Wasn't it Samwise Gamgee in whose mouth Tolkien puts the following words?
Something like, "The big stories never end, do they? We're in the same story as Beren and Luthien. It's just that our part will come to an end and someone else will carry on." Not an exact quote, but it sort of puts the lie to (or at least contradicts)
bombur's point.
As to the whole black and white thing: Characters in a book should be like people; we may call them "black" or "white" - none of them really are.
Quote:
|
... for a story one only needs a sliced period of time. One year is plenty. It is always a bonus to have history for the story.
|
Tolkien's semblance of history is part of what makes LotR seem so real.
Quote:
|
the type of catharsis-- release into new understanding of ... something: yourself or existence, and release of emotion
|
Nar: This is what Owen Barfield called "evolution of consciousness". I wish more people had heard of him and read his works by now. He was influential upon Tolkien and Lewis. I've said all this before, but since you brought up the effect on the reader, it fit.
Quote:
|
I believe strongly in stories that have definate ends... ambiguous preferably... but the kind that make sequels impossible.
|
Sequels are
always possible, if you're good at it. Creating loose ends for the sequel where there didn't seem to be any is far easier than tying up all the loose ones in the prequel.
On one particular point I do agree with
bombur: the need for an evil that goes deeper than mere villain. Especially if the fantasy story is a
serious one. Even in not so well written fantasy, there tends to be a yet more subtle, perhaps more pervasive, hidden but potent evil, than mere villain. This is as it should be if one is gong to be true to fantasy.
True to fantasy - hmmmmmm..... what does that mean?
Eol: What fantasy stories can you point to that show that a "most evil" opponent (I will not say absolute, for that goes beyond what I think ultimately real) is not necessary?
I don't think you meant to say,
Eol, that fairy tales cannot be thought provoking.
I must disagree with everyone who says that how fantasy is written is all a matter of taste. Surely there must be some standards that define it as over against other genres of literature, otherwise why bother calling it fantasy? Tolkien, for example, had a clear definition of fantasy, which Nar happens to think is too narrow, but then Nar herself also has a (somewhat) clear definition of fantasy, an arguably good one. I tend to take Tolkien's definition as my own. To paraphrase, he says in "On Faerie Stories", that fantasy is that one type of story that, like no other, has to do with the happy ending, or if not the happy ending, then the eucatastrophe, which is that sudden reversal against all the odds and all the evidence that lifts the heart and gives one hope that Life and Good will ultimately defeat Death and Evil. This works as a broad definition because it delineates fantasy from tragedy, using Tolkien's example.
Goes this,
bombur, help discuss the WHY of fantasy? What being true to fantasy is all about?
[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]