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

[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 :-)

[chance88088.livejournal.com]

ooooo *plans to agree with Su more often*

[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. :)

[veggiesu.livejournal.com]

Have a cookie, too :-)