A quote from the late Sir Terry Pratchett...

[Mad Swede]

"Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one."

Discuss!

 

[Karlin]

Ook!

 

[Queshire]

How political am I allowed to get with this conversation? 0.o

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

One of my favourite quotes of his.

 

[Wrensul]

Having one's power and/or basic world view challenged is icky.

And too. A portion of sOcIeTY just loves an easy archetype to follow.
I'm not sure I'm qualified to say how big that portion is without seeming like a worse snob.

It's safer to rely on predictable drama and plot structure. Black and white views of bad vs. good. You still get some kind of a rollercoaster while using less energy. Maybe in many cases there's less interest in the depth of a story and people are seeking more physical gratifications.
And who am I to blame people for wanting to turn their brains off?

Maybe people just haven't been trained to be more individualistic. Maybe the desire to look deeper into issues is inherent or not.

I'm not completely immune to my expectations, either. Trying to think of an example. . .

Why in certain situations I might go "that seemed too out of proportion for this story". Or my taste.

Luv u Terry Parachute, mwah.

 

[skip.knox]

>Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one.
Too facile for my taste. Seems to me all stories require imagination, both to create them and to read them. Moreover, and worse, is the second clause, because it's dismissive of others without being very explicit about who those others are. People without imagination? Show me one and I'll show you their gravestone.

What Pratchett is saying between the lines (interesting concept for a one-liner) is that we special folk have imaginations and those other people don't (and we all know who we are and who they are, don't we). Or, alternatively, if my stories upset you, well then you just don't have imagination.

I know he's well-regarded, but I've yet to finish any of his books. Hard to imagine, I know.

 

[Queshire]

I don't know. A 'lack of imagination' strikes me as an accurate enough description for those people that'd rather bitch about a work based only on a trailer rather than, ya know, give it a shot on its own merits.

 

[Mad Swede]

Or worse still, bitch about books they haven't read and don't intend to read because they think they're a "middlebrow cult of the popular", to quote art and literary critic Jonathan Jones. That same critic dismissed the Discworld books and wrote that "In the real world, as opposed to the Discworld, people have complexities, contradictions. A whole art form has evolved to explore them. It’s called the novel."

Sadly, that sort of attitude, that fantasy stories aren't serious literature, is still all too common among the literary "elite". I see it here in Sweden. That somehow "good" literature should describe living life in all its unpredictability, humour, longing, grimness, exhilaration and shame. And when I see and hear comments along those lines I find myself wondering what people like that read. If we as authors are not using our imagination to write stories, then what are we basing our stories on? Where do attitides like that leave a novel like Jane Austen's Mansfield Park? There's an inherent contradiction which I can't get my head around.

To me that sort of criticism illustrates the point Pratchett made in that quote. Yes, we can talk about the sort of fiction or art or music we like and find worthwhile. What we shouldn't do is dismiss the tastes of others without even making an attempt to understand or experience them. That's the very least that's expected of a critic. Especially when the author being criticised has written complex novels which make some very serious points about people and society whilst setting the books in a fantasy world (anyone who thinks Pratchett's novels aren't like that needs to read Night Watch, Snuff and Nation).

So maybe what Sir Terry Pratchett was criticising was literary snobbery and elitism disguised as criticism?

 

[pmmg]

Despite his stories, Niel Gaimon called Mr. Prachet, not funny, but angry... The quote seems to fit.

Its easy to think others, or even some nameless masses, dont have some capability, but its rare I meet those who actually fit that mold. Everyone is someone, and has a way of thinking. I would discount such a comment. In fact, while its clever, I will dismiss it in the way it is dismissing others.

 

[Wrensul]

Coming back like the gremlin I am.

I think the quote can apply to any side of an argument.

We are all beholden to our own worldviews. I have known many people, including family members and neighbors, who are deeply unwilling to reconsider theirs. To repeat sentiments in this thread, people will refuse to read a book because of one stranger’s review, dismiss a film after a one-minute trailer, or make sweeping judgments without seriously engaging with the thing they oppose.

I have seen many people pursue their own goals with little willingness to entertain anything that complicates them. I’m a victim of such circumstances and the cause, whether I realized so or not.

I am wary of what I feel is an increasing number of people with immoderate agendas taking drastic measures. In my opinion, they don’t have the imaginations to step outside of their worldviews.

They would be upset by certain genres or concepts they consider against their intentions.

