Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wild Gazebo" data-source="post: 2277661" data-attributes="member: 24413">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification