So who else writes?

[Mummelmann]

facher83 said:

Mummelmann said:

 

I was mainly pointing out that he's overrated, which many would agree, just not those who haven't read anything in the genre besides Tolkien. I've read over 750 Fantasy novels, so I feel I have a pretty good selection from which to draw this conclusion instead of pulling it out of ass like many others could and probably would. Harry Potter is another series I feel gets undeserved attention along with Eragon series. HP is like "Oh this poor, single mom wrote this terrific book!" and Eragon is "Oh this must be the work of a prodigy for sure!". Tolkien gets cred for inventing the genre, which he kinda did, but others refined it. What I'm getting at is; your writing should be about the value and quality of the book rather than the fuzz revolving around your person or the circumstances under which the book was written, but such is not the case with these three examples (in my honest and somewhat educated opinion, that is).

I'm being picky because A: As stated above, I've read a whole lot of books in the genre (PS; I don't consider Harry Potter fantasy, it was just for examples sake), and B: I'm trying to make it into the bussiness myself with a script I've been working on for years so I'm being overly studious and methodical in my reading to detect ways I do not want to write. Simple as that. If you want to have a gander at those who helped refine the genre, I recommend Raymond E. Feist, David Eddings, Stephen R. Donaldson and Terry Brooks, all masters of their craft and pillars in the genre since its infancy. Now, if you choose not to follow up on my recommendations, that's fine by me. But don't call Tolkien by names he does not deserve for all his depth (which frankly is just too emphasized in LotR) before you've had ample time and sound basis for comparison. My father was easily the strongest man in the world until I started seeing weightlifting on TV or strongman contests. Broaden the horizon to get a clearer picture both near and from afar is all I'm saying.

I did not call Tolkien anything other than a good author, of which many can be. Your original post was to discredit writing techniques and the idea that being made a movie does not mean greatness - no, it does not, but consider the Bible and Tolkien in the same phraseof print production and you have to question why bringing movies in to it at all is grounds for making a point. Making movies has nothing to do with making books.

Take Star Wars, for instance... dozensupon dozens or more authors take on the SW cosmosand write stories that are certainly in greater depth and detail than George Lucas ever could have... it doesn't take away from the story at hand.

I could rant on Pong, about it being too simple and that better refinements are worth playing, but it's silly. Sure, it's true, but it's as if I would only want to stand on a pillar and preach how much more knowledgable I am than the other 500 million people who have heard of Pong but who have not heard of the Infinity Engine games.

As with most art forms, credit where deserved usually is given AFTER the person's death. Sorry to say it, but maybe your opinions of your authors will become realized in 80 years, just as that of Beethoven and Mozart, but there will always be people who discredit pioneers just for the sake of doing so.

Just for the sake of argument: the point at hand is that refinement in this case is to strive for less complexity and word "bushwackery" and make the whole genre more available through better communication, which in this case would entail adopting a writing style that someone beyond "intellectual language eccentric", like Tolkien was, could enjoy and indeed fathom it to the full extent such a work should be.