Oh, thank you, Eol! I think a three-letter handle shows a certain ... discernment, don't you? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I liked your last post, it was quite poetic. I think a well-written story will often seem to have a future... unless it ends with the end of the universe, I suppose. I heard a talk by an author who told us he was on page 700 of his last novel when someone pointed out that the story had actually ended 100 pages earlier. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] He assured us, though, that he HAD to write those extra 100 pages or he would have messed up the part where the story DID end. Very comforting, I'm sure ... I'm on page 32. 568 pages to go, then an extra 100, wonderful! Maybe if JRRT had had someone to shake him and tell him, 'The Silmarillion actually ended with Feanor's rebellion, you crazy kid! From then on, it's all postscript and epitaph!' Then we would have had our Silmarillion much earlier! Just as well.
Bombur, you are a very fun poster. Zesty arguments you put up! I totally disagree about the need for a great dark lord and a story with strong and straightforward sides, but I have to agree that that is traditional ... it's just wrong, that's all. Or rather, it's wrong to limit fantasy to a formula-- the defining characteristic of fantasy isn't a surface element of the story, it's the effect it has on the reader.
You don't want to be redoing LotR, explore other emotional landscapes. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use the good old elements-- Lila, don't worry about using dragons and knights, and even ... one true kings, if absolutely necessary [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] These have been the good old elements since before Tolkien was born! I think that the type of catharsis-- release into new understanding of ... something: yourself or existence, and release of emotion -- need not and should not be always the same effect as in LotR.
[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]
|