The Greatest Fantasist in History

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:52 am

Whom do you think is the single greatest fantasist in history? I do not necessarily mean who is your favorite fantasy writer. One can enjoy a writer whom he recognizes is not the best. I posed this question to myself a couple of weeks ago, and have since pondered it. I have derived much wonder and enjoyment from a number of writers, though most of them are clearly not the finest fantasist of all. Before I get to my choice for the greatest fantasist, I want to list three honorable mentions as well as my runner-up.

My first honorable mention is the Scotsman, George MacDonald (1824-1905), who authored more than fifty volumes altogether of poetry, fiction, fantasy, sermons, literary criticism, etc. This honorable mention is for his Phantastes (1858) and Lilith (1895), which his son, Ronald, compared to "two strange sphinxes, with each its constant form, and each with its ever changing beauty of countenance,sphinxes asking questions which none will regret his endeavour to answer" (From a Northern Window, pp. 66-67). George MacDonald’s entire work, though, was not primarily that of a fantasist, but rather that of a Christian disciple proclaiming the Fatherhood of God. Both Phantastes and Lilith are more valuable as works of spirituality rather than of fantasy. MacDonald is primarily a mystic rather than a fantasist, his fantasy being not an end in and of itself, but rather as a means to the end of the salvation of souls.

My next honorable mention is the New Englander, H. P. Lovecraft (1890-1937). His greatest works are At the Mountains of Madness (1931) and "The Shadow out of Time" (1935), followed by "The Mound" (1930), "The Call of Cthulhu" (1926), "The Whisperer in Darkness" (1930) and "The Shadow over Innsmouth" (1931). Lovecraft’s cosmic vision is breath-taking in its scope. Awe and horror are masterfully mingled in these stories. Unfortuantely, many of Lovecraft’s stories are (to an extent) vehicles for his political and philosophical thought. Even his masterpieces are marred by extraterrestrials with political systems similar to those which Lovecraft espoused at the time of writing the stories. As with George MacDonald, fantasy partly served as the vehicle for a message, rather than being an end in and of itself. This is in part why the fantastic details of Lovecraft’s several stories contradict one another. Lovecraft was not primarily engaged with creating a secondary world, but rather with exploring this one through his fiction. Indeed, Lovecraft’s intellect grappled to such an extent with various intellectual issues that the volume of his epistles dwarfs that of his stories. His biographer, S. T. Joshi, writes: ’There is, finally, the very real possibility that Lovecraft’s letters will come to be recognized as his greatest literary and personal achievement. As early as 1937 Maurice W. Moe declared: "...if there is ever a survey to determine the greatest letter-writer in history, the claims of Lovecraft deserve close investigation." It is not simply the sheer quantity of letters he wrote (no more than 10% of which probably survive) that is important, but their intellectual breadth, rhetorical flourish, emotional intimacy, and unfailing courtesy that make them among the most remarkable literary documents of this or any other century. Horace Walpole may have gained transient fame for The Castle of Otranto, but his true literary greatness now properly resides in his correspondence; a similar fate may overtake Lovecraft, even though his fiction is vastly richer than Walpole’s’ (H. P. Lovecraft: A Life, p. 654).

My last honorable mention is the Californian, Clark Ashton Smith (1893-1961). He wrote over one hundred weird short stories, many of them of exquisite imagination and written in a rich, Asiatic style. He has no masterpieces that tower above the rest of his tales, though the stories comprising his Zothique and Hyperborea cycles deserve distinction. It is apparent, though, that Clark Ashton Smith was a poet first and a fantasist second. To quote S. T. Joshi: "Like much of [Robert E.] Howard’s work, a large proportion of Smith’s fiction is routine hackwork, although very different in subject matter; and because Smith was writing primarily to make money (chiefly to support himself and his increasingly feeble parents), he felt little compunction in altering his tales radically to suit the various pulp markets he cultivated" (H. P. Lovecraft: A Life, p. 504). Joshi further writes that Smith’s stories "are overcoloured almost beyond belief,and, to some, beyond tolerance; but while Smith unleashes his wide and esoteric vocabulary without restraint, his plots tend to be simple, even simple-minded. My belief is that Smith’s fiction is an outgrowth of his poetry,or, at least, has many of the same functions as his poetry,in the sense that what he was chiefly trying to achieve was a kind of sensory overload, in which the exotic and the outrÃ© are presented merely as such, as a foil to prosy mundanity. There is, therefore, by design little depth or profundity to his fiction; its chief value resides in its glittering surface" (H. P. Lovecraft: A Life). I agree with Joshi’s assessment. While I regard Clark Ashton Smith as perhaps the finest prose stylist I have ever read, his stories lack depth and weight. Even the stories within any of Smith’s cycles do not engage in a serious building and portrayal of a world. Rather, they are disconnected narratives that merely share a common background which is never developed in any depth.

