This is a fairy tale. By fairy tale, I mean that this is true without being fact. There’s an important distinction we used to believe in that we don’t believe in so much any more, and that is the idea that there are truths outside of facts. The forms of story telling that best house this claim are Myth and Fairy Tale, for they are not about facts, but are about truth.
“That’s what stars are made of, not what they are.” - Rahmandu, from Dawn Treader
Tolkien, Lewis and Chesterton have been my guides on this journey, and each was a kind of artistic defendant against some of the horrible ideas coming down the pipe of Modernism. How does this apply to today’s comic? Well, it’s actually against the rules of fairy to explain structure, because structures are put together in this world. They break the illusion of fairy… but I’ll indulge you.
“The definition of fairy story–what it is, or what it should be–does not, then, depend on any definition or historical account of elf or fairy, but upon the nature of Faerie, the Perilous Realm itself, and the air that blows in that country. I will not attempt to define that, nor to describe it directly. It cannot be done. Faerie cannot be caught in a net of words, for it is one of its qualities to be indescribable, though not imperceptible. It has many ingredients, but analysis will not necessarily discover the secret of the whole…” – Tolkien on Fairy Stories
Is it true that Weretoads exist? Yes, it is. Is it a fact that Weretoads exist? No, it is not a fact. You might think I’ve gone mad at this point, but I’ll tell you that Weretoads exist and I just saw one this week! Read the comic and see that Gullimar is running home in the middle of a horrifying disaster, only to smack into the worst thing imaginable. That’s just like us selling our house and having everything packed up, when we smacked into a terrible problem… the house we were going to rent got taken off the market. That’s a Weretoad. We were in a difficult time, and something even worse came up.
“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed .” – G.K. Chesterton
Modernism demanded that everything be reduced to its fact statement. They would say that not only did the structure of the Weretoad not exist, but that the meaning also did not exist. C.S. Lewis hinted that Modernism destroyed half of the tools he could use to tell stories, and I believe this is what he was talking about.
Fast forward to me pitching a movie to one of the major studios and the executive didn’t like the use of a magic idol in the story. This is the same kind of magic idol you’d find in anything from Indiana Jones to Harry Potter but he said something interesting, “Instead of an idol, can we put in an explanation that is real instead of magic? Like maybe the creatures are evolving instead of under the spell of an idol?” Lewis was right.
Any other comic maker who doesn’t show you work in progress like this actually hates you.
Don’t ask me why but I love the floating eye balls in the crash text.
I enjoy your discussions on this topic; keeping the magic alive in a story, by not dispelling it with explanation.
I love how you approched it in “Cardboard”. We got an explanation that was not an explanation and it ridiculed us for wanting to know, all at the same time.
Brokeback Mountain is my favorite faerie story.
That weretoad is hideous! I wish it weren’t real!
I would add Joseph Campbell to that as well. Culture suffers when all it can focus on is the factuality of a story, both in its ability to appreciate true fictions and its ability to guard against false ones.
Wow; your explanation of modernism…this is one of those things that I’ve had issues with in my own work. My mind tends to be at war between reducing everything to a rational, scientific explanation and just letting something BE – for instance, the use of magic in a story.
I suspect that the whole modernism thing has poisoned audiences to an extent too – I look at Ronald D Moore’s ending to Battlestar Galactica, which many didn’t like (but I did). One of the things I found myself surprised to be liking was what he DIDN’T explain – he very deliberately did NOT explain the true nature of the “head beings” in that series.
I think one of the things that I love the most about fictitious worlds that aren’t too serious is when they CAN take these conceits and just don’t need to explain them. The Earthworm Jim cartoon did this very well in playing fast and loose with realism (eg, the sight of a delivery truck driving through space to deliver a package needs no explanation), and even to look at your own stuff, the giant space eels in Creature Tech. It’s a ludicrous and INSANE idea but that’s exactly what makes it awesome.
The amusing part is, knowing Holywood Executives, the way he wanted Evolution to work was actually completely contradictory to the way it actually works in Science. He was better off with your magical idol!
“You might think I’ve gone mad at this point,”
You make comics for a living, being at least a bit eccentric is part of the job description.
- – - –
I like the way the garish colors of the Weretoad contrasts with the monochrome of rest of the page. Makes it easy to empathize with Gullimar’s reaction.
