Jump to content

Talk:History of fantasy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Comment

We might also want to make some attempt to expand beyond Eurasian culture as a whole, though I'm not sure how significant the contributions of other cultures have really been (so far). After all, we don't want to include things that aren't very significant just for multiculturalism's sake, but it's something I think we should really look into, no matter what we end up deciding. --Corvun 23:26, August 14, 2005 (UTC)


The chapter on Modern fantasy has been bugged, most of it is missing. 

- - Prof. Dr. Aleksandar B. Nedelkovic, Beograd, Serbia

The manga etc is much too modern to have any influence on the formation of the fantasy genre, and this is the topic of the article in question. The fantasy, in the sense of supernatural happening which were not explicitly believed, is evident in all literary traditions. The fantasy genre as such, on the other hand, is a modern creation of Western civilisation, and any history of modern fantasy genre must necessarily concentrate on those literary traditions which influenced it.

Eg influence of the Arabian Night Tales on western fantasy is undoubtable. Such authors as Dunsany are unimaginable without them.

Baduin 16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, this article is not about the "formation of the fantasy genre" -- it's about the history of fantasy. Goldfritha 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Do people have some problems with chronology? Gothic novel (XVIII century) is always pushed after Morris (end of XIX century) Baduin 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I broke off the "differences" section because it was not suitable for the lede -- the article being about the history and not the differences. Goldfritha 15:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

order

The order of this article is not very useful. The Arabic section is talking about the decline of romances before the section that tells what they are. The Western section deals with the matter chronologically, but the added sections go after it regionally. It does not seem appropriate for an article on history. Goldfritha 00:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, does the "east/west" split add anything? Goldfritha 17:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Out it goes, then. I am reordering chronologically, according to the first works cited in each section. (And, of course, changing the title "Primordial fantasy") Goldfritha 22:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

This page does not discuss the history of fantasy. At best, it discusses what The Encyclopedia of Fantasy terms "taproot texts", sources for the genre, but it does so with no eye to the actual degree of influence that the works have had. Goldfritha 01:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the fantasy article contains nearly as much, if not more, than this one about the actual history of fantasy. The actual history is being swamped by an endless list of every mythology that's been written down. I may split off to an article about taproot texts. Goldfritha 00:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Splitting. Goldfritha 17:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Splitted. We may discuss the details as necessary. Some of the sections may have elements that are more suitable for the other article, but I made the first pass based on the descriptions themselves. Goldfritha 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


I suggest reading works in question before making any changes. "True History" is pure fantasy, with slight elements of SF - as anyone who reads it would know. Golden Ass of Apuleius is fantasy also. It does have elements of horror. This, however, happens so often, that if elements of horror were to disqualify books from being fantasy there would remain a short list indeed. Baduin 22:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not advocating violations of WP:OR.
Got a reference for your claims?
Furthermore, got a reference for their being a noteworthy part of the history of the fantasy genre? There is too much that was integral to the genre to include isolated flukes in this article. Goldfritha 23:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
References to science fiction should be relocated to the science fiction article or deleted altogether. This is the fantasy article. Goldfritha 02:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Out it goes, then. Goldfritha 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
By original research you mean reading the book in question? It would do you no harm. Even a passing knowledge of either the history of fantasy and SF, or of the books, would allow you to avoid such rudimentary mistakes. And if you consider "dog-faced men fighting on winged acorns" and "Salad-wings... also enormous birds, fledged with various herbs, and with quill-feathers resembling lettuce leaves." to be SF, I can only say - more power to you!
89.79.39.26 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone didn't read "Gargantua and Pantagruel" as well? I am sorry to have to inform all interested that memorizing "Sword of Shannara" is not proper qualification for editing even a sub-scholarly work.
89.79.39.26 18:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes. Reading a work and declaring that is fantasy definitely violates WP:OR. And as for SF -- the person inserting references that describe it as SF is not in a strong position to criticize someone else -- who removed such references -- as considering it SF.
The only proper qualification for editing this article is being able to provide references and discuss the development of the genre -- not insert a laundry list of random works that might be considered fantasy by some definitions. Goldfritha 00:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a more detailed reference to L. Frank Baum's Oz series? After all, it is basically a modern fantasy series of traveller's tales which could possibly be considered epic (consists of 14 original novels) in nature, pre-dates Tolkien by about 30-35 years, and re-introduces the concepts of elves, giants, dwarves, and gnomes, before Tolkien. Shadowhawk4735 (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Romances

Is there any point to the current splitting up of romances into the medieval and the Renaissance? The development was continuous. Goldfritha 03:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

General opinion about article

I must say this article begins at last look like an encyclopedia article. And it has clear focus - modern fantasy genre and its development and history - as opposed to the laundry list of the fantastic literature throughout the ages.

