To love, or not to love fantasy

[Nenya]

One could almost say, that there are two kinds of people: the ones who love fantasy, and the ones who hate it. So, I was wondering, where does that difference come from? Do we, downers for example, have a common characteristic that makes us adore LotR? Do you have to be a certain kind of person to "get" fantasy?
I would love to hear opinions from all you wise people. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

(oh and please, yell at me if this is a topic used a hundred times...)

[Bill Ferny]

Aside from LotR and Harry Potter I have not read any other fantasy save C.S. Lewis and Terry Brooks, and that beckons back to those ancient days when I was a HS student. I have tried to read some fantasy since then, including RA Salvatory (sp?) and Kingdom for Sale series by Terry Brooks, but in the end I had to set them aside because I was simply not interested in them, and dare I say, I thought they were a bit silly. I did like Harry Potter (for reasons largely unknown to me), and it is the only other fantasy, or is it fairy tale?, I’ve read with any interest since LotR. I do occasionally play D&D, but only historical campaigns with a bit of a “fantasy element” thrown in. It resembles more an Arthurian setting than the typical fantasy setting that comes to mind when we discuss the fantasy genre. I find the majority of fantasy art down right ludicrous (and this would include some Tolkien art I’ve seen). I particularly hate horns in helmets and iron braziers. Why would Conan the Barbarian bother to wear any armor at all if he was going to expose his pecs, thighs and biseps, anyway? Perhaps its my machismo coming out, but the thought of a skinny weakling wielding unimaginable magical powers causes a gut wrench reaction.

That being said, I will admit that my devotion to Tolkien and ME is a bit over the top. Perhaps Tolkien has prejudiced my view of other fantasy literature. On another level, I don’t think of Tolkien as typical fantasy literature. I tend to think of it as mythology with a darn good story wove into it. So I would classify myself as someone who doesn’t really like fantasy, but absolutely adores Tolkien. As far as “getting it,” I think there is plenty of fantasy that I just don’t get, and more than likely its my inability to suspend belief, and that, I think, is the crux of the question: fantasy requires the suspension of belief, and some people are just incapable of doing so.

I’ve meant a few people who are really into fantasy, but detest Tolkien. As an extension of the above posted question, does anyone have any insights into this strange phenomena?

[ December 08, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Ferny ]

[Cúdae]

A certain kind of person? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps the type of person needed to truly love fantasy is the type of person who has a mind open to other things, unintentional and intentional allegories, and fantastical non-existence all presented to them in a compliocated world of only imagination. If a person can't handle even one bit of that, they may enjoy fanatsy, but not love it.

Or maybe, it has something to do with a person's real life. Personally, the worlds in the fantasy genre are an escape from the world I know. I don't like thinking about the possibilities of war so I retreat into some obscure book of the fantasy genre to take my mind off the real world. Maybe another person does not want to think about, say, a his dying cat. So he finds a fantasy book and lets himself wander in its world to escape what is weighing on his mind.

Maybe it has something to do with a person's past, with the way he was raised. If someone was grew up in an atmosphere where fantastical notions were strictly not allowed, the person may be inclined to read and enjoy fantasy later on in life.

Or maybe, it is just the people who allow themselves like fantasy that truly love it.

Or maybe it is the people who go to a fantasy book expecting nothing each time and receive everything each time because of that expectation that love fantasy.

[dragoneyes]

Lots of maybes there Cudae!

Anyway, I find I only really like fantasies which are set in medievil times. (save Harry Potter but does that not have an 'ye olde times' element to it?) Perhaps it's just the simpler way of life, with the Robin Jarvis books which I've read, the plot may have been quite complicated at times but the basic notion of 'survival' is there, and is what everyone is trying to do when you get down to it.

In the real world, however, there are all these silly little things like money, jobs and education, cluttering the place up. The way of life is in no way unusual, millions of people have done it before you. In books it's original (unless you're going to get penickity and say some books have copied other books) and therefore there is an adventure and a complete sense of not knowing what will happen next can be created, which we very rarely get in the real world nowadays.

[the mortal elf]

Hmm...thoughtful question. I, personally, can't live without fantasy. This year for my english class, we had to make a reading goal, and I chose to read genres beside fantasy. It isn't working. I'm giving in, and that's only after about 4 different types of books. I know...I'm really bad...

I'm not quite sure why I like it so much. Possibly because I grew up with it. My dad first read The Hobbit to me when I was five and I've been hooked on anything Fantasy, Tolkien related in particular, ever since.

I also read to escape some things. You know, sometimes things in the books are actually worse than in the real world, so I guess I don't read to escape the situation, but I read to escape real people. The characters in fantasy are so multi-dimensional and occasionally loveable that I keep returning to it. People in the real world can be good, but you always feel...safe...with the characters in fantasy, in The Lord of the Rings especially.

Anybody else have anything in common with me, or am I just an obsessed oddball? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[Arwen Imladris]

Does it have any thing to do with being a geek?

