Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK so JRR Tolkein and CS Lewis were friends and contemporaries who both wrote classic fantasy series full of mythical allusions and deeds of daring-do.

Tolkein's name has gone on to become an adjective and his archetypes of Elfs, Dwarfs, Orcs etc became stables of fantasy fiction.

But Lewis' archetypes of talking animals and creatures from fairy tales never really insipred immitation the way Tolkein's did.  Of course he didn't invent the idea any more than Tolkein invented Elfs, but he put them together into a world.

Anyone have ideas why?

I'd have to say that the LotR series was a 'real' fantasy world. Not some fantasy world that some kids found in a closet. Not that the whole Narnia thing wasn't good, but you didn't have elements of the "real-world" in the story.

So JRR would be high fantasy and Lewis is bedtime story fantasy.

Because Frodo didn't have Santa Claus helping him out.

First book in the series, and it jumps the shark.  Damn.

Seriously, I think it has to do with the intended audience.  Narnia was geared more for children while Middle Earth is intended for a bit more mature audience.  Kids just don't have the obsessiveness required to popularize a mythology that grognards do.

-=Edit=-  HA!  I hadn't seen the post by thegrognard when I posted this.  Awesome.

Possibly...

Tolkein created a coherent history and background for his Middle Earth, which is internally consistent; and stuck to this history with such rigor that it becomes believable.

Lewis had no qualms about mixing creatures from many different mythologies into a hodgepodge (a faun, using an umbrella, and making tea? Talking Beavers that use sewing machines? Father Christmas?), and was less concerned with internal consistency than with making his moral point.

[Edit] Beat me to it, you have.

I can see why more people would study Tolkein, he created whole languages, but I'm thinking more about the works inspired by him.

Why did the fantasy of being an Elf archer become iconic, but not being, oh a talking lion?

Basically why did Tolkein become the standard for 'fantasy' and not Lewis, or for that matter Greek myth or some other source of inspiration.

tolkien: a story that has a few morals attached to it

lewis: morals that have a story attached to them


=-)

Easier to identify with the (humanoid) elves, dwarves, et al. than the talking non-anthropomorphized lions.

I think (unfortunately) it has a lot to do with the undertones. Lewis is HUGE on Judeo-Christian mythology and morality whereas Tolkien inserts it here and there. Those undertones in Lewis' work are sure to make a lot of people uncomfortable (although, even though I'm agnostic, I highly prefer Narnia's mythology).

It's difficult to continue the mythology of fantasy characters and their (fairly paganesque) beliefs/imagery from Christianized sources. No matter how cool Aslan is, he represents Christ, and I'm sure it would be diffcult for later writers to include something like him in a story bereft with both good guys and bad engaging in magic, rituals, etc.

That's not to say Lewis hasn't contributed anything. A lot of his more "evil" characters/species continue in contemporary fantasy - beastmen, minotaurs, evil dwarves, centaurs, etc.

Short answer, God loves furries and precocious British children, Hobbits jump on the bed and stare at each other for like 45 minutes.

A few possibilities:

1) While both LOTR and Narnia are preachy, LOTR uses a far softer touch.  Most people don't like being preached to, because most people are prideful.

2) LOTR is written for a mature audience, while Narnia is written for children.  You would think that alone would account for the differences, but it doesn't entirely, because The Hobbitt is also a children's story, but is still far more popular as a stand alone work.

3) The characters in the LOTR are far easier for the reader to relate to, because they are more ambiguous and less polarized then Narnia characters.

Yeah, but in place of "children" Tolkien gives us a blossoming love story
between midgets.

"Little people". Little idealized rural British people, actually.

Tolkein invented a world which made sense as a consistent world. The countries and people have not just languages, but histories and consistent backgrounds. Narnia has a background, but it's pretty vage and generic, with (to the best of my knowledge), few if any fleshed out cultures and peoples.

Tolkien's world was inspired by long-standing, familiar European mythology such as Beowulf, Norse sagas, the Ring Cycle and the Mabinogion. These have always been adult orientated and provide a cultural baseline that all Europeans and their diaspora share.

Orcs.
Balrogs.
Vicious Elves.

vs

Lions.
Witches.
Wardrobes.

To be fair it gets pretty cool in books like the Silver Chair and the Last Battle (if I remember the title right), and I was much more interested in the dead world (Charn?) they got the Witch from than in Narnia, but ultimately the Narnia Chronicles never seemed anymore than children's books to me.

I don't take the Hobbit too seriously either for the same reason.

Easier to identify with the (humanoid) elves, dwarves, et al. than the talking non-anthropomorphized lions.

That's what I would say.  I wouldn't want to roleplay a lion (I'm assuming D&D is the real reason for the proliferation of Tolkien's stuff).

