I agree with the view that comics and graphic novels are not being overlooked in today's society and are even flourishing. The rise of films based on comics has steadily risen, perhaps with the introduction of films portraying these stories as gritty and real, even though they are fantastic in nature.
Take for example the new films based on Spiderman, Iron Man, and especially Batman. While Spiderman deals with fantastic scientific non-sense to explain Peter Parker's condition, it still at least tries to explain it beyond having radioactive blood from a spider bite.
Iron Man takes explores the tale of billionaire Tony Stark being captured by enemies overseas and transfers the already pseudo-realistic portrayal of the hero to the Middle East, no doubt in order to update the series' relevance with today's audience.
And the newest incarnation of Batman, from Memento director Christopher Nolan is the quintessential example of a fantastic story being described through pseudo-realistic means. Batman, or Bruce Wayne, in the films Batman Begins and the wildly popular The Dark Knight is portrayed as the wealthy heir to his parents' multi-billion dollar industry. After his parents are killed in a botched mugging, Wayne trains with a martial arts master Ra's al Ghul in order to become a crime-fighter.
Wayne, like Stark, is a normal, albeit wealthy and incredibly smart man. Being that they are so wealthy, they are able to fund their crime-fighting ways, purchasing materials to create technologically advanced suits of armor and weaponry to bring crime in their respective homes to an end.
And yet another example of this is the recent adaptation of the graphic novel Watchmen. None of the heroes (sans the incredible Dr. Manhattan) have actual superpowers. They have come to be heroes through realistic means. The brutal and cold Rorschach was the child of a neglectful and criminal mother, who would often beat him. After a rough childhood, he began his vigilante ways upon hearing of the notorious murder case of Kitty Genovese. He eventually became Rorschach when he discovered a strange fabric as a tailor that allowed blobs of black ink to shift in the fabric depending on heat from the body. He fashioned the mask and thus the black on white blobs earned him the avatar of Rorschach. The second version of the Night Owl came with a young man emulating an earlier masked vigilante whose avatar was chosen as the original Night Owl was a bird-lover. The second Silk Spectre came out of relation, as she was the daughter of the original Silk Spectre, one of the original superheroes of the 1950s and 60s. And like both Tony Stark and Bruce Wayne, the vastly wealthy and intelligent Adrian Veidt became Ozymandias in order to rid the world of evil (and perhaps become evil himself in the process.) The only hero in the story that possesses any sort of supernatural power is Dr. Manhattan. Even his powers do not come from an alien planet or any such supernatural means. Rather, he is the product of an unfortunate accident relating to his scientific studies. Each of these characters has root in real-life means for vigilantism, which help to explain their quest for justice in the nearly unrecognizable alternative universe of New York City.
These examples from Watchmen, Iron Man and Batman, perhaps excluding Dr. Manhattan and Spiderman, are proof that sometimes heroes from these mediums can have at least plausible origins. This change in the normally supernatural and fantastic stories of comic books from the early days of the medium may be a contributing factor in the rise of popularity in late years. At the very least it can be seen as a trend in the medium, one which will hopefully continue to bring to life a once dry genre to a newer audience.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Start Spreading the News: Jeffrey Tucker on Race, Science Fiction, and Delany @Fredonia
I'm pleased to announce that the planet's foremost Samuel Delany authority will be speaking on my campus tomorrow afternoon. Jeffrey Tucker of the University of Rochester's English department has something new to say on the subjects of his fantastic 2004 study A Sense of Wonder: Samuel R. Delany, Race, Identity, and Difference. In "The Necessity of Models, of Alternatives: Samuel Delany's Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand," Tucker starts with two questions: 1) "How does one define science fiction (SF)?" and 2) "What difference does race makes to SF?" and ends by arguing that "Stars in My Pocket can be shown to be participating in the tradition of African-American literature and demonstrating the difference that race--both Delany’s own identity and the social phenomenon that has structured so much of the American experience--makes to the author’s conception of SF and its potential as a tool for critical analysis." To find out how he gets from point A to point B, come on over to room S-121 of the Williams Center Thursday, 10/8/09, at 4:30! This is a preview of an essay that will appear in a special issue of SAQ entitled "Thinking Black Intellectuals" that he's co-editing with Grant Farred, so be there or be square!
[Cross-posted at Citizen of Somewhere Else.]
[Update 1 (4:30 pm): Here's official announcement from SUNY Fredonia.]
