Tracing the Origins of Fantasy

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Oh, that would be interesting, Gollum. It would necessitate nothing short of a survey of social, cultural and literary developments over the last 200 years, but it should be worth a shot. Let's see what we can come up with!

 

[GOLLUM]

Yes JP, as per usual you've hit the nail on the head, that's what I was alluding to exactly.

As you say this is an entire topic in itself so maybe it would've been better to have posted it as a seperate thread LOL!..

Anyway I look forward to everyone's contributions, I will try to post something of relevance by the weekend.

 

[cyborg_cinema]

Since there is no such thing as "absolute fantasy" literature, there must be loads of fantasy-related literature. Tracing the development of fantasy by literary similarity alone, makes more sense. The mythic FANTASY rubber stamp went down with Atlantis.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I didn't answer your questions, Gollum, because they seemed to me to be only another way of phrasing some of the very questions we had been trying to answer since the very beginning of the topic.

And because, as I said:

Well, it depends on whether you are talking about fantasy that was originally written to be fantastical, or stories that are only fantasy in retrospect (that is they were meant to be realistic at the time, but we no longer believe in the same things that the people who wrote them did), or stories that, whatever they may have been meant to be in the first place, have had a direct influence on fantasy as we know it today.

And until we can decide on which of these we are talking about, we continue to argue at cross-purposes.

Now if we were to decide on something like this:

Since there is no such thing as "absolute fantasy" literature, there must be loads of fantasy-related literature. Tracing the development of fantasy by literary similarity alone, makes more sense.

for the purpose of this discussion only, we might be able to progress instead of continuing to talk in circles.


Which is not to say that some of the circles we've been following around and around haven't been amusing in their own way, just that maybe it's time to move on.

 

[GOLLUM]

I didn't answer your questions, Gollum, because they seemed to me to be only another way of phrasing some of the very questions we had been trying to answer since the very beginning of the topic.

And because, as I said:

Well, it depends on whether you are talking about fantasy that was originally written to be fantastical, or stories that are only fantasy in retrospect (that is they were meant to be realistic at the time, but we no longer believe in the same things that the people who wrote them did), or stories that, whatever they may have been meant to be in the first place, have had a direct influence on fantasy as we know it today.

And until we can decide on which of these we are talking about, we continue to argue at cross-purposes.

Actually the questiion I specifically reposted on the previous page to this one and that Knivesout appears to have picked up on I thought fairly clearly related the question indicating stories that were written to be fantastical, along the lines of modern fantasy in the last 2 centuries in particular or what I think I'm right in saying tends to be classified as stories within the so-called "Fantasy Genre" is what I was driving at that if you like essentially contains the authors I'm trying to cover in my Classic Fanatsy Authors Bio thread.

Check the question I reposted, hope this clarifies things a little....

P.S. In fairness to you you did say questions plural, so I'm referring to a particular one of my questions as the previous query on "What Is Fantasy?" was a bit vague.

 

[BAYLOR]

Vathek by Willam Beckford written 1786 Its listed as gothic horror but I think it belongs in the genre of Fantasy .

 

[Star-child]

This thread poses a kind of epistemological question: When did the authors of fantastical tales believe they were writing about fake forces and beasts, and when did their readers fully understand that? Homer might have known full well that there aren't any sirens, but his readers had no reason to believe that his stories had fictional elements. Modern fantasy is arguably when no reasonable person presumes the fantastic elements might be true and exist only to entertain rather than reveal. Even Gulliver's Travels likely had readers that suspected there was truth behind the tale.

It is an interesting line between SF and fantasy - so much of fantasy utilizes the 'hidden world' of human history - gods, spirits, beasts, impossible places and hidden powers. SF was born out of pure speculation that something could, someday, be possible - but definitely has not yet come to pass. Bram Stoker created a fiction based on legends that some people definitely believed to be true, while Mary Shelley created a new horror that no one could have mistaken for having come to pass.

Today we live in a time where modern humans decide to believe the earth is flat, so fantasy does run the risk of being treated like the Iliad was.

 

[BAYLOR]

This thread poses a kind of epistemological question: When did the authors of fantastical tales believe they were writing about fake forces and beasts, and when did their readers fully understand that? Homer might have known full well that there aren't any sirens, but his readers had no reason to believe that his stories had fictional elements. Modern fantasy is arguably when no reasonable person presumes the fantastic elements might be true and exist only to entertain rather than reveal. Even Gulliver's Travels likely had readers that suspected there was truth behind the tale.

