Friday, 24 May 2024

Eddison-Tolkien-Zelazny: The Sweet Spot

I am currently engaged in something of a strange literary enterprise in that I am daily listening to an unabridged (and utterly fantastic, by the way) Audible audiobook of The Worm Ouroboros by ER Eddison on my way to and from work, but reading The Chronicles of Amber by Zelazny at night. (These are both re-reads after many years, although I don't know if I ever finished Ouroboros when I encountered it long ago.) 

It is hard to imagine two more stylistically different literary works, for all that they are in content oddly similar (both being, in the end, fun adolescent fantasy romps which unashamedly lionise an old fashioned, 'Boy's Own Adventure Story' aesthetic - and both, oddly enough, commencing with a short framing 'real world' narrative which has no bearing on the actual story). Ouroboros is written in a wonderfully self-conscious pastiche of early modern English in which there are absolutely no visible seams: the verisimilitude is total. Viz:

When the King was come into his high seat, with Corund and Corinius on his left and right in honour of their great deeds of arms, and La Fireez facing him in the high seat on the lower bench, the thralls made haste to set forth dishes of pickled grigs and oysters in the shell, and whilks, snails, and cockles fried in olive oil and swimming in red and white hippocras. And the feasters delayed not to fall to on these dainties, while the cupbearer bore round a mighty bowl of beaten gold filled with sparkling wine the hue of the yellow sapphire, and furnished with six golden ladles resting their handles in six half- moon shaped nicks in the rim of that great bowl. Each guest when the bowl was brought to him must brim his goblet with the ladle, and drink unto the glory of Witchland and the rulers thereof. 

Somewhat greenly looked Corinius on the Prince, and whispering Heming, Corund's son, in the ear, who sat next him, he said, "True it is that La Fireez is the showiest of men in all that belongeth to gear and costly array. Mark with what ridiculous excess he affecteth Demonland in the great store of jewels he flaunteth, and with what an apish insolence he sitteth at the board. Yet this lobcock liveth only by our sufferance, and I see he hath not forgot to bring with him to Witchland the price of our hand withheld from twisting of his neck." 

Now were borne round dishes of carp, pilchards, and lobsters, and thereafter store enow of meats: a fat kid roasted whole and garnished with peas on a spacious silver charger, kid pasties, plates of neats' tongues and sweetbreads, sucking rabbits in jellies, hedgehogs baked in their skins, hogs' haslets, carbonadoes, chitterlings, and dormouse pies. These and other luscious meats were borne round continually by thralls who moved silent on bare feet; and merry waxed the talk as the edge of hunger became blunted a little, and the cockles of men's hearts were warmed with wine. 

"What news in Witchland?" asked La Fireez. 

"I have heard nought newer," said the King, "than the slaying of Gaslark." And the King recounted the battle in the night, setting forth as in a frank and open honesty every particular of numbers, times, and comings and goings; save that none might have guessed from his tale that any of Demonland had part or interest in that battle. 

La Fireez said, "Strange it is that he should so attack you. An enemy might smell some cause behind it." 

"Our greatness," said Corinius, looking haughtily at him, "is a lamp whereat other moths than he have been burnt. I count it no strange matter at all." 

Prezmyra said, "Strange indeed, were it any but Gaslark. But sure with him no wild sudden fancy were too light but it should chariot him like thistle-down to storm heaven itself."

This can be contrasted with Zelazny's hardboiled prose, in which no matter the occasion or context everybody sounds like they hail from the Midwestern USA circa 1971. Here we find the main character, Corwin, having a conversation with a camp follower in a pseudo-Arthurian setting:

'Let's have another glass of wine.'
'It'll go to my head.'
'Good.'
I poured them.
'We are all going to die,' she said.
'Eventually.'
'I mean here, soon, fighting this thing.'
'Why do you say that?'
'It's too strong.'
'Then why stick around?'
'I've no place else to go. That's why I asked you about Cabra.'
'And why you came here tonight?'
'No. I came to see what you were like.'
'I am an athlete who is breaking training. Were you born around here?'
'Yes. In the wood.'
'Why'd you pick up with these guys?'
'Why not? It's better than getting pig shit on my heels every day.'