[Cross-posted at Citizen of Somewhere Else.]
[Update 1 (4:30 pm): Here's official announcement from SUNY Fredonia.]
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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Music Of Fantasy Fiction
I am not the foremost authority on Fantasy as anyone reading this post will soon figure out, but I am interested in both Fantasy and Science Fiction as forms of entertainment. So rather than try to write authoritatively on a subject I have limited knowledge about, I thought I would relay it into a subject I am quite familiar with. So this is why I've tried to connect Fantasy (and later Science Fiction) with the art of music. There are several motifs found throughout musical representations of both genres, which are used for good reason: they are attempts at accurately portraying the worlds built to defy normal fictional conventions. So much of our culture is based in music that it would be foolish to try to imagine these worlds without trying to hear them artistically.
All throughout the common-practice period of music, and even today in the pieces of the 21st century, music can be used to set an atmosphere with which the listener can create his/her own interpretations. This genre being considered "absolute music", pieces wherein the music is written without a specific story to be told. The opposite of this could be considered "programmatic music", where a story is told through certain musical techniques. Some such pieces that fall under the former category go by the title of Fantasia, literally meaning fantasy. While this title was more commonly used for pieces before the 20th century, there have been more Fantasias written than can possibly be listed. J.S. Bach, W.A. Mozart and other baroque/classical composers used the title to convey the sense of an otherworldly wonder. Others in the romantic era like Chopin and Brahms use this title, while still composers in the 20th and 21st centuries write such pieces to further the ideas of atmosphere as a means to tell a story, all through the mind of the listener. While this does not directly relate to the ideas of Fantasy Fiction, it shares the otherworldly themes that the stories of the genre present.
The words Fantasy Fiction can often evoke memories of fairies and pixie dust, ugly little creatures and strong noble men hiding high in stone castles. This stereotype and others like it have been exhausted since novels like the Lord Of The Rings series had its boom onto the market. While we can see the cliche in the actual act of storytelling, it's a bit more difficult to find the root of the cliches faced in music based on these stories. What kind of cliches? There are several ways of conveying the atmosphere of these man-built worlds. One example found in almost every piece of "fantasy music" is the motif of a large, brilliant, brassy fare. Those that make the listener envision a noble knight or stoic king being serenaded by the various peasants and countrymen that make up his/her kingdom. This theme was largely utilized by composer Howard Shore in his attempts to bring The Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring to life, in his score for the film version. The stately theme used to represent the Fellowship is a broad showcase of the orchestra, displaying the heroic characteristics of the team, and largely Aragorn. In another musical telling of this story, this time by famous concert band composer Johan de Meij in his first symphony, written as a programmatic representation of the novels. This time, he uses a fanfare figure to represent the nobility of the hobbits in their frightening quest to destroy the one ring, which closes the work on a grand, extravagant note.
Another idea used in fantasy music is that of dancing fairies and other light magical ideas. Pytor Ilyich Tchaikovsky is known as one of the greatest melodists and romantic composers of all time. His Shchelkunchik, better known as The Nutcracker, is a suite of music from a ballet that he wrote. The Nutcracker is based on a story by E.T.A. Hoffman called "The Nutcracker And The Mouse King", about a Nutcracker coming to life and whisking away a young girl to a magical kingdom of dolls. The piece has many memorable themes, one of which is a tune written about a magical being known as the Sugar Plum Fairy. Tchaikovsky was a master orchestrator, using a little known instrument, the celesta (essentially a series of metal plates struck similarly in fashion with a piano) to illustrate the light, flowery and fantastic nature of the creature. The theme is mysterious, inviting the listener to picture a tiny fairy going about its environment, enchanting its surroundings along the way. This piece was used in the Walt Disney film, Fantasia along with the rest of The Nutcracker, to show the pieces through the eyes of Disney animators. Again, the theme accompanies a small magical being gently flying and dancing around a garden and pond, freezing plants and water into beautiful, shining glittery objects.
There are still myriad examples of what can constitute musical representations of various sorts of Fantasy Fiction. Among them are representations of folk-tales, like Russian composer Igor Stravinsky's ballet Petroushka, portraying a marionette that comes to life. Another may come from another Russian composer, Modest Mussorgsky, in his attempts to bring the tale of the Chernabog to life in his piece "A Night On Bald Mountain" (which coincidentally was used in Disney's Fantasia.) There are also several scores for Fantasy films, among the most notable are The Lord Of The Rings series scored by Howard Shore, as well as the Harry Potter series scored by John Williams.
In my next post (if this one went as well as I hoped), I will discuss the use of music in portraying Fantasy Fiction's cousin, Science Fiction. Like Fantasy Fiction, there are several tools in the composer's archive used to convey this fantastic brand of storytelling.
All throughout the common-practice period of music, and even today in the pieces of the 21st century, music can be used to set an atmosphere with which the listener can create his/her own interpretations. This genre being considered "absolute music", pieces wherein the music is written without a specific story to be told. The opposite of this could be considered "programmatic music", where a story is told through certain musical techniques. Some such pieces that fall under the former category go by the title of Fantasia, literally meaning fantasy. While this title was more commonly used for pieces before the 20th century, there have been more Fantasias written than can possibly be listed. J.S. Bach, W.A. Mozart and other baroque/classical composers used the title to convey the sense of an otherworldly wonder. Others in the romantic era like Chopin and Brahms use this title, while still composers in the 20th and 21st centuries write such pieces to further the ideas of atmosphere as a means to tell a story, all through the mind of the listener. While this does not directly relate to the ideas of Fantasy Fiction, it shares the otherworldly themes that the stories of the genre present.
The words Fantasy Fiction can often evoke memories of fairies and pixie dust, ugly little creatures and strong noble men hiding high in stone castles. This stereotype and others like it have been exhausted since novels like the Lord Of The Rings series had its boom onto the market. While we can see the cliche in the actual act of storytelling, it's a bit more difficult to find the root of the cliches faced in music based on these stories. What kind of cliches? There are several ways of conveying the atmosphere of these man-built worlds. One example found in almost every piece of "fantasy music" is the motif of a large, brilliant, brassy fare. Those that make the listener envision a noble knight or stoic king being serenaded by the various peasants and countrymen that make up his/her kingdom. This theme was largely utilized by composer Howard Shore in his attempts to bring The Lord Of The Rings: Fellowship Of The Ring to life, in his score for the film version. The stately theme used to represent the Fellowship is a broad showcase of the orchestra, displaying the heroic characteristics of the team, and largely Aragorn. In another musical telling of this story, this time by famous concert band composer Johan de Meij in his first symphony, written as a programmatic representation of the novels. This time, he uses a fanfare figure to represent the nobility of the hobbits in their frightening quest to destroy the one ring, which closes the work on a grand, extravagant note.
Another idea used in fantasy music is that of dancing fairies and other light magical ideas. Pytor Ilyich Tchaikovsky is known as one of the greatest melodists and romantic composers of all time. His Shchelkunchik, better known as The Nutcracker, is a suite of music from a ballet that he wrote. The Nutcracker is based on a story by E.T.A. Hoffman called "The Nutcracker And The Mouse King", about a Nutcracker coming to life and whisking away a young girl to a magical kingdom of dolls. The piece has many memorable themes, one of which is a tune written about a magical being known as the Sugar Plum Fairy. Tchaikovsky was a master orchestrator, using a little known instrument, the celesta (essentially a series of metal plates struck similarly in fashion with a piano) to illustrate the light, flowery and fantastic nature of the creature. The theme is mysterious, inviting the listener to picture a tiny fairy going about its environment, enchanting its surroundings along the way. This piece was used in the Walt Disney film, Fantasia along with the rest of The Nutcracker, to show the pieces through the eyes of Disney animators. Again, the theme accompanies a small magical being gently flying and dancing around a garden and pond, freezing plants and water into beautiful, shining glittery objects.
There are still myriad examples of what can constitute musical representations of various sorts of Fantasy Fiction. Among them are representations of folk-tales, like Russian composer Igor Stravinsky's ballet Petroushka, portraying a marionette that comes to life. Another may come from another Russian composer, Modest Mussorgsky, in his attempts to bring the tale of the Chernabog to life in his piece "A Night On Bald Mountain" (which coincidentally was used in Disney's Fantasia.) There are also several scores for Fantasy films, among the most notable are The Lord Of The Rings series scored by Howard Shore, as well as the Harry Potter series scored by John Williams.
In my next post (if this one went as well as I hoped), I will discuss the use of music in portraying Fantasy Fiction's cousin, Science Fiction. Like Fantasy Fiction, there are several tools in the composer's archive used to convey this fantastic brand of storytelling.
Quantum Leap and Time Travel
Time travel is one of the numerous motifs that consistently appear in the science fiction (SF) genre. In Reading Science Fiction, when the discussion of time travel rises in the pop culture section of the book, it is mentioned that one of the purposed time travel is used by the characters of a story is to fix something in the past that once had gone wrong. When reading this line, I immediately thought of the show, Quantum Leap, which was not mentioned in the articles at all.
Here is a very general description of the storyline from Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) for those who do not know:
Doctor Sam Beckett led a group of top scientists into the desert to research his theory that a man could time travel within his own lifetime. Unfortunately, in order to save his funding, he was forced to enter the accelerator prematurely and vanished. He then found himself in someone else's body with partial amnesia. His only contact from home is Al, a holographic image only he can see and hear. Setting right things which once went wrong, Sam leaps from life to life, hoping each time that this is the final leap home.
In each episode, Sam must figure out who he is and what he has to make right of the situation he has leaped into.
Though time travel isn't something new in the SF genre, Quantum Leap beings a different aspect of time travel into play. Having watched most of the show, Sam can not control where or when he leaps from time to time. The driving force of these leaps is never revealed; he just hopes the next leap is back to the lab in which he disappeared from. When he leaps into the body of whoever in whatever time, the "actual person" he has left into is back in the science lab in Sam's time, usually confused and scared, not understanding what is happening to him, much like Sam after he has leaped. But once Sam has leaped in a person, he controls all aspects of that person and, not only fixes what went wrong involving that person, he changes the affects of time while the actual person is rendered helpless of control over their own lives. This is a power God-like: almost an all- ruling ability to change- well history! But what if it is God who is having Sam leap around from decade to decade, fixing things that went wrong in the world. This brings as whole new aspect to discussing science in relation to religion. This topic of course would be too in depth for a single blog post, but the connection is there. How can there be a pre-destined plan in a person's life if time travel is possible? Would time travel disprove the existence of [a] God is a person can go back and change history ( which would affect the years after the event)?
These are just a few questions SF, at least not in Reading Science Fiction, has not addressed.
Here is a very general description of the storyline from Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com) for those who do not know:
Doctor Sam Beckett led a group of top scientists into the desert to research his theory that a man could time travel within his own lifetime. Unfortunately, in order to save his funding, he was forced to enter the accelerator prematurely and vanished. He then found himself in someone else's body with partial amnesia. His only contact from home is Al, a holographic image only he can see and hear. Setting right things which once went wrong, Sam leaps from life to life, hoping each time that this is the final leap home.
In each episode, Sam must figure out who he is and what he has to make right of the situation he has leaped into.
Though time travel isn't something new in the SF genre, Quantum Leap beings a different aspect of time travel into play. Having watched most of the show, Sam can not control where or when he leaps from time to time. The driving force of these leaps is never revealed; he just hopes the next leap is back to the lab in which he disappeared from. When he leaps into the body of whoever in whatever time, the "actual person" he has left into is back in the science lab in Sam's time, usually confused and scared, not understanding what is happening to him, much like Sam after he has leaped. But once Sam has leaped in a person, he controls all aspects of that person and, not only fixes what went wrong involving that person, he changes the affects of time while the actual person is rendered helpless of control over their own lives. This is a power God-like: almost an all- ruling ability to change- well history! But what if it is God who is having Sam leap around from decade to decade, fixing things that went wrong in the world. This brings as whole new aspect to discussing science in relation to religion. This topic of course would be too in depth for a single blog post, but the connection is there. How can there be a pre-destined plan in a person's life if time travel is possible? Would time travel disprove the existence of [a] God is a person can go back and change history ( which would affect the years after the event)?
These are just a few questions SF, at least not in Reading Science Fiction, has not addressed.
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?
Speculation
Armitt speaks of relationships between the tangible and the speculative. 'What is? What could be?" The relation to the real is symbolized by sea and land. The boundary between sea and land is displayed as the unreal and real. There is much juxtaposition in fantasy fiction.
Moreover, Armitt states fairy tales are similar to fantasy fiction. However, I disagree with this way of thinking. Fairy tales are simply composed, concrete, and more easily predictable than that of fantasy fiction. For example, J.R.R Tolkien developed whole creations of characterization centered around a highly developed way of life. Entire new languages were formed. Visions on authors of coherent universes occur in fantasy fiction. Characters are seemingly fragments out of dreams. Suspended beliefs of characters lie on readers. Complexity at best, is framed and threaded through words of linear progression.
