The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

This is why I like to say that fantasy can border on myth, rather than being the full-blown thing. But in today's society, I don't see many things doing anything more than bordering on it or oftentimes even close to bordering on it.

 

You keep saying stuff like this, and I just can't relate to it. As a reader, you have almost NO control. What's on the page is on the page. No matter how much personal baggage you bring to it, you can't change what happens to the characters, no matter how much you would like to. A reader has no effect on how the story turns out. A reader doesn't get to make a single decision that affects the outcome of the story. That doesn't seem like any level of control to me.

How is a magic system empowering? Are people imagining themselves in the heroic roles, living vicariously through the characters on the page? If so, I guess I can see what you're saying, but is that healthy? I can see what you're saying in relation to RPGs, perhaps, but as far as reading fantasy, for me, it has nothing to do with gaining more control over my surroundings or having the world laid out for me in black and white. Do many people really read it for these reasons? That seems strange to me.

I'm not being a bastard here, just don't get any sense of what you're saying in relation to how I approach reading or in the ways I imagine others would.

 

That's interesting, as I would probably totally reverse that final statement in my case. I recently read Perdido and spent a great deal of time wondering what I might do when faced with some of the things the characters were faced with. It wasn't really visualizing myself in their role, but just considerations of what I thought about their situations from my perspective as well as theirs. Not really living through the characters, but rather using their situations as a study of behavior, both theirs and my own.

As far as epic fantasy, while often a fun story, doesn't give me that at all. A fight or a battle scene can be interesting, but far more interesting is why that fight happens or what the characters did to bring it about. I couldn't care less about the actual fight for the sake of the fight itself...that means almost nothing to me. It's the events which bring it about that I find far more interesting, and that seems to be glossed over in some ways in much of the epic fantasy I've read -- the cast and events are just too big to get the kind of focus on those sorts of things that I like.

So I would read Perdido for that reason, Epic for another.

 

Knives, remember we're talking FAT fantasy here, not fantasy in general.

I think another false premise this thread might be built on is the assumption that more people read epic fantasy than is actually the case. For us to assume the epic fantasy plays any important role in society, for good or bad, is to assume that a significant amount of people are reading it.

Is this really the case?

 

No-dog, I was trying to make two substantive points:

1) Let's not only address theories that consider fat fantasy a positive contribution to society, but also the fact that fat fantasy might be a negative phenomenon within society. I felt I should make this point based on:

a) a misunderstanding in what you meant by opening up possibilities; and

b) that most posters here take it for granted that fat fantasy is a good thing.

and

2) I was being serious when I suggested Horkheimer and Adorno's culture industry might be useful in explaining the phenomenon of fat fantasy.

Interesting that nowhere in your post have you actually engaged with the second substantive point I was making about the commodification of the imagination and maintaining status quos, which to me was the main gist of the post.

In fact, by pointing out that it is worth considering any critical theories of fat fantasy would indicate that I think such considerations are crucial, wouldn’t it? In the context I used 'important' and 'crucial' it was obvious I meant important or crucial in a positive way. If you tried to engage with my posts rather than pick up on points you can niggle at, we might actual get somewhere in this conversation.

Secondly, I'd be interested if you could repeat or post a link to your earlier theory, as you assume I actually bother to read everything you post.

As I already admitted, I misunderstood what you meant, but you seem to have a bad case of selective reading so I'll forgive you. Nevertheless, you're surely not denying that most posts have assumed a pro epic fantasy stance?

Furthermore, I have now posited two related theories.

I can't see where I argued entertaining multiple theoretical possibilities is a bad thing? Sure, as I admitted, I misinterpreted what the phrase "opening up possibilities" meant. But the fact that I want to consider a more critical stance to our theories about fat fantasy should have indicated to you that I actually think entertaining multiple theoretical possibilities is a good thing. As long as this thread is about entertaining all perspectives towards fat fantasy, rather than just another excuse to celebrate fat fantasy in a way that allows philosophy majors to flex their love muscles, I'm all for it.

