[Aiwendil]

The Western world has become too disillusioned to appreciate fantasy.

Agreed. I would, however, draw a distinction between being cynical in life and being cynical in art. The problem is that modern critics have forgotten that the purpose of art is to entertain. When you start thinking that art must 'say something' about the real world, then the distinction between philosophy of art and philosophy of life breaks down.

No. Logic in fact, takes us to the opposite conclusion. That there is something inherent in the genre (insofar as it can be defined) that gives rise to banality.

Okay, I'll accept that, as far as it goes.

So what is this quality, this fatal flaw? Well, I think the answer is - it's us.

Just to be very picky: what do you mean by "us"? Do you mean we who condemn modern fantasy for the reasons listed above? Or do you mean those people that don't condemn it? I suppose you must mean the latter, but certainly neither I, nor you, nor anyone else on this board is then included in "us".

We get the fantasy we deserve. This is where we want to go when we want to escape from gritty reality. From grittyland to fluffyland. Because we're scared.

I respectfully disagree - well, mostly. (By the way, aren't you getting a little modern here? I thought you were a romantic idealist.)

I think this is a fairly simplistic view, and it seems (to me) that the modern condemnation of "escapist art" is lurking just beneath the surface. The implication there and here is that art is a tool for dealing with the real world, and therefore those artists that address the real world are to be commended and those that don't are derided because they obviously can't deal with the real world. Underlying this view is the same philosophy that makes critics hate Tolkien: the idea that art should not be judged as art, but as social commentary.

I realize I'm probably arguing against views that you didn't express and don't hold, but this is where your line of thinking ultimately leads.

Is fantasy really "fluffy"? I don't think it particularly is. Granted, most Tolkien imitators have simple, happy endings rather than the complex, multi-layered mood of the end of LotR. But so do most mysteries, true crimes, romances (I assume; I can't say I've ever read one of those last). And there is grit in fantasy, as well - a good deal more grit in some than there ever was in Tolkien.

Scared of sci-fi with its technological conviction, scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding.

How many people are really scared of science fiction? Although its difficult to make generalizations about that genre (and certainly not all of it depends primarily on technology), I don't think there's anything really psychologically troubling in most of it. And why should people fear "technological conviction"? The same goes for crime and romance. Are people really deeply troubled by such things? I think not.

To come back to your question: what is the flaw in fantasy? Simple: imitation. In no other genre is almost every work so imitative of a single author. I'm certainly not suggesting anything so modern as that there should be progress in art. It is, however, undoubtedly true that those who merely imitate a great artist will fail to create great art. The fantasy genre is a genre of imitation.

I guess that I love Star Trek (treat me gently again!) because the stories are totally visual creations - designed for visual appeal. Even so, I have no desire to read any Sci-Fi!

Really? This is an unusual point of view, in my experience. Most Star Trek fans that I know (including me) like it more for its high-concept science fiction aspect than the visual appeal. I only point this out because, if we are to make generalizations about the genre, we should not make them based on unusual cases.

If nothing else, Post Modern liturature has made us all understand all too well Ms. Arendt's naming of evil as "banal". Modern authors address this theme constantly in their books.

Agreed. Though it is fashionable to criticize Tolkien's clear distinction between good and evil, that is a valid way of looking at the world (not that art must address the world).

Orcs didn't go around saying "I was only doing my job. They new they were evil and loved it!

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think Tolkien's view of evil was nearly as unrealistic as is often claimed. Just look at Shagrat and Gorbag in book IV. "Regular Elvish trick" they say, thinking that the "great Elvish warrior" (Sam) left his companion (Frodo) behind. They seem to view Elves as immoral. Isn't that exactly the way the Nazis or al-Qaeda operate?

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]