Comparisons with a contemporary, J.R.R. Tolkien, are perhaps inevitable (both works were published between 1954-55). But whereas Tolkien drew upon the Eddic sagas to create a world whose purpose was largely consolatory and supportive of Tolkien's own Christian values, Anderson abandoned himself to the original moral tenor of the Norse sagas, and a magical realm in which both men and faerie often find themselves at the mercy of capricious forces whose aims and motives are far from being clear. And while both works can in part be viewed as a reaction to the horrors of modern warfare, Tolkien holds out an offer of hope, however melancholic, whereas Anderson's vision retains the spirit of Ragnarok. And, not only in spirit, but also in compositional structure, Anderson adheres far more closely to the rhythms and traditions of his Eddic sources. The end result can be viewed as an antithesis to Tolkien's, or at least a differentiation between dual traditions, pagan and Christian, whose modern separation here is perhaps an inevitable outcome after years of enforced cohabitation within the canon of fantasy literature. And through this divergence can perhaps be seen, in miniature, the uneasy, at times almost combative schism that has since defined differing approaches to epic fantasy since the 50s, epitomized in spirit by an almost monolithic camp of Tolkienesque clones opposed by a less commercially visible if no less vibrant aesthetic that has sought to strip heroic fantasy of its consolatory guises, and typified by authors such as Moorcock and Donaldson, or more recently Erikson and Stover.
coz I really enjoyed all her other books.
