Discussion of fantasy/literature divide and levels of Brow-ness

[Eventine]

See, I view it a little differently than that. I don't find an inherent value in how convincing a world is or what the atmosphere is like. I find those things to be tools in the box. And on some level I judge pretty much any work in any genre on how well an author uses their tools to say something, to leave me with a new way of thinking about something. Some people will say it's pretentious of me, but I don't enjoy on as many levels as possible if it doesn't mean something to me.

It's one of the things I find most frustrating about secondary-world fantasy, actually. It is a literature of imagination. But so many works feel constrained by the tropes. Sure, there are changes here or differences there, but those bits aren't being used to say a whole lot. It's interesting that you argue that Guy Kay is closer to literature than fantasy, as he was one person on the secondary-world end of the spectrum that I had coming to mind who I feel uses his fantastic elements (his tools) to build themes and ideas in his work. And his work sticks with me over the years. (Donaldson is another for whom I feel this is true.)

At the risk of a lynching, I'll say other authors pale over time for me. Don't get me wrong. I like reading, say, Martin or Abercrombie or some of the others mentioned here, but I don't feel those works say anything to me. Things happen in a fantasy world. But that world isn't being used to argue a case or make a point. So no matter how much I like some of them, they're missing a component in my mind.

In a genre where anything is possible, where any idea can be explored outside the constraints of our mundane world, why are so many works so similar? Why does the discussion come back time and again to works with horses and swords and kings? Again, I like reading some of that sometimes, but it's limited...it's putting itself in a box. It's handicapping itself in the kind of story it can tell.

I have more to say, but have a student coming in now. I'll try to say more later.

+1 (minus the student).
I recall several years ago bemoaning the lack of fantastic in the fantasy genre (and I'm not using the term in the market sense KatG!), I haven't seen a lot of improvement since, particularly as the New Weird movement has lost momentum. However, the fantastic as Erfael says, is just one of the tools used, and one I wish was used more often.

Side note: we seem to have strayed from the topic, albeit entertainingly and in a direction I didn't expect.

 

[Eventine]

Their works have won big lit awards and will be studied, but that simply puts them on a spectrum of fantasy fiction, not apart from it. When we are really, truly looking at the broad scope of fantasy fiction and its contribution in our cultural lives, high-brow and low-brow have no meaning. They are terms made up from the misunderstandings of bookselling, from the placement of paperbacks in grocery stores, from the days of no social mobility. It is not the 1950's; we have gone way beyond such artificial divisions, and that the media so often attempts to prop them up, keeping interesting authors from being exposed to readers, is a great annoyance.

Surely it's more than the media and market categories though Kat, isn't a lot of this an integral part of the education system (both secondary and tertiary)?
I'm not saying it's not studied, and the spectrum isn't broad, but that the types of work that tend to get studied don't tend to have much overlap with what we'd consider "genre" fiction (and you may use the term genre as a literary category or a market one, I feel my point stays true).
Have we really moved past such divisions? Isn't the fact that a bunch of hard core genre fans are debating whether the division exists a pretty good sign that it does?

 

[Alchemist]

Nice riff, KatG, and I generally agree with you. There are points of divergence, but they are relatively consequential.

As for Kay, I also agree that his earlier work--the Fionavar Tapestry--was not nearly on a level with Tigana and later works. My point in comparing him and Bakker has nothing to do with their relative worth as authors, but that the feel of Kay is more akin to mainstream literature than Bakker. With Kay, the setting is a backdrop for story and character, for Bakker the setting is story and character.

My contention is that this sort of approach - judging fantasy by the same criteria as one would judge literary fiction - is misplaced and, overall, not worth the trouble, in a similar sense that many fantasy apologists bend over backwards trying to point out how some fantasy is worthy of literary attention.

That is a fine, pure specimen of why "fantasy" remains the butt of so much scorn from outside. What do you suppose the criteria by which one judges "literary fiction" to be, and why are they not applicable to fantastic fiction? You are, in one extended sentence, damning all readers of what you feel "fantasy" is to the status of semi-literate apes who can only understand and enjoy the childishly simple and simplistic.

Not at all. Rather than address each point of difference, let me get to the heart of the matter...

Literature is, of all the arts, the one that absolutely requires intellect for participation. Music, dance, sculpture, painting, and the rest of the Muses' domains--all of them are augmented by some intellectual comprehension of the art, but appeal chiefly and originally to the senses: a child or an idiot can enjoy them to a substantial degree; maybe even a cow. Not so with reading.

Here is where we differ most widely, and where I see a difference that perhaps you don't see or agree with, in regard to fantasy and literature. Yes, literature "requires intellect for participation," but I am arguing that fantasy requires a different kind of reading, a different kind of mind: fantasy requires imagination. For fantasy, intellect is secondary. Fantasy speaks to a different aspect of human consciousness, the imagination - which is something more primal, "deeper" even (in terms of relation to conscious awareness), than the intellect.

