The "What Are You Doing This Moment" Thread
- Thread starter A8
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
...
This sounds a bit like conjecture to me Dak, or at least anecdotal evidence based on people you've met.
Dak
mentat
...
This sounds a bit like conjecture to me Dak, or at least anecdotal evidence based on people you've met.
Yeah, there's been no research done on this at all. I'm pioneering new thought.
Superheros are a makeshift coping mechanism, and can be a useful training tool for children. Of course, like WAIF mentioned, they can offer a dis-abstracted example of complex ethical dilemmas, psychological trauma, etc. Psychologists are not, of course, in agreement in general about heros/superheros in general. I have my opinions. Unfortunately I find more research analyzing the superheros themselves than the interaction between the literature and people. But that's what is going to sell, and why does escapism sell so well? That's of more importance to me.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You keep calling it "escapism," as though fantasy and SF are automatically escapist literatures. That's where a big problem is for me; you're assuming they sell because they're escapist. Furthermore, you're assuming that's a problem...
Blind Guardian
Member
Came across my FB feed, thought it was relevant:
What does it say about Gandalf as a judge of character that he picks Frodo instead of Sam for the task? Even Gollum helps more with destroying the ring than that useless tool Frodo.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Here's the deal:
Anyone other than Frodo would have succumbed to the power of the ring. Yes, he's whiny; yes, he's a total jerk when it comes to the ring; but if anyone else other than Frodo carried it, that person would not have succeeded. Frodo had to withstand the torture of carrying the ring, which inflicts psychological torment on its bearer.
Is it teleological and contrived? Sure; but that's why Frodo's the hero.
Anyone other than Frodo would have succumbed to the power of the ring. Yes, he's whiny; yes, he's a total jerk when it comes to the ring; but if anyone else other than Frodo carried it, that person would not have succeeded. Frodo had to withstand the torture of carrying the ring, which inflicts psychological torment on its bearer.
Is it teleological and contrived? Sure; but that's why Frodo's the hero.
Matt
Active Member
Sam didn't carry the ring, though. If he had been carrying it the whole time he probably would've been fucking up too.
I think it's hard to deny that escapism is very very common in fantasy and SF, and that it's a often a major selling point. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, and I think that escapism often accompanies exploration of more "meaningful" themes, but it's certainly a pervasive (if not universal) element of the genre.
Also, guys: Sam was totally the hero of those books. The fact that Frodo gets all the credit is because Sam is such an awesome dude that he doesn't even want the recognition.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Escapism is tricky though, because if it's not longer problematic, then perhaps it ceases to be escapism. Furthermore, if fantasy and SF are escapist, why aren't other literary modes? After all, any fictional text portrays an imaginary representation of something. Tons of literary terms and categories come into play here, and it's a very complex debate; but we should definitely question the ontology of something like "escapism."
That said, fantasy certainly is the troublesome category; but SF, as far as I'm concerned, isn't escapist.
That said, fantasy certainly is the troublesome category; but SF, as far as I'm concerned, isn't escapist.
Escapism can simply be an escape from the banality of everyday life. I think for some people the word carries a negative connotation, but I disagree with that.
I would say that fantasy and sci fi create a world which is further removed from the mundane than other forms of fiction and hence are "more escapist," but it's certainly true that other forms of literature can be escapist. For example, Madame Bovary buried herself in romantic literature as a form of escape from a life that she found boring, despite being quite well off in material terms.
I'm not sure why you consider SF to not be escapist. I wouldn't consider Asimov's Foundation or Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead particularly escapist, but what about Star Wars?
I will certainly grant that sci fi has a greater tendency to use its fantastical elements as a tool for examining meaningful issues.
I would say that fantasy and sci fi create a world which is further removed from the mundane than other forms of fiction and hence are "more escapist," but it's certainly true that other forms of literature can be escapist. For example, Madame Bovary buried herself in romantic literature as a form of escape from a life that she found boring, despite being quite well off in material terms.
I'm not sure why you consider SF to not be escapist. I wouldn't consider Asimov's Foundation or Orson Scott Card's Speaker for the Dead particularly escapist, but what about Star Wars?
I will certainly grant that sci fi has a greater tendency to use its fantastical elements as a tool for examining meaningful issues.
Einherjar86
Active Member
That's fair enough, since I don't think it needs to be negative either.
True, but we can also deduce more from this than meets the eye; Madame Bovary is a fictional character, whose immersion in romantic literatures reflects a marginalization imposed on her by a patriarchal society. Escapism here connotes not a willful or apathetic brand of escapism, but a socially constituted escapism; an escapism reinforced by a phallocentric hierarchy.
Rather than pin the blame of escapism on the individuals themselves (they're unhappy with their lives, they're apathetic, etc.), perhaps we should look to structural reasons for what we deem "escapist."
Since I really can't say for certain, I'll have to be more specific and concede a certain point that you've already made; certain SF may be escapist, since I can't claim that all of it is good, nor can I claim to have read all of it. However, SF in general (what SF should be and should do) is not escapist.
Philip K. Dick says it best, so I'm going to let him speak here:
"'Flexibility' is the key word here; it is the creating of multiverses, rather than a universe, that fascinates and drives [the SF writer]. 'What if…' is always his starting premise. Part scientist, part political activist, but with the conviction of the magic power of the written word, and his restlessness, his impatience – he will spin one new world for you after the other, given a set of facts or even one sole datum to take off from. He wants to see possibilities, not actualities. But as I say, his possibilities are not escapist (although, again, much hack SF is escapist, particularly when tending toward power fantasies) because the source of them lies firmly rooted in reality. He is a dreamer with one eye open, always coldly appraising what is actually going on. And yet he thinks, 'It doesn’t have to be this way.'"
