Genre Conventions: What is fantasy?

[Celebrim]

If they are incoherent, or are contradictory, they can't very well embody an abstract idea.

You mean people can't be bad writers, or do you mean that people can't have incoherent, contridictory and vague notions about things that are abstract?

I've never held literary criticism in high regard, and if you are an example of reading works critically, I have affirmed my prior suspicion that it is a completely useless "discipline" of academia.

Well, good. Then by all means hold it in low regard by leaving a thread discussing genre conventions. It's indeed a 'useless' discipline, that's why they call it a 'liberal art' instead of a 'practical art'. But, since I'm not posting to this board as part of my job, and merely for recreation it hardly seems important that it is a 'useless' thing.

You take the most tenuous of links and inflate it to ludicrous proportions in an attempt to "prove" the overarching themes and symbolism that doesn't exist.

Who said anything about needing 'overarching themes'? Overarching themes have nothing to do with my definition, its just merely interesting how often they appear. Site one concrete example of me taking tenous links and inflating them to ludicrous proportions.

In many cases, you do this in spite of the author's stated intentions, or you simply ignore what the author was likely doing and look for symbolism anyway

Oh, good grief. Show me one example of me doing this despite the author's stated intentions. Are you saying that Clint didn't intend for the supernatural hints in 'High Plains Drifter'? Are you saying that ERB didn't intend to satirize religious extremism? Are you saying the Larry Niven was completely unaware of the modernist sentiments behind 'The Magic Goes Away'? What other examples in this thread have I done?

Its because you're so ingrained to do so by the literary establishment.

Here we go with the ridiculous assertions about my background again.

Fine. I'm not good at reading critically the way most English departments teach it. In fact, I've purposefully eschewed the methodology, because I find it to be useless.

Fine, then I wish you would eshew any involvement in a methodolical approach to defining literary genera.

In your opinion, I'm completely blind to obvious textual symbolism.

No, in my mind you are not only blind to obvious textual symbolism, you are blind to the text. It's not like I'm making complex arguments about the meaning of the work, nor is a complex meaning a requirement for meeting the rather simple definition I gave.

In my mind, you're so desperate for hidden meaning and symbolism that you make it up.

Where am I trying to make it up? It's not like we are talking about deeply hidden things. If you want deeply hidden meaning, then lets talk Tolkein, and I assure you that I won't be putting anything in thier the author didin't intend because we have lots and lots of letters about his own works.

The divide between how we read will probably never be bridged. I highly doubt you will ever come around to my point of view, and I know for certain that I will never come around to yours.

At last something we agree on.

You say those as if they are the same thing. Steeped in mythic imagery is not the argument you were making for defining fantasy, and it has nothing to do with whether or not they stand in for abstract ideas. Just because Artur Hawkwing is transparently King Arthur, for instance, and thus a mythic figure, does not mean that he stands for anything in The Wheel of Time. In fact, I can't see that he does.

No, that's absurd. If Rand al'Thor was supposed to stand in for Christ, then he wouldn't have such glaring differences to the iconic Christ figure.

Within the context of the story, Rand al'Thor isn't a stand in for Christ - he is Christ. Rand al'Thor isn't a christ figure. He's the bloody eternal savior sent into the world by its creator to redeem it by the shedding of his blood.

He clearly has some aspects of Christ-figure, but clearly diverges wildly in others.

So what????

Also, Christ was not an abstract principle either, he's a historical figure. You seem to be freely mixing abstract principles and mythic figures, at least in this post if not in general, which doesn't help the coherence of your position at all, nor the clarity of the "definition" of fantasy.

I would prefer to stay out of religious discussions.

Those "deep ties" are little more than superficial surface features of the story, actually. You haven't even made any attempt to show how the Wheel of Time is in any way tied up with morality. I still argue that it most certainly is not. Robert Jordan clearly borrowed lots of mythic imagery and resonance, but he makes no moral statement about any of them.

It's your idea that the ties have to be 'deep' (whatever that means). It has nothing to do with mine.

And symbols that don't actually say anything -- they merely exist to spark "mythic resonance" with the reader and give the work a sense of false gravitas and history -- accomplish absolutely nothing with regard to Celebrim's spurious definition of fantasy.

