The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Archmage]

There are many mystics through the ages who would describe this very statement as being aware of god, not a bearded man in the sky, but just what you have described, a brush with the ineffible, the inexplicable roots of being. Many who understand god as metaphor and not hardwired fact view mythologies and spirituality (non-denominational) as one of only many means to these sorts of realizations. Epic fantasy can be another means to this end, on some deep level, as can a pure humility about ones place in the world and cosmos.

Excellent point Erfael. I never said I rejected spirituality, only organized religion.

Peace

 

[KatG]

Well, I don't know exactly what Aldarion's thesis is, but the roots of epic or fat fantasy, as I guess we'll call it here, are in historical fiction and historical writing. Someone, maybe Erfael?, brought up the idea when I mentioned Homer in another thread that Homer thought he was writing history in the "Iliad." I don't know that Homer actually did believe that or that his audience did -- the ancient Greek and Romans tended to do lip-service observance of the Olympian creed -- but it does seem certain that he was writing about historic events and the interpretation of historic events. The Christian Bible too, religious factors aside, is presenting a description of historic events or what were thought to be historic events. "The Song of Roland," "Beowulf," Chinese folk tales -- most of these things have some historic tie-in, even if that tie-in is mostly legend like King Arthur.

If you look at a historic novel, for instance, one that is epic in scope, perhaps chronicling a war, you will note similarities in structure, approach, characterization, etc. to big fat fantasy. Tolkein was writing about World War I and the horrors of it in LOTR. Obviously, a lot of modern genre fantasy writers are not using history, like Martin is, but you could say they are drawing from the model of building a history of an epic event, fictionalizing it and adding fantastic and supernatural elements to it.

I don't think we're socialized to big fat fantasy by Tolkein and gaming. A lot of fantasy fans have not read Tolkein or ever done gaming. I think we get socialized to all types of fantasy in children's literature -- fairy tales, chlidren's books and poems. And this also has historic ties, most nursery rhymes have a political history, children's fantasy classics such as "Gulliver's Tales" and "Alice in Wonderland" were meant to be adult satires of events occurring at the time, and so on. By the time we get to adult fantasy, we're pretty familiar with the form of epic adventure. It's just an idea, anyway.

 

[Luke_B]

Let me try to recap, Fitz: myth is the cultural expression of humanity's need to understand their place in the social and cosmic orders through narrative, and epic fantasy is the modern expression of this self-same need, driven (in part) by the contemporary fragmentation of traditional institutions of myth-making. Would that be fair?

If so, it actually contrasts quite sharply with Monosyllabik's:

Yes, if Fitz's post is interpreted that way, there is a sharp contrast.

which is also a BIG FAT THEORY (and no way counter to the 'spirit' in which I posed the original question!). The former suggestion is that epic fantasy expresses something innate, some hard-wired need that we humans have, the latter is that it expresses an arbitrary way certain youths are trained to like a certain genre.

I was referring to the fact that you wanted to open up rather than close off possibilities for epic fantasy. I'm not sure if my theory opens up any possibilities. I felt like a party pooper.

So I guess the question here is one of whether epic fantasy is a contingent social artifact (Monosyllabik) or a necessary social artifact (Fitz). (The point about entertainment I take as a given, so long as entertainment isn't conceived in any naive sense of 'pure' entertainment.) This might be a good issue to sound off on, since it seems to describe two rather large approaches one might take to the question of epic fantasy.

Well, I am a fan of Nietzsche and Foucault.

For my own part, it seems obvious that it has to come down to some combination of the two. Myth, for instance, certainly isn't contingent - we humans are obviously hard-wired to understand things in narrative, anthropocentric terms. Insofar as epic fantasy maintains any relation to myth, it maintains some relation to those needs myth answers to.

I'm going to need to be convinced that epic fantasy has a relationship with myths in a way that doesn't sound like sickly rhetoric to me. Which I suppose links to this:

Which leads me to think I'm misunderstanding you Monosyllabik. For instance, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you say



What erudition? You seem to be suggesting (especially with that 'really only') that authors must somehow be aware of the social and historical contexts that inform their writing - that whatever meaning we find in a work has to be a matter of authorial intention. But this has to be false for something like social critiques to even be possible, and they're quite possible.

