2f742bab
XPost: alt.fan.tolkien, rec.arts.books.tolkien, alt.books.cs-lewis
From: Troels@ThisIsFake.invalid
In message
<9e28441d-807b-4172-b2bf-0715a9f827d6@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
"darylgene@aol.com" spoke these staves:
>
> On Aug 7, 3:03 pm, Troels Forchhammer
> wrote:
>>
>> 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 --
>
> OK, I give, but there certainly is a different feel to Asimov and
> Clark then Tolkien and say most of Tantith Lee's work.
I'm afraid that I haven't read Tantith Lee's work, but there is
certainly a difference between Asimov and Clarke and then Tolkien and
e.g. Le Guin. It is not difficult to distinguish the clear-cut cases
-- on one hand Asimov and Clarke both deal with an imaginary future
for mankind where we (or those we meet) have access to technology
that is far advanced relative to what we know today (in fact far
enough advanced to, usually, invoke Clarke's third law, which Asimov
actually utilizes in the _Foundation_ series); on the other hand
Tolkien explicitly deals with an imaginary past where the general
level of technology is far lower than what we know today, just as the
technology level in Le Guin's _Earthsea_ books, and both use magic as
an explanation for the extraordinary abilities their characters
possess. I may invoke Clarke's third law when it comes to the mere
symptoms, but we, the readers, are never left in doubt as to whether
the effect is accomplished by magic or technology.
All this, however, is, IMO, a minor thing -- we substitute one kind
of sub-creation with another kind, and in many cases the differences
in feeling between two sub-creations are, IMO, just as big between
sub-creations of the same kind as between those of different kinds.
I acknowledge that there seems to be an element of authorial
preference involved: very few authors successfully create worlds of
both kinds (both the technological and the magical); and many readers
may prefer one kind of sub-creation to another.
However, I feel that the distinction, while possibly useful for a
reader who prefers one kind and dislikes the other, is less useful
when it comes to literary critique -- in my experience this kind of
sub-creations, when viewed as a literary device, are used in the same
manners in both fantasy and science fiction, and I think it would be
interesting to ask to, and investigate, the reasons for the huge
success of sub-creative fiction in the twentieth century --
especially as it has generally happened in spite of a clear antipathy
from the majority of the literary elite.
> And as to the Pern stories, I have to admit being really saddened
> by the introduction of technology into a perfectly delightful
> fantasy series.
As Paul points out, they were, of course, always intended as SF by
McCaffrey, but I'll have to admit that I didn't catch it either ;-)
(their initial publication in a SF magazine is perhaps a bit too
obscure for most readers to know -- judging them only on the books
themselves, I had them down as a rather unusual kind of fantasy). I'm
not sure that I'd go as far as to say I was disappointed by the
introduction of advanced technology, but it was certainly a surprise
to me, and one that changed the way the stories feel to me (I'm not
prepared to say they feel either better or worse -- just that they
feel different).
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is
Please put [AFT], [RABT] or 'Tolkien' in subject.
One who cannot cast away a treasure at need is in fetters.
- Aragorn "Strider", /Two Towers/ (J.R.R. Tolkien)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
