Why read fantasy?

Remove all ads!

I read alot of Fantasy and Sci-Fi and a bit of Historical stuff too...but I read as a form of escape, sometimes you want to just sink into another world, and well reading helps me do that, doesn't matter what genre, but Fantasy and Sci-Fi are the easiest for me to sink into

 

That's interesting. But I think it's merely because of the rudimentary evil versus good theme that's based on the used sagas and the timing of WWII is sheer coincidence.

Indeed, the evil/good theme plus Tolkien being in the tradition of German Romantik, together with the Grimms and Wagner, and having a book about a "Ring" (ring, germany,nationalism, ringing any bells ?) let to ad-hoc conclusions that seriously tempered Tolkien books Continental-European sells in the beginning. Or at least put him into a certain corner were honest men don't want to be.

Ah, there is no fluent German speaking linguist in the fist half of the 20th. that's innocently going to work on something politically loaded as a fable, feary tale or legend. No, no, no.

On topic: I wasn't aware that Shakespeare isn't considered a fantasy author. What about Faust and his buddy Mephistopheles ? Indeed, it was the prescribed school reading that brought me into fantasy. A Cockwork Orange, A brave new world, Hoffmann's The Sandman and the Devil's Elixirs (that's a hell of a book), Faust and that Gretchen, Othello, Desdemona and that other guy who's name I can't remember, Kafka's Metamorphosis, Don Quichote and his windmills... and so on...

Sometimes I read conventional fiction, but it usually hasn't a lasting affect on my memory.

 

Most people feel that Tolkien's inspirations with regards to the warfare in Lord of the Rings came from his own experiences fighting in the first World War.

Tolkien was actually very hostile against any such suggestions saying that his stories were not at all allegorial, but no one else seems to believe that.

 

You are only playing with definitions here. To follow that to its conclusion, is to say that all works of fiction, and I guess we should include plays and poetry (since Shakespeare didn't write fiction), are "fantasy." That would be a meaningless statement. Besides, then you have the arduous task of stating how fantasy is different from other forms of literature, not how its the same thing.

 

That brings to mind the first day of my University course on fantasy literature. The first thing we discussed was how basically any fiction falls under the actual definition of fantasy literature. We were then presented with a silly little chart comparing just how far from reality (or more fantastic if you would prefer) that the different types of fantasy novels tend to be. Novels with dragons, elves and wizards would fall pretty far away from the reality end of the fantasy scale.

Actually, some of Shakespeare's plays fit right in with what we generally call fantasy. Try the Tempest for example.

 

It has the appeal, sure. This not to say I don't read sci-fi or realistic fiction, but something has always drawn me to fantasy and sci-fi and action books rather than what is considered classics -- at least most of it, for some I have indeed read and enjoyed and some I have simply had to read, no matter enjoying or not. I just don't care about Russian literature, all sorts of leftist hispanic literature Nobel winners or whatever else is the fad or was at some point. Shakespeare, surprisingly, I have read quite a lot in the original, without having to, but it was probably all about the charm of the old-fashioned English and the show-off value. Historical fiction is another point on my favourite list.

 

Well, there is no definition of fantasy given yet in this thread. But I'd change the dircection given by JSBB (Novels with dragons, elves and wizards) slightly and say that elves aren't necessary. It's enough if there are fantastic creatures (dragons, unicorns, talking skulls) and /or magic (wizards and spells). And then, like JSBB, I'd say "the tempest" is definitely fantasy. And so is, at least in parts, "hamlet" and "macbeth".

And then, what about Milton and "paradise lost" ?

Fantasy elements are all over serious literature. I even say that fantasy in earlier times made up a huge share of all serious fantasy.

And certainly in German literature, where romanticism is one of the most important genres. With Goethe writing about a wizard called Faust and Mephiostopheles and "Erlkönig" (elvenking ?).

http://ingeb.org/Lieder/werreite.html

 

No, sorry, they don't. Maybe in what you call "fantasy" they do, but again you are playing against convention. When you go to your bookstore, university library, public library, do you find _The Tempest_ in the fantasy section? Is that the first place you look for any volume on Shakespeare? You can read any work of imaginative fiction/play/poetry on a given LEVEL as fantasy, but Shakespeare operates on many levels at one time. His plays are many things to many people.

You would have had a stronger case, which I have often made, with the _Fairy Queen_ by Edmund Spenser. But let's not stop there: How about _The Tain_? _The Divine Comedy_? You wished to include Milton, why not Dante?_The Lais of Marie de France_? _The Saga of the Volsungs_? Better yet, let's just cut right to the chase and label _Beowulf_ a work of fantasy.

I had argued, while a student in the literary department, that fantasy has a literary tradition that has its origins in the imaginative writings/mythology/epic poetry of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. The quick response was that it is "derivative, escapist, and as such of marginal importance in the tradition."

