The Richard Morgan Thread II

[Xray the Enforcer]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1705638' date='Mar 3 2009, 01.22']Easy. Rock is mostly about romantic love and appeals to teenagers.[/quote]

you've been listening to the wrong music, man.

[Richard]

[quote]I think this desire to bash Tolkien stems, honestly, from authors who are perhaps a little disgruntled.[/quote]
Yeah - colour me disgruntled; my books sell well enough globally for me to write comfortably full time, I've been honoured with awards for half of them, and there are Hollywood options out on two. I have advance contracts for a half dozen more, and interesting approaches from the comicbook, gaming and movie industries on a regular basis. I'm real disgruntled about it all.

Arthmail, as far as being an author is concerned, I am Happy fucking Jack - on E.

As for bashing Tolkien: >huge sigh< One. More. Time. There has [i]been[/i] no Tolkien bashing. I have expressed a brief critical opinion of [i]The Lord of the Rings.[/i] Its strengths and weaknesses. I could do the same for Cormac McCarthy's Border Trilogy or James Ellroy's LA Quartet, but that's not what my publisher asked me for. I was asked to write about the fantasy genre and I did - something I liked, something I didn't. Something that appealed, something that didn't. Whys and wherefores. That's [i]all[/i] I did. Bash, knock, blame, piss on, revered author - this is [i]playground[/i] stuff. It's fucking [i]tribal.[/i] And if I'm lucky enough to still be alive and in print in fifty years time, I'll be bloody horrified if my fans take this attitude to someone who doesn't much like the way I write.

And that's it - I'm done talking about this, I'm done trying to make people see what they don't want to. The essay is there for all to read, it's seven hundred words and change. It contains my sincere and rationally expressed opinions on a topic of interest to me. Agree or disagree rationally as you see fit (a number of people did that, and I had some interesting conversations with them). But if that piece kicks off some kind of rage bomb in anybody's guts, some sense of [i]grievance,[/i] then I would submit that they have the problem, not me. And I'd also submit that they need to go out and buy a working sense of perspective.

[Richard]

oh yeah, ps - Orouboros:

[quote]Having a group of Elves or orcs fighting for the opposite side makes as much sense as a regiment of Germans fighting for England, and a regiment of English soldiers fighting for Germany in World War One,[/quote]
Or as much sense as a regiment of Japanese Americans fighting on the allied side in World War 2? And being highly decorated for their exploits?
Or British and German soldiers fraternising across the lines in World War 1, and in some cases refusing to fight each other until they were moved to face different regiments?
[quote]stuff like that generally doesn't happen, at least in modern warfare.[/quote]
Sure - I guess the history books are just wrong.

[quote]what may be true for 'real life' isn't true in times of war.[/quote]
I see - human beings stop being human in a war, and real life stops too? Orouboros, either you and I have been living on different planets these last few decades, or you have access to some recreational chemicals I would dearly love to sample.

[Arthmail]

Seriously, if you critique something, and then can't handle that people don't agree, what the hell are we supposed to say?

And look at your post, you can list your accolades all you wish, and good for you, and i mean that honestly. But it doesn't detract from the fact that you've simply joined the line of people that feel the need to bash a fifty year old piece of work. I keep asking, what the fuck is the point? And i'm asking this honestly, what does it accomplish? Its been written, the man is dead and can't even defend himself. You seem to assume that those who don't agree somehow lose our minds when something critical to Tolkien comes along -- even though problems with LOTR have been expressed by numerous posters here. In the piece itself you belittle those who don't consider it a work of childrens fiction, and you do, and any number of people took that from your work. But then suddenly we are the little shits, because we actually take exception to the tone of your article along with the points that you raised.

Until you actually address the critiques of your piece, which struck many of us as irrational, instead of coming in here and taking a hard line with everyone that disagrees, i think this thread is dead. I agree, a sense of perspective needs to be found. And it has sweet buggar all to do with the revered author, or it being tribal. Blah. It has to do with your critical analysis of the work coming off like a load of shit for any number of people, based off of a disagreement with the analysis itself, not any knee jerk need to defend the work. I don't need to defend Tolkien. My defence will not, in any way, shape, or form, alter his popularity within the genre or otherwise.

But when i see something that i don't agree with, i express that, especially in a forum dedicated to doing so. To be accused on top of that of just not getting it, well, it really only comes down to a matter of perspective, doesn't it? You've become incredibly defensive over this, and perhaps you have taken a great deal of flack for it, perhaps not.

