Littlemanpoet wrote:
Quote:
|
n the interest of saved time for those (such as myself) who have not read the Canonicity thread, could you (or someone) provide a link to the points you reference, if you don't mind, in regard to meta-fantasy and the requirements of fantasy?
|
The discussion of
Smith in the canonicity thread is on
page six.
Quote:
|
There are two matters you raise to show why the Sil is more powerful to you than SWOM: transitional versus immersive fantasy (where did these terms originate?), and whether SWOM is more a treatise or more a story.
|
I certainly didn't mean to suggest that I was offering a proof that the Silmarillion is more powerful than
Smith. Rather, I noted that
in my experience the Silmarillion is the more moving work; then, in an effort to get at the reasons for the differing views of the two works, I tried to give an account of their chief differences.
I agree that
Smith is not just a literary treatise. Still, I do think that in certain important respects it has the character of a meditation on the nature of fantasy literature, as opposed to a work of fantasy literature.
I'm still very interested to hear where others come down in the Silmarillion vs.
Smith issue.