Only two fantasists could I regard as the finest in the world. It will perhaps surprise many that I regard J. R. R. Tolkien (1892-1973) only as the runner-up. The Oxford philologist of Germanic languages began the creation of Middle-earth in 1916, the year he turned 24. He continued enriching, expanding, and unfolding his secondary world for the ensuing 57 years until his death. Tolkien did not merely write stories in a shared world. Nor did he merely write deeply moving narratives with language of great power and beauty. He created a fantasy world, detailing it in great depth, going as far as constructing languages that evolved over the millennia of the history of Middle-earth. One of Tolkien’s sons, Christopher (in what is perhaps the supreme monument of filial devotion), has edited his father’s papers on Middle-earth and published them as The Silmarillion (1977), Unfinished Tales (1980), the twelve-volume The History of Middle-earth (1983-1996), and The Children of Hurin (2007). Christopher has also approved of the two-volume The History of The Hobbit (2007), edited by John D. Rateliff. Any who has studied these seventeen volumes (along with The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings) can attest to the depth and seriousness of J. R. R. Tolkien’s creation. Tolkien, however, was primarily writing stories rather than creating a fantasy world. Most of his writings regarding Middle-earth are in narrative form (though his letters do contain a wealth of non-narrative information). He spent over half a century revising and devising stories, not so much Middle-earth itself. Tolkien himself admits as much in a Sept. 1954 letter to Peter Hastings: "You have at any rate paid me the compliment of taking me seriously; though I cannot avoid wondering whether it is not ’too seriously’, or in the wrong directions. The tale [The Lord of the Rings] is after all in the ultimate analysis a tale, a piece of literature, intended to have literary effect...Its economics, science, artifacts, religion, and philosophy are defective, or at least sketchy." Further, Tolkien’s tales (though intended primarily as fictional history) embody his religious convictions. In a letter to Robert Murray, S. J. of Dec. 2, 1953, Tolkien wrote: "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." Further, in a letter to Herbert Schiro of Nov. 17, 1957, Tolkien wrote: "But I should say, if asked, the tale is not really about Power and Dominion: that only sets the wheels going; it is about Death and the desire for deathlessness. Which is hardly more than to say it is a tale written by a Man!" All these considerations make me say with Richard Adams that Tolkien is the "Prince of Fantasists". But not the King. The King, nay, the Emperor of Fantasists is...

Muhammad Abd-al-Rahman Barker (1930- ) M. A. R. Barker, born Philip Barker, lives in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Like Tolkien, Barker’s creation of his fantasy world of Tekumel began at a young age (10 years old), and has occupied his entire subsequent life of 68 years thus far. Also like Tolkien, Barker is a professor of languages (Urdu and other South Asian languages) and has created a number of actual languages native to his fantasy world. Whereas Middle-earth and its languages have a sort of European feel to it, Tekumel and its languages feel more Asian. Unfortunately, only the tip of the iceberg of Barker’s writings on Tekumel has been published. In 1987 Dave Arneson wrote: "Within the confines of Phil’s library there are still file cabinets and dusty tomes full of notes on Tekumel" (from the Introduction to the Tita’s House of Games reprint of the 1975 game, Empire of the Petal Throne). In the foreword to the original publication of that game, Gary Gygax wrote: "I must ask the reader to view the world of Tekumel in comparison with J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth. A study of the background detail and society of each will force the reader to the conclusion that the former work is, if anything, at least as painstakingly and lovingly detailed as that of the acknowledged master of the fantasy world in toto." In 1983 Barker published the single most valuable source yet published regarding Tekumel: Swords & Glory, vol. 1: Tekumel Source Book. In 138 pages as dense as any graduate textbook, Barker presents the most important details of Tekumel, including (but not limited to):

