Author Topic: China Mieville - jerk or groundbreaking pioneer?  (Read 41303 times)

thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
on: March 23, 2008, 04:07:42 AM
He's a hugely talented young writer celebrated by the likes of Moorcock and Gaiman as an innovator in the fantasy genre. 

...but he calls out Tolkien.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=7813

Safe to say the D&D and comics he grew up on wouldn't have existed without Tolkien.  Fantasy would have, sure, but world building?  The explosion of high fantasy.  Like his prose or not, Tolkien's contribution to the genre is unequaled.  I agree with his disgust toward the bloated hacks who grow fat from their cheap imitation Middle Earth's.  Goodkind, Salvatore, Jordon, McAffery, talentless counterfeiters all.  But attacking Tolkien because he doesn't preach a political agenda through literature.  Stating his women were weak (guess he missed Eowyn and forgot the general attitude towards women during Tolkien's generation).  He hates the poetry and songs.  He spits on Bombadil for being fatuous and nugatory; surely thinking Tom is a prime character rather than the scenery he was meant to be.

This prick assaults Tolkien for wanting to foliate the earth and shut down 'the Machine'.  Can't imagine how much he hates Miyazaki!!

Point fingers at Tolkien for having one dimensional villains and uninteresting evil races, sure-sure....but name one of his contemporaries who broke that standard.  Dislike his prose, fine...Tolkien is 'beyond the mind of such as you'.  Attack the nobility of his protagonists, diminish his environmental messages, flagrantly attack the work from which you DREW YOUR OWN!

http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/sciencefiction/story/0,6000,1362833,00.html

As much as I despise him for these statements, realizing his own propaganda-riddled work will be forgotten while JRR's classics are timeless, he's a fellow fantasy nut who can paint a damn fine piece of prose.

I am wondering what others think of him?  I ordered his book of short fiction after enjoying a few quick chapters from one of his novels in a bookstore.  Guy can write, no doubt, and is a vocal supporter of fantasy/SF as a distinct adult genre.  Definitely gets props.  Call out the king tho...cheap tactic to draw attention to the jerk on the soap box...
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 06:03:01 PM by thedreameater »



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #1 on: March 23, 2008, 01:32:10 PM
I don't really think it's fair to characterize him as a prick just 'cuz he doesn't like Tolkein. There's surely room for reasonable minds to disagree.

'Course, I also dislike Tolkein. Among other things, his women are, as stated, weak.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #2 on: March 23, 2008, 01:37:52 PM
Rereading your post a bit...

I'm going to ask that the rhetoric on this board (in the future) be a little calmer than 'prick,' 'propaganda-riddled,' 'spit,' and so on. I'd like there to be a little more room here for people to feel that they can like Tolkein or not like Tolkein, like Mieville or not like Mieville, without being characterized as jerks or propagandists or whatever.

I understand you're angry with Mieville for some reason, but if the cooler head could prevail here, that would be appreciated.

That's not a problem with your post per se, just a difference between my moderation and Steve's.



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #3 on: March 23, 2008, 02:30:34 PM
He's a hugely talented young writer celebrated by the likes of Moorcock and Gaiman as an innovator in the fantasy genre. 

...but he calls out Tolkien.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=7813

Safe to say the D&D and comics he grew up on wouldn't have existed without Tolkien.  Fantasy would have, sure, but world building? 

Tolkien's worldbuilding was tremendous, but I don't think he can take credit for the concept of worldbuilding in fantasy.  There was no worldbuilder quite as obsessive as JRRT, but still.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that just because fantasy has been heavily influenced by JRRT (often, as Mieville points out and you agree, to its detriment) that every fantasy writer must somehow kneel to him.

Quote
  But attacking Tolkien because he doesn't preach a political agenda through literature. 


No, Mieville is attacking Tolkien (or was, this essay is from 2002) because of the political agenda he preaches through his literature.  Make no mistake, Tolkien did indeed have an agenda.


Quote
  He hates the poetry and songs.  He spits on Bombadil for being fatuous and nugatory; surely thinking Tom is a prime character rather than the scenery he was meant to be.

Or perhaps thinking that even as scenery Tom is fatuous and nugatory.  Mieville, a professional fantasy author, is unlikely to have mistaken a minor, set-dressing character for a major one.

Quote
This prick assaults Tolkien for wanting to foliate the earth and shut down 'the Machine'.  Can't imagine how much he hates Miyazaki!!

No, Mieville dislikes not Tolkien's environmentalism, but the politics that accompanies it.

Quote
He was a devout Catholic who moaned incessantly about the modern world --not capitalism, not exploitation, but modernity itself, which he saw as the triumph of a sinister 'Machine'. His was a profoundly backward-looking reaction, based on a rural idyll that never existed - feudalism lite.

Mieville is saying here that Tolkien's environmentalism was very much a part of a stance against modernity and a wish to return to an idealized, semi-feudal state.  One might wish very much to foliate the earth while also objecting to pre-modern social systems and technology levels.

Quote
Point fingers at Tolkien for having one dimensional villains and uninteresting evil races, sure-sure....but name one of his contemporaries who broke that standard. 

Irrelevant.  Bad is still bad, even if everyone else is doing it.

Quote
Dislike his prose, fine...Tolkien is 'beyond the mind of such as you'.

Why?  I actually don't mind Tolkien's prose, and even find it beautiful in places.  But honestly, I don't get exercised when someone else has the opposite reaction.

 
Quote
Attack the nobility of his protagonists, diminish his environmental messages, flagrantly attack the work from which you DREW YOUR OWN!

Also irrelevant.  Mieville owes it to himself and his art to have his own opinions about things, and also to take whatever he wants from wherever he wants for his own work.  The fact that he took things from Tolkien does not obligate him in any way to be loyal to the man, or to be admiring of things he finds repugnant.

And make no mistake, Tolkien's work was political.  Overtly so.  It's also very Catholic.  Perhaps less overtly so--he doesn't mention Jesus anywhere, but the whole thing is shot through with Catholic theology.  And Mieville has a point--the environmentalism was, indeed, tied to feudalism lite, it was not just a wish to refoliate the earth.  If you're not into returning to a semi-medieval europe, you're not going to be one hundred percent behind JRRT's envirnomentalism.  If you find the aims and beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church objectionable, you're not going to be a Tolkien booster.  And one can find those things objectionable without being a prick.  One can express those objections in an essay for a publication and not be a prick.  So, since I've never met Mieville, as far as I'm concerned the jury is still out on whether he's a prick or not.

JRRTs works are no more timeless than anyone else's.  On the contrary, they're bound very much to the time he wrote them.  We're still dealing with the historical issues he was, so the books are still quite readable.  Whether they'll last and Mieville's won't, I wouldn't presume to say.  It's not unusual for things to "stand the test of time" and be picked out as classics that were derided or even obscure in their own time.


Quote
  Call out the king tho...cheap tactic to draw attention to the jerk on the soap box...

That's presuming Tolkien is a king. He isn't, really, the relationships between young writers and their predecessors doesn't work that way.  Or that Mieville only holds his opinions in order to draw attention to himself.  That's quite an assumption, an unwarranted one IMO.



birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #4 on: March 24, 2008, 02:27:38 PM
First off, we can't blast someone for having an opinion different than ours. We all have a right to our opinions, thedreameater included (though more civility is admittedly appreciated).

Granted, I'm a huge Tolkien fan, and it nettles me to hear him criticized, as well, but I agree: you don't have to like Tolkien, but, as a fantasy author, I think you do have to appreciate him, which Meiville seems to do.

