Fantasy

[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'.

[Lalwendë]

It might be helpful to note that there may seem to be two kinds of fantasy going on. There's Fantasy the genre, and Fantasy the format.

In this idea, Tolkien writes, and heads up, Genre Fantasy. It is self-contained, it doesn't have any underlying 'message', and in a sense, it is far less restricted as it can be free to bend the boundaries of the genre.

On the other hand we have people like Pullman and Lewis who write/wrote Format Fantasy. This is where the form of fantasy is used in order to get across other messages.

I was interested to read an interview with Pullman in which he says this:

I realized early on in thinking about this book, when I found, to my consternation, that I was writing a fantasy. I hadn't expected ever to write a fantasy, because I am not a great fantasy fan. But I realized that I could use the apparatus of fantasy to say things that I thought were true. Which was exactly what, I then realized, Milton had been doing with Paradise Lost. Paradise Lost is not a story of people and some other people who've got wings. It's not one of those banal fantasies that just rely on somebody having magic and someone dropping a ring down a volcano. Paradise Lost is a great psychological novel that happens to be cast in the form of a fantasy, because the devils and the angels are, of course, embodiments of psychological states.

Then this had me thinking about how to some (Tolkien for example) the story is all there is and the story is King, but to others (Pullman and Lewis for example) there are many jumbled boundaries between Story and Idea. And you see it again in Magic Realism, where authors play with fantasy and fairy tale to create something different - in for example the case of Isabel Allende fantasy is used as a form of contrast and escape to the brutality of the Pincohet regime, likewise the same happens with Pan's Labyrinth, where Ofelia's 'dreams' are a retreat and ultimately save her brother from a wicked father.

Genre Fantasy of course assumes that we are willing to accept magic, other worlds, strange beasts etc. There are no half-measures. This is maybe why some simply find it 'evil', as right from the word Go it tempts us into thinking there are other ways of existing. However Format Fantasy may, on occasion, offer something more acceptable to those who find the notion of dragons, witches, spells etc disgusting, whether because their preacher says No or being a 'cool' Islington type. It's different because the dragons, witches or spells are there for a higher purpose.

Ultimately, it's the difference between Art and Utilitarianism.

Oh yes, that Pullman interview: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/bn-rev...linkid=1071115

Lots of fascinating points about narrative structures, authorial viewpoints and the nature of Story. Though some might be disappointed to find that it's not all about religion. Pullman is not a one-trick pony

[davem]

http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle3127837.ece

Interesting how many writers of fantasy fiction make it - Tolkien top, but Peake, Lewis, Rowling & Moorcock also pop up. And this is a list of the greatest British writers since 1945.

Actually, I found this list via a thread on Michael Moorcock's site, & his comment was interesting:

Yes -- that's the problem with being on the list (if only just!) -- you can't write in and argue with it, at least not very easily. I think Fleming is probably on for being an influence and a success, as are some of the other writers. I'm sorry not to see Sinclair there, since he has been very influential as a prose stylist (among other things). His influence on the likes of Self and Ackroyd needs to be acknowledged somewhere. Equally, Alan Moore is a huge influence and, of course, a great success, though largely through books which don't get on fiction best-seller lists. My list would probably start with Moore, in fact, if I took all the mentioned factors into account. Tolkien would probably have to come second. I'd also argue with a number of the other choices but at the same time am glad to see some good names there, including Carter and Ballard.http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showt...195#post111195

" My list would probably start with Moore, in fact, if I took all the mentioned factors into account. Tolkien would probably have to come second."

Have we finally moved away from the cliche that fantasy fiction is the province of geeks? If Tolkien, Lewis, Rowling, Pullman, et al can now be included in such a list can we say that Fantasy is now mainstream? And, further, can we now say that Tolkien succeeded in his aim to take Fantasy back from the nursery?

[Lalwendë]

Moorcock is correct. Where is Alan Moore?

And Gaiman?

Alan Garner is on though. Surprising how many primarily kids' authors like Rowling, Dahl, Garner, Pullman and Lewis are included. But not 'realist' kids' authors like Jacqueline Wilson (Benjamin Zephaniah writes realistic kids' books but is much better known for his poetry).

Note how many of the other authors on that list are known for working with fantasy and sci-fi but outside the bounds of genre. That's following what I said about Fantasy as 'form' as well as 'genre'. Rushdie and Carter are renowned magic realists. John Fowles makes use of the tricks. Doris Lessing and Antony Burgess worked with sci-fi, and Iain Banks writes out-and-out sci-fi as Iain M Banks. Orwell strayed into fantasy and dystopian sci-fi to create his political novels Animal Farm and 1984. Of course then you also have JG Ballard on there...

Otherwise, it's very interesting that a poet tops that list. And such a good one.

[Gwathagor]

I think fantasy is intended to strengthen/reinforce our sense of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Once it ceases to do that, it is no longer valid. Just like anything else, fantasy literature can be either used properly or it can be abused. The placing of limits upon fantasy writing prevents its abuse by immoral imaginations. There isn't anything about the human imagination that makes it particularly 'pure" or 'good'; however, the limits placed upon the imagination liberate it from baseness and ignorance, enabling people write really good stuff. Without those moral limits, fantasy would be rubbish.

[Boromir88]

Fascinating thread davem.