Nobody can question Zelazny's storytelling power, his pacing, or his skill for deploying dialogue, but this, my friends, is the precise opposite of verisimilitude: demigods and medieval camp followers would not talk like they hail from the late 20th century USA - and certainly wouldn't sound as though they had just stepped out of an afternoon TV mystery movie, as these two do. Don't get me wrong: I love the Amber books, but Zelazny was very much a storyteller first and a worldbuilder a far distant second. His settings never strike the reader as plausible worlds in their own right, but as mere backdrops for the plot. 

We can think of Zelazny and Eddison as being two poles on a spectrum in fantasy literature - the former strongly emphasising the telling of a good story at the expense of detail, and the latter lovingly and almost obsessively painting a picture of a fully realised and inhabited world. I like both; I have a hard time accepting that Eddison's is not by far the greater achievement, but it is hard to find a more entertaining series in the fantasy canon than the first five Amber books. 

One of the reasons why I think Tolkien still stands supreme in the genre is that his work strikes almost the perfect middle between these two extremes. He is a thousand times more accessible than Eddison (one can hardly imagine a Peter Jackson blockbuster version of The Worm Ouroboros) but a thousand times weightier than Zelazny. Hence, for example:

'Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!' 

A cold voice answered: 'Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn! He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye.' 

A sword rang as it was drawn. 'Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may.' 

'Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!' 

Then Merry heard of all sounds in that hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel. 'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am, Eomund’s daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him.' The winged creature screamed at her, but the Ringwraith made no answer, and was silent, as if in sudden doubt.

Nobody could accuse these people as sounding like they are from 1970s Illinois, but at the same time the prose is perfectly digestible and understandable to a reasonably well-read adolescent - as most people reading this blog can probably attest. Tolkien presents with a totally coherent world, so real and so complete that it feels as though it exists, but in a way which still allows us to easily access it - there is no requirement, as there is with Eddison, to spend a while getting one's ear in before one can easily parse the ornate prose. 

What lessons lie here for the D&D DM? Only that every single RPG session I have ever been involved with has, more or less, followed the Zelaznyian mode in the way in which the participants have approached the subject of realism. I feel a sense of regret about this, while recognising the strong biases, incentives and preferences that lead things in that direction. I would love to one day be involved in a campaign in which people invested the time and energy in creating a setting and an experience of Eddisonian depth (if not of subject matter and substance) - but I would more than settle for a Tolkienian one. 

41 comments:

  1. It will never not be funny to me that Tolkien disliked the Worm because of its "unpleasant philosophy". I still think it's a far better book than The Lord of the Rings; I won't spoil it for you, but it's one of the most perfect narratives ever written. Once you read the ending it feels inevitable, *necessary* somehow. And I don't know whether you got to it yet (I think you must have, given the bit you quoted), but Lord Gro's talk with Mevrian in Krothering is one of the best pieces of dialogue in the English literature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll look forward to the ending, then. I don't think Tolkien exactly disliked it - I have heard that he didn't like the 'unpleasant philosophy' or the names, but that he still respected the achievement.

      Delete
  2. I think Vance splits that difference really well too. His most iconic work consists of flowery 19th century style literary dialog securely contained within a sturdy chassis of spare Hemingwayan prose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vance is a funny one - he has amonst the strongest authorial voices in all of fiction. You always know you are reading a Vance book.

      Delete
    2. Yes, sometimes I think that once you've read any 18th - 19th century English translations of Cervantes or other Spanish picaresque authors, you'll have a clear idea of where Vance plausibly gets his ironically florid stylistic chops from.

      Delete
    3. There's a lot of Wodehouse influence on Vance, as well! Wodehouse has a combination platter of drollery and verbosity that seems to have influenced Vance quite a bit. I mean, I'm not sure I can think of something more different to the fantasy genre than Jeeves & Wooster, but if you read enough Wodehouse it really rubs off on you, and I know he was one of Vance's favorite writers.

