Mieville's thoughts...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Why criticise me? If you don't want to engage in this debate, then don't. Why is it so frustrating for you that I've made this post?

It was a misunderstanding, for which I've already apologised. Based on some things that have happened previously, I thought you were upset about the article and asking to be reassured about your literary tastes. As I happened to be in a rather unpleasant mood, I was, well, rather unpleasant. I'm sorry. Okay?

Originally Posted by tumhalad

To say the ground is well trod is fine, but to insinuate that all conversation must cease because of this

I didn't say that. I did question whether there was a point to it any more, which I think is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

The term "brilliantly" as a descriptor for Moorcock is very subjective, particularly since most of his literary work I've read is banal in the extreme, as were his collaborations with the band Hawkwind (an equally mediocre band). It sounds more like sour grapes from a pulp-fiction author who will never attain Tolkien's stature.

Hey, I quite like Moorcock. Or at least I'm ambivalent. Sometimes he seems like a highly original writer with vivid imagery and interesting ideas, and other times like a hack cobbling together cliches on a framework of plot-devices. Often in the same book, not to say at the same time. Weird.

[Ibrîniðilpathânezel]

In Tolkien, the reader is intended to be consoled by the idea that systemic problems come from outside agitators, and that decent people happy with the way things were will win in the end.

Hmm. I would say that this is half-accurate. It misses another aspect of Tolkien's works that is nearly universal: the people happy with the way things were may win in the end, but always at a considerable cost. And never do things go back to being the way they were, not permanently. Even the Shire, restored, did not last, nor did the realm of Gondor. Eventually both changed and faded until they no longer existed, like the Elves. Perhaps there is consolation to be taken in thinking that decent people will win in the end — sometimes, a person needs that hope to hang onto when the world around them seems to be going crazy and falling apart — but there's a big difference between pie-eyed optimism and hope that one can restore peace and stability to one's life, even if that life is changed.

I've read a lot of Moorcock's work, and after you've read Elric, you've read the best of what he repeats over and over in his other books, IMHO. I have long wondered what happened to him, personally, that gives him such an unrelentlingly dark, depressing, and cynical world-view, because that's what comes out most strongly in his work. The gods of Chaos have cursed mere mortals, so that everything we try to do to bring order and peace and purpose to our lives is ultimately futile, because even after we die (usually in some horrible, dismal fashion), the gods will just take us, plunk us back on the game board of the world, and start it all over again.

Just my two cents, as always.

[Morthoron]

As an ardent Catholic, Tolkien couldn't possibly be pessimistic. His faith would certainly offer solace in difficult times and hope that he would ultimately reach a better place, if not in the here-and-now, then certainly after death. Miéville has no such faith, and cynically mistrusts anything that does not accord with her avowed leftist political agenda. How sad for her.

Even Ms. Miéville's choice of ten fantasy/science fiction novels are mostly based on her leftist leanings. For her, the politics means more than the story itself. Again, to be ruled so by one's politics diminishes the ability to find truth and enjoyment from different sources. She is no better than a bible-thumping arch-conservative capitalist. One cannot find middle ground when one is so polarized; therefore, I tend to ignore anything they rant about as mere blathering demagoguery.

Ironically, Tolkien does not suffer the same fate. His love of myth and language supersedes his religion and he draws just as much, if not more, from pagan sources to create a three-dimensional alternate world. His dislike of allegory mitigates any Christian symbology in Lord of the Rings, to the point that, if one is unconcerned with such things (and as an agnostic, I am completely uninterested), then one is oblivious of its presence. As a matter of fact, taken in totality, the story of Middle-earth bears little resemblance to any pronounced Christian worldview. For every Christian reference you presume to make, I can point you to a similar, pre-Christian classical allusion.

But Miéville and Moorcock wish to minimize anything outside of their cynical little crimson orb of pathetic proletarianism. It is very easy to make leftist pronouncements when accepting large checks from a fat-cat capitalist publisher for dubious work. It is very easy to denounce the love of home, hearth and country when living in a society that allows such dissent. But, as you may have guessed, this gloomy outlook is at the same time laughable -- disengenuously so. No one wants to live in the chaotic, savagely grim world of Elric of Melnibone, but there are thousands who would live in Middle-earth, even if they were in imminent danger. Because there is something starkly beautiful and important and worth fighting for there. There is more humanity in a Hobbit's furry little toe than in most post-modern literature.

