Fantasy

[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.

[Elmo]

It should be pointed out that having fantasy that has 'a god' goes against what atheists think. So it is no different from having 'godless' fantasy. It if makes a certain yay or nay in this issue it's going to upset some people.

[davem]

I recently found this essay by Poul Anderson http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm & got to thinking....

Does good fantasy have to be rooted in reality to work? Anderson makes some very good points. Does the existence of a Green Sun in a fantasy world mean that humans in that world can be superhumans & break the rules on what humans can & can't do in the Primary world? I suppose the wider question is, what are we prepared to allow a writer of fantasy to get away with? Is there a difference between breaking the 'religious' rules & presenting God as a senile old fake & breaking the physical rules & having a 'Gnorts' gallop his horse non stop for three days straight & then slaughter three dozen warriors with his fifty pound broadsword without breaking a sweat?

Or, in short, how much should a writer - how much can a writer - get away with?

[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?

[Morthoron]

Hmmm...But from Tolkien's conservative point of view, perhaps there was such a thing as a righteous war, even if the savagery of battle presented 'animal horrors' to the combatants. Certainly, both the wars against the Kaiser and later Hitler were presented as conflicts against aggression, and were considered to be necessary to rid the world of evil (as Churchill's harangues during both World Wars made abundantly clear, at least from a propaganda standpoint). The lines of good and evil were clearly delineated during both conflicts (at least until the cynical manuevers of Stalin muddied the waters).

It would seem then that Tolkien did subscribe to the 'just war' concept, at least from a storytelling standpoint (fighting the long defeat, perseverance in the face of certain destruction, the malnourished and puny London clerks and Oxford undergraduates transformed into Hobbits trundling off for king and country, etc.). One doesn't get the same gloomy prospects and disillusionment espoused by writers of the 'Lost Generation' (like Hemingway, Ezra Pound, Siegfried Sassoon, T.S. Eliot or D.H. Lawrence). Rather than confronting the ghosts of Flanders in a modern method, Tolkien's therapy seemed to be to subsume himself in a chivalric or medieval world where virtue and truth still made sense and were applicable to war (along the lines, but not necessarily as reverentially as Froissart, who glorified chivalry even when noting that the Black Prince was slaughtering whole towns of innocent civilians). Perhaps the hope attendant in Tolkien's religion precluded him from falling prey to the cynicism of many of his literary peers who survived WWI.

I am not sure. Perhaps your take that Tolkien needed an honorable war to expunge the horror of his own experience is correct. *shrugs*