China Mieville on Tolkien and Epic/High Fantasy

[barsoomcore]

What was Powers' very first novel -- I don't think it was The Anubis Gates, though I did read that and thought it was great. But I seem to remember one before that that was absolutely awesome.

For some reason, though, Powers has never snagged me as a devoted reader. I don't think I respond to his style well enough -- he just doesn't hook me in with enough force. Dunno.

But the books of his I've read have been great.

 

[Salthanas]

First off, I am unconcerned with understanding the author's perspective. If you wish to formulate theories as to what the author is trying to say in a book, then indeed investigating biographical material (such as, for example, the author's stated intentions in writing the book) is important.

But I'm not talking about figuring out what the author meant. I'm talking about investigating what the book says -- which may or may not have anything to do with the author's intentions.
You are missing the actual state of affairs. The question is not the manner in which interpretation is undertaken. That is immaterial. The real question is: "How do we assess different interpretations of a work?"

I refer you to my post on basic critical analysis -- we determine how well-supported the interpretation is by the text, and we decide how interesting the interpretation itself is. Some interpretations ARE better than others, but NOT because they more nearly match the author's intent. They are better either because they are better supported by the text, or they are more interesting, or both.

Interpretations are not "correct" or "wrong". They are more or less powerful, interesting, useful, insightful, whatever. But the notions of "correct" or "wrong", like the notion of "meaning" that I railed against previously (and still do, in my heart of hearts) suggest a non-productive way of thinking about interpretation.

And of course if he were to say the book is ABOUT Melville, then he is making a biographical statement about Tolkien's intent in writing the book, a statement that any listener would at least require some substantial evidence to before taking seriously.

But perhaps he instead says, "You know, when Tolkien talks about the Ring, he says a lot of things that sort of apply to the Wakkamakka back home. Maybe he's saying in the end you have destroy things like the Wakkamakka." There's no problem with that, surely? We wouldn't say he was WRONG, would we? We might be surprised that a work we think of expressing so clearly the sentiments of our times would have such broad applicability, but no doubt we would shrug and say to each other, "That Professor Tolkien sure speaks to a wide range of folks."

The reason we know, for example, that LotR is not an allegory on WWII is pretty simple -- it's awfully hard to make that notion work. Who's Hitler? Who's Churchill? Where's France? When's D-Day? In an allegory of WWII we could reasonably expect representations of these and a million other things. If we don't find representations of the key elements of WWII, then we will have a lot of trouble arguing that the text is a good allegory of WWII. That interpretation is not well-supported by the text.

Any statement about a work is going to be a biographical one using that logic. Any time you try to infer that an author is trying to say anything you have to consider it from that persepctive. The method your suggesting for analysis of literature seems to me to be rather circular. Your saying that any interpretation is valid, correct and that none are wrong. Well is'nt that what Tolkien essentially said at the start of the book. The meaning of it is left up to the reader. You've essentially just proved his point and argued that not only is it the case it has to be the case

 

[Pielorinho]

I thought I'd read everything by Powers, but I just learned that I haven't even come close. His earliest book that I've read is The Drawing of the Dark, a tale about Secret Mystical Beer that anticipates the Secret Mystical Wine of Earthquake Weather. His upcoming novel, The Running of the Bulls, about Secret Mystical Malt Liquor, will continue the theme.

Anubis Gates was pretty good, but had nowhere near as strong an effect on me as Last Call had. Maybe I should reread it to fully appreciate it.

Barsoomcore, if you've not read Last Call, give it a whirl -- it's pretty great. And I must say, you've got an awfully pomo approach to litcrit -- not that there's anything wrong with that.

Daniel

 

[Umbran]

You can say that messages can be delivered unintentionally but you also have to accept that messages can be totally misinterpreted.

Yes, it is possible to come up with interpretations that vary wildly from the author's stated intentions. It is also possible to come up with interpretations based upon faulty logic and thin evidence.

If an alien comes down from planet Melville and reads LoTR he might, based on Melvillian interpretations of literature come to the conclusion that Tolkiens work obviously was about the political situation back on planet Melville.

This would be a case of thin and faulty. Tolkien cannot be trying to speak directly about Melville if he never knew of the place's existance. Tolkien may, however, be speaking about political situations in general. Or he may say things that are analogous, and so may apply to the Melvillian situation. The Melvillians may find something in Tolkien that is relevant to them, even if Tolkien never heard of Melville.

There surely would have to be a reason for the author making his message vapid...

No, there need be no "reason it was made vapid". Perhaps the authr is simply a vapid person. In general, vapidity is the result of a lack of effort, rathe rthan the result of specific conscious plans to be so.

Piers Anthony's "Xanth" books are a good example. The first few aren't too bad. Better and deeper than many, especially if you consider them to be YA books. The later ones, however, are complete tripe. I don't at all think Mr. Anthony specifically said, "I will now set out to write something vapid". I think he simply stopped caring much about the content, and spewed out words to make a few bucks. Perhaps we can consider this a case of "unintentionally insertign meaning". If all Mr. Anthony cared about in writing them was the money, his own motives are rather vapid, and it shows in the books.

