Mieville's thoughts...

[tumhalad2]

"Tolkien's worldview was resolutely rural, petty bourgeois, conservative, anti-modernist, misanthropically Christian and anti-intellectual. That comes across very strongly in his fiction and his non-fiction. Michael Moorcock has written brilliantly on this in his book Wizardry and Wild Romance (1987):

The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire [where the protagonist 'hobbits' live], are 'safe' but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are 'dangerous'... Lord of the Rings is a pernicious confirmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class... If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron [the 'evil' dark lord] and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the mob--mindless football supporters throwing their beer bottles over the fence--the worst aspect of modern urban society represented as the whole by the a fearful, backward-yearning class.

In opposing what he called the Robot Age, Tolkien counterposes it with a past that of course never existed. He has no systematic opposition to modernity--just a terrified wittering about 'better days'. He opposes chaos with moderation, which is why his 'revolt' against modernity is in fact just a grumbling quiescence.

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'. 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, and you have a theory of fantasy in which 'consolation' is a matter of policy. It's no surprise that this kind of fantasy is conservative. Tolkien's essay is as close as it gets to most modern fantasy's charter, and he's defined fantasy as literature which mollycoddles the reader rather than challenging them.

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. This is fantasy as literary comfort food. Unfortunately, a lot of Tolkien's heirs--who may not share his politics at all--have
taken on many tropes that embed a lot of those notions in their fantasy."

from: http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.../newsinger.htm


Thoughts, opionions, rebukes?

[Nerwen]

Aw, c'mon tumhalad, not this again! What "thoughts, opinions, rebukes?" can we come up with now that we haven't already provided the several other times somebody or other has criticised Tolkien on ideological grounds, and it's got you worried?

Look, you don't need the permission of China Miéville, David Brin, Michael Moorcock, the loony fanboys at Stardestroyer.net, random Amazon reviewers, or anyone else to like Tolkien's writing. Heck, you don't even need my permission!

Besides, writers are notorious for jealousy and back-stabbing. Did you think the world of literature was one big happy family?

[tumhalad2]

I take offence to your tone of condescension. This is a forum for discussion, and I could't care less that you think we've already covered the same issues. It's not that I need permission (I take offence to that assumption as well). I'm not intersted in your "providing" me answers to placate my fears, I am intersted in discussion. By taking the stance that you do, you all but imply the discussion is over; that all the "rebukes" have been given by our illustrious forumers, etc. Well, and I'll use the word again, that is incredibly fatuous. Despite what you might think, Mielville's comments may be of interest to some people on these boards, and therefore fruit for chit chat. I'm interested in people's thoughts about the specifics of what Mieville has to say. I think the quote is an interesting distillation of the attitude held by Mieville, Brin et al.

Did I think the world of literature was one big happy family? Nice way to insinuate I am some kind emotionally retarded fool! Evidently, you completely misunderstand my motivation for posting the quote. Of course I don't believe that! That there are debates in literature is no reason not to engage in them and sit idly by, content in your own moral superiority. I certainly don't agree with Mieville, and I have a right not to do so and to make the fact known. Likewise, forumers have a right to comment on this thread without others insinuating that they are being repetative, or disingenuous, or whatever. In fact, I'm not quite sure what the point of you're post was at all. Why not read the quote, and engage with it? It's interesting, has a lot to say, and there's a lot to discuss. That is what this board is for.

[Nerwen]

Hey, tumhalad, sorry if I was rude. I guess I was. I'm not in a great mood at the moment, for completely unrelated reasons.

It's just this to me seems a re-hash of past topics posted by you– it's not like Miéville is saying anything those other people hadn't.

Also, maybe I was jumping to conclusions this time, but it's because the other times I certainly seem to remember you saying you were quite shaken by the criticism. Okay?

[Nerwen]

However–

Originally Posted by tumhalad

That is no reason to ignore them and sit idly by, content in your own moral superiority.

What on Earth makes you think I'm doing that? You, know, for somebody who gets offended pretty readily, you're not what I'd call careful about what you say to others, mate.

[tumhalad2]

A misunderstanding:

Indeed, in the past, I did post a thread about David Brin's ideas in which I expressed some loss of faith, if you like, so I can see why you may have thought that. Nonetheles, that was some years ago now, and I'm over it.

This time around, however, I'm posting because I came across the quote and thought it had some interesting things to say. Sure, alot of these people say similar things, but Mieville is interesting because of where his focus is - on Tolkien's On Fairy Story's essay, for example, and the implicit idea that literature should afford some sort of "challenge" to readers, presumably by not doing what Tolkien did and offer a conciliatory ending. I'm not hugely familiar with On Fairy Stories; is this a good or accurate formulation of Tolkien's ideas, or are they misconstrued?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

However–


What on Earth makes you think I'm doing that? You, know, for somebody who gets offended pretty readily, you're not what I'd call careful about what you say to others, mate.

