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

[Nar]

I'm beginning to think that whatever The Lord of the Rings is, it is something of great value of a type that overlaps with literary values, while being not quite the same thing. Those who respond so powerfully seem to be finding a catharsis which is directed by the themes of the book. They find wisdom in it, and help. The words 'popular,' 'entertaining'
or even 'enduringly popular' (though that comes closest as an indicator) don't really seem to cover this. Themes are discussed elsewhere, but here's my list:
Loss of a connection to the past;
Loss of a connection to the environment;
Pervasive spirituality which is neverthless fluid and non-controlling;
A narrative of depression, despair and endurance;
Friendship and companionship.
Littlemanpoet and Child of the 7th age have ably described the theme of losses. When I read the book as a child it helped my endure a depression: it put heart into me. No other book had such an effect. This is more than just entertainment or the pushing of pleasant emotional buttons, as an action movie might. Pleasurable stimuli does not change a person, or help them in any way.

Why does this book have such an influence over some readers? It is not simply because it has good or wise themes. My best intuition is this: This book is working the way a poem works. I don't know that I understand that statement well enough to defend it, but I'll try.

An effective poem, the kind that 'blows the top of your head off' (Dylan Thomas, I believe) depends on a disciplined negotiation between form and meaning. So when I say it's working like a poem, that must be what I mean. The only example I can think of is a sequence from Virginnia Woolf's book To the Lighthouse(sorry, it's not a poem, just the best example I can think of): husband and wife are sitting reading, and the narrator describes their relationship as an unfolding rose, and somehow the language unfolded in petals like a rose. I don't know quite how she did it, but it involved the repetition of short phrases that in that context were somehow like petals, and the velvety sounds of the language she used. Yes, it blew the top of my head off. I became a different person; my mind became different, faster. The effect lasted about an hour.

There are many ways of executing literature effectively, but I'll define as poetry that relentless conjunction between form (shape and sound and rhythm) and meaning. No doubt that was obvious, but I had to make the argument to load the idea into my conciousness.

The Lord of the Rings is not refined to the highest degree of literary polish: every word is good, but not, I think, perfect. Although I love every word as it is! Nor is it seeking a tough-minded moral inquiry that dances on the edge of amorality, which can be seen in the finest examples of modern literature. It just puts heart into you. Its effect is not on consciousness but on the character of its readers (responsive readers).

The intuition I'm attempting to work out is that this effect on the character of a reader, at quite a deep level when it works, is caused by this conjuction of form and meaning, negotiated to the nth degree with determination and integrity. However, this negotiation is not happening on the surface of the text, which would be recognizable as high literary polish. The Lord of the Rings would then be in the literary canon-- no controversy, no argument. No, catharsis is achieved below the style, sound, rhythm and polish of the text. Catharsis comes from a negotiation between the deeper form (the plot, characters and terms under which their world exists) and the deeper meaning (the themes) Ok, now have I solved it? Have I reached the definition of quality along the lines of catharsis? That's the best I can do, anyway.

This would imply that later books in the fantasy tradition that fail, may fail because they do not pursue this negotiation between the deep structure and themes of the story: they just import a worn copy of Tolkien's solution, and they do so without understanding it. This argument must be waged anew for each new book within its new world for the same effect on the readers to be achieved.

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Belin]

That's beautiful, Nar! I've been following this thread for some time with the intention of finding a way to express something like that, but I don't think I could ever have come quite that close. You've expressed JUST what I think art is about; it does That Thing to an onlooker that's so difficult to describe, and which is necessary, not an escape at all but necessary. And fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about it, because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail. But fantasy is difficult, any way of doing this is difficult, so people try to use the people that went before them and they very often fail. Or,as you put it:

This would imply that later books in the fantasy tradition that fail, may fail because they do not pursue this negotiation between the deep structure and themes of the story: they just import a worn copy of Tolkien's solution, and they do so without understanding it. This argument must be waged anew for each new book within its new world for the same effect on the readers to be achieved.

And it happens very, very seldom. Tolkien, yes, and Goya, and especially Rilke (who you might want to read if you haven't; anyway he does precisely that to me) and maybe one or two others are all that I've found for it, but it does happen and it encourages me so much about what the world is about.
....and I don't have that much more to say, after all... I'm very sorry to intrude myself upon this thread without something brilliant to add myself but I was so impressed by this that I just had to respond.
And, Kalessin & Co... This is indeed a great inquiry. Thanks so very much.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Belin ]

[littlemanpoet]

An effective poem, the kind that 'blows the top of your head off' ... depends on a disciplined negotiation between form and meaning.

Nar, this is excellent.

... catharsis is achieved below the style, sound, rhythm and polish of the text. Catharsis comes from a negotiation between the deeper form (the plot, characters and terms under which their world exists) and the deeper meaning (the themes). Ok, now have I solved it? Have I reached the definition of quality along the lines of catharsis?

Maybe. I need this expanded upon. I don't know if this is the right question, but what is the content of the deeper form and deeper meaning that sets LotR apart? Or am I asking for specifics where you were trying to generalize?

Guy Gavriel Kay comes to mind as a fresh approach which almost (in my mind) succeeded where most efforts in fantasy failed, in his Fionavar Tapestry series. His evocation is well done and his content is more adapted to a non-theist mentality, I'm thinking. Maybe that's what causes the 'almost' for me, which may say more about me than Kay. Any thoughts on this?

Belin, welcome to the thread. You need not apologize for intruding.

...fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about [That Thing so difficult to describe and so necessary] because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail.

I think this is a useful insight, and if it was said already by someone else on the thread I'm glad you brought it out again. That Thing is necessary.

I have never been exposed to Goya or Rilke. Please inform Belin.

[Belin]

Thanks, littleman.... Of course, I ought to have known that diffidence was unwarranted on such a friendly forum! It's just that I was in such awe of this thread.....
Anyway, I won't comment on my own comments just yet. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Goya: An extremely intense Spanish painter, to whom everyone may not respond in the same way I did (he's strange). You might already know "The Third of May" and "The Naked Maja" and "The Clothed Maja". Rilke: An AMAZING Austrian (I think) poet... I'll send you some quotes if you like. But this is enough OT rambling for now.

--Belin Ibaimendi

[Kalessin]

Nar, I think your reasoning in relation to the nature of form and content was both succinct and compelling. However, I disagree strongly with your 'jazz' reference. Jazz was (and is) a musical expression of 'rebellion', and as performance it is explicitly improvisational. Historically jazz was a music associated with vibrant sexuality, resistance to authority and the establishment, and a specifically urban and modern (black) aesthetic. To my mind neither these concepts nor the idea of thematic improvisations are at work in the phrases of Tolkien. His 'style', so to speak, seems to me to be of a different lineage. I also have a gut feeling he would have seen true jazz (not the bleached anaesthetic of Glenn Miller or Paul Whiteman) as something both decadent and threatening, and might have preferred the particular authenticity of Paul Robeson ... but I could be totally wrong. The stylistic point, at least, is important.

Stephanos, Child of the 7th Age, Mithadan, Estel, Belin and too many others to mention have also made eloquent and worthwhile contributions to the more general issues raised by my initial questions. The posts in this thread have pretty much all been stimulating, thoughtful and interesting, and serve to confirm my high opinion of my fellow Barrowdowners [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

I feel as though I have answers to my general query about valid criticisms within the fantasy genre - from Lush's "steroid-man on horse" covers to Aiwendil's key insight into the imitation of LotR. Mithadan has placed the imitative process in context by showing the distinctive circumstances of LotR's inception, while others have accurately addressed the subsequent publishing and marketing factors. And between us we appear to have hammered a way through the relationship between an author's role, intention, and the function and effect of a work ... without necessarily agreeing on every point, the collective arguments provide us with a critical framework in which both unjust and 'valid criticisms' of the genre, and the distinct nature of LotR, can be understood.

I'm going to come back to Nar's essay on meaning and catharsis, and link it to Littleman's insight about the loss of 'myth-making'. These two excellent and effective lines of reasoning can be pulled together into an interpretation that seems to have some merit. Perhaps, as some well-known writers have said, there are only a few real stories. And all good books are re-creations of these eternal and archetypal narratives, invigorated by craft and imagination (er, please let's leave the Bible out of this argument for a moment).

Could it be that LotR is a re-telling of one or more of these eternal stories - and specificially a narrative of sacrifice and redemption? Is this what makes it seminal, whilst appealing to a modernised and culturally fragmented audience? Perhaps the old myths that we no longer hear were, in their way, also re-tellings of those eternal stories, and LotR (in a new and inventive way) like them, taps into our deepest empathies and identifications, and fulfils our cathartic need (back to Nar).

Now, being an 'eternal' story, or one of only a few, does not mean those stories have to be simple or childish. In fact it's probably the opposite - in order for them to remain 'true' and archetypal the eternal stories must acknowledge and include many of our human subtleties.

This reading of the nature of LotR allows us to see it's ongoing popularity as more than just a reaction to today's world (which makes it seem like a historical accident), and ties in with Tolkien's own background in mythos. It also further develops the theme of subsequent imitators failing because they absorbed and retold the superficial elements - instead of the 'real' stories.

Just a thought [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 15, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Estel the Descender]

Quote from Tolkien: 'Fantasy. . . certainly does not destroy or even insult Reason; and it does not either blunt the appetite for, nor obscure the perception of, scientific verity. On the contrary. The keener and the clearer is the reason, the better fantasy will it make. . . If men were ever in a state in which they did not want to know or could not perceive truth (facts or evidence), then Fantasy would languish until they were cured. If they ever get into that state. . . Fantasy will perish, and become Morbid Delusion. . . For creative Fantasy is founded upon the hard recognition that things are so in the world as it appears under the sun; on a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it'.

[Mister Underhill]

Well, quite an interesting (not to mention exhaustive) discussion! Congratulations to Kalessin for a provocative topic and to all for the articulate examination thereof. As usual these days, I’m late to the party, but I’ll try to see if I can find a fresh contribution or two that I can slide in edgewise. Forgive me if a few of these thoughts are dated in terms of the discussion. Seems I’ve been in the midst of composing a reply for over a week, but each day brings fresh new posts and a rapid advance of the conversation.

Form and Meaning – a fundamental problem?
I’ll join the general chorus in commending your work in the post at the top of this page, Nar. In this day and age, fantasy faces a double-whammy – a market that wishes to dumb-down the form in order to reach the broadest possible audience and to sanitize the meaning into trite, easily digestible (and above all, inoffensive) aphorisms.

