Do you think fantasy can be hard hitting?

[Nightshade]

This occurred to me a while back when iwas discussing hyperion with Scher actually, and so I was wondering who else thinks that scifi and fantasy can be as hard hitting as documentry if not more so especially around taboo topics?

[rachel]

Even in fantasy the struggle between good and evil, freedom versus being dominated and subjgated by others can be worked out and shown in fantastic ways.
If done properly it can show depths of the subject in profound ways that perhaps ordinary life cannot for it does not have to know any boundaries that are familiar to us mortals in the normal(whatever that is) lives we lead.
"You are a Ring Bearer Frodo, to bear a ring of power is to be alone." Galadriel

[PeterL]

Can there be any question as to whether subgenres of fiction, all fiction is fantasy, that are called fantasy and science fiction can contain substantial themes? Science fiction is called that because of certain characteristics of the setting. Allegory is usually what might be called fantasy, and the bible and many works of literature relating to religious and moral themes were written as allegories, thus being fantasy.

[mono]

Fantasy and science-fiction, for me, can seem just as "hard hitting" as many other genres of fiction, yet it really depends on the plot, author, and his/her aimed readers (as some books appear intended for children, for example).
Sometimes, if you get lucky, some fantasy and science-fiction novels can get some interesting, in a way philosophical, concepts worth pondering, just as PeterL suggested, written often in allegory. Though this comes from someone who does not consider himself a big fan of fantasy and science-fiction, the intention of every piece of literature stands similarly in a moral, philosophical, and allegorical stance.
I voted "Yes, duh of course!"

[Pendragon]

Certainly. Many of the comforts we now enjoy and the scientific breakthroughs began as an idea in a sci-fi or fantasy work. Phone answering machine? Doc Savage Magazine, late 30's. Man goes to the moon? H. G. Wells. Nucular-powered submarine? Jules Verne. Watch an old Star Trek show and notice how much Captain Kirk's communicator looks like a cell-phone. If some one dreams it up, someone will attempt to build it. And fantasy-- hum. Well, for one example, Adolph Hitler was quite rabid about possessing all objects that were rumored to have any sort of occult or devine power, and that's a matter of historical record. And remember, he almost conquored the world! I'd say that these two gendres of writings have a profound effect on our lives. :nod:

[Admin]

Of course, its all about the plot and the characters. LOTR deals with some pretty heavy themes and it can be related to nuclear warfare. Can't get any heavier than that.

[Nightshade]

*You know its a bit hard to get a interesting discussion going if you are all going to agree with me* :rolleyes: :lol:
Pendragon you know what else surrogate pregnancies Anne Mcaffrey wrote a story about it oh 10 years before the first one.

Actually what I meant by hard hittiing was actually political and taboo subjects could be aired in fantasy books take animal farm you dont really get pigs that talk now do you? but yet Orwell used fantasy to explore lots of politics.
Humm Monster men by Edger Burroughs Rice is all about cloning the exsistance of the soul and how much man should interfere.
*Now someone please disagree with me so I can debate this some more*:D;)

[EAP]

For 'hard-hitting' scifi, check out Philip K. Dick (A Scanner Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), Gene Wolfe (Book of New Sun, Book of Long Sun, Book of Short Sun), Samuel R. Delany (Nova, Babel-17, Dhalgren), William Burroughs (Naked Lunch), Ursula Le Guin (The Left Hand of Darkness, The Lathe of Heaven, The Dispossesed), Roger Zelazny (Lord of Light), George RR Martin (Short Stories), Octavia Butler (Parable Of The Sower), Harlan Ellison (ed. Dangerous Visions, Short Stories) and other proponents of the so-called New Age of 1960's and New Weird of recent times.


Lord Of the Rings is not a concious allegory; it was not meant as a 'hard-hitting' book nor do I think that Tolkien ever completely realized the extent how much would be read into his words that he never intended.

[Nightshade]

How about Tad williams Umm whats it called the flowers war Im sure there was politics in that but cant think what.
okay another question do you think that the hard hitting is delibrate or just happens, a leak of the authors personal opinions ??

[Pendragon]

Well, Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift was a political statement on the state of things between England and France (Voyage to Lilliput), the state of scientific thought (Voyage to Laputa) and eventually the moral decay of mankind (Voyage to the Country of the Houyhnhnms). I've read that the whole book is hard hitting satire, but I don't remember what (Voyage to Brobdingnag) is supposed to be about. Remember, the book was first published in 1727, so people thought differently then. :) :cool: And thanks for the tip, Nightshade, on the surrogate mothers. Philip Jose Farmer in his Doc Savage: His Apocapalyptic Life, has an entire chapter of things that first appeared in the Doc Savage magazine! I'm ducking! Do not throw anything! :p :eek:

[EAP]

There are books where the author makes a point of injecting a certain philosophy or morality in the text. An example of this is Ursula Le Guin's 'The Left Hand of Darkness'.
Whether this philosophy is reflective of an author's personal beliefs is indeterminable - it can work as both projection of your own viewpoint and satire.

