China Mieville on Tolkien and Epic/High Fantasy
- Thread starter Cthulhu's Librarian
- Start date
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
* Wonders if he's on someone's ignore list *
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I only somewhat agree with you, barsoomcore, on your overall position, inasmuch as I understand it; I think that the line between biography and litcrit is a little fuzzier than you're making it out to be. A book is as much a part of the author's life as the author's life is part of the book, and understanding either the life or the book requires interpretation. While it's possible to look at a book without looking at the rest of the author's life, you'll inevitably get a poorer understanding of the book by doing so. And while it's possible to look at the rest of an author's life without reading her books, again, you'll get a poorer understanding by doing so.barsoomcore said:
Sometimes, that poorer understanding is perfectly acceptable. But that doesn't mean you can sever the one from the other: the author's book, the author's statement about the book, and the author's other acts in her life are all related. It's terribly pomo to deny that
. Certainly the position you're taking is one developed in the twentieth century and far from a universal position amongst litcrit folks.That said, I do agree with you that the author's stated intentions are only part of a full analysis of a book and its context. An author can create a work that contains themes he's unaware of, can be built on assumptions he didn't realize he was making, can end up being read completely differently from how he intended it to be read. And that's neither correct nor incorrect; it is, as you suggest, one of a set of interpretations.
Mieville, I agree, was probably operating from that standpoint. He's a pomo kid himself, and he's probably more interested in the underlying assumptions of Tolkien's world than in Tolkien's letters. His comments should be evaluated in that light: rather than looking at the less-interesting question of how Tolkien felt about war, why not look at how war comes across in the books? Look at how class comes across? And so forth.
Daniel
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Not really trying to sever stuff from each other. I've been responding to the notion that Tolkien's statements on intention offer a reasonable refutation of interpretations of his work.
Which is more than enough Latinized verbs for any sentence, even one from such a pomo poser as myself.
But yeah, of course they're all related. Like I say, biographical info can help us create interpretations. It's often a rich source of interesting and well-supported interpretations.
It's also often a source of vapid and poorly-supported interpretations, which is why we always come back to the text as our only real authority on itself.
Of course in our thinking we're always looping around, dipping into biographical info, reading the text carefully, talking with other people, arguing semi-coherently about things we only vaguely understand (who, me?) and hopefully, managing to keep things clear enough in our head that we can come to some sort of conclusion.
Now we all got a little confused as to what we were actually doing -- some of us were trying to defend Tolkien himself from what we saw as statements about HIM, and others of us (me, anyway) were trying to define, as it were, rules of engagement for discussing statements about HIS WORK.
Are we all friends now?
Which is more than enough Latinized verbs for any sentence, even one from such a pomo poser as myself.
But yeah, of course they're all related. Like I say, biographical info can help us create interpretations. It's often a rich source of interesting and well-supported interpretations.
It's also often a source of vapid and poorly-supported interpretations, which is why we always come back to the text as our only real authority on itself.
Of course in our thinking we're always looping around, dipping into biographical info, reading the text carefully, talking with other people, arguing semi-coherently about things we only vaguely understand (who, me?) and hopefully, managing to keep things clear enough in our head that we can come to some sort of conclusion.
Now we all got a little confused as to what we were actually doing -- some of us were trying to defend Tolkien himself from what we saw as statements about HIM, and others of us (me, anyway) were trying to define, as it were, rules of engagement for discussing statements about HIS WORK.
Are we all friends now?
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
I think we probably agree with each other, barsoomcore, and are just using different words to ephasize different parts of the same point. And natch we're friends 
; even if we bitterly disagreed on the point, as long as we do so respectfully there's no reason to get upset over it.
(And I had a pretty thoroughly pomo education myself; given my own leanings, I don't use the term as an insult, any more than I use "geek" as an insult)
Daniel
; even if we bitterly disagreed on the point, as long as we do so respectfully there's no reason to get upset over it.(And I had a pretty thoroughly pomo education myself; given my own leanings, I don't use the term as an insult, any more than I use "geek" as an insult)
Daniel
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
I was deeply traumatized by Jacques Derrida in fourth year. I don't think I'll ever really forgive the French for him. 
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
darn double post.
I'll just mention that if by "post-modern" we can include Steven Brust's notion of the "Pre-Joycean Fellowship" (which is about the idea that Real Literature and Popular Literature used to be the same thing, until Joyce started writing books you had to be trained how to read, so why don't we start writing books that entertain and can be read by anybody but are still real literary works that deserve to be treated seriously?), then it's a badge I'll happily bear.
And I guess if I were REALLY po-mo I'd just define "po-mo" to mean whatever I wanted it to mean.
I'll just mention that if by "post-modern" we can include Steven Brust's notion of the "Pre-Joycean Fellowship" (which is about the idea that Real Literature and Popular Literature used to be the same thing, until Joyce started writing books you had to be trained how to read, so why don't we start writing books that entertain and can be read by anybody but are still real literary works that deserve to be treated seriously?), then it's a badge I'll happily bear.
And I guess if I were REALLY po-mo I'd just define "po-mo" to mean whatever I wanted it to mean.
Last edited:
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Oh, Derrida's insane, no doubt about it. I'd never stoop so low as to call you a poststructuralist, or worse yet, a deconstructionist. Just pomo.
Daniel
Daniel
Last edited:
barsoomcore
Unattainable Ideal
Excellent. Then all is forgiven.
Except for the French. I'm still mad at them.
Except for the French. I'm still mad at them.
Desdichado
Hero
Ahh, 'core. Aren't we all.barsoomcore said:
