After reading Armitt's book on fantasy fiction, I felt about as knowledgeable in the subject as I was before reading it. While her writing seems full of information and insight, I feel some of it is opinionated, unresearched, and really scattered. While reading the book, not only was I confused as to her logic in the order of explaination, but also did not know alot of the material she was rattling off. I just don't understand how I am supposed to pick anything up from a book full of examples that I can't relate to. As a book about introducing someone to fanrasy fiction, Armitt seems to be "swimming in the deep end" without giving myself a chance to learn how to swim.
I am not against Fantasy Fiction, I actually find it to be quite interesting some times, such as Lord of the Rings, but this book made the topic really frustrating. I can't say that I actually have learned anything about Fantasy Fiction, because in order for me to learn about something, personally, it has to be presented in an interesting way. Also with the examples she uses, it seems that I should already have a basic understanding of fantasy fiction in order to get..... a basic understanding of fantasy fiction....
Even looking past the fact that she chooses in depth subject matter, there is still the fact that Armitt is all over the place in her presentation of knowledge. From guessing hidden themes in Lord of the Rings, to explaining how Frankenstein is actually fantasy fiction she jumps back and forth between novels and ideas so quickly that it becomes hard to follow very fast.
This post may not be exactly about Fantasy Fiction itself, but it definitely will save those who are looking for some good information on the subject from a bad read.
Showing posts with label Armitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Armitt. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
World Building and Imagination
In Armitt's book, she mentioned the idea of world building, especially in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. Armitt however mentions how there were always be generic limitations. World building is something that comes straight from the imagination, whether it be from the author or reader.
Saying there is limitations of world building, in my opinion, is incorrect. It would be saying there is limitations on the imagination. Mo matter how much detail one can put into a story, there will always be some sort of gap or space for more development.
Armitt stated: " there is nothing beyond Middle Earth because Middle Earth is nowhere." Though Middle Earth may not exist in terms of human reality, it does not mean it doesn't have a substantial history and exist in one form or the other. At risk of sounding cliche, the world only exist in the heart and mind of the person enjoying the book at that time. The world building gives the Middle Earth a place, even if it was in the imagination. Giving history, giving a name to something gives it purpose and placement within the lives of people.
Saying there is limitations of world building, in my opinion, is incorrect. It would be saying there is limitations on the imagination. Mo matter how much detail one can put into a story, there will always be some sort of gap or space for more development.
Armitt stated: " there is nothing beyond Middle Earth because Middle Earth is nowhere." Though Middle Earth may not exist in terms of human reality, it does not mean it doesn't have a substantial history and exist in one form or the other. At risk of sounding cliche, the world only exist in the heart and mind of the person enjoying the book at that time. The world building gives the Middle Earth a place, even if it was in the imagination. Giving history, giving a name to something gives it purpose and placement within the lives of people.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Escapism and Fantasy
In discussing Fanatasy I've come across a lot of claims that the genre promotes escapism. This seems to be sort of a heated debate surrounding the genre. In one camp you have the people that say all fantasy is escapist and therefore worthless. It rots the supple minds of young children and corrupts otherwise normal productive adults and we should probably just burn all works of fantasy in a giant communal bonfire. In the other camp are those who think that there are important lessons and themes addressed in works of fantasy that are applicable to everyday life and real life situations. These individuals read works like Tolkein, become well versed in the Elvish languages and the lore of Middle Earth and often become so delusional that they end up convincing themselves that they must go on quests of some kind. These quests typically involve roaming around inner city neighborhoods and dark alleyways dressed as Wizards and Elves searching for discarded cans and placing them in old rickety shopping carts that they believe possess magical powers.
I think that there are some problems with both sides of this argument. First of all I have a hard time with claims that fantasy is less legitimate then other genres because it promotes escapism. Escapism as I understand it and as defined by the Compact OED is "the seeking of distraction from reality by engaging in entertainment or fantasy" (http://www.askoxford.com/). According to this definition all fiction promotes escapism to some extent because it engages the reader in an imagined set of circumstances often for the purpose of entertainment. Even in the most staunchly realist fiction the reader is creating a world out of the text that is seperate from the real world. This argument can even be extended into the realm of non fiction. History and Biography texts use techniques and structures akin to fiction writing in order to construct and interesting and comprehensable story. This allows readers who are interested in the subject matter to immerse themselves in the stories that are created and temporarily escape the circumstances of their everyday reality. Escapism is something that readers can concievably do with any kind of text so to say that the promotion of this act devalues the genre is to devalue all coherent forms of narrative.