Astronomical data
Climate
Tens of millennia of history
Racial types
Demography
Economy
Architecture
Kinship structures
Sex and marriage
Lineage
Religion and the gods
Magic
Languages
Social classes
Commerce
Taxation
Law and punishments
Administration and government
Military forces and warfare
The priesthoods
Clans
Etiquette
Eating and drinking
Entertainment
Furnishings
Costume
Armor and weapons
Technology and science
The arts
Weights and measures
Calendars
Scripts of five languages: Tsolyani, Mu’ugalavyani, Salarvyani, Yan Koryani, and Livyani

Even Tolkien’s Middle-earth cannot compare to the depth and seriousness displayed here. Barker has published several other works of similar caliber, such as Mitlanyal (a two-volume compendium of the theologies, deities, rites, and rituals of the Empire of the Petal Throne), The Book of Ebon Bindings (detailing the summoning rituals for other-planar entities), Deeds of the Ever-Glorious (histories of 85 of the legions of Tsolyanu), a two-volume set detailing the Tsolyani language, etc. It is important to remember that Tekumel is a unique world embodying Barker’s own personal creations. It is not a D&D mish-mash such as the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, DragonLance, etc. Tekumel is a coherent world produced with great depth and profundity of thought.

In 1984 Barker published The Man of Gold, the first of five (thus far) novels set on Tekumel. Unlike Tolkien’s sagas, Barker’s novels are forgettable. In terms of narrative power he does not hold a candle to Tolkien (nor to MacDonald, Lovecraft, or Smith). His novels are primarily of interest as repositories of facts regarding Tekumel. This is probably a major reason why Tekumel is relatively unknown. Most people want to read engaging stories rather than textbooks. Tekumel is primarily presented in the style of textbooks, while Middle-earth is presented primarily in stories. Barker is not primarily concerned with writing narratives, but rather with the creation of a world.

Unlike MacDonald, Lovecraft, and Tolkien, one never detects that Barker is using his created world as a vehicle to promulgate his religious and/or philosophical beliefs. Tekumel exists for its own sake, rather than for the sake of something else. It is obvious that Phantastes and Lilith were written by a Christian, and it is obvious that Middle-earth was also created by a Christian. It is equally clear that Lovecraft's stories were written by an atheist. But one cannot detect from Tekumel that Barker is a Muslim.

As I get older, my tastes in fantasy literature grow more discriminating. As a teenager, I was able to enjoy such things as Piers Anthony’s Xanth books, the early DragonLance trilogies, Brooks’s Shannara novels, etc. By my early 20s such books had lost all their appeal for me. I’m 37 now, and as I age further I can easily imagine my tastes becoming yet more discriminating. I grow more impatient of romantic sub-plots (such as mar the otherwise excellent novels of A. Merritt). I find myself losing patience with most Cthulhu Mythos stories written after Lovecraft’s death, and I even find myself more critical of Lovecraft himself. While Clark Ashton Smith engages my imagination and my sense of esthetics, he only lightly engages my mind. If such trends continue, by age 50 I will have lost all taste for any fantasy literature besides that of Tolkien and of Barker, and of the two Barker is more firmly ensconced in my regard. Tekumel engages and satisfies me at all levels. No matter how deeply one delves into Tekumel, one’s intellect is always satisfied. This professor of South Asian languages created a world to satisfy his keen mind, and any others. Tekumel moves my imagination and incites awe and wonder within me. While it is unfortunate that Barker does not have the poetic ability of Smith or the narrative ability of Tolkien, such abilities are peripheral to the creation of a fantasy world, which I regard as the essential mark of a fantasist. As such, Barker has no equal, and Tolkien alone is the only one not put to utter shame when compared to Barker.

