WI: J.R.R. Tolkien dies in World War 1

[Hollis Hurlbut]

This is a fascinating POD for the development of fiction in general. One possibility is that fantasy never splits off into its own genre, which was a reaction to the commercial success of Tolkien. Instead there continues to be a combined "weird fiction" genre incorporating everything with non-realistic premises. The absence of Tolkien could butterfly both fantasy and science fiction as distinct genres.

Another possibility is that an alternate author replaces Tolkien by filling the same niche. In particular, it is interesting to imagine a world where the works of E.R. Eddison form the basis of post-war high fantasy. Eddison and Tolkien had many things in common, but their underlying moral values and aesthetic priorities were very different. Eddison was much less interested in mythmaking and conlanging, and he didn't subscribe to Tolkien's ultra-vanilla moral sensibilities. If the genre of fantasy had taken Eddison as its prototype, it would be more transgressive and perhaps more interesting as literature. With less of a focus on world-building as an artistic end in itself, authors might invest more time in characterization and narrative.

 

[Mark E.]

Might it also help preserve/increase Tarzan in Modern film and books?

Consider the timing. Tolkien wrote much of his fantasy in the fifties, but popularity did not take off until the seventies, including role playing games, and there is a reason why.

Look at fantasy in the fifties and sixties. Space adventures were common. Then something happened in 1969. The real moon landings, as science fact, were tough acts to follow. The original Star Trek ended, and sci-fi went near term in the seventies (Bionic Man, Woman). 2001: A Space Odyssey still appears to accurately depict what we think the first missions to the outer planets and the first space stations with centrifugal gravity will actually look like.

Horror movies went supernatural (Exorcist, Poltergeist) and a gap emerged in fantasy adventure (until Star Wars in 1977), filled by The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings.

Tarzan was already fading as a figure of earlier generations. It is anybody's guess as to what work might fill the fantasy gap without Tolkien.

 

[UncleDynamite]

If we also butterfly away Mervyn Peake's illness, I can see Gormenghast becoming the definitive work of fantasy in the English language as a seven-book cycle published between 1946 and the late 1960s or early 1970s.

Fantasy as a whole will be darker, more cynical, have a black comedy bent, and be less "fantastic", without fantastic races or the textbook medieval setting we know fantasy for, but also more surreal. It would be more like latter-day Gothic literature than a Norse saga.

More "epic" works would probably be influenced by Dune and be considered science fiction.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

If we also butterfly away Mervyn Peake's illness, I can see Gormenghast becoming the definitive work of fantasy in the English language as a seven-book cycle published between 1946 and the late 1960s or early 1970s.

Fantasy as a whole will be darker, more cynical, have a black comedy bent, and be less "fantastic", without fantastic races or the textbook medieval setting we know fantasy for, but also more surreal. It would be more like latter-day Gothic literature than a Norse saga.

More "epic" works would probably be influenced by Dune and be considered science fiction.

I was thinking of Gormenghast, as well, as being the flagbearer for a more "sophisticated" stream of Fantasy. As it was, I think Peake inspired people like Mieville (Perdido Street Station) and the sub-genre, "The New Weird", as well as Urban Fantasy. The nitty-gritty species of Fantasy.

Don't discount the heightened influence of Fantasy writers like Fritz Lieber (well-written heroic fantasy -- Conan, if Howard could write) , T.H. White (literary fantasy with a sub-text), and Moorcock (nihilist, dark, heavy metal, anti-hero fantasy). I think they would have thrived without Tolkien ever having been on the scene. They thrived with him without being beholden to him.

 

[Mark E.]

Don't forget the Chronicles of Narnia were still there for fantasy and after 1980, a new medium of fantasy entertainment opened up: the video game. Those games were more oriented to space ships than to Middle Earth.

 

[Mike Stearns]

Don't forget the Chronicles of Narnia were still there for fantasy and after 1980, a new medium of fantasy entertainment opened up: the video game. Those games were more oriented to space ships than to Middle Earth.

