The current state of fantasy literature

[Desdichado]

Am I the only person here who enjoys intellectual stimulation and is intellectually stimulated by enjoyable things?

Thought so. Drat.

Depends on what you mean by intellectual stimulation. The kind of academia that RiggsWolfe is talking about, in my opinion, isn't very intellectually stimulating. I don't think it's intellectually stimulating to try and come across like a snob.

 

[takyris]

First off, a science fiction writing group? Sounds interesting. Was it a school thing or more informal.

Informal. Bunch of unpublished and new-pro folks, most of us Clarion graduates (Clarion: Intense 6-week SF/F writing workshop in Seattle/Michigan every summer. Great for the SF writer who wants a good quality workshop run by actual SF writers and aimed at actual SF writers.). It was great in that you could write an alien-mutation-monster-as-metaphor-for-breakup story and have it taken seriously, but less great in that SF writers have their own kind of snobbishness. In the writing geek arena, Hard SF writers are cooler than Social SF writers are cooler than historically accurate fantasy writers are cooler than epic fantasy writers are cooler than space opera writers, and modern-day fantasy (like Charles de Lint) writers are these magic realism snobs who act all literary.

I was writing about swords and elves and stuff. I got a lot of responses like "Well, this is less ambitious than your complex-metaphor-for-complex-scientific-idea story, but for what it is, it's pretty good," which, really, is a really awful kind of praise. Not saying that this was endemic to all groups -- it was really just a couple people -- but still led me in a "writing stuff I wouldn't read" direction.

Second, about the "heavy stuff" , sounds like a Philip K Dick novel to me.

Yep. Science fiction with a strong literary presence.

A space opera retelling of MacBeth? You making this one up or is it some movie I didn't see past the obvious on? MacBeth is an interesting play. I kept hoping for him to redeem himself. Oh well. I miss when Kenneth Brannagh was going through his Shakespeare days.

Totally made it up. But it would be cool, no?

I love Strange Brew. A bit warped, but I love it. I have to admit, it has been years, over a decade since I've seen it.

My senior English project was an examination of Strange Brew as a retelling of Hamlet with Bob & Doug McKenzie as Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. I eventually went with Hosehead as Fortinbras, and Hosehead's ability to fly allowed him to reach the finale in time to prevent the deaths by poisoning.

These Stuffy people were who I was speaking of in my original theory about the two camps of readers. I wish I'd never put the phrase "Intellectual stimulation" in there. Oh well. I know what you mean. I remember getting so irritated with various English professors. They'd want me to analyze some story or play and I was the guy who'd raise his hand and go "isn't it enough to just enjoy it?" Not that I couldn't , or in some cases, didn't analyze it. It's that I didn't want to lose sight of just enjoying the book/play/whatever. Though I will admit to once writing a huge essay on the mythos behind Star Wars. I even went so far as to analyze color schemes!

Well. see, I agree and I don't. I agree because it's possible to deconstruct something to the point where it's no longer enjoyable, and if you're not taking the emotion into account, you're not really capturing it at all well -- so you had lousy teachers.

But in an English class, I do think it's important to break stuff down. Coming at things with a fuller understanding of the subject matter and the metaphors being used can make the experience more enjoyable (and if understanding more about it doesn't make it more enjoyable, then you shouldn't be in an English class to begin with; I don't get more out of a painting by understanding more of what the author was trying to do. It just doesn't impress me any more than seeing the painting on my own. Therefore, I don't take Art classes.).

Does Will Smith have to cut off Clancy Brown's head to win?

You know, you try to make a modern-day fantasy movie, and it just naturally turns into Highlander.

You sound like me when I talk about fantasy/sci-fi/comic book movies. Heh. Someone has to understand it, and appreciate it before they can make a good movie out of it.

Right. If we heard a director say, "Well, I didn't read any of the back issues of this comic. I just know the basics, but I really enjoy it, so now I'm going to make a movie that really just has fun with it," we all know that the movie is going to be a train wreck for people who liked the original comic storyline or concept. The comic-adaptation movies that have been successful have been the ones that have demonstrated an understanding of the source material.

Thus, an understanding on the part of the writer can lead to a more enjoyable movie. And an understanding of all kinds of X-Men trivia certainly led to a more enjoyable experience of the second X-Men movie for me -- catching the Easter Eggs, seeing where we were going with the Phoenix saga... If I hadn't studied, I wouldn't have known that.

The key is to study things you like, and to find people who can make the study interesting.

