Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fordim Hedgethistle
In fantasy, she argued, authors are free to offer up versions of our world in which the comfortable truths that we live in are either suspended or turned on their head. Her central point seemed to be that realist fiction is based on conforming to the accepted, the normative, and the comfortable, whereas fantasy is all about “alternatives” – specifically, she identified “good” fantasy as being about “other ways of being or living.”
|
I find this interesting, as the appeal for many in fantasy literature is that it is
escapist, in that it offers the reader a temporarily release from the
uncomfortable truths that govern their daily lives. In one sense, it offers a fresh and exciting alternative to the daily grind of life in the real world which can, at times, seem dull and humdrum in comparison. There are many here who would willingly swap their "real world" life for a life in Middle-earth, as Child's
What will you choose? thread testifies.
And fantasy, to a significant degree, also removes the difficulty in assessing moral choices. In Middle-earth, for example, it is fairly easy to assess a particular course of action as "good" or "bad". Now I accept that it's not quite as straightforward as that. The characters of Boromir, Denethor and Eowyn (to my mind, the most fascinating characters in the work) show us that there are moral dilemmas to be faced within Middle-earth. But there is a fairly well drawn line between "good" and "evil". Not so in real life, where most of us face choices in which it is often difficult to perceive the "best" course and we are daily presented with moral dilemmas on a broader society (and world) wide scale.
So, rather than being "subversive" is not fantasy rather "liberating", in the sense that it takes many of the difficult choices away? Or is Le Guin saying that this is precisely why it is "subversive"? That there are many who feel comfortable with these moral dilemmas and cannot accept that there might be a world where moral choices are more clearly defined? Possibly, although (while I accept that Tolkien's works have much to tell us about ways of living) I have difficulty in believing that such a world is possible, and yet I do not find his works uncomfortable or subversive to my way of thinking.
And, even accepting that there may well be those who find "good" fantasy uncomfortable because it challenges their views on life, I nevertheless find Le Guin's comment to be somewhat of an over-generalisation. It cannot explain the attitude of everyone who holds fantasy in low regard. There are no doubt many who, while they would agree with the sentiments expressed in Tolkien's works, do not find the format within which they are expressed to be appealing. People who perhaps find their "subversive" views reflected in alternative styles or media. I do not see fantasy as being the exclusive, or even (for many) the best, medium for showing people alternative, and perhaps better, ways of living.