7 ms·

In the same vein, an article[1] in The Telegraph entitled "The Hobbit: How the 'clomping foot of nerdism' destroyed Tolkien's dream - and the fantasy genre" mak

by akanet 12y ago

In the same vein, an article[1] in The Telegraph entitled "The Hobbit: How the 'clomping foot of nerdism' destroyed Tolkien's dream - and the fantasy genre" makes a few similar points. I'm inclined to agree with them - Tolkein's brand of endless minutiae does not a good novel make. His is a world of casually racist undertones and completely shallow characters. The good and bad guys in Tolkein are good and bad for no particular discernible reason, and I think fantasy has yet to dig its way out of Tolkein's shadow. However, I think new wave (and an emphasis on stylism in general) has done a lot to rehabilitate sci-fi. Personally, I think Gene Wolfe and M John Harrison deserve a lot of praise for pushing the genre along. Harrison's "Light"[2] comes to mind as a modern incarnation of a new wave novel that still manages to earn its sciency stripes. 1: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11289765/The-Hobbit-How-the-clomping-foot-of-nerdism-destroyed-Tolkiens-dream-and-the-fantasy-genre.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/11289765/The-Hobbit-... 2: http://www.amazon.com/Light-M-John-Harrison/dp/0553382950 http://www.amazon.com/Light-M-John-Harrison/dp/0553382950

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sliverstorm 12y ago
What should I make of the basically terrible reviews of "Light"? I am curious to read it to see what you are talking about, but 3.2/5 on Amazon usually amounts to "really quite terrible".
- akanet 12y ago
  I think a lot of great work is very polarizing - in this case I think a lot of people who are used to a very different sort of hard sci-fi went into "Light" expecting it to be something that it's not. It is not a novel about a world with rigorously defined and cataloged physical law, and it's certainly not about a protagonist's moral crusade against evil. It's a novel (in my personal estimation) about the breathtaking and magical pace of the advance of technology, and how it amplifies all the great and awful things that make us human.
- _delirium 12y ago
  > 3.2/5 on Amazon usually amounts to "really quite terrible" Eh, I've found the correlation pretty hit-or-miss. William Gibson's The Difference Engine is currently sitting at 3.0/5 on Amazon, to pick one example...
- obstinate 12y ago
  Same thing you should make of the extremely high ratings that Cassandra Clare novels get (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/150038.Cassandra_Clare https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/150038.Cassandra_Clare). For those who aren't aware, this author is a serial plagiarist whose novels are basically ripoffs of already not-that-great books like Twilight (http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/fandom-guide-cassandra-clare-mortal-instruments/ http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/fandom-guide-cassandra-clare-...).
- elwin 12y ago
  On Amazon, I usually ignore the average rating. Read some 1 and 2 star reviews, and see whether they make serious critiques or are one-sentence complaints that the writing style was too difficult.
PhasmaFelis 12y ago
> In the same vein, an article[1] in The Telegraph entitled "The Hobbit: How the 'clomping foot of nerdism' destroyed Tolkien's dream - and the fantasy genre" makes a few similar points. My first impression of that article was that anyone who, in the 21st century, still thinks that "nerd" is a cutting insult, can be safely ignored. Brief perusal of the original article that the Telegraph references (M. John Harrison's screed against worldbuilding as "the great clomping foot of nerdism" [1]) confirms that he's basically trying to prove that a writing style he doesn't like is, therefore, logically and objectively inferior to a style he does like. I'm comfortable that my first impression was accurate. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20080410181840/http://uzwi.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/very-afraid/ http://web.archive.org/web/20080410181840/http://uzwi.wordpr...
- akanet 12y ago
  You should expect people to try to prove what they believe! I also find the "I found X safe to ignore at Y point because of Z" to be a rather poisonous take on processing other viewpoints. I'm sure you mean well with it but you come off as looking for excuses to be dismissive.
  - bitwalker 12y ago
    I'd agree up to a point, but if I read something where early on there is an obviously biased and/or incorrect series of statements being made, it's not much of a stretch to assume the rest of the content will share that trait. Still, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't make some decent points regardless, but it makes it all too easy to dismiss an argument when it's formed that way. I'm not sure I'd call it "looking for an excuse to be dismissive", as much as "not giving the author a chance to redeem their argument in spite of obvious weaknesses".
JoshTriplett 12y ago
I find that Tolkein is far better than most fantasy authors at handling the minutiae. Rather than frontload a hundred new proper nouns into the first two chapters as many do, Tolkein manages to weave it naturally into the story, expanding on it and exploring the world through the protagonists. A poem or song here, a brief mention by another character there, without any massive infodumps. Sure, there's the infamous appendices and the Silmarillion for even more backstory, but they're not required reading, just fun additions to the world. > casually racist undertones This is the first I've heard of such a thing. There's plenty of that in Lewis, Lovecraft, and many other writers, but unless you're referring to the general "elves are better everythings" meme (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism) (which is commonly imputed and used in descendant works, but in Tolkein's own work frequently counterpointed by wistful musings about the future promise of Men with their much-vaunted mortality), I don't see any sensible basis for that in Tolkein. As much as Tolkein liked to create strong good/evil distinctions for the reader, those lines were not drawn between any analogue to human races; there were many sources of evil on many fronts.
- akanet 12y ago
  It's tricky in fantasy, because of how race-based a lot of the plot is. To put the argument for racist undertones in Tolkein succinctly - all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly. There are no even slightly good orcs, and if there are any bad elves, they are mostly good elves who have been tempted to some sin.
  - EdSharkey 12y ago
    Skin color choice of good/evil fantasy characters does not provide enough of a cue for me that the author is racist. There has to be additional data points like speech pattern or descriptions of the homeland of the character for me to tie them to real world stereotypes. The Asian-stereotyped (Japanese?) trade syndicate characters from Star Wars episode 1 seemed especially racist portrayals to me.
saraid216 12y ago
> Tolkein's brand of endless minutiae does not a good novel make. But Tolkien was not trying to write a good novel; he was writing a myth in the form of a serial. I don't really see why he should be condemned for having succeeded at the actual goal. > The good and bad guys in Tolkein are good and bad for no particular discernible reason That's ridiculously untrue. Tolkien's effort was to depict a fairly specific set of virtues, both for his children and for Britain at large. Whether or not he succeeded is debatable, but it's not terribly hard to figure out why character X is a good guy and character Y is a bad guy. Self-sacrifice, dauntlessness, generosity, and reliability are characteristics that all the "good guys" either exemplify or seek to exemplify. Selfishness, carelessness, cowardliness, and cruelty are characteristics that all the "bad guys" either exemplify or seek to exemplify.
mattlutze 12y ago
Getting a little meta, but while Harrison's "Light" was indeed a refreshing blast of sea air, "Nova Swing" I found almost intolerable in what felt like a haphazard reapplication of some of the time-independent concepts that made Light so wonderful. It felt self-conscious and distracted, to be unkind.
- akanet 12y ago
  Very much in agreement. The third novel, Empty Space, was a strong return to form, though.