But, as far as criticizing what Mieville wrote, you have to first of all consider the context of this article: It's in the Socialist Review. The critiques he's made of LotR are rather expected. Frankly, I think Mieville is way overthinking The Lord of the Rings. Yes, Tolkien had his opinions about life in the world he knew, but to say he had an "agenda" is a bit bold. It's perfectly okay for an author to state his opinions in his work. That's your prerogative as an author. You want to have a "moral" to your story, go for it. So what if you don't agree with another author's opinion? That's no reason to say he's a bad author. But Mieville was so disengaged by what he felt Tolkien was "preaching" that I couldn't tell what Meiville thought of Tolkien as an author. But again, I think Meiville way overthought LotR. From what I've read about Tolkien and what he had to say about his Middle Earth writings, LotR was first and foremost a grand fantasy epic meant for entertainment. It was at the least an essay on how he thought the world should be. His views may be expressed through the writing, but, last I checked, that was okay to do (in fact, difficult not to do). I think he would be disappointed if his work was viewed as a political/religious statement. In fact, he hated allegory, which was one of his biggest critiques of Lewis' TCoN.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2008, 02:30:41 PM by birdless »



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #5 on: March 24, 2008, 03:25:14 PM
Yes, Tolkien had his opinions about life in the world he knew, but to say he had an "agenda" is a bit bold.

I mostly agree with you, but this, you contradict yourself later in your post.


Quote
It was at the least an essay on how he thought the world should be.

That's an extremely political project.  As you say, it's impossible for an author to keep opinions out of her work, but any time you're saying "this is how the world should be" or "this is how the world shouldn't be" or even (and Tolkien does this explicitly) "this is something that's wrong with the world as it is," you're engaged in a specific, political critique.  When you're telling the audience, even in story form, what you think the world should ideally be, you are, yes, preaching and yes, you have an agenda.

And in the end, all fiction is political.  All authors have an agenda.  Every single one.  Some may get their views across more or less painlessly, or more or less recognizably.   But just because you don't notice the agenda doesn't mean it's not there.   It just so happens that Tolkien couches his agenda in terms that are easily swallowed by a lot of people. 

Now, that's not to say that one of his major aims wasn't to tell a cracking good story.  Sure, absolutely it was.  But there's politics all through that story, and it's not an accident.

Nor do I think Mieville was overthinking it.  I don't entirely agree with his assessment on all points.  I certainly can't get too upset about Tolkien's attachment to Catholicism--I don't practice, but I was raised Catholic, so that all seems homey and familiar to me more than anything else.  But the images we take from narrative, and the implications of those images, do shape our thinking.

For instance.  thedreameater's original post (and, yes, thedreameater is one hundred percent entitled to their opinion of Tolkien and Mieville, no question) is shot through with a very medieval image of how readers and writers should ideally relate to Tolkien.  Tolkien is the king, no one should question him.  Even if you disagree, or dislike, one must bend the knee to the king.

That's really interesting to me because I assume that thedreameater is the citizen of a republic or a democracy, so why would they conceptualize relationships in that framework?  It's not democratic in the least, is in fact vehemently anti-democratic.  And yet it's shaping their view of how relationships should ideally be, at least in this venue, the land of writers and readers.

I don't think Tolkien was or is evil, but I do think it's worth considering just what we take away from stories that we assume aren't political, aren't preaching, don't have an agenda.  Often, those are the stories that have the biggest impact on how we conceptualize situations and relationships in the real world, in our lives, because we accept those frameworks without questioning them.


Quote
I think he would be disappointed if his work was viewed as a political/religious statement. In fact, he hated allegory, which was one of his biggest critiques of Lewis' TCoN.

Allegory is not the only way to make a political or religious statement.  It's merely one of the most ham-handed, unimaginative ways.  Tolkien didn't dislike allegory because it was making a statement, he disliked it because it was unsubtle and insulted the intelligence of the reader.  If I recall correctly, that is, it's been a while since I read his actual words on the subject, but that's what I've come away with.

Tolkien's work is not only a political or religious statement, but political and religious statement it is.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #6 on: March 24, 2008, 04:25:31 PM
The thing I hate about China Mieville is I can't figure out how to get the apostrophe/accent over his name when I'm typing. 

Pretty much everything else about the guy I kind of love (I'm a pretty big fan of his).  Some friends and I were talking about books and comics that blew our minds as kids, and one of my friends asked if anything could do that again.  Mieville, for me, was one of the writers I was able to use to argue against this. 


Also, I don't think it's fair to say that just because fantasy has been heavily influenced by JRRT (often, as Mieville points out and you agree, to its detriment) that every fantasy writer must somehow kneel to him.


Amen. 

I don't have a problem with Tolkien, really, but he's not my cup of tea.  Also, I don't think it's fair to say Mieville doesn't respect him -- I suspect Mieville would say he respects Tolkien, he just doesn't like his writing.  Instead, Mieville goes about writing SF/F/H in a completely different way than Tolkien ever did and has a different purpose than Tolkien did -- he does express gratitude for the love affair Peter Jackson had with the text. 

Also interesting, Mieville's stated elsewhere that he's a huge fan of Gene Wolfe, who is a very Catholic SF/F writer.  (Here and here, in these youtube clicks when he was promoting Un Lun Dun -- it's actually in the second clip, but I lumped them together 'cause I enjoyed the interview.)

I'd be interested to see what you think of the short fiction book, thedreameater. 
« Last Edit: March 24, 2008, 04:28:40 PM by DKT »



birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #7 on: March 24, 2008, 09:47:54 PM
When you're telling the audience, even in story form, what you think the world should ideally be, you are, yes, preaching and yes, you have an agenda.
Well, basically, I think we just have different connotations of the word "agenda." And by saying that was "at least an essay" is to say that a "moral" exists, but I don't necessarily believe it was out of a conscious decision. I would think it was more because that was just the way he thought. Does that make sense? Either way, it's conjecture and pointless, because none of us really know. That's just the way I choose to look at it though.

And in the end, all fiction is political.
This point isn't really worth arguing, because we are both going to hold to our opinions, but I just thought I would take the opportunity to disagree with this statement, but it may again be because of semantics. I suspect that's the case. But even so, I'm still not completely certain that every piece of fiction is political. I concede that I may be wrong on this point, but that just seems an overly broad statement, to me.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2008, 10:11:32 PM by birdless »



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #8 on: March 25, 2008, 12:14:22 AM
All fiction is inherently political. In fact, all art is inherently political. When one creates a world out of one's imagination, one does so by picking and choosing pieces of the world, and the ways in which one does that reflects one's understandings -- or misunderstandings -- of the world. When one attempts to reflect the world as in a mirror, one is doing the same thing. That holds when one mixes imagination and reflection as well.

You may be thinking of politics as something that's fairly narrow -- vote for this person, not that one, support this economic system, demonize that one. But politics in the sociological sense -- which I believe Ann and I (and probably Mieville) are using -- includes one's statements of how the world IS or SHOULD BE.

Literary workshop discussions often get bogged down, for instance, in pedantic discussions of "would a woman do this?" "Would a homeless kid do that?" It's one thing to say "This woman's actions are not convincing" -- but people, women, homeless kids, everyone, have a range of experiences, and such conversations almost always serve to reinforce a dominant cultural narrative about whta women are like, or what homeless kids are like, or what straight white suburban guys are like. EG, at a recent workshop I attended, a very brilliant writer told another writer that his main character was unconvincing because "No straight guy would voluntarily watch an Audrey Hepburn movie." That's not true, but it is a very political statement; it attempts to determine the boundaries of what straight guys are and can be. It's an attempt to determine the world by policing its depiction.

These are my pet issues, and not particularly related to Tolkein, but it's one way of examining the statement that all fiction is inherently political. Politics are a holistic part of one's world view and cannot be separated out from acts of narrative and imagination.

