[Solaar]

Well think of the criticisms proponents of the new wierd seem given to. That the conventions characteristic of epic fantasy are burnt out, over-commercialized, inherently conservative, infantile - you know the routine. They would tout authors like Mieville (who I adore, BTW) as authors who truly do let their imaginations run wild, and who are therefore actually more worth a reader's interest and time.

I hear you on the fact that Mieville is pushing the envelope, but do you think that's what he's aiming for?

Isn't it more than likely that that is just his writing style? Don't think I'm disagreeing with you thou!! He does indeed broaden everyone's imagination with his style, but once Gemquest had mentioned that Perdido was a little sci-fi I found he was possibly right! How would you catagorise his style? Isn't it labelled 'steampunk' these days?

Isn't it surely fantasy and sci-fi heavily mixed?

Shouldn't this be another thread?? :D

Solaar
confusing himself

[Scott Bakker]

When I read some of the criticisms of Epic Fantasy, I realize that I could change some of the words around slightly and post them as reasons why I love it. But everything has to be qualified. It has been over-commercialized. There is a lot of trash out there. But how does that differ from anything else in the arts? Music? You have Britney Spears and then Leonard Cohen, Ashlee Simpson and then Beth Orton. Film? Oceans 12 and then Bad Education. Does the former nullify the quality of the later?

I agree. And I would add that I think its commercial success is the very thing which makes it so important to reinvent and to critically explore.

I'm always struck by the irony that those who seem to criticize epic fantasy the most are typically also those with a high degree social self-consciousness. Obviously epic fantasy, simply by virtue of its popularity, is part of some important social circuit. That makes it both an opportunity to challenge and provoke many different people, as well as something worthy of understanding in its own right.

[Gary Wassner]

If I had the talent, I would have been a singer/songwriter. And, I honestly believe that I would have been expressing the same ideas and emotions that I do in my books. I think of Epic Fantasy, and my own series, as one very long song. A good sentence has an internal symmetry to it, and a melody unique to it. I yearn for those sentences, those beautiful, smokey, lyrical sentences that invoke exactly the right mood and generate the perfect emotion. The fact that my story takes place in a mythical world full of fantastic characters has only a positive effect upon what I am trying to accomplish. The ideas and ideals transcend the environment, and that is what makes it so universal a genre.

Solar - I had a hard time relating to Perdido's characers. I am not sure why. I recognize his talent, surely, but I can't say I learned very much from the book, nor am I running out to read the next one. For me, it was not provocative, though it was interesting. I am probably to sentimental at heart for his cold, cruel, quasi-modern world. And therefor, I have anything but a Marxist's constitution. I relate more to Yuri in Dr. Zhivago then to Strelnikov.

[Solaar]

Solar - I had a hard time relating to Perdido's characers. I am not sure why. I recognize his talent, surely, but I can't say I learned very much from the book, nor am I running out to read the next one. For me, it was not provocative, though it was interesting. I am probably to sentimental at heart for his cold, cruel, quasi-modern world. And therefor, I have anything but a Marxist's constitution. I relate more to Yuri in Dr. Zhivago then to Strelnikov.

I did enjoy the book a lot, althou I found it hard getting on with the main character.

Your words got me thinking thou... he has got talent and a very good descriptive style, but maybe I liked the book because it was so different to what I have been reading. Maybe my imagination needed a break and got sucked into his word?

No, that's not fair - I think he is a good writer, if a little too descriptive sometimes. Or maybe I'm just jealous... :p

By the way, haven't you changed your name?

Solaar
the perceptive :cool:

[Gary Wassner]

Well, to be exact, I am now using my name. It seemed that people were getting confused. So now I am using my real name first, the name that I write under, and GemQuest, the name of my fantasy series, will just appear beneath it.

I think he's an excellent writer. The book just didn't move me the way it seems to move others. But then again, I usually find myself on the other side of these debates. Generally, it's me vs. the pop culture star. Hye, do you think that Mieville is becoming a pop icon? Does that mean that I am the artist?

[alison]

'm always struck by the irony that those who seem to criticize epic fantasy the most are typically also those with a high degree social self-consciousness. Obviously epic fantasy, simply by virtue of its popularity, is part of some important social circuit. That makes it both an opportunity to challenge and provoke many different people, as well as something worthy of understanding in its own right.

I'm not sure what that means?! Do you mean politically aware? I love and write epic fantasy, and I live in the real world and find myself responding to it; and naturally, as with all writers, my responses end up in my work, unrecognisably transformed. I believe in imagination. I want to use those fantasy tropes and do something else with them: like you said, it's about reinventing the genre. I guess you mean that fantasy in the conventional sense is often criticised as socially conservative? (That whole return of the king thing - the restoration of order under patriarchy etc etc). Is a form conservative in itself, or just in its usage? A question I'm asking myself all the time...I've no desire to underwrite the simplistic good/evil of the moral world of George W, but I do think that there are such things as choices for good and evil, and in my books my characters have to make them. In a context of the marvellous, where there is something called magic. And yes, where "good" wins, but not without cost. Tolkien put it all very well in his comments on eucatastrophe in his lecture On Fairy Stories.

