What's up in fantasy?

[Raloc]

My post is still relevent. And notice the text I put in parentheses. Saying that the bible is one of the "only" stories is a bit ludicrous considering it's not even remotely the original source for the material contained within. I'll not post again, since I seem to have summoned an angry mob for some unknown reason.

 

[Piratecat]

Jester, two moderators asked that the bible comment be disregarded so that the thread doesn't get closed down. We'd appreciate it if you'd respect that and not continue a disallowed hijack.

Raloc, please go read the Rules posted at the top of every forum. Discussion of real-world religion is expressly prohibited here. Your comment about the bible definitely falls under that category.

 

[jester47]

Right well, I'm not saying anything pro or con about religion, nor talking religion at all. I merely stated that the bible is a derivative work, which is relevent to the topic of writing, which is what this thread seems to be about. *shrug*

So what parts are derivative? I would like to know. At this point you should send it to

beowulf47 at comcast dot net

A.

 

[Piratecat]

Okay, we're done. Klunk.

 

[Piratecat]

Having spoken to the folks involved, I have no problem reopening the thread. Please keep the topic on current fantasy works, though, with no religious hijacks.

Thanks!

 

[S'mon]

I'd just like to say that Shakespeare is also _highly_ derivative...

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I agree with the commentary on satire. Stories themselves usually just tell a story, but satire puts a worldly context to a story, making it more deeply layered.

Satires a big ol' bunch of wonder. What encourages me about it these days is that we seem to be slowly moving away from the idea that satire is targetted.

When the Simpsons, for instance, first came out they were famously seen as the enemy of conservatism, but now there are conservative societies that meet in the name of Flanders and books on how the Simpsons do the bible. Doesn't mean that the Simpsons have lost their liberal cred just they've got a lot of cred with a lot of people.

For me the essence of satire is often far more technical than content based, and I think the very structure of it suits fantasy and makes it possible.

Tolkien's influence is, I think, largely based on his invention or codification of a new genre technology that let us escape much of the feel of satire. Just as the novel took the narrative form of Don Quixote and made it less challenging.

My hope is that in the next fifty years or so we'll have gotten good enough at the second world phenomena to begin moving back to the great bits of the original satirical form and attempt some sort of reconciliation.

Terry Pratchett is an obvious potential early runner for this, but China Mieville, from what I've heard and read, is almost explicitly attempting just that and in a way that fits the broader categories of satire with their darkness and grit.

I think you can also see it in simpler more pervasive things too like George RR Martins viewpoint per chapter format or even the work to create fantasy in a variety of odd settings whether cultural as in Sean Russel's Gatherer of Clouds or epochal as in the phenomena of urban fantasy ala Charles DeLint or the literally post-modern works of Sean Stewart.

Galveston, by the way, is an excellent work and one I highly recommend everyone get their hands on if they can.

 

[S'mon]

OK, have to vent a little (kinda vague spoilers for His Dark Materials):

I just finished reading "The Amber Spyglass", last of the His Dark Materials trilogy. To say that the ending annoyed me would be an understatement. I now understand a lot of the criticism. In the Narnia books, when the children unquestioningly accept whatever Aslan tells them (ie unquestioning obedience to Aslan means you're a good person, unquestioning obedience to Tash means you're a bad person), this at least accords with the message of the series. But HDM is all about coming of age and _questioning_ authority, yet whereas unquestioning obedience to the Church (the baddies) is presented as bad, the children-becoming-teens _never_ question the motivations & means of the rebels (goodies), even when these are clearly detrimental to the children's own interests & seem highly morally questionable in themselves. In fact the Church 'baddies' if anything display far more guilt and moral-struggle than the rebels, with their easy certainties. I kept waiting for the children as they reached adolescence to display a little of that independence of thought the trilogy lauds. They never do.
When the Satan-figure (ie goody, here) angel tells them at the end how they have to do X, there's no alternative, even though X will condemn them to a lifetime of sadness, they accept her instructions with cowlike docility even though it seems bloody obvious that the alternatives they present are perfectly reasonable, given a little help from the angel (which they've more than earned). For someone raised on adolescent sword & sorcery heroes like Moorcock's I was left grinding my teeth in frustration. It reminded me of how unquestioning faith in religion & religious leaders was replaced in the 20th century by unquestioning faith in science & scientists, who always 'know best' - like with DDT or mad cow disease, eh.

Ho-hum. I'm an atheist and a humanist, pretty much, but this just left me angry.

 

[woodelf]

[snip]
distrusting the government -- we know they're doing bad things, but we figure there's no other way to do it -- but we don't think the world is a bleak place. We actually seem to find it funny. People seem to want to be entertained more than ever before.

[snip]
Or is it that our lives suck? Maybe they're one in the same.

[snip]
So we turn to other dreams. We try to let others entertain us with fantasy, adventure, and magic.

I'm a writer, and I feel that my calling is to entertain people. But I don't want to just feed what I perceive to be this growing sense of directionlessness. What can I write in the realm of fantasy that is entertaining -- that makes the world seem appropriately meaningful -- without simply creating escapism? The Hero's Journey is classic, but how do I make its core story resonate with readers today?

What's up with fantasy, nowadays? What do we want?

Well, i was about to have a lengthy, hopefully-insightful answer on the nature of society, and the direction we're heading, but then i remembered the no-politics rule. Can i talk about how cheap consumer goods are the new opiate of the masses, and Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Monsanto, and Disney are taking our livelihood from us--and unions and our government are just handing it over to them? If that sort of discussion, when asked for, is acceptable--and, yes, my explanations tie into the current popularity of fantasy--than let me know.

If not, i'll just say that the general propensity to put politics on the "not for general conversation" list is a huge part of the problem--not just here, but in more and more places, especially online. Trying to pretend that "politics" is a distinct topic from the rest of how we live our lives, and can therefore be meaningfully separated, is the problem. [Or, rather, even more generally: cognitive dissociation in how we live our lives, in general, is the problem.]

 

[S'mon]

Hi Woodelf - I agree that modern society seems to increasingly advocate cognitive dissonance in the way people live their lives, with compartmentalisation of aspects of one's character that are fundamentally integral and should be integrated. It seems to be a response to fragmentation of society and an attempt to deal with often mutually antagonistic 'diversity' of opinion. If anything it seems even more extreme in USA than other countries.

Non-'politics' example from ENW - common claim that D&D as a game is (& should be) purely self-referential, without reference to fantasy literature, history or mythology.