But really, a good novel should work on both levels. As deep as you want to go with it if you're in that frame of mind, but a good compelling story even if you're a blank slate.

 

[Spatula]

I didn't get that far to find all the 'isms that are attributed to it. But there was nothing in there as bad as the writing in Spellfire. Worst Book Of Any Genre Ever!

Spellfire is one of the few books that I started and never finished. I refuse to ever touch another Ed Greenwood novel.

 

[Spatula]

"there haven't been any really great standalone fantasy novels recently"

Perdido Street Station is a great standalone fantasy novel.

It's not a heroic fantasy novel, though, so it won't appeal to a lot of fantasy readers...

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Informal. Bunch of unpublished and new-pro folks, most of us Clarion graduates (Clarion: Intense 6-week SF/F writing workshop in Seattle/Michigan every summer. Great for the SF writer who wants a good quality workshop run by actual SF writers and aimed at actual SF writers.). It was great in that you could write an alien-mutation-monster-as-metaphor-for-breakup story and have it taken seriously, but less great in that SF writers have their own kind of snobbishness. In the writing geek arena, Hard SF writers are cooler than Social SF writers are cooler than historically accurate fantasy writers are cooler than epic fantasy writers are cooler than space opera writers, and modern-day fantasy (like Charles de Lint) writers are these magic realism snobs who act all literary.

Sounds good other than that little group you described. Oh and that be a thousand miles or so from me. Heh. Too bad.

I was writing about swords and elves and stuff. I got a lot of responses like "Well, this is less ambitious than your complex-metaphor-for-complex-scientific-idea story, but for what it is, it's pretty good," which, really, is a really awful kind of praise. Not saying that this was endemic to all groups -- it was really just a couple people -- but still led me in a "writing stuff I wouldn't read" direction.

Best advice I ever got was to write stuff I enjoyed. Second best was to make my old story and not try to retell someone else's story. That was during my "See, it's Stand By Me, crossed with Lord of the Rings. " phase.

Totally made it up. But it would be cool, no?



My senior English project was an examination of Strange Brew as a retelling of Hamlet with Bob & Doug McKenzie as Rosencrantz & Guildenstern. I eventually went with Hosehead as Fortinbras, and Hosehead's ability to fly allowed him to reach the finale in time to prevent the deaths by poisoning.

Yep, MacBeth as a space opera would be cool. For a brief minute I was thinking of Star Wars when you said and trying to shoehorn Anakin into MacBeth's place. Wouldn't work though.

As for Strange Brew, as I said, it's been over a decade. I'd have to watch it and reread Hamlet before I made any comments.

Well. see, I agree and I don't. I agree because it's possible to deconstruct something to the point where it's no longer enjoyable, and if you're not taking the emotion into account, you're not really capturing it at all well -- so you had lousy teachers.

But in an English class, I do think it's important to break stuff down. Coming at things with a fuller understanding of the subject matter and the metaphors being used can make the experience more enjoyable (and if understanding more about it doesn't make it more enjoyable, then you shouldn't be in an English class to begin with; I don't get more out of a painting by understanding more of what the author was trying to do. It just doesn't impress me any more than seeing the painting on my own. Therefore, I don't take Art classes.).

I think with me it depends on how its presented to me. For instance, we deconstructed The Importance of Being Earnest and I really enjoyed it. We then took an early 20th Century Novel and tried to deconstruct it. I guess my feelings are sort of like Tolkien's. Remember the interview where he said he hated metaphors in novels and that no, Lord of the Rings was just a story, it wasn't supposed to be World War 2 or what have you? See my feeling is that sure, sometimes a writer sets out to put alot of symbology in his novel (or a filmmaker in a movie) but sometimes they just set out to write a story. The feeling I got from some of these professors is they believed you could pick up any novel and find some symbolism in it. To me it felt more like a psychology class than a literature class.

You know, you try to make a modern-day fantasy movie, and it just naturally turns into Highlander.

Sorry, it was just something about the image of a sword fight involving Clancy Brown and a mystical power at stake that caused it.

Right. If we heard a director say, "Well, I didn't read any of the back issues of this comic. I just know the basics, but I really enjoy it, so now I'm going to make a movie that really just has fun with it," we all know that the movie is going to be a train wreck for people who liked the original comic storyline or concept. The comic-adaptation movies that have been successful have been the ones that have demonstrated an understanding of the source material.

Agreed. I'd say X-Men is perhaps the exception since it is my understanding that Bryan Singer knew little to nothing about X-Men before he set out to direct it. I think what saved things was he decided to be respectful to the material and the fans.