I've read China Mieville and like his work enormously. His books are certainly moral dramas about choice and consciousness in a complex and amoral Darwinian world. Dystopian rather than utopian, I guess. The idea of a Marxist fantasy is fascinating, but if he were merely illustrating an ideology they wouldn't be nearly so interesting. I like the complex urban world he makes (very like London) but maybe most of all I like that question he's asking all the time, what does it mean to be human?

Cheers

A

[Gary Wassner]

I think that many of us who write and read fantasy think alike. That may not be the case with authors and readers of mysteries or thrillers, or ever chicklit. But those who are drawn to fantasy, particularly Epic Fantasy, seem to be searching for a means to better understand the moral choices that they are faced with. They are uplifted by the heroic and contemptuous of the evil that they see. But it does not have to be so simplistic any longer. The world we live in is so much more complicated now, and the lines between good and evil are not always as clear as we used to believe them to be. You make a good point in mentioning how interesting it is to see people making choices in an amoral, Darwinian world. My characters struggle with those same decisions in their world, a world that once seemed so clear and definable to them, but has become far more complicated and uncertain as the books progress. I find it so fascinating to write these characters as they interact with this uncertainty and as they are forced to question their value systems and their belief structures.

Mieville's world does not presuppose any moral structure. Epic Fantasy does in many ways, but there is no requirement that it remain confined to those boundaries. Readers may expect certain prevalent moral themes when they approach a series or stand alone fantasy novel, but there is no rule to that effect. Scott is right in saying that in many ways and for many reasons the genre provides some of us with a challenge to test those boundaries.

I see it as a very humanistic genre, not a conservatice one at all today.

[alison]

I absolutely agree with you, Gary. I don't know about you, but one aspect of some contemporary social and scientific theorising that really gets me is the one that says human beings are inherently without choice (eg, "hard wire" theories about genetic behaviour, such as men are "hard wired" to rape, or some "hard" behavourial pyschology.) I simply don't believe it, and it makes me suspicious - I think these ideas are all about controlling people, and I wonder how much the popularity of fantasy is to do with a similar reaction. There are actually very few situations (and the only ones I can think of are all extreme) in which choice doesn't exist.

Another thing that strikes me about fantasy is that it often has an ecological subtext, which while being about conservation, ie a kind of conservatism, is hardly right wing. Miyazake's wonderful anime films are full of this kind of thing.

those who are drawn to fantasy, particularly Epic Fantasy, seem to be searching for a means to better understand the moral choices that they are faced with. They are uplifted by the heroic and contemptuous of the evil that they see. But it does not have to be so simplistic any longer. The world we live in is so much more complicated now, and the lines between good and evil are not always as clear as we used to believe them to be. ...

I see it as a very humanistic genre, not a conservatice one at all today.

[Gary Wassner]

I am a father of three boys, and as a family, we are faced with moral choices all of the time. Of course there are bigger and smaller pictures revolving around these choices, but even seemingly inconsequential actions require decisions. They still must be made. Since they were born, I have tried to provide them with the ability to determine how to make these decisions - what to consider, what's involved, who will be affected by what they do.

As they grew, the options grew and the difficulty and seriousness of the choices also grew. I do believe that people are responsible for their own actions and that they must bear the weight of their own decisions. But I am also aware that the lines do blur and right and wrong become less simplistic as you grow older. There always seem to be contingencies and extraordinary situations that require a different level of ethical appraisal. But you always live with the results of your own actions, so you must try to make the best choices you can.

The issues I deal with in my books are similar, though on a more metaphysical plane. My characters interact in an imperiled world. They must decide what course of action to take and they are not certain. The truth is not clear and world is ever changing. But I have such a deep sense of love and respect for the earth, for all living things, that even the tiniest of actions, the swatting of a fly or the tearing of a leaf from a tree, makes me stop and think. I can't help it. Everything is so connected. One small action reverberates everywhere, and though we can never know where and how and to what extent, we can still be aware.

[alison]

Maybe it's as simple as the way one's children dramatise time - they project into the future as well as marking the past and embody all sorts of multiple causalities that otherwise seemed (to me, anyway) merely theoretical. Relationships between the self, others and the world get very real, and mortal fragilities become poignant, tragic, joyous and beautiful. Life got both intensely serious and much funnier when I had children. I too have three (two boys and a girl, nine to sixteen) and it's fair to say they've been an education. Not that they intended this in the least...But I'm sounding platitudinous here.

I have to say that they're a major reason I started writing fantasy. It's the only stuff of mine they actually read.