[Rant] Fantasy - beyond the "standard" paradigm

You might want to reverse that. The first published work of Leiber's I can find is 1939. Lovecraft had died in 1937.
No. It actually was a mutual feeling. Lovecraft admired the writings of Leiber he found provocative and insightful if still a bit raw, and Leiber was a huge admirer of Lovecraft obviously. There was a remarkable correspondance between Leiber and Lovecraft, during the later part of his life, of course.

From this letter from March 1937 found at his desk after he was taken to the hospital (where he would die) you can read HPL writing: Young Fritz (twenty-five, a University of Chicago graduate, and entering his father's profession) has one of the keenest minds I have ever encountered, and in the interval since last November has become one of the star correspondents on my desperately crowded list. His understanding of the profound emotions behind the groping for cosmic concepts surpasses that of almost anyone else with whom I've discussed the matter ; and his own tales and poems, while not without marks of the beginner, shew infinite insight and promise. Papa's genius certainly reached the second generation in this case — for whether or not Fritz Jun. equals his sire on the boards, he'll certainly get somewhere in literature if he keeps on at his present rate.

(...)

There will shortly be circulated among the gang (you can be on the list if you like) a remarkable unpublished novelette by young Leiber — Adept's Gambit, rejected by Wright and now under revision according to my suggestions. It is a very brilliant piece of fantastic imagination — with suggestions of Cabell, Beckford, Dunsany, and even Two-Gun Bob — and ought to see publication some day. Being wholly out of the cheap tradesman tradition, it has small chance of early magazine placement — hence the idea of circulation amongst the members of the circle. This novelette is part of a very unusual myth-cycle spontaneously evolved in the correspondence of young Leiber and his closest friend — Harry 0. Fischer of lately-inundated Louisville. Fischer has also come within my congested epistolary circle, and is in some ways even more remarkable than Leiber — he has more imaginative fertility, though less concentrated emotional power and philosophic insight. Their myth-cycle, originally started by Fischer, involves my own pantheon of Yog-Sothoth, Cthulhu, etc., and revolves round the adventures of two roving characters (Fafhrd the Viking, modelled after Leiber — who is six feet four — and the Gray Mouser, modelled after the diminutive Fischer) in a vague congeries of fabulous and half-fabulous worlds of the remote past. Fischer's parts of this cycle are vivid but unformulated and disjointed, so that at present Leiber — the better cratfsman — is the only publicly visible author of the pair. Adept's Gambit is laid in the Syria of the earlier Hellenistic period, but soon moves away from Tyre and Ephesus to a fabulous mountain realm of inland Asia. Fischer's wife is an accomplished artist, and has made several very effective pastel drawings of some of the inconceivable Entities in the Fafhrd-Mouser cycle.


They are not that recent. We were using those terms way back in 1985 almost 20 years ago.
This, by my book, is actually extremely recent on a literary scale.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Odhanan said:
This, by my book, is actually extremely recent on a literary scale.

My professor had been teaching the class for about 20 years when I took his class in 1985 and he talked about the early feuds in SF fandom going all the way back to the first worldcon. Feuds about exactly what was considered fantasy and how to define it and what made it different from SF. These agruments on just what should be considered high fantsay or no that is not SF have been around a long long time.
 

They take away a sense of wonder sure, but that's not what genre classification is about, so it's hardly detrimental.
Again, my remarks are not about classifications and their usefulness as a whole. I agree with you on this topic.

What I mean is that classifications of styles within fantasy destroy fantasy itself, not only because they take away a sense of wonder from the reader, but mostly because they frame the imagination's of writers. Suddenly, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to write and enjoy fantasy. There are some sides to choose from. There are petty debates on what's good and bad fantasy. All that does a disservice to fantasy itself, as a genre, because it frames and impedes imaginations, which is what fantasy is supposed to be all about. That's what I'm talking about. :)
 

My professor had been teaching the class for about 20 years when I took his class in 1985 and he talked about the early feuds in SF fandom going all the way back to the first worldcon. Feuds about exactly what was considered fantasy and how to define it and what made it different from SF. These agruments on just what should be considered high fantsay or no that is not SF have been around a long long time.
No doubt about it. The actual classifications were what I called "recent" (i.e. "these", in my above post), although a century is hardly a long time in itself. I think it's in the human nature to just want to fit concepts into boxes and classify things as to understand and manipulate them better.

Doesn't your statement assume that fantasy has a single purpose?
No, I don't think so. Because Fantasy addresses the imaginations of readers and writers alike doesn't mean it's solely made for that.