It is an interesting line between SF and fantasy - so much of fantasy utilizes the 'hidden world' of human history - gods, spirits, beasts, impossible places and hidden powers. SF was born out of pure speculation that something could, someday, be possible - but definitely has not yet come to pass. Bram Stoker created a fiction based on legends that some people definitely believed to be true, while Mary Shelley created a new horror that no one could have mistaken for having come to pass.

Today we live in a time where modern humans decide to believe the earth is flat, so fantasy does run the risk of being treated like the Iliad was.

Well said.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Wow, a very old thread. A lot of people participating who are no longer with us, and a few of us still here but having since switched from handles to using our own names. Very nostalgic.

When did the authors of fantastical tales believe they were writing about fake forces and beasts, and when did their readers fully understand that? Modern fantasy is arguably when no reasonable person presumes the fantastic elements might be true and exist only to entertain rather than reveal.

Considering the number of witches and neo-pagans writing fantasy today, I would take issue with the idea that all modern fantasy writers are writing about what they would consider "fake forces." All of them do include things they may not believe in, magical beasts, etc. but to them some of the magic is very real, in line with the rituals they practice themselves and believe to be effective, or at least could be real, even if different from their own practices.

And being acquainted with a fair number of them, I would definitely take issue with the idea they are not "reasonable" people. Most of them I know are extremely reasonable in their daily lives and in regard to the major issues of the day. They just happen to have some beliefs regarding the supernatural that are not as mainstream as the major religions.

 

[Star-child]

Wow, a very old thread. A lot of people participating who are no longer with us, and a few of us still here but having since switched from handles to using our own names. Very nostalgic.



Considering the number of witches and neo-pagans writing fantasy today, I would take issue with the idea that all modern fantasy writers are writing about what they would consider "fake forces." All of them do include things they may not believe in, magical beasts, etc. but to them some of the magic is very real, in line with the rituals they practice themselves and believe to be effective, or at least could be real, even if different from their own practices.

And being acquainted with a fair number of them, I would definitely take issue with the idea they are not "reasonable" people. Most of them I know are extremely reasonable in their daily lives and in regard to the major issues of the day. They just happen to have some beliefs regarding the supernatural that are not as mainstream as the major religions.

Sorry to offend you. I guess I wasn't clear enough that I was talking about the readers' presumptions about a work of fiction, not the author's beliefs. I would edit my post for clarity, but it is too late.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Sorry to offend you. I guess I wasn't clear enough that I was talking about the readers' presumptions about a work of fiction, not the author's beliefs. I would edit my post for clarity, but it is too late.

You didn't offend me. I just wanted to point out that it is dangerous (in an intellectual sense) to assume that one's contemporaries, readers and writers both, think about certain things like you and the people you know do.

However, even among those who believe in some sort of magic, they may or may not write about the things they actually believe in in their fantasy stories. For some, those things are private, perhaps even sacred. They'll write about dragons and magic swords, which they know don't exist, and not about their personal faith and rituals. For others, their beliefs do inform their writing, sometimes in subtle ways, sometimes in more obvious ways. In these cases, knowing the background of their beliefs can give an added richness to reading their stories.

 

[Star-child]

I just wanted to point out that it is dangerous (in an intellectual sense) to assume that one's contemporaries, readers and writers both, think about certain things like you and the people you know do.

So it is reasonable to believe that the purposefully created fictional fantasy elements in a story are real, or just that it is rude to say such a belief is not reasonable?

CS Lewis's Christian beliefs don't reflect on whether a talking lion actually exists, or whether thinking that a talking lion exists after reading Narnia is sensible. That was all I was getting at - Lewis isn't providing the reader with potential facts.

There is a difference between having a religious/supernatural/spiritual belief system and a rejection of reality by embracing fictional/fake science beliefs that interfere with operating in reality. It is reasonable to believe in something like a river spirit; unreasonable to refute climate change (for instance) or the curvature of the earth. And it shouldn't be controversial to point that out.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm just saying that it can be hard to tell what a writer's intentions are unless you know more about them than just their name or the books they have written. We are fortunate enough to live in a time when several belief systems co-exist at once. In some ways, we can never know what it was like to live in the past, but in other ways, because at certain times certain beliefs were so pervasive, so rigidly enforced from the cradle to the grave, it can be easy to see at least the broad outlines of what a writer must have believed.