As usual, great page. I think that Modernism did change quite a few things in storytelling… While writing the script of my webcomic one of the things that created the most difficulties was the use of magic and providing a proper explanation for what magic is and how it really works. It actually never occurred to me to do it without an explanation and you just made me think about what could be the cause of that… I will be thinking about this one for a while, Doug.
If the author of a story invokes Faerie, then so be it. The audience can understand the events of the story, if it’s operating withing it’s own rules. Trying to explain the impossible with science often ends poorly, because science can’t explain it and the story breaks down. Creatures in Narnia weren’t able to talk because something happened to their brains and vocals chords, but because Aslan gave them that ability.
It’s so cool that you’re bringing in some of my favorite authors with Tolkien, Lewis, and Chesterton. I can think of a prime example of where Faerie should have stayed Faerie and not caved to modernism: midichlorians.
You try to explain the Force and you get friggin’ midichlorians.
It’s telling that children naturally value fairy. It’s us “intelligent” adults that struggle with it.
Mr. TenNapel. I once told you Earth Worm Jim was one of the best parts of my childhood, and I stand by that. It was what it was to me because of the creativity, irreverence, and attitude it had in it.
So many people today have gotten stuck in the mindset that any science cannot explain is wrong, or doesn’t exist, which is foolish. Science is a metric of measurement, it can only measure something that can be observed enough times to be able to conceptualize a standard unit of, and there are a lot of things that we have not, cannot not, or do not observe that happen across the globe everyday.
And just to point this out, but rapid mutagenesis that leads to viable (and surviving) creatures in the span of a single generation is much more unlikely than a magic idol imbuing things with crazy voodoo. So don’t let some pea brained dullard caught up in the common fantasy of this age (that almost everything is known with certainty and correctness) get you down, or tell you that your work isn’t totally awesome. He just can’t see it because his head is firmly planted in his own faulty sense of intellectual security.
^
Edit: anything science cannot explain
I just crossed a similar threshold in the story I’m writing, wondering to myself why I needed to invent some viable reason something could occur.
Brilliant reason, and I have similar heroes in Lewis and Tolkien, too.
And, or course, it DOES help to be a little mad.
I love the bright colors of the weretoad. How can something so pretty be so scary? I’m not worried though. Soon it should be three against one, and I can see Urch having a nice purple weretoad fur rug in front of his fireplace.
_____
As for your discussion of modernism, I see your point, especially when referring to authors who wrote in the first half of the 20th century who saw the rise and development of that movement. But I’d have to say that because of the works done by those authors (especially Tolkien) the “idea” of Faerie, if not necessarily the belief in it, has expanded and grown. Look at all the pop culture references we have today for vampires, werewolves, zombies, and ghosts. Role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons (heavily influenced by the writings of Tolkien) has people “living” (in their mind) within and arguing over the intricacies of the logistical and natural “laws” that exist in completely made up fantasy worlds. People accept fantasy as a viable form of entertainment, and no doubt some people wish with all their hearts that vampires and werewolves were true.
Back in the 19th century, before the “modern age” (pre-WWI) things like elves and trolls were talked about only in the oral tradition as folk tales. People might of had belief in Faerie, or the Faerie realm, but it was quashed with the rise of the industrial age and urban sprawl. The big bad woods that once held all the weretoads and energy bugs told about in those folk tales were cut down and paved. The mysterious fog-shrouded hills where the entrance to the elven realm lie were all explored and mapped. Belief in the fanciful couldn’t be maintained in the light of that kind of truth.
But that didn’t mean people didn’t keep believing in the “Faerie”, it just meant they had to temper those beliefs with science, or to shift them to something completely different but just as fanciful. The belief in the Loch Ness monster, not to mention the thrill of the “Faerie”, isn’t diminished in anyway if the creature changes from a mysterious “monster in the lake” to a trapped and distant relative of the plesiosaur. In fact, it could be argued that it might be even more exciting because in light of the science that tells us that it should be impossible, there is this tantalizing thrill that suggests “but what if”. Look at the Coelacanth, a fish thought to be extinct and found in the fossil record, suddenly discovered to still be alive and well. Could that happen with the plesiosaur? Perhaps, the ocean is a very big place and only a very tiny portion of it has been explored.
