Review: Mythago Wood - Robert Holdstock *****

For me, almost all the best fantasy has one foot in the real world (I'll make an exception for Lord of the Rings and Terry Pratchett's books). Such books work by juxtaposing the weirdness of fantasy with our everyday lives, meaning authors can deliver far more impact. If asked to name great authors who have written in this vein it would be easy to name the likes of Gene Wolfe, Neil Gaiman and Alan Garner - but it's somehow easy to forget Robert Holdstock.

Part of the problem with a book like this might be that this type of fantasy is often labelled urban fantasy, but like most of Garner's work, some of the best would be better countryside fantasy - and none more so than Holdstock's Mythago Wood.

I first read this in the 1980s and have come back to it a couple of times since, but starting as I did in that pre-internet era, I never realised it was the first of a series of books, so I've re-read it now before getting on to the sequel, Avondiss - and it is still a remarkable book.

Set in the years following the Second World War, we follow Steven Huxley's attempts to understand his father's obsession with Ryhope Wood, a large stretch of ancient woodland at the bottom of their garden. Huxley's father was convinced that the wood had strange properties, which enabled 'mythagos' to form - folk memories and legends that became tangible. After their father's death, Huxley's brother Christian is trying to explore the wood with frightening consequences that drag Steven into an attempt to uncover what really is happening.

I mentioned Alan Garner above - in this book, Holdstock proves himself very much Garner's heir (I know Garner has outlived Holdstock, but I mean rather his cultural heir). The key to Garner's work is a sense of place and its impact on reality - perceived and actual - and this comes through very strongly in Mythago Wood. There's also sometimes a theme of obsession in Garner, and again obsession is crucial here to the very mechanics of the fantasy logic.

This is quite possibly the most atmospheric fantasy I've ever read - it's certainly one of the best. Anyone with an interest in the genre should have a copy.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

You can buy Mythago Wood from Amazon.co.uk, Amazon.com and Bookshop.org.

Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog