The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Gary Wassner]

Since I have already received a number of pm's on the subject, I wanted to clarify something. Archmage was not banned. He requested that his account be terminated. He explained it himself in his last post. I suppose that the interface does not account for self-imposed termination, and it incorrectly states 'banned' next to his avatar.

 

[Nimea]

Questions:
What is meant when it is said that Tolkien is consolatory? What exactly are those who love Tolkien needing to be consoled about? This always struck me as heavy-handed snobbery that sounds neat but always made little sense to me.

Yep, would like to hear some answers here, too!
I wrote a question about that before: To what degree is 'consolatory' really negative and to what degree is it a good thing?
Erfael already commented on it somehow - but is that a fault of (Epic) fantasy or is it just a medium that attracts people that want to escape fully from their lives? It's a discussion more often brought up while talking about RPGs.

A side note: what is better - reading a book and 'being consoled' by it (and it probably means a lot of different things for different people) - or drinking a lot of beer (aka getting drunk)?

Radone, what do you mean about that global warm-argh, just forget it. Totally OT, not important. Just could not help noticing.


About the whole 'good and evil' theme: for me personally that is one of the things that fascinate me very much and I think fantasy is a very good playground to explore it - it is something I do a lot in role-playing (and I am not talking about PC games). Maybe Epic Fantasy especially because of the wide range of both characters and 'world politics'.
It's equally interesting to see how people react to the two words and what they think about them . . .
(Reminds me of an old thread I once started.)

I personally don't think labels 'good' and 'evil' are easily attached to anything in our world, but neither do I think that there is nothing you can call 'evil' or 'good' and I don't think different cultures explain it all away.
But again: I try not to think in black-and-white (which is hard sometimes when you think you are absolutely right). Would grey exist without black and white? Mmh . . .

Our world is not easy - and now a writer has a lot of options when creating his fantasy world. Does he make it as diverse and uneasy as Earth, does he want to say something about good and evil/right and wrong, does he want the readers to think about what in his books might be good and evil? Or does he create a world where Good and Evil do exist (like deities that are definitely characterized like that) and than takes a look how that would influence people (be they humans or demi-humans or whatever).

I think each of these options potentially interesting and a reason to read Epic Fantasy - but sometimes it doesn't work out. Like just stating X is good and Y is soooo evil (and loves it) without explaining/exploring.

Well?

 

[Luke_B]

Here's a question for you: Why can't Tolkien's works be subversive as well as consolatory? A rejection of the current and a glance back at the past does not necessarily mean a reactionary movement. After all, consider the adoptation of "revolution" in the rhetoric of those who demanded fuller rights from the autocrats. Some would argue that in order to go forward, one must first glance at what's passed.

But you are correct in saying that there are different styles and intentions. Before I can address epic fantasy in a historical sense, I must first focus on the very existence of this nebulous thing called "fantasy."

In fact, I read Tolkien as a eulogy for a lost era, so for me he's not consolatory at all. I love Tolkien's vision; it's his prose and narrative structure that leave me cold these days. But they were my favourite books growing up.

I think Tolkien's work has had a consolatory affect on society as a whole, mainly because most people who read him miss the point that everyday evil lingers on in Middle Earth.

 

[Luke_B]

Questions:
What is meant when it is said that Tolkien is consolatory? What exactly are those who love Tolkien needing to be consoled about? This always struck me as heavy-handed snobbery that sounds neat but always made little sense to me. You can stop reading here because this is the question I actually want answered. The rest of the post is a bit of a rant.

Radone - I just found this question reading back through the posts. Tolkien himself said he was writing for "consolation" - he used the word first to describe himself, thus giving his critics a lot of ammo. To my mind is basically has been used to mean one of two things in relation to his work: 1) he was writing for pure escapism; or 2) his simplistic use of the notions of good and evil (and his associations with everything good as blond and fair, and everything evil as black-skinned), his glorification of war, his reactionary stance to progress and technology, etc., means that he was concerned with preserving a status-quo dominated by Conservative Catholic values.