They may have the imaginations, sinister (or more mildly just determined) to make big things happen.

The quote resonates with me because in my opinion, it is speaking about rigidity. I read “without imagination” as referring to a failure, or refusal, to imagine beyond one’s existing assumptions.

It is indeed angry and dismissive of some vague group. But I believe the gentle disagreement is warranted. I am thankful for it.

It would not need to be said in a world of equality and compassion.

 

[The Dark One]

"Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one."

Discuss!

Way too much of a vague generalisation for me.

Where's his evidence?

I would have thought that we novelists (presumably with imagination) can only thrive in a world where the majority have less imagination and want access to our stories.

 

[Insolent Lad]

As much of Pratchett's writing, I think this should be taken as a tongue in cheek exaggeration. That doesn't mean there's no validity to it.

 

[RoccO]

It depends what you can find under a rock. Some imagination can send you in a loop, while others can divide your attention. A man banging two sticks together can be more intimidating than a family feud from afar, with soundproof walls. Anyhow, imagination is like dreamland, probably a collective consciousness. They can study minute details, but still never get into the nuances of the glimpses of meaning within imagination.

Some people can see clearly what is obvious or too obvious for imagination to point out to the individual. It can be a carefully divvied up experience what imagination can bring. It needs encouragement to grow, and muscles need to develop to sustain endurance.

Sometimes war needs little to no imagination, but requires a whole lot of thinking before it will bloom. There are reasons for it, reasons that come from the imagination, and are thwarted by the imagination, all the same. They say that two minds are better than one, but which minds? Pockets are bottomless, when it comes to issues of supply and demand, and imagination is torn away from a person, also gamble their lively hood.

 

[Mad Swede]

Some of you have felt that Pratchett was generalising too much in that quote. I suggest that perhaps he was guilty of oversimplifying what is a very complex argument, one discussed by JRR Tolkien in his essay On Fairy Stories.

Tolkien pointed out that many people (he had in mind certain critics of the time) disliked fantasy because it starts out with arresting strangeness and those people didn't like being drawn in like that because they saw it as meddling with the real (or primary) world. However, Tolkien also pointed out that for fantasy to be arresting in that way it had to have a well developed setting (secondary world), and that those critics had a basis for their disdain when the secondary world wasn't developed enough to be internally consistent and instead was simply fanciful. The reason for that argument is that Tolkien emphasised that by using fantasy (which he equated with imagination) the author could let readers experience a consistent and rational world under rules other than those of the normal world, something he felt was "a rare achievement of Art". Tolkien went on to argue that fantasy gave readers recovery, escape and consolation, and that through these the reader could review their own world from the "perspective" of a different world.

Based on this I'd argue that Pratchett's quote also makes the point that those who dislike fantasy perhaps don't like be drawn in to a story which almost implicitly invites them to think abotu themselves and their own place in the real world.

 

[RoccO]

The reason for that argument is that Tolkien emphasised that by using fantasy (which he equated with imagination) the author could let readers experience a consistent and rational world under rules other than those of the normal world, something he felt was "a rare achievement of Art".

I find a rare achievement that fantasy seems to take on the imagination of whatever scene it possesses. There are the battle hardened, fire forged, heroes and villains, whom take on the mantle of fantasy, and seem to make it in our dull and dreary lives. The swords shine, the shields clash. Every character, a honed weapon. If I were to take on one thing from fantasy, it is that the world is very imbalanced, and needs might and magic to make it sustainable.

However, Tolkien also pointed out that for fantasy to be arresting in that way it had to have a well developed setting (secondary world), and that those critics had a basis for their disdain when the secondary world wasn't developed enough to be internally consistent and instead was simply fanciful.

It is funny what you find in a cave. The movie series is not finished yet, and I would like to see it take on new ramifications. The book however, did not take on their names and faces, it appears exactly how I imagined it when I read it. I have not read it more than twice, but the hobbit is still a remarkable launch pad for a book that was planned to be another stand alone as well.

Tolkien pointed out that many people (he had in mind certain critics of the time) disliked fantasy because it starts out with arresting strangeness and those people didn't like being drawn in like that because they saw it as meddling with the real (or primary) world.

The fallout from the series was atrocious, some sort of cult became evident in pub culture, I saw little of that from my child hood. There are ramifications for works such as that, dealing with evil, but there and back again. The curtains close, life goes on.