an imaginary dialogue after the "Invention vs. Tradition" panel at WFC

[calimac]

I was really struck by Beth Meacham's story about her acquaintance who loved fantasy, but who'd never read Tolkien because he was "too complicated." What did this person think was too complicated about Tolkien?

That could be tied in with the discussion of predictable literature as "comfort food" and the comments by other panelists about readers using formula literature to learn what the tropes are. If that's how you read, The Lord of the Rings will leave you at sea, because it doesn't follow the tropes of formula fantasy.

Those would be the tropes that Tolkien supposedly invented? Like the one about all the characters being nobles. Claim that applies to LOTR, and just to begin with there's a simple two-word rebuttal: "Sam Gamgee".

Well, lines like that come from critics so allergic to Tolkien that they skimmed through the book or never finished it.

What mystifies me is that, here I am, just eating up literature far more complicated and "hard to read" than Tolkien, but I completely hit a wall with huge-selling, supposedly "lowest common denominator" novels. Lowest they may be, but common? You noticed that Dan Brown was the hidden "bad example" throughout the panel? Everybody I've ever talked to or read comment on it finds him totally unreadable! Yet he's the most popular author out there in the general readership.

It's not just the general readership, but the fantasy readership. Years ago, Tor sent me for review the first volume of a new fantasy series by an author I'd never heard of before. I dived in with eagerness, but it was like hitting a wall. I could hardly read a page of it. At that point I realized that it was sure to be a big hit.

And it was?

The first volume of The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan.

Typical. I suppose Jordan's defenders would just tell you to turn off your "inner critic." Maybe that applies to Dan Brown as well. Just don't notice that his prose is so abysmal ...

But I can't turn off my "inner critic." That's just me; it's how I read. These books are simply unreadable, to the extent that I doubt that the people who read them are really "reading" in the sense I understand. Maybe Dan Brown's readers are just skimming over the pages looking for the plot. I can't imagine what Robert Jordan's readers are doing.

Yeah, but then there are the "higher critics" like Harold Bloom who consider Tolkien unreadable.

Fie on them. As I said: it's allergies. Haven't you noticed that whenever these people criticize Tolkien, they always get it factually wrong? They criticize him for things he doesn't actually do. The critics of Dan Brown at least describe what's actually there.

At least they can just flip through Brown's books and find clunkers to poke fun at. I've never seen a sustained criticism of Robert Jordan like the ones of Tolkien.

Maybe the people who'd be capable of criticizing Jordan just find him as unreadable as I do, and are too honest to try bashing a book they can't read.

Unlike the critics of Tolkien ...

Comments

[shelleybear.livejournal.com]

I see the value of Tolkien but I prefer urban fantasy.
People like Thorne Smith.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

The fantasy writer I bounce off of in that way is Terry Goodkind. A couple of books in his fantasy series (which rivals Robert Jordan for length!) have been nominated for the Prometheus Award; I've never been able to get through one of them, even though I go on reading after I've lost all interest. I can't imagine what anyone reads him for.

[ron-drummond.livejournal.com]

What do you think of George R. R. Martin's fantasy series?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

If Robert E. Howard were alive today, and could actually write ...

One of things in Tolkien some readers are allergic to is his high moral standards. But to me that's one of his most appealing features, and it's one of the reasons I like Le Guin as well. Some people like novels in which nobody is the good guys, but endless clans of bad barbarians, each viler than the last, do not float my boat.

[ron-drummond.livejournal.com]

This was helpful, exactly the kind of small bit of info I was looking for. I'd been wondering whether to try Martin's series out, but I think now I'll pass. Thanks!

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

I have never seen a genuine extended critique of Dan Brown as opposed to potshots, which are easy, and which I would also take if I took the trouble to open one of his books.

I think that work which shows the care and skill of Tolkien's, whatever you think of it (I happen to love it, though not with quite the deep and abiding love that you have) engenders a different kind of criticism than commercial work like Brown's or Jordan's. The kind of people who write extended critiques, accurate or otherwise, tend not to be the kind of people who read Brown and Jordan. One thing Tolkien critics frequently do is overlay their dislike of slipshod work like Jordan's (or whatever slipshod work is in their time period) over their reading of Tolkien.

