Offline life is busy enough, with few enough prospects for things letting up any time soon, that I am finally forced to admit it’s time for an open thread. So let’s go a little further afield this time, and talk about favorite (or otherwise interesting) responses to The Lord of the Rings in fiction.
Of course in a broad sense the very existence of fantasy as a publishing genre is a consequence of the success of The Lord of the Rings. And I’ve heard more than one writer say that all English-language fantasy has to, in some fashion, come to grips with Tolkien’s influence on the field. But I think it would be more interesting to talk specifically, about books or authors (though those of you who do write fantasy, I would be curious to hear your thoughts.)
Three things jump to my mind when I think of fiction that’s a clear response to LotR. First, the anthology After the King, edited by Martin H. Greenberg, which is subtitled “Stories in Honor of J.R.R. Tolkien.” I last read it almost seven years ago, and I’m taking it with me on this business trip to see what I think of it now. For instance, I would be pretty surprised if I didn’t still love my favorite of the anthology, Emma Bull’s fairy tale “Silver or Gold,” but I will make a conscious effort to look at it (and other stories) in relation to Tolkien, not just as a story. My memory of it doesn’t supply any obvious immediate connection.
Second, Guy Gavriel Kay’s first published novels, the Fionavar Tapestry. Kay assisted Christopher Tolkien with editing The Silmarillion, and I have always thought of Fionavar as his getting The Silmarillion out of his system [*], though large and important chunks of it also seem to be responses to LotR specifically—the women, the role of choice at crucial moments, probably more that don’t come to mind because I haven’t read it for a while.
[*] See also Sharon Shinn’s The Shape-Changer’s Wife, which feels to me like her getting The Last Unicorn out of her system but even even more so. There are probably additional examples to be found.
(Apropos of nothing but their awesomeness, check out the posters of the first-edition covers of the Fionavar Tapestry. I own The Darkest Road and the picture doesn’t do it justice.)
Finally, Terry Pratchett’s Discworld. This comes to mind because the most recent, Unseen Academicals (which I haven’t had time to review yet; see our own Arachne Jericho’s review), has a thread in fairly close dialogue with LotR . . . in a way that’s not made explicit until 2/3 of the way through, so I leave it at that. But more generally Discworld’s roots as a parody of secondary-world fantasy tropes, and its later extrapolating those tropes into concrete worldbuilding, owe a fair amount to LotR. There’s Carrot the lost heir with the extremely non-magical but very sharp sword, female dwarves with beards (since non-dwarves can’t tell female and male dwarves apart), dragons, and a whole lot of stuff in The Colour of Magic and The Light Fantastic that I barely remember.
Fionavar and Discworld are very different, to say the least: Fionavar is swimming in seriously mythic waters, while Discworld is much more interested in the day-to-day. But they’re both part of a conversation with Tolkien’s works, saying “this bit, fabulous; but what about this bit, if we look at it another way?” And as such, they help me think about Tolkien’s works, which is a nice bonus on top of their being good stories in their own right.
What fiction responses to Tolkien do you particularly like or did you find particularly useful?
« Two Towers IV.6 | Index | Two Towers IV.7 »
Kate Nepveu was born in South Korea and grew up in New England. She now lives in upstate New York where she is practicing law, raising a family, and (in her copious free time) writing at her LiveJournal and booklog.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 20, 2009 05:58pm EST
In many ways, Tolkien is like HG Wells. Anyone who wants to write fiction in that particular genre, has to deal with them. You find yourself digging through the various aspects of the published oeuvre, finding various imperfections here and there, and deciding to "do it better".
My own Lakhabrech stories
http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=9501
are partially in response to Tolkien, partially in response to Herbert. I never got used to the two facts that Tolkien had at one stage linked the orcs and the Druedain on one hand, and on the other hand, had provided a very thin and weak justification for them. So I set up my own answer to those sorts of problems, a subset of humanity that had been genetically modified and engineered as full-spectrum predators/scavengers - taking a dedicatory bow to the gods and goddesses of the story of Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh Epic - to control the non-GE/Med humans' population explosion, but who had had a significant subset of them set themselves up as a free people - which then interbred in various circumstances, with the non-GE/Med humans ....
You either get used to Tolkien and never break free, or you take what you want and/or need, and change what you think needed to be changed ... it's much the same with other authors who have written genre-setters.
Friday November 20, 2009 07:15pm EST
Friday November 20, 2009 07:25pm EST
As an aside, note how common "elves" and "dwarves" have become as spellings, including in Evans' work. The spell checker as I type this is underlining "dwarves" in red, since proper English is "dwarfs," yet the latter looks strange in fantasy fiction.
I took more influence from The Silmarillion than from LotR. I have a head full of stories that lead up to final defeat and tragedy. Like Evans, I'm a historian (look me up and you'll find my published studies of World War 2 history), and since childhood I've been fascinated by the French and Indian Wars in north America. So, since around 1983, I've been imagining elves as Native Americans, cooperating with human ranger friends in a forest setting, somewhat like, say, Natty "Hawkeye" Bumpo and his comrades Chingachgook and Uncas in The Last of the Mohicans. Or maybe if Faramir and elves of Lorien joined forces. We'll see if any of this ever makes it into print, but if it does, you heard about it first here ;-)
Friday November 20, 2009 08:14pm EST
Tolkiens impact on Fantasy setting is huge, not just in books, but in games as well. Every game (more so even than books) with elves and dwarves and whatnot has to decide, at some point "whether or not this is going to be like Tolkien". Are these elves tall, immortal, posessed of magic, grace etc. How well do these dwarves match up to the ones that delved too deep? And of course the Dwarf/Dwarves thing is almost a given in favour of Dwarves. Explicity rejecting the "LoTR version" still is an influence, it has to be done clearly, ambiguities have to be cleared up, because often folks are going to assume the "LoTR version" otherwise. It's a default setting, maybe because it's a mostly (I repeat: mostly!) consistent safe set of assumptions you can assume your readers are familiar with. Maybe that's lazy, but maybe it's just a kind of shorthand to avoid crazy infodumps necessary to make a whole different world from scratch. Tolkien: did the crazy-long descriptive passages of fantasy settings, so you didn't have to.
Speaking of defaults: rings. Rings are like some default Macguffin/Talisman, and I can't think where else that could have come from. Them and swords, but swords had more precedent for questiness, I think.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 20, 2009 08:18pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 20, 2009 08:24pm EST
As for responses to Tolkien; I'd like to suggest The Gammage Cup, alias The Minipins by Carol Kendall. This isn't what one normally thinks of as Tolkienesque fantasy; it doesn't have elves or dwarves or dragons or lost kings or whatever. What it has is hobbits. That is, it has small people (I'm not sure how we know, as they never meet full-sized humans, but I get that sense), living a secluded country, leading very dull and normal lives, except for a few eccentrics (clearly Took descendants). And the founder of their nation is called Gammage, obviously a hobbit name.
Friday November 20, 2009 08:55pm EST
Apart from the similar format of the authors' names, the two projects have very similar origins: labours of love by two linguistics professors, creating a detailed society in which to set their constructed languages, and only later publishing fiction based there. The difference is that Barker's world is based on Eastern and not Western influences.
Actually, the wikipedia page on Barker himself says that the project was "well-advanced by the time The Lord of the Rings was released". I can't find any interviews or anything by Barker discussing Tolkien, unfortunately.
Friday November 20, 2009 10:58pm EST
My own first experience in fantasy with a magical ring was The Bird Talisman by H.A. Wedgwood and illustrated by Gwen Raverat. The talisman, a ring, gave the power to understand and command birds. The tale was written in the mid-1800s and passed around the family but not illustrated by his great great niece and published until the 1930s.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 20, 2009 11:09pm EST
Saturday November 21, 2009 12:24am EST
Saturday November 21, 2009 01:34am EST
And yes, I was actually thinking of "elven" versus "elfin," thanks for correcting that for me.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday November 21, 2009 04:08am EST
Saturday November 21, 2009 10:30am EST
What did feel Tolkienesque to me was about half the stories in Tales Before Tolkien ed. Douglas A. Anderson. As the title implies, these stories predate his work, so if anything they influenced him rather than vice versa. But some of the authors are doing their own thing in a Tolkienesque spirit, including (perhaps surprisingly) John Buchan.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday November 21, 2009 01:54pm EST
First, the relation between elves and humans in the former is entirely opposite and modeled more on traditional views of the Fae in folk tales and ballads, as heartless, ruthless, capricious, and generally hostile to humans. Given that culture or personality, put humans in the role of invading their lands, and you get a very different relationship than you do in Middle Earth - unremitting hatred and search for revenge.
Second, the role of prophecy on the people caught up in it. I wouldn't want to spoil the books for other readers, so I'll be a little vague, but they do ask a question seldom asked in genre fantasy: here everyone is, the last hope of the good guys, and they're structuring all their hopes and their whole lives around a few couplets of ancient song - and how on Earth can they be so confident they've got it right?
