The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post - Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

Kalessin · 04-02-2002, 08:06 PM

Unbelievably great replies, Aiwendil and everybody [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I was expecting more of a "fantasy is cool, elves rule, you wordy wierdo" response, so I was really blown away by these posts! I especially like the "planet Dorkus" reference [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Maybe there is one possible aspect of the debate that we haven't touched on yet. And that is postmodernism. So here is Kalessin's rant Part II (of 94).

There is no doubt that postmodernism dominates the western cultural agenda. This is why William Gibson and Iain M Banks are (or perhaps were) considered "hip", and why Phil D1ck's stories of the 60s and 70s are prime Hollywood fodder. As Estel has said, Tolkien crafted an essentially romantic fiction intended to be taken literally by the reader - not as 'true', but as consistent within itself and NOT referential. There is no irony, or quality of 'knowing', within LotR ... no sly conspiracy between author and reader - it is, in effect, traditional storytelling.

Perhaps this bears a more disciplined analysis. The dictionary definition of pomo as a reaction against modern artistic movements only tells half the story. As the reaction and counter-reactions continue in ever-decreasing circles (ie. speeded up by advances in communication technology and the increasing sophistication of the audience) the reference points necessarily become more and more incestuous and instantly iconic (a la Warhol). You only need to watch half an hour of commercials to realise that we can apparently condense all the atmospheres and associations of different kinds of music and a thousand years of artistic images into a few seconds of cultural references that we, the audience, understand completely. This is the quality of "knowing". Inevitably the iconic cliches lose any resonance, and become self-parody. Hence the quality of 'archness'.

In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California).

The consistently excellent JG Ballard intentionally explored these concepts in the novel Crash (not the ambitious but flawed film version). We goes past existentialism, nihilism and hedonism and end up numbed and vacant in a sterile world of habitual instant gratification. A doomsday scenario that is at least (thankfully) still a little way off.

So how does all of this relate to my original post and all the excellent replies, about the real or imagined failings of the fantasy genre?

Because, in a fairly big way, fantasy is generally anything but postmodern. Even Moorcock's ornate comedies have a sort of pompous glam-rock feel to them [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment).

But is the lack of sophistication and awareness a valid criticism? You can't have your cake and eat it, ie. it's hard to go back to Charles Perrault when you've dined on Angela Carter.

Well, the ubiquitous Harry Potter is an excellent focal point for this issue. HP is certainly postmodern by comparison to Tolkien and others. And it's interesting to note the wide spectrum of views on HP expressed here. Personally I think the "Harry promotes witchcraft" argument is utterly spurious and smacks of insecurity and repression, but Estel's point about Harry's lack of a Vader-esque 'dark side' illustrates how the genre typically leans towards literalism and archetype. Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method.

I'm not answering my own question, basically because I don't know the answer. I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons. And whilst I am in sympathy with the sincerity and romanticism of much of the fantasy genre, the tired formulae and lack of sophistication do test my patience.

What do you think? Let me know ... I'm just going to self-indulgently bask for a moment in getting such high-quality replies to my first topic [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. My compliments, people of the Downs.

Peace

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

04-02-2002, 08:06 PM	#23
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	Unbelievably great replies, Aiwendil and everybody [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I was expecting more of a "fantasy is cool, elves rule, you wordy wierdo" response, so I was really blown away by these posts! I especially like the "planet Dorkus" reference [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] Maybe there is one possible aspect of the debate that we haven't touched on yet. And that is postmodernism. So here is Kalessin's rant Part II (of 94). There is no doubt that postmodernism dominates the western cultural agenda. This is why William Gibson and Iain M Banks are (or perhaps were) considered "hip", and why Phil D1ck's stories of the 60s and 70s are prime Hollywood fodder. As Estel has said, Tolkien crafted an essentially romantic fiction intended to be taken literally by the reader - not as 'true', but as consistent within itself and NOT referential. There is no irony, or quality of 'knowing', within LotR ... no sly conspiracy between author and reader - it is, in effect, traditional storytelling. Perhaps this bears a more disciplined analysis. The dictionary definition of pomo as a reaction against modern artistic movements only tells half the story. As the reaction and counter-reactions continue in ever-decreasing circles (ie. speeded up by advances in communication technology and the increasing sophistication of the audience) the reference points necessarily become more and more incestuous and instantly iconic (a la Warhol). You only need to watch half an hour of commercials to realise that we can apparently condense all the atmospheres and associations of different kinds of music and a thousand years of artistic images into a few seconds of cultural references that we, the audience, understand completely. This is the quality of "knowing". Inevitably the iconic cliches lose any resonance, and become self-parody. Hence the quality of 'archness'. In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California). The consistently excellent JG Ballard intentionally explored these concepts in the novel Crash (not the ambitious but flawed film version). We goes past existentialism, nihilism and hedonism and end up numbed and vacant in a sterile world of habitual instant gratification. A doomsday scenario that is at least (thankfully) still a little way off. So how does all of this relate to my original post and all the excellent replies, about the real or imagined failings of the fantasy genre? Because, in a fairly big way, fantasy is generally anything but postmodern. Even Moorcock's ornate comedies have a sort of pompous glam-rock feel to them [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment). But is the lack of sophistication and awareness a valid criticism? You can't have your cake and eat it, ie. it's hard to go back to Charles Perrault when you've dined on Angela Carter. Well, the ubiquitous Harry Potter is an excellent focal point for this issue. HP is certainly postmodern by comparison to Tolkien and others. And it's interesting to note the wide spectrum of views on HP expressed here. Personally I think the "Harry promotes witchcraft" argument is utterly spurious and smacks of insecurity and repression, but Estel's point about Harry's lack of a Vader-esque 'dark side' illustrates how the genre typically leans towards literalism and archetype. Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method. I'm not answering my own question, basically because I don't know the answer. I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons. And whilst I am in sympathy with the sincerity and romanticism of much of the fantasy genre, the tired formulae and lack of sophistication do test my patience. What do you think? Let me know ... I'm just going to self-indulgently bask for a moment in getting such high-quality replies to my first topic [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. My compliments, people of the Downs. Peace [ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]