Fantasy and Literature

[RicMisc]

Being an enormous fan of fantasy I have always been bothered by the prejudice that fantasy by definition cannot be fantasy. It's a prejudice that I've discussed frequently with my literature teachers in school and in my opinion they've never been able to rationalise their prejudice.

I would like to know your opinions on the subject!

[Raven Falcon.]

Being an enormous fan of fantasy I have always been bothered by the prejudice that fantasy by definition cannot be fantasy. It's a prejudice that I've discussed frequently with my literature teachers in school and in my opinion they've never been able to rationalise their prejudice.

I would like to know your opinions on the subject!
There is a genre of serious literature, not pure fantastic escapism, that is MAGICAL REALISM.

[RicMisc]

I am not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying fantasy cannot be literature because it is 'fantastic escapism' and because the worlds the stories are displayed in are not in every way similar to your own? Why would something have to be depicted in this world to be considered literature?

[Raven Falcon.]

I am not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying fantasy cannot be literature because it is 'fantastic escapism' and because the worlds the stories are displayed in are not in every way similar to your own? Why would something have to be depicted in this world to be considered literature?
I admit that I am turning into a literary snob. I started reading fantasy works such as Harry Potter and Lord of The Rings; at one point I even insisted that such fantasy works to be explore in literature classes at universities.
Why? Because I thought that they were interesting and deep.

Only when I've explored enough of great literary works did I finally realize that compared to serious literature, fantasy books aren't that all deep. The concept of good and evil, for instance, is often portrayed in black and white.

If the masses are finally exposed to books such as Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, War and Peace, One Hundred Days of Solitude, Moby Dick, then they would finally realize why a distinction must be made between literature and escapism.


Do not mistake my statement, I do not abhor fantasy works. I do think that it is sensible that most people who read, read fantasy books because they often contain things that are far-removed from our real world; we work, we study, we get tired, and when we are about to read, we choose to read something that would take us far away- at least a while- and fall asleep, only to be awaken again tomorrow and face reality, however we hate it.


A work of literature is serious work, not just for mere entertainment. I for enjoy fantasy, sci-fi books more than serious literature; upon close examination (often through re-readings), I appreciate a literary book more and actually end up enjoying it more.

Here is my take: a literary work is an exploration of the human condition and reality, but it can be an entertainment; it does not have to be entertaining to be considered as a work worthy of the literature stamp.

[PeterL]

It is a non-issue, because all fiction is fantasy.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Fantasy can be quite deep. Good and evil aren't always black and white, just look at George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire serious--many ambiguous characters there. I'm not saying that fantasy can be put on the same level as the works listed above, just that it can't be completely written off as low-brow (I'm also not saying that A Song of Ice and Fire is an example of high-brow fantasy).

And, interestingly enough, a lot of the "classics" could be seen as fantasy: Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, Classic Greek works, etc.

[RicMisc]

Fantasy can be quite deep. Good and evil aren't always black and white, just look at George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire serious--many ambiguous characters there. I'm not saying that fantasy can be put on the same level as the works listed above, just that it can't be completely written off as low-brow (I'm also not saying that A Song of Ice and Fire is an example of high-brow fantasy).

You hit the nail on its head (don't know whether that's an English saying as well). Sure there is a lot of bad fantasy out there and good and bad are often black and white, that is however not the case in every fantasy novel. Just as not every 'regular' book is considered literature for a very good reason not every fantasy book should be considered literature. But I feel it's shortsighted to say that it's per definition not literature.

Besides that; the works mentioned by Raven Falcon are indeed great literary works and cannot be compared to fantasy. But I believe that's the case with a lot of books that are considered literature as well. For the subject literature I read a Dutch novel named 'Specht en Zoon' (Specht and Son) and that's not even allowed to live in the same town as the great works.


And, interestingly enough, a lot of the "classics" could be seen as fantasy: Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, Classic Greek works, etc.

This was something that annoyed as well. In school I've read a lot of classic Greek and Latin works that are considered masterpieces (which they undoubtedly are) like Metamorphosis by Ovid and The Odyssey by Homer. These works could indeed be seen as fantasy.

[Raven Falcon.]