Part of the Greek cautionary tales of prophecy is that people were always misinterpreting it. "You shall destroy a great empire." turned out to mean the king's own. That doesn't happen much in fantasy.
How would LotR have turned out if (say) "The Crownless again shall be King!" had been just wrong? Or if it had indeed been correct, but meant something entirely different than they had thought? (Say, Frodo's decision to elevate himself to Overlord with the aid of the Ring.)
Saturday November 21, 2009 02:49pm EST
I tend to have a rather negative reaction to most of the post-LotR responses that I can think of. Prior to LotR adult fantasy was a highly varied field, covering everything from high fantasy to fable to a sort of urban fantasy. All that was wiped away in the 70s, leaving only Tolkienesque high fantasy. At least one fantasy author told me outright sometime in the mid-80s that Del Rey (meaning here very much Lester and Judy-Lynn) would not accept any other sort of fantasy and, at the time, they were the only game in town. There was a slight shift about that time, with some authors taking a somewhat different take on things, but it was really still quest-based high fantasy. Urban fantasy eventually established itself and we now have dark fantasy, retold fairy tales, and whatnot, but the real wealth of variety that existed in the first half of the 20th century is still missing.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday November 21, 2009 05:00pm EST
The "Crownless again shall be king" line isn't a prophecy. It's just a line from a poem that Bilbo wrote after meeting Aragorn.
There ARE some genuine prophecies in LoTR. A key one is the "not by the hand of man will he fall" bit about the Lord of the Nazgul. Which is a classic misleading prophecy as the Nazgul Lord falls at the hands of a woman and a hobbit.
There's also Malbeth the Seer's verse about the Paths of the Dead. However, Aragorn isn't relying on the prophecy in itself, he's relying on Elrond's advice to remember the prophecy (the implications of which reinforce Galadriel's earlier advice).
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday November 21, 2009 06:09pm EST
Rings; another example is Gyges' ring in Plato's Republic - this even had the same effect as Sauron's ring, invisibility, though you had to turn it, rather than just put it on.
Saturday November 21, 2009 09:31pm EST
We should also consider that Tolkien himself was writing as a response. I have read that Tolkien was - in a sense - creating a mythology for Great Britain. He borrowed heavily from mythology in creating Middlearth.
Tolkien is a transitional point in fantasy, not a starting point.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday November 22, 2009 07:22am EST
The terms "elf" and "dwarf" are never used, but Forest Folk live in camps and tend towards sharp features, thin bones, and red hair; Mountain Men live in stone fastnesses and tend towards short, heavy-set frames and blonde hair.
This is pretty historically accurate - it's how most of the Matter of Britain works, with the slow intermingling of communities as legend fades into everyday fact.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday November 22, 2009 08:51am EST
It is not always fair in that Tolkien created the setting for fantasy. Others worked in it prior to him, but he perfected the genre - and gave it its own section at Barnes and Noble. So it is natural that others will follow in his footsteps. So as an influencer of modern fiction, he is up there with the biggees.
He brought a fictional legacy to the world.
Thanks JRR
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday November 22, 2009 09:47am EST
Aladdin_Sane @ #1, and yet the second Shannara book, _Elfstones_, is generally thought to be pretty good--I certainly remember it as the best of the lot.
I also don't think there's anything wrong with fanfic and that quality & fanfic origins are different axes, but that is probably an argument for another time.
pilgrimsoul @ #2, but what you do you define Tolkienesque as?
Marc Rikmenspool @ #3, I'd never come across Chris Evans before, so thanks for the mention.
As a historian, I imagine you're aware of the pitfalls of fictional portrayals of American Indians, so best of luck with your stories.
AndrDrew @ #4, I know that Roguelikes have Tolkien influences (my Roguelike of choice, NetHack, has a Ranger class, for instance, besides Elves & Dwarves as races), which I think comes from D&D, yeah? Otherwise I'm pretty ignorant of games. But you're absolutely right about setting defaults, and that (plus Shakespeare) is I think one of the things Pratchett was writing against in _Lords and Ladies_, the Discworld book about nasty cruel ballad-style elves.
AnotherAndrew @ #6, also Carol Kendall is also a writer I'm not familiar with. But yes, Gammage is very very suggestive in context . . .
