Forked Thread: What is the difference between New Fantasy and Old Fantasy?

[pawsplay]

In my view, modern fantasy's clearest ancestor is the legend of Arthur. The stories are centuries old in their recognized form, and meld religion, poetry, folk tales, history and storytelling into a complete mythology of their own. Lancelot was a fictional insertion with a known author. The tales take place in a recognizably fantastic England. More importantly in this discussion, the stories inspired by Dunsany and especially Tolkien. Dunsany inspired, well, a lot of people. And Tolkien essentially created modern genre fantasy, which absorbed, alterered, and also segregated "weird tales" and prehistorical yarns. Prior to Tolkien, swords-and-sorcery was a recognizable genre of its own, after, it became a set of motifs applicable to high fantasy.

Given all this, I cannot state a clear demarcation between old fantasy and new. The tales of Myrddin, Arthur, and Bedwyr probably meant something very similar to the people of that age as Frodo and Aragorn mean to ours.

Plato flatly regarded the stories of the gods as allegory, poetry, and sometimes nonsense. Particularly in The Republic, he suggests editing and censoring the tales of the Greek gods and remaking them as stories that promote social good.

 

[Leatherhead]

Forked from: Forked Thread: What is the difference between Science Fiction and Fantasy?

And how do you distinguish Lord of the Rings from Aenid, The Illiad, The Odyssy, Orpheus, beowulf, the Chronicles of Gilgamesh, or the legends of Hercules? What powers? What philosophies? There is nothing that is being done in fantasy fiction today that wasn't already done in the stories of the ancient past.

As it has been pointed out already in this thread:
Myths and legends are (or were, as the case may be) considered to contain actual people or events.

 

[Corjay]

In any case, I'd like to see some of your facts. By and large, you're ignoring most of my posts, needling out one little line or phrase that you don't like, and then dismissing the rest of the post entirely. If you want to have a discusssion, it would certainly help foster the discussion if you addressed:

• Differing authorial goals
• Why a modern point of view suffusing the story is irrelevent
• characterizations that never existed in pre-fantasy
• plot structures that never existed in prefantasy
• Story telling modes and techniques that never existed in prefantasy (and indeed, barely could have done so, since the novel is itself a relatively recent invention)

• Differing authorial goals

I addressed this directly. I made it clear that both Homer and Virgil had goals exactly identical to modern goals in writing: creativity and self-expression.

• Why a modern point of view suffusing the story is irrelevent

I addressed this too. I said that comparing their "modern point of view" back then to any writer's "modern point of view" today is no different than comparing point of view of two modern writers.

• characterizations that never existed in pre-fantasy
• plot structures that never existed in prefantasy
• Story telling modes and techniques that never existed in prefantasy (and indeed, barely could have done so, since the novel is itself a relatively recent invention)

Like I said, that's your job, not mine. I'm not trying to prove modern fantasy is different than classical literature. I started this thread because I didn't want to side track the Sci-Fi vs. Fantasy thread.

 

[Corjay]

As it has been pointed out already in this thread:
Myths and legends are (or were, as the case may be) considered to contain actual people or events.

I'm not going to repeat myself. This is false, and scroll up and read my posts to find out why.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm not going to repeat myself. This is false, and scroll up and read my posts to find out why.

Sorry, no, these are the definitions of myths and legends, as defined by anthropologists. You can try and argue against this but it wouldn't be any more fruitful than debating the color of the sky is actually "doppelganger."

Also I find it suspect you could "know" what the authors were thinking when they wrote the stories down.

 

[Corjay]

Sorry, no, these are the definitions of myths and legends, as defined by anthropologists. You can try and argue against this but it wouldn't be any more fruitful than debating the color of the sky is actually "doppelganger."

Oh really. Your evidence?

Here's mine:

Webster's

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
b: parable, allegory
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs>
b: an unfounded or false notion
3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4: the whole body of myths

Your definition is only 1a. Mine fulfills the rest.

"Myth" from Wikipedia:

Under "Academic Usage":

In the academic fields of mythology, mythography, or folkloristics, a myth is a sacred story usually concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths are often said to take place before recorded history begins. A myth is a sacred narrative in the sense that it contributes to systems of thought and values, and that people attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative.


Sorry, Leatherhead, but you're going to have to come up with something better than declaring "...defined by anthropologists."

What historical figure are you going to point at as being the historical origin of Zues? Ra? or any number of gods from classic literature?

 

[Corjay]

Also I find it suspect you could "know" what the authors were thinking when they wrote the stories down.

In that case, I find it suspect that Hobo knows. But then, you don't have to know to see from their professions and histories what the writer's goal in his writing was (as I explained when referencing "heroic prose"). I don't pretend to know what his thoughts are (that was Hobo, not me), but instead only state what their goal was, as is clear in the context of the body of their work.

 

[Leatherhead]

Oh really. Your evidence?

Here's mine:

Webster's

1 a: a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
b: parable, allegory
2 a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs>
b: an unfounded or false notion
3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence
4: the whole body of myths

Your definition is only 1a. Mine fulfills the rest.

"Myth" from Wikipedia:

Under "Academic Usage":

In the academic fields of mythology, mythography, or folkloristics, a myth is a sacred story usually concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to be their present form. The active beings in myths are generally gods and heroes. Myths are often said to take place before recorded history begins. A myth is a sacred narrative in the sense that it contributes to systems of thought and values, and that people attach religious or spiritual significance to it. Use of the term by scholars implies neither the truth nor the falseness of the narrative.


Sorry, Leatherhead, but you're going to have to come up with something better than declaring "...defined by anthropologists."

What historical figure are you going to point at as being the historical origin of Zues? Ra? or any number of gods from classic literature?

Well that's nice, you find the definition I was using and then claim it to be the wrong one, perhaps I should have been more clear in saying "they are considered to be real by those who believe in them", and that anthropologist would tell you a statement similar to this. I don't really have anything more to say about that so lets move on.

I would like to point out you are twisting my words at this point, as I never said the characters were historical figures, only that they were considered to be real. The gods Zeus and Ra were, well gods, and considered real by the people who believed in them. This is a religious connotation of the term real however, and this is borderline a religious debate already, so I will drop out of this argument if you are still not convinced.

 

[Leatherhead]

In that case, I find it suspect that Hobo knows. But then, you don't have to know to see from their professions and histories what the writer's goal in his writing was (as I explained when referencing "heroic prose"). I don't pretend to know what his thoughts are (that was Hobo, not me), but instead only state what their goal was, as is clear in the context of the body of their work.

My mistake, I must have interpreted this incorrectly.

The writers certainly knew (I know for a fact that Homer knew) they were writing fiction. It doesn't matter what the recipients believed. It only matters what was written.

 

[Corjay]

Well that's nice, you find the definition I was using and then claim it to be the wrong one, perhaps I should have been more clear in saying "they are considered to be real by those who believe in them", and that anthropologist would tell you a statement similar to this. I don't really have anything more to say about that so lets move on.

I would like to point out you are twisting my words at this point, as I never said the characters were historical figures, only that they were considered to be real. The gods Zeus and Ra were, well gods, and considered real by the people who believed in them. This is a religious connotation of the term real however, and this is borderline a religious debate already, so I will drop out of this argument if you are still not convinced.

Well then we agree, but disagree on what that means. The receptors (the readers in later generations) have no bearing on what the writer's goal was. The myths weren't canonized (declared a religious tenant) until centuries after the death of the authors, and yes, I did say that earlier.