Dak
mentat
No, it's an effect, not the problem itself.
Bingo.
Here's the dilemma for the psychologist who also dabbles in philosophy: I agree with you but. I can't wave a magic wand and fix the external factors surrounding an individual(s). I can help them to change their response to those factors as well as empowering them to make changes they can themselves.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Sam isn't the hero because the honest truth about heroes is that they're usually very unlikable.
The psychological dilemma that you just outlined is exactly why the institution engages in normalizing tendencies, .i.e. "If you want to fit in, you're going to need to handle the problem in this way..."
The psychological dilemma that you just outlined is exactly why the institution engages in normalizing tendencies, .i.e. "If you want to fit in, you're going to need to handle the problem in this way..."
Dak
mentat
I counter with the honest truth that heroes are often "invisible"/unsung/etc.
It has nothing to do with fitting in, unless the root of the problem is the inability to socially connect with anyone. Where external factors are the problem and can be changed or abandoned, that's obviously the superior route. However, it's sometimes just not an option (or not the case).
Einherjar86
Active Member
As far as the structure and archetypes of literature go, heroes are never "unsung." That's an ideological perspective that we've all been exposed to; but it doesn't apply to literature, especially to literature as archetypal and structural as The Lord of the Rings. The hero, as it is defined, fills a specific functional role, and Frodo fills this function. We might like Sam, and so we idealize him and call him a hero; but structurally, he isn't the hero.
Dak
mentat
How do you know Sam doesn't fill the role? That would certainly be deeper, and not necessarily intuitive. Frodo carries the Ring, but Sam carries Frodo: So Sam really carries the Ring.
Einherjar86
Active Member
How do I know? Maybe because I've read about this stuff?
Sam is the hero's sidekick, the Lancelot, the Han Solo, the Ajax, the one everyone likes better than the hero but who is not the hero.
EDIT: just to be a bit more specific...
Sam never carries the ring spiritually, which is a big element for Tolkien and for archaic mythopoeia in general. It's the burden of the soul. Frodo is the one chosen to bear that burden. Sam is certainly loyal and steadfast, and is by far the better warrior; but Frodo possesses the mindful/soulful element necessary to actually carry the ring. He is the "chosen one."
Sam is the hero's sidekick, the Lancelot, the Han Solo, the Ajax, the one everyone likes better than the hero but who is not the hero.
EDIT: just to be a bit more specific...
Sam never carries the ring spiritually, which is a big element for Tolkien and for archaic mythopoeia in general. It's the burden of the soul. Frodo is the one chosen to bear that burden. Sam is certainly loyal and steadfast, and is by far the better warrior; but Frodo possesses the mindful/soulful element necessary to actually carry the ring. He is the "chosen one."
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
the thing you forgot to mention
is that most "superhero-type" fiction, is specifically aimed at adults instead of children
examples
-The Punisher being pretty much a "street-sweeper type serial killer"
-Wolverine being "unable to die" with the comic becoming philosophical at points concerning death/mortality/immortality/outliving loved ones etc etc
(the whole fucking reason he got his own comic instead of merely being one of the X-men)
-The Deadpool comic being a horrendously-innapropriate-for-children comical-comic that is both a parody of punisher and a parody of Wolverine
-the Watchmen comic
-Preacher
-Transmetropolitan
-Midnighter and Apollo being a gay couple
-Midnighter "loves killing"
-the scene in the Green Lantern comic where Kyle Rayner discovers that girl he's dating is Sinestro's daughter
-Daredevil being a male slut
-Karen Page becoming a pornstar and prostitute and drug-addict
-Felicia Hardy (from Spiderman comic) and Black Widow from Avenger's comic being characters that are clearly, unmistakeably designed/intended to be viewed as "sexy" by the males reading comics
-the scene where the Punisher accuses Daredevil of being "unworthy of having superpowers" because Daredevil "refuses to kill people"
-the point in the X-men comic where Rogue is dating Gambit and the fact that she's way way older than him results in the other characters commenting on it and feeling that each of them should "date someone your own age"
-the end of the whole "3rd Summers brother" story-arc where Scott discovers that huge chunks of his memory have been erased and altered
-Scott Summers' time-traveling children
-Copycat having sex while "in the form of Domino"
Dak
mentat
I thought the reader's perception was just as important or more important as author's perceived intent.
Einherjar86
Active Member
All that means is that the meaning of a text isn't reducible to an author's intentions. Historical archetypes of the hero aren't constituted by an author, and they certainly weren't constituted by Tolkien. They're cultural constructions, given meaning only because the readership informs the authorship; they abide by certain rules through which a readership understands a character as the hero. It's the business of literary analysis to study these kinds of cultural constructions.
In this case, Tolkien is invoking a very old genre (the oral tradition, truly) in which the hero is firmly defined. It's pretty pointless to try and argue that Sam is the hero because it would be anachronistic to do so; that is, you would be applying a more modern reading to a text that is wholly indebted to an ancient tradition.
In this case, Tolkien is invoking a very old genre (the oral tradition, truly) in which the hero is firmly defined. It's pretty pointless to try and argue that Sam is the hero because it would be anachronistic to do so; that is, you would be applying a more modern reading to a text that is wholly indebted to an ancient tradition.
Similar threads
- Sticky
