[davem]

Found this piece from the Australian newspaper The Age:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinio...344881475.html
which explores the ideas we've been discussing here.

But despite a notable tradition of Christian writers of fantasy (including J. R. R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis), special fear seems to be reserved among some extreme elements of the Christian churches for the genre, which they see as a portal into young, impressionable minds.

You'd think that after harnessing the supposed birthday of their most revered figure to a pagan festival that included divination and witchcraft, they might have more tolerance for the genre, although on Boxing Day in 2005 they were happy to co-opt Narnia, the film version of the allegorical C. S. Lewis novel in which the lion Aslan represented a muscular, militaristic Jesus. That time it was the turn of the devoutly atheistic to be horrified at the thought that their little ones would emerge blinking from the cinema and demand to be taken to Sunday school.

It didn't happen, of course, just as the Harry Potter films (and books) didn't create a junior league of Satan worshippers with their depiction of witchcraft. It remains highly unlikely that young viewers of the latest blockbuster popcorn fantasy fare will begin burning churches and practising their pentagrams. You need to understand something of Christianity to recognise the allusions; even then, they're better seen as the beginnings of healthy debate rather than a Trojan horse for atheism.

So, Fantasy seen as dangerous - if its done well, & offers a convincing alternative worldview, if it says, effectively, 'Things could also work this way.'

Tolkien, in OFS, stated:

Fantasy, of course, starts out with an advantage: arresting strangeness. But that advantage has been turned against it, and has contributed to its disrepute. Many people dislike being “arrested.” They dislike any meddling with the Primary World, or such small glimpses of it as are familiar to them. They, therefore, stupidly and even maliciously confound Fantasy with Dreaming, in which there is no Art; and with mental disorders, in which there is not even control: with delusion and hallucination. But the error or malice, engendered by disquiet and consequent dislike, is not the only cause of this confusion. Fantasy has also an essential drawback: it is difficult to achieve. Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative; but at any rate it is found in practice that “the inner consistency of reality” is more difficult to produce, the more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary World. It is easier to produce this kind of “reality” with more “sober” material. Fantasy thus, too often, remains undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely “fanciful.” Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough—though it may already be a more potent thing than many a “thumbnail sketch” or “transcript of life” that receives literary praise. To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode.

One could argue that what the makers of the TGC movie did was turn good fantasy (again, not using 'good' in any moral sense, but in the sense Tolkien uses here) into bad fantasy. Yet, the moral/religious objections that have been raised to TGC has nothing to do with the fact that its (apparently) not a very 'good' (ie convincing) fantasy, but that this 'bad' (ie unconvincing, in its movie incarnation) fantasy may lead children to read the books, which are 'good' fantasy, but with a 'bad' message.

So, those with a moral objection to TGC (in both incarnations) have an objection to Fantasy qua fantasy - 'bad' fantasy (ie poor, unconvincing, rushed, trashy) would be acceptable to them if the 'message'/worldview it presented was in conformity with their own , but 'good' fantasy is unnacceptable if its message/worldview contradicts or challenges their own. Fantasy is not judged as Art - in the way that Tolkien states it should be judged - but only on its usefulness - 'Does this story confirm me in my belief, & serve to communicate my belief to others?' Art doesn't come into it - utilitarianism is all.

In this context its interesting that Tolkien loved Eddison's fantasy The Worm Ourobouros - despite the fact that he disapproved strongly of the underlying philosophy. Eddison was a master fantasist, & created a totally believable world. As a writer of Fantasy, a creator of secondary worlds, Tolkien appreciated the Art of Eddison, & would never, for all he disliked Eddison's philosophy, have demanded T.W.O. be banned, or boycotted.

Yet, there is the question of personal response. I find Moorcock's Fantasy poor & unconvincing - ie to be 'bad' Fantasy. Everything of his I've read seems fake, unconvincing - I have to force myself to suspend disbelief (or rather, in Tolkien's words, I don't so much have to suspend it as hang, draw & quarter it) just to get through a Moorcock fantasy - yet I've read comments by Moorcock fans that say the exact same thing about Tolkien's Fantasy, which to me is, & always was, absolutely 'real'.