by akanet 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sliverstorm 12y ago

What should I make of the basically terrible reviews of "Light"? I am curious to read it to see what you are talking about, but 3.2/5 on Amazon usually amounts to "really quite terrible".

akanet 12y ago
I think a lot of great work is very polarizing - in this case I think a lot of people who are used to a very different sort of hard sci-fi went into "Light" expecting it to be something that it's not. It is not a novel about a world with rigorously defined and cataloged physical law, and it's certainly not about a protagonist's moral crusade against evil. It's a novel (in my personal estimation) about the breathtaking and magical pace of the advance of technology, and how it amplifies all the great and awful things that make us human.
_delirium 12y ago
> 3.2/5 on Amazon usually amounts to "really quite terrible" Eh, I've found the correlation pretty hit-or-miss. William Gibson's The Difference Engine is currently sitting at 3.0/5 on Amazon, to pick one example...
obstinate 12y ago
Same thing you should make of the extremely high ratings that Cassandra Clare novels get (https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/150038.Cassandra_Clare https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/150038.Cassandra_Clare). For those who aren't aware, this author is a serial plagiarist whose novels are basically ripoffs of already not-that-great books like Twilight (http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/fandom-guide-cassandra-clare-mortal-instruments/ http://www.dailydot.com/fandom/fandom-guide-cassandra-clare-...).
elwin 12y ago
On Amazon, I usually ignore the average rating. Read some 1 and 2 star reviews, and see whether they make serious critiques or are one-sentence complaints that the writing style was too difficult.

