Superversive fiction

[marycatelli]

"In such a state, there is only one way to make a difference. You cannot subvert ruins; but you can build right over top of them. If to subvert is to destroy a thing from below, might we not coin an opposite word? We could destroy a state of ruin from above, and, as I like to say, supervert it. Where people have abandoned their standards, we could suggest new ones (or reintroduce whatever was good and useful in the old). Where institutions have been abolished, we could institute others to do their work. Above all, we could instil the ideas of creation and structure and discipline into human minds and hearts, and especially the hearts of the young."

Full essay here.

Comments

Brainy Destruction

[opheliabelle.livejournal.com]

A friend and I were discussing this subject today. I'd read a series of short stories, all New Weird, etc. which I assume from ignorance, is anti-fiction. Subversive in that it destroys form and meaning. To say these pieces were as good as Calvino's work, which I like, but do not love, is almost subversive itself.

I don't know what to think of some of this new fiction.
Or that everything old is useless and must be destroyed.

Re: Brainy Destruction

[marycatelli]

That's it's hard to say something about it -- almost speaks for itself.

[shweta-narayan.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

That has me thinking in a new way about the depressing vs shinyrainbow thing.

Would it make sense to say that subversive fiction runs the risk of being merely destructive -- depressing, nonsensical, or cynical for no reason -- and that superversive fiction runs the risk of being naive, implausible, and escapist in a bad way?

[jryson.livejournal.com]

I guess it would depend. Superversion might also be merely destructive if it conceals what was before. Subversive fiction can certainly be implausible, naive, and escapist. It all begins with the attitude of the writer, as well as the reader.

[marycatelli]

Humm. Attitude's important. So is knowing what you want to build. Some works attempting to be superversive, unfortunate, fail because the writer doesn't know nobler virtues to build.

[marycatelli]

Oh, let's extend the metaphor!

Subversive fiction runs the danger of undermining and bringing down sound, well-built, and even necessary structure.

Superversive fiction runs the danger of erecting unstable buildings, perhaps on unsound foundations, of unsuitable materials. Which may not stand, or if they do, may be awkward, inconvenient, or even impossible to live in.

[jryson.livejournal.com]

Superversive fiction runs the danger of being bulldozed by archeologists wanting to get at the foundations of the ancient temple.

[marycatelli]

Well, that can happen, but it's not the fault of the writer.

[shweta-narayan.livejournal.com]

Superversive fiction builds in marshmallow and ferns, subversive fiction eats the marshmallows?

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

I found Tom Simon's article very interesting, especially his comments about Tolkien's writing, and I agree with shweta_narayan's assessment of Mr. Simon's main point. Tolkien himself, in his eloquent essay, "On Fairy Stories," defended fairy tales and fantasy as necessary and good, but I seem to recall that he saw them as functioning in small, personal ways, rather than upon society as a whole. Yet, from what I've read of him, I think he would have been pleased with the idea that his works might help to build where others have torn down.

...Tolkien was a profoundly superversive writer; and his influence may be just beginning. When most people were resigned to the smogs and slums and ruined landscapes of Mordor, he reminded them of trees and forests, and showed them an image of a Shire where people did not earn their living by multiplying ugliness and pain. When humanity itself stood in danger of extinction from nuclear war, he reminded the world that power need not always be used; it can be destroyed. And he did all this by resurrecting words and tales and images from ancient times, giving them new form and new meaning, but using them to point to the same old platitudinous morals that his ancestors lived by, which Shelley and Shaw and Wilde strove so mightily to abolish.

I want to read that last paragraph over and over again, in order to completely savor it. Just as Tolkien's essay insisted that fantasy had a valid place and funtion in our lives, so does Mr. Simon's assessment of Tolkien as a writer act in the same way.

Yet, to my way of thinking, it is not genre that is subversive or superversive, but each individual work, although it may be more common to find superversive works among fantasy novels. Nor do I agree with the statement in his penultimate paragragh: "When people read ‘escapist’, ‘reactionary’ genres such as commercial fantasy or Campbellian science fiction, they read for the (nowadays) guilty pleasure of reinforcing the values that it will no longer do to profess in public." In my experience, most readers of science fiction and fantasy today are quite willing to admit not only to their reading choices, but to the nobler values often espoused by such novels.

[marycatelli]

Some genres' conventions are more suited for superversive writing than others.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Personally I was amused by the claim that there's nothing subversive about Tolkien's writings. Yes, there's order and hierarchy, and knowing one's place. There's also the fact that all the hierarchies are riddled with flaws. Aragorn's taking of the throne seems like a triumph of noble blood shining through, divine right and all... yet from the later writings, it seems he saw post-Aragorn Gondor as back to the same old same old. There was a reason the Stewards took over Gondor, and while it declined under them, it didn't seem to decline any faster than before. So much for kings. The Valar, of course, made their own questionable decisions, starting with collecting the elves. The happiest and healthiest-seeming society in Middle Earth was the rural England of the Shire, with squires and farmers but little in the way of sweeping inherited hierarchy, or government. And itself dependent on things they were willfully blind to for defense against dangers they were also willfully blind to. The martial glories mentioned later in the essay had an important but secondary role in victory.

I'd say Tolkien *didn't* subvert values of mercy and humility and free will. Apart from that... I don't know that he was being deliberately subversive of anything; sometimes a realistic portrayal of things is subversive, at least of taking those things too pompously.

essay: "Reading Heinlein or Tolkien or Herbert, one can thrill to old-fashioned martial glory, strict codes of honour, inherited social class, traditional gender roles"

Heinlein's an odd choice for traditional gender roles. As for inherited social class, I think readers generally like imagining they're at the top. As Bujold's Cordelia put it, "Democrats are fine with aristocracy as long as they get to be the aristocrats." Tolkien's "bad for the squire but good for you" could in fact be subversive of just that; most people go for the squire, or the lost princess, or the prince, not the hat-toucher.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

You make some very good points. I'm not as familiar with Tolkien's later writings; I found The Silmarillion as unreadable as I've found the Bible and never got very far. I've pretty much ignored the stuff that was published posthumously, having read a few early reviews that disinclined me to look further. (I will freely admit that I may have been too hasty.)

I agree that the essay author's choice of Heinlein was puzzling within the context of traditional gender roles. I've found Heinlein's depictions of women to be a very mixed bag, often sexist in ways that hurt my mind.

[mindstalk.livejournal.com]

Heh, I grew up on mythology, and enjoyed the Silmarillion; the Bible would probably have been improved IMO by Chris's editing. Or anyone's editing.

Just going by the Lord of the Rings... I consider the Appendixes part of the work, and they're enough to tell you that the Blood of Numenor kind of messed up on multiple occasions and that's why there's no king in Gondor. And the Samwise/humility subversion of heroic tropes and being on top is in the story. Not sure about the rest, it may play straight. Well, the detailed description of the Shire is IIRC in the *Prologue*, and the Shire seeming the last bastion of untainted, unangsty civilization is in the story.

Even orcs as Evil is slightly subverted by itself; there's plenty of statements where they're said to hate life and beauty, and they're not attractive up close and personal, but they also seem rather human, in an ugly way, up close, and they think elves are backstabby cannibals or something, which makes one wonder about properly informed choices.

I haven't read much Heinlein, but I've heard about redheaded ubercompetent sex kittens who adore the fat wise man. So, sex kittens. OTOH, ubercompetent and not docile in the home, for 1950s America. Or reverse that.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Heh, I grew up on mythology, and enjoyed the Silmarillion; the Bible would probably have been improved IMO by Chris's editing. Or anyone's editing.

lol.

I really enjoyed Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology when I was growing up. I still enjoy reading them, but I've never been able to get the same pleasure from the Bible. Which is not quite the same thing as not being able to enjoy stories from the Bible. There's some stirring stuff in there. Also some pretty messed up stuff, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Just going by the Lord of the Rings...

Clearly, it has been too long since I've reread the LotR. I shall add it to my TBR pile.

I haven't read much Heinlein, but I've heard about redheaded ubercompetent sex kittens who adore the fat wise man. So, sex kittens. OTOH, ubercompetent and not docile in the home, for 1950s America. Or reverse that.

Thank you. It was late and I was tired, and I just couldn't figure out how to put that. Yes, exactly.

[marycatelli]

"Untainted, unangsty"? It's not for nothing that Frodo sometimes wishes that the Shire would get invaded by dragons. Tolkien himself described the typical hobbit as like Samwise Gamgee, without the poetry and his fascination with elves.

[marycatelli]

I suspect he was thinking of early Heinlein. Heinlein went a sharp turn midcareer.

[marycatelli]

As near as I can make out, you are arguing that a subversive work is one in which characters above the lowest possible social class are not all paragons of perfection. I do not think this is a useful way to use the word "subversive."

Why oh why are you saying "So much for kings"? Is Tolkien subverting the institution of kingship? Hardly. Kings are just fine in Tolkien's eyes and I don't see anything in the book that can be read as an objection to them -- except that they aren't perfect, and if that's your standard, there's no form of government that will please you.

[scbutler.livejournal.com]

Wow. Another essayist saying perfectly what I've been unable to articulate for the last thirty years. Which is why I'm not an essayist.

[marycatelli]

There's a reason why I linked it rather than ramble on on the topic, myself.

0:)