Perhaps there will be interest in a conversation about the beautiful and wholesome in fantastic literature.

I begin by making a distinction between the beautiful and that which is a matter of taste.

The former is something that should be recognized, so that, in the person who does not recognize it, defect of attention or of sensitivity may be assumed. Thus, the wind-tossed daffodils growing by the lake, in Wordsworth’s poem “I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud,” are beautiful; the failure to perceive their beauty would demonstrate defect in the observer.

Conversely, taste or appreciative sensitivity allows for variations of preference as regards good things. Sally likes the music of Ralph Vaughan Williams more than that of Mozart, while Joe prefers Mozart to RVW, but Sally and Joe can perceive merit in the music liked by the other person. It would be silly to quarrel about it.

Rather than beauty, it is taste that is basically subjective. It is awkward to refer to “taste” and the “eye” of the beholder together, but if the mixed metaphor may be permitted, we could say that taste (not beauty) is in the eye of the beholder.

It seems to me that the beautiful is important in the writing of a number of noted fantasists. In my own personal history, Tolkien’s descriptions of meadows and country lanes, forests and mountains, etc. were vital in the shaping of my imagination. A little later, passages in Arthur Machen’s descriptions of rural Welsh scenes – woods and stones, winding rivers -- were also valuable. Lovecraft’s practice of referring to sunsets must have made an impression on me.* C. S. Lewis’s Surprised by Joy and other writings exhibit his keen alertness to the beautiful, as certainly do his writings in the vein of fantastic fiction and poetry.

Thus all of these authors use compass needles that point to the beautiful.

I thought people here might like to discuss the beautiful in the writings of these and/or other writers of fantasy. What about writers of fantasy whose work doesn’t exhibit attention to the beautiful?


*Peter Cannon’s “Sunset Terrace Imagery” essay is very valuable on Lovecraft’s sense of the beautiful.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps there will be interest in a conversation
> about the beautiful and wholesome in fantastic
> literature.
>
> I begin by making a distinction between the
> beautiful and that which is a matter of taste.
>
> The former is something that should be recognized,
> so that, in the person who does not recognize it,
> defect of attention or of sensitivity may be
> assumed. Thus, the wind-tossed daffodils growing
> by the lake, in Wordsworth’s poem “I Wandered
> Lonely as a Cloud,” are beautiful; the failure
> to perceive their beauty would demonstrate defect
> in the observer.
>
> Conversely, taste or appreciative sensitivity
> allows for variations of preference as regards
> good things. Sally likes the music of Ralph
> Vaughan Williams more than that of Mozart, while
> Joe prefers Mozart to RVW, but Sally and Joe can
> perceive merit in the music liked by the other
> person. It would be silly to quarrel about it.
>
> Rather than beauty, it is taste that is basically
> subjective. It is awkward to refer to
> “taste” and the “eye” of the beholder
> together, but if the mixed metaphor may be
> permitted, we could say that taste (not beauty) is
> in the eye of the beholder.
>
> It seems to me that the beautiful is important in
> the writing of a number of noted fantasists. In
> my own personal history, Tolkien’s descriptions
> of meadows and country lanes, forests and
> mountains, etc. were vital in the shaping of my
> imagination. A little later, passages in Arthur
> Machen’s descriptions of rural Welsh scenes –
> woods and stones, winding rivers -- were also
> valuable. Lovecraft’s practice of referring to
> sunsets must have made an impression on me.* C.
> S. Lewis’s Surprised by Joy and other writings
> exhibit his keen alertness to the beautiful, as
> certainly do his writings in the vein of fantastic
> fiction and poetry.
>
> Thus all of these authors use compass needles that
> point to the beautiful.
>
> I thought people here might like to discuss the
> beautiful in the writings of these and/or other
> writers of fantasy. What about writers of fantasy
> whose work doesn’t exhibit attention to the
> beautiful?
>
>
> *Peter Cannon’s “Sunset Terrace Imagery”
> essay is very valuable on Lovecraft’s sense of
> the beautiful.

This is an interesting and worthy distinction, Dale.

But I'm always going have trouble eliminating subjective evaluation from a consideration, because as with right and wrong, on what foundational basis does the absolute authority for what is beautiful, or right/wrong, rest?

Maybe it is shared cultural experiences/traditions? This is to say, would a Kalhari bushman feel the same, if the passage were rendered in his language? (Wow. This opens up a lot here....)