But defining whether a book is fantasy or not can be tricky, even using what one knows of a writer's personal beliefs. Because people who believe in the power of concentrated will through ritual to bring about concrete changes within the physical world (that is, people who believe in magic) don't necessarily believe in the werewolves or unicorns which they may write about in their books. However, such a person may be particularly aware of the power of metaphor,. and the symbolism such creatures represent may be particularly important to understanding their work, as it might not be with a writer who just writes about them for fun. Is the unicorn an artistic flourish, just part of the scenery, or is it a symbol of a sacred mystery? Depending on the writer, it could be either. A few hundred years ago, though, the writer might think he or she was writing natural history (although even then, the symbolism might or might not be there as well).

 

[BAYLOR]

Wow, a very old thread. A lot of people participating who are no longer with us, and a few of us still here but having since switched from handles to using our own names. Very nostalgic.



Considering the number of witches and neo-pagans writing fantasy today, I would take issue with the idea that all modern fantasy writers are writing about what they would consider "fake forces." All of them do include things they may not believe in, magical beasts, etc. but to them some of the magic is very real, in line with the rituals they practice themselves and believe to be effective, or at least could be real, even if different from their own practices.

And being acquainted with a fair number of them, I would definitely take issue with the idea they are not "reasonable" people. Most of them I know are extremely reasonable in their daily lives and in regard to the major issues of the day. They just happen to have some beliefs regarding the supernatural that are not as mainstream as the major religions.

I thought the topic worthwhile and still relevant. That's' why I gave it the old Baylor kickstart

 

[hitmouse]

This thread poses a kind of epistemological question: When did the authors of fantastical tales believe they were writing about fake forces and beasts, and when did their readers fully understand that? Homer might have known full well that there aren't any sirens, but his readers had no reason to believe that his stories had fictional elements. Modern fantasy is arguably when no reasonable person presumes the fantastic elements might be true and exist only to entertain rather than reveal. Even Gulliver's Travels likely had readers that suspected there was truth behind the tale.

It is an interesting line between SF and fantasy - so much of fantasy utilizes the 'hidden world' of human history - gods, spirits, beasts, impossible places and hidden powers. SF was born out of pure speculation that something could, someday, be possible - but definitely has not yet come to pass. Bram Stoker created a fiction based on legends that some people definitely believed to be true, while Mary Shelley created a new horror that no one could have mistaken for having come to pass.

Today we live in a time where modern humans decide to believe the earth is flat, so fantasy does run the risk of being treated like the Iliad was.

I think you are possibly overthinking this.
Gulliver's Travels, for example, was clearly written as a satire. The fact that some credulous types may have thought it was straight-up reportage does not change the intent of the writer.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think you are possibly overthinking this.
Gulliver's Travels, for example, was clearly written as a satire. The fact that some credulous types may have thought it was straight-up reportage does not change the intent of the writer.

Probably the same people who thought he seriously (and modestly) proposed that the Irish Question could be solved by eating their children.

 

[Star-child]

I think you are possibly overthinking this.
Gulliver's Travels, for example, was clearly written as a satire. The fact that some credulous types may have thought it was straight-up reportage does not change the intent of the writer.

Then I picked a poor example. Please substitute any fantastic literature from that time period written as fiction that might have been mistaken for fact by the uneducated people of the time.

 

[hitmouse]

The point remains, though. If an author writes a piece of fiction, it remains fiction even if some of the audience believe that is not the case. One could probably find modern examples: Orson Welles' radio play of War of the Worlds, or perhaps the Da Vinci Code.

 

[Star-child]

The point remains, though. If an author writes a piece of fiction, it remains fiction even if some of the audience believe that is not the case. One could probably find modern examples: Orson Welles' radio play of War of the Worlds, or perhaps the Da Vinci Code.

Except that isn't exactly the subject at hand. Someone writing fantastic tales 300 years ago would not have had a reasonable expectation that all readers would understand that it was fiction. At some point this stopped being the case and we stepped into the modern age where fantastical literature can only be expected to be read as fiction. That sea change could be viewed as the beginning of fantasy as a genre separate from myth.

 

[CupofJoe]

A long time ago I was told Art is what the Artist says it is.
The viewer, reader, consumer may have a different take on it but that doesn't change the motivation and intention of the originator/creator.
After that does it really matter?
I think X, you say Y, someone calls it Z...