Posted on 05/03/2010 1:16:39 PM PDT by Borges
Dr. Mengele must have been quaking!
It was a loaded question. I think the "blurring" of the 2 genres you mentioned is a matter of readers/viewers/marketers doing the blurring, not the authors.
Bradbury considers himself a fantasy writer: . "I've only done one science fiction book and that's Fahrenheit 451, based on reality. Science fiction is a depiction of the real. Fantasy is a depiction of the unreal. So Martian Chronicles is not science fiction, it's fantasy. It couldn't happen, you see? That's the reason it's going to be around a long time—because it's a Greek myth, and myths have staying power."
I've been a fan of both forms for 50 years and I think most of the writers would agree with Bradbury's definition. Marketers like the Sy Fy Channel have twisted definitons beyond logic. To them horror, corny science fantasy, gory slasher junk etc. all qualify as "Sci Fi" (sorry, it's been dumbed-down to Sy Fy).
As to the matter of Jewishness, I agree with you. But as I read it the author seemed to be referring to fiction from a mainly religious perspective, i.e. Lewis and Tolkien. It's an interesting question. Ellison's Jewish but he's sure as hell not very religiously-oriented.
Curiously, the “good” doctor accidently drowned and didn’t get to see the comic.
His linguistics theories have certainly been influential...even on the design of computer languages.
Yes, absolutely. That is very poignant.
The 20th century is catastrophic, and you have pinpointed one of the major reasons why. You could also point to the generation of Allied fathers who came home and abandoned their kids, who became the moves and shakers of the 60s and 70s. Now their kids are pretty messed up, as well. And many of those grandkids of WWII vets are much more conservative than their parents. Perhaps the process of healing has begun. But this is a thing that can’t be turned around even in several generations.
“Fahrenheit 451” was the only Bradbury piece I could think of, offhand, so I’m hardly the best example for your thesis on that.
I would suggest a further distinction the author of this piece didn’t make very clear. When he refers to to “fantasy” I believe he is referring primarily to “epic fantasy,” a very specific form of which Lord of the Rings is the classic example.
Science fiction, to the extent the term means anything, refers to attempts to extrapolate into the future the consequences of potential technology based on what we presently know of science.
Fantasy as such is a much broader grouping than either epic fantasy or science fiction and is roughly the same as “speculative fiction,” which asks the questions “what if?” with absolutely no limits.
Anything goes in fantasy as such, whereas science fiction and epic fantasy are both inherently more limited. A big problem is blurring of these categories. I have no problem with “science fiction” that violates our present scientific knowledge, for instance, as long as it is at least possible that the story is set in another universe with different laws of nature. When it is clearly set in the future of our universe, but science is just ignored, it doesn’t work for me.
Fantasy doesn’t have that problem, as it is usually clearly set in another universe where our laws of nature don’t apply.
“I don’t remember reading anything of Joel Rosenberg’s.”
His SF includes “Not For Glory” and “Hero” — about the Metzadan Mercenary Corps, military SF. His fantasies include the Paladins series and the Guardians of the Flame series (although the latter series are more fantasy parodies - like Mike Resnick’s “Stalking the . . .” books).
I might convert for the writing opportunities.
And the jokes. :-)
European Christians use biblical allegory mixed with local history or pre-christian themes to create a sense of rootedness. This is largely necessary since Christianity is not a tribal religion for them, but a universal religion that they adopted.
As a member of the Khazar-Fiction email list, I have read quite 3 historical fantasy novels based on this. As non-Jews whose nobility accepted Judaism while still having a society and political cultural based on the the Tengri religious Khagans inherited from the Gok Turkut, Khazaria is a perfect setting for historical fantasy.One could argue that the Yehuda haLevi's Kuzari served this purpose, but stripped away from all of its fantasy elements with a straight exposition on Jewish survival and pride in the diaspora. There have been a few good (more bad) novels on this. Major publishers just don't pick it up.
Rosenberg was born Jewish, but converted to Christianity.
Actually, I don’t read either any more. I find SciFi too nihilistic altogether and fantasy too predictable (and violent).
For what it’s worth, I am still plowing through WoT and just want to see the series concluded. I feel over-invested but close to the finish. I’d like to get closure (at low expense, naturally) A good editor would have pared the equivalent of five WoT-sized books from the series. There was too much repetitive internal monologue along the way (and books seven and eight were extensive diversions that have done damage to several characters and probably were what turned a lot of people against the series altogether), which should have been pared. Part of this was the original creeping temptation to allow readers into the series in later books by lamely recapping what had already happened. The effect was to produce repeated stereotypic descriptions and confine major characters in the narrative boxes they started in. When the narrative started to grow out of the original dimensions, the characters failed to grow as well, requiring a lot of ‘wasn’t it lucky THAT bad thing didn’t happen’.
Yeah, I’m pretty tired of it too.
Then again, it only took four books for Martin to repulse me and none of them were anywhere as long as Jordan’s.
Michael Chabon, “Two Gentlemen of the Road.”
"Tolkien was very clear that he was happy for readers to find deeper meanings in his works."Look at what you wrote . . ."for readers to find deeper meanings in his works."
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches; but its main theme was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link between it and The Hobbit. The crucial chapter, 'Shadow of the Past', is one of the oldest parts of the tale. It was written long before the foreshadow of 1939 had yet become a threat of inevitable disaster, and from that point the story would have developed along essentially the same lines, if that disaster had been averted It's souces are things long before in mind, or in some cases already written, and little or nothing in it was modified by the war that began in 1939 or in its sequals". . .The only meaning beyond the storyline "resides in the freedom of the reader," not in the authors work. What was being discussed was the presence of any intentional deeper meaning, not the personal baggage of a reader.
". . . Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes of views of those who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with it varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author . . ."
I can’t find it but, from what I recall.
The Cardinal of NY appeared on the Jack Benny/Ed Sullivan/Red Skelton (I don’t remember who) program and just killed with the jokes.
The host quipped who writes your jokes, and the Cardinal replied, “Well like you I’ve use a bunch of Jewish Writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke & John”
:)
Archbishop Fulton Sheen is generally credited with saying that his broadcast success was due to his great writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Abp. Sheen was not a Cardinal.
Disagree.
What you are saying goes well beyond your Tolkien quote, with which I am quite familiar.
You seem to be saying that any deeper meaning doesn't really exist, except in the imagination of the reader.
What Tolkien is saying is that different readers will find different deeper meanings, which were already there, often without the full concious intent of the author.
That is one of the main things I believe sets great art off from hackery. Great art lasts because there are layers of meaning that are continually being discovered. Not invented, but discovered.
This is not the tyranny of the author, forcing the reader to buy into his allegory, nor is it the invention of the reader, seeing what he wants to see. It is a collaboration between the two that becomes more than the sum of the parts.
IMHO, that is.
"You seem to be saying that any deeper meaning doesn't really exist, except in the imagination of the reader."That is precisely what I am saying. When Tolkien says:
"As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author none."I take him at his word and assume that there is no underlying hidden message. If the author is being truthful, then you are claiming that you can read his subconcious mind for meaning that he didn't even know was there.
That’s always been a part of reading. The text doesn’t just mean what the author intends. Sometimes it ends up meaning the exact opposite.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.