4 ms·

Out of curiosity, which writers would you put above Tolkien for world-building (in the Western canon)?

by twright0 8y ago

akvadrako 8y ago
George Orwell is the most influential one I can think of.
- arethuza 8y ago
  Things like 1984 don't really count as fantasy though (unfortunately) as they were an extrapolation of things that were already happening in the 1930s and 1940s.
  - watwut 8y ago
    In the same sense, high fantasy is just extrapolation of national wars and myths.
- idoubtit 8y ago
  George Orwell certainly was a successful writer (in the sense that he became famous and sold many books), but not a world-builder. 1984 is a rip-off from Zamyatin's novel, "We". Ironically, Orwell wrote before WWII that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) was heavily inspired by We (1921). Then he wrote 1984 (1949) which borrows even more: it's the same story, with more romance and a more mainstream narrating style.
Pamar 8y ago
Personally, I enjoyed T.H. White immensely more than Tolkien, but this is surely just a matter of personal preferences.
victoriasun 8y ago
I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin. Tolkein presents an extremely fantastical view of the world and ascribes to what I call "cosmic morality." There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end. I don't mean this in a Deus Ex Machina way, by the way, as cosmic morality is justified within Tolkein's universe. I think Breaking Bad is a good example of this as well -- the Universe has passed its judgment on the characters it deems necessary to pass judgment on, and it works within its story without detracting from it or seeming like a Deus Ex Machina. So much of the criticism of Tolkein in the modern day, to me, surrounds this concept where he ascribes to the idea that the Universe will eventually judge sinners and saints. That being said, it does not and should not detract from the sheer magnitude of his creative work, as well as his linguistic ability. George RR Martin, is, I think, an obvious counterpoint and much of his writing is driven by a distaste for this amount of cosmic morality. If we were to harken back to amazing TV, GRRM is more like The Wire -- they choose to present the world in a way they deem "factual". But in doing so they lose some of the higher fantasy elements that Tolkein's world building is known for. So I think when you ask the question of who is a better world-builder I think you need to start with asking whether or not you want a cynically real depiction (ala GRRM) or you want a story that justifies it's heroic deeds (ala Tolkein) first. Because, in my opinion, they are hard to compare.
- Annatar 8y ago
  "There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end." There is no such thing in either the Silmarillion or the Lord of the Rings: in the Silmarillion, Melkor is taken beyond into a different dimension, yet there is so much damage that this is hardly more than partial damage control; and stopping The Enemy causes an even greater tragedy, that of everything wrought with the Three Rings to fail and fade, resulting in elves having to once again leave Middleearth, that place where they awoke and hold so dear. Hardly can this be called "good versus evil" or either side winning, and if so, it's a phyrric victory for both. Nobody wins in the end; the inevitable is just prolonged yet again through the rise of men at the expense of everyone else. The way Melkor set the stage, Ainur played it, and Sauron finished it, there could never be any victor, good or evil. It was a perfectly balanced system. It was never about Black-White and especially it isn't about good winning in the end, since the victory causes even more tragedy.
  - victoriasun 8y ago
    I had hoped that the Breaking Bad reference made more clear what I meant by cosmic good/evil. It has nothing to do with the idea that the One Ring is good or evil, but rather that the Universe has morality ascribed to each character. We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story. I suspect A Song of Ice and Fire will not have the same satisfaction. But this is, once again, my own subjective opinion and theory. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with cosmic good! In general, I wish media would be more willing to take a stand when they choose to display violent acts on television.
    - Annatar 8y ago
      "We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story." I leave LotR feeling terrible pain, loss, and sadness: the main protagonists are forced into exile to another world (planet), Valinor; they can never come back; the fate of the mortal ones (Bilbo, Frodo) will forever remain unknown, they have to forever part with their friends and family, and Middleearth remains behind bereft of elves, their beauty, grace, and intellect. How this is a satisfactory story I am incapable of fathoming, not because any one side won, but because the ending raises even more questions than it answers.
forkLding 8y ago
I prefer Terry Pratchett or George RR Martin, a lot of high fantasy stories are too rigid and stuck on heroes and villains
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
saiya-jin 8y ago
Not competing on world-building per se (inventing few languages requires proper linguistic background), but on other aspects, Malazan book of the fallen series is an amazing read. World is just more interesting to dive into. Till I had read it, Tolkien was #1 fantasy for me. Afterwards, it seemed bland and a bit boring. But that's me, some people drown in complex parallel stories and heaps of characters. From what I heard Wheel of time is similarly awesome, but no first hand experience with it yet.
- nickik 8y ago
  The Wheel of Time has some great world building, but also some terrible. The Wheel has a lot of different cultures that all feel like they have an identity. However Wheel is mostly great for its broad (epic) scope of the central conflict and how this is told threw characters.
BerislavLopac 8y ago
Ursula LeGuin (in particular her Earthsea series), Robin Hobb (in particular her Liveship Traders).
billfruit 8y ago
As mentioned in a sibling comment, I have heard people put Mervyn Peake and William Morris in the same bracket as Tolkien.