I must say the old article was fun, but it belonged to quite a different topic.

Assuming this I would consider removing romances, fairy tales and gothic novels to the Sources of fantasy article. Those works may be near fantasy, but they belong to their own genres. If the ancient novel and utopias were removed, other genres should also go.

Baduin 13:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a need to call the fantasy genre, "Modern Fantasy", doesn't that inherently imply that the fantasy genre as a whole, encompasses much more? Thus, the fantasy genre should include all works of fantasy, not just be defined by the last two hundred years of literary history. Shadowhawk4735 (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Eastern fantasy

I think we've done a pretty good job so far of including "Eastern" fantasy fiction, particularly on the subgenre page, but this history page seems to be overwhelmingly Western. The influence of Eastern fairytales and fables on the fantasy genre has been immense, not only through the avenues of Japanese monster-movies, anime, manga, and videogame RPGs, but also through pen & paper RPGs, a general Western awareness of Eastern culture in the past few decades, and most importantly, the impact that Eastern fairytales, fables, and culture has had on contemporary fantasy fiction in the East.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadads (talk • contribs)

Change title and merge

After starting editing Fantasy literature I realise that there was this parallel article which focusses also on literature. Can anyone explain why WP needs these two articles? See also Fantasy: "History" [1]. Perhaps History of fantasy should also be re-named "History of fantasy literature", as there is also the article Fantasy which deals with all media. This would reflect the contents of "History of fantasy" less ambiguously. Rwood128 (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

There is another article Sources of fantasy, and the lede begins: "Though the fantasy genre in its modern sense is less than two centuries old, its sources have a long and distinguished history." This appears to be another article on the history of fantasy. Does anyone have any advice as to what to do here? Rwood128 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Maybe some re-naming might help clarify things? That is Sources of fantasy deals mostly with the history of fantasy in other than English-speaking countries, whereas history of fantasy focuses mainly on fantasy in English. Otherwise logically these two articles should merge – or be re-united, if they were in fact divided in the past. The present situation is very confusing–including they other articles Fantasy and Fantasy literature
A quick check suggests that the splitting occurred in April 2007 [2]. My question is, shouldn't the "History of fantasy" be concerned with fantasy in all languages, and, therefore, the split should be reversed? Furthermore, the title should be changed to reflect the fact that it is a history of fantasy literature (other media appear to be the domain of Fantasy). That instead of four articles, there should be just two: "Fantasy" and "History of fantasy literature". Rwood128 (talk) 13:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless there are objections in the next week, the merge will be made. Rwood128 (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

History of twentieth century fantasy literature

On further thought, perhaps, the very detailed discussion of more recent fantasy should be kept as a separate, new article. In my recent edits on Fantasy literature I have been severely cutting excess detail, taken from this article, in preparation for the merge. It might also be worth considering changing the title of Sources of fantasy to Beginnings of fantasy literature. The alternative would be to merge it with "Fantasy literature". Any advice? Rwood128 (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