In her canned Q & A session, Miéville denounces literary snobbery regarding fantasy while thumbing her nose all the while. She is a self-serving hypocrite.

That's all I have to say about that.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Even Ms. Miéville's choice of ten fantasy/science fiction novels are mostly based on her leftist leanings. For her, the politics means more than the story itself. Again, to be ruled so by one's politics diminishes the ability to find truth and enjoyment from different sources.

*cough**cough* I believe Miéville's a feller, Morth.

But apart from that, yes. I think this type of argument carries weight only if you agree with a certain view of the purpose of literature. If not, not.

Let's look at the whole article. Where does it appear? The International Socialism Journal. What is Miéville's purpose here? To argue against the tendency of Marxist intellectuals to dismiss speculative fiction. How does he do this? By claiming that fantasy is in truth a genre of revolution, and that its main value lies in its critique of capitalism. This requires him to reject whatever doesn't fit this mold, which pretty much means all of "high fantasy":

Originally Posted by China Miéville

Although an awful lot of books do fit that stereotype to various degrees, it's important to remember that you're not talking about fantasy in general here, but about a particular historical stream within it--a stream which has got massive since the 1960s.

He then goes on to blame J.R.R. Tolkien explicitly for twisting the fantasy genre away from its higher purpose.

Now, tumhalad, I'm sorry I was dismissive, but I honestly can't find much in this article to "engage with". To me, the whole thing just looks like an expression of Miéville anxiety about not being taken seriously by other Marxists. That's perhaps a borderline ad hominem, but there it is: it's just too hard to separate this particular argument from the person making it, and the circumstances under which it was made.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*cough**cough* I believe Miéville's a feller, Morth.


Let's look at the whole article. Where does it appear? The International Socialism Journal. What is Miéville's purpose here? To argue against the tendency of Marxist intellectuals to dismiss speculative fiction. How does he do this? By claiming that fantasy is in truth a genre of revolution, and that its main value lies in its critique of capitalism. This requires him to reject whatever doesn't fit this mold, which pretty much means all of "high fantasy":


He then goes on to blame J.R.R. Tolkien explicitly for twisting the fantasy genre away from its higher purpose.

Now, tumhalad, I'm sorry I was dismissive, but I honestly can't find much in this article to "engage with". To me, the whole thing just looks like an expression of Miéville anxiety about not being taken seriously by other Marxists. That's perhaps a borderline ad hominem, but there it is: it's just too hard to separate this particular argument from the person making it, and the circumstances under which it was made.

No no, good point. Certainly, Mieville seems to be trying to cater to the Marxist audience who would be less sympathetic to speculative fiction than most. Mieville has also contributed to a book called "Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction" in which he makes much the same arguments. He seems to be on something like a crusade; championing the great socially revalatory prospects of his brand of sf/fantasy. Are any of Mieville's claims worth anything though? I'm interested in this notion of consolation. Does Tolkien's literature merely console? Should it challenge us (read: challenge notions of capitalist hegemony) or are we complicit in some exploitative bourgeois idyll?

[davem]

I think this piece, also by Mieville, is also worth reading - far more insightful & positive - in fact, one of the best analyses of LotR I've read. Five Reasons Tolkien Rocks http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/06...ien-rocks.html The whole piece is definitely worth reading, but try this for starters

Unlike so many of those he begat, Tolkien's vision, never mind any Hail-fellow-well-met-ery, no matter the coziness of the shire, despite even the remorseless sylvan bonheur of Tom Bombadil, is tragic. The final tears in characters' and readers' eyes are not uncomplicatedly of happiness. On the one hand, yay, the goodies win: on the other, shame that the entire epoch is slipping from Glory. The magic goes west, of course, but there's also the peculiar abjuring of narrative form, in the strange echo after the final battle, the Lord of the Rings's post-end end, the Harrowing of the Shire--so criminally neglected by Jackson. In an alternate reality, this piece of scripting would have earned talented young tattooed hipster video-game designer Johnno Tolkien a slapped wrist from his studio: since when do you put a lesser villain straight after the final Boss Battle? But that's the point. The episode concludes 'well', of course, so far as it goes, but in its very pettiness relative to what's just been, it is brilliantly unsatisfying, ushering in an era of degraded parodies of epics, where it's not just the elves that are going: you can't even get a proper Dark Lord any more. Whatever we see as the drive behind Tolkien's tragic vision, and however we relate to its politics and aesthetics, the tragedy of the creeping tawdry quotidian gives Middle Earth a powerful melancholia lamentably missing from too much of what followed. It deserves celebrating and reclaiming.