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?
By studying them for their own values, individually, I guess. Similarities certainly do exist, and broad categories certainly are useful in some circumstances, like jdrakeh points out, but that doesn't mean it's good for fantasy itself. I think similarities should be treated as such, similarities, and stop right there before they spawn categories, personally.

I recognize this is actually not feasible, because human beings need classifications. Just call it wishful thinking, I guess. :)
 

Odhanan said:
Again, my remarks are not about classifications and their usefulness as a whole. I agree with you on this topic.

What I mean is that classifications of styles within fantasy destroy fantasy itself, not only because they take away a sense of wonder from the reader, but mostly because they frame the imagination's of writers. Suddenly, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to write and enjoy fantasy. There are some sides to choose from. There are petty debates on what's good and bad fantasy. All that does a disservice to fantasy itself, as a genre, because it frames and impedes imaginations, which is what fantasy is supposed to be all about. That's what I'm talking about. :)

I agree withn this. I have been in one to many consuites late at night or sitting on another panel at a con arguing that so and so work is not any good because it deviates from what sword and sorcery or epic fantasy is supposed to be. And of course no one is writing as well today as Tolkein , Leiber, Heinlein. We should just quit writing fantasy novels because it has all been done before and done better and it is wrong wrong to try a new twist on something. :confused:

I have noticed for people who like to read fantastic and speculative lit some of them can be really narrow minded and uncreative.
 

Odhanan said:
Suddenly, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to write and enjoy fantasy.

The "right" or "wrong' labels are applied by consumers after products are written - no given genre classification is inherently right or wrong, this isn't a problem with the classification system, but with the people applying said labels. Let's not lay the blame for divergent personal tastes at the feet of the genre classification system - personal tastes are, after all, personal.

There are petty debates on what's good and bad fantasy.

Yes, but again, this has very little to do with the genre classification system itself and almost everything to do with personal tastes and the declaration thereof. For instance, most of the debates in [this thread, don't center on the common definition of the genre classification "fantasy" but on a few wild individual revisions of that definition (i.e., personal tastes) after the fact.

All that does a disservice to fantasy itself, as a genre, because it frames and impedes imaginations, which is what fantasy is supposed to be all about.

No, it really doesn't - like all classification systems, genre is applied after a work is written in order to organize it, not prior to the work being written in order to govern its creation. Very few (if any) authors sit down with a checklist of genre tenets when they put pen to paper.
 
Last edited:

jdrakeh said:
No, it really doesn't - like all classification systems, genre is applied after a work is written in order to organize it, not prior to the work being written in order to govern its creation.

That is not quite true. A lot of writers look at what type of work is selling and then let that guide them as what to write. And this tends to be true of new writers trying to make their first sale.

And you have to know what kind of book you are writing to be able to market it. There is a difference between say fantasy with romantic subplot and a romance set in a fantasy setting.

Read a couple of how to write books and you will see the advice know your genre.
 


jdrakeh said:
No, it really doesn't - like all classification systems, genre is applied after a work is written in order to organize it, not prior to the work being written in order to govern its creation. Very few (if any) authors sit down with a checklist of genre tenets when they put pen to paper.

Try telling that to anyone who's writing a sequel :)
 

The "right" or "wrong' labels are applied by consumers after products are written - no given genre classification is inherently right or wrong, this isn't a problem with the classification system, but with the people applying said labels. Let's not lay the blame for divergent personal tastes at the feet of the genre classification system - personal tastes are, after all, personal.
In my experience, claiming something is personal doesn't negate its impact on the bigger picture. The whole 'personal opinion' thing for me is a shield. No, a personal opinion is not "just" a personal opinion. It joins the mass, and all form the mainstream ideas. In a field like fantasy, some critics, readers and writers alike just handwave their impact on the genre just because what they express is "personal opinion". I just don't agree that's a panacea for all debates of these opinions.

No, it really doesn't - like all classification systems, genre is applied after a work is written in order to organize it
Come on. That's not like books are just stand alone and the opinions people have about them don't impact the reading, writing, mediatic impact and commercial success and failure of other books. That's an ongoing cycle. A book is published, people have opinions about it. Then another book is published, people compare to previous materials and experiences, and come up with another opinion, and so on and so forth, until categories and sub-categories start to draw themselves. All this stuff influences each publisher, reader, writer and critics and makes them have opinions, makes them choose for themselves what's good fantasy and whats bad fantasy, opinions that they then put into practice in what they write, what they read or what they criticize.
 

Remove ads

Top