I still feel the original question (or one of them, in any case) remains unanswered, though. Why is modern fantasy literature still a world with legions of Salieris and only one Mozart? Are we to believe that somewhere out there, gathering dust in a desk drawer (or several), is a magnum opus of power and skill commensurate with (but not imitative of) LotR whose publishing and discovery has been blocked by mere market forces? Are we so cynical that we believe that such a work wouldn’t be discovered by someone if it passed across a few dozen editors’ desks today? Any lover of science-fiction can name a score of masters of the art without hesitation. Lovers of fantasy fiction might struggle to name half a dozen, and always Tolkien towers above other aspirants to the throne. Science-fiction is periodically revolutionized and reinvigorated by new authors and varied new movements; fantasy fiction (i.e., swords-and-sorcery fiction in this context) remains depressingly static and repetitive.

Does the fantasy genre have some inherent flaw which dictates that we’ll only receive one great masterpiece in our time? Or, conversely, is the form so inherently difficult and challenging (compared to other genres) that only a precious, gifted few are capable of mounting to its summit?

Post-modernism
I’ll admit it. I’ve seen this phrase bandied about for nigh onto a couple of decades now, but I’ve never had more than a tenuous grasp on what it really means. It’s a slippery term and seems to mean different things to different people. I went and found a definition on a university website:

Postmodernism: Main features include (1)Pastiche: a putting together of elements of style from radically different contexts and historical epochs. (2) Reflexivity: the capacity to be self aware, often accompanied by a sense of irony. (3) Relativism: the absence of objective standards of truth. (4) An opposition to certain classical artistic techniques such as narrative -- telling a story in an ordered sequence closed off at the end -- and representation -- attempting to depict reality. (5) a disrespect for, and a wish to cross, traditional artistic boundaries such as those between popular and high culture and between different artistic forms. (6) A lessened belief in the importance of the author as the creator of the text.

Now, I’m certainly not saying this is the last word on post-modernism, I just want to provide a basis for discussion.

So the one that really caught my eye was number 3 – “the absence of objective standards of truth”. Now it’s my turn to see your devil’s advocacy and raise you, Kalessin. You’ve argued passionately and skillfully against reading too much of Tolkien’s spiritual belief system into his work, preferring instead to view LotR as a broadly accessible piece that defies “ownership” by any particular religion or group. Is it possible that we’ve gotten what we wished for when we vehemently deny the Christian underpinnings to Tolkien’s work – fantasy that has no spiritual weight behind it, no conviction, no sense of high moral truths, but that instead substitutes a cheap, banal, sanitized, Cracker Jack morality where the bad guys are mustachio-twirling villains and the good guys are square-jawed Dudley Do-Right types (or, alternatively, rogues-with-hearts-of-gold) and no one ever really has to make any hard choices. Incidentally, I’m not saying that Christianity has a corner on the market, but since the conventions of the swords and sorcery genre are inextricably linked with the history of Europe, I’d say that Christianity at least sits at the head of the table (if you’ll pardon my mixed metaphor).

Art, Aesthetics, and Meaning
Aiwendil, though you’ve explained your position re: the requirements and definitions of Art with great articulation and persuasiveness, I must say I find a curious disconnect between your assertion that "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful (or ‘entertaining’)" and your slamming of the likes of Britney Spears. Spears and her ilk seem to be the ultimate expression of your assertion – they produce “art” which has been engineered to be nothing more than aesthetically (i.e., sensually) pleasing. But perhaps here I’m doing a disservice by lumping all mediums under the general umbrella “art”. What I’m taking away from your arguments is this: that the purest, most legitimate form of art is that which is all form and no content. In some mediums, this may be a tenable argument, but I think that in literature, it cannot hold. All literature expresses some form of morality, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

Art As An Instrument of Change
Aiwendil, your argument here is again well-taken – though I think that in today’s world, where we live and die in an environment steeped in media that has a global reach, I think that the ability of art to effect change in the world has grown considerably. Maybe not individual works of art, but artistic trends, and the ethics transmitted (again, wittingly or unwittingly – or maybe half-wittedly) thereby.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Thank you, Kalessin, for starting a fascinating discussion and thanks to all who've written so eloquently and intelligently - it's been great reading! The archetypal aspects of the mythology of fantasy have been mentioned. I would like to pick that up on a new thread, since it would take this one a different direction, unnecessarily so. Look for "Tolkien and Psychology" on this forum if you're interested; I hope it will become a worthwhile discussion as well!

[Nar]

Kalessin-- You're right. Jazz was the wrong comparison. I meant 'variations on a theme.' I agree, Tolkien's variations are more conservative/ classical. I was trying to contrast the alienating effect of coining a word with a bald introduction, as in the movie, or in other works of fantasy.
Compare 'We must reach the woods of Lothlorien!' to the variations on a theme by definition, elaboration, naming and renaming:

There lie the woods of Lothlorien! ... then the boughs are laden with yellow flowers; and the floor of the wood is golden, and golden is the roof, and its pillars are of silver ... the woods of Laurelindorian! That is what the elves used to call it, ... Lothlorian ... Land of the Valley of Singing Gold, that was it, once upon a time. Now it is the Dreamflower. ... Laurelindorinan lindelorendor ...'

Belin--Thank you for the kind words. I liked your description of 'that thing.'

art ... does That Thing to an onlooker that's so difficult to describe, and which is necessary, not an escape at all but necessary. And fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about it, because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail.

I recall the strange parallel Madjas. What I most remember of Goya's is his dark narrative drawings, though I don't think I responded the way you did. Don't know any other pictures of his. I don't know Rilke.

littlemanpoet-- thank you for your response, and for the insightful questions. I don't know the works of Kay. I'll try to clarify my ideas for you.

By meaning, I mean themes: Loss, Spirituality, Friendship, Depression, etc.

By structure, I mean plot and character, mainly. Also, the terms by which the world functions: magic, peoples and languages, geography, prehistory, etc. I like Kalessin's term archetype. I would say the structure of the Lord of the Rings is built out of several archetypes, each of which serves a theme.

These archetypes derive from a common heritage of myth, stories, and Tolkien's Catholic faith. I'll check out your thread, Estelyn. Right now, I'm concerned with Tolkien's methods as applied to archetypes. Some examples:

Archetype: Kalessin's 'narrative of sacrifice and redemption,' Theme: Spirituality
Archetype: a narrative of loss and nostalgia, Theme: loss of a connection to the past and the environment
Archetype: a narrative of the heroic quest, Theme: surmounting depression and despair, I think. It depends on the applicability of the dark lord.
Archetype: a narrative pulse in which a miserable, difficult trek in the wild repeatedly culminates in shelter! fire! food! friends! Yes, I think entering the pub or the friend's house after a long day of walking is a powerful archetype for Tolkien. Theme: friendship and companionship, romantically heightened by these reverses.

The negotiation I spoke of --between theme and structure-- is made necessary by competing themes and their conflicting archetypes. In some cases the archetypes also enhance and intensify each other's effects. This is what makes the structure, together with the themes of the story, feel composed to me, rather than just borrowed from powerful sources. It renews and refreshs the archetypes.

Kalessin, I am not simply saying this book is as effective as it is because it taps a powerful archetype. The reconciliation between competing themes and conflicting (or cooperating) archtypes makes the depths of the story seem composed. Below the surface it feels to me like a poem.

Mr Underhill, let's say for the sake of argument that Tokien's composition of a great, powerful, emotioanlly rewarding --mmm-- Hyper-Archetype is so comprehensive it gives later writers no motivation to perform their own negotiation of theme and structure-- all the relevant archetypes have been put together for them. Avoiding this necessary stage in the creation of a new story in a new world fatally impoverishes their creative process. I doubt this is the case, but if so, then the fantasy genre would then be in a plight similar to that of Ungolient the devourer -- she could only consume herself until there was nothing left. I don't think things are quite that hopeless-- I hope not! I haven't performed a comprehensive review of current fantasy writing, so I have hope that the good new books are out there, and I'm just not detecting them through the noise. Suppose this is a factor, though, what should a writer do to induce a fresh act of sub-creation? Read Tolkien's sources but try to forget Tolkien and everything after? Avoid the medieval era? Learn fresh narrative techniques by reading books outside of the fantasy genre that also describe a world as well as tell a story? I was reading a book review of David Davidar's The House of Blue Mangoes written by Akash Kapur, when I came across this, which I thought was applicable to fantasy writing also. (NY Times Book Review, 3-31-2002)

Some of the obstacles he faces are particular to Indian (or, at any rate, non-Western) writers. ... for Indian authors, the difficulty involves writing for a Western audience that knows little about the society in question. V.S. Naipaul, lamenting the difficulties he faced, pointed out that 'fiction works best in a confined moral and cultural area, where the rules are generally known.' ... Writers like Rushdie and Seth – and now Davidar – have responded to this challenge by attempting to reconstruct in their fiction the edifice of subcontinental culture. Their novels are not only narratives .. but ... ethnographies, explorations and lessons in cultural difference that provide context even as they tell a story

This applies to writing fantasy novels also. I think we need a new definition of the fantasy novel. How about, the fantasy novel creates a world and tells a story of elemental power. Is that enough? If India didn't exist except in dreams, would these books qualify as fantasy? Someone else had better answer this last question, as I've just started reading my first novel in this genre. (A House for Mr Biswas, by V.S. Naipaul) Also, we could try reading anthropology. Perhaps as readers, we should establish an 'alternative fantasy' category. What books would you put into it?

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Mister Underhill]

Ah! Quite an excellent and succinct articulation of the challenges of writing fiction which takes place in a setting for which a writer must provide context. Although I don’t think I’ve ever read a novel by an Indian author, I often wish when reading Kipling that I had an Appendix or two to flip to to get a bit more context. Kipling provides a good bridge – he has to work to orient the reader vis-á-vis culture, language, and geography, but also assumes much which, a century later and an ocean away, is confusing, if not downright incomprehensible without outside investigation.

I like your idea that Tolkien has created a “Devourer of Archetypes”. This, to me, is a more satisfying explanation than the problem of mere imitation. Perhaps we have also identified an inherent challenge to creating fresh, powerful work in the genre – in sci-fi, advances in science and technology, as well as an openness to new narrative techniques and styles, help feed innovation within the genre, whereas in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.

[Aiwendil]

I must say I find a curious disconnect between your assertion that "The purpose of art is to be aesthetically beautiful (or ‘entertaining&#8217 [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]" and your slamming of the likes of Britney Spears. Spears and her ilk seem to be the ultimate expression of your assertion – they produce “art” which has been engineered to be nothing more than aesthetically (i.e., sensually) pleasing.

I don't think I've really made my position clear. I realize that now this is rather beside the point of the argument, but allow me to clarify my point of view.

