Hacker News Reader

Comment by girzel | Hacker News Reader

"The Tolkien of Chinese literature" is a marketing phrase produced by the English publisher, and while I totally understand the impetus, I don't think it's quite accurate. Tolkien melded multiple cultural traditions (the Icelandic Eddas, Anglo-Saxon literature, and rural English life) to create an original world that was at once strange and familiar to his readers. Jin Yong wrote stories based in Chinese history, with an extra layer of magic, spirituality, and kick-ass martial arts.

By analogy, it would be like he'd produced a really, really good retelling of the Arthurian legends. It's an impressive achievement, but not quite on the same creative level as Tolkien.

Full disclosure: I agented the English translation to a US publisher (from the UK publisher).

View on HN

As a Chinese person who grew up with the works of Jin Yong and Tolkien, I bristle a little bit at this comment.

For one, I think the marketing term is really used to explain Jin Yong's scope and impact, rather than a flat comparison of genre. In this sense, Jin Yong is, to Chinese literature, as impactful Tolkein is to Western literature.

It is a tradition within Chinese literature to prefer setting your work within our history. Romance of the Three Kingdoms is perhaps the most well-known in this vein. So to be critical of "creativity" here, is, I think a little bit short-sighted. It's like saying a Ken Burns documentary lacks the creativity of The Avengers, because magic powers and superheroes don't exist in the prior. Or trying to compare a book about the personal relationships of a cancer patient (I'm thinking "The Fault In Our Stars" specifically here) to the Harry Potter series. They are just fundamentally different things where creativity is executed in different ways. Who is to say that it is not equally powerful or creative to create characters that are deeply relatable, like Jin Yong's? In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's.

Jin Yong wrote stories that were rooted in Chinese tradition, but his impact among young Chinese minds is greater than what even I can describe in a Hacker News comment. He wrote books that were about strength of self, moral character, freedom, and defiance in a time when the Chinese government strictly punished all of these things. I confess that I know nothing about Tolkein's backstory or history, but I can plainly see his impact. I think it is reasonable to say that Jin Yong's impact is as important and wide spread as Tolkein's.

I don't know jin Yong (what would I read from him first as european? Any recommendations?)

But I tend to dislike the overarching glorification of Tolkien. Surely an impressive writer and world-builder but surely not the only one and not necessarily the best.

Out of curiosity, which writers would you put above Tolkien for world-building (in the Western canon)?

George Orwell is the most influential one I can think of.

Things like 1984 don't really count as fantasy though (unfortunately) as they were an extrapolation of things that were already happening in the 1930s and 1940s.

In the same sense, high fantasy is just extrapolation of national wars and myths.

George Orwell certainly was a successful writer (in the sense that he became famous and sold many books), but not a world-builder. 1984 is a rip-off from Zamyatin's novel, "We".

Ironically, Orwell wrote before WWII that Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) was heavily inspired by We (1921). Then he wrote 1984 (1949) which borrows even more: it's the same story, with more romance and a more mainstream narrating style.

Personally, I enjoyed T.H. White immensely more than Tolkien, but this is surely just a matter of personal preferences.

I think it's pretty hard to answer this question because what Tolkein is good at and what he is bad at are two sides of the same coin.

Tolkein presents an extremely fantastical view of the world and ascribes to what I call "cosmic morality." There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end. I don't mean this in a Deus Ex Machina way, by the way, as cosmic morality is justified within Tolkein's universe. I think Breaking Bad is a good example of this as well -- the Universe has passed its judgment on the characters it deems necessary to pass judgment on, and it works within its story without detracting from it or seeming like a Deus Ex Machina. So much of the criticism of Tolkein in the modern day, to me, surrounds this concept where he ascribes to the idea that the Universe will eventually judge sinners and saints. That being said, it does not and should not detract from the sheer magnitude of his creative work, as well as his linguistic ability.

George RR Martin, is, I think, an obvious counterpoint and much of his writing is driven by a distaste for this amount of cosmic morality. If we were to harken back to amazing TV, GRRM is more like The Wire -- they choose to present the world in a way they deem "factual". But in doing so they lose some of the higher fantasy elements that Tolkein's world building is known for.