      Delete
    4. Some are definitely more Wodehouse than others. Ports of Call and also Soap Opera seem very Wodehousian to me (and perhaps not coincidentally are two of my favourite Vance books).

      Delete
    5. Not Soap Opera! Space Opera. Brain fart.

      Delete
  3. Good timing with this one, I'm reading Amber for the first time and just got through that part yesterday. In Corwin's case, at least, the contemporary dialect makes some sense before he regains his memories.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does, yes, but it's a failing that literally everybody he encounters sounds exactly like that, too.

      Delete
    2. And everybody smoking cigarettes also feels really odd.

      Delete
  4. Zelazny's Lord of Light has great worldbuilding, in my opinion. A few of the minor characters or details are some of the most memorable parts of the book for me (the travelling monk, Kali's assassin, the karma slot machines..)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the background worldbuilding in Lord of Light, but again I feel like the dialogue sounds too modern. Would demigods on a distant planet in the far future really talk the way they do in that book?

      Delete
    2. I'm not a native english speaker so this type of detail is harder for me to notice and appreciate. I do think some of the gods, at least, do speak in a regal tone - when they speak with mortals. I think there's some charm in the difference between how they talk among each other and how they talk with their believers

      Delete
    3. I suspect Zelazny believed they would. Certainly there were at least plenty of people of that sort around back then, who thought that people like Shakespeare and Balzac were... essentially admirable, but a little stupid? You know, modernity and the new era were going to wash away all old and unnecessary superstition and that included talking like a flowery olde-times guy and from now on it was all going to be rational and sensible 1970s New York American English. You know, everybody from all of history wakes up in the same place in To Your Scattered Bodies Go and immediately discard their foolish and inconvenient vernaculars to communicate in the most sensible language of all time, no-frills contemporary English. Similarly, the impression I get when reading Amber is that Zelazny felt that if Corwin, Benedict and the others spoke in some sort of flowery prose, you *couldn't take them seriously*, they wouldn't be entirely sensible. It would indicate that they were a bit silly and deluded, when they're supposed to be a bunch of hard-nosed schemers more or less.

      Hemingway seems to have believed more or less the same thing, it might even be ultimately his fault.

      Delete
    4. Well, no, but they also wouldn't talk like a middle class English guy from 1950, presumably. Or speak English at all. There's a translation problem, and it's at the heart of the style question in sci-fi/fantasy.

      Delete
    5. I wonder if the problem is less the sparseness or directness of the dialogue (which I have no problem with) but more Zelazny's tendency towards a slightly hackneyed hard-boiled mid-century US style - like the characters have all just stepped off the set of Double Indemnity. In its own way, it's a style which is as noticeable and distinctive as 17th century century stage English.

      Delete
  5. This explains why I spent my teens devouring Zelazny, but wasn't able to get more than a few pages into Eddison. When I finally did read Ouroboros, a couple of years ago, I loved it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is very funny, because my instincts about linguistic style in "fantasy" fiction are almost exactly the opposite. Tolkien was great, of course, but he laid down this really weird and (to me) annoying affectation of writing characters in mythical fantasy worlds -- or even pre-modern real-world historical fiction -- to all sound like characters in late 19th-early 20th century English (as in the country, not the language) adventure novels. Achilles? Sounds like an actor in a 1935 production of "She Stoops to Conquer". Sauron, the dark lord of pre-human pseudo-Germanic mythology? Sounds like Ebenezer Scrooge. And when you adapt these books to the screen, the whole cast is a bunch of slumming RSC veterans who have to deliver lines like "I believe milady haveth not a clue" or whatever. It's painful.

    My favourite example of this is the Percy Jackson movie (my kid really enjoyed the novels, and the first movie shocked me by being watchable): Remington Steele is up there on the screen playing Chiron the centaur, and while the "Perseus/Percy" thing works great in the books, it was distracting to hear him in his posh English accent encouraging the hero: "Use your sword, Puh-say! Avoid his tentacles, Puh-say!"

