The OF Blog

Friday, January 13, 2012

Thoughts on two recent R. Scott Bakker short stories

I recently was made aware that Scott Bakker has been writing short fictions, two of which are set in his Eärwa fantasy world, "The Four Revelations of Cinial'jin" and "The False Sun."  If one has read only his fantasy works, one might be surprised to learn that he has written short fictions, considering the depth and breadth of semantic exploration that takes place in a milieu where a de Saussurian examination of the relationships between the Signifiers and the Signified seems to lie near the heart of the mechanics of his setting's metaphysics.  Yet what intrigues me more than just the length of the stories told are the forms that he utilizes to tell two very complex "slice of life" narratives.

The first, "The Four Revelations of Cinial'jin," is told from the perspective of a Non-man Erratic.  Those who have read all five of Bakker's fantasy novels should be familiarized with their tragic fates, but those who have not read those works will quickly be lost, as the quoted sample below should illustrate:

They raise him upon a pole, pile sheaves of bracken about his feet. He has wondered whether death would be beautiful. He has wondered how the end of memory would appear at memory’s end. He has wondered what it means to so outrun glory as to become blind to disgrace. It seems proper that these screeching animals show him.

He watches them tip the amphorae, sees the oil pulse white in the sun. They are all there, Tinnirin, Rama, Par’sigiccas, sheeted in the blood of obscenities, their warcries cracked into gasps of effort, grunts of desperation. As the Men stand milling in the sunlight, filthy, bestial for hair, their brows dark so their eyes seem fires in angry caves. Rama’s head tips back like a bust on an unbalanced pedestal, painting witless shoulders in blood, as a plummeting shadow blots him, an Inchoroi monstrosity, decked in the corpse of some luckier brother. And he sorts them with his gaze, his frail captors, glimpsing dog-teeth, gloating for all the faces he will remember, for shame if not for torment. 

Stream of consciousness writing is tricky enough when the reader is well-acquainted with the setting and s/he has at least a vague conceptualization of how this narrative technique is being employed.  Bakker uses this technique in a setting that is not intimately familiar to neophyte readers; they cannot "ground" the narrative in a pre-conceived locale.  Nor can they relate to what the titular character, Cinial'jin, is (re)living.  It is very risky trying to show what is "under the hood" in a character that is literally inhuman.  When Dan Simmons did something similar (albeit on a much lesser scale) with his UI in The Fall of Hyperion, that character had to be "remote" and yet paradoxically "close" to those enmeshed in its sphere, with communication that seemed strange and stilted due to the UI's alien thoughts.  Here in "The Four Revelations of Cinial'jin," Bakker tries to do something similar, albeit on a much larger scale.  Cinial'jin is reliving the traumas of his past while experiencing the torturous end of his own present (and future). 

While these sorts of flashbacks have been done before (see Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury), what makes this particular scene intriguing is that Bakker aims to conflate the past and present into a loop of trauma and bruised memory to illustrate the tragic nature of the Erratics loss of full identity.  Yet in doing so, he has "ungrounded" the narrative; only glimpses of the narrative "present" can be identified with certainty (and only by a careful reading by those who are very familiar with the novels).  Although Bakker should be commended for attempting to tell a snippet of an epic fantasy through the use of stream of consciousness, the nature of the character serves to weaken the efficacy of that particular narrative technique.  Because Cinial'jin is "ungrounded" from typical divisions of "past" and "present," the story paradoxically becomes more dependent upon reader awareness of the fictional milieu.  Without that awareness to serve as a proxy grounding point, this narrative feels much less like a full, complete narrative and more like an interesting fragment that, if placed within the context of a larger story, would be much more effective than by itself.

The second story, "The False Sun," is told in a more conventional  third-person point of view.  Set around 3000 years before the events in The Darkness That Comes Before, "The False Sun" details some of the origins of the dreaded Consult, namely through the Mangaecca sorceror Shaeönanra's discovery of the remaining Inchoroi and the Inverse Fire that they possess.  What strikes me most about this story is how Bakker manages to strike a balance between a fabulistic "and in the days of yore, great deeds were done..." and a fatalistic "...before their works were undone, leaving behind only empty husks that belied the promise of those mighty deeds."  Below the first paragraph is quoted.  Note the use of detail to underscore the character's cynical point of view:

Like many great and dangerous Men, Shaeönanra was despised for many things, his penchant for mongering spies not the least of them. The rules that bound the Norsirai were unforgiving in those days. Trysë, the Holy Mother of Cities, was little more than a village huddling behind ruined walls of stone. The God-Kings of Imperial Umerau stared blindly from overthrown stone, moss-covered and almost forgotten. The Cond ruled the cities of the River Aumris, an empire they called the Great All, and few people were so proud or so headstrong. They divided the Ground between the Feal and the Wirg–the weak and the glorious. They adhered to a simplicity that was at once a fanaticism. And they judged the way all Men were prone to judge in those Far Antique days, without patience or mercy.

