Say WHAT, Lin Carter??????

So, just reading Lin Carter's book Imaginary Worlds: The Art of Fantasy, apparently the first work ever written on fantasy as a genre in its own right. (Todorov's book came out that same year in 1973, though.) I got interested in Carter recently because of his role in the Ballantine Adult Fantasy Series, which basically did everything to create fantasy as a publishing genre -- and Carter pretty much codified all the canonical "pre-genre" fantasy works.

 And given how much the old-school academics hated Tolkien, I'm shocked to realize that Lin Carter basically has the same opinions. Just check this out:

  • “The Lord of the Rings breaks down into certain favorite scenes and belovec characters, rather than lingering in the memory as a coherent work every part of which is equal to the whole” (117).
Okay, fine. You remember certain scenes and characters better than the book itself. I'm cool with that. Except. . . . 
  •  "Part of the trouble with Tolkien’s book may lie in what seems to me its essential shallowness. The lack of real philosophical or psychological depth in The Lord of the Rings show up most seriously, I think, in Tolkien’s failure to explore the nature of evil” (117). 

Sweet Jeebus, Carter. What a horribly bad mis-reading. And Carter also quotes a letter from Fritz Leiber apparently saying much the same thing.

 What's even more shocking is that . . . well, Carter's basic tastes seem to run to pure adventure-story style plot. (That's why he likes The Worm Ouroborus way more than Eddison's other work.) And he has the gall to criticize a book for shallowness? Part of me wonders if he's not just reaching for the easiest possible explanation, no matter how wrong-headed, for why he isn't the Tolkien-maniac others of his time were. I wonder if there's not a bit of elitism here: I've been reading fantasy for decades, so I'm too cool to leap on your bandwagon.

 It's like what "true" hockey or soccer fans like to say to casual or bandwagon fans.

 Anyway, what also surprises me is that I've never seen this quote of Carter's in the secondary literature on Tolkien. I know that his actual book on Tolkien is thoroughly outdated, and the secondary literature does say so upon occasion, but I can't recall anyone ever mentioning Carter's opinion. They also prefer Edmund Wilson and that lot.

 Incidentally, I did read one of Carter's 1960s dime sword & sorcery novels** back in the day. Pretty much the awfullest piece of crap I ever encountered. I remember reading one of his sentences to my freshman comp course at Ohio State and saying, "If anyone in this class ever dares write a sentence this bad . . . "



** Oh, apparently that book was The Tower at the Edge of Time. Thanks, wikipedia bibliography for Carter!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Genre Fantasy Bestsellers through 1990

Image
I've been studying Keith Justice's Bestseller Index , which compiles information from two separate bestseller lists -- New York Times Book Review and Publishers Weekly -- up through 1990, and the results are ridiculously fascinating. For instance, you wanna take a stab at which SFF author has the most individual books appear on a bestseller list? No, it ain't Heinlein, Clark, Herbert, or Asimov. It's not even Terry Brooks or David Eddings. No, the answer is Piers Anthony ... and even if you somehow pulled that name out of thin air, you'll still never guess how truly dominate Anthony was. Up through 1990, Anthony had more than double than number of distinct bestsellers than the next most frequent bestseller, Anne McCaffrey. Whereas Anthony had an astounding  22 different books appear on a bestseller list, McCaffrey had "only" 9.** Now, caveats. These numbers need to be taken with one (or two) grains of salt. For instance, although Anthony had 22 two distin...
Read more

A Look at Charles R. Saunders and "Sword & Soul"

Image
So, I've been reading lately about Charles R. Saunders, the black author of sword-and-sorcery fiction, and man .... poor guy. If there's been ever a case of someone being born about 30 years too soon, it's Saunders. Usually, when people mention about black S&S authors, they mean Samuel R. Delany. This makes sense. As a queer, Marxist deconstructionist, Delany established his street cred first by writing SF before wading into the "gutters" (ahem) of S&S fantasy. (Sidenote: are there any black fantasy writers except maybe Jemisin who didn't first establish their street cred by writing SF?). Although I personally never much cared for Delany's  writing style or Nevèrÿon books , which are basically what happens when someone who holds a subgenre in contempt decides to write in that subgenre, it is true that academic critics love Delany .... especially critics who hate S&S themselves. So if they mention Saunders at all, which is rare, it's usuall...
Read more

NEW POETS OF RUM-RAM-RUF: Zach Weinersmith & Boulet

Image
In the opening paragraph of my metrical appendix to Speculative Poetry and the Modern Alliterative Revival , I raised a conundrum: how do revivalists today officially arrive at an alliterative meter? The question’s a good one. In every case known to me, at least in English, revivalists never “grow up” with alliterative poetics. They don’t – they cannot – know the meter on an intuitive cultural knowledge, not as medieval skalds or scopas did. In other words, the meter has been moribund for centuries, and if young poets today – those crazy kids – experiment with alliteration at all, it is only of the ornamental variety. That’s what tongue twisters teach you: the rum-ram-ruf of sounds jingle-jangling together. Accordingly, if revivalists know what they are doing at all, they deploy a poetic form learned only as an adult. Someday, though, I hope to eat those words – or at least chew them slowly. The parties responsible are author Zach Weinersmith and the artist Boulet, the creators of a w...
Read more