China Mieville on Tolkien and Epic/High Fantasy

[LightPhoenix]

I haven't read the entire article, but I do agree with the first statement quoted. That is to say, Sci-Fi and "Fantasy" are, IMO, the same genre looked at two different ways. Hell, I'd be so bold to say that would include stuff like Horror and Romance too - I mean, they're all fantasies (lowercase) in that they're not real.

Sci-Fi and Fantasy stand out in the level of detachment from the modern world however, and in this sense they are fundamentally the same. They both tell stories in worlds that are substantially different than the one we live in. One prefers to focus on technology, the other on mysticism, but that's just setting, they're both highly fantastical.

There's also a prevailing attitude that Fantasy is crap, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's true. That's a cultural thing, and thankfully that trend seems to be on the decline. However, there are still many people who will dismiss Fantasy out of hand, without considering it's the same as everything else - predominantly crap, but some of it is good.

I would like to take a stand on some points made, using Wombat's post as a springboard. Mainly, that there are types of stories, traits that they have. These types and traits are independant of genre however. Any genre can be idea-driven or character-driven, poorly innovative or highly innovative, or any other trait you can choose to attribute to a story. Furthermore, these are solely dependant on the author - it's an author that's poorly innovative, or character-driven, not a genre.

Someone mentioned that the internet has raised the ratio between good and bad works. I also disagree with that. It's an illusion, simply because you don't need a publisher on the internet. Anyone can post anything they want. And if you can't get a publisher, you might as well post it on the internet. I believe the ratio going through the publishers is probably about the same. Possibly it's increased the ratio solely because the internet allows for small publishing companies to advertise, but I don't think that has as big an effect as it may seem.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I don't read enough fantasy fiction to comment on China's musings. I do know that the only fantasy fiction I reread is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Best fantasy books ever written in my opinion.

The "pros" will say time and time again that to write, you must also extensively read. With this I agree. However I would stipulate that reading other fiction should not be the main focus, but rather the reading of autobiographies, biographies, history, medicine, psychology, sociology, and other works of intended non-fiction. I think this error accounts in a large part for the rehashing of which you post.

I do not say that if one wishes to be a writer of quality fiction one should isolate themself from other works of fiction, but I do suggest better writers find their stimulus, if not also their style, from other quarters.

Author's should only read fiction to keep up with what's already been done or to keep motivated. An author needs to know if he is copying someone else, and perusing a few chapters or reading the back of a fantasy novel should give you a good idea of its content. Authors always need reminding of why they are pursuing a career in speculative fiction, and reading from a fantasy book that inspires or moves you is a great way to keep the dream alive.

Reading other sources such as those mentioned is a much better way to build the breadth of knowledge necessary to create quality content. I generally seek out academic sources when I am writing a fantasy story.

 

[Olive]

I don't read enough fantasy fiction to comment on China's musings. I do know that the only fantasy fiction I reread is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Best fantasy books ever written in my opinion.

Sure, I love it too, but it's hard to disagree with this statement:

And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity.

Isn't it?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I don't read enough fantasy fiction to comment on China's musings. I do know that the only fantasy fiction I reread is Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Best fantasy books ever written in my opinion.

How do you know that if you haven't read that much fantasy?

Anyhoo, it's through the works of one author that I realized
that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are pretty much the same thing, just
with very minimal differences. Terry Pratchett. His work, despite
being fantasy, often explores more scifi-ish themes and each
story is structured around a 'what if' concept. What if you took
technology X and put in a fairy tale or what if this and what if
that. Concept writing that puts Asimov to shame IMO.

 

[shilsen]

Anyhoo, it's through the works of one author that I realized that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are pretty much the same thing, just with very minimal differences. Terry Pratchett. His work, despite being fantasy, often explores more scifi-ish themes and each story is structured around a 'what if' concept. What if you took technology X and put in a fairy tale or what if this and what if that. Concept writing that puts Asimov to shame IMO.

I've always enjoyed Asimov, but I agree totally with the last statement. Pratchett rocketh greatly!

A big difference I find between many fantasy and sci-fi authors (and which I think tends to cause problems in genre classification - which is a debatable endeavour anyway) is the degree to which the chosen sci-fi or fantasy background informs the work. It's hard to imagine Tolkien being able to write the same kind of thing in a non-fantasy setting. Pratchett, of the other hand, is writing satire and humorous fiction more than fantasy (even though he's created a very memorable fantasy setting) and could very likely do the same thing effectively in a non-fantasy setting. I would put Asimov closer to Pratchett in this regard, while Arthur C. Clarke, for example, would lean a little towards Tolkien.

