China Mieville Asks a Question concerning Fantasy....

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

China says:

"Two untrue things are commonly claimed about fantasy. The first is that fantasy and science fiction are fundamentally different genres. The second is that fantasy is crap.

It's usually those who claim the first who also claim the second. The idea is that where SF is radical, exploratory and intellectually adventurous, fantasy is badly written, clichéd and obsessed with backwards-looking dreams of the past - feudal daydreams of Good Kings and Fair Maidens.

It's easy enough to distinguish the writers at the far edges of the spectrum - Asimov versus Eddings, for example. But the problem with the 'sharp divide' argument is the number of writers - often very brilliant ones - who fall in the middle, who blur the lines. David Lindsay, William Hope Hodgson, Jane Gaskell, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Gene Wolfe: the list could go on. These are writers for whom the 'fantastic' is not ethereal and wispy but tough and real, where 'magic' operates like science or science magic, and where the sense of subversion, of alienation, of sheer strangeness that saturates their work defies easy categorisation as SF or fantasy.

That's the tradition that I'm interested in - I see myself as writing Weird Fiction. And as soon as you see that as your foundations, then the idea that fantasy is crap disappears.

When people dis fantasy - mainstream readers and SF readers alike - they are almost always talking about one sub-genre of fantastic literature. They are talking about Tolkien, and Tolkien's innumerable heirs. Call it 'epic', or 'high', or 'genre' fantasy, this is what fantasy has come to mean. Which is misleading as well as unfortunate.

Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious - you can't ignore it, so don't even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil. And there's a lot to dislike - his cod-Wagnerian pomposity, his boys-own-adventure glorying in war, his small-minded and reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos, his belief in absolute morality that blurs moral and political complexity. Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader.

That is a revolting idea, and one, thankfully, that plenty of fantasists have ignored. From the Surrealists through the pulps - via Mervyn Peake and Mikhael Bulgakov and Stefan Grabinski and Bruno Schulz and Michael Moorcock and M. John Harrison and I could go on - the best writers have used the fantastic aesthetic precisely to challenge, to alienate, to subvert and undermine expectations.

Of course I'm not saying that any fan of Tolkien is no friend of mine - that would cut my social circle considerably. Nor would I claim that it's impossible to write a good fantasy book with elves and dwarfs in it - Michael Swanwick's superb Iron Dragon's Daughter gives the lie to that. But given that the pleasure of fantasy is supposed to be in its limitless creativity, why not try to come up with some different themes, as well as unconventional monsters? Why not use fantasy to challenge social and aesthetic lies?

Thankfully, the alternative tradition of fantasy has never died. And it's getting stronger. Chris Wooding, Michael Swanwick, Mary Gentle, Paul di Filippo, Jeff VanderMeer, and many others, are all producing works based on fantasy's radicalism. Where traditional fantasy has been rural and bucolic, this is often urban, and frequently brutal. Characters are more than cardboard cutouts, and they're not defined by race or sex. Things are gritty and tricky, just as in real life. This is fantasy not as comfort-food, but as challenge.

The critic Gabe Chouinard has said that we're entering a new period, a renaissance in the creative radicalism of fantasy that hasn't been seen since the New Wave of the sixties and seventies, and in echo of which he has christened the Next Wave. I don't know if he's right, but I'm excited. This is a radical literature. It's the literature we most deserve"

How do you feel about fantasy fiction?

[danlo]

We have a rather interesting side-discussion that may compliment your question going on at Ahira's Hangar Fantasy/SciFi and as a matter of fact your quote is so poignant to that discussion I will (with your permission) copy and paste it there-with all due credit .

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

Cool beans Danlo, I'm hoping to stir up a similiar conversation here.

Where do you think current fantasy is, is fantasy evolving, or is all just an imitation of the standard, hero quest, underdog. Your thoughts.

[Variol Farseer]

I have given extensive thought to Mr Mieville's observations, and others like them by various hands; and I have concluded that they are bosh. Mieville at least concedes that Tolkien is part of the body of Fantasy, even if he is 'the wen on the arse'; other critics, notably John Grant, have tried to redefine Fantasy so that Tolkien's work is excluded altogether.

It would take considerable time for me to say all that I have to say about this school of thought, but fortunately I said it all last year and put it on the Web here:

www.bondwine.com/tomsimon/essays/superversive.html

[dANdeLION]

So this China is a writer? Looks like he's trying to get himself notices by attacking the foundations of his own genre, in hopes that his books will be bought by people curious to find out who this 'pretender to the throne' is. Too bad he offended me so much with the very first writing of his I read.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

So this China is a writer? Looks like he's trying to get himself notices by attacking the foundations of his own genre, in hopes that his books will be bought by people curious to find out who this 'pretender to the throne' is. Too bad he offended me so much with the very first writing of his I read.

In defense of China, he is a brilliant authors and very well established so early in his career.

China Miéville's first novel, King Rat was published in 1998: an urban fantasy which immediately caught the attention of readers and reviewers internationally.

His second novel, Perdido Street Station was published in 2000 and was shortlisted for the BSFA award. It was shortlisted for the World Fantasy Award 2001. The novel won the Arthur C Clarke Award 2001 and the British Fantasy Award 2001.

His third novel The Scar is out now in paperback.
And a fourth will be released soon.

Well back to the debate.

I think that he's just trying to explain his style of writing and there isn't anything wrong with that. I've met China and I am a big fan of his work. I think that what he says has some merit.

As much as I love Tolkien, at times it gets a bit annoying with Tolkien being compared to as a fantasy god, and all things an imitation of his work. I think because of the amount of imitators out there who try to copy the same high epic style of elves and sword/ring power journey to be destroyed saving the end of the earth, b/c of the number of rip off Lord of the Rings, that Fantasy does need to and is evolving.

It's good to challenge what the norm is and try something new, I mean if everything had elves and such in it, fantasy would get pretty boring.

So while China might be offending a few, and maybe as you say, trying to get attention, I think that he's just trying to make it in a tough industry and an already overcrowded fantasy market.

But given that the pleasure of fantasy is supposed to be in its limitless creativity, why not try to come up with some different themes, as well as unconventional monsters? Why not use fantasy to challenge social and aesthetic lies?

I have to agree with this statement. He's just pushing the limit of what is considered fantasy, and in a way its a good thing, it'll challenge others to do the same and become more creative in their own writing, which in the end benifits the consumer and the fan, we get more variety, not the same old re-hashed story.

Those are my thoughts, attack them if you must, but I am enjoying the debate. Cheers.

[danlo]

Everything is, to some degree, derivative. It has to be. Except those damm pryamids! Up until a few decades ago humankind couldn't even design something as structurally sound on that scale. But that didn't stop us from trying. In fact the resurgence of Tolkien and the survival of one or too major fantasy houses (barely) saved the genre. Now fans and writers are gobbling it with vigor and, I believe, imagination has no boundaries. Just because Tolkien's work has set the spine of the fantastic literature body doesn't mean the new appendages should start biting it. The genre is very healthy and has countless possibilities-but up until the mid 70s this wasn't really the case-in fact it came very close to dying out altogether, and, say what you will we owe alot to Ballentine Books for reanimating the comatose.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Mieville but I've always maintained that writers should write and essayists should write essays and never the twain should meet. Like Mr. Mieville for instance, if you use the Hangar link and find the Brin link, the reknowed Sci-Fi author, David Brin has alot to say about Tolkien and the future of the Sci-Fi/Fantasy genre, but if you look at it the wrong way he seems to be ranting jibberish and that may or may not bring him down in your expectation of him. I think that now the genre can finally take care of itself but some of the better stuff--Donaldson, McKillip, Kay, Erickson, Zindell, Baxter, Martin, etc.. needs to find a way to elbow it's way onto the mass market shelves and knock some of the Jordan/Brooks pap off to the side.

And who's fault is that? The publishers for dropping the ball. I suggest that we can make better use of ourselves, the critics and authors angst by turing it towards the publishers...

[dANdeLION]

As much as I love Tolkien, at times it gets a bit annoying with Tolkien being compared to as a fantasy god, and all things an imitation of his work. I think because of the amount of imitators out there who try to copy the same high epic style of elves and sword/ring power journey to be destroyed saving the end of the earth, b/c of the number of rip off Lord of the Rings, that Fantasy does need to and is evolving.

It's good to challenge what the norm is and try something new, I mean if everything had elves and such in it, fantasy would get pretty boring.

Let me get this straight. You don't like Tolkein because his talent and success have led to defining (or restraining) the entire genre, and now a bunch of people are copying him. I disagree. In fact, Tolkein has done what you asked; he challenged the norm, and wrote something original. The fact is that there was no fantasy genre before Tolkein, and if it weren't for him, there might not be now. Tolkein put fantasy on the map.

Donaldson, on the other hand, did not write TCTC in a vacuum. In an already established genre, Dolaldson proved (and is continuing to prove) that a creative, introspective, inspirational and excellent story will not, can not, be stifled by having the 'fantasy' label put on it. Tolkein and Dolaldson have set my personal bar for good fantasy, and if China ever becomes a blip on the screen, then perhaps I'll pay attention. But, that will come through his writing quality fantasy, not through his whining that he didn't get to do it first.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

I have no problem with Tolkien, he helped inspire me to becoming a fan of fantasy fiction.

What I'm trying to say is that, just as Tolkien challenged what was previously considered fantasy, and as you say, put it on the map, China is trying to do with contemporary writing and fiction. He's trying to change the face of fantasy, just as Tolkien did.

I don't really think of what he's saying as Whining. The essay I posted above was from his personal website, he has a place on his website to comment on his remarks, I think he's just stirring up some good conversation. I mean afterall, look at us, we're discussing something of interest to us both, the way fantasy liteature is written.

Anyways, I am not putting down Tolkien or Donaldson or anyone who embraces epic fantasy. I'm a fan of both of these men and their genius work.

All I'm saying is that its a good thing for people such as China to come along and change the way that fantasy is being written. And he has, and his work is widely celebrated, despite your 1st impression and offense from his comment, I would suggest that you read his work and give it a try, see if its up to your liking.

I hope that you haven't taken any offense at what I'm saying, just conversation. Cheers.

[dANdeLION]

Actually, I'm only offended that Danlo, an Arizona inhabitant, walks around wearing a raincoat, scaring all the little children away.

[danlo]

I live in New Mexico you fool! There's a BIG difference! (at least you didn't say Texas, whew! )

scaring all the little children away

Well, you know, something must be done about Hi and Darth!

[dANdeLION]

New Mexico, Old Mexico. Whatever; it doesn't rain there.

[duke]

This may seem facetious, but I dont mean it to be. I read books because theyre good books - not because they're of a particular genre.

I read SRD, Martin, Rowling, and have read Tolkien because their work describes eloquently parts of the human condition. Its literature!

So to answer China's question - I dont feel anything for the genre of fantasy fiction. Its just a label.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

I post frequently at the Shannara Forum and Terry Brooks and a few other well known authors have been known from time to time to jump in and respond to questions. Mr. Salvatore just answered this same discussion question and I am now going to paste what he has to say about the comments and question of fantasy genre from China. Enjoy.

Someday I'll write an essay to answer this one....

Or maybe not.

After all, I just make s*** up and people like to read it.

Seriously, I don't think China's taking a shot at "concentional" fantasy as much as he's trying to sell his brand of the genre. Okay, maybe he is taking a shot or two. The Eddings comment was uncalled for. Eddings and Brooks pretty much built China's US publisher - certainly the works of those two gave DelRey the cash to take a chance on China. A little gratitude and tact goes a long way.

Then there's this line: "Tolkien's clichés - elves 'n' dwarfs 'n' magic rings - have spread like viruses. He wrote that the function of fantasy was 'consolation', thereby making it an article of policy that a fantasy writer should mollycoddle the reader."

See above: I just make s*** up and people LIKE to read it. I'm pretty sick and tired of apologizing for what I do to pompous internet bloggers (not talking about China here, who I've heard is a great guy) who think that they couldn't get published because their work is too brilliant for the masses. WAKE UP CALL! THAT'S NOT WHY!

I get hundreds of letters and e-mails from people who have found inspiration in Drizzt, or who used the books as a friend at a particularly tough time in their lives. I hear from people all the time who love reading the books because it gets them away from their mundane work or troubles at home, or from the battlefield in Iraq. They find familiarity and freshness in each book. They're adventuring with old friends, muchlike sitting around a D&D table with their pizza buddies. I'm not going to apologize for doing that.