PhasmaFelis 12y ago

> In the same vein, an article[1] in The Telegraph entitled "The Hobbit: How the 'clomping foot of nerdism' destroyed Tolkien's dream - and the fantasy genre" makes a few similar points. My first impression of that article was that anyone who, in the 21st century, still thinks that "nerd" is a cutting insult, can be safely ignored. Brief perusal of the original article that the Telegraph references (M. John Harrison's screed against worldbuilding as "the great clomping foot of nerdism" [1]) confirms that he's basically trying to prove that a writing style he doesn't like is, therefore, logically and objectively inferior to a style he does like. I'm comfortable that my first impression was accurate. [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20080410181840/http://uzwi.wordpress.com/2007/01/27/very-afraid/ http://web.archive.org/web/20080410181840/http://uzwi.wordpr...

akanet 12y ago
You should expect people to try to prove what they believe! I also find the "I found X safe to ignore at Y point because of Z" to be a rather poisonous take on processing other viewpoints. I'm sure you mean well with it but you come off as looking for excuses to be dismissive.
- bitwalker 12y ago
  I'd agree up to a point, but if I read something where early on there is an obviously biased and/or incorrect series of statements being made, it's not much of a stretch to assume the rest of the content will share that trait. Still, it doesn't necessarily mean they won't make some decent points regardless, but it makes it all too easy to dismiss an argument when it's formed that way. I'm not sure I'd call it "looking for an excuse to be dismissive", as much as "not giving the author a chance to redeem their argument in spite of obvious weaknesses".

JoshTriplett 12y ago

I find that Tolkein is far better than most fantasy authors at handling the minutiae. Rather than frontload a hundred new proper nouns into the first two chapters as many do, Tolkein manages to weave it naturally into the story, expanding on it and exploring the world through the protagonists. A poem or song here, a brief mention by another character there, without any massive infodumps. Sure, there's the infamous appendices and the Silmarillion for even more backstory, but they're not required reading, just fun additions to the world. > casually racist undertones This is the first I've heard of such a thing. There's plenty of that in Lewis, Lovecraft, and many other writers, but unless you're referring to the general "elves are better everythings" meme (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurElvesAreBetter http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasticRacism) (which is commonly imputed and used in descendant works, but in Tolkein's own work frequently counterpointed by wistful musings about the future promise of Men with their much-vaunted mortality), I don't see any sensible basis for that in Tolkein. As much as Tolkein liked to create strong good/evil distinctions for the reader, those lines were not drawn between any analogue to human races; there were many sources of evil on many fronts.

akanet 12y ago
It's tricky in fantasy, because of how race-based a lot of the plot is. To put the argument for racist undertones in Tolkein succinctly - all the bad guys in LOTR are basically dark and ugly. There are no even slightly good orcs, and if there are any bad elves, they are mostly good elves who have been tempted to some sin.
- EdSharkey 12y ago
  Skin color choice of good/evil fantasy characters does not provide enough of a cue for me that the author is racist. There has to be additional data points like speech pattern or descriptions of the homeland of the character for me to tie them to real world stereotypes. The Asian-stereotyped (Japanese?) trade syndicate characters from Star Wars episode 1 seemed especially racist portrayals to me.

saraid216 12y ago

> Tolkein's brand of endless minutiae does not a good novel make. But Tolkien was not trying to write a good novel; he was writing a myth in the form of a serial. I don't really see why he should be condemned for having succeeded at the actual goal. > The good and bad guys in Tolkein are good and bad for no particular discernible reason That's ridiculously untrue. Tolkien's effort was to depict a fairly specific set of virtues, both for his children and for Britain at large. Whether or not he succeeded is debatable, but it's not terribly hard to figure out why character X is a good guy and character Y is a bad guy. Self-sacrifice, dauntlessness, generosity, and reliability are characteristics that all the "good guys" either exemplify or seek to exemplify. Selfishness, carelessness, cowardliness, and cruelty are characteristics that all the "bad guys" either exemplify or seek to exemplify.

mattlutze 12y ago

Getting a little meta, but while Harrison's "Light" was indeed a refreshing blast of sea air, "Nova Swing" I found almost intolerable in what felt like a haphazard reapplication of some of the time-independent concepts that made Light so wonderful. It felt self-conscious and distracted, to be unkind.

akanet 12y ago
Very much in agreement. The third novel, Empty Space, was a strong return to form, though.