But they may not be. Tolkien and Lewis were friend later in life and that friendship influenced their writing. If Tolkien dies in World War I, it obviously means no Hobbit and no LOTR. No Middle Earth may also mean no Narnia because CS Lewis will never become friends with JRR Tolkien in TTL. One of JK Rowling's influences for Harry Potter was The Chronicles of Narnia, so no Narnia potentially means no Hogwarts. At the same time, George RR Martin has repeatedly stated that A Song of Ice and Fire was intentionally conceived of as being a counterpoint to Lord of Rings. No Middle Earth may also mean no Westeros.

 

[UncleDynamite]

I was thinking of Gormenghast, as well, as being the flagbearer for a more "sophisticated" stream of Fantasy. As it was, I think Peake inspired people like Mieville (Perdido Street Station) and the sub-genre, "The New Weird", as well as Urban Fantasy. The nitty-gritty species of Fantasy.

Don't discount the heightened influence of Fantasy writers like Fritz Lieber (well-written heroic fantasy -- Conan, if Howard could write) , T.H. White (literary fantasy with a sub-text), and Moorcock (nihilist, dark, heavy metal, anti-hero fantasy). I think they would have thrived without Tolkien ever having been on the scene. They thrived with him without being beholden to him.

Peake and his works were well-liked and accepted by the literary establishment of the time, earning the praise of Waugh and even the famously reactionary Burgess.

LOTR, as it stands, had both elements of great, sword-and-sorcery adventures and more "highbrow"(for lack of a better term) works, like Gormenghast. Without it to unite the two, I think the fantasy genre would be bifurcated, with Peakeian Fantasy accepted in the literary mainstream(with it, but not of it), and the sword-and-sorcery, Howard and Lieber works remaining "genre" fiction.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

What about Lord Dunsany? His works in the 1910s-1930 might be among the best early fantasy.

Or would he, like teh suggestions about Conan and Tarzan, belong too far in the past to be an influence on post-Apollo Fantasy?

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Peake and his works were well-liked and accepted by the literary establishment of the time, earning the praise of Waugh and even the famously reactionary Burgess.

LOTR, as it stands, had both elements of great, sword-and-sorcery adventures and more "highbrow"(for lack of a better term) works, like Gormenghast. Without it to unite the two, I think the fantasy genre would be bifurcated, with Peakeian Fantasy accepted in the literary mainstream(with it, but not of it), and the sword-and-sorcery, Howard and Lieber works remaining "genre" fiction.

I've got sad news for you. LOTR, indeed all Fantasy, is considered "genre fiction". Alas. It doesn't matter that individual Literary Establishment members like Auden praised LOTR to the skies.

Perhaps an "unchallenged" Gormenghast in a different world would eventually be brought in out of the cold and into the literary mainstream (depending on what it gave birth to as a major influence), but in OTL it is very much considered genre fiction. Genre Fiction as sophisticated literary genre fiction, but still, relegated into that slot.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

What about Lord Dunsany? His works in the 1910s-1930 might be among the best early fantasy.

Or would he, like teh suggestions about Conan and Tarzan, belong too far in the past to be an influence on post-Apollo Fantasy?

I don't know about Lord Dunsany, or E.R. Eddisson (the Worm Ouroboros), my favorite, along with Peake, favorite under-appreciated fantasy writers.

I think they would remain niche. Fantasy writers' writers.

 

[UncleDynamite]

I've got sad news for you. LOTR, indeed all Fantasy, is considered "genre fiction". Alas. It doesn't matter that individual Literary Establishment members like Auden praised LOTR to the skies.

Perhaps an "unchallenged" Gormenghast in a different world would eventually be brought in out of the cold and into the literary mainstream (depending on what it gave birth to as a major influence), but in OTL it is very much considered genre fiction. Genre Fiction as sophisticated literary genre fiction, but still, relegated into that slot.

I know that LOTR is genre fiction(I'm not really a fan, nothing against it, but not my cup of tea).

An unchallenged Gormenghast would either be considered "mainstream"(not too far fetched, there's almost nothing fantastic about it) or spawn a genre of imitators in its own right. I'd be very curious to see what fantasy would look like with Gromenghast as its seminal work rather than LOTR.