Look at people’s belief in UFOs and aliens. Many of the alien abduction stories are almost verbatim to some of the earlier children abductions by elves told in 19th century folk tales. Once science told us that elves and faeries didn’t exist, people turned their fears and their beliefs towards the next unknown, Space! The universe is even larger and less explored than the ocean or the great woods outside your village. You might call it science fiction, but science fiction is just Faerie through the lens of science.
Your comments, and the comments in some of the posts, seem to suggest that Modernism killed Faerie. I disagree. Modernism (ultimately fostered by the rise of science and of scientific and critical thinking) doesn’t mean that people stopped believing in Faerie. It just meant that the fanciful needed to address modern thought and then take it to the next level. If someone came out and said magic is nothing but a specific vibratory frequency of strings at the quantum level, and could duplicate that in a laboratory, that doesn’t, in my mind, diminish how freakingly awesome that knowledge would be.
LOL that’s what happened when you pitched Monster Zoo to a studio?
Doug, I’d really enjoy seeing one of your works adapted onscreen. Hope one day a deal will break through.
Now that’s a spectacular monster.. Equal parts tim burton and dr seuss..
That’s classic monster isn’t it? Having a mouth bigger than it could possibly need, digits dominated by claws, teeth that do more to freak you out than to assist in eating.. talk about ignoring the factual to make a story more interesting, that’s how a monster should always be.
Coldfushion, you have a good eye! That’s what makes them a monster and not a creature. Creatures denote the honor of a Creator, a Monster is a rule-breaking horror!
This is amazing, I love that last panel, it kicks my head!
In response to JPTHUNK:
I agree with everything you’ve said. However, there is a certain level where trying to explain fantastical things breaks down the mystique. As Brian Griggs pointed out, trying to explain the Force was an awful idea.
I think the real reason people go too far in trying to explain fantasy or science fiction elements in a circumstance where they need to be left to their own devices is 1) the fear of Mary Sues and 2) the fear of their audience not being able to suspend disbelief without an answer. I think a lot of this stems from the growing rise of tabletop RPGs and the internet. The authors/artists know all about the criticisms lauded at both 1 and 2, so they do their best to avoid this. Tabletop RPGs need systems to keep the game in balance and people turned to these models in the hope of improving their work.
Unfortunately, any protagonist who truly is a Mary Sue or a plot that is too unbelievable to be enjoyed can’t be saved by laying down a balancing act of intricate rules. What is necessary is including enough realistic humanity to feel sympathy and enough care for the feeling of life, showing subtly that the world and everything in it continues outside the bounds of the story. These things have nothing to do with artificial rules that say whether or not a wizard can learn that specific spell but it’s easy to lose sight of that when trying to guarantee that the heroes aren’t overpowered for the setting.
That isn’t to say that looking at RPGs for guidance is wrong or that they can’t aid in trying to create an idea that makes sense or stirs interest. I simply think that people need to relax and sit back for a moment before they decide what needs boundaries and what doesn’t. There is a point where people won’t accept something without an explanation but sometimes an explanation will make things even less believable. It’s all about when people naturally rely on faith and when they feel the need to know the workings of the mundane world. Even that can cross over and back again with the right touch. Many people, non-electricians of course, rely on electricity without ever thinking about why it works. It’s taught in school but most people forget the details because they don’t matter. They simply have faith that it will work, unless their power bill hasn’t been paid recently. Then they might worry. It’s the case of when, not why or how.
Erm, I hope all of that made sense. I fear I might have been rambling.
In response to Dove (and my apologies to Doug, I didn’t mean to hijack your comments board with this kind of discussion, I really just wanted to praise your work because I’m loving every panel of it):
Dove, I totally see your point and no I don’t feel you were rambling. I agree with what you said except for one point (well two points really, but the first leads into the reasons for the second).
