Mieville's thoughts...

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Even Ms. Miéville's choice of ten fantasy/science fiction novels are mostly based on her leftist leanings. For her, the politics means more than the story itself. Again, to be ruled so by one's politics diminishes the ability to find truth and enjoyment from different sources.

*cough**cough* I believe Miéville's a feller, Morth.

But apart from that, yes. I think this type of argument carries weight only if you agree with a certain view of the purpose of literature. If not, not.

Let's look at the whole article. Where does it appear? The International Socialism Journal. What is Miéville's purpose here? To argue against the tendency of Marxist intellectuals to dismiss speculative fiction. How does he do this? By claiming that fantasy is in truth a genre of revolution, and that its main value lies in its critique of capitalism. This requires him to reject whatever doesn't fit this mold, which pretty much means all of "high fantasy":

Originally Posted by China Miéville

Although an awful lot of books do fit that stereotype to various degrees, it's important to remember that you're not talking about fantasy in general here, but about a particular historical stream within it--a stream which has got massive since the 1960s.

He then goes on to blame J.R.R. Tolkien explicitly for twisting the fantasy genre away from its higher purpose.

Now, tumhalad, I'm sorry I was dismissive, but I honestly can't find much in this article to "engage with". To me, the whole thing just looks like an expression of Miéville anxiety about not being taken seriously by other Marxists. That's perhaps a borderline ad hominem, but there it is: it's just too hard to separate this particular argument from the person making it, and the circumstances under which it was made.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*cough**cough* I believe Miéville's a feller, Morth.


Let's look at the whole article. Where does it appear? The International Socialism Journal. What is Miéville's purpose here? To argue against the tendency of Marxist intellectuals to dismiss speculative fiction. How does he do this? By claiming that fantasy is in truth a genre of revolution, and that its main value lies in its critique of capitalism. This requires him to reject whatever doesn't fit this mold, which pretty much means all of "high fantasy":


He then goes on to blame J.R.R. Tolkien explicitly for twisting the fantasy genre away from its higher purpose.

Now, tumhalad, I'm sorry I was dismissive, but I honestly can't find much in this article to "engage with". To me, the whole thing just looks like an expression of Miéville anxiety about not being taken seriously by other Marxists. That's perhaps a borderline ad hominem, but there it is: it's just too hard to separate this particular argument from the person making it, and the circumstances under which it was made.

No no, good point. Certainly, Mieville seems to be trying to cater to the Marxist audience who would be less sympathetic to speculative fiction than most. Mieville has also contributed to a book called "Red Planets: Marxism and Science Fiction" in which he makes much the same arguments. He seems to be on something like a crusade; championing the great socially revalatory prospects of his brand of sf/fantasy. Are any of Mieville's claims worth anything though? I'm interested in this notion of consolation. Does Tolkien's literature merely console? Should it challenge us (read: challenge notions of capitalist hegemony) or are we complicit in some exploitative bourgeois idyll?

[davem]

I think this piece, also by Mieville, is also worth reading - far more insightful & positive - in fact, one of the best analyses of LotR I've read. Five Reasons Tolkien Rocks http://www.omnivoracious.com/2009/06...ien-rocks.html The whole piece is definitely worth reading, but try this for starters

Unlike so many of those he begat, Tolkien's vision, never mind any Hail-fellow-well-met-ery, no matter the coziness of the shire, despite even the remorseless sylvan bonheur of Tom Bombadil, is tragic. The final tears in characters' and readers' eyes are not uncomplicatedly of happiness. On the one hand, yay, the goodies win: on the other, shame that the entire epoch is slipping from Glory. The magic goes west, of course, but there's also the peculiar abjuring of narrative form, in the strange echo after the final battle, the Lord of the Rings's post-end end, the Harrowing of the Shire--so criminally neglected by Jackson. In an alternate reality, this piece of scripting would have earned talented young tattooed hipster video-game designer Johnno Tolkien a slapped wrist from his studio: since when do you put a lesser villain straight after the final Boss Battle? But that's the point. The episode concludes 'well', of course, so far as it goes, but in its very pettiness relative to what's just been, it is brilliantly unsatisfying, ushering in an era of degraded parodies of epics, where it's not just the elves that are going: you can't even get a proper Dark Lord any more. Whatever we see as the drive behind Tolkien's tragic vision, and however we relate to its politics and aesthetics, the tragedy of the creeping tawdry quotidian gives Middle Earth a powerful melancholia lamentably missing from too much of what followed. It deserves celebrating and reclaiming.

[Nerwen]

Thanks, Davem. That's interesting– I wonder if Miéville's changed his mind in the intervening years, or if this is just a matter of wearing a different "hat".

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I'm interested in this notion of consolation. Does Tolkien's literature merely console?

No, I don't think so– c.f. Miéville's own more recent comments.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Should it challenge us (read: challenge notions of capitalist hegemony) or are we complicit in some exploitative bourgeois idyll?

As I said, this depends on whether you believe that authors have a duty to promote socialist values. I certainly don't, and I'm hardly a conservative. Note also that on this criteria, most of the authors praised in the first article "fail" most of the time.

