UNIV Forum 2012 "Pulchrum. The power of beauty"

make sure to take some time off for rest and relaxation. In fact, those who overwork and are too devoted to their jobs are often looked upon society as unnatural and unhealthy. God himself took a day to rest. Leisure is clearly not a bad thing, but a necessary outlet. The problem with escapism is that it is associated with excessive leisure or entertainment. The definition above makes this clear. The idea of escapism; that we leave behind our world, appeals to many who would like to leave behind their problems and this world permanently. These people read a book or look at a picture and so desperately want to leave behind reality that they embrace the alternative reality that the art offers. What is more, they do not want to leave. They want to reject the world, but one cannot totally leave the world behind. A person who is lost in the fantasy land of a book or painting is a sad lonely person, trying to live in an unreal place. In many ways, the escapism of art parallels the escapism of alcohol and illegal drugs.

This sort of sad person has caused the new understanding of escapism. The old version, however, did not embrace what J.R.R Tolkien calls “desertion”. The world can be a harsh place, a ‘veil of tears’. Sin has made it so. Leaving reality behind sometimes is not an objectively bad thing. With restraint, it can, in fact, be a very good thing, just as leisure can be. Of course, once we start escaping because reality is too heavy a burden, than we stray dangerously close to the wrong. The world is what holds the promise of redemption, not a book or a song. Still, escapism is not entirely negative. In fact, two of the greatest writers of the 20th century, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis are proponents of escapism, to a degree. Each wrote some of the most famous fantasy novels of all time, and each saw his work as a way by which man could improve himself and his world. In fact, Tolkien stated in his essay On Fairy Stories that fantasy literature, while escapist to an extent, eventually leads man to God. The writings of Lewis put this into especially obvious practice. The Chronicles of Narnia are perhaps the most famous children’s fantasy series ever.

Throughout the entire series, Christian symbolism and imagery is used, even as Lewis tells an epic fantasy of war and heroism. He and Tolkien write with two intentions. The first is the superficial; they want to tell a good story. The second is deeper; by stepping into a new world the reader will be able to better understand his own. The character of Aslan, for example, is the wondrous savior of Narnia who is sacrificed for a sinner, much like Chris himself. Lewis wrote this way because he thought the story compelling, but also because he thought it would be more subtle and effective way to speak of Christ. Rather than plainly tell the story of the Crucifixion and Resurrection, he tells a tale that strongly parallels it. In this way, he intends for the reader to understand Christ’s sacrifice from a different perspective. Why do this? Because by doing this, the reader may be led to a deeper understanding of reality. Tolkien says this deep understanding is “the greatest and most complete conceivable” fairy story- that of God. Tolkien calls the happy ending of a fairy story a “eucatastrophe”, a seemingly miraculous resolution in the face of unspeakable evil. While many modern writers reject the idea of “happily ever after”, Tolkien says that every happy ending is a reflection of the ultimate eucatastrophe. “The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation” he says, and the birth of Christ is the happy ending of history. Those who say that happy endings are ‘not realistic’ or ‘too cheesy’ do not realize that however impossibly grim a situation might be, it is nothing compared to the state of man after the fall. If God was able to resolve something this dire, than what is it for Frodo to triumph over Sauron, or Aslan over the White Witch? Resolutions are man’s tribute to God’s strength and power. Whatever impossible situation we formulate, God could resolve it. Therefore claims that fantasy literature places us in an impossible world are not strictly true. We live on a planet where animals do not talk, where there is gravity, where we are limited. But if God so wished, the limitations would be gone. Fantasy literature embraces God’s limitless power.

To all these arguments one could ask, why then is fantasy literature even necessary?

Would it be not be more efficient and direct to teach didactically on God’ power and majesty? To this argument one can respond in two ways. The first is perhaps overly simplistic; a good story is more enjoyable than a lecture. This is an escapist approach that comes dangerously close to the idea of abusing escapism. Still, this argument is at least realistic; many would prefer a good story.

94