In the New York Times, Michael Agger reviews Lev Grossman‘s fantasy novel, The Magicians. He sneers at it. He thinks it “sounds like fun, but aren’t we a little old for this?”
Too old for fantasy? Too old for fun? Both notions amuse, amaze, and appall me. I have two responses, the short one, from Pauline Kael, “If art isn’t entertainment, then what is it? Punishment?” and the long one, in the form of my essay, “Living Fiction, Storybook Lives.” It begins:
There isn’t a culture on this earth without some kind of storytelling tradition, whether that tradition takes the form of a wrinkled elder in some dusty village spinning tales of gods and demons, a sleek publishing industry churning out westerns and romances and thrillers, or a Hollywood production company filming epic dramas and torrid soap operas. As individuals and societies we are shaped by story: our culture and sense of self literally cannot exist without it because we only know who and what we are when we can tell a story about ourselves. We learn how to tell our story by listening to the tales that are out there and picking through them, choosing some details and discarding others. If something happens to us that doesn’t match the plot lines and characters we are familiar with, we don’t know how to classify it or describe it, we don’t know where or even whether it fits. It does not become part of our story. As Henry James once remarked, adventures happen only to those who know how to tell them.
I conclude, along with Tolkien, that the ones with the most to lose in terms of escapism are the jailers. So what is Agger trying to keep segregated, and why?
…isn't it YA, anyhow? Isn't calling YA doubly silly? Not that YA isn't smart, vibrant, & a great “grade” to find books in.
My wife is reading this; she says she hasn't made up her mind whether she thinks I should read it. I was just bummed at the back cover copy– CS Lewis & I have…issues, & I really don't like TH White. Ursala Le Guin is a hole in my reading– an embarassing one!
Did you recommend me…Lord of Snow & Shadows? I have it, but no idea why I should read it.
Man. Too angry even to click through to the review. When a critic categorically dismisses fantasy, I categorically dismiss them.
mordicai, I love T.H. White. And C.S. Lewis. (I just don't buy part of what they're selling.) But I couldn't read the Grossman. It bored me. As for Lord of Snow and Shadows–I'd never heard of it, but have just downloaded the sample chapter…
monica, mutally assured dismissal–sounds like a plan.
Another example of the faux-erudition of critics. It's darn easy to dismiss “fun” genres and “kids” genres and “chick books” and everything else that isn't about and by white men and their limited interests of sex, money and sports (and yes, yes, I am being pursposefully dismissive, so don't give me a rash of shit about it).
The bottom line is being a reviewer and being a critic doesn't *actually* make you an arbiter of anything. It makes you a person whose opinion gets published. I make my bias exceedingly visible when I write a review, so no reader can doubt for a second that they know where I'm coming from. (Amazingly, because of this, I get emails demanding more “objectivity” as if a review is ever objective.)
The grown-up, largely male, largely unfun, over-serious reviewers of NYT have systematically dismissed all but “true” literature written by people who (completely coincidentally of course) happen to look and sound just like themselves.
Is it reasonable to ask a stuffy old guy to understand and appreciate YA fantasy lit? Possibly, but how more useful a review it would be if the reviewer knew and enjoyed the category and could compare apples to apples. When reviewers hold Harry Potter up to Turgenev it's no surprise when it doesn't meet the standard. Hold it up to an actual peer and then the review can begin.
For the record, I loath T.H. White with all my might. The “Once and Future King” holds the distinction of being the only book I have thrown against a wall…twice. Bit it didn't stop me from majoring in Arthurian Literature.
Cheers,
Erica
http://okazu.blogspot.com
The grown-up, largely male, largely unfun, over-serious reviewers of NYT have systematically dismissed all but “true” literature written by people who (completely coincidentally of course) happen to look and sound just like themselves.
I've written an essay about that, too :)
So now I'm curious. Erica, Mordicai, what ticked you off so much about The Once and Future King?
I read another review on this book that made it sound great. I'll also be buying The Child Thief against mixed reviews. A bad review won't keep a fantasy lover down, it will only prevent people new to fantasy from testing the waters.