Nagora · Post by **Nagora** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:16 pm

I broadly agree that Phil is one of the greatest. It is, to me, sad that so much of his world never saw wider publication due to the market's need for a game system to go with it. The recent T:EPT fiasco was just one in a long line of projects that added nothing to what was already available due to a frustrating need to put out a system packaged with introductory material. Introductory material on Tekumel was already widely available so to put out a package without even the Temple spells in it was criminal, IMO.

We will never know just how rich M.A.R. "Phil" Barker's imagination was, but even what has/did get out is astounding, but it is the tip of the iceburg.

predavolk · Post by **predavolk** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:26 pm

I'm shocked you'd leave Howard out of that list, but I think it's pretty obvious that Homer, or someone much like him, is the greatest of all time. Modern greats aside, Homer, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Beowulf, Sinbad, etc. are far more influential works of fantasy.

Bedivere · Post by **Bedivere** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:51 pm

And I'm shocked that Geoffrey didn't put Lovecraft 1st

I'd have to go with Tolkein (for modern, Pred brings up a good point about the influence of Homer and the like). Barker struck me as a far inferior author/story teller, and Tolkein did the whole create-new-world-complete-with-history-geography-people-languages-mythology-and such first. Man of Gold read like a list of all the things Barker made up for his world.

All the honorable mentions/runner ups on Geoffrey's list are great, though.

In 138 pages as dense as any graduate textbook, Barker presents the most important details of Tekumel, including (but not limited to):

Astronomical data...

Astronomical data? Didn't Tekumel get sucked into an alternate universe with no stars?

Ebonsword · Post by **Ebonsword** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:20 pm

I see a couple of problems with this question.

One is: "How do you define 'fantasist'?"

Is Dante a fantasist? Or Milton? Or Jonathon Swift? Or, heck, Shakespeare?

The other big problem is: "How do you define greatest?"

Is it who's the most influential? Or who's the most enjoyable read? Or who's the most innovative? Or is it by some combination of these? If so, how do you weight the respective criteria?

Personally, I would find it difficult to rate Barker very highly. He just wasn't a very good story-teller (unless his talent blossomed miraculously after "Man of Gold", which is the only novel of his I've read).

Also, I would think that Vance and Leiber would have to be added to at least the list of honorable mentions. But then, there would probably be dozens of authors I would add to that list just from the 19th and 20th centuries (Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, Bram Stoker, Arthur Conan Doyle, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, H. Rider Haggard, Robert Howard, Robert W. Chambers, G.K. Chesterton, and, of course, Gary Gygax, to name a few off the top of my head).

Ebonsword -|---

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:18 pm

nagora wrote:We will never know just how rich M.A.R. "Phil" Barker's imagination was, but even what has/did get out is astounding, but it is the tip of the iceburg.

I have plans to see if I can help do something about that. M. A. R. Barker needs his own "Christopher Tolkien" to go through all his unpublished Tekumel stuff, provide necessary editorial comment, and publish it.

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:21 pm

predavolk wrote:I'm shocked you'd leave Howard out of that list, but I think it's pretty obvious that Homer, or someone much like him, is the greatest of all time. Modern greats aside, Homer, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Beowulf, Sinbad, etc. are far more influential works of fantasy.

I agree that those classics you listed are more influential than is Tekumel (which most people haven't even heard of). That said, none of those classics listed here created a whole world as did Tolkien and Barker. Instead, they simply told fantastic stories set on our own Earth in historical time. As great works of literature, they leave Tekumel in the dust. But as fantasy worlds, they do not even compare to Tekumel or Middle-earth.

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:23 pm

Bedivere wrote:I'd have to go with Tolkein (for modern, Pred brings up a good point about the influence of Homer and the like). Barker struck me as a far inferior author/story teller, and Tolkein did the whole create-new-world-complete-with-history-geography-people-languages-mythology-and such first. Man of Gold read like a list of all the things Barker made up for his world.

