Your Title Here

I apologize for not writing a column last week. I had family visiting, and that took up most, if not all of my free time. It was a good visit though.

This week we are going to be a little more idiosyncratic and less theoretical than we have previously. I mentioned in my prologemena that I would be talking about my own efforts as a fabulist, in addition to those of the Masters. I understand that the appeal of this is less than it might otherwise be, but there you go. I never promised insightful theoretical posts every week.

I love titles (as in noble titles, not as in what one calls an opus). Always have. Because of this I often make up grandiose titles for myself and for others. For example:

His Imperial Majesty, Avram Richard Shannon, Lord of the Whole Earth, Emperor of the French and Attendant Territories, Great Khan of the Golden Khaganate, Protector of the Oceans, and Commander in Cheif of the Grand Army.

For that one, I borrowed a bit from a Bonaparte, but again, the point was to sound grand and important. I know this a little bit silly of me, but I never claimed not be a silly man. The upshot of this is that for my own fantasy world, Henryon, the various titles are important. Often, I will make up a characters titles before I make up the character. In many cases a story element will come out of a specific title I choose. Sometimes, I make up a title for my friends or family, which are then attached to characters (this is a throwback to the days when Henryon had a Wizard of Oz-esque vibe to it, with all my friends being people in the world. This has long since been abandoned, with habit of giving my friends Henryon titles the last remnant). These characters help to flesh out Henryon. A few examples:

His Grace, Avram Richard Shannon, Grand Duke of Henryon, Bearer of the Silver Sword, Knight Associate of the Silver Sword, Legionary, with Crossed Swords, Knight Grand Morning Star after of Order of Sir Francis, Magus Latae

Now, that is the first Henryon title I ever made, and it has survived, largely unchanged for about fifteen years now. Many of the important elements in Henryon, such as the Knights of Sir Francis and Silver Sword derive from this particular bit of youthful silliness.

A couple of other titles:

His Grace, Soren Shim (Samuel Tomas Shannon), Baron of the Eleven Islands, Chief Emissary to the Court of Peculiarities, Knight of the Silver Sword, Master of Stars after the Order of Sir Francis, Magus Decreptos

Her Highness, Kirana Alorya (Thora Florence Shannon), The Golden Lily of the Valley, First Aloryan, Princess of Galleo, Lady of the Thousand Hills, Dame of the Silver Sword, Dame Commander of the Golden Lion, Magister Sylphi

I want to emphasize that although these titles are given to some of my closest friends and family, the characters that bear them in Henryon are only loosely based on their bearers in the real world. I only inclued their names afterwards as an indication of who they were initially conferred upon.

So, when you are being fabulist, how is your imagination sparked? Also, if you don't have a Henryon title, and would like one, let me know, and I'll see if I can't work something up for you.

If this post was not general enough, then be sure to tune in next week, where we will talk about Mythology. Until then:

Excelsior!

A Long Time Ago...

Today's 'blog post is dedicated to a specific fantasy world. Every so often on this 'blog I will pick a specific fantasy/science fiction world or series and discuss why I like it, perhaps mention parts I dislike about it, and generally explore a little why I dig certain types of fantasy.

Today's is an easy one, because today we are discussing George Lucas' magnum opus Star Wars. I love Star Wars, which isn't too big of a statement because most people like Star Wars. The fact remains that the Star Wars Trilogy contains three of my favourite movies (I like the other three--well two out of the other three--as well, but they simply aren't as good as Star Wars to Jedi). I love the ethics, I love the action, I love the music. There is very little about Star Wars that isn't to like. Like my dear brother, I always wanted to be a Jedi Knight, although not with his deep abiding passion. The other day I was watching this DVD which came with my soundtrack to Episode III. It had little vignettes from all six movies, and reminded how much I like Star Wars.

