[Erfael]

There are about three threads going on right now that this is sort of in response to. I didn't want to put it in 4 different threads, and it seems different enough for its own spot.

I'm not ragging on anyone's tastes, but I am getting tired of hearing that fantasy "should" be elves and dwarves and dragons or that it "needs" to be escapist and that if it doesn't do those things it isn't fantasy.

... and with arguably more depth and meaning (within the limits of the genre, of course)...

I take some issue with this comment from another thread. If there was one genre that could be considered almost limitless in its ability to do different things in the quest for depth and meaning it's speculative fiction. In pure, mainstream literature, the author is constrained to what could happen in the real world, thus limiting the ways in which he or she can approach different concepts.

The limits you're referring to are only those that narrowmindedness(of any group--readers, authors, publishers) towards the possibilities of the genre can create. Elves and dwarves and dragons do not fantasy make. Fantasy is very simply anything that steps outside of the bounds of what is plausible in day-to-day experience.

It irks me to some degree that there are so many people who don't want the genre to move forward, only to stay within the bounds that it has been in since its conception.


This reminds me of a talk I heard a little while back. It was by a gentleman named Mario Davidovsky, who is considered one of the more important composers of the 20th Century(though what I have heard of his music i don't like, I understand why he is important to music and that his music is good). He was one of the first people to combine prerecorded electronic sounds and acoustic instruments in performance settings. He was giving a talk to a crowd of young composers a few months ago and someone asked him why he pushed the bounds, why he wrote music that many people didn't like immediately on the first hearing, why he didn't become a jingle composer or songwriter and make lots of money doing it, as he has the chops to write that kind of stuff very easily.

His response speaks not just to music, but to any art, be it written, visual, performance, etc. He said that he could very well write that kind of music, but it wouldn't DO anything for his fellow man. He said that even if people didn't immediately like his music, he would hope that they could find something in it that speaks to them. A person is the whole sum of their previous experience. He would hope that hearing his music could somehow inform the reader as to some aspect of the human condition, in his example: Perhaps someone would read James Joyce sometime in their life and be able to better understand some feeling based on something that they heard in his music that otherwise wouldn't have necessarily clicked. By writing the same music that others had written before, in meaning, nit just in actual notes, he wouldn't be able to give anything new to the human experience.

Another point that he made is that accessibility and meaning are not exclusive. To be meaningful and promote the growth of a reader's/listener's mind, a work doesn't need to be difficult to comprehend. So if the quest to reach a larger audience is being used as an excuse to forego writing something meaningful, an author is copping out. It is possible to entertain and enlighten at the same time, and right now, the way commercial publication(in books and music) is set up, most of what gets through to the presses is not meaningful in any sort of lasting way.

What I see in the current market is a far too high word/meaning ratio. Too many people are blowing hot air and not saying anything. It is possible to write an exciting work with all the same old tropes and say something. For example HEROES DIE is great fun, exciting, action-packed, elves, ogres, magic, heroes....but it also says something about the entertainment industry, and the class system that still underlies our society today, and the intoxicating nature of violence. It makes the reader aware of certain issues, either consciously or unconsciouly, and in doing so contributes to culture and society as a whole. Plenty of other stuff on the market says nothing.

I'll stop for now, but I'll probably have more to say later. Have at me!!!

[neologik]

Erfael,

Rah rah!!!

Go get 'em.

--gabe chouinard
http://s1ngularity.net

[ironchef texmex]

Erfael, the only people who are trying to limit the genre are the publishing companies who tend to wipe their hynies with manuscripts that push the envelope. And they aren't doing it because they want to 'hold back the genre'. I'm sure that if you or anybody else can convince them that going with an off-kilter idea will make make money, they'll be more than happy to give it a try (and occasionally they do).

As for the problem you, and others, seem to have with escapism. The term relates to anything that diverts your attention from the real world, ie: books, movies, bubble baths, and could be applied to every style of writing. If it's just too abhorrant - not manly enough or something - feel free to invent another term, attacking-in-the-other-directionism, or whatever. As the term stands now, anytime that you read a book and visualize the scene, you've engaged in escapism. Sorry.