I make a distinction between art that is aesthetically pleasing and art that is popular, based on the supposition that people can be more or less fooled into thinking that a thing is good. There are people who like Britney Spears because it is the popular thing to like; there are people who dislike Mozart because they have never given him a chance. Popularity isn't an accurate measurement of the quality of a work of art because it is in part governed by factors such as these, rather than by aesthetic merit alone.

Spears and her ilk seem to be the ultimate expression of your assertion – they produce “art” which has been engineered to be nothing more than aesthetically (i.e., sensually) pleasing

I don't think the music of these people is aesthetically pleasing. It is engineered to be popular, not to be beautiful. Surely Beethoven's 9th symphony is more aesthetically/sensually pleasing than a Britney Spears song.

But I also do not equate 'aesthetic' with 'sensual'.

What I’m taking away from your arguments is this: that the purest, most legitimate form of art is that which is all form and no content.

This was not my intended meaning. The purest and most legitimate form of art is that which is most aesthetically pleasing. But aesthetic pleasure is a result of both form and content. When I read, say, King Lear, I enjoy the form: the language, the plot (which is really part form, part content), etc. But my pleasure is enhanced by an understanding of the content: the importance of royalty, the naturalistic evil of Edmund, the conflict between false eloquence and ineloquent truth, etc. I do think that form is important, but I don't think that content is worthless. Aesthetic beauty is not just sensual beauty; in fact, I think it is almost the antithesis of sensual beauty. It is beauty that appeals to mind (rather than to the senses), on all its levels - from emotion to intellect.

Aiwendil, your argument here is again well-taken – though I think that in today’s world, where we live and die in an environment steeped in media that has a global reach, I think that the ability of art to effect change in the world has grown considerably.

Excellent point. Certainly the ability of art to effect change has grown. But it tends to be popular art that effects change; or at least it is popular art that effects change the most quickly.

let's say for the sake of argument that Tokien's composition of a great, powerful, emotioanlly rewarding --mmm-- Hyper-Archetype is so comprehensive it gives later writers no motivation to perform their own negotiation of theme and structure-- all the relevant archetypes have been put together for them.

This is very true, Nar. The problem is that the modern fantasy genre is more or less defined by this hyper-archetype. It's difficult to create a fantasy world that is not an imitation of Tolkien without it crossing over the boundaries of the genre.

[Kalessin]

Nar, your latest piece is beautifully weighted, and I am very much in sympathy with the subtlety of your analysis. The truth, if such a thing can inferred, is to my mind generally a collage of light and shade ... only from the distance does it appear black or white. In this way I concur that there is a feeling of conviction and assurance (perhaps reassurance) in LotR that results from his comprehensive and - importantly - successful drawing together of influences and themes. I also agree that it is not a 'mannered' book, there is less of a surface manifestation of literary method.

Underhill, I agree that to utterly disassociate from moral absolutes can leave us like a postmodern Uroboros, locked in a self-devouring circularity without meaning. Yet to argue against appropriation or a particular evangelical interpretation of the work does not push us into such a corner. There is a middle ground, one that empowers us as readers yet at the same time allows the author to be resolute and visionary. At least I hope so ...

Nar, your reference to the development of a new (and yet old) identity in Indian literature is well chosen. The reawakening of ethnic sensibility whilst remaining culturally informed by the present and all its self-conscious eclecticism is a phenomenon that has arisen repeatedly in recent times. A significant proportion of the Jewish diaspora found success or renown as artists - in Russia, South Africa, and elsewhere. And certainly in eastern Europe and in Cape Town (this century) there was a definite attempt to revitalise a 'collective Jewish identity' amidst the most challenging and cerebral non-figurative movements. In jazz too, the attempt to reinvigorate the genre with elements of African motif and culture became apparent from the 60's onwards.

Perhaps the difficulty with the 'fantasy' genre as a whole is not that there is no room for a new (or new/old) aesthetic. And whilst Tolkien may have produced a seminal work, that alone would not inhibit the development of the genre - especially after all these years. The "last book ever written" has been applied to hundreds of earth-shaking books over the last century ... yet there is always a way forward. Perhaps Underhill is right, that the mythic core of fantasy is definitively limited (unlike the more fluid boundaries of sci-fi) - or perhaps, as others have pointed out, the marketplace and our shallow modern culture have combined to strangle any nascent evolution. Perhaps - you might find this contentious - the essence of nostalgia apparent in Tolkien is itself something that encourages stasis and formulaic restatement.

I have lots of possible answers to my initial question, and I'm looking forward to getting stuck into Estelyn's new thread. I'm also feeling the need to avoid hagiography - you know "Tolkien was just so brilliant that everyone else is ...". Suffice it to say that I continue to find what we share (in terms of attempting to address complex issues with eloquent reasoning and open-mindedness) stimulating and heartening.

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

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I've been reading this thread with interest, and once I saw Mr. U.'s name on it *bows politely* I knew we would be touching on subjects of mutual interest. (Mr. U, whilst occasionally we wind up on opposite sides of the table, what concerns us seems to fall into the same categories).

This has brought up more questions than answers for me.

..whereas in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant..

Doesn't this theory of an "Archetypal Devourer" imply that once, say, Beowulf was written, there was no need or room for the LotR, as those Archetypes were fully explored?
Or would that mean that there can only be one seminal work to dominate Fantasy until it loses its potency once sheer age, shifts in language and culture makes it unreadable to its intended audience?
Is that dominance simply because one work came first? And due to the fact it explores the same Archetypes, a second work on this naturally limited genre can only be inevitably compared to it?
Or is it due to the quality of the work itself?
If this dominance is due to the quality of the work, then the Archetypal Devourer theory is disproved, because the it is the individual work that is important, not the nature of the genre.

..and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.

This sounds more like an addiction on the part of the audience, to tell you the truth. An addiction to a particular feeling, or catharsis. If receptivity is the issue, and the "Archetypal Devourer" is not, than the audience for the genre is the real limitation if Fantasy.

Yet to argue against appropriation or a particular evangelical interpretation of the work does not push us into such a corner. There is a middle ground, one that empowers us as readers yet at the same time allows the author to be resolute and visionary.

I concur, but there is more than a middle ground, which is negotiation between convictions, rather, I'm minded of an image of water welling up from underground. On the surface, it would appear the water belongs to this or that piece of geography. In reality, the water is deeper and more profound than the geographical limitations we give it. That is not to say the geographical limitations are not important, they are necessary, in their context. But the truth we try quantify, if it is really profound, is going to supercede and over run the contexts we try place on it. I think this, rather than mere frustration with allegory, was what Tolkien as an artist was driving at when he refused to go along with the casual categorization of his writing. This begs the question if simple use of Archetypes is the only factor that sets the LotR apart in the Fantasy genre?

I think Tolkien had a sense for this kind of subtlety, as seen in his letters quoted recently in the Bible and Trilogy thread:

It was written slowly and with great care for detail, & finally emerged as ... a searchlight ... on a small part of our Middle-earth, surrounded by the glimmer of limitless extensions in time and space. Very well: that may explain to some extent why it 'feels' like history; why it was accepted for publication; and why it has proved readable for a large number of very different kinds of people. But it does not fully explain what has actually happened. Looking back ... I feel as if an ever darkening sky over our present world had been suddenly pierced, the clouds rolled back, and an almost forgotten sunlight had poured down again. As if indeed the horns of Hope had been hear again, as Pippin heard them suddenly at the absolute nadir of the fortunes of the west. but How? and Why?
I think I can now guess what Gandalf would reply. A few years ago I was visited in Oxford by a man whose name I have forgotten ... He had been much struck by the curious way in which many old pictures seemed to him to have been designed to illustrate The Lord of the Rings long before its time. ... I think he wanted at first simply to discover whether my imagination had fed on pictures, as it clearly had been by certain kinds of literature and languages. When it became obvious that, unless I was a liar, I had never seen the pictures before ... he fell silent. I became aware that he was looking fixedly at me. Suddenly he said: 'Of course you don't suppose, do you, that you wrote all that book yourself?'
Pure Gandalf! I was too well acquainted with G. to expose myself rashly, or to ask what he meant. I think I said: 'No, I don't suppose so any longer.' I have never since been able to suppose so. An alarming conclusion for an old philologist to draw concerning his private amusement. But not one that should puff any one up who considers the imperfections of 'chosen instruments', and indeed what sometimes seems their lamentable unfitness for the purpose.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Mister Underhill]

Maril! I was wondering when you would show up.

First: Aiwendil, thank you for the further clarification. I admit to playing the devil’s advocate somewhat to illustrate a few points. I think a large part of the confusion comes from lumping differing mediums under the general banner of “Art” and then making generalizations. Leaving other forms aside and concentrating on literature, I guess the question then becomes, what sort of content is aesthetically pleasing, and what sort is problematic? Can content be separated from morality? We’re diving back into issues here that have already been thoroughly explored and which are rather abstract, so don’t feel compelled to respond if you’re weary of this line. The thing that fascinates me is that I agree with quite a bit of what you say, yet occasionally take something else you write to stand in opposition to other of your arguments, making me question whether I really read you right on the things I agree with. If that makes sense.

Kalessin: I don’t mean to argue for an evangelical interpretation of Tolkien’s works. I’ve noticed this is a sore spot for you, and it fascinates me somewhat. Consequently, I’ve somehow got into the position of defending what seems at times like an LotR-as-Biblical-allegory argument. I don’t think that acknowledging Tolkien’s Catholicism and its effects on his work poses any more danger of “appropriation” than acknowledging Tolkien’s Englishness and its effects on his work. I can acknowledge the work’s essential Englishness without feeling excluded from it because I’m an American. Take away the Englishness, and can you have LotR? If you take away the Catholicism, can you have it? Argh! – now I feel I’m stumbling off track. We need a grand Unified Tolkien Theory thread to integrate all these issues. The point I’m feeling my way around here is that fantasy these days subtracts the Catholicism (and all other kinds of –isms). *Sigh* Did I just go oh for two?

Maril.

Or would that mean that there can only be one seminal work to dominate Fantasy until it loses its potency once sheer age, shifts in language and culture makes it unreadable to its intended audience? Is that dominance simply because one work came first? And due to the fact it explores the same Archetypes, a second work on this naturally limited genre can only be inevitably compared to it?
Or is it due to the quality of the work itself? If this dominance is due to the quality of the work, then the Archetypal Devourer theory is disproved, because the it is the individual work that is important, not the nature of the genre.

Perhaps it’s the power of the Archetypal Devourer to swallow a might-have-been work before it can even be born. It leaves you wondering, what else is there to say? A person reads Tolkien and is inspired with love for the genre; grows up and aspires to follow in the footsteps of their hero. The lesser talents are content to imitate their icon; the truly great talents who might have been able to accomplish something of comparable quality are stunned into silence by Tolkien’s comprehensive treatment of the archetypes and icons of the genre, and go sell insurance or become telemarketers instead. Heh. I don’t want to get into hagiography either. The fact remains that no work of equivalent quality exists.

