The fantasy lit tradition -- what came right after Tolkien?

[tetsujin28]

You're my hero. You're rational, but you're still my hero.

 

[Nightfall]

Nah, you're selling him pretty short. It uses some of the same characters as the Mabinogian (sp?) but it's not at all the same story/stories. Have you ever read the Mabinogian? Arawn isn't even a Dark Lord of any kind, for instance...

Josh, it's been a while since I read the book. but let me check...*nods* Yeah you're right he's just a Lord of the place of the same name. Still it didn't quite feel the same. I will however give Alex his props. I love the characters and their interactions.

 

[Nightfall]

Claiming that Alexander too closely followed The Mabinogion is

A) Inaccurate -- the Mabinogion isn't a story, first off -- it's a collection of stories that don't have anything to do with each other. Alexander certainly took elements from it (names, mostly, it seems to me), but to say that it's a reproduction is untrue.

B) Rather beside the point, isn't it? I mean, even if all he did WAS rewrite the Mabinogion, he'd still be somebody publishing fantasy soon after Tolkien, right?

Or am I missing the point of this thread?

True it is a collection but much like the Bible is a collection, both are considered "great works". I was inaccurate in the sense it was a reproduction, but he DID use it more of a baseline than Tolkien using some of his myths. And yes he is but I'm also saying that if you want a reproduced work, why hasn't anyone reproduced ALL of Shakespeare's work?

 

[Desdichado]

(1) True it is a collection but much like the Bible is a collection, both are considered "great works". (2) I was inaccurate in the sense it was a reproduction, but he DID use it more of a baseline than Tolkien using some of his myths. (3) And yes he is but I'm also saying that if you want a reproduced work, why hasn't anyone reproduced ALL of Shakespeare's work?

1. Yes, but what's your point?
2. That depends. Some elements of Tolkien were lifted right out of myth almost completely as is, whereas Lloyd Alexander mostly just used names and a few concepts. I'd say that position is, at best, arguable.
3. For one thing, has anyone said they wanted reproduced work? And if so, why should someone reproduce it just for them? I don't understand what this whole sub-topic you've introduced here is about, I'm afraid.