    Anyway, my shorthand for this phenomenon comes from the video game Max Payne, which had some really great ambient commentary in the form of the TV shows that would be playing (audio only) every time Max passed a TV set in the game: "Lords and Ladies". (Example audio clip: "My Lady... / My Lord? / My Lady, there is a matter of great importance I must bring to your attention. / My Lord, there is? / Indeed, my Lady, there is indeed. From the very first moment we met, upon that distant forest path, there's been sunlight in the autumn leaves, blazing like the colors of your hair. / Oh my Lord, you should not speak so. / But my Lady, I must, I must. / My Lord, no, I forbid you. This cannot be, this must not be. / But why, my love, why?" - full transcript here, it's great as counterpoint to all the shooting and pill-popping in the game, and it is a funny running gag about elf games: https://maxpayne.fandom.com/wiki/Lords_and_Ladies#Transcript_#1_(Episode_airs_in_2001))

    Anyway, I don't know what I would prefer, but probably something like Zelazny. Not that it has to be 1970s Illinois in particular, but, like Shakespeare, any particular writer or performer should adapt the characters to the vernacular to which his audience is accustomed. Anachronism and exoticism must be signaled somehow, of course, but Shakespeare managed to pull this off in a thousand ways while still having Caesar and Coriolanus and Macbeth and Caliban and Menelaus speaking Elizabethan English and played by men wearing doublets and hose onstage. Writers should figure out their own mechanisms for signaling anachronism and exoticism instead of aping the tropes of English writers from 100 years ago, with posh elves and Cockney orcs etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose in the end opinions will differ as to whether 'any particular writer or performer should adapt the characters to the vernacular to which his audience is accustomed'. Wars have been fought over less than this.

      Delete
  7. Perhaps the key to understanding Tolkien's prose is his very low-pitched framing device of all four hobbit novels as contained within the Red Book of Westmarch, the memoirs and histories of Bilbo and, later, Frodo. With that presumed source, one can very well imagine the grand and weighty doings being narrated in a high King James style, while the joys and complaints of halflings take on a more conversational tone.

    Eddison's language is always fascinating. You may recall that in my article on William Morris, I voiced suspicions that his "antique" style might actually be a canny stagecraft, deploying a few select turns of grammar and obsolete words to achieve the effect while keeping to a largely industrial-era use of language. Eddison is far more florid than Morris, and rings more convincingly of Marlowe and the like. But all the same, I would like to sit down with a certified historian of English, and get their opinion of just how accurately these and other authors evoke days-gone-by that never were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, good point. I suppose all I can say is that I have read more than the average amount of 16th and 17th century English and it feels right to me - at least, I don't notice any seams. Athough the way dialogue would have been presented is quite different - the Worm Ouroboros is definitely a modern novel in the way it is structured at a nuts and bolts level.

      Delete
  8. This seems like a matter of stylistic choice, not verisimilitude. Why would characters speak in 17th century English if they are not in 17th century England? Why is it less realistic for them to speak 20th century English? The former wouldn't sound to its contemporaries the way it sounds to us, it's chosen specifically because to our ears it sounds antique and portentous. People speak in natural language, formally or informally as fits the circumstances. Is Shelton's translation of Don Quixote more verisimilar than Grossman's for being contemporary?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the case of the Worm Ouroboros, the characters talk that way for a perfectly good reason: they're essentially 16th-17th century Britons, or arguably Shakespearean renditions of medieval Britons as per his historical plays. Eddison's inspirations are very evident: Elizabethan-Jacobean playwrights (almost certainly primarily Shakespeare as this whole thing originates in a game he would play with Arthur Ransome when they were schoolboys; not a lot of Ben Jonson even in the Edwardian English public school curriculum, I believe), Froissart's chronicle of the Hundred Years' War, the Nordic saga literature.