[Nerwen]

Thanks, Davem. That's interesting– I wonder if Miéville's changed his mind in the intervening years, or if this is just a matter of wearing a different "hat".

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I'm interested in this notion of consolation. Does Tolkien's literature merely console?

No, I don't think so– c.f. Miéville's own more recent comments.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Should it challenge us (read: challenge notions of capitalist hegemony) or are we complicit in some exploitative bourgeois idyll?

As I said, this depends on whether you believe that authors have a duty to promote socialist values. I certainly don't, and I'm hardly a conservative. Note also that on this criteria, most of the authors praised in the first article "fail" most of the time.

I also find your use of "complicit" quite troubling here. Whether you mean it to or not, it literally implies that simply reading a book with the "wrong" social values is an immoral act. After all:

Originally Posted by The Concise Oxford Dictionary

complicity: n. partnership in a crime or wrongdoing.

EDIT:X'd with Morth.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Thanks, Davem.



As I said, this depends on whether you believe that authors have a duty to promote socialist values. I certainly don't, and I'm hardly a conservative. Note also that on this criteria, most of the authors praised in the first article "fail" most of the time.

I also find your use of "complicit" quite troubling here. Whether you mean it to or not, it literally implies that simply reading a book with the "wrong" social values is an immoral act. After all:


EDIT:X'd with Morth.

I mean exactly that when I use "complicit" - The whole point of modern theories of literature is to demonstrate that reading is in some sense a political act that can be undermined and deconstructed.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*cough**cough* I believe Miéville's a feller, Morth.

To be honest, having never read Miéville's work, I just naturally thought he was a woman, what with the name China, the dress and high heels and all. I should have realized by the five o'clock shadow. But given the skewed agenda of the article, I am even less inclined to read his or her work.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I'm interested in this notion of consolation. Does Tolkien's literature merely console? Should it challenge us (read: challenge notions of capitalist hegemony) or are we complicit in some exploitative bourgeois idyll?

I don't take from Tolkien any bourgeois complicity or capitalist exploitation, anymore more than I take Christian allegory. Folks tend to carry their baggage with them when reading novels. Miéville's stance is a load of rubbish he obviously totes along, ready to dump when a work does not fit his rhetoric. I am sure Dickens or Austen would be anathema to him as well. Oh well, his loss.

Tolkien skewers stupid, complacent Hobbits even if he has a fondness for their agrarian lifestyle. And in many cases, Tolkien's points are on the money (if I may use such a capitalist sentiment). His conservative stance on the environment and distrust of heavy industry is actually well-founded, given global warming and several hundred mile-wide oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico. Personally, I am more interested in the mythos, the language and the ties with pre-Christian folklore, but then I am not on a search and destroy mission to hunt down Marxist bug-a-boos. What I do know is that Tolkien utterly rejects totalitarianism, which is what has happened with every Marxist state ever created. Perhaps that is why Miéville and Moorcock despise Tolkien: he merely points out that totalitarianism is evil and destroys individual freedom, which is not the rosy picture leftists wish to paint of their pie-in-the-sky proletarian paradises which somehow evaporate when put into practice. Stalin and Mao are merely Sauron without the fiery, red eye.

But as far as I can see, there is very little capitalism involved in the story, as a monetary system, trade or commerce of any sort is very little developed, particularly since Tolkien is not offering any modernity in the tale whatsoever, save for a few anachronistic anomalies. A dead give away would be folks riding about on horses, fighting with swords and wearing mail. But you see, I read the story, not read into the story.

You ask, does Tolkien's literature merely console? Well, you just spent an inordinate amount of time in another thread trying to point out that Tolkien did the complete opposite in Children of Hurin. So you tell me. Does the story challenge me to -- what? Suddenly decide that Mao Tse-tung's Great Leap Forward that killed 20 million Chinese was a good thing? That Stalin's Great Purge and Five-Year Plans killing 30 million Russians were triumphs for Marxism? What exactly is the challenge I am missing when reading a fantasy set in Middle-earth that covers creation and three complete Ages of the world, has 10 or so distinct languages and several more dialects, and has a 12 volume compendium of ancillary information?

I'll tell you what is challenging, reading the last three books of Moorcock's Elric Sequence without mental fatigue. Getting through them at all could be construed as a triumph.