The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Scott Bakker]

Really these threads on epics have begged the answer - it's assumed epic fantasy plays a crucial and important role in society. Has anybody yet stopped to appraise their inherent bias and question whether epic fantasy might actually be a social anathema?

And anathemas are neither crucial nor important? I'm not sure I'm following you Monosyllabik (especially since the theory I posed earlier (in the appeal thread) is thoroughly rooted in Adorno!).

These threads have been set up to stifle any dissent towards epic fantasy with words like "appeal" (how about a thread on the “unappeal” of epic fantasy?) and caveats like "let's open up possibilities rather than close them down". Like I said, they beg the answer to the question. Any social critique that emerges from this thread has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, I'm just not sure what you're talking about, Monosyllabik. There's certainly no question-begging here. The possibilities being 'opened up' are simply second-order theoretical possibilities, which in no way, shape, or form, dictates the evaluative attitude those theories must take to fantasy. Where do you see the demand that all theories be 'pro epic fantasy'? It's certainly not anything I'm interested in enforcing, implicitly or otherwise! If you have a BIG FAT anti epic fantasy THEORY let's hear it.

Your response left me with the sense that you have some animus against the topic that you wanted to rationalize. I guess I'm just not sure how to charitably interpret your position (but I want to!). Why else would anyone argue that entertaining multiple theoretical possibilities is a bad thing?

The point about circularity reminded me of a prolife billboard I saw the other day, that literally went:

Don't let anyone push you into making a decision...

CHOOSE LIFE!

Now that's what you call a performative contradiction!

 

[Gary Wassner]

No Dog - what was that a billboard for (or against)? suicide? drugs? smoking?

 

[Nimea]

So it's fundamentally a consolatory genre?

Isn't that something Miéville doesn't like about Tolkienesque fantasy?

Anyway, I think to a degree: yes. Question is to what degree is that really negative and to what degree is it a good thing?

I have a notion that the whole fantasy RPG phenomenon needs to be a part of the study then. And fandom itself.

Maybe you are right - and I would be interested to see that.
Yet, it is a real big fandom with a lot of its own theories. Really interesting, btw. since role-playing developed a lot since it was first done. And in this development you sometimes can see parallels to the discussions about the written fantasy genre.

Mmh, would it make sense to discuss the connections and differences between reading/writing fantasy and fantasy role-playing?


And I am anxious to see Monosylabik's answer to No-dogs post.

 

[Erfael]

As to the the mythic aspect of fantasy - as KatG pointed out, the epics were intended literally - Rama is a real cultural hero for many Hindus, and I'm sure ancient Greeks believed that the warriors who fought at Troy were their ancestors and role-models in a sense. While fat fantasy, comic books and soap opera, performs some of the social functions of myth, it's important to bear in mind that they are conscious fictions. While some might derive from fantasy the same sustenance myth gave our ancestors, fantasy fans are usually aware that these are fictional tales and characters. This ought to at least modify the direct parallel to myth in some way.

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.

 

[Archren]

One aspect that I'm surprised hasn't been addressed more directly, that plays a bit with what GemQuest has been saying:

The most fundamental difference between fantasy and any other genre of fiction is Magic. Thus I think that the existence and description of magic and magical systems is the basis of any appeal that fantasy has.

Epic fantasy, I would say in a general way (which is to say, please don't hurt me! ) has more magic, and more powerful magic than your other fantasies tend to.

My feeling is that people ejoy the feeling of power that's involved with magic. Whether it is true or not, we find it easier to imagine mastery over a magical system. In real life, most people who encounter science in the classroom don't like it and find it difficult. With magic we can imagine a system just as powerful that we can control and understand.

Another powerful theme might be that magic is often not a neutral force. I think people particularly prefer magic that has clear lines of 'good' and 'bad', as opposed to the morally neutral systems of science and technology. It makes that universe a much more clear-cut one than our own. (Although I can already see that Feist doesn't fit this bill. Oh well! )

(Again, all of this points to Star Wars as epic fantasy instead of SF! )

 

[Gary Wassner]

I agree with you. And if follows along with what I said before. Magic empowers you. It is redeeming and potent and it gives you a strong sense of control, not only over the environment but over the fate of the world. I believe that one of the strong appeals of Epic Fantasy, to repeat myself, is the sense of control that it provides the reader with.