I don't think there's anything wrong with genre fiction, I just don't think it merits the ghetto it's put into. Sure, there's bad SF/fantasy, but there's a lot of bad "mainstream" stuff as well.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

I don't think there's anything wrong with genre fiction, I just don't think it merits the ghetto it's put into. Sure, there's bad SF/fantasy, but there's a lot of bad "mainstream" stuff as well.

I agree very much with this.

 

[ScrewySqrl]

I agree very much with this.

indeed.

THE peak of English Literature (the works of Shakespeare) includes a several outright Fantasy stories - Mid-Summer Night's Dream, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, etc.

So it could be a split into Literary and Pulp fantasy

 

[Mark E.]

But they may not be. Tolkien and Lewis were friend later in life and that friendship influenced their writing. If Tolkien dies in World War I, it obviously means no Hobbit and no LOTR. No Middle Earth may also mean no Narnia because CS Lewis will never become friends with JRR Tolkien in TTL. One of JK Rowling's influences for Harry Potter was The Chronicles of Narnia, so no Narnia potentially means no Hogwarts. At the same time, George RR Martin has repeatedly stated that A Song of Ice and Fire was intentionally conceived of as being a counterpoint to Lord of Rings. No Middle Earth may also mean no Westeros.

I tend to think of fantasy fiction to be more of a lattice work than a chain that breaks when a link is removed. Without Tolkien, might not Lewis still create some sort of mystical fiction?

J.K. Rowling did acknowledge Narnia as a model for her setting. But there was another aspect to the setting: the sixties television series Bewitched. In both the Bewitched universe and the Harry Potter universe, witches and wizards function in contemporary society without revealing their presence. By contrast, Narnia and Middle Earth are abstract, mystical domains.

In 1972, Gary Gygax created the role-playing game, Dungeons and Dragons. D&D was entwined to the Tolkien settings to the extent that Gygax had to rename his "Hobbits" as "Halflings" under threat of copyright infringement. But the novelty of D&D was that roles and events were created by rolling dice and mixing performance characteristics. Tolkien did not invent the role-playing game. By the early eighties, D&D and Tolkien's works symbiotically helped each others' popularity.

But without Tolkien, orcs or no orcs, fantasy fiction will still happen, with different players.

 

[HARRY]

Peter Jackson would be famous for his Feebles rather then Hobbits.

 

[TheStoneDog]

Fantasy would survive without Tolkien, Fritz Leibner, H.P Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and and a number of other SF/Fantasy writers would still be around, elves and Orks might be less predominant, and Fantasy might be a bit less cliched and sugary-sweet overall.
Hopefully the bloated fantasy "epics", overloaded with world-building that is basically just Norse, Germanic and English mythology fan fiction, which his works spwaned will hopefully never come to pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Leiber#Fafhrd_and_the_Gray_Mouser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard#Sword_and_Sorcery

I say good riddance.

 

[Fairdowner]

Meet the Feebles was brilliant. Peter Jackson made some awesome splatter movies in his time and New Zealand has been truly blessed by his presence.

 

[Herzen's love-child]

Fantasy would survive without Tolkien, Fritz Leibner, H.P Lovecraft, Robert E. Howard and and a number of other SF/Fantasy writers would still be around, elves and Orks might be less predominant, and Fantasy might be a bit less cliched and sugary-sweet overall.
Hopefully the bloated fantasy "epics", overloaded with world-building that is basically just Norse, Germanic and English mythology fan fiction, which his works spwaned will hopefully never come to pass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Leiber#Fafhrd_and_the_Gray_Mouser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard#Sword_and_Sorcery

I say good riddance.

...making room for other cliches in the science fiction/fantasy realm to become dominant. You really wouldn't be any happier.

Besides, Fantasy has probably never been more pluralistic than it is now. There are flavors for everyone. Even for you.

 

[Johannes Parisiensis]

Antiquity

And what about a more Hellenic Antiquity-influenced *fantasy, where the heroes would be dealing with nymphes, chimeraes, hydras and sphinxes?

Someone made the Maze and Minotaurs for a POD where Gygax was more influenced by Antiquity.
Similarly, something like it could have happened.