The "What Are You Doing This Moment" Thread

[waif]

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...

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]

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.

 

[waif]

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.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

That's fair enough, since I don't think it needs to be negative either.

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.

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."

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.

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]

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...

No, it's an effect, not the problem itself.

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.

Bingo.

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."

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]

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..."

 

[Dak]

Sam isn't the hero because the honest truth about heroes is that they're usually very unlikable.

I counter with the honest truth that heroes are often "invisible"/unsung/etc.

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..."

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]

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]

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.

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]

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."

 

[monoxide_child]

I think that's an apples-spaceships comparison: not even remotely related.

Outside of using magic purely as a technological substitute, things like magic, superpowers, mythical (superpowerful) creatures, etc., are often the retreat of those lacking in real power in the most absolute way: Children and those of a childish nature.

Its why things like Harry Potter, Pokemon, and the plethora of superheros are so appealing. It's a preferable, vicariously lived life. Children lack any sort of control over their world to an extreme, and the more control we feel lacking, the more we retreat into fantasy (of course it doesn't have to just be of the "high fantasy" sort or neomedieval etc). Simplistic thinking also feeds this, as we see injustice "win" in our own lives, we look to escape into a world where "justice" wins. and so on.

I left this behind long ago, and now, as you and I mentioned, enjoy/appreciate world building.This is what makes Tolkien one of the masters of fantasy, not merely because he was "first".

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]

I thought the reader's perception was just as important or more important as author's perceived intent.

 

[Einherjar86]

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.

 

[waif]

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.

All I meant with the Madame Bovary example was that just about anything can be used for escapism. In the absence of escapist media a person can simply daydream and achieve the same effect.

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.

I think I get what you're saying. In a Platonic sense, there may be escapist science fiction but Science Fiction is not escapist. I can agree with that.

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.

Fair enough. Let's say, then, that Sam is the most virtuous and sympathetic character, the one that the reader comes away admiring.

 

[Dak]

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.

Cutting the ends off of hams just because it's how we always knew it to be prepared is ignorant.

 

[monoxide_child]

Cutting the ends off of hams just because it's how we always knew it to be prepared is ignorant.

yes
ofcourse it is
but that's just how fiction is written

everything is a copy of something else

 

[Einherjar86]

Cutting the ends off of hams just because it's how we always knew it to be prepared is ignorant.

Whatever Dak, just give it a rest. I'm not saying conventions can't change, but when studying these things we have to acknowledge the structures and categories that govern literary creation. In this case, there's no use in arguing Sam as the hero. Sure, he's heroic; but he just isn't the hero of that story, plain and simple. Ultimately, any reconsideration of The Lord of the Rings with Sam as the hero doesn't afford much other than personal opinions on the tale.

When Paradise Lost was written, Milton didn't intend Satan as the hero, no matter what William Blake writes. But that hasn't prohibited people later on arguing for Satan as the hero, and some of these arguments have been taken seriously; but Satan isn't the hero of that tragic tale. Christ is the hero, the only possible hero, for the conventions and categories that Milton was writing. People who claim Satan as the "true hero" of Paradise Lost are making a compelling statement about our relation to Satan in our modern culture; but this doesn't change the fact that, in its literary place within the canon, Satan isn't the hero.

 

[monoxide_child]

watching this video

 

[Dak]

**gives it a rest**

In other news, Bostonians turn to porn when they lose at hockey:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-27/thursday-humor-hockey-porn

 

[waif]

The only question is why they ever turned to hockey in the first place.