One can find several masterpieces in the long and sacred annals of literary history, and one of these has indeed received much praise for its beauty, depth, and artistry. Then, of course, there is The Eye of Argon, Jim Theis’s novel, so carefully constructed and audacious in the prose that it has found a niche not among the productions of great fantasy literature but rather in the columns of “What were they thinking?”

This awkward phrasing and highly nonsensical plot twists attest to this novella’s claim to literary “genius,” if by genius we mean master classes in how not to write. However, for confusing and deep reasons, The Eye of Argon developed a cult readership of people who enjoy the charming experience of being “so bad it is good.” Under all this fluffiness lies a deeper, possibly morbid, tragedy, awesome incompetence that survives its flaws, or perhaps not. Who can say?

The Eye of Argon depicts and represents the adventures of a barbarian hero, Grignr. The whole plot revolves around Grignr’s attempt to scrape past many forces of evil to secure the ancient magic artifact, the Eye of Argon, for himself. Along the way, he encounters a plethora of magical beasts, many wicked villains, and beautiful girls, each of whose testimony adds to the chaotic cathedral of storytelling.

While the central conceit of the treasure hunt for a powerful artifact is a common treat in fantasy literature, much needed to be desired in the execution of Theis; meanwhile, the senseless events and incongruous character actions almost completely lack coherent world-building. It has helped contribute to the book’s recognition as a most unintentional parody of the genre.

Another point of criticism that comes out strikingly concerning The Eye of Argon is its writing (if you can feel comfortable even calling it that). The first page lets one know from the beginning that Theis does not possess the faintest understanding of basic structure in storytelling. Wretched prose! It has a miserable style and convoluted phrasing with an assortment of adjectives, any number of which would make sense only if read from a fog of confusion.

It is as if Theis was thinking, “Why use one word when I can use five?” To further exemplify, in the first paragraph, we see the now famous line:

“The dull, turgid landscape shimmered beneath the scorching glare of the twin suns, stretching to the limitless horizon in all directions until it met the line of obscurity, beyond which none had ventured and returned.”

Right, “the line of obscurity.” What is that exactly? Who knows! All we can say is how foul, with those adjectives like turgid. We know no one else has ever used it unless one tries to sound “posh” without saying anything. Shimmered does not seem to say what its “twin suns” scorching glare is. It is not the right word; it is almost as if Theis picked words out of a hat and hoped for the best.

Moreover, the “line of obscurity” does not sound like it belongs in a story. It sounds like something one would hear in a half-baked philosophy lecture. This double whammy of baffling word choices and convoluted sentence structure is not presented just once. It is part of the theme throughout the novella, providing part of the cringe and the laugh-out-loud ridiculousness. For example, and in this case, perhaps the most important hero of the novella, it begins with the sentence:

“Grignr’s mighty thews bulged as he swung his massive sword through the thick, glistening air of the temple, and his nostrils flared with the scent of blood and death.”

Then the question arises: from where do we even begin? First of all, “mighty thews”? What the hell are “thews”? If you are not a nineteenth-century literature scholar or a Viking reenactor, you do not know. In this case, it is an archaic term for muscles, yet instead of sounding heroic, it makes Grignr sound like an ill-conceived character from a mediocre fantasy comic book.

Moreover, that “massive sword” of his, we know, is a sword. It is massive. There is no need to hammer in any further cliché. It feels like Theis took every fantasy trope and threw them in the blender without a second thought. This “mighty” language wants to portray Grignr as the ultimate barbarian hero, but it reads like an unintended satire instead.

Unfortunately for everyone else, that was never funny. These awful metaphors and awkward phrases are too exaggerated to be taken seriously. Instead, accidental humor keeps readers from engaging in the action while constantly reminded they are reading a train wreck of writing.

The other major failing of The Eye of Argon is its character development or lack thereof. Grignr, the alleged hero, is one example of a one-dimensional character. He is your sock and sandal barbarian: a character based chiefly on brute strength and desperate lust for glory. That is all he is meant to be. There is nothing more to him. No personal troubles, no antipathies that might ignite our attention. It is as if Theis thought, “Hey, let me create this big buff dude who wants to be famous!” and went for lunch.

Such dreary interchanges with other characters end in expected delight. Grignr meets the damsel in distress and the villain, who are about as shallow and underdeveloped as an afternoon puddle on a hot day. These mere characters, figuratively speaking, exist in the neighborhood to serve as props for the storyline, whereas, let us face it, the same as an overall low probability value in holding the attention of anyone.

If you were hoping some exciting side characters would redeem this work, we have the bad news for you. The evil sorcerer scares you about as much as a sock puppet. Moreover, the beautiful princess, well, she is beautiful, and that is about it. Their personalities are as flat as a pancake, and their function in the story is as creative as a paint-by-numbers kit.

The interactions between those characters are more an attempt to fulfill fantasy tropes than any depth of emotion or genuine interaction. Take the romance subplot as a free example; it is entirely forced, like a commonplace bad joke, full of fantasy clichés that would not pass to be a meaningful relationship within a high school drama, let alone in a work of fantasy fiction. There are no explorations of emotions or complexities, just a couple of characters being shoved together awkwardly to meet an obligation.