[Tigerlily Gamgee]

Being a geek... hmmm... Well, I think that people who like fantasy are automatically labeled "geeks". Nice connection to that thread, btw.
Perhaps a psycologist could do some research and come up with a semi-valid simularity amoungst those of us who love fantasy, but even then it may not serve to be that true of nature.
Why do some people choose to be doctors (well, stupid comparison, but...)? Sometimes it has to do with how you are raised or what your parents liked. Other times it is from what your friends like. But it is none of those for me.
I remember, from a very young age, dreaming of magical places filled with unicorns, princess, goblins, etc. I think that faery-tales may play a part in a child's fascination with some things, but not completely. You decide for yourself what you like. Not someone else.
I am similar to those other Tolkien lovers I have met, but whose to say if we are all the same. I bet we're not. There is something inside that causes us to love fantasy. Some say it's escapism. Sometimes it's a love of history or a hatred of modern technology. Sometimes it's nothing other than that we like Elves... who knows.
We know that we love it & isn't that enough?

[Orual]

I agree with Cudae. I think that there's a certain amount of escapism involved in love of fantasy, at least for me. So often I get sick of the complicated world that we live in, and I want to go back to a time (whether or not it ever really existed) where there was right, and then there was wrong, and there's no grey area in between. There's the Elves and then the Orcs, and just by looking at them you can tell who's good and who's bad. There's the happy Hobbits with their Happy Hobbit Song, the beautiful Elves that harken back to an even more ancient time, the Men who hold the promise of the future and yet still live in the time I love, and the Dwarves, who...are the Dwarves, and I love 'em. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] There's no hole in the ozone layer, no war with Iraq, no 9/11, no threats of lung cancer from second-hand smoke, no drugs (well, pipe-weed, but that's totally different), no big, smoky, hazy, busy, dangerous cities with towering skyscrapers and fast-moving vehicles. I'm a re-enactor (1800's), and I love going back for a little while to a day where people were polite, gentlemen escourted their ladies back to their seats after a dance, said please and thank you, yes ma'am and no sir, and all that stuff that people have forgotten about. I think that that's part of the answer, at least.

~*~Orual~*~

[the mortal elf]

*applauds Orual's post* My sentiments exactly. Where has chivalry gone? [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

I very much agree with orual and mortal elf. Not completely, but almost.

If you think about it, the opposite of reality is fantasy. What is real and what is makebelieve. As I have said before, people (including myself) often read fantasy because they want to escape from reality. There is a good thread called Do we live in Middle-earth? (Page 2) and it sort of realates to this thread (and this thread proves my point in the other thread). Anyways, I said

I think that ME did not exist like a world we live in. It was never real and never official. Therefore we can not live in it and no one could have. But I believe that it is a place that you can go. When you read the books, you enter an illusion and escape from reality. That is why I love Middle-Earth.

People read to 'enter' middle-earth. You get lost reading and therefore, you get lost in the book. You might have a bad day and everything seems to be going wrong. Everybody is p*ssing you off and acting like jack*sses. You start to read LotR or another fantasy and you forget about what happened while you're reading. You don't worry about any of that. In a way, reading a fantasy can also relieve stress. If you read a fantasy while you're stressed out, it can calm you down.

Orual, you said

So often I get sick of the complicated world that we live in, and I want to go back to a time (whether or not it ever really existed)

I often feel the same way. I love the middle-ages. You probably know that already. I wish I could visit it any time I wanted. I'd like to be a warrior or a great hero with a huge b@stard sword or a giant sword. I'd like to be the first one into battle, with my silver armor shining and the tip of my fine and deadly sword glistening in the sun...I could go on forever. But the middle ages are over, and I can't visit them. Here is my favorite poem. It's called Miniver Cheevy by Edwin Arlington Robinson.

Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
Grew lean while he assailed the seasons;
He wept that he was ever born,
And he had reasons

Miniver loved the days of old
When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
Would set him dancing.

Miniver sighed for what was not,
And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
And Priam's neighbors.

Miniver mourned the ripe renown
That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
And Art, a vagrant.
Miniver loved the Medici,
Albiet he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
Could he have been one.

Miniver cursed the commonplace
And eyed a khaki suit with loathing;
He missed the medieval grace
Of iron clothing.

Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
And thought about it.

Miniver Cheevy, born too late,
Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Miniver coughed, and called it fate,
And kept on drinking.

*MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie sheds a tear*

If only Miniver could read the works of tolkien. Poor Miniver couldn't even read any of tolkien's books. The author of this poem lived from 1869 to 1935, so he couldn't have even read tolkien's works. People of Robinson's age didn't have fantasies like we have today. I think that Robinson would have loved Tolkien's works. I'm not sure if tolkien was familiar with this poem, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was.

Orual, you might not want to go to th MA but you want to sometimes escape from the real world to another place, "even if it never existed." Which is why we like to go to middle earth. We can't really go back in time, and we can't really go somewhere that never existed. But we can go to those places through reading. That's what I think that fantasy is. ME was tolkien's own world, that he created. I like reading works of tolkien because they let me escape from reality. When we read and 'enter' ME, its like an illusion. Its not real but we don't think about that. If we thought about it, we wouldn't be escaping; we'd still be in reality. Its like a dream; you don't know that its not real, but if you realize its not real, you wake up. We get lost in the reading and forget about what is real and what is not. I love ME for that reason.

We need fantasies to escape from reality. We can live without them, but we might end up alcoholics like Miniver. The more the world progresses, the more we'll need fantasies. We like to read fantasies to slow down and get away from modern society if only for a short while. The people who say LotR sucks and other stuff like that might not need fantasies if they really feel that way, but when the get older, I'm pretty sure they will. I think that eevryone at some point in their life will need a fantasy.

