Robots and Aliens vs. Elves and Orcs

[radagastly]

Lachwen--That's true, though when science fiction attempts serious content beyond mere entertainment, it is more likely to take the form of social commentary than fantasy fiction is. Fantasy tends to center around magic and mythology (as Tolkien does, though with surprisingly less magic than one would expect) and as such tends to deal more with personal or human issues since these things are partly the source of mythology. Certainly not as a strict rule, but as a general rule of thumb, it lends itself more to these kinds of themes just as science fiction lends itself to more political and social themes. That is all I meant really.

[Feanor of the Peredhil]

"Terrorism is happening, there are evil governments," says Sawyer. "People are looking for a simplicity in their fictional worlds where good and evil are clearly delineated, that you can't find in the real world, and that provides an enormous comfort -- and that, I think, has an awful lot to do with the reason fantasy is so popular."

As much as other people may disagree with the above statement, I must admit that it rings true in my case. As I pointed out the other day to my English teacher, there is nothing wrong with escapism (he's anti-Tolkien, preferring realism, such as found in works by Steinbeck or Hemmingway), and my life currently needs that outlet.

In literature, there are 'good guys' and there are 'bad guys'. The good guys fight for a noble cause, while the bad guys are... for lack of better word: bad. The struggle against each other, and usually, the good guys win. Occasionally they don't, however there is always a visable difference between both sides of the spectrum. Grey areas, indeed, are present, but there is always a clear "right" involved.

In life, it is not so simple. Good people sometimes do bad things. There may or may not be people who are truly "bad", simply misguided, troubled, confused, etc. Simple choices can turn a 'good' person 'bad' at the drop of a hat, whether they know it or not. In life, outside factors much affect a person's state of mind and decision making capabilities. Nobody is inherently evil (I still can't find that blasted thread to link to), and so you cannot simply say "I am good, and my enemy must therefore be evil."

Because of this lack of distinction between what is right and wrong, it makes a nice escape from a very confusing life to be able to dive into a book where decisions are made and good triumphs over evil. When you cannot fight your own enemies (literal, or figurative), it is a comfort to read about 'bad guys' getting pounded. For example: it is very nice right now to read Shatterglass by Tamora Pierce, and see the bad guys brought to justice by good people who work hard to stay that way. And Fea laughs quietly to herself, for managing, once again, to stay on topic AND promote Pierce's work.

Fea

[Encaitare]

I like reading both science fiction and fantasy, although I prefer the latter. I do agree to some extent to what Sawyer wrote, but why can't this apply to science fiction as well? There are defined good and evil characters in sci-fi too. I will admit that fantasy is more of an escape for me, since I prefer dragons and swordfights to spaceships and laser guns, but that's just my stance.

That's true, though when science fiction attempts serious content beyond mere entertainment, it is more likely to take the form of social commentary than fantasy fiction is. --radagastly

Very true! I'm reading "Dune" right now, and it's great, but it's so political. However, this doesn't keep it from being "escapist." To me, any good read is a form of escape.

[Lachwen]

To me, any good read is a form of escape.

Good point, Encaitare! I feel the same way. As my parents can vouch, the moment I get a good book in my hands, I'm gone.

But getting back to the whole sci-fi/fantasy thing, I actually find the line between the two to get quite fuzzy sometimes (like in Niven's Footfall). I have read several science fiction stories that are probably only considered sci-fi because the author uses actual science to flesh the story out while the main storyline is pure fantasy. (Asimov's short story Pâté de Foie Gras is a good example: they find the Goose that lays the golden eggs.)

[Regin Hardhammer]

Thanks everybody for your ideas. On one level you're right about books giving us a way out of our everyday life. In that sense, any book can be an 'escape'. It can get you away from immediate problems you have to deal with in school or work or whatever.

But escape can be more than that. It's like what Tolkien said. Can you blame the prisoner who's trying to escape? It could be that the life outside his prison is better than the life that's inside. Sometimes "escape" from your present life can start you thinking about ideas that you would never consider in your regular day-to-day existence.

My personal feeling is that writing about dragons and Elves doesn't make a book escapist, any more than writing about viruses or new technology automatically makes a book "relevent" to life. You can have one author who handles dragons and Elves in such a way that it makes you think about important things: the questions people raise to explain why they're here and what they're doing. And you can have someone else write abook about modern, "relevent" things that really doesn't have much thought behind it. That's the kind of a book you read once and toss away and never look at again.

It doesn't depend on the genre, but the quality of writing. So if sci/fi is having problems, they'd be better off looking at the kinds of books written and the authors and see if what they're saying is interesting and thoughtful rather than throwing rocks at their neighbors.

[Sapphire_Flame]

a truly wonderful sci-fi/fantasy book, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

42!!!

My personal feeling is that writing about dragons and Elves doesn't make a book escapist, any more than writing about viruses or new technology automatically makes a book "relevent" to life. You can have one author who handles dragons and Elves in such a way that it makes you think about important things: the questions people raise to explain why they're here and what they're doing. And you can have someone else write abook about modern, "relevent" things that really doesn't have much thought behind it. That's the kind of a book you read once and toss away and never look at again.

A very good point, Regin. In my sophomore English class we were required to read a "realist" book (I cannot recall the title); but it was one of those books that, through over-emphasis on the point the author wishes to make, the point (and the audience) get lost and immediately vacate the premises. I got nothing whatsoever out of the book, aside from a deep loathing toward my English teacher for making us read it. On the other hand, I have acquired some really brilliant lessons and insights from reading so-called "escapist" literature (LotR, HP, Sword of Truth (by Terry Goodkind)).

Tolkien himself had a few things to say about this. (The exact quote is inaccesible to me at the moment, but I will return with it as soon as I can...)

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[Sapphire_Flame]

I have found the quote.

Tolkien believed that you could tell more truth with myth than you can with history. Tolkien believed that history, in the sense of relating facts to an audience as facts, was a weak way of conveying ideas: it was tendencious, it was facile, it lacked depth, and it lacked meaning. And he felt that myth was a far better way of conveying the truth. And his friend C.S. Lewis said, "Well, myth is lies." And Tolkien said, "No, myth isn't lies. Myth is a story that tells you something so important that it doesn't matter whether it is literally true. What's important is the idea that's conveyed."

I found this is a Tolkien documentary entitled "J.R.R. Tolkien: Master of the Rings".

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~