"Can Fantasy Ever Tell the Truth?"

"Can Fantasy Ever Tell the Truth?"

Is that even a reasonable question after Tolkien? Not to mention MacDonald, Voltaire, and countless others, from the Golden Ass to Little Big?

Comments

  1. TSMarch 17, 2011 at 9:39 AM

    Read something about fantasy last night from First Things:

    ( http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/03/reading-literature-faithfully )

    As part of their sometimes puzzling emphases, Jeffrey and Maillet elevate fantasy literature to a height that I find troubling. The greatest literature of the Christian tradition has followed the Bible in its type of realism. Dante’s exposition of the fourfold method of biblical exegesis in his letter to Can Grande included the claim that poetry—at least his poetry—could be read in the same way, and Flannery O’Connor reiterated the claim in our own time. Their claims were based on the historical “givenness” of what they depicted—for example, the real men and women of the Commedia or O’Connor’s true-to-Georgia characters. Dante explored the kinds of meaning to be found in the literal or historical level.

    Fantasy, by contrast, generates its meanings from an invented world, albeit one with implications for the literal one we inhabit. I find that Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee necessarily lack the ontological gravitas of Dante’s Cacciaguida or O’Connor’s Misfit. Tolkien’s many admirers obviously disagree, but there are implications here about faith and the enchantment of fantasy that Christians need to take up seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  2. StevenMarch 17, 2011 at 9:58 AM

    Dear TSO,

    I'm so sorry the reviewer is troubled, but I fail to understand why he should be. Below, I address the most egregiously erroneous points in the short piece you have shared.

    And I would cite that the greatest literature of the Christian Tradition is, itself, the Bible in which we find both the book of Jonah--not highly realistic--and the Book of Revelation--again, not what I'd call a paragon of realism. What then of John Bunyan, and the whole school he has promulgated--shall we say that allegory is not fantasy? That would seem arbitrary.

    And to claim that Dante is "realistic" is absurd--how could he be as what he was writing about was never observed? Tolkien could be called realistic on the same grounds.

    As to lacking ontological gravitas? So, it is accessible to the ordinary reader--that is somehow a problem?

    Anyway, I enjoyed hearing from you and from the reviewer with whom I will continue to disagree in nearly every particular. That's one of those things that makes the world so interesting.

    Thank you and

    shalom,

    Steven

    ReplyDelete
  3. JeffMarch 17, 2011 at 5:53 PM

    I find the review puzzling, too, because the reviewer suggests that after the long drought of escapism, fantasy is once again drinking from the deep well of reality and relevance. I'll be the first to admit that there's plenty of bad escapist fantasy (typically multi-book series that are copies of copies of copies of Tolkien), and that the culture surrounding fantasy fandom has a large escapist element, but it's become obvious to me recently that most fantasy, and all good fantasy, deals in some way with the limits and dangers of escapism. I suspect the reviewer is confusing subject matter he's finds personally interesting with quality.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Robert de Boron and the Prose Merlin

There are so many wonderful things about the internet: there was a time when a scholar had to order through ILL and wait for weeks or months before he or she could set eyes on such works as Geoffrey of Monmouth's Vita Merlini or Robert de Boron's Prose Merlin . No more. from Prose Merlin Robert de Boron Full wrothe and angry was the Devell, whan that oure Lorde hadde ben in helle and had take oute Adam and Eve and other at his plesier. And whan the fendes sien that, they hadden right grete feer and gret merveile. Thei assembleden togedir and seiden: "What is he this thus us supprisith and distroyeth, in so moche that oure strengthes ne nought ellis that we have may nought withholde hym, nor again hym stonde in no diffence but that he doth all that hym lyketh? We ne trowed not that eny man myght be bore of woman but that he sholde ben oures; and he that thus us distroyeth, how is he born in whom we knewe non erthely delyte?" Than ansuerde anothir fende and seide
Read more

Another Queen of Night

I post this because whenever I recommend to anyone the Queen of Night, I always recommend it in the Lucia Popp rendition.  It's a matter of personal taste, but what I love about this is that it is somewhat slower than the other versions and as a result, it would seem to me somewhat more difficult to perform and sustain--those high notes in which the Queen's voice becomes the Magic Flute itself are rounded, full, and deep while remaining light and airy. I have read some rather severe criticism of this ritardando; and while it may or may not reflect Mozart's intent, it is certainly within the options for staging.  It creates a real vocal showpiece from what is already a magnificent example of same. It really is an amazing example of a virtuoso composition sung by a virtuoso voice.  All of which should not be taken to mean that I do not truly appreciate the version posted earlier by Diana Damrau, it's just nice to see what a difference tempo can make. I think we can take
Read more