[Túroch]

A lot of people that I know dismiss Tolkien and other fantasy as merely escapist reading. They say it doesn't have the "reality" that true literature has. Well I think that fantasy has a real property to it that soothes the soul. When accused of writing escapist reading Tolkien himself said:

"Escapism isn't wrong when one is in a jail"

And the 21st century realy is a jail of sorts. What we sometimes like in fantasy is what he don't have in reality or have in very small amounts. Charles De Lint said,

"If you want reality, read fantasy"

Fantasy is not real as far as the actually happenings but, fantasy has a lot themes and problems that very real. LOTR has many themes which Tolkien himself was aware of in the real world. The scouring of the Shire for example, presents a fightining look at what progress and modernization can do if left unchecked. Another theme is attempt to escape death. People in the 21st century are all concentrated on the prlonging of life and the enrichment of there lives right now. However, as one great Sci-Fi show said,

"Immortality is a curse, not a blessing"

The prolonging of life in the LOTR certinly isn'tr shown as a blessing. Sure the wraiths might live forever, but what a way to live. The Numenorians in the fall, wanted among other things to escape death, their gift from the creator. For as Peter S. Beagle said,

"Death takes what man would keep and leaves what man would lose"

The death in LOTR is a gift not a curse as many elves start to see as all that they cherish fades away.

But I digress, many people like myself enjoy fantasy for it's appeal to our dreams and our longings and in our dreams is where we really show ourselves. Fantasy, at least some fantasy has real elements in it that capture our interest and our daydreams or it's just plain silly.

"Who has choices need not choose.
We must, who have none.
We can love but what we lose--
What is gone is gone."

[Kalessin]

The interesting question posed begs another - a working and acceptable definition of the fantasy genre.

If, as it unfortuantely appears from time to time, what qualifies a work as fantasy is merely the presence of swords, horses, scantily clad (pneumatic) women, a series of unpronounceable names, elements of wizardry and magic, and dialogue along the lines of "No, Agnarren!" exclaimed Raven Swordpolisher, "'Tis not yet the time for ye to meet your mystic destiny ... first we must recover the Crystal Crow of Karnath" ..." [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], then whilst I am a big LotR fan, you can count me out.

On the other hand, some people I know (and bookshops) consider Fantasy and Science Fiction as indistinguishable, interchangeable parts of a rather geeky whole. The fact that several notable authors (Le Guin, Moorcock, Anderson) work in both arenas might also make this a feasible generalisation.

And where, for example, does the fantasy genre end, and a number of other genres begin? Traditional myths or fairy tales, the works of Oscar Wilde, the 'magic realism' of Marquez,the works of Borges and Allende etc. ... all of these could arguably called fantasy.

I don't know if the genre is clearly defined, or if such a definition is possible. Tolkien is often seen as the 'Godfather' of modern fantasy, but his work is so different - in both scope and quality - from nearly all his successors that there is a strong argument for simply placing him in the wider context of literature.

Part of the point I am making is that I am not sure if liking fantasy has anything to do with having more imagination, or anti-modernism, or spirituality, and so on, than anyone who does not like the genre. Often what we like is what does NOT challenge us, what reassures us, and what is couched in the language (literal and symbolic) that we are familiar with. Liking fantasy in this context could be more of a cop out, like wanting chips with everything [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Genre-specific sections in bookshops or libraries are indeed useful, but they are also an excuse not to go into the wider spheres of writing. I am as guilty of that as anyone else, skimming past the various classics or innovators to get to my favourite spot [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

I would argue that liking a genre is as arbitrary as liking a particular food - it can arise from habit, culture, peer pressure and so on - and does not imply any particular shades of imagination or personality. And not liking fantasy does not imply a lack of these. And of course, people can change what they like.

To coin a phrase - "there's no accounting for taste".

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

Kalessin

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Bill Ferny]

Often what we like is what does NOT challenge us, what reassures us, and what is couched in the language (literal and symbolic) that we are familiar with.

That would be it! I think that explains why I like Tolkien so much, but could take or leave the rest of the fantasy genre (or at least what the nearest bookstore considers the fantasy genre): same religion, similar interests in myth and history, shared concern about the encroachment of industry (possibly even a shared fear of technology); though I’m hardly the linguist that he was, I’ve tried my hand at “fantasy Latin.” That makes a lot of sense, except for one essential fact: I read Tolkien in the seventh grade, well before any of these similarities took shape (except, maybe, the same religion thing). So what came first, the chicken or the egg?

When you say “chips” are you referring to what we yanks would call “french fries”? If so, I only like ketchup. That whole mayo thing seems a bit strange to me. All in all, though, it is a cop out, but its also entertainment, and we all are entitled to a bit of cop out for entertainment’s sake. For example, I just watched the movie Unfaithful last night, and it was pretty damn disturbing (at least to us happily married people, and especially to us happily married men). Despite the excellent acting, script, cinematography, etc… I just could not bring myself to like the movie. Why? Because it challenged me, and it challenged my marriage. I just didn't want that kind of thing to ruin my perfectly good weekend. I think that National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation would have been a better choice for a more peaceful night’s sleep.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

Miniver Cheevy by Edwin Arlington Robinson

Thanks for posting the poem Willie. I had never read it before. Although I am not an alcoholic and don’t despair at my birth, I saw a lot I can identify with in that poem.

I think one reason people might like fantasy is because things like Good and Evil and The Right Thing To Do are pretty easy to see. The Bad Guy is obviously bad, the Good Guys wear white, etc. In a morally ambiguous world, fantasy alleviates the shades of gray and allows us to go to a place where choices aren’t as hard to make. Fighting evil is a thing you go do, where in our world evil is harder to identify and the fight against it is not necessarily physical.

That being said, as I get older (maturity is debatable) I find that authors who are able to introduce moral ambiguity into their characters and situations are pretty interesting. Good Guys who don’t always do the right thing of course seem more human, Bad Guys who have better reasons than just evil for its own sake. Characters that evolve from Bad to Good, or vice versa.

A lot of people that I know dismiss Tolkien and other fantasy as merely escapist reading. They say it doesn't have the "reality" that true literature has.

Merely escapist? I feel bad for those people. It seems they don’t know how fun and valuable a little escapism can be. I don’t see what makes escapist reading a bad thing anyway. What else is fiction for? From Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

fic·tion
1 a : something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story b : fictitious literature (as novels or short stories) c : a work of fiction; especially : NOVEL
2 a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth <a legal fiction> b : a useful illusion or pretense
3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination

Invented story, suspension of disbelief, illusion...all tools of fiction whether it takes place in Middle Earth or in downtown New York.

[Manardariel]

To like fantasy, you have to be somewhat a dreamer. For all the people I know, that´s a true fact. Do you agree? I suppose people that can´t dream, that can´t forget the world around them, with all its problems, mistakes and únfairness, can´t read fantasy. Best example: my dad. I went to go see LotR with him, and afterwards he was like: but it doesn´t make sense! It´s all so unlogic! Needless to say, I was kinda ****ed at this.
I mean, seriously.
Also, to like fantasy, you have to be willing to let yourself be pulled into a whole new world. Best example: a good friend of mine, who won´t read LotR because she´sa scared to forget the world around her.
I wouldn´t consider myself a geek, nor the fantasy-loving people around me. To be a geek is -to me- something very different.
Oh, and, what some1 stataed in the beginning about love it or hate it is definitly true.
OK, that was it.

[Cúdae]

Manardil: What do you mean by dreamer? There are so many different ways to be categorized as a dreamer. I have been called a dreamer because I daydream about Avalon and write about my own fantasy world during physics class. But then, a good friend of mine has been called a dreamer because she dreams of fame through acting and the glories of Hollywood half a century or more ago. And another friend who dreams and works toward world peace through an organization could also be called a dreamer.

But what does fantasy mean to people? That might be the root of it all. Is it an allegory for real life today? Is it an escape from a world with nuclear weapons, diminishing rain forests, and constant world war? Is it a place to play in? Is it a place where good and bad are just that: good and bad? Is it a place where you can just let your imagination run wild? Or is it a place where you can make your own opinions and have your own hopes and ambitions without anyone there to say, "Hey, that's stupid?"
I said "place" because so often fantasy books take the reader to a new world and/or a new time. Even if the book stays right here on Earth and takes place right now, it isn't the same Earth and it isn't the same now. Rarely (if ever) will you find an urban fantasy with characters worrying about AIDS epidemics and nuclear weaponry in Asia.

So do people like fantasy because it means something to them?

[Orual]

They say it doesn't have the "reality" that true literature has.

I'm not sure what they mean by that, but the Lord of the Rings is a very, sometimes harshly, realistic book. If it wasn't so realistic, then it probably would've taken the cheap way out and had everybody live "happily ever after." It's a world for us to escape to, but it's still a world, with all of the problems and realities thereof. Frodo was wounded and changed by his days as a Ringbearer, and couldn't go home again. He was too much a different person. Case in point:

It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.

VERY realistic. Frodo didn't go to Mount Doom, destroy the Ring, skip back and settle down in Bag End. No, Tolkien decided to be (gasp!) realistic, to the point of forfeiting "and they lived happily ever after, to the end of their days." I only hope that at the end of my story, I can bring myself to be that realistic. It's a hard thing to bring to a book, realism. People can say many things about the Lord of the Rings, and they do. But one thing that I think is ludicrous to say is that it is unrealistic.

Fantasy means different things to different people. For me, it brings me back to a day that I would've thrived in. I'm a very naturalistic person in a day where nature is threatened, a lady who craves chivalry in a day where it is all but dead, a would-be shieldmaiden in a day where guns are the weapon of choice. (I hate guns. Swords make for a more honorable battle.) It is also a connection to my parents, who are both avid readers, and especially my mother, who is a huge fantasy fan. (Dad's more into sci-fi, which, Kalessin, I agree should be duly differentiated from fantasy.) It is a brilliant triumph of the human mind and creative spirit, to be able to create an entirely new world, and it awes me and inspires me to see these worlds unfold before me. Also, I think that before the backdrops of fantasy worlds, we can see the aspects of humanity that unite us all more clearly. Sometimes we seem so disconnected from our neighbours, especially today in a world where you could practically stay in your house all day and not see another soul without suffering much, that it's very important for us to see that no matter who or where or in what circumstances we are, we are all people, all united in at least some things. That's what fantasy is to me.

~*~Orual~*~

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Very good Orual. I don't hate guns, but I do love swords. Yes they are more honorable but the real reason I like them is because they are more classic.

You said

but the Lord of the Rings is a very, sometimes harshly, realistic book. If it wasn't so realistic, then it probably would've taken the cheap way out and had everybody live "happily ever after." It's a world for us to escape to, but it's still a world, with all of the problems and realities thereof.

I do agree with you. I think that people think of it as fantasy and not reality on a general term. The same goes fo sci-fi (I say that fantasy and sci-fi have many similarities but there are major differences that draw the line between them). People don't think of it as realistic because a lot of things were not real and never were. Like wizards for example. They might say that LotR seems 'fake' and non-realistic because there were never wizards. True, but what they should really say is that its not reality instead of saying that its not realistic, because reality and realistic have two separate meanings. Reality means that some thing is/was real or true, while realistic means that something doesn't have to be real, but it has to have a truthful or real quality to it. And I think that LotR is realistic because it has truthful and real themes. Two themes I saw when reading LotR I showed in this thread In praise of Sam's Pans. The thread was about Sam letting go of his pans on the quest, and what I said was

I don't think that it was necessary for the fullfillment of the quest. It could have happened otherwise. But it does fit in nicely together. Maybe Tolkien did this to show that everyone must lose something in order to gain something, that is what taking risks is all about. But did they gain anything? Yes, the ring was destroyed. And in the end, Frodo is affected deeply by the journey (or the risk) and has to leave the Shire while Sam is fine and stays in the Shire. That shows another aspect of taking risks. Sometimes, even if you win you lose. Sam got to stay in the Shire and yes, he probably got new pans, so in a way Sam didn't lose at all. Frodo, he lost his 'precious' and he couldn't get another one, like Sam could. Also he had to leave the Shire because he was scarred for life because of the journey. For Frodo, this was a pyric victory. Even though he won the battle of the ring, he lost. He lost the ring, his youthfullness, and I'd say also his healthiness (the morgal blade wound). Sam didn't lose anything he couldn't reaquire (except Frodo, I think that Frodo leaving was a loss to him). I think that Tolkien purposely showed how you can lose even if you win. He showed us the downfalls to taking risks. And I think Tolkien also purposely showed us that you must give something up in order to gain something. Even though many characters suffered losses before/after the quest was completed, it was still worth the final result.

These themes are part of a harsh reality. And people sometimes don't see it. They criticize Tolkien's work as non-realistic when that's is obviously not true. And Tolkien's works also display irony. Irony is displayed in reality as well as literature. And many non-fiction writers tend to display irony in their works. Adding irony and a harsh reality adds to the realism of the book. For example, The Simpsons show a harsh reality sometimes. But people say its never realistic because it's animated and events are very far-fetched. But that's not rue. One time Bart wanted a video game but no one would get it. He resulted to stealing it but got caught. Towards the end of the episode everything was resolved and all. Marge gave Bart a video game for Christmas but it wasn't the one he wanted (it was Golf). Can you say that something like that never happened? No. Have you ever heard of a kid stealing like this? Yes, I'm sure you have. And have you ever gotten a gift that wasn't the one you wanted (when you specifically showed which one you did want), and pretended that you liked it anyways? Yes, I'm sure you have. Now, you can't tell me that wasn't realistic.

My point is that for something to be realistc, it doesn't need to look real. If it has themes or events that could and have probably happened, then it qualifies as realistic. People judge realism on a first look basis and they don't thoroghly investigate before charging a work as non-realistic. They don't read between the lines or somtimes they don't read at all (they watch the movie instead). I think they should look deeper in their examination. And people sometimes think that it's not realistic because it's labeled as a fantasy. Because middle earth never existed there were wizards and dragons and elves and dwarves and hobbits...I could go on for a long time. We label it as a fantasy not to stereotype it, but to organize or categorize it and make it eaiser to identify. We don't label it to say that it isn't raelistic. And sometimes people read the book or watch the movie and don't like it because they say its not realistic. Well, it is realistic, but they don't like it because they know that an elf is not real. Well it's very sad for them. Maybe if they didn't think about it while they read they would like it. And in another thread A Thinking Question . . . the talk was about whether you think about a character being believeabe or not while you're reading. I think that people think too much when they read. They need to forget about what's real and what's not. They should just get lost in the book and have fun and enjoy it. [Maybe Tolkien wanted us to be simple like hobbits, when we read, just a thought.] When you think about all that stuff, it sucks the fun out of reading a fantasy. Just let it go and read and you'll have a stronger opinion on whether you like the book or not. You can think about all that stuff after you read. But while your reading, just don't. It's sad that some people just can't do this.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Neferchoirwen]

Speaking of "geek"-ness, this thread also reminds me of the psychosis thread.

I loved that poem, Willie. It may be one of the anthems of my life. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I agree with Cudae. For one to appreciate fantasy, one has to be open-minded. It's a lot of fun reading LotR. But appreciating LotR may also be a bit on the personal side because much of what's in them is real. So real that anyone can relate to anyhing on the book. Fantasy is not so much possibilities, but about what can be created and appreciated.

