A Process of Translation

[coalescent]

Kelly Link's Magic For Beginners is reviewed in the New York Times by Michael Knight (yes, really). He seems a bit confused:

Take ''Some Zombie Contingency Plans.'' It's about a recently released convict who drives around the suburbs looking for parties to crash because he's lonely. There are zombies here, but are they real? The premise is fresh and the characters (the con, the girl whose party he crashes, her little brother who sleeps under the bed) are likable and Link puts a metafictional twist on the narrative voice (''This is a story about being lost in the woods,'' she says), but the story doesn't quite come together, and those zombies -- are they supposed to be a metaphor?

Scott Westerfeld explains:

Allow me to explain, Mr. Non-sf-Reading Reviewer Man. Sure, zombies can “be a metaphor.” They can represent the oppressed, as in Land of the Dead, or humanity’s feral nature, as in 28 Days. Or racial politics or fear of contagion or even the consumer unconscious (Night of the Living Dead, Resident Evil, Dawn of the Dead). We could play this game all night.

But really, zombies are not “supposed to be metaphors.” They’re supposed to be friggin’ zombies. They follow the Zombie Rules: they rise from death to eat the flesh of the living, they shuffle in slow pursuit (or should, anyway), and most important, they multiply exponentially. They bring civilization down, taking all but the most resourceful, lucky and well-armed among us, whom they save for last. They make us the hunted; all of us.

That’s the stuff zombies are supposed to do. Yes, they make excellent symbols, and metaphors, and have kick-ass mytho-poetic resonance to boot. But their main job is to follow genre conventions, to play with and expand the Zombie Rules, to make us begin to see the world as a place colored by our own zombie contingency plans.

EDIT: A relevant comment at Making Light:

I got into a rather heated argument a few months back with someone who was insisting that Tooth and Claw was good because "it isn't really about dragons." I said that it was too really about dragons, and that it would have been a much worse novel if it had not been really about dragons. "But I mean, really about dragons," said the other person. And I said yes, really about dragons. It didn't matter how many kinds of typographical emphasis she attempted to vocalize: Tooth and Claw is about dragons.

It also does other things, but if every little thing in it was a metaphor for man's inhumanity to radishes or some damn thing, it would suck.

Comments

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

So, as an SF reader, you found Austen's Persuasion to be superficial, and complained that you had already worked out the entire story in the first twenty-odd pages, becuase you're used to stories with more depth; but when a "mainstream" reviewer reads a zombie story and wonders if the zombies constitute some kind of metaphor, he's being foolish and missing the point?

Hmm, interesting perspective.

BTW: "Yes, they make excellent symbols, and metaphors, and have kick-ass mytho-poetic resonance to boot. But their main job is... to make us begin to see the world as a place colored by our own zombie contingency plans."

Redundant use of the word "but", I think.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Everyone seems to have missed the part where I ended my Austen post asking people to explain to me how and why I was being wrongheaded. When I write a post claiming that because I can't read it it must be bad, rather than saying that it appears bad because I don't seem to be able to acquire the protocols to read it, then your comparison will be valid. I admitted I don't know the context of the book I was trying to read; Knight doesn't.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Nonsense. Reviews for publication just don't start off with 'I haven't read a lot of books like this, so letters from the readers advising me of similar titles which will broaden my understanding of the period/genre/style/whatever would be greatly appreciated. Having utterly undercut my argument, and used up a good portion of my world limit, I will now write a review to which you just aren't going to bother paying any attention.' LJ discussions and NYT reviews are two completely different things, and you know that very well. Everyone comes at everything with different contexts - any itelligent reader assumes that. And the nicer ones forgive it. ;P

[iainjclark.livejournal.com]

Reviews for publication just don't start off with 'I haven't read a lot of books like this,

No, but back when I was reading SFX (many moons ago) every issue would feature a review that started "This is book 4 of a 5 part series. I haven't read parts 1 to 3, and I felt that this book wasn't nearly accessible enough to people like me. There were too many strange characters and not enough time was spent explaining what had happened previously..." ;-)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but SFX was shit. ;)

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

While SFX's book coverage isn't exactly sparkling this problem is wider and more general than this and can be ascribed to two things: thoughtless sub-editors and stupid publishing practices.

PS Past tense? Has SFX folded?