One of my favorite fantasy authors (actually I should just say one of my favorite authors) is Terry Pratchett. Pratchett has referred to himself as a "bolshy" (bolshevik) when he was a kid, because after he had read the Lord of the Rings he felt sorry for the orcs and the trolls and thought the Elves were tricksters who were "up to no good." So, Pratchett writes fantasy in a different style then authors such as Tolkien, Pullman, and Rowling. When he first started writing his Discworld novels he said it was just about "getting to the next gag" in his books, but as he wrote more he started focusing more on the story and character development...yet at the heart he still realized he had a gift to make people laugh, and that "gift" I think is still present in all of his stories.

Anyway, the point being, Tolkien, Rowling, Lewis, Pullman, seem to have a more serious tone in their writings. Yes, there are light-hearted moments that I chuckle at when I read The Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, but the humour doesn't play anywhere near the substantial role in plays in Pratchett's books. I think in Pratchett's books you have the more "serious" undertones, and his acceptance of humanism does show up in his novels, yet that takes a backseat to the "funny gags."

I guess where I'm getting at with all this is to agree with Lal in that Fantasy authors can do whatever they please (which leads to the fantasy genre being dangerous by those who wish to maintain the status quo). When you look at Mark Twain, who wrote stories about the "real world" there were two attempted bannings on his books because they deal with racism. You really don't hear of fantasy books being banned over the topic of racism (which is really interesting because Tolkien had his books attacked saying they were rascist).

I'm going to use Rowling and Pratchett as an example. Why can they get away with racism? Because they are fantasy authors. Why is no one screaming about the werewolf Lupin being an outcast and facing discriminationg? Because he's a werewolf, and werewolve's aren't real. Why can Pratchett get away with the "racial hatred" the dwarves and trolls have for eachother? Because dwarves and trolls aren't real. So, you might say that fantasy authors don't have to fear about being politically correct (something Pratchett loves to poke fun at) as much as authors such as Mark Twain; authors who write about the real world. No one raises hell because Lupin is a social outcast, because he's a werewolf...who cares?

What fantasy authors do have to fear though, is those who want to keep the status quo. Those who want to put a halt to "revolutionary" ideas. Pratchett is a staunch supporter of fantasy, and as he says he likes people who "dress in costumes" (the fantasy "fanatics"), because:

"You never hear about any Trekkie going down High Street with a pump action shotgun."

Fantasy authors can provide their readers with a secondary world, a healthy outlet to escape, keep them interested, keep their minds open; or as I love how Pratchett puts it:

"Stop people from staring at the wall and deciding they want to shoot up a mall."

But, such "secondary worlds" that these fantasy authors create, can be quite dangerous. And as davem points out especially those who are successful.

[Lalwendë]

Running with what Boro says, another factor in fantasy is that it can sneakily deal with things that otherwise people would shut their ears and eyes to. Taking Tolkien as an example, who in the 1950s would have had even the slightest interest in environmentalism? Yet he ran with his feelings on the destruction of the natural environment, expressed his horror of the motor car through showing in a very emotional and even spiritual way the essential value of woodlands. That slipped right under the radar and it's no surprise that the hippies of the 60s picked up on his vision, and that eco-folk still find much of this in his work.

Fantasy has been at the forefront of some of the world's political movements. I believe Tolkien was also taken to heart by many of those involved in calls for the Berlin Wall to come down? If you look at writers such as William Morris and HG Wells you can see how they used fantasy to explore the possibilities of this world and of other worlds. In modern fiction you see Isabel Allende use the medium to explore the horrors of the Pinochet regime, as I said in an earlier post. Then you can take Orwell's 1984, still a potent work for anyone who opposes totalitarianism.

Note, you find that opposition too in Tolkien's work! Which is why I don't buy this line that he didn't have anything political in his work - it's packed with politics.

This is why fantasy is important. It allows the space and freedom to explore and to express thoughts and ideas that otherwise may not get taken seriously or may even be banned. And that's why there should never be limits on it.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Gwathagor

I think fantasy is intended to strengthen/reinforce our sense of the true, the good, and the beautiful. Once it ceases to do that, it is no longer valid. Just like anything else, fantasy literature can be either used properly or it can be abused. The placing of limits upon fantasy writing prevents its abuse by immoral imaginations.

Who then is to decide just what is the true, the good and the beautiful? The Catholic Church? Perhaps the Imans of Iran? Are you?

There isn't anything about the human imagination that makes it particularly 'pure" or 'good'...

This I agree with. And it includes your imagination and my own. I do believe we all should have a right to express it however, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else directly.

[davem]

Of course, it could be argued that in LotR Tolkien is offering the 'ideal' Just War. It is Good vs Evil. Yet, in an ideal world there would be no war at all. Of course, Tolkien looked back to a time when things were better - even war was 'better' before Man introduced Machines into the mix. But that's a lie. War was never neat, clean & chivalrous. The kind of war Tolkien describes could only happen in a fantasy world. Yet that could be applied to every aspect of Tolkien's world - the woods, mountains, seas are not those of our world, but 'perfect' versions of them - even evil & monsters in his world are perfect examples of the 'evil' & 'monstrous'.

Maybe Tolkien needed to write about an honourable, just, war in 'compensation' for the one he'd known - perhaps the War of the Ring was the war he wished he'd fought in?