Out of curiosity, which writers would you put above Tolkien for world-building (in the Western canon)?

akvadrako 8y ago

George Orwell is the most influential one I can think of.

arethuza 8y ago
Things like 1984 don't really count as fantasy though (unfortunately) as they were an extrapolation of things that were already happening in the 1930s and 1940s.
- watwut 8y ago
  In the same sense, high fantasy is just extrapolation of national wars and myths.
idoubtit 8y ago
George Orwell certainly was a successful writer (in the sense that he became famous and sold many books), but not a world-builder. 1984 is a rip-off from Zamyatin's novel, "We". Ironically, Orwell wrote before WWII that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) was heavily inspired by We (1921). Then he wrote 1984 (1949) which borrows even more: it's the same story, with more romance and a more mainstream narrating style.

Pamar 8y ago

Personally, I enjoyed T.H. White immensely more than Tolkien, but this is surely just a matter of personal preferences.

victoriasun 8y ago

I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin. Tolkein presents an extremely fantastical view of the world and ascribes to what I call "cosmic morality." There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end. I don't mean this in a Deus Ex Machina way, by the way, as cosmic morality is justified within Tolkein's universe. I think Breaking Bad is a good example of this as well -- the Universe has passed its judgment on the characters it deems necessary to pass judgment on, and it works within its story without detracting from it or seeming like a Deus Ex Machina. So much of the criticism of Tolkein in the modern day, to me, surrounds this concept where he ascribes to the idea that the Universe will eventually judge sinners and saints. That being said, it does not and should not detract from the sheer magnitude of his creative work, as well as his linguistic ability. George RR Martin, is, I think, an obvious counterpoint and much of his writing is driven by a distaste for this amount of cosmic morality. If we were to harken back to amazing TV, GRRM is more like The Wire -- they choose to present the world in a way they deem "factual". But in doing so they lose some of the higher fantasy elements that Tolkein's world building is known for. So I think when you ask the question of who is a better world-builder I think you need to start with asking whether or not you want a cynically real depiction (ala GRRM) or you want a story that justifies it's heroic deeds (ala Tolkein) first. Because, in my opinion, they are hard to compare.

Annatar 8y ago
"There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end." There is no such thing in either the Silmarillion or the Lord of the Rings: in the Silmarillion, Melkor is taken beyond into a different dimension, yet there is so much damage that this is hardly more than partial damage control; and stopping The Enemy causes an even greater tragedy, that of everything wrought with the Three Rings to fail and fade, resulting in elves having to once again leave Middleearth, that place where they awoke and hold so dear. Hardly can this be called "good versus evil" or either side winning, and if so, it's a phyrric victory for both. Nobody wins in the end; the inevitable is just prolonged yet again through the rise of men at the expense of everyone else. The way Melkor set the stage, Ainur played it, and Sauron finished it, there could never be any victor, good or evil. It was a perfectly balanced system. It was never about Black-White and especially it isn't about good winning in the end, since the victory causes even more tragedy.
- victoriasun 8y ago
  I had hoped that the Breaking Bad reference made more clear what I meant by cosmic good/evil. It has nothing to do with the idea that the One Ring is good or evil, but rather that the Universe has morality ascribed to each character. We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story. I suspect A Song of Ice and Fire will not have the same satisfaction. But this is, once again, my own subjective opinion and theory. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with cosmic good! In general, I wish media would be more willing to take a stand when they choose to display violent acts on television.
  - Annatar 8y ago
    "We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story." I leave LotR feeling terrible pain, loss, and sadness: the main protagonists are forced into exile to another world (planet), Valinor; they can never come back; the fate of the mortal ones (Bilbo, Frodo) will forever remain unknown, they have to forever part with their friends and family, and Middleearth remains behind bereft of elves, their beauty, grace, and intellect. How this is a satisfactory story I am incapable of fathoming, not because any one side won, but because the ending raises even more questions than it answers.

forkLding 8y ago

I prefer Terry Pratchett or George RR Martin, a lot of high fantasy stories are too rigid and stuck on heroes and villains

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

saiya-jin 8y ago

Not competing on world-building per se (inventing few languages requires proper linguistic background), but on other aspects, Malazan book of the fallen series is an amazing read. World is just more interesting to dive into. Till I had read it, Tolkien was #1 fantasy for me. Afterwards, it seemed bland and a bit boring. But that's me, some people drown in complex parallel stories and heaps of characters. From what I heard Wheel of time is similarly awesome, but no first hand experience with it yet.

nickik 8y ago
The Wheel of Time has some great world building, but also some terrible. The Wheel has a lot of different cultures that all feel like they have an identity. However Wheel is mostly great for its broad (epic) scope of the central conflict and how this is told threw characters.

BerislavLopac 8y ago

Ursula LeGuin (in particular her Earthsea series), Robin Hobb (in particular her Liveship Traders).

billfruit 8y ago

As mentioned in a sibling comment, I have heard people put Mervyn Peake and William Morris in the same bracket as Tolkien.