A variant angle on the issue is that literature (that is, mainstream/mimetic literature, or that literature which is lauded by the literati of university departments) speaks to the conscious mind in a complex, nuanced, and erudite manner. Fantasy, on the other hand, speaks to the subconscious in a form that often seems crude and childish to the literati that is reading it as if it is (or should be) "proper" literature.

So when you say that fantasy is the "butt of scorn" I would argue that this is because the scornful aren't hearing it, likely because they don't have the ears to hear because their subconscious mind has been obfuscated by their discursive intellect, their imagination atrophied by "growing up." Which is, quite frankly, a shame.

 

[Erfael]

Here is where we differ most widely, and where I see a difference that perhaps you don't see or agree with, in regard to fantasy and literature. Yes, literature "requires intellect for participation," but I am arguing that fantasy requires a different kind of reading, a different kind of mind: fantasy requires imagination. For fantasy, intellect is secondary. Fantasy speaks to a different aspect of human consciousness, the imagination - which is something more primal, "deeper" even (in terms of relation to conscious awareness), than the intellect.

A variant angle on the issue is that literature (that is, mainstream/mimetic literature, or that literature which is lauded by the literati of university departments) speaks to the conscious mind in a complex, nuanced, and erudite manner. Fantasy, on the other hand, speaks to the subconscious in a form that often seems crude and childish to the literati that is reading it as if it is (or should be) "proper" literature.

Why do intellect and imagination exist here as somehow being opposite. It seems here like you're suggesting the two are exclusive. I don't disagree about the imagination part of it, but why does that render the intellect side of things null? Can't we ask for both? I think both halves should be there enhancing one another.

I think that's where you and I are at odds. I'm very much in favor of very tightly written books where if something happens it is important. If something is a certain way in the world, it is that way for a reason. The more the world supports the ideas the author is trying to convey, the more I tend to enjoy a work. The more frivolous and unrelated info the author throws at me (world-building masturbation is how I tend to think of it) the less I tend to like things. Now, these are tendencies. There are books that for some reason or another strike certain chords with me and the extra enjoyment I get out of the place and story counterbalances what I'm missing otherwise. But the short of it is that the longer a book is, the more difficult it will be for that author to convince me they have something special on their hands.

But I don't see very much fantasy that's popular that is also reaching down into that well of Jungian Archetypes or Campbellian Hero's Journeys and speaking to the subconscious.

You may want to read the link Owlcroft posted above. In it he does mention emotion and that that's ultimately the goal. It doesn't stop at intellect. That's merely the tool we use to interface with a text.

 

[owlcroft]

Let me juxtapose two things people have said here recently:

Yes, literature "requires intellect for participation," but I am arguing that fantasy requires a different kind of reading, a different kind of mind: fantasy requires imagination.

And:

It doesn't stop at intellect (and expressed it neatly). That's merely the tool we use to interface with a text.

Erfael caught the point (and expressed it neatly). "Imagination" is a good thing, but we imagine by use of our intellects. The occasional "wolf children", denied access to human speech till sometime after the critical age (typically 12), are thereafter unable to develop anything like what we conceive of as a mind; they are essentially smart animals. Everything that we think of we think of in terms of language, which is the access to our consciousness. We cannot imagine without a functioning intellect forming or--in the case of reading, deciphering--the things imagined.

What can you imagine without intellect? A pretty sunset? First you need the words--the thought--"pretty sunset" as a trigger.

In truth, reading fantasy doesn't require imagination: that is the part the author is supposed to supply. What the reader needs is the intelligence to derive from the author's words the imaginative things the author is trying to depict.

 

[Sparrow]

But I do agree with Sparrow in that I don't find that most of the secondary-world stuff (with the exception of a few stand-out works) stands by the non-secondary-world stuff. As much as I like reading some of them, I just don't find them as good (in a critical way) as things by Graham Joyce or John Crowley or others in that area that most fantasy fans refuse to count as fantasy, but which clearly have elements which are not of the everyday world...but no medieval weaponry or magic.

That's a good point.

I've never really thought about it in those terms or subcategorized fantasy in that way, but yeah, that's the stuff I gravitate toward these days.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button by F. Scott Fitzgerald is along those lines... though the movie adaption is much better than the original short story.

 

[3rdI]

I am noticing time and again a general high brow disdain for epic/secondary world fantasy. Some seem to almost NEED Speculative Fiction to be analyzed in the same way Literary Fiction is which simply isn't possible as they are too different. Again I point to a number of works that have been listed that just BARELY fall into the realm of Speculative Fiction. Those works seem to be more palatable to the high brow crowd as they are closer in construct to standard Literary Fiction. In fact many of them are Literary Fiction with a few fantastic elements tossed in which amounts to Magical Realism which is by definition an oxymoron.

I suppose to an extent quite a bit depends on how you view Literary Fiction. I read very little Literary Fiction. When I am not reading Fantasy I primarily read Nonfiction, Philosophy and Poetry. Literary Fiction has rarely ever felt relevant as it is built upon a social framework that I see as flawed and have worked very hard to disconnect from as much as possible. When I want intellectual stimulation I will go read the latest CERN Bulletin or I will head over to Microsoft TechNet.

