Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?

Expand Messages
  • Trudy Shaw
    ... From: David S. Bratman To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:25 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien? Also, the
    Message 1 of 16 , May 3, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: David S. Bratman
      To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2001 6:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?


      Also, the best magic books don't have impossible things happen. Magic
      works by manipulating the laws of probability. See Diana Wynne Jones's
      _Fire and Hemlock_.

      David Bratman



      Gee, I wasn't planning on doing PR for C.J. Cherryh's Fortress series--but this is exactly how it works in those books. She also makes a distinction between wizardry, which someone has to study, and magic, which is innate in a person. Even those with innate magic, though, have to learn to discipline and focus it and--even more important--to consider the possible outcomes of their manipulation, including ones that might be very different from what they intended. The comparison to interpersonal relationships, which I didn't keep in this reply, also fits very well with this series (all four books have been published now: Fortress in the Eye of Time, Fortress of Eagles, Fortress of Owls, and Fortress of Dragons).

      I haven't read the Diana Wynne Jones book; thanks for giving the suggestion.

      Trudy Shaw



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • David S. Bratman
      ... I haven t read these books, but I should add that there are some novels whose authors understand this -- and which still make magic work mechanically.
      Message 2 of 16 , May 3, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:20 AM 5/3/2001 , Trudy wrote:

        > Gee, I wasn't planning on doing PR for C.J. Cherryh's Fortress series--but
        >this is exactly how it works in those books. She also makes a distinction
        >between wizardry, which someone has to study, and magic, which is innate in
        >a person. Even those with innate magic, though, have to learn to discipline
        >and focus it and--even more important--to consider the possible outcomes of
        >their manipulation, including ones that might be very different from what
        >they intended.

        I haven't read these books, but I should add that there are some novels
        whose authors understand this -- and which still make magic work
        mechanically. Whenever you have a situation with 1st level wizards who can
        do A, 2nd level wizards who can do A and B, and 3rd level wizards who can
        do A, B, and C, and this is rigidly applied (except perhaps for the hero,
        who has the Gift and can do them all except for needing training to control
        that Gift), it's probably still mechanical. Consider science again: some
        people without degrees are naturally skilled without being possessed of
        perfect Gifts; some Ph.D.'s are ignorant klutzes, especially if they assume
        their degree implies mastery over all fields of science.

        David Bratman
      • WendellWag@aol.com
        As Trudy said, one of the reasons for bad fantasy novels is that authors import into novels characteristics that work reasonably well in games but which don t
        Message 3 of 16 , May 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          As Trudy said, one of the reasons for bad fantasy novels is that authors
          import into novels characteristics that work reasonably well in games but
          which don't apply to novels. Indeed, these characteristics often trivialize
          the point of a good novel. A game has to have simple, quantifiable goals so
          that the game will eventually end and one player will be declared the winner.
          That's why the goal of most RPG-type games is something like "Find the gold
          in the dungeon. Completely explore the castle and collect the most magical
          items. Kill all the other players. Survive to the end of the game." None of
          those goals consistently applies to good novels. A good novel could have the
          hero sacrifice himself to save other people, or triumph over evil while
          ending up penniless. A hero in a good novel doesn’t travel all over the map
          on pointless tours or collect magical items for the heck of it. At best, the
          plot habits acquired in RPG's are useful only in a very narrow subset of
          fantasy novels.

          I think that there's another problem though. Too many fantasy authors steal
          plot devices from Tolkien without understanding what the point of those plot
          devices were for Tolkien. A lot of these clichéd plot devices are catalogued
          rather thoroughly in _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_, from which David quoted
          that definition of "plot coupon." It's a great book that I recommend it all
          of you, but a quicker way to learn about these clichés is Diana Wynne Jones's
          _A Tough Guide to Fantasyland_. This pretends to be a tourist guide to a
          generic fantasy world (the title is a pun on the British tour book series _A
          Rough Guide to . . ._, which are guides for off-the-beaten-track traveling),
          but really it's a list of clichés in modern fantasy. When I read this book,
          I found myself looking at each entry and saying, "Which part of _The Lord of
          the Rings_ did some author misunderstand in order to turn this plot device
          (or type of character or standard setting or whatever) into a cliché?"