      Demonland is essentially Scotland in its main contours; Witchland is arguably the South of England, arguably the Fens, but either way it's England, the strong power in the south, slightly more effete and a lot more evil but by no means less than formidable in strength; in that way the Worm is a Scot's fever dream of his national self-image, which is a bit weird because Eddison wasn't Scottish at all as far as I know, but by no means the oddest thing about the Worm in any case.

      Delete
    2. I suppose my answer to that is that there is no reason why the inhabitants of Mercury should speak in 17th century English per se, but rather that they should speak in a way that has the texture and feel of being different, and that doing it through 17th century English really works. It's probably helpful to remember that literally nothing in fantasy can have verisimilitude in the strict sense because no fantasy world, by definition, has any reality at all.

      Is Demonland really supposed to be Scotland? Take a look at the map here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Ouroboros_map.jpg

      Delete
    3. I don't mean it that literally (although I think that map is a fanwork and dubious as to the actual geography of the series). I'm well aware that Demonland is an isle apart and not just stuck to the north of north of Witchland by a contested border. In Mistress of Mistresses, Lessingham also analogizes some rocky and presumably fjorded Norwegian islands with the shores of Demonland.

      Rather, what I mean is that the features of the landscape, the flora and fauna, the apparent mode of living of the peasants, and names like Tivarandardale, Gashterndale, Krothering and Owlswick are strongly reminiscent (although again, not perfect; Stropardon is a blatantly Greek name, although notice it's Stropardon *Firth*) of Scotland, and perhaps especially the Borders in the case of the names. It's a peculiar fantasy *shadow* or spiritual reflection of Scotland, nothing literal or direct. In the same way, Witchland *resembles* a late-medieval England, and occasionally France, notwithstanding that no English kings have reproduced by strange and somehow entirely unexplained adult reĂŻncarnation.

      Delete
    4. You know a lot more about it than me, obviously. But I wonder if all of this just reflects the fact that Eddison had come up with the names and basic outline as an adolescent and may have simply been looking at maps for inspiration. I think 'Owlswick' for example is likely a copying of Alnwick, which is in England. Tivarandardale does sound like Teviotdale, in the Scottish Borders. Stropardon has a Scottish or Brythonic ring to it (imagine the stress on StroPARdon). Krothering sounds like it could be inspired by all sorts of place names - Yeavering is in the Scottish Borders, again, but Kettering isn't....

      Delete
    5. Cf. the names in Mistress of Misresses, which sound to me a lot more Romance - even if the politics are pure Stuart.

      https://worldbuildingandwoolgathering.blogspot.com/2020/05/names-in-mistress-of-mistresses.html

      Delete
    6. I doubt very much whether I really know more than you about the topic, I think the only real distinction is that I finished the book a couple of times and you haven't yet(?). Either way it's definitely likely that all of these are artifacts of his youth – we know the names of the various lords and captains are, from his album of childhood art, and Ransome mentions recognizing the place-names as well as the others. Still, he, or they, evidently even in childhood had the imagination or geographical sense, whichever we ought to attribute it to, to make distinctions between nations in terms of their naming conventions, as for example CarcĂ«, Zimiamvia, and Koshtra Belorn/Koshtra Pivrarcha/Zora Rach Nam Psarrion, which are all fairly distinct and none of which sound like places to store a cow in the Lowlands. So, one way or another, I think it's safe to say that the national image produced is deliberate.

      (Of course, the fact that the names of the characters themselves are all over the map and don't seem to have any consistency at all might speak against the placenames being invented by the child Eddison. But the fact of Ransome's testimony seems persuasive to me.)

      Owlswick definitely is a copying of Alnwick and Berwick, which indeed are both in England, but crucially, were both important strongholds for the Border Wardens trying to maintain the order on the border (for more on this, consult George McDonald Fraser's "The Steel Bonnets", if so inclined). To my mind this is a question of gestalt, not necessarily of individually consistent specifics: the names, the terrain, the flora and fauna described, point broadly in a direction. (And there are a number of other incidentals, like the inscription on Brandoch's gates and his battle call, "Who meddles wi’ Brandoch Daha?", which are both written with the styling typical of Scots at the time – and the latter a reference to the "Ballad of Wee Jock Elliot"; I assume the inscription is also a reference, but I've never found the original. The Demonland cavalry are evidently reiver-style hobilars, and so on.)

