This is not fair. I've read LOTR and Homer and Beowolf. Lemex made some great points and I agree there are connections. I would throw them all in a "legends," category. You have massive heroes and lots of mythology and there is a focus often on war. There are lots and lots of modern fantasy novels that do not share this overlap . They are essentially wishful fulfillment novels, often poorly researched, and written with one hand on the keyboard. And while you do have some gems, like Gormenghast, like Gene Wolf, like Stephenson, like Jack Vance, there is such a slew of masturbatory crap, that the bulk of fantasy deserves its own label. This isn't ignorance on my part, it's a different opinion.
Depends on why you're reading. If people want to read lightweight fare for simple entertainment, I don't have a problem with that. I generally have one such novel going at any given time. Right now I'm reading Conrad (who was wonderful), an urban fantasy by Charles deLint (who is a cut above the bulk of fantasy writers), and a Warhammer 40K novel by Dan Abnett, which is a role-playing game tie-in and pretty much the definition of light, action-packed, escapist fiction. I don't see a problem with any of them.
Yes I just deleted that part from my post. It's an unnecessary jab at other people and I apologize for it.
I have not, and the only reason is that gaming fiction has been so hit and miss with me. Abnett wrote the first one, and I can always count on him to deliver a good read, but I don't know the other authors who wrote in the series after so I was reluctant to start it.
I started the series and got up to book 4 before I stopped. A friend of mine was lending me them, but we went to different universities and have only recently got back in touch - for what it's worth I remember the other writers to be good, especially whoever wrote book 3.
I don't buy this, I think it should more accurately say," As a business trying to sell as many books as possible, you may be interested in the following, based on your current selection."
As I see it, the unifying theme of the Wheel of Time series is that most women are scarey controlling people. At least, that's what it seemed to be about when I gave up, around book...five or so? I can't really remember a male character in the series that I hated. There may have been some, but they weren't memorably hateful. I can only think of one female character in the series that I didn't hate: Min? Minna? What the heck was her name? I suspect that I would have learned to hate her in a few books, though. Or it would have turned out that she was a boy posing as a girl. Or something.
Tolkien was also inspired by Kalevala. But I would personally consider Tolkien the father of medieval type of fantasy with wizards, elves, dwarves, made-up languages etc. Of course there were fantastical stories before that, but the way he brought it together with his mythology and different peoples made him into a huge influence for subsequent fantasy writers. No one writes in a vacuum, so it's really the way -- and how uniquely -- the author puts the ingredients together that matters.
Oh, yes I can see your point, let's look at the outline: Beowulf throws a party Monster crashes party Beowulf heroically rips off monsters arm Monster flees Party continues Monster's mother shows up Beowulf heroically kills monster's mother Beowulf throws a party I can see now what you're talking about, because...oh wait...no that's pretty much exactly the opposite of The Hobbit.
The Heaney version isn't bad, it's sadly not the most accurate translation as it misses the point of the Sheild story in the prologue. Sadly, as Heaney is a writer I love and admire.
In that case you're going to have to write your own outline, and prove the parallels, because as far as I can see the similarities go as far as "both Bilbo and Beowulf throw a party" and end there.
I don't know what you've been reading that's going by the name 'Beowulf', but it's certainly not the real thing. Beowulf is thus, broken down to the bare essentials: Prologue: the genealogy of the Danish royal family from Sheilf Sheafing to Hrothgar. Ending with Hrothgar building the grand mead hall Herot The parties at Herot cause the monster Grendel to attack, enraged by the sound of the Dane's boisterousness. Beowulf comes to the shores of Denmark to help king Hrothgar with his Grendel problem. Beowulf attends a party at Herot to lure Grendel, the two get into a vicious fight and Beowulf rips Grendel's arm from his shoulder, impales it on the flag-mast of Herot. Grendel flees. Grendel's Mother is enraged by her son being defeated, and it being flaunted so brazenly, attacks Herot. Beowulf goes after Grendel's mother, swimming to the bottom of a pond full of sea monsters to attack Grendel's mother. His first sword fails because reasons, finds a rare sword in Grendel's mother's stash, cuts her head off. Returns to Geatland, having proven his friendship to the Danes and worth as a warrior. Rules for 50 years (aprox) time skip in the narrative. Some random asshole steals a cup from a dragon horde, the dragon goes ape and starts burning the towns near his hole. Beowulf gathers a warband and goes to kill the dragon, but when they find the dragon's hole, but his warband become scared and only Wiglaf (I think) remains with his king and they go into the hole. Huge battle with the dragon, ending in a Pyrrhic victory. The dragon is killed and Beowulf dies soon after knowing he has failed, and his people will soon die after being invaded by the Sweds. Beowulf is buried twice - for some reason. Seems he is being made a god. Now, obviously the bit that most interested Tolkien was the bit with the dragon. Imagine Beowulf is Balin, the leader of the dwarf party. Whoever it was who stole the dragon's cup in Beowulf is Bilbo. Also, notice how Bilbo faces off against Golem in a place uncannily like Grendel's Mother's home, and if you take the trolls at the beginning to be a stand in for Grendel, kid-iffy everything (since he was just telling these stories to his children at first) and you pretty much have The Hobbit as a basic structure. The three times in The Hobbit that Bilbo is most in danger is with the trolls, with Golem, and with the dragon. Everything else develops Bilbo's skills. Instead of getting a new sword, Bilbo gets his magical ring, fitting the other more Wagnerian story. Then you just need to add a few more stories, change the world to Tolkien's Norse-inspired fantasy world, and change the ending, because they are obviously doing different things, and there you have it.
I strongly recommend the Howell D. Chickering translation. It's a really good one. The point of the Sheld story is that he was a boy found adrift at sea, and then grew up under an 'honour cloud' to lead the Danes - becoming a mighty king, feared and respected across the 'whale road' sea.
Everything covered in this last section is the Monomyth. You could then make the case that Star Wars, The Godfather, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, and the weird dream I had last night, are all a retelling of Beowulf. I realize that this is in fact what you are trying to do, in the face of how ridiculous it is. Edited to Add: It's important to note that your summary fails to mention The Battle of Five Armies, which is both a monumental part of The Hobbit and doesn't fit into your allegory.
There is not a dragon in The Godfather. The settings are similar, the key locations are similar, the events are similar, and the main antagonist in both works are exactly the same creature - Smaug would have understood the Beowulf Dragon's motivations entirely. The worlds are similar, Middle Earth is just some Medievalist's fantasy world based on Norse history, the ending stages are essentially the same, Dragon - gold stolen - fight - Dragon slaying. In The Hobbit, Bilbo is tested three times, the first is a test of strength, the second a test of cunning, the third a test of his skill as a burglar. The spiders in Murkwood, sneaking into Laketown, running from the goblins in the Misty Mountains, and the wolves just after the Misty Mountains too, these are all things that either do not directly test Bilbo's skills or are Bilbo using the skills he learned either with the Trolls (to stand up against his foes), Golem (to test his skill, deceit, and cunning) and the dragon (testing his strength of character, resolve and overall burglar skills. This character arch is also Beowulf's exactly.
Tolkien himself referred to Beowulf as an influence, actually... so yeah, no surprise there are similarities, I suppose. ETA: also, let's refrain from calling others' claims ridiculous. This is not the debate room.
He wrote a famous essay on it, 'Monsters and the Critics', and lectured on it repeatedly. His piece-meal translation of Beowulf, was recently published too.
Four. There are four tests. The last is Bilbo's attempt to stop a war by betraying his friends. Either that or Bilbo stops developing as a character 3/4 of the way through the book. I'm really not sure why you're avoiding the Battle of Five Armies. Smaug dies in chapter 14 and there are 19 chapters. The "battle" with the dragon is little more then a plot point. Dragon flies in, bird talks to bowman, dragon is dead. You could argue that Bilbo's conversation with the Smaug is somehow a battle, but I think that Smaug would much rather have had a death scene that took place in more then two pages. And I'm not sure at what point in Beowulf betrays the Geats in order to stop another tribe from invading, but my translation could be bad.
If you are talking about just before the battle of the five armies, that's using his diplomacy he learned in talking to Smaug. That entire episode is a test for Bilbo. If you are talking about the wood elves of Murkwood, Bilbo just finds a way to get out of that situation that is resolved later in a near war - he didn't succeed. In terms of the story of The Hobbit, the death of Smaug is a huge deal. In terms of character development it's not even relevant. He doesn't betray the Geats, he's the king of the Geats by the end of the poem. In the Anglo-Saxon I think it's about line 2240 when we are told be became king. What he does is fail to protect them. He kills the dragon, and only his young friend Wiglaf is there to hold him when he dies. Beowulf knows, it's made explicit that without a strong leader like Beowulf, who the Sweds will fear and respect, the Sweds will soon invade Geatland, and since the Geats were warring with the Sweds and another tribe (forget who now) for years, the Geats are not strong enough to defend themselves leaderless. With Beowulf dead, so too will the Geat nation die, being conquered by the Sweds. I can't remember the exact quote, but it's the entire point of the ending.