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

I admitted I don't know the context of the book I was trying to read; Knight doesn't.

I don't think it's about context, I think it's about comfort levels with multiple and contradictory readings of a single story. Knight sees there are multiple readings and finds this discomforting. Which indeed it can be.

Westerfield, meanwhile, doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that there are these multiple readings. I don't think that being comfortable/enjoying the ambiguities of a story like 'Some Zombie Contingency Plans' has anything to do with being familiar with the genre context. Plenty of genre readers find this sort of fiction just as diquieting as Knight does. In fact, Westerfield's refusal to consider the multiplicities of readings probably indicates that he's just as uncomfortable with the contradictory possibilities as Knight is.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I didn't get the impression Westerfeld has trouble with there being multiple readings, more that he was poking fun at Knight's confusion at something that doesn't fit his expectations.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Colour me surprised that you assume certain positive things about the SF reader that you don't about the mainstream one. :)

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

OK, maybe, but I think Westerfield is wrong to assume that Knight's confusion comes from a failure to understand genre reading protocols.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

I got the distinct impression that Knight's confusion was not about somthing that doesn't fit his preconceptions, but at the fact that the book doesn't make it clear which, or how many, of the possible interpretations is/are valid.
In fact, I'd suggest that Westerfield is the one having some trouble with his preconceptions in that blog entry.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Everyone seems to have missed the part where I ended my Austen post asking people to explain to me how and why I was being wrongheaded.

No, I got that bit. It's just that you pretty much ignored or dismissed everything anyone said in reply to it :-p

I admitted I don't know the context of the book I was trying to read; Knight doesn't.

But in the entire review, he mentions once, mildly, that this dissociation between book and reader might be a negative. In fact, he spends most of the review praising the unusual and varied scope of the stories. In no way at all did he imply that, for example, he couldn't judge if the book was good or bad becuase he lacked the relevant referential framework.

Any book that requires a pre-reading list to be understood is going to gather mixed reviews (and I don't include Austen in that category, becuase I've always found her writing to be immendsly straightforward). Any book that requires you to "know the context" has failed in at least one regard. The only lack of context you have with Austen is historical - the book was written a long time ago. You can't actually blame Austen or her writing for that :-p If "Magic For Beginners" confuses someone, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to say so; and sitting in the ghetto, pointing and mocking them for "not getting it" because they haven't immersed themselves sufficiently in the genre isn't being funny, it's being snobbish.

Knight's review was positive and appreciative; I would have thought that that was a good thing...

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Oops - sorry Geneva, I think I messed up your reply by deleting and reposting to correct a typo :-(

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Any book that requires you to "know the context" has failed in at least one regard

Well, yes ... but when the relevant context is such a massive part of contemporary culture as fantasy fiction, and when the reviewer is writing in a venue from which you expect informed commentary, it's hard not to be a little nonplussed. We're not talking 'immersion in the genre' here, we're talking about having read a couple of fantasy novels in the last ten years. It's great that the book got a good review, but it's Knight's complete lack of self-awareness that I find amusing; he seems completely oblivious to the idea that there might be other ways to understand the book than his own.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

We're not talking 'immersion in the genre' here, we're talking about having read a couple of fantasy novels in the last ten years.

So, if you read Magic For Beginners, and wondered whether the zombies were metaphorical, then that would be OK? Or if Dan did it? Or even, heaven forfend, if I did it? But a guy who reviews book for a living - well, he's *obviously* never going to have read *any* fantasy novels in his life before ever, and therefore he's not allowed to ponder if the book has hidden depths that aren't immediately apparent. OK, I think I understand The Rules now.

he seems completely oblivious to the idea that there might be other ways to understand the book than his own

Did we just read the same review? The one where he asked the questions? The one where he wrote "those zombies -- are they supposed to be a metaphor?" and "ordinary household items start turning up haunted. Literally. (Maybe.)" and "Maybe the rabbit got bigger. Maybe the whole thing is his imagination. Who knows?". You know, the review where he clearly indicates several different possible interpretations of the prose? We did both read that one, yes?

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

well, he's *obviously* never going to have read *any* fantasy novels in his life before ever

I have no idea whether or not he's read any other contemporary fantasy, it's just that the review gives the strong impression that he hasn't.

Did we just read the same review?

The one which pinpointed the ambiguity of the stories but didn't seem to understand that that might be the power of them, that talks about not being able to get them out of his mind despite their strangeness? I think so.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

The one which pinpointed the ambiguity of the stories but didn't seem to understand that that might be the power of them, that talks about not being able to get them out of his mind despite their strangeness?

I'm still not convinced we read the same review. Especially when you think that the sentence above correlates with "he seems completely oblivious to the idea that there might be other ways to understand the book than his own.". You're changing your declared problem with the review whenever I respond. First he doesn't get the zombies. Then he doesn't understand there may be more than one interpretation. Now he doesn't emphasise the power of those multiple interpretations enough.

He wrote a review of a book. He liked the book. He thought the prose was imaginative and the ideas powerful. He questioned whether some of the ideas hung together quite as well as might be hoped. He found himself slightly dissociated by that on occaision. The only problem you have with the review is that the book in question is a part of "your" genre and the reviewer isn't. I can only assume that you think that any issues a mainstream reviewer might have with it are due to his limitations, and not the book's. "If only he'd read more fantasy, he'd understand". For some reason, you seem unwilling to concede that he might have valid comments to make.
And that, I'm afraid, is where I might have to start using the "wronghead" word, Captain :-p

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I'm still not convinced we read the same review. Especially when you think that the sentence above correlates with "he seems completely oblivious to the idea that there might be other ways to understand the book than his own.".

I think maybe you think I've been using the 'understand' to mean 'understand the meaning of the individual stories'? Whereas what I've actually been using it to mean is 'understand the aims of the book'. The idea that the ambiguity, the balance between the literal and the metaphoric, might be the point doesn't seem to really occur to him. And that amuses me, because I think it's so obviously central to Link's work, and because I'm not quite sure how you can read the book and not get that. So I start to wonder why, and maybe Westerfeld's right and it's a lack of familiarity with the genre; but maybe Geneva's right and Knight just isn't sure how to react to confusion. Either way, although it's a positive review, and I'm glad about that, I'm not sure it says much that's useful about Magic for Beginners.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

The idea that the ambiguity, the balance between the literal and the metaphoric, might be the point doesn't seem to really occur to him

So now the argument has moved on from "he thinks the zombies might be metaphorical - stoopid n00b, doesn't he get that they're literal??" to "he doesn't understand that the fact that the zombies might metaphorical is the point". Since you ignored it the first time I said it, I'll say it again - you keep changing your argument everytime anyone answers it. You keep changing what you think the guy got wrong, whenever anyone points out that he might have made a valid point. And you keep ignoring the valid points that are being made in defence of mundanes ^[1] reviewing "your" genre.

However, as interesting and engaging as this discussion has been (honestly, I've enjoyed it), I think when we get to the point of discussing what we mean by "understand", it's time to declare this conversation Officially Up It's Own Arse, and speak of cake intsead.

Mmmmmmmmmm, cake. Hott Chocolate Fudge Cake :-)


[1] I use this word advisedly. It strikes me that it's use (and I appreciate, in all senses of the word, that you've never used it) smacks of a teenage desperation to see oneself and one's group as special and different and beyond the understanding of those poor "normal" idiots. And that to me charactrises both the referenced response to the review, and the subtext of the entire "he's not one of us; he can't possibly expect to understand" argument.

[chance88088.livejournal.com]

mmmmm I agree with Su because she has cake.

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I have cookies, too :-)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I still think that if you think I've been changing my position, then I haven't been explaining my position clearly enough. But I can't be bothered going round the houses again, either, especially when there's cake available. :)

[greengolux.livejournal.com]

If "Magic For Beginners" confuses someone, then it's perfectly reasonable for them to say so; and sitting in the ghetto, pointing and mocking them for "not getting it" because they haven't immersed themselves sufficiently in the genre isn't being funny, it's being snobbish.

The thing is that I believe Magic For Beginners is the kind of book that will indeed confuse people, genre readers and non-genre readers alike, because that is the kind of book it is and that's what it does. Being familiar with genre reading protocols won't necessarily mean you're not confused by it, though it perhaps may help you to feel more at ease with that confusion. However, I certainly don't think it's necessary to be familiar with genre reading protocols to appreciate the effect the book has.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I agree with this comment.

(Right. eBook of Magic for Beginners for instant_fanzine in a couple of months, then? :)

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes and yes.