As I said above, I don't read Tolkien that way myself.

Be careful of writing things off as "heavy-handed snobbery" just because you don't understand them.

 

[Davis Ashura]

Radone - I just found this question reading back through the posts. Tolkien himself said he was writing for "consolation" - he used the word first to describe himself, thus giving his critics a lot of ammo. To my mind is basically has been used to mean one of two things in relation to his work: 1) he was writing for pure escapism; or 2) his simplistic use of the notions of good and evil (and his associations with everything good as blond and fair, and everything evil as black-skinned), his glorification of war, his reactionary stance to progress and technology, etc., means that he was concerned with preserving a status-quo dominated by Conservative Catholic values.

As I said above, I don't read Tolkien that way myself.

Be careful of writing things off as "heavy-handed snobbery" just because you don't understand them.

Well, I also don't read Tolkien that way, especially his glorification of war since the man fought in the worst war ever waged - I don't see how anyone can believe that he believes war is glorious unless he himself stated that. However, the manner that Mieville and others have used that word, 'consolatory' is at best dismissive. Essentially, based on the negative connotations that always seemed to built around the thrust of their arguments whenever they described epic fantasy as 'consolation', it meant that those who are 'consoled' by epic fantasy are childish waifs who are too scared to face the complexities of the real world; who would rather hide in a book with stark black and whites rather than seek the subtle grays of good and evil; who would rather turn back from the modern world to a pseudo-Edenic medieval one. As I said, this seemed like 'heavy-handed snobbery' and I stand by that.
By now, though, I would think with all that has been written in this and related threads, that those who love epic fantasy love it for reasons that go far beyond mere consolation.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I agree. I think it is pretty clear that those who love epic fantasy do love it for many and varied reasons, and not simply to be consoled and lulled into a complacency so that the real world no longer seems so threatening. Yes, it is not realistic. Yes, it is absent of all of the mundane aspects of everyday life that characterize our daily routines. Yes, it is imaginative and over the top in many cases. So? Is that bad? Is it mutually exclusive with being beautifully written and provocative and thoughtful? And is it impossible to walk away from a long read of Epic Fantasy and still learn something, about yourself or your dreams, or perhaps even your fears? I don't think so.

 

[Luke_B]

Yes, it is imaginative and over the top in many cases.

GemQuest - I haven't read an imaginative epic in quite some time.

As I've stated on numerous occasions, my problem with epics are that they aren't imaginative enough, which is the point of fantasy.

Well, I also don't read Tolkien that way, especially his glorification of war since the man fought in the worst war ever waged - I don't see how anyone can believe that he believes war is glorious unless he himself stated that. However, the manner that Mieville and others have used that word, 'consolatory' is at best dismissive. Essentially, based on the negative connotations that always seemed to built around the thrust of their arguments whenever they described epic fantasy as 'consolation', it meant that those who are 'consoled' by epic fantasy are childish waifs who are too scared to face the complexities of the real world; who would rather hide in a book with stark black and whites rather than seek the subtle grays of good and evil; who would rather turn back from the modern world to a pseudo-Edenic medieval one. As I said, this seemed like 'heavy-handed snobbery' and I stand by that.

Actually Radone - their criticisms are directed at the text not the readers. What's up with the victimisation complex?

 

[Priestvyrce]

GemQuest - I haven't read an imaginative epic in quite some time.

As I've stated on numerous occasions, my problem with epics are that they aren't imaginative enough, which is the point of fantasy.

Are you talking about the newer/more recent offerings or Epics in general? So, you would feel that Tad Willaims' Memory,Sorrow and Thorn wasn't imaginative enough or how about Richard Adam's Shardik or Watership Down ( though Waterdhip might be hard to peg as Epic fantasy)? There was another novel that I was going to mention, but have forgotten its title and the author's name. Yet I do recall that it was rich with thought and imagination and didn't totally fall into the cliches trap.