I have even come to grips with the Prequel Trilogy. Although it is not as good as the original three, it has parts worth watching. In fact I am doing my best to no longer refer to the Prequels as the 'Lame Trilogy,' because it really isn't fair. There are good parts in all the movie, including Attack of the Clones (which remains, in my opinion, by and far the weakest of the Star Wars movies). For example:

The Phantom Menace: Last week I mentioned that The Return of the King movie was in second place for most movies seen in the theatre. This movie is the top of the list. I saw this movie seven times in the theatre. For me, I think, the high point is Qui-Gon Jinn. One thing that all three of these new movies show is the wide variety of heroism encouraged by the Jedi Order, with Qui-Gonn being a very different sort of Jedi than anything we had ever seen before. I know that many people consider it the worst, but in my mind Liam Neeson's performance carried this movie. This movie may feel superficial in places, but it remains rollicking good fun. Also this movie has just about the best trailer ever.

Attack of the Clones: I have seen this movie about three times. I don't much care for it. I appreciate Ewan MacGregor's further development of the character of Obi-Wan (a development cemented in Revenge of the Sith, and which, coupled with the wonder that is Sir Alec Guiness, catapulted Obi-Wan Kennobi to the position of near my favourite character). In a scene put in the DVD Anakin Skywalker admits that as a Jedi he ought to be better than he is (a scene which is actual crucial to his fall to the Dark Side of the Force. Anakin didn't fall because he killed the Sand People or Count Dooku. Anakin fell because he chose the dark path. An important lesson in that, perhaps).

Revenge of the Sith: A good movie. Emotionally intense in places. I stood in line, in costume to watch this one on opening day. My wife and I had our picture in the paper and everything. In fact the article is enshrined for all time by the Bridal Association of America. I liked this movie, and not just because of happy memories, partially because it actually showed Anakin and Obi-Wan as friends. In fact, while I do not enjoy it as much as the Original trilogy, almost all of my memories of this movie are positive.

My favourite of the films is Star Wars (I know it has the subtitle A New Hope, and I even like the subtitle, but I've been calling it Star Wars most of my life). I love the duel between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader. The dialogue was always so full of portent and hints of past relationships. In many ways that is why I was so dissappointed in the Prequel trilogies--I felt like some of those portents weren't played out as much as I would have liked. And I really like Luke Skywalker.

I love the Rogue Squadron bits on Hoth. It is one of the neatest bits in Empire. Frankly, I love the fighter scenes in general. I have never had any desire to be a pilot of any kind, unlike my bretheren, but watching Star Wars makes me want to pretend to be one. That and Top Gun.

One of the things I like most about Star Wars is that it still contains bits on the longing for home which I discussed previously. Now, I am not, in this, as in anything, one of those people who makes long tortured connections between the Gospel and their book/movie of choice. However, one of the ideas behind this 'blog is that we can learn things through the glass fantastic. In particular I have been thinking about the quote from Yoda, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

Luminous beings, indeed.

Dedicated To Faramir

So, there has been an enormous upswing recently in fantasy movies--especially movies adapted from books. From old favourites to books barely cooling from coming off the printing press, science fiction and fantasy films are big big business nowadays, for good and for ill. This week's post is an attempt to discuss fantasy films a little bit, as well as to establish some of my feelings about fantasy films in general, especially how they relate to fantasy books (as always a little bit of science fiction may slop over into the discussion, since the two genres are so closely related). Actually, this topic is very germane to last week's topic, and the one flows from the other. Especially, because as my Master (for those who are unaware, the being known as Inkling in theInterwebs is the same man who instructed me in the Jedi Arts--go read his 'blog on Star Wars and related points) pointed out, imagination does seem a little bit on the downward spiral and some of this is very likely ascribable to the ready availability of entertainment options (such as movies and video games) to feel our needs. In fact I read an article once by a game designer who felt that Christopher Tolkien's famous animosity towards movies based on his father's work--and you can too right here (the language is a little blue in a couple of places, but nothing too drastic). This author worked on The Lord of the Rings Roleplaying Game for Decipher, Inc., and so had a chance to interact with with the Tolkien Estate. His observations are insightful and made me appreciate Christopher Tolkien a little bit more.

Essentially, Christopher prefers people to experience his father's world through the interaction of the words Professor Tolkien wrote and our imagination, and not through the fixed medium of the cinema. Sir IanMcKellan might play a fine Gandalf (and I think he does), but that is not necessarily the point. Gandalf in the book is a mutable character, experienced differently by every reader. One does not have nearly the same flexibility when dealing with the film version of the character, even with some kind of viewer response mechanism. He can only appear one way, for example.

I do not wish you to think that I am one of those people who always believes that movies made from books are always inferior to their source material. Although I am sure that I have leanings in that direction I try to judge each movie on its own merits. I thoroughly enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies (Return of the King is in second place for movies which I've seen the most often in theatres at 5 times). I recently saw The Spiderwick Chronicles and enjoyed it as well.

I suppose that my real difficulty comes from the fact there are actually two (at least) operative principles to be dealt when adapting a book to film. One is the inherent differences between the two media. There are different tools, et cetera, to be used in print and on film. The plot is moved forward by different mechanisms. Anyone setting out to adapt a book as a film has to make allowances for that and modify the source material accordingly. The other issue is that there are more people involved in making a movie than in a book. In a book there is usually an author or two, an editor, and a publisher, with the author having almost all of the say of what goes into the book. A film is a much more collaborative effort, as even a cursory examination of the credits at the end goes to show. With so much input from so many sources, it is in fact, a small wonder that so many accurate adaptations get made. Even those, however, suffer from the difficulty mentioned above, wherein the film becomes somehow fixed.

Actually, the most frustrating adaptations, to me at least, are those where somewhere in the film-making process the film-makers decide that they need to improve the story. Some changes I can understand. For example, although I was saddened by the removal of Tom Bombadil from the film version of The Fellowship of the Ring, but I understood it. Streamlining is one of those things that movies need to do when adapting books. Other changes are less forgivable. I do not enjoy the Harry Potter movies, for example, because in an effort to ensure that all of the important plot points make it onto the screen all of the whimsy and the jokes were cut, which is a pity, since I like the whimsical parts the best.

Even more unforgivable is when a director imposes their own vision over and above that of the author's. The most egregious example I can think at the moment is Hiyao Miyazaki's abominable adaptation of Diana Wynne-Jones's Howl's Moving Castle. I loved this book as a child. I had enjoyed a number of Miyazaki's other films, such as Princess Monoke and Spirited Away, and so was pretty interested in seeing the adaptation. I was not too put off by the fact that it was to be a cartoon--since one of my favourite film adaptations of a fantasy book is a cartoon (The Last Unicorn)--actually because of the technology, for a long time the cartoons could be more fantastic than the live action ones; lower fantasy, such as Willow, seemed to work best for fantasy movies. Anyway, back to my narrative, when I discovered that this film was playing at Brigham Young University's International Cinema, I was very excited. I was sorely disappointed. The second half of the movie is unrecognizable from the book, lost in Miyazaki's heavy-handed anti-war message. Now, there is not anything inherently wrong with a director having a message to put forward. It's part of their right as artists. What bothered me was the imposing of the message on the book. It did not sit well with me.

Ultimately, I agree with Christopher Tolkien. I'd rather read The Lord of the Rings than watch it. I still enjoy watching movies, and the occasional fantasy movies, but the closer they are to my heart the harder they are to swallow. I enjoyed The Spiderwick Chronicles, but I have not been around to reading them yet. I have not enjoyed the new Narnia movies, because I think they meddle too much with things best left alone (also they don't feel particularly Narnian—more like someone saw that The Lord of the Rings movies made a lot of money, and said, hey, didn't they know each other. Let's cash in on this one). Narnia is very near and dear to my heart though.

So, are there any fantasy movies you love? How about those you think are horrible, either on their own merits or as travesties of a well-loved book? Let me know what you think, and I'll see you in seven.

Excelsior!

I Take a Pencil in My Hand...

The other day I was having a conversation with my wife, mother and sister about the demise of imagination and imaginative play--how many children, perhaps because of television and video games, no longer pretend they are anything but themselves, not even to play house. A sad, sad thing. Of course, our lament, like most laments, is premature, but my sister had concrete evidence. She babysits for a family who apparently do not know how to play pretend. Now there may be those who consider this to be an unnecessary skill, and they may be right, but here at Essays in Enchantment we consider playing pretend to be very important. It was one of the chief joys of my childhood, and one which I have not given up. In fact I was going to write a long 'blog post about playing, and how the old enjoyment I got out of playing pretend was carried directly over into role-playing and writing, and that I would write more fantasy fiction, but I'm a better role-player than a writer, but lo, and behold, my brother has already written it. There is a quote from Legend of the Five Rings, a role-playing of Japanese fantasy, which says: "We tell ourselves the stories of heroes to remind ourselves that we too can be heroes." And so it is. Of course, I don't limit myself to role-playing. Just yesterday I was mopping the floor at work at I started singing sea chanties to myself to pass the time while I swabbed the deck on the British Naval vessel I was serving on. Have any of you ever read "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty" by James Thurber. Yeah, that is me (although I am quick to point out that there is no similarity whatsoever between Walter Mitty's wife and my own wonderful eternal companion). I have always felt, perhaps incorrectly, that my life was improved by flights of fancy, since such flights helped encourage me in the rest of my life (perhaps unlike Walter Mitty).

Let's be heroes, then! Why should we let the banality of our mundane lives get us down. There is a world of good out there for us to be doing, let's go do it. We should us our imagination to remind ourselves of what it means to be a hero, and then do true heroic actions, such as do good to our neighbours and live according to the pattern set down for us.

Next time, we discuss fantasy movies, derived from fantasy books--advantages and disadvantages. Until then,

Excelsior!

A Top Ten

My wife has been giving me a hard time for not writing more on this 'blog. And so it is that I have not been writing as much or as well as I could be. Certainly not the once a week that I hoped to when I re-booted this 'blog. I have a list of excuses (such as moving from England), but I merely hope that you accept my apologies. I also want to say how much I appreciate all of your comments. I'm not sure how I forgot the Earthsea books, but you are right, that is also a very compelling magic system.

Luckily, having waited so long to write I actually have several ideas of things to write. Today's is a variation on something from way back to last year, with the meme about 10 favourite books (I never was able to get that going--although I have a few more books now, such as To Kill a Mockingbird), but this time I am going to do it with fantasy. Not as profound perhaps as some of the lists which inspired this, but I first learned the fabulist's art in many of these books, so in some ways they provide a theoretical under-pinning for all of my writing on this 'blog. The books are arranged in a rough order, but nothing too scientific--this is fantasy after all.

The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien. I am doing, where appropriate, entire series, since fantasy is so often found in series. I will not say too much about the Lord of the Rings and Professor Tolkien, since you can read more of my feelings on the topic here, but suffice it so say that I love Middle Earth and it has had a great influence on me (being the one book both on this list, and on the slightly more serious one). Pride of place for this series goes to The Return of the King, I think because I like the appendices so.

The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis. I suppose Jack and Tolkien get the top billing because I like them the most. In many ways Narnia is more important to me than Middle Earth, although Tolkien had an earlier influence on me. I always liked the Classical elements in Narnia (reading Narnia and Middle Earth actually does a pretty good job of indicating the scholar interests of their respective authors. Write what you know I guess). I love the youthful optimism in Narnia and the explicit religious overtones. My favourite book here is The Silver Chair. I love the questing nature of it, and Puddleglum is one of my favourite characters perhaps because I resemble him.

The Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle. This is the third book in my Big Three. There are other fantasy books (indeed, we will discuss many of them below), but these are the ones that most inspire me to my own fantasy, and have most stuck with me throughout my life. As I mentioned in my last post, the character of Schmendrick has always resonated with me (the fact that his name is Yiddish probably contributed to that). I read Lord of the Rings for its epic reminders about the battle between good and evil, and Narnia for its quiet message of hope and appreciation of the joys of childhood well into adulthood. The Last Unicorn is a bitter-sweet book. There is a line from Disney's movie The Great Mouse Detective in which Sherlock Holmes has what essentially amounts to a cameo (played by famous television Holmes Basil Rathbone). He and Watson are arguing about a radio program which Holmes wishes to listen to, and Holmes exclaims, "It is introspective, and I want to introspect!" I am like that sometimes, and The Last Unicorn helps fill that need.

The Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander. Extremely well-written Welsh-based fantasy. This series has one of the best and most realistic hero's journey I have ever read, especially in the book Taran Wanderer. Another high point of this book is the interactions between the protagonist, young Assistant Pig-Keeper Taran with the bonafied hero Gwydion, the son of Don in the early books. Gwydion remains the primary hero, but the actions of Assistant Pig-Keepers matter in the over all storyline.

