Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Kalessin]

I'm writing this after reflecting on this year's Oscars, where the LotR movie sadly failed to pick up the most prestigious awards. I don't want to debate the merits of individual films or performances, but to suggest that perhaps the 'fantasy' genre (as opposed to Disney or Pixar) is still not taken as seriously as 'proper' movies or literature.

Now we all know that fantasy books sell really well (and LotR was a huge book and movie hit). And I also know that we here are all converts, and don't need to be persuaded how wonderful Tolkien is, and probably many of us also enjoy fantasy works created by others - for example, I would cite Ursula Le Guin's 'The Earthsea Quartet' in literature, or John Boorman's movie 'Excalibur' as personal favourites - but I wonder whether there are any "good" reasons why the genre is still not acknowledged or accepted as at least the equal of Crime or Horror, and certainly seen as less meaningful than the traditional novel.

Maybe you could argue that it is accepted, except by a cultural establishment that is still snobbish or elitist. Or that there is still an association in some people's minds between fantasy and fairy tales ie. being childish and escapist (I'm not sure I believe this). Or that stereotypes of fantasy aficionados - as beardy fashion disasters, maladjusted gothic teens, or anal-retentive sociopathic gamers - are still prevalent. Or maybe you would argue that I'm wrong, that the genre only suffers the same slings and arrows as any other, and that "WE HAVE ARRIVED".

But I'm going to be a devil's advocate and ask whether there are any VALID criticisms of the genre - or of its icons. No, I'm not rehashing the "Book of the century" thread (I already have enough enemies). But when I browse through the Fantasy sections in local bookshops, having waded past the huge Star Trek section, I do find myself being put off by the following ...

1. Endless volumes of the same story or series - ie. "Dragonmaster's Destiny : Number 37 in the Chronicles of The Dark Raven Storm Warrior ; Volume III of The Ancient Scrolls of Atlantis ; featuring Tarnak, Prince of The Bejewelled Crested Eagle Wings (as featured in 500 other titles) ; Book 15 - Secrets of The Necromancer (Part II) ..." OK, I'm exaggerating [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] But do you get my point?

2. The formulaic and superficial narrative which seems utterly dependent on tired genre cliches - ie. "Deprived of his kingdom by the dark sorcerer Voldorn, Saraan and his band of followers must embark on a perilous quest to recover the magical Baubles of Aldoren, and unlock the Ancient Fire of Stormwrath. In so doing he will learn his true identity, and face an inner demon that will lead him to a final cataclysmic destiny, at the edge of the abyss between destruction and redemption ..." (me again [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

3. Feeble attempts at Tolkienesque cosmology - ie. "Gnaar Hrothragha! cried the Arnak. He had dwelt but a few Kaeaons upon the Omulagh (see Appendix 290), and was considered a mere Jyfdwq by the Elders. Upon his mailed swordarm lay the the engraved symbol of Yangfrey (see Book 9, Trilogy 4, Volume 6, Part IX).

4. The dire attempts at epic language and form ... I'm not going to skit this too much, except to say the words "Lo!" and "Destiny".

5. The cultural homogeneity at work - aren't most heroes pretty much heroic, generally white, male and handsome (or female and pneumatic). Our beloved Hobbits, and the anti-heroes of Philip K D1ck are exceptions that prove the rule here. I'm not aware of many overtly gay or black leading roles (not in the endless series' anyway, or only as minor lackeys) ... I'm still looking out for my copy of "Captain Camp and the Disco Invaders". My point is that stereotypes still abound.

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Now there is a serious point here. Tolkien, Moorcock at his best, and others, are obviously masterful writers and able to rise above what appear to be the pitfalls of this genre. But their craft and imagination only makes the rest (ie. the majority) look and seem all the more feeble and banal. More generally, for every LotR or Philip K D1ck masterpiece there are 10,000 Star Wars/Trek/other dire spinoffs ... or am I just imagining it?

And yes, there are equally formulaic and unremarkable works in other genres - the endless Crime outpourings featuring one pet detective or another, or the romantic literature phenomenon that is Danielle Steele.

But I'm not talking about other genres. I'm talking about the area that WE love. That particular combination of archetypes and references that WE find most appealing. And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

These boards are full of open-minded, articulate and intelligent types. I'm wondering whether we can look in our own house and find the skeletons in the cupboard ( [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy? What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?

Hopefully you can tell me how wrong I am, and list the authors or works that defy the above conventions. But this is my question - are there any valid criticisms? Of Tolkien, or other leaders of the genre - or of the genre itself, is it by definition limiting and lowbrow (I don't believe that). Or, in the end, is it us - the readers - that make it what it is? After all, we're the ones who keep publishers in business.

Peace

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

I believe that one of the main offsets of people to Fantasy & Science Fiction is, sadly enough, religion. There are a lot of people out there who believe that anything that involves magic is evil. I mean, they tried to boycott Harry Potter for crying out loud. Also, it has to do with stereotypes. There are a lot of BAD fantasy novels out there. The same old story. And, unfortunately, you have to go through that section to get to the Tolkien ones. A lot of people just see the surface of fantasy and science fiction and they don't realize that it can have a much deeper meaning. LOTR is one of the most emotionally driven books I have read, but too many people are stuck on books by John Grisham (and many others) and movies such as "A Beautiful Mind" and they are unwilling to open themselves up to a whole new realm of storytelling. I, of course, criticize the human population for many reasons, there close-mindedness is one of the biggest though. Too many people delve into their everyday work & they loose the imaginations they once had as children.
Now, I, being an actor myself look at life from all perspectives. Even ones that may not exist. In acting fantasy plays a big part. One of the books I am reading right now has lots of exercise involving fairytales and fantasy. It says that they have the most wide range of emotions from anything. So we use fantasy to explore this. It is quite releasing.
I wish that people could open themselves up and that Science Fiction and Fantasy can be more important. If the fantasy movies that come out follow in LOTR footsteps then I believe that it is going in the right direction. LOTR is one of the first book to movie jobs that worked and worked well (not including Star Wars).
Well, I think I have written enough. Whew!

[Rosa Underhill]

Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy?

*cough*Dragonlance*cough**hack, hack*Ann McCaffrey*harf* (Please don't hurt me anyone.)

Honestly, Kalessin, I can't think of any valid criticism for fantasy (which is a bit of a problem since I'm trying to defend the genre in a paper I'm writing and, thus far, have found no critics). My beef with the genre at present is that it's become, mostly, stagnant and mouldering. It's so dratted predictable!

That's why I love Tolkien (who has apparently turned me into an even bigger book snob than I already was); in the end, what happens to his characters is not expected. But that's not what this thread is about....

Um, give my brain some time to switch on and I'm sure I'll come up with something truely intelligent to say (or a cheap immitation). [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Recovering from a vacation spent doing nothing is very difficult.

[Birdland]

Hopefully you can tell me how wrong I am, and list the authors or works that defy the above conventions.

Great rant, Kalessin!

Personally I could give you a number of authors that defy the above conventions, and it would not be just my opinion, but the opinion of critics and the literati as well.