Unlike the first story, "The False Sun" has much more immediate repercussions for the unfolding fantasy series.  This story contains a wealth of details that according to the author are very pertinent to the in-progress The Unholy Consult, the sixth Eärwa novel, and while it does not "spoil" anything related to the plot of that novel, there are certain details provided that foreshadow what apparently will happen in that novel.  Therefore, it was with keen interest that I read "The False Sun."  What I took away from it was that it is a very well-written narrative that combines the use of naturalist techniques (describing the setting as true as possible) with a lyrical approach that is intended to provide a faint echo of older heroic narratives.

For the majority of the time, this combination works well, as Bakker's attention to detail creates a foreboding atmosphere that is heightened by the juxtaposition of Shaeönanra's thoughts with descriptions of the world around him.  Although too much is made of "world building" when certain reviewers try to analyze the epic fantasy that they have read, it does bear noting that Bakker has done a better job here in describing the layout of his created setting, not just in contents of what exists (the cities that the reader knows will be desolate at some point, the sense of the lost arcane knowledge that occurred in the narrative "present," etc.) but in how these elements have an import beyond the story at hand.  There are numerous hints and possible foreshadowing events that several of Bakker's fans will probably want to dissect and analyze before the next novel comes out.  "The False Sun" certainly does lend itself well to being a speculation-generating piece.  However, I think what is best about this story is not what it portends for the series proper, but instead how it demonstrates Bakker's growth as a writer.

In the past, one of my main complaints about Bakker's writing was his tendency to use a narrative sledgehammer to embed certain elements within the story.  At times during my reading of his first series, The Prince of Nothing, a scene would be near-perfect, until a character would try to reinforce something that had already been previously established about the locale, the situation, or the greater stakes than the Holy War plot.  In his latest novel, The White-Luck Warrior, Bakker had toned this down somewhat, letting the action reveal the gravity of the situation rather than relying so heavily upon the characters to repeat almost redundantly what had previously been accepted.  Here in "The False Sun," by having the thoughts of the future Consult leader serve as the main portal through which the reader experiences the action, s/he gets a larger sense behind the motivations of the antagonists without the need for elaboration or repetition.  This adds new layers to not just "The False Sun," but also to the series as a whole.  By being able to see the antagonistic side and to discern the likely source of their motivations, a new perception is generated without Bakker ever needing to have those characters reveal everything behind their machinations.  Shaeönanra is an effective character not because his actions are particularly noteworthy, but because his motivations are plausible and this adds depth to characters that otherwise might have been relegated to two-dimensional cardboard likenesses of actual dynamic characters. 

"The Four Revelations of Cinial'jin" and "The False Sun" both show Bakker expanding his narrative repertoire.  Although "The Four Revelations of Cinial'jin" is weakened by its dependence upon the reader being fully aware of the context in which the stream of consciousness narrative moves, "The False Sun" is perhaps one of Bakker's most accomplished writings to date.  Subtlety in voice and in characterization can go a long way in creating a compelling atmosphere for the narrative to unfold and in "The False Sun," Bakker shows that the progress made in his earlier novels continues.  This bodes well for the upcoming The Unholy Consult and perhaps for future short fictions in the Eärwa setting.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Recent comments/reviews that have baffled me

Ever read or heard someone claim something that seems so outlandish, so preposterous that you find it hard to come back with a retort because you are uncertain if they inhabit the same semantic planet as you do?  Over the past few days, I have experienced three such comments that have left me baffled and nearly at a loss for words.