The Phantom Tollbooth by Norton Juster. A different kind of fantasy than the others on this list so far (except that like the Prydain Chronicles and the Chronicles of Narnia it is a children's book), in that it isn't set in a Medievalish sort of world, but I love it anyway.

Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell by Susanna Clarke. This is the newest book on this list. It's a funny thing, but I don't like historical fiction. I think it's kind of a silly genre; but slap magic on it, and I love it. I love historical fantasy. Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell is not only historical fantasy, but it's a Napoleonic historical fantasy written in period style. It's a little slow getting into it, but it's certainly worth it.

The Wheel of Time by Robert Jordan. The Epic fantasy epic. This is a huge series of books; overwritten, massively long, and still brilliant. I've already mentioned the magic system in a previous post, so I won't get into it here, but these books are wonderful, especially the middle bit. There are twelve books in the series, or at least there will be when the last one is finished (may he rest in peace). The first three books comprise a trilogy starting the hero journey; the second trilogy is Rand (the main character) at the top of his game, the third trilogy is building the story, and the fourth will be the end. I like the second best. My favourite book is Lord of Chaos, although I think Fires of Heaven is the best.

The Chronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny. For those of you who haven't real it, it's about this immortal family who rules over the "one true reality" - a world named Amber. All other worlds are reflections of this world. I love Zelazny's voice. It helps that this fantasy series has some very compelling characters, including the main character, Corwin, who's just really cool.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. Another non-medieval fantasy children's book. This book and The Phantom Tollbooth were my favourite books when I was growing up. I read them and again. I like most of what Roald Dahl does, but this is the best.

The Elenium by David Eddings. I didn't want to include these, since they are not up to the standard of most of the other books on this list. However, I have been recently rereading them, and I have discovered that much of this series worked its way into my own fantasy workings (especially Henryon). Crusading knights and Church politics, even certain plot points coincide between these books and my own work. Not enough to qualify for plagiarism, but certainly a strong influence.


Honourable Mentions:

Terry Pratchett and the Discworld series. These are fun, but not didn't quite make the cut.

Robert E. Howard's Conan. I love Conan. My brother hates him, but this because instead of having a barbarian in his soul, like the rest of us, has a Puritan in his soul.

I wasn't sure if these were cricket, since they were Science Fiction, but I wanted to include them as an appendix.

Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein. All my life I intended to serve in the military. I grew up in a military household, and I always sort of thought in the back of my head that I would do my part (this in spite of having no illusions about the actuality of military service). This book helped to fuel some of those ideas. In many ways this book is a collection of essays about citizenship and militarism combined with a rollicking-good adventure yarn.

The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams. I don't like the rest of these as much, but this is a great read.


There you have it. Tell me what think of these books, tell me any favourites you have that I may have missed, and tune in in seven days for a discussion of imagination.

I'll Turn You into a Toad

Thanks to everyone who commented on my last 'blog post. It gave me much to think about, especially nuancing my thoughts about the relationship between Truth and Fact. Don't worry Aleatha, role-playing is but one symptom of the disease, and this 'blog is primarily about the disease. At its best role-playing reflects the hero (or heroine) in us all and therefore is part of the longing for home, but that is only at its best. The rest of the time it is just something fun to do with friends. There will be posts primarily about role-playing, but most of them will about the larger world of fantasy. Of course, not all them will be as good as last week's--I was in pretty good form while writing it, something I'm sure I won't be for every post. Regardless, I appreciate you all for reading and thinking about what I have to say.

Well, it has been a couple of weeks since we last wrote--I would feel bad about this, but I have been writing my Master's Thesis and am currently reviewing for my tests, including tests for classes taken at the beginning of the school year. Ah, Oxford. However, since it is Saturday morning (GMT), I am taking a break to write a little bit in this 'blog.

Today we are talking less about the theory of fantasy and talking a little bit more about specifics. Specifically, we are talking about that element which helps make fantasy unique among other genres, which is to say magic. In fact, an article I read on Pyramid argued that fantasy wasn't really a genre so much as other genres with the inclusion of magic. Thus, a world like J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter is the school days story (very popular here in the U.K.) with the inclusion of magic. It was an interesting idea (although I'm not sure it follows--since magic is inherent in myth, strongly mythic fantasy stories, such as Prof. Tolkien's work don't really fit the magic+genre model). As an idea, however, it works nicely, especially working from our observation that a magic system can be an important part of what makes a fantasy book unique and fresh.