The characters in Theis serve much better as placeholders than actual people. They are not individuals with motivations, desires, or personalities but tools that can fill the needed roles in an expected fantasy narrative. Let us be honest. That makes them forgettable and utterly laughable at worst. Which, of course, adds to that novella’s charm as some “so bad it is good” literature. Who would not want to read about a story where the characters might as well be cardboard cutouts with names slapped on them?

The plot and characters of The Eye of Argon are so thin and incongruous that one would beg to believe that the author was making it up as he went along. The story lurches from one unbelievable situation to another, like a lost tourist without a map or sense of direction. Grignr’s grand quest to obtain the Eye of Argon repeatedly gets ruined by a score of villains, but his actions seem ludicrous within the narrative’s purview.

One of those shining moments of storytelling is when Grignr manages to hold a crowd at bay for no proven reason other than the bog standard that he is “strong” and “courageous.” Well, that clears it up.

Who needs strategy, skill, or a logical explanation when one has brute strength and a self-proclaimed heroic attitude? The tension between Grignr and the antagonistic forces is next to nothing, as the person driving the plot instead stumbles from random encounters to clumsy action sequences that create little to no meaningful conflict or resolution. So no, there is no intense plot arc or character development; this is mainly about the display, even though that display is confusing and, at times, downright silly.

The novella’s pacing is yet another triumph of disorder. There are entire chunks of the story where the action comes to a standstill, and the plot awkwardly changes gears like a car whose transmission is not functioning. The impression one gets is that Theis had conceived of a scene and then disrupted herself halfway through to throw in an entirely different scenario for no particular reason that would hold.

The absence of coherent transitional scenes, accompanied by a continual influx of new characters and new developments, creates turmoil in which the reader wonders whether they missed some important points of the story or never existed.

This chaotic structure would probably spell doom for most other works, yet it is inarguably part of the charm of The Eye of Argon. It is a wonderful, unintentional surrealist manifesto, an unintentional commentary upon the farce of storytelling in and of itself.

The plot points are all jumbled; in other words, events seem to occur without real possibility, and there is no particular structure to hold it all together, making it strangely charming. Sure, it is a disaster, but it is one that some people have fallen in love with for the sheer unpredictability of it all.

It is an amalgamation of all the versions and rewrites done in special effects by many experts, from creativity to any other art, and all the versions have failed. Still, The Eye of Argon has earned itself a fan following, and this is not the so-called group who regard it as a terrible movie or what some theorists claim to be a misunderstood masterpiece of literature. It earns the same label as the worst movie one cannot help but watch, so bad it is almost good.

These same fans can be found discussing it on online forums, at fan conventions, and in some of the most obscure corners of the internet, swapping their favorite lines from this hilariously bad book like they were trading rare Pokémon cards. Note that the phrase “so bad it is good” was not only coined for a movie like The Room; it was practically made for it.

It is not read with the intention of anything so lofty as inspiration or enlightenment but rather for entering the contest of seeing otherwise beautiful words go down the trash in as many different ways as possible on one page.

It became infamous in the literary world and has become a special thumb in the eye. Watching the disastrous attempt at the flaming sword juggling while blindfolded, one can only hope to continue watching. These are in the twisted pleasures one derives from viewing Theis and the endless procession of his sins against writing.

A gaggle of typos, senseless metaphors, and dialogue that makes you question if any human being has ever spoken that way in the entire recorded history of human language, less of a reading experience and more of a rite of passage for lovers of literary catastrophes. Every illogical sentence dares you to continue, and you somehow accept that challenge.

For some people, this book is an outright glow in the dark, reminding them how much fun even complete artistic faceplants may sometimes be. It proves that there is no correlation between brilliance and literary value. It can be just as much through spectacular failure at reaching the mark.

Theis did not create a masterwork in his novel, but he “did” create something unforgettable, if not for the reasons he probably intended. It has earned its way into cult classic status for not being good but made so magnificently, beautifully “not,” and is not that its kind of success?

Is it really The Eye of Argon, said to be the worst disaster, the product of an unintentional farce, or does something more lie beneath its poorly constructed sentences and incoherent narrative? It may hide a secret dark, untold message waiting to be deciphered by only the most astute readers in its clumsy prose and illogical plotting, but is that what we see, or is it simply a work too painfully flawed to ever rise above the abyss of its absurdity?

Consider: What lures us back to such a text, entrapping us in its tragic clumsiness? Might there be something more to it than meets the eye? Only the most discerning minds, those who dare to peer into the depths of literary failure, might ever know, or perhaps, as with all things that are too complex for understanding, we are doomed to remain forever in the dark.

References

  • Barker, M. (2011). A “Toxic Genre”: The Iraq War Films. Pluto Press.
  • Bloom, H. (1994). The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages. Harcourt.
  • Church, D. (2016). Disposable Passions: Vintage Pornography and the Material Legacies of Adult Cinema. Bloomsbury.
  • Eagleton, T. (2008). Literary Theory: An Introduction (Anniversary ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
  • Jenkins, H. (1992). Textual Poachers: Television Fans and Participatory Culture. Routledge.
  • Mathijs, E., & Mendik, X. (Eds.). (2008). The Cult Film Reader. McGraw-Hill.
  • Sandvoss, C. (2005). Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Polity.
  • Sconce, J. (1995). “Trashing” the Academy: Taste, Excess, and an Emerging Politics of Cinematic Style. Screen, 36(4), 371–393.
  • Theis, J. (1970). The Eye of Argon. Ozark SF Association.