This sounds more like an addiction on the part of the audience, to tell you the truth. An addiction to a particular feeling, or catharsis. If receptivity is the issue, and the "Archetypal Devourer" is not, than the audience for the genre is the real limitation if Fantasy.

I think you’re at least partly right here. I was astonished to learn that the Star Wars novel “I, Jedi” was considered a risky venture because it was written in (*gasp!*) the First Person (hence the title). However, I think that the conventions of the fantasy (i.e., swords-and-sorcery) genre play a large part here. Since tales of this sort employ ancient weaponry, ancient modes of travel, ancient technology, and other ancient iconography, a traditional, even antiquated mode of storytelling is the preferred style. Perhaps it’s the definition of the genre itself which has become such a straitjacket.

[Aiwendil]

I also agree that it is not a 'mannered' book, there is less of a surface manifestation of literary method.

This bit raised an interesting question in my mind. No, LotR is not a 'mannered' book; it is heroic rather than ironic. But what about The Hobbit? Here there is a surface manifestation of literary method. Here we have a truly ironic device, the fiction that the book is being told orally; this is especially true of the first few chapters.

This actually rekindled some hope in me for modern fantasy. Almost the entire modern genre is based on LotR. But Tolkien produced not one but three great works. The Hobbit and The Silmarillion go largely ignored, and unimitated. Perhaps because LotR was so succesful, modern authors have constricted the genre in an attempt to produce another LotR. But what the genre needs to remain innovative and productive is all three - anachronistic children's tales filled with wonder, heroic fantasy epics like we have now, and vast semi-tragic mythological cycles.

That's just a random idea I thought I'd share - to be honest, I'm not sure whether I believe it myself. But do with it what you will.

the essence of nostalgia apparent in Tolkien is itself something that encourages stasis and formulaic restatement.

This is an interesting idea, and I am tempted to agree with it for what it is. But I'm not sure it can help to explain the current state of the genre, since this nostalgia is one of the aspects of Tolkien which his imitators have failed to imitate.

I think a large part of the confusion comes from lumping differing mediums under the general banner of "Art" and then making generalizations.

But surely the term "art" has meaning. My supposition is this: there is a Platonic essence called "art"; this essence must exist in all media that we call the "arts". Because there is a single, common essence of art, there must be a single, common purpose for art that makes it art(regardless of whatever secondary purposes various media might have).

Leaving other forms aside and concentrating on literature, I guess the question then becomes, what sort of content is aesthetically pleasing, and what sort is problematic?

I don't pretend to have an answer to this; this is the question that the various theories of art (music theory, literary criticism, etc.) should address.

I think you're at least partly right here. I was astonished to learn that the Star Wars novel "I, Jedi" was considered a risky venture because it was written in (*gasp!*) the First Person (hence the title).

Sometimes (I would say frequently) the conventions of a genre or sub-genre are beneficial, however. I actually think I, Jedi suffered from being in the first person. That's because the first person simply doesn't work as well as the third person for that type of novel. It's like genetic mutations. Each human has on average two mutated genes. Very few of these are in genes that actually matter (many are in sections of useless DNA). Of those that do matter, almost all are harmful. Only a very small fraction are beneficial. It is through these few beneficial mutations that evolution occurs. Within a genre, each writer makes slight changes to the formula. The vast majority of these neither greatly improve nor greatly detract from the work. Of those that do matter, a great number detract from the work. Only a few of these innovations or new ideas are actually beneficial - but it is through these that literary evolution occurs. The only difference is that in literature, the chances for a good change are somewhat higher, since this is presumably what everyone is seeking. Thus it's hard to know which aspects of the fantasy genre need change and which don't. I hope that made some kind of sense

[greyhavener]

Are the immoral qualified to evaluate another's morality? Perhaps that is why Tolkein, Lewis, etc. believed morality is defined by a higher power.

Back to the original question about valid criticisms. Valid is a relative term, but there are criticisms of Tolkein, Lewis, L'Engle, LeGuin, to name a few that are part of the same Twayne series that does criticisms of Shakespeare, Milton, Hemingway, etc. Many fantasy authors are included in many standard literary reference tools used by students, and there are also specific critical works taht address only fantasy writing. Check out a large public or university library if you want to read more.

[littlemanpoet]

Kalessin:

Could it be that LotR is a re-telling of one or more of these eternal stories - and specificially a narrative of sacrifice and redemption?

I agree with Nar's assessment that Tolkien drew together whole sets of myths into one comprehensive whole - 'hyper-archetype'. Whereas sacrifice and redemption are there, I am not sure they are the central theme of LotR.

Perhaps the old myths that we no longer hear were, in their way, also re-tellings of those eternal stories, and LotR (in a new and inventive way) like them, taps into our deepest empathies and identifications, and fulfils our cathartic need (back to Nar).

Yes. I agree with this.

Mister Underhill:

Are we to believe that somewhere out there, gathering dust in a desk drawer (or several), is a magnum opus of power and skill commensurate with (but not imitative of) LotR whose publishing and discovery has been blocked by mere market forces?

I wonder how familiar you are with the publishing industry. Indeed, I would not be in the least surprised that - somewhere out there - there are perhaps a dozen or more magnum opuses whose publishing have been blocked by market forces. Your own words make my point succinctly:

In this day and age, fantasy faces a double-whammy – a market that wishes to dumb-down the form in order to reach the broadest possible audience and to sanitize the meaning into trite, easily digestible (and above all, inoffensive) aphorisms.

It is not we readers or aspiring authors who are cynical, but the publishing market; after all, it is a market, and markets are by nature cynical: they seek profit at the expense of those things they think will hurt profit, even if it is better art. That is cynical. I'd be interested to learn if you do have first hand knowledge of the publishing industry that leads you to have greater hope than my experience has turned up.

Does the fantasy genre have some inherent flaw which dictates that we’ll only receive one great masterpiece in our time? Or, conversely, is the form so inherently difficult and challenging (compared to other genres) that only a precious, gifted few are capable of mounting to its summit?

I think neither the former or latter posits warrant an affirmative. The fantasy genre bears no flaw, nor is the form so difficult. We have witnessed the Harry Potter phenomenon - like the book or dislike it, Rowling tapped a motherlode in many readers, young and old.
postmodernism: The definition you provided included things that I had not understood to be specifically postmodern. On the other hand, there is much that the definition leaves out; which is inevitable for such a robust category-word still trying to find itself. Therefore I wouldn't put too much faith in the definitions. I was surprised not to find any reference to a counter or corrective to modernism, and think it should be there.

Nar: thank you for the clarifications.

The negotiation I spoke of --between theme and structure-- is made necessary by competing themes and their conflicting archetypes. In some cases the archetypes also enhance and intensify each other's effects. This is what makes the structure, together with the themes of the story, feel composed to me, rather than just borrowed from powerful sources. It renews and refreshs the archetypes.

I see what you are saying, and think you are correct. Excellent insight, Nar.

what should a writer do to induce a fresh act of sub-creation? Read Tolkien's sources but try to forget Tolkien and everything after? Avoid the medieval era? Learn fresh narrative techniques by reading books outside of the fantasy genre that also describe a world as well as tell a story?

This is an interesting problem. I have been working on my own fantasy story for fifteen years, and have had to face the questions you delineate. I have avoided nothing that is part of the fantasy archetype set; I think - hope - that my story is worthy to stand on its own merits for a number of different reasons. However, this diverges from the theme of this thread, so I too will start a new one: "Writing Serious Fantasy". Hope to see you there.

I think we need a new definition of the fantasy novel. How about, the fantasy novel creates a world and tells a story of elemental power. Is that enough?

I think 'reality' would be a better word than 'world' - semantics, perhaps. Perhaps it was Tolkien who spoke of an 'inner consistency of reality', maybe others, but I think that phrase needs to be part of the definition. It also needs to bear Tolkien's ideas of escape, recovery, and consolation, and probably needs to contain eucatastrophe as well. All in all, too large a definition to hold together.
Mister Underhill:

...in fantasy, the pool of archetypes and historical/mythological influences remains a static constant and there is less receptivity to new styles and modes of storytelling.

Nevertheless the constant is so wideranging that the lack of new seminal works is deplorable. I'm amazed by how much there is in Norse myth alone that Tolkien used (and didn't) in his own way that would bear a fresh rendering.
Aiwendil:

It's difficult to create a fantasy world that is not an imitation of Tolkien without it crossing over the boundaries of the genre.

Maybe difficult, but far from impossible.

[Rimbaud]

In my time as both student and lecturer I have been involved with the publishing industry several times. I have even had the privilege of reading some scripts that were never eventually released and asked my opinion thereof. Many of the proof-readers, talent-scouts and copy-editors I have encountered are true enthusiasts about books and about the aesthetic joy that a well written piece of literature can produce. Unfortunately, you're are right, these people and those arguments have no effect on the wallet holders.

Even further up; I have friends even in the 'wallet-opening' areas of the industry and moreoften than not their hands are tied. They often have a quota of books that they are allowed to release each year that aren't expected to reach the higher echelons of sales figures, ie the ones where they are allowed a judgement call. After that they simply have to churn out proven money spinners.

The smaller publishing houses are inevitably swallowed by the larger. It will take quite a book/author/entrepeneur to change the situation as I view it.

[Mister Underhill]

Aiwendil: What an interesting analogy between genetic mutation and the evolution of innovative narrative techniques! I won’t defend the artistic merits of “I, Jedi”; my point was simply that mainstream fantasy – and what is Star Wars but science-fantasy? – is so conservative that the simple technique of writing from the first person, hardly revolutionary, is seen as a huge creative risk. Compare the innovation in related genres: Wiliam Gibson took sci-fi by storm and more or less pioneered a whole subgenre, cyberpunk, through sheer style. You seem to have at least passing familiarity with the oeuvre of Stephen King. He has taken horror to new levels by pushing the envelope of narrative technique. Examples include the long, unbroken, monologue style of Dolores Claiborne; structuring the novel It like an opera; alternating first person and third person points-of-view in Christine; genre-busting in his Dark Tower series; and his exercise in the endless renewability of story: using the same basic premise and characters to produce two different novels, The Regulators and Desperation. Where is this sort of innovation and energy in modern fantasy?

My supposition is this: there is a Platonic essence called "art"; this essence must exist in all media that we call the "arts".