1) I agree with what you and Brian Griggs said about the midichlorians idea for the explanation for the force. It WAS awful, and felt like a half-baked idea from the get go, as if it was just something Lucus threw out there to please a very small contingent of message board trolls who were berating him for an explanation of the force. And as a result that’s why the fans attacked it, because it was a bad idea. Which brings me to my second point…
2) You said “There is a point where people won’t accept something without an explanation but sometimes an explanation will make things even less believable.” I totally agree. But I would argue that it’s not the “act” of explaining that is causing the problem, it’s the actual “explanation” that’s the problem. Like the origins of the Force, if the “answer” to the question of “how” is lame, or unrealistic within the “rules” or “laws” of the world within which the story is presented, then of course people are not going to believe it. Their suspension of belief that they have already performed in their minds to accept things as true in order to even enjoy the story, such as the belief in light sabers or of super powered warrior monks who can move things with their mind, can easily be broken once an element is introduced that doesn’t mesh with the “reality” that was presented as the natural laws of that world. Unless, of course, that explanation is a good one and fits with that “reality”. A good example is The Spiderwick Chronicles by Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black. They offered detailed explanations of each fairy creature to the level of a biologist’s field notebook and offered a reason why we can’t see them around us even though they are “real” and are living right along beside us. It blended reality and fantasy in a way that made the entire idea of their world seem believable.
However, the point I was making in my earlier post wasn’t necessarily about how authors and artists struggle with trying to explain fantasy in terms so that it is believable to the readers. It was the idea that Modernism wasn’t necessarily the destroyer of fantasy, or at least that is doesn’t have to be. It was that Modernist thought was only the, shall we say, the tweaker of it. My point is that scientific thought and critical thinking are not the enemy to fantasy, not necessarily. It’s only that the explanations used needed to make sense, and only then if they make sense, can they not only help foster the ideas of fantasy, but can really make them shine.
That weretoad is awesome!!!
Arts are definitely not my area of expertise so I’m really not in a position to debate Modernism. However, being a fan of imaginary things and worlds I do have an opinion on what makes (or does not make) them work. Generally, all I ask for is internal coherence – any universe needs to make sense in terms of its own rules; it does not have to make sense in terms of classic science unless that’s what it sets out to do – but if so, changing the rules is not going to go down well. Since it was mentioned, BSG did just that by posing as a somewhat hard-ish classic sci-fi only to do a 90 degree turn at the and and plunge head-first into pure fantasy – which is why that was received as poorly as it has been: it didn’t change the rules, it threw them out the window. One does not do that without a very, very good reason; they failed to present one, other than “we had no better idea”.
On the other hand, nobody had a problem with light sabers (or the Force) in the context of Star Wars (I’m not talking about hardcore fans dissecting them later – I bet none of them was arguing while watching the story unfold) even though they clearly pose more problems than one cares to think about when attempting to explain them rigorously. Nobody objected to outlandish things like force-choke or old men raising up from the dead in a fluorescent halo because that story, unlike BSG, proudly wore its “this-is-by-far-not-the-universe-and-not-rules-you-know” crown right from the beginning. Supernatural was designed in not slapped on as an after-tought, and it just worked, wookies and ewoks and all. It was in fact the later attempt to partially revoke that mandate to magic that went down badly instead.
I believe there is, however, a different kind of story – one that is making up its colorful and single-use rules as it goes along, and I would say this is the realm where you, mr. TenNapel operate too. There is nothing especially wrong with such a style (as long as it doesn’t purposefully set out to break as many of its own rules as it possibly can, at which point only the potential – quite possibly significant – comedic value would remain), but I think it does require a receptive audience – one that instead of going “Whaaat? An _idol_? Why an idol?!? And how?” would go “Oh, and idol? Huh, neat!”. I’d venture to say that such and audience clearly exists, and it’s wider than a mere niche – it is definitely not, however, the mainstream. Which might explain why big studios invariably have problems digesting this style, since they squarely take aim at said mainstream and try to do whatever it takes to match its tastes. I do very much value such works (if they are actually any good of course) if and when they come along but I’m afraid it takes someone purposefully setting out to make such a work for one to come into existence, and in my experience that rarely means a big studio. Whimsy as an end unto itself is not everyone’s cup of tea…
Dove, I dig what you’re saying. It rambles in the best way possible!
At this point I am starting to wonder whether newts have color-vision,
and why I don´t hear you talking about George MacDonald.
Secondly, just letting you know I am much appreciating your comics, in print and on the web.
May I join in?
I think it might be helpful to point out that the modern scientific mindset is marvelous at showing us *how* things happen, while providing us precisely no tools to answer the question of *why* they do. It can cure a disease but never tell us why we ought to do it, or take us to a foreign planet without providing a scrap of evidence that our urge to go forth and conquer is a good one. Why should we go? Science can’t tell us that, it can only give us some tools to help us get there.