          This leads me to a dilemma I find in reviewing any sort of narrative. (I'll
          use narrative to refer generally to novels, short stories, movies, plays,
          epic poems, legends, mythologies, or anything with an overall plot. I'll be
          using movie examples because I do film reviews on a website, but I think my
          point applies to any kind of narrative.) On one hand, it's not a good idea
          if a narrative steals plot points from previous works without trying to
          understand how those plot points fit into those works. On the other hand,
          great works often can be fitted into a general plot schema or a tightly
          defined genre. So sometimes I find myself putting down a work for stealing
          and misunderstanding plot ideas from other works and sometimes I find myself
          praising a work for stealing its general structure from other works in a more
          artful fashion. I wonder then if I'm being consistent or if I'm merely
          making my criticism arbitrarily fit whatever intuitive feeling I have about a
          work.

          Let me give some examples. Take a look at the D.C. Film Society website
          (http:www.dcfilmsociety.org). Click on Reviews. Click on the reviews for
          _The Star Wars Trilogy_ and _The Phantom Menace_. (The review for _The
          Phantom Menace_ appeared in a slightly different form in _Mythprint_.) It's
          my contention that what makes the Star Wars films great isn't special effects
          (which look a bit old-fashioned now), nor acting (which wasn't really that
          good), nor is it that they have thrilling plots (in the usual sense of plot).
          What the Star Wars movies excel in is that they have a great Story, in the
          sense that C. S. Lewis uses this term in his essay "On Story." This is not
          plot in the sense of the events of the narrative, but some sort of
          overarching pattern to these events. It's reasonably close to what Joseph
          Campbell calls the mythic or archetypal elements of the plot. I contend that
          to some extent, the Star Wars movies, along with _The Lord of the Rings_ and
          _The Wizard of Oz_, and to a lesser degree the Prydain Chronicles, the Ring
          cycle, the King Arthur legend, and the Earthsea books are all exemplars of a
          Story pattern that I sometimes refer to as the Archetypal Quest Narrative.
          This isn't a perfect name, I suppose, since some of these narratives are more
          like anti-quests than quests, since they want to get rid of an item, but it's
          as close as I can get to describing it. Incidentally, most of the people who
          notice this about the Star Wars movies ascribe it to the fact that George
          Lucas read Joseph Campbell and deliberately tried to fit his plots into
          Campbell's Monomyth from his study _The Hero with a Thousand Faces_. I may
          be alone in thinking that Lucas does better when he goes back to the original
          works and ignores Campbell's attempt to fit them into a neat pattern.

          That's the good side to stealing ideas from older works. For the bad side,
          see my reviews of _L.A. Confidential_ or _The Gingerbread Man_ where I
          discuss the problems of filmmakers trying to make a film noir-type movie
          without really understanding what the point of film noir is. You can't have
          a film noir end with a blazing shoot-out in which the hero triumphs (that's
          an action film) or an ending in which a flawed hero is disappointed but
          resolves to become a better person (that's a sitcom with a moral at the end).
          Film noir is about the lack of trust in society. Such a film can only end
          with evil triumphant because the supposed hero was never anything but a
          patsy, or with everybody dead, or with a naive innocent surviving because
          everyone else has killed each other off, or with a hero surviving but no
          happier because no one trusts him. Film noir isn't about conventional happy
          endings, and any supposed film noir that ends with one has missed the point.

