Wednesday 13 April 2011

American Tolkiens and War Weariness

An interesting link regarding George R. "The American Tolkien" R. Martin and J.R.R. Tolkien.

I don't like calling Martin the American Tolkien for a few reasons.  First, he isn't the American Tolkien.  Not even close, jack.  I care not a whit what Time Magazine has to say on the matter.  When somebody spends their entire life writing a single opus derived from history, mythology and language, then maybe we can start talking about calling people American Tolkiens.  Besides, we've had plenty of preceding authors being called the American Tolkien: Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind, Stephen R. Donaldson.  Probably even Christopher Paolini.  It's a meaningless phrase that makes light of Tolkien's monumental achievement.

Second, why refer to him as the regional derivative of a more famous author when he could, and should, stand on his own two feet?  I'd rather refer to him as the first George R. R. Martin than the American Tolkien, if it's all the same to you chaps.

But that's just me, of course.  Then there's this bit.

Quite a few of them are adventure stories that celebrate violence, or more often treat it as something unreal and without cost. These aren’t the projects that are reaching outside the usual genre readers to talk to the wider audience. If there were a market for the celebration of warfare, we’d have any number of options inside epic fantasy. That isn’t what people are responding to. We have no appetite for Conan bathing in the blood of his enemies.

Hmm.  Well, at least he gives Conan the credit of being literature, albeit literature that seems to either glorify violence or consider it of no consequence.  Possibly both.  My response:

Perhaps that’s true of the stories by other authors, but the original stories by Howard don’t celebrate violence, so much as render it as an unavoidable facet of the human condition. It is a cause for sombre reflection, as much as the carnal thrill of fear, energy and exertion could be considered glorification. Conan loves the thrill of battle because it is life at its closest to being lost: it’s the same sort of thing that attracts extreme sports enthusiasts, danger-seekers, and criminals. But at no point does Howard give any impression that war and battle in the Hyborian Age is as loveless, petty, relentless, hollow and miserable as it is in real life, regardless of the fleeting joy the Cimmerian experiences in the moment.
Nor can one consider the violence in Conan as lacking verisimilitude, or lacking cost. Conan’s scars sting, bleed and ache following every battle; his dead allies are mourned and their loss is palpable. There are plenty of stories where Conan barely gets out alive, and is dripping with blood from a multitude of fresh wounds. Not all the characters survive the story, be they friend or foe, be they deserving or undeserving of death.
One need not look further than “The Hour of the Dragon” to see the relevance of the Conan stories to the cynical approach to war:
“Men said the gods were satisfied because the evil king and his spawn were slain, and when his young brother Tarascus was crowned in the great coronation hall, the populace cheered until the towers rocked, acclaiming the monarch on whom the gods smiled.
Such a wave of enthusiasm and rejoicing as swept the land is frequently the signal for a war of conquest. So no one was surprized when it was announced that King Tarascus had declared the truce made by the late king with their western neighbors void, and was gathering his hosts to invade Aquilonia. His reason was candid; his motives, loudly proclaimed, gilded his actions with something of the glamor of a crusade. He espoused the cause of Valerius, “rightful heir to the throne”; he came, he proclaimed, not as an enemy of Aquilonia, but as a friend, to free the people from the tyranny of a usurper and a foreigner.
If there were cynical smiles in certain quarters, and whispers concerning the king’s good friend Amalric, whose vast personal wealth seemed to be flowing into the rather depleted royal treasury, they were unheeded in the general wave of fervor and zeal of Tarascus’s popularity. If any shrewd individuals suspected that Amalric was the real ruler of Nemedia, behind the scenes, they were careful not to voice such heresy. And the war went forward with enthusiasm.”
– “The Hour of the Dragon”
Not unlike a certain other war in recent memory that people are increasingly cynical towards…

Any thoughts, lads & lasses?  I'd say Howard, like Tolkien, doesn't so much celebrate or glorify battle and war - rather, they celebrate heroism and bravery.  I easily see echoes of Conan, the Æsir, and the myriad soldiers of Aquilonia in the blood-and-thunder of Gimli, Boromir, and the Rohirrim.  At the same time, they certainly don't shy away from the cruelty, gore, grief and misery war and battle results in.  More than a few Conan stories start at the aftermath of a battle, robbing the reader of the excitement and thrill of action, and leaving us wandering among the red ruin of conflict, screams of the dying punctuating the deathly silence.  One need not deny the feats of glory and triumph to accept the dark, horrific reality of war.  Howard and Tolkien seem to get it.  I'm not far enough in A Song of Ice and Fire to judge whether Martin does this too, but no doubt if they're there, they're plain to see.

