China Mieville - jerk or groundbreaking pioneer?

[thedreameater]

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...

[Rachel Swirsky]

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]

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]

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.

  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.

  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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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.

  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]

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.

[hautdesert]

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.

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.

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]

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. 

[birdless]

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.

[Rachel Swirsky]

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]

I knew "politics" in this case wasn't being used in the context of government (duh ), 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.

[Rachel Swirsky]

No one has done that.

Non-political opinion: I like red.

Political opinion: The world should return to feudalism.

[birdless]

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).

[hautdesert]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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...

[birdless]

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 )))).

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]

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.

[DKT]

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]

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]

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.

(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]

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  . 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]

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]

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.

[Chodon]

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.