 

[Luke_B]

Hey Priestvyrce - you touch on a couple of good points. Obviously it is impossible for me to have read every epic, but I have read a wide selection, and most of the big names. So my views on epic fantasy are based on my own reading experiences to be sure, but I do think I have read enough not to be considered talking out my arse. Remember, I am talking in a very general sense. One epic might be the exception to the rule, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate my argument.

Also, as I've stated before, I have enoyed reading some epics, but they would rank quite low in any qualitative comparison I would make with other fantasy novels I've read (yes, this is all subjective, but some subjective arguments are more convicing that others remember). For example, I havn't read any Tad Williams, but I hear he writes quite well. Reading the blurb for Memory,Sorrow and Thorn I was put off (come on, do we really need another story about a kitchen boy turned wizard's apprentice?). Maybe one day I'll get around to it. WATERHSIP DOWN is quite brilliant, but as you say, it doesn't really fit into the orothodox view of epic fantasy (though you could make a perfectly valid argument that it is epic). I haven't read SHARDIK. Is it good? If anybody can suggest some immaginitve and original epics that I might like, please feel free...

 

[Priestvyrce]

Hey Priestvyrce - you touch on a couple of good points. Obviously it is impossible for me to have read every epic, but I have read a wide selection, and most of the big names. So my views on epic fantasy are based on my own reading experiences to be sure, but I do think I have read enough not to be considered talking out my arse. Remember, I am talking in a very general sense. One epic might be the exception to the rule, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate my argument.

Also, as I've stated before, I have enoyed reading some epics, but they would rank quite low in any qualitative comparison I would make with other fantasy novels I've read (yes, this is all subjective, but some subjective arguments are more convicing that others remember). For example, I havn't read any Tad Williams, but I hear he writes quite well. Reading the blurb for Memory,Sorrow and Thorn I was put off (come on, do we really need another story about a kitchen boy turned wizard's apprentice?). Maybe one day I'll get around to it. WATERHSIP DOWN is quite brilliant, but as you say, it doesn't really fit into the orothodox view of epic fantasy (though you could make a perfectly valid argument that it is epic). I haven't read SHARDIK. Is it good? If anybody can suggest some immaginitve and original epics that I might like, please feel free...

Shardik is slow and ponderous, but it is imaginative! I remember the author that I couldn't remember, Roberta Cray's The Sword and The Lion , what I found unique was the use of the daughter/father relationships. You see, when the city is attacked, it is the daughter and father that form a fighting pair. They are in each others thought and feelings. They almost become one. I can't precisely remember everything, but I found that it was very UNromantic about battle,love and life and yet extolled the virtues of family and honor.

 

[Gary Wassner]

If you want to read imaginative epic fantasy (though even he questions whether it is really epic fantasy) read Ricardo Pinto. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is totally unique, his world, his characters as well as their relationships, and it is spellbinding in it's own way. Mono - it may just be that you haven't chosen the bests books to read yet. That's a possibility, you know.

 

[Luke_B]

Perhaps. I haven't read anything by Gary Wassner.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Hey, what can I say? Come September, you can read three. I sure hope they don't disappoint....

 

[Larry]

I think the work on my paper just got a whole lot easier with my recent discovery of this article:

Marxism and Fantasy

I've noticed a recent move toward neo-Marxism in some of my thoughts jotted down after reading certain books on cultural history and fables/fairy tales/fantasies, but yet there are quite a few problems I have with applying Marxist models toward fantasy. This long review article goes a long way in confirming some of my suspicions, while raising new points for me to consider.