Which makes me suspect there's more to your view than meets the eye.

No-Dog, I'm well aware of the intentional fallacy. I agree, the text has got to be able to communicate on its own. GemQuest made an interesting, yet to my mind flawed, comparison between Faust and Gollum. Likewise, I might make an equally valid interpretation Lord of the Rings as intensely homoerotic. Somehow though, I think posters at sffw would be horrified by such a reading of Tolkien and start relying on authorial intention.

That’s beside the point. The quote above was born from the fact that for me that in this thread you're interested in social critique, rather than critique of particular texts, wasn't immediately obvious from your original post. Therefore, I was saying that in the epic fantasy I've read, and I probably haven't read as much as most here, the theories being extrapolated in the other thread had very little basis in either the text or authorial intention. You’ve taken a throwaway line and made an issue of it. Which is a little ironic considering the issue.

Yes, I approach this thread with a healthy dose of cynicism.

Why? Well, if you want a social critique to explain fat fantasy try some variation Horkheimer and Adorno's theory on the culture industry. I think a valid argument can be made that epic fantasy is the comodification, rather than some release, of the imagination. We are happy reading mediocre, consolatory epic fantasy so we can maintain a comfortable status quo and indulge in harmless escapism.

Really these threads on epics have begged the answer - it's assumed epic fantasy plays a crucial and important role in society. Has anybody yet stopped to appraise their inherent bias and question whether epic fantasy might actually be a social anathema?

Hold onto that hate! You'll need it to survive the trial to come!

Not hate. Just playing devil's advocate.

 

[Erfael]

Really these threads on epics have begged the answer - it's assumed epic fantasy plays a crucial and important role in society. Has anybody yet stopped to appraise their inherent bias and question whether epic fantasy might actually be a social anathema?

This is what bothers me so much with the state of fantasy today. It COULD serve this crucial and important role, at least for some portion of society, i.e. fantasy readers...other people may prefer to look for this element elsewhere, say, in church or out in a field somewhere.

However, I think your commodification statement hits some of the problems on the head. What's being published isn't necessarily serving that function or perhaps even as capable of serving that function as other works may be. However, if it isn't, I don't think it's so much a function of the genre as it is a function of what examples of work in the genre are being pushed forward to the public.

As far a social anathema, it's possible. People in positions of power will generally seek to maintain the status quo, and publishers are in some way in positions of power. If people think about the current situation too much, they may realize that they don't like it and therefore start shaking things up.

Hopefully some of that made sense. I need to run off for now, but hope to have more to try to add later.

 

[Luke_B]

Yes, Erfdawg, it makes sense and I agree.

These threads have been set up to stifle any dissent towards epic fantasy with words like "appeal" (how about a thread on the “unappeal” of epic fantasy?) and caveats like "let's open up possibilities rather than close them down". Like I said, they beg the answer to the question. Any social critique that emerges from this thread has to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[knivesout]

The only two crucial and important roles any form of art needs to perform are to entertain and to make one think. Inspiration or instruction are best left to actual human interaction, and non-fiction respectively.

I just wanted to clear away some of the 'greater destiny of epic fantasy' stuff here, in the devil's advocate spirit Mono posted in.

As to the the mythic aspect of fantasy - as KatG pointed out, the epics were intended literally - Rama is a real cultural hero for many Hindus, and I'm sure ancient Greeks believed that the warriors who fought at Troy were their ancestors and role-models in a sense. While fat fantasy, comic books and soap opera, performs some of the social functions of myth, it's important to bear in mind that they are conscious fictions. While some might derive from fantasy the same sustenance myth gave our ancestors, fantasy fans are usually aware that these are fictional tales and characters. This ought to at least modify the direct parallel to myth in some way.

I think Archmage's point on immersion speaks to a very large aspect of the reason fat fantasy works - the level of detail, the profusion of plots, characters and settings, the sheer length of the narrative, all contribute to an emotional and mental focus that can supplement or at times supplant real life concerns. Much like the case of a dedicated sports fan.