By the by, in case it's coming across that I'm partisan in this -- I'm not a Mieville fan either, particularly. In fact, my criticisms of him and Tolkein are fairly similar. I find both their prose to be tedious, though I understand that others don't feel that way, and that's fine. Since I find their very language grating, it makes it very difficult for me to immerse myself in their books, which makes it a lot easier for me to criticize things like their characterization (I have found both authors to be weak on this point) and some of their other habits which might not bother me if I ever became deeply involved in the texts.



birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #9 on: March 25, 2008, 03:11:09 AM
I knew "politics" in this case wasn't being used in the context of government (duh :P ;)), but I apparently do not fully understand how you are defining it. But I don't think every piece of fiction or art necessarily includes one's statements of how the world should be. But I'm not sure you can define "politics" by saying it's the way the world is. Are you saying that the way one sees the world is is politic? Why not just call it their opinion? Is everyone's opinion politics? It's really pointless for me to continue unless I understand the context of your definition of politics in this case. I even tried looking up politics, and nothing I could find makes sense (to me) in the confines of how you are using it.

I've never understood poltiics to equal opinion, though. Not to say that isn't a valid definition, I've just never understood it in those terms. The terms (as they are most typically associated) are connected, of course, but I think it's very incomplete to define one as the other.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2008, 03:13:02 AM by birdless »



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #10 on: March 25, 2008, 01:08:56 PM
No one has done that.

Non-political opinion: I like red.

Political opinion: The world should return to feudalism.



birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #11 on: March 25, 2008, 02:04:42 PM
I'm not trying to be confrontational and say someone did say that. I'm just trying to understand.

Okay, so, I'm still not sure I understand, but from your example I definitely disagree with the statement that all art and fiction are political. In your example, however, politics is being used in a context of government (feudalism); do you have another example?

And do you draw a distinction between "I wished the world would return to feudalism" and "The world should return to feudalism." They are both opinions. Is one political and one not? (that's not a rhetorical question, I'm sincerely trying to understand your statement; as I see it, it's too broad to an extreme, but I also recognize that you seem to be an intelligent person, so there must be something that I'm missing).

And I totally think Mieville is using the term "politic" in the sense of government, especially considering the context of the post (The Socialist Review).
« Last Edit: March 25, 2008, 02:07:07 PM by birdless »



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #12 on: March 25, 2008, 02:45:33 PM


Quote
And do you draw a distinction between "I wished the world would return to feudalism" and "The world should return to feudalism." They are both opinions. Is one political and one not?

They're both political, they amount to the same thing.  One may be more active or definite  (I wish, vs, say "I am actively working towards") but they are both political opinions.

Any time you have an opinion on how people should behave, how people should organize themselves, how people should conduct themselves with relation to other people, politics is involved.  You can't possibly tell a story without getting solidly into those issues, and you can't have any kind of judgement about the right or wrong choices of various characters without essentially preaching your political views. Not which candidate one should vote for, that is, though some fiction does do that and even some that doesn't one could make a pretty good guess how the writer would vote.  No, political views as in how societies should organize themselves, what constitutes right and wrong behavior in that context, etc.

I don't think that's a bad thing, it's just a thing that is.  But confusion and even anger arises when that's pointed out because there's this idea that somehow "political" fiction is bad and preachy, and real, good fiction is "pure storytelling" or something.  But it's all political.  Some may be more transparently political.  Some writers will have neglected the other aspects of their story to focus on their message.  Some writers won't be thinking about a message because the politics they're espousing seem so obvious to them that it's unquestioned.  Readers who have the same set of assumptions will think the work is "not political" as well, but it's really just a question of how water tastes--they can't see the message, because it's all an unquestioned part of their worldview.

I think it's unhelpful, for that reason, to categorize fiction as "political" and "not political."  It's more accurate, from my point of view, to discuss whether a writer has prioritized a particular message, and whether she's done so at the expense of other important aspects of fiction, like characters and exploding space stations.  When a story feels preachy to me, I put it down to the lack of subtlety and skill of the writer, or even a basic disrespect for the reader's intelligence, not the bare fact that the author is being political.

Quote
And I totally think Mieville is using the term "politic" in the sense of government, especially considering the context of the post (The Socialist Review).

He's using it in the government sense, yes, or rather, in the sense of "what's the ideal social organization."  Tolkien felt that some kind of feudal thing was best.  Various moral and political consequences attend to that view.  Mieville, being a socialist, has a very different idea of the best way for human societies to organize themselves.  Both will be concerned with government, since it's kind of hard to organize largish socieities without one.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #13 on: March 25, 2008, 02:54:50 PM
Or, again, a non-political opinion: I don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

A political opinion: Straight men don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

The former involves a statement true to an individual; the second makes judgments about social organization.

(Of course, it's always possible that the facially non-political "I don't like Audrey Hepburn movies" or "I don't like red" are held for political reasons, such as "Red is the color of communism, and so it sucks" or "Red is the color of the Republican party, and so it sucks" or "Red is the color of blood, and spilled blood is always wrong, so therefore red sucks.")

If "a political opinion" is throwing you, then think "an opinion with political ramifications."



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #14 on: March 25, 2008, 03:09:55 PM


I don't have a problem with Tolkien, really, but he's not my cup of tea.  Also, I don't think it's fair to say Mieville doesn't respect him -- I suspect Mieville would say he respects Tolkien, he just doesn't like his writing.  Instead, Mieville goes about writing SF/F/H in a completely different way than Tolkien ever did and has a different purpose than Tolkien did -- he does express gratitude for the love affair Peter Jackson had with the text. 

Also interesting, Mieville's stated elsewhere that he's a huge fan of Gene Wolfe, who is a very Catholic SF/F writer.  (Here and here, in these youtube clicks when he was promoting Un Lun Dun -- it's actually in the second clip, but I lumped them together 'cause I enjoyed the interview.)


Yeah, I think even when you're a big fan of someone, you take the things that work for you, but you also recognize the places where things don't work so much for you.  The very idea of thinking that just because, say, I really really love Andre Norton or C.J. Cherryh I will automatically think everything either of them did was wonderful or somehow not be a real fan is...well, a bit bizzare to me.



Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #15 on: March 25, 2008, 04:12:17 PM
Just a comment on the subject of this topic: can't someone be a prick and a pioneer?  They aren't mutually exclusive.

A more interesting question to me is why did thedreameater throw this turd out here as his/her first post and then vanish?  He/she hasn't even logged on since first registering.  I'm curious what the motives are here... ???

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #16 on: March 25, 2008, 04:49:12 PM
Any time you have an opinion on how people should behave, how people should organize themselves, how people should conduct themselves with relation to other people, politics is involved.  You can't possibly tell a story without getting solidly into those issues, and you can't have any kind of judgement about the right or wrong choices of various characters without essentially preaching your political views. No, political views as in how societies should organize themselves, what constitutes right and wrong behavior in that context, etc.
Poster's note: you may want to read this entire post before replying, as my opinion changes somewhat in the course of writing…

Okay, thanks HD, that explanation does help a little bit. I think basically now it might be that it's the word I don't like. Not that it's the wrong word, just that "politics" has become such a dirty word. Kind of like the word "religion." I can't use that word as a description of myself anymore (i.e. "religious") because of what it's come to mean (or what I've come to understand it to mean... I'm not sure if it always meant what I understand it to mean now or if the connotations devolved over the course of my lifetime (e.g. being "spiritual" and being "religious" are two things that need to be kept distinct from each other, but "spiritual" tends to bring up a whole other set of misconceptions (sorry for the sidetrack (and, yes, I like parentheses (and, no, I don't know if that's a political opinion or not—I may think that we as a society should use more :P)))).