If escapism is an act that a reader can do with any text then the claim that fantasy promotes that act more than other genres becomes increasingly complicated. I've seen first hand that fantasy does not promote escapism for everyone. Since I am in both the American Studies course and the Major Authors course I got to see a wide range of reactions to Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring. In the Major Authors course it is safe to say that at least some of us were able to temporarily escape from reality through Tolkien's elaborate flowing prose into the world that it constructs. It's a class full of English Majors, thats pretty much expected. In the American Studies class it seemed that the only escapism that Tolkien promoted was the escape from reality through dreams after the book's painfully long descriptions put everyone to sleep. So the so called escapist literature worked well with one group but not another. In order to press the connection between the fantasy genre and escapism it seems you would have to make the claim that the genre attracts a readership that is more inclined towards escapism. There could be some truth to this claim and to similar claims that some fans of fantasy tend to over-indulge in escapism to the point where they become detatched from reality. There could be interesting work to be done here but it seems to fully support these claims there would need to be some extensive research that is more focused on the psychology of individual readers and the culture of the general readership of fantasy.
It seems to me that there are also some problems with arguments in defense of fantasy. When faced with a claim that fantasy is illegitimate because it is escapist, advocates of the genre quickly point out all of its other redeeming qualities. It may be escapist but it is legitimate because it is well written or influential or because (as Armitt suggests) it is really a part of an elaborate and long standing literary tradition. All the while the actual question of escapism is largely ignored. I think a stronger argument would be that all texts perform the function of escapism to some degree and that fantasy does it exceedingly well for certain types of readers. Escapism does not make the genre illigitimate but is instead just one way in which the text functions. This among other functions make fantasy intersting to read and worthy of study.
I think that there are some problems with both sides of this argument. First of all I have a hard time with claims that fantasy is less legitimate then other genres because it promotes escapism. Escapism as I understand it and as defined by the Compact OED is "the seeking of distraction from reality by engaging in entertainment or fantasy" (http://www.askoxford.com/). According to this definition all fiction promotes escapism to some extent because it engages the reader in an imagined set of circumstances often for the purpose of entertainment. Even in the most staunchly realist fiction the reader is creating a world out of the text that is seperate from the real world. This argument can even be extended into the realm of non fiction. History and Biography texts use techniques and structures akin to fiction writing in order to construct and interesting and comprehensable story. This allows readers who are interested in the subject matter to immerse themselves in the stories that are created and temporarily escape the circumstances of their everyday reality. Escapism is something that readers can concievably do with any kind of text so to say that the promotion of this act devalues the genre is to devalue all coherent forms of narrative.
If escapism is an act that a reader can do with any text then the claim that fantasy promotes that act more than other genres becomes increasingly complicated. I've seen first hand that fantasy does not promote escapism for everyone. Since I am in both the American Studies course and the Major Authors course I got to see a wide range of reactions to Tolkien's Fellowship of the Ring. In the Major Authors course it is safe to say that at least some of us were able to temporarily escape from reality through Tolkien's elaborate flowing prose into the world that it constructs. It's a class full of English Majors, thats pretty much expected. In the American Studies class it seemed that the only escapism that Tolkien promoted was the escape from reality through dreams after the book's painfully long descriptions put everyone to sleep. So the so called escapist literature worked well with one group but not another. In order to press the connection between the fantasy genre and escapism it seems you would have to make the claim that the genre attracts a readership that is more inclined towards escapism. There could be some truth to this claim and to similar claims that some fans of fantasy tend to over-indulge in escapism to the point where they become detatched from reality. There could be interesting work to be done here but it seems to fully support these claims there would need to be some extensive research that is more focused on the psychology of individual readers and the culture of the general readership of fantasy.