I’m not formally acquainted with Plato’s theories of art. Any chance you could summarize what that “essence” is? I seem to recall that Plato posited a strong moral component to ideal Art, but perhaps I’m completely wrong about that.

littlemanpoet: It is not we readers or aspiring authors who are cynical, but the publishing market; after all, it is a market, and markets are by nature cynical: they seek profit at the expense of those things they think will hurt profit, even if it is better art. That is cynical. I'd be interested to learn if you do have first hand knowledge of the publishing industry that leads you to have greater hope than my experience has turned up.

I think there’s a presupposition here and in Stephanos’s most recent reply that a work that is as good as Tolkien’s would be perceived to be unmarketable or unprofitable. I disagree. Tolkien is, after all, a billion dollar industry.

I have first hand experience with the film industry and some experience with the publishing industry. I agree that both are largely cynical, profit-driven establishments. But my experience has shown me this: quality always rises. Quality always finds a home. Believe me, publishing is a creative nirvana compared to the film industry. You won’t find any seminal works being published by TSR, sure – but I firmly believe that if there was a work equivalent to LotR in quality and power making the rounds, it would find a home, it would win contests, it would break through somewhere, somehow. Quality always rises, eventually.

I think neither the former or latter posits warrant an affirmative. The fantasy genre bears no flaw, nor is the form so difficult. We have witnessed the Harry Potter phenomenon - like the book or dislike it, Rowling tapped a motherlode in many readers, young and old.

Quite right – though I would counter with the old popularity vs. quality argument. Will Potter stand the test of time? Does Rowling’s work sate the hunger felt by Tolkien fans for new epic fantasy? I personally have found the Potter books that I’ve read to be enjoyable, but hardly seminal or equivalent to Tolkien.

I think 'reality' would be a better word than 'world' - semantics, perhaps. Perhaps it was Tolkien who spoke of an 'inner consistency of reality', maybe others, but I think that phrase needs to be part of the definition.

I agree with this revision, since it opens the door to fantasy work that is set in our world but in an alternate or modified reality.

Nevertheless the constant is so wideranging that the lack of new seminal works is deplorable.

Agreed!

[littlemanpoet]

MisterUnderhill:

I hope you are right regarding quality rising in the publishing industry. I covet that hope.

Harry Potter: There's one aspect of the Harry Potter phenomenon that I have not seen touched on that deserves mention. As with Tolkien, Rowling's work is not allegory but has applicabilities. One of the primary aspects of the Potter series is boarding schools and English class structure. The two are intertwined. Harry Potter is upperclass (wizardly), has grown up lowerclass (muggle), and discovered his higher class at age 12. Then to boarding school where he has the sensibilities of the lower classes (which is portrayed as good) and the abilities of the upper class. Those of us who are Americans tend to miss these elements. I don't know that this makes the story any more timeless, but by partaking of the Dickensian themes, it gains a chance at it.

[Aiwendil]

I’m not formally acquainted with Plato’s theories of art. Any chance you could summarize what that “essence” is?

I wasn't actually referring to Plato's ideas on art - to be honest, I'm not acquainted with them either. But Plato said that for any quality that a thing might possess, there is a certain abstract thing that defines that quality. For example, we say that x,y, and z and beautiful. There must then be an abstract concept called 'beauty', and these things are beautiful because they have beauty. So if we talk about literature, music, sculpture, etc. all being art, there must be an abstract concept called 'art'. So it does then make sense to talk about 'the nature of art' or 'the purpose of art' without respect to medium, and then to require that specific types of art retain that nature and that purpose. So we can't say that the purpose of music is one thing and that the purpose of literature is something else.

my point was simply that mainstream fantasy – and what is Star Wars but science-fantasy? – is so conservative that the simple technique of writing from the first person, hardly revolutionary, is seen as a huge creative risk.

I agree. I think this is largely because it's hard for fantasy authors to break away from the structure that resulted in LotR.

[Estel the Descender]

Quote from Master Underhill: 'I don’t think that acknowledging Tolkien’s Catholicism and its effects on his work poses any more danger of “appropriation” than acknowledging Tolkien’s Englishness and its effects on his work. I can acknowledge the work’s essential Englishness without feeling excluded from it because I’m an American. Take away the Englishness, and can you have LotR? If you take away the Catholicism, can you have it?' Bravo! I like this argument.

In the discussion, 'Trilogy and Bible' Kalessin wrote on page 3, argument 2,' The 'essential Christianity' of Tolkien argument is no different to the 'essential Blackness' of any Black writer, or the 'essential Feminism' of any Female writer. Anything by Maya Angelou therefore becomes a piece of Black Women's writing first - and poetry second. This is a spurious, postmodern, cultural studies-style approach that deconstructs every artistic object into political and cultural reference points. And as far as Tolkien's Christianity itself goes, Anglican sensibility in pre- and post-war England was very - I mean VERY - different from any current American church movement. You can't have the Christian overlay on LoTR (intentional or otherwise) without all the other cultural aspects. In the end you may as well not bother reading the book.' In this sense I agree with him.
So many people have belittled great literature because they were written by Christians, so why can't Christians write something that isn't specifically targeted to a Christian audience? Just as the concept 'fairy tales' in Victorian England was supposed to be for children and not for 'mature' readers did not appeal to Tolkien himself, neither should the label 'Christian' limit the works to Christian readers. Just as a good fairy tale will be good reading for adults as well as for children, a work by a Christian author should be good reading for Christian and non-Christian alike.

However, I agree with you when you wrote what I just quoted above. Can one separate the Englishness of Shakespheare from him or make Tolsoy less Russian. I think that is why a lot of Christians are very selective of their reading: they know that each book may, intentionally or unintentionally, promote the philosophy of the author. I think that this is in some ways true. C.S. Lewis was after all converted first to Theism and then to Christianity through the fairy tale 'Phantastes' by George Macdonald (even though that fairy tale was not intended as a tool for convertion but as a story first).

And please let us not lump all 'Christians' into one bundle. Lewis was an evengelical, Tolkien was a Catholic (Roman). Evangelicals are basically Protestant. It seems strange to me that a 'true' evangelical would try to 'appropriate' the LotR mythos: they would do better by using 'The Chronicles of Narnia'. The differences in worldview between these two forms of Christianity are far reaching and can be seen in the books of both Lewis and Tolkien (whether you like it or not Kalessin [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] ). The prayer to Varda, for instance, is too much like (not equivalent!) to the 'Hail Mary'. 'A tiro nin. . .' to 'Pray for us. . .'

Suppose the LotR was written by a non-Christian, say, a Taoist or a believer in Asgard. In the former a complete victory over 'evil' will not be there: instead, the morality will be about the balance of good and evil, Yin/Yang. (By this definition even Star Wars is Judeo-Christian in its fight against the 'Dark Side'). An Asgardian will preach a pessimism where evil triumphs over good in the great twighlight of the gods.

Tolkien wrote something about morality in 'fairy tales' in his now famous essay On Fairy Stories, 'The stories of Beatrix Potter lie near the borders of Faerie, but outside it, I [Tolkien] think, for the most part. Their nearness is due largely to their strong moral element: by which I mean their inherent morality, not any allegorical significatio'. So, according to Tolkien himself, it is possible to have a certain morality in a story without moralising (which is the purpose of allegory anyway).

Now, as for postmodernism's characteristic #3, 'Relativism: the absence of objective standards of truth'. Tolkien was definitely not a postmodernist in this sense. Like Lewis, they upheld reason. THIS OF COURSE MEANS THAT FOR THEM OBJECTIVE TRUTH WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF ULTIMATE TRUTH. The dislike of relativism probably fueled his aversion to allegory. Note my previous quote of Tolkien in a previous entry above. #3, 'An opposition to certain classical artistic techniques such as narrative -- telling a story in an ordered sequence closed off at the end -- and representation -- attempting to depict reality.' Tolkien wanted to depict reality, even if it is (in his words) a 'secondary reality'. Kalessin's words against 'deconstruction' says about the same.

. . . Okay, that's enough for now [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] .

[Kalessin]

Estel [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

You have quoted me at length from a relatively early part of the 'Trilogy and Bible' thread. The argument moved on from there and, indeed, without the context of that thread, you are inferring or implying a pejorative undertone which was NOT there. Given that I, and many others, feel strongly about matters of faith, morality and spirituality - both personally and generally, I feel this is doing me a disservice, both unfair and misleading.

As you will see from later entries in that thread and others - at NO TIME have I made any comment that implies any inbuilt criticism or disrespect of Christian writing, overt or otherwise. And I am perfectly happy to acknowledge fully Tolkien's devout Catholicism and the essential Christian sensibility evident in his work.

My argument is, and has always been, that (a) Tolkien did not write LotR as Biblical allegory, and that (b) he did not intend the work to be 'owned' or 'understood' only by one type of reader ie. one that shared his particular faith. I think these are reasonable positions and in no way suggest a negative view of Christianity or Christian artists.

You will also see from that and other threads that I have described the Bible in very powerful terms, and ascribed to it a level of spiritual resonance and profundity - both for me personally and in general - that should make it clear that I have the utmost respect for Christian faith. In addition, in the Trilogy and Bible thread I made a clear distinction between traditional English Catholicism and modern evangelism, and certainly do NOT lump all faiths together. I am disappointed and surprised to have to repeat this in another thread.

The differences between Tolkien and Lewis are key to the "LotR as (not) allegory" argument and I don't understand either why you suggest I think otherwise. You and others have made the point that Lewis' work WAS allegorical while Tolkien, in all his writings, made it clear his work was not intended to be. In fact, in that thread it was suggested (not by me) that the two fell out about this. I am bemused by your references to me here.

Your citing of the differences between Norse or Eastern mythos and the 'triumph' of good in Christianity is fair enough. However, I argued (in the other thread) that there were many similarities and influences in LotR which could be seen in terms of epic narratives or episodes from world mythos, as well as the Bible - this was simply to make the point that 'similarities' (ie. a hero with who saves the day with an act of sacrifice etc.) were not proof of intended allegory.

I am not quite sure what point you are making in the context of the discussion here, but as you have quoted me at length and made an aside to me I feel entitled to respond to those specific comments. The fact that at various points you say you agree with me (out of context) doesn't really help.

Let's come to Mr Underhill's point that you repeated, and also to the central theme of THIS thread. I also don't think that acknowledging Tolkien's Catholicism is an act of appropriation. It's an act of contextual research that may or may not add to one's reading of the book. Tolkien made it explicitly clear he he was happy for people to read LotR as a story, and that it should not be necessary even for them to read the appendices etc. to fully and deeply appreciate and enjoy the book. And in this I concur, although personally I find the contextual discussions interesting. The "appropriation" to which I occasionally refer is nothing to do with academic or contextual understanding. It is to do with association and ownership. If you believe that only Christians (of all denominations) can truly appreciate LotR, or - inversely - that if you appreciate LotR, that somehow proves or validates the ultimate truth of specific Christian tenets ... this is appropriation. Whether applied to Christian art, or by the same principle to Black writing, or whatever, this position is to my mind elitist and in the end 'anti-art'.

