Is Fantasy a dream or an escape?

[Bill Ferny]

Most kids are happy and carefree, so when reaing fantasy, they might start start to daydream in class or pretend that they are Strider fighting orcs in their backyard. But when you get older, you are taught not to do this. You can't play around like that. You're supposed to act your age and be mature.

**Bill furtively kicks his hickory wasters and Aragorn costume under the coach**

Littlemanpoet,

You are absolutely right! Have we learned nothing from Miracle on Thirty First Street? Are the things that are most real in this world the things we pick up an use? Nope. Things like love, tenderness, mercy, hate, greed, etc… are the things that seem to affect us the most, and you can’t pick up any of them. Aside: thank goodness for the wisdom of Jethro Tull!

[mark12_30]

Originally Posted by Bill Ferny

**Bill furtively kicks his hickory wasters and Aragorn costume under the coach**

(Not me, man. I'm a summer elf, winter hobbit. Those who don't liike my hobbitish and elvish clothes, can look at the wall instead.)

[Lyta_Underhill]

I kind of figured I would have to clarify my reference to Science. Note, I capitalized it to imply it as having been allowed to become bigger than it is: a religion. Those who worshipped science as their final truth were those against whom I leveled my accusation.

I think you've hit upon the nature of disenchantment here, lmp. Once a defined set of rules is created for what used to be a process, it becomes rigid, over-structured and pedantic. On a side note, there have been a number of 'outings' of scientists in recent times. These scientists, anonymous and not, have admitted to falsifying data in order to obtain grant money or to fall into line with a pet theory, or just to make a name for him or herself. One Japanese archaeologist was discovered to have planted his own personal artifacts at a dig site and claimed they were ancient relics. His actions negated years of research of his colleagues and threw mountains of data and results into question. This is an artifact of the degradation of the "Search for Truth," which was my ideal view of science in my youth (yes, I was a Star Trek baby!). "To seek out new life and new civilizations" was my mantra, but like the monolithic ship in "Rendezvous with Rama," it didn't have to be concerned with human affairs, and was all the more interesting if it had its own agenda, unconcerned with us. It affirmed the diversity and wonder of the universe. Tolkien affirms this in a sort of "inner space," as opposed to the "outer space" ideal of my youth. If Science was my religion as a younger person, then I would say that this closing of the discipline, this narrowing of what constitutes "science" has thrown me into apostasy. (Always wanted to use that word in a sentence!)

Anyway, this also pertains closely to the reason I would lean towards the #4 option in Fordim's controversial poll... ( see Canonicity Slapdown
(not to say I've committed myself...)

Well, I've rattled on long enough!
Cheers!
Lyta

[HerenIstarion]

I've been reading Lewis' essays the other day, and lo! Here's what Tolkien once said to Lewis:

Stories of the sort I'm describing* are like that visit to the deck**. They cool us... Hence the uneasiness which they arouse in those who, for whatever reason, wish to keep us wholly imprisoned in the immediate conflict. That perhaps is why people are so ready with the charge of 'escape'. I never fully understood it till my friend Professor Tolkien asked me the very simple question, 'What class of men would you expect to be most preoccupied with, and most hostile to, the idea of escape?' and gave the obvious answer: jailers... those who brood much on the remote past or future, or stare long at the night sky, are less likely than others to be ardent or orthodox partisans

* i.e. Fantasy
** some pages prior to this sentence, Lewis gives an analogy of the quarrel of ship's stewards in the saloon, which occupies all minds to the extent all forget that besides puny politics adn management there is the sea and the sky outside and what is outside the ship matters much more than petty quarrels within her.

This particular passage comes from an essay On Science Fiction from the book named Of Other Worlds, my copy being reprint of Harvest Books 1975 edition, ISBN 0-15-602767-4. This collection deals with fairy tales/fantasy/criticism mainly and Lewis mentions Tolkein a lot, even quoting from On Fairy Stories to illustrate some points. But this instance of direct quoting I thought worthy of sharing here.

[littlemanpoet]

Why are they jailers?

Because they hold power and want to keep it, and the only way to keep it is to make sure no-one can get out? Is that too cynical a hypothesis regarding the criticism of literature though?

[HerenIstarion]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Why are they jailers?

Because they hold power and want to keep it, and the only way to keep it is to make sure no-one can get out? Is that too cynical a hypothesis regarding the criticism of literature though?

