Fantasy

[davem]

Actually, I just added this as an edit to my post on the Golden compass thread in Movies, but it got me wondering if its worth discussing in a wider context. The Edit was:

Actually, it brings up a bigger question - should the ideas & concepts that fantasy explores, whether in book or movie form, be restricted? Isn't fantasy, at heart, about asking the question 'What if?' If a fantasy novel or movie can't present a secondary world in which 'God' is not only evil, but actually a fake, then what can it do - what limits do we set on fantasy worlds - because whatever limits we set on fantasy worlds we are actually setting on the human imagination - we're saying 'You are not allowed to imagine 'X'.' - effectively Pullman's point.

It could be argued that those who object to Pullman's work on 'moral' grounds (not pointing at anyone in particular) are actually objecting to fantasy in general, & to the human imagination in particular. After all, in what way is imagining a secondary world in which 'God' is a fake from whom humanity must liberate itself & find its own way forward different from imagining a world in which the sun is green, or in which animals can speak with humans?

(For the record, I still found HDM (the book - haven't seen the movie yet) increasingly dull as it went on (nearly said 'progressed'!!) & found PP's repetitive haranguing just annoying by the end, so I'm not putting this argument forward as praise of PP.

So, is it right, or acceptable, to demand that Fantasy shouldn't explore certain ideas - if those ideas challenge, or attack, certain values or beliefs? HDM, apparently, has been removed from the libraries of some schools because of its 'message'.

And the question is, because Fantasy is the purest use of the human imagination, is it right to set limits on it, & refuse readers/movie-goers access to certain secondary worlds, or should there be no limits on what can be imagined? Isn't that the purpose of Fantasy?

[Hookbill the Goomba]

A good point, Mr dave.
A genuinely good work of fantasy is something very rare. The genre has quite a stigma attached to it and many associate it automatically with half hearted attempts at something Tolkienesque. Because The Lord of the Rings has itself become such a bench mark by which almost all other fantasies are measured, it is inevitable that anyone writing in the field is going to be drawn to it in some measure. Positively or negatively. Tolkien was doing something right. This has, in some ways, been a sort of restriction on fantasy, in some ways. But the imagination can go further. Owen Barfield says something along the lines of;

“[Myth] is intimately bound up with the early history of meaning. It is the same with innumerable words; if one traces them back far enough, one reaches a period at which their meanings had a mythical content ... [such as] "panic", "hero", "fortune", "fury", "earth", "North", "South".”

I think that's sort of what I'm trying to say.

A world with a green sun, for example, is a physically different world. As is one with Elves, Dwarves or Deamons. The trouble comes when you start putting ideologies into it. This is the same for all genres, in my opinion, and one cannot single out fantasy. Although, writers with less about them have often given rise to the general none-subtle nature of the revealing of the ideologies. I have said it before, but I think a repetition is in the right place here. I think that when a writer has the idea of writing with a certain message in mind, it can sometimes be difficult to make it subtle, for fear of people missing it. Even Allegories can, at times, be blatantly obvious as to what they are referring to. This can also limit the range of the imagination in fantasy, I think. One must admire Tolkien, for, while there may be a message, or messages, the story is always the important thing. Therefore, you don't get the preachy, rambling speeches of a character talking with the author's mouth which can happen so often. It is better, I would say, to let the reader decide on the moral issues raised in a story, especially a fantasy one. This, in tern, can not only lead to the reader's further engagement with the story, but can also free up the imagination. A lose end is always fun, I think.
A writer called Sean Penn said something that subs it up, for me:

“When everything gets answered, it’s fake. The mystery is the truth.”

The imagination can run away with a lose end. But as for what is written down, I don't think there should ever be any limitation on what the mind can conjure up. But it is hard not to fall into Tolkienising* or being preachy. Interestingly enough, in my opinion, C.S. Lewis, in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe at least, is quite clever and subtle with his message, more so than Pullman who whacks you over the head with it. I still get surprised looks from people if I tell them that Narnia can be called 'Christian literature'. I think it is the use of the word 'witch' that puts people off though.

*See, I can make up words too!

[Nogrod]

I heard the news on local radio's morning-show a few days ago and almost snorted my coffee from my nose as I thought that was a nice joke. But it seemed to be true. Vatican really thought it was a matter of such importance that they felt they should make their point known. Oh my... I could come up with a thousand of more pressing problems with the church than one out of hundred non-christian piece of fiction...

