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."