The world is full of people who take themselves too seriously. Here's a news flash: 99.99% of the "brilliant" writers will be forgotten in a short amount of time, but George Lucas's "Star Wars" will be remembered forever. Because with that first movie, Lucas had something very special and something most of us will never achieve: nevermind the big "L" of literature, he had the big "E" of entertainment. Same with Harry Potter. When Harold Bloom declares it "destined for the dust bin," he should look carefully into said bin, because inside he'll find many "brilliant" (to him) tomes. If he gets cryogenically frozen and brought back a hundred years from now, it'll kill him all over again to see Harry Potter books being read in school.

Societally, the role of books has changed, like it or not. The neck of the filter as wide as the hopper used to be.

Matt Stover did a similar interview where he called 90% of fantasy crap and insisted that it was up to the young bucks like him and China and Greg Keyes to "save the genre from collapsing under the weight of its own irrelevance." I read it and called him on the phone.

"I'm writing crap, eh?"

"No, not you. I didn't mean you."

"Well, you said 90%, and since I think I've got more than 10% of the market...."

"No, no, no, Bob. I didn't mean you at all."

Matt just wrote the forward for "Exile." He said some pretty wonderful things, if I do say so myself, so I guess I'll buy him dinner next time I see him! But being excluded from the firing line doesn't change my feelings on this. I've read books that I thought were horrendous, only to find other people loving them. I've read books that I thought were wonderful (Eddings "Belgariad," for example) that internet folks assault on a regular basis. I don't compare myself with other authors and don't put any authors down, period. I know the pain of writing a book. I know brilliant writers - Nick O'Donahue, Jeff Grubb, Jim Lowder - who don't seem to break free of the midlist for some reason or another, while my work took off. I can't explain it and I don't try. What I do try to do is use my fortunate influence to create a better atmosphere for the other writers; the reason I'm with CDS is to try to make it easier for writers to make a living, dammit.

The anger on the internet is dispiriting and counterproductive to the entire genre. I don't believe that most authors belong at message boards - unless suicide is in their immediate plans. Right now at another site, they're running Quickpolls, pitting author against author. I beat out Terry Brooks in the first round, causing many to complain that neither of us should dare move on against the likes of so-and-so. So of course, the guy running the polls just put me against Tolkien for the next round; it'll give them all an excuse to mock, humiliate, etc., etc. Isn't that lovely?

Unfortunately, this elitist literature movement has made its way to the higher circles of the sidelines, like the reviewers. The latest reviewer at Publisher's Weekly, for example, can barely hide her claws for Terry Brooks (or for me, to a lesser extent), with lines like, "readers looking for more depth wouldn't have started this (Shannara) series in the first place."

Excuse me? Move a little to your right, will you? My left hook is my best shot and I want to make sure you don't wake up in the hospital until I'm out on parole. Then we can talk.

When I started writing, the reviews were wonderful. There is no doubt in my mind that my books are far better now, but I can't buy a review that doesn't insinuate, somehow, that "the book is okay for what it is." "Mortalis" is "popcorn"? DemonWars is? Whatever the word might mean to you, I don't think it is, sorry.

In the end, the cry for relevance just gets boring to me. I've been hearing it for 16 years. The next best thiing comes along - Brooks, Eddings, Jordan and now Martin - and after a few books, the writer gets tossed aside without any gratitude for years of enjoyable reading. If Jordan has grown stale to you, then move along to something new. If it's something new from TOR, then thank Robert Jordan (or Terry Goodkind) because his sales probably paved the way for this other book to get published.

Through all the years I've been in the business (on the outside, as I've never been a member of SFFWA and never in the "club" so to speak), I've heard the undercurrent of writers thinking themselves something more, the new wave, the next best thing. Fine. People without ego probably shouldn't be in this business. So they're the next best thing and I'm derivative drivel.

And yet, the audience for Drizzt books increases dramatically with each new release. I can pay my health insurance bill. My kids can go to private college. Go figure.

