84cd7780
XPost: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis
From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid
In message
"darylgene@aol.com" spoke these staves:
>
> On Aug 7, 2:08 am, Troels Forchhammer
> wrote:
>>
>> But that would, IMO, place LotR in the realm of science fiction
>> ;-) I've often said, and I maintain that there is no basic
>> alteration of 'rerum natura' in LotR, and that the 'magic' is an
>> extension of the natural order (when one includes the
>> Silmarillion, one has also to deal with supernatural beings, but
>> these, too, can be seen as an extension to the nature of Arda
>> rather than a violation the natural order, or a change of the
>> nature of other things that are within Arda). Physics is a very
>> thankful science, and given enough energy and the ability to
>> control it, there are very few limits to what you can do ;-)
>
> Ah but I was speaking of a change in the "natural order" as we
> understand it, here, now.
So was I, but even then there is no inherent difference between
Tolkien's 'magic' and Isaac Asimov's 'hyperspace'. Like so many other
inventions of science fiction, Asimov's 'hyperspace' or his
'positronic brain' are no more imaginable than the Master Ring --
let's not be fooled by Asimov's excellent technical lingo or his
great knowledge of science (when he first produced these ideas they
were, perhaps, not quite as impossible as they are today, but that's
another story).
> Any good work of fiction, fantasy or otherwise should be internally
> consistant, the impossible (given the circumstances) shouldn't
> happen,
Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative;
but at any rate it is found in practice that 'the inner
consistency of reality' is more difficult to produce, the
more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of
primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary
World. It is easier to produce this kind of 'reality' with
more 'sober' material. Fantasy thus, too often, remains
undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only
half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely
'fanciful.' Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human
language can say _the green sun_. Many can then imagine or
picture it. But that is not enough -- though it may already
be a more potent thing than many a 'thumbnail sketch' or
'transcript of life' that receives literary praise.
To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will
be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably
require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a
special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such
difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any
degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art:
indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most
potent mode.
[Tolkien, _On Fairy-Stories_ section on 'Fantasy']
> but I was speaking about things concievable, given what we
> understand of the universe now.
So was I.
The curious point is that there really isn't anything in LotR that
truly _violates_ the 'laws of nature' as we understand them today.
Tolkien never attempts to explain how things work in his world (it is
generally conveniently brushed of as 'magic' by uncomprehending
hobbits), so all we have to go by are the phenomena themselves, but
they don't violate the laws of physics or any other natural science:
they extend them, add to them etc. General relativity even allows
information to travel backwards in time, so the various prophetic
visions aren't in violation of what is _known_ about causality
(though they may conflict with what is popularly _believed_ about
causality, but I'm not talking about common misconceptions about
science here -- I talk about actual science).
> We cannot produce Gandalf's blast of power from a wooden staff,
> nor converse with the dead, nothing leads us to believe that such
> things will ever be possible.
Why not?
I don't think they are any more 'far out' than Asimov's hyperspace
etc. A technology to 'download' the memories and consciousness of a
dead person before the cells die, another technological doodad to
allow you to concentrate heat just outside the end of your wooden
staff, other doodads to allow either voice-control or even direct
mind-control etc. It is all no less (and no more) conceivable than
most of the tomfoolery we encounter in standard science fiction.
True, Tolkien doesn't try to explain it away as technological
doodads, but while that might be a workable distinction in most
cases, it fails to cover a number of borderline cases satisfyingly.
Are McCaffrey's _Pern_ stories fantasy or science fiction? Does the
explanations given in the later books change their classification?
And why on earth should it?
> Faster than light is at least concievable in some theories though I
> have my doubts it is actually doable.
Faster than light transport is concievable, yes, but not in the
majority of the ways it is presented in science fiction. If we ignore
the 'how', then it doesn't matter if Tolkien describes it as
technological doodads either, but if that makes a difference, then
the 'how' does matter, and e.g. Asimov's 'hyperspace' goes the same
way as Tolkien's 'straight path'.
> BTW your "enough" in "given enough energy" assumes that there can
> be enough,
Of course -- faster than light travel may require infinite energy as
well, so that hardly makes a difference.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded
gold, it would be a merrier world.
- Thorin Oakenshield, /The Hobbit/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