So you say, but I believe I've already covered this. It doesn't matter so much why the author is choosing to use fantasy elements, or even if the author intends to say anything.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Joshua, I feel his...and your lack of truely adressing the issue stems from the difference of ideologies rather than anything that could be considered a concrete argument. I feel a bit empty here in this debate soley because I really haven't taken a hard side yet. I have been absolutely entreched with literary theory. So, I can sit here and mimic literary concerns like a parrot and not truely feel offended by anything anybody says--not to say that I don't understand the merrit or motive of the concerns. While you, and Celebrim, have concocted a personal interpretation of literature that works for both of you...based on personal beleifs and biases that have been validified by your own ideas of reason. The same can be said for current literary criticism; but, there is a substancial load of relevent disciplinary material to back it up...perhaps one day you will have this as well.

Edit: Drat, my slow typing!

 

[Celebrim]

Oh dear. Celebrim....Your last post seems to indicate that all phantasy must contain allegory...or allegorical characters to be precise.

I'm sorry you got that imprecision. I was merely pointing out that in that particular case there was pretty obvious allegory. I do not maintain that all fantasy must contain allegory, though I would suggest that alot of it does.

That is a very slippery slope to defend. A good example of a true allegorical character would be: Satan. Good example of a forced (or weak if you will )allegiorical character would be: The Emperor (from SW).

Heh. That's me. The defender of slippery slopes. But for the purposes of my arguement it doesn't really matter how strong our weak the particular allegory is, the fact is that you can recognize the similarity between say 'Satan' and 'The Emperor', or the deliberate (by the author's own admission) connection between Yoda and the Buddha. But, I agree that the Satan/Emperor is a forced allegory, and I for one wouldn't want to make it. I certainly don't think that 'The Emperor' is allegorical for Satan, but 'The Sith' certainly seem to embody some sort of ideological purity (chaos, evil, whatever you want to call it). I'd much prefer to concentrate on the role of more obviously fantastic elements in the story, such as 'The Force'.

Allegory is an absolute embodiment of an abstract. Symbolism is a device that can embody an abstract and still promote plot and content while never reaching the total 'oneness' of an allegory.

Great. But my definition doesn't require allegory. It just so happens that in the cases under discussion, I think allegory is there to one degree or the other. All that is required is that it contains a certain type of symbolism.

I'll comtinue a bit later when I have more time.

Sure, I'd be happy to hear your thoughts.

 

[Desdichado]

Who said anything about needing 'overarching themes'? Overarching themes have nothing to do with my definition, its just merely interesting how often they appear.

It is interesting how often they appear. It is not, however, essential that they appear, which is where I take exception to what you'd stated.

Site one concrete example of me taking tenous links and inflating them to ludicrous proportions.

Ascribing an anti-racist agenda to ERB before racism as we knew it existed as an ideology, for one. And ignoring his more obvious racism prevelant in his work when his characters are not on some alien planet.

Are you saying that Clint didn't intend for the supernatural hints in 'High Plains Drifter'? Are you saying that ERB didn't intend to satirize religious extremism? Are you saying the Larry Niven was completely unaware of the modernist sentiments behind 'The Magic Goes Away'?

I've already said I haven't seen High Plains Drifter, I don't know what ERB's satire has to do with anything; as I've already said, that's not a "theme" of his work, that's just a minor footnote at best, and I've never read 'The Magic Goes Away.'

Here we go with the ridiculous assertions about my background again.

I don't know anything about your background. But I do know the academic literary criticism methodology, and you are most definitely using it.

Fine, then I wish you would eshew any involvement in a methodolical approach to defining literary genera.

You could, you know, not post in the thread if it bothers you that much.

No, in my mind you are not only blind to obvious textual symbolism, you are blind to the text. It's not like I'm making complex arguments about the meaning of the work, nor is a complex meaning a requirement for meeting the rather simple definition I gave.

Other than the insulting hyperbole, that's what I said.

Where am I trying to make it up? It's not like we are talking about deeply hidden things. If you want deeply hidden meaning, then lets talk Tolkein, and I assure you that I won't be putting anything in thier the author didin't intend because we have lots and lots of letters about his own works.

I already know about Tolkien. I don't see what that has to do with anything; he hasn't come up in this discussion yet.

Within the context of the story, Rand al'Thor isn't a stand in for Christ - he is Christ. Rand al'Thor isn't a christ figure. He's the bloody eternal savior sent into the world by its creator to redeem it by the shedding of his blood.

Speaking of hyperbole...

I would prefer to stay out of religious discussions.

So stay out of them. This is a literary discussion, not a religious one.

It's your idea that the ties have to be 'deep' (whatever that means). It has nothing to do with mine.

Actually, the only reason I used the word 'deep' was because you had in the post I was quoting. If it's not your idea, you must be back-pedalling again, because it is exactly what you said. From your posts on this thread, I'm not sure that that I can count on exactly what you said being any guide to what you are saying now though.