          So how can I resolve these two contrary statements about how an author should
          treat the narratives he wishes to imitate? On one hand, I want authors to
          understand the structures of the great narratives and to imitate them, but I
          don't want them to imitate minor plot devices in those narratives. I think
          the distinction I'm trying to make is that an author has to understand the
          overall Story and not try to steal minor plot points without fitting them
          consistently into a good Story. The reason that the clichés of fantasy
          listed in _The Encyclopedia of Fantasy_ and _The Tough Guide to Fantasyland_
          are annoying isn't that they are stolen from Tolkien but that they are stolen
          without understanding their use in the overall Story. A fantasy author who
          says that he admires Tolkien but who then writes a novel supposedly in the
          tradition of Tolkien, except that the novel ends with the equivalent
          character to Frodo becoming rich, getting married, becoming king, and living
          happily ever after, has completely missed the point of _The Lord of the
          Rings_.

          Wendell Wagner


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Trudy Shaw
          ... From: WendellWag@aol.com To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:50 PM Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien? A game has
          Message 4 of 16 , May 7, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: WendellWag@...
            To: mythsoc@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 2:50 PM
            Subject: Re: [mythsoc] Authors misunderstanding Tolkien?


            A game has to have simple, quantifiable goals so
            that the game will eventually end and one player will be declared the winner.
            That's why the goal of most RPG-type games is something like "Find the gold
            in the dungeon. Completely explore the castle and collect the most magical
            items. Kill all the other players. Survive to the end of the game." None of
            those goals consistently applies to good novels. A good novel could have the
            hero sacrifice himself to save other people, or triumph over evil while
            ending up penniless. A hero in a good novel doesn’t travel all over the map
            on pointless tours or collect magical items for the heck of it. At best, the
            plot habits acquired in RPG's are useful only in a very narrow subset of
            fantasy novels.

            Wendell Wagner



            Reading these comments made me think of another aspect of many (not all) RPG's. There really isn't "good" and "evil." There's just "us" and "them." Talk about missing a major theme! How does a hero sacrifice, or even risk, himself for the good of others if there's nothing at stake except who gets the gold? How would you even define a "hero" in such a plot?

            I also notice that Wendell specifies *plot* habits from RPG's not being very useful. That's probably a good point, although I would add characterization that goes beyond special abilities, etc. The world-building skills might be useful--for certain types of fantasies--but there are other ways of learning those.

            The ones who have the biggest problem are people who don't read what Wendell calls "good novels," but think they know how to write one from what they've learned from RPG's.

            Trudy Shaw


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



            The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • ERATRIANO@aol.com
            In a message dated 05/07/01 8:53:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time, tgshaw@earthlink.net writes:
            Message 5 of 16 , May 7, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 05/07/01 8:53:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
              tgshaw@... writes:

              << That's why the goal of most RPG-type games is something like "Find the
              gold
              in the dungeon. Completely explore the castle and collect the most
              magical
              items. Kill all the other players. Survive to the end of the game." >>

              tournaments, sure. But not regular games. Regular games are more like life,
              they have a temporary goal (find the gold or whatever) which will in a good
              game also involve issues of loyalties and other human (so to speak) themes...
              then after the gold is found, another quest usually appears. At least if
              you have a good group that enjoys playing together. It is not really
              appropriate to try and apply the same standards to gaming as to novels. Can
              someone put this better?

              << At best, the plot habits acquired in RPG's are useful only in a very
              narrow subset of fantasy novels.>>

              So I think that my initial comment, about learning from gaming things that
              can be applied to writing, does not apply so much to actual plotting (which
              is a problem for me anyway), as to world-creating and character balance. A
              good DM puts a lot of work into his or her world, it has to have an
              incredible level of detail to stand up to the rigours of a good game. But
              there is I suppose an aspect of that control which would be a drawback in
              fiction, at least for me, where I like a more lifelike unknowable atmosphere.
              Something like that. Maybe we are actually in agreement, Wendell, and just
              can't make the words mesh. LOL

              Lizzie
            • WendellWag@aol.com
              In a message dated 5/7/01 11:31:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ... True, and it s not really appropriate to apply the same standards to novels as to gaming. So
              Message 6 of 16 , May 8, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 5/7/01 11:31:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
                ERATRIANO@... writes:


                > It is not really
                > appropriate to try and apply the same standards to gaming as to novels

                True, and it's not really appropriate to apply the same standards to novels
                as to gaming. So the point is that only a limited set of criteria from
                gaming carries over to novels and only a limited set of criteria from novels
                carries over to gaming. I guess we are in agreement here. If you want to
                write (or criticize novels), you have to learn about how novels work. You
                shouldn't just automatically import things from gaming. If you want to
                create (or criticize) games, you should learn about how gaming works. You
                shouldn't just automatically import things from novels.