Orual's mention of escapism has been a phase for me for the past three months. In the last three months, I've read over 9 nine books. LotR included, as well as Neil Gaiman's American Gods, and something by Ayn Rand and Roald Dahl, and not to mention H Potter book 3...and all of that in a span of three months gave me a short head ache...

Going back to Orual, I feel like I need to feed on fantasy. Or on any book that I can grab. Middle Earth seems to be so real that I can't help but wonder about how the elves are, how Frodo ended up, and how the Shire looks like now. I need to forget that I have a thesis to work on, three finals tomorow, and issues to confront.

I guess it all boils down to the love of reading, and why we read for pleasure.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Neferchoirwen ]

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Neferchoirwen, you got me thinking on another point. I'll try to make it short and sweet. You said

Middle Earth seems to be so real that I can't help but wonder about how the elves are, how Frodo ended up, and how the Shire looks like now.

ME is so detailed and complicated that it makes it seem real. There are some people who actually argue that it once existed. Tolkien thought out all ME and did a lot with it. He didn't tie up all the loose ends, but that's what keeps us thinking. And ME also seems so real because it has its own history. Well, that's it. I got to go.

[Bill Ferny]

(I hate guns. Swords make for a more honorable battle.)

Actually, not much more honorable, if at all; see the fencing manuals of Master Hans Talhoffer that are filled with all kinds of dirty tricks, and even a judicial battle between a man and a woman. Survival and victory, not honor, were always the primordial principles at work, no matter the weapon. However, there is something more immediate, more brutal, more awakening about close quarter combat that accentuates the difference between a despondent heart and one that learns to overcome fear. For this reason, perhaps, there is a romanticism inherent in the mastery of martial skills such as these. But bear in mind, no matter the time or how serious people took the notion, chivalry has always been a myth with varying degrees of reality. To what extent is modern fantasy an attempt to recapture the myth of chivalry in the 20th century?

I disagree with coaching a dislike of fantasy with something lacking in those who don’t. I was guilty of this above, but in light of Kalessin’s post, I’ve changed my mind. Its not that people who don’t like fantasy are lacking in something, but its possible that they dislike fantasy due to differing interests, and have other preferred methods of escapism. It doesn’t have anything to do with having a more or less open mind, not being able to dream, or not being able to suspend belief. Its simply a difference in taste. I can’t stand fantasy other than LotR and HP (and maybe some C.S. Lewis), but I don’t consider myself as having a closed mind or not being able to dream dreams, or whatever.

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I hate guns. Swords make for a more honorable battle

I'm not sure what you mean by more honorable. You might feel differently about that if you saw someone hacked apart by a sword. Violent death is violent death.

*sprays Tangent Be Gone on his post*

[Manardariel]

Agree with Kenedil. What´s the difference of killing someone with a gun or with a sword. Exept maybe that guns usually don´t have names.
Cudae: by a dreamer I meant a person that doesn´t always think reasonably, that doesn´t stop hoping and that can loose him-or herself in a vision/dream/world.I´m not saying it´s a bad thing if you can´t- I just know I can´t imagine not to. That´s why I woudn´t say people who don´t enjoy fantasy lack anything youhaveto have. I mean face it, no one´s perfect and people who "lack" something are likly to be strong somewhere else.

[Nenya]

Umm, having heard all these excellent points, I'm more confused than I was when I first started this thread... [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Maybe there really isn't anything in common between fantasy-lovers, that it's about the same thing as liking chocolate icecream. Maybe, maybe not.
(or maybe there is a hobbit inside those of us who love Tolkien, and the rest are just plain dull humans...right? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img])

Seriously: as Kalessin pointed out, there actually isn't a straight line between fantsy-books and others. (and by the way Kalessin: speak wisely -as you indeed have done- for you have chosen the name of my God. And don't be suprised if I occasionally bow down to you... [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img])

But I'll have to disagree with Willie. I certainly didn't read LotR, of any other book for that matter, without thinking anything. Quite the opposite. I think that reading is great excercise for the mind. I really can get lost in a book and in the same time think stuff like "would somebody really act like that, or is this pure fiction? would I act like that?" It's no obstacle for reading fantasy.

And by the way, sorry for my english. I'm way too busy dansing with all these polarbears to check my spelling. No, I'm just kidding. Here in Finland we only dance with them on weekends. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
(don't listen to me. i've been weird all day.)

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

I think that reading is great excercise for the mind.

You make a good point there Nenya, but I agree with Willie also. There is something to be said for just kicking back and enjoying a story for what it is without having to deconstruct it.

Most fiction can't stand up to the degree of scrutiny we Barrow-Downers put on JRRT's stories. It is a credit to Tolkien's work and attention to detail that Middle Earth can.

What did I do with that bottle of Tangent Be Gone?

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Oh, don't get me wrong Nenya. I do agree that reading is a good exercise for the mind, but sometimes certain people (I know a few) think to much when they read. And those people actually didn't like the book very much because of that. So sometimes it would be better to not think about all that. But you are right also and sometimes it would be better for people to think about those things while they're reading. I just think that first-time readers should take it easy, and then read more intense the second time around. Thanks for defending me there Keneldil [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie ]

[Orual]

Oh, I'm not saying that you can't have a dishonorable sword-fight. I just think that looking your opponent in the face before going into mortal battle makes for a more honorable situation, and would probably make people think about what they were doing. I've never shot a gun except once or twice at a shooting range with my dad, and I've only held fencing swords and a blunt-edged short sword when I dressed as Sam for FotR, but I think that it's probably easier to shoot someone than to kill them with a sword. In that way, I think that sword-fighting is a more honorable way to do battle than gun-fighting. (Besides, it's older, and therefore cooler. But that's not really my point.)