Fantasy is engaging and interesting in part because it sits outside of the mundane. The daily drudge of the inane. I do require complexity in language and structure but I am also looking for entertainment. Good Fantasy can provide both. This is why Urban, Steampunk, and Alt-History bore the hell out of me. I do not want fantasy set too close to reality. The closer it gets to Literary Fiction the less interesting it becomes. The only exception to this is Mieville. His Bas-Lag books are secondary world and while they do fall into the steampunk category the creativity and complexity is there. Mieville also is a master of language and his prose is superb. Kraken is the only true Urban Fantasy that I have ever really enjoyed and the reason for this is because it was so far over the top that it read more like secondary world fantasy than anything else.

 

[Erfael]

Literary Fiction has rarely ever felt relevant as it is built upon a social framework that I see as flawed...

Could you elaborate on this bit some? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from with it as far as social framework and flaws.

 

[Alchemist]

Erfael, certainly intellect and imagination don't have to be opposed - in truth, the best art (imo) is that which tickles both. But this is very difficult to accomplish.

One of the reasons I enjoyed R Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing series is that it was both intellectually (especially philosophically) satisfying and quite imaginatively evocative. The world was densely atmospheric and mysterious, and the characters complexly introspective (perhaps excessively so!). I have my criticisms of Bakker's work, but he is one of the few authors to do both well in the context of secondary world fantasy.

I would also agree that many secondary world fantasies are sub-par, that, more so than many genres and sub-genres of fantasy, poorly written works can get published. There are numerous secondary world fantasies that are filled with great ideas and interesting worlds, but written so poorly as to be virtually unreadable to anyone with some degree of literary discernment (an example, for me at least, being Ian Irvine's A Shadow on the Glass; I really wanted to like that book because I appreciated the world-building, but the writing was just poor).

Of course Sturgeon's Law applies to all genres and sub-genres, so secondary world fantasy is hardly unique in this regard, it is just that secondary world fantasies tend to be particularly prone to lacking in traditional literary merits.

So I don't think we are "very much at odds" in this regard. Where we might differ is in terms of what is more or less important to us as individuals in the reading experience. Speaking for myself, perhaps the most important quality in reading fantasy (and science fiction, for that matter) is the sense of mystery and wonder, the feeling of being immersed in a magical otherworld, a richly atmospheric time-space that evokes a feeling of the unknown, that tantalizes the imagination, that inner sense of wonderment.

For me everything else--while important--is secondary. I can deal with mediocre prose if the ideas inspire the imagination; what I don't enjoy, however, are well-written books with little feeling of soul or imagination or wonder (which is why I didn't finish The Road; I cannot think of a better wordsmith than Cormac McCarthy, but there is nothing inspiring about the world he created, nothing of beauty...OK, there is some beauty, but it is so stark and without a sense of wonderment or mystery; in that sense, I am tired of reading yet another clever way to portray the dark bleakness of the human experience; I would even say that I will sacrifice depth and nuance for feeling good, if I have to make the choice - I admit to enjoying Jerry Maguire but hating Requiem for a Dream).

But again, ideally a work is both well written and and inspiring to the imagination. It doesn't have to be either/or; unfortunately, at least in my experience it usually is, or at least most works veer more in one direction than the other.

It may even be that a true "classic" is a work that does both very well. This is perhaps why Steven Erikson's Malazan books may be, at best, "flawed classics" - works of great imagination and some literary merit, but certainly not tightly written or with the sense of each work being a framed piece of art, unlike, say, a Kay or Le Guin or Wolfe novel. The Malazan books (or what I've read of them, which is only the first three) are sprawling, lovely messes. Deadhouse Gates is probably the best of the bunch in terms of being a literary work, yet even then one gets the sense that Erikson was not writing it to be a tightly written piece of art. He was writing it to immerse himself and the reader into another world, to engage in a vast and compelling story, and to let his--and our--imagination run wild. I'm not sure if he could have done that if he was more self-conscious of how his work would be viewed "critically."

It is over-simplistic to try to neatly differentiate subjective taste and some kind of supposed objective worth, as owlcroft does. What makes a work great is a complex, multi-faceted issue. As I said above, it may be when a combination of factors align in such a way to make a story more than the sum of its parts. There is also a quality in most (all?) great works of them seeming to have written themselves, as if the writer was merely the conduit or channel for Story incarnating through them. Great works lack self-consciousness and pretentiousness because they are not trying to be anything, they are not being "written in the style of" or "an homage to" or "an exploration of X literary tropes," and so on. I would cite Hal Duncan's Vellum as an example that misses the mark, and quite substantially. His prose is lush and rich, yet the book is oh-so self-conscious, so obviously trying to be a Great Postmodern Masterwork.

Owlcroft, to address your point:

We cannot imagine without a functioning intellect forming or--in the case of reading, deciphering--the things imagined.