                Wendell Wagner


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • David S. Bratman
                ... As I put it in a review once, Tolkien s gold, like the fairies , turns to dust when it is stolen away. It is possible, though, to use Tolkien s gold
                Message 7 of 16 , May 8, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:50 PM 5/6/2001 , Wendell wrote:

                  >I think that there's another problem though. Too many fantasy authors steal
                  >plot devices from Tolkien without understanding what the point of those plot
                  >devices were for Tolkien.

                  As I put it in a review once, "Tolkien's gold, like the fairies', turns to
                  dust when it is stolen away." It is possible, though, to use Tolkien's
                  gold without stealing it at all: in Brian Attebery's estimation (and mine),
                  Le Guin's Earthsea is the most successful example of this. (Has everyone
                  seen the new book, _Tales from Earthsea_, by the way?)

                  >So sometimes I find myself putting down a work for stealing
                  >and misunderstanding plot ideas from other works and sometimes I find myself
                  >praising a work for stealing its general structure from other works in a more
                  >artful fashion. I wonder then if I'm being consistent or if I'm merely
                  >making my criticism arbitrarily fit whatever intuitive feeling I have about a
                  >work.

                  Maybe you are. But it's more likely that your intuitive feeling is telling
                  you something important that your intellect is merely trying to analyze
                  afterwards. There is no point in evolving a personal criteria of literary
                  quality unless it helps explain what you like and dislike, and why. All my
                  own high-flown theories of what is good or bad in fantasy I've derived
                  inductively, by reading books and noting what works and what doesn't. To
                  create a theory of what's good and apply it rigidly, describing books as
                  good or bad by means of this pre-existing theory in isolation of whether
                  you liked them or not - that would be the worst sort of criticism.

                  >I discuss the problems of filmmakers trying to make a film noir-type movie
                  >without really understanding what the point of film noir is. You can't have
                  >a film noir end with a blazing shoot-out in which the hero triumphs (that's
                  >an action film) or an ending in which a flawed hero is disappointed but
                  >resolves to become a better person (that's a sitcom with a moral at the end).
                  > Film noir is about the lack of trust in society. Such a film can only end
                  >with evil triumphant because the supposed hero was never anything but a
                  >patsy, or with everybody dead, or with a naive innocent surviving because
                  >everyone else has killed each other off, or with a hero surviving but no
                  >happier because no one trusts him. Film noir isn't about conventional happy
                  >endings, and any supposed film noir that ends with one has missed the point.
                  >... A fantasy author who
                  >says that he admires Tolkien but who then writes a novel supposedly in the
                  >tradition of Tolkien, except that the novel ends with the equivalent
                  >character to Frodo becoming rich, getting married, becoming king, and living
                  >happily ever after, has completely missed the point of _The Lord of the
                  >Rings_.

                  There's another possibility, though I admit it doesn't actually happen very
                  often. The author or filmmaker could be trying to do something different,
                  by playing on your expectations for the genre and then subverting them.
                  (The term "deconstruction" is sometimes loosely used to describe this.)
                  _Tehanu_ certainly subverted most readers' expectations for a fourth
                  Earthsea book, but it was clear that the author was retroactively
                  reimagining the entire premise, rather than merely failing to understand
                  what she had created. I don't know whether the makers of _L.A.
                  Confidential_ thought they were making a film noir or not. But there's no
                  law that says they can't make a film that starts out looking like a film
                  noir and then turning into something else. And if the less perceptive
                  critics keep calling such a film a film noir, that's not the film's fault.
                  I thought _L.A. Confidential_'s ending had more problems with sheer
                  believability than whether it fit into the conventions of the rest of the film.

                  David Bratman
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.