1.  Arguing against standards for some odd reason.  Westeros, "Tolkien's Nobel Prize Nomination rejected  due to 'poor prose'"  

Some choice comments from a poster there called James Nicholls (a real name, perhaps?):

I find your analogy lacking. Medicine is a science. That's not to say there isn't some contention about what are the best methods of healing a given case, but there are hard facts behind the reasoning. You take an aspirin to cure a headache, and that's more or less proven to work (let's assume the headache isn't the symptom of some larger problem). Medicine is a hard subject. Literary criticism is about as soft as you can get. I don't deny a reader of 500 books is better poised to place any given work within a set context and compare that work to other works, but I do deny that his opinion of the quality of the work is inherently better than the reader of 5 books.
Wait a minute...didn't he just say...?

And then in relation to earlier comments (possibly including one I made) about the development of standards for evaluation by those who are experts in a field:

You seem to have missed the observation that those standards while nice in their own right aren't authoritative. They aren't objectively better than any other standards one wishes to judge something by.

Oh, this is leading to something....I think.  What it is, I'm not confident the poster there even knows.  It may be related on an earlier response of his regarding the comparison of well-known works to the risible Eye of Argon: 

Given that Tolstoy and The Eye of Argon don't occupy the same genre I'd say there is minimal value is comparing the two. But since you keep coming back to it as an example, let's discuss The Eye of Argon.

***
I only read the first chapter, but actually I was expecting far worse from this. The three obvious points are that it's verbose (which isn't surprising for a 16 year old writer), it's highly derivative and there are some spelling mistakes. These are all objective observations, but whether or not you think they are bad things is subjective. Some people like flowery writing, some prefer a minimalistic style. All works are derivative to some extent, and whether or not something is offering new ideas may or may not matter to you. As for spelling mistakes, the only reason we have spelling mistakes is that we have standardised English. Most people would consider that a flaw, but that's largely based on what we've been taught. Before the standardisation of English that wouldn't even have been a consideration.

There's a value to dissecting a text, but it's not in deciding what is better or worse. It's in deciding what works for you. 

At this point, I think discussing evaluative tools and how performance/efficacy/art is achieved is beyond hope with someone who refuses to see that arguments of relation (a common fallacy of those who argue for an extreme form of revelatism is that there has to be some sort of independent criteria around which the relations in play can revolve) depend upon a consensus regarding evaluative standards.  I'm close to making this the first person I've ever "ignored" at a forum solely due to asinine arguments.  But these quotes are just the tip of the iceberg of inanity.  Read on and weep at the link above.

2.  Claiming Tolkien is better than any Nobel finalist or winner.  SFF World, "JRR Tolkien's Nobel chances dashed by 'poor prose'"

 Before I quote from this poster whose handle is "saintjon," I want to note that the majority of the comments in both this and the Westeros thread, even the ones I disagree with, are worth considering.  Then after all of that consideration, you get someone who makes a comment so hyperbolic, that it's nigh useless to argue, since it'd just be wasted e-air:

Tolkien needs a Nobel like the Beatles need to be in the Rock in Roll Hall of Fame. The Prize is less without him, not the other way around. Like someone said, he's in really distinguished company on the rejected pile. Dailyrich hit it on the head IMO.

Loerwyn I just really couldn't disagree with you more. Blizzard have spent the last half-decade crowing about WoW having 30 million subscribers but Tolkien added nothing new to society? Sometimes it seems like all you can find around here is people complaining how similar to Tolkien everything is. We are part of society and Tolkien's handprint is all over most of what we're into in indelible ink.

Yes, Tolkien is a popular writer that has had over 100 million of his works in print since 1938.  Not only do I suspect that this "saintjon" character has not read any of the others considered for the 1961 Nobel, I begin to wonder if he was on crack when responding to a prior comment about how the Nobel in Literature is meant to recognize a writer's impact on society.  "We are part of society and Tolkien's handprint is all over most of what we're into in indelible ink" is incredibly myopic and either woefully ignorant or willfully misconstruing just what "social literature" is.  Strange, very strange.

3.  io9 review of a recent epic fantasy release. 