On the flip side are texts like 'Lord of the Rings', which have become so popular that they have, almost inevitably, become victim to the whimsies of inimical critics who are so vicious in their criticisms that they end up finding naunces which are unintended and come up with allegories the author wouldn't have dreamed in a hundred years.

[EAP]

Nightshade,

Tad Williams does have the obligatory politicking inherent to every (good) epic fantasy novel, It is far more pronounced in his later 'Shadowmarch' compared to 'War of the Flowers' and 'Memory, Sorrow & Thorn'.

If you want to read really good fictional politicking, which makes Tad Williams seem like a squatting duckling, look no further than George R. R. Martin's 'A Song of Fire and Ice' saga.

[Nightshade]

right thanks EAP ill do that :D

[Admin]

For 'hard-hitting' scifi, check out Philip K. Dick (A Scanner Darkly, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), Gene Wolfe (Book of New Sun, Book of Long Sun, Book of Short Sun), Samuel R. Delany (Nova, Babel-17, Dhalgren), William Burroughs (Naked Lunch), Ursula Le Guin (The Left Hand of Darkness, The Lathe of Heaven, The Dispossesed), Roger Zelazny (Lord of Light), George RR Martin (Short Stories), Octavia Butler (Parable Of The Sower), Harlan Ellison (ed. Dangerous Visions, Short Stories) and other proponents of the so-called New Age of 1960's and New Weird of recent times.


Lord Of the Rings is not a concious allegory; it was not meant as a 'hard-hitting' book nor do I think that Tolkien ever completely realized the extent how much would be read into his words that he never intended.
Its great that you speak for a long dead author, but you do realize what was going on in the world and in Tolkien's life when he wrote it?

[Nightshade]

WW2 right?

:D
I didnt get the politics when I read the book can you explain it to me admin, I mean Ive read that it was racsist nazi stuff i think :confused: but i really didnt get it

[Admin]

Yes, WW2, which he was fighting in. There was also tremendous industrialization of the British countryside. There was a national geographic special that came out in conjunction with the movies that outlined it all.

You can claim that he took absolutely no inspiration from events in his own life, but I think thats kinda silly.

He might not have directly meant that the ring was akin to a nuclear weapon, but its pretty obvious that he was making atleast some kind of statement with his story of an ultimate weapon and characters who choose not to use it less it destroy them as well. There is a little bit of "power corrupts" tossed in there was well and I'm sure its no coincidence that Mordor is portrayed as dark/dirty/industrial and the shire as good/green/pastoral.

[Nightshade]

i thought his son was the one fighting???
The ring is an atomic weapon??? I guess I am really going to have to reread LoTR ......

[Admin]

The ring is the ultimate weapon in middle earth. nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon in real earth. That is the relationship.

And no, he was fighting.

[kren]

it can be related to nuclear warfare. Can't get any heavier than that.


nuclear warfar. how so?

[Nightshade]

kren, admin explained it above

The ring is the ultimate weapon in middle earth. nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon in real earth. That is the relationship.

:D

[EAP]

Yes, WW2, which he was fighting in.

He fought in the first WW1, his son was part of the RAF during the second world war; he himself never participated actively in it. (Indeed, he was far too old for service even at the start of the war (at 45-46))


Its great that you speak for a long dead author, but you do realize what was going on in the world and in Tolkien's life when he wrote it?

It would indeed be highly preposterous of me to presume to know Tolkien's mind, fortnuately for us, a large ammount of correspondence related with his work and literary life was collected in a book by Humphrey Carpenter. It helps us in understanding tolkien's mindframe while he worked on his books.

Tolkien mentions that 'The Hobbit' and 'Lord of the Rings' are NOT intentionally allegorical at many places. (among them the infamous 'Foreword to Second Edition', found in any imprint published after 1966) He was not, conciously, commenting on the horrors of atomic bomb/nuclear power/world war 2 etc in his work.



The ring is the ultimate weapon in middle earth. nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon in real earth. That is the relationship.

Neat little equation, only the books certainly weren't meant as such.

most damningly in a Letter written to Professor L. W. Forster 31 December 1960, Tolkien quite clearly states that,


The Lord of the Rings was actually begun, as a separate thing, about 1937, and had reached the inn at Bree, before the shadow of the second war. Personally I do not think that either war (and of course not the atomic bomb) had any influence upon either the plot or the manner of its unfolding. Perhaps in landscape. The Dead Marshes and the approaches to the Morannon owe something to Northern France after the Battle of the Somme. (Battle of Somme took place during the first world war: my note) They owe more to William Morris and his Huns and Romans, as in The House of the Wolfings or The Roots of the Mountains.

