That's a great quote. Chesterton isn't always my favorite, but when he gets it right, he is spot on.

I think it's a shame so many evangelicals have become so suspicious of fantasy and "fairy tales" in the past decade or so.

I totally agree. It's why I'm a fan of the Harry Potter novels where so many Christians are not; and why I will read them to and with my children when they're ready for them.

"When they're ready for them" = After they've read Lord of the Rings.

At which point they won't want to read a cheap substitute like Harry Potter

[Bill takes cover]

LOTR stands alone. But I'd be pretty sad if it was the only fairy tale/fantasy that I or my kids could ever read because by comparison everything else was a cheap substitute. Narnia isn't nearly the literary and fantasy achievement that LOTR is. But it's still great. Ditto Harry Potter.

Tolkien, MacDonald and Chesterton all defended the fairy tale well. Tolkien's essay mentioned above is the masterpiece, IMO. Lewis took his shot at the topic as well, borrowing from those others. A portion of his essay "On Three Ways of Writing for Children" is here:

http://themeaningofsymbols.blogspot.com/2009/03/children-and-fairy-stories.html


"A far more serious attack on the fairy tale as children's literature comes from those who do not wish children to be frightened…Those who say that children must not be frightened may mean two things. They may mean (1) that we must not do anything likely to give the child those haunting, disabling, pathological fears against which ordinary courage is helpless: in fact, phobias. His mind must, if possible, be kept clear of things he can't bear to think of. Or they may mean (2) that we must try to keep out of his mind the knowledge that he is born into a world of death, violence, wounds, adventure, heroism and cowardice, good and evil. If they mean the first I agree with them: but not if they mean the second. The second would indeed be to give children a false impression and feed them on escapism in the bad sense. There is something ludicrous in the idea of so educating a generation which is born to the Ogpu and the atomic bomb. Since it is so likely that they will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage. Otherwise you are making their destiny not brighter but darker. Nor do most of us find that violence and bloodshed, in a story, produce any haunting dread in the minds of children. As far as that goes, I side impenitently with the human race against the modern reformer. Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let villains be soundly killed at the end of the book. Nothing will persuade me that this causes an ordinary child any kind or degree of fear beyond what it wants, and needs, to feel. For, of course, it wants to be a little frightened."

No Bill you didn't say that, I was just adding my two cents. In my opinion when you're talking fantasy, by comparison to LOTR anything else is a distant second at best, even Narnia. Not in terms of beloved-ness necessarily, but definitely in terms of literary greatness.

But I wouldn't call other excellent works of fantasy cheap substitutes just because they don't measure up to LOTR. The first few pages of Harry Potter didn't exactly grab me, either. But I stuck with it and was well rewarded. Have you read any of Wheaton Lit. prof. Dr. Alan Jacobs' excellent discussions of why he loves the Harry Potter books?


"Why this excitement? Why would a middle-aged man—who also happens to be a professor of literature—get so worked up about a series of books for young people? Indeed, why do so many millions of people get similarly worked up, as they have about no other books? There is no real answer to this question, though every time another book in the series is released the newspapers of the world fill with speculations. The closest we can come to an answer is to note that J. K. Rowling does three things exceptionally well: first, she creates characters readers really care about—not just Harry but also Ron, Hermione, Hagrid, Dumbledore, Neville, etc.—usually because they possess some admirable trait (kindness, or courage, or wisdom) but are also somehow vulnerable; second, she writes suspenseful plots, so that you really want to know how it's all going to come out; and third, she creates a whole imaginative world that people love to inhabit, even after they already know what happens in the stories. Many writers can do one of those things; a few can do two; hardly any can achieve all three. (Tolkien is one of them, which is why he also, though a very different and much greater writer than Rowling, is equally beloved.) It's the combination that makes her special.

"Critics who complain that Rowling's writing style is pedestrian or cliché-laden — Harold Bloom being prominent among them — therefore miss the point. She is certainly not much of a stylist, she does indeed fall sometimes into cliché, and in fact a key moment in the new volume, one meant to be deeply moving, is marred by the kind of grammatical error that makes an English teacher like me grind his teeth and mutter about the decline in the professional skills of editors. But the last thing I want when I'm reading a Harry Potter book is to pause and admire the felicity of the diction. This ain't Emily Dickinson, after all. And I found that grammatically erroneous passage deeply moving anyway because I cared about the characters involved, I cared about the story, I cared about the world."

-Alan Jacobs, "Opportunity Costs" (Books & Culture Nov/Dec 2005)


http://www.hplex.info/essays/essay-harry-potters-magic.html

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/novdec/7.22.html

Bill, do you mind if I ask why you aren't ever going to read HP? Is it a matter of conviction - concerns over the depictions of magic? Or is it just that you aren't interested? If the former, I can respect that, especially since you don't seem pushy toward others who aren't similarly convicted. I wouldn't want you to violate your conscience. But if the latter, I have a hard time understanding why someone who loves the fantasy of Tolkien and Lewis would deprive himself of the enjoyment of a 7 volume series that is similarly engaging and is head and shoulders above almost all other stuff out there in the genre.

I don't want to debate you about it. It just baffles me so I'm curious. Some people simply hate fantasy, period. Can't stand Narnia, hate LOTR. I can grant that, even if it makes me echo W.H. Auden who said of LOTR "If anyone dislikes it, I shall never trust their literary judgment about anything again." But for someone to say they loved Narnia and LOTR but they have no interest in a series that most of the best critics - let alone millions of fans - liken to Narnia and LOTR in terms of engaging, enthralling world-making . . . how can that be? I'm glad I didn't give up the Silmarillion or Tale of Two Cities or any number of other books (including HP) that didn't have me on the edge of my seat after 6 pages. I'd have missed out on something really cool if I had. And for all your occasional disclaimers you don't seem a simplistic guy who is afraid to work at understanding or appreciating something. I don't think you'd like Lewis or the other Inklings if you were. What gives here?

Thanks Bill. I don't want to argue and I'm not sure there is a "wrong" here. But hey, I turn 39 in November so I'm no teenager myself. And Jacobs (who taught me to write better and for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect) is older than both of us, and he loves the series. I hope you at least try it again some day and stick with it for several chapters instead of several pages. But only for fun, and not to be attempted as long as it seems like a burden you just don't want to shoulder rather than a fun adventure to embark upon. If you like "that sort of thing" in Narnia and LOTR, and if like Lewis and JRRT you think liking "that sort of thing" isn't restricted to those of a certain age, I think you owe it to yourself at some point down the road when you have time and reading something of the same sort as Narnia sounds fun rather than an arduous undertaking, to give the series a real try. But if you don't, I'll still continue enjoying your blog.