Mieville's thoughts...

[Puddleglum]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

For Tolkien, the function of his fantasy fiction is 'consolation'. If you read his essay 'On Fairy Tales' you find that, for him, central to fantasy is 'the consolation of the happy ending'.

Not central to "fantasy" (in Tolkien's view), but to a particular form of fantasy called "fairy" stories. That is, stories dealing with the realm of faire (as Tolkien uses the term in his essay to which ref was made).

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

He pretends that such a happy ending is something that occurs 'miraculously', 'never to be counted on to recur'. But that pretence of contingency is idiotic, in that immediately previously he claims that 'all complete fairy stories must have it [the happy ending]. It is its highest function.' In other words, far from 'never being counted to recur', the writer and reader know that to qualify as fantasy, a 'consolatory' happy ending will recur in every story

'never to be counted on to recur' referred to within the subcreation of the particular fairy story. That is, within the subcreation, the characters (real beings within the context of the subcreation) have no basis to EXPECT the consolation to recur.

Thus, within LOTR, Frodo & Sam have no expectation that they will have a happy ending. Frodo, indeed, professes to have no hope he will even be able to destroy the ring. And, in fact, "HE" isn't able. The unexpected consolation comes in when his (and Bilbo's, and {in fact} Sam's) mercy to Gollum, as well as his enduring in the face of hopelessness, sets up the very circumstance where deliverance comes as Gollum steals the ring and falls into the cracks of Doom. [cf Letter 246].

All the characters in LOTR "can" do is to exercise what the Elves call "Estel", as Tolkien writes in the essay "Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth" thru the mnouth of Finrod Felagund

There is the thing that men call "Hope", an expectation of good which has some foundation in what is known. Elves call this "Amdir" which signifies "looking up"

But there is another thing, which is founded deeper. "Estel" that is called by elves, meaning "Trust". If we (elves and men) are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves. This is the uttermost foundation of "Estel".

[Hobbitt_Fan]

Who makes Mieville the end all and be all of what values were conveyed in Tolkien's literature or whether they worthy of praise or criticism? Your opinion, my opinion, or little orphan Annie's opinion are no more or no less valid than any others.

Just because he is a writer, or any other individual of some celebrity gives no added insight to the human condition, the laws of god and nature, or the questions of the universe and existence. Famous people like to think so and in so much as they use their own written word or form of artistic expression, the messages they choose to convey, or hope the reader or viewer infers is a natural by product of the expression of their creative talent. If they choose to comment on their own work, I take them at their word but I give no special weight to their views, criticism, political or moral insight in others work or the world then I would normally extend to anyone including the mailman or my barber.

Binding fiction or literature into the political arguments du jour is self defeating as fiction is first and foremost a work intended for entertainment and a form or escapism or window into the imagination.

If I were going to give credence to an artist opinion on this work, I would much rather listen to someone like Christopher Lee, whose life occupied much of the same Era, an individual who fought NAZI domination of Europe as a member of the OSS and the forerunner of the Brittish SAS, whose missions are still classified to this day. An individual who has taken the time to read the entire collection of Tolkien's work numerous times, LOTR once a year, understanding that Tolkien's work was as much as endeavor to create a pre Norman invasion mythology for England as it was a stand alone story. In his 400+ movie roles, the thousands of creative minds he has been around, 80+ years of life and suffering the sobriety of and horrors of war and missions we couldn't even conceive, I would give more weight to his opinion than a snot nosed new aged science fiction writer. Of course this is all JMHO.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Hobbitt_Fan

Just because he is a writer, or any other individual of some celebrity gives no added insight to the human condition, the laws of god and nature, or the questions of the universe and existence. Famous people like to think so and in so much as they use their own written word or form of artistic expression, the messages the choose to convey, or hope the reader or viewer infers is a natural by productive of the expression of their creative talent. If they choose to comment on their own work, I take them at their word but I give no special weight to their views, criticism, political or moral insight in others work or the world then I would normally extend to anyone including the mailman or my barber.

Binding fiction or literature into the political arguments du jour is self defeating as fiction is first and foremost a work intended for entertainment and a form or escapism or window into the imagination.

See my post at #17. This interview was given for a very specific audience (readers of a left-wing political journal), and in it Miéville's intent is to show that SF has value in what may be the only terms that would appeal to that particular audience.

No, it's not a very good article generally– note how much he prevaricates on whether the "true" nature of SF is political or not– like he wants to have it both ways. Reading this again, I get the impression Miéville isn't nearly as committed to this "writing for the revolution" thing as he at first seems to imply he is. The point is, though, he's trying to "sell" his genre to what appears to be a pretty unreceptive audience, and one which is probably only interested in it from a certain angle. Look at the questions he was asked: "Why is fantasy literature of interest to socialists?" "What have Marxists had to say about fantasy and science fiction?" "Why has fantasy literature so often appeared to be conservative with a small 'c'?"