I have not been impressed with io9 reviewer Charlie Jane Anders' columns the few times I've been linked to them (I do not make a habit of reading io9).  I remember laughing at her absurd claims two years ago about how The New Yorker had "no SF writers" on their "20 Under 40" list in 2010.  With that still in my memory, I found it very difficult to take her recent review of John R. Fultz's Seven Princes very seriously.  I am not going to quote the entire review (if I did, I would be tempted to riff on nearly every single claim she makes there), so I'll settle for a few phrases that make me chortle, mostly because everything she claimed was a good thing about the book seems to reveal that it is a crappy book (I have not read the book, nor do I desire to do so, therefore I am not discussing the merits of the book prima faciae):

"  pleasure to read an unabashed over-the-top fantasy epic"...."totally batshit stuff happens every few page"...." definitely not a new masterpiece of the fantasy genre, or a challenger to George R.R. Martin or Joe Abercrombie"..." breakneck pacing and nonstop insanity. Every few pages, foxes are turning into naked ladies or giants are going off to talk to the mermaid queen, or a long-lost race of blue giants is randomly discovered, or evil dark spirits are destroying entire kingdoms. It's epic with a capital EPIC."..."The King of Yaskatha has him put to death, but then he comes back again, and once again demands the throne. This goes on for a bit, until it turns into a zombie rampage that kills the King and almost everybody else. The surviving prince of Yaskatha, D'Zan, flees and vows to regain his throne. Meanwhile, the sexy sorceress Ianthe plots to take over most of the rest of the world, with Ellathym's help."..."She's constantly turning into a white panther and laying waste to cities, while her grandson has quasi-incestuous thoughts about her. (Edited to add: And the evil prince contacts his grandma by smoking magical crack, and then drinking human blood.) The twisted grandma-grandson relationship is probably the best part of the book."

Gah, I can't stand quoting anymore!  This work sounds like it's one of the shittiest fictions ever written since the above-mentioned Eye of Argon based on this reviewer's odd (maybe "breakneck pace with totally batshit stuff happening" every few sentences?) review.  If the book is anything like this review, it'd be an incomprehensible pile of donkey turds that have been stacked into a 1:18 ratio shit replica of the Washington Monument.  How someone could write those things and claim that the book is good is beyond me.

Like I said, these are the recent comments and reviews that have baffled me.  Perhaps they make more sense to you?

January 2012 Book Porn


Made another trip to McKay's today and found quite a bit of interest in their Foreign Languages aisle.  Languages fascinate me and I thought it'd be interesting to pick up elementary guides to Finnish and Gujarati, in case I want to learn bits and pieces of those language to go with the dozen or so grammars in other languages I already own.  Picked up two books in French, and five in German, including Hesse's Der Steppenwolf, which I will read later this year or next.  The Italian book is by Nobel laureate Luigi Pirandello, one of two Nobel laureates I bought today (Hesse being the other), as well as two 1961 finalists, pictured below.


Four of these books I ordered before going to McKay's.  Since I want to be able to read Persian poetry, I bought a bilingual edition of 20th century poet Sohrab Sepehri's Water's Footfall that looks promising.  Also ordered Lawrence Durrell's The Alexandria Quartet novels; the first three arrived today.  Durrell and Graham Greene were recently revealed to be considered for the 1961 Nobel Prize in Literature (which went to Ivo Andrić for his outstanding The Bridge on the Drina and other works), so I picked up a copy of Greene's The End of the Affair for reading and possible reviewing later this week.  Bought an annotated edition of one of my favorite Spanish playwrights, Calderón de la Barca's classic La vida es sueño and I thought I'd take a flier on Chinese writer Lu Hsun.

With luck, the majority of these will be read and maybe even reviewed over the course of this year.  Any in particular strike your fancy?

Monday, January 09, 2012

Nobel Prize in Literature winners

-->
Posting the list of Nobel Prize in Literature recipients as part of a years-long project to note which authors I've read or have works to read.  Currently, I've read or own works by almost 50 of the 108 recipients during the 104 years the prize has been awarded (there were no winners a few years, mostly during the two World Wars).  Bold means I've read the author, italics that I have at least one of their works but have not read anything, and plain text means I have not read anything yet in any language by that author.



