Must *Mythopoeic* Fantasy Be Committed to Rehabilitation? A sercon topic for discussion.

[Extollager]

I have a genius for proposing topics that don't evoke much interest -- this might be another.

("Sercon" is an old fannish word meaning "serious, constructive," i.e. the idea is that you really delve into something. Alexei Panshin's Heinlein in Dimension is sercon.)

Would there be interest in discussing the question posed in the thread title?

1.Not all fantasy is mythopoeic. Terry Pratchett and James Branch Cabell didn't write mythopoeic fantasy (from what I have seen). Sword and sorcery isn't mythopoeic, at least as a rule. Pratchett and Cabell to be clever and amusing to their contemporary audiences. Sword and sorcery aims at immediate excitement and sensation, rooted in pulp conventions.

2.Examples of mythopoeic fantasy include The Lord of the Rings, the Narnian books and the Ransom/cosmic trilogy, the first three Earthsea books (at least), the two Gormenghast books, MacDonald's Lilith, etc. These all seem to be deeply felt and poetic.


Well, lately I found myself thinking that mythopoeic fantasy has a rehabilitative agenda. That is, this is fantasy that takes some familiar "material" -- perhaps overly familiar -- and renews it, brings out again much of the value and meaning inherent in it. As Le Guin said in "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" (I quote from memory), "Fantasy will change you." It may do so as it renews some existing "material" and thereby does much more than amuse us readers; it refreshes our spirits.

--Tolkien's lifelong project, in one oversimplified phrase, was to rehabilitate the Elves. By his early days, Elves were typically imagined as tiny creatures living in flowers, flowing about on butterfly wings, and so on. Tolkien rehabilitated them, and, necessarily, Faërie, the realm or world to which the Elves belong.

(Contrast the agenda of Tolkien and Pratchett or Cabell. Here's Tolkien:

"For the moment I will say only this: a “fairy-story” is one which touches on or uses Faerie, whatever its own main purpose may be: satire, adventure, morality, fantasy. Faerie itself may perhaps most nearly be translated by Magic—but it is magic of a peculiar mood and power, at the furthest pole from the vulgar devices of the laborious, scientific, magician. There is one proviso: if there is any satire present in the tale, one thing must not be made fun of, the magic itself. That must in that story be taken seriously, neither laughed at nor explained away. Of this seriousness the medieval Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is an admirable example."

--Lewis rehabilitated the children's fantasy and also the literary tapestry of mingled gods, magicians, dragons, giants, dwarves, witches, etc. with an allegorical flavor that has its greatest achievement in Spenser's Faerie Queene, adapting for young readers. In his science fiction trilogy, he rehabilitated the "discarded image" of medieval-Renaissance cosmology.

--Le Guin rehabilitated the Renaissance magician (like Prospero) and gave him a Taoist character, and rehabilitated the Asian dragon.

--Peake rehabilitated the long Gothic novel and the Dickensian "grotesque" character.

--MacDonald rehabilitated the Poesque weird dream-story and the figure of the vampire.

These are all masterpieces. Are there any good, truly mythopoeic fantasy works that do not have a rehabilitative quality/agenda/purpose? I hope Chronsters will give this some thoughtful consideration.

 

[Extollager]

PS I meant to list, but forgot to list, William Morris as a mythopoeic author. Take The Waters of the Wondrous Isles. Morris is rehabilitating the medieval romance, deliberately not using modern literary techniques of psychological and sociological analysis and so on, and not writing up the wonders in some grandiose manner, but using a flowing narrative style that can take some getting used to. He isn't writing imitations; he doesn't use archaic spellings, for one thing.

 

[Randy M.]

I'm guessing for the most part your use of "mythopoeic" and the use of it for the Mythopoeic Awards ("The Mythopoeic Awards are given for works of fiction and nonfiction that exemplify "the spirit of the Inklings"--i.e. the works of J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and Charles Williams.") do not quite correspond. I'm not sure the winners of that award over the years set out to rehabilitate so much as to increase current relevance of older forms and folklore. Those aims may overlap, but I'm not sure they're exactly the same.

By the way, it's not lack of interest, it's lack of confidence that I've read widely enough to tackle subjects that seem to require some scholarship.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Many years ago, I was on their committee that decided the winner for the YA/children's book. I asked, "For purposes of judging for the award, how are we defining 'mythopoeic'." The answer was along the lines of, "It's up to you. It can be whatever you think it is." Which was an answer I found quit unsatisfactory.

My impression, reading the books that were nominated for the award was that rather than being an award for mythopoeic fantasy it was an award for fantasy, given out by the mythopoeic society.

But as I said, this was many years ago, and things might be different now.

But since I didn't get a satisfactory answer then, Extollager, Randy (and anyone else who wants to answer), how would you define mythopoeic fantasy?

 

[Extollager]

I'll try to point, at least, to a definition of mythopoeic modern fantasy, Teresa. From what I have seen, I completely agree about the Mythopoeic Society and its awards -- that all too often they're just focusing on popular fantasy that they like but that really isn't mythopoeic.

Mythopoeic fantasy is that modern literary fantasy proceeds from poetic consciousness vs. the kind of commonplace imaginative activity that one absorbs willy-nilly, which I've clumsily called "sociological consciousness." (Perhaps take a look at linked items below.) Le Guin says that fantasy involves a distancing from the ordinary.

Mythopoeic fantasy invites the "willing suspension of disbelief," so that one doesn't so much escape from the problems and boredom etc. of the world as enter a "secondary world" (Tolkien's term). (I believe one could spend years at the project of "world-building" yet not succeed in creating a "secondary world." Writing mythopoeic fantasy, like writing poetry rather than just verse, is something not everyone probably can do.)

Mythopoeic fantasy is pervaded by real qualities from essential truths of existence yet must also be an addition to life.

Mythopoeic fantasy must possess wisdom.

Mythopoeic fantasy needs superior verbal powers from the author, operating at a high level of activity, in order to come out right. Correspondingly, mythopoeic fantasy invites and even requires attentive reading. A young person reading this kind of fiction may assimilate a new appreciation for language.

Mythopoeic fantasy is that modern literary fantasy that shows the qualities just discussed, and -- for debate! -- must rehabilitate some existing matter, refreshing our experience of it, cleansing it from overfamiliarity or triviality or falsehood.

Good "theory" regarding the nature of mythopoeic fantasy may be found in essays by Tolkien, Lewis, Le Guin, and probably others.

Here are some comments in which I went into poetic consciousness vs. sociological consciousness. The first two links might look like they are the same, but if you click on them they take you to different postings.

A Selection of George Orwell's Essays

Here is a selection of George Orwell's essays, available to read for free and uploaded with the permission of his estate. Highly recommended. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/

www.sffchronicles.com

A Selection of George Orwell's Essays

Here is a selection of George Orwell's essays, available to read for free and uploaded with the permission of his estate. Highly recommended. https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/

www.sffchronicles.com

Is there a reason other fantasy stories with detailed worldbuilding don't get the same amount of praise as Tolkien's Middle Earth?

Like most people, I've read the lord of the rings and was lost in its worldbuilding. It was done so well cause Tolkien was a genius. But as I've read other fantasy stories with their own vast worldbuilding, I found myself not being that impressed with it as I was with Tolkien's world. Which...

www.sffchronicles.com

 

[hitmouse]

Tolkein tried to rehabilitate Elvis?
Ah, I read that wrong.

 

[Randy M.]

My own understanding -- and let me be clear, this comes from a good 1/2-hour thinking about it -- is that mythopoeic fantasy draws from legends, myths and folklore, and not just European legend, myth and folklore; it can as easily stem from Chinese or African or Russian or Latin American or Native American or {insert country of your choice] legend, myth and folklore. This form of fantasy may or may not transform the material it takes from myth, but it respects original sources even when playing fast and loose with it, and even when working the material in comedic form.