It doesn't matter though, does it? You won't address the points that we have raised, only the tone. There has been no real debate here, only your assumption that a few of us are fanbois that can't get over the great writer.

I am not meaning to be disrespectful here. I really hope this isn't a case of you, you agree with me or you're a terrorist. Becuase i'm a fan of your work, i really am. If i have insulted you, i appologize. Incidentally, when i said that some authors were disgruntled, i was looking specifically at Moorcock and Meiville. Not you. I should have expressed that more clearly in my last response. Their articles are almost personal, while yours lists what you don't like...and what you do like. I just don't think your right about it, and i've listed why.

[Ran]

Keep it polite,folks.

[Jacen]

Damn, what is it about this board? Whenever we are lucky enough to have authors visit us and allow us to interact with them, we totally slag them. I think it's pretty fucking cool we get a chance to talk to the likes of Richard Morgan and R. Scott Bakker, but when they appear some people take pot shots at them. You can disagree with them, but do it respectfully.

I can respect Morgan's opinion. And he could maybe convince me he's right about this Tolkien shit, if he were to, just for example, write another Kovacs book.... ;)

[Guest Raidne]

I'm not going to pretend to have read this whole thread, or the other one, but I will say that Altered Carbon was the first sci fi book I read after reading Tolkein (and WoT :leaving: ) when I was just starting out with speculative fiction and I loved it. However, I've never read anything else of Morgan's since then, and why is that?

I think it did just take me a long time to adjust to the difference in worldview. I picked sci fi back up again when I was in a lot of philosophy classes dealing with genetic engineering and problems of the future, and books like Morgan's helped me really get in the mindset to dig in to the nuances and complexities of those issues without feeling uncomfortable about it.

Not that I can read Mieville without still getting uncomfortable, but you know what I mean. I was pretty young. It was a long time ago.

So Altered Carbon started me down a path to more sci fi, but it took a [i]long[/i] time.

OTOH, it's not like I still don't enjoy the LoTR. But it is based on a simplistic worldview. But it's supposed to be, insofar as it's supposed to mime early British mythology. Part of it though, too, is that Tolkein was a Christian and was trying to work Christian themes into his books. If you don't believe me, read his letters. It's all laid out - they're published as a collection. Nevertheless, I like to visit the world once in awhile. It's kind of comforting. And I also think the themes about encroaching technology are worked in very nicely.

And that's where the worldview's really diverge - Tolkein thinks technology - to some extent - is evil and is destroying the world. If you want to argue with that, read up on the Inklings and Tolkein's project with LoTR which was mirrored in Lewis's Perelandra series. In Perelandra, the idea of a person as a brain - a physical brain in Lewis, a - what? - digital brain in Altered Carbon - is horrific. It's supposed to be inherently disgusting. How could that ever mesh with Morgan's work, and, really, nearly any science fiction, where technology - if questioned - is also celebrated? And I felt that mental strain from transitioning from one worldview to the other.

ETA: And thanks everyone for the thread, because I've got some long flights ahead of me and was in desperate need of reading material.

[Ouroboros]

[quote name='Richard' post='1706133' date='Mar 3 2009, 12.58']I see - human beings stop being human in a war, and real life stops too?[/quote]
I'll ignore your condescension and address this.

Yes, they do, haven't you ever listened to old veterans talk about war? I know I do, to my relatives who have served (Vietnam, and the second world war), and to the autobiographies of old soldiers. War devolves you, you stop thinking the way a normal person does, its why so many veterans lead fucked up lives when they get home.

And what you were suggesting was ridiculous, all your ideas to 'improve' lord of the rings (which I am not a fan of) were ridiculous. There weren't whole regiments Japanese born Japanese fighting the Japanese in World War Two, mostly because most Japanese people living in the US were currently housed in internment camps at the time, nor were there hordes of English soldiers lining up to join the Germans in World War One. There were a few individuals that broke the mold, and fought for either side, which I said in my previous posts, but not so many as you're making out to be.

EDIT: Sorry, I was wrong, there were Japanese American regiments :dunce: I apologize on that mark. Still, they were Japanese Americans, not Japanese-Japanese, there is a difference.

[Arthmail]

Jacen:

Yea, we can be hard on authors. I for one have an infinite amount of respect for Bakker after what he took. He didn't have to, but he did, and i personally was impressed enough to give his works another chance.
But i'm not going to candy coat my words or my problems with any given piece of work, book or otherwise. I do agree that its cool the authors come here, but should that stop me from saying what i say. Should i be false? Morgan doesn't want people stepping back from looking critically at his work in fifty years, that's cool. But i'm looking critically at it now...and not even his books. An article he wrote.