JoeNotCharles @ #7, if Barker's Tekumel wasn't influenced at all by _LotR_, that's some pretty bad luck on the timing . . . =>
maestro23 @ #9, yes, when I read _Riddle-master_ I definitely got the impression it was saying _something_ about Tolkien, but unfortunately I didn't understand it so I don't know what. I keep meaning to re-read it now that my favorite of McKillip's books, _The Forgotten Beasts of Eld_, has proven less good than I remembered. But that's an excellent example and well-regarded in the field.
CliftonR @ #14, I somehow managed to get out of my epic fantasy phase without reading Tad Williams. But there have certainly been interesting things done with prophecies in more recent fantasies--a trilogy I read in which the destined savior is killed at birth, that kind of thing (though I think that _LotR_ relies much less on prophecy than other works).
DemetriosX @ #15, and the Belgariad would be one of those works that relies on prophecy much more.
And mmm, I don't know about the lack of variety, but maybe this is a function of what I read because I _don't_ really read much high fantasy. What kinds of strands do you see in pre-Tolkien fantasy that we don't have now?
Trebuken @ #18, yes, Tolkien was working within a great deal of existing mythology, but I was talking about his influence on commercial publishing.
Eithin @ #19, that treatment of quasi-elves and quasi-dwarves is also a small part of Sarah Monette's final Doctrine of Labryinths book, _Corambis_. Which is also about the arrival of technology and how it interacts with magic.
Sunday November 22, 2009 09:56am EST
Sunday November 22, 2009 01:46pm EST
Another Gandalf/Merlin guide is Merriman Lyon from Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising Sequence. Obviously, Merlin more so than Gandalf, as it s fairly obvious that Merriman is Merlin.
One of my favorite reactions to Tolkien is Pat Murphy's "There and Back Again." It is a re-telling of "The Hobbit" as science fiction, and works very well.
Sunday November 22, 2009 02:48pm EST
Two other fantasists that deserve mention would be M. John Harrison and his Viriconium cycle (another major influence on Mieville, I would say) and Fritz Leiber. Leiber is best known for Fafhrd and the Mouser, who were pastiches/parodies of heroic fantasy, but he wrote a number of other varieties that really stood alone and just aren't seen anymore. At most, there is a Leiber thread running through the dark and gritty fantasies of today.
And that is what I think is missing. Virtually all of the non-high fantasies we see to day have a strong dark and/or gritty element to them, even the various fairy tale retellings. Mind you, I like quite a lot of this stuff. But there was also a lighter vein that we no longer see. No fabulists like Dunsany, no rollicking storytellers like Cabell. Those threads appear to have been pruned from the genre.
VIEW ALL BY · Sunday November 22, 2009 03:46pm EST
Sunday November 22, 2009 05:59pm EST
Sunday November 22, 2009 08:52pm EST
Great Question, but it is easier to say what it is not. I am middle aged and remember so many attempts "to do it better" than JRRT. A lot of writers seem to have said to themselves: "JRRT can't create real characters. They aren't alienated and don't think about sex all the time. So what I'll do is write a similar story where these flaws are fixed. And then fantasy will be REAL!" So we get a lot of watered down Medieval or Celtic with TONS of alienation. Boring.
Actually I like recently published fantasy better as the writers have created their own worlds rather than impose their worldviews on Middle Earth.
Sunday November 22, 2009 09:17pm EST
Sunday November 22, 2009 09:59pm EST
Ok. Tolkienesque. Let's try this on--an unashamed and unapologetic preference for good over evil, magnanimity over selfishness, and beauty over ughliness--while acknowledging the other qualities exist more in sorrow than in anger.
Other writers appear to be embarrassed by nobility and so dilute it with cynicism. JRRT did not.
I hope this makes sense.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 03:05am EST
For me, it's the formulaic derivations of LotR (whether intentional or not) that bore me. But books like Mary Gentle's "Grunts" (elves vs orcs but told from the orcs' PoV) or Glen Cook's The Black Company books (about a company of mercenaries who are pragmatic rather than noble, where good and evil are not absolutes), are responses to LotR with something new to add to the ongoing conversation.
I'm in general agreement with the idea that works like LotR (in fantasy) & Dracula (in horror) are such major works that they cast a very long shadow on all that come after, and writers (and readers) have to make that accommodation.
