Fantasy Themes

[dwndrgn]

I've found that most fantasy books have some sort of underlying theme or moral that aren't present in other general fiction novels. Is this one of the attractions?

What I mean is that, unless you are reading a continuing series (and I'm thinking mostly of mystery series with a few regular characters), authors don't usually slip in moral and ethical quandaries. However, in fantasy and science fiction, there is usually some sort of underlying moral dilemma or statement about the way our society works and where it is going.

Is this some sort of conceit of mine? Or is this a general trend that you have noticed as well?

 

[Princess Ivy]

Yes, I've often noticed a moral element to fantasy, I think that this is simply because the fantasy sf mediums are easily malible to create paralleles and parrodies of our own world. the authors have something to say, and try to say it without pounding it into us with a blunt hammer. not that they always suceed. The only problem that I have with this is that the themes are often treated in a childish manner and allowed to become to dominant.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The trouble I have is that there is a general fantasy cliche of "good vs dark", often centered around some invading hordes of evil into a land of saints. But, in my opinion, this can completely miss the point - which is that the "good versus evil" battle of any story is always ultimately the externalisation of the personal conflict in each of us.

I fear some authors have failed to grasp that possibility, and write with far too clear moral absolutes, without allowing that external conflict to properly mirror internal conflict.

 

[Mark Robson]

The trouble I have is that there is a general fantasy cliche of "good vs dark", often centered around some invading hordes of evil into a land of saints. But, in my opinion, this can completely miss the point - which is that the "good versus evil" battle of any story is always ultimately the externalisation of the personal conflict in each of us.

I fear some authors have failed to grasp that possibility, and write with far too clear moral absolutes, without allowing that external conflict to properly mirror internal conflict.

I'm afraid I've fallen into this trap with my first series, Brian. However, I'm attempting to redress the balance somewhat with my newer work. I've been a lot more radical with Imperial Spy - killing off some of the major good guys - having good guys killing other good guys and then struggling with the implications of what they have done.

Possibly one of the reasons that fantasy authors write the good vs dark where good wins in the end is that so many of us (I very much include myself) like reading escapist stories where this happens. Fantasy (in my view) should be just that - fantasy. Personally I like stories to paint pictures of places that I might actually quite like to spend my existence. Places where heros are heros and villains are there to be quashed, no matter how bad or powerful they might be. Let's face it, by immersing ourselves in such books are we not spending a certain part of our existence there anyway?

 

[Brian G Turner]

Indeed, but a world of morally flawless characters can destroy all sense of accessibility for many readers. And it's not as it it doesn't take much to stir up the moral complexities and get a reader thinking and engaged to the story via simple character dynamics and complexities.

For example - the original Dragonlance series - in most regards has absolutely no moral element in the plot itself - evil hordes cometh, yadada yadada. But amongst all that black and white moral certainty you have two amazing morally ambiguous characters: Raistlin, and Tasslehoff Burrfoot. Everyone who has read Dragonlance knows these characters, precisely because they had a depth to them that many of the others were lacking.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Given its close relation to traditional legends and sagas, fantasy is a form that's well suited to exploring the big human issues, although Tolkien's contemporary, ED Edisson, showed that it could be used to explore philosophical ideas more complex than basic moral schisms, and also to explore weird beauty for its own sake.

However, I have my reservations about what the traditional good vs. evil scenario really achieves. You could claim that it helps reaffirm basic moral codes - but exactly what are those codes? As long as fantasy offers you an unexamined moral victory, it merely serves the purpose of soothing the reader with a false promise of simplicity and righteousness.

Tolkien was a lot more layered than many of his derivatives, with each character coming to terms with the potential for evil in themselves in some way - the character of Boromir is a key element in this exploration, as is Gandalf's stated reason for not attempting to posess or use the one ring himself.

By holding up a skewed mirror to consensual reality, it is possible for fantasy to offer a real commentary on the dilemma-ridden state of humanity. A book like China Mieville's Iron Council has a clear message to offer, too (in this case, that the idea of revolution can be more important than an actual revolution), even if it is less simple that what you'd normally expect from the genre. Stephen Donaldson was a writer who explored nuances of good and evil beyond the obvious, and it's good to see a healthy dose of this sort of thing creeping into contemporary fantasy.

Science fiction also explores big human issues - but I've noticed these are more about the nature and future of humanity, differing political viewpoints and the like than simple moral dilemmas - although, as James Blish's A Case Of Conscience shows, SF can grapple with morality and theology as well.

 

[Mark Robson]

But amongst all that black and white moral certainty you have two amazing morally ambiguous characters: Raistlin, and Tasslehoff Burrfoot. Everyone who has read Dragonlance knows these characters, precisely because they had a depth to them that many of the others were lacking.

The fact that Raistlin and Tas blurred the boundaries between good and bad/evil made them interesting characters and very memorable, but memorable characters do not need to have this characteristic to make them great. Gandalf is memorable despite being whiter than white.

I agree that depth of character plays an important part in the stories, but I don't think that the morality of the character necessarily defines the depth. For me, what makes a character great is finding something to make him/her firstly distinguishable from the overwhelming number of other characters we have read about, such that from just a couple of words, you instantly know who is being talked about. Therefore, 'lightning-shaped scar' conjures an instant image of a young lad with scruffy hair and little round glasses - sad, I know, but true. Then, you have to make the character accessible by emotion with the reader, such that they can relate to the emotions that the character enjoys/suffers through the story. Whether the character is good or bad is really irrelevant.

Some of the best characters in films have been the villains! (Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood Prince of Theives is a classic example). For me this is because Alan Rickman gets the audience to relate so well to his frustration with the incompetence of those around him. I really related to his feeling that life never seemed to give him the results that his intelligence and devious planning deserved! Now if writers could just capture that sort of relationship between reader and villain on paper, we would really see some fascinating characters emerge.

 

[Princess Ivy]

I completely agree. I love the vilians, one of my fave characters is Karen in will and grace, probably because she is different from the rest of the pack One of the major problems that I have with 'good' characters is that many authors tend to forget to add a personality to all of that goodness, and they are simply paragons. I've never been able to relate to that sort of childish characterisation and tend to start rooting for the baddies! much to the charagin of my children.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Stirring the moral waters was simply an example of something that can make a reader think - personally, I would much prefer plenty of complexity as a reader. The morality of the characters can often be a clear sign of the depth that the writer has assigned to the actual story.Just my 2c, though.

 

[erickad71]

If I want to read a book with clear cut "good and evil" I read anything from Anne McCaffery's Pern series. They are great escapist, feel good books. On the other hand, the series A Song of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin has great characters who are not so clear cut in their morality. There is not a single one who is all good...I was going to say not all evil either, but I think there might be one or two who are. Most of his characters are just going through life the best way they know how.

 

[BAYLOR]

In old time heroic fantasy, The bad guy or monster usually looses,