Having established that, however, while a work may have intrinsic political qualities about it, I still think that trying to ascertain someone's political statement in a work of fiction meant primarily for entertainment is overthinking it. So, they have an opinion. So what? I don't really understand how knowing that is going to really enhance my enjoyment of the work (it might make me appreciate it more, but, seriously, when I read SF/F, I'm in it for the entertainment value; if I get more from it, that's just gravy; what I like to take away from reading-for-entertainment is style and form and other writing helps or what NOT to do). If, on the other hand, they are making that opinion the catchpin of the book, then, yeah, it's worth dissecting. And it becomes less about entertainment and more about essay/allegory. That said, I do understand Miéville's dissection of Tolkien in the context of The Socialist Review (though I still think it's rather pointless), but as for me, I don't care about that. I just like the books.

So, having reread that last paragraph, I've had to reconsider some of what I just said. I think that reading fiction the way I do (looking for entertainment or for writing "tips"), and reading fiction the way some others do (looking for a political statement), well, I guess there is no "wrong" way. So I rescind that statement about it being overthought. It simple comes down to this: some choose not to go into it with that mindset the same way someone else may choose not to go into it looking for ways to help their writing.

For some reason, I thought it might be helpful to just keep writing the above rather than to keep editing it. I hope it wasn't too confusing.

And I agree with Chodon: the two are not mutually exclusive! lol



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #17 on: March 25, 2008, 04:53:05 PM
Just a comment on the subject of this topic: can't someone be a prick and a pioneer?  They aren't mutually exclusive.

I'd even say that latter can foster the former.

A more interesting question to me is why did thedreameater throw this turd out here as his/her first post and then vanish?  He/she hasn't even logged on since first registering.  I'm curious what the motives are here... ???

It's only been two days, maybe they just fell off the net for a little while. But it is a weird first post, and the avatar is a little on the creepy side.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #18 on: March 25, 2008, 06:29:09 PM
Just a comment on the subject of this topic: can't someone be a prick and a pioneer?  They aren't mutually exclusive.

A more interesting question to me is why did thedreameater throw this turd out here as his/her first post and then vanish?  He/she hasn't even logged on since first registering.  I'm curious what the motives are here... ???

Excellent points, Chodon.  I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. A couple of genre creators come to mind...


Yeah, I think even when you're a big fan of someone, you take the things that work for you, but you also recognize the places where things don't work so much for you.  The very idea of thinking that just because, say, I really really love Andre Norton or C.J. Cherryh I will automatically think everything either of them did was wonderful or somehow not be a real fan is...well, a bit bizzare to me.

Do you think that represents more of a different approach to reading a piece?  There are a lot of people who may read something primarily to be entertained (as Birdless seems to).  Others might want to dissect the politics of the piece, or another aspect of the craft, to get enjoyment from it.

I seem to respond to music more in the latter way.  It has to hit my ears the right way before I even care to try and dive more into what's going on with a song. 

(Then again, I suppose if a story is uninteresting to me because of style, tone, characterization, pace, etc./whatever, it would have much the same effect on me as a pop song that just didn't do anything for me, and I wouldn't really bother trying to figure it out.)


hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #19 on: March 25, 2008, 06:42:06 PM

So, having reread that last paragraph, I've had to reconsider some of what I just said. I think that reading fiction the way I do (looking for entertainment or for writing "tips"), and reading fiction the way some others do (looking for a political statement), well, I guess there is no "wrong" way. So I rescind that statement about it being overthought. It simple comes down to this: some choose not to go into it with that mindset the same way someone else may choose not to go into it looking for ways to help their writing.

I'd pretty much agree.  I do think, personally, that it's good to ask what assumptions the writer has, going in.  But there's no wrong way to look at it, no wrong angle to look from, and just because you look from one angle one day doesn't mean you can also, another time, look at it from another direction.  And if you see things from one angle you don't much like, that doesn't invalidate what you saw from the other angle, which you liked very much.

For myself, as a writer, I do try to dissect what assumptions are underlying the things I read.  I very rarely write with the explicit aim of making a political point (I think episode 141 is the only time I've ever done such a thing, in fact), but knowing that I'm going to make some sort of point anyway I do try to be conscious of what it is I'm saying, within the framework of my stories.  But I also want to be able to make my points, when I've actively decided to make them, as well as I possibly can--which for me means in a way the reader can enjoy without feeling like they're squirming on a hard wooden pew while I lecture them.

Your point about the word "political" is well taken, and I think you're right about that.  There's a strong reaction to the statement that "all fiction is political" and it's not really a reaction to the fact that sentence is trying to convey, but to the idea of "politics" as something dirty and somehow unworthy of great art.






hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #20 on: March 25, 2008, 06:52:17 PM


Do you think that represents more of a different approach to reading a piece?  There are a lot of people who may read something primarily to be entertained (as Birdless seems to).  Others might want to dissect the politics of the piece, or another aspect of the craft, to get enjoyment from it.

Oh, absolutely.  That sort of dissection is its own kind of fun, its own kind of enjoying reading a story.  Not everyone is going to get into it.  And that's fine. 

Though I'd argue that considering the politics of a given story is worth doing, all on its own.  If nothing else, you see where some of the metaphors and narratives people use unconsciously get built and reinforced, and can sometimes spot them in ordinary conversation.  In my experience, the most virulent (or effective, if it's something you support, funny how that works) sort of propaganda is the kind that is ostensibly messageless and non-political, and the one sure way to not be manipulated by it is to merely recognize it for what it is.

But that doesn't mean that I think everyone should scan every text for politics, or that every writer ought to toe some sort of political line. Or, Mithras forbid, that writers ought to be censored.  People read and write for lots of reasons, and that's cool.  I just think it's a good idea to be at least aware of the other dimensions.

Quote

(Then again, I suppose if a story is uninteresting to me because of style, tone, characterization, pace, etc./whatever, it would have much the same effect on me as a pop song that just didn't do anything for me, and I wouldn't really bother trying to figure it out.)

Pretty much, yeah.



birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #21 on: March 25, 2008, 09:30:34 PM
I'd pretty much agree.  I do think, personally, that it's good to ask what assumptions the writer has, going in.  But there's no wrong way to look at it, no wrong angle to look from, and just because you look from one angle one day doesn't mean you can also, another time, look at it from another direction.  And if you see things from one angle you don't much like, that doesn't invalidate what you saw from the other angle, which you liked very much.

For myself, as a writer, I do try to dissect what assumptions are underlying the things I read.  I very rarely write with the explicit aim of making a political point (I think episode 141 is the only time I've ever done such a thing, in fact), but knowing that I'm going to make some sort of point anyway I do try to be conscious of what it is I'm saying, within the framework of my stories.  But I also want to be able to make my points, when I've actively decided to make them, as well as I possibly can--which for me means in a way the reader can enjoy without feeling like they're squirming on a hard wooden pew while I lecture them.

Your point about the word "political" is well taken, and I think you're right about that.  There's a strong reaction to the statement that "all fiction is political" and it's not really a reaction to the fact that sentence is trying to convey, but to the idea of "politics" as something dirty and somehow unworthy of great art.

You know, I frustrate myself sometimes, because I dislike broad, sweeping statements so much that I will go play devil's advocate without thinking through things as thoroughly as I should. It's a defense mechanism that I need to deprogram, or rather, reprogram.