Yes, up to a point. A bit cynical, maybe, but:

People to have a Cause (bright future, democracy, development, betterment of the world – underline applicable), and to be (or at least to proclaim to be) in the pursuit (especially, in the lead of such a pursuit) of its fulfillment, do not like some of their ‘flock’ to ‘digress’. If I care for something more than I do for the Cause (or even if I do care for both equally, still more if I do not care for the Cause at all) I’m a threat to it (even if I do nothing of my own accord against it). In this respect, my effort to ‘go out’ will be labeled ‘escapism’ no doubt, and from my point of view, those to try to keep me ‘in’ would be jailers.

Maybe ‘wicked children’ would be a better description? Haven’t you met such, who want the whole kindergarten to play games they like, not letting others entertain themselves according to they own tastes?

[littlemanpoet]

Actually, your shepherding metaphor speaks to me. Imagine shepherds who, for fear of their flock "digressing", decide to never take them out of the pen? Isn't that a kind of "jailing"? Funny, I seem to have subconsciously begun to spell the word 'jailing' with an "f" before I corrected it; well, for shepherds to so jail their sheep is a failing.

[MatthewM]

This is a great topic. I am always thinking about this. When I dive into The Lord of the Rings, I see it as an escape from the real world. All of the problems this world has fly away as I read. I'm not trying to hold onto anything, it's just in me. I keep the lands and people and stories of LOTR alive in me, which enables me to really visit Middle-Earth as I read.

[The Squatter of Amon Rûdh]

Returning to HerenIstarion's point, how many of the minor intellectual gaolers really do believe wholeheartedly in a cause? So many of those who decry intellectual conscientious objectors do so despite the fact that they are doing nothing about the world's problems for themselves. Robert Windbag (author of the HP review above) has identified juvenile delinquency as a problem, but I haven't heard of him doing anything practical to address the issue. He might as well have been living in someone else's fantasy world for all he's actually done to help this one. Besides which, as has been pointed out above, a world in which teenagers are all petty criminals is as much a fantasy as one in which they all spend their evenings discussing Sappho over tea and crumpets or foiling robberies.

I think that there's more to this than devotion to some real-life cause. I think that some people are just proud of their own ability to contemplate unflinchingly an unfair, ill-managed and brutal world. To invent a new world, even if it contains the same problems as our own, is seen as side-stepping the issue, shutting oneself off to the harsh, bleak reality that they perceive themselves to inhabit. Readers of 'fantasy' are their Lotos-eaters, who inhabit a self-made fool's paradise. This, as Bertie Wooster would say, is where they make their bloomer. Unflinching contemplation without action is so close to acceptance that they look the same. Suggesting that there is hope, for example by pointing out that some adolescents enjoy a spot of Chaucer now and then and that most of them aren't likely to be knifing anybody in the near future, challenges the realist to do something to help hope into reality; most significantly, to risk disillusionment by putting their faith in something. After a century that abused and misdirected idealism on a grand and global scale, a lot of people just don't trust idealists. What does fantasy do but allow us carte blanche to ask 'what if?', to reject those things about our world that we would change had we the power to do so. The danger is that 'what if?' will become the more dynamic 'why not?', which can only get closer to action by ceasing to be a question. Escapism leads to questions, questions lead to change, and change is not always for the better.

I doubt that most of this has been thought out in so full a form by dyed in the wool realists, and there are many shades of intellectual and moral laziness involved that I have not explored, but I think that the main point is the great demand that alternatives and hope place on the individual: it's easier to declare mournfully that the world's going to hell in a handbasket than it is to take a chance that action will stop that. It's easier to decry escapism than it is to contemplate our own captivity, and its easier to complain of universal madness than it is to step outside the asylum. Perhaps considering things from another angle might make the 'they' who are responsible for the evils of society include the complaining 'I', as it almost certainly does. Perhaps a temporary escape will just make the real world seem worse, or perhaps it's easier to think that what we have is all we can have than it is to regard our own failure.

Medieval literature had no qualms about stepping outside reality. Dreams and visions were a good vehicle for expressing religious tenets while avoiding the possibility of promoting heresy. One could depict Heaven, for example, whilst still being able to disclaim the vision as 'just a dream' if it disagreed with some obscure teaching of the Church. One of the true classics of this genre is Pearl or The Pearl, which addresses quite complex theological responses to death and bereavement through the medium of a dreamer's conversation with the soul of his dead daughter. Although the author believed entirely that there was such a place as Heaven, his aim is to step outside the world to consider how best one may order one's life in order to get there; how, in fact, to reject the demands of the world in favour of those of the spirit. The vision of the afterlife portrayed in this work is based on scripture, but much of its colour and detail have arisen from individual sub-creation. One might call such a work 'practical fantasy', since it aims to alter the behaviour of people in the primary world through the description of an imagined reality. The Pearl poet hoped that the ideas expressed in his secondary world would improve his readers and guide them to a better way of life, because his secondary world was, according to the generally accepted world view of his readership, a concrete and definite although invisible reality. Heaven is more real than earth, or at least more universal and enduring, yet it can only be described in terms of the most elaborate fantasy. In other words, sometimes we must step outside the real world to approach the universal.