Thus, an understanding on the part of the writer can lead to a more enjoyable movie. And an understanding of all kinds of X-Men trivia certainly led to a more enjoyable experience of the second X-Men movie for me -- catching the Easter Eggs, seeing where we were going with the Phoenix saga... If I hadn't studied, I wouldn't have known that.

I loved XMen 2 for that. I was practically bouncing in my seat at certain times. Here's hoping they make a 3 and follow up on the clues given in 2.

The key is to study things you like, and to find people who can make the study interesting.

But really, a good novel should work on both levels. As deep as you want to go with it if you're in that frame of mind, but a good compelling story even if you're a blank slate.

I do. That's why I'm one semester from graduating in Computer Science. Though as I said in an earlier response, I am feeling urges to write again. Even if only to get those ideas out of my head.

 

[barsoomcore]

And WHY is it (King's writing compared with Borges) inferior? What specifically about it is inferior?

Borges' language, the richness of his prose alone is enough to set him above King. His stories move faster and carry greater wallops than King's He's more consistently good -- with King you never know, sometimes it's Salem's Lot, sometimes it's The Tommyknockers. And Borges is philosophically more interesting, more sophisticated. He's trying to talk about more complicated things than King is.

If you're interested in reading more about Borges' writing, the Internet Public Library has some good articles and web pages about him. I'm not myself a very good critic.

I said that that implication can be drawn, depending on the tone of the person who is involved in the discussion. I think for instance, that the writer of that Website is one of these elitists I speak of, and I think he does imply that those who like the types of fiction he mentions are somehow inferior.

Well, if that's what you meant, then sure -- tone can carry all kinds of implications. I have no objection to that -- only to the suggestion that statements of taste necessarily carry implications of personal worth. If you weren't saying that, then my apologies.

However, if I say, for instance, Star Trek is an inferior form of entertainment, I can gurantee you some people will be offended, and part of that offense, will be that they will feel I am implying they don't know good entertainment when they see it.

This is exactly what I'm saying. THEY WILL FEEL you are implying. That doesn't mean you ARE implying it -- just that some people get defensive when their opinions are challenged -- or even when they are confronted with someone who doesn't share their opinions, regardless of any attempted challenge.

If I say The Fifth Sorceress sucks, I'm not challenging the opinion of some guy who thinks it's awesome. I'm only stating my opinion. If I say, "I think you're wrong and here's why..." THEN I'm challenging his opinion.

And challenging someone's opinion carries no built-in implications of personal worth, either. To attack someone's opinions is not to attack them. That people are sometimes unable to make that distinction doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Throwing the word Ergo in there does not make it logical analysis.

Correct! The fact that it's a logical analysis is what makes it, er, logical analysis. The fact that it's an analysis proceeding on logical grounds, that is. It's a pretty straightforward reductio ad absurdum. There's a pretty straightforward page on the concept here.

You are trying to make this sound like:

My argument is

If A then Not B
(If you are reading for enjoyment you are not reading for intellectual stimulation.)

However, what I really said was

There are generally two types of people:
A and B.
A is the one who reads for fun
B is the one we've come to term the snob.

I believe the website writer falls into the B column. I don't believe it's impossible to be both and never said I do. I said in general this is what you have.

Okay, I'm not trying to insist you stick to what you said. Or, in fact, I was -- I was applying basic logic to your initially stated position. I can accept that we sometimes (even often) post statements that maybe weren't letter-perfect in all their possible implications. So if we can find agreement on this issue I'm all for that.

By and large you seem to want to draw a distinction between people who read for fun and snobs, saying that these are "generally" (there's that word again, making trouble) how people are divided. We must take from this that you believe most people who read for fun are NOT snobs, and vice versa, otherwise the statement "generally two types of people" doesn't make sense. But then you say you don't believe it's impossible to be both. Okay, so some few snobs read for fun and some few people who read for fun are snobs.

Do you see how removing the generalities from your statements immediately makes this whole issue much clearer? The fact that you want to use categories that aren't absolute doesn't mean you have to use generalities -- you can be specific about the idea that there exist groups of people that don't include all people.

But there's still a flaw (actually, it's the same flaw, just now with new terminology) in your position.

Given that "snob" is an insulting term, meaning, more or less, "People who think they're better than others because of their tastes, or think other people are inferior because of THEIR tastes," and that when we insult someone we are saying that they are inferior, saying that "Some people read for fun and other people are snobs" is in fact a snobbish statement. You are saying you think people who read for fun are better than other people, if for no other reason than that they are less likely to be snobs.

