The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Lalwendë · 08-16-2006, 06:15 AM

It makes me laugh when people who aim to be anti-establishment claim that all those who are against change are automatically 'reactionaries' or even 'proto-Nazis'. Why? Because in the modern world we are all constantly bombarded with 'change' and we are constantly reminded that we are not 'cool' if we do not embrace it, even that we are unemployable if we do not accept it. But all this embracing of 'change' is just being done to encourage us to be forever unhappy and hence to work even harder and buy even more stuff, buy a bigger house in a better area, get a better holiday next year, go somewhere different (even if it destroys the environment), accept a bigger workload when staff are cut, be bored and restless all the time until we die.

Any prospective anti-establishment writer would do well to think about why change is a big con.

The other little rant that's been provoked by this thread is that yet again another writer has seized on this quasi-medieval 'thing' about Tolkien. Well, I always read LotR as an incredibly modern book with quite stark and bleak themes. If people are associating it with the medieval period then it's that they have this in their own heads. Certainly The Shire is more like early 20th century England, and Rohan isn't Medieval. It's just readers' romantic notions of a colourful period in history imprinting themselves on their ideas of what Tolkien was writing.

Here's another rant.

A lot of these writers (Moorcock, Pullman being the ones in mind given this thread) have understandably got a dislike of the formulaic, cliched fantasy that came after Tolkien (so have I - why eat burgers when you can have steak?) but the memories of and notions about this formula fantasy impinges on what Tolkien wrote, on Tolkien's style, which was very different and unformulaic as it actually set the agenda for the whole genre to follow. I don't know, but it seems pretty unintelligent to blame Tolkien for being so damn good that many other writers decided to copy him or use him as inspiration. Am I to criticise Jane Austen for spawning a thousand sickening chick-lit novels? Or Salvador Dali for inspiring a million tacky 1980s Athena posters?

There will always be a market for 'stuff' produced for people who quite pointedly do not like 'other stuff', that need has created a hundred and one different youth movements (punk as reaction to prog rock, grunge as reaction to yuppies etc). Well it seems there are people who love the rollicking good narrative provided by a fantasy novel but who pointedly do not want to be seen reading Tolkien, who want to be different, alternative. Writers who fulfill that need will no doubt sell more books by being vocal, vituperative, and perhaps we should read their criticism as marketing blurb rather than valid analysis?

08-16-2006, 06:15 AM	#100
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,750	It makes me laugh when people who aim to be anti-establishment claim that all those who are against change are automatically 'reactionaries' or even 'proto-Nazis'. Why? Because in the modern world we are all constantly bombarded with 'change' and we are constantly reminded that we are not 'cool' if we do not embrace it, even that we are unemployable if we do not accept it. But all this embracing of 'change' is just being done to encourage us to be forever unhappy and hence to work even harder and buy even more stuff, buy a bigger house in a better area, get a better holiday next year, go somewhere different (even if it destroys the environment), accept a bigger workload when staff are cut, be bored and restless all the time until we die. Any prospective anti-establishment writer would do well to think about why change is a big con. The other little rant that's been provoked by this thread is that yet again another writer has seized on this quasi-medieval 'thing' about Tolkien. Well, I always read LotR as an incredibly modern book with quite stark and bleak themes. If people are associating it with the medieval period then it's that they have this in their own heads. Certainly The Shire is more like early 20th century England, and Rohan isn't Medieval. It's just readers' romantic notions of a colourful period in history imprinting themselves on their ideas of what Tolkien was writing. Here's another rant. A lot of these writers (Moorcock, Pullman being the ones in mind given this thread) have understandably got a dislike of the formulaic, cliched fantasy that came after Tolkien (so have I - why eat burgers when you can have steak?) but the memories of and notions about this formula fantasy impinges on what Tolkien wrote, on Tolkien's style, which was very different and unformulaic as it actually set the agenda for the whole genre to follow. I don't know, but it seems pretty unintelligent to blame Tolkien for being so damn good that many other writers decided to copy him or use him as inspiration. Am I to criticise Jane Austen for spawning a thousand sickening chick-lit novels? Or Salvador Dali for inspiring a million tacky 1980s Athena posters? There will always be a market for 'stuff' produced for people who quite pointedly do not like 'other stuff', that need has created a hundred and one different youth movements (punk as reaction to prog rock, grunge as reaction to yuppies etc). Well it seems there are people who love the rollicking good narrative provided by a fantasy novel but who pointedly do not want to be seen reading Tolkien, who want to be different, alternative. Writers who fulfill that need will no doubt sell more books by being vocal, vituperative, and perhaps we should read their criticism as marketing blurb rather than valid analysis? __________________ Gordon's alive!