What can you imagine without intellect? A pretty sunset? First you need the words--the thought--"pretty sunset" as a trigger.

In truth, reading fantasy doesn't require imagination: that is the part the author is supposed to supply. What the reader needs is the intelligence to derive from the author's words the imaginative things the author is trying to depict.

True, reading fantasy does not require imagination but it is imagination that brings it alive. I would argue that intellect is like a boat that one uses to get to the other side of a river, which is Fantasyland, but if one stays in the boat one cannot truly experience Fantasyland - only from the perspective of sitting in a boat, thus an intellectualized simulation of imagination.

This, I would argue, is where literary critics err in their reading of fantasy - they experience it from a place of intellectualization, when fantasy (at least good fantasy!) is speaking to something different, what I am calling imagination. And while imagination is not divorced from intellect, it is not synonymous with it. Imagination is to intellect what culture is to society or what love is to a relationship. It is the "juice," the vital essence. To intellectualize imagination is a form of reductionism, to say the least, like describing the experience of love in terms of chemical reactions. This isn't to say that there isn't some value to that, but that it doesn't really encapsulate or say anything about the actual experience of love.

 

[Carlyle Clark]

As for "brow-ness" and intellectual stimulation, for me at least, the stories that resonate and stay with me are the ones that use all the techniques of literature. Metaphor, symbolism, choice of character names etc. to reinforce the theme of the story and characters. I think starting out with the presumption that a fantasy novel rife with conflict doesn’t have it might make one not look for it and therefore not see it.

Since Abercrombie was mentioned I'll do just a tiny bit of literary analysis of his latest THE HEROES:

THE HEROES

Spoiler

First off the title itself is metaphorical and ironic and used in the theme. The Heroes are a group of giant stones on top of hill that is useless except for strategic value in war (as are war heroes). No one even remembers why they are called The Heroes and you never learn why nor does it matter for the story. This resonates with the ending in which Abercrombie points out that names that just days and even hours before were celebrated are already being eclipsed by the new names and Bek's father, Shama Heartless's name is not even mentioned at all. (Note the metaphorical choice for the absentee father who Bek's mother declares cared for nothing but war and glory: Shama {Sham/Shame} Heartless)

Also, since this novel is a theme about the end of an age. What is the first thing shattered by the beginning of the "Age of Technology" in the form of the cannon? The stones—stone itself a symbol of the "barbarian age"—named The Heroes which are the physical inanimate symbols of the "Heroic Age" that is ending.

Take names:

Who strikes the blow to the head that kills the physical embodiment of the North—Black Down both a vicious murderer and brave warrior—and makes way for the 'birth' of the new Age? Caul. What's a caul? : "1. a part of the amnion sometimes covering the head of a child at birth."

Dogman: Black Dow berates an underling for stating that the Dogman is dishonorable, by proclaiming the Dogman is the honorable one who stayed loyal; it's everyone else who changed sides. What is the "dog" most associated with? Loyalty.

Who takes over? Calder. A born politician (which Bayaz even says) who unlike the leaders in the "Heroic Age" will do anything not to fight personally preferring scheming and working through underlings, and even when he finally does fight, thinks about what he gains politically by it. He's the perfect symbol fro the new Age of Progress, which in itself is an irony because the progress remove the Kings from the field of battle giving them more incentive to go to war over less. In contrast his brother Scale, the former heir, is--like Black Dow--a symbol of the Heroic Age, but living by that code forces him into the hands of the Union and he comes back a man broken because he tried to hold his ground against the "progress" of the Age of Technology.

Take Bayaz: the embodiment of the power behind all powerful leaders. In the FIRST LAW trilogy he states that magic is waning and we see now it is waning in conjunction with the end of the heroic age. However in THE HEROES he states clearly that GOLD is power, essentially the new "magic" of the Age of Technology because with it you can do all the things you were supposed to only be able to do with magic in the Heroic Age. He bridges the gap between Ages effortlessly. Why? Because that's what the power does. The powerful make money when the market goes up AND when it goes down. They profit in peace AND in war.

This only scratches the surface of the literary merit of THE HEROES. But if you aren't looking for it, you will get a rollicking adventure and could easily perceive it as shallow.

 

[suciul]

This is a complicated discussion and bringing stuff like "must read this or that author" does not really help; I read quite a lot of literary fiction but I just do not like Chabon for example; what about reading some Yasunari Kawabata who while quite far from sff, is yet as exotic as almost anything in secondary world fantasy if you want a must read non-sff author for the sff crowd?

Again i did a list of such on FBC a while ago and I will present it, but my take is that generally I prefer sff to be sff so to speak and literary to be literary since I agree to a large extent with Alchemist and 3rdI's posts there; trying to make sff closer to mimetic fiction tends to suck out the life and those in-between writers like Chabon rarely work for me...

Here's my list of non-sff for the sff crowd (c/p the FBc post, so references are to there)

The Sea of Fertility Tetralogy ( Spring Snow (1966), Runaway Horses (1969), The Temple of Dawn (1970) and The Decay of the Angel (1971)) by Yukio Mishima

exotic, reincarnation, great characters, great worldbuilding and page turners to boot; three times Nobel prize nominated and whom is rumored to have lost by a whisker in 1968; a loose tetralogy following one character's interactions with four young people he believes are successive reincarnations of each other.

The Master of Go by Yasunari Kawabata

page turner that is both allegory and a gripping description of a marathon go match; another novel that was an important part of a Nobel prize winner's work.

The Defense by Vladimir Nabokov

maybe not the best Nabokov, nor the most sf-nal (Ada is alt-history for example) but a big favorite of mine for its great tale of chess and madness; also one famous book for which the movie is pretty good since it respects its spirit whatever liberties it takes with the text.

*********************************************************
The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood

family saga, mystery and pulp-sf; Booker prize winner and top five novel of the 00's of mine.

Seven Japanese Tales by Junichiro Tanizaki

the one collection on the list since each story here is superb; a mixture of themes and settings from contemporary to the writing (mostly 1910-30's though one as late as 1959) to historical fiction showcasing Junichiro Tanizaki's "typical" mixture of eroticism, strange and exotic
another Nobel prize nominated author who almost won

2666 by Roberto Bolano

sprawling, subtle, funny and then ultra-dark; one of the few "must" novels of the 00's imho; I hope to review it here by early 2011.

*********************************************************
The Forbidden Forest by Mircea Eliade (aka St John Nativity Night or even Faerie Night in the original Romanian language title)

one of the few novels I read in three languages several times each; sadly the English language edition is rare and expensive but good college libraries have it - I read it that way first and kept it borrowed on and off for almost all my time in graduate school here since it was banned by the communist regime I grew up under; later I bought the French edition and then even later, a Romanian language edition and I wish someone would reprint it in English too since I would buy it on the spot at a decent price...

epic, (slight) paranormal, romance, world building, great characters and a powerful sense of history; the last 100 pages and the ending are still among the most emotional ones I've ever read even today after many readings of the book; the one "marooned on an island novel" for me

When We Were Orphans by Kazuo Ishiguro

another Booker shortlisted novel and while maybe not the author's best, a favorite of mine despite being loosely classified as "detective/crime" fiction; exotic world building at the boundary with the imaginary and a great denouement

The Magus by John Fowles

the one pure mainstream novel that reproduces the sf-nal sense of wonder; it just blew me away many years ago when I read it first in Romanian and then I read it in English several times too; one of those famous novels I think any sff fan should at least look at

*********************************************************
Doctor Zhivago by Boris Pasternak

epic tale of glitter, misery and Revolution; world building, great characters, page turner in this Nobel prize winner novel; the author paid dearly for the Nobel though, suffering humiliation in the supposedly "thawed" Kruschev' Soviet Union; the first book I bought and read here in the USA, days within my arriving in 1990. A bunch of movies too with the most recent Russian miniseries the best rendering of the novel I've watched, though of course Omar Sharif and Julie Christie still have their timeless charm...

A Time to Love and a Time to Die by Erich Maria Remarque

nobody does better exile and alienation in a foreign country than EM Remarque and his tales of people blown by the winds of war in the maelstrom of Europe 1930-1940's when a passport stamp made all the difference between life and death still resonate with me very strongly today; this one though is a bit more straightforward; Germany 1943 among bombings, rubble and the specter of the Eastern Front and the title says it all; while Arch of Triumph - another personal favorite that takes place in 1939 Paris - may be more accomplished, this one is just a big, big personal favorite.

The Stranger by Albert Camus

too well known to say more in a paragraph and a landmark of the literary world of the 20th century; also a crucial part of a Nobel prize winner work; try it since you will be surprised how gripping it is

*********************************************************
Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov

another well known novel about the Devil in Stalin's Moscow; the posthumous publication was a landmark event; the 10 episode Russian miniseries is the best adaptation of several I watched; and Behemoth the black cat on the cover above is still awesome

Doctor Faustus by Thomas Mann

the "most difficult" novel on the list but another landmark of 20th century literature which shows that an author can write great stuff decades after receiving the Nobel; the descent into madness both personal and societal and with sff-nal elements too.

A Place of Greater Safety by Hilary Mantel

way before Wolf Hall, there was this one which I read on US publication some 15-16 years ago and reread a bunch of times since; while less accomplished technically it is still a big time favorite; same great world building and characters but in the French Revolution. And of course a superbly ironical title.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

I had a LONG post for this thread, but I'm not including it for two reasons. First, as an author I have a dog in this fight and I don't trust my internal editor to keep me completely objective. And second, I've only been reading fantasy for about 33 or 34 years; classic lit for about 25 or so. That's far too short a time for me to make sweeping generalizations about such a complex topic. Maybe I'll try in forty or fifty years hence.

But I did want to highlight this:

But if you aren't looking for it, you will get a rollicking adventure and could easily perceive it as shallow.

