China Mieville on Tolkien and Epic/High Fantasy

[Desdichado]

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.

Just to make sure I'm stateing myself clearly: I like to be challenged too. But I don't have to be. I do, however, have to be entertained. I'm quite often entertained by challenging books. Maybe that's the reason I read a lot of very dry non-fiction for entertainment.

 

[Olive]

Maybe that's the reason I read a lot of very dry non-fiction for entertainment.

My thesis has put an end to that.

 

[CCamfield]

I feel compelled to point out that Tolkien fought in World War 1, not 2. I believe the dead marshes (I can't remember their name) were supposed to be reminiscent of the No-Man's Land between the trenches...

 

[Pants]

And IMO he wrote stories to tell a tale, which almost always has deeper meaning. All good stories have a message, imo.

He wrote it to tell a story. Tolkien hated allegory in any form and activally tried NOT to put it into his stories. Thus any message or deeper meaning is in there not of his accord.

 

[Dragonblade]

China being an out and out socialist doesn't surprise me. His ignorance of the mythic tradition built upon by Tolkien and subsequent leftist rant against Tolkien are amusing.

 

[Desdichado]

He wrote it to tell a story. Tolkien hated allegory in any form and activally tried NOT to put it into his stories. Thus any message or deeper meaning is in there not of his accord.

There's a difference between allegory and having a message or deeper meaning on broad levels. I think the latter is definately true of Tolkien, although the former is not. In fact, he even once wrote a quick synopsis of how the story would have differed (very dramatically) if it had been an allegory for WW2 as many supposed.

 

[Mark]

In fact, he even once wrote a quick synopsis of how the story would have differed (very dramatically) if it had been an allegory for WW2 as many supposed.

Is that available somewhere in print? Online, perhaps? If so, can you dig up a link?

 

[Olive]

China being an out and out socialist doesn't surprise me. His ignorance of the mythic tradition built upon by Tolkien and subsequent leftist rant against Tolkien are amusing.

It doesn't surprise me either, but I have no idea why you assume that he's ignorant of the mythic tradition that tolkein builds upon. I think you missed the point about what Meiville was saying. I'm aware of the tradition, and largely agree with what he says about Tolkein.

As for the allegory, I don't thin it matters. Regardeless, I agree with Fast Learner, and more preciesly with Joshua - Tolkein is talking abotu issues, but that doesn't mean he was trying to cemment on WW2.

 

[Celtavian]

re

This doesn't explain how your opinion that it's the best fantasy ever written means a whole lot. You still haven't read much of anything else.

It's literature, it's not some technical process that can be measured scientifically. I like it better than anything else I have read as in it satisfies all my fantasy needs.

I'm reading G.R.R. Martin right now, and I find Game of Thrones quite entertaining. I still like Tolkien better.

I think you have a very narrow view of his works. He absolutely expressed all kinds of opinions about what's good, what's evil, the duty of the average person, the sad loss of the upper class, and all kinds of things about morality and class.

No, I don't he did. Any inferences to class were in the background of his story, and were not intended to be analyzed. If he wrote another story, he might not even include similar characters. That is what I am getting at.

Writer's want to give a pseudo-realistic, as well as fantastic feel, to their world. Tolkien knew class systems existed, so he incorporated them into Middle Earth as a convention others could understand, not to make a statement of their rightness or wrongness.

For someone like yourself or China to attempt to deride his work based on the idea that he incorporated elements that are viewed as negative by modern day morality for a mythic story is being overly critical for no good reason.

And IMO he wrote stories to tell a tale, which almost always has deeper meaning. All good stories have a message, imo.

Not always. Tolkien had a hard life. Escapism was very important to him. I think tale-telling was a way for Tolkien to escape the mundane real world and go someplace more to his liking.

I'm sure he held strong opinions on what was right and wrong and how society should be run, but I don't think he was attempting to send a message. If there is any message, it is inferred by readers. The readers often interpret his work in different ways because all interpretations are subjective.

That's cool, and a perfectly fine way to enjoy stories. That doesn't mean there's not a ton of meaning behind them that you happen to be ignoring or not noticing.

In the case of Tolkien, I don't think he intended for their to be a meaning. He was creating a world and telling you about through the lives of a certain group of characters. That is why I don't look for it.

Now if we were talking about Mark Twain or Ursula LeGuin, I might be inclined to believe that there is a deeper meaning. I don't think all authors try to include deeper meanings, some just want to tell an enjoyable tale. Take what meaning you want from it, but don't proscribe your view to the author. That is rude.

 

[Celtavian]

re

Olive,

There is really nothing more to discuss. I believe Tolkien told a tale because he liked to tell tales. Either you like his story or you don't.

I don't agree with China's assessment because he is commenting on a fantasy story. It's like me going to grocery store and criticizing someone for choosing apples over oranges.

"Oh, you chose to have a class system with a ruling family instead of doing away with class? And the main nine characters are male? You wrote about war being honorable and glorious? How gauche."

Tolkien based alot of his world on Norse Myth. He is faithful to the material while adding more than a touch of originality. This debate is pointless and Tolkien's work is criticized because it is the most popular. If his work had done nothing and fallen into obscurity, then I guess pseudo-intellectuals like China wouldn't have anything to rail against.

About the only thing I agree with is that too many folks try to copy Tolkien unsuccessfully and Tolkien's work is so prolific it has become a fantasy standard affecting how publisher's and the sci fi/fantasy community might perceive a work.

It shouldn't be such an issue in the modern day because authors have been combining elements of fantasy and science fiction for quite some time.

I still don't understand China's complaint or point. "Fantasy radicalism"? What is he talking about?