~~ fantasy vs. fiction.
Sep. 6th, 2005 09:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaTo start with, I'll take pity on those of you who read this lj for an H/D fix (I can only imagine your woe, but)-- I wrote two of the fluffy/snarky marriage(!!) snippets for Aja's ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
the_eros_affair here. One of them -with- Aja. I call it "Untitled Fluffy Snark #2". I wonder if any of you could tell which bits are mine, muwahahaha. ♥
~~
In my creative writing class, we were reading our snippets aloud today, and there was a sentence in one girl's piece: "What is the difference between fantasy and fiction?"
The answer was basically an allegory for how in fantasy, the ugly rough broken spots of reality get smoothed over and swept under the carpet-- basically, fantasy isn't going to be emotionally, empirically 'realistic'.
You know, I was thinking about this, and I suppose it's actually true of how most people fantasize, how they view fantasy-- as an escape (and I realize that yes, for me also it's an escape). It's also the reason a number of 'realistic' writers look down on fantasy: after all, it can't tell you anything real about the world or the people around you. Fantasy is around to -lie-.
It seems like we have largely abandoned the traditional uses of allegory and myth in art; the way of the fairy-tale, the art of telling-without-telling, of telling obliquely, of showing through symbol and archetype and allegorical truth. I'm naturally of the bent that predisposes me to allegorical rather than everyday or 'mundane', empirical truth, so yes, 'fantasy' is just easier for me-- which becomes clear because only one of the snippets I heard in the class was really fantastical, and even that one seemed to look down on fantasy. We as a culture see truth as so cut-and-dry a lot of times-- at least, whenever we're not collectively being superstitious and idolizing authority and power. Well. I suppose it's always been like that.
Though there's a lot of 'filler' fantasy being published, much more than there was 50 years ago, say, and tons more than 100 years ago, most of it seems somewhat... standardized and unimaginative to me. The same old recycled pseudo-medieval tropes, the same old videogame retreads, the same old theme-park atmosphere. With HP, in a lot of ways it mocks the fantasy tropes it uses, but there's something about it-- something about the sheer inventivess and silliness that does hold a sense of wonder, it seems like. Even though it -should- feel recycled, it doesn't; it seems fresh if only because of that sense of... surprise, I suppose. Possibly this is a result of them being written like detective novels along with the largely innocent protagonist, or perhaps I'm just a chump. Whatever it is, I never know what silly/weird/odd/useful/funny thing JKR's magic will do next, in the Potterverse. It's like a bag of magic tricks, base stuff really, but it sparkles in a way most fantasy books just... flicker and glow dully.
Even in fanfic for a fantasy and fanart for a fantasy series like HP, there's not a lot of truly mythical/fantastical or allegorical stuff going on. Most people just write romance (rather than romantic fantasy, say), and what fantasy is there (not counting use of 'helper' spells like love potions or Veritaserum or Apparating or silly things like Veela!Draco-- I'm talking about actually being creative within the fantasy medium) is very... um, out of place somehow. I've seen 'wicca' (used badly), I've seen old Egyptian magic (omg, no), and at best I've seen creative variations on JKR's existing spells. Regardless, for some reason none of those things read as fantasy to me at the time-- just something with fantastical elements. I dunno... maybe it's not that it wasn't fantasy so much as it wasn't very good.
Anyway, I got to thinking about all this after looking at this Michael Whelan fantasy art gallery, which you should all see if you're interested in fantasy/allegorical art at all. Whelan's really a master at his chosen themes, and looking at it would give you a sense of the sort of thing I like to see dealt with in writing, also (and I guess you could also see why it's so rare that I find what I like on that level). Maybe it's just because I'm desperate for art to really mean something; to speak to me on multiple levels, from the most base (mmm, porrrnnn!!) to the most spiritual (allegory, dammit!)
In other words, I'm always looking to see the most unreal premise portrayed in a painstakingly realistic manner-- and that's one reason I love Whelan's approach, I think. It's also why I'm so deeply frustrated with nearly all H/D fics, because once the honeymoon glow wore off, no one was really writing them realistically enough, and my desire to suspend my disbelief for anything other than (a deeper) truth really ebbed.
Or maybe I just really like this picture. And this. And this; and this.... Still and always, I hope.
the_eros_affair here. One of them -with- Aja. I call it "Untitled Fluffy Snark #2". I wonder if any of you could tell which bits are mine, muwahahaha. ♥~~
In my creative writing class, we were reading our snippets aloud today, and there was a sentence in one girl's piece: "What is the difference between fantasy and fiction?"
The answer was basically an allegory for how in fantasy, the ugly rough broken spots of reality get smoothed over and swept under the carpet-- basically, fantasy isn't going to be emotionally, empirically 'realistic'.
You know, I was thinking about this, and I suppose it's actually true of how most people fantasize, how they view fantasy-- as an escape (and I realize that yes, for me also it's an escape). It's also the reason a number of 'realistic' writers look down on fantasy: after all, it can't tell you anything real about the world or the people around you. Fantasy is around to -lie-.