 

[Erfael]

I agree with you. And if follows along with what I said before. Magic empowers you. It is redeeming and potent and it gives you a strong sense of control, not only over the environment but over the fate of the world. I believe that one of the strong appeals of Epic Fantasy, to repeat myself, is the sense of control that it provides the reader with.

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.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I think that many people do approach reading that way. And I do think that prior to RPG games, they did imagine themselves interacting with the world the way some of their favorite characters did. Why did people read Robinson Caruso and Treasure Island? Picturing yourself in the middle of the adventure was a part of it. Computer gaming and hi-tech movies have changed how younger people relate to media today. Much less is left to the imagination now. Before television, radio provided the entertainment and it required total mental visualization. Think about it! People read stories aloud, and that forced you to insert yourself into the settings.

All that I am saying is that reading evokes feelings and emotions and reactions in general. Creepy, crawly, wierd and grotesque characters will in turn leave you with one kind of sensation, as in Mieville's Perdido St, and lofty sentimented (?) characters will leave you with another type altogether.

We all live vicariously through our imaginations, whether it's fantasizing about power and magic, or sex or simply a life that you don't have and would want. Cinderella is the classic example. Look at the Wizard of Oz. Classics for children to immerse themselves in. And why? To identify with the events and the hopes and the triumphs of the characters, and thereby taste the enjoyment. Imagination and fantasizing is a part of life. Why should you consider it to be unhealthy, unless you cross the line and actually believe that you can do the things your favorite characters can do. Within the reading of the book, though, it is compelling and exhilirating, if it's a good book.

You might read EPic fantasy for that reason. You would certainly read Perdido Street for another.

 

[Erfael]

I think that many people do approach reading that way. And I do think that prior to RPG games, they did imagine themselves interacting with the world the way some of their favorite characters did. Why did people read Robinson Caruso and Treasure Island? Picturing yourself in the middle of the adventure was a part of it. Computer gaming and hi-tech movies have changed how younger people relate to media today. Much less is left to the imagination now. Before television, radio provided the entertainment and it required total mental visualization. Think about it! People read stories aloud, and that forced you to insert yourself into the settings.

All that I am saying is that reading evokes feelings and emotions and reactions in general. Creepy, crawly, wierd and grotesque characters will in turn leave you with one kind of sensation, as in Mieville's Perdido St, and lofty sentimented (?) characters will leave you with another type altogether.

We all live vicariously through our imaginations, whether it's fantasizing about power and magic, or sex or simply a life that you don't have and would want. Cinderella is the classic example. Look at the Wizard of Oz. Classics for children to immerse themselves in. And why? To identify with the events and the hopes and the triumphs of the characters, and thereby taste the enjoyment. Imagination and fantasizing is a part of life. Why should you consider it to be unhealthy, unless you cross the line and actually believe that you can do the things your favorite characters can do. Within the reading of the book, though, it is compelling and exhilirating, if it's a good book.

You might read EPic fantasy for that reason. You would certainly read Perdido Street for another.

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.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I know what you are saying. It is a matter of taste to some extent. I just think that your experience is a different one when you read something as grotesquely illuminating as Perdido Street as compared to Tolkein. One elicits one kind of emotion, and the other a totally different one.

But I don't see Epic Fantasy as being shallow and simply 'a fun story'. I see much of it as being very meaningful and very thoughtful. It just has a totally different mental feel to it than anything else. I have always thought about it more as dealing with heroism, loyalty and poignant emotions than just exciting battle scenes.

 

[Priestvyrce]

Just wanted to add my agreement with what Erf stated. Plus, what makes a great Epic is the cathartic release that I recieve once the story is done.

 

[Larry]

Aldarion - I don't think the type of Epic Fantasy that we might be talking about here is as self-consciously political as something like Gulliver's Travels was. And I also am not sure that social attitudes have all that much to do with the human animal's need to feel safe and in control of its own destiny as much as is possible. I think that perhaps it is a physical yearning, not so much a social one, as one might describe the need to procreate. Actually, that's too dogmatic. I am probably more comfortable stating that both social and physical contingencies influence the need to be and feel in control: The Will to Power, for example, as a purely physical response that governs action, mitigated by a learned social conscience (Nietzsche forgive me!) Together, they allow us to appreciate the power of magic and the thrill of battle, while we also find solace in the sense of order and well being that leadership and 'someone who knows better than we do' affords us.

