J.R.R.R. Tolkien
Introductory sci-fi fantasy books? Not the New Yorker’s list!
The New Yorker, one of my favourite magazines, has posted a little ‘intro to fantasy’ which is shockingly pedestrian in its recommendations. Well, that’s unfair. Tad Williams and Terry Goodkind are shockingly pedestrian. Terry Brooks is pretty pedestrian. Robin Hobb is actually pretty good and the sort of thing I’d suggest if making recommendations to someone who had just read Tolkien, as is Patrick Rothfuss. Guy Gavrial Kay is also great but Steven Erikson is just wacky. For new fantasy readers? Hell no.
What’s sort of interesting about this is that there’s no George R. R. Martin on the list. I thought it might be because it was an unfinished series, but so are the Erikson and Rothfuss series.
So what would be on my list? Well, I think I’d keep Robin Hobb, at least the Assassin trilogy, and Patrick Rothfuss. Then I’d add in George R.R. Martin and Ursula LeGuin’s Earthsea books (yes, all of them). Then I’d toss in Scott Lynch’s wonderful Gentlemen Bastards stuff and probably, for a kicker, put in China Miéville’s Perdido Street Station. I’ve tried to keep this in the spirit of the original list – easy books that are within the mainstream of fantasy, but Miéville is there to show that it can be so much more as well…
Mark Charan Newton has already posted a list which does the opposite – it tried to completely counter the New Yorker list. I’m sure it will be the first of many.
Hobbit movie news
You may have heard of the Hobbit movie that is under way currently, directed by Guillermo del Toro and produced by Peter Jackson. You may also have heard that the movie is in some danger, due to a lawsuit brought by Tolkien’s family. Luckily, Salon.com’s Andrew O’Hehir is casting some light on the matter.
If there’s one thing I’m sure about in this exceedingly murky, high-stakes poker game, it’s that no one at the table is foolish enough to want to shut down a production that promises to yield, at a conservative estimate, an additional $2 billion to $3 billion in worldwide revenue. What the Tolkiens and Time Warner are fighting over is who controls that production and who will reap the enormous benefits.
So don’t worry it won’t get made – everyone wants the cash.
Miéville on Tolkien – again
Amazon’s book blog Omnivoracious has got China Miéville as a guest blogger this week. He’s got two posts and a podcast up, but the best so far is this article on ‘Five reasons Tolkien rocks’.
It’s not a turn around, but Mieville is pretty famous for ripping into Tolkien, primarily in this 2002 article for the Socialist Review entitled ‘Tolkien – Middle Earth Meets Middle England’ where Mieville says
But if, as radical critics of both bourgeois respectability and Stalinist agitprop, we defend science fiction and fantasy, does that mean we should be rallying under the banner of ‘Socialists for Tolkien’? Hardly.
It’s not that I disagree as such, I just don’t take it so seriously. So it’s nice to see this new article focusing on things like
I mean, say what you like about him, Tolk gives good monster. Shelob, Smaug, the Balrog…in their astounding names, the fearful verve of their descriptions, their various undomesticated malevolence, these creatures are utterly embedded in our world-view. No one can write giant spiders except through Shelob: all dragons are sidekicks now. And so on.
I think he’s mellowing.
Edit: and just after I post this, I read a very interesting and cool Miéville interview done by Jeff VanderMeer. I liked this bit especially:
I’m very aware, by the way, that loads of readers of this may think I’m being a humourless or po-faced dick about it.
Quite possibly China!
Hobbit movie news
(via A Dribble of Ink)
Empire have posted some tidbits of movie news about The Hobbit. BAsically the book we all know and love will be split into two films:
“We’ve decided to have The Hobbit span the two movies, including the White Council and the comings and goings of Gandalf to Dol Guldur,” says Del Toro.
“We decided it would be a mistake to try to cram everything into one movie,” adds Jackson. “The essential brief was to do The Hobbit, and it allows us to make The Hobbit in a little more style, if you like, of the [LOTR] trilogy.”
So no all new bridging film which will make Tolkien purists happy – I would have been sort of interested to see what they came up with.