So I think when you ask the question of who is a better world-builder I think you need to start with asking whether or not you want a cynically real depiction (ala GRRM) or you want a story that justifies it's heroic deeds (ala Tolkein) first. Because, in my opinion, they are hard to compare.

"There is obvious, pure good and pure evil, and in a way the Universe intervenes to make sure that pure good will win out in the end."

There is no such thing in either the Silmarillion or the Lord of the Rings: in the Silmarillion, Melkor is taken beyond into a different dimension, yet there is so much damage that this is hardly more than partial damage control; and stopping The Enemy causes an even greater tragedy, that of everything wrought with the Three Rings to fail and fade, resulting in elves having to once again leave Middleearth, that place where they awoke and hold so dear. Hardly can this be called "good versus evil" or either side winning, and if so, it's a phyrric victory for both. Nobody wins in the end; the inevitable is just prolonged yet again through the rise of men at the expense of everyone else. The way Melkor set the stage, Ainur played it, and Sauron finished it, there could never be any victor, good or evil. It was a perfectly balanced system. It was never about Black-White and especially it isn't about good winning in the end, since the victory causes even more tragedy.

I had hoped that the Breaking Bad reference made more clear what I meant by cosmic good/evil. It has nothing to do with the idea that the One Ring is good or evil, but rather that the Universe has morality ascribed to each character. We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story. I suspect A Song of Ice and Fire will not have the same satisfaction.

But this is, once again, my own subjective opinion and theory. I don't even think there's anything inherently wrong with cosmic good! In general, I wish media would be more willing to take a stand when they choose to display violent acts on television.

"We leave LOTR feeling for the most part satisfied by the story."

I leave LotR feeling terrible pain, loss, and sadness: the main protagonists are forced into exile to another world (planet), Valinor; they can never come back; the fate of the mortal ones (Bilbo, Frodo) will forever remain unknown, they have to forever part with their friends and family, and Middleearth remains behind bereft of elves, their beauty, grace, and intellect. How this is a satisfactory story I am incapable of fathoming, not because any one side won, but because the ending raises even more questions than it answers.

Wouldn't the Eru's resurrection of Gandalf count as a pretty clear example of the Universe intervening to make sure that pure good will win out in the end?

Neither Gandalf nor the Balrog could really be killed, in spite of Gandalf implying it, because they are both Maiar, the powers of the world, and their existence is bound to that of Arda. To kill them, Arda would have to be destroyed. Same goes for Sauron, even after destroying the One Ring. They're all indestructible in the same way that a planet is destructible.

Gandalf being sent back ("I was sent back") is an act of keeping the events in balance, not Eru intervening so that good would win, because in the end, even with him doing as much as he did, everybody loses. Gandalf knew this full well, and that is why he did not want to go to Middleearth. He was afraid. He did not want to go stop Sauron. Manwe ordered him and the other four Istari to go anyway and the other Valar backed him up in his decision.

Even if you take the position that Eru intervened, there is always that moment when Eru Illuvatar tells Melkor "know that nothing you do will ever be without my will and intent of you doing it".

I prefer Terry Pratchett or George RR Martin, a lot of high fantasy stories are too rigid and stuck on heroes and villains

Not competing on world-building per se (inventing few languages requires proper linguistic background), but on other aspects, Malazan book of the fallen series is an amazing read. World is just more interesting to dive into. Till I had read it, Tolkien was #1 fantasy for me. Afterwards, it seemed bland and a bit boring. But that's me, some people drown in complex parallel stories and heaps of characters.

From what I heard Wheel of time is similarly awesome, but no first hand experience with it yet.

The Wheel of Time has some great world building, but also some terrible. The Wheel has a lot of different cultures that all feel like they have an identity.

However Wheel is mostly great for its broad (epic) scope of the central conflict and how this is told threw characters.

Ursula LeGuin (in particular her Earthsea series), Robin Hobb (in particular her Liveship Traders).

As mentioned in a sibling comment, I have heard people put Mervyn Peake and William Morris in the same bracket as Tolkien.

It can be difficult to get into reading JY as a Western reader as he writes in extremely poetic language. There are a lot of great articles on the difficulties of translating Chinese poetry if you're interested in the subject.