I guess I'm after scope, limits? Is beauty, as we are discussing it, unlimited and universal? And if not, what are its limits?

I'm probably drifting badly... :^(

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish, do we agree that there exists a category of things, to fail to apprehend the beauty of which is evidence of defect? Such defect could be true of a whole society as well as of an individual.

A possible case in point, but I write in near ignorance: it appears to me that artists of Chinese scrolls centuries ago created their works in a culture that had a readier apprehension of the beauty of mountains than may have been true of Europe at the time. The beauty of the Alps was always there, but it was perhaps not much perceived in some earlier times. Now, of course, it is a major source of the economy of Switzerland, drawing tourists.

More attention, too, needs to be given to the speedy apprehension of beauty in unfamiliar forms. For example, if I'm not mistaken, when the likes of Marco Polo visited the Far East, they would have seen architecture of unfamiliar form. Perhaps at first the sheer novelty thereof made them uncomfortable, but, unless I'm mistaken, they typically soon came to see that there was beauty there.

Thus I would go with the traditional, as opposed to the modern, understanding of the beautiful, that sees it as something real. What is truly beautiful should be universally apprehensible as such, but, because of errors of taste, unfamiliarity, and bad associations, might not be perceived as such.

It's important to distinguish the truly beautiful from other things that may work to make something attractive but are not, properly understood, beautiful. For example, Amazonian tribal people may stretch the lobes of their ears to grotesque lengths. This look may please other tribal folk, but this does not require us to say that they see the stretched earlobes as beautiful. The stretched earlobes may, for example, connect with the homo ludens aspect of human nature, that is, man as playful being. The stretched earlobes may bespeak tribal identity: we are the people who do this, unlike those others. The stretched earlobes catch attention, and sheer attention-getting is often a factor in human looking. Did Japanese people really think that the artificial blackening of women's teeth was beautiful? I am not as sure as some people probably would be. Conversely, if we are talking about human beauty, I think it would be found, in fact, that there are pretty universal standards. The tribal chieftain in Africa might have an enormously obese queen, but you watch and see if his attention doesn't linger with delight on the same slender teenage girl as yours does. The obesity may bespeak wealth, status, etc. It is quite possible it was not really seen as beautiful.

So, again, yes, I see beauty as something universal, that is, something transcending mere vagaries of cultural and individual taste, fads, etc. Till recently there was a fad here in the States for tattoos. Already I think the taste for promiscuous tattooing is subsiding. People have eyes and can see that those tattoos look like bruises from a distance, etc. Soon enough, I suspect, the calf tattoo will be as much a giveaway of a certain fleeting period as the fad for naming girls with last names. The death-knell sounded when people began to spell these names in bizarre ways to try to inject into them some of the pizzazz they had already lost -- when "Madison" gave way to "Madysyn," etc. But perhaps I digress.


PS, Sawfish, is your quoted passage from DeLillo? It sounds like White Noise to me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 18 Jan 21 | 07:06PM by Dale Nelson.

I think the question is an interesting one in the context of fantasy writers, because there’s a strong visual component to writers like CAS, yet that visual aspect could rarely be categorised as ‘beauty’ in the traditional sense of the word. Dale mentions Machen - Machen himself said (on looking back on some of his stories) that he depicted a certain type of countryside as pregnant with a certain kind of evil due to misreading his response to it - that what he felt was actually awe rather than dread.

Good discussion!

Interleaved, below:

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish, do we agree that there exists a category
> of things, to fail to apprehend the beauty of
> which is evidence of defect?

I agree that I can see that it is possible in some situations, but am still reluctant to apply this across the board, without a lot of qualification.


I realize that you don't mean it as a sort of one-size-fits-all litmus test, but actually qualifying when/where the proposition that "failure to appreciate beauty indicates a flaw in the observer" would need to be considered in each case.

I'm now thinking of a parallel idea: that certain shapes convey a sort of universal, if hard to define, symbolism. A pyramid conveys a sort of odd solidity and completeness; a circle evokes another set of symbolic associations. I speculate that this non-linguistic recognition is maybe applicable to all fully functional adult humans regardless of culture.

If this can be considered valid or mostly valid, then I'm thinking you are proposing the same significance for the concept of "beauty", the problem for me being that "beauty" is much more vague than a pyramidal shape, e.g.