That'll be $0.02, please.

 

[Tratyn Runewind]

Hello,

Posted by Olive:
Isn't it?

No. But it's about what I'd expect from the author of the vastly overhyped Perdido Street Station, which reads like a so-so William Gibson pastiche written after a two-week LSD and Final Fantasy bender.

Even a cursory reading will show that Tolkien's villains were much bigger fans of "hierarchical status-quos" than his heroes.

but we must have power, power to order all things as we will, for that good which only the Wise can see.

and

the high and ultimate purpose: Knowledge, Rule, Order, all things that we have so far striven in vain to accomplish, hindered rather than helped by our weak or idle friends.

are spoken by Saruman in his corruption. Compare this to the original mission of the Wizards, who in opposing Sauron

were forbidden to match his power with power, or to seek to dominate elves or men by force or fear.

The people of Gondor, who were the closest among Tolkien's heroic nations to having a "hierarchical status-quo", were explicitly in decline. The Shire has no real hierarchy until Saruman (through Lotho) intervenes, setting up "Gatherers" and "Sharers" and multiplying the Shirrifs, which sends the Shire into a disgruntled decline.

The comment about absolute morality blurring complexities is telling, too. It is the other way around - complexities are created to blur absolute morality, usually to the advantage of the ones doing the blurring, who would typically be judged harshly by such morality if their attempts at sophistry fail. Even so, hard moral choices are made in Tolkien's work, most notably by Faramir (who, if he were so fond of "hierarchical status-quos", would have had Frodo and Sam shot down on sight without a second thought).

As to "glorying in war", you get a glimpse into Tolkien's ideas on the subject with Bilbo's thoughts before he gets clocked by a rock towards the end of The Hobbit, and in some of Aragorn's discussion with Eowyn. In any case, I'd consider Tolkien, who saw service in one of the more brutal wars of a brutal century, better qualified to comment on the subject than a trendy poseur like Mieville.

With all that said, I will note that Mieville is right that there is a segment of SF fandom that thinks disparagingly of fantasy. I just think that even to bother addressing the concerns of this crowd is all but pointless, since, from what I have seen, they're almost uniformly horrible people, well worthy of adjectives that would not meet with the approval of various moderators' grandmothers. Mieville obviously has some sympathy for them and some concern for their opinions, though - not surprising in one so pathetically captivated by "radicalism", apparently for its own sake. And this concern has apparently led to the little article linked to in the first post of this thread.

 

[Desdichado]

To follow up on Tratyn Runewind's post, consider Gollum for just a brief moment, and then come back and tell me again how morality is absolute in Tolkien's work? I've rarely seen so compelling a villain, primarily because you never really know for sure if he truly is a villain to be hated and feared or a victim to be pitied and helped.

 

[Henry]

The "pros" will say time and time again that to write, you must also extensively read. With this I agree. However I would stipulate that reading other fiction should not be the main focus, but rather the reading of autobiographies, biographies, history, medicine, psychology, sociology, and other works of intended non-fiction.

Very true - this point is the same for the "training" in being a good Dungeon Master, too, in my opinion. I would love to find this again, but I once had a link to a person's advice on how to improve your DM'ing. His advice was basically get as much physical and intellectual non-DM'ing experience as possible. (e.g. some of his advice ran along things like participate in nature hikes, ride a horse, read up on medicine both conventional and holistic, etc.) The more well-read and experienced you are, the more you can draw on that experience to craft a more entertaining tale.

People say, "Write what you know"; the phrase should actually be closer to, "You do write what you know."

 

[The Fool]

bleh...

Apart from Star Wars, all SF ive seen to me is worse than crap...They call what i read Fantasy, but from what ive seen of SF its more make believe and Fantastical than anything im into...

Oh, and like someone mentioned, SW isnt really Sci Fi...


The Fool

 

[Dimwhit]

I wanted to mention the Fantasy Is Crap part of this, when compared to Sci-Fi. I think if we look back 40-50 years or more, Sci-Fi was also crap. Now it is much better. Most likely because the reality in the majority of modern Sci-Fi is much closer to our present reality than Fantasy, and thus easier to create and relate to. Society in general is much better able to relate to lasers and spaceships than the magic of Fantasy because we can see the possibilities of the former. Especially after the last 20-30 years.

But I suppose I disagree with the notion that Fantasy is crap. I think much of it is, but only the unimaginitive pieces. There is plenty out there that is much more thought-provoking and profound than...well, most of current pop culture. I'm not sure today that we can claim any type of genre sucks when we look at the current state of entertainment.