One of my favourites is found in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series, which was discussed briefly here by my wife. Every criticism laid against these books: that were overwritten, over-long, et cetera, was on some level valid, but that does not diminish Robert Jordan's status as a Master of Fantasy. There are a lot of reasons for this, primarily found in the richness of his world, but of the reasons is surely the wonderful magic system he created. In The Wheel of Time, magic-users channel the One Power, which is divided into two parts, the male half or saidin and the female half or saidar. The real beauty in this system is the way that gender really matters. A user of saidin (the male half, you remember) has to struggle with and overcome the power of saidin in order to be able to use it, while a user of saidar must open up to the power and be calm and responsive. In order to wield to One Power to its most effect, a saidar user and a saidin user must be linked together, so that the man has to submit and the woman has to overcome, bringing the two sexes together. It is like The Magic Flute (Freemasonry and Mozart--what isn't to like? The Magic Flute deserves a post all its own), only with more explosions.

"There is nothing more noble than a wife and a husband. A man and a woman and woman and man reach upward Towards and attain godhood."
--Mozart, The Magic Flute, Act 1 scene 14.

There are a class of fantasy books, alluded to above, where the magic system isn't really explicated in the text. Most of these are those books I term mythological fantasy and includes J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, C. S. Lewis' The Chronicles of Narnia, Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising, and Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Cycle. The magic in these particular books serves, as in the myths upon which they are based, essentially as a plot element, and is usually more a pervasive element than a system. Part of this comes from the fact that in this kind of world, usually the heroes are not able to use magic, and so there is no need for explication (The Dark is Rising is an obvious exception, but I am saving my discussion of that series for another post).

Middle Earth is a good example of this: Gandalf is a wizard, and we know he can cast spells, and he often does so in the books, whether setting pine cones on fire, or shutting the door on the Balrog or trying to open doors at Moria. Such things, however, are beyond the ken of simple hobbits and are thus only referenced in passing. Even more compelling than the spell magic in Tolkien is the ambient magic. Thus when Sam asks if his rope from the elves is magical and they don't know what it means, only that it is well-made according to their craft. Bard Bowman can speak to birds as a heritage of his birth. Much of what Aragorn does (healing, hiding, et cetera) is 'magical' but is not spells per se.

The other good example of this Narnia. Again, none of the main characters use magic, although it is referenced constantly, including sorcery--I have always loved "the circle of blue fire" from Prince Caspian. In fact, I think more than anything, the magic in Narnia is evocative. I actually made (or started to make) a character in the role-playing game Mage: The Awakening based on Narnia magic. The quote which inspired me:

"It means," said Aslan, "that though the Witch knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which she did not know. Her knowledge goes back only to the dawn of Time. But if she could have looked a little further back, into the stillness and the darkness before Time dawned, she would have read there a different incantation." -The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

I have always loved the idea of the Deeper Magic from before the dawn of time. However, because the magic is there to make a point, we never get any more than that.

My favourite wizard in fantasy (although not my favourite magic system) is Shmendrick from The Last Unicorn. I have always identified with him, for a number of reasons, and he is one of the reasons I love that book so much. I suppose it his combination of immortality, incompetence, and good humour that appeal to me.

So, what are your favourite descriptions of magic from books? Any favourite magical characters? Tell me what you think.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger."
"Do not ask the elves for advice for they will tell you both yes and no."
-A pair of proverbs from Middle Earth

Longing for Home

So, today was the ward conference in the Oxford Ward. The theme was drawn from Paul, "That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Corinthians 2:5). The general gist of the meeting was about man's spiritual nature, making sure that we didn't allow the general banality of our lives supersede and overcome our spiritual nature. Our Stake President discussed his roses, which he worked hard to prune and take care of, but which he hadn't yet appreciated. The Bishop, speaking on the same theme, took on Richard Dawkins (although not personally) and discussed the further idea that the only way to know things of God is from God (1 Corinthians 2:11 and 12), but because we are spiritual beings the Spirit can communicate with our spirit. It was a very intriguing Ward Conference, and one which gave me much cause to think.

