[davem]

Originally Posted by Bb

This issue relates to a point Lalwendë made some posts ago about Neil Gaiman' s mythology. If I remember correctly, Lal suggested that our appreciation of his American Gods depends upon our prior knowledge of the old mythologies. Is this a failure according to davem's theory of experiencing fantasy?

i think it depends how much background the author gives the reader. I haven't read American Gods, so I don't know how much info Gaiman gives. Of course a fantasy novel can intentionally depend on a prior knowledge of Fairy lore or Mythology. Then again, there are fantasy authors who seem to hope desperately that his/her readers know nothing about the traditional stories. Anyone reading Stephen Lawhead's Arthurian series will be appalled by his twisting & misuse of Celtic legend for his own ends - this is a real case of a 'conscious Christian subtext' - in fact its not even a 'subtext', but a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts in order to promote his religion.

The case with Tolkien is different as, while he may have been inspired by ancient myths he has created a self-contained Secondary World which does not require any knowledge of Primary World myths & legends to be comprehensible (in fact bringing too much Primary World knowledge into one's reading can actually break the spell he weaves). This is different to what Lawhead does, in that once the Pagan themes are changed, subsumed into new forms the originals can be ignored.

Gaiman does not write epic fantasy in the Tolkienian sense, but explores ideas & themes from myth, folklore, contemporary fiction, modern culture. His stories take place on the borderland between, if you like the personal & the Collective unconscious.

Does fantasy involve a major reimagining of language, so that it is not merely descriptive of a different reality but actually implies that reality? Or is this simply a feature of the masters of the genre? (if I'm making much sense here)

Its the 'Green Sun' thing, I suppose....