So you say, but I believe I've already covered this. It doesn't matter so much why the author is choosing to use fantasy elements, or even if the author intends to say anything.

And here we come to the main reason I have such a problem with the "look for symbols" methodology. You claim that it doesn't even matter if the author intended to say anything. And ironically you claim, earlier in this same post I'm replying to, "Oh, good grief. Show me one example of me doing this despite the author's stated intentions."

This methodology has very little to do with the actual work itself anymore and becomes all about the reader's biases and opinions. Which, in some circumstances, I think are interesting to note, but in others I think are so many wasted words.

 

[Desdichado]

Joshua, I feel his...and your lack of truely adressing the issue stems from the difference of ideologies rather than anything that could be considered a concrete argument. I feel a bit empty here in this debate soley because I really haven't taken a hard side yet. I have been absolutely entreched with literary theory. So, I can sit here and mimic literary concerns like a parrot and not truely feel offended by anything anybody says--not to say that I don't understand the merrit or motive of the concerns. While you, and Celebrim, have concocted a personal interpretation of literature that works for both of you...based on personal beleifs and biases that have been validified by your own ideas of reason. The same can be said for current literary criticism; but, there is a substancial load of relevent disciplinary material to back it up...perhaps one day you will have this as well.

Oh, definately. I feel that my definition of fantasy (and I say "my" very loosely; it's not one I came up with, but it's one I subscribe to) is very much based on the actual content of the work, and can be examined and determined internally. I feel Celebrim's definition is completely about the reader and has very little to do with the content of the work; rather, it has to do with what the reader interprets from the work.

I think that's a quixotic line of thought, as different readers will naturally interpret different things. Even the most supposedly blindingly obvious symbolism, as we've seen here, is often not so to others, especially folks like me that have shied away from symbolic interpretation of literature as a personal, rather than absolute, thing to do.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Whoa. Celebrim. OK, I think there is some definite misunderstanding.

"The moral message has to be carried in the form of an abstract idea which has been embodied in some fashion in order to be easier discuss and describe through narrative"

"To meet my definition of a fantasy, the book needs to have elements which are the embodiments or existantiations of abstract moral principals. It's not enough for the book to just have something be a symbol for something else, or for that thing to be like something else. That thing has to be that abstract thing made tangible. Likewise, those abstract things can't be just any general idea, but something which would fall within the realm of things we would consider moral ideas or principals - whether humility, ambition, evil, good, hubris, love, prudence, or whatever."

Those are hard line definitions that border on allegory.
While...these...

"But for the purposes of my arguement it doesn't really matter how strong our weak the particular allegory is, the fact is that you can recognize the similarity between say 'Satan' and 'The Emperor', or the deliberate (by the author's own admission) connection between Yoda and the Buddha."

"Even if we where to argue that Robert Jordan had no higher aspirations than pulp fiction, which would be rather insulting IMO, this would be a really good example of why its impossible to write fantasy that doesn't end up getting tied into morality. And in particular, I'd argue that alot of the reasons the WoT series is so compelling despite its flaws as a story is that it is so deeply tied into all this mythic imagery about good and evil, ying and yang, ad infinitum."

...have nothing more than symbolic, antecedent, and connotive messages. Do you see my problem? I'm still looking for your definition. I'm afraid...since you admit authorial intent is irrelevant--and I must agree, though on different grounds--connotation or likeness really doesn't eliminate enough conventions to make a working hypothesis. Even if the abstract ideals are portrayed as invariably human concerns about morality. Far too many texts can be examined to contain symbolic moral links--that could more accurately be described as 'sympathetic conflict' (sorry, an invented expression) rather than "existantiations of abstract moral principals." Which, as I said before, really more accurately describes Modern fiction as opposed to phantasy.

I think you are far more interested in the obvious parallels that exist between Epic prose and phantasy...rather than a pure definition of a genre. Admittedly, the mind wanders to the absolutes of Epic allegory far more often when reading phantasy...but I see that as more of an evolution than a definition.

Could you be more specific? Or, I'm I more on the ball now?

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I think that's a quixotic line of thought, as different readers will naturally interpret different things. Even the most supposedly blindingly obvious symbolism, as we've seen here, is often not so to others, especially folks like me that have shied away from symbolic interpretation of literature as a personal, rather than absolute, thing to do.

I think you have fallen for the same trap that academics fall for: The belief that you can divine the intention of the author. You might even say 'quixotic'--what a fun word.