That being said, I wasn't at that panel, but I'm in substantial agreement with Beth. I may think Jordan and Brown are slipshod writers, but I have to admire their storytelling ability and their audience-capturing skills, and I genuinely think highly of those talents.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

One may similarly admire the demagogic skills of a politician, regardless of the positions advocated. It is a skill, but admiring it apart from what it's used for seems to me to miss the point. Can't these authors use their skills for good? In other words, if they learned to write a little, wouldn't they be able to tell their stories even better and capture even more of an audience?

It would be silly to attempt a serious literary critique of the likes of Dan Brown. What I'm curious about is critiques of Robert Jordan, who would be worth the effort, assuming he was readable.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Can't these authors use their skills for good?

What pretentious crap. What "good"--apart from satisfying some critics--has Tolkien done in the world that Brown has not?

if they learned to write a little, wouldn't they be able to tell their stories even better and capture even more of an audience?

If that were the case, it would already be the case: the authors (whoever they may be) who you believe write better, who tell their stories better, would capture more of an audience.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Actually, "use their skills for good" was intended merely as a play on words about the demagogic politicians using their skills for good, a common phrasing. I presume you would grant that could make a difference?

But I can defend it literally as well. Tolkien's work has done considerable good in the world. It has opened people's eyes to ecological awareness, to the pity of war, to the appreciation of human differences, and even to the study of Anglo-Saxon, far more than I suspect the likes of Dan Brown could do for anything other than the growth of conspiracy theories.

The second question is easily answered. They make enough money with little effort as it is; they can't be bothered to make more with more effort. The fallacy lies when they cite their monetary success as proof of their quality. But this problem has affected better authors. The reason Steinbeck's later novels are crap is that the publishers would buy them just as fast as they would better novels with his name on them. He couldn't be bothered.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I think that Dan Brown does for people who like his writing exactly what fantasy of any kind does for at least some readers: immerses them in a completely different environment, where (within the rules of the particular work) anything can happen. But Brown is more accessible, because his protagonist is from the here-and-now, so it's easier for some readers to imagine themselves in the adventure.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

But there are plenty of fantasy novels with protagonists from the here-and-now. Farah Mendlesohn calls them "portal fantasies". And many of their authors are far better writers than Dan Brown.

We are left with three possibilities. Either Brown's success is just a fluke of marketing or chance, and nothing in his books explains his success; or second, there is a reason but this is not it, or only part of it; third, most disturbing and most likely, the sheer badness of his writing is part of his success.

[whswhs.livejournal.com]

A point made more than once about Tolkien's own books is that both of the Bagginses are "heroes from the here and now": that is, they're Edwardians of independent means, who think a lot like "modern men" as Tolkien knew them, and their journys are partly travels backward in time. And the Narnia books are even more obviously examples of protagonists from the modern world in fantasy realms.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

But today's readers of Brown are neither Edwardians nor children.

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

I agree about Tolkien. Hobbits make good viewpoint characters within the invented world because of their similarity to us and their naivite, but they aren't the same thing as heroes from the here and now.

But Lewis is a different matter. Readers of Brown are not children, no, but readers of Lewis are.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean that there are no other "fantasy novels with protagonists from the here-and-now." But I do think that is one of the attractions of Brown's work for some readers. Some readers would never go looking for something marketed as "fantasy"--some would even avoid it--but they are attracted by some of the same things that some readers of identified-as-fantasy books are. Brown's books are full of secrets and symbols, rituals and brotherhoods, and, dare I say, quests.

For some people--probably for almost all his readers--Brown's books play into their existing suspicions that powerful cabals run the world. That's another attraction.

Is the "badness" of his writing part of his success? Probably, in a sense. Has there ever been a time when "good" writing, in a literary sense, had any correlation with popularity? In fiction, for most readers, the quality of the writing (again, in a literary sense) is at the bottom of the list, after plot, character, accessibility (Can I understand what's going on, at least as much as some characters do?), and probably several other factors. When has it been otherwise--and why should it be?

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Shakespeare, for one. He did both, popularity and quality, and his reward has been centuries of enduring success.

Literary quality may mean little to the mass of Dan Brown's readership, but it means much more to many potential readers he's not reaching. The question is, would decent writing - I'm not talking about abstruse or high-falutin', just competent - hurt him with his current readers?

Many best-selling authors are competent writers at the level I'm talking about. Frederick Forsyth, Michael Crichton, at least in their earlier books, both of whom I've read with enjoyment, to name two. Most of the top mystery authors are excellent writers. (It's their plots I can't stand.)