 

[Salthanas]

Yes, it is possible to come up with interpretations that vary wildly from the author's stated intentions. It is also possible to come up with interpretations based upon faulty logic and thin evidence.



This would be a case of thin and faulty. Tolkien cannot be trying to speak directly about Melville if he never knew of the place's existance. Tolkien may, however, be speaking about political situations in general. Or he may say things that are analogous, and so may apply to the Melvillian situation. The Melvillians may find something in Tolkien that is relevant to them, even if Tolkien never heard of Melville.



No, there need be no "reason it was made vapid". Perhaps the authr is simply a vapid person. In general, vapidity is the result of a lack of effort, rathe rthan the result of specific conscious plans to be so.

Piers Anthony's "Xanth" books are a good example. The first few aren't too bad. Better and deeper than many, especially if you consider them to be YA books. The later ones, however, are complete tripe. I don't at all think Mr. Anthony specifically said, "I will now set out to write something vapid". I think he simply stopped caring much about the content, and spewed out words to make a few bucks. Perhaps we can consider this a case of "unintentionally insertign meaning". If all Mr. Anthony cared about in writing them was the money, his own motives are rather vapid, and it shows in the books.

A book thats vapid will still be about "something". There has to be an underlying cause that makes the author write in a particular way surely. Even saying that the author is not really saying much is still saying something

 

[barsoomcore]

Any statement about a work is going to be a biographical one using that logic. Any time you try to infer that an author is trying to say anything you have to consider it from that persepctive.

You're going to have to be more specific here. Which bit of logic are you referring to? Because it seems to me that the primary logic in my post (how one differentiates between interpretations) is expressly directed towards excluding biographical information from the decision-making process. If you couldn't follow my logic let me know where I lost you.

Are you referring to my statement "if he were to say the book is ABOUT Melville, then he is making a biographical statement about Tolkien's intent in writing the book"? If so, then I apologize for not making clear that I believe it is possible to talk about what a book says without making a statement of any kind about what the author may or may not have tried to say. So it is possible to make statements about a book that are not biographical statements about the writer.

A statement of the type "This book is ABOUT such and such," is implying that the book has been intended to illustrate such and such, which is a biographical statement. I'll happily admit that it's possible to use such words and not mean to imply anything biographical.

The method your suggesting for analysis of literature seems to me to be rather circular. Your saying that any interpretation is valid, correct and that none are wrong.

I can only refer you to the post you just quoted, particularly the bit where I said, "Some interpretations ARE better than others, but NOT because they more nearly match the author's intent. They are better either because they are better supported by the text, or they are more interesting, or both."

If that doesn't refute your notion that I'm saying all interpretations are equal, I don't really know what else I can do.

But for the sake of completeness (I know there's an unturned stone in here somewhere), I will say that I believe the notion that interpretations are either valid or invalid, correct or wrong is a bad way to proceed. Some interpretations are BETTER than others. They are not all equal. But that doesn't mean some are right and others are wrong. Some may be so much better than others that we accept them unquestioningly. Some may be so poorly supported, so uninteresting, that we reject them out of hand. If you want to call the former "right" and the latter "wrong", I won't stop you. But if you only consider interpretations that fall into one of those two categories, you're missing out on all the fun.

Well is'nt that what Tolkien essentially said at the start of the book. The meaning of it is left up to the reader. You've essentially just proved his point and argued that not only is it the case it has to be the case.

Now I'm confused. Are you on the side that thinks meaning is dependent on authorial intent or are you on the side that thinks the reader is free to come up with any meaning they like, regardless of what the author may have intended? Because this statement seems like a complete reversal of everything else you've said.

However, if you think I have proved that meaning is up to the reader, then I'll take my bow. Thank you. With the caveat that you may be free to come up with any interpretation you like, but that doesn't mean any interpretation you come up with will be as good as any other.

*bows*

*then notes Pielorhino calling him post-modern*

I'm a structuralist, darnit! Lump me in with a bunch of French intellectual posers, will you?

One of my favourite books on "pomo" thinking is Against Deconstructionism, by John Ellis. Hope that helps elucidate my position.

 

[barsoomcore]

In general, vapidity is the result of a lack of effort, rathe rthan the result of specific conscious plans to be so.

Hey, I've tried very hard to be vapid. Not sure I was conscious most of the time...

 

[Salthanas]

You're going to have to be more specific here. Which bit of logic are you referring to? Because it seems to me that the primary logic in my post (how one differentiates between interpretations) is expressly directed towards excluding biographical information from the decision-making process. If you couldn't follow my logic let me know where I lost you.