But the problem here I think resides in the fact that to us non-believers (or educated people in general) fiction is fiction and to the Vatican (and the newly born Christians & fanatic Moslem alike) it's a battleground of truth.

Or there can be a thing called fiction if it's aligned with the message of the church - as most of the fiction is made looking at the religiously conservative U.S. markets that are the prime targets of international entertainment conglomerates. But even here it's not the faith that counts but the money that can be raised with the help of the faith (or which is lost if the faithful will not accept the product).

I mean no one here in the west complains when Narnia or LotR or HP or Matrix or what have you invoke Christian imagery and teaching; that they blend easily to our Christian culture and in some cases openly call for Christian solutions to life's persistent problems. But when one movie (a book in the first place but it becomes widely known only when a movie has been made) goes to present a slightly different stance everyone's up their toes. And the studios / publishers take a step backwards.

Once again I think you have put your finger into a painful spot davem, and thank you for that.

It comes as no surprise if I say that of course fantasy should probe anything.

If litterature tries to tell things of this world and what goes on in it as such it's called realism.

If litterature tries to make people think in a predetermined way or to cling to already existing ways of thought that please some parts of society it's called propaganda.

If litterature first and foremost tries to sell it's called commercial... or entertainment... or whatever you wish to call it.

A lot of things given to us today are sadly a combination of the two last ones... the second point being in most cases a tool to obtain the last one.

But couldn't fantasy be one of the media where we could actually look at different ways of seeing the world?

I know the mainstream fantasy isn't up to the task as it's too occupied with making money and/or fame and thence trying to find the lowest common denominator.

But "real" fiction / fantasy could do a lot in here.

[Lalwendë]

Fantasy, sci-fi and speculative fiction can do and say just whatever it pleases.

It has for some time been a bastion of independent and original thought. Look at some of the outrageous ideas put forwards by the likes of JG Ballard, Kurt Vonnegut and Philip K Dick. It's in this area of fiction where you find the outrages, not in the domain of cosy middle class Booker winning novels (much as some would like to think they are being unique - note that Martin Amis for one did a wholescale rip-off of Kurt Vonnegut in Time's Arrow).

I think the moral panic element has not a little to do with snobbery. It's perfectly OK for someone who appeals to the intelligentsia to diss religion (I could make a list as long as my arm here) and be morally outrageous (or even, just a wee bit challenging ). But as soon as someone does this in mass market fantasy which might appeal to the unwashed masses or in 'kiddies' books, then their wrists must be slapped. Reminds me of how at one time Bibles were only available in Latin, which of course restricted them to the priests, who then had control over what people believed.

But one element of fantasy that can't be ignored is the sheer lack of control of it all. Tolkien really and truly let himself go into it, that's how it comes across as genuine, and you can see the evidence as the language itself loses control into TT and RotK and. However Lewis did not lose control, Narnia is a bit 'constipated' as he got so bogged down with 'message' and all that. Now the weird thing about Pullman is he was trying to 'do a Lewis' but as the madness of the second and third books unfold, it's clear he too got carried away like Tolkien did - his creation took over his story. Same thing happens with Gormenghast as the story takes over and almost disintegrates. It happens with Earthsea too. And Harry Potter; for all those of you who have read book 7, notice how Rowling almost loses control of it all...

[davem]

I suppose one could ask the question 'Are all fans of Tolkien (& Lewis) fans of Fantasy?' or are many only fans of the 'confirmation' of their own beliefs/worldview that they percieve it to contain?

Or, 'Is the true lover of Fantasy one who seeks to enter into a secondary world which is other than their own?' What Pullman does, at least in the first volume, is create a convincing secondary reality, whose inhabitants are 'real' - within their own world. I don't know of any (even its most vociferous opponents) of the work who claim its 'fake', 'unconvincing', 'unbelievable'. Their objection seems to be the exact opposite - its too convincing, too 'seductive' - read Pullman & you may be seduced into his worldview.

In other words, Pullman's work is both offensive & dangerous because, as fantasy, it succeeds. Pullman creates a totally believable secondary world (sorry, fans of HDM, but I'm limiting myself here to the first volume).