I'm really not sure what else to say on this issue.

[Richard]

[quote]Now try to get over yourself if you can.[/quote]
Thanks Barry - prove my point for me, why don't you.

Arthmail - since you seem pretty sincere and keep coming back, this is for you. I mean what I said, I really am sick of this. But in specific response, here's something you posted on the other thread:

[quote]The more i read Morgan's comment, the more i think he is indulging in some serious wankery. I think a great deal of what he raises as points are substantially weakened by the fact that he seems more interested in insulting the work than analyzing it.
.......
For Morgan to come in like that, and try to make a judgement on something he frankly doesn't understand, strikes me as grade-a asshole.[/quote]
Wankery/insult/grade-a asshole. Get the pattern? If you think that's reasoned and reasonable debate, then I'm afraid we're from different planets. Did it offend me? Pretty much, yeah. Surprised?

Here it is, personally for you, because as I said, I'm really not going to discuss this anymore: Overall (an important distinction) [i]I don't find LoTR satisfying as an adult work of fiction.[/i] I don't get how other adults do.

There. Have I called you an asshole? A wanker?

If you think I have, then like I said, we're from different fucking planets.

Now let's for christ's sake talk about something else......

[Lightsnake]

Responding to what's to me:


[quote]2)
Yes - read back through the essay and find the point where I make that criticism. You're going to have a hard time doing that because it isn't there. What I took issue with in LoTR was not a rosy, merry outlook, but a simplistic attitude to Good and Evil within (but not limited to) the specific context of war. And while I think "fraught" is a little generous as a term, I never disputed that LoTR was shot through with "traces of a bleak underlying human narrative" - in fact those were my exact words, and I spent most of the essay discussing one specific example of that grim reality you mention here. [i]You are taking umbrage at your own imagined slight, not anything I actually wrote. [/i][/quote]
My 'imagined' slight? And with simple good and evil? You'll have to explain figures like the Haradrim, Easterlings and Gollum, because they exist in the novels and the detractors cannot ignore them. Your point also made it clear Gorbag is suddenly turned into a cackling monstrosity. When is this exactly? When the orcs are seen previously in the Uruk-Hai, their leaders are intelligent and able, and certainly engage in little slavering or cackling.
[quote]3)
I didn't. I said [i]I[/i] enjoyed Tolkien most when I was that age, and I thought that it was probably the ideal age for the material. What people [i]will[/i] do is their own affair, and I have no control over it. But I'm entitled to my opinion on the subject - which I stand by - and certainly don't expect to get abused because someone disagrees with me about it.[/quote]

Don't say that it 'strikes you that age (12 or 14) is the best time to read and enjoy LOTR' and then say you're being misinterpreted. Yeah, you're entitled to your opinion, and others are entitled to criticize that opinion as is happening now, because we view it as one perspective argued of ignorance.
[quote]4)
I didn't say fantasy [i]like[/i] The Steel Remains is anything - I said The Steel Remains [i]itself[/i] is for adults who wouldn't (any longer) want to read stories about archetypal (and foregone in conclusion) clashes between Great Good and Great Evil. Which it is. Indisputably. I wrote it, like everything else I write, for myself. And I am an adult who doesn't want to read about archetypal (and foregone in conclusion) clashes between Great Good and Great Evil. And as with everything else I write, I'm just hoping there are others like me out there, and that they will also like the book.[/quote]
The former is semantics. You said yourself you wrote The Steel Remains for adults who wouldn't want to read Lord of the Rings and said fans of Lord of the Rings might be upset by it.
Moreover, you continue to cling to points you utterly refuse to argue: That the sides are utterly archetypal and that the conclusion is utterly foregone. Examples have been provided how this is is incorrect.
And the line 'I am an adult.' Does this imply that people who do enjoy stories with clearly defined good and evil are either immature or children?
[quote]5)
I'm pretty certain I've never said anything of the sort - not least because with the exception of Lynch's first book, I haven't read anybody on that list.[/quote]
You misunderstand. You said if we love darkness, with dysfunctional characters, etc, then the Steel Remains is for us and make a distinction between those who enjoy that sort of fantasy and the one you've written. Martin, Bakker, Abercrombie? I don't think I need to say which they write
[quote]I really do not know enough about the many writers working in contemporary fantasy to make any attempt at the kind of line on the left, line on the right division you have imagined here. Once again, you are accusing me of something I haven't said or done, and then criticising me for it.[/quote]
From your own statements, this is not a hard conclusion to draw. The separation of the two types of fantasy fans is very clear and if you don't know enough about contemporary fantasy fans or those who read fantasy, then perhaps it would be better to not make utterly blanket statements that stereotype them.