2014  Patrick Modiano
2013  Alice Munro
2012  Mo Yan
2011  Tomas Tranströmer
2010  Mario Vargas Llosa
2009  Herta Müller
2008  Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio
2007  Doris Lessing
2006  Orhan Pamuk
2005  Harold Pinter
2004  Elfriede Jelinek
2003  John M. Coetzee
2002  Imre Kertész
2001  Sir Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul
2000  Gao Xingjian
1999  Günter Grass
1998  José Saramago
1997  Dario Fo
1996  Wislawa Szymborska
1995  Seamus Heaney
1994  Kenzaburo Oe
1993  Toni Morrison
1992  Derek Walcott
1991  Nadine Gordimer
1990  Octavio Paz
1989  Camilo José Cela
1988  Naguib Mahfouz
1987  Joseph Brodsky
1986  Wole Soyinka
1985  Claude Simon
1984  Jaroslav Seifert
1983  William Golding
1982  Gabriel García Márquez
1981  Elias Canetti
1980  Czeslaw Milosz
1979  Odysseus Elytis
1978  Isaac Bashevis Singer
1977  Vicente Aleixandre
1976  Saul Bellow
1975  Eugenio Montale
1974  Eyvind Johnson, Harry Martinson
1973  Patrick White
1972  Heinrich Böll
1971  Pablo Neruda
1970  Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn
1969  Samuel Beckett
1968  Yasunari Kawabata
1967  Miguel Angel Asturias
1966  Shmuel Yosef Agnon, Nelly Sachs
1965  Mikhail Aleksandrovich Sholokhov
1964  Jean-Paul Sartre
1963  Giorgos Seferis
1962  John Steinbeck
1961  Ivo Andrić
1960  Saint-John Perse
1959  Salvatore Quasimodo
1958  Boris Leonidovich Pasternak
1957  Albert Camus
1956  Juan Ramón Jiménez
1955  Halldór Kiljan Laxness
1954  Ernest Miller Hemingway
1953  Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill
1952  François Mauriac
1951  Pär Fabian Lagerkvist
1950  Earl (Bertrand Arthur William) Russell
1949  William Faulkner
1948  Thomas Stearns Eliot
1947  André Paul Guillaume Gide
1946  Hermann Hesse
1945  Gabriela Mistral
1944  Johannes Vilhelm Jensen
1943  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1942  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1941  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1940  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1939  Frans Eemil Sillanpää
1938  Pearl Buck
1937  Roger Martin du Gard
1936  Eugene Gladstone O'Neill
1935  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was with 1/3 allocated to the Main Fund and with 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1934  Luigi Pirandello
1933  Ivan Alekseyevich Bunin
1932  John Galsworthy
1931  Erik Axel Karlfeldt
1930  Sinclair Lewis
1929  Thomas Mann
1928  Sigrid Undset
1927  Henri Bergson
1926  Grazia Deledda
1925  George Bernard Shaw
1924  Wladyslaw Stanislaw Reymont
1923  William Butler Yeats
1922  Jacinto Benavente
1921  Anatole France
1920  Knut Pedersen Hamsun
1919  Carl Friedrich Georg Spitteler
1918  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1917  Karl Adolph Gjellerup, Henrik Pontoppidan
1916  Carl Gustaf Verner von Heidenstam
1915  Romain Rolland
1914  No Nobel Prize was awarded this year. The prize money was allocated to the Special Fund of this prize section.
1913  Rabindranath Tagore
1912  Gerhart Johann Robert Hauptmann
1911  Count Maurice (Mooris) Polidore Marie Bernhard Maeterlinck
1910  Paul Johann Ludwig Heyse
1909  Selma Ottilia Lovisa Lagerlöf
1908  Rudolf Christoph Eucken
1907  Rudyard Kipling
1906  Giosuè Carducci
1905  Henryk Sienkiewicz
1904  Frédéric Mistral, José Echegaray y Eizaguirre
1903  Bjørnstjerne Martinus Bjørnson
1902  Christian Matthias Theodor Mommsen
1901  Sully Prudhomme 


Always more to read.  Which ones have you read and what did you think of their works?

Edit:  Found several of these for free or a nominal fee as e-books, many of which are available through Project Gutenberg (the pre-1923 works, or the ones that have been converted to e-book format by that non-profit group).  Plenty of reading in the weeks and months to come.

Friday, January 06, 2012

Slight revision of plans

Due to the interesting debate about the 1961 Nobel Literature notes, I think over the next few weeks I will work in reviews of a few works by Graham Greene, E.M. Forster, Karen Blixen/Isak Dinesan, Lawrence Durrell, Ivo Andrić, and Alberto Moravia to the already existing January schedule (a few might go into February).  I also might write an essay elaborating on yesterday's post regarding my agreement with the comments about Tolkien's work in comparison to the others.  Should be fun.