Level of detail for pre-Tolkien material

I've just skimmed this so far, but the sources look good and the bits I'm independently familiar with look accurate. But isn't there rather a lot of material that predates 1954 for an article on Tolkien? (Actually Tolkien's influence really picks up in the 1960s.) I can imagine that sources that focus solely on Tolkien might digress into substantial histories of the fantasy genre, but in an encyclopedia I think it would make more sense to put the bulk of the history into an article about the history of the fantasy genre. Some of that would certainly be needed here for background, but we don't reach Tolkien himself, and hence his influence on the genre, until more than halfway through the article as it stands. The article also has to cover the existing fantasy genre's influence on Tolkien, but at the moment all the article does is mention some influences, without going into much critical detail. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the useful thoughts. Yes, we can cut down that section, especially as there is Early history of fantasy covering that aspect. On the critical detail of influences on Tolkien, I'm hesitant to go very far here, as we already have J. R. R. Tolkien's influences and multiple subsidiary articles on that subject (Beowulf, Celtic, Classical world, Medieval, Modern, Norse, Shakespeare). But perhaps we can briefly mention some of that without going into detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, if we have that article we can make this about Tolkien's influence on the modern genre. Should the article be moved to something like Tolkien's influence on fantasy, then? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Mm, that might be the right answer; alternatively, we could view this as the parent article and just summarize the early stuff. I do think that the before-Tolkien-after structure is correct as it gives a synoptic view of his impact on the genre, but that does not oblige us to cover the "Early development" in any detail. Perhaps what we should do is move it as you suggest, and provide a short paragraph of context, something like "Tolkien's pre-modern influences"? Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like it could work. I know you're generating a comprehensive set of Tolkien articles; looking at this from the top down, how would you divide the material? If the general category is Tolkien's relationship with fantasy, then I would think it would be either two articles -- one for influences on Tolkien, and one for Tolkien's subsequent influence on the genre, with the latter summarizing the former, as you suggest; or one long article, covering both. Two articles sounds like the more natural option to me. Alternatively if the more natural division is chronological -- Tolkien's personal history, and his influences, are one topic; the writing of the works and their publication and reception is another topic; and the subsequent impact and influence is a third topic -- then this article is more closely related to articles on the reception of Tolkien's work. But perhaps that doesn't make much difference to the content here. I think mostly what I'm asking for is clear boundaries for the content in this article -- I was considering reviewing it for GA but realized this would be a question I'd have to clear up first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Good. We already have an article on influences on Tolkien, so this article will be "the latter summarizing the former" (actually, it'll briefly summarize both the early history of fantasy, and Tolkien's other early influences, as people don't generally call Beowulf fantasy, despite its monsters), giving the "two-article" solution. I'll move the article and do the necessary surgery and summarizing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
As you do the surgery is there somewhere you could deposit the trimmed material? It looked like good stuff to me. We don't have a History of fantasy literature article, but perhaps we should. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I was wondering about that. We could work some into Early history of fantasy: I've in fact boldly put "The Enlightenment" there already. Much of the rest is in fact covered there, though perhaps not as well. But we do actually have Fantasy literature ... which is largely historical, so there were multiple overlaps which perhaps we're starting to resolve. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've done a first pass of surgery and summary. I think the boundaries are quite a bit sharper now. It would be possible to cut down the modern influences also, but at the cost of making it less clear how Tolkien changed or shaped modern fantasy, i.e. we need a solid baseline to allow readers to see how profound the change was. But that is all discussable at GAN... it'd be great if you felt like taking it on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm at work so have no time for a long read through, but will see if I can get to it tonight or tomorrow. I have a few sources that cover this sort of thing so should be able to give you some comments, and will probably do that before thinking about taking on the GAN, in case it leads to significant changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

...cont'd: Tolkien's modern sources

I had a look at Tolkien's modern sources, which includes mention of Haggard, Crockett, MacDonald, Wyke-Smith, Barfield, Wells, Verne, and Morris. I think we could lose the paragraph here about Poe and Wilde since we're not claiming it influenced Tolkien. I think that probably means we need to lose one of the two double-page images, which is a pity.

I've cut the Poe and Wilde para for now, but per your comment below, we might need it back. The Morris and MacDonald images are however essential: we need to say that both men created books that were definitely 'fantasy' in the modern sense, and influenced Tolkien too. Losing either of those breaks the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In the 20th century section, there's not much correspondence with the article on Tolkien's modern sources. Is this section intended to summarize the state of fantasy at the time LotR came out? If so I think it could be compressed a bit. For example, what's the relevance of Carroll, Barrie, Nesbit and Stockton? Or the conventions of the Lost World genre? Or Blavatsky? On the other hand I can see it's hard to summarize the state of the genre in 1954 without mentioning the history of the genre over the last fifty years, and most of those are relevant to fantasy's development.

Tolkien's modern sources is intentionally "further" not "main". Summary of the field is indeed the intention, and it's necessarily broader than "the bits that influenced Tolkien" (even if we knew). There is also negative definition, what Tolkien visibly avoids, which requires showing those parts of the field that he did not use, such as being satirical about fantasy itself. Actually Tolkien did state that one must never undermine the thing like that... Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

One minor note: if you decide to keep the date of coinage of the word "fantasy", you might use this. The website is run by Jesse Sheidlower, a professional lexicographer who was for a while the OED's American editor. However, I should also mention that I was for years one of the administrators of that database; I don't know if that counts as a conflict of interest.

