Kalessin:
Quote:
|
Firstly, that bad writing is not rescued, lifted or illuminated simply by being "in the genre" or by encompassing the thematic elements of faerie or myth. It is the quality of writing, the inspiration, imagination and craft in the narrative that actually elevate a work of fantasy to the heights you describe.
|
I couldn’t agree more.
Quote:
|
The second (somewhat related) key point is that precisely the sense of myth and dream that can resonate with such poetic truth is definitively achieved by much literature that is clearly not "in the genre". I would cite the magic realism of Latin America along with Borges, Joyce's Ulysses, Ray Bradbury, JG Ballard etc. etc. ad infinitum. And there are many examples within the genre of Science Fiction that I could name too - having just read the very moving Flowers for Algernon as an example….The technical quality of poesis is not intrinsically or necessarily linked to the fantasy genre.
|
I had a hunch that you might bring this up. Yes, I agree that many great “non-fantasy” writings have that quality such that one may virtually
live the story being read. There is, however, an additional aspect to poesis that I failed to mention in my last post, which, I’m glad I did since it gave you the opportunity to state the point so well. Using Tolkien’s words from
On Faerie Stories again,
Quote:
|
To you, a tree is simply a vegetable organism, and a star is simply a ball of inanimate matter moving along a mathematical course. But, the first men to talk of “trees and stars” saw things very differently. To them, the world was alive with mythological beings…To them the whole of creation was “myth-woven and elf-patterned”.
|
This is not mere personification, treating inanimate objects
as if they were animate or sentient. Rather, it is breathing life into so-called inanimate objects, evoking that ancient sense of
everything is alive.
Quote:
|
Personally, I am both attracted and repelled by the label fantasy.
|
I’m intrigued. Please explain.