Greetings,
I've been reading this forum for about a year now, but this is my first post. You people have created the most impressive author community I've ever come upon on the internet. Bravo!
I started devouring MM around 1970 and have read, I believe, everything (well, okay, everything not written by E.P. Bradbury!) I've really enjoy a lot of the more peripheral works--Retreat from Liberty, Great Rock n' Roll Swindle, Breakfast in the Ruins, etc.--but as a lover of the fantastic in literature, have always had a very soft spot for Corum, Hawkmoon, the whole EC gamut.
Which brings me to the point of this. I read through the earlier post about China Mieville's Socialist fantasy top 50, and enjoyed his list a lot. While writing about M. John Harrison he brings up a concept that MM has touched on before. I quote from China, regarding Harrison:
"Fantasy that mercilessly uncovers the alienated nature of the longing for fantastic escape, and show how that fantasy will always remain out of reach. Punishes his readers and characters for their involvement with fantasy."
I must admit, that's a disquieting concept. Certainly MM is a master at subverting the traditional, oftentimes reactionary nature of escapist fantasy, but at the same time he has certainly been successful a creating staggeringly escape-worthy worlds for those of us who enjoy dreaming of universes beyond this one. Mieville himself, in his more Vandermeeresque moments, also seems to derive great enjoyment from imagining landscapes that are as spectral and haunting as anything Clark Ashton Smith ever conceived.
There's a real dichotomy here, and it comes up ocassionally in threads here, especially ones that have discussed LOTR in the past. To me, the human desire to escape into the imagination is the same as the urge to imbibe a drug or fall into any kind of hedonistic pastime--that is to say, completely natural. And yet, there's an implication that this is not okay if one is to be a politically aware, Socialistically-minded, grounded individual.
It's a paradox that has always been a mystery to me. Reminds me of some early MM collection that had a couple drawings (by Jim Cawthorn maybe?) of the author as Hedonist, as Anarchist, etc. It seems we all have many faces to wear...
Best wishes.
Russell Briggs
Nelson, New Zealand
I've been reading this forum for about a year now, but this is my first post. You people have created the most impressive author community I've ever come upon on the internet. Bravo!
I started devouring MM around 1970 and have read, I believe, everything (well, okay, everything not written by E.P. Bradbury!) I've really enjoy a lot of the more peripheral works--Retreat from Liberty, Great Rock n' Roll Swindle, Breakfast in the Ruins, etc.--but as a lover of the fantastic in literature, have always had a very soft spot for Corum, Hawkmoon, the whole EC gamut.
Which brings me to the point of this. I read through the earlier post about China Mieville's Socialist fantasy top 50, and enjoyed his list a lot. While writing about M. John Harrison he brings up a concept that MM has touched on before. I quote from China, regarding Harrison:
"Fantasy that mercilessly uncovers the alienated nature of the longing for fantastic escape, and show how that fantasy will always remain out of reach. Punishes his readers and characters for their involvement with fantasy."
I must admit, that's a disquieting concept. Certainly MM is a master at subverting the traditional, oftentimes reactionary nature of escapist fantasy, but at the same time he has certainly been successful a creating staggeringly escape-worthy worlds for those of us who enjoy dreaming of universes beyond this one. Mieville himself, in his more Vandermeeresque moments, also seems to derive great enjoyment from imagining landscapes that are as spectral and haunting as anything Clark Ashton Smith ever conceived.
There's a real dichotomy here, and it comes up ocassionally in threads here, especially ones that have discussed LOTR in the past. To me, the human desire to escape into the imagination is the same as the urge to imbibe a drug or fall into any kind of hedonistic pastime--that is to say, completely natural. And yet, there's an implication that this is not okay if one is to be a politically aware, Socialistically-minded, grounded individual.
It's a paradox that has always been a mystery to me. Reminds me of some early MM collection that had a couple drawings (by Jim Cawthorn maybe?) of the author as Hedonist, as Anarchist, etc. It seems we all have many faces to wear...
Best wishes.
Russell Briggs
Nelson, New Zealand
Comment