China Mieville on Tolkien

Post by **Siberian** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:20 am

It sounds like someone who hasn't read LOTR in a while and just wants to be nasty

Post by **axordil** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:29 am

You know, I'm not sure apart from tone there's a contradiction in Mieville's comments now and then. Although one wonders if he reread LOTR for some reason and saw new things in it...

Post by **Siberian** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:31 am

Perhaps he's simply focusing on the good things (as he sees them) and not the bad ones this time around? Even Moorcock isn't always dismissive of Tolkien.

Post by **axordil** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:37 am

I will say this: there's little doubt in my mind that LOTR in particular sucked most of the oxygen out of the publishing room in terms of fantasy for a generation. If you wrote quasi-medieval epic fantasy, you were a LOTR knockoff--if you wrote anything else, you risked being ignored. Moorcock had more of a New Wave SF following in the early 60s in the UK when he shifted towards fantasy--if that hadn't been the case it might have been TWO generations lost, because he was about the only real alternative.

And if I had been writing in the field back then, I would have been resentful, you bet.

Post by **yovargas** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:45 am

It reads to me like "here's some great things Tolkien did, here's some awful things Tolkien did". Neither list seems unreasonable to me (though the latter comes off like just venting, unlike the thoughtful pro essay).

Sun Jul 05, 2009 4:52 am

Rateliff makes the point that Mieville might have been trying to get on the good side of Moorcock and that crowd. Moorcock was Tolkien's biggest critic of the previous generation. Now that Mieville is "established" he can be more charitable.

Post by **Anduril** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:07 pm

...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. "

Just what I'd expect Tolkien's critics to write; generalizing. Either you get him or don't.

Post by **Siberian** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:26 pm

I guess JRRT is too subtle for some so-called critics

Post by **axordil** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 4:28 pm

Well, it's a single sentence covering an author's output. Some generalizing is inevitable.

The question is whether or not a case can be made for each particular objection. And the answer is yes. A case can also be made answering the objections. Of such stuff is the academy sustained.

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:20 pm

I agree with Ax. Those are fair comments on Tolkien albeit couched in hostile terms. Fortunately we can read past such characteristics to discover what is within.

Post by **Dave_LF** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:56 pm

I must say, I've never seen the words "zomg" and "polysemic" used together in a single essay before.

Mon Jul 06, 2009 6:58 pm

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:I agree with Ax. Those are fair comments on Tolkien albeit couched in hostile terms. Fortunately we can read past such characteristics to discover what is within.

And presumably that's what Mr. Mieville eventually did, too.