The problem with the essay is that its author has fundamentally misread Tolkien and Howard.
On the contrary, I feel that the problem here is that you have misread his position.
For one thing, you are missing one extremely salient point: that both Tolkien and Howard differ from the nihilists Grin mentioned because there is genuine heroism, hope and exultation in their works.
Tolkien is full of loss, sorrow and decline, but it's also full of great men doing great things, be they humble Hobbits, or heroic Kings of Men. Howard's stories are full to the brim of similar examples.
THAT is what Leo is talking about which is missing in the stories of which he speaks. There are no heroes, no beacons of humanity to show that while the universe is a dark, cruel, unforgiving place, there are those who defy it with shining beacons of optimism, altruism, and bravery. How can anyone describe anything like that as Nihilistic? Surely if a work is nihilistic, then there would be no victories, no heroism, no hope?
There are no Frodos, Aragorns, Theodens, Balthuses, Solomon Kanes or Kulls in the works Leo is decrying. In short, there are no heroes in these particular works. You say The Lord of the Rings isn't a happy ending: true, but vastly preferable to the alternative. It is an ending I can happily call bittersweet: victory and peace at great cost. Nihilistic? Certainly not.
Your mention of Grin's dismissal of Wheel of Time, and your similar argument that Grin seeks a more "black versus white" approach, is also inaccurate, in my opinion. I read his argument as being that there should be more distinction between the shades of grey going on. Black, white and grey, not just lighter and darker shades of grey.
I'm actually not sure if my rebuttal was sufficient: doubtless someone like Brian would do a better and more articularted job of explaining how, no, Leo did not misread Tolkien or Howard. I'm convinced that the blog author has simply misread Leo's argument, not that he disagrees with his points. Either that, or he really thinks Tolkien's a nihilist...
Special mention should be given to Maurice's comment, which is the most profound misinterpretation of a Conan story since Unhappy "Conan threatened to rape Yasmina in the burning ruins of her palace" Anchovy:
I remember also thinking about characters like Conan being chivalrous until a friend of mine told me to actually read an original Howard, The Frost Giant's daughter, where he basically chases and kills a woman's family of giants just so he can rape her.
I'm impressed with how easily you colour that story by the choice omission of several extremely important details to give a completely fallacious and disingenuous impression of the plot in order to make Atali and her brothers out to be the helpless, innocent victims of a brutish Conan.
You miss out the extremely important detail that the woman in question was hypnotically compelling Conan to follow him to his death. She has done this to unnumbered men through the millennia, appearing to dying men on the battlefield, luring them to their doom through sexual manipulation and supernatural compulsion. Men may be bleeding to death and exhausted, but a "strange madness" forces them to walk leagues upon leagues far from civilization in pursuit of a mocking, taunting goddess. Said family of giants, by the way, were lying in wait in preparation to murder him - once again, as they have done to COUNTLESS others - and sacrifice his heart to their father-god.
The guy who wrote the article must have never read one of Howard's works.
Leo Grin is one of the most respected Robert E. Howard scholars out there. His journal, The Cimmerian, is highly regarded, and twice nominated for the World Fantasy Award. He most certainly has controversial opinions not all Howardists agree with - many Howardists disagree on multiple subjects - but to allege he has never read Howard's work, or that he has misread them, is simply preposterous.
Given your grotesque misreading/misrepresentation of "The Frost-Giant's Daughter," I have to question how on earth you came to such a conclusion - or even if you've read the story at all.
In fairness, the near-rape aspect of "The Frost-Giant's Daughter" is often misunderstood: however, the way he implies that Conan just raged into a peaceful giant's town and slaughtered an innocent girl's family as a counterpoint to Conan's chivalry is actually rather nauseating.
I am tired of the "I wonder if s/he even read it?" accusation, it works on the assumption that each story only has one interpretation. "If your interpretation is not mine, you therefore did not read the work in question."
ReplyDeleteThe issue in the second case is not "did you even read it" but "did you pay attention? Did you consider this? What about this?" And so forth.
the is why we need heroes in todays fiction.not just "varying shades of gray". people must feel a need to justify their smut. which means they know it sucks too. Heroic fiction, whatever form it may take requires a hero, whether he is one by circumstance or whatever reason .My question though is this: how does nihilism apply to horror? would you argue that the worlds, gods, beings created by lovecraft are an endorsement of nihilism ( in the fictional sense anyway) and does that utter hopelessness due to the nihilism in the stories make for more effective horror?-Mario
ReplyDeleteThe problem is not that fantasy is "darker". The problem is that some works made fantasy a "mundane thing".
ReplyDeleteImagine that you want to create a new legend. Fine. You can kill your main character. You can transform a good guy into an evil villain. You can ruin an entire kingdom. But you cannot use "real world logics" to made it. You cannot use "modern" language. You cannot use "magic" as a plot device.