The first things that came to mind were Dr. Suess (Fox in Socks, not The Places You’ll Go) and Alexander's Horrible No Good Very Bad Day. Great fiction, both, imho  8). Now that I understand more fully what you were saying, I can see how Alexander can be deemed political (how society should respond to a crappy day). Fox is just fun. If you can find something political about that, then I'll just consider myself unworthy. But that's neither here nor there. What I'm trying to say is: those expansive novels that I love most are most certainly political, by the definition you've set forth. I think LotR less so (by intention, at least) than most of my favorites, which is probably what got me a little sidetracked to begin with. But yeah, Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy, along with Frank Herbert's Dune series to name just a couple. And, yes, even though I was reading those for entertainment, dissecting what their opinions were on whatever aspect of society was part of the intrigue of those. For me, the best part of both of those series are the characters, even more so than the plot, but, yeah, the political statements in those were apparent enough to cause me to pause for consideration. It's one of those things, though, that I wouldn't have even really been conscious of without you pointing it out, so thanks for that.

Wow, I really didn't mean to threadjack, but this was a very interesting dialog.



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #22 on: March 26, 2008, 02:58:47 PM
No problem!  Interesting dialogues are what message boards are all about.   :)

And yeah, I'm suspecting the OP was trolling, myself.  Too bad--they didn't get any kind of trainwreck or outrage for their efforts.  Poor thing.



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #23 on: March 26, 2008, 03:48:03 PM
Or, again, a non-political opinion: I don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

A political opinion: Straight men don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

I've always had a fondness for Roman Holiday.



As to the OP trolling — maybe. It certainly has the kind of setup one would use to try to provoke a flamewar, but the only ones that really have broken out here have usually been tied to religion in some way.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #24 on: March 26, 2008, 05:50:17 PM
Or, again, a non-political opinion: I don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

A political opinion: Straight men don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

I've always had a fondness for Roman Holiday.



As to the OP trolling — maybe. It certainly has the kind of setup one would use to try to provoke a flamewar, but the only ones that really have broken out here have usually been tied to religion in some way.
That sounds like something Jesus would say.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #25 on: March 26, 2008, 06:01:25 PM
That sounds like something Jesus would say.

I try to take the middle way away from those.

My other thought is that it might just be a forum member that just didn't want to be responsible for starting something that might turn into a flamewar, but wanted to have the discussion.

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #26 on: March 26, 2008, 07:57:07 PM
Or, again, a non-political opinion: I don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

A political opinion: Straight men don't like Audrey Hepburn movies.

I've always had a fondness for Roman Holiday.

Breakfast at Tiffany's for me.  I know, not very creative of me, but she did the fragile flower thing so well.



gelee

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • It's a missile, boy.
Reply #27 on: March 26, 2008, 11:19:56 PM
This is kind of an old one.  Funny thing is, Mieville is my favorite example of this.  I won't say he's a prick.  I've never met the guy.  I DO think this politics are waaaaay off, but that doesn't really matter.  He's not a politician, and neither am I.  He's a writer.  You absolutley have to seperate a writer's opinions from his work, and I guess that's goes for other artists as well.  His writing is, for me at least, excellent.  So, I'll continue to support his socialist agenda by excercising my capitalist habit of giving writers money.  (haha)



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #28 on: March 27, 2008, 02:57:25 AM
He's a hugely talented young writer celebrated by the likes of Moorcock and Gaiman as an innovator in the fantasy genre. 

...but he calls out Tolkien.
http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=7813

Safe to say the D&D and comics he grew up on wouldn't have existed without Tolkien. 

It's a good bet that we wouldn't have had Lewis or Tolkien without William Morris before them. 


 8) Just sayin', yo.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #29 on: March 27, 2008, 12:01:33 PM
This is kind of an old one.  Funny thing is, Mieville is my favorite example of this.  I won't say he's a prick.  I've never met the guy.  I DO think this politics are waaaaay off, but that doesn't really matter.  He's not a politician, and neither am I.  He's a writer.  You absolutley have to seperate a writer's opinions from his work, and I guess that's goes for other artists as well.  His writing is, for me at least, excellent.  So, I'll continue to support his socialist agenda by excercising my capitalist habit of giving writers money.  (haha)

Shortly after "The Scar" was published, the sci-fi radio show I used to board-op had an interview with him.  The show handled the interview very, VERY poorly (only talked to him for one segment, when I'm sure he would've talked for much longer if they'd asked him to stay through the break).  But when I called him at his hotel in (I think) LA at what, for him, was 9:45pm on a Saturday night, he was very pleasant and gracious, and when I told him I enjoyed "Perdido Street Station", he was duly appreciative.

So, maybe when he gets into talking about politics and religion he gets strident and prick-ish, but in my brief discussion with him (off-air), he seemed to be a pretty normal dude.  I think a lot of people are like that.

Example:

My friend John and I are... well... friends.  We have a lot of similar interests.  But he's a hardcore granola-eating liberal and I'm a right-leaning centrist capitalist.  We have these great chats about pop culture and weird crap on the net, but then he'll throw me an article about something the Bush Administration lied about and I'll try not to talk about it because it just leads to the same string of arguments.  Then I get huffy because I don't want to discuss politics with him, and he gets huffy because I won't discuss politics with him, which he sees as head-in-the-sand activity (which is true, to a certain extent, and I've admitted as much to him).  Then we stop talking for a few hours.

Is this too much of a tangent?  My apologies if so.

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #30 on: March 27, 2008, 02:30:00 PM
It's a good bet that we wouldn't have had Lewis or Tolkien without William Morris before them. 

Thanks, StePH. I'd never even heard of this guy, at least not relative to fantasy fiction. Have you read any of his fantasy stuff?



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #31 on: March 27, 2008, 02:58:44 PM
It's a good bet that we wouldn't have had Lewis or Tolkien without William Morris before them. 

Thanks, StePH. I'd never even heard of this guy, at least not relative to fantasy fiction. Have you read any of his fantasy stuff?
Only The Well at the World's End which I remember enjoying quite a bit.  You have to get past the archaic language though.

I have all of my father's old books, which include a fairly extensive Morris selection, so I may get to more of his stuff someday.  (After Well my father recommended Water of the Wondrous Isles.)

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


gelee

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 521
  • It's a missile, boy.
Reply #32 on: March 27, 2008, 03:59:40 PM
Is this too much of a tangent?  My apologies if so.
I don't think it's too far OT.  I have the same problem with my wife!  We can't really talk politics.  She's such a commie. ;)



Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #33 on: March 27, 2008, 07:14:01 PM
Is this too much of a tangent?  My apologies if so.
I don't think it's too far OT.  I have the same problem with my wife!  We can't really talk politics.  She's such a commie. ;)

My wife doesn't vote, but if she did, she'd be a liberal.  However, since she doesn't vote, she's not allowed to talk politics to me.  Not like I would because we already argue enough, but still...

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Reply #34 on: March 27, 2008, 11:03:28 PM
He's not a politician

Not for want of trying.  Although standing for the Socialist Alliance doesn't count as trying particularly hard.  :)

As an aside, I do love this forum.  Someone jumps in and starts a thread with a one-off rant seemingly tailor-made to get a good argument going between fans of High Fantasy and the New Weird, and all that results is an intelligent and cultured discussion.  After a while, someone looks up and says "Oh!  Do you think that could have been a troll?"  If only the rest of the internet were this civilized.



birdless

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 581
  • Five is right out.
Reply #35 on: March 28, 2008, 12:14:44 AM
This forum has blown my away, too. It took me a while to come on over and check it out, but, man, I'm glad I finally did. It not only exceeded my expectations, it's my favorite of the forums I visit.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #36 on: March 28, 2008, 02:59:13 AM
It's not too much of a tangent for a general conversation, but I'd like to keep this space relatively apolitical, at least for now. I'd appreciate it if people would take this vein of the conversation over to Gallimaufry, where the tangents flow freely from the tap and controversy is the name of the game.



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #37 on: March 29, 2008, 09:36:28 PM
Martin isn't really a Tolkein contemporary, is he?



stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #38 on: March 29, 2008, 09:42:38 PM
Point fingers at Tolkien for having one dimensional villains and uninteresting evil races, sure-sure....but name one of his contemporaries who broke that standard.

