[Mister Underhill]

Maril! I was wondering when you would show up.

First: Aiwendil, thank you for the further clarification. I admit to playing the devil’s advocate somewhat to illustrate a few points. I think a large part of the confusion comes from lumping differing mediums under the general banner of “Art” and then making generalizations. Leaving other forms aside and concentrating on literature, I guess the question then becomes, what sort of content is aesthetically pleasing, and what sort is problematic? Can content be separated from morality? We’re diving back into issues here that have already been thoroughly explored and which are rather abstract, so don’t feel compelled to respond if you’re weary of this line. The thing that fascinates me is that I agree with quite a bit of what you say, yet occasionally take something else you write to stand in opposition to other of your arguments, making me question whether I really read you right on the things I agree with. If that makes sense.

Kalessin: I don’t mean to argue for an evangelical interpretation of Tolkien’s works. I’ve noticed this is a sore spot for you, and it fascinates me somewhat. Consequently, I’ve somehow got into the position of defending what seems at times like an LotR-as-Biblical-allegory argument. I don’t think that acknowledging Tolkien’s Catholicism and its effects on his work poses any more danger of “appropriation” than acknowledging Tolkien’s Englishness and its effects on his work. I can acknowledge the work’s essential Englishness without feeling excluded from it because I’m an American. Take away the Englishness, and can you have LotR? If you take away the Catholicism, can you have it? Argh! – now I feel I’m stumbling off track. We need a grand Unified Tolkien Theory thread to integrate all these issues. The point I’m feeling my way around here is that fantasy these days subtracts the Catholicism (and all other kinds of –isms). *Sigh* Did I just go oh for two?

Maril.

Or would that mean that there can only be one seminal work to dominate Fantasy until it loses its potency once sheer age, shifts in language and culture makes it unreadable to its intended audience? Is that dominance simply because one work came first? And due to the fact it explores the same Archetypes, a second work on this naturally limited genre can only be inevitably compared to it?
Or is it due to the quality of the work itself? If this dominance is due to the quality of the work, then the Archetypal Devourer theory is disproved, because the it is the individual work that is important, not the nature of the genre.

Perhaps it’s the power of the Archetypal Devourer to swallow a might-have-been work before it can even be born. It leaves you wondering, what else is there to say? A person reads Tolkien and is inspired with love for the genre; grows up and aspires to follow in the footsteps of their hero. The lesser talents are content to imitate their icon; the truly great talents who might have been able to accomplish something of comparable quality are stunned into silence by Tolkien’s comprehensive treatment of the archetypes and icons of the genre, and go sell insurance or become telemarketers instead. Heh. I don’t want to get into hagiography either. The fact remains that no work of equivalent quality exists.

This sounds more like an addiction on the part of the audience, to tell you the truth. An addiction to a particular feeling, or catharsis. If receptivity is the issue, and the "Archetypal Devourer" is not, than the audience for the genre is the real limitation if Fantasy.

I think you’re at least partly right here. I was astonished to learn that the Star Wars novel “I, Jedi” was considered a risky venture because it was written in (*gasp!*) the First Person (hence the title). However, I think that the conventions of the fantasy (i.e., swords-and-sorcery) genre play a large part here. Since tales of this sort employ ancient weaponry, ancient modes of travel, ancient technology, and other ancient iconography, a traditional, even antiquated mode of storytelling is the preferred style. Perhaps it’s the definition of the genre itself which has become such a straitjacket.