There is nothing wrong, per se, with following a formula. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle did with his tales of Sherlock Holmes, (which, by the way, he considered to be “hack” writing which denigrated his more serious efforts.) The followers of the Great Detective of Baker Street are every bit as fanatical in their devotion to these stories as we Tolkienistas are (Love that ! “Tolkienistas“, Aii-Yii-Yii!). Yet generally are considered to be serious scholars with an interest in a worthy body of literature.

You don’t see to many people rolling their eyes if someone tells them they study the fictional characters of A.C. Doyle.

The thing I can’t point out is why! I’ve been looking at my own collection of books, old and new. Why do I love the talking animals of Felix Saltin and Rudyard Kipling, yet turn my nose up at the “Redwall” series? (Sorry Redwall fans). What touched me so deeply when I read the “Earthsea” books and Tolkien, and why have so few authors exploring these same themes been able to inspire those same feelings in me?

I’m grappling with the idea that, unfortunately, most critics and literary scholars tend to draw a rather arbitrary line when it comes to works of fantastical fiction. If it’s good, then it no longer can be classified as “merely” fantasy. If it’s bad, then it’s “typical” of the genre. A good example was the furor that arose when some people tried to classify Kurt Vonnegut as a science fiction writer. Critics, scholars, and even the author himself, vehemently denied that he belong in the sci-fi category. Which was absurd, of course. Vonnegut was a science fiction writer by any definition of the genre. He was also an incredibly, gifted, talented science fiction writer!

You do not see these same lines being drawn with other genre authors. There are great, classic Mystery writers, and there are hacks. Same with Crime Fiction, Horror, and even the Western genre.

Sorry I haven‘t been able to answer any of your questions, but just brought up more questions. I’m looking forward to hearing some other opinions on this.

[Oliphaunt]

"Gnaar Hrothragha! cried the Arnak. He had dwelt but a few Kaeaons upon the Omulagh (see Appendix 290), and was considered a mere Jyfdwq by the Elders. Upon his mailed swordarm lay the the engraved symbol of Yangfrey (see Book 9, Trilogy 4, Volume 6, Part IX).

that was really funny!
I think that maybe Kalessin you're focusing too much on the respect that Fantasy gets or doesn't get, and maybe it's dirsrespect for literature in general. Someone who only picks up a book when he or she has to isn't going to understand fantasy and less or more than say mystery novels. And as for the Oscar, A Beautiful Mind was a better film than the Fellowship. I don't think thats a knock against fantasy literature though.

[Estel the Descender]

Before I continue, I have to ask this question: please bear with me. Did any of you or do any of you play the Final Fantasy series? You know, FFVI-FFIX?

As I have posted elsewhere, the thing that makes Tolkien special is that he deliberately tries to make his stories 'believable' and not 'fantastic', even though his work is categorised as 'fantasy'. That is where the other books fail, they are not 'real' enough. Of course, Tolkien did not expect people to believe there were real dragons in our world but he wanted dragons to be believeable in the world he made. That is, the dwarves for instance regarded Smaug as real as we would regard a lion. In the other books, dragons even in the created world are considered quasi-mystical at best, legendary at worst.

Let me use Harry Potter as an example: where in the real world would you find children treating their chemistry lessons or algebra class as something 'special' unless they were real egg-heads? Most real real children I know would would regard their schoolwork, no matter how much they were good at it or how much they like it, as just normal something that has-to-be-done. I would have expected magical people to treat their magic the same way. But in Rowling's world, it seems that even magical people are surprised at their own abilities: they act like muggles who suddenly have power.

Back to the Final Fantasy series: say, FFVIII. We have people trained in magic and fighting skills. They have their pride in their abilities, but during the entire game you do not find the sense of being 'all-new-to-this' even in the cadets. The only guy who seemed obsessed with his abilities was a semi-villain. None of the quasi-mystical nonsense (stone of Alcala, philospher's stone, screaming mandrakes, etc.). in Rowling, you have a dual world, muggles and magical people, and everything is unbelievable but true. In Tolkien and the FF series, there is the sense of believability, like in the better fairy tales where witches were a given and predatory wolves were taken for granted. Magic is not arcane even if it is hidden: magic is just a form of technology in the great 'fantasy' works.

A comedian who is too busy laughing at his own jokes rarely can make his audience laugh. A magician who is awed by his own magic is simply unbelievable.

Check it out: Tolkien, Lewis, Malory, the FF series. . . the plot is just as important as the magic if not more so. Magic, in my opinion, should just provide an aspect of the setting of the story; magic should not be THE story for its own sake.

For those who like Harry Potter, well, Rowling is getting better at telling stories. I just miss the 'Power corrupts. . .' thing. For me, an abused child who suddenly finds out that he is a powerful wizard and remains naively pure is unrealistic. Even Luke Skywalker had to deal with the Dark Side. I don't know, I did enjoy reading the Rowling books. I just cannot imagine a school that allows a house like Slytherin to continue to exist. (Like, even Gandalf had to cast Saruman out of the order for good).

Well, just bleating. . . I liked The Star Wars Trilogy because of its contextual believability in spite of its 'fantastic elements'. Tolkien, did create a believable world. Just imagine. . . what if Tolkien emphasised the mystical element like Dungeons & Dragons or Lucas emphasising the cool special effects and spaceship designs? Or the original Starship Troopers ( not the movie or TV version) which emphasised philosophy and not the fancy sci-fi? The LotR, Star Wars, and good Science Fiction (Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica, etc.) will not be the classics they are if they focused on 'fantasy'.

[Rimbaud]

I think the enduring magic of well-written (and I emphasize) fantasy and science-fiction generally has little to do with the fantastical or scientific elements. Certainly they generally drive the plot, and few books of these genres are without some great malevolent force to rail against, yet it is the characters that we identify with, that we follow, that some of us wish to be, that some of us are glad we are not.

The better writers, Tolkien, Herbert, Clarke know this. Their books centre around the people for that is what we are interested in. This also is an unfortunate reason for the formulaic 'normal-boy-living-in-village-finds-out-he-is-magical-and-has-to-save-the-world' plot lines of many of these novels. Yet looking beyond this (there is a reason why crime books are called who-dunnits and the same things are used to make you jump in every horror story) fantasy and sci-fi create some memorable obstacles for love and understanding to overcome.

If I can wax poetic and idealistic for one second; in all of these books there is a striving for peace, love and harmony, through pain, deception and warfare. That is not a bad thing by any means. If only some of the passion for truth and justice on the written page could be translated into action out there in the sunlight of the real world. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

I wouldn't touch most fantasy. I am prejudiced against it, and frankly, the books I have had the misfortune to pick up over the years gave me nausea. For me, only Tolkien, C.S. Lewis and Robin McKinley became not only bearable, but treasured and beloved. Good yarns they are, but more than that as well, and they touched me on a level that the authors of fluff like: "Andromesion, the High King of Urghuryhan, mounted his noble steed, Tzchöshatchtar, and with a fierce cry galloped toward the enemy-leader Ghardyukhrym, his sword, Dahkfatjj-the Chopper glittering in the sun..." could not reach in their wildest dreams. (P.S., Kalessin, thanks for the laugh! I had to copycat you here!)
And while I'm on my soapbox-what is the deal with the cheap, ugly covers that these books have? It's always some well-endowed Medieval bombshell a là Pamela Anderson with flowing hair and a magical prop (the usuals are cat, wand, sword, crystall ball, precious jewel, magic ring/necklace/crown), or some steroid-junkie on a rearing horse. Ugh! Imagination itself has become underrated.