I also find your use of "complicit" quite troubling here. Whether you mean it to or not, it literally implies that simply reading a book with the "wrong" social values is an immoral act. After all:

Originally Posted by The Concise Oxford Dictionary

complicity: n. partnership in a crime or wrongdoing.

EDIT:X'd with Morth.

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Thanks, Davem.



As I said, this depends on whether you believe that authors have a duty to promote socialist values. I certainly don't, and I'm hardly a conservative. Note also that on this criteria, most of the authors praised in the first article "fail" most of the time.

I also find your use of "complicit" quite troubling here. Whether you mean it to or not, it literally implies that simply reading a book with the "wrong" social values is an immoral act. After all:


EDIT:X'd with Morth.

I mean exactly that when I use "complicit" - The whole point of modern theories of literature is to demonstrate that reading is in some sense a political act that can be undermined and deconstructed.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I mean exactly that when I use "complicit" - The whole point of modern theories of literature is to demonstrate that reading is in some sense a political act that can be undermined and deconstructed.

Well, as it happens, by-and-large I can't say I agree with the aforesaid "modern theories of literature", tumhalad.

However, I didn't say "political", anyway, I said "immoral".

So let's make sure we're on the same page. Once again:

Originally Posted by Originally Posted by The Concise Oxford Dictionary

complicity: n. partnership in a crime or wrongdoing.

Is that what you mean? Really? You sure?

[tumhalad2]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, as it happens, by-and-large I can't say I agree with the aforesaid "modern theories of literature", tumhalad.

However, I didn't say "political", anyway, I said "immoral".

So let's make sure we're on the same page. Once again:


Is that what you mean? Really? You sure?

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with this, for goodness sake. But from Mieville's point of view we are complicit in an immoral way. The act of reading a book with questionable morals is thus an act of political immorality.

[Morthoron]

Do Marxists even have morals? Isn't morality a petty bourgeois concept?

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

Yeah, I'm not saying I agree with this, for goodness sake. But from Mieville's point of view we are complicit in an immoral way. The act of reading a book with questionable morals is thus an act of political immorality.

So you're saying that in your opinion Miéville is– or was at the time he wrote this– completely opposed to independent thought?

EDIT:X'd wth Morth and tumhalad.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

*cough**cough* I believe Miéville's a feller, Morth.

To be honest, having never read Miéville's work, I just naturally thought he was a woman, what with the name China, the dress and high heels and all. I should have realized by the five o'clock shadow. But given the skewed agenda of the article, I am even less inclined to read his or her work.

Originally Posted by tumhalad2

I'm interested in this notion of consolation. Does Tolkien's literature merely console? Should it challenge us (read: challenge notions of capitalist hegemony) or are we complicit in some exploitative bourgeois idyll?

I don't take from Tolkien any bourgeois complicity or capitalist exploitation, anymore more than I take Christian allegory. Folks tend to carry their baggage with them when reading novels. Miéville's stance is a load of rubbish he obviously totes along, ready to dump when a work does not fit his rhetoric. I am sure Dickens or Austen would be anathema to him as well. Oh well, his loss.

Tolkien skewers stupid, complacent Hobbits even if he has a fondness for their agrarian lifestyle. And in many cases, Tolkien's points are on the money (if I may use such a capitalist sentiment). His conservative stance on the environment and distrust of heavy industry is actually well-founded, given global warming and several hundred mile-wide oil slicks in the Gulf of Mexico. Personally, I am more interested in the mythos, the language and the ties with pre-Christian folklore, but then I am not on a search and destroy mission to hunt down Marxist bug-a-boos. What I do know is that Tolkien utterly rejects totalitarianism, which is what has happened with every Marxist state ever created. Perhaps that is why Miéville and Moorcock despise Tolkien: he merely points out that totalitarianism is evil and destroys individual freedom, which is not the rosy picture leftists wish to paint of their pie-in-the-sky proletarian paradises which somehow evaporate when put into practice. Stalin and Mao are merely Sauron without the fiery, red eye.

But as far as I can see, there is very little capitalism involved in the story, as a monetary system, trade or commerce of any sort is very little developed, particularly since Tolkien is not offering any modernity in the tale whatsoever, save for a few anachronistic anomalies. A dead give away would be folks riding about on horses, fighting with swords and wearing mail. But you see, I read the story, not read into the story.

You ask, does Tolkien's literature merely console? Well, you just spent an inordinate amount of time in another thread trying to point out that Tolkien did the complete opposite in Children of Hurin. So you tell me. Does the story challenge me to -- what? Suddenly decide that Mao Tse-tung's Great Leap Forward that killed 20 million Chinese was a good thing? That Stalin's Great Purge and Five-Year Plans killing 30 million Russians were triumphs for Marxism? What exactly is the challenge I am missing when reading a fantasy set in Middle-earth that covers creation and three complete Ages of the world, has 10 or so distinct languages and several more dialects, and has a 12 volume compendium of ancillary information?

I'll tell you what is challenging, reading the last three books of Moorcock's Elric Sequence without mental fatigue. Getting through them at all could be construed as a triumph.