Fantasy Freaks & Gaming Geeks

[Lush]

Hi everyone,

I just published an interview that I thought might be of interest, since it touches upon our Tolkienite community as well. It's with the author of Fantasy Feaks and Gaming Geeks and it's a lot of fun, actually:

http://globalcomment.com/2009/from-t...than-gilsdorf/

Hope you enjoy.

[The Might]

Awesome interview!
Especially since I myself am both a fantasy freak and a gaming geek´, particularly Starcraft in case anyone here happens to be as well.

[Bêthberry]

That's an interesting interview; thanks for the link, Lush.

I'll be musing over the idea that Science Fiction is about paranoia of the future but Fantasy is about something simpler. Sounds very much like the long march of Tolkien's Long Defeat. Myself, I've always been very wary of the past because I've always been very aware of those peasants--and the women who were chattel, at least in European history.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'll be musing over the idea that Science Fiction is about paranoia of the future but Fantasy is about something simpler. Sounds very much like the long march of Tolkien's Long Defeat. Myself, I've always been very wary of the past because I've always been very aware of those peasants--and the women who were chattel, at least in European history.

mmmm - this bit?

Fantasy goes back to a simpler time—in a way there was no choice, which made life easier. There was some comfort in that. It sucked if you were a peasant, but if you were lucky enough to be born a king, there’s a real sense that the individual person can really make a difference. It’s sort of like an Eden—the world has yet to fail, though there’s always impending doom.

Well, not every king had absolute freedom, & they weren't all secure on the throne either (Edward II, Richard II & Henry VI spring to mind - not to mention poor old Richard III.....), however, I think the kign would be the exception rather than any kind of rule.

If you want to be a knight there’s certain things you have to do to fit into the order of chivalry. These are things we’ve forgotten in the 21st century, what it’s like to be loyal, to sacrifice yourself.

That's a v e r y romantic conception of knighthood - most of them used 'chivalry' as an insurance policy - they treated other nobles with respect, particularly on the battlefield, because they knew it would save their necks if they got captured. The poor bloody infantry & the peasantry tended to be treated like something the knight had trodden in - if the knight was in a good mood - if he wasn't he'd just slaughter them for daring to get within sword reach. Mind you, this whole chivalric ideal is something Tolkien himself tended to indulge in - for all his idealisation of the past & condemnation of the present his heroes display a very 'twentieth century' morality in terms of treatment of the 'lower orders' - particularly on the field. His heroes aren't medieval warriors at all - or perhaps one should say they are what knights should have been, but almost never were - Henry V's treatment of the refugees of Rouen is the reality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rouen

[Morthoron]

Great article, Lush, particularly since I am an avid gamer in search of a decent game (I can't stand most of the current crop -- including Lord of the Rings Online and World of Warcraft -- vapid and unrealistic, really).

Originally Posted by davem

That's a v e r y romantic conception of knighthood - most of them used 'chivalry' as an insurance policy - they treated other nobles with respect, particularly on the battlefield, because they knew it would save their necks if they got captured. The poor bloody infantry & the peasantry tended to be treated like something the knight had trodden in - if the knight was in a good mood - if he wasn't he'd just slaughter them for daring to get within sword reach. Mind you, this whole chivalric ideal is something Tolkien himself tended to indulge in - for all his idealisation of the past & condemnation of the present his heroes display a very 'twentieth century' morality in terms of treatment of the 'lower orders' - particularly on the field. His heroes aren't medieval warriors at all - or perhaps one should say they are what knights should have been, but almost never were - Henry V's treatment of the refugees of Rouen is the reality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Rouen

Agreed, Davem. Another example is that paragon of chivalry, Edward III, who created the Order of the Garter along the lines of Arthur's Round Table. It seems Edward took the idea of 'courtly love' a bit too far and allegedly raped the Countess of Salisbury. The Earl of Salisbury, a longtime friend of the king, expressed his shame and anger at court, and promptly went into exile rather than spend another minute in Edward's chivalric England. Froissart, that illustrious chronicler of all things chivalric, suppressed the story of Edward's indiscretion, but the tale was taken up by Jean le Bel of Hainault. Whether true or a bit of propaganda by French sympathizers, it is certainly a telling indictment of that society as a whole. Rather like the French seigneur who upon his death bequeathed a dowry for all the virgins he deflowered.

