Is all fantasy derivative of Tolkien? How to prove it isn't?

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Verne was actually writing travel adventures, and that's precisely what most of his books were. The elements of a few of his stories that we now consider to be "science fiction" were simply present to allow travel to places such as the bottom of the sea, or the Moon, that were not otherwise "accessible". It's inaccurate to characterise Verne as an "SF" author - that wasn't the main thrust of his work at all. The overwhelming majority of his books have no "SF" element at all.

Yes Verne wrote adventure stories, but he is a science fiction writer in my opinion. Maybe his works belong now in something that could be called a historical science fiction. People also put him in steampunk genre (which is sf sub-genre).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...erne_and_Wells

I totally disagree with you and I think most of his book DO have SF element to them. Maybe some of those elements are a reality now, but they certainly weren't in his time. They were science fiction then.

To each his own I guess.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

I totally disagree with you and I think most of his book DO have SF element to them.

No, they don't. Look at a complete list of his works, and you can see that for yourself. The reason that people think of Verne as an "SF" author, is simply that his "SF" books, such as "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", "20,000 Leagues Under the Seas", "From the Earth to the Moon", etc, are the ones that are still in print. Most of his pure travel books are either not in print, or else have never been translated from French.

Look at works like "Around the World in Eighty Days", or "Five Weeks in a Balloon" - both pure travel adventures, with no SF elements whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Verne didn't write what we would now consider to be "SF" novels. Of course he did. I'm saying that this was not the main focus of his work, and that the overwhelming majority of his books are not SF.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Unlike negative (scaring, punishing) attitude of British literary works, French contemporary literature was positive, think of Jules Verne and his inventions, that become reality after years. Whereas hobbits and vampyres and whatever creatures never have been proven to exist, let alone to help the humanity or to give any advice. Verne's works not only had visionary ideas, but also gave positive and useful advices.

Some people say that fantasy is useless. Science fiction is good because it might be true some day. Some people say that science fiction is useless because it's not true now. You should only read realistic modern fiction. Some people say that all fiction should be dumped because they're nothing but made-up stories about made-up people. Only non-fiction is worth anyone's time.

I disagree with all of those people.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, they don't. Look at a complete list of his works, and you can see that for yourself. The reason that people think of Verne as an "SF" author, is simply that his "SF" books, such as "Journey to the Centre of the Earth", "20,000 Leagues Under the Seas", "From the Earth to the Moon", etc, are the ones that are still in print. Most of his pure travel books are either not in print, or else have never been translated from French.

Look at works like "Around the World in Eighty Days", or "Five Weeks in a Balloon" - both pure travel adventures, with no SF elements whatsoever.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that Verne didn't write what we would now consider to be "SF" novels. Of course he did. I'm saying that this was not the main focus of his work, and that the overwhelming majority of his books are not SF.

Ok, even if the majority of his work is not SF, his most famous books are SF.
Plus, it would be silly to argue that he didn't have an impact in science fiction history so even if he's not mainly a science fiction writer, he wrote science fiction....sooooo....

@Fluribus
Well said

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Geralt

Ok, even if the majority of his work is not SF, his most famous books are SF.
Plus, it would be silly to argue that he didn't have an impact in science fiction history so even if he's not mainly a science fiction writer, he wrote science fiction....sooooo....

I can agree with that . He was clearly an author who was very influential in the history of what we now call SF.

EDIT:

Interesting to note what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

A primary issue at the heart of the dispute (about the relationship between Verne's Voyages Extraordinaires and the literary genre of science fiction) is the question of whether Verne's works count as science fiction to begin with. Verne himself argued repeatedly in interviews that his novels were not meant to be read as scientific, saying "I do not in any way pose as a scientist"[105] and "I have invented nothing."[106] His own goal was rather to "depict the earth [and] at the same time to realize a very high ideal of beauty of style",[72] as he pointed out in an example:

Closely related to Verne's science-fiction reputation is the often-repeated claim that he is a "prophet" of scientific progress, and that many of his novels involve elements of technology that were fantastic for his day but later became commonplace.[107] These claims have a long history, especially in America, but the modern scholarly consensus is that such claims of prophecy are heavily exaggerated.[108] As with science fiction, Verne himself flatly denied classification as a futuristic prophet, saying that any connection between scientific developments and his work were "mere coincidence" and attributing his indisputable scientific accuracy to his extensive research: "even before I began writing stories, I always took numerous notes out of every book, newspaper, magazine, or scientific report that I came across."[105]

[Ghitulescu]

The whole point of my arguments that seemed to enflame the things, which was not my intention, is that even a story has to tell something. The recurs to fantastic creatures was IMHO only a method to get a place in the literary world of that time, which was populated by other fictional works, but based on history (like Les Mystères de Paris, or Ben Hur).

The Victorian era had a lot of the elements needed for such a literary current, like the jobless wives who spent their time in reading love novels (love being forbidden to women, who had to be seduced against their will in order to hmm hmm) and to keep the children obedient by scare.

And therefore, both love (in historical times) and grotesque fictional monsters gained place, against classical (read greek antique) works, equally sad. And the competition of fantastic monsters enraged on and on, and we saw Dracula, Frankenstein (actually the monster has no name, Frankenstein is the mad scientist), and so on.

BTW, Voyages extraordinaires are translated as Fantastic voyages not as Extraordinary, so a bit of fantasy is given.
There is no need for Verne to invent creatures, as he could use real people, real actions, real stuff. Kipling's stories are also instructive...

BTW 2nd: the world oldest fantasy work, still in print, is the Bible: wherelse can one find Leviathans and Behemoths, snakes that eat dust, 4-legged insects and all kind of horrors, like plagues and stuff

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

BTW 2nd: the world oldest fantasy work, still in print, is the Bible: wherelse can one find Leviathans and Behemoths, snakes that eat dust, 4-legged insects and all kind of horrors, like plagues and stuff

In pretty much every other near-Eastern mythology of a similar era, such as the Babylonian epic of "Gilgamesh".

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Verne was actually writing travel adventures, and that's precisely what most of his books were. The elements of a few of his stories that we now consider to be "science fiction" were simply present to allow travel to places such as the bottom of the sea, or the Moon, that were not otherwise "accessible".

Yes, Verne wrote travelogues... and travelogue SF was a dominant sub-genre in the early days.

(Check Ron Miller's Classics of SF for notable folowers of Verne. And a precursor ir two.)

It is less common these days but you still see the occasional "journey of exploration" story, usually as the backbone to support other speculations. It was more common in the early 20th but it is an acknowledged sub-genre. Stanley Weinbaum's MARTIAN ODYSSEY is one of the classics of the sub-genre. More recently Phillip Jose Farmer used the form in GREEN'S ODYSSEY (its PD, folks!) and, more famously, RIVERWORLD. I would count Arthur C. Clarke's RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA as a travelogue, too.

The subgenre is very much alive.

[Geralt]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

The recurs to fantastic creatures was IMHO only a method to get a place in the literary world of that time, which was populated by other fictional works, but based on history (like Les Mystères de Paris, or Ben Hur).

What are you even talking about? Fantastical creatures have been present in literature since the beginning. Just crack open any of the Greek, Indian,Chinese or any other epics and you'll find them. Fantasy has been around since mankind started telling each other stories. What place? It was always here in one form or other.

The Victorian era had a lot of the elements needed for such a literary current, like the jobless wives who spent their time in reading love novels (love being forbidden to women, who had to be seduced against their will in order to hmm hmm) and to keep the children obedient by scare.

Yes fantasy novels began appearing because bored housewives and naughty kids. How utterly reductive can you get?

And therefore, both love (in historical times) and grotesque fictional monsters gained place, against classical (read greek antique) works, equally sad. And the competition of fantastic monsters enraged on and on, and we saw Dracula, Frankenstein (actually the monster has no name, Frankenstein is the mad scientist), and so on.