Thursday, January 05, 2012

A Gloriously Awful Cover Art Caption Contest

Earlier today, I went to my grandmother's house to sort through her book collection in preparation for selling the unwanted books in an estate sale later this month. While I was going through the 700-800 books that she owned, I selected 12 books to keep per family agreement. Most of these are SF/Fantasy books from the 1960s, including four Ace Double and while some of the authors are well-renowned today, I was struck by how strange and often cheesy much of the cover art was.  Although I am no Good Show, Sir, I thought it might be fun to post images of each book (even the non-horrid ones) and allow readers to write the funniest, wittiest, most damning comments on the covers that they can.  So without further ado, fourteen images of sixteen covers on twelve books (yes, that really is what I said).  Enjoy?
















Tolkien was nominated for 1961 Nobel Prize consideration...and was found wanting

The Guardian had an interesting article online today about the unsealing of the 1961 Nobel Prize for Literature and who else besides the eventual winner Ivo Andrić (who was a very deserving winner, I might add) was considered for the award and the commentaries made in reference to them.  There were some really good names on that consideration list:  Graham Greene (who was the runner-up that year; sadly, he never won the prize), E.M. Forster, Robert Frost (the latter two were dismissed from further consideration largely due to their age and not the quality of their work), Lawrence Durrell (whose works I've been meaning to read for a while; dismissed due to the eroticism in several of his fictions), Karen Blixen (she wrote Out of Africa, which I've heard of at least; she finished third in the final round of voting), Alberto Moravia (whose works were dismissed for a "general monotony"), and then...

J.R.R. Tolkien.

Oh, I know Tolkien has sold more novels than any of the others on this list (although most of the authors mentioned have done quite well for themselves over the years), but it really is the odd duckling in this group and not because it was a seminal work of epic fantasy.  The comments made about his work (incidentally, the work was nominated by C.S. Lewis, so even the Nobel nominees sometimes show the influence of people too close to the author presenting works for consideration) might spark some discussion:

The prose of Tolkien – who was nominated by his friend and fellow fantasy author CS Lewis – "has not in any way measured up to storytelling of the highest quality", wrote jury member Anders Österling. 

Trying to disagree, trying to find fault in this, trying, trying...and I can't.  When compared to the others listed above, Tolkien's prose is drab, the storytelling is not as good, and it just is not at the caliber of the others nominated.   Andrić's The Bridge on the Drina is an extremely powerful fiction, one that I will revisit several times in the years to come.  Greene's The Power and the Glory is captivating in its prose and in the narrative itself.  Frost's poetry is memorable, although I don't rate him as highly as many others do.  Forster's work is impressive.  Durrell and Blixen and perhaps Moravia I hope to read in the near future.

I just can't associate Tolkien's abilities as a writer with any of the ones I've read.  When I reviewed the three volumes of The Lord of the Rings back in 2009, I found myself thinking the prose was variable in quality and that the story in places just did not interest me.  So while I'm surprised his work was even considered for the Nobel Prize in Literature, I am not shocked to discover that it was viewed dimly by those in charge of selecting the prize winner in 1961.  After all, the trilogy did not receive universal praise when it was published in 1954-1955.  Here is a link to the review that renowned American critic Edmund Wilson wrote about LotR, quoted in part below:


The most distinguished of Tolkien's admirers and the most conspicuous of his defenders has been Mr. W. H. Auden. That Auden is a master of English verse and a well-equipped critic of verse, no one, as they say, will dispute. It is significant, then, that he comments on the badness of Tolkien's verse - there is a great deal of poetry in The Lord of the Rings. Mr. Auden is apparently quite insensitive - through lack of interest in the other department.- to the fact that Tolkien's prose is just as bad. Prose and verse are on the same level of professorial amateurishness. What I believe has misled Mr. Auden is his own special preoccupation with the legendary theme of the Quest. He has written a book about the literature of the Quest; he has experimented with the theme himself in a remarkable sequence of sonnets; and it is to be hoped that he will do something with it on an even larger scale. In the meantime - as sometimes happens with works that fall in with one's interests - he no doubt so overrates The Lord of the Rings because he reads into it something that he means to write himself. It is indeed the tale of a Quest, but, to the reviewer, an extremely unrewarding one. The hero has no serious temptations; is lured by no insidious enchantments, perplexed by few problems. What we get is a simple confrontation - in more or less the traditional terms of British melodrama - of the Forces of Evil with the Forces of Good, the remote and alien villain with the plucky little home-grown hero. There are streaks of imagination: the ancient tree-spirits, the Ents, with their deep eyes, twiggy beards, rumbly voices; the Elves, whose nobility and beauty is elusive and not quite human. But even these are rather clumsily handled. There is never much development in the episodes; you simply go on getting more of the same thing. Dr. Tolkien has little skill at narrative and no instinct for literary form. The characters talk a story-book language that might have come out of Howard Pyle, and as personalities they do not impose themselves. At the end of this long romance, I had still no conception of the wizard Gandalph, who is a cardinal figure, had never been able to visualize him at all. For the most part such characterizations as Dr. Tolkien is able to contrive are perfectly stereotyped: Frodo the good little Englishman, Samwise, his dog-like servant, who talks lower-class and respectful, and never deserts his master. These characters who are no characters are involved in interminable adventures the poverty of invention displayed in which is, it seems to me, almost pathetic. On the country in which the Hobbits, the Elves, the Ents and the other Good People live, the Forces of Evil are closing in, and they have to band together to save it. The hero is the Hobbit called Frodo who has become possessed of a ring that Sauron, the King of the Enemy, wants (that learned reptilian suggestion - doesn't it give you a goosefleshy feeling?). In spite of the author's disclaimer, the struggle for the ring does seem to have some larger significance. This ring, if one continues to carry it, confers upon one special powers, but it is felt to become heavier and heavier; it exerts on one a sinister influence that one has to brace oneself to resist. The problem is for Frodo to get rid of it before he can succumb to this influence. 

