There's this idea that LoTR was "first" that has no basis in truth. Tolkien no doubt grew up reading Dunsany. Jon Bauer was a celebrity decades before Tolkien sat down to write The Hobbit. While Tolkien was writing it, Robert Howard pumped out 21 stories of Conan the Cimmerian (and died). The magic system in Dungeons and Dragons isn't taken from LoTR, it's taken from (international bestseller) The Dying Earth, which was published four years before Fellowship of the Ring. The problem with everything else, though, is it's all dangerous. People die. Blood is shed. Endings aren't always happy. A place without civilization is a tricky place to live and wizards tend to fuck up your shit. Lord of the Rings persists because it makes everything cozy. Frodo is Pooh. Sam is Eeyore. Aragorn is Christopher Robin. My wife loves it? She had a pair of Pound Puppies named Frodo and Bilbo. Me? I'd read Dying Earth, a few Conans and the whole of Vardeman's Cenotaph Road series before taking on The Hobbit in 4th grade which is probably why I've never been able to see LoTR as anything but trite bullshit. It's the era's Harry Potter - "let's make everything cute and British but also inescapably about the English caste system."Still, it's good, but probably suffers from the same problem GEB does: because it's the first one to do its thing, it means a lot of the stuff it inspired have a better flow even if they only tackle one of its themes/aspects.
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco. Sherlock Holmes in SPAA... I mean, medieval HRE.
Then I'll get back to you once I read Dying Earth. It's not unknown to me, Vance especially the D&D magic system is even called 'Vancian', but iirc his books were nigh impossible to get in Poland. Still are, even though there (apparently) was a 2010 translation reprint. That's honestly a good summary? I was entertained, but ended up confused by both detractors and praises. I liked it because Eco has clearly put a lot of effort towards authenticity and made the 'heady' meanings of meanings of the book digestible and, for a lack of a better word, plain to think about. Contrast it with, dunno, Salman Rushdie, with whom I honestly don't know if I'm too uncouth and uncultured to glimpse his brilliance or intuitively caught on the wink meaning of 'magical realism' as 'flat, meandering story'. No comment on Dean Brown; that thing practically fizzled out by the time I was in 4th grade.I mean, Name of the Rose is entertaining up to a point. And it's interesting up to a point. And I'm sure it's all metaphorical and shit.
I had Reddit sockpuppets in the names of every major character in The Dying Earth. In my opinion, Jack Vance and American fantasy are the Bauhaus if Itten didn't leave. Don't get trapped into thinking there's a lot of it; the original Dying Earth is an anthology of short stories written prior to 1950, and then there are two legit Sagas written in the '80s. They're okay but not relevant. I think the more an egghead likes a book, the more they make it "important." I've never wanted to bother with Salman Rushdie; prior to his fatwah nobody really gave a shit so all of a sudden his work had to take on enough meaning to support an East V West clash of ideals. What was that shit newspaper in France? Charlie Hebdo? Ain't nobody said anything nice about Charlie Hebdo until AQAP started shooting cartoonists. My go-to is Margaret Atwood. She's a shitty author (shut up, she is). She's self-important. She's, by all accounts, a dreadful person. But because she writes pulp sci fi along the lines of "fear the Republicans" the eggheads support her in her assertion that she doesn't write sci fi, sci fi is grubby and she's important. Lather, rinse, repeat for David Foster Wallace. Meanwhile, Stephen King was out getting rich in the literary wilderness for 40 years, bane of English teachers everywhere, until he started dissing Trump on Twitter. All of a sudden his shit's literature. He's a terrible writer and you don't need to read him ever. All you need is the following: 1) Anthony Burgess' review of Holy Blood, Holy Grail in 1980 was "someone should make this into a novel" 2) Dan Brown did exactly that 3) The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail sued him for plagiarism 4) Dan Brown argued "holupaminnit, you said yours was non-fiction" and the authors came back with "well... but nobody really believed that, did they" 5) Things went as well as expected Holy Blood, Holy Grail? A breathless pseudoacademic conspiracy theory. Da Vinci Code? An Encyclopedia Brown mystery. If you ever come across a copy, voice Robert Langdon as Bullwinkle the Moose and Sophie Neveu (yes, really) as Rocky the Squirrel. I was entertained, but ended up confused by both detractors and praises.
No comment on Dean Brown; that thing practically fizzled out by the time I was in 4th grade.
Still, Dying Earth sounds interesting, and I prefer it as short stories. Some authors and works are just better that way, and this seems like it'd be the case, going by intuition. You're probably right. Dunno if it's better or worse that I almost never read the stories about the books/authors I read. On the one hand, I can at least argue little bias/influence apart from the source of recommendation. On the other, I guess it ends up with me looking clueless most of the time. "You read Brown, liar!" "No?" "Remember that book about NSA being attacked by mutating cryptogram double-teamed by two one-note nerds, with superfluous murderer and 'muahaha'-grade office intrigue in the background that led nowhere? That was Digital Fortress." "Oooooh. God, I'm so sorry you have to remember it." "Your rant was the best part of that road trip." Now we're watching Rocky and Bullwinkle.All of a sudden his shit's literature.
He's a terrible writer and you don't need to read him ever.
I think LotR was the first to have elves and hobbits and dwarves and orcs in the way that's instantly recognizable. I agree that its a cozy story, and 1000% caste system, though imo LotR is a lot more thoughtful and I'd argue that the whole 'magic is fading and evil will eventually win but we'll fight while we can' tone makes it not all twee feel-good fluff.
And I would argue that counts for less than you think. One of the things I like about modern fantasy is the trope that Elves are assholes. Tolkien was basically at "look how cool this lost race of ubermensch are" while modern fantasy is basically "elves love the smell of their own farts." On the one hand, it's a bunch of children's books. On the other hand, it very clearly reflects Tolkien's understanding and trauma of The Great War. I think it's the duality that bugs me; by trying to be both it does neither well. The thing about American fantasy of the era is the good guys and the bad guys were human. You couldn't hide your actions behind ethnic tension. America fought a war over slavery; the British didn't think it was worth fighting a war over genocide until it was on their doorstep.I think LotR was the first to have elves and hobbits and dwarves and orcs in the way that's instantly recognizable.
I agree that its a cozy story, and 1000% caste system, though imo LotR is a lot more thoughtful and I'd argue that the whole 'magic is fading and evil will eventually win but we'll fight while we can' tone makes it not all twee feel-good fluff.