At least those on cover blurbs, as they are almost strictly marketing gimmicks. It's not a bad habit to get into to stop reading those after the synopsis and ignore all the hyperbolic recommendations and dubious comparisons... occasionally they are useful, but mostly when you get a second opinion from another source that isn't trying to sell you anything...
Then there are most mainstream reviews of the genre releases, where either the critic is clueless or the targeted readers are believed to be fairly clueless and dropping the name of Tolkien is a short-cut to explain "this is a Fantasy novel" (the chances that it turns out to be also a Fantasy epic with a central conflict of good vs. evil are far less good). Why? Because Tolkien/LOTR remains all too often the one Fantasy novel of which there is a certain awareness in the mainstream pop culture since the 70s. Few mainstream reviewers do their job right when it comes to genre, by summarizing the background of the genre or familiarizing their readers with a few of its currents or sub-genres instead of just dropping the name of Tolkien. It's only become worse because of the Jackson movies that have made LOTR massively more "mainstream" than it was before.
Expect the name of G.R.R. Martin to be used far more extensively in the mainstream media in the next years because of the HBO miniseries. Where some would have described as work as a modern Tolkien but "with more adult themes", they'll just drop the name of Martin instead. (Also, Martin is the big Fantasy name who gets the most laughably coined "a Tolkien". In his case, it really shows how blocked and lacking in background some reviewers are when it comes to genre works)
However, I think you've failed to notice that within the Fantasy circles themselves (incl. genre reviewers, and the publishers when they targeted the fans, not the mainstream readers) the name of Tolkien isn't used as widely as before. It was everywhere in the late 80s-early 90s, as post-Tolkien Fantasy was still in its emergence phase. Who in fact but Tolkien could be used as reference for marketing purposes, to define the genre of the work, when it came to writers like Robert Jordan back in 1990 anyway ?(and more precisely "an American Tolkien", to account for the americanity of Jordan's worldbuilding and referents, very apparent even in EOTW. Beside, it was relevant the time, if far less so today. Beyond offering a manichean tale built around a hero's journey like Tolkien Jordan was, and clearly inspired in this endeavour by Tolkien's, attempting to create a whole world to put his story in (and one that developped into something far more detailed if not as brilliant as Tolkien). Tolkien definitely didn't invent the hero's journey (no one did, as far back as we can go in the history of humanity it's been there) and he didn't invent world building either (though before him it had been used mostly either for religious or philosophical purposes, for example in utopian works, or differently in most religious texts from ancient myths to the more recent ones like the christian gospels) but without knowing he was founding a modern literary genre/sub-genre by integrating the two to create a fully fictitious epic, and one meant to be read for entertainment, not for social/political or religious or even educative purposes. What Tolkien invented is the idea of setting an epic on a purely faux-mythology/cosmology, which was quite a bit an accident as he had developped a fictional mythology first as an intellectual hobby, and what he set out to write as a sequel to the Hobbit ended up becoming the Heroic cycle to his unpublished mythological cycle.
It's not before the mid-90s that very different tone of WOT was firmly established and using Tolkien for reference wasn't nearly precise enough. It wasn't very apparent before the fourth or fifth WOT book that Jordan would start diverting from the classic epic à la Tolkien to create rather Fantasy's first pseudo-historical feuilleton, where the epic is just an important element, a kind of core, that would take the center stage once more mostly in the finale. Jordan's "historical events" are fictitious, and drawing from the epic and the manichean opposition core, but most of his series is more comparable to the tone and tropes of the historical feuilleton sub-genre, telling the tales of tons of characters while history develops in the background (a genre of which Alexandre Dumas remains the master). But after reading only his first book, Jordan could be seen quite accurately as a sub-Tolkien. Later it became apparent that Jordan had not intention to merely mimick Tolkien and write another LOTR (as several authors have tried to do) and but to write a series with a wholly different tone, style and focus, drawing on core elements that first appeared, in modern literature anyway, in LOTR. Martin later did the same. Erikson did the same. JK Rowling did the same, all in their different ways. Martin didn't borrow from feuilleton and adventure novels like Jordan, he focussed his series on a medieval-style war, with an epic core à la Tolkien that (like Jordan) will eventually provide him with a finale.
