Sigh. Does anyone know why there has been such an epidemic of Tolkien-bashing lately? It seems more trendy than angst-ridden vampire novels...
Of course no one is under any obligation to love Tolkien's work if he/she doesn't want to (I happen to love his work and find it brilliant--and much deeper than many of the supposedly more complex "modern" writers, though that of course is simply my opinion). But love it or hate it, the simple truth is that not one of us is reading, writing, or attempting to be published in a genre known as "fantasy" today without Tolkien's work. Previous to Tolkien, tales of fantasy were essentially considered children's stories, lightweight fare little better than trash novels. Even science fiction, thanks to the work of H.G. Wells and others, enjoyed at least a marginal reputation; fantasy, by contrast, was not even on the radar screen.
All that changed after LOTR. For the first time adults could take works of fantasy seriously; for the first time a work of real weight had been produced that involved such fanciful creations as immortal elves, gruff dwarves, and talking treelike creatures. Naturally mythology, fables and the like influenced Tolkien heavily; but the point is that Tolkien's main goal, besides developing a world around a new set of languages he had created, was to establish a new and uniquely British mythology, rather than one taken from the continent. He wanted to establish a fantasy background all England's own--and I would argue that he succeeded in doing so, in large part. That later writers drew and continue to draw upon that background is hardly a weakness in them, any more than Shakespeare's use of old plots for his plays (which he did in nearly every case, by the way) was a weakness in him. It is rather a strength, an understanding of how an established history and legacy can allow writers and readers alike to first identify with, then build upon what has come before.
It is perhaps for this reason that the constant whining about "getting away from Tolkien" gets on my nerves, especially from writers like Michael Moorcock who ought to know better--as if Moorcock would even be a blip on the radar screen without the territory Tolkien had established for him decades before! (And for those who think Moorcock "redefined the genre" with his writing, take a look at Elric's sword and tell me if it doesn't remind you of a certain circular object which has a life of its own and drains both will and goodness from the user as time goes on...sound familiar?) The point is not that one should be intentionally derivative and spend time writing about magic BRACELETS which need to be cast into CHASMS of Doom. As much as writers need to build upon the work of others, they also need to stake out a portion of their own ground. But endless handwringing over whether or not this or that artifact, character or plot twist resembles Tolkien seems to me to be pointless and counterproductive--because if we do spend our time agonizing over avoiding any shadow of Tolkien in our work, are we not ultimately obsessing with exactly that person?
The point is this: of course a writer who wants to write fantasy should read Tolkien first, as well as other writers who have helped to define the genre. Then he/she should use what he/she can, discard the rest, and apply his/her own unique perspective to the whole. Just as with Shakespeare, Tolkien, and thousands of other writers who read, learned from, and built upon the work of those before them, this will lead not to slavish imitation but work grounded in its genre yet still capable of standing on its own, rather than writing so hysterically desperate to avoid even a shadow of J.R.R.T. that it ends up being precisely what his work wasn't--forced, stilted, and, to be frank, not very readable.
P.F.