Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Desdichado]

These are claims which you have made no attempt to back up.

Of course not. You can't prove a negative.

When I present quotations from the text which seem to be about something more than merely escapist adventure fiction (whatever that means), you fail to even address the text.

Because, again, its irrelevent. Even if I were to agree that he were making a religious commentary in the small part of the text you quoted, it does not extend to the whole work of even that book, much less the entire John Carter of Mars mythos. It's not an overarching theme, it's a snippet of a theme tucked away in the corner. You're trying to make it much bigger than it is.

To throw your method of debate back in your face, is it because ERB is about as lowbrow of fantasy as one can get, and if you can't make your claims stick here with a subject you consider yourself familiar with, then its highly unlikely that you would be able to make them stick anywhere? So are you just going to continue digging in your heels, putting your hands over your eyes and going, "I can't see anything. I just don't know what you are talking about."?

You honestly think that if I wasn't just being stubborn that I would naturally agree with you? Look, you want to make symbolic connections in ERB's work, more power to you. I dislike that entire methodology of trying to craft symbols out of text, and I only tend to look for them when the author's deliberately put them there. Even then, I dislike the reductionist method of turning everything I read into a "message" fraught with symbols. So no, I don't really see them. No, I don't think they're obvious. No, I don't think that its necessary to draw them out of ERB's work.

Why are you so insistent that I accept your position? You're not going to change my mind. And, despite what you think, it's not because your arguments are so blindingly brilliant and I'm so dense. Your arguments are at best rushed, nearly incoherent and lacking in relevent supporting evidence. At worst, they're completely your own fabrications with no relevency to what ERB actually wrote at all.

And contrary to what you keep trying to imply, I am under no burden to prove that you are wrong; if anything, you are under the burden to prove that you are right. I don't think you've really even tried to construct a compelling case yet, and frankly, I'm not interested in seeing you continue to try.

Or maybe you reject these claims merely because you don't want ERB's Barsoom books to be about anything, but it offends your view of the world? Fine. In the same way maybe you don't want to see why the the supernatural and the metaphysical are intrisically linked because it offends your view of the world, but if that's your reasoning you'll pardon me for not accepting your commentary as definitive.

Ah, yes. The ad hominem cop-out at last.

But you don't understand that because you don't have a clue what actually would satisfy my definitions - even though you reject everything out of hand.

If not, you have only yourself to blame. I've almost quoted portions of your definition word for word when I've referred to it, so if I don't "have a clue what your definition is" that's indicative of either one of two things: 1) you have spectacularly failed to communicate what you mean by throwing out red herrings and confusing explanations, or 2) you're backpedaling something fierce from what you earlier said when it was pointed out how ludicrous it was.

I only brought up the obvious moral instruction in ERB's books, because I thought it would be a good way of opening up people's minds to the fact that there might be something deeper going on even in the simpliest of low fantasy.

The moral instruction in ERB's work is hardly obvious, and my mind is hardly closed. But just because I keep an open mind about things doesn't mean I accept whatever clap-trap I hear. You're not the only one who's read ERB since childhood, you know, nor are you the only one to presumably have read it many times.

But foolish me, I underestimated people's powers to be obstinate, because I've spent the better part of the time since then arguing with people over the simple obvious facts and not what they actually mean.

Rather, foolish you for believing that an interpretation of a literary work is in any way a fact.

Fine. Eat your straw and be happy escaping from reality.

Heh. OK. Still, the whole ERB thing is irrelevent anyway. The most relevent post I've seen for a while was Dannyalcatraz's list of fantasy works that do not contain your overarching morality message, and sci fi works that do.

So, naturally, I fully expect you'll ignore that one and instead continue to argue for your derived interpretation of A Princess of Mars as a symbolic battle of good against evil.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

A pretty interesting argument, so far, though I hope noone leaves having taken permanent offense.

I found Joshua's distinction between discrete and grand theory to be really very good.

And on Celebrim's side:

Common sense tells you that, and I've learned a long time ago that there wasn't much use arguing against common sense. And heck, I even believe that most of the time when you argue against common sense you're wrong, so maybe your right. I just happen to think that there is alot more to the generas than the superficial imagery of them, that there is more to the novel than novelty, and that there are in fact literary themes within them which are extremely difficult to address from outside them.

Common sense is trickly, though I've gotten in trouble for it another thread, I would argue that if you have someone arguing against common sense it's probably less common than it's claiming.

I can't disagree with you that genre has more significance than imagery or novelty, but I'd argue that those are important, that much of the meaning is derived from how they are structured, and that while the dynamic of genre you describe might be uniquely served within a given genre most genres have to be a good deal more flexible than their unique service so I don't know that it serves as a good limitational factor for the genre in question.

That's less true of the huge genres such as Epic, Tragic, Comic, or Satyrical, but I don't know that fantasy really qualifies as one of those but rather as a sub-quality that any of those might have.