Ok, fine, allow me to explain myself. Having posted the quote, quite innocently, and without any thought to offend anyone, you come along and insinuate that Im am wasting...what exactly, your time? space on an internet message board? There was absolutely no reason for you to have posted that at all; you failed to engage with the quote at all and you merely criticised me. And you wonder why I might accuse you of possessing an air of moral superiority? Well, it only seemed to follow from the tone and content of your post.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Ok, fine, allow me to explain myself. Having posted the quote, quite innocently, and without any thought to offend anyone, you come along and insinuate that Im am wasting...what exactly, your time? space on an internet message board? There was absolutely no reason for you to have posted that at all; you failed to engage with the quote at all and you merely criticised me. And you wonder why I might accuse you of possessing an air of moral superiority? Well, it only seemed to follow from the tone and content of your post.

No, what I'm querying is your phrasing,

Originally Posted by tumhalad

That there are debates in literature is no reason not to engage in them and sit idly by, content in your own moral superiority.

which makes it sound like you're talking about some "duty" you believe people have to engage in each and every debate. If you just mean I sounded like I was annoyed at you– well, yes, I was, kind of– but I've already apologised for that. I admit I was out of line.

And yet, I am making a serious point that I don't believe Miéville is raising anything that hasn't already been brought up here, here, here, and here, not to mention
here. Of course people can decide to go over the same ground again if they want to, but I do think it is pretty well-trodden ground.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

...which makes it sound like you're talking about some "duty" you believe people have to engage in each and every debate. If you just mean I sounded like I was annoyed at you– well, yes, I was, kind of– but I've already apologised for that. I admit I was out of line.

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? Who cares if some of these points have been raised before - in that case all the better. Thanks for providing the links, people now have an opportunity to regail themselves of some similar discussions that have gone on in the past. But there are always new people coming to the boards, there's new ground to cover, new thoughts to hear, new ideas to canvass, and new points to be made. Once again, I disagree that Mieville's points have "all been made before". Yes, they are rather generic points in some ways, but that is in itself interesting. If we have a whole lot of threads here, including this one, that all supposedly deal with the same ideas, why not offer some thoughts as to why that is? What is it exactly that unites these commentators? Which ideas do they have in common, and what does Mieville emphasise particularly in the quote above? I suggested above that we scrutinise his points about On Fairy Stories. Is he right in saying that it amounts to a kind of "manifesto" for "conservative" fantasy unwilling to "challenge" us (apparently to Mieville) socially retarded readers? How should Tolkien critics who are generally sympathetic respond? To say the ground is well trod is fine, but to insinuate that all conversation must cease because of this is not, in my opinion.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Michael Moorcock has written brilliantly on this in his book Wizardry and Wild Romance (1987)...

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. It is rather difficult to accept Moorcock's dismissive attitude when the majority of his literary corpus sits in the bargain bin of the local bookstore.

Of course, that is merely my opinion. You may keep to yours as well.

[tumhalad2]

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. It is rather difficult to accept Moorcock's dismissive attitude when the majority of his literary corpus sits in the bargain bin of the local bookstore.

Of course, that is merely my opinion. You may keep to yours as well.

Opinions is exactly what we want in this topic, and lots of them! With regards to Moorcock, I have a volume of his stories sitting on my shelf titled "Elric"; I have heard his Elric themed stories are quite good. Then again a friend recently told me about another of his stories involving 19th Century gentlemen explorer who timetravelled in order to have sex with women of different epochs. Or something like that. Suffice to say, apparently it was terrible. Nonetheless Moorcock has often interested me. He seems to regard himself as a kind of litarary arbiter; in a collection of his short stories he wrote a preface (I only read that far) in which he said something to the effect that he and Martin Amis were setting out to reverse the course of English literature. Some hubris...

Clearly Tolkien is still more popular and more widely regarded, so I'm not sure he succeeded in his efforts!

[Aganzir]

I think China Miéville is a fabulous author. I also love Tolkien. But I like them in different ways. If I want to read something ingenious and challenging with values closer to mine, I pick Miéville, whereas Tolkien is for a magical world and magical moments.

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.

I definitely agree on this part. Fortunately there are also writers who are not quite so black-and-white... It's ages since I've read any fantasy with a dark lord & his minions in it (with the exception of Tolkien). But in truth that kind of fantasy is much better for my own imagination - if I'm not explained well enough the reasons somebody wants to enslave and/or destroy the world, I invent them myself (this is also what I do while watching Disney ).

