Viriconium (M. John Harrison)

[Larry.]

Interesting. So what you are saying is that Harrison set out to write an uninteresting, dull, uninspired and plain lifeless work and that, having fully and completely achieved that goal and achieved his parameters, he should be appreciated for it?

I hadn't considered that before. Good point, Larry.

No, rather that he did write something that was interesting, fantastical, and intriguing, but under conditions different than what you were looking for, it seems.

[Richard]

It's okay to bash a sacred cow (such as Tolkien) as long as you don't bash my sacred cow,

The idea that MJH is a sacred cow of mine is, frankly, hilarious - ask anybody.

Really, Werthead (and my prior comments were by no means addressed entirely to you), you betray yourself with almost every phrase:

Except that this genre is my fucking cinema.

There's the possessive controlling dynamic that Harrison mentions in his essay - as if everything written under the vast, vague umbrella of fantasy belongs to you, can be pigeonholed by you, and then assigned an absolute value depending on how much it ticks your boxes.

Viriconium does not fall into either stall.

Said vast field of fantasy is now, it seems, to be divided into two camps (reminds me of the joke about there being two kinds of people; those who make sweeping generalisations and those who don't), and if a book doesn't land in one or the other, why, 'tis shit.

You insist on referring to three separate and very different novels and a whole cycle of shorter pieces spanning a decade and a half as

The book

, which shows a remarkably obtuse approach to the material, especially given that I specified exactly this lack of continuity in my post. And you maintain that this separation is

irrelevant

, which shows an astonishing lack of appreciation of what it is to be a writer. Your rationale is (apparently) that because another author (Jack Vance) once wrote another series of pieces (The Dying Earth) over a similarly long period of time, and those books are among your favourites, why then, it is simply inconceivable that any other writer might have approached things differently and still produced good work. I don't know if you can see the holes in that piece of logic, but I would hope you would at least agree the argument is somewhat egocentric in slant.

I don't like Viriconium because I find no joy in it. I can see no passion to the writing, no soul in the prose. It is sterile and antiseptic. It is an ugly book, utterly lacking in anything I find engaging in literature.........there is nothing in it on an artistic or intellectual level I even remotely enjoyed.

(Apart from the power-armoured dwarf, of course )

But it clearly seems to have got under your skin, nonetheless - and you might want to ask yourself what that means.

[aidan]

So pretty much this is you wanting this text to fit your parameters and not you judging it based on its own parameters?

WTF. Do you live in some sort of bubble where subjectivity and personal taste are forbidden in discussion? Of course Adam's judging it by his own parameters. That's what makes us human.

[Larry.]

WTF. Do you live in some sort of bubble where subjectivity and personal taste are forbidden in discussion? Of course Adam's judging it by his own parameters. That's what makes us human.

And what makes us fallible.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

And what makes us fallible.

Fallible by whose criteria? You apparantly presume existence of some objective standard. Who gets to decide what it is?

[Larry.]

Fallible by whose criteria? You apparantly presume existence of some objective standard. Who gets to decide what it is?

You're overthinking it. We're fallible creatures. We do make mistakes in judgment, actions, etc. The judges of that are a combination of ourselves and others.

[pat5150]

Larry,

My friend, these are wanker's answers through and through...

I could never get into Viriconium for a number of reasons. There was no worldbuilding to speak of (not surprisingly given MJH's stance on the topic), so the various storylines did not resound with any depth whatsoever. The characterization was bland, every single character uninteresting. The plotlines were all over the place and never delivered. Not only did Viriconium fail to be engrossing in any run of the mill, but nothing found within its pages was engaging. As Adam mentioned, the prose was sterile, lacked passion or vitality.

Not a single plotline spoke to me, sucked me into the book, forcing to keep turning those pages to find out what happens next. I did not hate the book, though. Worst than that, Viriconium left me totally indifferent. So much so that today, a few years later, I can't quite recall anything about the various storylines. And yes, I did finish it.

Sue me for enjoying SFF works with universes that are living and breathing environments, evocative narratives that leap off the pages and create an arresting imagery, genuine characters that remain true to themselves, convoluted plots that keep you guessing till the end and revelations that make you shake your head in wonder. Basically, sue me for liking good, all-around SFF novels...

Patrick

[Stego]

Viriconium is a lot like it's author -- pretentious and convinced of its own superiority while being ultimately hollow.

He's technically a marvel. He can construct a solid sentence. It's quite easy to admire that, get caught up in that, but find yourself wishing that the (very short already) books would just fucking end.

"I think it's undignified to read for the purposes of escape. After you grow up, you should start reading for other purposes" - M. John Harrison

That is all one must really know about Mike Harrison. He's an overprivileged buffoon who believes he is the dignity police. (He's not met many SFF fans if he is assuming dignitas is a high priority, but I digress.)

That he lives a life so utterly devoid of the need for escape that he can't imagine the plight of those who might read for no other reason is... telling. There are no wars going on anymore, right? No one gets raped or tortured or falsely imprisoned. No, we all live in the nice part of London and climb rocks as a pastime.