Instead -- I suggest you watch some of his live action adaptions! The Smiling, Proud Wanderer is my personal favorite JY story, and my favorite drama rendition is the 2001 one starring Li Yapeng. He is probably best known for the Condor Trilogy (The Legend of the Condor Heroes, The Return of the Condor Heroes, and The Heavenly Sword and Dragon Saber) and although I loved the first I was never personally that into the latter two of the series. Probably his greatest work is in my opinion Demi-gods and Semi-Devils, although that might not be a good entry point into the series. I would look at TSPW or TLCH first :)

And well, Tolkein will always hold a special place in my heart. But I do agree that he is slightly over romanticized as an author.

I've watched Laughing in the Wind (2001, 4 seasons with 10 episodes each) but with English subtitles as I don't speak Chinese and have to warn the other poster that it's availability is extremely limited last time I looked.

I think that it's quite reasonable to consider Tolkien as one of the best world-builders in the Western canon. But that is unsurprising, given that the man basically devoted his entire life to constructing a single imaginary world - he was a world-builder first, and writer second (and far better at the first than he was at the second, IMO). Most authors create a world to tell their stories in, and it's only as detailed as the story needs it to be. Tolkien wrote stories as, basically, illustrations to his world-building. Most of them didn't even get cleaned up to be publishable until long after his death.

on the other hand, I sometimes feel like he has done a lot of "history building", but I find his world sometimes incredibly sparsely described.

I suppose Tolkien perhaps is in the company of Mervyn Peake, and perhaps the earlier William Morris, with regards to world-building.

His books are not easy read for western readers. The language is intentionally archaic and the cultural barriers are high.

So as always, if you want to have a taste of his work, movies are your best friends. Below is a good one:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100973/

I have a question: are you familiar with the novels by Barry Hughart? If yes, what is your opinion about these?

(I am genuinely interested in what a Chinese person would think of his own "Wuxia" novels - I enjoyed them very much, but on the other hand, I haven't read anything by Jin Yong - so far at least)?

I am not, personally, but I did a bit of a brief Google so I'll speak to the limited knowledge I have here.

First of all, to be frank, I fear a little bit of cultural appropriation (I also fear the HN comments that are going to result from revealing my fear, go figure). That being said, after reading snippets of his work that have surfaced from my Googling I'm not actually certain that his work is actually Wuxia the way that Chinese people define it. His stories seem to be more around Chinese mythology, rather than magical realism. For example, no monsters exist in Wuxia; authors instead use as much hand-wavy science as they can to justify their magic. A great example of hand-wavy science is how wuxia martial artists fly -- they are trained to carry more than their weight regularly, and then when that extra weight is removed they suddenly are creating enough force to fly. Hand wavy science, but an attempt at science nonetheless. Tone is also important -- wuxia novels are funny, yes, but ultimately serious and about saving the world on some level.

But I think the most important and key differentiator is what exactly a wuxia martial artist is. In Chinese literature, to practice wuxia is to be a Renaissance man. You learn how to fight by intensely studying poetry. The best wuxia fighters fight via musical instruments because of how scholarly they are. The reason why "wuxia" as a term is so hard to translate is because its fundamentally about how the pursuit of the physical and the mental are indistinguishable. One must be cultured, intelligent, loyal, and well-read in order to learn the greatest martial arts. Even though wuxia stories cover grand, mythological tales, they are fundamentally about what it means to be a Chinese Renaissance Man. JY works go a step further -- they are also about how to live by a moral code in an amoral world. Wuxia works also tend to be secular for a number of reasons -- mostly JY's personal political leanings and his own distaste for organized groups of any kind.

I wrote a lot about something I ultimately know very little about :P But I am interested in learning more about Barry Hughart -- I definitely think there are ways for white men to write non-white literature appropriately and googling "Barry Hughart cultural appropriation" doesn't really surface anything alarming, so I think that's a good sign. I left another comment further down about how to get into JY now as a westerner. Please do! I would love to see more people enjoy his work.

Thank you for the answer, very interesting and much appreciated.