Good points on the realism issue, Willie. Some people have a hard time distinguishing, as you said, reality from realism. The realism in the Lord of the Rings has to do with the actions of people, not the circumstances. It's the circumstances that makes it "fantasy." The characters all act like people really do. It's highly questionable that any of us will be asked to go destroy an all-powerful evil ring in a huge volcano halfway across our continent, risking life and limb in a pivotal role against a dark lord. No indeed. But we'll all have "quests" in our lives. Perhaps not quite as grand or epic as Frodo's. Perhaps it will be a friend's terminal illness, or a chronically sick son or daughter, or something like that. There are all sorts of troubles in our lives that could be our toughest battles. We'll all have to face hard decisions; perhaps not whether to leave your best friend's body to be desecrated by evil creatures or to go and complete the quest that he died for, like Sam had to decide. But we'll all face that doubt, and we'll all grieve, and we'll all be tempted like Boromir, heartbroken like Eowyn, forced to wait for something important to us like Arwen. We'll all feel helpless like Merry, troublesome like Pippin, overwhelmed like Gandalf. These feelings that we all share are what makes the Lord of the Rings realistic. Appreciating this work means that we have to look past fantastic elements like the Nazgul, the Ents, magic Rings and bread that can keep you on your feet for days at a stretch. It means looking past the Elves and Dwarves, the mithril and the miruvor, the Hobbits and their idyllic Shire. It means looking into the things that ties our world to theirs, and appreciating it for what it teaches us. All good books say something about humanity, the human mind and the human condition. It's that message that makes a book realistic or unrealistic. The Lord of the Rings says many things about this, and all of them are true. That is what determines its realism.

~*~Orual~*~

[elfling]

I think all who love JRRT have something in common, if it is just thier love, but even with all the differences I see alot of common ideas and emotions expressed here on th B-D. If you get so detailed into a subject you are bound to find differences. I love meeting someone or finding out that someone I already know is a Tolkien fan, immediately we have something in common and feel we are on the same ground. I love the strength of the characters in Tolkien and in some of the other fantasies, I also love middle ages type more though I did enjoy the Dune series. I miss the chilvery and just the respect and loyality the characters have for eachother.

[Nenya]

*Applauds* Thankyou, Willie and Orual for putting my thoughts of the real emotions in LotR into words.
And I admit that you're also right Willie. I was a bit hasty to judge your point. It's true that you can loose some of the pleasure of reading if you act like a book critic all the time. In this matter, as in many others, balance is the word.

[Tirinor]

My initial reaction to this topic was to denounce fantasy and proclaim Tolkien as "greater" than fantasy. But I changed my mind, at least about the denouncing of fantasy.

All genres of literature are full of crap, fantasy's crap is just funnier looking.

The fantasy genre seems to have become the poster child for merely entertaining books, and there is probably some good reasons for that. But I have come to realize that this type of generalization is unfair. Mystery, romance, crime, popular, classics, all contain merely entertaining books, some more than others. Is there a problem reading books solely for entertainment? Not necessarily. Is there a problem if that is all you read and often read? I’d say yes. Just like I’d say it was a problem to watch TV for 3 hours a day. But to say -- because I think most fantasy is just entertainment, and I think reading too many books for merely entertainment purposes is a waste of time, therefore the fantasy genre is a waste of time, would be foolish of me.

Escapism can be great. It just depends on what you escape to; sometimes you can escape to something that is inspiring and enlightening, and sometimes it just becomes checking out of life.

Kind’a soap-boxy huh? Oh well.

More to the point of the topic- most of the people that I know who love Tolkien do not care much for fantasy as a genre. maybe it's because we haven't had good experiences with it. I would appreciate any suggestions of Tolkien caliber fantasy (if it exists) sent to me via private message. I haven’t had much luck in the genre of fantasy finding something worthwhile. And don’t say Dune. Not that Dune wasn’t worthwhile I just didn’t care for it. And don't say Harry Potter, arbitrary spells and magic is pretty cheap writing in my opinion.

[littlemanpoet]

I'm sorry if this has been said already, but perhaps the basic difference between LOTR lovers and those who are not, is that we who love LOTR recognize Middle Earth as REAL in a sense that the humdrum work-a-day, death-and-taxes, rush-hour-traffic so-called "reality" we deal with every day, is not.

[MLD-Grounds-Keeper-Willie]

Tirinor, try this thread Any good fantasy stuff? and look at Birdland's link especially. Hope that helps. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[JenFramp]

I only really enjoy tolkien and a few others..not the stereotypical fantasy..I always enjoy a real original story..i'm more into science fiction i think

[Kalessin]

Littlemanpoet [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I'd like to read your writing, do tell me where I can find it?