Are you referring to my statement "if he were to say the book is ABOUT Melville, then he is making a biographical statement about Tolkien's intent in writing the book"? If so, then I apologize for not making clear that I believe it is possible to talk about what a book says without making a statement of any kind about what the author may or may not have tried to say. So it is possible to make statements about a book that are not biographical statements about the writer.

A statement of the type "This book is ABOUT such and such," is implying that the book has been intended to illustrate such and such, which is a biographical statement. I'll happily admit that it's possible to use such words and not mean to imply anything biographical.

I can only refer you to the post you just quoted, particularly the bit where I said, "Some interpretations ARE better than others, but NOT because they more nearly match the author's intent. They are better either because they are better supported by the text, or they are more interesting, or both."

If that doesn't refute your notion that I'm saying all interpretations are equal, I don't really know what else I can do.

But for the sake of completeness (I know there's an unturned stone in here somewhere), I will say that I believe the notion that interpretations are either valid or invalid, correct or wrong is a bad way to proceed. Some interpretations are BETTER than others. They are not all equal. But that doesn't mean some are right and others are wrong. Some may be so much better than others that we accept them unquestioningly. Some may be so poorly supported, so uninteresting, that we reject them out of hand. If you want to call the former "right" and the latter "wrong", I won't stop you. But if you only consider interpretations that fall into one of those two categories, you're missing out on all the fun.

Now I'm confused. Are you on the side that thinks meaning is dependent on authorial intent or are you on the side that thinks the reader is free to come up with any meaning they like, regardless of what the author may have intended? Because this statement seems like a complete reversal of everything else you've said.

However, if you think I have proved that meaning is up to the reader, then I'll take my bow. Thank you. With the caveat that you may be free to come up with any interpretation you like, but that doesn't mean any interpretation you come up with will be as good as any other.

*bows*

*then notes Pielorhino calling him post-modern*

I'm a structuralist, darnit! Lump me in with a bunch of French intellectual posers, will you?

One of my favourite books on "pomo" thinking is Against Deconstructionism, by John Ellis. Hope that helps elucidate my position.

Any time you attempt to mention the authors intent or try to guess at his purpose you invariably have to link that back to his perspective. If I write a book and then people say this reminds me of the situation in xxx thats fine, thats them treating the book in an applicable manner. However trying to say that a book is sending a particular message is entirely different. A message invariable has to have some relevance to the authors situation, it suggests that you can understand what he was trying to do. Whilst you can try and infer this from the text alone and in some cases that might be all you need the idea that this will be the case all the time simply seems to me a rather primative way of trying to understand literature particually when the author is making a conscious attempt not to actually make the book have a singular message. Unless your saying that Tolkien willfully lied on this point I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

With regards to your point about some interpretation being better you have to consider primariliy what actually makes an interpretation better. Ultimately the interpretation has to have a consitency with the work itself. Why is one interpretation better than another? They have to be supported by evidence. The problem is that your method of simply using the text can always be circumvented if the author wants that to be the case. If I deliberately use elements which are tangential to the central thrust of a book and people draw all sorts of conclusions from them does that mean that I deliberately set out to make those conclusions possible or is it the case that someone has drawn inferences which simply were not there to begin with and then attributed them to the book as a whole. However if someone then reads that I've said actually those elements were purely arribtary don't they then have a greater understanding of the text as a whole and can argue from a point of greater strength. In fact can't they then quite catagorically say that yes those elements have an applicability but in essence they have no inner message.

With regards to the last point confusion is inevitable In fact its what makes LoTR quite pardoxical. Tolkiens definative beliefs about language essentially say that the meaning is what you make it, hence his statement about allegory and applicability, the domination of the author and his intent against the freedom of the reader. The difference is that the authors tryanny of purpose is to give the reader as much freedom as possible which is totally paradoxical, he is in fact trying to be as tryannical as possible in allowing you as much freedom as possible. You've tactically agreed with his initial statement which was that the meaning of the book is purely to what the reader gives it. However this is also the same as saying that the book actually has no message as such and that even if it did the message would be totally irrelevant anyway.

 

[Umbran]

The problem is that your method of simply using the text can always be circumvented if the author wants that to be the case.

What you're suggesting is that an author would deliberately add in stuff to make it so that one could not tell what the author was trying to get at? Literary chaff? While this could be done, in theory, dang few authors are going to delibareatley confuse the issue.

"Bwhahaha! Those measly literary analysts! I'll show them! They'll never be able to figure out what this book is about. Never, I say! Bwahaaha!"

 

[Salthanas]

What you're suggesting is that an author would deliberately add in stuff to make it so that one could not tell what the author was trying to get at? Literary chaff? While this could be done, in theory, dang few authors are going to delibareatley confuse the issue.

"Bwhahaha! Those measly literary analysts! I'll show them! They'll never be able to figure out what this book is about. Never, I say! Bwahaaha!"

No it just means he can add in elements which have no specific inner message or which he has no strong opinions about.