Nowadays, there's been enough big publishing successes and big fan successes, and the Fantasy genre has diversified enough that publishers can leave Tolkien mostly as a reference in the mainstream media, and use instead other, more precise comparisons (if all too often as misleading, shallow or reductive as before). Erikson was coined "a modern Tolkien" not because his work has much to do with LOTR (though he's probably the one who could be the most honestly considered an heir to Tolkien) but because like Tolkien he has a relevant scholarly background (not ancient languages, but anthropology), and was similarly inspired by the form, not only the content, of the ancient texts. And that was one factor that made me curious to read his work, as I told myself "hmmm... the worldbuilding in this series is bound to be solid and interesting if this guy can also write". Martin is all too often brought in when a publisher want to sell to the Fantasy fans it's dark, gritty and has sex, or when a series centers on a political plot, or even to suggest it's "more mature" than Tolkien and the others have been (which unsurprisngly is meant to sell the books mostly to young adult males, far more worried that a series isn't "too immature" for them than actual adult readers are). I've seen the name of Jordan used for marketing a lot too, the minute a writer tells the story of tons of characters in parallel, or plans for a very long series. Tor is already using Sanderson's "filiation" to Jordan to present his Stormlight Archives as "a huge saga in the vein of the Wheel of Time" (and fashionably throw in a "and ASOIAF", perhaps to convince readers who find Sanderson too squeaky-clean to give it a try) - which in this case is probably relevant. Anderson's Seven Suns series was also sold as "a saga in the vein of Jordan's WOT" which in that case was strictly a misleading marketing gimmick.
When Tolkien is thrown in nowadays, it's mostly when publishers are trying to sell a series to an audience beyond the genre fans, which is the case with Martin, coined "the American Tolkien" for the masses's sake. Regular fantasy readers know what that comment is worth to accurately describe ASOIAF.
Then there are most mainstream reviews of the genre releases, where either the critic is clueless or the targeted readers are believed to be fairly clueless and dropping the name of Tolkien is a short-cut to explain "this is a Fantasy novel" (the chances that it turns out to be also a Fantasy epic with a central conflict of good vs. evil are far less good). Why? Because Tolkien/LOTR remains all too often the one Fantasy novel of which there is a certain awareness in the mainstream pop culture since the 70s. Few mainstream reviewers do their job right when it comes to genre, by summarizing the background of the genre or familiarizing their readers with a few of its currents or sub-genres instead of just dropping the name of Tolkien. It's only become worse because of the Jackson movies that have made LOTR massively more "mainstream" than it was before.
Expect the name of G.R.R. Martin to be used far more extensively in the mainstream media in the next years because of the HBO miniseries. Where some would have described as work as a modern Tolkien but "with more adult themes", they'll just drop the name of Martin instead. (Also, Martin is the big Fantasy name who gets the most laughably coined "a Tolkien". In his case, it really shows how blocked and lacking in background some reviewers are when it comes to genre works)
However, I think you've failed to notice that within the Fantasy circles themselves (incl. genre reviewers, and the publishers when they targeted the fans, not the mainstream readers) the name of Tolkien isn't used as widely as before. It was everywhere in the late 80s-early 90s, as post-Tolkien Fantasy was still in its emergence phase. Who in fact but Tolkien could be used as reference for marketing purposes, to define the genre of the work, when it came to writers like Robert Jordan back in 1990 anyway ?(and more precisely "an American Tolkien", to account for the americanity of Jordan's worldbuilding and referents, very apparent even in EOTW. Beside, it was relevant the time, if far less so today. Beyond offering a manichean tale built around a hero's journey like Tolkien Jordan was, and clearly inspired in this endeavour by Tolkien's, attempting to create a whole world to put his story in (and one that developped into something far more detailed if not as brilliant as Tolkien). Tolkien definitely didn't invent the hero's journey (no one did, as far back as we can go in the history of humanity it's been there) and he didn't invent world building either (though before him it had been used mostly either for religious or philosophical purposes, for example in utopian works, or differently in most religious texts from ancient myths to the more recent ones like the christian gospels) but without knowing he was founding a modern literary genre/sub-genre by integrating the two to create a fully fictitious epic, and one meant to be read for entertainment, not for social/political or religious or even educative purposes. What Tolkien invented is the idea of setting an epic on a purely faux-mythology/cosmology, which was quite a bit an accident as he had developped a fictional mythology first as an intellectual hobby, and what he set out to write as a sequel to the Hobbit ended up becoming the Heroic cycle to his unpublished mythological cycle.
It's not before the mid-90s that very different tone of WOT was firmly established and using Tolkien for reference wasn't nearly precise enough. It wasn't very apparent before the fourth or fifth WOT book that Jordan would start diverting from the classic epic à la Tolkien to create rather Fantasy's first pseudo-historical feuilleton, where the epic is just an important element, a kind of core, that would take the center stage once more mostly in the finale. Jordan's "historical events" are fictitious, and drawing from the epic and the manichean opposition core, but most of his series is more comparable to the tone and tropes of the historical feuilleton sub-genre, telling the tales of tons of characters while history develops in the background (a genre of which Alexandre Dumas remains the master). But after reading only his first book, Jordan could be seen quite accurately as a sub-Tolkien. Later it became apparent that Jordan had not intention to merely mimick Tolkien and write another LOTR (as several authors have tried to do) and but to write a series with a wholly different tone, style and focus, drawing on core elements that first appeared, in modern literature anyway, in LOTR. Martin later did the same. Erikson did the same. JK Rowling did the same, all in their different ways. Martin didn't borrow from feuilleton and adventure novels like Jordan, he focussed his series on a medieval-style war, with an epic core à la Tolkien that (like Jordan) will eventually provide him with a finale.