So I suppose that something like the Judge Dee recent trilogy of movies is closer to Wuxia than stories with a lot of supernatural creatures, then? Would the Sherlock Holmes movies with Robert Downey Jr. qualify as Wuxia, too (especially the first one)?

Also, I find the concept of Wuxia (as "excellence") quite interesting in itself. Would you say it is somehow close to Arete in Ancient Greece? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete

Can you please recommend an introductory Jin Yong book or two? I'm a Western Shaw Brothers and Golden Harvest fan and this sounds right up my alley. (Thanks SBS Cult Movie nights). I've read and enjoyed The Water Margin fwiw.

I left another comment here [1] with some of my introductory JY thoughts and recs! But to be honest I've never read an English translation of his work, so I have no idea what the quality of it is like. He writes in extremely poetic language that is rooted deeply in the Chinese grammatical structure that I imagine will be difficult to translate. That being said since you do have some experience with reading asian literature I would definitely recommend The Legend of the Condor Heroes as a great intro-JY book.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18352268

Ai not available for purchase in my country. Thanks anyway, I've found heaps of contemporary translated novels from Japan but for some reason the only Chinese stuff I find is very expatty (apart from the classics).

I liked these translations[1], I see there have been a couple of recent others, but I haven't read them yet.

1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/552708.The_Book_and_the_...

"In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's."

I'm so sorry to read this, because it doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the flame of Anor. You cannot pass! The dark fire will not avail you, flame of Udûn!

Ever wondered what those mean? And from those, being references to objects, characters and events prior, Tolkien didn't even attempt to convey morality or ask morally difficult questions: his is the position of a saddened bard, painstakingly documenting the epic tragedy and endless suffering of the elves at the hands of an intelligence greater and far more powerful than them. For Tolkien, it's always cause and effect: "when this then that" or "if this then that" ("if He gets the One Ring, He will rule all of Middleearth") - it's a simple fact, not a moral conundrum or a lesson. He is a saddened yet passive observer and never was about teaching or conveying morals. What you are comparing are two completely unrelated things.

I am sensing rudeness from your comment but I don't actually understand why, given that we've said quite similar things about Tolkein. But to clarify the original intent of "morals" in my comment, I was referring to morals in context of the written universe, not in ours. JY characters regularly confront situations where they are forced to question their own personal code. In a more trivial example, the moral code of a wuxia martial artist is to treat your teacher as a god-like being who is also family. One of his books deals with a student and teacher who are in love with each other and their moral conflictions between doing what is right by their moral code, and what is right by them. JY does not offer a moral lesson here, he simply explores characters in morally complex situations.

eta: this is not to say that Tolkein does not do the same. I offered my opinion about which author did it in a way that was more interesting and compelling to me.

"I was referring to morals in context of the written universe, not in ours. JY characters regularly confront situations where they are forced to question their own personal code.

... ... ...

JY does not offer a moral lesson here, he simply explores characters in morally complex situations."

Tolkien doesn't do that at all: the depth of his characters is never expounded upon, their decisions and choices flow from their roles (for example Elrond as the healer, or Aragon as the king of men, or Gandalf with the mission to stop Sauron). His characters are aware of the consequences and the effect the Ring will have: not even for Boromir is that a dilemma. That's why my position is that the comparison doesn't even apply because Tolkien's characters don't undergo those dilemmas. For example, the biggest dilemma is Frodo's fear of whether and how he'll be able to complete his task, not whether he should complete it. That is light years removed from character complexity and moral choices. These two authors wrote about completely different things: there isn't any overlap to compare on.

As for the rudeness: if based on your comments I think that you should re-read the Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings much more critically because they reduce both works to satisfaction with the story and good being triumphant, and was subtly trying to suggest that, is that rude?

I think perhaps you misunderstood the context of my original comment. I was responding to two questions:

1) Why is Jin Yong marketed as "The Tolkien of China"?

2) Is Tolkien more creative than JY?

Both have subjective answers. In my personal explanation of my answer to number 2, I suggested that the moral complexities that JY characters deal with is an act of creativity on JY's part but cannot be directly compared to the world building on Tolkien's part. That is a personal judgment and a subjective call, and both of our answers to the question of Tolkien's moral complexity is the same.