I understand where Miéville is coming from, but it doesn't stop me from liking Tolkien.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

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.

Well, as it happens, by-and-large I can't say I agree with the aforesaid "modern theories of literature", tumhalad.

However, I didn't say "political", anyway, I said "immoral".

So let's make sure we're on the same page. Once again:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by The Concise Oxford Dictionary

complicity: n. partnership in a crime or wrongdoing.

Is that what you mean? Really? You sure?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, as it happens, by-and-large I can't say I agree with the aforesaid "modern theories of literature", tumhalad.

However, I didn't say "political", anyway, I said "immoral".

So let's make sure we're on the same page. Once again:


Is that what you mean? Really? You sure?

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with this, for goodness sake. But from Mieville's point of view we are complicit in an immoral way. The act of reading a book with questionable morals is thus an act of political immorality.

[Morthoron]

Do Marxists even have morals? Isn't morality a petty bourgeois concept?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Do Marxists even have morals? Isn't morality a petty bourgeois concept?

True that.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with this, for goodness sake. But from Mieville's point of view we are complicit in an immoral way. The act of reading a book with questionable morals is thus an act of political immorality.

So you're saying that in your opinion Miéville is– or was at the time he wrote this– completely opposed to independent thought?

EDIT:X'd wth Morth and tumhalad.

[Nerwen]

Note that the use of "complicit" is your own, tumhalad. It appears nowhere in the article.

So, much as I disagree with what he's saying anyway, I don't think he's saying what you think he is.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Note that the use of "complicit" is your own, tumhalad. It appears nowhere in the article.

So, much as I disagree with what he's saying anyway, I don't think he's saying what you think he is.

My original words: 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 was inferring that Mieville is indirectly accusing readers of "complicity" with the values enshrined in the text as he perceives them; I don't think this is an illogical inference; when one reads a book, and regards it favourably, one does, to some extent, comply with its worldview. This is not to say one may disagree with it in certain respects, but taken wholistically one finds no trouble in it to the extent that one is driven to be heavily critical of it. Mieville makes certain assertions about the values of the text; assertions that I do not agree with. Nonetheless, in Mieville's view, I must in some sense be morally complicit, because I do not criticise the values that he says are there. Regardless, my point was to enquire as to whether the text does, or does not, enshrine the values Mieville says it does. I apologise if my phrasing was leading you astray, but I think my point holds.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad

Regardless, my point was to enquire as to whether the text does, or does not, enshrine the values Mieville says it does.

I've already said, I don't think it does.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

I was inferring that Mieville is indirectly accusing readers of "complicity" with the values enshrined in the text as he perceives them; I don't think this is an illogical inference; when one reads a book, and regards it favourably, one does, to some extent, comply with its worldview. This is not to say one may disagree with it in certain respects, but taken wholistically one finds no trouble in it to the extent that one is driven to be heavily critical of it. Mieville makes certain assertions about the values of the text; assertions that I do not agree with. Nonetheless, in Mieville's view, I must in some sense be morally complicit, because I do not criticise the values that he says are there.

But tumhalad, I think you're the one making the equation between reading and wrongdoing here. Or at least you're making a lot of assumptions. Just being highly critical of a book's values does not, to my mind, automatically imply that you're accusing its readers of committing an ethical violation.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

But tumhalad, I think you're the one making the equation between reading and wrongdoing here. Or at least you're making a lot of assumptions. Just being highly critical of a book's values does not, to my mind, automatically imply that you're accusing its readers of committing an ethical violation.

ok, i think ive explained myself enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Nerwen]

See, this is getting complicated. There's what writers say, and there's what readers think they said, and there's what readers think they should have said, and there's what readers think other readers think, or should think, about what writers say, or should have said– quite a head-ache recipe.

Originally Posted by tumhalad

But from Mieville's point of view we are complicit in an immoral way. The act of reading a book with questionable morals is thus an act of political immorality.

Again, how much of this is Miéville now, and how much are you reading into it, based (perhaps) on your own thoughts on the ethics of reading, or something?

EDIT:X'd.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

See, this is getting complicated. There's what writers say, and there's what readers think they said, and there's what readers think they should have said, and there's what readers think other readers think, or should think, about what writers say, or should have said– quite a head-ache recipe.


Again, how much of this is Miéville now, and how much are you reading into it, based (perhaps) on your own thoughts on the ethics of reading, or something?

EDIT:X'd.

This is not all based on my own thoughts on the "ethics of reading", and I'm not even sure where you came up with that. Let me set this out:

1. Mieville makes claims about the values inherent in the text
2. Mieville claims these values are retrograde, reactive and backward looking
It follows, therefore, that if a reader engages with the text without criticising the values Mieville says are there, then the reader is morally complicit with them, in Mieville's eyes. This does not mean we are necessarily conciously complicit; indeed that is the point. That we do not recognise these backward values and seek to deconstruct them is evidence of our complicity; we are ideologically blinded.

I don't actually agree with this version of reader response theory; but I deduce Mieville would, considering the thoughts he expressed in the quote I provided above.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

1. Mieville makes claims about the values inherent in the text
2. Mieville claims these values are retrograde, reactive and backward looking
It follows, therefore, that if a reader engages with the text without criticising the values Mieville says are there, then the reader is morally complicit with them, in Mieville's eyes. This does not mean we are necessarily conciously complicit; indeed that is the point. That we do not recognise these backward values and seek to deconstruct them is evidence of our complicity; we are ideologically blinded.

I don't actually agree with this version of reader response theory; but I deduce Mieville would, considering the thoughts he expressed in the quote I provided above.

I don't say he wouldn't, but I also don't say it follows. If I say, "such-and-such a novel has a backward political and social outlook", I'm not trying to imply that anyone who reads it for enjoyment, without critiquing its politics, is doing something wrong. Furthermore, I also wouldn't think for a moment that someone who outright agreed with the author's politics was doing something morally wrong, just that such a person, like the author, was misguided. (The exception would be if those politics were of a very extreme nature, and supported actions that I do consider immoral, like killing everyone who disagrees with you or something.)

So, maybe Miéville does, or did, think that way, but you haven't shown it; you're the one who brought morality into the equation.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I don't say he wouldn't, but I also don't say it follows. If I say, "such-and-such a novel has a backward political and social outlook", I'm not trying to imply that anyone who reads it for enjoyment, without critiquing its politics, is doing something wrong. Furthermore, I also wouldn't think for a moment that someone who outright agreed with the author's politics was doing something morally wrong, just that such a person, like the author, was misguided. (The exception would be if those politics were of a very extreme nature, and supported actions that I do consider immoral, like killing everyone who disagrees with you or something.)

So, maybe Miéville does, or did, think that way, but you haven't shown it; you're the one who brought morality into the equation.

Once again, let's agree to disagree. I don't think this point is all that important in the scheme of things...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Once again, let's agree to disagree. I don't think this point is all that important in the scheme of things...

Fair enough; it's getting somewhat OT, I guess.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

This is not all based on my own thoughts on the "ethics of reading", and I'm not even sure where you came up with that. Let me set this out:

1. Mieville makes claims about the values inherent in the text
2. Mieville claims these values are retrograde, reactive and backward looking
It follows, therefore, that if a reader engages with the text without criticising the values Mieville says are there, then the reader is morally complicit with them, in Mieville's eyes. This does not mean we are necessarily conciously complicit; indeed that is the point. That we do not recognise these backward values and seek to deconstruct them is evidence of our complicity; we are ideologically blinded.

Miéville makes faulty assumptions based on the self-imposed limits of his intellect. Just because someone makes specious pronouncements about a book neither implies moral complicity on the reader's part, nor that Tolkien even wrote in the manner Miéville or Moorcock claim. Let's look at what was said by Miéville (and by inference, Moorcock):

Michael Moorcock has written brilliantly on this in his book Wizardry and Wild Romance (1987):

The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire [where the protagonist 'hobbits' live], are 'safe' but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are 'dangerous'... Lord of the Rings is a pernicious confirmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class... If the Shire is a suburban garden, Sauron [the 'evil' dark lord] and his henchmen are that old bourgeois bugaboo, the mob--mindless football supporters throwing their beer bottles over the fence--the worst aspect of modern urban society represented as the whole by the a fearful, backward-yearning class.

That Miéville considers Moorcock's venomous and unfounded mud-slinging "brilliant" indicates an undue level of bias, magnifying and distorting a single aspect of the book with tendentious partisanship. Should I say that Moorcock is a sexually deviant lecher who advocates genocide based on the subjects of some his books? No, that would be absurd, wouldn't it? But using phrases like "pernicious confirmation of the values of a morally bankrupt middle class" or "mindless football supporters throwing their beer bottles over the fence" is shocking in the unscholarly nature of the broadside. That one should consider the other brilliant for such a juvenile attack confirms my low opinion of both.

Then we have davem's timely quote of Miéville in an utterly different and confounding context:

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.

As I stated previously, Miéville is a hypocrite of the first order and deserves censure and condescension. I have nothing further to add to this conversation.

[CSteefel]

I can certainly buy into the idea that overall Tolkien is conservative, rural to some extent, and even anti-modernist, but how does this have anything to do with "bourgeois values" one way or the other??

[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.