I don't know what got under my skin so much about O&FK. Maybe it was such a watered down, tepid narrative? I don't know, but I'd guess that. Yeah there was just something about it I really reacted badly to.
CS Lewis has some cred with me for some Narnia work, & especially the first two Space Trilogy books. Man, that was a great dare between him & Prof. Tolkien.
Man, the Martians are great.
Re: Lord of Snow and Shadows…I cannot for the life of me figure out why I ordered this book! I am totally befuddled. & since it is a mass market (unreadable format, if you ask me) I'll never crack it without coaxing.
mordicai, wow, talk about mileage varying… O&FK, to me, is howlingly funny, bitingly satirical, and beautifully, just beautifully written. There again, it depends heavily upon an understanding of the English class system in the 1930s. But I suspect your (and possibly Erica's) antipathy is more deeply rooted than that. This is fascinating.
If you have any more thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
I will have to take another look at O&FK, but one of my ALL TIME favorite books is Mistress Masham's Repose. Do you O&FK throwers dislike that one as well? Just collecting more data! -Elena (can't figure out how to set up a profile)
“O&FK, to me, is howlingly funny, bitingly satirical, and beautifully, just beautifully written.” – I agree entirely. Couldn't have said it better myself. It's one of those books I return to just to get lost in the language, and then, always, end up laughing, too.
I liked O&FK, but I much preferred the earlier version of the first (Sword in the Stone) segment to the one published in the complete volume. Has anyone read the early versions of the other sections? I'd like to know if they, too, were altered and–if so–if the originals were better or worse.
–P.
“aren't we a little old for this?”
I think this is a textbook example of what Ursula LeGuin calls “maturismo.”
I thought Lancelot was a tick. Naked woman in bath in front of him and he's obsessing about how wonderful and pure he is. Feh. I wanted Elaine to get up out of the bath and stab him, then get back in and say, “I'll wait for a real man.”
Overall, White's ootsey-cutesy baby talk in one sentence followed by obscure Latin puns in the next made me think that White and all his characters would *not* be welcome at my house for lunch. Since he and his book failed my “lunch” test and nearly every other version of Arthur sucked less by a lot, he lost.
I'm still partial to the original Welsh tales, but White did a lot to kill my enthusiasm for my major.
…this all reminds me that I have two Sailor Moon/ King Arthur crossovers yet to write. It's not nearly as absurd as it sounds. :-)
Cheers,
Erica
I particularly enjoyed the whimsy in O&FK. O&FK and Idylls of the King are my favorite retellings of the Arthurian legends. And possibly Richard Harris in Camelot. ;D
I'm beginning to see where we diverge. I love the first volume of O&FK, The Sword in the Stone. I haven't read the rest for years. I'm guessing there's a reason for that…
All right, I'm going to have to go back + read the Sword and the Stone, which I remember loving, and the Malory, which I remember was fascinating, and the Faerie Queen, at least for Britomart, and Camelot 3000, which rocks…happy now? Plus, now I've been reminded about Lloyd Alexander so add the Book of Three, etc. to that list.
I have several Madeleine L'Engle biographical type books scattered through shelves and I believe she always said she just set out to write good books. But I think everyone's a bit mad about the genre these days anyway. Good night.
Fwiw, I think that, on balance, Sutcliff's Sword at Sunset may be my favorite Arthurian novel.
–P.
I love Sutcliff. One of my Most Favouritist Evar Arthur books is The Hawk of May, by Gillian Bradshaw. Great stuff.
;-> Sutcliff is yummy. I do wonder, though, since one's appreciation is definitely enhanced by having read Kipling first, whether there are other “prerequisite” authors I've missed and ought to read now, so as to get the fullest effect.
I liked the Bradshaw, too, though not quite that enthusiastically.
In the category of Odd and Interesting Arthur-inspired books: The Dragon Rises by Martine-Barnes.
Remember “The Sorcerer's Apprentice” from Fantasia by Disney. How could anyone watch that and not love magic?