Okay, that's not so much a flaw as a potentially inadverdant conclusion to what you've stated as your own position. I suspect you don't think of yourself as a snob, and yet if your statements are true, then you must be one.

I am NOT calling you a snob. I am drawing attention to the fact that the statements you are making are snobbish ones -- I don't know you at all, and I have no desire to insult you whatsoever. But this is a great example of how generalizations get us into trouble.

I think what you're trying to get at is that you've met a lot of snobs who look down on people who read only for fun, and they piss you off. Which is an observation I have no complaint against, only to offer up my own anecdotal evidence that people who decry literary analysis are every bit as likely to be snobbish as those who analyze every text they come across. But neither type of snob pisses me off, because I understand that snobs are insecure about their intelligence and need to demonstrate superiority in order to feel good about themselves.

So there we are, with two data points and no generalizations to be drawn. Now we can talk about it.

you only quoted part of my reply and part of what I was replying to.

My apologies. It was sincerely not my intention to misrepresent you -- I honestly misunderstood your point. I know you felt it was blatantly obvious but I assure it was not to me and no offense or misrepresentation was meant.

I take these sorts of debates very seriously (talk about blatantly obvious) and it's very important to me that when I address someone's statements that I do so accurately -- I would take no joy in continuing a debate under some sort of inconsistent analysis. Again, I apologise. It was my error.

Can you prove it IS true?

Yes, indeed I can, but it's a pretty long and involved sort of proof. Or at least it would take me a long time to write because you know, big words are kinda hard for me. This very thread, at least, provides very strong evidence (not the same as a proof, but still). We have had an extremely long, involved debate only because you have tried to make a simple generalization and I have been asking you to clarify it. If you hadn't made the generalization but had instead made an observation about specific people you know, we'd be much further along in this conversation.

We might possibly be having LESS fun, I'll admit.

If you really want an analysis of generalizations, let's take it offline. Email me and we can continue the discussion. Believe me, I'd be thrilled to find somebody who found these sorts of discussions as interesting as I do.

And I suspect there's a whole raft of ENWorlders who would be relieved to have me shut up for once.

Your statement, again, to use politics as a metaphor, is like saying that because a moderate exists it is useless to talk about people's politics in terms of Liberal and Conservative.

Exactly! It IS useless! Though not BECAUSE moderates exist but because everyone is a moderate on some issues, and some people are extreme on some issues. What do you need to know about someone's politics? You need to know how they will vote on a given issue. You need to know how EACH person will vote. This is why generalizations are useless -- they won't give you accurate information when you need to make a decision. And inevitably they will lead you to the wrong decision at some point. Whenever you need to make a decision, you will ALWAYS be better served by facts rather than generalizations.

It may be FUN to talk about people's politics in terms of Liberal and Conservative. It may be EASY. But it's USELESS. Well, okay, fun is a use. I'll give you that one. Generalizations are useful for entertainment purposes only.

Now, for financial reasons most democracies run their governments by organizing into parties that can share resources and agree to get along together in order to acquire more power. That's a local reality of the political sphere that has nothing to do with artistic appreciation.

The fact that, for example, my home province of British Columbia has a Liberal goverment doesn't make the generalization that "most BC'ers are Liberals" any more true or useful than it ever was -- when we meet someone from BC, we still need to find out what their individual political convictions are. Assuming we care.

What kinds of logical distinctions would you make?

Lots. Make distinctions between ideas and people. Ideas can be good or bad -- but that has nothing to do with the worth of the people holding those ideas. Distinguish between objective and subjective statements -- that will save you a lot of grief. Distinguish between correct and appealing. Distinguish between different kinds of logical errors.

There's lots of logical distinctions that make thinking easier. There are entire BOOKS on this very subject -- just go Amazon, type in "logic" and see what search results you get. The use of generalizations is not, however, one that makes thinking easier. I'm happy to discuss this with you in more detail but I think we're beginning to tread on a massive circular debate that I would rather spare the other readers of this thread.

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, and I truly hope that this is coming off as what it is for me -- an entertaining excursion into logical analysis and "types" of people.

There are snobs in every "taste bracket" -- learning how to recognize them and not be bothered by their need to feel superior really helps get to the point of critical debates.

And I just want to point out how this all got started. You drew a distinction between people who read for fun and people who read for intellectual stimulation and I said that was a false distinction. It seems like, at least, we agree on that (even if that's not what you said or what you meant, I THINK you agree that it's true).