[Jessica Jade]

Thanks for the parody on those gross sci-fi-fantasy wannabes, Kalessin! Lol, i really had a good laugh reading that.

More generally, for every LotR or Philip K D1ck masterpiece there are 10,000 Star Wars/Trek/other dire spinoffs ... or am I just imagining it?

I think that books like those--the cheap, trite, banal attempts at being like Tolkien--those are what gives the whole scifi/fantasy genre a bad name. Those are the books that cause people not to take the genre seriously. It IS hard to get people to understand that Tolkien books are NOT like that at all, that they are "emotionally driven" (as someone said already) profounnd and meaningful and full of wisdom. People think that just because it's fantasy, it isn't relevent to life and is all superficial. That's not true at all, and i believe that the LOTR books contain an incredible amount of wisdom, as much, if not more than other classics. But how we can get the general public to see that, I don't know. Also, like someone already said, the fantasy genre isn't the only one being discriminated against, and it's not only fantasy that produces those predictable, trite dime novels...the same goes for crime, mystery, suspense, romance, etc. The truth is...it's hard to get anyone to like a book or a genre if they haven't read the book themselves. I know that we shouldn't let the "mindless masses" bother us and affect us, but i do admit its hard not to be frustrated and annoyed when people revere books like "A Beautiful Mind" just because it seems like it's the "right" thing to do in order to seem mature. These narrowminded people, who just want to LoOK good, just want to LOOK mature and profound, these people reject fantasy/scifi/etc because to them it seems "childish" and juvenile and superficial...they discard the genre because books like "A Beautiful Mind" are JUST sOO much more meaningful.[sarcastically] In their race to look wise and mature, they don't even give anything else a chance.

[Lomelinde]

[Birdland]

And while I'm on my soapbox-what is the deal with the cheap, ugly covers that these books have?

Good point Lush. A book store employee recommended a "good read" to me, and immediately said "...but don't judge it by the cover!" (Steroid-Boy on horse)

Unfortunately, most of the authors would agree with your statement, but have little say in the choice of cover art, unless they are a firmly established, "name" author.

I suppose publishers could say "We're giving the public what they want", but I would assume that most of us out there sit down and read a few pages of a book before we buy it, and usually will decide to purchase it despite the cheesy cover!

[Lomelinde]

Oops, sorry about that... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Anyway, I don't think much more can be said on this matter, but I believe the main reason people read great authors like Tolkien, H.G. Wells,or Theodore Sturgeon just to name a few is the sheer depth and profoundness of the story and characters not found in most other works of science fiction or fantasy. These authors, Tolkien in particular, take a plot, make up some characters and weave a beautiful and original piece of art that makes the readers actually care about the trials and tribulations presented to the characters, as well as the characters themselves. What causes people to gravitate toward Tolkien is the immense intelligence and layered nature inherent in his works from the beginning. Just read some of the threads in this forum which analyze symbolism and hidden meanings in the sagas of Middle-Earth and you will see what I mean. On the other hand, when was the last time you read a Star Trek novel (if ever) and exclaimed,"Oh, I see! The planet Dorkus represents the angst and pain of the universe and reveals it's evil side."?(Sorry, that was lame. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) My point is, there is no symbolism or depth in many of the pathetic excuses for fantasy/science fiction that show up today. This may be the biggest reason that "mainstream" audiences shun the fantasy genre in favor of more "mature" reading. Unfortunately, they don't know what they're missing.

[littlemanpoet]

Wow! What a thread! Great discussion!

Another author worthy of note is Meghan Whelan Turner. She has written two and a third is on its way. What's good about it? 1. It's literate. 2. It conveys wonder. 3. It is believable - the characters are real and where they are is real. 4. The action is not the only thing driving the tale - it's balanced by character development. 5. The action is governed by the logic of the story being told rather than stock in trade.

I realize a lot of this has been said already. But that sense of wonder is really key. Most junk novels don't do it.

[Birdland]

I wouldn't touch most fantasy. I am prejudiced against it...

Lush: suggest you look at your bookshelf. Got any Dickens? Mark Halprin? Vonnegut? Joyce Carol Oates? early Anne Rice? (I won't mention later Anne Rice. That woman has broke my heart!)

There are many talented, "respected" authors who have chosen to explore fantastical or alternative worlds as a setting for their characters. The literary world may choose to elevate them above the "fantasy" genre, but I know better. They represent to me the best examples of what can be done with fantasy literature.

Why not say you do read fantasy books, but only the "really good stuff"? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Lush]

*slaps herself on forehead*
And how could I ever forget J.K. Rowling, another one of my fantasy favorites?! Heh, I could count them all on one hand, so far. But there is still hope out there.

[Birdland]

Oh, well, yeah...her too... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Whatever floats your boat... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Child of the 7th Age]

For me, the diffence between very good and mediocre fantasy is whether it touches the heart. Ursula K. LeGuin, some of Marian Zimmer Bradley come to mind. But my favorite next to Tolkien is one book that's not read much any more--the Once and Future King by T.H. White. I feel for the aging King Arthur who faces the destruction of what he fought for and who sits in sadness before his last battle trying to figure out why mankind alone, unlike other animals, fights his own kind. I can sense some of Frodo's grief as he shoulders his way across the ashen slopes of Mount Doom, seeing only failure and Shadow before his eyes.

Now, if I can see and feel this, why can't many others sense it too? I'm sure there are many reasons, but I will only mention one that seems critical to me. I am an historian by training and profession. In fact, my degree focused on the late medieval period. And the one thing that struck me during years of study is how very much man of the 20th/21st century regards himself/herself as so superior to any other time and age. Never mind that the 20th century saw bloodshed on an unprecedented scale! We believe in our machines, our planes, our computers, our rockets, even our weapons. We can not believe, in our hearts, that those who live in a preindustrial world have much to say or teach us. And much of fantasy is set in such a world, or at least in a world which admits the possibility of going above and beyond science as we know it today. We have lost touch with our myths, with our legends, and even with our own documented history. How can we possibly respond to fantasy when we deny the beauty and relevence of our own past, something that already exists in our folklore and imagination? Sometimes I am amazed that as many people read and write fantasy as they do. Certainly, it is not the mainstream but there is a core group which seems to have been growing steadily since the 1960s. But why can't it get beyond this? At heart, I think it does have to do with our values and perception of ourselves. Modern man thinks he/she is the center of all human existence and the stick against which everything must be measured by. By this measure, fantasy is a very strange beast. So pity the poor, short sighted modern man who has lost so much of his imagination and heart in his inability to consider himself as just one among many possible ways of approaching the mystery of life.