Just thought others would enjoy reading this, although it is quite lengthy.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Good article. Though I am not all that interested in a Marxist interpretation of fantasy, to be honest, there are some very salient points being made. I took the liberty of cutting and pasting a few that might relate to our discussion here. Strangely, I am not quite as enamored of Meiville as some others seem to be, or as the author of this article clearly is. I am not sure what I am missing with him, but I think he's terribly overrated. I am going to start a thread on him, since he seems to engender such divided opinions, and try to hash out my objections to his writing there. In any case, Aldarion, tell me if you agree with my choice of paragraphs to cite:

In a fine application of Jameson’s ideas, Landa argues that the Ring books, rather than trying to construct a delusory sanctuary from history, are suffused with a feeling of acute historical urgency. “Far from being escapist literature, Tolkien’s work in general and The Lord of the Rings in particular are very much about the impossibility of escape, the inevitability of squarely confronting reality” (115). For Landa the underlying contradiction of LOTR, for which its story is a symbolic resolution, is the dilemma of private property under capitalism. Tolkien’s “stories dialectically oscillate between a utopian renunciation of private property and its ideological vindication manifested in the Ring of Power” (117).

As if collective and personal feelings of defeat, dread, and grief, the anxiety of a coming world war, the horror of its debris, the recrudescence of oppression and mass slaughter, of the corruption and alienation of one’s friends, the suffering of one’s children, the relentless normalization of betrayal and cynicism (to mention only the most powerful negative feelings) are empty or thin if they are not explained via some alleged logic of political power in the here and now.

The value of much fantastic fiction then may be in the respect it pays to the enormous paradox of living in history that cannot be expressed as history, but only as myth or the repudiation of rational explanation. One way of thinking about myth is that it is a false story that is believed in just the same; another is that it is an explanation of phenomena that does not make them less mysterious.3

 

[Larry]

Good article. Though I am not all that interested in a Marxist interpretation of fantasy, to be honest, there are some very salient points being made. I took the liberty of cutting and pasting a few that might relate to our discussion here. Strangely, I am not quite as enamored of Meiville as some others seem to be, or as the author of this article clearly is. I am not sure what I am missing with him, but I think he's terribly overrated. I am going to start a thread on him, since he seems to engender such divided opinions, and try to hash out my objections to his writing there. In any case, Aldarion, tell me if you agree with my choice of paragraphs to cite:

In a fine application of Jameson’s ideas, Landa argues that the Ring books, rather than trying to construct a delusory sanctuary from history, are suffused with a feeling of acute historical urgency. “Far from being escapist literature, Tolkien’s work in general and The Lord of the Rings in particular are very much about the impossibility of escape, the inevitability of squarely confronting reality” (115). For Landa the underlying contradiction of LOTR, for which its story is a symbolic resolution, is the dilemma of private property under capitalism. Tolkien’s “stories dialectically oscillate between a utopian renunciation of private property and its ideological vindication manifested in the Ring of Power” (117).

As if collective and personal feelings of defeat, dread, and grief, the anxiety of a coming world war, the horror of its debris, the recrudescence of oppression and mass slaughter, of the corruption and alienation of one’s friends, the suffering of one’s children, the relentless normalization of betrayal and cynicism (to mention only the most powerful negative feelings) are empty or thin if they are not explained via some alleged logic of political power in the here and now.

The value of much fantastic fiction then may be in the respect it pays to the enormous paradox of living in history that cannot be expressed as history, but only as myth or the repudiation of rational explanation. One way of thinking about myth is that it is a false story that is believed in just the same; another is that it is an explanation of phenomena that does not make them less mysterious.3

Good choice of citations, even if I disagree with the final paragraph's conclusions regarding history. For one thing, the author doesn't discuss how deeply rooted much of our fantastical literature is in the concrete socio-cultural conditions of their day. For example, take the fairy tale "Cinderella." In the original, oral versions of this tale, there is a much more explicit discussion of the plight of the peasant classes during the 17th century, when this tale first was recorded - imminent starvation, high mortality rates often leading to remarriages and very often bad blood between these mixed families, the idea of patronage, a focus on food at the prince's ball, and so forth.

Now I'm not exactly a Marxist, although I'll cop to being sympathetic to some of the methodologies and aims of neo-Marxists, but there is something to say for considering the conditions that possibly inspired these authors. The Landa quote about Tolkien is pretty much spot-on in regards to noting how Tolkien himself kept emphasizing throughout LotR that escape just wasn't a good possibility to consider, that loss and grief would occur regardless of the course of action chosen. That is a pretty weighty issue there, one that many of Tolkien's critics have overlooked.