Nowadays, there's been enough big publishing successes and big fan successes, and the Fantasy genre has diversified enough that publishers can leave Tolkien mostly as a reference in the mainstream media, and use instead other, more precise comparisons (if all too often as misleading, shallow or reductive as before). Erikson was coined "a modern Tolkien" not because his work has much to do with LOTR (though he's probably the one who could be the most honestly considered an heir to Tolkien) but because like Tolkien he has a relevant scholarly background (not ancient languages, but anthropology), and was similarly inspired by the form, not only the content, of the ancient texts. And that was one factor that made me curious to read his work, as I told myself "hmmm... the worldbuilding in this series is bound to be solid and interesting if this guy can also write". Martin is all too often brought in when a publisher want to sell to the Fantasy fans it's dark, gritty and has sex, or when a series centers on a political plot, or even to suggest it's "more mature" than Tolkien and the others have been (which unsurprisngly is meant to sell the books mostly to young adult males, far more worried that a series isn't "too immature" for them than actual adult readers are). I've seen the name of Jordan used for marketing a lot too, the minute a writer tells the story of tons of characters in parallel, or plans for a very long series. Tor is already using Sanderson's "filiation" to Jordan to present his Stormlight Archives as "a huge saga in the vein of the Wheel of Time" (and fashionably throw in a "and ASOIAF", perhaps to convince readers who find Sanderson too squeaky-clean to give it a try) - which in this case is probably relevant. Anderson's Seven Suns series was also sold as "a saga in the vein of Jordan's WOT" which in that case was strictly a misleading marketing gimmick.
When Tolkien is thrown in nowadays, it's mostly when publishers are trying to sell a series to an audience beyond the genre fans, which is the case with Martin, coined "the American Tolkien" for the masses's sake. Regular fantasy readers know what that comment is worth to accurately describe ASOIAF.
Aren't the Tolkien comparisons getting a little...old?
09/12/2011 09:51:39 PM
- 2863 Views
The comparison bothers me, but not because Tolkien isn't relevant.
09/12/2011 10:05:22 PM
- 1729 Views
Only when shit works are being compared to him
09/12/2011 10:22:26 PM
- 1621 Views
Larry,
10/12/2011 01:13:18 AM
- 1636 Views
Snide dismissal that will be passed off as for his own entertainment.
10/12/2011 04:55:43 AM
- 1551 Views
Well-deserved condescension.
11/12/2011 03:54:27 AM
- 1672 Views
You're sure about that?
11/12/2011 04:20:26 AM
- 1894 Views
Re: You're sure about that?
11/12/2011 05:25:08 AM
- 1622 Views
Re: You're sure about that?
11/12/2011 06:03:02 AM
- 1484 Views
i think you shouldn't judge a whole world's school programs on your school
11/12/2011 06:42:30 AM
- 1537 Views
If you're arguing that children should be able to read genre fiction, fine.
11/12/2011 08:52:27 PM
- 1419 Views
Well, I suppose it depends on the type of genre being read
11/12/2011 09:36:16 PM
- 1651 Views
How often do you hear the challenging writers mentioned at this site?
12/12/2011 02:03:05 PM
- 1390 Views
Only when you, me, and a couple others write reviews
12/12/2011 04:21:14 PM
- 1794 Views
Oh, it was the same as it always is
12/12/2011 05:23:56 PM
- 1502 Views
Much of the actual "Classics", that is, Greek and Latin originals, kids would eat up.
12/12/2011 03:13:03 AM
- 1403 Views
You're upfront and honest about it; he isn't. The difference matters to me. *NM*
11/12/2011 05:18:42 AM
- 813 Views
this is a bit off topic, but out of curiousity...
11/12/2011 06:28:35 AM
- 1611 Views
I've discussed this dozens of times at this site. Perhaps you've missed all of the posts.
11/12/2011 08:57:44 PM
- 1553 Views
mk I'll go look. I probably did miss it (or at least don't remember it!)
11/12/2011 09:08:02 PM
- 1516 Views
I have a successful career that was inspired by the video games I played as a child. *NM*
11/12/2011 05:52:21 PM
- 842 Views
Now let's get all the people who just pissed their lives away with video games and see the %.
11/12/2011 08:58:42 PM
- 1653 Views
The majority of players neither waste their lives nor make a career out of it.
