Thread: There once was a human, an elf and a dwarf.

Hullo. *wave* This is the first non-introductory thread I make in this forum. I want to share a concern of mine with you here, as well as pose a question to you.

The concern: The fantasy genre is vast and there are many ways to weave together an intriguing story without copying off the archetype settings of other authors. Authors have proven that, time and again. However, at some times, I find myself restricted. There is, as all of you know, a beautiful archetype for a story, the one of a heteroclite group of heroes wandering about an imaginary world for A/B/C reasons, fighting things, finding things, and changing things. I feel as though, when one wants to write about such a story, one is going to be 'held back' by the stories of authors such as the great J.R.R.Tolkien, even if there's no clear touching point between them. Tolkien's world is brilliant, but it's neither the first world that drew influences from folklore nor the only world that was, is, or will ever be penned by a talented writer.

I guess my problem is the same one that Terry Pratchett posed right after witnessing the massive mainstream success of Harry Potter. Will the reputation of one great author overshadow other writers and inspire comparisons which will prevent them from rising to success, be it mainstream, like Harry Potter's, or subtler, like Discworld's?

The question: Will just the fact that a story works upon the same folklore that inspired a much more recognized author to write his or her own story draw parallel lines, even if there's little to actually compare between the two? Does an aspiring author have to tip-toe around the Tolkienistic fantasia, forcing himself to write themes different than the ones he'd like to, simply out of an irrational fear that a similar general structure is going to make others judge the book by its cover?

Are my fears irrational? Am I the only one who sometimes feels awe when thinking "geez, I have to stand tall against these guys - how will I make it?"



P.S: Of course, I don't mean to undermine anyone. None of the authors mentioned in this thread have anything but my full respect and admiration for their work. This thread wasn't created out of need for reassurance, or to complain, spite, or hate. I'm simply wondering this is just monsters in my own dreams or an issue many writers face.

Will just the fact that a story works upon the same folklore that inspired a much more recognized author to write his or her own story draw parallel lines, even if there's little to actually compare between the two?

No. Look at the countless authors who have piggybacked on those same parallel lines. Yet their books are different.

Does an aspiring author have to tip-toe around the Tolkienistic fantasia, forcing himself to write themes different than the ones he'd like to, simply out of an irrational fear that a similar general structure is going to make others judge the book by its cover?

No. But it might be fun to watch.

Are my fears irrational?
No.

Am I the only one who sometimes feels awe when thinking "geez, I have to stand tall against these guys - how will I make it?"
No. Just imagine them as teenagers and you'll be just fine.

Tolkien didn't invent elves or fairies or trolls or many of the creatures that inhabit his books, he brought them together into a world that he constructed in his imagination and created a series of hugely interesting books as a consequence. You are as free as he or anyone else to do the same.

As for being awe inspired, then yes, definitely be awe inspired, and as for those times when you feel daunted by the awe they have inspired in you remember that in all likeliehood those great authors doubtless felt the same at times.

Being compared to a literary giant isn't something terrible; being compared to all the people riding on that giant's shoulders is.

You can even be one of that, in some cases, downright greedy, hackish, unimaginative, noobish horde and piggyback your way to financial success.

I blame the dwarf, myself.

As it goes, I'm reading Lord of the Rings (again) at the moment. What puts that novel into the 'great' category isn't just the richness of the world, it's the fact that the story is woven into the world in such a satisfying way. Whatever criticism you might level at it, it doesn't suffer from the same deep issues as much fantasy writing, in that the fantasy isn't manipulated for the purpose of the story. I mean that the super powers are not so super, and the magic not so magical as to push the reader into rejecting the world.
Having not read them, I can't comment with authority, but supposedly the Stephanie Meyer Twilight novels suffer from this issue, that the fantasy isn't just in the magical-ness of the world, but that it is used to carry some of the more indulgent parts of the story. In particular, it seems that the story has some sort of wish-fulfilment elements too heavily to the fore, which makes the plot come across as kind of immature.

But I'm not a committed reader of the fantasy genre.