Pages

Friday, 8 January 2016

Harry Potter vs Huckleberry Finn


There's an article by Colleen Gillard over on The Atlantic that raises some interesting points. Ms Gillard's contention is that British kids' literature is more fantastical than American, and that the innate pragmatism and Puritanism in the American soul means that fantasy fiction produced there is less magical, more practical. It's the difference, I suppose, between a wizard and a "magic-user".
'...the difference between the countries may be that Americans “lack the kind of ironic humor needed for questioning the reliability of reality”...
Well, maybe. Although if you read Steinbeck's story "The Affair at 7 Rue de M — "or "Miriam" by Truman Capote, or anything at all by Ray Bradbury, you may feel that there's no one-size-fits-all here. And after all, wasn't the colonization of fantasy by logic and taxonomy begun by Tolkien, as British a writer as they come?
“American stories are rooted in realism; even our fantasies are rooted in realism." 
The debate will rage on, but Colleen Gillard has hit on a kernel of truth here, I suspect. At any rate, it's well worth taking a look at the piece and, if you have any thoughts on the subject, jump in and join the discussion below.

10 comments:

  1. I would argue that Tolkien, despite his extensive histories, chronologies, and genealogies, actually taps more into the "mysterious magic" rather than the "practical magic" approach. His whole vision was to evoke nostalgia for a glorious past that never existed, to help the reader glimpse of white towers lost in the mists of time.

    The same towers up close, with no veils of time and mists, wouldn't be nearly as evocative.

    Similarly, despite his work being the definition of high fantasy, when it comes to the magic in his works, it's all left very mysterious and undefined. How many times does Gandalf work tangible magic? You don't see him throwing fireballs and counting spell points. That banal approach to magic came later.

    No, Tolkien more than any other high fantasy writer preserves the mystery and wonder of magic by not over-commoditizing it, and this, in fact, (or at least, in my opinion) is where his emulators mostly fall short of the master.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, Ashton, I'll buy that. I can hardly argue against, not having read LotR - but actually I just saw the trailer for the Warcraft movie, and that indeed looks to be the crushingly obvious leaden-booted flipside of the more numinous Tolkien original.

      Delete
  2. Ursula le Guin...beats them all x

    All six of the Earthsea books are faultless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Earthsea is psychological rather than mystical, though, isn't it, Oliver? I'm going by the single one I've read (the first) and that was many years ago. Anyway, if so then that would seem to confirm the pattern Ms Gillard identifies in her article.

      Delete
    2. Btw I highly recommend Ms Le Guin's book of essays about fantasy, The Language of the Night. That and Moorcock's Wizardry & Wild Romance pretty much say everything that has to be said about the genre.

      Delete
  3. Hang on - wasn't Tolkien a South African?

    #tolkienbirthermovement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No, there's too many obvious exceptions here for me to take this seriously. John Bellairs is as matter-of-fact and a-moralistic as E. Nesbit or Molly Hunter or L. M. Boston. Patricia McKillip's writing is as numinous and dream-like as Walter de la Mere.

    And what about Howard or Leiber or Borroughs or Zelazny or the amazing Leigh Brackett? Do American writers suddenly become more 'fantastical' as soon as they write for adults?

    I suspect someone needed to quickly write a 2000 word article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That was my thought at first, Tom, but there is a strain of mechanistic realism in modern fantasy fiction, and it's interesting to consider where it comes from. The answer is probably not so simple as "from America because of pragmatic Puritans" but it might be "because of the popularisation of the genre through the pulp magazines" - which happens to be an American movement. Howard, Leiber, Burroughs, Zelazny and Brackett are all good examples of that, actually. Fantasy elements in their work are mostly treated as part of the "physics" of the setting. As a Tekumel fan, I have no objection to that approach, but it's undeniably a very long way from the romantic/mystical strain of fantasy.

      Delete
  5. Hmm...there is more magic in Earthsea than in Middle Earth but it is all a matter of "balance". Taoism and feminism are also present, and in the short stories in book 5 she also tackles sexism. I can't recommend them enough.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure they're great, Oliver, and I have enormous respect for Ursula K Le Guin, but from your capsule description there I'd say it's more fuel for Colleen Gillard's argument.

      Delete