I'll pass on saying how the language is used, though I can imagine such material written in the current vernacular as easily as in a more poetic form.

 

[Extollager]

Randy, would you say then that a farcical fantasy which the Olympian gods are portrayed as buffoons would qualify as "mythopoeic"? Let's say the story starts with Poseidon trying to fix the plumbing but water is squirting everywhere and Thetis is hopping mad. Haephestus comes along and offers to fix the pipes but he'll need some supplies, and Poseidon says he will have to borrow the money from Midas, etc.

I'd say that's not mythopoeic fantasy, and when Lord Dunsany writes about an imaginary pantheon of gods and heroes that have no more substance than a soap bubble or a dreamer's dream, that's not mythopoeic either even if Lin carter did anthologize him; but then I'd say a fair bit of what Carter did reprint in that Ballantine series was not mythopoeic even if, originally, they did try to ride it in on Tolkien's coattails.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I'm embarrassed to say I don't feel I understand. Is mythpoeic fantasy necessarily serious? Isn't there a lot of humor in The Hobbit? Must mythpoeic fantasy be of a higher quality? I just use the term "impressive" for fantasy I believe to be of higher quality. I guess I understood mythpoeic to mean "generating unique ideas." Tolkien and Lewis borrowed a bunch from Germanic, Celtic, Finnish, and Classical mythology, so I guess I don't understand. I do think their work was great though, and probably thought to be more unique at the time. Maybe you could explain it more to me, @Extollager?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, now I am more confused. I always thought (and a bunch of online dictionaries back me up) that "mythopoeic" means "pertaining to the creation of myth, causing the creation of myth."

And "mythopoeic fantasy" is defined as a modern genre of fantasy in which stories are built around mythologies created by the authors. This one comes close to what I thought it meant, but is not quite it. I think something more is needed. A sense of poetry nearly describes what I think that something else is, but again falls a little short.

 

[BAYLOR]

Even after reading the definitions and opinions, I not sure quite grasp what Mythopoeic id For some reason, two book come to mind in this Mythago Woods by Robert Holstock and Bridge of Birds by Barry Hughart . I could be missing the mark here.

 

[Extollager]

I'm embarrassed to say I don't feel I understand. Is mythpoeic fantasy necessarily serious? Isn't there a lot of humor in The Hobbit? Must mythpoeic fantasy be of a higher quality? I just use the term "impressive" for fantasy I believe to be of higher quality. I guess I understood mythpoeic to mean "generating unique ideas." Tolkien and Lewis borrowed a bunch from Germanic, Celtic, Finnish, and Classical mythology, so I guess I don't understand. I do think their work was great though, and probably thought to be more unique at the time. Maybe you could explain it more to me, @Extollager?

Guttersnipe, what you're calling "borrowing" could be what I'm calling "rehabilitating," couldn't it? Tolkien took creatures from Northwestern Europe (trolls, dwarves, wizards, elves, dragons) and brought them to life again as inhabitants of his secondary world.

Humor can appear in a mythopoeic fantasy, but, as Tolkien said in the passage I quoted in the first message for this thread, the humor must not be at the expense of the story's enchantment. We must not feel that the author is laughing at the idea of, say, trolls, even if Bert, Tom, and William in The Hobbit make us laugh. There, Tolkien preserves their trollishness -- that combination of bigness, earthiness, malevolence, not-over-bright mindedness, etc. that belongs to the species. We are amused by the dwarves tumbling over each other on Bilbo's doorstep, and maybe Tolkien later regretted his inclusion of that sort of incident, but he makes plenty sure we are (soon) under the spell of dwarvishness as they sit in the near-darkness by Bilbo's fire and talk and sing about their treasure.

As for the word "mythopoeic," Teresa, yes, one could say it should refer to the making of new myths. Thus Lord Dunsany and Lovecraft would be mythopoeic authors because they invented new "gods." Tolkien would be a mythopoeic author in The Silmarillion, but not in The Hobbit and not very much in The Lord of the Rings. Lewis would not be as mythopoeic as Lovecraft because Lewis invented the eldils, but Lovecraft invented a whole bunch of "gods" and got his friends to invent more. Thing is, "mythopoeic" as relating especially to Tolkien and Lewis, & Morris and some others, seems pretty well a settled usage.