The Narnia books are children's books. The right kind of person can hugely enjoy them between the ages of about 9 to 13. I certainly did. After that you graduate to something more mature.

Harry Potter is also for kids but it's launched a world-wide cinema phenomenon.

Not to derail the topic but I will be interested to see the film of "His Dark Materials."

Remember that Middle Earth is pure fantasy. Internally consistent well thought out and completely divorced from our own world. You can sink into it and it surrounds you seamlessly on all sides.
This will change with 'Saul Zaentz' additions MMORPG's and the cultural stripmining that is going on. But at its core it is a (near) flawless work of genius.

Lewis was a genius too, in many ways greater than Tolkien, but his best books were set outside Narnia and allowed people to grasp very complicated theological points simply.
Narnia cannot be divorced from the faith behind it. This is good as it makes the background internally consistent. Tolkien copied him by using the ethics of the Christian God centrally in his own mythology. Note that 'Ea' does not have a pantheonist mythology.
Furthermore Narnia is an extension of our own spacetime, background and myuthology. Hence the addition of Father Christmas and people from Earth. The myth is based entirely of an extension of the natural order.

An interesting point on Lewis. He originally detested Christianity as he found it too glib and simplistic. But the more he looked the more he realised that it was the only religious and background that made consistent moral and philosophical sense. Her described his conversion experience (by sitting down and having a very big think about all the options) as being "dragged kicking and screaming into the Kingdom of God". This was a man who thought things through, and Narnia grew out to be the workshop from where his theologies could be brought into life.

Furthermore Lewis initially restricted the influence of Aslan as a character. He had Jesus in at the background, but as Jesus is central to his methodology the quote ' saw Aslan bound accross the pages', ultimately Narnia mutated/refined itself into a parable for modern times. Its good, but not tame.

Lewis's "adult" works were extremely bizarre...

I only ever read Out of the Silent Planet, but I had to stop there. Maybe
I'll try the rest?

Tolkien wrote about a deep and righ history concerning his artificial mythology.

Lewis wrote religious treatises that were candy coated by story (though very good stories).

Both good writers, but very distinct motives.

Lewis' sci fi is far more beleivable than is his fantastic narnia.

Posted By Kilkrazy on 05/18/2007 3:29 AM
The Narnia books are children's books. The right kind of person can hugely enjoy them between the ages of about 9 to 13. I certainly did. After that you graduate to something more mature.

Harry Potter is also for kids but it's launched a world-wide cinema phenomenon.

Not to derail the topic but I will be interested to see the film of "His Dark Materials."

even more interesting, is that the screwtape letters is confirmed as being made into a movie. I only hope that John Cleese plays screwtape in the movie as he did on the book on tape. he really knew how to bring that demon to life.

Aside from whole languages, Tolkein spent a lot of time developing the cultures of the people he created. There were empires and cities and peoples all over with vastly differing cultures all of which were very fleshed out. Tolken put in an incredible amount of detail (sometimes to my annoyance) into his world that Lewis simply did not. Sure both worlds had elves, but when you are confronted with the text for Elvin poetry and song every 50 pages in a 400+ page book, it takes on a bit more solid feel. Tolkein also had much more consistency in his story. It was one large epic where as Lewis' works were more like episodic stories that jumped around in the world's time line and had little if anything to do with each other.

I think it depends on what you mean by 'popular'?

In terms of the gaming community (and for this I mean cards, board games, miniatures, action figures, and computer games), Tolkien's appeal is greater as he spends much more time writing about battles and heroic deeds, while Lewis' stories are more intimate portrayals of personal (spiritual) growth. While Lewis does have a couple of big battle scenes in a few books, (Prince Caspian, The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc.), they're written as you'd expect in a children's book, whereas Tolkien was trying to replicate the sagas and heroic poetry of Old Europe.

In terms of children's literature, I think Lewis' image of 'ordinary children' being whisked away from the drab and ordinary (and dangerous; remember LW&W is set in WWII) world to a fantasy land, where they get to be the heroes, is pretty pervasive today, from "Harry Potter" to "Where the Wild Things Are" etc. The specific imagery may change, but the motifs are similar. And more children's books are bound to have elves that are more Keebler than Fey.

Sorry for the double post, but I had another thought, similar to what was posted, but worth phrasing, I think:

Something else to keep in mind is the (academic) worlds Lewis and Tolkien occupied. Tolkien was interested in cultures and language; Lewis was interested in faith and ideas. Naturally, their styles and foci would differ, and appeal to different audiences.

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't started seeing more "Lewisian" style armies for miniatures games since the movie came out. A couple of knights, some satyrs and centaurs, and an Armored Dire Rhino. What more could you want?

i would have to disagree about the Harry Potter books "being just for kids". i WILL agree that the first two are definitely childrens books, and that book three would be a "Teen" title. but from book four onto six, they have a more sinister "Dark" feel to them than the first two. in all honesty, JK has actually evolved her writing throughout her books to target more mature audiences with each progressing book.