Every fantasy author I know and have talked to fights against this stigma. I'll stop short of calling fantasy the "special unique snowflake" of the literary world, but anyone who reads a bulk of what is on the market, new and old, and comes away thinking it is primarly "escapist" fluff has missed the point entirely. Be as dismissive as you like, but even in the most elementary fantasy novels I have found levels of meaning that go as deep as the intellectual victuals I've devoured. Different ways of reaching those levels, yes. But they are there for anyone who cares to mine for them.

 

[mshnd06]

Really enjoying this thread and I think Owl, Erf and Alch have all said things I had wanted to express, but have done so more articulately than I could have. In particular:

Alchemist: This, I would argue, is where literary critics err in their reading of fantasy - they experience it from a place of intellectualization, when fantasy (at least good fantasy!) is speaking to something different, what I am calling imagination. And while imagination is not divorced from intellect, it is not synonymous with it. Imagination is to intellect what culture is to society or what love is to a relationship. It is the "juice," the vital essence. To intellectualize imagination is a form of reductionism, to say the least, like describing the experience of love in terms of chemical reactions. This isn't to say that there isn't some value to that, but that it doesn't really encapsulate or say anything about the actual experience of love.

Now, I'm no Noam Chomsky. I have very limited knowledge of the fields of psychology, linguistics and philosophy so I feel less than qualified to contribute to this conversation. I will nevertheless do so, for my own edification and satisfaction.

I find owl's statements regarding the intellect and the imagination to be somewhat limited. It seems to imply that reading is reduced entirely to an act of translation and the reader's participation is merely passive. Is the merit of a work restricted to the conscious intent of the writer? Is the consequent consideration of themes or imaginative immersion in a world or empathic musing on a character independent of the work? Even if it deviates from the intention of the source of the work? Is there nothing creative in the experience of the reader? I don't know. That said the rest of owl's rather lengthy post hit on my views regarding attempts to make quality and fantasy entertainment mutually exclusive.

Also, while I am sure there are objective measures of quality, many subjective elements coexist. I don't think every aspect of a work can or should be viewed through the lens of merit. Of course, I think there are many who fail to differentiate and as a result write off works as being of inferior quality when, in reality, they're simply filtering according to quirks.

Erf and Alch's conversation seems to run parallel to classic semantic debates over fantasy itself. The boundaries tend to shift depending on the preferences and perspectives of the reader. Perhaps those who favor secondary world epics and prioritize plot and world-building view fantasy according to certain tropes or depth and wonder of setting. I suppose this kind of definition of fantasy makes sense because while theme, character, prose are largely universal, fantasy offers more flexibility in plot and setting. I tend to weigh prose as more significant than plot or setting (just a personal preference) and as a result I find that I that the prose can define fantasy just as well. Now, this may just be me. I certainly can't articulate the why in any satisfactory way, but some works just feel more fantastic for me just by the way they are written. Kavalier and Clay, Zuleika Dobson and One Hundred Years of Solitude provide a greater sense of that wonder for me than do Erikson, Martin, Jordan or Bakker, even if they're only marginally speculative in the eyes of most. The style and approach of these works makes the speculative elements seem more meaningful to me, whereas most epic secondary world fantasy strikes me as hollow. The fantastic can so easily become just a plot device and then you have an action/spy/war novel in a different place.

3rdI, the disdain of academia seems to mirror your disdain for "marginally speculative works." It seems to me that you're stating your tastes as criteria. That anyone could honestly consider Chabon and Borges to be better or preferable to Bakker or Rothfuss is unfathomable, it must be high-brow pretentious nonsense. That is a tad offensive (although it probably isn't your intent; you seem to have a naturally polemical voice on discussion forums, which of course enables the more engaging debates). Additionally, to trivialize magical realism as an oxymoron seems intellectually lazy. Magical realism is not merely the juxtaposition, it is the dramatic and thematic effect of that dialectic that lends significance.

 

[3rdI]

Could you elaborate on this bit some? I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from with it as far as social framework and flaws.

No I cannot. To do so would inevitably lead to an off topic discussion. It would cross into the realms of politics, religion, philosophy, sociology, dogma and social mores. It would most certainly lead to my banning.

I celebrate secondary world fantasy for its imagination. For the metaphorical middle finger every epic fantasy writer puts up to the world of critical review. For the courage to write the stories they want to write regardless of how the world of academia and high brow criticism might view them.

I celebrate Patrick Rothfuss and Scott Bakker. I celebrate Jon Sprunk and NOM and every fantasy writer pushing the envelope of imagination.

 

[Carlyle Clark]

I had a LONG post for this thread, but I'm not including it for two reasons. First, as an author I have a dog in this fight and I don't trust my internal editor to keep me completely objective. And second, I've only been reading fantasy for about 33 or 34 years; classic lit for about 25 or so. That's far too short a time for me to make sweeping generalizations about such a complex topic. Maybe I'll try in forty or fifty years hence.