Excalibur is legendary. And is dark. Harry Potter is mundane. And is much more a "good vs evil" thing.
Sex, violence and decay is always needed. But must be glorious. Must be THE BEST sex, the MOST horrifying violence and THE WORST decays.
This is the difference between, for example, "The broken sword" by Anderson and "Clash of kings" by Martin. Both are depressing. But the first one is based on myth. The second one, in the history of England. Anderson wrote an "old tragedy", while Martin is writing a "modern drama".
This is the difference between "The Hobbit" and "Wheel of time". The fist one is a modern vision of old tales. The second one is a rehash of a novel based in the modern vision of old tales.
I don't know if I explain myself correctly...
I am tired of the "I wonder if s/he even read it?" accusation, it works on the assumption that each story only has one interpretation. "If your interpretation is not mine, you therefore did not read the work in question."
ReplyDeleteThe issue in the second case is not "did you even read it" but "did you pay attention? Did you consider this? What about this?" And so forth.
Hopefully I'm not guilty of that in my assessment of Maurice's argument, I just don't know if there's any possible way to consider the Ice-Giants and Atali innocent victims of the Big Bad Barbarian.
the is why we need heroes in todays fiction.not just "varying shades of gray". people must feel a need to justify their smut. which means they know it sucks too. Heroic fiction, whatever form it may take requires a hero, whether he is one by circumstance or whatever reason .My question though is this: how does nihilism apply to horror? would you argue that the worlds, gods, beings created by lovecraft are an endorsement of nihilism ( in the fictional sense anyway) and does that utter hopelessness due to the nihilism in the stories make for more effective horror?-Mario
I think nihilism can be an effective tool for horror, yes - however, the idea of hope in a horror story, that the heroes might be able to get out alive, makes their death/madness/fate all the more affecting.
I don't know if I explain myself correctly...
I think you explain yourself very well, Kike, and I think this is exactly Leo's own position. Sex, violence, gore and language are fine, but when it's applied to characters more fitting in a soap opera than a grand mythology, Leo isn't interested. You'd never see a character like Valerius ("Hour of the Dragon,"), Olgerd Vladislav, Denethor or Gollum on Dynasty or The Sopranos. In contrast, I can easily see the characters of ASoIaF or WoT translated into modern times.
I think this is the essential difference, then.
Hi Al, you did a great job. I'd wade in myself but I think the point would be lost in all the hubbub about Leo's essay.
ReplyDeleteTolkien might have a pessimist at times, but a nihilist, no way. If ultimate victory was not possible in this world, he believed in the chance of something greater beyond its circles.
I don't like to talk about politics or religion and no particular beliefs of mine should be construed from the following, which is a quote from Tolkien himself:
"The Christian has still to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope, and die; but he may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed."
This debate's giving me a headache. Personally, I think that Adam Whitehead got what Grin was trying to say and rebutted him well (although Abercrombie is much funnier in his excellent rebuttal). Just because Grin is a Howard scholar does not mean that he is not misreading Howard, especially if he is trying to score political points (which he obviously is trying to do). I'm starting to wonder if the "I don't like the darker, grittier fantasy" crowd is actually reading this fantasy right. What is meant by nihilism (which no one seems to get)? And is this another attempt at discrediting fantasy you don't like?
ReplyDeleteInaccuracies about REH's and JRRT's work aside (for which some of us are long-suffering correctologists), it's a specious argument in the first place. Leo is perfectly able to write an article about what he doesn't like about the current crop of fantasy. But the knee-jerk reactions to it, and moreover, the defenses of modern fantasy, are a lot like following the steam pipes on the set of Star Trek's U.S.S. Enterprise--they go nowhere, and they do nothing. Hair-splitting a genre as wide-open as fantasy is the height of intellectual retardation. To think that the fantasy pond isn't big enough to contain all of these various nuances, and moreover, that the cream of the crop won't inevitably rise to the top, tells me that no one is thinking past the nose on their face. Why argue against any of it? If you're going to critique it (and you should), get your shite straight, and do it right. Show us the measuring stick you are using to evaluate your statements. Make it about what you personally don't like, not about how dumb we all are for liking it. Leo did that, and he did a credible job. In fact, he makes me want to track down both authors, now, out of curiosity. Maybe not his intent, but I'll read both before I decide whether or not I agree with him.
ReplyDeleteThis is all just more bullshit-internet-wheelspinning. When you get down to it, it's all broadswords and elf ears, magic doohickeys and thieves guilds. It's the detritus of an AD&D-fueled childhood, and we are all the same basement-dwelling fourteen year olds that we always were. Time to get over it and realize that the Internet doesn't revolve around our individual blogs.
Mark, You're absolutely right that fantasy is a wide and diverse genre with enough room in the tent for everybody. But the thing is that it goes both ways. While Leo Grin has the right to write why he dislikes, even hates, the grittier examples of modern fantasy, so too do those writing in defense of modern fantasy. Neither camps have nor should have the only right to speak. Is a lot of this debate silly? Yes. The issue, maybe, is that groups of fantasy readers seem to only like a certain kind of fantasy and insist on at best critiquing and at worst denigrating the genres they don't like.