I started this thread by offering a critique of the fantasy genre and asking us to reflect on failings in the genre and in comparison to Tolkien. Having scanned back, I can't see any criticisms of either the genre, a particular author, or Tolkien and his works, in this thread that imply a negative connotation to Christian authors or writing. Especially not by me. I don't think anyone thinks that.

OK. I didn't think I'd end up offering another rant in this thread, but there you go [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

Yes, yes, too true. If you wish to open another vein in the Bible and Trilogy thread, please do so.

Unless perhaps the assumed innate Catholicism of Fantasy is a valid criticism of the genre, its Achilles heel, and reason for the 'Hunk on a Horse' and imitative pandering. Perhaps not. Or is the reason it is above such criticism? Most fantasy cannot be assumed to be Catholic or even Christian in nature, despite the prevailing theme of good against evil. I think of a few stories of "shieldmates" and others with heros that flame in every sense of the word, which, despite the good vs. evil theme, are unlikely to be appropriated by Catholics. In fact, certain books can be rightly appropriated by the Christians, Chamber of Culdi, Narnia are examples, based on the wishes of their authors (the LotR cannot) while other themes of good vs. evil simply reflect our society & culture.

And they sell, as something completely foreign does not.

Back to the discussion at hand. Is it possible that the perjorative "Hunk on a Horse" image of fantasy is actually causing a number of excellent fantasy authors to classify themselves as literature? I think of Kurt Vonnegut and Mark Halperin, though there are probably others. It could be that "Fantasy" is a category is simply a dustbin for those with lesser influence with their publishers.

[Nar]

Maril, I think you're right (but not about the hunk on the horse being a catholic (arche-) type! As you say, 'Perhaps not.') It seems many authors feel they will have no chance of a close reading of their work if they call it fantasy, so they do not-- even if their work is not only speculative, not only contains fantastic or surreal elements, but is actually set in an altered reality. I think much of literature aims at that hypnotic shift into a strange place that I associate with fantasy-- but this takes place far away from the fantasy genre, and the cross-fertilization of new techniques and themes I'd like to see, mainly for the sake of the fantasy genre, does not occur. Considering the three roles we may engage in, as writers, readers and middlemen (publishers, critics, elements in a word-of-mouth network), what can be done? Or should anything be done?

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Kalessin]

Being not so well-adjusted in my dotage, I am disproportionately concerned that my response to Estel does not get drowned out just yet (grrr ... [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] ).

However, Nar and Maril, the issue of 'genre' itself is interesting, and has been explored a little in this thread. Who decides which genre a work belongs to - and therefore where it appears in bookshops and libraries? Ursula Le Guin's website has a polemical piece by her on genre, with which I tend to agree, in which she excoriates the pervasive acceptance of "realism" as the only genre that has 'literary' quality. Rather like teetotal bartenders or clean-living drug dealers, it seems as though we are subject to the whim of publishers who do everything but READ the darn books [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Strangely, the fantastical (fantasy) stories of Borges end up as 'realism' too. I am conscious of certain subtle similarities between Borges and Tolkien, although JRRT does not share JLBs playfulness - nor his occasional (philosophically informed) studious amorality.

I think that, unfortunately, classifying something as fantasy means that "non-aficionados" are immediately expecting at worst a graphic novel aimed at misanthropic teenagers who cannot face more than 50 words a page, and at best an irrelevant romp (rather like an extravagant costume drama) with unpronounceable names at a premium.

As a children's book, Harry Potter can sidestep this genre imprisonment. As an old book that has outsold everything else, so can LotR. The rest are not so lucky.

Peace

[ April 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Estel the Descender]

Kalessin [img]smilies/frown.gif[/img]

Profound apologies for having offended you thus: 'I feel this is doing me a disservice, both unfair and misleading.' Although I have never intended to imply that you have lack of respect for Christianity, it seems that I have done just that. I also ended up misrepresenting you: 'I am not quite sure what point you are making in the context of the discussion here, but as you have quoted me at length and made an aside to me I feel entitled to respond to those specific comments. The fact that at various points you say you agree with me (out of context) doesn't really help.'nullout of contextout of context There are times when I have to be straightened out, and it seems that this is one of those times and I thank you for pointing my folly out. (Those who know me know that I do these kind of things occasionally, but that's no excuse).

Again, I am most sorry for not being as attentive or sensitive as I should be. . . Oh well, it seems I have the unenviable honor of being the first person in this site to be chewed out by you [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img] .

Sîdh

P.S. 'Dotage'? [img]smilies/confused.gif[/img]

[Kalessin]

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

Thanks for a typically gracious reply. Whilst perhaps coming from different positions, hopefully you will agree that the tone of this thread, at least, has been inclusive and respectful. Certainly I continue to learn from, and be stimulated by, the intelligent and challenging contributions from you and others. I declare the chewing out hereby ended [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Any 'sincere' form of spirituality expressed through art faces a kind of double-whammy - on the one hand, the pressure to be inclusive and non-confrontational ; on the other, to avoid ridicule or deconstruction by postmodern cultural critique. The kind of attentive 'literalness' (in relation to mythos and its moral framework) you have previously (and correctly, in my view) ascribed to Tolkien can be taken as read given his formative era - but for authors steeped in more recent cultural developments it is not so straightforward. It can all too easily be seen as recidivist naivete, a statement in itself. And this may be particularly true in the fantasy genre, hamstrung by cliches, with the millstone of LotR's universal appeal round its neck, and its ancestral link to fairy tales and other supposed 'childish' things.

While Tolkien's moral idealism did not need to be justified or contextualised in his day, a writer today (unless aiming for a particular 'in-the-know' niche) may well need to acknowledge pluralism and/or offer up a rationalisation for any spiritual tenets (note the plethora of "Aliens started it all" frameworks). Remember, the global market for fantasy literature is (I reckon) in the main secular, or at least 'uncommitted'. Even on these boards, the argument that anything with 'magic' etc. is promoting occultism and is anti-religious has been aired, so I think we can assume the general fantasy readership to be more of a mixed bunch.

Perhaps this is another of the challenges that face fantasy authors today. If so, it seems to me that it will be incredibly difficult to achieve the kind of universal acceptance and affection that is given to LotR. Difficult ... but not impossible, I hope.

Thanks again to everyone for such interesting and well-written contributions to this thread. Can I say "I don't know half of you as well as I should like ... " (that'll do) [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Peace

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

[Rosa Underhill]

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.

Tigerlily, may I have your permission to use this quote in my research paper? It expresses perfectly one of the issues I'm addressing in it.

[Mister Underhill]

Kalessin: I take my share of the blame for cross-wiring this thread and the Tril & Bible thread – but I’m glad I did, since this little spur of side conversation turned out to be quite interesting (at least to me). Thanks also for your clarification of what you mean by “appropriation”.

Genre Constrictions and Definitions
I think (as I have implied in a few posts) that the fantasy genre these days has come to be defined mostly as “swords-and-sorcery”. Sure, you’ll find the odd Neil Gaiman who isn’t writing swords-and-sorcery but whose work can only be classified as “fantasy”, but by and large, fantasy consists of multi-volume sagas in the Tolkien/Dungeons and Dragons tradition. Speaking of Gaiman, it’s interesting to note that the so-called graphic novel is actually a format that accommodates a broader definition of fantasy and in which a much greater degree of innovation, both in narrative style and in themes and subject matter, is taking place.

But we really are talking about swords-and-sorcery fantasy, aren’t we? That’s what we’d like to see a new, seminal example of, right? Something that’s like Tolkien, and yet not like him. Something that’s as good and as satisfying and as pleasurable, yet different. Outside of a few Arthurian cycles, I can’t think of anyone who’s writing epic fantasy cycles that are being shelved with “Literature” because the author has a great rep or good pull with their publishers.

Side note: I’ve been waiting to see if anyone would mention Borges. I’m not terribly familiar with his work – I’ve found what I’ve read to be interesting in principle but frustratingly aimless in execution. Do you have further thoughts or recommendations on him, Kalessin?

The Harry Potter Phenomenon
I was reading an article on screenwriting recently, and happened across an interesting theory which is tangentially related to littlemanpoet’s Potter observations:

Here's the idea [of something the author calls “Mental Real Estate”]: I name something, and you either recognize it, or you don't. Could be a person, place, or thing, like the classic twenty questions game. If you recognize the thing I tell you, that means it's taking up space in your head – tangling up a few billion neurons – residing on a chunk of mental real estate. That makes it valuable, because if the thing is taking up space in your head, chances are, it's taking up space in a good percentage of other heads across the country. And Hollywood can use that. It's the main commodity of the town – Hollywood buys, sells, and trades in mental real estate.

[...]

The Potter books have something that most other fantasies don't have, even ones that are just as inventive, well-crafted, and charming. Yes, that's right, I know the secret of the popularity of the "Harry Potter" books. There's a big chunk of mental real estate at their core. The brilliant thing that J.K. Rowling did, that no one -- amazingly -- had done before, was this: she wrote about going to school. What's the biggest part of a kid's life from about age six on?
Going to school.
How many kids go to school?
All of them.
So simple, and just sitting there, right in front of everyone.
Rowling took the single most dominant aspect of a child's life -- the most common experience we all lived through, and share -- and made it really cool.
What kid wouldn't rather ride the train to Hogwart's and study magic, than trudge off to the local elementary school for some boring lecture on grammar?
Going to school... such a simple, common, everyday activity -- and that's what they mean when they say, 'accessible' and 'something readers can relate to.'

Now, I’m not saying (and really the author isn’t asserting) that this idea of “Mental Real Estate” is the sole reason for the success of Potter, but I think he’s onto something. Tolkien traded on the same “Mental Real Estate” in his day, starting with The Hobbit, which offers familiar and accessible elements (Dragons, Wizards, Elves, Dwarves, magic rings, etc.; also classic mythic motifs) reworked in a new and innovative (at the time, anyway) form. I would add to the article author’s theory that not only do you need a points of accessibility like that, you also need to offer some fresh spin on them. Wizards, Elves, Dwarves, and so on take up mental real estate in all of our heads – but no one has since been able to bring a fresh treatment of them before the public.

Redefining our “Devourer of Archetypes” according to a new metaphor, maybe Tolkien has such a huge plot of Mental Real Estate staked out that there’s scarcely a scrap of unclaimed land for some ambitious, homesteading young writer to farm. Fantasy writers need to set sail for the New World and till some fresh, unclaimed earth.

