Dimwhit said:
But I find China Mieville's statement that fantasy and science fiction are fundamentally different genres interesting, because I think it's just the opposite. It would be very hard to completely separate the two without re-defining movies like Star Wars.
Of course he agrees with you which is why he says that that saying that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are fundamentally different is untrue.
Tratyn Runewind said:
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.
Ouch. Of course I think it was one of the few things I've had recomended on this board that actually lived up to and surpassed expectations, but different strokes and all that.
Even a cursory reading will show that Tolkien's villains were much bigger fans of "hierarchical status-quos" than his heroes.
That of course doesn't stop there being 'benign' heirarchies among the fellowship, and the 'goodies'.
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.
Except that the main heirachical status quo is the relationship between man and servant, or in this case hobbit and servant, shown by Sam and Frodo. To argue that the Shire had no heirarchies demonstrates a somewhat cursory reading in and of itself. Interesting point about Gondor, but with the wizards (which I've slipped for space) I think that there are heirarchies that aren't based on domination, but that can still be seen as bad if you are uncomfortable with heriarchy. To discuss this further gets dangerously close to discussing politics, but it's hard not to do that when discussing the ideas of someone like Meiville whose work is so politically informed. In fact, your point about radicalism for its own sake further down pretty much demonstrates what I'm talking about here. To discuss that further means discussing politics, and I'm a big believer in a politics free ENWorld.
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).
On this, I think we might have to agree to disagree. Again, hard moral choices are amde in LotR, but that doesn't in and of itself disallow the possibility that Tolkien demonstrates a liking for heirarchies.
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.
The other side of this coin is that Tolkein, who was involved in WW2, was to personally involved to have had any real emotional distance form it and therefore lacks the ability to make any kind of rational comment on it, unlike Meilville, who in case it matters, is as highly educated as Tolkein was. One comment about 'War beign heck' is not the same as not glorifying war.
'trendy poseur' isn't a particulalry helpful line for anything expect exposing your bias. It doesn't really mean anything as a term of analysis. That goes for the epithets used in the last paragraph too.
Joshua Dyal said:
I do like where he's going though -- I think gritty, urban fantasy is tons of fun, and I'd like to see more of it.
Unlike him, however, I don't particularly need to be challenged by books I read, I need to be entertained. It's less likely I'll be entertained by cliched and thoughtless books, but that doesn't mean that traditional epic fantasy can't entertain me from time to time. Popular fiction doesn't have to be a high-brow artform, and to try to demand that it must be seems a bit pretentious, to say the least.
But the idea of a Next Wave of fantasy, bypassing Tolkien and building instead off of "weird tales" -- I'm certainly interested in such a movement. As long as it is parallel rather than replacing Tolkien-esque fantasy.
This is more or less how I feel too. I like Tolkein, I like Meilville and I think there's a place for all of it in this world. I can see critiques of both being easy to make. I guess the difference between me and Joshua on this is that I do like to challenged by my reading. Not all the time, but I almost always enjoy something that challenges me on some level mor ethan something that doesn't.