Alright, I will name one. George R. R. Martin.

Contemporary?

J.R.R. Tolkien: 1892-1973, published LotR 1954-55
G.R.R. Martin: 1948-present, published his first novel in 1977.

I thought contemporaries were either roughly the same age or living at approximately the same time.


[edit]
I see Rachel Swirsky posted something similar while I was composing and researching the above  :)

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


Audita Sum

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 14
    • Audita Sum Music
Reply #39 on: April 02, 2008, 01:05:53 AM
I thought contemporaries were either roughly the same age or living at approximately the same time.

Nguhhhh. I hate it when I think I know the meanings of words but I really don't.


thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #40 on: April 02, 2008, 05:58:13 PM
Rachel,

My apologies.  No reason for me to descend to derogatory accusations; I'm all to passionate about Tolkien and my insults only colored myself in a poor light. 

Everyone else,

Neat to see this post had so much life.

I recently stumbled upon China from a series of articles where he was glorified by writers I highly respect.  The idea he was dramatically changing fantasy and breaking new ground in a "tired" genre was interesting.  The blemishes China points out in Tolkien's work stain his own, however.  I am halfway through the Scar and I've failed to escape into another world.  The profoundly creative species of New Crobuzono are old news to rpg gamers.  Perhaps not seen as often in literature, video and table top games have provided Barlowe equivalent beasts a hundred times over.  And vampires....snore.  I like what I'm reading so far and pages keep turning, but this is not the messiah our 'tired' genre 'needs'.  He's no Gaiman.

His attacks on Tolkien, I felt, were frankly unnecessary.  This fueled my disrespectful post. 

It's easy for us to judge someone from a safe third person, but a man who fought in WW1 is bound by certain cultural stereotypes of his era.  While I agree 'forgiving' him for having small feminine roles and 1 dimensional villains doesn't make it better, these flaws don't degrade the experience the same as Lovecraft's racism or Hemingway's misogyny. 

When I stated Tolkien was a king, I meant it.  Not god nor ruler of an entire world, just leader of a single content of literature.

Ultimately, China has taken a platform of slinging dirt on a magnificent creative mind.  Regardless of your personal opinion of his work, Tolkien deserves the acknowledgment as one of many founders of the genre.  Does LotR deserve the accolade greatest novel of the 20th century.....who decides these things?  More importantly, why would China care?  Wonder if he ridicules the inventor of sci-fi, Ms. Shelley, for her weak prose?

After reading all the posts and thinking about this further, the question comes to me....why the hell do I care what he thinks?  I guess it's because he's so vocal on the subject.  I truly respect his passion and talent with words and I'm fine with writers delivering messages through their work....but when you find it necessary to venomously denounce a beloved creator and use your podium to continue your political sermon.

....guess I'm alone in finding our 'savior' to be haughty and pretentious.

(Great first podcast, btw.  Congratulations and thank you!)



thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #41 on: April 02, 2008, 06:02:19 PM
No problem!  Interesting dialogues are what message boards are all about.   :)

And yeah, I'm suspecting the OP was trolling, myself.  Too bad--they didn't get any kind of trainwreck or outrage for their efforts.  Poor thing.

While I'm far too passionate for my own good, no, my intention wasn't to flame, but discover a general consensus.  I could have chosen better words to compose my query and apologize for any offense taken.

He just seems like a jerk to me.



thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #42 on: April 02, 2008, 07:44:39 PM
Quote
....one must bend the knee to the king.

That's really interesting to me because I assume that thedreameater is the citizen of a republic or a democracy, so why would they conceptualize relationships in that framework?  It's not democratic in the least, is in fact vehemently anti-democratic.  And yet it's shaping their view of how relationships should ideally be, at least in this venue, the land of writers and readers.

This analysis from the statement:

"Call out the king tho...cheap tactic to draw attention to the jerk on the soap box..."

Why did you choose to dissect the 'king' part and ignore the soap box?  Or 'call out'?  Focus this much on every phrase I 'throw down', man, I'm flattered.  Over analysis ftl.

I adore Tolkien for the world he shared with us.  Something so personal, crafted out of love, it's a delight to be able to peer into.  When I read the books as a child and today, I'm blind to the evil politics which China and so many of you can not ignore.  Middle Earth is a rich, beautiful world, certainly not fashionably hip as the current trend of urban fantasy. 

Was he flawless, surely not....are you?  Who is?  Is his work the end of literature? 

But does he deserve to be degraded and spat upon?  What makes a person viciously criticize another person?  Are the millions of people who buy Terry Goodkind books inferior because they gobble up high-fantasy-tolkein rip offs?  ...did they ask China to save them from their bungled and botched existences?

Yeah, yeah, I was crude in my initial post, and I apologize, but it's sad to see lynch mobs form so quickly. :-\
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 07:46:53 PM by thedreameater »



Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #43 on: April 02, 2008, 07:55:25 PM
Yeah, yeah, I was crude in my initial post, and I apologize, but it's sad to see lynch mobs form so quickly. :-\
I don't think anyone here was out to form a lynch mob.  My main question was why someone would post something so contraversial and (self-admittedly) crude as their very first post on this forum, then disappear for a couple of weeks?  If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll and smells like a troll...well, you get the idea.

So is the question whether this Mieville guy can rip on Tolkien, or is the question if his ripping on Tolkien is justified?  The answer to the former is a certain "yes".  Everyone has the freedom to say whatever stupid comment they want.  The answer to the latter is "I don't really care because I like Tolkien's writings".  This guy is doing a good enough job making an ass of himself and us talking about it is drawing more attention to it.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #44 on: April 02, 2008, 08:16:59 PM
Yeah, yeah, I was crude in my initial post, and I apologize, but it's sad to see lynch mobs form so quickly. :-\
I don't think anyone here was out to form a lynch mob.  My main question was why someone would post something so contraversial and (self-admittedly) crude as their very first post on this forum, then disappear for a couple of weeks?  If it looks like a troll and sounds like a troll and smells like a troll...well, you get the idea.

So is the question whether this Mieville guy can rip on Tolkien, or is the question if his ripping on Tolkien is justified?  The answer to the former is a certain "yes".  Everyone has the freedom to say whatever stupid comment they want.  The answer to the latter is "I don't really care because I like Tolkien's writings".  This guy is doing a good enough job making an ass of himself and us talking about it is drawing more attention to it.

RL stepped in and work got busy.  Checked back today cause the podcast started up.  Despite my menacing photo, nope not a troll.  First post, I guess, cause it was important to me? 

My girlfriend, whom I love very much, hates Tolkien.  She's got a Gandulf and Aragorn cut-out, every book, and all the movie memorabilia you can reasonably own because of the movies.  She, like many, couldn't get past his Romatic prose style.  When was the last time you read Chaucer for fun?   :-\  The answer to question 1 - "yes".

It was the second question I was concerned about (and I clearly need more work on my own communication skills to clarify in a tempered, civilized way, :P). 

Glad to see I'm not alone in thinking China "wasn't the most delightful fellow". 
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 08:19:56 PM by thedreameater »



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #45 on: April 02, 2008, 08:52:36 PM
Welcome back, then.  Good to know you're not a troll.  But if you think that's a lynching, you should move over to gallimaufry sometime :)

I recently stumbled upon China from a series of articles where he was glorified by writers I highly respect.  The idea he was dramatically changing fantasy and breaking new ground in a "tired" genre was interesting.  The blemishes China points out in Tolkien's work stain his own, however.  I am halfway through the Scar and I've failed to escape into another world.  The profoundly creative species of New Crobuzono are old news to rpg gamers.  Perhaps not seen as often in literature, video and table top games have provided Barlowe equivalent beasts a hundred times over.  And vampires....snore.  I like what I'm reading so far and pages keep turning, but this is not the messiah our 'tired' genre 'needs'.  He's no Gaiman.