But I did want to highlight this:



Every fantasy author I know and have talked to fights against this stigma. I'll stop short of calling fantasy the "special unique snowflake" of the literary world, but anyone who reads a bulk of what is on the market, new and old, and comes away thinking it is primarly "escapist" fluff has missed the point entirely. Be as dismissive as you like, but even in the most elementary fantasy novels I have found levels of meaning that go as deep as the intellectual victuals I've devoured. Different ways of reaching those levels, yes. But they are there for anyone who cares to mine for them.

Jon,

Did you read the spoiler analysis in my post, which is diametrically opposed to the portion of my post you quote, rendering it not only oout of context, but in direct oppostion to the point I actually made which agrees with your post?

 

[molybdenum]

There's one thing I think must be present in literature in order to make it appealing to me, and it is I have to be able to enjoy the story being told. It is far more important to me than the ability to be stimulated intellectually.

If I wanted to pursue an intellectual pursuit for the sake of intellectual pursuit, I'd read a text book. Some may say that this is besides the point, as a textbook is not art, but I think it is exactly the point. Why do people pursue art as a means of intellectually stimulating themselves rather than seeking knowledge in its purest form? For one of two reasons, either they enjoy the pursuit of having to dig to come to the knowledge that is present within the work of art, or the work of art presents some enjoyment outside of the seeking of intellect. With both these cases, the person is partaking in the art because they enjoy it.

Where I believe Owlcroft goes wrong is that he/she seems to suggest that those who enjoy the pursuit of intellect through art are somehow superior to those who don't enjoy this. Certainly, the point made that some people are not able to find the intellect present in art is a good one, but it's far from the only reason that one decides that literature is not for them. They do not enjoy the pursuit of knowledge through art to the same degree others do, which doesn't make them inferior, but simply highlights that tastes within people are different.

Personally, the books I enjoy most are the ones that play on the emotion of the reader. So books that do this are the ones that appeal to me most. That doesn't make me disdainful of books for those who enjoy intellectual pursuits, as I realize they have their place and audience within the world. Something 3rdI doesn't seem to realize. Writing books like Rothfuss or Jordan write isn't sticking up a middle finger to the literary estalishments, because that would suggest there is some kind of pressure forced upon them to write like that. Rather, they write to the audience that enjoys the sort of thing they write, and judging by their sales figures, do so successfully. Chabon does the exact same thing, writing to a certain audience who appreciates what he writes. This does not make him a superior writer, nor is it him submitted to the powers that be where Rothfuss rebels. He writes to an audience that appreciates him, and he writes for himself. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Erfael]

I can't disagree with any of that, molybdenum. Side note: If it puts my position into perspective I do, from time to time, read a textbook. Or a book on comparative mythology. I was just combing through college catalogs yesterday looking for a course to audit. I compose and solve word puzzles in my free time. I play strategic board games (preferring any zero-sum games) and dislike games of pure chance. I am always looking for ways to stimulate my thinking centers and I don't tend to value activities that don't do so as much as those that do.

Specifically on topic:

I think what we're coming back around to in this discussion is one we usually end up with around here in some form or another once a thread has been around a bit: Different people are different. Some are approaching works looking for one thing; some are approaching looking for something else. People go into books wanting to do different kinds of work when reading them. There's not an absolute value judgment to be attached to any of those people or works. Even in this discussion we're seeing a small number on either extreme (call them the Owlcroft and 3rdI extremes) and most people falling somewhere in between.

To be fair, though, I don't see many (if any) comments that seem to be sneering on spec-fic or even swords-and-fireballs fantasy in and of itself. I do see people commenting that they wish they'd get more out of that kind of work or that some of those works would use the tools available in the genre to move in a different direction than they feel it's moving.

But I do see some posts seem to be setting up an us vs. them between works firmly in the fantasy camp and works that are on the so-called borderlands (if we accept that there are borderlands. I don't buy into that...if it's fantasy, it's fantasy, swords or no swords, magic or no magic, rabbits or no rabbits). That feels like self-ghettoization to me. It seems like once a work of fantasy becomes accepted by the larger world of fiction genre fans can't distance themselves from it fast enough. And you couldn't get a lot of fantasy fans to go anywhere near something published by a non-genre house. But at the same time people are looking to things like the LOTR movies or the Game of Thrones TV series as a means of possibly making fantasy "finally being taken seriously". We've seen that phrase countless times over the last few weeks in the lead-up to GoT. So which do we as fans want? Recognition that this is real stuff we're reading? Or to keep some sort of anti-normal stance in relation to society, to stay on the outside of the perceived norms?

I think in some respects there's at least some portion of the fandom that's afraid to lose their "outsider" label. "We're fantasy fans, so we're special. We're cool because we like all this stuff other people don't like. If this becomes accepted, we won't be counter-society any more. We'll be part of the masses."

 

[Jon Sprunk]

Jon,

Did you read the spoiler analysis in my post, which is diametrically opposed to the portion of my post you quote, rendering it not only oout of context, but in direct oppostion to the point I actually made which agrees with your post?

