From Homer to Harry Potter (Dickerson & O'Hara)

For years, I've loved fantasy and disliked science fiction- and I had no idea why until I read From Homer to Harry Potter.  Here, the authors first define myth, and then provide a guide to fantasy literature, suggesting a few principles for how to approach the genre (in the form of questions to ask to get at messages and underlying worldviews communicated in the medium). They look at pervasive themes and common influences (like the Bible, Greek & Roman mythology, and JRR Tolkien).  They conclude by discussing elements of myth found in individual works (like the Bible, Iliad, Odyssey, Beowulf, Grimm's Fairy Tales, etc.) and from selected authors (to include JRR Tolkien, CS Lewis, Ursula Le Guin, Philip Pullman, Walter Wangerin Jr., and JK Rowling).

So what is myth?

The authors define the genre by incorporating a quote from JRR Tolkien:

The literature of Faërie is any literature that presents these three faces:"The mystical toward the supernatural; the magical toward nature; and the mirror of scorn and pity toward man."

It covers a spectrum, from myth (global, over years or eons, significant in scope), to fantasy/heroic romance (like King Arthur), to fairy tale (local, over a few hours or days, more localized in scope).  Said another way, "the myths are about the gods; heroic fantasy is about heroes (larger than life, but not gods); while fairy tales are about the simpleton, the tailor, the younger brother, the good-hearted and virtuous peasant who accomplishes some great task despite a lack of heroic strength."

This genre takes place 'at the borders'- in both our world and another.  TS Eliot, speaking about Charles Williams' fantasy writings, speaks for the style when he says that in fantasy, there is "no frontier between the material and the spiritual world . . . the supernatural was perfectly natural, and the natural was also supernatural."  It covers "events on the border between the celestial and the mundane."  Contrast this with science fiction, which tends to focus more on the naturalistic.

In modern times, we view myth as being 'fiction.'  The authors disagree, arguing that "myth and history are not at odds, nor are myth and truth."  So, for example, when they talk about elements of the Bible being myth, they don't necessarily mean fiction- though "even a fictionalized account can communicate truth"- they mean that the Bible tells the story of God and man, the supernatural and the natural.

How did it come about?

For 'recent' fantasy (the past 150 years), the authors contend that "the nineteenth-century romantic movement that brought about the resurgence of fairy tale was in many ways a response to (or reaction against) the Enlightenment . . . it succeeded, in part, on the notion that there are things that must be known through the imagination and not merely through deductive arguments or empirical science."

They aren't saying that science is wrong or bad . . . just that it cannot account for everything:

... while Enlightenment rationalism denied the epistemological importance of imagination and fantasy, imagination and fantasy do not deny the validity of the rational or scientific; they only deny that these are the only ways of knowing.

This isn't a new concept.  The origin of the word myth communicates the same: muthos (the original root) means "through story," while logos means "through reason or proposition."  In ancient times, both were considered necessary.

Why is it so valued?

Because we need wisdom, and storytelling is an effective way to communicate that.  "Fairy tales are a repository of wisdom, though not necessarily of knowledge.  And while science and rational inquiry are wonderful tools for the acquisition of knowledge, on their own they provide little in the way of wisdom.  But knowledge without wisdom is not only bankrupt; it is dangerous."  Therefore, "myth and fantasy and rich and important elements in our literary lives and moral imaginations, and offer profound insights into truth."

The hope or intended aim isn't just wisdom- it's about being aware and awake to the world.  CS Lewis said the making of myth "produces works which give us . . . much delight and . . . much wisdom and strength . . . and in general shocks us more fully awake than we are for most of our lives."  As fantasy deals with the natural and supernatural, "we are reminded that the world is shot through with significance, that we ourselves are significant, no matter who we are."  In brings us into the whole- the individual and the global together.  "Myth, at its best, is both a distant view into the whole and a close mirror of the personal."

Thoughts

I really liked most of this book, because it helped me understand and articulate (as I explain above) why I so enjoy this genre.  It gave me a different perspective on how to view knowledge, wisdom, and the value of storytelling.  In addition, I learned that sometimes tales have no explicit message.  "The message, we might say, is the story itself."  It's about showing something rather than saying something.  That's helpful to me, as I often focus on words or obvious symbolism when consuming books or movies.  I'll try to adjust my thinking in the future.  I found the discussion on topics like monsters and magic helpful (their argument for the latter: it's not inherently bad, as some Christians believe, to have magic in books.  It's all about the intent, how it's used, where it comes from, etc.).

I said I liked most of this book.  The section critiquing different authors (like Le Guin, Pullman, and Rowling) seemed overly detailed and repetitive, and at times overly critical (even if I agreed with the assessment).  The authors general point was that some works don't convey Biblical truths, and should thus be avoided.  By "Biblical truths," I don't mean overt reference- they loved the Harry Potter books, for example- I mean they convey worldviews or relativistic viewpoints that are at odds with the Biblical description of the world.  I agree that we need to look at meaning and underlying messages/worldviews, and not all works convey a healthy or correct perspective, but the authors could have made that section much shorter (and, I believe, there can be wisdom found in specific instances even if the work as a whole is coming from the wrong perspective).  In addition, they seemed to compare most modern works to Tolkien and Lewis, as if their works were the be-all, end-all.  I love both Lord of the Rings and Narnia, but . . . it seemed overly deferential.  Finally, they discussed at great length the influence of earlier works on the later, and believed the linkages non-negotiable.  Not inherently bad, but I'd argue similarity does not necessarily imply imitation or influence.

I conclude on a positive note.  Why do I love fantasy and myth?  Because "it challenges that which is phony, unnecessary, false, and trivial.  It challenges us to move past our comfortable lives and to engage in a significant battle.  Myth, fantasy, and fairy at its best always do that.  They challenge us to live lives governed by the transcendent, eternal, moral, and unseen realities, and not by the mundane, temporal things that seem so real and physical and commonplace."

Rating: B+