This attitude and mindset drips from his fiction. He has all the pretentiousness of later Delany and early Wolfe without their humanity (or research or brilliance). I don't know any of his characters. You won't either. In the end, only the city itself becomes remotely interesting.

And it's not enough. When a work lack humanity, it lacks everything.

[JamesL]

Viriconium is a lot like it's author -- pretentious and convinced of its own superiority while being ultimately hollow.

Ah, so now we finally get on to what I half-suspected this recent debate was about all along: what a cock M. John Harrison is.

Who cares? I couldn't give a shit about what MJH says/does - it's irrelevant, and should have no bearing on this discussion about why Viriconium is/isn't a good/bad book. MJH has said plenty of things that I completely disagree with, but that didn't stop me from enjoying Viriconium. I can't help but feel that some of the negative comments here from some members are based on their dislike of the man as much as the book.

Seriously, come on - let's just focus on the book.

My own view is simple: I really like Viriconium, though can completely understand why plenty of readers don't like it. I loved the setting in The Pastel City, the weirdness of A Storm of Wings, and the atmosphere and melancholy of In Viriconium. I think the prose is wonderfully bleak and world-weary, though understandably many readers don't get on with this style - fair enough. I accept that the characterisation can be a bit uneven, but I really liked the sadness that clung to tegeus-Cromis and the brooding intensity of Hornwrack.

I freely admit that some of the Viriconium material is incomprehensible, but feel that this is exactly MJH's intention. Not that this necessarily justifies it, but I think he had a clear idea of what he was doing, even it it often remains beyond our understanding.

[David Selig]

^ Totally agreed, JamesL.

I have no problem at all with those who don't like Viriconium. To each his own, and the goals which MJH sets for himself are much different from what most readers look for.

Also just because MJH said that he doesn't like secondary world creation of the Tolkien type, doesn't mean I can't enjoy both his books and WoT, Malazan, Earthsea and many others of that type. I like variety. For example, right now I am reading the second volume of Mistborn and at the same time In Viriconium. The contrast is quite fascinating. Sanderson's world is so tidy and everything is explained over and over again, and MJH's is weird and mysterious and the rules keep on changing. Both are enjoyable to me in a different way.

[Stego]

Ah, so now we finally get on to what I half-suspected this recent debate was about all along: what a cock M. John Harrison is.

Don't let the fact that he's such a giant fucking douchebag get in the way of the fact that his fiction is pretentious and lacking humanity.

[Gormenghast]

This discussion is even more revealing that Erikson's one.

I'm not particularly an Harrison fan and only read "The Pastel City" (here jumps the bandwagon of everyone saying I can't say anything till I've read all books and short stories...), but if one criticizes it for lacking complex characters or worldbuilding, then it's a proof of totally missing the point. And Richard is absolutely right on that.

Why a book has to be always judged through the same canons of characterization, worldbuilding or whatever? These mark traits of a certain type of fantasy and that are generic enough to be applied usefully to many different books, but they aren't UNIVERSAL canons of quality. They are merely tools to analyze and describe a book, for example when writing a review. Canons help to simplify, but they aren't absolute rules.

So, really, if Harrison's original intent was to go AGAINST a certain type of worldbuilding, how can it make sense to criticize the book because it doesn't adhere to that canon? It was meant to go AGAINST it, so what? That was the whole point. It's like saying Japanese movies suck because there are too many silent/boring/descriptive scenes, or that actors in Werner Herzog's "Heart of Glass" didn't act realistically.

And, again, why for example I don't see the same canons applied to Gene Wolfe, for example? Because I already said that Severian definitely isn't that realistic and sympathetic character you seem to pretend in the novels you enjoy. You narrow to a small hole with no light not just "fantasy", but literature in general.

Things don't need to be necessarily molded to a particular canon and structure. It would be like pretending that all movies should be Hollywood-like. Which is its own canon, produces some effective, powerful, popular stuff, but it's not EXCLUSIVE of quality. It's exclusive of a particular cinematographic language and culture, but, thanks God, there are also different voices, different canons, different destinations. And fortunately art leaps away from cages of all kinds.

It's like this last Starcraft: the exact same game we played for 10 years. But then it's so well executed that it will sell like a juggernaut. So, can you only appreciate execution? The exact same story retold over and over and over, but told well? All about self-gratification of what is predictable? Can't you enjoy different stories told in different voices? And appreciate that voice for what it uniquely is and wants to communicate, and not in comparison/relation to a particular canon of analysis?

Viriconium, not totally unlike Wolfe's New Sun, is all about haunted atmosphere. It's dream-like, fragmented, hallucinated. Memory and nostalgia. Geographic space that can't be charted. Blurred, shape-shifting. What do you expect, HERE, a well rounded, realistic character engaged in traditional narrative? Moral choices? Politics? Warfare? Complex magic systems? Modernity dressed as a fantasy setting? It's its own thing, doing atmosphere really well, and it should be appreciated, or disliked, for what it is, and not in relation to a canon.

[Gormenghast]

This also needs to be pointed out:

Anyone who posts here and reads these threads on MJH, or has read this forum for a while, will know MJH's thoughts on epic secondary world Fantasy. He is indeed very dismissive of it, and has no time for it.

Viriconium is a lot like it's author -- pretentious and convinced of its own superiority while being ultimately hollow.

This is again a type of accusation I heard about Erikson. Where's the evidence of this?

If one marks a difference doesn't mean that the difference is one of "superiority". Or lacking humility. I think there's a lot of confusion here.

No doubt Harrison writes against a certain canon of fantasy, no doubt he's not interested in it. But where's the evidence that this difference is one of superiority and pretentiousness?

It's a matter of self sensibility to certain themes and types of writing. One can as well dismiss one, focus on a personal one, oppose the other, but this doesn't mean one is fighting for some silly supremacy or absolute value. I think Harrison is merely finding his own space in his own artistic expression. Which can be done, legitimately, by taking distance or engaging critically with canons.

What's wrong with that? Is "arrogant" the mere presence of a different voice? Intolerable?

[Stego]

This is again a type of accusation I heard about Erikson. Where's the evidence of this?

1. We're not talking about your binky. Stop making everything about him. He's better than Harrison, at least.

2. Like Calibandar said -- if you'd been around, you'd know. You haven't been around, so you don't know. Maybe you should read some of the forum instead of asking us to do it for you.

[pat5150]

For the record, I read Viriconium a couple of years before I became aware of M. John Harrison's inane remarks. So the fact that I think he's an elitist prick now had no bearing on my not enjoying the book back then.

It does explain why I'm in no hurry to give any of his work a shot, though. I don't believe I could be impartial... Hey, maybe it doesn't speak well of me, but at least I'm honest...

Patrick

[Richard]

Pat - that is nuts.

I could - but won't - name a significant number of genre writers whom I like as people, but whose work I don't enjoy. Similarly, I think Orson Scott Card's early short fiction is phenomenal, and the fact he's turned into a raving religious asshole as he's aged won't change that fact.

It's exactly this inability to detach critical assessment from the messier emotive side of ourselves that sinks us every time in genre. It's fucking tribal, man - we should have grown out of it long ago (around the same time we stopped burning witches).

[pat5150]

Richard,

I agree with you. But I know that the fact I think MJH is a moron would influence my perception of any books written by him. As I mentioned in the post above, it doesn't speak well of me, but at least I'm honest about it. And knowing that, I refrain from reading MJH's novels to make sure I don't come up with a negative review that would be the product of my not thinking much of the man more than an analysis of the work's inherent shortcomings. Mind you, the fact that Viriconium left me feeling so indifferent a few years back never really encouraged me to give the author another shot.

Fortunately, M. John Harrison and Terry Goodkind are the only two authors out there for whom I feel this sort of hatred. So it's not as though I'm burning a lot of bridges. . . You think there is a lot of vitriol in this thread. Man, you should see what was said regarding Dan Simmons and Orson Scott Card in recent years!

It always makes me laugh when I see SFF fans claiming I'm a Richard Morgan or a Brandon Sanderson hater. True, I didn't enjoy TSR as much as I wanted. But I did give Altered Carbon a perfect score and Black Man a 9.5/10. So yeah, I guess you're all right! Same thing with Brandon. I didn't care much for the last two Mistborn volumes, but the first one was something special. And if memory serves me right, I did say that Elantris was the debut of the year when I read it. . . Wasn't it Frank Herbert who said that perceptions rule the universe? It's just the way it is. . .

Not saying it's a good thing. But we're only human. . .

Now get back on the horn and finish The Cold Commands! I want to see how good it is, or if it's another case of Doctor Evil messing with our heads!

Patrick

[Richard]

Pat - try The Centauri Device; it may serve as a re-set for you. (MJH himself affects to hate it now, if that makes it any easier, but) it really is a seminal work for a whole bunch of other, well regarded writers - myself included.

After scores like that for AC and BM, you're allowed to dislike TSR - with my blessing, man.

Cold Commands is on its way.......... Prepare for more gay elf fucking to the max.

[john]

But no power-armoured dwarf? Ah well.

I didn't enjoy Viriconium much. But i thought it was, objectively speaking, all right. Don't know what you're all getting so worked up about, really.

I find Vandermeer a lot more irritating.

[pat5150]

Pat - try The Centauri Device; it may serve as a re-set for you. (MJH himself affects to hate it now, if that makes it any easier, but) it really is a seminal work for a whole bunch of other, well regarded writers - myself included.

After scores like that for AC and BM, you're allowed to dislike TSR - with my blessing, man.

Cold Commands is on its way.......... Prepare for more gay elf fucking to the max.

Hmmm, if MJH hates it, we may be on to something. . .

I dare Gollancz and Del Rey to put "Prepare for more gay elf fucking to the max" in the back cover blurb!!!

Patrick