The drafts of a letter written to Joanna De Bortano - dated April 1956, published in Humphrey Carpenter's 'Letters of Tolkien'.


Of course my story is not an allegory of Atomic power, but of Power (exerted for Domination). Nuclear physics can be used for that purpose. But they need not be. They need not be used at all. If there is any contemporary reference in my story at all it is to what seems to me the most widespread assumption of our time: that if a thing can be done, it must be done. This seems to me wholly false. The greatest examples of the action of the spirit and of reason are in abnegation. When you say A[tomic] P[ower] is 'here to stay' you remind me that Chesterton said that whenever he heard that, he knew that whatever it referred to would soon be replaced, and thought pitifully shabby and old-fashioned. So-called 'atomic' power is rather bigger than anything he was thinking of (I have heard it of trams, gas-light, steam-trains). But it surely is clear that there will have to be some 'abnegation' in its use, a deliberate refusal to do some of the things it is possible to do with it, or nothing will stay! However, that is simple stuff, a contemporary & possibly passing and ephemeral problem...

Commenting on the official 'theme' of the story, as intended by the author:

From the same letter,


I do not think that even Power or Domination is the real centre of my story. It provides the theme of a War, about something dark and threatening enough to seem at that time of supreme importance, but that is mainly 'a setting' for characters to show themselves. The real theme for me is about something much more permanent and difficult: Death and Immortality: the mystery of the love of the world in the hearts of a race 'doomed' to leave and seemingly lose it; the anguish in the hearts of a race 'doomed' not to leave it, until its whole evil-aroused story is complete.



This theme of 'Death and Immortality' is far more obvious if one reads the 'Silmarillion' and other myths of the middle-earth. Indeed, when people comment on Lord of the Rings and the themes it exhibits, many forget that whilst it was written initially as a sequel to Hobbit, morphing into a standalone novel as time passed (and as a pleasing tale no less, though the 'tale grew in telling'), the best way to interpret its premise is to read it in conjunction with 'Silmarillion' and the rest of the Middle-Earth works.

Tolkien's initially plan was to publish a version of 'Quenta Silmarillion' alongside Lord of the Rings; he didn't give up on that dream for as late as 1952. I can post the citation from 'Letters' if anyone wants me to. So, in effect, the Lord of the Rings we got was a crippled version; one half themetically (if not in length) of what was originally intended.

The book is an epilogue of a history that spans millennia and themes displayed in 'LOTR' are running themes, connected, compounded and effected by events that happened millions of years ago. (The sojourn of Elves to Middle-earth was the direct consequence of the rape of the trees and the steeling of the Silmaril's) How can we understand the complete plight of the elves if we have no idea who Feanor or Finrod or Fingolfin is and what took place at the heavens of Aqualonde and during the second and third kinslayings?

In her lament Galadriel invokes the name of Varda, most beloved of elves and she yearns for the land of her birth and laments the loss of people that transpired by the events that unfolded in the wake of Morgoth's descernt on middle-earth?

I am not denying that LOTR can be read a allegory condemning the usage of Nuclear Power and advocating the rolling-back of industrial life or similar sort of what-have-you. But that is because every single sentence written can be interpreted in more than one way and naunces found where none are originally intended. There is no doubt that WW2 did have some effect on LOTR, Tolkien admits that - he also explains implicitly about the 'extent' of these effect, which, according to him, are in no way connected to the bare theme of his tale and were VERY limited.

What is important is to realize that ultimately, among the millions who hold views about a certain work, it is the author/creator who knows best and his views should be accepted at face value and time should not be wasted in connecting every single event/theme in the novel to a counterpart in real life.

Regardless of everything else, my initial claim was that 'LOTR' was not meant as a 'hard-hitting' tale. Whether it was 'precieved' as one such by others (erroronously or not) is a totally different question and the answer, I think, is pretty self-evident.

[Pensive]

I will say that fantasy can be very hard hitting. To me, Harry Potter series was also hard hitting.

[Wendigo_49]

I say sci-fi or fantasy can be hard-hitting. I think Heinlein had some perspectives on taboo topics that wouldn't have been taken seriously unless it was considered sci-fi.

[MiSaNtHrOpE]

I believe that sometimes authors dont ponder the extent that their works will have on people/society.

Of course sci-fi and fantasy works can relate to the real world. Someone already said HG Wells, but also Bradbury, Huxley, and Orwell. These authors, I think, knew that their works would have an effect on people and wanted to say something about society. My version of F451, the 50th Anniversary publication, has an interview with Bradbury in the back and he does talk about 1984 and his own book.