11/12/2011 11:29:29 PM
- 1548 Views
Yeah, sorry, I don't think you could say that with a straight face in real life. *NM*
12/12/2011 04:13:52 AM
- 778 Views
Then you have a closed mind on the subject. Ironic, considering your stance on edification. *NM*
12/12/2011 05:47:50 AM
- 719 Views
No, just with respect to you. *NM*
12/12/2011 02:00:15 PM
- 764 Views
Tom, you pulled the "Say that to my face!" line. You lost the right to talk about respect. *NM*
12/12/2011 03:20:15 PM
- 812 Views
Once again, I really don't care what you think. *NM*
12/12/2011 03:37:40 PM
- 772 Views
Did I imply that you did? My apologies. I'd hate to insinuate that you'd stoop that low. *NM*
12/12/2011 04:13:25 PM
- 737 Views
As well read as you seem to be, you think you'd be smart enough...
11/12/2011 06:20:06 PM
- 1496 Views
I thought I have made it clear that I don't care if people don't like me here.
11/12/2011 08:44:58 PM
- 1420 Views
Re: I thought I have made it clear that I don't care if people don't like me here.
12/12/2011 04:04:37 PM
- 1475 Views
That statement has just confused me.
12/12/2011 04:06:53 PM
- 1427 Views
Re: That statement has just confused me.
12/12/2011 04:14:27 PM
- 1437 Views
I never learned Hittite. I had a book on pre-order for a long time but never ended up getting it.
12/12/2011 05:41:03 PM
- 1384 Views
What you have made clear, I think, is the fact that you deal in generalizations and stereotypes.
12/12/2011 10:12:12 PM
- 1538 Views
There's an unintentional irony in what you say, alas
13/12/2011 12:44:26 AM
- 1456 Views
Tom, Dick, or Larry...you may use your true first name, but you're still an anonymous entity to most
13/12/2011 04:49:35 AM
- 1664 Views
With such comeback skills, you must have ruled the playgrounds as a kid, no?
13/12/2011 05:21:42 AM
- 1669 Views
There are no special snowflakes, are there?
11/12/2011 09:39:21 PM
- 1418 Views
There are many way of widening one's horizons and broadening one's mind.
11/12/2011 10:08:24 PM
- 1178 Views
What I don't like-
12/12/2011 04:28:55 AM
- 1533 Views
Why don't you name something, then?
12/12/2011 04:40:29 AM
- 1484 Views
Sure.
13/12/2011 07:30:56 AM
- 1313 Views
Mentioning Ender's Game pretty much shot your argument in the foot.
13/12/2011 02:02:59 PM
- 1423 Views
You dismiss the entire video game medium because many games lack value.
13/12/2011 03:59:11 PM
- 1568 Views
You're like the McDonald's paid advocate trying to say Big Macs are actually healthy.
13/12/2011 05:46:37 PM
- 1374 Views
I'll leave it up to others to define as they wish against their self-conceptions of me
10/12/2011 10:52:54 AM
- 1530 Views
that's alright. I really have no desire to stroke your twit-ego. *NM*
10/12/2011 04:36:56 PM
- 623 Views
Considering the firestorm I appear to have touched off, that may be best.
12/12/2011 12:57:49 PM
- 1515 Views
I know, John
12/12/2011 04:27:04 PM
- 1406 Views
Re: I know, John
12/12/2011 05:06:26 PM
- 1468 Views
As I've said in the past, I'd be scared if anyone agreed with me anywhere approaching 100%
12/12/2011 06:33:52 PM
- 1402 Views
Re: As I've said in the past, I'd be scared if anyone agreed with me anywhere approaching 100%
12/12/2011 07:13:37 PM
- 1480 Views
Blurbs are not generally very original in their comparisons - would kind of defeat their purpose.
09/12/2011 10:42:17 PM
- 1506 Views
Most of those comparisons are like that anyway
10/12/2011 05:32:45 PM
- 1639 Views
Maybe if so much of the genre weren't crap derivative works it wouldn't be so common. *NM*
11/12/2011 03:44:24 AM
- 745 Views
To be fair, a lot of it isn't.
11/12/2011 04:06:07 AM
- 1455 Views
I suspect that if it really isn't derivative it's not being compared to Tolkien in the first place.
11/12/2011 04:18:57 AM
- 1387 Views
That's true.
11/12/2011 11:08:01 AM
- 1376 Views
But see, that's where things start to get referred back to Tolkien.
12/12/2011 04:30:12 AM
- 1531 Views
The Tolkien fanaticism gets old. And yes, for me it is unreadable.
11/12/2011 11:37:53 PM
- 1446 Views
No, because the movies are very contemporary and relevant, thus he will remain so for quite a while.
12/12/2011 03:14:53 AM
- 1505 Views
Disagree all you want, but LotR is still the touchstone when it comes to works of fantasy.
12/12/2011 03:48:20 AM
- 1418 Views