And yes, I would rather you just say that directly than be passive aggressive and rude. I don't proclaim to be a Tolkien expert. I don't proclaim to be a JY expert, just a fan. I have offered my opinion on this forum in answering 2 basic questions; I don't think anything about that opinion or its delivery was one that deserved such rudeness.

I disagree about being passive-aggressive because I don't think that I was, nor was that my intent.

In a world where a subtle, gentle way of saying "please do your homework before stating something like 'we are left with a feeling of general satisfaction'", backed by plenty of examples is experienced as passive-aggressive and rudeness, then I don't understand the world any more. It's certainly not the world I knew and grew up in.

Think not less of me for it: not all of us are such good communicators and I'm aware of my limitations, such as they might be. I did it the best way I could think of and that wasn't good enough at all.

My remedial action will be to be direct with you, as you've requested, if our paths should cross again.

> "In my opinion, his characters tended to ask morally difficult questions more often than Tolkein's."

Some of Tolkien's characters find themselves in some morally complex situations. For example, Niënor who finds herself pregnant after an incestuous relationship with her own brother Turambar, due to a spell of forgetfulness cast by the dragon Glaurung. It's not all hobbits worrying about second breakfast :-)

Of course :) I do not at all mean to discredit Tolkein's moral complexity. I have simply personally found JY's more interesting and more compelling. That is just a personal opinion, and could be simply explained by the fact that I'm a Chinese person who knows all too well the Cultural Revolution and it's impact on my society, and find that the questions JY asks relevant. The original intent of my comment, after all, was to question what it meant for Tolkein to be more "creative" than JY.

I'm a westerner who hadn't previously heard much about JY (but loves Tolkien ) and was being a bit pedantic, so I'm not sure my comment was entirely fair.

I'm sure that a Chinese author discussing the impact of the cultural revolution is going to pose harder moral issues than Tolkien did in general, and its quite correct that Tolkien's best known works (TLOTR, Hobbit) have fairly simple morals.

FWIW I don't think that moral complexity necessarily makes a work great. Harry Potter will always be one of my favorite series of all times, and it has very little moral depth. I'm currently playing Dragon Quest 11, which is an amazing video game but it's at it's core, a very, very good fairy tale with extremely straightforward morals, and I think it's a masterpiece. Meanwhile, John Green's work is all about the emotional depth and moral complexities of teenagers and they're just not that interesting to me.

Ultimately authors have chosen for whatever reason to tell the story they want to the way they want to. George RR Martin famously likes to get on Tolkien's case for not answering the question of what exactly does it mean for Aragon's rule to be peaceful. I don't think that that criticism is entirely fair. In LOTR, Tolkien had a specific story he wanted to tell. He did it to amazing effect, with thorough character development and world depth. You could not look at his work and say that any of his characters did not behave logically to what was established within themselves. Particularly with the Hobbit I think you can tell that he chose to tell a specific story and to do that erred towards moral simplicity. But that doesn't make the story any less beautiful -- in fact, I would argue that the innocence and purity of the hobbits against this unknowable and extreme evil is part of LOTR/Hobbit's charm. It allows him to tell a story that is fundamentally different from the story JY or GRRM wants to tell -- which is how your innate goodness, if you continue to tap into it and grow it, can help you triumph over corruption and evil. Frankly, I find that this kind of story is something that we are quick to want to discredit because we think it lacks "depth" and is too much of a fairy tale. So, that he can tell this kind of story so effectively and meaningfully is something to be cherished.

Great response!

> But that doesn't make the story any less beautiful -- in fact, I would argue that the innocence and purity of the hobbits against this unknowable and extreme evil is part of LOTR/Hobbit's charm .... Frankly, I find that this kind of story is something that we are quick to want to discredit because we think it lacks "depth" and is too much of a fairy tale

Yes, completely agree. Tolkien's formative experience (analogous to the Cultural revolution for JY??) was the First World War, the death in combat of most of his closest friends and the characters of the ordinary soldiers he met in the trenches. He explicitly made the connection between these people and characters such as Sam.