This reminds me of a talk I heard a little while back. It was by a gentleman named Mario Davidovsky, who is considered one of the more important composers of the 20th Century(though what I have heard of his music i don't like, I understand why he is important to music and that his music is good).

I'm sure he'll be flattered by the reference......... and that you think his music blows.

I for one love the idea of writing solely for the benefit of my fellow man. I have this dream, you see, (AND YES, I KNOW THAT'S A FORM OF ESCAPISM. STOP THAT!) where I have the money to write all day long and show it to my adoring editor and I make a 'tsking' sound everytime he asks for changes. No really, I think it would be great. I'm hard at work trying to raise the capital for such a venture right now.

P.S. anyone that would like to contribute to the cause can PM me for my home address. All checks should be made payable to Mike Guentherman. Remember, you're not throwing away money, you're fighting the establishment. :D

[kahnovitch]

Erfael, I know what you mean mate.
A lot of media films/books/music etc can become very formulaic and predictable. Original ideas and concepts are few and far between these days.
The problem could partly lie with publishers and agents who won't take a chance on something new, and instead favour a story/concept that has a known market (i.e. elves, dragons etc) as they know it will make money. There could be many great story manuscripts gathering dust as no one wants to take a chance on them.
This lack of new ideas means that we will keep seeing the same themes and ideas recycled ad-infinitum in diferent guises on the mainstream bookshelves.

Another problem could be that some fans want to read things that ARE predicatable and formulaic so nothing disturbs their possibly delicate disposition.

[snake0024]

lets see... *pulls out cheque book*

$50,000.00 to Mike Guentherman... *puts the cheque in an envelope*

What did you say your address was? ;)

[Bear]

Well said, Erf. I'm in the same boat. And maybe it's just because I make a bunch of weirdo art and write a bunch of oddball songs, but whatever the case, I feel the same way.

On the subject of escapism, I think it's a moot point. Nearly all fiction is escapism. I could read a book about ancient China, or a book about a detective in Boston: either way, I'm going somewhere that I'm not currently at and reading about someone other than myself. You don't have to go to a made-up world to "escape."

Original ideas and concepts are few and far between these days.


Maybe, maybe not. But my problem is not always with the lack of original ideas, but with the lack of original outlook. So many fantasy authors have the same sense of values, morals, right and wrong, heroism, valor, dishonor, etc. It's like a stock perspective that people have sunk into - as if the authors are all using the same pair of eyes. Which is part of why authors like Martin, Stover and Hobb stand out. They dabble in some of the fantasy "cliches," but they have a unique outlook, which gives their work personality. Not to say they don't make good use of plot, characters, prose and so on, because those come into play too. But often times, the way they view a situation that has undoubtedly come up before is what makes their stories memorable. Something that really stood out about Stover (and Erf mentioned this, which means I'm not the only to take note) was his views on violence. They were interesting and personal, unapologetic and thought-out. And they became his. Someone else might have the exact same issues in their book, but look at it in another light and develop and entirely different side of the same issue. Like the same scene shot with two entirely different cameras.

Ugh. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense here.

But it's always bothered me that fantasy, a genre (supposedly) steeped in creativity and imagination, has books that are labeled as "pushing the envelope." As far as I'm concerned, there is no damned envelope. The possibilities are limitless. Start exploring.

[allanon]

