I write fantasy. I’m quite pleased writing fantasy. It’s a vast field that thrives on experimentation and whose greatest stories are born with the phrases: “what if,” “wouldn’t it be cool,” and “how does that work?” It is a genre which is based on the concept of doing whatever the hell you want to. The exploration of the however, the whyever and the wherever the hell you want to is what makes the story fun enough to match the concept.
But for every “what if,” “wouldn’t it be cool,” and “how does that work,” we have another set of voices. These ones say “been done,” “wouldn’t it be unrealistic,” and “it doesn’t work like that.” They’re not exactly as loud as they used to be, to be sure, but they’re still there and they’re still noticeable. Why? Because it’s annoying and it’s wrong and it doesn’t really work that way anymore.
If you’re one of his many fans, you might have seen this post by Scott Westerfeld, author of Leviathan, in which he bites back against those who accuse steampunk of being ridiculous, unrealistic or whatever the current complaint lodged against them is. In the interests of full disclosure, I’ve never really been all that into steampunk and my fancy of it tends to end at “oh, cool, zeppelins.” But I think what Mr. Westerfeld is saying is something that applies to all of fantasy.
Why do we keep trying to put rules on this genre? The fact that fantasy is more popular than ever and more diverse than ever is not a coincidence. I’m sure there’s more than a few people who remember when the genre as a whole was stagnant, mostly because everything was an echo of Tolkien or another author. We’ve moved far away from that, but have we moved far enough? I mean, try to have a conversation with a fantasy fan that doesn’t involve the words “Tolkien” and “genius” in one way or another. And once you’ve done that, see if the other guy doesn’t look a little more nervous at the mention of him. We speak his name in hushed tones and it seems like he has to be included as an influence in just about everything as a matter of paying tribute.
We’ve come a long, long way from Lord of the Rings. It’s okay to like that book. It’s okay to be influenced by that book. But do we really need to speak of him as though he were a god instead of a dude who broke rules in the first place?
There are rules to writing, yes. To writing. Not to writing fantasy. And good writing frequently shatters those rules (though a knowledge of them is needed to break them in the first place). When we put rules on writing fantasy, when we believe there are certain measures of a story that must be fulfilled or certain things that must happen or certain qualities a hero must have, it taints the creativity behind the story. The author is no longer writing what they want to write, but writing what they think they ought to write, which is the sort of attitude that should remain in middle school.
I’m sure there are a few people that will interpret this as a total blaspheming to Tolkien, Howard, whoever. I’m not saying what they did wasn’t important. I’m not saying their quality has diminished over the years. I’m not saying you can’t be influenced by their work. I am saying we don’t have to feel constrained by their influence. I am saying we don’t have to interpret their work as rules to be obeyed relentlessly. I am saying that, if you want to write something that totally spits in their faces, you absolutely should.
I like to think I get more than a few aspiring or practicing authors here as traffic, people whom yet have not met me in person and thusly still think my advice is actually worthier than the rantings of a delusional madman (oh, you are in for a shock), so I hope to impart this bit of wisdom to you.
Maybe some people will hate you. Maybe some people will hate your work, maybe some people will hate you for writing it. You can’t give a crap about them any more than you can give a crap about WWTD. You can’t please them. You can’t please them, because they want someone you aren’t. You can’t be that person, no matter how much tribute you pay or how many homages appear in your work.
You can only write for yourself. Even the people who will love your work are secondary, because you can’t write for them, either. And they don’t love your work because you wrote for them. They love your work because they love your work. It’s one of the simplest and most beautiful truths of this business. You can hope they enjoy it. You can even make minor tweaks to make them enjoy it more. But you can never do what another person did. And you should never try to be anyone but yourself.
It’s a hard attitude to come by and, don’t let me fool you, I’m not at all impervious to a person hating my book. But I am at peace with the fact that I write what I want to write, that I write as Sam Sykes, and that no one else can do what I can do. I can’t do what Tolkien did, either. Nor can I do what Westerfeld, Lynch, Scalzi, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Mieville with a stupid accent, Priest, Resnick or Enus Schmidt does.
And because I can’t, we have a world where you have Westerfeld, Lynch, Scalzi, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Mieville with a stupid accent, Priest, Resnick, Enus Schmidt and Sykes to read.
And that’s a pretty good place to be.
A fine post. Inspiring in the kind of way that only Sam Sykes with his surprisingly scathing pathos can pull off. So, cheers for that.
As to Tolkien, I think if you really questioned the people who say “oh, I loved those books” to find out if, in fact, they have actually read the books (the entire series) cover to cover…well, I think you’d find there’s more pomp there than as dedicated a readership as the world would have you believe. I plead guilty to having uttered this very phrase. I made it about 60 pages in to The Hobbit…or was it The Fellowship? But everyone loved those books, right? Yes? No? Which way should I go?
