[Rant] Fantasy - beyond the "standard" paradigm

[WayneLigon]

I'm reminded of something I've heard from both a (once) major RPG publisher as well as from a friend of mine who make a living translating fantasy books.

Paraphrased:

"There are none as opposed to change as fans of fantasy".

Basically, "if it aint Tolkien it aint fantasy!"

/M

I would think fanboys of all stripes. I read about people when Star Wars came out that would hate it simply because it was not Star Trek. (The early Star Trek vs Space 1999 arguements were breathtaking in their open hostility).

Seriously, though, you want to see a conservative group of fans? Comics fans. Nothing beats them.

 

[Odhanan]

After reading through this thread, I realized that many people here interpret fantasy rather narrowly - to be specific, to them it's only fantasy if it adhers to a pseudo-medieval paradigm (or possibly to an even more primitive technological level).

To me, that's rather close minded. Why should fantasy be limited to these genres? Why can't we admit that other varieties are fantasy, too?

(...)

And all of these are fantasy, without resembling the Forgotten Realms. Now, whether you like them is up to you - tastes differ, after all - but that doesn't change the fact that they are all valid examples of the fantasy genre, even though they might be short on knights in plate mail riding forth to slaughter orcs...

QFT. I absolutely agree.

I think the opinion depends a lot on the kind of fantasy you've been fed with. If you've been fed with Tolkien alone, for instance, you pretty much develop the idea that fantasy has to be Middle-earth like (just an example, don't bash me on it. Reminder: I am a huge fan of Tolkien like many around here).

If however you've been fed with a Weird Tales type of fantasy, you'd be more along the lines of H.P. Lovecraft meets R.E. Howard meets Fritz Leiber (Lovecraft admired Leiber greatly). The Wilderlands of High Fantasy of D&D are very much based on this type of fantasy. Same thing about Eberron which mixes the "Weird Tales" approach with the modern "Comics" outlook, as I like to call it (these two styles are in fact closely related, but the aesthetics are more or less mainstream while the blend of genres isn't).

Morality as far as I'm concerned? Just keep discovering other types of fantasy, don't exclude anything. These are all types of fantasy. Doesn't mean you have to like them, but still, you don't have to hate them just because you like another, different style.

 

[jdrakeh]

No. It's shorthand so people don't have to say "S&S+epic+dark fantasy, plus some other stuff because the existing subgenre terms are inadequate". You're welcome to try and improve on that definition, though if you say just "fantasy" as a definition then you'll prove that you are just trying for obfuscation (as if that isn't clear enough already).

Fantasy is a broad category, divided further into narrow categories, none of which are obfuscatory, but extremely specific (perhaps too specifc). All that you've done is take one of these narrow categories (Swords & Sorcery) and redefine it to mean the same thing that the broad category of 'fantasy' already means. What's the point? Why not learn the system that's already in place for describing such things?

While the genre classification system isn't perfect by any means, doing what your're doing is like the non-gamer usign the term "D&D" to refer to all RPGs. Rather than use existant definitions, you're making up new definitions willy-nilly as you go along. What's worse, you're using already existant words, attributing new and extremely vague definitions to them, and then complaining that other people have no idea what you mean.

Of course they have no idea what you mean - you're making up new definitions for words that most of the free world is already familiar with. It's no different than using the word "fork" to refer to a small, blue, fruit that grows in Borneo and then complaining when somebody thinks you're talking about an eating utensil.

 

[Odhanan]

Sub-categories of fantasy, like "dark" or "high" or "low" are nefarious for fantasy as a whole. These are, in fact, recent inventions of critics, publishers and self-righteous authors eager to create some buzz (XX, master of Dark Fantasy! XYX, best author of low fantasy evar! ...).

The more you sub-divize what is essentially a writing-style based on unconventional imagination, the more you squeeze the life out of it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Sub-categories of fantasy, like "dark" or "high" or "low" are nefarious for fantasy as a whole. These are, in fact, recent inventions of critics, publishers and self-righteous authors eager to create some buzz (XX, master of Dark Fantasy! XYX, best author of low fantasy evar! ...).

Like I said, it's not perfect, but it's commonly accepted and certainly much more useful (where classification is concerned) than taking an already existant term and completely redefining it to mean something that another already existant term means. That's totally pointless. I stand by my assertion elsewhere that this is no different than the uninformed non-gamer incorrectly using the term "D&D" to erroneously refer to all roleplaying games because they can't be bothered to learn the already established system.

Using the term "fantasy" to erroneously refer only to those works derivative of medieval Europe and the term "Swords & Sorcery" (a well and long established literary classification of fantasy) to erroneously refer to all fantasy as a whole only takes an already imperfect system and rapes it to produce an even more twisted vernacular and circular system of definition where words are stripped of nearly all meaning. You might as well be making up new words from wholecloth (indeed, that might be more productive).

