How does Tolkien (1964) define fantasy? Compare and contrast this to the other definitions from last week’s reader?
Tolkien (1988; 1964) describes fantasy as the highest form of art, and if done well, the most powerful. He explains that fantasy deals with ideas, physical objects or beings that do not exist within our own reality, and is primarily defined by being unlike our own world (Tolkien, 1988; 1964). This definition matches what Attebury (1980) discussed in last week's reader, when he describes fantasy as having attributes that are not known to exist or are physically impossible in our own world.
Tolkien (1988; 1964) felt that fantasy came naturally to human beings, and that in making fantasy we are able to use our imaginations whilst at the same time, still adhering to human reason. In fact, the more logic we can obtain is creating a fantasy narrative, the clearer and more creative the fantasy will be (Tolkien, 1988; 1964). In contrast, in last week’s reader, Le Guin (2005) states that the more coherent a fantasy story is, the more plausible it will seem to the reader or viewer.
Why does the religious right in the US condemn fantasy, according to Cockrell (2004)? On what grounds does Cockrell defend fantasy literature, using Harry Potter as an example?
According to Cockrell (2004), the religious right in the US think that fantasy is deceitful, and that it will cause their children to participate in deceitful behaviour. Surely these people don’t want their children to watch documentaries, if they really want entertainment completely based in our own reality? They also say that Harry Potter teaches people witchcraft, by concealing it as entertainment, and that Harry’s scar is a satanic ‘S’ (Cockrell, 2004). Cockrell (2004) suggests that the reason why fundamentalist Christians are so offended by Harry Potter is because it is low fantasy, meaning that the story begins in our own world, which makes it seem like more of a threat. They may view this as a threat because it is harder to separate this magical world that has been created in the book from our own reality (Cockrell, 2004). Even if we are looking at such books as Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, which is considered high fantasy, this is less offensive because Tolkien is not trying to fit in their world (Middle Earth) with our own.
Because fantasy is so at odds with the real world, and thus is at odds with what we know to be true, there will always be people who are disturbed and outraged but these fantastical worlds that have been created. Even though most children fantasies have a tendency towards moralistic messages and warn children against use of evil magic, there are still people within the Christian right that read something into these films or books that simply are not present (Cockrell, 2004). Using an example from Harry Potter and The Philosophers Stone, Cockrell (2004) states that people cannot stop their children from experiencing this magic dimension anymore than the Dursleys could stop Harry from getting his letters from Hogwarts.
References
Attebery, B. (1980). Locating the Fantasy. In The fantasy tradition in American literature: From Irving to Le Guinn (pp.2-9). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Cockrell, A. (2004). Harry Potter and the Witch Hunters: A social context for the attacks on Harry Potter. The Journal of American Culture, 29(1), 24-30. doi:10.1111/j.1542-734X.2006.00272.x
Le Guin, U. (2005). Ursula K. Le Guin: Plausibility Revisited. Wha Hoppen and What Didn’t. Retrieved from http://www.ursulakleguin.com/PlausibilityRevisited.html
Tolkien, J. R. R. (1988; 1964). On Faerie Stories. In Tree and Leaf. London: Unwin Hyman.
hey stacey,
ReplyDeletei enjoyed reading your posts but i was wondering what your opinion on both questions were.
first off do you prefer Tolkien or Le Guins definition?
i found Le Guins to be more plausible only because i think that placing logic into a narrative is more sci-fi than fantasy.
how do you feel about the religious slamming H.P gets ? do you think its justified ?
I think that I liked the way Tolkien expressed his opinions about fantasy better, but I agree with both of them. I do think that there is a place for logic in fantasy, because Tolkien doesn't mean logic in the traditional sense, he means that a fantasy narrative must be coherent and clear enough for us to feel that it is genuine.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the opinions of the religious right in general, and I think that they read far too much into works of fiction such as Harry Potter. These things are made to be enjoyed, yet these people make entertainment into something that it was never supposed to be. I wish people would just concentrate on what they do like instead of condemning things they don't like.
Hi Stacey,
ReplyDeleteWell done on another good post here, and good to see you and Courtenay commenting on each other's work - well done!
Do you thihnk Le Guin's and Rowling's work fits well into Tolkien's definition? Le Guin's? Attebery's?
I too disagree with the opinions of the religious right in general, and think the 'dangers' that they identify can be found in many texts across many genres. I also think that the popularity of Harry Potter was something they tried to 'cash in' on and further their cause. Do you think they would have similar concerns about EarthSea?
Esther :)