It seems to me that there are also some problems with arguments in defense of fantasy. When faced with a claim that fantasy is illegitimate because it is escapist, advocates of the genre quickly point out all of its other redeeming qualities. It may be escapist but it is legitimate because it is well written or influential or because (as Armitt suggests) it is really a part of an elaborate and long standing literary tradition. All the while the actual question of escapism is largely ignored. I think a stronger argument would be that all texts perform the function of escapism to some degree and that fantasy does it exceedingly well for certain types of readers. Escapism does not make the genre illigitimate but is instead just one way in which the text functions. This among other functions make fantasy intersting to read and worthy of study.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Armitt
I have just stepped into the world of fantasy, therefore I dont know much about it. When we first started reading Armitts book I wasnt even sure that I had read any fantasy literature. Once I started reading Armitts book I quickly found that I had read fantasy books. I didnt read to many of them but I had read a few. This is one thing that I found that made the reading interesting. I felt she had strengths in the books she suggested. She also however had a problem because she did use books that were widely read she also had a strong views on them. When she started telling her views there were some that I agreed with and some that I didnt. She said somethings that I didnt agree with at all. I feel that when you write a book that is going to be read by all different people you should not be throwing your views around as much as she did. This sticks more if you have views that are not completely correct.
I also felt that Armitt jumped around to much in her chapters. She did lay out in the beginning how things were going to go but there were also parts where things didnt seem to completely connect. When she jumped around all the time I had a hard time fallowing and couldnt alway make the connections she claimed were there. I understand that this is something new and that things are being found out about it everyday and that makes this book harder. I just dont believe that you should have people who dont completely know about the entire background feel that they cant read your book becuase of the way its laid out. I felt lost in her book for many parts of it. I dont think that formatting a book so it is easiest to comprehend is something that is hard for an author to do. I also dont think that it would be something that would be easy for someone who has done the studies she has and that has the knowledge she has.
These were a few things that I found that made this read hard for me. I feel that as a whole it really opened my eyes to a lot of things but there were quite a few flaws with it as well. I would not recommend this book to anyone. I feel that there has to be a better book out there and between the skewed views on certain books and the format it was almost torture to read it. There were a few simple things that could have been changed and wouldnt take away from the content they are trying to prove.
I also felt that Armitt jumped around to much in her chapters. She did lay out in the beginning how things were going to go but there were also parts where things didnt seem to completely connect. When she jumped around all the time I had a hard time fallowing and couldnt alway make the connections she claimed were there. I understand that this is something new and that things are being found out about it everyday and that makes this book harder. I just dont believe that you should have people who dont completely know about the entire background feel that they cant read your book becuase of the way its laid out. I felt lost in her book for many parts of it. I dont think that formatting a book so it is easiest to comprehend is something that is hard for an author to do. I also dont think that it would be something that would be easy for someone who has done the studies she has and that has the knowledge she has.
These were a few things that I found that made this read hard for me. I feel that as a whole it really opened my eyes to a lot of things but there were quite a few flaws with it as well. I would not recommend this book to anyone. I feel that there has to be a better book out there and between the skewed views on certain books and the format it was almost torture to read it. There were a few simple things that could have been changed and wouldnt take away from the content they are trying to prove.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
A Fantasy 'newbies' reactions and speculations to Armitt
Without prior background knowledge on the fantasy genre and without ever truly indulging in the genre itself, I found myself struggling to get through Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring, as well as Armitts disorganized (emphasis on disorganized) and intensely opinionated critical analysis of the fantasy genre.
When picking up the 35 dollar copy of Fantasy Fiction: An Introduction at the bookstore, I figured that I would be getting an "introduction" to something that I really knew nothing about. Perfect! Now, granted I am a newbie at this type of reading, but to me an Introduction would have been worth the 35 dollars (especially if it at least taught me some interesting aspects or literary elements of fantasy). However, after reading the seven lengthy chapters in which Armitt twists and turns every fantasy novel to fit her criticism, I gained from it only one thing; a headache.
I feel that half the problem with my reading of this particular criticism, is that I cannot relate to anything that Armitt discusses. I have never read Gulliver's Travels, Animal House, and I had never owned (or planned on owning) a copy of Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring until I registered for this class. Now, I will say for anyone who is actually reading these things, that I did enjoy The Fellowship of the Ring with a little help from the movie :)
Apart from my unknowledgeable self (at least on this topic), I felt that Armitt presented her views and opinions in a way that was particularly hard to understand. She was very disorganized, presenting a term and discussing it for one to two paragraphs, then leaving it in the dust. Other times, Armitt would bring up such opinions in one chapter, only to rediscuss them again in a chapter later in her analysis. This typically annoyed me because I am used to reading in chronological order. Any story has a beginning, middle and an end, but Armitts was all over the place.
The one aspect of Armitt's criticism that left me hanging and far more confused then ever was her topic of Utopia in fantasy. Her establishment of the 'Utopia' definition was first 'the desire to go beyond' and a page later it was 'no place'. This was confusing to me because she gives two definitions that are dratstically different, and she doesn't support either with examples from the 'best known fantasy texts' she uses as resources for all of her 'critical information'.