OK, so let's go orthogonal on this: "beauty" in its very core definition, is the purposely vague term used to convey a specific response to a given observation. Rather than a pyramid being a concrete and specific definition of a shape that conveys a symbolic meaning, "beauty" identifies the a quality of the observed object. It's an attribute of the object, rather than its precise description.

So it seems circular: by calling something beautiful, without revealing its exact nature, we have already judged it and are conveying this prejudgement to someone who has not yet seen it. They may agree, in which case they have no defect in their ability to evaluate aesthetics, or they may disagree, exposing a defect.

Anyway, that's how I see it, and I do not feel, intuitively, that I'm properly connecting or understanding your point, Dale.

Perhaps it's like the defect you've noted in the case of beauty.



> Such defect could be
> true of a whole society as well as of an
> individual.

So if 90% of a society composed of the normal Gauss distribution of human attributes don't find much of Aubrey Beardsley's stuff beautiful, it hints at a sort of widespread genetic defect in that population?

See? That's probably not what you mean, but it's what keeps coming to mind given the way the proposition is framed.

And even then it still might be true...

>
> A possible case in point, but I write in near
> ignorance: it appears to me that artists of
> Chinese scrolls centuries ago created their works
> in a culture that had a readier apprehension of
> the beauty of mountains than may have been true of
> Europe at the time. The beauty of the Alps was
> always there, but it was perhaps not much
> perceived in some earlier times. Now, of course,
> it is a major source of the economy of
> Switzerland, drawing tourists.

I'm not familiar with this and so cannot comment.

>
> More attention, too, needs to be given to the
> speedy apprehension of beauty in unfamiliar forms.

This seems to be getting to something intriguing and maybe it's a crystalization of what universal beauty might be.

> For example, if I'm not mistaken, when the likes
> of Marco Polo visited the Far East, they would
> have seen architecture of unfamiliar form.
> Perhaps at first the sheer novelty thereof made
> them uncomfortable, but, unless I'm mistaken, they
> typically soon came to see that there was beauty
> there.
>
> Thus I would go with the traditional, as opposed
> to the modern, understanding of the beautiful,
> that sees it as something real. What is truly
> beautiful should be universally apprehensible as
> such, but, because of errors of taste,
> unfamiliarity, and bad associations, might not be
> perceived as such.

OK.

Beauty is a very precious commodity and the term "beauty" and beautiful" have been over-used to the point of devaluation, in much the same way that Millennials have overused "amazing" so that anything that's not unarguably mundane is "amazing".

"Those are amazing shoes you've got there."

To me, the only amazing shoes I can think of right now are Mercury's winged sandals, fully functional.

So back to beauty...

It could be that anything not universally recognized as beautiful by all cultures after an adequate space of time to become acquainted with it fails the beauty test.

Would this work for you?

Let me ask while I'm still thinking about it: does "beauty" inspire an element of awe, to a greater or lesser degree? Thinking right now, I believe that it does, for me. And here's something important to people like me: I cannot understand spirituality in the absence of awe. Truthly, I can't. Animism is one of the only religious forms that begins to make any sense to me, since it is based in part on awe.

Does real beauty in some sense inspire a spiritual response? Maybe it does...

I was raised in a nominally Christian household that had no actual connection to religious practice. This could skew my views.

All of my thoughts here need more testing and work, however.


>
> It's important to distinguish the truly beautiful
> from other things that may work to make something
> attractive but are not, properly understood,
> beautiful. For example, Amazonian tribal people
> may stretch the lobes of their ears to grotesque
> lengths. This look may please other tribal folk,
> but this does not require us to say that they see
> the stretched earlobes as beautiful. The
> stretched earlobes may, for example, connect with
> the homo ludens aspect of human nature, that is,
> man as playful being. The stretched earlobes may
> bespeak tribal identity: we are the people who do
> this, unlike those others. The stretched earlobes
> catch attention, and sheer attention-getting is
> often a factor in human looking. Did Japanese
> people really think that the artificial blackening
> of women's teeth was beautiful? I am not as sure
> as some people probably would be. Conversely, if
> we are talking about human beauty, I think it
> would be found, in fact, that there are pretty
> universal standards.

Not comfortable with this. I think maybe familiarity with evolved association within the same phenotype confers a distinct preference.

Translating this into direct communication, I think that racial familiarity confers a significant, but not exclusive, preference for racially-based standards of beauty.

There's too much circumlocution to avoid contemplating "hurty ideas", and it makes for a lamentable vagueness--and also a feckless deniability.

