Understanding Goat's Law [BLOATED]

[Aberforths Goat / Mike Gray]

Hiya Guys,

* * * * *

I wrote this at work yesterday but I wasn't able to send it for some
reason. Anyway ...

* * * * * 

I wanted to pick up on the distinction between primary and secondary
reality. I think this kind of discussion tends to get muddled because
we're actually dealing with several different kinds of differences:

Namely, Differece 1: By "primary world" Tolkien means the world *we*
live in, or perhaps more acurately our world, as the author perceives
it. (An author who actually believed in faeries and wanted to write
fantasy would have had to write about something *more* than faeries, for
the work to "count" as fantasy. The Left Behind books make this
distinction very papable.) By "secondary world" Tolkien means the world
created by the mythopoeic author.  

Difference 2: The secondary/primary differentiation should be contrasted
with that between the "natural world" and the "supernatural world" -
which is a different kind of distinction. This distinction begins in out
world, based on the things which we perceive as naturally possible
(falling out of a window and luckily landing on a trampoline) and the
things we perceive as non-natural (falling out of a window and
bouncing). The author's perception of the difference between these two
in her own world, combined with her decision to create a secondary world
in which the relationship is in some way different, lies at the base of
all fantasy fiction. (By the definition of fantasy that I'm using,
anyway. It's not the only one.) 

However, there is also Difference 3: In many (though not all!) fantasy
stories there is *also* a distinction between what I would call the
"outer world" and the "inner world." For example, in the Narnia books
there is the outer world on out side of the wardrobe and the inner world
of Narnia (beside all the other puddles in the sleepy forest). Or in the
Potterverse there is the "muggle world" and the "wizarding world." 

At first glance you might want to say that the "outer" and "innner"
worlds are the same as the "primary" and "secondary" worlds - however,
that is not the case. While the Dursley's appears more similar to our
world than Dumbledore's world, it isn't the same, since the Dursley's
world is part of a larger reality including Hogwarts and Voldie. The
outer world in fantasy fiction is an incomplete world, with the
potential of completion through the discovery of the inner, magical
world.

(I think almost all fantasy ficiton has something of this sort, because
almost - though, I think, not quite - all fantasy fiction recounts a
characters journey of discovery from an outer world into an inner world.
But in some forms it is much stronger. For example in Tolkien's books
you could call the Shire the outer world, everwhere else the inner
world. Bilbo's journey makes this distinction clearly. In the later LotR
books, it is more difficult to maintain.)

At second glance you might want to question the distinction between
natural/supernatural and inner/outer - but I think it's important to
maintain it. The supernatural/natural distinction begins with the
author's perception of our reality, or the primary world. OTOH, the
inner/outer distinction begins in the characters' perception of their
secondary world. However, the two are related, since the the author's
natural/supernatural distinction is, generally, closely tied to the way
she delineates the story's outer/inner distinction - and in turn, the
outer/inner distinction often suggests things about the way the reader
should rethink his understanding of the natural and supernatural in our
world. 

Difference 4: Finally, I think JKR (like many other fantasy fiction
authors) introduces yet another distinction that grows out of her
perception of our own world. This time it's between a "lower
supernatural" (say, falling out of a window and bouncing) and a "true
supernatural" (things like love, vulnerability, forgiveness - or
whatever *you* find inside the locked room). And whereas the lower
supernatural things are limited to her secondary, inner world (i.e. the
wizarding world), the higher supernatural things can be found (and lost)
in all worlds. Put otherwise: she holds the "higher" supernatural things
to be as much present in our own "unmagical" reality as in the magical
reality of Hogwarts - and this higher/lower distinction ultimately
relativizes (i.e. places within a broader context) the differences
between her primary and secondary worlds. 

Granted the definition of "supernatural" as "falling out of a window and
bouncing," I think she might want to add (to paraphrase 1 Corinthinans
13), "But though I falleth out of windows and bounceth, and have not
charity, I am become as a bouncing nincompoop, not a supernatural
Wunderkind." The higher supernatural thing, if I have her right, would
be more along the lines of "falling out of a window because you really
cared about someone and were selflessly blundering about trying to help
- and guess what, even though you made a complete fool of yourself, you
helped at a completely different level that was more important than just
having the smooth moves." 

At any rate, in Rowling's world, this final distinction between lower
and higher is (by my reading) of a moral existential nature. Pinpointing
the nature of an author's understanding of difference 4 is important to
understanding the relgious/moral/philosophical/etc. implications of the
books. 

* * * * * 

I'm not saying that these distinctions are equally present (let alone
consciously thought out!) in all fantasy fiction - but I think they're
pretty common. 

Moreover, it's the presence of all this complex thinking in categories
like natural/supernatural, real/unrreal, possible/impossible, and
bad/neutral/good that leads me to think that most successful authors of
fantasy are people who care deeply about religious questions - since
religious faith is *also* intrinsically connected to these kinds of
questions. On these grounds I think that people who write fantasy tend
to be interested in religious questions in about the same way that
people who write historical fiction tend to be interested in history.

* * * * *

And finally, for what it's worth, I think Goat's Law applies most
strongly to authors whose understanding of the supernatural/natural &
lower/higher relationships in our primary world is informed by an active
religious orientation. In this case they are unlikely to depict
*positive* religious practice anywhere in the secondary world - but
particularly not within the secondary world's "inner" reality. 

Vive la difference!

But no baaaaa, since I'm at work,

Mike (who hopes that this hasn't confused anyone else anywhere near as
badly as it has confused him.)