I do believe that fantasy fiction is a type of genre that questions what happens beyond the horizon, do these thing really happen beyond earth? Probably Not. But in Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkein creates 'Middle Earth', a place that cannot be found on any map (besides the one in the book). Along with the creation of such a place, Tolkein creates languages, monsters, 'superhuman characters' and a powerful plot that lead us to a place of no return for thousands of pages. The interesting thing that Armitt claims is that fantasy is reaching for blue sky. I think it is a good way of characterizing fantasy, because when I think of it, I think of What if? What if these things could really happen? But that is all part of how I read fantasy, fantasizing about the story an author creates for you.
I cannot say that I completely disagree with Armitt, because I simply didn't understand half of the things she was saying. However, for me as a reader, I would have appreciated a more rigid structure to her writing. This POSSIBLY would have helped me in wanting to read her work, and maybe could have pushed me along to understanding and connecting with it.
Hopefully there are others out there that feel the same?
When picking up the 35 dollar copy of Fantasy Fiction: An Introduction at the bookstore, I figured that I would be getting an "introduction" to something that I really knew nothing about. Perfect! Now, granted I am a newbie at this type of reading, but to me an Introduction would have been worth the 35 dollars (especially if it at least taught me some interesting aspects or literary elements of fantasy). However, after reading the seven lengthy chapters in which Armitt twists and turns every fantasy novel to fit her criticism, I gained from it only one thing; a headache.
I feel that half the problem with my reading of this particular criticism, is that I cannot relate to anything that Armitt discusses. I have never read Gulliver's Travels, Animal House, and I had never owned (or planned on owning) a copy of Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring until I registered for this class. Now, I will say for anyone who is actually reading these things, that I did enjoy The Fellowship of the Ring with a little help from the movie :)
Apart from my unknowledgeable self (at least on this topic), I felt that Armitt presented her views and opinions in a way that was particularly hard to understand. She was very disorganized, presenting a term and discussing it for one to two paragraphs, then leaving it in the dust. Other times, Armitt would bring up such opinions in one chapter, only to rediscuss them again in a chapter later in her analysis. This typically annoyed me because I am used to reading in chronological order. Any story has a beginning, middle and an end, but Armitts was all over the place.
The one aspect of Armitt's criticism that left me hanging and far more confused then ever was her topic of Utopia in fantasy. Her establishment of the 'Utopia' definition was first 'the desire to go beyond' and a page later it was 'no place'. This was confusing to me because she gives two definitions that are dratstically different, and she doesn't support either with examples from the 'best known fantasy texts' she uses as resources for all of her 'critical information'.
I do believe that fantasy fiction is a type of genre that questions what happens beyond the horizon, do these thing really happen beyond earth? Probably Not. But in Lord of the Rings The Fellowship of the Ring, Tolkein creates 'Middle Earth', a place that cannot be found on any map (besides the one in the book). Along with the creation of such a place, Tolkein creates languages, monsters, 'superhuman characters' and a powerful plot that lead us to a place of no return for thousands of pages. The interesting thing that Armitt claims is that fantasy is reaching for blue sky. I think it is a good way of characterizing fantasy, because when I think of it, I think of What if? What if these things could really happen? But that is all part of how I read fantasy, fantasizing about the story an author creates for you.
I cannot say that I completely disagree with Armitt, because I simply didn't understand half of the things she was saying. However, for me as a reader, I would have appreciated a more rigid structure to her writing. This POSSIBLY would have helped me in wanting to read her work, and maybe could have pushed me along to understanding and connecting with it.
Hopefully there are others out there that feel the same?
Armitt/Fantasy fiction in my life during 2001-03
While reading Armitt's book about Fantasy fiction, I found myself with a somewhat scattered viewpoint of what fantasy fiction really is. It's not that I particulary didn't care much for the book (it was a somewhat easier read than most would be on the subject), it was the varied definition of what fantasy fiction is supposed to be, according to Armitt. First, I disagreed with Animal Farm and Gulliver's Travels being labeled fantasy fiction. I personally feel that those books are considered to be fictional satires on real life events, the former about communist Russia and the latter about the wars between England and France in the 1700s. Second, I do agree with Armitt on the grounds about Christian allegorical writing about Pilgrim's Progress, but totally disagree with The Lord of the Rings being a Christian allegory. Armitt mentions this in the book, and some 30-odd pages later, says that LOTR is usually mistaken as being a Christian allegory. All in all, Armitt's Fantasy fiction book was an interesting read at times, but at other times, one could get lost with too much information that was in the text. I wished that Armitt could focus a bit on the basics of Fantasy fiction instead of overloading one with too much at one time.
As a footnote, besides going too much in depth on a book review, I thought I'd shift my attention to when I first "discovered" fantasy fiction. It was around the fall of 2001, when the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings were being showned in theatres. I didn't automatically jump on the bandwagon, but about a month before the new year, I decided to see "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I then read the book shortly afterwards, and for the next year, found myself caught up in the Harry Potter-mania that was going on at that time. I couldn't wait for the next film, so I read the book and during the fall of 2002, saw the second Harry Potter film. My fascination with fantasy did not last long. I became quite bored along the way with the Harry Potter books and films, and by 2003, was finished with my one and a half year journey into the world of fantasy fiction. I have not gone back into reading or watching fantasy since that time, and do not plan to at anytime. As an interesting sidenote, this is the first time since the 2001-2003 fantasy stage that I have read, watched, or spoke of fantasy. I'd had seen the first two LOTR films during that time period, but grew tired of them, unlike Harry Potter.
As a footnote, besides going too much in depth on a book review, I thought I'd shift my attention to when I first "discovered" fantasy fiction. It was around the fall of 2001, when the Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings were being showned in theatres. I didn't automatically jump on the bandwagon, but about a month before the new year, I decided to see "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I then read the book shortly afterwards, and for the next year, found myself caught up in the Harry Potter-mania that was going on at that time. I couldn't wait for the next film, so I read the book and during the fall of 2002, saw the second Harry Potter film. My fascination with fantasy did not last long. I became quite bored along the way with the Harry Potter books and films, and by 2003, was finished with my one and a half year journey into the world of fantasy fiction. I have not gone back into reading or watching fantasy since that time, and do not plan to at anytime. As an interesting sidenote, this is the first time since the 2001-2003 fantasy stage that I have read, watched, or spoke of fantasy. I'd had seen the first two LOTR films during that time period, but grew tired of them, unlike Harry Potter.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Fantasy/Armitt
I don't have too much experience with fantasy novels other than children/pre-teen books (such as Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs; James and the Giant Peach; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; etc.) I've never read the Harry Potter or Twilight series and I never read The Lord of the Rings until this class. It wasn't that I disliked fantasy novels, it just wasn't my favorite genre. The point I'm getting at is that I had very little background knowledge of fantasy novels when I read Armitt's criticism, but even I could tell that she wasn't doing a good job at it.
It seemed to me like she was grasping at straws and she twisted plot points or themes from her sample novels to prove her ideas correct. To me, this doesn't seem very professional and in doing so she loses her credibility. Also, like I already said, I know very little of fantasy novels so when she went off on these examples from books I've never even heard of, she lost me. Unless a reader of her book is an avid fantasy reader they aren't going to get most of what she is trying to say.
While I was reading her book I found myself thinking OK, could you put that in layman's terms for those of us that don't know fantasy fiction well and/or aren't English majors. I know that her intended audience probably was fantasy lovers or English majors, but my high school English teacher always told us that you have to write to the "invisible naive." Which means you have to write it as if the audience has no idea what you are talking about, which she didn't do.
Armitt's criticism didn't change my mind about fantasy fiction either way. She didn't make me hate it or love it. My opinion is pretty much the same as it was before, neutral.
It seemed to me like she was grasping at straws and she twisted plot points or themes from her sample novels to prove her ideas correct. To me, this doesn't seem very professional and in doing so she loses her credibility. Also, like I already said, I know very little of fantasy novels so when she went off on these examples from books I've never even heard of, she lost me. Unless a reader of her book is an avid fantasy reader they aren't going to get most of what she is trying to say.
While I was reading her book I found myself thinking OK, could you put that in layman's terms for those of us that don't know fantasy fiction well and/or aren't English majors. I know that her intended audience probably was fantasy lovers or English majors, but my high school English teacher always told us that you have to write to the "invisible naive." Which means you have to write it as if the audience has no idea what you are talking about, which she didn't do.
Armitt's criticism didn't change my mind about fantasy fiction either way. She didn't make me hate it or love it. My opinion is pretty much the same as it was before, neutral.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)