Fairy tales come out of traditional forces and collective efforts. While there are still common themes in fantasy writing, for instance, the fact that main characters appear to be the hero who wins at a quest, the originality within fantasy fiction is strikingly more pronounced.
Armitt poses the question, 'is there a utopian impulse in all of fantasy?" This is one of her crowning points. However, she does not expand too much on this subject and this leaves readers without answers. Is this true, or paradoxically, does this occur in the darkest notion? There is too much abstractness in this statment. She failed to define what utopia is, as well. Is utopia a good place or no place? Readers were left to contemplate themselves. Where is Armitt's expertise on this issue?
At last, Armitt's most significantly climatic point occured when she stated that the Lord of the Rings series was not merely a traditional, christian, allegory. While this is most interesting and agreeable for myself, she spent only one paragraph developing this thought. Why so little?While she states the complex nature of the characterization, as a critic, this is not arguable. Armitt appears to be playing it safe.
Tolkien did say that he wasn't trying to write allegory, as he does not enjoy allegory. The characterization is complex and not easily mappable to christianity. There is great ambivalence of main characters. Reality is meant to be interpreted, rather than absolute. Clearly, the Lord of the Rings novels are not simplistic epics. Classic philosophical debates such as, the nature of evil, and what is happiness, through idealism, are discussed throughout Tolkien's writing. These matters are not to be taken lightly and certainly not to be simply pressed on christianity alone. Much is to be taken into account through fantasy fiction. Many issues are at hand through subjective thinking.
Moreover, Armitt states fairy tales are similar to fantasy fiction. However, I disagree with this way of thinking. Fairy tales are simply composed, concrete, and more easily predictable than that of fantasy fiction. For example, J.R.R Tolkien developed whole creations of characterization centered around a highly developed way of life. Entire new languages were formed. Visions on authors of coherent universes occur in fantasy fiction. Characters are seemingly fragments out of dreams. Suspended beliefs of characters lie on readers. Complexity at best, is framed and threaded through words of linear progression.
Fairy tales come out of traditional forces and collective efforts. While there are still common themes in fantasy writing, for instance, the fact that main characters appear to be the hero who wins at a quest, the originality within fantasy fiction is strikingly more pronounced.
Armitt poses the question, 'is there a utopian impulse in all of fantasy?" This is one of her crowning points. However, she does not expand too much on this subject and this leaves readers without answers. Is this true, or paradoxically, does this occur in the darkest notion? There is too much abstractness in this statment. She failed to define what utopia is, as well. Is utopia a good place or no place? Readers were left to contemplate themselves. Where is Armitt's expertise on this issue?
At last, Armitt's most significantly climatic point occured when she stated that the Lord of the Rings series was not merely a traditional, christian, allegory. While this is most interesting and agreeable for myself, she spent only one paragraph developing this thought. Why so little?While she states the complex nature of the characterization, as a critic, this is not arguable. Armitt appears to be playing it safe.
Tolkien did say that he wasn't trying to write allegory, as he does not enjoy allegory. The characterization is complex and not easily mappable to christianity. There is great ambivalence of main characters. Reality is meant to be interpreted, rather than absolute. Clearly, the Lord of the Rings novels are not simplistic epics. Classic philosophical debates such as, the nature of evil, and what is happiness, through idealism, are discussed throughout Tolkien's writing. These matters are not to be taken lightly and certainly not to be simply pressed on christianity alone. Much is to be taken into account through fantasy fiction. Many issues are at hand through subjective thinking.
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.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Armitt's views
Armitt's book was okay, but was extremely flawed. I do not believe I can really emphasis how very flawed this book was. To me, it read like an undergraduate paper done at the last minute in one draft from a very basic essay skeleton. Frankly, I hated the book and was very upset by it. When someone writes a book about other books, they should actually read the books they are writing about. On top of that, they should comprehend the book and its meanings. In "Lord of the Rings", Tolkien was very straight forward with his writing; there were few double meanings and those are clearly explained later on in the trilogy.
I find that Armitt has a habit of making a huge undergraduate mistake; stating a point, then giving one or two little points to back her opinion/point up, then just move on. Doing so just shows how little she seemed to have cared to finish a thought or fully prove a point.
Basically, I did not like this book nor would I recommend it to another person to read for class or for fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)