 

[The Big Peat]

Hmm. Interesting topic.

I would personally define mythopoeic fantasy as, well, fantasy in which a myth is created and the crucial thing here lies in the definition of a myth that wikipedia gives:

"folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths"

I think things that feel like ancient myth but don't seek to offer anything fundamental to the world, like Dunsany's Gods of Pegana or Tanith Lee's Tales from the Flat Earth, will pass the eye test but perhaps shouldn't be considered the real McCoy. A mythopoeic tale shouldn't just be creating a myth's form, it should be creating a myth's function.

Which I think does often include a rehabilitative function of sorts, yes. Taking old myths and giving them new forms is a very common pastime here. Is it absolutely necessary to the act? Probably not, but it's a very natural part of it.

I would however note that it's quite possible for that to happen in a number of ways. R.E. Howard was offering his rehabilitative view of the barbarian and his values for the modern world; Pratchett has offered his rehabilitative view on what elves, witches, gods, and the like should be really viewed like as metaphors for modern world living. The threat to mythopoeia imo personally lies less with the adventure story tellers and the satirists, but more with the authors who wish to reflect the everyday details of society to a high degree and in doing so strip the mythic element from the story.

Well, those and the authors that just aren't really trying to think at all.

 

[Swank]

Nearly all fantasy has a basis in folklore, because fantasy calls upon the lexicon of pre-scientific belief systems to distinguish itself from other forms of speculative fiction. One could argue that any "spell", "amulet" or "god" is receiving rehabilitation in fantasy fiction by the fact that they are there at all.

So the implication is that mythopoesim is only happening when an author performs this service on a previously virgin topic. Tolkien did his piece on faeries, and now that is done.

How many misunderstood folklore topics remain to be rehabilitated in a world where folklore ended in the West a long time ago? Especially when appropriation is a risk?

 

[Pyan]

@Extollager : two Gormanghast books? Not three?

 

[Extollager]

@Extollager : two Gormanghast books? Not three?

Right. In Titus Alone, Titus has left Gormenghast for a realm of experiences Peake improvised. If Peake's health had allowed him to, it seems he would have kept writing Titus books (not Gormenghast books). Perhaps he'd have written an abussology!

 

[Randy M.]

Randy, would you say then that a farcical fantasy which the Olympian gods are portrayed as buffoons would qualify as "mythopoeic"? Let's say the story starts with Poseidon trying to fix the plumbing but water is squirting everywhere and Thetis is hopping mad. Haephestus comes along and offers to fix the pipes but he'll need some supplies, and Poseidon says he will have to borrow the money from Midas, etc.

I'd say that's not mythopoeic fantasy, and when Lord Dunsany writes about an imaginary pantheon of gods and heroes that have no more substance than a soap bubble or a dreamer's dream, that's not mythopoeic either even if Lin carter did anthologize him; but then I'd say a fair bit of what Carter did reprint in that Ballantine series was not mythopoeic even if, originally, they did try to ride it in on Tolkien's coattails.

I'll stand by this, "This form of fantasy may or may not transform the material it takes from myth, but it respects original sources even when playing fast and loose with it, and even when working the material in comedic form."

I hated The Hawkline Monster by Richard Brautigan because he was trying to deconstruct the form of the haunted house/Gothic novel from (as I read it) disdain. Many years ago I would have said something similar about Robert Altman's movie, The Long Goodbye, though I've since made my peace with what he was trying to do, even if I don't really like it. But I don't think it's impossible to write comedy that explores folklore or myth, and that doesn't disrespect the same, even when critical of aspects of it.

But I suspect you and I would disagree on concrete examples. For instance, while I'd agree about Lord Dunsany's pantheon, he strikes the right tone in those early stories.