Kalessin-- You're right. Jazz was the wrong comparison. I meant 'variations on a theme.' I agree, Tolkien's variations are more conservative/ classical. I was trying to contrast the alienating effect of coining a word with a bald introduction, as in the movie, or in other works of fantasy.
Compare 'We must reach the woods of Lothlorien!' to the variations on a theme by definition, elaboration, naming and renaming:
Quote:
|
There lie the woods of Lothlorien! ... then the boughs are laden with yellow flowers; and the floor of the wood is golden, and golden is the roof, and its pillars are of silver ... the woods of Laurelindorian! That is what the elves used to call it, ... Lothlorian ... Land of the Valley of Singing Gold, that was it, once upon a time. Now it is the Dreamflower. ... Laurelindorinan lindelorendor ...'
|
Belin--Thank you for the kind words. I liked your description of 'that thing.'
Quote:
|
art ... does That Thing to an onlooker that's so difficult to describe, and which is necessary, not an escape at all but necessary. And fantasy, used properly, is a good way to go about it, because all the literalisms and all the mundanity doesn't have to get in the way. It can go straight into you without having to pass through the stupid details of your life and yet does not in the slightest eschew detail.
|
I recall the strange parallel Madjas. What I most remember of Goya's is his dark narrative drawings, though I don't think I responded the way you did. Don't know any other pictures of his. I don't know Rilke.
littlemanpoet-- thank you for your response, and for the insightful questions. I don't know the works of Kay. I'll try to clarify my ideas for you.
By meaning, I mean themes: Loss, Spirituality, Friendship, Depression, etc.
By structure, I mean plot and character, mainly. Also, the terms by which the world functions: magic, peoples and languages, geography, prehistory, etc. I like Kalessin's term archetype. I would say the structure of the Lord of the Rings is built out of several archetypes, each of which serves a theme.
These archetypes derive from a common heritage of myth, stories, and Tolkien's Catholic faith. I'll check out your thread, Estelyn. Right now, I'm concerned with Tolkien's methods as applied to archetypes. Some examples:
Archetype: Kalessin's 'narrative of sacrifice and redemption,' Theme: Spirituality
Archetype: a narrative of loss and nostalgia, Theme: loss of a connection to the past and the environment
Archetype: a narrative of the heroic quest, Theme: surmounting depression and despair, I think. It depends on the applicability of the dark lord.
Archetype: a narrative pulse in which a miserable, difficult trek in the wild repeatedly culminates in shelter! fire! food! friends! Yes, I think entering the pub or the friend's house after a long day of walking is a powerful archetype for Tolkien. Theme: friendship and companionship, romantically heightened by these reverses.
The negotiation I spoke of --between theme and structure-- is made necessary by competing themes and their conflicting archetypes. In some cases the archetypes also enhance and intensify each other's effects. This is what makes the structure, together with the themes of the story, feel composed to me, rather than just borrowed from powerful sources. It renews and refreshs the archetypes.
Kalessin, I am not simply saying this book is as effective as it is because it taps a powerful archetype. The reconciliation between competing themes and conflicting (or cooperating) archtypes makes the depths of the story seem composed. Below the surface it feels to me like a poem.
Mr Underhill, let's say for the sake of argument that Tokien's composition of a great, powerful, emotioanlly rewarding --mmm-- Hyper-Archetype is so comprehensive it gives later writers no motivation to perform their own negotiation of theme and structure-- all the relevant archetypes have been put together for them. Avoiding this necessary stage in the creation of a new story in a new world fatally impoverishes their creative process. I doubt this is the case, but if so, then the fantasy genre would then be in a plight similar to that of Ungolient the devourer -- she could only consume herself until there was nothing left. I don't think things are quite that hopeless-- I hope not! I haven't performed a comprehensive review of current fantasy writing, so I have hope that the good new books are out there, and I'm just not detecting them through the noise. Suppose this is a factor, though, what should a writer do to induce a fresh act of sub-creation? Read Tolkien's sources but try to forget Tolkien and everything after? Avoid the medieval era? Learn fresh narrative techniques by reading books outside of the fantasy genre that also describe a world as well as tell a story? I was reading a book review of David Davidar's The House of Blue Mangoes written by Akash Kapur, when I came across this, which I thought was applicable to fantasy writing also. (NY Times Book Review, 3-31-2002)
Quote:
|
Some of the obstacles he faces are particular to Indian (or, at any rate, non-Western) writers. ... for Indian authors, the difficulty involves writing for a Western audience that knows little about the society in question. V.S. Naipaul, lamenting the difficulties he faced, pointed out that 'fiction works best in a confined moral and cultural area, where the rules are generally known.' ... Writers like Rushdie and Seth – and now Davidar – have responded to this challenge by attempting to reconstruct in their fiction the edifice of subcontinental culture. Their novels are not only narratives .. but ... ethnographies, explorations and lessons in cultural difference that provide context even as they tell a story
|
This applies to writing fantasy novels also. I think we need a new definition of the fantasy novel. How about, the fantasy novel creates a world and tells a story of elemental power. Is that enough? If India didn't exist except in dreams, would these books qualify as fantasy? Someone else had better answer this last question, as I've just started reading my first novel in this genre. (A House for Mr Biswas, by V.S. Naipaul) Also, we could try reading anthropology. Perhaps as readers, we should establish an 'alternative fantasy' category. What books would you put into it?
[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]
[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]
[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]