Very useful. I've split out a new section "Literary genre" and added a bit from Sheidlower. I'd say that was way too indirect to be a noteworthy COI, and the material is both clearly relevant and reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
We do have an article on Miracle Science and Fantasy Stories, if you want to link it. That might let you shorten the explanation a bit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

After writing the above I had another read through the 20th century section and I now think that the problem for me is that I don't know what a summary of it would say. It seems a list of aspects of fantasy but there's nothing summative at the end; nothing that says "and here's what the state of fantasy was when Tolkien came along". I think that's what's needed; perhaps some of what I queried above is in fact useful, but I can't tell till I know what summary points it's in service of. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added more connections to Tolkien (at risk of jumping ahead in the before-during-after sequence) and something in the direction of a summary for the section, which I hope helps to unify the necessarily divergent threads of the genre — by the slightly drastic means of taking a Tolkien viewpoint. I know you want to have the article as JRRT's influence on fantasy, but the intention was to say "modern fantasy has been transformed by JRRT", which demands a slightly broader perspective. I'm therefore not sure we've actually got the title quite right yet (maybe Tolkien's transformation of fantasy conveys the meaning; or indeed "Tolkien and the history of fantasy" may have been correct all along). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
You could be right. I have a few minutes this morning to look at some sources and will dig through some more tonight or tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
OK.
(much later) I've addressed a lot of comments, thought about the thing, and drawn a diagram (which always helps to clear one's head when things seem to be getting complicated. I'm now sure that this article is about Tolkien's place in the history of fantasy, which includes both inputs and outputs. I've therefore put the title back to "Tolkien and the history of fantasy" which is the simplest title I can think of that describes the article's intention. Suggestions for improved title gratefully received. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a quick skim:

  • Taking a look at the entry on Tolkien in the Encyclopedia of Fantasy (which I see you cite as "Grant & Clute"; shouldn't Clute be first as first listed editor? And I think he was the main force behind the encyclopedia, though I guess I don't have a source for that)
  • Fixed.
  • I see you cover their point on framing devices, but you only mention dream frames -- I think travellers's tales would be worth mentioning, since we've mentioned She.
  • The same article also mentions "identikit fantasylands", and their article on fantasyland makes the point that the geography of much fantasy is drawn directly from Middle Earth. I think this is a point worth making explicitly. The article on Tolkien makes the same point (p. 951) that ME has become a template used by other writers, while also making the point that for LotR it is not a template because of the depth of invention.
  • The comment about the "demeaning" successors to Tolkien (p. 955) seems useful; the silliness and poor quality of much modern fantasy is a direct consequence of the permission LotR gave for writers to exploit fantasyland.
  • The paragraphs "The immense success..." and "In 1977, Lester Del Rey..." both cover how trashy some of the follow-up has been.
  • What about the parts of fantasy that are only indirectly influenced by Tolkien? Urban fantasy, for example. Conjure Wife precedes Tolkien, and though it's a long time since I read Wizard of the Pigeons, I don't think it can be called a descendant of Tolkien in any way. Or A Fine and Private Place; an urban fantasy with ghosts, but not a ghost story. If we're summarizing the field before Tolkien, don't we need to summarize it after, and show the bits that changed and the bits that didn't?
  • Hm, I wonder... I don't really think so... the logic would be {big mass of inputs} => (selection function) Tolkien's selected inputs => Tolkien's work => its impact and followers. The unimpacted stuff is for other articles, surely... though we can certainly mention reactions against the Tolkienian tradition... I suppose we could even say "and XYZ was uninfluenced by Tolkien" but I think we'd need a source for that. So I think we're probably OK on this aspect.

More tonight, I hope. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Starting a separate section for convenience. These comments are a bit random, since I'm generating them partly as I read through and partly as I wander about the house thinking about the article, so I may be contradicting myself, and I am sure only some of these will be useful.

