Noting that David Brin has a rather,shall we say negative attitude toward
a lot of high fantasy/mythic fantasy (to the extent that he believs it is
the future we should be looking to and science rather than myth we should
use to solve problems), I felt like asking the question: Is there
"fantasy" literature that is not reactionary, anti-scientific,
over-romantic, or any of the other accusations leveled at the
genre? Because if you take some of whwat Brin says about fantasy (in his
essay in Otherness for instance) and for "fantasy" substitute
"Tolkien," he's absolutely right.
Tolkien was *the* seminal influence on modern fantasy (and much of what
is published might not exist without him.) I just read a piece in Salon
(it's archived online) that basically dlefends LotR as a masterpiece, but
does point out some of the man's unfortnate political/philosophical views.
He made no secret of the fact he detested technology, loved trees and
considered industrialism and belief in "technological progress" nothing
less than the work of the devil. He believed truth-seekers should look to
myth and not to science because the latter leads to evil. This kind of
thing may well be the root of the crypto Luddism in things like the Star
Wars flicks too. (Turn off your computer and listen to the voices in
your head...) Was it really Campbell who we should blame for such memes?
I once heard someone say Star Wars was anti-technology, and someone else
answer "no, it was pro spiritual development." (well..the Force is more
newage or whatever than traditions such as the Judeo-Christian but Lucas
has said it is a kind of spiritual outlook.) Are technology and spiritual
development incompataible? i mean, not only was Tolkein deeply religious
but we have posters on here who are believers as well. Well, according to
theology no technology can save your *soul*, which brings us back to the
Ursula Le Guin idea (I think it was Le Guin who said it) that fantasy is
"inward" while SF is "outward." This is very different thatn the
'forward/backward" dichotomy, but for Tolkein I think it *was*
forward/backward. In his and other myths we are fallen from paradise so
Utopia is located in the past, not the future. I think Tolkien couldn't
have imagined that we could ever have both trees and machines. Can we?
We're an sfnal bunch here and less into fantasy, but I read both genres
and don't like "fantasy bashing." What do you think is the best *answer?*
(hm, maybe some things to post on the RFF list could come out of this
thread if it turns into a good thread.) Um, wasI the only one who thought
that that afterword to the story "Temptation" in Far Horizons (the part
*not* cribbed from the afterword to Heavens REach) was mean spirited and
gratuitous? He got on his soapbox and ranted against "magic in fantasy
literature." (IE egotistical belief your magic words can change objective
reality. Which in the Tolk. mythos would be defined as evil, except that
today's "magic" is technology.) I really enjoyed the story, appreciated
its message and felt it should have been left to speak for itself.
Kristin
(Julia take note- "science versus fantasY" hs some bearing on
"developing young readers" I think, because - well - children are actually
reading (miracles!) but what they re reading is fantasy (not good if you
wanted to get them into hard sf.)