[quote]6)
The reason you're unsure is because that comment doesn't fit into the structure of what you [i]assume[/i] I'm saying about Tolkien, The Steel Remains and the fantasy genre in general. But you've assumed wrong. If you took the trouble to read and interpret, you'd see that what I'm [i]actually[/i] saying in that website post is that I don't want people to (mistakenly) think TSR is "like" some other fantasy work and then be disappointed when it isn't. I'm saying you won't find Tolkienesque moral certainties or upright heroic characters, and nor will you find Mieville's rather brilliant urban grotesquerie or VanderMeer's acid trip dreamscapes. What the post ultimately says is that I'm not interested in defining which fantasy niche (if any) TSR should occupy. It is quite simply the fantasy novel I wanted to write, and you have to take it on its own merits as such.[/quote]
Excuse me, I have clearly taken the time to read and interpret it, as have others, and quite a few have come to the same conclusion. You basically say 'don't assume this is like Lord of the Rings or you're in for a nasty shock.' Then you mention VanderMeer and Mieville and frankly, since I can assume you've read both of them, you should know how hard it is for anyone who's read Mieville to receive a nasty shock at anything. One would have to try very, very hard to shock after one has read Perdido Street Station or the Scar.
What the post might have intended is one thing. How it comes across is another thing.

[quote]So here is the problem - I wrote a critical essay linking my adult disenchantment with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (and the elements within it I still value) with the fantasy novel I have just published. It's promotional, yes, I was asked to do it by my publisher. Numerous fans of Tolkien leapt to the breach in defence of a perceived attack on either their "revered" (not my word) author or their own literary tastes, or both. And in their haste to take offence, they completely failed to actually read what I'd actually written. The fact that I was actually [i]praising[/i] elements of the book was ignored, the fact that I [i]dared[/i] - boo hiss - mention my own work in the same article was derided as cheap and cynical, and the overall tenor of regret in the article that Tolkien didn't incline more towards a modern and realistic tones in his fantasy was distorted into an ignoble personal attack on the man's character (perhaps because these are people whose favourite form of assault is the ad hominem attack, and they figured no-one could possibly say anything critical without resorting to one).[/quote]
Numerous Tolkien fans 'leaped into the breach?' That's melodrama right there and you rather ignore the many people in that thread who were courteous, respectful and polite in their responses when they disagreed. I didn't see a 'haste' to take offense and it wasn't them accusing anyone of emotional cowardice. The fact you were praising a specific element of the book and using it to demean the rest did not go ignored, either.

The fact you mentioned your own work, which you admit is promotional, does cheapen the critical response you've made because it comes across as downplaying one of the genre's major authors and promoting a book at the end for 'adults.' It'd be a great deal like one bashing Neuromancer and then plugging their own book in at the end.

This is painting people with seriously brought brushes, because a great deal of the fallout, both there and here in this thread have been respectful. Commenting that Tolkien decided to flee from his personal experiences can very easily be interpreted as a personal attack on the man, so don't act shocked when people take it that way.
[quote]As far as I can see, there are only two possible explanations for all this. The first is that a substantial subsection of the fantasy readership are incapable of extracting complex meaning from written text. I'd hate to think that's true, but I'm beginning to wonder. And the second explanation is that the same substantial subsection don't [i]want[/i] to extract complex meaning from text, they just want to take sides, build a grievance and get in a fight.

Either way, it's a bad day for the genre.[/quote]

A 'substantial subsection?' Based on several posts in response to an essay you wrote? Honestly, now. There are several other options as well: namely that just perhaps your essay was poorly written and your points were poorly communicated and that seems to be a thought even from people who do not care for Tolkien in the slightest.

And incapable of extracting complex meaning? you base this on what, exactly? If this were true, can you explain how complex texts of authors like Mieville, Gaiman, Martin and others are seen as high points in today's fantasy? How Gene Wolfe remains as beloved an author as he does and Bakker's work is routinely praised for its depth? You admit you know little of some of the authors I've mentioned here. Tell me, Richard, how much of modern fantasy are you familiar with? Or its fans? Aside from a critical essay and the responses? Your adherence to the point that The Steel Remains fans will be mostly separate from Lord of the Rings fans suggests an unawareness of the preferences of many fans. Tastes can be a very eclectic thing.