Plato and Artistic Essence
Aiwendil – now I see what you’re driving at. Plato’s Ideal Forms and whatnot. Still being somewhat Plato-illiterate (I confess with shame), I thought that the Ideal Forms usually represented the essence of concrete things – i.e., an ideal cat, or an ideal table, or an ideal Pez dispenser. Leaving that aside, though, I’m tempted to muse that since the forms of various artistic mediums vary, the Platonic essence common to them all must have something to do with content. I’m going to do another cross-wiring and steal a quotation cited by littlemanpoet in the “The Effects of Fantasy” thread:

I can do you no better service than quoting from Tolkien's Tree and Leaf: 'This "joy" which I have selected as the mark of the true fairy-story (or romance), or as the seal upon it, merits more consideration.... The peculiar quality of "joy" in successful Fantasy can thus be explained as a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality or truth.'

Is this “sudden glimpse” some component, not only of successful Fantasy, but of all “Art”? Is it also something that’s missing from the bulk of modern fantasy?

Since I’m on a quoting spree, I’ll add one more, this from sci-fi (sort of) author Neal Stephenson:

The lesson most people are taking home from the Twentieth Century is that, in order for a large number of different cultures to coexist peacefully on the globe (or even in a neighborhood) it is necessary for people to suspend judgment in this way. Hence (I would argue) our suspicion of, and hostility towards, all authority figures in modern culture. As David Foster Wallace has explained in his essay "E Unibus Pluram," this is the fundamental message of television; it is the message that people take home, anyway, after they have steeped in our media long enough. It's not expressed in these highfalutin terms, of course. It comes through as the presumption that all authority figures--teachers, generals, cops, ministers, politicians--are hypocritical buffoons, and that hip jaded coolness is the only way to be.

The problem is that once you have done away with the ability to make judgments as to right and wrong, true and false, etc., there's no real culture left. All that remains is clog dancing and macrame. The ability to make judgments, to believe things, is the entire point of having a culture.

Has modern fantasy been reduced to the significance of “clog dancing and macramé” by what Stephenson refers to as “this global monoculture” which Kalessin’s double-whammy implies? I think it has, and I think this is one of the big problems faced by modern fantasy writers, whose stock in trade is (or should be) underlying truths.

(BTW, this Stephenson extract is from a much longer – some seventy pages or so – essay on computer operating systems (!) which is available for download here.)

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

[Aiwendil]

Any 'sincere' form of spirituality expressed through art faces a kind of double-whammy - on the one hand, the pressure to be inclusive and non-confrontational; on the other, to avoid ridicule or deconstruction by postmodern cultural critique.

That such art will inevitably experience both of these criticisms does not mean that the artist need anticipate them and take them into account. Tolkien was certainly not worried about either of these, and his work reflects neither pressure.

You do have a point though - perhaps one reason no modern fantasy is imbued with the same heroic spirituality as Tolkien's is that modern authors do give in to one or both of those pressures. The safest course seems to be to avoid any spirituality at all, and that is what most modern hacks do.

But we really are talking about swords-and-sorcery fantasy, aren’t we? That’s what we’d like to see a new, seminal example of, right?

I think so, and that's exactly why I think the genre is constricted. In practice, the fantasy genre consists (with a few exceptions) of Tolkien imitation. How far away from the "sword and sorcery" style can one get before it's not fantasy any longer?

Tolkien traded on the same “Mental Real Estate” in his day, starting with The Hobbit, which offers familiar and accessible elements (Dragons, Wizards, Elves, Dwarves, magic rings, etc.; also classic mythic motifs) reworked in a new and innovative (at the time, anyway) form. I would add to the article author’s theory that not only do you need a points of accessibility like that, you also need to offer some fresh spin on them.

I'm not sure whether this kind of "mental real estate" is the same as that in Harry Potter. Wizards and dragons are fundamentally unlike school - the latter draws on actual experience, the former do not. Still, I think you have a point about Tolkien. I'm just not sure whether the analogy to Harry Potter is precise.

I thought that the Ideal Forms usually represented the essence of concrete things

I thought it could apply to qualities - beauty, for instance. I certainly could be wrong however. Regardless of how Plato used the concept, I'm using it to refer to art - and I think it's a valid application.

I’m tempted to muse that since the forms of various artistic mediums vary, the Platonic essence common to them all must have something to do with content.

But what about, for example, Beethoven's 5th symphony? There's no real content, if by content we mean allegory/applicability. Whatever the purpose of art is, it must be the same for both music and literature. Unless you want to consider one of those media not to be art, you must define the purpose of art as something common to both of them.

[Mister Underhill]

You do have a point though - perhaps one reason no modern fantasy is imbued with the same heroic spirituality as Tolkien's is that modern authors do give in to one or both of those pressures. The safest course seems to be to avoid any spirituality at all, and that is what most modern hacks do.

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here.

How far away from the "sword and sorcery" style can one get before it's not fantasy any longer?

I think there are some exciting things happening in other mediums that can only be labeled “fantasy”. For instance, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff, Angel, in TV. They’re doing fresh, innovative stuff with old motifs and icons, yet there are epic storylines, good vs. evil themes as well as ones that are more complex, and even some swordplay. There are several interesting writers working in the graphic novel format, too, as I mentioned – Gaiman, Miller, McFarlane, and Moore, to name a few. All this just to say that I think you can get pretty far from the traditional quasi-Medieval setting and trappings and still have a product that can accurately be called fantasy.

But what about, for example, Beethoven's 5th symphony? There's no real content, if by content we mean allegory/applicability. Whatever the purpose of art is, it must be the same for both music and literature. Unless you want to consider one of those media not to be art, you must define the purpose of art as something common to both of them.

Well, I have two responses: (1) I think that allegory/applicability is too narrow and restrictive a definition for ‘content’. A haiku poem, for instance, cannot be said to be without content, yet most are neither allegorical nor applicable (I’m not even really sure what you mean by the latter, I confess – I think you mean something along the lines of “provides some lesson or insight which is applicable to life”. Am I right? In the ballpark?). Come to think of it, I would contend that Beethoven is not without content as well. His music certainly creates a mood or triggers emotional responses. (2) I'm not convinced that there is some abstract essence of Art which is universal to all mediums, especially since no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition of what that essence might be. Beethoven's Fifth is Musical Art and Citizen Kane is Film Art, but I'm not sure I can draw any meaningful universality between what makes each of them Art.

[Aiwendil]

(1) I think that allegory/applicability is too narrow and restrictive a definition for ‘content’. A haiku poem, for instance, cannot be said to be without content, yet most are neither allegorical nor applicable

Good point. It makes me think that what we often have in literature is really more of a three-tiered structure, rather than just form vs. content. There's form - the actual words used, overt meaning - the plot of a book, or the content of a haiku, and deeper meaning - the allegory in a lot of modern works, or the themes that can be found in LotR.

I’m not even really sure what you mean by the latter, I confess – I think you mean something along the lines of “provides some lesson or insight which is applicable to life”. Am I right? In the ballpark?

Exactly right; sorry I wasn't clearer about that. I use the word the Tolkien did, to mean the inevitable 'meaning' in a story, even when it is written without irony or allegory. 'Applicability' is what we can find in Tolkien when we talk about themes like the corruption of power, the nature of evil, etc - as opposed to the allegorical interpretations that he detested.

Come to think of it, I would contend that Beethoven is not without content as well. His music certainly creates a mood or triggers emotional responses.

All right, then change my example to a Haydn or Mozart piece, almost completely without emotion. The only mood that, say, Eine Kleine Nachtmusik really creates is aesthetic
pleasure. If you want to call that content (which you are free to do), then you have to accept art with the sole purpose of being pleasurable, as per my original definition.

Or, if you don't want to go that far, you have to deal with this problem: if content is what makes art good, and genuine emotion qualifies as content while being aesthetically pleasing does not, then you'd have to say that all Romantic music - Wagner, Mahler, etc. - is superior to all Classical music - Mozart and Haydn. Not because Wagner and Mahler were better at what they did, but because theirs was really art, while Mozart and Haydn just wrote pop tunes.

I'm not convinced that there is some abstract essence of Art which is universal to all mediums, especially since no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition of what that essence might be. Beethoven's Fifth is Musical Art and Citizen Kane is Film Art, but I'm not sure I can draw any meaningful universality between what makes each of them Art.

Fair enough. But then you're basicly saying: there are two (or more) fundamentally different things that just so happen both to be called art. This raises other interesting problems; one can no longer talk about 'the artist' and intend for it to apply to both music and literature; one can no longer talk about 'artistic freedom' and intend for it to apply to both. If you want to say that, I can't argue with it, but it raises a whole host of new issues.

[Mister Underhill]

Thanks for the clarification on “applicability”. Also, good point with regards to the three-tiered structure of literature... but your insight only reinforces my instinct that you can’t lump all creative mediums together and come up with any meaningful universal qualities about what makes art Art.

But then you're basicly saying: there are two (or more) fundamentally different things that just so happen both to be called art. This raises other interesting problems; one can no longer talk about 'the artist' and intend for it to apply to both music and literature; one can no longer talk about 'artistic freedom' and intend for it to apply to both. If you want to say that, I can't argue with it, but it raises a whole host of new issues.

I think I disagree here. In my opinion, “the arts” can be used as a catch-all phrase to mean all the different mediums that share the same fundamental feature of being a means for expressing creativity; “art” can be generalized to mean any creative work at all (the Kindergarten class’s art) or a work of surpassing achievement in any given medium. However, I think the things which distinguish Art from mere entertainment or outright drivel in any particular medium are fundamentally different. Any generalization that is universally applicable is necessarily so vague as to be essentially meaningless – for instance, to say that all Art (i.e., the highest achievements in any given medium) is “aesthetically pleasing” doesn’t tell us much. By whose aesthetic standard? What does the word “aesthetic” encompass? Does “aesthetic” even have any meaning outside of reference to a particular medium? “The artist” really only does apply to a practitioner if he’s talented in a particular medium. Naturally, you could say that anyone who picks up a paintbrush or sets pen to paper is an “artist”, or at least is engaging in an artistic activity; but I think we mean “artist” here as “one who is particularly skilled in the practice of a particular art”. When I call Tolkien an artist, I mean he’s a literary artist. As far as I know, he knew doodley-squat about, say, composing music. His paintings have a certain charm, but, unlike his prose, I wouldn’t consider them to be high art.

[littlemanpoet]

Mozart and Haydn were most certainly great artists. Beethoven was arguably at the pinnacle, but there's plenty of emotional power in Haydn's late symphonies and Mozart's Requiem. Nor is emotional power the only requisite.