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Michael Moorcock's essay has cropped up here before and I don't have anything to add to what I said about it in The Inklings' Challenge. To describe it as 'brilliant' is to suggest that being strongly worded and including neat little sound-bites like 'Surrey of the mind' marks a work with the stamp of genius. As you've probably gathered, I don't agree.

Morthoron and a couple of the commenters on the Omnivoracious article have noted China Miéville's apparent change of stance. I hope that the reason for this discrepancy is a maturing of his opinions over time - a realisation that politics isn't the be-all and end-all of literature; maybe the epiphany that his own success isn't dependent on slaughtering sacred cows or attacking other writers. Whatever the reason, I'm going to assume that he wasn't just being sarcastic in that entire article at Omnivoracious, where in several places he seems to be talking down to his audience. The painful populisms, such as "Tolkien rocks" or "Dude. That totally was cool. I mean, say what you like about him, Tolk gives good monster" are unnecessary, and he sounds like a teacher trying to be cool. It doesn't work. Don't try. All the same, I'm not going to attack someone for changing their opinion about something: I've done the same thing myself more than once.

The article we're discussing, however, is the interview report from the International Socialism Journal, and particularly the idea of fantasy literature as consolation. Now, his opinion would carry some weight, since he quotes - or rather paraphrases - Tolkien's old 1939 Andrew Lang lecture, which clearly states that very thing. The only problem with that statement is that it doesn't state anything of the sort. Firstly, the lecture, later published in Essays Presented to Charles Williams isn't called On Fairy Tales, it's called On Fairy-Stories, and Tolkien's careful description of what a fairy story is specifically excludes a lot of fantasy fiction, including The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. These more adequately fit his definition of travellers' tales.

[Travellers' tales] report many marvels, but they are marvels to be seen in this mortal world in some region of our own time and space; distance alone conceals them. The tales of Gulliver have no more right of entry [into a book of fairy-stories] than the yarns of Baron Munchausen; or than, say, The First Men in the Moon or The Time Machine. Indeed, for the Eloi and Morlocks there is be a better claim than for the Lilliputians. Lilliputians are merely men peered down at, sardonically, from just above the house-tops. Eloi and Morlocks live far away in an abyss of time so deep as to work an enchantment upon them; and if they are descended from ourselves, it may be remembered that an ancient English thinker once derived the ylfe, the very elves, through Cain from Adam.

Tolkien believed that distance, particularly great distances of time, could give a work the flavour of a fairy-story, but only those stories that take place in faerie, the Perilous Realm itself, are the subject of his comments on Escape, Consolation and Recovery. The Lord of the Rings, his most influential work of fiction, is placed in the deep past of our own world by his use of the lost manuscript topos; he even drops quite a broad hint by setting his story in Middle Earth, midden-erd, Middangeard: the human world. It does not take place in, and is not concerned with, faerie, and is therefore not a fairy-story. Tolkien's comments in his lecture about that genre of fantastic fiction may occasionally shed light on his own work, but they are not, nor were they ever intended to be, a blueprint for the writing of fantasy. Small wonder, then, that there is very little consolation to be had in The Lord of the Rings or The Silmarillion. The world they portray is destined to become our own; the elves are leaving, never to return; much of what makes that world magical and desirable is destroyed along with Sauron's power, and all things are in decline from their epic greatness to the present day; we even discover in Appendix F that we read the whole of LR without learning the chief characters' real names. Middle Earth is not some fairyland you can escape into to avoid the world's troubles because it no longer exists except in the form of the primary reality, the real world. China Miéville's comments about fantasy as coddling consolation are therefore irrelevant.

That said, I would argue that although a world filled with noble kings and princes might be consolation for an arch-monarchist, it stands as a direct challenge to a committed socialist. Surely for someone who believes that all kings are bad, a consoling fantasy story would be set in a socialist republic or a communist ideal state. LR in particular obviously challenges some readers a great deal, to judge by their vitriolic responses to it. What China Miéville seems to want from fantasy is the consolation of a lot of books that confirm his politics; or at least that's what he wants the readership of the International Socialism Journal to believe. All four of them. I would argue that Tolkien believed the consolation and escape of fairy-stories should reclaim the world for their readers, so in a way the desire for such consolation might well benefit the Global Revolution in the end. Such a pity for them, then, that the same process can also strengthen Bakuninite anarchists and both upper and lower-case conservatives.