Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers Subject: Re: "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" Message-ID: <1308@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 22:29:22 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1308 Posted: Mon Aug 19 22:29:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:38:42 EDT References: <3346@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 60 In article <3346@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Pavel.pa@Xerox.ARPA writes: > I happen to own _Language of the Night_ by LeGuin, ... > First, we have "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie", in which > she takes apart (as it happens) K. Kurtz (who seems to have > learned from the article). >I had the good fortune to talk to Katherine Kurtz about this very >article at Westercon in Sacramento last month. I was interested in >whether or not she had been affected by the article. >She made some interesting comments on the subject.... > Another comment was that while she wouldn't go so far as >to claim that LeGuin had been wrong to write the piece as she did, >Katherine would never have published something so bald about another's >work without at least sending a copy to the subject. Katherine claims >she never even heard about the piece until she stumbled across it much >later (I think when reading ``Language of the Night''). I think I agree >with her on this point. >As a final point, she agreed with me (unsurprisingly, I suppose) that >LeGuin's claims in the article were just plain wrong. (The article >takes a couple of paragraphs out of ``Deryni Rising'' and, by changing >the proper names into modern ones, transforms the writing into a >20th-century political novel. LeGuin makes that statement that in true >fantasy writing she shouldn't be able to do that.) Katherine is not >trying to write ``high fantasy'' in the tradition of Lord Dunsany and >Tolkien. She is writing what she calls ``historical fantasy''; she is >trying for a greater sense of realism and identifiability in her >characters. Their style of speaking is always appropriate to the >situation: ``forsoothly speech'' is not for every-moment use. I believe >that LeGuin takes far too narrow a view in her criticism of Ms. Kurtz. Unfortunately, I had not read the article before last Darkovercon, so I'll have to wait until November to ask her myself. Obviously, my speculation about her improvement in style (and I do think she has improved) was wrong. On the other hand, I think Ms. Kurtz's characterization of her work as 'historical fantasy" begs a few questions. Leguin's complaint essentially boils down to the observation that in much of what is today called fantasy, the characters are essentially modern men dressed up, often with a little forsoothly language thrown on top for verissimilitude. It isn't just that Morgan and Nigel don't speak funny; their whole attitude is modern. Morgan in the latest book, while he still doth not forsoothly speak, is much more a man of his time. In most respects, I think it is fair to characterize the earlier Kelson series as political adventure novels in medeival dress. Whether or not you want to call them fantasy is a matter of taste; LeGuin would rather not. As the Camber books progress, however, the characters begin to acquire that larger-than-life quality that I think LeGuin is seeking. I guess I disagree with LeGuin as far as she chooses to use the word "fantasy". Nevertheless, I think attention should be paid to her argument. There are too many second- and third-rate books attempting to ride on the coattails of the likes of Tolkien and Dunsany. Charley Wingate "For the flowers are great blessings."