Monday November 23, 2009 05:12am EST
But it's all so dark. SoonLee @30 mentioned Glen Cook. His Black Company stories are also very dark, but I don't see his stuff so much as a reaction to LotR (at least not directly) but somehow connected to fantasy RPGs. His Garrett PI stories have a lot of humor (though still often dark), but there he's really channeling Hammett and Chandler.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 09:29am EST
Monday November 23, 2009 10:30am EST
The more I have thought about these other branches of fantasy, the more I see that they haven't necessarily died out. It is much more that they have lost market share and newer authors are hard to find. There were an incredible number of authors working in a wide variety of fantasy sub-genres in the mid-twentieth century. Today, non-quest-based high fantasy is hard to find and I can't think of many authors who work in that area (Gaiman, Mieville, one or two others, but only Gaiman gets much recognition).
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 11:57am EST
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 02:39pm EST
An interesting example is Jacqueline Carey's The Sundering (I have only read Vol. 1, Banewreaker), which is mostly from the POV of the chief lieutenants of a Dark Lord very much like Sauron, (He rebelled against his fellow Valar or whatever they are called here.) only this time the Good vs. Evil line is not so clear cut.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Robert Jordan. I believe he said he intentionally put some LotR-like touches in The Eye of the World. The beginning came across as a bit derivative (young boy and friends leave backwater village on a quest, led by a wizard/Aes Sedai and a ranger, pursued by black-robed riders and spied on by crows) but it certainly diverged after that.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 02:51pm EST
(* Who, come to think of it, kind of resemble Tolkien's elves, but snowy and evil. Wait a minute: elves from the North Pole... and a religion involving a red god, who manifests in the fireplace... and a magical beast killed by antlers... folks, I'm sorry if this is off topic but I think I've just established that A Song of Ice and Fire is about Santa Claus.)
Monday November 23, 2009 06:35pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 08:08pm EST
Perhaps the question should now be asked: what did Tolkien set out to do better than much of the previous "fantasy" that he liked and/or despised? He didn't write in a vacuum.
As it happens, a major problem with the Tolkienesque fantasy writer these days is that they start from Tolkien, and ignore his sources. I can claim as a child to have been aware of stories about woodland spirits who might or might not have been friendly to mankind, quite independently of whatever people were writing about in fiction, and to have been warned: "Bai masalai i kaikaiim yu tasol!" - "The woodland spirit's going to eat you!":
http://www.britishcouncil.org/learnenglish-central-stories-png.htm
http://www.pngbuai.com/800literature/pokop/pokop991025a.html
http://www.amazon.com/One-Thousand-Papua-Guinean-Nights/dp/0971412715
The nearest to that experience we actually get in the "West" are the urban myths and conspiracy theories and tales about alien abductions ... and needless to say, people seem to take them seriously, instead of seeing them as myth for the taking and using ...
Monday November 23, 2009 09:44pm EST
You make a good point and ask a good question--not that I have a good answer. But it is so that many are taken with Tolkein and LOTR as their source. The level of understanding of the source varies--as I am sure you realize.
VIEW ALL BY · Monday November 23, 2009 11:21pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday November 24, 2009 01:48pm EST
Re:things dwindling.
I had a similar response to Larry Niven's "The Magic Goes Away" where magic was powered by mana, a finite non-renewable resource. As mana ran out, the magical properties of creatures go away (unicorns turn into horses) & spells no longer work, which is a pat explanation for why contemporary attempts to cast spells from ancient grimoires are doomed to failure.
VIEW ALL BY · Tuesday November 24, 2009 11:18pm EST
VIEW ALL BY · Wednesday November 25, 2009 11:31am EST
"On a shelf over the experiment table was the inevitable skull, which the wizard put there to remind him of death, though it usually reminded him that he needed to go to the dentist."
TheMarchChase @ #23, I read _There and Back Again_ while not realizing that I was coming down with a migraine, so I doubt I gave it a fair shake . . .
DemetriosX @ #24 & 33, of course you realize the inevitable response (besides "get well soon") is to offer counterexamples . . . but you didn't ask, so I'll restrain myself.
However, I will ask what you thought of Susanna Clarke's _Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell_, which someone-or-other (Jo?) has called a fantasy written from the alternate world in which _Lud-in-the-Mist_ was our _LotR_.
I haven't read _Lud-in-the-Mist_, but I liked _JS&MN_ a lot.
pilgrimsoul @ #27, 29: yes, it's hard to interest me in a secondary-world, medievaloid, Northern-European-ish fantasy these days too. As for nobility & cynicism . . . I agree with Jo that a rating scale would be useful, because I'm often in the mood for different points along the axis.
