[Aiwendil]

For my own part, I only use examples of fantasy AND Science Fiction because "they are tarred with the same brush" in the literary community.

Agreed.

In this context it is ingenuity (or cleverness) and fluidity (or up-to-date relativism, if you prefer) that become cardinal virtues. A stolidly traditional narrative like LotR stands out like a smoker in California in this context (or me in California).

This is true. This is also one of the reasons I hate both modern and postmodern critics - they arrogantly assume that the style favored by them (which is to say, modernism or postmodernism) is the only truly valid style. They also have a strange way of treating art not as art, but as a byproduct of the artist's existence and his culture. I recently purchased a book called Perspectives on Musical Aesthetics, basically a collection of essays by modern critics and composers. What struck me about the essays (and I think is valid for literature as well) is that they focus intensely on the artist and the audience but say almost nothing of art.

This combination of stylistic arrogance and disinterest in works of art as such is characteristic of both modernism and postmodernism. The result: ancient epics and such are tolerated only insofar as they are seen as cultural artifacts. There is, alas, a very great number of literary scholars that do not like the Illiad for itself. This is what Tolkien fought against with regard to Beowulf. Beowulf, he said, is a great poem; it need not be set in any historical context to be appreciated as such. Unfortunately, this view remains rare.

So if, in the eyes of the (post)-modern critic, the only real merit of such epics is their age, then similar works produced today have no merit at all. Hence the hatred of LotR. I don't doubt that if Beowulf had been written in the twentieth century, it would have met with much the same reaction as did (and does) LotR. This is, of course, an absurd point of view; modern critics are deluding themselves by failing to critisize art as art.

. In a way, the overall 'sincerity' of the genre makes it seem somewhat childish in our postmodern world (that could be the ultimate compliment).

At least, in good fantasy this is true. A bit ironically, it is the very lack of sincerity in such things as Robert Jordan that causes them to fall short of Tolkien.

Which is why HP, with its opportunist eclecticism and political correctness, does grate against the Tolkienesque method.

I don't think it's really necessary to bring political correctness into the argument. I agree that HP is basically a postmodern novel; its similarity to Tolkien is actually rather superficial. It is ironic rather than heroic.

I don't like the idea of pomo, but can live with The Simpsons.

As much as I dislike modern and postmodern literary criticism, I feel I must point out that this does not necessarily correspond to a dislike of modern and postmodern literature. I dislike the modern critics' assertion that their way is the only way; I do, however acknowledge that it can be a valid way. But the Simpsons is comedy, which certainly did not arise with postmodernism! I would say that postmodernism is rather the application of irony (which has long existed in the form of comedy) to serious literature (or literature that is, at any rate, intended to be serious).

I would take it a step beyond and say that he made it almost a way of life. He was a part of his world, and perhaps affected by what happened in it, in a way that other writers are not.

Very true.

I agree with what you guys said about Tolkien-imitators. They write not because they feel like they have something to say, like Tolkien did, but rather because they feel like they have to say something.

I think it's somewhat misleading to say that Tolkien wrote because he had something he wanted to say. That's what modern authors of "serious" literature do. Tolkien certainly had no explicit "message" in his writing. He was, in a way, even more serious than those authors.

So actually, maybe the fact that their are so many Tolkien-imitatators out there prove how great Tolkien himself is. "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery," right?

Very true. The problem is that they fail to imitate him very well. They imitate the superficial elements but not the deeper heroism of his world.

Tell your average Star Wars watcher that they are watching sci-fi/fantasy and they will shift uncomfortably in their chair. Lumping in The Iliad with "all those old Greek-type tragedies" is doing a massive disservice to the best three days of your life. Dune, another favourite - in the minds of its avid readers, is not merely another sci-fi book.

I'm not convinced this is so true. I think the problem is precisely the opposite: literary critics are unwilling to elevate Tolkien to the ranks of literature; film critics are unwilling to do the same with Star Wars, etc. But many of the Star Wars fans that I know (including me) are quite comfortable with the fact that it's science fiction.

A last note: earlier I argued for a distinction between science fiction and fantasy. Now I think I've figured out why. It's simply this: we all agree that fantasy these days is mostly just a bunch of hacks with almost no talent copying Tolkien. In this case, we seem to agree with the modern critics who write it off as juvenile trash (though for different reasons). Science fiction, however, is a different story. There are plenty of talented science fiction writers around today, and they're not merely copying Wells or Asimov or Clarke. Science fiction is also detested by modern critics, but in this case I, at the least, disagree with them (as I do about Tolkien). The problem of modern fantasy is one of talent. The problem of science fiction is, like that of Tolkien, one of style.

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: Aiwendil ]