In 138 pages as dense as any graduate textbook, Barker presents the most important details of Tekumel, including (but not limited to):

Astronomical data...
Astronomical data? Didn't Tekumel get sucked into an alternate universe with no stars?

The astronomical data is on the planets, moons, and suns in the solar system in which Tekumel is a planet.

I agree that Barker is a far inferior story teller to Tolkien, MacDonald, Lovecraft, Smith, and a host of other authors. But as to the depth and richness of Barker's secondary world of Tekumel, only Middle-earth can hope to compare. And I think Tekumel is Middle-earth's superior in this.

Black Vulmea · Post by **Black Vulmea** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:33 pm

Professor Barker the greatest fantasist ever? No.

Professor Barker the fantasist Geoffrey likes the most? Unquestionably.

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:37 pm

Ebonsword wrote:One is: "How do you define 'fantasist'?"

Anyone can be forgiven for missing some points in my overly-long and probably not very clear opening post.

"While it is unfortunate that Barker does not have the poetic ability of Smith or the narrative ability of Tolkien, such abilities are peripheral to the creation of a fantasy world, which I regard as the essential mark of a fantasist."

Ebonsword wrote:Is Dante a fantasist? Or Milton? Or Jonathon Swift? Or, heck, Shakespeare?

Of a sort, though I'd classify Dante and Milton as religious thinkers primarily, concerned first and foremost with the salvation of souls. They did not seek to create fantasy worlds. Instead, they gave poetic form to their respective theologies. (FWIW, I regard Dante as the world's greatest writer.) Swift I'd say used fantasy to make this-worldy political and social points. Shakespeare sprinkled some fantasy in some of his this-worldly plays, but nowhere created an entire fantasy world.

Ebonsword wrote:The other big problem is: "How do you define greatest?"

Is it who's the most influential? Or who's the most enjoyable read? Or who's the most innovative? Or is it by some combination of these? If so, how do you weight the respective criteria?

Certainly not the most influential or the most enjoyable read. Innovation is a part of my definition of greatest fantasist. Primarily, though, depth, seriousness, profundity, and consistency of a secondary world (i. e., a created fantasy world) is what I'm getting at. Only Tekumel and Middle-earth accomplish this, in spades. There are a host of created FRPG worlds, but these are all variations of the same ol' D&D mish-mash, which just take "neat" thing willy-nilly from various and assorted sources and toss them together, so you have Tolkienish Hobbits rubbing shoulders with warriors out of REH and wizards out of Moorcock, fighting monsters out of Anderson. While that's good clean fun, it's not to be compared with Middle-earth or Tekumel, both of which arose out of the imaginations of brilliant linguists.

Ebonsword wrote:Personally, I would find it difficult to rate Barker very highly. He just wasn't a very good story-teller (unless his talent blossomed miraculously after "Man of Gold", which is the only novel of his I've read).

I agree. Barker's novels are forgettable.

Korgoth · Post by **Korgoth** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:42 pm

One point about Barker: I don't know the man and I have only recently begun to investigate Tekumel. But one of the first things that jumped out at me was the very basis of the backstory: an apocalyptic nuclear war wipes out all of the West as well as China. In other words, in one fell swoop the blue-eyed devils and the secularist statists are subjected to an irrevocable genocide. That one comes across as a typical "Muslim fantasy". Obviously it's his world and he gets to write the backstory... but I wouldn't say that there's no hint of Islamic commitments in it.

That one jumped out at me so readily as perhaps one of the grossest displays of "fantasy as ideological vehicle" that I had ever seen. I'd be interested to see how the Tekumel backstory deals with the Jews, but I haven't seen any mention of them (realistically, it seems quite obvious what would happen to them if the USA was wiped off the face of the earth somehow, but then again fantasy is under no strict requirement to be realistic so I won't make any assumptions).

Bochi · Post by **Bochi** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm

Howard and Tolkien are the giants of 20th Century fantasy as far as I am concerned, the onlie begetters of almost everything that has been done since and much as Barker seems to exercise a strange fascination over his fans I can't see it myself.

As for Homer, of course he is magnificent. It is not just the stories. I am lucky enough to be able to read them in the original Greek. The roll and thunder of the verse through the long hexameters, the weight of the phrasing, the repetitions that fix the characters so that everybody gets their own epithets, like opera themes...

Well, I don't want to go on and on. We should add Malory to the list as well, and I think Milton's conception of Lucifer is very much reflected in the way modern fantasy writers handle evil. I adore Lovecraft but I think his greatness is as a stylist - the way he paces a story, the way he hints at things better left unsaid - rather than the actual detail of the Mythos itself.

Out on his own is Moorcock, not the best writer by a long way, but tearing up the rulebook almost before anybody had begun to write it. Deserves a mention.

Nagora · Post by **Nagora** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:05 pm

Korgoth wrote:One point about Barker: I don't know the man and I have only recently begun to investigate Tekumel. But one of the first things that jumped out at me was the very basis of the backstory: an apocalyptic nuclear war wipes out all of the West as well as China. In other words, in one fell swoop the blue-eyed devils and the secularist statists are subjected to an irrevocable genocide. That one comes across as a typical "Muslim fantasy". Obviously it's his world and he gets to write the backstory... but I wouldn't say that there's no hint of Islamic commitments in it.

That one jumped out at me so readily as perhaps one of the grossest displays of "fantasy as ideological vehicle" that I had ever seen. I'd be interested to see how the Tekumel backstory deals with the Jews, but I haven't seen any mention of them (realistically, it seems quite obvious what would happen to them if the USA was wiped off the face of the earth somehow, but then again fantasy is under no strict requirement to be realistic so I won't make any assumptions).

What a strange mind you have. The backstory was nothing more than a thinly disguised rationale for a fantasy world which was not based on the usual suspects of Medieval European and British folk stories and history, which also allowed Barker to use his own experience in the Far East and South America.

As to questions of Judaism, Islam or any other current religion, since Tekumel's recorded history starts at least 80000 years in the future it's safe to assume that there are no traces of them, just as there are no known traces of the pre-Ice Age religions today. From the POV of the modern Tsolyani, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindu, etc. would all be curiosities in an archeological dig.

Nagora · Post by **Nagora** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:08 pm

Ebonsword wrote:I see a couple of problems with this question.

One is: "How do you define 'fantasist'?"

One possible definition would be someone who creates a fantasy world. In terms of breadth and consistancy I am not aware of any published fantasist who comes close to Barker in these two areas.

Do I prefer Howard's writing? Oh, yes. If only he had lived to a ripe old age...

predavolk · Post by **predavolk** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:17 pm

Bochi wrote:Howard and Tolkien are the giants of 20th Century fantasy as far as I am concerned, the onlie begetters of almost everything that has been done since and much as Barker seems to exercise a strange fascination over his fans I can't see it myself.

As for Homer, of course he is magnificent. It is not just the stories. I am lucky enough to be able to read them in the original Greek. The roll and thunder of the verse through the long hexameters, the weight of the phrasing, the repetitions that fix the characters so that everybody gets their own epithets, like opera themes...

Add in some of the other historical greats and boom! Tolkein, and the other guy spouted above, are given far too much credit for nerding out and inventing some fantasy world. How many of us here have done the same just for D&D? Tolkein wrote the most epic sage. Howard wrote the most thrilling tales. And Lovecraft the most horrific stories. That was easy for the 20th century. But like I said, the true giants are those who set the stage for the 20th Century with fantasy stories that have lasted for centuries.

Geoffrey · Post by **Geoffrey** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:59 pm

predavolk wrote:Tolkien, and the other guy spouted above, are given far too much credit for nerding out and inventing some fantasy world. How many of us here have done the same just for D&D?

Predavolk, isn't that like saying, "Howard and Lovecraft and those guys just nerded out and wrote some fairy tales. How many of us have done the same as early as elementary school?"

Of course any fool can create a fantasy world, just as any fool can write a fantasy story. Quality is a whole other matter, however.

D.J. · Post by **D.J.** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:28 pm

Old Shakyspear, Swift, Howard, Heinlein.

Yeah, RAH wrote sf. But his stories show something many authors lack, imagination.

I have read, probably still have my copies of, Tekumel but they just didn't do it for me. Didn't like them.

Jirel of Joiry another good set of stories.

Little Fuzzy and the Empire, along with the Cross Time stories of H. Beam Piper.

Lavalamp World by Jose Farmer.

The drawings of M. C. Escher certainly gets my imagination going.

Alphonse Mucha as well.

Tolkien.

Ebonsword · Post by **Ebonsword** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:01 pm

Geoffrey wrote:"While it is unfortunate that Barker does not have the poetic ability of Smith or the narrative ability of Tolkien, such abilities are peripheral to the creation of a fantasy world, which I regard as the essential mark of a fantasist."

Ah, I did miss that the first time I read your post.

It's interesting that you put so much importance on the creation of the fantasy world. I'd say that the world is actually one of the least important parts of good fantasy--at least in regards to the sorts of details that you seem to find most praiseworthy.

I mean, really, who cares if the author has 10,000 pages of backstory, three-dozen self-created languages, and twenty different theologies if his characters are bland, his plotting is incoherant, and his pacing is poor?

For some reason people hold up Tolkein as the ideal, but, really, I think that he's an example of overkill rather than a paragon of authorial virtue. Personaly, I'd rather see an author spend only as much time on world building as they need to in order to create a convincing tale. I mean, would Robert Howard's "The Tower of the Elephant" be a better story if he had 100 pages of history for the creature Conan encounters? I kind of doubt it.

Ebonsword -|---

dcas · Post by **dcas** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:08 pm

The reason that The Lord of the Rings is so effective is because of the "illusion" of depth, which depth comes from the fact that the "back-story" already existed. The heroes of the Fellowship have legends and heroes of their own. That is a good part of what makes LOTR so compelling IMO.

Bochi · Post by **Bochi** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:23 pm

Ebonsword wrote: For some reason people hold up Tolkein as the ideal, but, really, I think that he's an example of overkill rather than a paragon of authorial virtue. Personaly, I'd rather see an author spend only as much time on world building as they need to in order to create a convincing tale. I mean, would Robert Howard's "The Tower of the Elephant" be a better story if he had 100 pages of history for the creature Conan encounters? I kind of doubt it.

Ebonsword -|---

I think you are unfair to Tolkien: much of his world creation was his private fun, especially the linguistic development of the various languages, how they derive from each other and older ones the way his beloved Anglo-Saxon dialects change down the years into modern English.

The Lord of the Rings does, however, only hint at what is needed in order to be convincing. Tolkien's "authorial judgment" was indeed to leave most of it out and create a mysterious sense of history by referring occasionally to the older myths.

The much-praised and much-criticised appendices give more history and background but you have to remember, there were several years between the publication of the first and last volume, and many years since the publication of The Hobbit. Tolkien had a good idea about the background stuff his readers wanted by the time it came to deciding what should be in the appendices. His letters to all sorts of queries from fans show that. And there is still almost nothing in the LOTR appendices about the First age, where all the myths come from.

Nevertheless the appendices are not the story proper. All the volumes of fragments and vocabularies and the like are posthumously published and much of it is stuff Tolkien would have revised or had already chosen not to put into LOTR.

The actual body of work he left is not huge. It is made huge because he kept rewriting the same stories. It is not his fault that fans like me buy all the backstory material to pick over...I am sure we would give up all of "The History of Middle-Earth" for one as yet untold story in Tolkien's own hand.

DungeonDevil · Post by **DungeonDevil** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:28 pm

Was Dunsany mentioned?

TheDungeonDelver · Post by **TheDungeonDelver** » Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:36 pm

tl;dr = the guy who likes MAR Barker...likes MAR Barker.

Moloch · Post by **Moloch** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:04 am

How about L. Ron Hubbard? He invented a whole religion and pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible narcissists by telling them that THEY were the enlightened holders of a secret truth and what everyone else believed was WRONG (and continues to do his woolpulling from the grave)... if that isn't a masterwork of fantasy, I don't know what is!