I'm afraid I'm coming off very close to how Lewis and Tolkien viewed themselves as the last of the "true" western men (since this is the heritage they knew and loved). I am Jewish, not a Christian, but there is, I believe,real truth in their alientation from the modern world as having lost its way. Perhaps our inability to sense and love fantasy is just one more symptom of this sad state of affairs. But everyone who reads Tolkien, or who loves Beowulf, or who writes a poem about Middle-Earth strikes a small blow in this battle to comprehend that many important truths can not be conveyed by intellect alone and modern man is not the be-all and end-all of existence. sharon

[Aiwendil]

I'm writing this after reflecting on this year's Oscars, where the LotR movie sadly failed to pick up the most prestigious awards. I don't want to debate the merits of individual films or performances, but to suggest that perhaps the 'fantasy' genre (as opposed to Disney or Pixar) is still not taken as seriously as 'proper' movies or literature.

This is definitely the case. Modern critics still tend to consider Tolkien juvenile garbage. This is because modern critics are biased toward character-based, ironic works in a modern style. LotR is a plot-based, heroic work in the style of an ancient epic -and its imitators tend to have the same style, if not the quality.

Maybe you could argue that it is accepted, except by a cultural establishment that is still snobbish or elitist. Or that there is still an association in some people's minds between fantasy and fairy tales ie. being childish and escapist (I'm not sure I believe this). Or that stereotypes of fantasy aficionados - as beardy fashion disasters, maladjusted gothic teens, or anal-retentive sociopathic gamers - are still prevalent.

All these things are undoubtedly true, at least to some extent.

No, I'm not rehashing the "Book of the century" thread (I already have enough enemies).

I wouldn't call you an enemy! Let's say "adversary" . . .

And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

Well, I think we're actually in agreement here. Most post-Tolkien fantasy is simply terrible. Few of Tolkien's imitators seem to understand what it was that made Tolkien's work great. They imitate only the superficial elements (which happen to be the elements most hated by the literary establishment). Perhaps this is because it is difficult to define exactly what made Tolkien great. Was it the fantasy setting? No, this has been tried by every one of his imitators with little success. Was it his attention to detail? No, many of his imitators have carefully constructed worlds of their own just as Tolkien did. Was it the phililogical element of his world? No, many authors have invented languages, or pieces of languages, for their worlds.

I am convinced that the difference is simply this: Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

Robert Jordan has churned out some eight or nine (last time I checked) Wheel of Time novels. I read the first one, and I admit that I enjoyed it somewhat. It was well-written; the characters were decently portrayed; it had an interesting plot. But it lacked a heart. I felt like I was reading a novel - a book that someone had written to be sold. The action in the book didn't feel important. When Robert Jordan writes (and the same is true of other Tolkien-imitators), he is writing pure fiction. He is creating a charade, a pleasant falsehood. This is the way most authors write; they think that their works have no inherent truth or meaning, unless it be conscious allegory.

Tolkien, of course, knew that Middle-earth was not physically real. But he felt that it was, on some level, real enough to be important. One gets the sense that JRRT himself was proud, for instance, of the deeds of Beren. I never got the sense that Robert Jordan felt particularly strongly about Rand.

Of course, the problem with modern fantasy is different from the problem seen by critics in Tolkien. They dislike the genre of fantasy in general. It is therefore a mistake to confuse criticism of LotR with criticism of Tolkien-imitators.

It is also, I think, a mistake to confuse fantasy and science fiction. The former was, if not invented, certainly redefined by Tolkien; subsequent fantasy has consisted almost entirely of Tolkien imitators. Science fiction, on the other hand, is not dominated by any single figure.

[Birdland]

We believe in our machines, our planes, our computers, our rockets, even our weapons. We can not believe, in our hearts, that those who live in a preindustrial world have much to say or teach us.

C. of the 7th A. - Totally off topic:
Have you read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ElanorGamgee]

I must admit that I was, and, to a great degree, still am prejudiced against the fantasy genre. The only fantasy books that I read are by either J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I don't read their books because they are fantasy; rather, I read them because they are amazing and thought-provoking works of literature. It is difficult to find fantasy worth reading because the good books are buried under stacks of cheap novels.

[Birdland]

It is also, I think, a mistake to confuse fantasy and science fiction. The former was, if not invented, certainly redefined by Tolkien; subsequent fantasy has consisted almost entirely of Tolkien imitators. Science fiction, on the other hand, is not dominated by any single figure.

Awindil - For my own part, I only use examples of fantasy AND Science Fiction because "they are tarred with the same brush" in the literary community. "Good" Sci-Fi and Fantasy are elevated to the realm of literature. They are both guilty of denying their roots. You do not see this (as much) in other forms of Genre Fiction.

[Birdland]

I must admit that I was, and, to a great degree, still am prejudiced against the fantasy genre. The only fantasy books that I read are by either J.R.R. Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I don't read their books because they are fantasy; rather, I read them because they are amazing and thought-provoking works of literature. It is difficult to find fantasy worth reading because the good books are buried under stacks of cheap novels.

ElanorGamgee - Dang It! That's what I'm talking about! (Birdie's fuming now!) You're not going to find the "good" fantasy books in the the Sci-Fi/Fantasy section of your local bookstore. You're going to find them in the "Literature/Fiction" section!

So go and seek them out, and declare them for what they are. Really great Fantasy Literature. That's where you are going to find the works of T.H. White. That's where you SHOULD find the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.

We need to stop letting critics declare that Sci-Fi and Fantasy are the Red-Headed Step Child of the literary world, and make great authors stop denying that their works are NOT "just" Fantasy novels!

(OK, Birdie's done fuming. Think I'll crack another beer.)

[Kalessin]

Unbelievably great replies, Aiwendil and everybody [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I was expecting more of a "fantasy is cool, elves rule, you wordy wierdo" response, so I was really blown away by these posts! I especially like the "planet Dorkus" reference [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Maybe there is one possible aspect of the debate that we haven't touched on yet. And that is postmodernism. So here is Kalessin's rant Part II (of 94).

There is no doubt that postmodernism dominates the western cultural agenda. This is why William Gibson and Iain M Banks are (or perhaps were) considered "hip", and why Phil D1ck's stories of the 60s and 70s are prime Hollywood fodder. As Estel has said, Tolkien crafted an essentially romantic fiction intended to be taken literally by the reader - not as 'true', but as consistent within itself and NOT referential. There is no irony, or quality of 'knowing', within LotR ... no sly conspiracy between author and reader - it is, in effect, traditional storytelling.

Perhaps this bears a more disciplined analysis. The dictionary definition of pomo as a reaction against modern artistic movements only tells half the story. As the reaction and counter-reactions continue in ever-decreasing circles (ie. speeded up by advances in communication technology and the increasing sophistication of the audience) the reference points necessarily become more and more incestuous and instantly iconic (a la Warhol). You only need to watch half an hour of commercials to realise that we can apparently condense all the atmospheres and associations of different kinds of music and a thousand years of artistic images into a few seconds of cultural references that we, the audience, understand completely. This is the quality of "knowing". Inevitably the iconic cliches lose any resonance, and become self-parody. Hence the quality of 'archness'.

In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California).

The consistently excellent JG Ballard intentionally explored these concepts in the novel Crash (not the ambitious but flawed film version). We goes past existentialism, nihilism and hedonism and end up numbed and vacant in a sterile world of habitual instant gratification. A doomsday scenario that is at least (thankfully) still a little way off.

So how does all of this relate to my original post and all the excellent replies, about the real or imagined failings of the fantasy genre?

Because, in a fairly big way, fantasy is generally anything but postmodern. Even Moorcock's ornate comedies have a sort of pompous glam-rock feel to them [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment).

But is the lack of sophistication and awareness a valid criticism? You can't have your cake and eat it, ie. it's hard to go back to Charles Perrault when you've dined on Angela Carter.

Well, the ubiquitous Harry Potter is an excellent focal point for this issue. HP is certainly postmodern by comparison to Tolkien and others. And it's interesting to note the wide spectrum of views on HP expressed here. Personally I think the "Harry promotes witchcraft" argument is utterly spurious and smacks of insecurity and repression, but Estel's point about Harry's lack of a Vader-esque 'dark side' illustrates how the genre typically leans towards literalism and archetype. Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method.

I'm not answering my own question, basically because I don't know the answer. I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons. And whilst I am in sympathy with the sincerity and romanticism of much of the fantasy genre, the tired formulae and lack of sophistication do test my patience.

What do you think? Let me know ... I'm just going to self-indulgently bask for a moment in getting such high-quality replies to my first topic [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]. My compliments, people of the Downs.

Peace

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Kuruharan]

Modern man thinks he/she is the center of all human existence and the stick against which everything must be measured by.

Alas! This is more of a human problem rather than just a modern man problem.

Back on topic:

Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

I would take it a step beyond and say that he made it almost a way of life. He was a part of his world, and perhaps affected by what happened in it, in a way that other writers are not.

[littlemanpoet]

I haven't had time to read your second rant or Kuruharan's post, but I did note your mention of postmodernism. To that end I bring up a movie: "AI". Have you seen it? It strikes me as a modern fairy tale that is precisely postmodern. One of the points of fascination for me is that it actually does combine fantasy and science fiction, and I would say successfully. I found the movie to be profound, disturbing, and though provoking.

[Jessica Jade]

It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

Most post-Tolkien fantasy is simply terrible. Few of Tolkien's imitators seem to understand what it was that made Tolkien's work great. They imitate only the superficial elements.

I agree with what you guys said about Tolkien-imitators. They write not because they feel like they have something to say, like Tolkien did, but rather because they feel like they have to say something. They simply don't possess the passion that TOlkien did for his world, nor do their tales have the emotional richness, wisdom and true heart. Since they themselves wrote their stories for superficial reasons, how can they expect any reader to really care about their characters? Tolkien had the talent for making you believe in a world that may or may not have existed-but you wish with all your heart that it had. He makes you wish you could do for others what he has done for you, wish that you could use words so eloquently to tear one's soul to pieces in grief, yet make their heart soar with joy at the same time. So actually, maybe the fact that their are so many Tolkien-imitatators out there prove how great Tolkien himself is. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," right?

Unfortunately, most people, including critics, don't see things the way you and I see them. They associate the fantasy genre with those generic, banal, mass-produced Tolkien-imitated novels. They don't realize that books like Tolkiens on the pedestal of Fantasy, that they are definitely above the rest and NOT your typical tale. Sadly, Tolkien's works sometimes get pigeon-holed in with the rest of those terrible junk novels. I honestly cannot see any valid reason for criticizing Tolkien in particular -but i do understand how critics can shun the fantasy genre in general.

So pity the poor, short sighted modern man who has lost so much of his imagination and heart in his inability to consider himself as just one among many possible ways of approaching the mystery of life.

Excellent point. About a month ago, one of my classmates, (who by the way is extremely smart and gets disgustingly good grades), said to me, "I don't read for fun. It's a waste of time." That statement made me feel so righteous, angry, and overwhelmed at the same time. It's a perfect example of where our society today is. There are also too many people i know who hate reading itself...But how does one go about trying to convince another about the importance of imagination and creativity? how does one convince someone that there are other ways to learn, besides in school? Maybe so many people underestimate and under-value imagination/creativity because they think that its for "sentimental fools and dreamers" and they feel that they don't need it in their life, since they are able to get away with achieving high and making a lot of money without having to know about art and creativity. According to them, you don't need this kind of fluff to be happy or sucessful in life. How can anyone make these people see what they're missing in life? How can I HELP these people get in touch with their imaginative side that's so deeply buried its nearly lost? That's why i was so overwhelmed-because i know that i cannot really make these peoples see what I see, nor make them understand the importance of imagination. So, i DO indeed, because it seems the only thing i can do-- pity the Common Man...the "mindless masses," so to speak, because it's their own loss in the end. Ever seen the movie Dead Poets Society? Robin Williams said something to the effect of: "Technology, etc is what keeps us alive...but art and poetry and music is what we stay alive for." AMEN to that, i say.

By the way, littlemanpoet-i've seen A.I.!! I thought it was disturbing and thought provoking too. It reflects the dark side of human nature and how we create things merely to serve ourselves. A frightening prospect, because that movie shows what the future may turn out to be if mankind continues to live his selfish ways and let greed and pride blind his reason.

[Rimbaud]

It is a pity that so many authors writing today, particularly in this field, seem to see their writing purely in economic terms. Rather than having a passion and absolutely HAVING to write it down, it seems there are men and women ou there who have decided, "I can avoid the 9-5 by inventing 1700 place names, having elves and dwarves and heroes, and running to the highest bidder." Which is why it is heartening to see so much fan-fiction on the Web at the moment. The passion is still there, at least amongst a few!

The mistake I have noticed has been the direction of the defense taken by many of the posters on this thread. Rather than trying to defend an entire genre, which is really quite a narrow-minded literary elitism, defend the books that deserve praise (and do not get it purely because they are part of a that genre). Lord of the Rings is the finest example of a superb novel, which although widely read, will be avoided by many because "I don't dig stuff with wizards and trolls" (we all know the eye-rolling that comes with that declaration).

The better works of any genre have superceded classification. Tell your average Star Wars watcher that they are watching sci-fi/fantasy and they will shift uncomfortably in their chair. Lumping in The Iliad with "all those old Greek-type tragedies" is doing a massive disservice to the best three days of your life. Dune, another favourite - in the minds of its avid readers, is not merely another sci-fi book.

The majority of books printed that line the shelves of bookstores under Sci-Fi/Fantasy headings are dross. Untrammelled dross, at that. The covers are tedious, the writing child-like and the characters so shallow you cannot remember them once the book is closed. Learning to distinguish good from bad is the inevitable and unfortunate result of growing older; the classification of books into genres and then the creation of assumptions about that genre prohibit the growth of minds. The better writers are above having their books delineated into some sort of literal conformity.

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Stephanos ]

[Aiwendil]

For my own part, I only use examples of fantasy AND Science Fiction because "they are tarred with the same brush" in the literary community.

Agreed.

In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California).

This is true. This is also one of the reasons I hate both modern and postmodern critics - they arrogantly assume that the style favored by them (which is to say, modernism or postmodernism) is the only truly valid style. They also have a strange way of treating art not as art, but as a byproduct of the artist's existence and his culture. I recently purchased a book called Perspectives on Musical Aesthetics, basically a collection of essays by modern critics and composers. What struck me about the essays (and I think is valid for literature as well) is that they focus intensely on the artist and the audience but say almost nothing of art.

This combination of stylistic arrogance and disinterest in works of art as such is characteristic of both modernism and postmodernism. The result: ancient epics and such are tolerated only insofar as they are seen as cultural artifacts. There is, alas, a very great number of literary scholars that do not like the Illiad for itself. This is what Tolkien fought against with regard to Beowulf. Beowulf, he said, is a great poem; it need not be set in any historical context to be appreciated as such. Unfortunately, this view remains rare.

So if, in the eyes of the (post)-modern critic, the only real merit of such epics is their age, then similar works produced today have no merit at all. Hence the hatred of LotR. I don't doubt that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met with much the same reaction as did (and does) LotR. This is, of course, an absurd point of view; modern critics are deluding themselves by failing to critisize art as art.

. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment).

At least, in good fantasy this is true. A bit ironically, it is the very lack of sincerity in such things as Robert Jordan that causes them to fall short of Tolkien.

Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method.

I don't think it's really necessary to bring political correctness into the argument. I agree that HP is basically a postmodern novel; its similarity to Tolkien is actually rather superficial. It is ironic rather than heroic.

I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons.

As much as I dislike modern and postmodern literary criticism, I feel I must point out that this does not necessarily correspond to a dislike of modern and postmodern literature. I dislike the modern critics' assertion that their way is the only way; I do, however acknowledge that it can be a valid way. But the Simpsons is comedy, which certainly did not arise with postmodernism! I would say that postmodernism is rather the application of irony (which has long existed in the form of comedy) to serious literature (or literature that is, at any rate, intended to be serious).

I would take it a step beyond and say that he made it almost a way of life. He was a part of his world, and perhaps affected by what happened in it, in a way that other writers are not.

Very true.

I agree with what you guys said about Tolkien-imitators. They write not because they feel like they have something to say, like Tolkien did, but rather because they feel like they have to say something.

I think it's somewhat misleading to say that Tolkien wrote because he had something he wanted to say. That's what modern authors of "serious" literature do. Tolkien certainly had no explicit "message" in his writing. He was, in a way, even more serious than those authors.

So actually, maybe the fact that their are so many Tolkien-imitatators out there prove how great Tolkien himself is. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," right?

Very true. The problem is that they fail to imitate him very well. They imitate the superficial elements but not the deeper heroism of his world.

Tell your average Star Wars watcher that they are watching sci-fi/fantasy and they will shift uncomfortably in their chair. Lumping in The Iliad with "all those old Greek-type tragedies" is doing a massive disservice to the best three days of your life. Dune, another favourite - in the minds of its avid readers, is not merely another sci-fi book.

I'm not convinced this is so true. I think the problem is precisely the opposite: literary critics are unwilling to elevate Tolkien to the ranks of literature; film critics are unwilling to do the same with Star Wars, etc. But many of the Star Wars fans that I know (including me) are quite comfortable with the fact that it's science fiction.

A last note: earlier I argued for a distinction between science fiction and fantasy. Now I think I've figured out why. It's simply this: we all agree that fantasy these days is mostly just a bunch of hacks with almost no talent copying Tolkien. In this case, we seem to agree with the modern critics who write it off as juvenile trash (though for different reasons). Science fiction, however, is a different story. There are plenty of talented science fiction writers around today, and they're not merely copying Wells or Asimov or Clarke. Science fiction is also detested by modern critics, but in this case I, at the least, disagree with them (as I do about Tolkien). The problem of modern fantasy is one of talent. The problem of science fiction is, like that of Tolkien, one of style.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]

[Rimbaud]

Aiwendil, you are correct, but I must confess on reading the quote you picked from me that I miswrote what I intended to say. When I talked of the 'average Star Wars watcher', that sounds as if I were describing a fan. I meant the average person with no prediliction for science-fiction/fantasy who happened to be watching Star Wars from a neutral, non-genre-specific viewpoint. The fans of course, as you say, are only too aware of the film's greater merits. It stands out for me as being one of the view from this genre to have aroused 'outside' praise. The literary world's recent distate of The Iliad is, again as you say, unfortunate. As for Dune, the other I mentioned. It seems to have been lumped in with the idealistic sci-fis of the 1970s when it is anything but. I wish the books in that series had a wider readership.

Thank you for correcting me. My words did not accurately represent me in what I had intended to say. I am clearly no author! [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

[dragongirlG]

Oh, my! Quite some good rants!

When you finish reading this, tell me if it makes sense.

I agree that there are too many imitations out there of Tolkien. Kids today (youngesters like me who make up the Joystick Generation) read too many of the imitations first and dislike them, therefore thinking of the whole fantasy genre as bad, trite, boring, and all the same. This may be what puts off a lot of people, because they do not know the original fantasy, the starting point; they only know the cheap spinoffs. What I'm trying to say is, since there are so many banal books out there in the fantasy genre, and since they are more recent and people read them first, before Tolkien, and dislike them, they don't even give Tolkien and the other good fantasy, the original fantasy, a chance.

Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy?

Yes, I believe LotR's success inspired many mediocre fantasy books. The authors may have believed that because LOTR was doing so well, and it was fantasy, then they would do well too if they wrote fantasy.

What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?

Get people to read Tolkien first, not the lame excuses of fantasy. Unfortunately, people don't read Tolkien first. They read the newest releases, the lame excuses, instead of the old, classic, original work, of LOTR and Earthsea.

And as for the Oscar, A Beautiful Mind was a better film than the Fellowship.

Controversial, Oliphaunt! A Beautiful Mind was not the sort of movie that makes me, personally, want to see it again. Fellowship, on the other hand, did, and not just because I liked the book (I wasn't even a fan back then, not yet.) A Beautiful Mind was well done. Fellowship was awesome. But that's just my opinion.

I think the enduring magic of well-written (and I emphasize) fantasy and science-fiction generally has little to do with the fantastical or scientific elements.

I agree. I believe that the authors simply wanted to teach wisdom in a way that wouldn't offend people (a real-life setting.)

It IS hard to get people to understand that Tolkien books are NOT like that at all, that they are "emotionally driven" (as someone said already) profounnd and meaningful and full of wisdom.

Yes, it's very hard, because people generally read the "newest releases"--the banal attempts at fantasy, rather than Tolkien's works, the origination of much of the other fantasy. I've sort of mentioned this before.

I know that we shouldn't let the "mindless masses" bother us and affect us, but i do admit its hard not to be frustrated and annoyed when people revere books like "A Beautiful Mind" just because it seems like it's the "right" thing to do in order to seem mature. These narrowminded people, who just want to LoOK good, just want to LOOK mature and profound, these people reject fantasy/scifi/etc because to them it seems "childish" and juvenile and superficial...they discard the genre because books like "A Beautiful Mind" are JUST sOO much more meaningful.[sarcastically] In their race to look wise and mature, they don't even give anything else a chance.

Very good, Jessica Jade! I agree. I have to be around the "mindless masses" at school and I hate it. A Beautiful Mind didn't touch me at all. LOTR did.