Now, I posted this because I said I would. If you don't feel inclined to respond, Richard, I respect that.

As to other things. Are you planning to read anything by Martin, Abercrombie or Bakker?

[Ouroboros]

My guess is from reading Mr Morgan's posts that a lot of us took his article the wrong way, but whether that speaks of the ability of us the reader or Mr Morgan the essayist is up to personal opinion.

Looking back on what I said earlier leaves me a little embarrassed, and I'd like to extend a personal apology to Mr Morgan for some of the less then polite things I said. Sorry Mr Morgan, you aren't as big an arsehole as a I thought. Takes real balls to wade into a shit storm. ;)

[Balefont]

[quote name='Richard' post='1706335' date='Mar 3 2009, 14.32']Here it is, personally for you, because as I said, I'm really not going to discuss this anymore: Overall (an important distinction) [i]I don't find LoTR satisfying as an adult work of fiction.[/i] I don't get how other adults do.[/quote]

I don't understand the phenomenon myself. I've read the books three times and asked: What am I missing? What is the big deal?

I think, it's a matter of taste and there's nothing wrong with that. If some LotR fans find that insulting, then, yeah, that's their problem. I just don't get it. (I prefer the movies cuz I like the pretty cinematography.)

[Ouroboros]

Personally, I don't get how anyone can really enjoy the Steel Remains. It was okay for what it was, but nothing amazingly fresh and original, very much the sort of book I would have liked at around thirteen-fourteen, but have grown bored with recently. But that's okay, there's nothing wrong with people enjoying it, even if I don't understand why.

[Ran]

Richard, I wonder how familiar with Tolkien's own commentaries on his story, and the role of fantasy in literature, and so on as expressed (most notably) in his essays and collected letters? Do his theories on eucatastrophe, consolation, and the "escape" which fantasy can provide and the positive qualities of that escape hold any resonance for you, or are you unfamiliar with them?

I think the biggest issue people seem to have had is, basically, the implication (at however much a remove) that there's something wrong with liking Tolkien as an adult. As if it's a stage, as if there's something infantile about it, or that the infantile part is so overwhelming that the adult parts are lost. Most people would, naturally, be sensitive to such an argument to the very degree that you're sensitive to the tone some have taken with you (and which I agree that they shouldn't have used; again, folks, remember there are rules of etiquette).

What I keep tip-toeing around when I think about this issue is that, ultimately, your critique is as much a critique of yourself as it is about Tolkien. I can see why you don't like Tolkien. I can understand it. You have a particular view of the world and how it works and it's a failure if a writer fails to apprehend and interrogate that world at a level you believe appropriate to any undertaking. Well and good.

But the reverse isn't happening. You say you just don't get it, you don't see why any adult could care for it, why this book that so many of your peers like -- that writers of some note in the history of literature and ideas like C.S. Lewis and D.H. Lawrence championed -- is liked by adults. It's hard to accept that an intelligent person such as yourself can't pprehend what others might like about something you don't care for. But there we are.

It seems to me that it's your loss, in the end, rather than anyone else's.

[Richard]

[quote]Responding to what's to me:


QUOTE
2)[/quote]

>really fucking huge sigh<

Actually, no, Lightsnake - point number 2 was addressing something Arthmail wrote, not you.

Which I think pretty much wraps up the argument about reading text carefully.

Now can someone [i]please[/i] start another thread?

[Lightsnake]

So, because I respond to something you wrote, never mind who it was intended for, making a minor error in structuring and cutting out in a large post, it's worthy of a 'really huge fucking sigh' and belittlement, when I've been extending you courtesy in these posts?

[Rubies & Jade]

I can't comment on any of this since I tried to read LoTR when I was about 24 (ages and ages ago) and I was bored silly and didn't finish the first few chapters.

[quote name='Richard' post='1706423' date='Mar 3 2009, 15.14']Now can someone [i]please[/i] start another thread?[/quote]
I'd be happy to... should we stick with your books here (there's the classic "when are we going to get more Kovacs stories?" or more general gossip like "Raidne, Altered Carbon was only from 2002... you must be way younger than I thought") or did you want me to just start talking about random books? (I'm trying to get through Hobb's Soldier Son series right now and its terribly hard... we can talk about the need for editors in modern day SFF...)

How about: who edits your books, Richard, and what's your working relationship like with that person?

[Ran]

Yeah, look, guys, I'm having it about to here with the rudeness.

Lets roll back the clock, kiss and makeup, and talk about how fucking awesome Takeshi Kovacs is.

[Lightsnake]

Gladly.