Point is, when one communicates with others, it's best to use the language that they speak, rather than make up new words and new definitions of words that one doesn't like if one expects to be understood (if one doesn't care whether other people understand them, this won't matter much). If one chooses to communicate their thoughts using newly invented words and new definitions for existing words, they really have no reasonable expectation of being understood by those who don't speak their new, made-up, language.

And they don't have any grounds to complain that nobody understand them, either. Those are the breaks - if one eschews speaking English for speaking a made-up language of their own design, chances are, people will have no idea what the hell they're on about.

 

[Odhanan]

I'm sure classifications are useful as far as classifications are concerned. But I wasn't trying to justify or validate rounser's point, nor was I trying to contradict yours.

I was just thinking aloud, on another degree, about the nature of fantasy an how artificial categories and sub-categories within it in fact destroy its very purpose. These categories and sub-categories are artificial no matter where they are coming from, who came up with them and when because they are in contradiction with the imaginative nature of Fantasy.

 

[Umbran]

(Lovecraft admired Leiber greatly).

You might want to reverse that. The first published work of Leiber's I can find is 1939. Lovecraft had died in 1937.

Now, if anyone would be engaging in literary criticism from beyond the grave, it would be Lovecraft, but still...

 

[Elf Witch]

Sub-categories of fantasy, like "dark" or "high" or "low" are nefarious for fantasy as a whole. These are, in fact, recent inventions of critics, publishers and self-righteous authors eager to create some buzz (XX, master of Dark Fantasy! XYX, best author of low fantasy evar! ...).

The more you sub-divize what is essentially a writing-style based on unconventional imagination, the more you squeeze the life out of it.

They are not that recent. We were using those terms way back in 1985 almost 20 years ago.

This reminds of the nasty debates that were going on back in the early and mid 80s about so many horror stories being nominated for awards in fantasy catergories or the purist SF fans saying that fantasy has no place either in the Nebulla's or the Hugo awards.

 

[Mallus]

I was just thinking aloud, on another degree, about the nature of fantasy an how artificial categories and sub-categories within it in fact destroy its very purpose.

I'm also thinking out loud...

Doesn't your statement assume that fantasy has a single purpose? I think that's demonstrably false. Elements of the fantastic have been used for widely varying purposes, and agendas. And its because of this that some kind of classification system is needed when discussing the specific works.

How does a person go about discussing authors so disparate as Tolkien, Lewis, Garcia-Marquez, Kafka, Angela Carter, Burroughs, and Moorcock without some kind of framework.

It would be like a discussion of tools that didn't acknowledge that some are used for different tasks...

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm sure classifications are useful as far as classifications are concerned. But I wasn't trying to justify or validate rounser's point, nor was I trying to contradict yours.

I was just thinking aloud, on another degree, about the nature of fantasy an how artificial categories and sub-categories within it in fact destroy its very purpose. These categories and sub-categories are artificial no matter where they are coming from, who came up with them and when.

They take away a sense of wonder sure, but that's not what genre classification is about, so it's hardly detrimental. Genre classification is about providing concise definitions for different works of entertainment. Point is, all classification are artifical but they're also necessary. This is why, despite the fact that many of them hate genre classification, professional authors and publishing houses continue to work within its established boundaries.

If, one day, knowing where to group books in the libraries, book stores, catalogues, and archives of the world and conveying these locations to others suddenly didn't matter a whit, then sure - there would be no problem with doing as rounser has done. Choosing to ignore the long-standing system of classification, making up a new one based upon whatever a given indiviudal finds appealing, wouldn't cause any problems. In our world, of course, this would cause a massive communitcations breakdown (as have rounser's posts on this thread and Warlor'ds on the other).

Recall the Monty Python 'bookstore' sketch - same deal. A guy comes in and asks for a bunch of books by authors who don't exist, because he's misspelling their names. Imagine, if you will, rounser going into a bookstore and asking for a fantasy novel - the clerk would, unless he knew rounser's own personal tatses by heart, have no clue what rounser was asking for. Instead, the clerk would hand him a book filed under the commonly accepted definition of the word fantasy. In a world without genre clasification, the clerk might have his own ideas about what constitutes "fantasy" and, for all rounser knows, the clerk's idea of "fantasy" may only include Gorean bondage novels.

We have classification systems for a reason - they provide a standardized method of identification and subsequent context for discussing certain subjects. Those who deviate from the standard have no expectation to be understood or taken seriously. They're making up their own language and only they know it - to everybody else, it's complete gibberish. I agree that that the current system of genre classification is flawed, but it's also necessary until something better comes along (and a non-system of personal definitions and nonsense words is not better).