> The tribal chieftain in
> Africa might have an enormously obese queen, but
> you watch and see if his attention doesn't linger
> with delight on the same slender teenage girl as
> yours does. The obesity may bespeak wealth,
> status, etc. It is quite possible it was not
> really seen as beautiful.

I'm not sure. I feel that simple animal horniness can mimic appreciation of female beauty... ;^)

>
> So, again, yes, I see beauty as something
> universal, that is, something transcending mere
> vagaries of cultural and individual taste, fads,
> etc.

OK. Then I think it almost has to include animal awe: something that evokes a sub-literate response almost all the time.

If we had an electroencephalograph we might see a very similar brain response in almost all fully functional humans, *except* for those with the postulated defect.

Yep, I can see this, Dale.

> Till recently there was a fad here in the
> States for tattoos. Already I think the taste for
> promiscuous tattooing is subsiding. People have
> eyes and can see that those tattoos look like
> bruises from a distance, etc. Soon enough, I
> suspect, the calf tattoo will be as much a
> giveaway of a certain fleeting period as the fad
> for naming girls with last names. The death-knell
> sounded when people began to spell these names in
> bizarre ways to try to inject into them some of
> the pizzazz they had already lost -- when
> "Madison" gave way to "Madysyn," etc. But perhaps
> I digress.

Maybe, but it's an accurate and amusing observation, Dale!

Speaking of tattoos, yeah, some of the more colorful "sleeves" on people with very fair skin look a lot like a decomposing corpse (or advanced gangrene), and it's hard to see how this could have ever evolved into something perceived as beautiful.

In college, in the 60s, in San Diego, I worked changing florescent ballasts with an old guy (in his 50s) who had a tattoo on his forearm.

Try as I might I could not make out what it was supposed to be. It was old, all run together. It looked more like a reeking pile of dog turds more than anything else. There seemed to be puffs of steam coming off if it, even.

One day I asked the guy what it was and he said: "It's the USS Wisconsin. I served on her in WWII."

I hope the present generation understands about tattoos tending to drift with age, but I suspect not, and that's because everything that's currently happening to them has never happened before in the history of humanity, so there's no point in looking to prior experiences.

Forgive me: my daughter, a recent graduate of Vassar, has been staying with us, working remotely, for about a month. I forget what it's like being a newly-minted college graduate--so sure of everything!--and these east coast small liberal arts colleges are an insular world unto themselves, it seems. Fantasyland for the privileged, who style themselves as proletariat egalitarians...

Hah! Real-world time!

>
>
> PS, Sawfish, is your quoted passage from DeLillo?
> It sounds like White Noise to me.

Naw, I don't know who DeLillo is. It's my own distorted parody of the "Tears in rain" monologue at the end of Blade Runner. Where Batty describes something like Ragnarok, with flaming starships and all, I saw it more as a series of smaller personal tragedies--the steaks catching fire at the country club, perhaps due to a few too many pina coladas, etc.

Excellent discussion, Dale. It's why I come here.

Your proposition has shaken the box sufficiently so that I really have to think about what beauty is, and I am sure I'll come away with a much better understanding!

...which I will quickly forget... :^(

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish wrote, ""beauty" in its very core definition, is the purposely vague term" --

A good definition is like a corral: it keeps inside all of the things that belong therein and keeps outside all of the things that don't belong. Thus, a definition of "beauty" or "the beautiful" might, conceivably, be a good one but seem a bit vague because it needs to be worded so as not to exclude any instance of the beautiful.

Here now I'm going to resort to Platonism. Plato would say there is the supersensible Form or Idea of The Beautiful, and there are manifestations thereof on the plane of the sensible, none of which will possess all attributes of the Beautiful. For example, to take human beauty: limpid clear blue eyes are beautiful, and warm dark eyes (what the Elizabethans I think called "black eyes") are beautiful. A given human being will not possess both. That human being may possess beautiful eyes, but those eyes, beautiful and delightful in themselves, as it were point beyond themselves to the Idea of the Beautiful.

So perhaps when you write of beautiful things as evoking awe, you could be suggesting that manifest beauty -- Sally's beautiful eyes -- participates the Form of the Beautiful, without being The Beautiful. Beautiful things we see, hear, or otherwise apprehend please, or ought to please, in themselves, but also they are disclosures of something greater. This would relate to your idea of the beautiful and spirituality.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19 Jan 21 | 01:47PM by Dale Nelson.

Interleaved...