I think this is an important point, because a significant number of fantasy fans will indulge in highly detailed discussions on the characters, events and so forth of the secondary worlds described in fat fantasy, much like a sports fan can recite the histories of a number of players and teams, highlights of scores of matches, and extrapolate future results. The philosophical import of all this detail - not so much.

You can call it escapism, but it goes a bit deeper, this immersion. It's not just a simple break from mundane concerns - fantasy fans and sport fans can bring to bear a great deal of memory, thought and imagination in their relationship with their obsession.

It's virtual reality, via paper and ink.

I'm not saying this immersive quality is good or bad - just that it is a very real part of the appeal that fat fantasy offers. Does it tie in to some increasing alienation from social structures that once gave our lives meaning and context? I have no facts on which to base a conclusion like that, so I'll shut up.

KatG: One niggle. Alice In Wonderland was not written as an 'adult satire of events occurring at the time', although Gulliver's Travels was.

 

[knivesout]

Mono: Social anathema? Well, yea. Mainstream literature folks mostly treat fantasy like a pariah genre, and the popular picture of a fantasy fan is of a socially inept geek. Modern fantasy fiction, unlike myth, speaks to a specialised division of society, rather than serving as a common link between all parts of society. If at all it fulfills the functions of mythology, it is only in a sphere that is very curtailed. Which means I'm possibly agreeing with you that seeing fantasy as really fulfilling mythic purposes is over stating the case.

 

[Larry]

Here's another thought that should be interesting to see the response toward:

Fantasy, just like any form of literature, is ultimately historia. A large part of what I'm writing revolves around that. By the way, the word is in Latin because it means quite a few things beyond "history" these days.

But I don't want to reveal my hand just yet, because there are certain elements that I'm still working on defining for the purposes of the paper I'm constructing. But I think that bit should give away much of the approach I'm taking.

Thoughts on that angle?

 

[knivesout]

Ooh, cryptic. Is this what you mean by historia: http://hyper.vcsun.org/HyperNews/battias/get/cs631/word/59.html?nogifs

 

[Larry]

Among other things, yes, it does describe it in part. Epistèmé is another word that comes even closer to the approach I'll be taking.

Sorry for the cryptic responses, but I just want to see if reader responses can help me with a point I'm trying to work out. But here's a very rough outline of what I'm planning on covering. Mind you, it's not a step-by-step one, only an outline of some of the issues I'm wanting to address:

Historia's various roles in ancient societies - myths as moral tales as much "true" for the teachings as for any possible shred of actuality.

Fragmentation of historia into history, legend, myth, fiction

Authorial intent - what messages does the author impart? What about conscious and unconscious intent?

Writing as a medium - how has the written form changed the story tale?

Reader interpretations - attitudes, purposes, etc.

Fantasy is, in some senses, no more than just another communication of values and ideas (even if there's the presumption of pure entertainment value on the parts of the author and reader alike) in a medium that has changed little over the millenia in form and content, but drastically in how it's processed/understood.


Very rough, I know, but that should give the gist of what I'm considering without mentioning specific approaches (although I might discuss Foucault and even Derrida a bit).

 

[knivesout]

Hmm, yes, my favourite sort of explanation - one that leaves me with more questions.

Another thought just struck me: we're discussing fantasy as if it is this monolithic entity. Is this even a fair way to approach the genre? Or is it simplification to the point of potential falsification?

And how does the RP thing tie in? Could it relate to fantasy fiction the way rituals related to myths? A chance to participate in key cultural events?

 

[Gary Wassner]

I have a slightly different sense of why Big Fat Fantasy is such a draw. When you read it, you gain a sense of empowerment; a feeling that things are really not totally out of control, but that there is a greater plan in the works. Despite all the crises and all of the danger, I believe that the reader is convinced that the hero will prevail in the end, or that at least the ultimate battle will not be lost. The worlds that you traverse are not the results of man's mismanagement or of science getting out of control. The confrontations are the result of a struggle to prevail over a threatening enemy, an evil enemy, who seeks to destroy the 'right' way of life, or they are the result of a supressed people attempting to break free of the tyrany that has overtaken them.

You hope for the hero to emerge. You believe that he/she will, that despite the darkness, the light will shine again. That belief is empowering and uplifting. Epic fantasy is hopeful, not cynical and depressing. It is excruciatingly humanistic in all of its obfuscating, non-human garb.

