Is Fantasy a dream or an escape?

[Imladris]

To me, despite what Tolkien said, Fantasy is neither a dream nor an escape. If it is good Fantasy, it is truth. Fantasy opens the door to a clear perception of reality. For example, evil is clearly identified, clearly described (eg, orcs, Saruon, Saruman, etc).

I am beginning to meld both Fantasy and Story together...I am not sure if that is a correct idea or not. But there are True Stories, as some have mentioned, that do not fall under the modern perception of Fantasy. But I digress....

To me, when we read, we are peering darkly into a mirror so that we may see things as they truly are...we see reality more truly. I do not consider Fantasy/Story an escape from reality....rather an entering into reality and truth.

Maybe that could be considered an escape from the illussions that so often seems to cloud reality in this world...I don't know.

As LMP quoting Tolkien mentioned, fairy is an escape of a prisoner...

[littlemanpoet]

Mythic fantasy is story that contains the stuff of myth, legend, and fairy tale; it works like waking dream and nightmare; in it, concrete and abstract, previously distinguished, have been reintegrated; it is apprehended by the reader as a unity of meaning and being; the signal of this apprehension is a sense of wonder or a thrill of horror, or both.

In other words, fantasy in general can be either high or low, or both. The best kind is mythic, and it's about reality, real reality, not the stuff we make up to make ourselves feel safe in our own little made up worlds that we call "real life".

Actually, Imladris, Tolkien said that "fairy story" is about reality .... which means truth. So "yes" to everything you said.

[Lalwendë]

I've been reading this article about Harry Potter. I'm not ashamed to say I'm eagerly awaiting Saturday so I can get hold of the latest installment. I laughed when the author of the piece described HP as "diet-Lord of the Rings", but his article is overall quite dismissive of the idea of fantasy and the need to escape.

The series paints an unrealistic picture of Britain in 2005.

My Harry Potter would certainly not be a part of this world. He'd be more of an urban Harry for 2005.

He might hang round bus-stops late at night wearing a baseball cap and drinking cider.

He might harass the neighbours with his magic powers and end up with an Asbo.

My Harry Potter would probably sell about three copies, though.

What I wanted to ask here is why do people somehow value the gritty, the realistic, over fantasy? As we know, LotR includes many incredibly 'gritty' moments; just because Theoden rides into battle on horseback does not make his death any less 'gritty'. And why would a Harry Potter with an ASBO be more realistic? Despite what the Daily Mail would have us thinking, 99.9% of kids are decent people. And I have to say that for me, a novel about drug users and criminals would be as much 'fantasy' (in it's literal sense) as would a novel about dragons and wizards.

As the writer acknowledges, people want to read fantasy (in the generic sense ). I am disappointed to read AS Byatt's comments (disappointed because I admire her writing) - in my experience people who are obsessed with soaps and so forth are generally not into fantasy at all. These people would probably much rather watch a crime drama than read fantasy fiction; she is just making another cheap dig at the intellectual capabilities of fantasy fans, sadly.

Anyway, anyway, to the point....

As it says in this article, are we all just trying to reclaim our inner child? And if we are, is there anything necessarily wrong with that? Does it demean our intellect?

[littlemanpoet]

Just to break mold, I'm going to NOT quote from something written by Tolkien in order to try to approach your question, Lal (don't have much time right now).

It depends on what one means by "realistic", doesn't it? If by that one wishes to bring in all the typical stuff of the modern day world, which includes a tendency to NOT let the imagination have its play, then realistic is what this article's author is talking about. If, by that word, one is referring to deep, inner reality that looks past the confines of everyday, mundane existence, seeking Meaning, then one has a completely different idea of what Reality is, and one is going to look to fairy tale and fantasy and myth to find what one is looking for.

That's my take.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

It depends on what one means by "realistic", doesn't it? If by that one wishes to bring in all the typical stuff of the modern day world, which includes a tendency to NOT let the imagination have its play, then realistic is what this article's author is talking about.

I think that what they mean by 'realistic', certainly in terms of children's books, is to focus on the 'everyday', to have tales of family strife, divorce, crime and so forth. There are a lot of books written for children which are like this, and while I do not say that this is wrong, it is wrong to assume that only books like that are 'worthy'.

The article criticises Harry Potter for having a boarding school as it's location, and while most children do not go to boarding school, what the writer has missed is that this provides a focussed environment for the story to happen within. It is also a school and most children go to school, and it has all the features of an everyday school, with the added element of magic. So while it is not set in 'the real world', it certainly does feature a lot of the things children will find in the real world. Hogwarts has bullies, swots, prefects, rebellious older kids, the teachers everyone fears, all those things which are in a normal school.

So in my opinion, it is a book which does have one hand in 'reality' and another in 'fantasy'. I find it quite disheartening that an adult should deride a children's book for having fantasy in it; all children need to be able to use their imaginations and not merely have to read that which only reflects the world around them.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

The article criticises Harry Potter for having a boarding school as it's location, and while most children do not go to boarding school, what the writer has missed is that this provides a focussed environment for the story to happen within.

Quite right! Which brought to my mind that the article is written by a critic; someone who had chosen to be critical from the get-go. He refused to accept the milieu Rowling was creating. Is it any wonder the enchantment, shy of being broken, never got started for him?

[Lalwendë]

This makes me wonder...One of the music magazines I regularly read features lots of reviews. They seem to give new albums from a certain 'genre' to a reviewer who is an expert in that genre, rather than to just anybody. Does the same thing happen with books? Or do certain editors purposely seek out someone who will be as sceptical as possible in order to get some controversial copy? I tend to think it is the latter, which is why I rarely if ever take any notice of literary critics these days, sadly. It also makes it very difficult to find any new writers, as it gives the impression that reviewers are rarely impartial. Maybe it is that too many of the reviewers are also writers with vested interests? I prefer to go along with what fellow readers think.