I think he makes some good points, and a lot resonated with me as well. Though I would argue three points: C.S. Lewis all but said Aslan was an analog to Jesus Christ. Is this Sanderson expressing atheistic streak and saying Jesus was a fantasy? I always figured he was a Mormon, which still grounds itself in Christ.
The second is I believe a trait of epic fantasy is it holds up and brings wonder that feels timeless. Someone picking up the book today would be just as easily transported. It is so divorced from any traits of the real world there's rarely anything to cause a suspension of disbelief for someone immersed in the story.
It is easy to point to LotR and the Hobbit or the titans of the 60s and 70s but the key is that it is just as good (or bad, depending on taste) now as it was when it came out.
In our more modern era we have the pulp TSR stuff, Terry Brooks original Shannara trilogy, Fiest's (first set) of Magician books, The Belgariad... someone can pick these all up today, nearly half-a-century later and they read just as well.
The third point is I feel he's missing out a big trait of modern fantasy; one he, himself, writes in what I call "Humanacentric Fantasy." The biggest traits of this sort of fantasy are:
1. Often the world is one where where magic is rare, dying, extraordinarily exclusive, or unknown
2. Almost the entire main cast is human, even if they are exotic
3. Politics plays a larger role in the book(s) than expected from typical fantasy.
Mistborn is very nearly this, except magic is common (just that Mistborn aren't). Robin Hobb's Assassin series, Wheel of Time, the Kingkiller Chronicle, but Game of Thrones might be the best example.
The first big series I remember to trend this way was in the late 80s with Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Tad Williams. His world was one where almost all magic had been sapped except, generally, some exceptional swords, one dragon, and elf-ish and a dwarf-ish race. The two other races were not particularly thriving and mostly were hiding from the world. The biggest part of the series were the humans, their goals, their problems, their politics.
-> Humanocentric (Humanocentrism or Anthropocentrism)
This is what I called earlier the 'modern' view & Tolkien was recognized as such (by Brian Rosebury in his 'Tolkien A Critical Assessment (1992)' & Tom Shippey).
That's good to know! I didn't realize there had been any official discussion or publication. I just sort of fell into the thought seeing how must of the typical trappings of high fantasy have disappeared in most "Epic Fantasy" since Wheel of Time but especially Game of Thrones.
I would emened Sanderson's definitions to what sounds to me more precis -
** Sincerity -> Realism. Making fantasy more realistic & modern.
** Magic with dual functions -> Realistic & emotional. Those are the 2 functions Tolkien used. The Ring as mentioned can do physical changes, but can also affect emotions & character, as if those were of the same essence.
** concept of a dark lord -> As the Ancient Gods of Lovecraft and others. Tolkien didn't invent so much there, just put it in his own world.
** Stakes -> An Epic journey, just as the classical ones. This time it's into the heart of the myth itself.
** Immersion -> Internal history & versions. This is the 'academic approach' & so Tolkien used what he knew & loved as an academic (in Litt & Lang) to achieve this depth. He may even was more interested in creating this depth, than with the actual plot.
I don't think we can pin the grounding of Sauron as the Dark Lord on Lovecraft or other from the not long before Tolkien era.
He was Christian so I'd think the simpler answer is he just mapped Morgoth and Sauron more to Satan and a Lord of Hell. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh talks about him fighting some big evil guarding a forest pre-Bible.
Another influence can also be Milton's 'Paradise Lost', that is quote by Tolkien at the beginning of his early epic poem, 'The lay of the Children of Hurin' (incorporated later into the Silmarillion).
I think he makes some good points, and a lot resonated with me as well. Though I would argue three points: C.S. Lewis all but said Aslan was an analog to Jesus Christ. Is this Sanderson expressing atheistic streak and saying Jesus was a fantasy? I always figured he was a Mormon, which still grounds itself in Christ.
The second is I believe a trait of epic fantasy is it holds up and brings wonder that feels timeless. Someone picking up the book today would be just as easily transported. It is so divorced from any traits of the real world there's rarely anything to cause a suspension of disbelief for someone immersed in the story.
It is easy to point to LotR and the Hobbit or the titans of the 60s and 70s but the key is that it is just as good (or bad, depending on taste) now as it was when it came out.
In our more modern era we have the pulp TSR stuff, Terry Brooks original Shannara trilogy, Fiest's (first set) of Magician books, The Belgariad... someone can pick these all up today, nearly half-a-century later and they read just as well.
The third point is I feel he's missing out a big trait of modern fantasy; one he, himself, writes in what I call "Humanacentric Fantasy." The biggest traits of this sort of fantasy are:
1. Often the world is one where where magic is rare, dying, extraordinarily exclusive, or unknown
2. Almost the entire main cast is human, even if they are exotic
3. Politics plays a larger role in the book(s) than expected from typical fantasy.
Mistborn is very nearly this, except magic is common (just that Mistborn aren't). Robin Hobb's Assassin series, Wheel of Time, the Kingkiller Chronicle, but Game of Thrones might be the best example.
The first big series I remember to trend this way was in the late 80s with Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn by Tad Williams. His world was one where almost all magic had been sapped except, generally, some exceptional swords, one dragon, and elf-ish and a dwarf-ish race. The two other races were not particularly thriving and mostly were hiding from the world. The biggest part of the series were the humans, their goals, their problems, their politics.
I re-read it recently. It still holds up.
Aslan may be an allegory for Jesus, but Aslan is not real.
-> Humanocentric (Humanocentrism or Anthropocentrism)
This is what I called earlier the 'modern' view & Tolkien was recognized as such (by Brian Rosebury in his 'Tolkien A Critical Assessment (1992)' & Tom Shippey).
That's good to know! I didn't realize there had been any official discussion or publication. I just sort of fell into the thought seeing how must of the typical trappings of high fantasy have disappeared in most "Epic Fantasy" since Wheel of Time but especially Game of Thrones.
mormonism is an offshoot of freemasonry and regularly blaspheme in belief that it will make them "be like God."
Thanks for covering of this lecture
I would emened Sanderson's definitions to what sounds to me more precis -
** Sincerity -> Realism. Making fantasy more realistic & modern.
** Magic with dual functions -> Realistic & emotional. Those are the 2 functions Tolkien used. The Ring as mentioned can do physical changes, but can also affect emotions & character, as if those were of the same essence.
** concept of a dark lord -> As the Ancient Gods of Lovecraft and others. Tolkien didn't invent so much there, just put it in his own world.
** Stakes -> An Epic journey, just as the classical ones. This time it's into the heart of the myth itself.
** Immersion -> Internal history & versions. This is the 'academic approach' & so Tolkien used what he knew & loved as an academic (in Litt & Lang) to achieve this depth. He may even was more interested in creating this depth, than with the actual plot.
I don't think we can pin the grounding of Sauron as the Dark Lord on Lovecraft or other from the not long before Tolkien era.
He was Christian so I'd think the simpler answer is he just mapped Morgoth and Sauron more to Satan and a Lord of Hell. Even the Epic of Gilgamesh talks about him fighting some big evil guarding a forest pre-Bible.
Another influence can also be Milton's 'Paradise Lost', that is quote by Tolkien at the beginning of his early epic poem, 'The lay of the Children of Hurin' (incorporated later into the Silmarillion).