OT but an interesting way to look at it in my opinion =-)

Just to trace the emergence of Tolkeiesque fantasy, can anyone help me ID the first Tolkein rip-off?

There was the Sword of Shannara from the late 70 early 80s which had Elfs and Dwarfs and a wise wizard and an evil lord.

Before that there was something called Iron Tower (I think, never read it) which I've heard is basically LotR retold for 12 year olds.

And of course D&D. So was D&D the first real Tolkein rip-off?

D&D was the first big one anyway. That and Titanic. Both LOTR and Titanic had the guy who played Theoden. It can't just be a coincidence...

OED says Tolkeinesque first showed up in 1967 in an NY TImes ad for something called The Gormenghast Novels.  Anyone know them? 

 

http://www.jessesword.com/sf/view/1542

To my recollection, Gormenghast's only similarity to Tolkein is length and depth. It's enormous but totally different and original, at least from as much of it as I read. I never managed to finish the first book, but the story and setting were very interesting and weird.

I think you might like them. The setting is so byzantine and gothic it might hit some of the same genre receptors that allow you to dig on GW, Necromunda, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titus_Groan_%28novel%29

Major themes

Gormenghast Castle is the setting for the first two books in the series, Titus Groan and Gormenghast. It incorporates many of the elements of both mediæval castles and Regency period stately homes, though in practice it operates like a small city-state. It has its own government, a Byzantine system of laws and rituals, a class system, and is seemingly self-sufficient. Among the countless buildings and rooms are libraries, a huge kitchen (thirty-six men are required just to scrub the walls), outer walls, an art gallery (specifically carvings), a dining hall, a lake and a school. Vast areas of the castle are abandoned. Aficionados have attempted to calculate the approximate size of the 'mile upon mile of mouldering masonry' and have settled on something approximating Central London. It is possible that the blackened and jagged skyline of Gormenghast was suggested by the bombed ruins of London or Dresden following World War II; Peake was an official war artist and had been present at the opening of some of the Nazi death camps, an experience that touched him deeply and haunted him throughout his life.

It has also been posited that Gormenghast had its ancient roots in the Forbidden City of Peking (Peake spent some of his early life in colonial China, a fact which might also have some bearing on the fantastical artworks of the Bright Carvers who dwell without the castle walls.)

Gothicism The immense, overwhelming presence of the castle; its 'umbrageous ceilings', its 'empire of red rust' and the way in which it shapes and deforms the personalities of those who dwell in and under it, marks Gormenghast out as one of the great Gothic edifices, as Hill House in Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House or Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto. Gormenghast is frequently referred to as a personality by its inhabitants and may be the only true example of Gothic Expressionism in English literature. Author Anthony Burgess argued for the Gormenghast novels' status as a major classic of the Twentieth Century; resounding with horrible images drawn from a century of war; the Holocaust in Sepulchrave's library; the attaching of a calf's skull to Sourdust's skeleton; Flay and Swelter enacting their danse macabre in the hall of Spiders.

Posted By Mannahnin on 05/18/2007 12:52 PM

Gothicism The immense, overwhelming presence of the castle; its 'umbrageous ceilings', its 'empire of red rust' and the way in which it shapes and deforms the personalities of those who dwell in and under it, marks Gormenghast out as one of the great Gothic edifices, as Hill House in Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House or Horace Walpole's The Castle of Otranto.

*cough* You forgot Matthew Lewis'  "The Monk". While inspired by Otranto, many have argued it's narrative puts it leagues above Otranto.

But then again, Gothicism continually redefined itself as it progressed,  (enter segue back on topic) much as fantasy did in the middle of the 20th century with Tolkien making the largest impact for inspiration for novels such as Gormenghast to follow in its breadth of  view.
While the books we know as gothic today, were actually written as "romances" at the time they were penned, fantasy in kind is also developed into its own genre, as Tolkien didnt write his novels based on it being the foundation of a genre..

I'm sensing a lot of love for the Jewish zombie in this thread.

It could be that while characters in LotR are more people then symbols. While sometimes having admirable traits and such, Frodo is Frodo, Sam is Sam, and Aragorn is Aragorn. The characters in Narnia come across more as symbols then as people. LotR also taps into to pre-Christian cultural concepts and may have a broader appeal, if only by a bit. As much as it chagrins some Christians, they don't own the concepts of good and evil in the world. LotR's good and evil is more broad and can appeal more easily to all people, as opposed to "Oh, Jesus ate that witch".

Which really leads to a bit of it that may be the unfair reason. Lewis is seen as a Christian writer first to many first, and not just as a writer. Right away thats going to keep some from reading his works, which is a shame as it is fantastic.