And the one thing that struck me during years of study is how very much man of the 20th/21st century regards himself/herself as so superior to any other time and age. Never mind that the 20th century saw bloodshed on an unprecedented scale!

I agree! I'm still amazed at how others in the past had such ingenuity without electricity, and other 20th/21st century devices. I believe that they were actually a lot smarter than us! Just look at the Pyramids of Giza. They didn't have construction cranes to build that!

And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

Hmm...I'll get back to you on that.

I am convinced that the difference is simply this: Tolkien took his mythology seriously. Creating a world was not something Tolkien forced himself to do; it was not something he did for money; it was not something he did to entertain others (though this was an important byproduct.) It was something he did because he wanted to, and because he believed that there is power in such myths.

That's so accurate. I feel like other authors do it because of money, it's their job, etc...they might enjoy writing fantasy or made-up mythology, but it's just for fun. Not something incredibly important to them. Tolkien's belief was correct. There IS power in such myths that have such incredible ingenuity, time, and effort, put into them.

This is the way most authors write; they think that their works have no inherent truth or meaning, unless it be conscious allegory.

Agreed. Aiwendil, I agree with your whole post. It's true. You hit the nail on the head.

I might write more, but that's all I can think of for now. Hope you enjoyed reading.

[Aiwendil]

When I talked of the 'average Star Wars watcher', that sounds as if I were describing a fan. I meant the average person with no prediliction for science-fiction/fantasy who happened to be watching Star Wars from a neutral, non-genre-specific viewpoint.

Ah, looking back I see that that's what you meant, and I agree. Sorry I misunderstood you.

[Birdland]

It is a pity that so many authors writing today, particularly in this field, seem to see their writing purely in economic terms. Rather than having a passion and absolutely HAVING to write it down, it seems there are men and women ou there who have decided, "I can avoid the 9-5 by inventing 1700 place names, having elves and dwarves and heroes, and running to the highest bidder."

I'll be a little more charitable to most of the modern fantasy authors out there. They probably started out with as deep a love of the subject matter as any of us have. Obviously Tolkien's work was a great inspiration for them.

But the writers of today grew up in an entirely different culture than the great fantasy writers of the 19th and early 20th century. Tolkien took seventeen (17!!) years to create The Lord of the Rings If you read HoME Part 6, The Return of the Shadow, you'll see what exhaustive process it was. It's almost as if he wrote three or four different novels, each time taking certain aspects of characters and descriptions, blending, discarding, building up and tearing away, until each person and place gradually evolved into the beloved tale we know today. And during all this time he was continuing his teaching duties and research, and dealing with a World War, to boot. I've never read any other books describing the process of creating a famous novel, but have a feeling that this approach was more common back then then we know.

I've only seen one book being created in my life. It was a good book, and the writer was passionate about his craft. But Honey, there was no way he would have waited 17 years for his baby to see the light of day! He had too many other stories floating around inside him, waiting to get out!

I suppose there is the business end to consider, also. I'm not sure how flexible publishers were with deadlines back then. Today it is a more serious matter, especially if an advance has been paid. And few first time writers have the luxury of days of quiet contemplation to just observe and ponder their characters, as Tolkien did.

[Aiwendil]

The reason Tolkien wasn't under the kind of time pressure that professional writers are under today is that he wasn't a professional writer. He was a professor and a philologist; writing was a (very important) hobby.

[Lush]

*slaps herself on the head HARDER*

How could I forget T.H. White's The Once and Future King? Bad Lush!

This thread has been a satisfying read. In light of the previous comments regarding postmodernism and the 20th Century, let me say this: The Western world has become too disillusioned to appreciate fantasy. War, commercialism, terrorism, techonology, radicalism, systematic destruction of the environment, over-population, and the over-saturation with advertising have given rise to rampant cynicism; and not only that, they have made it cool to be a cynic. It is a badge of honor in artistic circles, and a darling of critics. As it has been mentioned before, fantasy is "too sincere" to be taken seriously.
To take it further, most of the people I know that do not like Tolkien, aside from the ones who simply gag at the mention of Elves and Dragons, criticise the fact that J.R.R. drew a very distnict line between the good and the evil, as in, "here are the pretty good people on this side, and here are the ugly villains on that side."
Beauty is a quality inherent in fairy-tales and mythology, and I will leave that alone entirely. As for the clear distinction between good and evil, I think it is something that the modern sensibility lacks, and thus rejects.
Of course, if the recent success of the FotR film is any indication, we may be in for some change.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Lush ]

[Kalessin]

Thank you Lush [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], Birdland and everyone for your thought-provoking contributions. I want to go back to Aiwendil's memorable soundbyte -

"The problem of modern fantasy is one of talent. The problem of science fiction is, like that of Tolkien, one of style."

This is excellent, and has a certain implacable conviction. But I am minded to be devil's advocate again ... [img]smilies/evil.gif[/img]

Having addressed postmodernism, the nature of marketing, the issue of writers' motives, the bad covers and all the other aspects discussed with great eloquence above, perhaps we come to the real crunch, highlighted by Aiwendil's quote.

You see, it MUST be wrong to imagine that modern participants in the fantasy genre generally lack talent on a scale that competing genre protagonists do not. Given the number of authors, this would either be a mind-boggling coincidence (ie. no), or an indication that (to mis-paraphrase) "fantasy is the last refuge of the scoundrel" in literary terms, ie. that bad authors who know they are bad authors tend to congregate within that genre.

No. Logic in fact, takes us to the opposite conclusion. That there is something inherent in the genre (insofar as it can be defined) that gives rise to banality. It's the only way to explain why so many authors have created so much unnecessary deforestation, whilst outselling "highbrow" literature many times over.

This also explains why people think Tolkien 'transcends' the genre - and is therefore not part of it.

So what is this quality, this fatal flaw? Well, I think the answer is - it's us. We get the fantasy we deserve. This is where we want to go when we want to escape from gritty reality. From grittyland to fluffyland. Because we're scared. Scared of sci-fi with its technological conviction, scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding. We want something where the unreality of it makes it less scary. A little corner we know is protected by the thistled hedges of fairy-tale, where we can escape and not be scared. Because it's fantasy. And that's what fantasy is, ultimately - all the thrills and adventures you want, all the empathy and wisdom you need, yet incontrovertibly and definitively UNreal.

And if that's the case, I guess it has to be that way.

(Remember I'm being devils advocate here ... [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img])

PS. One other little Tolkien point from Aiwendil that caught my eye - "I think it's somewhat misleading to say that Tolkien wrote because he had something he wanted to say. That's what modern authors of "serious" literature do. Tolkien certainly had no explicit "message" in his writing. He was, in a way, even more serious than those authors." I like that, please post in the Trilogy and Bible thread!

Peace

[Kuruharan]

Tolkien took seventeen (17!!) years to create The Lord of the Rings If you read HoME Part 6, The Return of the Shadow, you'll see what exhaustive process it was. It's almost as if he wrote three or four different novels, each time taking certain aspects of characters and descriptions, blending, discarding, building up and tearing away, until each person and place gradually evolved into the beloved tale we know today. And during all this time he was continuing his teaching duties and research, and dealing with a World War, to boot.