 

[knivesout]

So it's fundamentally a consolatory genre?

 

[Larry]

The problem with doing outlines is the main arguments can be distorted. For the record, I don't see Fantasy as a monolithic entity. Rather, its various forms I believe reflect certain societal developments (for example, I see some kinship between St. Thomas More's Utopia and China Miéville's Bas-Lag novels!) which have sparked various forms of response.

The problem I've noticed with most discussions of Fantasy and its place is that there really hasn't been an in-depth exploration of how it all connects to wider social/cultural/intellectual changes. Mind you, I'm a cultural historian by training, so I'm not looking at purely literary elements here, but instead societal developments and actions/reactions that happen to deal with something we've ended up labelling Fantasy after so many years of calling it other things.

Needless to say, the potential for getting way over my head is great, but who ever said I was cautious

 

[Larry]

You hope for the hero to emerge. You believe that he/she will, that despite the darkness, the light will shine again. That belief is empowering and uplifting. Epic fantasy is hopeful, not cynical and depressing. It is excruciatingly humanistic in all of its obfuscating, non-human garb.

This is something I want to explore when I get around to writing this section. I agree and do believe that epic fantasy, like stories of heroes like Heracles or Charlemagne's paladins or even as far back as Rama or Gilgamesh, does offer a bit of hope, even consolation, although not all fantasy does this. In fact, stories like Swift's Gulliver's Travels use the fantastic in a way to comment on society's shortcomings. But yet both types simultaneously are reactions to social attitudes/conditions and a stimulus toward future actions (whether by placating the masses, providing an opiate as strong as religion - to turn Marx's phrase around a bit - or by provoking thoughtful outrage at injustice).

And it's because of those factors that I have to examine communication and how interpretation can be even more important than what the author has written.

Make sense?

 

[knivesout]

*sigh* I used to be perfectly content knowing f...all about Foucault...now you've got me intersted in checking all this stuff out.

so I'm not looking at purely literary elements here, but instead societal developments and actions/reactions that happen to deal with something we've ended up labelling Fantasy after so many years of calling it other things.

I have a notion that the whole fantasy RPG phenomenon needs to be a part of the study then. And fandom itself.

Also, are you looking at works which partake of some elements of the fantastic outside the genre? Something like, say Martin Amis' Time's Arrow, which I think is very closely related to some of the purposes of myth - to offer a perspective on a historical event.

 

[Priestvyrce]

So Aldarion, you are thinking that there is a more etheralness to what fantasy may convey than what is written. A kind of spiritualness?

 

[Larry]

*sigh* I used to be perfectly content knowing f...all about Foucault...now you've got me intersted in checking all this stuff out.



I have a notion that the whole fantasy RPG phenomenon needs to be a part of the study then. And fandom itself.

Also, are you looking at works which partake of some elements of the fantastic outside the genre? Something like, say Martin Amis' Time's Arrow, which I think is very closely related to some of the purposes of myth - to offer a perspective on a historical event.

Yes, I'll be examining those as well, as much as space will permit. But right now, I'm going to sleep. Worked 16 hours straight and I'm tired!

 

[Larry]

So Aldarion, you are thinking that there is a more etheralness to what fantasy may convey than what is written. A kind of spiritualness?

To a degree, yes, but I'm more interested in the discontinuities between spoken/paralanguage communication and written. I'll say more later, but like I said above, I'm tired and need to sleep.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Aldarion - I don't think the type of Epic Fantasy that we might be talking about here is as self-consciously political as something like Gulliver's Travels was. And I also am not sure that social attitudes have all that much to do with the human animal's need to feel safe and in control of its own destiny as much as is possible. I think that perhaps it is a physical yearning, not so much a social one, as one might describe the need to procreate. Actually, that's too dogmatic. I am probably more comfortable stating that both social and physical contingencies influence the need to be and feel in control: The Will to Power, for example, as a purely physical response that governs action, mitigated by a learned social conscience (Nietzsche forgive me!) Together, they allow us to appreciate the power of magic and the thrill of battle, while we also find solace in the sense of order and well being that leadership and 'someone who knows better than we do' affords us.