All anyone can go by is what is written--for if you have ever heard artists speak about their own works before you know how irrelevant their views can be.

The labour involved with deconstructing text can be quit entertaining...and even quite persuasive, but the accumulation of textual examination create a body of understanding that can be applied, I feel, a bit more reliably. Similar to how a poll or scientific experiment might create a data set, this body of work is worked over and applied in a type of 'average' application that becomes dogmatic...I'm sure you see this. But, like logic, is a servicable tool.

I'm actually quite surprised that you expressed a lack of regard for the reader considering your stance. I had a fourth year lit prof who almost directly expressed that same sentiment..except he blindly believed in the dogma of old genre theory...it was fun to make him angry.

 

[Desdichado]

I think you have fallen for the same trap that academics fall for: The belief that you can divine the intention of the author. You might even say 'quixotic'--what a fun word.

It is, isn't it? I'm having loads of fun using it. I'm not talking about authorial intent, though -- I'm advocating genre definitions that are based entirely on the text, and not on the reader's interpretation of it.

The labour involved with deconstructing text can be quit entertaining...and even quite persuasive, but the accumulation of textual examination create a body of understanding that can be applied, I feel, a bit more reliably. Similar to how a poll or scientific experiment might create a data set, this body of work is worked over and applied in a type of 'average' application that becomes dogmatic...I'm sure you see this. But, like logic, is a servicable tool.

I do. But it's flimsy methodology. It's easy to dismiss one interpretation as arbitrary or at least biased, but is an aggregate of bias any less biased just because it is common?

To be fair, I don't mind deconstructing works of fiction looking for symbolism. I happen to think that it's a bit over-done in most English classes I've ever been in or most literature journals I've ever read, though. And I think it takes itself too seriously very frequently. Much like Celebrim's assertion that his interpretation is "factual," for instance. Claims like that are what get my back up about the entire methodology.

I'm actually quite surprised that you expressed a lack of regard for the reader considering your stance. I had a fourth year lit prof who almost directly expressed that same sentiment..except he blindly believed in the dogma of old genre theory...it was fun to make him angry.

Why? My stance doesn't really have anything to do with the reader, is completely about the easily demonstrable and non-debatable properties of the work. I mean, yeah, readers are great, I am one and all that, but a definition that is only based on an individual readers interpretation of the work seems... well, quixotic.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I'm missing something. How, exactly do you interpret text without reading it? Cause it would save me A LOT of time!

edit: Ok, I think I know where you are going. You are takling about universal acceptance of textual material...like imagery...and um...well, just imagery and titles...grammar...definitions. To me, that would be like defining the difference between signage and novels by saying a novel uses words. I don't think it is possible.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Gazebo
The labour involved with deconstructing text can be quit entertaining...and even quite persuasive, but the accumulation of textual examination create a body of understanding that can be applied, I feel, a bit more reliably. Similar to how a poll or scientific experiment might create a data set, this body of work is worked over and applied in a type of 'average' application that becomes dogmatic...I'm sure you see this. But, like logic, is a servicable tool.


"I do. But it's flimsy methodology. It's easy to dismiss one interpretation as arbitrary or at least biased, but is an aggregate of bias any less biased just because it is common?

To be fair, I don't mind deconstructing works of fiction looking for symbolism. I happen to think that it's a bit over-done in most English classes I've ever been in or most literature journals I've ever read, though. And I think it takes itself too seriously very frequently. Much like Celebrim's assertion that his interpretation is "factual," for instance. Claims like that are what get my back up about the entire methodology."

Flimsy methodology. Hmm. Well, one author makes a claim...several people debate its merits and faults...a concensus is formed or fractured...the fractured or concentual idea is debated by several academics and is further fractured or a concensus is made... you see where I'm going with this, it's a evolutionary model of understanding--a structuralist argument if you will.. Each claim is not arbitrary. Each claim is backed up with textual evidence that is acknowledged or dismissed by the discourse community...very similar to science--albiet in an artsy-fartsy way. Your claim to the contrary appears far more arbitrary than centuries of critical analysis...but, I think your argument is based slightly more on poor experiences with terrible educators than with the authority of an entire discipline. A discipline should not hamfistedly promote dogma...it should illustrate the tecnique that created the dogma.

The common, or average, aspect is not a median of a grouping...it is the result of an ongoing morphing or reinterpretation of understanding.

And, yes. Far too many academics take themselves far too seriously...I feel this is more of a self-defense mechanicism derived from a discipline that deals with more subjectivity than objectivety. You should not be offended, you should pity them.