SoonLee @ #30, if you like historically-based fantasy you might be interested in Kay's _Tigana_ or Sarantine Mosaic (_Sailing to Sarantium_, _Lord of Emperors_). Kay's obviously still interested in some things Tolkien was (history, preservation & transmission of culture & art) but no longer in an epic-fantasy kinda way.
jmeltzer @ #34, see also Erikson's Malazon books.
snoweel @ #35, yes, the first Jordan book has some very _LotR_-homage moments (also an Ent-like species), which I also recall hearing were deliberate. Certainly the created history, the scope, and the relationships to our history & culture are the kinds of things that were popularized by _LotR_.
EliBishop @ #36, I think I've just established that A Song of Ice and Fire is about Santa Claus
Is _that_ who killed Jon Arryn?!
And snoweel, SoonLee, EliBishop: one thing I wish people _hadn't_ taken from _LotR_ is the magic-dwindling thing, becuase it makes me cranky (among other things, I am suspicious of nostalgia). And if you're in a secondary world, not one that's eventually going to become ours, there's no intrinsic need for it.
Wednesday November 25, 2009 03:34pm EST
As I said @33, more and more authors come to mind who are working outside the LotR-space, but they aren't easy to find among all the rest. But I also think the situation has changed a lot in the last few years and we may be getting back to where things were up until about 1970. There was a sort of near extinction event about that time. From roughly the mid-70s to around the mid-90s, there was very little fantasy that did not fit the LotR template. And it simply wasn't as successful or as well marketed. Interestingly, this applies primarily to the US market. Most of the exceptions I can think of are from the UK (or Canada in the case of de Lint).
Still, we are seeing more and more "speciation" in fantasy as authors are throwing off the shackles (imposed by publishers) and exploring new niches.
VIEW ALL BY · Friday November 27, 2009 03:24pm EST
Sometimes I just treasure the possibilities of a world-opening ending (here), or the uncompromising bleakness of a harsh-but-right dark ending.
Friday November 27, 2009 10:04pm EST
I think the original poster was talking about the French and Indian Wars, i.e. the war between the British colonists in what later became Usonia, sometimes on their own and sometimes assisted by the British army, on one side, and the Native Americans allied with the French on the other side. So I suppose a fantasy analogue would involve one sentient species colonizing a world or region previously inhabited by another sentient species, and then the natives fighting the colonists with the assistance of others of the colonists' species. Or maybe the analogue of the French would be a third species; maybe mapping the Indians to elves, as the original poster suggested, the British colonists to humans, and the French to dwarves, gnomes or what have you. I'd prefer to have all three analogues be nonhuman, all similar enough to humans that it's easy to sympathize with them but all definitely nonhuman, to avoid the political/philosophical problems with identifying Indians == nonhuman, British colonists == human that another poster warned against.
DemetriosX @31:
I don't see it. Cities are not a major element of either The Worm Ouroboros or the Zimiamvia trilogy. The earliest fantasy I can think of where a fictional city is a primary setting is Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser series, several of which stories are set in Lanhkmar, a clear antecedent of not only New Crobuzon and Ambergris but Ankh-Morpork (more than any city in Tolkien). Going further back, there are cities in some of William Morris' books, IIRC, but I think they are all primarily set in the countryside and wilderness. The Emerald City in the Oz books is tolerably important, especially in the first two books, but it doesn't have the personality of Lankhmar or its successors in recent New Weird fantasy.
Some invented-world fantasies where cities have interesting geography and personality, but aren't at all in the New Weird mold, are Lawrence Watt-Evans Ethshar novels.
VIEW ALL BY · Saturday November 28, 2009 01:40pm EST
Jim Henry III @46, perhaps you are correct. It has been years since I read Eddison (and didn't really care for him all that much) and my recollections are vague. I had thought that Memison played a greater role than it may have. Maybe Mervyn Peake is a better place to look for influences on Leiber, Mieville, and Harrison. While not a city, the great pile of Gormenghast is very much a character in the first two books of the trilogy. (Place also comes close to acting as a character in Dunsany's Pegana fantasies, though it is more the country in that case and it is not so strong as Lankhmar, Viriconium, or Ambergris.)
Watt-Evans was one of the first successful post-LotR writers to make the effort to shrug off the template that had been imposed by the marketeering publishers. He started out really by subverting the template more than outright rejecting it, but I think that helped him be moderately successful. The Misenchanted Sword was my first exposure to his work and it was the first time I noticed that virtually all of the contemporary fantasy I had been reading was all of a kind.