...

....guess I'm alone in finding our 'savior' to be haughty and pretentious.


I love Mieville, but I think your choice of words is funny.  Savior?  I think Mieville would shun that role, very quickly.

Also, I think what you're focusing on with Mieville's writing is some of the cool, eyeball kick-type stuff, but I'm not sure it's what people/critics/authors really love about him (it might have some influence, though).  I thought the thing people dug about him (aside from the worldbuilding) was the social/political commentary, as well as the spinning genre tropes on their head (as in Un Lun Dun).  But YMMV (see Rachel Swirsky's earlier post).

His attacks on Tolkien, I felt, were frankly unnecessary.  This fueled my disrespectful post. 

It's easy for us to judge someone from a safe third person, but a man who fought in WW1 is bound by certain cultural stereotypes of his era.  While I agree 'forgiving' him for having small feminine roles and 1 dimensional villains doesn't make it better, these flaws don't degrade the experience the same as Lovecraft's racism or Hemingway's misogyny. 

Ultimately, China has taken a platform of slinging dirt on a magnificent creative mind.  Regardless of your personal opinion of his work, Tolkien deserves the acknowledgment as one of many founders of the genre.  Does LotR deserve the accolade greatest novel of the 20th century.....who decides these things?  More importantly, why would China care?  Wonder if he ridicules the inventor of sci-fi, Ms. Shelley, for her weak prose?

After reading all the posts and thinking about this further, the question comes to me....why the hell do I care what he thinks?  I guess it's because he's so vocal on the subject.  I truly respect his passion and talent with words and I'm fine with writers delivering messages through their work....but when you find it necessary to venomously denounce a beloved creator and use your podium to continue your political sermon.

It's just criticism, man.  Everyone takes it, and if you're one of the big guns, even moreso.  You don't have to agree with it.  And he's looking at it all from a socialistic/political lense.


Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #46 on: April 02, 2008, 09:20:00 PM
When was the last time you read Chaucer for fun? 

Last week.

No, wait... Fun?

Is that like when you have to do it or fail a class?

No?

Hm.

———

I don't think Chaucer is that bad once you really get into it and read it enough to get used to it. Norton's has some pretty good footnotes/translations, and I was going over it in class which helped a lot. I don't think you gave Chaucer as a specific example of another romantic writer, just one that's hard to read, but for anyone that doesn't know Chaucer, he's considered a father of English Lit and wrote in the 1300's. Romanticism started in the latter half of the 1700s.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 09:36:30 PM by Heradel »

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #47 on: April 02, 2008, 09:31:36 PM
Glad to see I wasn't too harsh, dealt with many fanboi forum mobs who mindlessly berate.  Glad to see this is not the case.

Hey, bought Looking for Jake and finishing up the Scar now.   It's statements like "He wrote a novel, Perdido Street Station, that single-handedly changed the rules of the fantasy genre, " that confuse me.  Probably a great book....but a lot of people thought Underworld and Matrix were inconceivably original and never heard of Vampire the Masquerade or Grant Morrison (or any half decent sci-fi)
http://www.believermag.com/issues/200504/?read=interview_mieville

His ugly criticism of Tolkien seemed unwarranted.  No Tolkien isn't the greatest writ0r evar (greatest world builder, tho) nor is high fantasy the only vein of the genre....but who asked him to spit on grandfather JRR?  Dick move and I called it as such, is all. 
« Last Edit: April 02, 2008, 09:38:15 PM by thedreameater »



thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #48 on: April 02, 2008, 09:37:06 PM
Quote
I don't think you gave Chaucer as a specific example of another romantic writer, just one that's hard to read, but for anyone that doesn't know Chaucer, he's considered a father of English Lit and wrote in the 1300's. Romanticism started in the 1800s.

I used Chaucer because a - Tolkien is more of a Romantic writer than Victorian b - he said something like (rough quote here) "Yo yo, Chaucer ma boy.  Bitch ass writas after him ain't got no skills, hear meh?"



Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #49 on: April 02, 2008, 09:44:23 PM
Quote
But does he deserve to be degraded and spat upon?  What makes a person viciously criticize another person?  Are the millions of people who buy Terry Goodkind books inferior because they gobble up high-fantasy-tolkein rip offs?  ...did they ask China to save them from their bungled and botched existences?

With due respect, you really need some perspective on this. Those comments of Mieville's are not degrading. They are not spitting. They're just criticism.

You're way overboard.



thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #50 on: April 02, 2008, 10:04:58 PM
Quote
But does he deserve to be degraded and spat upon?  What makes a person viciously criticize another person?  Are the millions of people who buy Terry Goodkind books inferior because they gobble up high-fantasy-tolkein rip offs?  ...did they ask China to save them from their bungled and botched existences?

With due respect, you really need some perspective on this. Those comments of Mieville's are not degrading. They are not spitting. They're just criticism.

You're way overboard.

Word choice struck a chord with me I guess.

"moaned incessantly"
"profoundly backward-looking"
"Not that he would want to be one, of course - good lord, no. He has a PhD, don't you know."
"the wen on the arse of fantasy literature"

calling someone an ass tumor is not degrading?  Funny, sure, but come on...



thedreameater

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Reply #51 on: April 02, 2008, 10:59:35 PM
Rachel,

Do me a favor, delete this post.  No reason to have my negative ass commentary scuffing up your forums.

I'll play nice from now on.

Thanks.



hautdesert

  • Editor
  • *****
  • Posts: 315
Reply #52 on: April 02, 2008, 11:36:58 PM


This analysis from the statement:

"Call out the king tho...cheap tactic to draw attention to the jerk on the soap box..."

Why did you choose to dissect the 'king' part and ignore the soap box?  Or 'call out'?  Focus this much on every phrase I 'throw down', man, I'm flattered.  Over analysis ftl.

Um, you've misunderstood my intention.  I was not interested in analyzing everything in that sentence.  I was pointing out that the cultural constructs in stories do affect the way that people think about the world.  For instance, you, presumably the citizen of a democracy or a republic, when giving someone the top slot, chose "king."  That says something about the images you've internalized about "how heirarchies work" and who is the ultimate authority.

By your measure, I under analyzed, not over, since I was only dealing with (and only meant to deal with) the curious phenomenon of a person who does not, in real life, live in a feudal state claiming that the best metaphor you could come up with for how people relate to one another is based on feudalism. 

If you want, I'll analyze soap box and call out as well--like "king" they're cliches you haven't fully thought through, and it says something about your ability with rhetoric, as well as underscoring my point--you are using the constructions you've read numerous times without so much as thinking about them.  You've never even considered the implications of those constructions, or how they might affect your assumptions.  How, for instance, assuming Tolkien is "king" might lead you to rather thoughtlessly assume that any criticism is degrading him or spitting on him, because the whole idea of royalty contains that implication.




wintermute

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1291
  • What Would Batman Do?
Reply #53 on: April 03, 2008, 12:30:23 AM
This is kind of an old one.  Funny thing is, Mieville is my favorite example of this.  I won't say he's a prick.  I've never met the guy.  I DO think this politics are waaaaay off, but that doesn't really matter.  He's not a politician, and neither am I.  He's a writer.  You absolutley have to seperate a writer's opinions from his work, and I guess that's goes for other artists as well.  His writing is, for me at least, excellent.  So, I'll continue to support his socialist agenda by excercising my capitalist habit of giving writers money.  (haha)

Neal Asher.

I love his books, especially the Polity novels (Cowl not so good); but then, I was always a sucker for space opera. Then I discover the guy has a blog.

And I find out that he's a hardline Libertarian global-warming denier, with generally quite scary politics. For a Briton, he's quite an extreme rightwinger, making Maggie T look like Ghandi. So I stop reading his blog.

I still love his novels though.

Science means that not all dreams can come true


Rachel Swirsky

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1233
    • PodCastle
Reply #54 on: April 03, 2008, 01:32:41 AM
Quote
So I stop reading his blog.

I still love his novels though.

Oh, I feel that way about Orson Scott Card. Occasionally, some essay of his will circulate and I'll thunk my head against something and think, "Darn it, what an [epithet]. Wish he'd knock that off. I liked my illusions about him!"

But Ender's Game is still a good book, darn it. And I have an unreasonably large affection for his Oversoul series even though they espouse some philosophical beliefs I strongly dislike.

On the other hand, he does have a few books I can't bear. His biblical retellings fall flat for me, which I find disappointing, 'cuz the bible's a pretty cool set of stories, and the characters and events in them are inherently compelling. But his versions of them feel kind of twee. And I had to stop reading his Alvin Maker series because there was like a large billboard in the text with shiny lights around it reading, "EXOTICISM," and I'm fairly sensitive to that.

But I'd read the Oversoul series again sometime when I want the comfort of a known book and characters. Or Ender's Game.



Heradel

  • Bill Peters, EP Assistant
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 2938
  • Part-Time Psychopomp.
Reply #55 on: April 04, 2008, 06:19:51 AM
Rachel,

Do me a favor, delete this post.  No reason to have my negative ass commentary scuffing up your forums.

I'll play nice from now on.

Thanks.

This is technically my neck of the forums to police, so let me answer you (Rachel's position is higher up the totem poll). There's a modify button on your posts, in the upper right hand corner. If you want to edit out anything you've written, please do and note that you edited it for content. As a rule we're pretty hands-off unless things start going critical. Yours is a bit stronger than normal for around here, but if you want it gone I'd rather you do it than me.

Thanks,
—Heradel

I Twitter. I also occasionally blog on the Escape Pod blog, which if you're here you shouldn't have much trouble finding.


Roney

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 440
Reply #56 on: April 06, 2008, 10:16:24 PM
I'm going to try to keep my comments to the original question, not because I think it's particularly interesting but because I suspect that the main issues ("Is Tolkien's work any good? Is its continuing influence on Fantasy harmful to the genre?") are going to be discussed again in this forum.  Possibly more than once.

So, is it reasonable for Miéville to write a robust but fairly superficial criticism of The Lord of the Rings?  Well, of course it is.  If he finds a work reactionary and objectionable, he's entitled to say so: not as a matter of political free speech, but because engaged criticism is a vital part of a mature, healthy genre.  That's so obvious that it's barely worth saying, but it is worth separating from the more contentious points, those that seem to have driven thedreameater to defend Tolkien from a perceived attack, which I'll come onto.

Miéville uses some provocative language, sweeping generalizations, caricature and unsubstantiated assertions in his piece for the Socialist Review.  Is it reasonable for him to indulge in this sort of lazy criticism in public?  I think Miéville knew exactly what he was doing, and I don't think it was lazy, for two reasons.  One is that there's plenty of scholarly criticism of Tolkien out there already, and rehashing it in detail would be neither original nor interesting.  For the purpose of Miéville's essay he merely needs to allude to its conclusions.  The other is that for all his negative comments about Tolkien, his aim in the piece for Socialist Review isn't to prove that The Lord of the Rings is bad.  Writing for a non-genre audience who are more than capable of spotting a feudal-patriarchal subtext for themselves, he actually seems to be mounting a roundabout defence of the books and the film of Fellowship, or at least those bits of them that he feels are still enjoyable.  By not pulling any punches with the socialist criticisms at the start he keeps the reader's attention for the paragraphs where he describes what he values in Tolkien and post-Tolkien Fantasy.

That's not to say that Miéville's a fan.  Which seems to be the third question wrapped into thedreameater's characterization of him as a "jerk": is it reasonable for the new guy on the scene to be so critical of the master who, intentionally or not, did so much to make the scene what it is today?  Or should he show more respect to the great author who can no longer defend himself?  Leaving aside the fact that it's traditional for the young turk to challenge the old orthodoxy (as Miéville says in the article, "Tolkien is the Big Oedipal Daddy"), it's important to remember that Miéville's comments don't come out of nowhere.  The context for them is that for most non-genre readers, many dabblers and even a number of people who would regard themselves as fans, Fantasy is the shelves full of two-inch-thick "volumes" of Tolkienesque high fantasy.  Miéville must constantly have to deal with people who assume that his writing is not just something that it's not, but something that he finds morally and politically offensive.  So he tries to distance himself from it, which seems fair to me.

This post has gone on too long already, so the three word summary is: not a jerk.



DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #57 on: June 16, 2009, 10:54:47 PM
I don't know if threadmeter visits the forum anymore, but I couldn't help thinking about this thread when I stumbled across China Mieville's There And Back Again: Five Reasons Why Tolkien Rocks on Omnivoracious.

Fun little piece.


Planish

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 772
  • Fun will now commence.
    • northernelectric.ca
Reply #58 on: July 02, 2009, 06:25:46 AM
To answer the original question in the title - neither a complete jerk, because some of the criticisms are justified; nor a groundbreaking pioneer, because we've heard those criticisms before.
Meh.

All fiction is inherently political. In fact, all art is inherently political.
I prefer both Oscar Wilde's pronouncement in The Picture of Dorian Gray that "all Art is quite useless", and what Joseph Campbell and James Joyce say about it.

from page 246 of A Joseph Campbell Companion.
Quote
I will give you what seems to me to be the most clear and certain exposition of basic esthetic theory I know, namely, that of James Joyce in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

Joyce makes the distinction between what he calls "proper art" and "improper art". By "proper art" he means that which really belongs to art. "Improper art," by contrast, is art that's in the service of something that is not art: for instance, art in the service of advertising. Further, referring to the attitude of the observer, Joyce says that proper art is static, and thereby induces esthetic arrest, whereas improper art is kinetic, filled with movement: meaning, it moves you to desire or to fear and loathing.

Art that excites desire for the object as a tangible object he calls pornographic. Art that excites loathing or fear for the object he terms didactic. All socialogical art is didactic. Most novels since Zola's time have been the work of didactic pornographers who are preaching a social doctrine of some kind and fancying it up with pornographic icing.
Say you are leafing through a magazine and see an advertisement for a beautiful refrigerator. There's a girl with lovely refrigerating teeth smiling beside it, and you say, "I'd love to have a refrigerator like that." That ad is pornography. By definition, all advertising art is pornographic art. Or suppose you see a photograph of a dear old lady, and you think, "I'd love to have tea with that dear old soul." That photograph is pornography. Or you go into a ski buff's house, where there's a painting of a mountain slope, and you think, "Oh, to go down that mountain slope..." That painting is pornography: your relationship to it is not purely esthetic: just perceiving the thing. Most of the art that one sees is either didactic or pornographic.
and on page 248:
Quote
The mind [Joyce] writes, "is arrested and raised above desire and loathing" The original, biological function of the eye, to seek out and identify things to eat and to alert the mind to danger, is for a moment, or (in the case of a true artist) for a lifetime suspended, and the world (beheld without judgement of its relevance to the well-being of the observer) is recognized as a revelation sufficient in itself.

I feed The Pod.
("planish" rhymes with "vanish")


ASparrow

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Reply #59 on: November 01, 2009, 12:22:53 AM
I like reading Mieville just because he does some really nice things with language that I admire, even if I don't like his stories. The worlds he conjures are pretty unique (sometimes disgustingly so!)