 

Probably to the same people that are buying the Jordan.

It's an impressive figure GemQuest, but without context it's not necessarily indicative of squat.

Anyway, I was just posing the question, rather than offering my own answer.

 

Bardos, for my definition, epic fantasy focuses on a large cast of characters and grand events in a fantasy setting, usually on the nation or world level, often seems to involve armies. That's all. Doesn't have to be good versus evil, no need for pseudo-medieval setting, no need for elves, dwarves, wizards -- however, most epic fantasy on the shelves seems to contradict this definition by requiring at least some of those elements be present in every story.

And as far as why you can't have it so easily with epic fantasy, I would imagine it's a function of scale. As it is focusing on more characters and grander events, you can't really spend the kind of time it takes to deal with that sort of stuff for each and every character. So in order to do that effectively, the cast would have to be cut back, pretty severly in the case of some of the works that are around today.

And I'm not saying that epic fantasy can't focus on the small details, just that it doesn't seem to do so in most current examples.

Perhaps some examples: Some from Robin Hobb. I would not consider the Farseer epic fantasy. It deals with large-scale events, but from the perspective of only one character. It's a very personal fantasy, one that takes place amidst the backdrop of epic events, but when Fitz does something it's explored in pretty great detail, not just glossed over and reported on. For the full duration of the trilogy, we are with Fitz.

Now take Liveship Traders, also from Hobb: There are many characters who are "main" and many others who are very important "secondary" characters, all of whom we get to spend time with, inside their heads. But given that there are so many more characters, in 2400 pages of the trilogy, we may only spend, at most,(just a guess here) a fifth of that with any one character, far fewer with many of the other characters. This is more of an epic fantasy...large cast, redrawing of the maps based on large-scale power-struggles.

So I see epic fantasy as being much more of a broad perspective writing style, that sort of softens down all of the personal aspects of things in favor of the broad picture, while something of a smaller scale may be set against events that are just as large, but lose some of the big picture to focus more clearly on the detail. For me, the detail is far more interesting and far more personal than the broad sweep. In thinking on it, it sort of reminds me of fractals, the closer you get, the more little details you can see, so it can be looked at with equal interest from one perspective versus another....some people like the up-close, others the far-off.

Just a note, so people don't confuse the use of the word detail in the previous paragraph with world-building. I don't mean detail as in "I'll make big lists of things so that people think I made a really in-depth world." I mean it in the context of looking at the finer points of what brought events about.

I like this exercise: Any time I read a story that is not epic fantasy, for instance, try to imagine it as epic...that is, you're not just getting one or two perspectives, but all of them, blow the book way up, think about what all of the supporting cast would be like as mains....if reading something that is epic, imagine it told from one person's perspective, all the way through. I usually find that I'm far more drawn to the smaller of those two.

A story only needs a certain number of pages to be told. Epic fantasy seems to be an excuse to fill pages, in some respects. I stopped reading Jordan after book 5, but does the story warrant 12 or 13 books? I'm sure some would say yes, others no. But I'm willing to bet the ones who say yes are the ones who would rather get that pulled-out fractal view rather than the in-close. The ones who say no, just the opposite.

I would like to throw out a few more examples, but no time right now. A question or two, in place of it:

Could Donaldson have spent 9 books on the First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? Could he have told that story in one?

Could your favorite standalone have been told in 6 books? Probably, but would you have wanted it to have been? Would more have made it better?

 

No, no, you first interpretation was correct. I was asking whether enough people read the stuff for it to have any impact on society as a whole. It's not something I have taken an interest in. I notice the occassional epic fantasy book popping up in the top ten bestseller list here in a Australia, but usually the top ten consists of mainstream books. Obviously, epic fantasy's star has risen after the success of the LotR films.

I was just saying that selling 1.5 million books sounds like a lot, but without any comparative figures it doesn't mean anything to me.