            NOW, this situation does create interest; it does seem to have possibilities. One looks forward to a queer dilemma, a new kind of hair-breadth escape, in which Frodo, in the Enemy's kingdom, will find himself half-seduced into taking over the enemy's point of view, so that the realm of shadows and horrors will come to seem to him, once he is in it, once he is strong in the power of the ring, a plausible and pleasant place, and he will narrowly escape the danger of becoming a monster himself. But these bugaboos are not magnetic; they are feeble and rather blank; one does not feel they have any real power. The Good People simply say « Boo » to them. There are Black Riders, of whom everyone is terrified but who never seem anything but specters. There are dreadful hovering birds-think of it, horrible birds of prey! There are ogreish disgusting Orcs, who, however, rarely get to the point of committing any overt acts. There is a giant female spider - a dreadfu1 creepy-crawly spider! - who lives in a dark cave and eats people. What one misses in all these terrors is any trace of concrete reality. The preternatural, to be effective, should be given some sort of solidity, a real presence, recognizable features - like Gulliver, like Gogol, like Poe; not like those phantom horrors of Algernon Blackwood which prove so disappointing after the travel-book substantiality of the landscapes in which he evokes them. Tolkien's horrors resemble these in their lack of real contact with their victims, who dispose of them as we do of the horrors in dreams by simply pushing them or puffing them away. As for Sauron, the ruler of Mordor (doesn't the very name have a shuddery sound.) who concentrates in his person everything that is threatening the Shire, the build-up for him goes on through three volumes. He makes his first, rather promising, appearance as a terrible fire-rimmed yellow eye seen in a water-mirror. But this is as far as we ever get. Once Sauron's realm is invaded, we think we are going to meet him; but he still remains nothing but a burning eye scrutinizing all that occurs from the window of a remote dark tower. This might, of course, be made effective; but actually it is not; we never feel Sauron's power. And the climax, to which we have been working up through exactly nine hundred and ninety-nine large close-printed pages, when it comes, proves extremely flat. The ring is at last got rid of by being dropped into a fiery crater, and the kingdom of Sauron « topples » in a brief and banal earthquake that sets fire to everything and burns it up, and so releases the author from the necessity of telling the reader what exactly was so terrible there. Frodo has come to the end of his Quest, but the reader has remained untouched by the wounds and fatigues of his journey. An impotence of imagination seems to me to sap the whole story. The wars are never dynamic; the ordeals give no sense of strain; the fair ladies would not stir a heartbeat; the horrors would not hurt a fly.

Although there are parts of Wilson's review with which I disagree, I think he has some sound points here to make about the deficiencies of the writing and the plot.  Over the course of nearly 60 years, it is easy to forget that not everyone was enamored with the tale and that when placed in context with certain other works, The Lord of the Rings reads less like a seminal work of fiction and more like a flawed continuation of other strands of fantasy that have existed for well over a century.  In that light, I think the criticisms of Wilson and of the Nobel Committee are worth considering in the Year of Our Hobbit 2941.

 
Add to Technorati Favorites