It's not an asterisk.

[Kiri]

I've come to a conclusion: Lord of the Rings is not an "asterisk book". After all, Federalist architecture is not "asterisk architecture". Lord of the Rings is not an attempt to reconstruct a work for which there is no evidence of present existence but which will explain modern features of something. Thus, it is not an "asterisk" in the linguistic sense. A "reverse asterisk" interpretation is equally as flawed. Claiming that it is some attempt to construct what English literature would have been like had England remained "purer" than it is requires a great deal of intellectual acrobatics, when a much simpler explanation will fit the bill equally as well:

Lord of the Rings is a revival, as Federalist architecture was a revival of Classical architectural themes. Lord of the Rings is a revival of the epic form of literature--in contrast to the novel form which has dominated literature for centuries. Like any valid revival (as opposed to sterile attempts), it is not a mere slavish copy. Instead, the essence of the original is re-formed to fit the new world into which it is being introduced.

American architects weren't attempting to "reconstruct architecture as if the Greeks hadn't been supplanted". Instead, they adopted Greek and Roman themes to their era. Lord of the Rings essentially does the same thing.

Sadly enough, while Lord of the Rings is a success as a work, it may turn out to be a failure as a revival, since I have yet to see any upswing in the epic form. I have seen long novels--but that is all they are, long novels.

[Wayfarer]

Hmmm...

While I agree with you for the most part, I would like some clarification on what exactly you consider a 'epic'.

Having recently (or not so recently) taken a great interest in tolkien's poetry, the nan i hin hurin and the lay of leithan are certainly 'epic' in form, and the Hobbit + Lotr + silmarillion are inded the best work of their kind... I'm not be convinced that they're the only ones recently.

David and Leigh eddings, for example based their writing style if not their world on older mythologies. Especially on the certain devices that make older myths so addictive. I think they succeeded quite well. ;)

On the other hand... that still makes only two authors who used that format... so Yeah, I guess epics are sorta dead.

[Kiri]

To paraphrase St. Augustine of Hippo: When you do not ask me what an epic is, I know. But when you ask me what an epic is, I no longer know.

I have noticed a few traits that epics have in contrast to novels. Note that when I say "novel", I am of the opinion that there are more recent forms of lengthy prose literature that are not novels. They are excellent reading material (Faulkner, Joyce, etc.) but have gone into realms that lie outside the territory of the novel as a literary form _per se_.

Novels are focussed, progressive, and addressed to a single reader. They are a supremely written art form.

Epics are expansive, immediate, and addressed to a crowd of listeners. Even when written they are "essentially oral".

Of course, these are typological statements, and individual examples will deviate and overlap.

But, as wonderful as Lord of the Rings is, if its purpose was to revive the epic in a modern, primarily prosodic form, it has so far not succeeded.

I see the following possible reasons:

Heartless greed: Epics are a financial risk to publish. Short novels can be ground out by the gazillions.

Short-sighted editors with "humanities" degrees: Few things can strangle creativity like "experts", and readers and editors brought up on the heady koumiss of "plot" and "tighten" and "trim" get itchy and scaly at the very sight of an epic.

Incompetent writers: How many epics are floating around out there with a large readership? It's hard to expand a form when you're only familiar with one example in a sea of something that isn't of that form. This makes competence hard to do. Likewise, since "mainstream fiction" is pretty much dominated by the novel with some fringe literati forms on the side, this relegates most interest in the epic to genre niches.

Fannish cultism: Some of the responsibility for the failure of reviving the epic can be laid right at the feet of fangeekery. Any attempt that doesn't measure 100% up to the Masterwork is utterly dismissed. This gives no room for people to dare to learn.

Of the four, I'd say that the last is the most unforgivable, while the third is the most important. However, the first, second, and last all are the fetid bog from which the nightshade of the third sprouts.

[Kiri]

I thought of one more hurdle that impedes the return of the epic: The emergence of "creative writing" as an academic subject. Consider what is commonly taught in these courses and compare that to Lord of the Rings. The two very often are in conflict.

What has happened is that a single approach to literature has become enshrined by academia (and the editors that academia produces), and this approach might very well have no room for the epic.

I'm not even sure that a publisher would even seriously look at Lord of the Rings were it to be submitted for the first time today.