Fantasy can be quite deep. Good and evil aren't always black and white, just look at George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire serious--many ambiguous characters there. I'm not saying that fantasy can be put on the same level as the works listed above, just that it can't be completely written off as low-brow (I'm also not saying that A Song of Ice and Fire is an example of high-brow fantasy).

And, interestingly enough, a lot of the "classics" could be seen as fantasy: Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, Classic Greek works, etc.
But those were written as a serious examination upon their respective culture.

It depends on the intention of the writer, because intention ultimately drives the seriousness behind a particular work.

Do you think Stephenie Meyer intention to write Twilight was to examine her culture? Or symbolize it just like Orwell symbolizes the irony of communism in Animal Farm?

Moby Dick sounds like fantasy because its main subject is a creature that seems fantastic; his intention was to use the white whale to symbolize the unknowable, the force of nature. And plus, such a whale might exist.

Greek Tragedies were written in a period where the Gods were thought to be real. Titans and Gods were pretty much central to the Greeks back then.

Dante's Comedy was written based on the medieval Christian belief. Dante's Divine Comedy actually tells us the culture and dominant perception of the universe of his place and people at the time.

And Paradise Lost, the zenith of the use of English language (more than any single work of Shakespeare, I insist), was model by Milton after the Book of Genesis -a work back then was considered serious and was very central to the Western world.

[Raven Falcon.]

Again, I would like to say this: Fantasy actually serves us well as a form of escapism. To be considered as literature does not change it anyhow; it only devalue-ates its purpose by putting tense pressure such as by giving it a status that forces it to become more than it is intended to do.

Like I said before, whenever ennui and weariness come, I will try to escape from them.

I have options: taking drugs (bad, so not really a choice), playing video-games, making love (its a labor to some), watching movies, or reading fantasy books.

Video game is total entertainment but if we try to uplift it purpose and thus, status, then it starts to run off the tangent.

Some goes to fantasy books.

I do not read literature to escape from reality; I do not read fantasy to scrutinize reality.

Some books, however, allow me to do both.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

It depends on the intention of the writer, because intention ultimately drives the seriousness behind a particular work.

Very, very debatable.

[RicMisc]

Well, in Ab Urbe Condita's foreword Livy says that he intends to write down the myths about the foundation of Rome whilst he knows there's no real truth to them, but they are more interesting to write and read about then the actual events. Ab Urbe Condita is one of the greatest works to ever be written and it clearly contains elements that are typical for fantasy.

[Calidore]

Only when I've explored enough of great literary works did I finally realize that compared to serious literature, fantasy books aren't that all deep.


Compared to real, time-tested literature, most books of any kind, including wannabe literature, aren't that deep. Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.


If the masses are finally exposed to books such as Paradise Lost, Divine Comedy, War and Peace, One Hundred Days of Solitude, Moby Dick, then they would finally realize why a distinction must be made between literature and escapism.

I don't think the "masses" are lacking in exposure to the classics; most of them are public domain and easily found in your local bookstore or online at sites like Gutenberg. And why do you think people are unwilling to make that distinction between literature and escapism?


Here is my take: a literary work is an exploration of the human condition and reality, but it can be an entertainment; it does not have to be entertaining to be considered as a work worthy of the literature stamp.

Perfectly fine take. Nor, frankly, does intent to make something deep and serious rather than entertaining make it literature; if the author isn't as deep as he thinks he is, it just comes out pretentious.

[Raven Falcon.]

Very, very debatable.
How so?

What if Paradise Lost was written just for mere entertainment?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What would it matter if it was? Does that change the work itself? Does that mean we can't find as much meaning within that epic poem? It hardly matters what it was intended to be. What matters most is what it is, and the end product can be read and analyzed quite independently from whatever intention the author may have had. It's the idea of art for art's sake.

[OrphanPip]

How so?

What if Paradise Lost was written just for mere entertainment?

At the same time, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, all bad poetry is sincere.

What about the 16th to 18th century dramatist, they wrote for entertainment and for a specific market. Shakespeare, Jonson, Dekker, Middleton, Wycherley, Gay, Fielding, and Dryden come to mind, they all cared about their work being entertaining.

[Raven Falcon.]