> It's like saying a Ken Burns documentary lacks the creativity of The Avengers, because magic powers and superheroes don't exist in the prior. Or trying to compare a book about the personal relationships of a cancer patient (I'm thinking "The Fault In Our Stars" specifically here) to the Harry Potter series.

It sounds like the most obvious eng-lit analogy to Jin Yong in this respect would be T.H. White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._H._White . White is possibly better regarded than Tolkien overall, though he's a bit less well-known. OTOH White tends to shy away from descriptions of fighting and supernatural conflict to a much greater extent than Tolkien, so maybe Jin Yong (whom I don't know at all) is more like Tolkien in that respect.

>Jin Yong is, to Chinese literature, as impactful Tolkein is to Western literature

And in literature only. In terms of culture influence, I would argue Jin Yong is far more impactful in Asia / Chinese Culture than Tolkien. The Characters names, storyline etc are literally known to every Chinese person on the planet.

> not quite on the same creative level as Tolkien.

There's no reason to throw shade at a dead guy.

According to this list, Tolkien sold 250 million and Jin Yong sold 300 million:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_a...

They are definitely in the same league.

If you're chinese, Jin Yong's influence on culture and storytelling is way larger than Tolkien ever will be.

(But if you're not chinese, then you're forgiven because there's no way to translate stuff like 降龍十八掌 without it sounding super corny)

Aw, it wasn't meant to be shade! Just the best assessment I could make.

They are definitely comparable in the sense that they are both creators of categories.

Edit: Tolkien is also dead.

I think nowadays kung fu/shaolin have gained more widespread social awareness, as well as (lord help me) Dragonball Z, so saying "The 18 palms Dragon form", or "18 fists of the Golden Dragon" won't get the same kind of cringe factor compared to maybe 20-30 years ago.

Now ninjas, on the other hand... how can japanese audiences watch anything to do with ninjas in hollywood, and not throw up straightaway?

Are hollywood-ninjas worst than anime-ninjas?

Just my opinion, but I think the elements of culture and language play no small roles in such kind of translation. My country (Vietnam) is heavily influenced by Chinese, and even that if you use normal vocabularies for literal translation like "18 palms of the Golden Dragon", it still sounds super corny, yet switching to Sino-Vietnamese style automatically makes it 10 times more awesome and elegant. And this expands to other subjective points such as characters, thematic plots, etc...; thus I feel it probably is way harder for Western audience to agree with the comparison with Tolkien.

In general, I don't think creativity equates to book sales, so an argument about creative level can't be countered with "X sold more copies than Y."

Problem is, there is no way to compare creativity between the founders of 2 different genres. Is Tolkien more creative than Allan Poe? That would be a very pretentious question.

I am not sure why the grand OP claim that Jin Yong's work are retelling of history. It uses history as its background, but one of his most important contributions is to create Jiang Hu(江湖), a society that is beyond the realm of moral governmental, that is Chao Ting(朝廷), which usually represents the account of history.

They are comparable in a sense that they both went beyond literature, it becomes part of the culture, even the language itself.

Jin Yong's novels are so influential and intervened with contemporary Chinese culture, where his characters have become the go-to reference for certain archetype personality. Like you can refer to something that is short as Hobbits, if you are calling someone 岳不群(pronounced as Yue BuQun, a villain who appeared as leader of the good guys at first) in Chinese, it is even more insulting than calling that someone hypocrite.

In fact, considering that Jin Yong had not only several, but 14 installments to create his imaginative JiangHu universe, most of which are vastly popular and recognized and all of them are adapted into movies/tv series, even nowadays, I would say his influence within Sino cultural sphere is probably wider and more profound than that of Tolkien as with English/Western culture.

> not quite on the same creative level as Tolkien.

I haven't read either of these author's works, but I have to disagree with this assessment if that's all you are basing it on.

In my opinion, it's much harder to create a story within the confines of real history, as you are limited to real constraints.

Thus the world-building needs to be much more intricate and problems can't be solved by a some "deus ex machina" plot device.

In fact, using history as a backdrop would put Yong in a similar category as Shakespeare, and surely you wouldn't say Shakespeare is "less creative" than Tolkien.

Jin Yong used plenty of 'deus ex machina' in his stories, and some of them are notably worse for it.