While making that argument, I did not mean to say that those works are fantasy adventure of the sort of genre fiction that is written today, as is being suggested here, PARTLY because the authors themselves meant them to be something different.

Nevertheless, they are original sources that inform many contemporary fantasy writers. Of course, we can devalue those sources by relagating them to the mere status of typical genre fantasy, which would excite those PCers in the departments who would like to see those sources, including Shakespeare, scrapped from the literature text books anyway.

But most literary works are judged by the context in which they were intended to be viewed by their authors and the literary conventions of their own times. Taking that into account, I strongly believe that Marie de France and Edmund Spenser meant for their works to be read, on a few levels at least, as fantasy - and as adventure stories. BUT, whereas it was pointed out very quickly that Tolkien did not want his story to be read on the level of politics and religion, Spenser did want his readers to see different contexts of his epic poem that was both religious and political. In that sense it is not pure genre fiction.

In addition, Spenser was attempting to fashion a work that was a national epic in the same sense that Homer had for Greece and Virgil had for Rome. Spenser was working within a "literary tradition," which was decidedly both of his times - the Renaissance - and a national tradition, which, to this day, is English. In this sense Tolkien achieved much the same: His work can be considered a national epic, written within the context of the 20th century. And he tapped into the old sources and created a genre, which his work transcended. It is literature.

Profesionals working within a discipline develop conventions to be able to sharpen definitions and to able to convey them with greater clarity. In this way the non-professional does not confuse Shakespeare with Terry Brooks.

 

Conventions. Yes. And usually, there are plenty of plausible conventions with their own reasoning. But you still haven't stated the convention you use, i.e. your definition of fantasy. But you seem to use a "quality" clause. The convention I use and know has no quality clause, it only deals with the theme and used means, i.e. if it has magic and/or surnatural things in them. That's actually the only convention that I know.

And if I am in the bookshop, it's usually the SF/Fantasy/Terror department, as those three genres usually are hard to distinguish from eachothter definition wise. In case of an unclarity, there's no need to search all over the shop.

The classics are in their own classic department. Their definition is clear. What's in the classic segment of a publisher is a classic according to leading opinion of the canon-keepers in the competent faculty.

But what I don't like are pecking order conventions. Because I think they have a bad impact on people and their attitudes. I've actually read two books of Terry Brooks, so I am aware of the depth and shallowness that exist. Yet there is no way that I would try to dissuade someone from reading Terry Brooks. There's no accounting for taste. And Terry Brooks is probably a master in his own right. He seems to be able to give something that some can't find somewhere else.

To make it clear, I am not talking about you now, CTR, but in real life, people that talk about canon and "good literature" are a pain in the ass and the most tasteless people that are around. They are the apotheosis of shallowness. It seems that the canon thinking breeds people that are convinced that book reading is a serious matter, that needs a lot of willpower and is necessarily entwined with either endless tediousness or sheer pain. And if there is a hint of entertainment, it has to suck. Those people barely read, yet have a clear opinion about everyhting and its worth.

 

I agree with much of what you are saying here. But I would not wish to encapuslate my own ideas on fantasy and the current state of literature into a single post. It would probably prove to be overly long and arduous.

 

I'm not reading because of escapism, definately not. I just like the setting. Not that I dream of living in it, I just like it. It's different from society now (and that's not an argument that it's escapism).

 

I find it amusing that in talking about Shakespeare and fantasy, no-one has made the obvious suggestion- Midsummer nights dream

 

Actually, I read all those book types.

Why does fantasy have a special appeal to me, though? Well, fantasy books are the means through which I can escape this wretched world when it has become too much. I've read fantasy always, and it has a "sort-of" mending effect on my mind and soul whenever it feel shattered. To travel to a world in which you can attend in heroic battles, fight evil villains, and most importantly wherein good will always triumph over evil; no matter how ultimate it may be!

Who wouldn't want to be, say, Gandalf? To be all powerful, all wise, but still good and soft on the inside? To travel the world on the back of Dragons, sit with the elves, listening to their beautiful poems, practicing with sword and arcane powers alike!

Sure, to some degree Sci-fi does the exact same thing; fantasy is just more magical and enchanting.

 

I read fantasy and SF books because they put my imagination to work .After I read a chapter of Dune or LOTR I can let my imagination go wild a few moments . I can't do that when I'm reading War and Peace.

 

I like getting ideas for new RPG characters. Almost all of my good RPG character are based off a fantasy novel character (with the exception of my Simpsons IWD2 party).

 

Well i suppose i shall include my input on this matter. I am a fantasy and sci-fi reader and really that is all i read. I have tried to read other books but i find no interest in them at all, they do not hold me, or i cannot sit and actually get into the story. I would think that i prefer fantasy and sci-fi because it is a way to escape reality and read about great things other people did, in a completely new world. it might be that i like to not read about where i live or things that i already know about, or it might be that i have a biased opinion, which of these i know not, but i really cannot sit and read a book that is not fantasy or sci-fi.