[NYT] The hunger for fantasy

[Wolfen Priest]

Popular SF/fantasy series recently have included:

Buffy the Vampire Slayer (a female protagonist and many other females in the cast, with strong and difficult sexual themes in the storytelling)
Angel (male lead, strong females in the cast, some difficult sexual themes)
X-Files (male and female adult leads, sexual tension present but not usually remarked on)
Xena (two female adult leads, fairly cheesy sexual tension dripping from every orifice)
Sabrina the teenage witch (icky! female lead; I've no idea about sexual themes.)
Charmed (female leads; sexual themes)
Dark Angel (female lead; dunno about the themes)
Four Star Trek shows (three with male adult leads, all with strong females in the cast; sexual themes present but not primary)

I wouldn't doubt that the shows you mentioned are popular; however, I think they exist (at least somewhat) outside the "genre" the article author is trying to examine.

For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a viewing audience way beyond that of your typical fantasy fan. Angel, X-files, Charmed, Dark Angel, and even (although perhaps to a lesser extent) Star Trek appeal to a different type of audience than your average "fantasy person." Xena, of course, is pretty raw fantasy, although for a while it seemed to have a kind of college 'campy' value to it, if only for it's "I am woman, hear me roar" kind of appeal.

My sister and her husband watched X-files religiously for years; and you can trust me when I say they have no interest whatsoever in the 'fantasy' genre (although I know that technically, it is fantasy.

Shows like Buffy, Sabrina, and Dark Angel appeal to either (a) the horny male looking to 'get a glimpse' of a hot chick, and/or (b) your typical teen-age female bored TV viewer....

Just an opinion.

 

[Pielorinho]

Wolfen, doesn't that become circular reasoning?

1) Fantasy fiction consists of young innocent males in a world of black-and-white morality.
2) Fantasy fiction appeals mainly to male teenage geeks and nerds.
3) Any fantasy fiction that's enjoyed by any other audience is obviously not fantasy fiction.

If his whole point is that a certain subgenre of f/sf appeals mainly to teenage males, I certainly won't argue with him. But that's not what he says: he acts as if he's describing most fantasy/sf, and I don't think he is.

Keep in mind, too, that lots of sf is mainstream now; in fact, that's one of the points of his essay. Plenty of non-sf geeks go to see Star Wars. He could have made a very valid point that its' one particular strain of SF that's making it mainstream Hollywood, ignoring some of the more morally and sexually complex SF being written, filmed, etc. But that's, unfortunately, not what he said.

Daniel

 

[Darraketh]

As someone who writes for a newspaper, I can tell you that most of the time the writer is writing from the outside looking in. It's very difficult at any newspaper to find someone to assign a story to who already is familiar with the subject matter.

Excellent point!

Generally all news is the ignorant reporting on the informed.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Wolfen, doesn't that become circular reasoning?

1) Fantasy fiction consists of young innocent males in a world of black-and-white morality.
2) Fantasy fiction appeals mainly to male teenage geeks and nerds.
3) Any fantasy fiction that's enjoyed by any other audience is obviously not fantasy fiction.

That's a good point, and well taken.

However, I guess I could more clearly state my point in that I consider myself a 'fantasy guy' (although quite honestly I'm not the typical geek), and I have no interest in any of the shows you mentioned, other than Xena, and to a lesser extent Star Trek.

I'm not trying to insinuate that something is only fanasy if it appeals to geeks. I mean, Anime might draw in a lot of geek-fans, but it's still, by and large, not quite fantasy...

Same thing with Star Trek. X-files and Dark Angel just don't have the same 'fantasy' resonance as say, the movies Willow or Conan.

I do agree, though, that Comic books also do not fall neatly into the fantasy genre. I just think 'fantasy' is a very specific category. Of course, the author of the article could still be spewing bunk.

 

[Pielorinho]

Wolfen, check out Le Guin's essay on the dangers of genres; I think it applies very well here.

Definitely Willow and Conan are one type of fantasy, but I think the term is useful to refer to a wide variety of fiction, ranging from Frankenstein to Buffy to Like Water for Chocolate to Conan. And it's commonly used to refer to all these types of works.

Sure, you can subclassify:
Frankenstein=horror fantasy
Buffy=modern-day fantasy
Like Water for Chocolate=Magical Realism
Conan=sword-and-sorcery fantasy

But they do all fall under the "fantasy" rubric.

Heck. I consider myself a total fantasy fanboy: almost everything I read, sadly, falls into the genre. But I hate Conan, and I think Willow is overrated*. And don't even get me started on Robert Jordan. They're just not to my taste.

On a similar note, have you ever checked out the Year's Best Fantasy and Horror anthologies? They're fantastic (pardon the pun), and they include everything that could conceivably be considered fantasy. It's part of why I love these anthologies so much: not only are the stories uniformly excellent, but they also cover a wide range of styles, ranging from gritty sword& sorcery to lyrical poetic magical realism.

And each year they have a summation of the previous year's work in fantasy and horror both in written works and in the mass media, which are much, much more informative and interesting than AO Scott's trite, imprecise observations.

Daniel

*Willow the Movie, that is. Not Willow the Witch. Willow the Witch is a nummy treat.