Jin Yong didn't retell any stories, those stories were his own. Unless you see Tolkien as retelling stories of Elves, Dwarves etc. then sure Jin Yong is retelling stories.

"Tolkien melded multiple cultural traditions (the Icelandic Eddas, Anglo-Saxon literature, and rural English life) to create an original world that was at once strange and familiar to his readers"

"Jin Yong wrote stories based in Chinese history, with an extra layer of magic, spirituality, and kick-ass martial arts [to create an original world that was at once strange and familiar to his readers]"

Yes, JY stories are his own. One could read Romance of the Three Kingdoms and have a reasonably textual understanding of that time period. One could not say the same of JY; he simply borrowed setting and context and time.

Of course Tolkien did produce a poem about King Arthur in "The Fall Of Arthur" well worth the read if you are into his works :)

How have the English speaking countries reacted to the Wuxia literature and JinYong's works so far? Just curious.

Mostly here: https://www.wuxiaworld.com/

It's got a niche audience, albeit a dedicated one. Wuxia didn't make it into the mainstream past Crouching Tiger.

This actually makes me want to read them more. Didn't know about him before, but on my list now.

And once again, no matter the subject, HN has a genuine expert with insight just waiting round the corner :-)

Thank you

(volume 1 is still on my xmas list)

Our thoughts go to his family.

I am pretty sure Tolkien books were way less popular before the movies were made. I often see them gathering dust in the library. I will be honest. For someone used to reading fantasy novels from Robert Jordan, Raymond Feist, Anne McCaffrey etc, I find the pace of the books excruciatingly slow. The details are great and the imagination is impressive but it is painful to read... (apologies to LOTR fans)

Before the movies I had a hard time convincing people to get past the first 150 pages. And then you have the whole thing about the LOTR taking a different turn when Tolkien made it a larger story and not just a hobbit adventure.

I like LOTR because I like backstories and the whole book is about hearing what's happening behind the mountains. I could never get into Game of Thrones and my girlfriend never made it through LOTR. To each its own.

wait, you think LOTR is too slow but you like Robert Jordan? I'm pretty sure there are entire books in the Wheel of Time where nothing substansive even happens.

This has been blown out of proportion pretty badly. I would agree that Tolkien (even LOTR, and especially some of his other works) is slower reading than The Wheel of Time (I've not read other Jordan). I would attribute this almost entirely to broader differences in literature between their time periods. Writing in the '30s and '40s was just different than it was in the '80s and on.

I get what you mean. Wheel of Time has its slow moments. But then the whole series had a really odd pace. The last 3 books after RJ passed away was too fast and too sudden.

Most everybody knew who he was in the 90's and The Hobbit was standard fantasy fare - probably the most popular book in the genre.

It's also the basis of the whole high fantasy western culture, including D&D.

I used to love LOTR, but after reading Malazan book of the fallen, I can't hold it in very high regard anymore. It paved the way for sure, created a genre even, but as for pure gripping story and overall enjoyment during reading (my primary goals when I choose to read fantasy), it has been surpassed by huge amount.

Thanks for the recommendation. I haven't read a fantasy book in a long. This looks like an interesting one.

> I am pretty sure Tolkien books were way less popular before the movies were made

The Lord of the Rings has sold more than 150 million copies over a period of 60 years [0]. The first American edition sold a quarter of a million copies in 1965 alone, and was the New York Times' Paperback Bestsellers list number 1 by the end of the year.

It's not quite up there with the Bible and Koran, but is definitely 'tier 2' if those are 'tier 1'. The films were made because of the massive historical popularity of the books.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Don't get me wrong. I am sure it is a massively popular book.

But I have not found stats that break down the "150 million over 60 years". It was published on 1954 + 60 years = 2014. The movies are made in 2001. So what is the % of sales for 48 years versus the 14 years after 2001? I am not sure really.

Without Tolkien, there would be no Robert Jordan, Anne McCaffrey, or Raymond Feist. Tolkien invented nearly all of the tropes of modern high fantasy. Without Tolkien there would be no D&D. Heck, there might still be role-playing games but they would bear no resemblance to what we have now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com