First, let me say that I'm sorry I haven't replied in a timely manner. I'm enjoying this discussion and I did want to continue. It just slipped my mind.
Sword of Akasha wrote:Tolkien, I think, was indeed a product of his time. I'm not giving him a free pass, but I think he should be credited for establishing the definitive pattern of Fantasy literature for weal and woe. Maybe part of that popularizing of fantasy came from the fact that his narrative was so easy to identify with in its simplicity of good versus evil. The idea of a fallen society with us living in the wreckage of it hearkens back to the dark ages. Peasants stood amidst the rubble of the Roman Empire, having forgotten the engineering skills that built the likes of he Colosseum and aqueducts. They then get a nostalgic feeling for the 'grandeur of the past' having also forgotten that such a society thrived upon conquest, brutality, and slavery.
Oh, Tolkien definitely helped establish the popularity of modern fantasy structures. (And before I continue, let me say that I'm not giving him a free pass, either.) But one could argue that the "weal and woe" pattern is something else borrowed from old stories and fables, and I'm not sure that I want to write off Tolkien's work as simplistic. In
The Lord of the Rings, at least (I know the most about it and the surrounding lore), I definitely don't think that the narrative is simply "good versus evil," in spite of the color symbolism and other techniques employed. There's much more to it than that. There's definitely an undercurrent of binary morality present, but it's the frailty of the major characters that drives the story. I could quote pages and pages of one of those books of critique that I have, but I think I'd run out of room.
Anyway, if it were purely a matter of inert good versus evil, Frodo would have thrown the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom on his own, and wouldn't have needed Gollum to act as a catalyst for its destruction. Galadriel would not have been tempted by it. And Boromir is a decent man on the side of "good," but he also desires the Ring's power. Even Sam is tempted, though he imagines himself as a mighty gardener who could bring life to Mordor instead of thinking of the Ring as a tool of war.
[nerd mode]
The wizard Saruman, as one of the Istari sent to challenge Sauron, was decent once, and he was Saruman the White before he declares himself Saruman of Many Colours (I'm just following Tolkien's imagery here; don't mind me). He is corrupted by his desire for Sauron's power.
Sauron doesn't start out as evil either, though that's a long and complex history I'll let people look up for themselves.
[/nerd mode]
Then there came George R.R. Martin and sort of torpedoed that aging ship. We're invited in The Song of Ice and Fire to humanize what would be stereotypical one dimensional villains in other works. Even the evil queen archetype gets explored. Heck you may be rooting for Jaime Lannister, who committed incest with his sister. The 'good' guys are also shown to be the idiots they are and that 'good' isn't a guarantee of any degree of success.
I can't comment on George R.R. Martin's books specifically since I've not yet read them. But I can name plenty of heroes and villains in other works that aren't necessarily "good" or "evil." I don't know if any single author can be named as the one who "torpedoed the ship," as you put it---nor do I think that the ship was really torpedoed so much as modernized.
In my own writing I guess I try to avert binary morality due to its dehumanizing aspects. Instead of an overarching evil, I'm trying to establish an interplay of competing ideologies, ideals, and personal goals.
Same here. Regardless of our positions on different authors and works, I think we can both agree that the best writing, in any genre, does this. (Tolkien's included, IMHO---the overarching evil is
created by personal goals, though you do have to dig deep in Middle-earth lore to know this, for better or for worse.)
But that's enough about Tolkien from me! I feel I must be weighing down the thread! What are some other works that you all find to be worthwhile in understanding archetypes and tropes?