It seems like we have largely abandoned the traditional uses of allegory and myth in art; the way of the fairy-tale, the art of telling-without-telling, of telling obliquely, of showing through symbol and archetype and allegorical truth. I'm naturally of the bent that predisposes me to allegorical rather than everyday or 'mundane', empirical truth, so yes, 'fantasy' is just easier for me-- which becomes clear because only one of the snippets I heard in the class was really fantastical, and even that one seemed to look down on fantasy. We as a culture see truth as so cut-and-dry a lot of times-- at least, whenever we're not collectively being superstitious and idolizing authority and power. Well. I suppose it's always been like that.
Though there's a lot of 'filler' fantasy being published, much more than there was 50 years ago, say, and tons more than 100 years ago, most of it seems somewhat... standardized and unimaginative to me. The same old recycled pseudo-medieval tropes, the same old videogame retreads, the same old theme-park atmosphere. With HP, in a lot of ways it mocks the fantasy tropes it uses, but there's something about it-- something about the sheer inventivess and silliness that does hold a sense of wonder, it seems like. Even though it -should- feel recycled, it doesn't; it seems fresh if only because of that sense of... surprise, I suppose. Possibly this is a result of them being written like detective novels along with the largely innocent protagonist, or perhaps I'm just a chump. Whatever it is, I never know what silly/weird/odd/useful/funny thing JKR's magic will do next, in the Potterverse. It's like a bag of magic tricks, base stuff really, but it sparkles in a way most fantasy books just... flicker and glow dully.
Even in fanfic for a fantasy and fanart for a fantasy series like HP, there's not a lot of truly mythical/fantastical or allegorical stuff going on. Most people just write romance (rather than romantic fantasy, say), and what fantasy is there (not counting use of 'helper' spells like love potions or Veritaserum or Apparating or silly things like Veela!Draco-- I'm talking about actually being creative within the fantasy medium) is very... um, out of place somehow. I've seen 'wicca' (used badly), I've seen old Egyptian magic (omg, no), and at best I've seen creative variations on JKR's existing spells. Regardless, for some reason none of those things read as fantasy to me at the time-- just something with fantastical elements. I dunno... maybe it's not that it wasn't fantasy so much as it wasn't very good.
Anyway, I got to thinking about all this after looking at this Michael Whelan fantasy art gallery, which you should all see if you're interested in fantasy/allegorical art at all. Whelan's really a master at his chosen themes, and looking at it would give you a sense of the sort of thing I like to see dealt with in writing, also (and I guess you could also see why it's so rare that I find what I like on that level). Maybe it's just because I'm desperate for art to really mean something; to speak to me on multiple levels, from the most base (mmm, porrrnnn!!) to the most spiritual (allegory, dammit!)
In other words, I'm always looking to see the most unreal premise portrayed in a painstakingly realistic manner-- and that's one reason I love Whelan's approach, I think. It's also why I'm so deeply frustrated with nearly all H/D fics, because once the honeymoon glow wore off, no one was really writing them realistically enough, and my desire to suspend my disbelief for anything other than (a deeper) truth really ebbed.
Or maybe I just really like this picture. And this. And this; and this.... Still and always, I hope.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Cont'd
Date: 2005-09-07 10:13 am (UTC)I dunno, it's just not the same, because I'm not talking about the -current- driving societal myths, but rather the stuff more commonly used for fantasy/fairy-tales. I'm not talking about the 'great myths' but just the vehicle of communal storytelling that explained many things about the world, was fanciful and once deeply believed, but is no more. Is a relic. Is a story, merely, and pretty harmless (I mean, how much stock do -you- put in Ragnarok?).
I don't, but take a look at the Fundies in the US who strongly factor in their views on when "the Rapture" is supposedly going to happen when voting. I don't, because I'm pomo and over that bullshit. But the majority still does, because fairy-tales and common mainstream stories are still just recycled versions of the supposed meta-myths of our society. Snow White was raped in her original incarnation, but then Disney recycles it into a perfect version of the ideal heterosexual couple and it's consumed en-masse by millions of people. Where do you think "Rumplestiltskin" got his name from? The original German tale was almost porn, but again, suddenly it's a harmless and infantalised meta-myth to feed to children and stupid adults and performed by The East Valley Children's Theatre (http://www.evct.org/rumplestiltskin.html).
Do I even need to mention the seriousness of which not only schools in the US but in my country as well are considering teaching Creationism? Do I?
It's nice to think people are smart and that fairy-tales and meta myths are "just stories" now. The sad fact is, they're not, and even if they were just allegorical, that still doesn't excuse their claims to universalism and "the answers" as allegorical meta-myths do. It's the ones that do try and explain things about the world that are the dangerous ones, because they make claims to being "myffic" even if they don't end up as such.