Well, guys, you know that I was usually from the opposite site of your GRRM/Hobb fan-club. I found your idea that fantasy is limitless as a genre very interesting and I agree. But I want to ask you something. OK, you have the most original book in the world, full with new ideas and so on, and so on. But it's not fun. It's not page-turner.
I wouldn't like this book. I would prefer good ol' "swords&sorcery" page turner. BTW, I grew quite fond of Young Adult novels, because they can be original and wonderful in the same time.
But that is not the point. You guys, all of you want game without rules. Explore the limits, you say. OK, but don't forget that reading is actually for fun, except if you aren't a literary snob.
You know, in my country, Bulgaria, we had a really BIG game-books industry. We had many talented authors, which were very popular among teens and kids. The Fighting Fantasy stuff could not compete to our game-books. Our books were more original, written better, with better rules. But do you know what happened in the end? Our authors started "to explore the limits" and as a result, there were hundreds of "original" and completely unreadable books. And the genre - which was arguably the most popular in my country, died. Quickly.
So my point is - all over the world fantasy became popular with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Dungeons& Dragons stuff - magic, elves, dragons and so on. As an experienced readers, some of you can be bored of this - I'm not, however - and some of you can probably still enjoy the "ol'style". This is your right. My country was a totaliarian till 1989, so I have the idea what is the feeling, when you can't choose something new.
But what is the point of bashing fantasy book, which worlds are in more traditional settings? I don't think that there is any. Erf said that when you read about a detective in Boston, you escaped from our world. Truly. But I'd prefer to escape to a realm I'd feel cosy and magical, new and familiar in the same way. Like, to say, Paolini's Alagaesia. What's wrong with that?
There are enough books for "hunters" of original and entirely new stories. But I want my little elven rampart. What's wrong with this?

[Erfael]

Well, guys, you know that I was usually from the opposite site of your GRRM/Hobb fan-club. I found your idea that fantasy is limitless as a genre very interesting and I agree. But I want to ask you something. OK, you have the most original book in the world, full with new ideas and so on, and so on. But it's not fun. It's not page-turner.
I wouldn't like this book. I would prefer good ol' "swords&sorcery" page turner. BTW, I grew quite fond of Young Adult novels, because they can be original and wonderful in the same time.
But that is not the point. You guys, all of you want game without rules. Explore the limits, you say. OK, but don't forget that reading is actually for fun, except if you aren't a literary snob.
You know, in my country, Bulgaria, we had a really BIG game-books industry. We had many talented authors, which were very popular among teens and kids. The Fighting Fantasy stuff could not compete to our game-books. Our books were more original, written better, with better rules. But do you know what happened in the end? Our authors started "to explore the limits" and as a result, there were hundreds of "original" and completely unreadable books. And the genre - which was arguably the most popular in my country, died. Quickly.
So my point is - all over the world fantasy became popular with Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Dungeons& Dragons stuff - magic, elves, dragons and so on. As an experienced readers, some of you can be bored of this - I'm not, however - and some of you can probably still enjoy the "ol'style". This is your right. My country was a totaliarian till 1989, so I have the idea what is the feeling, when you can't choose something new.
But what is the point of bashing fantasy book, which worlds are in more traditional settings? I don't think that there is any. Erf said that when you read about a detective in Boston, you escaped from our world. Truly. But I'd prefer to escape to a realm I'd feel cosy and magical, new and familiar in the same way. Like, to say, Paolini's Alagaesia. What's wrong with that?
There are enough books for "hunters" of original and entirely new stories. But I want my little elven rampart. What's wrong with this?

'm not quite sure exactly what you're getting at here, but I don't think anyone here is saying that fantasy shouldn't be elves, etc., or that books shouldn't be exciting and interesting. But what we are pushing is that they say SOMETHING, more than just an empty romp. Pushing the bounds of thought doesn't have to make things any less readable or interesting.

[Erfael]

I don't know what threads people are checking, but hopefully most will come by here and see this.

Just a reminder, Science Fiction was covered on Talk of the Nation (http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/), Science Friday today.

Audio link can be found at: TOTN SF Show (http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgDate=18-Jun-2004&prgId=5)

They talked about some of the issues that many of these recent threads have been covering. Guests included Octavia Butler, David Brin, Greg Bear, and Gregory Benford.

[knivesout]

I get a bit of what Allanon says - someone in my country recently made a graphic novel. It was very dark and philosphical and angsty and obviously a luadable effort to stretch the comics form, but, dang it, it was NO FUN!

BUT, just because some experimenters don't have the necessary skill to push the boundaries and do it well, that doesn't mean those boundaries should not be pushed. I mentioned the Jimmy Corrigan comic elsewhere on these forums, and that is an example of succesfully pushing the boundaries - this is a very bleak comic, but so amazingly executed, and with a touch of black humour as well. Everything that my compatriot's effort failed to be.

Not every literary experimenter is succesful - that's why they call it an experiment! But that's a very poor reason not to experiment at all.