[Lalwendë]

I read just yesterday that somewhere around the sum of just three English Kings in the middle ages were spared having to go into battle at some point, so being a King was certainly no easy ride either.

Fantasy which makes use of the medieval world (and it usually does) isn't really looking at the true medieval world, which was a dirty and brutal place to live but an idealised version of it. Even the pulp of 'swords and sorcery' stories don't go into the truth of what life was like back then.

Though I'd argue that such a simplistic definition of sci-fi and fantasy is all wrong these days anyway. How to account for Steampunk for example? Genres are collapsing like ninepins, and a good thing too!

[davem]

I think its possible to argue that while Science-fiction is a literature that deals in hopes, or fears, of the future, Fantasy is a literature that deals in lies abut the past. Yet that is also a lie, because both genres really deal with/comment on the present. Tolkien's Elvish tendency to idealise the past comes through in his fiction (& to an extent in his letters). Middle-earth is a 20th century man's vision of what the past 'ought' to have been like - & no less worthy as literature for that. We just shouldn't believe that the Middle-ages were like Middle-earth, any more than we should believe that the future that awaits us is going to resemble the universe of Star Trek (or even Blade Runner come to that).

And of course, that is too simplistic as well - the Middle-ages weren't an age of barbarism - its just that there were a lot of 'barbarians' about, (though a lot of the 'barbarism' was deliberate, & was done for practical reasons - if you plundered, raped, mutilated & slaughtered your way through a city that had just fallen to your siege then you could be fairly certain that the next city would be less likely to hold out against you). They too produced their art, literature & philosophy - the great mystic Julian of Norwich wrote her masterpiece Revelations of Divine Love during the Hundred Years War, & died only a year after Agincourt. It just wasn't like the fantasy novels make it out. Fantasy is not about the past, & will tell you very little about it - but that's not its purpose.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'll be musing over the idea that Science Fiction is about paranoia of the future but Fantasy is about something simpler. Sounds very much like the long march of Tolkien's Long Defeat. Myself, I've always been very wary of the past because I've always been very aware of those peasants--and the women who were chattel, at least in European history.

It occurs to me - essentially, Fantasy has little relation to the past. It's relation is rather to Faery, & Faery is not really of the past, but of a different state of existence. Fantasy is a means of imagining ourselves in another world, rather than another time. Whats amazing is how close to that other world most of us are, & how easy it is to access it. This struck me quite strongly today, seeing an interesting new book about story telling http://www.thebookseller.com/book-bo...ar/story-world The responses of the children in the video, the way they enter so easily into the 'Faery' world perhaps says something about the attraction of Fantasy - they may have struggled to put together a 'convincing' SF tale, but the ability to construct a Fairy Tale seems innate.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by davem

the ability to construct a Fairy Tale seems innate.

I'm sure there's a wee bit of word play between gnome and genome there somewhere.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I'm sure there's a wee bit of word play between gnome and genome there somewhere.

Don't want to stray too far into Jungian territory (in my early 20's I was an avid reader of his works, & still have 50 or 60 volumes by & about him in the attic, but I'm now vague on the details ) its possible we are talking about Archetypal Images. Don't want this to become a thread advertising that particular book by the Matthews (though I have ordered it from Amazon - think it might be nice to use with the little lad when he's a bit older), but seeing the images of the cards I was struck by a sense of 'familiarity' - the artist's site is worth checking out http://www.wayneandersonart.com/Gall...Galleries.html - he has some nice stuff, including a very impressive 'Smaug' http://www.wayneandersonart.com/Gall...Dragons.html#4, or one of my favourites http://www.wayneandersonart.com/Gall..._images.html#5.

Its as if in some way these images are almost 'familiar' - as is all the Fairy Tale world, & encountering them is more akin to remembering than discovering something new. If that makes sense...