But in the main, I do agree with much of that article, although I suspect the connections with social conditions are much more complex than what the writers seem to be claiming inside that review article. I know Miéville has been reading Eric Hobsbawm, but I would think that a closer reading of E.P. Thompson and Peter Burke might have helped him and his co-contributors a bit to realize that there are certain other cultural/social connections between patrician and plebian cultures that have driven social change (or caused crises), some of which I believe is reflected in the fantasy literature of the day. I'd say more, but I suspect I'm flirting dangerously with wandering off into Jargonland, where the words are long and the clear and concise meanings are scarce

 

[Scott Bakker]

Wow. Things have been hopping around here! Arch is pissed, and Mono has developed several new ways to say epic fantasy is crap... The world does turn on greased grooves!

Very interesting article, Aldarion - and on a topic close to my heart. Regarding

But in the main, I do agree with much of that article, although I suspect the connections with social conditions are much more complex than what the writers seem to be claiming inside that review article.

my guess would be that most everyone mentioned subscribes to the principle of interpretative underdetermination, which is just to say they would likely agree with you.

Istvan's central argument, I take it, is that the traditional Marxist commitment to materialism denies it the theoretical resources it needs to generate an adequate theory of fantasy. Of course he assumes that 'adequacy' here involves a positive evaluative component.

Some fantasy is good. Marxism says all fantasy is bad. Therefore, Marxism has a problem.

What's cooking my bean is the sense in which classical or vulgar Marxism can be read as a theoretical version of epic fantasy. It gives one a place in a (albeit historicized) cosmic order, and it promises perpetual apocalypse (revolution); two key generic markers of epic fantasy.

Perhaps the antipathy has as much do with this: in epic fantasy, Freedman et al see their theoretical vulnerabilities writ large.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Brilliant thought, No Dog. You've got Karl and Fred twisting in their proletarian, unadorned graves.

 

[Scott Bakker]

That's because ADORNO WAS RIGHT!

 

[ironchef texmex]

Okay, Aldarion, I'll bite. What the heck is neo-marxism?

I know that 'ol Karl's stuff kind of sounded good on the surface of it -- what, with the equality and all. But you have to admit, so far it doesn't have a very good track record in the real world.

We all remember how the Soviets took the idea of dialectical materialism and then 'equalized' the people by taking all their stuff.... and then keeping it for their top brass.

Then China showed everyone how you could have a government that wasn't really greedy (at least not in the monetary sense). They did their people the colosal favor of ridding them of that "opiate of the people"... you know... the religion thing, and then replacing it with a government that looked very suspiciously like a religious organization. Instead of church, we have state functions (oh, and you're gonna be there). Instead of God we have Mao.... You know the drill.

So I'm just wondering, when you say 'neo' are you actually saying that somebody has come up with a way around all the totalitarian stuff? I mean it seems like the problem with 'equality' is that no one really sees themself as being equal to other people. Human nature usually worms it way into the mix and they think of themselves as... you know... more equal. Now Aldarion, you might look at the people around you and say, "they may not be as educated, or have the same means of self-expression, but they are my equals, my brothers and sisters." But let me tell you. Your brothers and sisters are looking back at you and saying, "bookworm! Fancy-talking, good-for-nothing...."

That's why I've kind of always had a thing for capitalism. And I'm not real worried about perpetual revolution either. You see, putting on a coup is hard work. And since much of our 'future leaders' are having a little trouble putting down the Nintendos long enough to get jobs... I'm just not sure that they've got what it takes to cross the Delaware and form a more perfect union.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me. And as for all the talk about Tolkien and seeing whether or not his stuff fits into Marxist doctrine, LoTRs just never struck me that way. Calling Tolkien a closet Marxist just seems a little revisionist.