[Rant] Fantasy - beyond the "standard" paradigm

[barsoomcore]

The other 70% is neither; it's servicable, it does the job, but ten minutes after you finish reading it, you're kinda ready to move on the next thing, and what you just read is forgotten.

Okay, I'll go with that: I'm just currently defining "servicable" as "crap". "Not-crap" is the stuff that you DON'T forget. Everything else was a waste of your time.

 

[Desdichado]

Okay, I'll go with that: I'm just currently defining "servicable" as "crap". "Not-crap" is the stuff that you DON'T forget. Everything else was a waste of your time.

That's a valid way to look at it. Still, if it entertained me while I read it, and planted some ideas somewhere in my subconscious, then I'd argue that a fantasy novel has done it's job regardless of whether or not it's brilliant and makes me want to have it's manbabies.

But you know me; a man of the people, standing up for the Proletariat, which will bring down you elitist patricians in the day of the Grand Revolution, yadda-yadda.

 

[barsoomcore]

And never forget there are measures of worth besides traditional literary values. Ever read Calvino's "Memos For The Next Millenium"? One of the literary qualities he praises is "Lightness" -- the quick movement by the writer from one episode/topic/whatever to the next. I'd say Burroughs has that in spades.

And he has his moments of sheer beauty. "Fly, Sola! Dejah Thoris remains to die by the man she loves!" That's a GREAT line, and nobody's gonna tell me otherwise.

And that Grand Proletarian Revolution SURE is a long time coming, innit? Were I a prole, I'd be asking that Marx guy for my money back.

 

[Desdichado]

And he has his moments of sheer beauty. "Fly, Sola! Dejah Thoris remains to die by the man she loves!" That's a GREAT line, and nobody's gonna tell me otherwise.

Oh, no doubt. Burroughs has that odd habit (with me anyway) that I love the first book in all of his series, but as the series goes on, I tend to get more and more tired of it. But A Princess of Mars is in the running for one of my favorite books of all time. Along with many others, of course, but it's up there.

And that Grand Proletarian Revolution SURE is a long time coming, innit? Were I a prole, I'd be asking that Marx guy for my money back.

I did. Apparently he closed his office and changed his phone number. Plus there's a "no refunds no returns" policy in the small print.

 

[WayneLigon]

So, all the infighting and claiming that one method of fantasy is superior to all others, and all others aren't worth the paper and ink they're printed on isn't in your world.

I guess I picked the wrong sentence to quote. I mean than every point to make in your post, about politics in fantasy and encroaching modern sensibilities, all that... I don't see it.

 

[Odhanan]

A LITTLE pretentious? Jeez, I'm slipping.

I hold the fantasy I read to the same standards I hold everything else I read: I compare it to the truly great literature of civilization and decide if it's worth reading, and if so, why (or if not, why not). Fantasy novels need to live up to the examples set by Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Calvino, Homer yada yada yada.

And for the most part, they don't. Which doesn't distinguish fantasy from any other genre, nor does it distinguish modern fantasy from "good ol' days" fantasy. It's really really really hard to write great novels. Most novels of any description are crap (see Sturgeon, again). And reading crap hurts your brain and makes you dumb. So you shouldn't do it.

Well, once again, spot on, in my opinion.

 

[JohnSnow]

A LITTLE pretentious? Jeez, I'm slipping.

I hold the fantasy I read to the same standards I hold everything else I read: I compare it to the truly great literature of civilization and decide if it's worth reading, and if so, why (or if not, why not). Fantasy novels need to live up to the examples set by Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Calvino, Homer yada yada yada.

And for the most part, they don't. Which doesn't distinguish fantasy from any other genre, nor does it distinguish modern fantasy from "good ol' days" fantasy. It's really really really hard to write great novels. Most novels of any description are crap (see Sturgeon, again). And reading crap hurts your brain and makes you dumb. So you shouldn't do it.

You're right, most fantasy IS too plebian for such refined taste. Exactly.

But I happen to really like reading about swords and swinging on ropes and monsters, so I'm always looking for GREAT books that feature those subjects. I just don't find them very often. But it's so very sweet when I do.

Agreed. I hold fantasy to the same standard as any other literature I read. However, like barsoomcore, I too enjoy reading books about swords and sorcery and fighting monsters. Most of them are crap. They're entertaining crap, in many cases, but still crap. Recently, I've found few authors who wrote what I found to be good fiction. Usually it's a case of me enjoying an author's narrative style, his/her take on the genre, or both.

The best stuff I've found lately are anything by George Martin and Tad Williams, neither of whom have gone wrong. So far, I put Glen Cook and Steven Eriksen in that category as well. I say so far because every writer has off moments (see below). Unlike many people, I found Stephen Donaldson preachy garbage and couldn't even get through his first Thomas Covenant book. But that's probably because I was raised Catholic and I can recognize heavy-handed religious writing when I come across it.

Most even good authors are hit and miss. Robert Jordan, for example, when he's good is GOOD. But a lot of his stuff is...umm...not so good. He probably should have wrapped the Wheel of Time up faster, as it was really good for about 6 books. It's still better than most fantasy, but not always stellar quality. Same with Raymond Feist and Piers Anthony. Very good when they're good, and mediocre to crappy when they're not.

In another category, I put authors like Michael Stackpole and Jim Butcher, who write good fantasy that doesn't have any pretentions to being "literature" but is damn entertaining nonetheless. I don't usually think most great works of fantasy come out of their authors trying to be "significant" so much as just, as Mark Twain put it, "trying to tell a good story in an entertaining way" and letting the rest take care of itself.

For the record, I've enjoyed (Eberron-creator) Keith Baker's books as well. Not great lit, but an entertaining narrative with engaging characters. Which is all I really ask.

 

[Melan]

Stuff

Very good post! Like Turjan, the reasons you mentioned drove me away from modern fantasy - I usually read Greek historians and geographers for inspiration now, because I was burned so many times I don't even care to try anymore. I do read some old novels I didn't have the chance to pick up years ago, though - I recently finished Jack Vance's Planet of Adventure series, which was everything but peasants and dragons - it was truly fantastic, not to mention it wasn't spread out over eight 800 page books!

Give me that any day of the week over bland filler.