Again and again, the idea was expressed that we were spiritual beings. The rogue Jesuit scientist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was quoted by several of the speakers: "We are not human beings have a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings have a human experience." A good quote, and reminiscent of the thought expressed in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 93, "For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected receive a fulness of joy" (verse 33). Of course, D&C 93 deserves discussion on a 'blog dedicated to Latter-day Saint theology, and not a humble fantasy 'blog like this one (so why am I quoting it? Patience, friends, patience). I have often pondered over this idea of being spiritual beings sojourning on this earth.

What does all of this have to do with fantasy and therefore what place does it have on my 'blog. Well, in addition to merely discussing fantasy books, movies, et cetera, part of what I am doing is discussing theories about fantasy, at least from my point of view. My teachers in this are those two stalwarts, Jack Lewis and Prof. Tolkien, both of whom saw the impulse for fantasy derive from the same impulse of religion, and that on some levels it was their Christian understanding that they were spiritual beings that led to the writing of the fantasy novels for which they are most famous (although the Christianity is much more explicit in The Chronicles of Narnia than in The Lord of the Rings--however Tolkien's theory of sub-myths was the more developed, something which will come up in later posts).

The scriptures are replete with a longing for another kingdom, which is expressed by Paul (this 'blog is about fantasy not the Bible, so I can just say that Paul wrote this epistle without discussing authorship) in Hebrews: "and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country" (Hebrews 11:13 and 14). In the Biblical text Paul makes it clear, of course, that the country which the faithful were seeking is Zion, the city of God. However, we all have in our hearts a certain sense that we don't really belong here, a sense which fabulists tie into.

It is not, of course my intention, to say that fantasy is on the same level of scripture (although I often quote Hugh Nibley, who once identified science fiction as "folk-scripture"). I am only expressing an idea, common to my masters in the fabulist arts, that we are looking for something else in our life. As a Christian and a Latter-day Saint I believe that this is a searching for God, because of our nature as spiritual beings, we are yearning for that which we left behind (this yearning is expressed perhaps most familiarly in Wordsworth's Intimations of Immortality and the First Epistle of John, "we love Him, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).

This yearning for another country took many forms in the myths and legends of the world (myth being the forbearer of fantasy--or fantasy perhaps being the poor cousin of myth). Of course, moderns idealize the myths, but I personally think there is nothing wrong with this. The Celts had their Summer Country, an Other World which eventually leads us to Faery and Elfland. The Renaissance humanists had their Arcadia, named after the abode of the great god Pan (the great god Pan is dead, but I am also in Arcadia), the true shepherd's paradise. And Paradise itself, modeled after a Persian pleasure garden, reminding us all that like Twain, we are headed back to Eden. Whether back to Eden or forward to the Summer Country, fantasy taps into this longing and feeling that we are "strangers and pilgrims."

For Lewis, fantasy, much like the myths which led him to Christianity, lead properly to the better country alluded to by Paul. For Tolkien, since all myth (including fictional myth like his) was essentially true, sub-creations made by sub-creator reflecting the glory of the Great Creator. Other fantasy writers do not feel this way, and they are welcome to, but I tend to agree with my masters, and ascribe fantasy to sub-creation. Certainly such thoughts give hope and validity to my own fantastic endeavors (such as my writing and my role-playing), so they may only be good for me, and not essentially true. I tend to disagree, but your own usage and experience will vary, of course.

Our final thought comes from Puddleglum in The Silver Chair:
"Suppose we have only dreamed, or made up, all those things - trees and grass and sun and moon and stars and Aslan himself. Suppose we have. Then all I can say is that, in that case, the made-up things seem a good deal more important than the real ones. Suppose this black pit of a kingdom is the only world. Well, it strikes me as a pretty poor one. And that's a funny thing, when you come to think of it. We're just babies making up a game, if you're right. But four babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow. That's why I'm going to stand by the play-world. I'm on Aslan's side even if there isn't any Aslan to lead it. I'm going to live as like a Narnian as I can even if there isn't any Narnia.... [W]e're leaving your court at once and setting out in the dark to spend our lives looking for Overland."

Thoughts or experiences with the Summer Country? Please share them in the comments.

Further Up and Further In!