I decided a while back that my next D&D PC will be a prosletizing elf named "Elrond Hubbard" who will seek followers for his new religion in which EVERYONE can be a god! Even you!

While I admire most of the fantasy authors mentioned above, I have a soft spot in my heart for the ones who believed what they wrote. Richard Sharpe Shaver's "Shaver Mysteries" are fascinating simply because the author himself believed them to be true... and Henry Darger is credited, as a nearly illiterite recluse, with having written and illustrated what is officially the world's longest story (it filled most of his apartment and was written all by hand). Darger's book is filled with his tortured imaginings of a world where children were horrifically tortured and killed by adults, so obviously it never made the New York Times Bestseller List.

Moloch · Post by **Moloch** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 12:09 am

Korgoth wrote:That one jumped out at me so readily as perhaps one of the grossest displays of "fantasy as ideological vehicle" that I had ever seen.

I suspect that every work of fiction (and the overwhelming majority of works of non-fiction) are ideologically driven on one level or another.

D.J. · Post by **D.J.** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:16 am

Moloch wrote:How about L. Ron Hubbard? He invented a whole religion and pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible narcissists by telling them that THEY were the enlightened holders of a secret truth and what everyone else believed was WRONG (and continues to do his woolpulling from the grave)... if that isn't a masterwork of fantasy, I don't know what is!

Rumor has it he turned it into a religion when he found out he had to pay income taxes on his book royalties.

That he thought his royalties were tax free is simply amazing.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:25 am

Moses.

Moloch · Post by **Moloch** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:20 am

D.J. wrote:Rumor has it he turned it into a religion when he found out he had to pay income taxes on his book royalties.

Some people just don't like paying taxes.

I heard a tale that Hubbard boasted to his fellow writers that he was such a great story teller that he could invent a religon and people would believe it. His friends called his boast and he proved it.

Of course, that was just gossip around the beer pitcher one night; I have no idea how true it is.

D.J. · Post by **D.J.** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 2:51 am

Oh, I'm sure many of us don't like paying taxes.

But for some reason he thought book royalties were excempt.

Its income, its not excempt.

I've heard that other authors don't like it either. A certain Horse Clans author as an example.

Thing is, as self-employed, authors get to pay both the employee and the employer part of the social security taxes. Probably for both parts of federal income taxes as well.

predavolk · Post by **predavolk** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:28 am

Geoffrey wrote: Of co_rse any fool can create a fantasy world, j_st as any fool can write a fantasy story. Q_ality is a whole other matter, however.

I guess I'm not impressed by the ability to create a detailed fantasy world. I've seen it done dozens, if not hundreds, of times now. By pros and amateurs. I am impressed by the ability to tell a captivating story, which is far more difficult.

But maybe that's not where you want this thread to go, so I won't belabor the point. I'll certainly grant that all your authors are worthy of serious consideration.

dcas · Post by **dcas** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:32 am

D.J. wrote:Thing is, as self-employed, authors get to pay both the employee and the employer part of the social security taxes. Probably for both parts of federal income taxes as well.

Really, the employee always pays both parts since one's employer could pay one more if he didn't have to pay part of your SS taxes as well.

1e Initiative Explained	Blog	Easy Weapon Vs Armour
Greyhawk Appearance Tables	Method IV generator	Monster XP spreadsheet
Faster Wilderness Encounters	BtB 1e Treasure Generator (beta)

1e Initiative Explained	Blog	Easy Weapon Vs Armour
Greyhawk Appearance Tables	Method IV generator	Monster XP spreadsheet
Faster Wilderness Encounters	BtB 1e Treasure Generator (beta)

1e Initiative Explained	Blog	Easy Weapon Vs Armour
Greyhawk Appearance Tables	Method IV generator	Monster XP spreadsheet
Faster Wilderness Encounters	BtB 1e Treasure Generator (beta)

Dragonsfoot

The Greatest Fantasist in History

The Greatest Fantasist in History

Re: The Greatest Fantasist in History

Re: The Greatest Fantasist in History