... perhaps the basic difference between LOTR lovers and those who are not, is that we who love LOTR recognize Middle Earth as REAL in a sense that the humdrum work-a-day, death-and-taxes, rush-hour-traffic so-called "reality" we deal with every day, is not.

I do think there's a teensie-weensie element of "them and us" here, and one that's natural and indeed reassuring here at Barrowdowns, as we share a passion and an interest in the works of Tolkien.

But am I not sure exactly how you quantify the imagination awakened by Tolkien in terms of a "reality" that supercedes the daily humdrum. In some ways, I think, imagination that is exercised, and given tools, by literature - tools of narrative, meaning and insight that we can apply to all our experiences - then that imagination actually invigorates and suffuses our everyday life with depth and colour.

Tolkien, and other great literature, can lend a sheen of heroism to our petty struggles, it can awaken us to pathos and empathy for those we see and meet, it helps us strip away the facades and rituals and see the patterns and pressures that shape the way we are, it allows us to confer a sense of destiny upon our chance mishaps, and it can give us hope and - sometimes - a certain faith in ourselves, others, and the unexpected. In this way, rather than change 'reality', or being an alternate (or preferable) 'reality', Tolkien and other great art simply mediates all our perceptions.

This isn't anything to do with mechanically thinking "what would Gandalf do?", or daydreaming about meeting Viggo Mortensen/Liv Tyler etc. ... it is the unthought and sometimes unwelcome framing and legitimising of our sadness, our smallness, our humanity, in terms of beauty, truth, justice and struggle.

All great art can do this, from the utterly, gritty "death-and-taxes" narrative to the most florid and surreal stream of consciousness.

And, to link to my earlier post, some works, whether fantasy or not, allow us to hide from all of this and escape into something we know IS unreality, where swords do ring with an eldritch light and castles shimmer on distant hills ... and there goes Raven Swordpolisher and his unreliable loincloth again [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

Kalessin

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin: [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Without directly answering your questions (lack of time), I promise to soon. I will say this: perhaps reading LOTR is not unlike reading good poetry, in this: 'tis best to chew it whole, fully digest it in the bowels of one's mind, and make it a part of oneself; later, yes, come back to it, and dice and slice all you like, eat it piece by piece and enjoy each bite; I could almost guarantee you - doing thus will shed no new light on just what it is about LOTR that we love so much. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

[Keneldil the Polka-dot]

This post is going to be less metaphysical than most of the trend in this thread...

The way JRRT's work was released to the general public helped in my opinion. By coincidence I read the books in the same order they were released: Hobbit-LoTR-Sil. The first two, while being great on their own, contained a lot of referrences to past history that made me incredibly curious. I still remember the day I found the Silmarillion in the grade school library. I just about passed out I was so excited. I had thought The Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings was all he had written.

Maybe this is just projecting what happened to me onto the general public...but I could see it working the same way back when the Professor first released his work.

[littlemanpoet]

Tirinor:

All genres of literature are full of crap, fantasy's crap is just funnier looking.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]
I love it. That's one for the ol' memory banks. Thanks much!

Kalessin: I'll PM you about my writing.
Them and us? Who, me? [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] Nah. Are you kidding? Yeah, I admit it. No. I declare it. You bet. I just don't understand "them". I pity "them". And if that sounds arrogant, I'm sorry, really, really sorry, but I know something "they" don't and the pity is "they" know so little that "they" don't even want it, much less know what "they"'re missing. (sorry if that was a mite bit confusing)

Quantify the imagination? Ain't possible. It's as impossible as it was for Tolkien to define Faerie in his "On Faerie Stories".

What you're talking about with your exercising of the imagination and providing it tools for the sake of reinvigoration and suffusion, is Tolkien's "recovery", in a word. Not to say that your rendering of it wasn't picturesque and quite charming, which it was. Even evocative.

Sheen of heroism, eh? "On guard, you vile skid of parts, I shall lift you on high with my trusty forklift and fling you into yon truck! Touche! Ahem. Excuse me while I hike my loincloth." Hmmm. Just doesn't rate compared to Aragorn, know what I mean? Kinda fun, though...

[Lush]

Great post (as usual), littleman, but do you not agree that perhaps "they", in turn, know something "we" do not? Perhaps its something "we" can never relate to, just as much as "they" could never experience the bliss of submerging oneself in Middle Earth. Perhaps some people just have a better time doing other things. It's all good.

[Orual]

I think there's always an element of "them and us" when you belong to any group, small or large. When you find people like yourself, people who understand what you're talking about and your in-jokes and all that, you feel so comfortable with those people that you tend to separate yourself from those who aren't like you in that respect. It's not a bad thing--in fact, I think that it can even be a good thing--but it's a fact of life.

~*~Orual~*~

[littlemanpoet]

Uh-huh to both of you, Lush and Orual By the way, greetings, Orual! I like the name, and really like the book you got it from; I've found your posts to be interesting and enlightening. Well met!

Lush:
To explicate,
the world would not rate
the same without "them"
as with; still, then,
until I found this site,
it was a mite
hard to find
people of like mind.
This verse ain't great
but at any rate
it gets across
the basic dross
of my meaning
if you're gleaning.

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

Oh, and Orual,

Your name I admire
and your post puts me in mind
of the people of the Shire,
you know, provincially inclined;
which means that we're a bunch
of hobbits; now where's that second lunch?

Yours, LMP