Yes, and I read your post twice. I think we're in agreement. In some forms of lit (like fantasy, maybe especially heroic or s&s), there is deeper literary value than might be apparent from a surface read.

 

[Sparrow]

I celebrate secondary world fantasy for its imagination. For the metaphorical middle finger every epic fantasy writer puts up to the world of critical review. For the courage to write the stories they want to write regardless of how the world of academia and high brow criticism might view them.

I celebrate Patrick Rothfuss and Scott Bakker. I celebrate Jon Sprunk and NOM and every fantasy writer pushing the envelope of imagination.

MOD EDIT: I removed this comment, as it wasn't in the spirit of the rest of the thread, which has been very tolerant and thoughtful. This one has the potential to devolve very quickly, so let's not let that happen, shall we?

 

[owlcroft]

Some oddments.

Re It seems to imply that reading is reduced entirely to an act of translation and the reader's participation is merely passive. Is the merit of a work restricted to the conscious intent of the writer? That was not the intention. In my site's essay on M. John Harrison appears this paragraph:

Not long [ago], I chanced to be reading some remarks by Gore Vidal about Italo Calvino, whose work Vidal first brought to serious attention in the U.S. Vidal concluded his essay with the remark that "Reading Calvino, I had the unnerving sense that I was also writing what he had written; thus does his art prove his case as writer and reader become one, or One." (Calvino was much pleased when he read that.) I was at once minded of Harrison, for that quality, of the reader completing the writing--which is necessarily found in all fictive works of value--seems pre-eminently present in his work.

With any book, but especially so a good one, the reader is in partnership with the author; but that, I think, only reinforces my argument that the degree to which a capable author can be appreciated depends strongly on the equipment that the reader is able to bring to his or her part of the deal. The author supplies the imagination, but to access that imagination and take on board all that the author has both said and implied (and that especially is where the reader comes in), the reader must use intellect to perceive the imagined things. That does not make reading a sterile exercise of intellect: the job of fiction (unlike, say, textbooks) is to exercise the reader's emotions. It is just that intellect is the necessary access or pathway to those emotions; as I said before, in the other arts, access is at least partly and often wholly direct through the senses; but in reading we must use our intellects to unlock and open the trunk that the writer has packed for us.

Where I believe Owlcroft goes wrong is that he/she seems to suggest that those who enjoy the pursuit of intellect through art are somehow superior to those who don't enjoy this.

(He.) Not so; indeed, I tried at some length to point out that that very idea, the association of "merit" of some sort with wit, is a deadly error. Nor is it a matter of the "pursuit" of intellect: I am not suggesting that we read fiction to expand our knowledge. Rather, intellect is a tool--the only functional tool--with which we can access what a writer is offering to us. What I do say, then, is that the greater the reader's wit, the better able that reader is to extract the imagination and emotion (and yes, thought) a writer may have packed in a given tale.

Now if the writer is not particularly talented, and has not packed up much, it correspondingly doesn't take much to unpack what's there. Small children can get all there is out of Dick and Jane Visit Spot. But if the writer is good--or very good, or excellent--then the reader needs a corresponding amount of intellect to fully unpack the contents. And it is my proposition that the more content a reader can get from a book, the greater the reading experience.

To take a gross example, we can imagine a child with a good vocabulary reading, say, the Viriconium series; what is that reader going to get out of it? Even if the child understands all of the words, the actual content and message will be almost wholly indecipherable, incomprehensible. You cannot pour a gallon into a pint bottle. The reader with the pint bottle says "Why is everyone praising this book when it only has a pint's worth of content? Lots of books I read have a pint of content, so they're obviously just as good." The reader with the gallon jug just takes home more of the goods. Is one reader "better" than the other? As a person, no; as a reader, yes. Being tall doesn't mean you can be a pro basketball player, but being short means that you cannot. But, Randy Newman notwithstanding, short people are as meritorious as tall ones.

Incidentally--or perhaps not so incidentally--there is something very disturbing about the phrase "high-brow". It implies that wit is an object of scorn. It is the very sort of thing that charming folk like the Nazis pushed very hard: those intellectuals are lording it over you but they're no better than you, in fact they're worse; you, as the salt of the earth, are far superior to them. That's why, when the Nazis took power, they put the janitors in charge of the universities.

Da capo: I repeat the question: how and why are the criteria for judging quality in a work of fiction materially different for speculative fiction than any other sort? Why do we read at all? What are we looking for? Many, including me, feel we are looking to augment ourselves, to see things, feel things, think things that we cannot or likely would not within the compass of our own lives. We want plausible characters feeling complex, nuanced emotions that we find credible; we want interesting, rich settings that, again, we can find credible; we want plots that credibly evoke those feelings and thoughts in the characters; and we want the tale told in language that at the least doesn't grate on our sensibilities, and preferably that rises above wooden. None of that is something that applies to one kind of tale but not another.

I have more to say, but this is already over-long. As Casey Stengel once famously said, you could look it up.