I think that's what made all the difference, that he took his time on it. He didn't crank it out so that he would be able to crank out another in a few years to make the magabucks.

The reason Tolkien wasn't under the kind of time pressure that professional writers are under today is that he wasn't a professional writer. He was a professor and a philologist; writing was a (very important) hobby.

Very well said.

As for the clear distinction between good and evil, I think it is something that the modern sensibility lacks, and thus rejects.

This is a concept that causes certain people to get very NASTY if you point it out to them in writing analysis. *shudder*

The Western world has become too disillusioned

What?! You mean there is such a thing as being too disillusioned?!!! I know a certain American Literature professor who you would probably not get along with. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

And what's wrong with Elves and Dragons?

[Kuruharan]

scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding.

*Ouch!* [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

You may be on to something with that, but I think that the charge of fluffyness could be extended to some of those genres as well.

[goldwine]

Great posts guys! I think that the acceptance of fantasy genre and FOTR's lack of OSCAR success are unrelated. Without detracting from all the valuable comments above... I dont think that PJ came close to capturing the essence of Tolkien's classic. The storyline and character developments were obviously far too complex to fit into even a 3 hour movie. Many I know who saw the movie were unbiased about fantasy movies as a whole and enjoyed it as a soley cinematic experience, inspiring some to read the books (although from my library experience, few actually finish!). The other point, is of course, that commercial success does not equate to critical acclaim! I think there is good reason for that (treat me gently!) the ommissions were generally too large to provide fluidity and many of the scenes (Galadriel as an example) didn't come off.
This did not overall destroy the enjoyment of the movie for a vast majority of movie goers, but they were flaws.
I guess that I love Star Trek (treat me gently again!) because the stories are totally visual creations - designed for visual appeal. Even so, I have no desire to read any Sci-Fi!
The hobbit and LOTR are unusual fantasy creations in that they receive literary accolades. The beauty of the works as a whole is in their descriptive nature, truths revealed and the sheer enjoyment of the epic tale!

[Birdland]

"The banality of evil" - phrase coined by 60's philosopher Hannah Arendt

If nothing else, Post Modern liturature has made us all understand all too well Ms. Arendt's naming of evil as "banal". Modern authors address this theme constantly in their books. The nameless buraucrats that stamp the papers sending innocents to the gas chamber or kicking them out of their homes. The smiling corporate executive who firmly believes that what's good for (fill in the blanks) is good for America!". The 20th century rationalzation of "I was only doing my job", or "following orders". We all know that evil still exists in this world, though we may break it down in to small bites of "greed" or "pettyness", or "racism", or "unfairness". It's all pervasive, and very hard to pin down. Especially since many times "the solution" to evil in one situation leads to new "evils"!

In fantasy lit, (which by the way, is built around a base of all our ancient legends) Evil is big, bold, chest-thumping, "Evil Here!" Evil!! It has a name and location. It can be pointed out and found, attacked and rooted out. It may arise again, but in the same form.

And Evil DECLARES itself. And all the forces that assist it declare themselves as well. Orcs didn't go around saying "I was only doing my job. They new they were evil and loved it!

Now maybe the consequences were just as bad living with "proactive" [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Evil, but at least you felt you could conquer it, if you only had hope, faith, courage and a strong sword arm.

Strong sword arms don't work as well against a clerk.

[Aiwendil]

The Western world has become too disillusioned to appreciate fantasy.

Agreed. I would, however, draw a distinction between being cynical in life and being cynical in art. The problem is that modern critics have forgotten that the purpose of art is to entertain. When you start thinking that art must 'say something' about the real world, then the distinction between philosophy of art and philosophy of life breaks down.

No. Logic in fact, takes us to the opposite conclusion. That there is something inherent in the genre (insofar as it can be defined) that gives rise to banality.

Okay, I'll accept that, as far as it goes.

So what is this quality, this fatal flaw? Well, I think the answer is - it's us.

Just to be very picky: what do you mean by "us"? Do you mean we who condemn modern fantasy for the reasons listed above? Or do you mean those people that don't condemn it? I suppose you must mean the latter, but certainly neither I, nor you, nor anyone else on this board is then included in "us".

We get the fantasy we deserve. This is where we want to go when we want to escape from gritty reality. From grittyland to fluffyland. Because we're scared.

I respectfully disagree - well, mostly. (By the way, aren't you getting a little modern here? I thought you were a romantic idealist.)

I think this is a fairly simplistic view, and it seems (to me) that the modern condemnation of "escapist art" is lurking just beneath the surface. The implication there and here is that art is a tool for dealing with the real world, and therefore those artists that address the real world are to be commended and those that don't are derided because they obviously can't deal with the real world. Underlying this view is the same philosophy that makes critics hate Tolkien: the idea that art should not be judged as art, but as social commentary.

I realize I'm probably arguing against views that you didn't express and don't hold, but this is where your line of thinking ultimately leads.

Is fantasy really "fluffy"? I don't think it particularly is. Granted, most Tolkien imitators have simple, happy endings rather than the complex, multi-layered mood of the end of LotR. But so do most mysteries, true crimes, romances (I assume; I can't say I've ever read one of those last). And there is grit in fantasy, as well - a good deal more grit in some than there ever was in Tolkien.

Scared of sci-fi with its technological conviction, scared of crime and romance with those recognisable agonies, scared of horror with its primeval resonance, and scared of 'high' literature with its promise of too-piercing understanding.

How many people are really scared of science fiction? Although its difficult to make generalizations about that genre (and certainly not all of it depends primarily on technology), I don't think there's anything really psychologically troubling in most of it. And why should people fear "technological conviction"? The same goes for crime and romance. Are people really deeply troubled by such things? I think not.

To come back to your question: what is the flaw in fantasy? Simple: imitation. In no other genre is almost every work so imitative of a single author. I'm certainly not suggesting anything so modern as that there should be progress in art. It is, however, undoubtedly true that those who merely imitate a great artist will fail to create great art. The fantasy genre is a genre of imitation.

I guess that I love Star Trek (treat me gently again!) because the stories are totally visual creations - designed for visual appeal. Even so, I have no desire to read any Sci-Fi!

Really? This is an unusual point of view, in my experience. Most Star Trek fans that I know (including me) like it more for its high-concept science fiction aspect than the visual appeal. I only point this out because, if we are to make generalizations about the genre, we should not make them based on unusual cases.

If nothing else, Post Modern liturature has made us all understand all too well Ms. Arendt's naming of evil as "banal". Modern authors address this theme constantly in their books.

Agreed. Though it is fashionable to criticize Tolkien's clear distinction between good and evil, that is a valid way of looking at the world (not that art must address the world).

Orcs didn't go around saying "I was only doing my job. They new they were evil and loved it!

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I don't think Tolkien's view of evil was nearly as unrealistic as is often claimed. Just look at Shagrat and Gorbag in book IV. "Regular Elvish trick" they say, thinking that the "great Elvish warrior" (Sam) left his companion (Frodo) behind. They seem to view Elves as immoral. Isn't that exactly the way the Nazis or al-Qaeda operate?

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]