So, I think its possible to argue that anyone who objects to HDM/The Golden Compass movie is actually objecting to Fantasy itself - or to any manifestation of Fantasy that challenges their worldview/belief system - which, essentially, is the same thing.

Good Fantasy convinces, bad Fantasy doesn't. But bad Fantasy isn't a 'threat' to Churches or political regimes, or to anyone's personal beliefs - because bad fantasy doesn't convince: it feels fake. Only good fantasy is a threat - because it does convince - of its 'reality', the possibility that a world like that is possible (if only logically possible).

So, one could argue that any Fantasy is only a 'threat' because its a good (ie convincing) fantasy, & that a true fantasy fan would like* it, & that anyone who disliked a convincing Fantasy because they didn't approve of the worldview it presents is not a true Fantasy fan at all.......

*They may not approve of/agree with the philosophy behind it, but they would have to approve it as a Fantasy, as the creation of a convincing & wholly believeable secondary world.

[Lalwendë]

What an absorbing work of 'good' fantasy like Lord of the Rings does is to create other possibilities of life. It opens your mind to other kinds of existence, and that's instantly threatening to those who wish to maintain the status quo.

I liken their hatred to two things.

One stems from fear, and the best way I can describe that is my own refusal to accept that there may be aliens, because at heart, I don't want there to be aliens as they are more advanced and would simply wipe us out (history shows that this always happens, just as the native Americans and the Aborigines were destroyed). So some do not want the possibility of alternate existence put before them because they fear it.

The other thing is control. We (or at least, some of us) live in an ordered world where we know what will happen from one day to another. We don't go to extremes, we accept our lot. But fantasy offers chaos and anarchy simply by its very existence. That's A Not Very Good Thing to some, so they want it to go away. They either tell us its bad for us or ban it if that doesn't work.

The human imagination is a terrible thing. Far better to shut the door, switch on the soaps and peruse nothing more challenging than the Argos book The alternative is to be like Bilbo and be swept into things too big for you, or be like Lord Asriel and want more of it all.

[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'.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

And the question is, because Fantasy is the purest use of the human imagination, is it right to set limits on it, & refuse readers/movie-goers access to certain secondary worlds, or should there be no limits on what can be imagined? Isn't that the purpose of Fantasy?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have 'we' here at the Barrow Downs really decided/defined/discussed whether Fantasy is "the purest use of the human imagination"?

And it isn't just fantasy but many forms of language which have been censored/ banned/ repudiated. The novel was disparaged, particularly as reading material for young women, in its early decades. I seem to recall a certain philosopher who would have banned poets from his ideal Republic. There seems to be an uneasiness, a queasiness, with language that too far diverges from history or some sort of touchstone of verifiability.

[skip spence]

Originally Posted by davem

Actually, it brings up a bigger question - should the ideas & concepts that fantasy explores, whether in book or movie form, be restricted?

No, it shouldn't.

Furthermore, isn't the very categorization "fantasy" a restriction in itself? I certainly think so. I mean there are many great works of fiction that easily could be classified as fantasy, or sci-fi, but isn't for reasons unknown to me. Take for example Bulgakov's Master and Margarita, Orwell's 1984, or the works of Astrid Lindgren. Now these works are rightly admired by much of the literati, whereas fantasy books usually are dismissed as lowbrow trash for nerds, sometimes unrightfully, but perhaps often not. I guess what I'm saying is if you set out to write a fantasy-book, you will inadvertedly end up writing something derivative, often in the shadow of Tolkien, although it might be well worth reading anyway.

For what it's worth, my advice to a budding fantasy-writer would be to forget about the genre and just try to write a great work of fiction. I don't think Tolkien set out to write a fantasy-book or laid any restrictions on himself based on what he thought the genre demanded.

[Galadriel]

So, is it right, or acceptable, to demand that Fantasy shouldn't explore certain ideas - if those ideas challenge, or attack, certain values or beliefs? HDM, apparently, has been removed from the libraries of some schools because of its 'message'.

I should not think so. After all, George R.R. Martin (why is his name so darn LONG?) has pretty much come up with a fantasy that has more blood, gore, dishonesty, sex, rape, etc. than any other till date (correct me if I am wrong). I believe moral ideas can (and to a certain extent, should) be challenged to the extent that people can stretch their minds a little, but not so much as to actually encourage people to start killing each other

And the question is, because Fantasy is the purest use of the human imagination, is it right to set limits on it, & refuse readers/movie-goers access to certain secondary worlds, or should there be no limits on what can be imagined? Isn't that the purpose of Fantasy?

