John Crowley, Gene Wolfe, China Mieville, and the sense of wonder

[nathaniel]

I'm reading John Crowley's Little, Big, and I started this right after Gene Wolfe's The Shadow and the Claw, and apart from the awe-inspiring control over language both authors have, I was struck by how differently both novels tackle the 'sense of wonder', as it were. Crowley's method (as far as I've read) is embedding the ordinary with little nuggets of the fantastic which are so cleverly hidden and disguised that you need to read carefully to appreciate all the references. The writing is almost too good to be true. Gene Wolfe's treatment of the fantastic is more matter-of-fact: there is the occasional casual reveal which Severian makes, not knowing the reader to be privy to most of what he takes for granted or considers not worth talking at length about. One has to essentially figure out everything that would otherwise readily evoke the sense of wonder.

In a nutshell, the two of them are basically using 'show' and not 'tell' when it comes to using the fantastic, in two very different ways.

Gaiman, in the American Gods, does something very similar. Mieville however, would rather awe you with pages and pages upon excited description which in their detail and the exuberance of the narration certainly makes it very clear that the author would now like you to gasp in wonder at the awesomeness of it all (in The Scar for instance, we have the protagonist Bellis Coldwine literally gasp at almost everything, with the very line "Bellis gasped." being used. That too, as single line paragraphs!) but it ironically isn't very effective after the first five times. This is exactly the reason Lovecraft doesn't appeal to me all that much.

What do you guys prefer when reading novels of the fantastic? Would you rather be told, or left to judge for yourself whether something should be deemed worthy of your wonder?

 

[Fried Egg]

I would say their approach is neither "show" or "tell", but rather they leave it to your imagination to fill in the gaps. And the gaps are not only confined to the description but to the dialogue and the story itself (particularly with Wolfe).

Personally, I think I rather like that approach when it comes to horror but when it comes to fantasy, I generally prefer that the author attempt to describe it for me. Although it has to be done exceedingly well not to become tiresome and there are probably few authors who can do it well.

A great example of a fantasy author who does uses description to evoke the sense of wonder incredibly well is Clark Ashton Smith whose use of language is poetically beautiful.

 

[dask]

I like a balance.

 

[woodsman]

I don't really know. I've found myself enjoying things written in both styles. Of the authors you've mentioned, I've only read Mieville and have to say, I absolutely loved him! Then again, Peake's Gormenghast trilogy or at least the first two books, is one of my favourite reads and is incredibly descriptive.

On the other hand; I've always admired Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea -for saying so much with so little so...

 

[j d worthington]

woodsman, I tend to agree with you on this. I love good, lush writing when it is done well; but I also love sparse, spare, writing when that is done well. Hence I am a big fan of Lovecraft, Peake, Smith, Poe, and the French Decadents, but also quite enjoy the writings of Simenon (even at his leanest), Hemingway (ditto), and John D. or Ross MacDonald...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Crowley's use of language is poetic in Little, Big but I suppose Wolfe's is more "controlled poetry"...

 

[Connavar]

It depends on how good the writer is with the descriptions or if he/she is better with leaner style that leaves more for your imagination.

Usually in fantasy i prefer sparse writing and the authors who use description to awoke sense of wonder must be Lord Dunsany or Clark Ashton Smith poetic prose stylist.