Vampires have been present in stories way before Dracula (1897). East Europe has had such myths for a long time.
Bram Stoker didn't just invent vampire, he borrowed a lot. These were published before Dracula:
You have Sheridan Le Fanu's "Carmilla" (1871) about a lesbian vampire.
You have John Polidori's "The Vampyre" (1819) which is a short story.
Plus as I said all the East European tradition.
I cant be bothered to write all the Frankenstein sources so if you're interested go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franken...ey.27s_sources

You seem to do a lot of A = B ergo C. It doesn't quite work. History of fantasy or literature in general is much more complex and symbiotic thing.
Your simple explanations don't do the job very well.

[crich70]

If you want to see some really old fiction that probably straddles the SF/F genre try True History, or trips to the moon which I loaded up here at MR some time back. It had elements of both SF and Fantasy in it and it was written long before J.R.R. Tolkien or Jules Verne were ever born. Lucian's book

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Yes, Verne wrote travelogues... and travelogue SF was a dominant sub-genre in the early days.

(Check Ron Miller's Classics of SF for notable folowers of Verne. And a precursor ir two.)

It is less common these days but you still see the occasional "journey of exploration" story, usually as the backbone to support other speculations. It was more common in the early 20th but it is an acknowledged sub-genre. Stanley Weinbaum's MARTIAN ODYSSEY is one of the classics of the sub-genre. More recently Phillip Jose Farmer used the form in GREEN'S ODYSSEY (its PD, folks!) and, more famously, RIVERWORLD. I would count Arthur C. Clarke's RENDEZVOUS WITH RAMA as a travelogue, too.

The subgenre is very much alive.

Sir Henry Rider Haggard invented the "Lost Civilisation" fantasy sub-genre, with books like "King Solomon's Mines", and "She". Many of Haggard's book contain fantasy elements.

[Glorfindel]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

[...]BTW 2nd: the world oldest fantasy work, still in print, is the Bible: wherelse can one find Leviathans and Behemoths, snakes that eat dust, 4-legged insects and all kind of horrors, like plagues and stuff

I'm sure that you don't actually belive that

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sir Henry Rider Haggard invented the "Lost Civilisation" fantasy sub-genre, with books like "King Solomon's Mines", and "She". Many of Haggard's book contain fantasy elements.

Yup. And a lot of classic adventure SF writers replaced the fantasy with science and the lost civilization with aliens.

"Steal from the best."

[DiapDealer]

Also keep in mind that all these subgenres and labels don't really mean much of anything when it boils down to it. I only recognize two genres these days: there's the "Good" genre, and then there's the "Books I Haven't Started or Couldn't Finish" genre.

[Pulpmeister]

Looking back at the OP, it seems the OP's Dad thinks fantasy started in recent years.

In fact, there's been a thriving fantasy publishing history since the early 19th century, and even earlier. After all, what is A Midsummer Night's Dream if it isn't fantasy?

Fantasy in the 19th and 20th centuries drifted in and out of the "weird" category, and the magazine "Weird Tales" carried a great deal of fantasy in the 1930s.

King Solomon's Mines isn't fantasy-- the mines were a popular myth of the era, and the warriors of Kukuanaland, while warriors of a mythical kingdom, are closely based on reality. The "She" books are fantasy, having as they do a central character who lives forever by bathing in a magical fire.

William Hope Hodgson, a leading fantasy writer, is noted for "The House on the Borderland" (1908) which is very definitely fantasy, way before Tolkien, and nothing like him.

If we just look at post-Tolkien fantasy, it's obvious that there's an awful lot of derivative stuff riding on that particular bandwagon, but there are plenty who do not. I mentioned R A Lafferty, definitely post-Tolkien and owing nothing at all to him, as one I've read.

I'm not much of a fantasy reader, so I haven't kept up with the current scene, except Terry Pratchett. And, as I say, Lafferty.

I note that the Wikipedia entry on Fantasy as a literary genre is very scant indeed.