Pavel.pa@Xerox.ARPA (08/19/85)
From: Pavel.pa@Xerox.ARPA
Charley Wingate 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 and, in particular,
whether it was responsible for what I perceived as a long gap between
books (i.e., had the article soured Katherine on writing in any way).
She made some interesting comments on the subject. First, she assured
me that she had in no way been discouraged by the article; the gaps
between her books all stem from the fact that she's just a relatively
slow writer. 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.
To sum up the reason I wrote this in response to the excerpt above, not
only do I not think Katherine has ``learned from the article'' anything
about writing, but I believe that the article really had nothing to
teach her in the first place.
Pavel Curtismangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/20/85)
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."