prydain books so great: the Welsh legends were already set out and the author just concentrated on the story.

Fanatasy authors should learn to set out their histories beforehand and use it as a background to the main story.


----------