12 comments:

  1. "When somebody spends their entire life writing a single opus derived from history, mythology and language..."

    I nominate M. A. R. Barker for American Tolkien based on these criteria.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._A._R._Barker
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tekumel

    ReplyDelete
  2. The reviewer has obviously not read any Howard and, based on that quote I would say it's doubful that he has read any George R. Martin!

    ReplyDelete
  3. As of this writing your comment hasn't been published yet.., Anyway, the first feeling I get from "The Frost-Giant's Daughter", even before Conan dispatches his last opponent, is desolation. It's a whole field of corpses.

    But one of the most concrete cases of Howard being cynical about violence, to my mind, involves Solomon Kane in "Red Shadows" (though being a vigilante is quite different from whatever Conan does):

    ...Kane mechanically cleansed his sword on his tattered garments. The trail ended here, and Kane was conscious of a strange feeling of futility. He always felt that, after he had killed a foe. Somehow it always seemed that no real good had been wrought; as if the foe had, after all, escaped his just vengeance.

    A common thread can be spun from Conan surrounded at Shamu's Plain, to Húrin surrounded at Nirnaeth Arnoediad, to Roland surrounded at Roncesvalles, etc. Fighting against all odds - that's timeless heroism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah, I never thought of REH's writings as glorifying war. And Howard certainly shows that Conan's battles have costs, so I think our article writer is a little off target there. Wider reading in the field might be called for. As often happens, Conan seems to be a quick shorthand for brutal escapism to the uninformed.

    I swear that if I ever write a doorstop fantasy series I'm going to add another R. to my name and be Charles R.R. Rutledge. Too late for me to be the American Tolkien now, but I could be the Southern Tolkien, maybe...

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I'd say Howard, like Tolkien, doesn't so much celebrate or glorify battle and war - rather, they celebrate heroism and bravery."

    *That* hits the nail on the head. I think that a lot of critics don't understand the difference.

    I also don't agree with Abraham that the best epics are consoling. To me, Tolkien's writing is not consoling - it leaves me with an ache inside...but that's how I like it! Same with REH - everything isn't all wrapped up neatly, and that's what makes it real and good.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I nominate M. A. R. Barker for American Tolkien based on these criteria.

    While I can't comment on the literary merit of Mr Barker's work, that certainly looks closer to what I was thinking than Martin.

    I don't mean to criticize Martin's creation or the work that's gone into it: far from it! I just think there's a substantial difference between the sheer amount of work, and the proportion of the author's life relative to their work, between Martin and Tolkien. Martin has written a great many works in multiple genres, and ASoIaF has only been a factor in the past two decades: Tolkien was writing and creating in one major mythos for most of his 80 years.

    Working all your life on one thing doesn't necessarily make your work better, I just think it's a more worthwhile comparison to compare two authors that did this, than an author that did and one that didn't. Pedantic, possibly, but I'm sceptical of equivocation at the best of times.

    The reviewer has obviously not read any Howard and, based on that quote I would say it's doubful that he has read any George R. Martin!

    In fairness, one could say that he is amply describing some of the lesser pastiches, and to the public consciousness, they're just as much "Conan" as Howard was. It's as incorrect as saying Philip Hose Farmer's Tarzan is as legitimate as Burroughs', but public perception's hard to shake.

    But one of the most concrete cases of Howard being cynical about violence, to my mind, involves Solomon Kane in "Red Shadows" (though being a vigilante is quite different from whatever Conan does):

    Excellent quote!

    To me, the most potent example of the "war is hell" notion in the Conan stories is "Red Nails." Two warrior races dedicate their lives to perpetuating a decade-long endemic blood feud, to the point of mutually assured destruction. The toil of a life of war is plain to see on the Tecuhtli and Xotalancas: their eyes haunted and blood-shot, their builds wiry and scarred, their faces gaunt and weary. No glory to be found in the Great War of Xuchotl.

    One can also see the folly of imperialism and militarism in "Beyond the Black River" and "The Black Stranger," where the proud warriors of Aquilonia and Zingara are defeated by the blood-mad Picts. The same with many more.

    I swear that if I ever write a doorstop fantasy series I'm going to add another R. to my name and be Charles R.R. Rutledge. Too late for me to be the American Tolkien now, but I could be the Southern Tolkien, maybe...