I've had editors (DemonWars) read a review from Kirkus or whomever and say to me, "I only wish we could have sent this book out for review without your name on it." Ouch. There was a review of Transcendence posted at my web site for a long time, from a guy named Mark Vaughan Jackson of the St. John Herald - a very tough and well-regarded critic in Canada. He had nothing to read so he dove into Transcendence (6th of 7 books in the series). He wasn't expecting much; he knew that I wrote in the "Hidden Realms or some such." He offered me a mea culpa for his bias. That felt good.

So I guess in the end, if I had to answer the essay, I'd say, "Whatever. I just make s*** up and people like to read it."

RAS

[matrixman]

Thanks for sharing that with us, Fizban. Mr. Salvatore's answer is very good. If Mr. China Mieville has started a war of words with his fellow fantasy writers, he seems to have gotten a formidable opponent in Salvatore.

Of course, now I'm guilty of imagining a Salvatore/Mieville fight, which is exactly the sort of thing Salvatore is tired of. Oh well, I doubt he is losing any sleep over it.

The world is full of people who take themselves too seriously. Here's a news flash: 99.99% of the "brilliant" writers will be forgotten in a short amount of time, but George Lucas's "Star Wars" will be remembered forever. Because with that first movie, Lucas had something very special and something most of us will never achieve: nevermind the big "L" of literature, he had the big "E" of entertainment.

Now SRD's thoughts on Star Wars in the Gradual Interview:

I enjoyed the movies. But I didn't take them seriously enough to be influenced by them...Indeed, one of my personal complaints about "Star Wars" is that (visuals aside) it is *entirely* derivative. There is (just an opinion, folks) less to Lucas' work than meets the eye.

What does it all mean? The tired old debate over what is serious art and what is common entertainment? Elitist vs. populist? But who is who? Both Salvatore and Donaldson are "bestselling" authors. Does that make them somehow crass in the eyes of someone like Mieville? What about Star Wars? Does the fact that it is derivative make it less legitimate--that is, it should not be taken seriously?

Playing the label game, is Mieville elitist for dissing popular authors? In turn, is Donaldson elitist for dissing popular movies? (This is making my head spin.) At least he did enjoy Star Wars, even if it is derivative.

edit--sorry, I'm losing my way here. (It's what happens when you try to make your brain work at 2:00 in the morning.)

Basically, is there a real distinction between serious (good?) literature and mere popular entertainment (crap?)? I don't know, but maybe there is. Why else would I gravitate towards someone like SRD, who I think is a serious writer--and seriously good? Obviously Mr. Mieville has a different idea of what is good literary fantasy. Does the fact that SRD holds to the tradition of epic fantasy discount him in Mieville's eyes? I wonder. Maybe the fact that the Chronicles are good and have sold well complicates things.

[Variol Farseer]

Basically, is there a real distinction between serious (good?) literature and mere popular entertainment (crap?)? I don't know, but maybe there is. Why else would I gravitate towards someone like SRD, who I think is a serious writer--and seriously good? Obviously Mr. Mieville has a different idea of what is good literary fantasy. Does the fact that SRD holds to the tradition of epic fantasy discount him in Mieville's eyes? I wonder. Maybe the fact that the Chronicles are good and have sold well complicates things.

First off: Yes, there is a 'real distinction':

Popular entertainment (crap) is written for money, to separate Joe Sixpack from his beer money. It must therefore be interesting, entertaining, and give Joe a better kick for his money than he would get out of the said beer.

Serious literature, on the other hand, is written to impress reviewers, English profs, and other 'serious' writers. It is considered a plus if nobody can understand the wretched book without another book of instructions to explain it. Ulysses set the standard for this genre of fiction, and it has tended to get more gnomic and less amusing since then. (It's richly ironic that Ulysses was patterned after The Odyssey. which set the standard for 'popular entertainment (crap)' fiction. After nearly 3000 years, fiction as entertainment is still going strong. Anybody want to bet they'll still be reading James Joyce in 5000 AD?)

Think I'm kidding? I wish I were. You can find a truly elegant dissection of this kind of BS (that stands for Bogus Stuff, by the way) and the mindset that goes with it in A Reader's Manifesto by B.R. Myers. In it, Mr. Myers carves the heart out of the pretentious, we're-too-cool-for-actual-readers literary set, dissects it to a quivering pulp, and feeds it back to them. I rate it as the most flat-out entertaining book of literary criticism I've ever read.

