Quote:
Originally Posted by Bêthberry
This thread's title comes from a blog by Dr. Dimitra Fimi, a well-regarded scholar of Tolkien and fantasy. Her thoughts in the blog struck me as interesting for our discussions here, where we often quote Tolkien's letters as the definitive take on a topic or idea. Yet as Dr. Fimi suggests, there are different ways of reading, different pleasures. And, those pleasures may depend on the type or mode of fantasy an author uses.
Is this a helpful distinction, between readers who read for immersion in alternate worlds and readers who enjoy simply the possibility of alternate worlds without the saturation? I've always been bemused by Tolkien's defense of "applicability" and the freedom of the reader with his attempts in his letters to explain how his Legendarium ought to be read.
Her blog entry is easy to read: Authorial Control and World Building |
Thanks for linking this- and yes, I think it is a helpful distinction, and no doubt explains why readers of certain works of fantasy are much more likely to engage in passionate debates over "canonicity", or obsess over background characters, or worry about minor inconsistancies... you know, what we do here, basically.
Fimi's thoughts on "intentional fallacy" vs "fallacy of anonymity" as "equally perilous paths" are also interesting, given that we quite often treat this as a very black-and-white issue, a simple matter of choosing one or the other approach.