  • Shouldn't the discussion of Haggard be in the 19th century section?
  • Yes, moved.
  • The 20th century section, third paragraph, starts by listing Carroll, Barrie, Baum, Nesbit and Stockton. Carroll and Stockton are both 19th century. I know you're discussing children's books, but if we want to keep them together I think we need a suitable section title. Not sure about this, but how about abandoning the 19th/20th century division in favour of a "state of play in 1954" approach, with divisions by subgenre -- ghost/horror, urban fantasy, secondary worlds, swords and sorcery, satire, children's fantasy. It's the secondary worlds that LotR descends from, of course. I haven't looked at your sources yet but I would be astonished if that point is not made. Of these, I think we should focus on the ones that Tolkien subsequently influenced, since that's the topic of the article -- which of course is why you spend time on Morris and MacDonald and Haggard.
  • Not sure we need to do anything so drastic: I've just moved the children's book discussion to "Literary genre" as that's actually its theme, i.e. was fantasy part of children's literature or what. Going into subgenres would take us far off-topic: we don't really need to discuss ghost, urban, or satire here, for instance.
  • I don't think we need to mention Der Orchideengarten; it had no noticeable influence on English-language fantasy as far as I'm aware.
  • OK, if we're going to do the Saint-Exupery thing and remove everything we can do without, that's one. It's a change of focus to match the change of title (ah, yes) and we should go all the way with it.
  • Clark Ashton Smith didn't start in the pulps; his first sales were to The Black Cat.
  • Removed.
  • White's Sword in the Stone is light-hearted, but I think it's odd to call it one of the early comic fantasies; the Once and Future King tetralogy gets progressive darker. Still, if the sources support it ....
  • Well, if we're being tightly focused on Tolkien, we could ditch the entire paragraph. Let's try that now.
  • I only ever skimmed the book, but I am pretty sure I recall that A Voyage to Arcturus is science fiction, not fantasy -- though non-genre ventures into sf and fantasy were a bit hard to distinguish from each other back in the 1920s.
  • I worked on that article. It's an odd book: Tolkien disliked the use of a mechanism (anti-gravity), preferring the fantastic (and mystical or religious) elements. I don't find it a stretch to label it a fantasy; it's also clearly allegorical and mythical, so the SF bit with the rocket ship is just a plot device, and surprise surprise the bit that Tolkien found least good.
  • I know this isn't FAC, but I wonder if we can get a better source than an introduction by Yolen for Tolkien being responsible for the creation of fantasy as a marketing category. And I will see if I can find sources for this, but my recollection is that it didn't happen right away -- it wasn't until some time in the 1960s, perhaps even the late 1960s, that fantasy really took off. (As I see now that you say in the impact section.) For example, it's definitely the case that Fantastic tried to move away from sf into fantasy in the early 1950s, but gave up in 1955, and switched back to sf, with a resulting increase in sales. And what's the difference between "new marketing category" and "new literary tradition", which is cited to Paxson. I will say though that the "mythic silliness" quote from Yolen is excellent.
  • I find Yolen good. Not sure the "category" and "tradition" mean anything very different.
  • I think we need to focus more on high fantasy. The term was coined by Lloyd Alexander (in this: Alexander, Lloyd. "High fantasy and heroic romance." The Horn Book Magazine 47 (1971): 577-584., according to our article -- I've just sent that to Sheidlower to update his entry at sfdictionary.com). I think that article might give some relevant history. I think early examples would include Evangeline Walton's Mabinogion trilogy -- the first one came out in 1936 though the others were early 1970s. And those were in Ballantine's Adult Fantasy series; I wonder if she restarted writing because of the Tolkien craze? I'll see if I can find out.
  • Yes. I've removed lots of other sorts of fantasy and said "high fantasy" a bit more.
    Jesse's already updated that sfdictionary.com entry; see this. He found a bunch of earlier uses that are bracketed as not being clearly this usage, but his first cite is for 1971 and interestingly it appears that Le Guin used the term. Apparently Alexander gave that text as a talk in 1969 so that's why the first printed use is not from him. Not sure there's any impact on this article, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • This might be useful for adding a sentence or two; it's very definite that the bulk of genre fantasy is directly dependent on Tolkien. Though it also bewails the difficulty of defining "genre fantasy" so it might be hard to use.
  • I've added a brief statement; I agree that it flip-flops between taking it seriously and cynically, so it's only just usable.
  • "Following the success of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings in the 1960s, publishers were quick to try to meet a new demand for literate fantasy in the American marketplace." I don't have access to this source, but I can see part of Williamson, and he seems to be talking about sword and sorcery, not "literate". As Williamson tells it Ballantine scoured backlists for material, finding Eddison, and Lindsay, and published Beagle; those could be called literary, but Williamson's point seems to be that other publishers couldn't tell the difference between swords and sorcery and Tolkien, but Ballantine could. So they dug up these literary works, and began Carter's Adult Fantasy series (BAFS), and, crucially, Williamson says this was the first time fantasy was marketed as a genre. So yes, literary fantasy was boosted by BAFS, but the other publishers were pumping out swords and sorcery. See here for example; Lancer began that series in 1966, very quickly after the Ace unauthorized edition lawsuit. (Unfortunately the ISFDB isn't an RS, at least at FAC, but I could source that elsewhere if you wanted to use it.) I think Williamson is a better source for the marketing and literary bifurcation that Tolkien caused.
  • I think "literate" just means "well-written" here, not "literary" (whatever that would mean: Tolkien would have abhorred it, indeed I could easily cite that if it became necessary...). But the publishing rush thing is narrated repeatedly, so I've chopped the mention here.
  • The fantasies of Thomas Burnett Swann occurred to me as I was reading; Swann's career began in 1958, and his fantasy novels start in 1964, so he precedes the Ace/Ballantine goldrush, but was published by genre outlets. I can't find critical commentary connecting him to any of the relevant threads here so there may be nothing usable.
There seems to be nothing usable. A Mythlore bibliog. article mentions Guying Gyre no. 7/8 [n.d. (1977)] ed. Gil Gaier, a fanzine, which has an essay by Robert E. Blenheim on Swann (pp. 13-20); Blenheim "thinks Swann a more delicate writer, more of a miniaturist, than is Tolkien."
  • If we were trying to cover all of fantasy then it'd indeed be gigantic, but with the more limited scope of what influenced Tolkien and what Tolkien then influenced, "the main points" only per GAN, then it's rather more manageable, and I'm pretty happy with the result so far.
  • just one comment from me - the small section Fantasy art tells nothing about Tolkien or his influence, why is it here? the gallery is nice, but looks completely unrelated to the topic. Artem.G (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, the change in focus has left it becalmed. Let's do without it for now; there clearly is a possible link to Tolkien's art and onwards again to the digitally created fantasy characters ... perhaps that one image can stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

New title

The changes you've made in response to my comments above look good, so I won't respond individually. Now that you've changed the title I want to ask about scope again. I jotted down a few questions based on another read through, but on reflection I think there's not much point in them until I understand your intention for the article. Where would this article differ from a History of fantasy literature article? Would a good summary statement be "The history of fantasy that is relevant to Tolkien's work -- his influences, and the strand of fantasy that descends from him"? If so, I think I prefer the earlier title, since we already have an article on his influences and a single articles talking about his impact on the genre makes sense. But this title talks about fantasy both before and after Tolkien, so how should it differ from the sum of an articles on his influences and an article on his impact? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

As discussed above already, this article is a before=>Tolkien=>after, i.e. a map of how Tolkien changed fantasy. That is a component of the total history of fantasy, in particular mainly of high fantasy. The "Tolkien's influence on fantasy" title fails to cover the question of what he selected from the pre-existing river of fantasy. It differs markedly, too, from the article J. R. R. Tolkien's influences, which spans everything from classical and medieval to languages and personal experience including the First World War. On his impact, the only thing we currently have is Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien which covers everything from parody to music and fan culture, so again, its scope is far wider than just fantasy; and it's basically just a list, not a full article with scholarly analysis. In short, this article has a distinct scope and focus, and its title accurately reflects its content. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The scope isn't clear to me, but it's clear to you, and I know you've put a lot of thought into this. I'm going to step away and let someone else comment, and perhaps review for GA. I have no problem with the content as it stands -- it's well-written and concise -- but I just can't tell whether there is material missing or structural issues because I don't understand what the content should be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Shame. Ok, thanks for the comments which have been very useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the article structure would be easier to understand and less likely to duplicate other articles if there was a split to Tolkien's influences from fantasy (maybe a merge into existing articles) versus Tolkien's influences on fantasy. It seems odd to combine both topics in one article. (t · c) buidhe 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
It isn't odd at all. The article is about Tolkien's place in fantasy, or if you like his transformative effect upon it. That requires a look at how it was before he came upon the scene; what he took from it; what he did in the area; and what happened as a result. Splitting this up would destroy the connections of this narrative, and would introduce pointless duplication as the context and details of what he did would be in each fragment. The 'big picture' requires that the reader gets to see all the parts together, that is the nature of any transformation account. That his impact was revolutionary is amply cited in the article but the claim, however reliably cited, comes to life when not just cited but demonstrated in all its parts. That is what this article does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