I think here I need to say I'm not against things that metaphorically describe the world, but ones that either metaphorocially or seriously try and explain or prescribe the world. "Good stories", to me, say "This is how the world is" as a metaphor or as a reality. Bad ones - and all myths come into the category - say "This is how the world should be" in some form or another. Some fairy tales may have just been the former in their past lives. But these days? Nu uh. They've become the latter, most of the time simply for the purposes of marketing and money making. And the same goes for myths as well: There might be a time when someone speaking of a falling star mght metaphorically be trying to describe it to her son and say "It's a piece of the gods", but once it becomes part of the wide cultural context it's warped and turned into a prescriptive piece of myth ("You should do this and this but not that or else the gods will not impart themselves to us and the crops will die"). It's like I said about the difference between an ideal with the current "myths" you suggested and an actual myth - ie when a "story" becomes a "meta", in a way.
Re: Cont'd
Date: 2005-09-07 10:58 am (UTC)I mean, the difference between teaching Creationism in schools & like, uh, reading stories that are inspired by the myth of Ragnarok... I mean, you see the difference, right? One is still actively believed by a large portion of the populace and is publically presented as 'possible', the other... isn't. No one in power goes around giving any credence to Ragnarok coming. So... it is a harmless myth, y'know? The Rapture & Ragnarok therefore occupy different spaces in the storytelling spectrum even if they're both myths.
I agree that good stories describe rather than prescribe-- it's just that initially, myths prescribed, but after they're not believed anymore, they merely describe. It's a shift that happens, I guess--? I'm not talking about stories that are currently in the wide cultural context, which is why I like reading stuff with its heyday in the ancient past-- no danger there. Old stories aren't exactly toothless, but they're eventually dried of poison, and only the metaphor remains. I'm not talking about their most crass possible popularization-- those would be myths I'd discount and/or leave alone anyway, not worth my interest, being so polluted. I mean... in the end, this is all about different types of symbol & metaphor, which is inherently descriptive rather than prescriptive. Or at least, those are the aspects I seek out and enjoy~:)
Re: Cont'd
Date: 2005-09-07 11:34 am (UTC)No, btu I think it was so popular because it reduced them down to myffic supposed universals and stripped them of their "story" context. Fairy-tale retelling isn't an intrinsically bad thing, by mythologising a lot of things is. I know there's a difference between telling a story inspired by a myth, and telling a myth itself.
But also, just because nobody puts credence in Ragnarok, doesn't mean it couldn't happen with a slight shift in society, and the right PR machine. That's all it took for the fundamentalism to get going in the US. It could be stripped down to its generalisations and warped quite easily into a controlling myth if someone with the right frame of mind wanted. Any story could. That's when stories stop being stories and start being myths - when the falling-star becomes the god of fertillity.
I don't know if I agree that myths describe once they're "dead" (to use a phrase). I just think there's not enough context to prop up their supposed universality - the great paradox of any myth. You know, NO myth is ever truly universal - once you get away from humans, it's all bloody pointless, so "universal" only exists as far as the human ego extends. But anyway, they can easily have their "poison" injected back into them in different parts - the crazy end-of-the-worldism is only a revamp in the most recent centuries to feed the false-victimisation complex of US conservatives. Their context is changed so the danger lies in other "universals" that are projected into/onto them by the controllers of the spreading of the myths.
I'm not talking about their most crass possible popularization-- those would be myths I'd discount and/or leave alone anyway, not worth my interest, being so polluted.
You myffic elitist, you XD. Funnily enough, these are some of my favourite versions of myths, if just to see how they reflect the world around them. A culture is defined by its pop culture, you know?
Re: Cont'd
Date: 2005-09-07 12:05 pm (UTC)Well, of course! I wasn't ever meaning to stories/art that actually takes the -function- of myth or allegorical 'lessons' rather than using the style and conventions/history as an inspiration or genre (like, 'working within'). I don't like stories that prescribe, after all. I've never really felt a danger with actually making a new myth, personally-- I think that sort of happens without volition a lot of times, when stories take on a life of their own, for instance-- like, I dunno, HP in some ways. JKR definitely didn't set out to create a universe people would cling to this tightly-- or at least I doubt it.
I like to see how a myth retelling reflects the current world, but in a more subtle sense rather in a 'watch the car-crash at work' sense. Myths can't help but reflect us, I think that's there innate power. But if one is aware of the elements and metaphors being invoked, they're teaching tools, archetypal storehouses, ways to speak of things which have no other outlet or way of being expressed quite that way. Not everything can be spoken of through the everyday world; layers, layers!! Heh.
I think I'm as interested in the possible concretification (I made up a word!) of the universal as you are in the danger of the universalization of the concrete or something like that. :))
PS. WHY IS MY UPSTAIRS NEIGHBOR BLARING JAZZ MUZAK AT 8AM THAT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ONE FLOOR DOWN OH MY FUCKING GOD WHY WHY WHY. H8.
Re: Cont'd
Date: 2005-09-08 12:18 am (UTC)I know, which, really, I think is what's given the HP books almost myffic status. She generalises, theres no details, as I've said in my many arguments against the lack of logic in the books. She reduces the typical stories down to their most basic components, just as Lucas stripped Kurosawa's story of The Hidden Fortress down to a basic and added your usual hero story to make his first movies.
There is the exception, of course, of Tolkein, though it's debatable whether his stories are actual socially powerful myths in our society, or whether his stories are just a popular retelling of the Christ myth.