      Delete
  9. As a D&D DM yourself, in which mode do you consider your own games to fall? And why?

    D&D was conceived and designed (mostly) by a man who enjoyed brisk, adventure-laden prose. As a game, it lends itself well to that style of play...and to anachronisms, too, of the type found in Zelazny (comes at least in part from the 'kitchen sink' of D&D's fantasy).

    I don't think it's happenstance that the game tends towards a particular literary tone.

    Other RPGs might lend themselves more towards Eddison-like fantasy. But I haven't read Eddison, so I'd be a poor judge. I know there are RPGs that lend themselves well to the style of Tolkien and Vance; however, they require substantial buy-in from the participants to make them function as intended.

    One CAN do deep world-building with D&D. But the game play is what the game play is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure I agree - I think the beauty of D&D is that it is a bit of an empty vessel. You can invest it with as much or as little deliberate tone as you like.

      Delete
  10. Martin has been able to pull of the neat trick of being like Zelazny (and old friend of his) but dressing it up to look like much more of an Eddison than he actually is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin is a funny one. As the books go on they become less verisimilitudinous (?) but I find the first two or three deeply immersive. No, it's not an achievement like Eddison's but it is much richer than most fantasy literature.

      Delete
    2. With Martin he's really really good at making up characters and part of that is giving the characters homes that fit them and their personalities. But if you strip out all of the personalities then all that is left is some mediocre and frankly pretty boring pop-history.

      He's just REALLY REALLY good at making characters so it's easy to forget that the setting is just a sound stage for those characters to act on.

      Delete
  11. quick note: characters speak like that in the amber chronicles because we get their dialogue filtered through corwin. amber is the novel with the clear (and very idiosyncratic and unreliable) narrator. compare that to chandler and how his world is handed to us by marlowe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a clever reading of it but...there are also big chunks of reported speech in the Amber books. Are you saying that also goes through the Corwin filter? So when Random is recounting events and dialogue from his past, we're getting the Corwin version of what Random said about what other people said to Random?

      Delete
  12. Yes this is excellent. Ouroboros is made by its prose, which is the only medium that can carry its heroic spirit. It is not about versimilitude per se. It is about the evocation of a higher age and medium. To strip it of its power of prose would be like the butchered plain language Odyssey (Lord tell me of a lonely man) or something. Banal.

    In contrast, Zelazny is a grand nexialist, an alchemist of genres. His prose fits his story, which is pure unpretentious hyper-adventure perfectly. It is all action. What better format then that of the pulps.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I recall seeing one critic, don't recall who, describing Eddison's personal and place names in _Worm_ as sounding like "pure Lilliputian."

    ReplyDelete
  14. This actually reminds me a bit of reading Ridley Walker and Blood Meridian when I was in my early twenties - both of them (Ridley Walker more so) have such a specific series of choices in the language that they use, and if it didn't get past a certain arbitrary point of convincing the reader it would fall incredibly flat. But both of them succeed brilliantly, and the immersion is almost total as a result, because in a sense you enter into them on their own terms. I suspect that most good fiction has to do this one way or another (Tolkien's does it with an extremely functional, well-measured and constructed prose style that practically vanishes when you read - he really knew what he was doing), and that the voice-as-vehicle for the imagery is just one spectacular way of doing so. It strikes me that books like The Night Land and Voyage to Arcturus actually try and fail to do this - you have to hack through them and they make it extremely difficult to 'meet them on their terms' and get immersed. Once you do they are beautiful books, but they require active work. Also makes me think a bit about the fun spartan-but-also-occasionally-baroque style of the great pulp authors (Howard as the exemplar) and what sorts of world they make possible. You couldn't write Conan in a style like Tolkien's and have it hold the same stripped-down potency.

    ReplyDelete