Fantasy may be the 'purest' use of human imagination, but that is not to say it is completely pure. We base fantasy on reality, mainly because it would take up too much time and effort to make up a billion new rules for the story. Whether it is 'right' to set limits on it is debatable, but it certainly would be very hard to not put limits on it! Also, some people might find the prospect of reading books about talking jam-tarts a little disconcerting.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Galadriel

I should not think so. After all, George R.R. Martin (why is his name so darn LONG?) has pretty much come up with a fantasy that has more blood, gore, dishonesty, sex, rape, etc. than any other till date (correct me if I am wrong). I believe moral ideas can (and to a certain extent, should) be challenged to the extent that people can stretch their minds a little, but not so much as to actually encourage people to start killing each other

Fantasy may be the 'purest' use of human imagination, but that is not to say it is completely pure. We base fantasy on reality, mainly because it would take up too much time and effort to make up a billion new rules for the story. Whether it is 'right' to set limits on it is debatable, but it certainly would be very hard to not put limits on it! Also, some people might find the prospect of reading books about talking jam-tarts a little disconcerting.

You know, I am quite confused here. It seems to me that the one making "demands" and setting "limits" on fantasy has been– davem himself. Wasn't his main argument in fact that writers should feel obliged to depict certain topics only in a particular "approved" way? Did he suddenly switch sides, or what?

–I will say this on the subject of fictional violence in general: I don't think any camp gets to take the moral high ground. "All graphic, all the time" is hardly some kind of default "righteous" position. Someone can argue that buckets of gore in a story will teach the audience just how bad violence is...sure... but then someone else can come along and argue that all it will do is harden them and perhaps give them a taste for it– or is pandering to a taste already there. Not saying I necessarily agree with this point of view, either, but I think it's about as valid as the other. (Which is to say, I'm not sure that either is all that valid.)

Me? Oh, I don't know, I think mostly people just like what they like– and sometimes feel the need to construct elaborate moral and theoretical frameworks to justify it.

[littlemanpoet]

People will read what they want to read, will think what they want to think, and will do what they want to do with it.

Although the latter is the domain that society obviously has real concern about since what is done affects others, said society may decide that it has a vested interest in prevention of those things it deems worth stopping, and may take measures to discourage thinking about such things.

Obviously, if someone never is exposed to sado-masochism, rape, murder, you name it, his chances of thinking about it are greatly reduced, and thus his chances of acting on it are as well. Each society has to decide for itself where to draw the line. And you can bet that in a free society, someone is going to "raise cain" no matter where the line is drawn.

[Nerwen]

Look, lmp, I really don't know how influenced people are by what they see or read– I don't think it's just a "monkey see, monkey do" thing. I'm just pointing out that the case for the moral superiority of depicting violence as graphically as possible isn't exactly water-tight either.

After all, when even spambots are using an argument, you might want to rethink...

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Look, lmp, I really don't know how influenced people are by what they see or read– I don't think it's just a "monkey see, monkey do" thing. I'm just pointing out that the case for the moral superiority of depicting violence as graphically as possible isn't exactly water-tight either.

Actually, I agree.

Well said, Blantyr

[blantyr]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

People will read what they want to read, will think what they want to think, and will do what they want to do with it.

Although the latter is the domain that society obviously has real concern about since what is done affects others, said society may decide that it has a vested interest in prevention of those things it deems worth stopping, and may take measures to discourage thinking about such things.

Obviously, if someone never is exposed to sado-masochism, rape, murder, you name it, his chances of thinking about it are greatly reduced, and thus his chances of acting on it are as well. Each society has to decide for itself where to draw the line. And you can bet that in a free society, someone is going to "raise cain" no matter where the line is drawn.

I'd also note that both artists and audience have their own visions and world views on how various realities work or ought to work. Tolkien knew what he was doing. He walked his own line between the beauty of fairie and the ugliness of war. How does one measure the distance between Lorien and the Dead Marshes? I'm not going to second guess that line. This isn't to say that other writers and other audiences don't have other themes.