[Nar]

When I look at the definition of art I use, 'that which is both necessary and sufficient,' I find that it is a distillation of the act of writing: expand from the originating idea to all that is sufficient, then cut back to only what is necessary. It is indeed specific to writing, and, I now realize, has no content other than the method of create/edit I place my faith in. Why does it satisfy me as a definition? I feel a gestalt in the relation between necessary and sufficient that goes beyond the meaning of the words taken individually and that I am at a loss to explain. It's the negotiation between form and content, between necessary and sufficient, between paring back and growing outward until the cuts amplify the natural pattern of growth. As you see, I can't do any better than synonyms.

[Estel the Descender]

'If fairy-story [sic] as a kind is worth reading at all it is worthy to be written for and read by adults. . . Then, as a branch of a genuine art, children amy hope to get fairy-stories fit for them to read and yet within their measure. . . [t]hough it may be better for them to read some things, especially fairy stories, that are beyond their measure than short of it. Their books like their clothes should allow for growth, and their at any rate should encourage it.
. . . if written with art, the prime value of fairy-stories will simply be that value which, as literature, they share with other literary forms.' -JRR Tolkien

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: Estel the Descender ]

[littlemanpoet]

This is a little touchy because everybody who posted on the "Are You Writing Serious Fantasy" (aywsf) thread is a subject of this post. I have no intention of offending any of you. The one benefit is that you have the opportunity to respond to this analysis.

The "Valid Criticisms" discussion spurred me to start the aywsf thread. I was astounded that the topic garnered so many fervent responses. My original reason for starting the thread was to see if other serious fantasy writers (in this case all unpublished in book form) were running into the difficulties of Tolkien imitation and the pitfalls that go along with that, and how they were trying to overcome it, and how successful they thought they had been. I guess you could call it a more or less unscientific case study. The thread became a bit of a support group for fantasy writers' frustrations, which helped crystallize for me "six levels of seriousness" in writing fantasy.

Let me reiterate that I consider each level of seriousness to be, indeed, serious, and not at all worthy of contempt. I myself have passed from level one to the succeeding ones as I have gotten more serious about my own writing.

To recap:
1. personal satisfaction (ex.: emotional wellbeing) - akin to Tolkien's 'escape' from "On Faerie Stories"
2. self expression (personal aesthetic pleasure)
3. communication (an audience is part of the consideration)
4. good plot and character development
5. the inner consistency of reality
6. evolution of consciousness (this is a concept from Owen Barfield, a better description than what I gave on the other thread).

At the risk of oversimplifying, there are two types of evolution of consciousness. First, there is new awareness of distinctions where none were before comprehended (like someone indigenous to an equatorial region aware afar of snow, who then visits my home state of Michigan in February and becomes aware of snow, sleet, slush, and so on). Second, there is increased awareness of the "isness" of something that has been part of one's life for some time (one of the best examples for our purposes is how Tolkien's Ents have changed our awareness of Trees). This second type of evolution of consciousness is akin to Tolkien's 'recovery' from "On Faerie Stories". I think that Tolkien's 'consolation' and 'eucatastrophe' can span the levels.

I noticed in hindsight that these levels corresponded somewhat to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. When I brought up the six levels, interest in the thread moderated from its initial heated pace. I can think of two explanations for that: one, the newness of the thread was gone; two, the introduction of the six levels raised the discussion above the need-level of a support group; analysis was not their interest.

Some responses to the six levels were offered, and must be taken at face value. For the rest, reading through the posts allows for general categorization of various writers' efforts.

I have been writing long enough such that despite my meagre talents I have been able to hone my craft enough to even consider approaching level 6. Others have been writing for a few years, and have attained to higher levels due to their high level of talent. I am consistently impressed, for example, with Nar's perspicacity.

Conclusions:
1. Granted, I am discussing unpublished works that cannot be read in order to determine their artistic value or level of seriousness (which I'm hoping are synonymous terms).
2. Some writers, such as StarCupCake, show an aptitude toward beauty of expression that rivals and perhaps surpasses published works in certain ways, having to do with a Sense of Place. Her 'in the Blue' captures an essence of between-dream that is haunting in its beauty.

Her example brings up a tension that seems to me to be central to the issue of the genre: the publishing industry is looking for good plot and character development because the reader is understood to want to connect to a character and care about what happens to her/him. On the other hand, fantasy lovers are aware of a Sense Of Place that is equally important for good fantasy. Tolkien's Middle Earth is for me the primary example of this. This is part of the success of C.S. Lewis's Narnia Chronicles, despite their failure in other ways vis-a-vie Tolkien's ouvre. The problem is that many fiction lovers, such as at least two in my own writer's group, have little sympathy for this 'sense of place'. One of my sympathetic readers sees this sense of place as little more than the paraphernalia of run-of-the-mill fantasy that must be put up with. But to me it seems to be at the core of escape, recovery, and consolation.

3. There are other writers posting in the aywsf thread who revel in precisely the sword-and-sorcery fantasy that is bemoaned in the Valid Criticisms thread.

This points to the fact that there are at least two fantasy mountains, shall we say, down whose streams flow, feeding the main courses of the river of fantasy, and the mixture of the two seems to be inevitable, except that all artist-writers are free to dip their buckets into whatever part of the river and streams, at any place in the geography of story they please. So one may dip in a purely Nordic stream, or further down one may dip into a confluence of Celtic and Nordic myths. My own story shows a choice to dip into a variety of streams relatively high in the mountains and create my own confluence for my particular 'soup of story'. I think Kalessin's rant bemoans the tendency of most published works to dip their buckets down in the valley where the river is wide and the confluence is thoroughly mixed and the Sense of Place is more or lessed washed out by all the other elements of story.

[ April 28, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Aiwendil]

Mr. Underhill:

In my opinion, “the arts” can be used as a catch-all phrase to mean all the different mediums that share the same fundamental feature of being a means for expressing creativity; “art” can be generalized to mean any creative work at all (the Kindergarten class’s art) or a work of surpassing achievement in any given medium. However, I think the things which distinguish Art from mere entertainment or outright drivel in any particular medium are fundamentally different.

I can see we're not going to agree on this in the near future, and I suppose we'll have to leave it at that. It just seems to me that the nature of art is not one thing for literature and another for music. Nature dictates purpose, and against purpose we measure the relative success of any piece of art. So if we define art as 'creative work' as you do, we must (in my opinion) say that the purpose of art is to be creative. Then in whatever medium we're in, we must devise ways of judging creativity. These could be different in different media - the manifestations of the purpose of art can be different, and will be different because the media are different. But the purpose remains the same. It's like science - there are many different branches, and each has its own system of operating, its own tools, its own jargon - but they all serve the same purpose, the pursuit of knowledge, because they're all science.

I don't expect you to agree with me on this, and if you'd like to drop this slightly off-topic argument, that's fine.

Any generalization that is universally applicable is necessarily so vague as to be essentially meaningless – for instance, to say that all Art (i.e., the highest achievements in any given medium) is “aesthetically pleasing” doesn’t tell us much.

I don't think it's essentially meaningless. It certainly does leave a lot of unanswered questions, as you rightly point out, but the fact that there are details to be worked out doesn't invalidate the original supposition. This is where (according to my theory) different media would differ - in what constitutes 'aesthetically pleasing'. But I maintain that there is such a thing as 'aesthetic pleasure'.

I don't expect you to agree with me on any of this, and if you'd like to drop this slightly off-topic argument, that's fine. Or if you're up for more debate, I'm okay with that as well.

Littlemanpoet:

Nor is emotional power the only requisite.

That's exactly my point.

When I look at the definition of art I use, 'that which is both necessary and sufficient,' I find that it is a distillation of the act of writing

This is an interesting definition, though I'm not sure that I understand it fully.

The thread became a bit of a support group for fantasy writers' frustrations, which helped crystallize for me "six levels of seriousness" in writing fantasy.

I must say (with all due respect to one who has probably had a lot more experience with writing that I've had) I disagree in general with your classifications. Firstly because, as I've indicated before on this thread, I think that art should be independent of the artist. I'd therefore say that it's not the intention with which art is produced that matters; it's the quality of the resulting art. I will grant that quality frequently proceeds from intention. But not always.

I may be misinterpreting your theory; I see you call these 'levels of seriousness' rather than levels of art or artistic quality. At the risk of putting words in your mouth then, I argue that 'personal satisfaction' is a reason for writing in no way inferior to 'evolution of consciousness'. Tolkien wrote the Silmarillion primarily out of a desire for 'personal satisfaction'.

self expression (personal aesthetic pleasure)

I don't think I agree that these two are synonymous. Producing a work for personal aesthetic pleasure seems to me to be synonymous with 'personal satisfaction'. Self-expression, on the other hand, instantly involves other people, since one must express oneself to someone.

good plot and character development

I don't see how this differs from previous levels; it seems rather to be a component of writing, regardless of purpose. Does a person who writes for personal satisfaction not strive for good plot and character development?

Despite my somewhat vituperous disagreement with you above, I thoroughly agree with your concluding analogy between fantasy and streams flowing together from two mountains. And I think you've perfectly defined this thread's initial criticism of modern fantasy.

[Aosama, the Wandering Star]

How can so many people all be talking on the same thread, and all sound so right?
I love fantasy. If you give it to me, I'll gobble it up. If its boring, I'll discard it. If its interesting, I'll read it a couple of times. If I love it, I'll memorize it.
But there are so many spin-offs and such! I used to stare across the classroom in wonder at a Gollum-look-alike who was obsessed with a certain awful book series, supposedly some sort of spin-off from Star Wars, and just wonder how he could read it with out falling asleep or throwing it out!
quote:
"What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?"
unquote.
I don't think fantasy should be integrated into the maintream, for me that would make it obsolete.I just want it to be accepted and respected as a genre, and not belittled as childish and juvenile. My friend, though only a year younger than me, has given up on the "Redwall" series while I still continue to like it. It makes me uncomfortable when she mentions her dislike of it, because i don't see what she sees. I know its the same plotline every time, but I read it for the characters (very believable) and the songs.
I hate stereotypes too, having had them directed at me once too many! I cringe to see "just another fairy tale", and unfortuantely my library is full of them. Its sad, really.
I like Tolkien (and Lewis and L'Engle and Jacqes and so few others), because, like so many others have stated, they makes me feel. Do you know anything else that does that? If you do, recommend it to me. I don't have much to read these days.
And what's all this about people disliking and boycotting fantasy because it doesn't "mean anything"?!? Of course it means something! We have these intense threads all devoted to the deeper inner meanings of Tolkien's works. How can those critics, and the general, TV-obsessed public sit there and tell us our beloved Tolkien doesn't mean anything? I recommend to anyone who says this to one of you: Go and actually*read* a fantasy or sci-fi novel. I dare them.

And a note to Kalessin: you should have rants more often! They're so hilarious, and inspire others to be hilarious too! I think I'll need stiches [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]