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish wrote, ""beauty" in its very core
> definition, is the purposely vague term" --
>
> A good definition is like a corral: it keeps
> inside all of the things that belong therein and
> keeps outside all of the things that don't belong.
> Thus, a definition of "beauty" or "the beautiful"
> might, conceivably, be a good one but seem a bit
> vague because it needs to be worded so as not to
> exclude any instance of the beautiful.
>
> Here now I'm going to resort to Platonism. Plato
> would say there is the supersensible Form or Idea
> of The Beautiful,

Archetypes here?

> and there are manifestations
> thereof on the plane of the sensible, none of
> which will possess all attributes of the
> Beautiful.


> For example, to take human beauty:
> limpid clear blue eyes are beautiful, and warm
> dark eyes (what the Elizabethans I think called
> "black eyes") are beautiful. A given human being
> will not possess both. That human being may
> possess beautiful eyes, but those eyes, beautiful
> and delightful in themselves, as it were point
> beyond themselves to the Idea of the Beautiful.
>
> So perhaps when you write of beautiful things as
> evoking awe, you could be suggesting that manifest
> beauty -- Sally's beautiful eyes -- participates
> the Form of the Beautiful, without being The
> Beautiful.

This is becoming too abstruse to be meaningful, in my opinion.

> Beautiful things we see, hear, or
> otherwise apprehend please, or ought to please, in
> themselves, but also they are disclosures of
> something greater. This would relate to your idea
> of the beautiful and spirituality.

Maybe.

The first time I came up the road to Crater Lake and caught sight of the whole thing, all at once, I felt a powerful sense of awe. This is not congruent with beauty, but overlaps at a point with the truly beautiful, I suspect.

Medusa's head is sometimes described in this way, and it is an unconventional inclusion to what is commonly considered beautiful. But if you think of it, perhaps it is.

Just to show where I'm headed, to show what kind of a foul male pig I am, the very first thing I think of when hearing "beauty" is a screen actress. But surely beauty is much more than that...

Is this rendering beautiful and does it also inspire awe?

[en.wikipedia.org]

To me, both are true. Maybe it's not always necessary to have an element of awe, but that's what I'm trying to figure out now. Whether the inclusion of an element of awe is the difference between "extremely aesthetically pleasing" and "beauty"...

How about this?

[fineartamerica.com]

Where does this fit? I'm assuming we'd both agree that all three are beautiful, and I see awe as being a large component of two of them, and perhaps Nefertiti inspired a sort of awe, too, not sure.

Your thoughts?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, shall we set aside the theoretical discussion for a bit and take up the topic of the beautiful in writers of fantasy for a while?

Sure, this sounds fine.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, (re the examples cited above) how much of that beauty lies in the subject matter and how much in how it’s being depicted? The popularity of The Great Wave off Kanagawa is as much about technical artistry as it is about the subject matter itself.

Cathbad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ah, (re the examples cited above) how much of that
> beauty lies in the subject matter and how much in
> how it’s being depicted? The popularity of The
> Great Wave off Kanagawa is as much about technical
> artistry as it is about the subject matter itself.


Hmmm...

The same can be said of much of Georges Seurat's stuff.

See? This gets tough, doesn't it? What part is the intrinsic beauty of the actual image itself as separated from the admiration for the technical feat of rendering it?

This begins to lead toward the possible conclusion that naturalistic photographs portray beauty better, or at least more purely, than a graphical rendering.

Gosh...

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You two are getting into a discussion a little "advanced" for me, perhaps, but carry on!

Yeah, I guess I’d make a distinction between things that are intrinsically beautiful - a waterfall, a sunset - and a work of art. I think art is a trickier area because one role of art is to surprise you. So an artist can take a pretty mundane subject (e.g. a still life) and make something beautiful out of it.

It quickly gets weird, then...

Categories of beauty: human beauty, conceptual design beauty (as encountered in engineering in rare cases--referred to as "elegance" in the industry), aural beauty (for me, Mozart's Piano Concerto 21, 2nd movement), ad nauseam.

Gets weird, huh? :^)

By no means do I think I'm seeing this in any definitive sense, Cathbad: I'm confused as hell, I'll admit. But I don't think I'm necessarily wrong in saying that the idea of beauty is as slippery as a well-oiled Georgia hog. It's this giant patchwork tent under which a whole lotta things are trying to fit.

Any further insights are welcomed.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Totally. You know it when you see it, but trying to quantify it is a bitch.