3530
« on: September 13, 2002, 03:11:51 AM »
Well, I like to argue and I don't mind having my ideas taking a few hits.
First, I would like to say that Spriggan is right that artists tend to hate everything that's not thiers. It almost a survival mechanism. It's why so many artist are cynical, bitter and pessimistic. Just think about it, by giving creadance to an artists that has a different style/taste than you, you're taking business away from yourself. If they do well, then you won't do well. It's okay to validate the work of artists that have a simular style/taste because that should support your business. If they do well, you should do well. Sorry, that's just how the industry works.
Mieville is trying to protect his work. If he gets stereotyped as Tolkien or Lewis type writer, then his future endeavors could prove problematic. If he seperates himself from the mainstream, his chances for widespread success are a lot greater. Being able to standout means everything. Tolkien and Lewis were successful because when they wrote they stood out from the mainstream.
Mieville knows he needs to stand out and if he gets labled as a fantsy writer, people think he is just like Tolkien or Lewis and therefor are more likely to ignore him and his work.
Dave Wolverton talked about this one day in class. He said that there is a rash of Tolkien/Lewis bashing right now because it is too difficult to stand-out in the industry because of their influence. Mieville is right that the public tends to assume that ALL fantasy is like Tolkien. Tolkien set the ground work for the fantasy genre as it is today. However, things have to change if they are going to last. What Mieville advocates is that it is time for the paradigms surrounding the fantasy genre to change to be more inclusive of different possibilities. He feels that adherence to the Tolkien foundation has stagnated to genre.
As for the escapist theory. Well, duh, of course people read for escapism. However, it not the only reason that they will read. Someone can start reading something for an escapist reason and then change their reasoning for reading as they are reading the novel. Mieville seems smart enough to understand this and is therefor trying to find other reasons to keep people reading his books besides pure escapism. Of course, attitudes towards escapism are always changing. Sometimes escapism is a perfectly acceptable reasoning, other times it is not. For example, recently art has been VERY cynical and sarcastic with a "nothing is sacred" attitude...until 911. Now there is still cynisism, but a amount of sincerity and sentimentality is starting to emerge. Escapism has become more acceptable as of the past year.
I think Mieville attack on escapism is a trivial matter. It simply doesn't matter if someone reads a book for escapist reasons. What they take with them from reading the book is the important issue.