ReplyDeleteDo I think Grin made a credible effort in his essay? Honestly, I don't because I don't think his objective was to defend Tolkein and Howard but to denigrate a political leaning by using a fantasy subgenre as a proxy.
I think the bitterness might be due partly to the nature of Publishing.. it really is an Either/Or situation.. one author getting published does mean another won't. While I don't begrudge people like Abercrombie or R.Scott Bakker their success.. I'd personally be much happier if some one who wrote books that I might enjoy had been given a publishing contract instead of them.
ReplyDeleteThe least they can do would be to give them a distinct cover style so I'd know not to buy any more of their sort of fantasy.. the Urban Fantasies at least do that for me. If its got a girl with a trampstamp on the cover I know not to buy it..
James, you have a point. And I can tell you, as a former bookseller for over a decade, that no matter how "enlightened" fantasy and science fiction fans (or really, book readers in general) like to pretend to be, most of the avid readers really only want the same thing, over and over again. It's most obvious in genre fiction, whether we're talking about english cozy mysteries, military SF, or high fantasy. Most fans tend to read very narrowly--and this would include me, though I really do make an effort to branch out when I can. I figure that using Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), if I read the best of the best, the top ten percent, of any genre, it will be a good read if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteAnd while I'm not for the stifling of one group or the other, I feel that if a person wants to go online and make overtures at being a critic, I want them to establish their bona fides before I will give them any leeway. Prove to me that, as a critic, you have read either deeply or widely, and I will at least take the argument under advisement. Most folks can't do that, however, and so the Internet is now cluttered with this virtual bile-spewing with zero context in the place of actual discourse. So much of this debate across the blogosphere right now smacks of "My stuff is better and your stuff sucks!" and it's just such a waste of time, because the obvious and only answer is "Nuh uh!" and then you repeat it, ad infinitum.
I'd love to see someone articulate why they don't like Tolkien or Howard, fresh from the texts, and in such a way that leaves no room for "did this guy really read the stories?" But it's never going to happen, because most of the people who could do such an endeavor are either paid critics, other professional authors with no time on their hands for such shenanigans, or academics working on their own projects. What we are left with is the cymbol-banging chimps on IMDB, Ain't It Cool News, and elsewhere. Oh, Internets. You giveth and you taketh away.
Hi Al, you did a great job. I'd wade in myself but I think the point would be lost in all the hubbub about Leo's essay.
ReplyDeleteNot at all, in fact, I think that's reason enough for you to get involved - especially given your reluctance to bring the political dimension in. That makes it all the more valuable.
This debate's giving me a headache.
I find my own poor brain's experiencing the red thunder, too.
Personally, I think that Adam Whitehead got what Grin was trying to say and rebutted him well (although Abercrombie is much funnier in his excellent rebuttal).
I disagree, but then, such is the nature of the game. Abercrombie's rebuttal is problematic, and I'll be addressing it in an upcoming post (though I do agree it's quite funny nonetheless)
Just because Grin is a Howard scholar does not mean that he is not misreading Howard, especially if he is trying to score political points (which he obviously is trying to do).
Grin being a Howard scholar doesn't mean he's not misreading Howard, true. Grin being a highly respected, renowned and influential Howard scholar, however, means that either an awful lot of people are misreading Howard, or that this article is unlike any of his previous ones. I disagree on both counts. Leo is hardly universally praised, and there are those who disagree with him, but it isn't as if he's some sort of fringe misfit that the Howard scholarship community cautiously avoids.
When you get down to it, it's all broadswords and elf ears, magic doohickeys and thieves guilds. It's the detritus of an AD&D-fueled childhood, and we are all the same basement-dwelling fourteen year olds that we always were. Time to get over it and realize that the Internet doesn't revolve around our individual blogs.
I never had D&D, let alone AD&D. I got Heroquest. Nyeh! *crosses arms petulantly*
While Leo Grin has the right to write why he dislikes, even hates, the grittier examples of modern fantasy, so too do those writing in defense of modern fantasy. Neither camps have nor should have the only right to speak.
Exactly, and I believe Leo knows that. And everyone has their right to defend said examples. I just don't think it should be based upon accusing someone of having never read something they claim to champion and other such ad hominem.
Do I think Grin made a credible effort in his essay? Honestly, I don't because I don't think his objective was to defend Tolkein and Howard but to denigrate a political leaning by using a fantasy subgenre as a proxy.
Big Hollywood is a conservative movie site, and Leo a conservative activist. Leo was adamant in not bringing this over to The Cimmerian for the precise reason that bringing politics into literary criticism is almost by definition divisive. It's just deeply unfortunate this has happened here.