J.R.R Tolkien, who is on par or better than him

[Anonymous No.12053101]

Is he the only good/well known fantasy author or are there more people out there?

[Anonymous No.12053326]

>>12053101
People actually make a critical mistake in putting Tolkien's work in the 'fantasy' genre, because Tolkien's work is not strictly fantasy. He was an academic who tirelessly drew from real metaphysical doctrines and historical cultures to craft an authentically pan-European mythos. Nothing can really compare to that.

[Anonymous No.12053327]

Scot Bakker's Prince of Nothing is the only world that can compare

[Anonymous No.12053380]

I agree that Tolkien is sui generis for his autistic pursuit of putting fictional languages first, then mythopoiesis, then writing the goddamn novels, and especially that reading his sources (usual suspects like the mythologies and epic poetry of Europe, the Bible, Shakespeare, Wagner, etc.) is the first thing one should look at, both on the grounds that are significant to Tolkien as writer and person, and famous, canonical works that continue to influence countless more writers, and written by authors I'm positive Tolkien himself could acknowledge as "on par or better than him" - but more probably the latter. Even so, one can look at the likeminded individuals he sorrounded himself with, the Inklings, therefore, for someone in search of 20th century fantasy or mythopoietic fiction to read after Tolkien, the first stop would be his immediate companions, like C.S. Lewis.

[Anonymous No.12053760]

>>12053326
This. Tolkien is not genre. The setting just happens to be fantastical.

Anyway, OP, try The Witcher.

[Anonymous No.12053761]

>>12053101
I hear The Worm Ourobouros is excellent. It's on my list.
I think it's fair to say that Tolkien was a creative force without comparison.

[Anonymous No.12054026]

>>12053101
>no Mervyn Peake yet
Plebs, all of you.

[Anonymous No.12054066]

>>12053101
Tolkien's works are pretty bad imo. Why does he have to autistically describe the history behind every little place his characters visit to the point you get lost in the text? Why are his descriptions of scenery and appearance so pedantic to the point they become impossible to visualise? Why is there no moral complexity in his works; it's just
>me orc me bad me kill me take over world
>me good me kill orc me save the world
Why does he condescend to his audience by telling them which characters to root for, instead of having realistic conflicts where each side has legitimate reasons for their quarrels? etc

[Anonymous No.12054134]

Donaldson, who also wrote a unique fantasy series that has no peer, and also a fantastic sci-fi series (the Gap Cycle).

[Anonymous No.12054144]

>>12053326
cringe

[Anonymous No.12054209]

>>12053326
This, I really don't even get why Tolkien is popular as his novels are very dense and packed with modernist technique.

[Anonymous No.12054752]

>>12054066
everything you've said should be in his work represents an archetype in and of itself. Regarding your other points, I guess some people like more details than others. I didn't get lost in the text -- at least not with LoTR.

[Anonymous No.12054793]

I genuinely believe Tolkien and C.S.Lewis are some of the best writers to have been, some of the best men to have been. People who dismiss them as fiction writers or cannot see the meaning are pitiable.

[Anonymous No.12054797]

>>12053101
Robert chadE Howard

[Anonymous No.12054805]

>>12054793
Tolkien was great, managed to make his writing authentic and natural while still being anachronistic, dude could have written a Bible translation and it would be kino
Lewis was a relatively mediocre novelist, but his essays are top tier apologetics and should be required reading for anyone with an interest in religion and/or metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.12055383]

The LOTR is the Iliad / Odyssey of our time. Prove me wrong (you can't).

[Anonymous No.12056481]

>>12055383
The burden of proof is on you, you can't just make a statement and require people to prove you wrong, you have to justify it first

[Anonymous No.12056914]

>>12054793
Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are the best writers for English speaking people alive today. They strike true at the heart of how and what English speakers alive today feel and think when they move about in the world.

I'm sure other authors in other languages from different times hit that same mark, but we can never feel it because of our difference in time and word.

[Anonymous No.12056925]

>>12054066
>realism is good
Wew

[Anonymous No.12056936]

>>12054026

Just the first two

[Anonymous No.12057072]

He took fanfiction a bit too far

[Anonymous No.12057240]

>>12053101
Do George MacDonald or ER Eddison count as well known fantasy authors?

[Anonymous No.12057572]

>>12057072
Literally everything that is fiction is fanfiction

[Anonymous No.12057577]

>>12053101
George RR Martin.

That's what a lot of people unironically believe.

So tell me /lit/ why that is clearly not the case and why having little understanding of tax laws isn't a legitimate critique.

[Anonymous No.12057590]

>>12057577
The books he wrote were written with the intent to create narratives that delve into the human spirit and Christian/Pagan North-European mythology. To get involved with explaining tax laws would waste words in a narrative that does not utilize those explanations to explore the ancient mythos.

[Anonymous No.12057613]

>more than 5 lines describing every character, environment, organization, country, race and even food

Pretty much everyone is better than this.

[Anonymous No.12058746]

>>12053760
>Anyway, OP, try The Witcher.

go away /v/, go away

[Anonymous No.12059162]

>>12053101
“We have books here bound in the hides of echidnes, krakens, and beasts so long extinct that those whose studies they are, are for the most part of the opinion that no trace of them survives unfossilized. We have books bound wholly in metals of unknown alloy, and books whose bindings are covered with the thickest gems. We have books cased in perfumed woods shipped across the inconceivable gulf between creations—books doubly precious because no one on Urth can read them. We have books whose papers are matted of plants from which spring curious alkaloids, so that the reader, in turning their pages, is taken unaware by bizarre fantasies and chimeric dreams. Books whose pages are not paper at all, but delicate wafers of white jade, ivory, and shell; books too who leaves are the desiccated leaves of unknown plants. Books we have also that are not books at all to the eye: scrolls and tablets and recordings on a hundred different substances. There is a cube of crystal here—though I can no longer tell you where—no larger than the ball of your thumb that contains more books than the library itself does. Though a harlot might dangle it from one ear for an ornament, there are not volumes enough in the world to counterweight the other. All these I came to know, and I made safeguarding them my life's devotion."
Gene Wolfe, The Shadow of the Torturer (1980).

[Anonymous No.12059177]

>>12054066
What utter horseshit. No moral complexity? What about Gollum's past? Frodo's fall? Saruman's corruption? Denethor's despair? And you're greatly exaggerating Tolkien's descriptions and history.

[Anonymous No.12060215]

>>12054144
>Analysis is cringe
Welcome to /shit/

[Anonymous No.12062047]

>>12056914
I'm not so sure. The world has changed a lot, and very quickly, since Tolkien and Lewis were writing.

[Anonymous No.12062061]

>>12053326
Yes, well, it's easier to call it fantasy and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't mind it.

[Anonymous No.12062102]

>>12062047
>The world has changed a lot
Agreed, but I think The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia are timeless. People will still read them in 100 or 200 years and they will feel how I felt while reading them, or how someone felt 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.12062671]

>>12053101
It's borderline impossible to get out of Tolkien's shadow. You have to do something really REALLY different like Harry Potter.

[Anonymous No.12063935]

>>12058746
The third game is better than the books.