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

Re: Mieville essay

Expand Messages
  • michael_martinez2
    ... it again. ... LOCUS) Interesting article. I can agree with some of the things he says. Tolkien and Lewis are, indeed, heavy-handed. But though he
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In mythsoc@y..., Stolzi@a... wrote:
      >
      > Lewis sneers, Tolkien is a leaden moralist: China Mieville is at
      it again.
      > (I was just reading in May's BUTTERBUR'S WOODSHED David Bratman's
      > animadversions upon Mieville's ideas as expressed in the March
      LOCUS)

      Interesting article. I can agree with some of the things he says.
      Tolkien and Lewis are, indeed, heavy-handed. But though he presents
      that as a negative property of their work, I don't see it that way.

      Tolkien's heavy-handedness is necessary because he has to establish
      the entire mythic tradition from which his stories emerge. His
      (intended) audience has not grown up with the various Middle-earthian
      bogeymen that a true mythology would have impressed upon its culture.

      Tolkien assumes that his readers will only know about his Orcs,
      Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits from his own literature. Of course, he
      could not have foreseen what would chew up the bookstore shelves in
      his wake. But I think some of the criticism levelled at modern
      fantasy is justified.

      I don't necessarily LIKE non-Tolkienesque fantasy, mind you. I had
      my fill of Kafka, for example, in college. Don't ever want to go
      down THAT road again.

      But the fantasy genre is probably awaiting the next trendsetter.
      Harry Potter may be that trendsetter. I finally read the Harry
      Potter books last week. J.K. Rowling is a pretty good writer, and I
      understand that there are now Potteresque books sitting on the
      shelves (or, at least, there HAVE been in recent years).

      Rowling is not a great writer. Some of her characterizations are
      pretty wooden, and some of her plot elements are telegraphed chapters
      in advance. Tolkien had some window dressing, too, but his
      characterizations were generally acceptable and most people really
      don't know where his stories will take them before they arrive at the
      end.

      But Rowling puts genuine humor into her stories. She had me laughing
      at various places. I don't laugh in a Tolkien book. And most of the
      fantasy I've read which has attempted to use humor has failed
      miserably. One particularly bad example was a Marion Zimmer Bradley
      Darkover novel (I don't recall which, as I had nearly all of them at
      one point) where one of the minor characters tried to tell a joke
      about people's words freezing up in winter. Just wasn't funny.

      Instead of telling jokes, Rowling lets the humor roll freely. She
      doesn't rely upon the zany madness of puns and inside digs that
      Terry "Discworld" Pratchett does (he hates the word "zany" -- too bad
      for him). Rowling's humor is quite different from Pratchett's. She
      is not poking fun at anything.

      If we can get a few more good authors following in her footsteps,
      modern fantasy will open some new doors.

      And whatever people make think of the Potter books, Rowling IS
      developing a whole new mythology, with her hidden world of wizards.
      She is recycling a lot of traditional stuff -- with considerably less
      sophistication than Tolkien did -- but she is achieving her goal.

      Anyway, like I said. I can agree with some of the criticism in that
      article. People shouldn't have apoplexy over the fact that someone
      doesn't like Tolkien. :)

      He was certainly much kinder than some of the reviews *I* have
      received. All those of you who read my essays are apparently 8th
      graders with no sense of true literary comprehension. I think it's a
      poor reviewer who must attack a reading audience (and how often are
      Tolkien's readers called "fanboys", for example?) in order to say
      something negative. At least this review doesn't attack the reader.
      Even the remark about Lewis implicating the reader leaves us the
      dignity of not having mud slung at us.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.