    I'll be going by Al R.D.R.R. Harron. (Reuben Devereaux Raleigh Rudiger if anyone asks)

    I also don't agree with Abraham that the best epics are consoling. To me, Tolkien's writing is not consoling - it leaves me with an ache inside...but that's how I like it! Same with REH - everything isn't all wrapped up neatly, and that's what makes it real and good.

    Yes, exactly! There's always this sense of emptiness for me at the end of LotR, as I consider all the things that have been lost. REH does this, even in the stories where he ends with Conan smiling and laughing about visiting fat harbours crammed with plunder: it seems like such a temporary fix.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While I can't comment on the literary merit of Mr Barker's work, that certainly looks closer to what I was thinking than Martin.

    Barker's fiction, while far from terrible, is, in my opinion, not especially noteworthy, certainly when compared to Tolkien. As a world builder, though, he's certainly in the same league, right down to having created several complete languages for his fictional peoples. And, unlike Martin and most fantasy writers, Barker's world isn't another run of the mill pseudo-medieval Europe filled with conveniently modern worldviews but a truly alien one unlike any other.

    ReplyDelete
  8. nah.. sorry.. "the knights who say 'fuck' a lot" will never measure up with Tolkien..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Didn't we already go through this "Next Tolkien?" thing with JK Rowling? :)

    I really think we have to wait until Martin is actually done with his saga and give it some time to digest before any real arguments about his profundity can be made or whether it really stands up with the classics of the genre. Right now, I don't see many of his fans responding to his work on much beyond a basic plotting and character level, getting off on wondering who the next character to be unexpectedly bumped off will be or debating over whether it's okay to like Jamie even though he's a complete dirtbag. I'd like to see it finished so we can appreciate it as a whole work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Barker's fiction, while far from terrible, is, in my opinion, not especially noteworthy, certainly when compared to Tolkien. As a world builder, though, he's certainly in the same league, right down to having created several complete languages for his fictional peoples. And, unlike Martin and most fantasy writers, Barker's world isn't another run of the mill pseudo-medieval Europe filled with conveniently modern worldviews but a truly alien one unlike any other.

    Ah, I see: so in terms of scope, Barker can be considered closer to Tolkien, but not necessarily in terms of literary quality. Literary quality's another thing entirely: based on literary merits, I can think of many who are in Tolkien's league (Eddison, Dunsany, what have you), but it's specifically the idea that Tolkien essentially created entire languages, mythologies, nations and worlds that, I feel, is Tolkien's most profound achievement, in addition to his actual stories and characters.

    Until Martin decides to write languages for Old Tongue, Dothraki and Other, maps out the entire genealogical history of Westeros, and maps out the continent over the course of eons, I can't see what would make Martin "the American Tolkien" over the multitude of authors who've done more with their respective worlds.

    nah.. sorry.. "the knights who say 'fuck' a lot" will never measure up with Tolkien..

    Which, let's face it, is no great insult. Not every playwright can be Shakespeare, after all.

    Didn't we already go through this "Next Tolkien?" thing with JK Rowling?

    Probably!

    I really think we have to wait until Martin is actually done with his saga and give it some time to digest before any real arguments about his profundity can be made or whether it really stands up with the classics of the genre. Right now, I don't see many of his fans responding to his work on much beyond a basic plotting and character level, getting off on wondering who the next character to be unexpectedly bumped off will be or debating over whether it's okay to like Jamie even though he's a complete dirtbag. I'd like to see it finished so we can appreciate it as a whole work.

    That's the fairest way of looking at it. Much of the appeal of ASoIaF, to me, appears to be the stuff that's compelling about murder mysteries: who's going to die next, what's going to be the next shocking revelation, how's it all going to work out in the end. When it comes to deeper themes, it doesn't really seem to have anything beyond "people are bastards." But then, I'm only going by AGoT, and if there are indeed deeper themes and dramatic elements, I guess I've just missed them.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When it comes to deeper themes, it doesn't really seem to have anything beyond "people are bastards."

    I honestly think that, for a lot of fans, this is in fact the main appeal of the series. Mainstream fantasy had become so decadent (in the esthetic sense) by the mid-90s that Martin's rather pessimistic portrayal of human nature seemed startlingly original. In fact, one of the most common praises the series receives is its "realism," which is to say, its relentless grimness. I believe it's this quality that strikes a chord with so many people, for the same reason that so many cable TV shows do too. In that respect, it's perhaps only fitting that HBO is now producing a TV series based on the books.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Absolutely not Al, I didn't mean to downplay Martin one jot. Just to point out that He's still some where around basecamp one edging his way up to basecamp two of Tolkien's Everest.

    ReplyDelete