The works of J. R. R. Tolkien

If he doesn't, I do.

 

Let her have it. I'm not fond of overlarge books if it can be avoided. I'm actually kind of interested in that boxed set floating around that has three separate volumes paginated as one book (as was Tolkien's intention). I'll likely get that one day.

 

Thanks! I am in the process of collecting extra books for my future classroom. Obviously, multiple sets of Tolkien's works are a good idea.

 

Do you use Tree and Leaf? If I taught literature/creative writing to young people (or older people, if I could get away with it), I'd definitely use "On Fairy-Stories" and "Leaf by Niggle" (in some capacity) as a one-two punch on the fundamentals of creating story rooted in the mythical or fantastical. As I suggested above, the former is explanatory, while the latter is demonstrative. "On Fairy-Stories" is Tolkien's philosophy on fantasy, or mythological narratives, while "Leaf by Niggle" can be read as an allegory of the creative process.

I can't think of a better example of something that could open young minds to the idea of creating stories than these. I'm speculating, though. I'm not sure how this would work in actual practice.

 

I have not read this Tree and Leaf you suggest. I'll have to find a copy. The teaching of writing is fast becoming my specialty, so I'm always on the lookout for good resources.

I don't use Tolkien in teaching much, other than as a reference point with older students, most of whom have read Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit at the very least. At the middle school level, though, it's something I suggest students read as an alternative to a lot of the YA fantasy out there, and that is why I always need more books for my classroom.

 

You should at least read Tree and Leaf for yourself. It's like peering into the heart of Tolkien.

 

[I probably should have just posted here instead of my blog.

@Levite @rogue49 @Shadowex3 @amonkie : Feel free to repost your responses from the blog.

@Levite : For clarity's sake, if you want to repost your first response, I will repost my response to it (and so on), using the quote feature to avoid confusion.

I figured that a conversation may stem further and would be easier to manage in an already existing thread.]

Reading this is refreshing to me. However, it's similar to Michael Moorcock's views in his non-fiction on the genre. I suppose I need to keep reminding myself of such thoughts, as they align with my own in varying degrees.

I don't hate Tolkien or "Tolkienesque fantasy," but that mode of fantasy offers diminishing rewards to me regarding what I hope to experience with the fantastical in literature. The best of it I like, but it does have its limitations and drawbacks.

For the record, I've never considered The Lord of the Rings my favourite fantasy work. Also, I haven't read the work of China Miéville, though I suppose I should get to it shortly. It has always looked intriguing to me.

When people dis fantasy—mainstream readers and SF readers alike—they are almost always talking about one sub-genre of fantastic literature. They are talking about Tolkien, and Tolkien's innumerable heirs. Call it 'epic', or 'high', or 'genre' fantasy, this is what fantasy has come to mean. Which is misleading as well as unfortunate.​

​

Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious—you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike—his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés—elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings—have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.​

​

That is a revolting idea, and one, thankfully, that plenty of fantasists have ignored. From the Surrealists through the pulps—via Mervyn Peake and Mikhael Bulgakov and Stefan Grabiński and Bruno Schulz and Michael Moorcock and M. John Harrison, and I could go on—the best writers have used the fantastic aesthetic precisely to challenge, to alienate, to subvert and undermine expectations.​

​

Of course I'm not saying that any fan of Tolkien is no friend of mine—that would cut my social circle considerably. Nor would I claim that it's impossible to write a good fantasy book with elves and dwarfs in it—Michael Swanwick's superb Iron Dragon's Daughtergives the lie to that. But given that the pleasure of fantasy is supposed to be in its limitless creativity, why not try to come up with some different themes, as well as unconventional monsters? Why not use fantasy to challenge social and aesthetic lies?​

​

Thankfully, the alternative tradition of fantasy has never died. And it's getting stronger. Chris Wooding, Michael Swanwick, Mary Gentle, Paul di Filippo, Jeff VanderMeer, and many others, are all producing works based on fantasy's radicalism. Where traditional fantasy has been rural and bucolic, this is often urban, and frequently brutal. Characters are more than cardboard cutouts, and they're not defined by race or sex. Things are gritty and tricky, just as in real life. This is fantasy not as comfort-food, but as challenge.​

​

The critic Gabe Chouinard has said that we're entering a new period, a renaissance in the creative radicalism of fantasy that hasn't been seen since the New Wave of the sixties and seventies, and in echo of which he has christened the Next Wave. I don't know if he's right, but I'm excited. This is a radical literature. It's the literature we most deserve.​

​

― China Miéville​

 

No need to repost, my point was more generic than specifically directed to Tolkien. (gotta give him his due though)
Basically, enjoy what works for you. No rules.
I find that I often like the things critics nit-pick about...for any media, topic or author. (Dr. Suess is just as enjoyable as HP Lovecraft...both are fantasy in their own way)
The nay-sayers can have their own meal...I'll eat mine with a smile.

 

I'm rewatching Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring at the moment, and I'm pretty sure that after I'm done with this current marathon, I'm going to be in for a lengthy rereading.

 

I haven't. I like Seamus Haney's a lot.

EDIT: Ooooh, it's in at the public library. I'll have to put a hold on it.

 

I keep getting tempted by it in the fantasy section of the bookstore I go to. I've read only Heaney's version. Though, if you haven't read John Gardner's novel Grendel, do it.