Such a view, far closer to Tolkien's than those of many of his contemporaries, is not compatible with a world that bases its reality on empiricism and observation. Nowadays we persuade with real-life examples, with names, dates, quotations; with science. More importantly the benefits must be tangible as well: our self-improvement manuals tell one how to lose weight, look younger, advance in business, make friends; very few of them promise to improve one's character, and it is no longer acceptable to describe the entire idea in the form of a dream. A practical world for practical people, but people are not exclusively practical, logical or scientific, and they miss their imaginative freedom. With those who appear not to, one might point out that if we have failed to create our own physical Utopia, then either the principles on which we tried to found it are wrong or it is impossible to create one at all. The system is hard to change and an abyss is not an easy thing to contemplate; however to divert one's mind from the question by concentrating on the concerns of the day is simplicity itself. It is easier to become one's own gaoler than it is to face life on the outside.

[littlemanpoet]

What you're saying, Squatter, if I may make bold to summarize at least a little bit of what I understand from you, is that our self-proclaimed literary gaolers claim a false courage, having failed to attain to real courage. That is, looking bleak (as they see it) reality in the face rather than taking the risk of allowing for the potential change that is part of the power of fantasy - - or I would rather say - - mythopoeia.

[THE Ka]

First of all, I would like to say that is an awesome thread, it's one of those wonderfully provoking ones that puts people into such a tizzy that they have to think.

If you begin to really explore why we write, or read fantasy, you also begin to explore the question of 'why do we even need it in the first place?' Thomas Man once said that he, 'would rather participate in life than write a hundred stories', whither we can agree with him is a whole other factor.
Fantasy can be used wonderfully, to communicate an idea, or concept. Sort of like a writer having a broadcast of their lucid dreaming. So, really, fantasy is both a dream that can be made by the author or shared possibly by one or more authors, and the escape is that experience or possibly expression of concepts to their readers.
So, then, maybe what I'm trying to say is that fantasy, like any writing form, is an outlet that pretty much can be used by anyone of any age, or gender, as long as they are interested in the sharing and thought of significant insights.

It also could be one of the best bloody outlets for letting anyone who has a mind explore themselves as well, by using the 'fantasy' written world presented to them as a trainning track, all we have to do is have some will to explore it.


Well, I'm done with my rant. I saw this thread again and had to say something, its one of those experiences I guess.

~Aesthete

[Nogrod]

"Art reflects [the] dynamic in its insistence on its own truth, which has its ground in social reality and is yet its "other". Art breaks open a dimension inaccesible to other experience, the dimension in which human beings, nature, and things no longer stand under the law of the established reality principle. Subjects and objects encounter the appearance of that autonomy which is denied them in their society. The encounter with the truth of art happens in the estranging language and images which make it perceptible, visible, and audible that which is no longer, or not yet, perceived, said, and heard in everyday life."
~Herbert Marcuse: The Aesthetic Dimension, 1977 ~

Sometimes even the theorists seem to get it right?

[Thinlómien]

Dared to read the thread through at last...

Why should fantasy be either dream or an escape? Can't it be both?

Can we really separate a dream and an escape?

In my opinion they are the same to some extent. What else is a dream than an escape? Don't we escape the present to dreams?

Yet, escape might be more than a dream, it can be something more concretical (sp?).

Of course there are many extents to both "dream" and "escape", but as long as they are interwoven and entwined, they are (almost) the same thing and isn't that what is fantasy? Or faerie?

(And if this made sense, I'm surprised... )

[littlemanpoet]

Dreams are understood as the mind processing one's day/life while asleep. Nothing planned about that. By contrast, fantasies are constructed by the waking human mind. There are similarities, surely, but there is artifice in the one and happenstance in the other. Make sense?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Dreams are understood as the mind processing one's day/life while asleep. Nothing planned about that. By contrast, fantasies are constructed by the waking human mind. There are similarities, surely, but there is artifice in the one and happenstance in the other. Make sense?

Unless you are capable of lucid dreaming. I knew someone who reckoned he could do this, but I remain sceptical.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Unless you are capable of lucid dreaming. I knew someone who reckoned he could do this, but I remain sceptical.

I've dreamed lucidly a couple of times. I did change the outcome. I have a friend who reports that she dreams lucidly quite often.