• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

The Ultimate Value of Fantasy

Ankari

Hero Breaker
Moderator
There is this cat that prowls these forums. Spiteful, chatty thing that spits names of authors to burden us with an expanded "to read" pile under the guise of "recommendations".

And like the simpleton I am, I fell for his last trap. He suggested John Gardener, author of the book Grendel. In my futile attempt to clear myself from this pitfall, I sought out his other books, many of which are books on writing.

And just like that, I bought The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers.

In it, he writes:

Thus the value of great fiction, we begin to suspect, is not just that it entertains us or distracts us from our troubles, not just that it broadens our knowledge of people and places, but also that it helps us to know what we believe, reinforces those qualities that are noblest in us, leads us to feel uneasy about our faults and limitations

This is not the place to pursue that suspicion—that is, the place to work out in detail the argument that the ultimate value of fiction is its morality, though the subject is one we must return to—but it is a good place to note a few technical implications of the fact that, whatever the genre may be, fiction does its work by creating a dream in the reader’s mind.

Before I get to the chapter focusing on such heady arguments, I'd like some feedback and compare his conclusion with yours.

Sound off.
 

FatCat

Maester
I'd like to think the ultimate value of fantasy is the unlimited range of social commentary that's available within the genre. What other genre allows you to create a whole world? It's this range that allows fantasy writers to expand on any other genre. There is a limitless availability to metaphors within the fantasy scope that can tell untold stories. As long as the genre evolves away from cave-dwelling dwarfs and elitist elfs, it's all good.

While the issue of morality, which you highlighted, is a subject that every fiction and non-fiction author should focus on. Fiction makes sense, reality often does not. There is a tangible idea to a fiction work, whether or not you agree with the author's idea is irrelevent. The idea is still present. But what do you classify as morality? How a character acts? Is this not within the scope of your story? Is it not the very actions of your characters that classify a personnal morality? I'd have to agree, just because the scope of the question is so wide. Fiction is a moral statement? Yes, of course it is. An abstract society based on how you relate your characters can be nothing else. It seems to me that the original poster of this article has done nothing more than state the obvious.
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
To put this in context, John Gardner was a literary writer, I'd imagine, first and foremost. He wrote Grendel, which obvious dabbles in the fantasy world, but does so in a literary way. It is entertaining, but I don't think that was the overall intention when writing it. I could be wrong.

That said, I think the ultimate value of fantasy fiction is to entertain and to evoke emotions. Any genre fiction is really meant to entertain overall. That is why it's often looked down on by literary writers as the sort of scum of the fiction world. However, there are many great writers who do write rather high art in the fantasy/SF realm (Guy Gavriel Kay, Frank Herbert, and Gene Wolfe to name a few).

I'm not quite sure what his quote means. Does it mean the ultimate goal of fiction is to be didactic? To teach a moral of some sort? Or maybe he's arguing against that. That fiction shouldn't be used to teach a lesson, but to weave images in a reader's mind.

Maybe someone who has a more analytical mind than I do right after lunch can break this down a bit better?
 

buyjupiter

Maester
I'm not quite sure what his quote means. Does it mean the ultimate goal of fiction is to be didactic? To teach a moral of some sort? Or maybe he's arguing against that. That fiction shouldn't be used to teach a lesson, but to weave images in a reader's mind.

Maybe someone who has a more analytical mind than I do right after lunch can break this down a bit better?

I think the point that he's getting at might be better termed "theme". Every piece of fiction has some sort of message it is trying to convey, whether it is one of love, fear, power, death, etc. I don't think that theme has to be moralistic, but it may have to be didactic.

This is probably a fine distinction, but there is a difference to me. The way I see "moralistic" implies a hierarchy of value: this is the right way to do life, everything else is wrong. Whereas "didactic" might lean more towards presenting a multitude of views on a subject and be a little more gray, letting the reader choose which vision they agree with more.

A moralistic work of literature might be 1984. Orwell was not writing a how to manual, but rather a cautionary tale of what might happen if the world continued the way it was going.

A didactic work of literature might be more along the lines of Lord of the Rings. To take one theme, power, you have Boromir's struggles with the Ring and the heroic death as he overcomes that need for power. Gollum succumbs to power, regains some of his sense of self, but is ultimately overcome with the need for the power of the Ring by the end. Frodo, Sam, Gandalf, Galadriel all have their tests with the Ring and respond in different ways. (I understand there are moralistic undertones in Tolkein, especially around the Ring of Power, but this was the quickest example I could find of something that addresses a theme in multiple ways.)
 
I don't buy the distinction between works that entertain and works that have a message, since the works most clearly intended to be entertainment are often the ones with the most blaring and obnoxious messages. (Case in point: the Call of Duty series, which grows more jingoistic with each new entry.)

I agree with Buyjupiter that fiction with a narrative arc (excluding, for instance, one-panel comic strips) is necessarily about something and has some sort of theme. That doesn't necessarily mean a moral, but morals are one way in which themes can manifest.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
I concur with Phil that I'm confused by the quote.

As for the ultimate value of fantasy, I would argue that humanity as a species inclines much more strongly towards fantasy than any other genre of storytelling. I would go so far as to say fantasy is the oldest genre that exists.

If you look at the storytelling traditions of non-industrial societies, foraging and food-producing alike, they're chock full of characters and happenings we would call fanciful. These stories aren't at all constrained by modern ideas of scientific realism or even their tellers' day-to-day experience. Sometimes they do serve a didactic function insofar as they reinforce their respective societies' value systems, but most of the fanciful elements would seem superfluous if storytellers didn't take entertainment value into account as well.

My best guess is that as a species we gravitate towards escapism in our stories. That makes sense. I cannot fathom why anyone would want to listen or read about their own mundane day-to-day experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Guy

Helen

Inkling
Thus the value of great fiction, we begin to suspect, is not just that it entertains us or distracts us from our troubles, not just that it broadens our knowledge of people and places, but also that it helps us to know what we believe, reinforces those qualities that are noblest in us, leads us to feel uneasy about our faults and limitations

This is not the place to pursue that suspicion–that is, the place to work out in detail the argument that the ultimate value of fiction is its morality, though the subject is one we must return to–but it is a good place to note a few technical implications of the fact that, whatever the genre may be, fiction does its work by creating a dream in the reader’s mind.

If he's saying those things are absent in fantasy, then I disagree.
 

Ankari

Hero Breaker
Moderator
If he's saying those things are absent in fantasy, then I disagree.

He was referring to the point in the book this paragraph was written. In reference to your concern, he's saying the opposite.
 

skip.knox

toujours gai, archie
Moderator
I'm pretty sure someone here has this quote in their sig file.

Fairy tales are more than true — not because they tell us dragons exist, but because they tell us dragons can be beaten.

It's from G.K. Chesterton by way of Neil Gaiman, which gives it a pretty good pedigree. It sums up neatly, for me, the true value of fantasy as a genre. Chesterton, btw, was eminently quotable. Anyone interested will find their time spent pursuing such to be time well spent.
 

Guy

Inkling
Jabrosky said:
I would argue that humanity as a species inclines much more strongly towards fantasy than any other genre of storytelling. I would go so far as to say fantasy is the oldest genre that exists.
I've had that same thought myself.

Neil Gaiman related something that happened at some convention he was attending. People were asking several artists and writers on a panel why they loved H.P. Lovecraft, getting into all sorts of erudite philosophizing. One drunk artist, Dave Carson, finally said, "**** all that. I just like drawing monsters."

That's rather how I feel about this. I don't really care what the ultimate value of fantasy is. I just like writing it.
 
Top