Anyway, all literature thrives on forward thinking, on original, finely wrought ideas, on unique voices and modes of story-telling. I mean seriously, we get enough regurgitation when we go to the movies. Let’s leave a little something for the readers, eh?
Actually, I find the problem to be the other way round. I’m OK if people don’t like LOTR or have issues with it, but it seems like ‘Fantasy’ (because all massive generalisations need bunny ears!) wants to do everything they can to trash Tolkien at the moment. I find it akin to a group of youths who want to stand around and laugh at the elderly war hero who’s pissed himself. He’s not a sacred cow by any means but I find people judge his work based on today’s standards rather than those of the time. For example, I’ve heard complaints of sexism, of a male-dominated world, but have those same complainers read Eowyn’s story which I think for the time it was written I think it was incredibly forward looking? Now if someone comes back to me with a counter-argument (and I can think of a couple), I’m fine with that. Really! That’s a critical debate, but just as some people love to spew “I love those books” so some tout “Tolkien is sexist” as a mantra rather than a conversation opener.
The problem I find with my own work is that if you say you do folklore-y stuff (you know elves and dwarves and all those things that existed WAY before Tolkien but people still keep attributing to him) people look at you with the same sort of contempt as if you inappropriately touched their dog. “Tut, Tut, Tut, cliches!” they say. I’ve felt genuine pressure with my own work to do that whole “elves by another name” thing. Except I decided not to. Career suicide probably. I realise it’s incredibly unfashionable when everyone writes gritty magic-lite fantasy, or steampunk or new weird. I love to read a lot of those subgenres, but it’s not what I want to write (although I’d probably have more confidence if I did). I want to do well-written, original adult adventure fantasy. And I want to do it in a way that blows your metaphorical balls off.
And that means when someone says “you can’t do unicorns” any more, it just makes me want to do them, but in such a way that leaves those complainers with their jaws dropped saying “you can’t do that to unicorns!” Oh yes I can! I’m not saying I always hit the mark. Sometimes I try and subvert a trope into something original and completely miss the mark, but that’s all part of fine-tuning my craft.
So I think we should view Lord of the Rings as it really is – a 60 year old phenomenon, parts of which have incredibly dated but parts of which can still hold their own against the fantasy market today. Tolkien’s just a guy with a big imagination.
Interesting post Sam. I’m one of those people that have read The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings once, because I felt I had to have read them as a fantasy fan. I even tried to read The Silmarillion, but I just couldn’t get into that. And I liked the stories as a fantasy reader. As an English Lit Major I like what Tolkien brought to literature. But there is no such thing in literature as a rulebook on how to write, sometimes writers don’t even feel the need for grammar or puntuation, though that makes it awfully hard to read them. Literature (to me) is about stories and ideas communicated by an author to his audience, whether the audience is the writer him- or herself or their readers. There should be no restraints on the writer concerning how they give this communication form, else how could there ever have been someone like Tolkien, Austen, Swift, Joyce (love him or hate him!) or Sykes for that matter?
It is very, very much worth saying that this isn’t necessarily about Tolkien. I used him as probably the biggest “idol,” if you will, but it goes for every author that isn’t you. If you’ll read, the argument has nothing to do with the validity of Tolkien’s work. It’s merely the fact that you shouldn’t try to be someone you’re not.
There’s still nothing wrong with being inspired by Tolkien. And Adrian raises a good point: pushing boundaries for reasons other than exploring them is hard to defend. Being a jerk to be a jerk is no better than paying homage to an author you’re not fond of.
All good points. Hmmmm… I feel I should clarify my comment, if it was misunderstood. I didn’t feel this post was a discussion on the validity of Tolkien’s work now or then. The good professor has had, unquestionably, a huge influence on many writers, no matter their genre. I just have a hard time with the comparison factor – the fact that no matter what genre you write in you are held up to certain paragons within it. This goes for everything from fantasy to literary fiction to pirate romance. Hardly a review exists that doesn’t offer some comparison between author reviewed and authors previously lauded (or hated, depending on the tone of the review). And if you don’t match the mash…
But then, we all need a benchmark, don’t we? yeah, I guess so. I’ve just personally always had an easier time comparing films with others of their genre…or the old screenplay pitch technique: “Think of it as ‘Gran Torino’ meets ‘Hancock’ and throw in a couple more girls.” Even if you can’t get a visual on it, you’ve got some sort of teaser going.
But books? Well, the reason I love and recommend a book is because I can’t really compare it to anything else.