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.
1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/552708.The_Book_and_the_...
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.
(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)?
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.
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
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.
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.
So as always, if you want to have a taste of his work, movies are your best friends. Below is a good one:
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 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.
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.
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.
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".
From what I heard Wheel of time is similarly awesome, but no first hand experience with it yet.
However Wheel is mostly great for its broad (epic) scope of the central conflict and how this is told threw characters.
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.
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 :-)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
... ... ...
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?
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.
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.
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.