The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[ElinIsabel]

Authors are supplying suitably gift-wrapped sets of curtains and wallpaper for readers who (to mix a metaphor) smoke such stuff for their high.

Well, at least David Eddings is legal in all 50 states.

(I say that as someone who had a great love for the Belgariad as a child...and grew up in a town where the penalty for pot possesion is a mere 10$ fine)

 

[Irrelevant]

Well, at least David Eddings is legal in all 50 states.

(I say that as someone who had a great love for the Belgariad as a child...and grew up in a town where the penalty for pot possesion is a mere 10$ fine)

Where the hell do you live? Cause I'm moving there.

 

[ElinIsabel]

I grew up in Ann Arbor, Michigan

I actually think its a 20$ fine now.

That's what happens when college students and hippies run the town...

 

[Larry]

I guess there's something to be said about the connections between lax pot laws, philosophy, and the writing of epic fantasy? I wonder if Bakker would expound upon this if he were to ever revisit this thread of his...

 

[E_Moon]

So does anyone have a hypothesis on why the last two might be common problems with BFF or EFP etc, and some ways to avoid those problems?

"Why" of other writers isn't as important as your personal "why"--you can't change their motivation, only your own. If you're aware of the problem, you can avoid it by watching your own motivation--when you start getting "loose" in your handling of your story, stop and think. Ask yourself "Does this make sense?"

The reason such works exist in the marketplace is simple: they sell well enough for publishers to see a profit in publishing them. They are giving the readership something it wants...even if not completely satisfying, it's something.

 

[Werthead]

That is possible, of course, only because there is a corresponding readership, one that just wants its fix of what someone once called "teddy-bear worlds", where The Good Guys Win And The Bad Guys Lose. Authors are supplying suitably gift-wrapped sets of curtains and wallpaper for readers who (to mix a metaphor) smoke such stuff for their high.

This doesn't make much sense when applied to the extant works. Works which are highly inconsistent where the authors can do what the hell they want without paying attentiont to rules, consistency or narrative chronology seem to mainly be the preserve of authors pursuing 'artistic' goals like Harrison and Moorcock. When pulled up on the fact their stories don't make sense, they sneer at the 'clomping feet of nerdism' from authors who are not striving for higher meaning or whatever.

'Comfort' fantasy where the good guys always win has also been notable by its near-total absence from the scene for much of the past decade and a half, especially since the demise of the likes of David Eddings.

 

[E_Moon]

That is possible, of course, only because there is a corresponding readership, one that just wants its fix of what someone once called "teddy-bear worlds", where The Good Guys Win And The Bad Guys Lose. Authors are supplying suitably gift-wrapped sets of curtains and wallpaper for readers who (to mix a metaphor) smoke such stuff for their high.

Every readership "just wants its fix." Some readerships want things blowing up, and some want a specific type of sex, and some want urban grunge, and some want psychological thrills from being in the mind of a sadistic serial killer, and...so forth. In that sense, writers in all genres supply "suitably gift-wrapped sets of curtains and wallpaper for readers who...smoke such stuff for their high." Readers want to be entertained with what they enjoy. They enjoy different things. There's nothing superior about wanting a story in which the Bad Guys Win and the Good Guys Lose, or Nobody Wins, or Everybody Wins, or It's Not a Contest, etc. The superiority, if any, comes in the way the story is structured and told, in the characterization, the quality of language, and ANY genre will have superior and inferior versions of itself.

At the high end, every genre is hard to do superbly. Fantasy and SF have the additional difficulty that they must create a believable non-real world in which the story lives. It's easier to take the low road, and if the low road stops at the right pubs along the way, readers will get on board for the ride. That's not the fault of the pubs, or the readers. Certainly readers prefer stories that stop at the right pubs on the low road to stories that take the high road but avoid pubs entirely, or stop at ones those readers can't stand. But if a story takes the high road of excellence in those areas of weakness *and* provides the brew readers want...they like it as well or more.

 

[Rilzik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hJhmxc3Arw&feature=related

On Fantasy - George R.R. Martin