Angry Chicks in Leather: Is Urban Fantasy lowbrow crap???

[pat5150]

Hi guys,

Urban fantasy author Lilith Saintcrow just penned an article titled Angry Chicks in Leather for my guest bloggers' ad lib column.

When she was looking for something to write about, I suggested that she comes up with a piece on urban fiction and those who consider it lowbrow crap. Well, she took the ball and ran with it, and she turned in a very interesting article.

I'm sure many here will agree with Saintcrow...

Here's the link.

Patrick

[Mithfânion]

Aside from being bored by the topic itself and having zero interest in reading about kick-ass heroines doing in their male counterparts, she seems to me like someone with a tremendous chip on the shoulder.

Paranormal romance is considered lowbrow and trashy because it's female. Despite the fact that it's a multibillion-dollar business (and every dollar a woman shells out for it costs more because let's face it, we earn a lot less), it's still that pink-jacketed crap for bored housewives. Tom Clancy is supposed to be Real and Hard-Hitting, even if his "novels" are thinly-veiled technical manuals. Nora Roberts is supposedly less Real because she writes about feeeeeeelings. While we could debate the relative merits of Clancy vs. La Nora all day--and not agree, mind you, because Roberts is just plain the better writer--the fact remains that Clancy has a better shot at being considered "serious" because his is MAN'S FICTION.

Smell that testosterone, baby.

Someone's having some issues. But basically then, her idea is that paranormal romance is considered lowbrow and thrash because it's female. I think it's considered lowbrown and thrash because it really is just that, female or no.

There are plenty of series featuring male characters for the most part that are just as much dismissed as fluff or simple boy's own adventures, or the "fast food of the world of literature". Ms Saintcrow seems to be unaware that other styles of fiction than the one she writes on are equally reviled.

I also think there's a downside to the heroes or heroines of consistent moral ambiguity. It sort of wears on you after a while. A lot of internal monologue, a lot of whining, a lot of procrastinating. It's all very modern but ultimately, there are many times when you just want the character to get the job done and feel good about it rather than weep.

Our culture is horrified at the idea of the Dark Feminine--the woman who demands for herself the right of violence and doesn't feel bad about it.

Hi Shoulder, this is Chip back again. So society is ok with Dark Masculinity where the man behaves violently and loves it?

We have whole genres overwhelmingly dedicated to the male "right" of violence--military hard sci-fi, suspense, Westerns, the Executioner knockoffs and pretty much every damn movie made about a cop or an army man (or group of men, a dirty dozen) going outside the chain of command or the norms of behavior because their violence serves a higher cause of justice or protection for those same norms. Urban fantasy is the first such genre I can think of that adds another layer of tension by switching the gender of the protagonist, making it truly socially groundbreaking.

I don't see that changing the gender of the protagonist adds another layer of tension, as she seems to think. There is nothing inherently more interesting about being a female protagonist. The downside however is that the paranormal romance heroines are about ten times more unrealistic in what they do, partly because at the end of the day, they are still women and not men, and do not have the physical prowess and imagining them do the things the female authors of this subgenre have them do, takes even more suspension of disbelief. It's self-indulgent tripe. Wish fulfillment. Which is fine if you want to write that sort of stuff and you can actually find a market full of female buyers for it. After all, Harlequin sells loads of erotic romance books as well. But don't try to pass it off as anything more than that.

The whole "essay" comes down to the fact that she feels the opposite of her percieved gripe. She believes paranormal chicklit is more interesting because it is female. Yet she claims that because it is female, people think it lowbrow and thrash.

[PeterWilliam]

Originally Posted by Mithfânion

Someone's having some issues. But basically then, her idea is that paranormal romance is considered lowbrow and thrash because it's female. I think it's considered lowbrown and thrash because it really is just that, female or no.

Indeed, Mithfanion has encapsulated the matter with a mere three sentences.

[Rob B]

Originally Posted by Mithfânion

Someone's having some issues. But basically then, her idea is that paranormal romance is considered lowbrow and thrash because it's female. I think it's considered lowbrown and thrash because it really is just that, female or no.

So say people outside of fantasy and science fiction about fantasy and science fiction. This is just another marginalization of genre and sub-genre.

[suciul]

Originally Posted by Rob B

So say people outside of fantasy and science fiction about fantasy and science fiction. This is just another marginalization of genre and sub-genre.

What marginalization?

NYT or The Times or other dead-waiting-for-the corpse-to be-put-to-rest remnant of the "I tell you what is great" age?

Honestly I think that when sff writers rant like that they truly have an issue with someone/something as Adam put it. Instead they should be rejoicing that they are part of the vibrant culture of our age, not of the embalmed one that is getting finally put to rest by the Net.

[Rob B]

Originally Posted by suciul

What marginalization?

...that F and SF readers speak of the feeling of being looked down upon by non-genre readers (Literature) while some of the genre readers look down upon a subset of their own population (Urban Fantasy, hot-chick-vampire-killers, media tie-in, etc).

[Radone]

Ok. The article is peculiar. It seems to state that urban fantasy allows women to break the shackles of victimhood, but at the same time there is also a whiny note of victimhood within the claims for the relevancy of UF. There also seems to be a gleeful note that books that mostly men like are accepted as 'good' but in reality they suck. The whole article was a mess of contradictions served up one after the other and it hurt my head after a while. I'm off for some Tylenol.
I don't think it's marginalization to state one's belief that a particular subgenre isn't so good. Even it was, it certainly hasn't slowed down sales in that subgenre given the unreal number of new titles that are being published in UF.

[Myshkin]

Her argument is a failure since it is predicated upon the false belief that Tom Clancy is accepted as a "serious" or literary author.

[Cranky Hamster]

Ugh, the quotes are enough to convince me I don't need or want to read the rest of the piece.

I like urban fantasy -- a fair percentage of it, anyway. I've been working my way through the subgenre for the last couple of months. But it is what it is: primarily fast-paced, funny, lightweight entertainment. There's no point getting defensive about it, or saying that it's somehow an anti-woman thing (because, you know, that Jim Butcher. Man, he just drips estrogen). It's hugely popular, it's all over the bestseller lists, it gets at least as much respect as any other part of the great sprawling genre that is speculative fiction (which may or may not be all that much, depending on who you ask, but that's not really the topic here).

Anyway, that particular screed is just Bobbitizing a strawman, a pastime for which I don't have much time or patience.

[LuBu]

I got a huge kick out of the self-righteous indignation the "physical prowess" observation generated; it really highlighted the self-indulgence, wishful thinking, and--yes, I'll say it--penis envy.

I always forget there are people out there who buy so completely into their own propaganda that they inflict a severely distorted view of reality upon themseleves.

It is an undeniable, proven fact that--generally--men are stronger, faster, and more agile than women. This general fact remains true, even at the highest levels of performance and competition. Moreover this fact is not the result of oppression, discrimination, or neglect--it's a simple matter of genetics.

Even among men, there is a reason there are such things as "weight classes." Without such a concept, it would be pretty boring to see the guy with significantly more muscle-mass win an organized fight 90% of the time.

I'm 30, not quite 6'2" and weigh about 220 lbs. I've regularly engaged in martial arts since I was 12. There's not a whole lot of women out there who can kick my ass in hand to hand combat. It's going to take an unfeminine, manish, freakishly large woman--i.e., professional body-builder--who has similar martial arts training to do it.

Sure, there are tons of women who could pull a trigger, hide in ambush with a knife, fire a missile, lay a mine, launch a nuke, detonate a dirty bomb, release poison gas, run me over in a car, etc. and get me.

But, a striaght-up brawl?

It's just not going to happen.

Moreover, I'm always surprised that there are people out there who have such a difficult time accepting the fact that--yes--there *are* genuine pysiological differences between men and women. Moreover, why is it such a big deal? The whole concept of "equality" is facile and exists nowhere in nature . . . .

[Eventine]

Interesting read. I always thought the urban fantasy sub-genre was populated with authors like Jonathan Carroll and Grahm Joyce, and all that chicks/vampirtes/leather stuff was paranormal romance. Saintcrow seems to think (and apologies if I've misread the meaning here) that urban fantasy is paranormal romance where the women are empowered, which I don't think is a valid distinction between the labels. Having said that, my definitions could also do with some work

At any rate, that's mostly all I found interesting in the article. I didn't buy her arguments. But I did have a stray thought:
If people take umbrage about women beating men when men are bigger, stronger, quicker, and so forth: Why is Matt Stover's Caine so popular when he consistently does the same thing?

[Rob B]

Ahh...Pat stirs up another crapstorm.

[Leiali]

Interesting discussion here. I quite enjoy trashy paranormal romance but I would never argue that what I enjoy is a reflection of female empowerment. Excepting of course, Buffy the vampire slayer where feminism is at the core of the show - good writing is good writing whatever the genre and it was possible to identify strongly feminist values in the development of plot and character in Buffy... Perhaps that is where the confusion lies? I'm not sure how much paranormal romance could have developed without it and maybe people thought the genre was synonymous with female empowerment when really it was only Buffy all along?

Lubu I have issues with your post regarding equality. Mainly because a. most people aren't martial arts experts b. there are female police officers and soldiers c. David vs Goliath and d. There may not be like for like equality between individuals across the world (my other half is nowhere near as physically fit as his ex police officer father), but the general view with regards human rights and equality is that there should be equality of opportunity.
Eventine – what about Caine? I didn't get what you meant.

[Eventine]

Originally Posted by Leiali

Eventine – what about Caine? I didn't get what you meant.

Some of the posters seemed to be questioning the believability of kick-arse feamle protagonists because men are pretty consistently bigger, stronger, faster - i.e. that women can continue to beat them in fights stretches the imagination. My point was that Matt Stover's Caine is neither the biggest, nor fastest, nor strongest "hero" around (and here was where I was drawing the parallel to the aforementioned kick-arse female protagonist), yet still seems to be quite popular. Is it because he's male?

[PeterWilliam]

Originally Posted by Rob B

Ahh...Pat stirs up another crapstorm.

May we vote for Pat? Pat for...uhm,...something.