The modern mindset is indeed mortally opposed to Faerie, although Faerie still flourishes, because it is most pernicious and difficult to kill (I believe this is because it is innate).
You can see the opposition by considering Cause and Effect. The modern mind is built on Cause and Effect – things are strictly caused by other things, and there is no other way that they occur. (It should be noted that science *assumes* cause and effect – correlation may be seen but attributing causation is always a human judgment.)
What kind of things cause other things?
Does the weretoad appear because a)he was nearby or b)because he must, driven by a higher law of the story? At some point the two answers will clash, and you can’t fully indulge the one without sacrificing the other.
The job of the story is to tell us what is happening and *why* it is happening. As Max points out, it has to be believable – it has to make sense. But the rules by which it has to make sense (in Faerie) are not scientific rules, because they acknowledge different sources of cause and effect than science does.
To quote Chesterton, “The witch in the fairy tale says, “Blow the horn, and the ogre’s castle will fall “; but she does not say it as if it were something in which the effect obviously arose out of the cause. Doubtless she has given the advice to many champions, and has seen many castles fall, but she does not lose either her wonder or her reason. She does not muddle her head until it imagines a necessary mental connection between a horn and a falling tower. But the scientific men do muddle their heads, until they imagine a necessary mental connection between an apple leaving the tree and an apple reaching the ground. They do really talk as if they had found not only a set of marvellous facts, but a truth connecting those facts. They do talk as if the connection of two strange things physically connected them philosophically. They feel that because one incomprehensible thing constantly follows another incomprehensible thing the two together somehow make up a comprehensible thing. Two black riddles make a white answer.
…
In the fairy tale an incomprehensible happiness rests upon an incomprehensible condition. A box is opened, and all evils fly out. A word is forgotten, and cities perish. A lamp is lit, and love flies away. A flower is plucked, and human lives are forfeited. An apple is eaten, and the hope of God is gone.
” — G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
I’m curious to see what Doug’s world of cause and effect is in this story. Particularly, as he’s a Christian, I’m interested to see how he handles the laws of power dynamics in this world. Where does a Nnewt’s power come from? What does he do when he falls short and needs to be saved from something?
Even if I knew I would have an obligation not to tell you that!
Don’t worry Doug, I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer will leak out over the course of the story
I’m a patient guy; I think I’ll get my answer in the end…
I find it interesting that both Tolkien and Lewis built worlds upon divine power; their worlds were not deterministic state machines strictly driven by mechanical cause and effect.
When Gandalf appears suddenly as the White it is less important that we know how it happens than for us to have an intuitive sense of *why* it is right for him to reappear. There’s a hidden power that, in a Faerie world, we can accept; we don’t have to demand gritty details.
This has been a really interesting discussion so far! Wish I’d remembered to check back on it sooner.
I guess what it all truly boils down to is if the explanation is fitting and intriguing for the style of story that it is. Then the derail to explain or show how something works remains interesting entertainment. I imagine it helps if it’s simple enough that it doesn’t become a plot-grinding-to-the-halt micromanagement of details either. In that respect, it’s sort of like purple prose. You want enough description to where it’s evocative, distinctive, and gives a good sense of what’s going on without dumping a bucketful of muddied adjectives, cluttered adverbs, and overwrought similes into the reader’s lap.
Which also means it’s all a matter of taste. Some readers love really in-depth descriptions while others want the author to get to the point.
I think some studio Ghibli Movies are perfect examples of what a Fairy Tale is as you describe, no explanations. Like Totero and Ponyo. Just a brief visit into a world and out!
Finally read Creature Tech, loved it!
I agree, Donahe. :3
And you know, that reminds me. Yesterday I watched the second season of The Booth at the End. (I’ve also seen the first season of course.) A very odd, very short, absolutely amazing (IMHO) series, which also matches the description of a fairy story to a tee. Admittedly, they may try to explain how the whole thing works in subsequent seasons but I doubt it. If they do, it won’t be scientific by any means because that would ruin the way everything has been set up to this point. It’s hard to imagine a scientific answer that would be sufficient, let alone amazing enough to match the current sense of wonder that not knowing has created.
I swear I’ll stop commenting on this stuff eventually… :O
“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed .” – G.K. Chesterton
Rad. And so true.
I am regular visitor, how are you everybody? This paragraph posted
at this web site is in fact good.