 

[John Morrow]

I can't disagree with you that genre has more significance than imagery or novelty, but I'd argue that those are important, that much of the meaning is derived from how they are structured, and that while the dynamic of genre you describe might be uniquely served within a given genre most genres have to be a good deal more flexible than their unique service so I don't know that it serves as a good limitational factor for the genre in question.

I think that both Science Fiction and Fantasy can loosely be described as a single genre that involves telling stories using fantastic elements rather than real world elements. That's why you'll often find both science fiction and fantasy on the same bookshelf in a bookstore and you'll find both at Science Fiction conventions and used as role-playing settings. I think it's telling that the line that's being argued is not what differentiates fantasy or science fiction from all other genres but simply what distinguishes them from each other. And for most people not heavily interested in the nuances of stories about make believe places, creatures, and powers, I think the difference is largely just a matter of trappings -- spaceships, robots, and rayguns vs. dragons, elves, and wands. Take a good look at how Shadowrun, Dragonstar, and Warhammer 40K stake out a space between both genres and the trappings they use to do so.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I think that both Science Fiction and Fantasy can loosely be described as a single genre that involves telling stories using fantastic elements rather than real world elements.

I very much agree. Did you see the stuff earlier on Library of Congress definitions and the split between character driven and world-oriented novels in the 19th century?

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Celebrim, I’ve been following this thread for a while now and I’m still a bit puzzled as to how and why you wish to equate phantasy with morality. Now, I can see a connection with a large section of phantasy that solidifies the polarity of morality. Meaning, there are obvious ‘evils’ and ‘goods’ and a very narrow sense of grey—in fact the only sense of grey is the characters conflicts with the Author’s ‘right’ decision. And, perhaps, phantasy could be defined by this common personal conflict—but it is such a large part of fiction that it could be considered the driving force of most fiction. Though, I’m almost positive that you feel these absolutes encompass mostly poorly written or ‘low-brow’ phantasy…perhaps I’m wrong.

The idea that ‘defining humanity or exploring what humanity is’ and the idea that ‘morality and humanity’s association with his moral universe’ are completely…or even moderately separate, I feel, is a significant stretch for most people. The links (between the two ideas) are very tangible and probably convolutes any argument that associates a concomitant structure—in terms of logical parallelism. This becomes a major crux in any argument you make discerning the validity of morality being an integral part of phantasy…that, and the importance of morality in all fiction.

I feel, perhaps because of my misunderstanding, that your guidelines more accurately describe Epic prose. This might be because of the only link I can find in your ideas (the absolute nature of morality in some phantasy) so closely mimics Epic structure that they are practically dependent upon each other. I know I’m going off the mark here, but I just can’t recognize any other tangible connection…is there more?

Overall, I would suggest that the introduction of the modern novel was, in fact, a step toward defining, if not understanding humanity. Consequently, there was an evolution of morality based upon the understanding of humanity and humanity’s morale universe—or in fact, the conflict of the understanding of humanity and humanity’ morale universe. To suggest that either are a defining structure of a single genre I don’t feel creates a very productive model--considering the preponderance of the structure throughout literature.

I feel your pain in regards to the use of imagery to define genre…but let’s face it, imagery is a form of quick reference to earmark genre—traditionally. Similarly, plot motif, character, form and resolution really define our modern literary definition of genre—just look at the definition of Romantic, Classical, Gothic, Grotesque, and even Modern literature. Without the secondary…or tertiary agreement of imagery it would be hard to define any genre. With that said, it would probably be wise—not—to argue literary idiosyncrasies with somebody who doesn’t recognise symbolism as a strong modifier of intention. This can only cause frustration. The proof is in the pudding—but only if you recognise that it is, in fact, pudding.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

No offense intended, and I'm sorry if I missed this earlier, but why are you spelling fantasy with a ph?

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I feel, perhaps because of my misunderstanding, that your guidelines more accurately describe Epic prose. This might be because of the only link I can find in your ideas (the absolute nature of morality in some phantasy) so closely mimics Epic structure that they are practically dependent upon each other. I know I’m going off the mark here, but I just can’t recognize any other tangible connection…is there more?

I don't know I can certainly see enough into Celebrim's argument that I think he's got a good case for distinguishing between the epic and his ethos of fantasy.

Course he could come in here and prove me wrong pretty easilly.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I'm a Cunuckian...with a traditional bent.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I don't know I can certainly see enough into Celebrim's argument that I think he's got a good case for distinguishing between the epic and his ethos of fantasy.

It's just that Epic can't be separated from morality without it losing meaning. Like I said, I'm probably missing something important.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm a Cunuckian...with a traditional bent.

That's interesting. I would have stuck with the f myself due to the grouping with fable, fabulous and fantasy, fantastic. Do they get 'ph'ed as well?