Comment on GA fail

The review is closed, so rather than posting there I'm posting on the talk page. (I said I'd step away but now a review's been done I feel I can comment again.) I can see why Chiswick Chap argues it's not OR, but I also see Buidhe's point. With a title of "Tolkien and the history of fantasy" one could argue that a source discussing either one in isolation is relevant, but that's part of my problem with the topic/title -- it's too broad and inchoate. What prevents this article from mentioning Conjure Wife by Fritz Leiber, a very important novel in the history of fantasy but one that had nothing to do with Tolkien's influence or influencers? Only that it is not connected to Tolkien by any source. But if that's a good reason not to mention it, Buidhe is right that we need scholarly sources that connect the two topics to mention any work of fantasy. And then we're back to needing a more specific title again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this is not OR in the narrow sense of "not being cited", but it is OR in the sense of WP:SYNTH.
The article should also have been quick failed under criterion 5 (stability) given the number and size of edits recently. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
See thread below. The article is not going to remain in its present form or under the current title. I'll probably split the article as this seems to be the consensus, so we won't have a problematic "and" in the title and the focus will be simple and straightforward. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

History of fantasy vs. Tolkien and the history of fantasy

I’ve edited the History of fantasy article back to its state on 5 July. The edits since then have completely changed the article. Looking at the diff between the pre-move and current articles [3], I think every word has been replaced. As for Tolkien, the last diff before the move[4] includes 28 results on ctrl+f "Tolkien"; but in the latest revision[5], ctrl+f "Tolkien" returns 146 matches. I don’t think there is any text in common between them.

BTW that article's talk page now redirects here.

Also, the edit summary for the move reads "match article contents, which are organized around the author", which is inaccurate. The "Modern Fantasy" section is organized around Tolkien, but that's only about half the article at most.

1. @Chiswick Chap: Why did you replace the old article rather than starting a new one? There have been over 380 edits since the move and you did all but a handful.

2. What is the purpose of this article? It's not a history of fantasy, it's not Tolkien's influences, and it's not directly about Tolkien's influence on fantasy (there was an article by that title, but I can't find old diffs, due to the page move I think). All three seem reasonable but this is a mishmash. It looks like "history of fantasy but Tolkien-centric", which is an OR/WEIGHT issue. Especially in the last section, there is little discussion of fantasy apart from Tolkien.

CohenTheBohemian (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. There has never to my knowledge been a Tolkien and fantasy article before; that name was recently briefly explored for this article before it was moved back to its current title. It is clear that this article needs rework, possibly splitting as you suggest. I'll think what can best be done to go with what people want. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Update: I've used a small amount of text (on the input side) and a couple of images in Tolkien's modern sources; there isn't enough on the input side for a separate Tolkien's fantasy sources or whatever. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
On your questions, I do not wish to go into defensive mode as it is never productive, but I can tell you what happened, as can be seen from the talk page. I intended to add a bit of emphasis on T as there were many sources which stressed his role in transforming fantasy. This suggested a change in title. That led to requests for more change and deletion of non-T material, which I had not intended. I did my best to keep them happy. The rest you know. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I can't see the talk page discussion you mention. As far as I can see, topics on this page jump from 2017 ("Change title and merge") to 11 July, after the move ("Level of detail for pre-Tolkien material"). Please could you link it.
It's just the threads above this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
More importantly: I've just been told that my cut-and-paste move isn't allowed as it fractures the edit history, which is legally required, and telling me to ask an admin to do a history merge. It might be better if people stop editing this page, History of fantasy, and Tolkien's influence on fantasy until we can reach consensus. WP:FANTASY seems like a good place. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh I see. An alternative would be to revert this article to its old state and move it back to its old name. But Tolkien's influence on fantasy is a well-defined topic (a subset of this article) and there seems good agreement that the narrower scope would be better in its case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I've reverted this article to its old state and its old name, so that "Tolkien and the history of fantasy" just redirects to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_fantasy/Archive_1&oldid=1214732764"