What would it matter if it was? Does that change the work itself? Does that mean we can't find as much meaning within that epic poem? It hardly matters what it was intended to be. What matters most is what it is, and the end product can be read and analyzed quite independently from whatever intention the author may have had. It's the idea of art for art's sake.

What I meant was different: Had a canonical writer, say, Milton, set out to write for mere entertainment, what transpired on the pages wouldn't have as been serious. He would have made his subjects less serious and ponder-worthy.

I referred to the writing process, not the end product; the end product is influenced by the writer's seriousness.

In Paradise Lost's case, do you think the Latinate syntax, the adjective-noun switch, the question of free will, the enjambment, and Satan himself would be in it if it were written for the sake of escapism and only escapism?

I am trying to say that all books can have some degree of seriousness, but some books are so much more serious that they make other books far less serious.

[Raven Falcon.]

At the same time, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, all bad poetry is sincere.

What about the 16th to 18th century dramatist, they wrote for entertainment and for a specific market. Shakespeare, Jonson, Dekker, Middleton, Wycherley, Gay, Fielding, and Dryden come to mind, they all cared about their work being entertaining.

Paradise Lost is the central epic poem in English Language; it belongs to the most supreme kind of poetic masterpieces alongside Divine Comedy, Bhagavadgita , Aeneid, Odyssey, Iliad, etc.


You are too influenced by the pretentious T.S Elliot and Ezra Pounds.

[OrphanPip]

Paradise Lost is the central epic poem in English Language; it belongs to the most supreme kind of poetic masterpieces alongside Divine Comedy, Bhagavadgita , Aeneid, Odyssey, Iliad, etc.


You are too influenced by the pretentious T.S Elliot and Ezra Pounds.

Huh? Too influenced by Eliot and Pound in what way? All I did was list authors who produced great works of literature with the apparent intention to entertain. Your argument against MM amounts to a tautology anyway. Obviously Milton intended to write Paradise Lost the way he wrote it. That doesn't address the point that Milton's intentions have no actual baring on the quality of the work. And to say that writing with the intention of entertainment makes a work devoid of literary worth is absurd. Did you imagine that Milton thought his work would be unpleasant to read, that the beauty (and inextricably the entertainment value of the text) was not important?

Milton is irrelevant to the point I was making. The fact is that many canonical writers have written with the intention to entertain and be accessible to a mass audience.

Let's look at texts more straightforwardly connected to a modern idea of fantasy. For example, Angela Carter's collection of short stories The Bloody Chamber, usually consider to be "literary" fiction. The genre phobic amongst us would try to label this as magical realism, despite it being a rather straightforward treatment of the fantastic grounded in fantasy and fairy tale and not in magical realism. There is no effective way to distinguish these works from fantasy. What makes a story like Wilde's "Selfish Giant" different from fantasy?

Or we can examine your definition that fantasy is mere escapism and doesn't have a serious intention behind. C.S. Lewis wrote often with clear allegorical intentions behind his work, the Narnia novels were not intended to just be escapism. A more recent example could be Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy which was in one part a deliberate expression of anti-clericalism and at the same time was trying to engage with and experiment with the tropes of its genre (which is what all literature does).

[JCamilo]

Pip beat me on it, but really, how is fantasy escapism? Madame Bovary escapism is with romantic novels. Certainly, the use of literature of escapism is not determined by genre or quality (and it is quite irrelevant what is done with the work). Guys like Stevenson, Conrad and Melville are considered minor writers of simple minded adventure novels, just like most fantasies cheap novels.)

[metal134]

I don't think that the concept of fantasy is INHERENTLY inferior greater works of literature, but I do think that it has been, in general, executed in so a fashion that is is more akin to pulp. It doesn't have to be that way, but it generally has been. Now to the other part of the equation, what is the reason for this sentiment? The writing of much fantasy literature is written on about a 5th grade level. There are authors such as William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy whose prose is stripped down and simple, but there are layers of subtlety that give it a richness and complexity. Fantasy writing is generally just simple and that's that. There are some exceptions, but not many. But all that being said, I don't think that means that fantasy literature is rubbish. It, in it's current state as I have just described, is not my cup of tea, but I don't look down on anyone because I am reading David Foster Wallace and they are reading R.A. Salvatore.