 

[takyris]

But neither type of snob pisses me off, because I understand that snobs are insecure about their intelligence and need to demonstrate superiority in order to feel good about themselves.

Awesome.

I finally figured out how to not lose my temper around snobs (either the academic snobs or the geek snobs, both of which have a goodly number of card-carrying members) when I realized that these were the people who got picked on in the fifth grade by the bigger popular kids, and they had to stand there with pudding in their hair and their favorite bouncy-ball deflating at their feet because some popular kid popped it, and all the while, the poor little kid was thinking, "Someday I'm going to have a position of power in some area, somewhere, and I will never let anyone take that away from me."

Realizing how truly that image applied to so many members of my English department was one of the reasons I escaped after getting the MA instead of trying for the long haul. Lotta geeks clutching at their academic power and really insecure about it. Not all, not by any stretch, but a lot -- and they tend to be louder. And the same holds true in a geek chatroom (uh, again, geek is not a perjorative in my personal vocabulary, given that I outscored all my buddies on that online "Percentage Nerd" test). There are a lot of people who have finally found a position of power -- they are respected for their knowledge of anime, roleplaying game rules, or the intricacies of conjugating Elven verbs in the second declension. And after years of being picked on, they are going to defend their newfound power with a vindictive zeal that many tyrannical third-world despots could learn from.

A snob is a snob is a snob. The only difference is which imaginary playground they're defending.

 

[barsoomcore]

I realized that these were the people who got picked on in the fifth grade by the bigger popular kids, and they had to stand there with pudding in their hair and their favorite bouncy-ball deflating at their feet because some popular kid popped it, and all the while, the poor little kid was thinking, "Someday I'm going to have a position of power in some area, somewhere, and I will never let anyone take that away from me."

I know because I was that little kid, too. And I was a snob, too.

Probably still am, really. That's how these things go: you think you're doing so well and then somebody taps you on the shoulder and says, "Um, you know those clowns you're always denigrating? Uh, you'd be one of those clowns yourself, pal."

And let's of course realise that the bigger kids doing the picking were just carrying out their own feelings of inadequacy, probably going home to angry fathers who smacked them or disapproving mothers who kept telling them what losers they were, so that in order to feel powerful (I'm seeing a trend, here) they had to have SOMEBODY to push around.

Stephen King has a great quote about this topic in relation to fantasy literature (and he brings it back on topic! Is there anything this guy can't do?) --

"Great stories are about people finding power or losing power. Mediocre stories are about people wielding power."

Power fantasies (of which our favourite genre has easily its share) are about the wielding of power. We like reading them because they give us the vicarious sense of having power ourselves. Nothing wrong with that, unless we're using that as a substitute for finding power in our own lives. Then it can become an interference in our own personal growth, just like beating up skinny kids at recess, or flaunting one's 1337 Unix skillz.

But stories about finding or losing power (at which our favourite genre also excels) are about the impact power has on the person. What happens when you become king? Or when your inheritance is stolen away from you? Or maybe something more interesting that I can't think of right now because it's Sunday morning and I'm at work?

Somebody else (I got this from Mrs. Barsoom, who got from some source that I can't currently recall) said that while science fiction is always about society and examining the impact of social developments, fantasy is always about power and its impact on individuals. It's a provocative idea, though I haven't put much thinking into it. Just throwing it out there for the ENWorld masses.

So tacky, how about the novel? Gaining power? Losing power? Wielding power?

 

[jester47]

BC, thats a good point.

The Hobbit (as it stands after the changes made to fit with LotR, but even before that) is about finding power. As is The Last Unicorn. I have posted here before that one of the essential elements of a hero is his ability to relinquish power when he no longer needs it, be this by the ways of destiny or his own free will. Oftentimes power is contained within some magic dodad, and thus we have the disolving sword of beowulf, Saurons ring, the ring of Gyges, Excalibur, etc. When the hero does not relinquish his power he becomes the villian. Thus we have Gollum, King Haggard, Sauron, Vader, Elric etc. In fact it is one of the key differences between Elric and Corum. Corum gives up his power, where Elric refuses to and is consumed by it.

But yeah, Steve aint no fool, and he is a great writier when he is writing somthing he wants to write rather than when he feels he needs to come up with somthing.

Aaron.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I think you may have something there with the idea that fantasy is about the relation of power to individuals, but science fiction isn't necessarily about society. I'd say it's an examination of the way individuals live in environments fundamentally different from our own - not only physical environments, but social and technological as well.

Fiction examines the lives of characters placed in a set of environments that exist, while science fiction examines potential sets.