Mr. Miéville seems to be rather ashamed of himself for writing books that actually sell — books that are dumb enough to appeal to those dummies who read Tolkien. So (I surmise) he compensates by throwing a tremendous 'tude about the stupidity of his audience. That's only my guess, but I believe there are odds in favour of my being right. Other authors have done such things before. It's even more common among musicians. The Sex Pistols made a career essentially out of snarling and sneering at all the stupid yobbos who were dumb enough to listen to the Sex Pistols. This career move has been repeated with great success by others. So it goes.

[dANdeLION]

Trust me; as a musician, and specifically as a bassist who uses an electric bass (as opposed to an upright), I can tell you the snobbery is indeed deeper than you can imagine. Excellent post, BTW. Exactly how I see the state of affairs in Fantasy.

[FizbansTalking_Hat]

Ok, so my little posting of this discussion and essay from China has made the rounds. I posted it at three main forums, Shannara(Terry Brooks), Malazan (Erikson), & here at Kevins Watch.

At the Terry Brooks website, Mr. Salvatore is a frequent visitor, and he posted a response in regards to this essay. I reposted that response at the Malazan site, and one of the mods in charge of the Wheel of Time series from Jordan, made an issue out it and welll, its this whole he said, she said thing now, but its quite humorous to see how far this little posting thread has gone. read below and/or lcick on the link to see the response. Cheers.

Hahaha, look at what I started, the person they are referring to as "a poster" is none other than FIZBANS, wahooo hahahaha, I love how the net circulates so fast. Cheers.

www.wotmania.com/fantasymessageboardsho ... geID=96140


The wonders of the web, where most anything can be read by most anyone at most anytime. A place where things can be separated by two or three degrees and things can be distorted or combined into creations that the original authors never intended.

This morning, I discovered that our semi-silly/semi-serious Author Quickpoll Series has become known to one of the authors involved. I was reading a post on the Malazan Forum (for Erikson's works) where a poster(<--- That's FIZBANS) had posted a years-old essay by China Miéville on JRR Tolkien.

During the discussion, one of the posters took China's essay and posted it on the Shannara Forum (devoted to Terry Brooks), where Robert Salavatore himself read and replied. I'll link to the Malazan thread at the bottom, but here was an interesting bit in there that referred directly to OF and to myself in particular:

"The anger on the internet is dispiriting and counterproductive to the entire genre. I don't believe that most authors belong at message boards - unless suicide is in their immediate plans. Right now at another site, they're running Quickpolls, pitting author against author. I beat out Terry Brooks in the first round, causing many to complain that neither of us should dare move on against the likes of so-and-so. So of course, the guy running the polls just put me against Tolkien for the next round; it'll give them all an excuse to mock, humiliate, etc., etc. Isn't that lovely? " - Salvatore

Now seeing as I do not have Mr. Salvatore's email address, I cannot extend him the courtesy of replying to this privately. Hopefully, this will be passed on to him (or that he'll read it himself):

To read the rest of the response, click on the above link.

[Ryzel]

I just happened to be at a convention (Confuse in Linköping, Sweden) where a very similar topic was brought up at a panel discussion.

The panel discussion was about "The New Weird" which is the term which China Mieville is using to describe some of the recent works of (mostly) british SF and Fantasy.

I do not remember who was in the panel, exactly, but certainly the GoH was included as she, Justina Robson, is one of the writers that have been included in "The New Weird".

The discussion mostly centered on whether or the new weird is a validy category, or indeed sub-category of SF or Fantasy, and on what Mr. Mieville wanted to accomplish by defining it.

The general conclusion, as much as such panels have that, was that the new weird was pretty much defined as being 'books that China Mieville likes' and that this is not really something to base a category on. It seems clear that Mr. Mieville has some pretty definite ideas about what constitutes the new weird literature, but he as not been as successful in conveying this as he might have wished. Justina Robson summed up her impression by saying that although she was, apparently, a part of the new weird. She did not know what it was, why she was part of it or if she really wanted to be part of it.

[ReaveTheJust]

I've seen this somewhere else and reply as before that I totally agree with China on Tolkien.

The thing is I just don't care. I love LOTR even if that qualifies me as a small minded little Englander!