Clarification - the reference to Gulliver's Travels was to another type of fantasy. I guess I didn't separate it enough by commas there.

Social/cultural attitudes are paramount in importance for describing the means of transfer of those desires that we have. There is such a disconnect that I perceive existing between various past cultures (and some current) and our own that no amount of deciphering of written texts, analysization of archaeological evidence, or study of sociological forms will ever reveal a complete understanding of those societies. Yet the very act of studying them creates interpretations that are worthy in the sense that they reveal insight into how we perceive those past cultures and indirectly our own in relation. For someone like myself, the ways people express their ideas in literature, whether it be a social critique like More or Swift or whether it be myths, sagas, chansons, or what we now call fantasy, that's what is important.

In many ways, I'm an Annalist at heart. I'm interested in structures, even if I often profess to find them to be artificial. That's why I'm writing this, because I want to explore this issue within a historical context.

 

[Bardos]

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.

I agree. I, too, prefer to know about the events that brought the fight scene about, or the consequences of the fight. But, I really have to ask this: Why can't you have that with epic fantasy? And: What is your defination of "epic fantasy"? Is it a good vs. evil story? A story set in a pseudo-medieval setting? A story with elves, dwarves, and wizards? What is epic fantasy, and why can it not concentrate on the events and the consequences, but it must concentrate on the fighting alone?

 

[Luke_B]

Mono: Social anathema? Well, yea. Mainstream literature folks mostly treat fantasy like a pariah genre, and the popular picture of a fantasy fan is of a socially inept geek. Modern fantasy fiction, unlike myth, speaks to a specialised division of society, rather than serving as a common link between all parts of society. If at all it fulfills the functions of mythology, it is only in a sphere that is very curtailed. Which means I'm possibly agreeing with you that seeing fantasy as really fulfilling mythic purposes is over stating the case.

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?

 

[Gary Wassner]

Regardless of how one might feel about Jordan, millions of people are reading him! I also believe that RA Salvatore sells something like 1.5 million books a year.

 

[Luke_B]

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.

And anathemas are neither crucial nor important? I'm not sure I'm following you Monosyllabik (especially since the theory I posed earlier (in the appeal thread) is thoroughly rooted in Adorno!).

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.

Again, I'm just not sure what you're talking about, Monosyllabik. There's certainly no question-begging here. The possibilities being 'opened up' are simply second-order theoretical possibilities, which in no way, shape, or form, dictates the evaluative attitude those theories must take to fantasy. Where do you see the demand that all theories be 'pro epic fantasy'? It's certainly not anything I'm interested in enforcing, implicitly or otherwise! If you have a BIG FAT anti epic fantasy THEORY let's hear it.

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.

Your response left me with the sense that you have some animus against the topic that you wanted to rationalize. I guess I'm just not sure how to charitably interpret your position (but I want to!). Why else would anyone argue that entertaining multiple theoretical possibilities is a bad thing?

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.

 

[Luke_B]

Regardless of how one might feel about Jordan, millions of people are reading him! I also believe that RA Salvatore sells something like 1.5 million books a year.

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.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I was only responding to your question regarding how many people are really reading this stuff. Whether or not it plays an important part in our society is a totally different issue. You mean, like MTV plays an important part? What context were your referring to? The numbers of sales are indicitive of the numbers of sales, that's all. They are significant numbers.

 

[Erfael]

I agree. I, too, prefer to know about the events that brought the fight scene about, or the consequences of the fight. But, I really have to ask this: Why can't you have that with epic fantasy? And: What is your defination of "epic fantasy"? Is it a good vs. evil story? A story set in a pseudo-medieval setting? A story with elves, dwarves, and wizards? What is epic fantasy, and why can it not concentrate on the events and the consequences, but it must concentrate on the fighting alone?

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?

 

[Luke_B]

Whether or not it plays an important part in our society is a totally different issue. You mean, like MTV plays an important part? What context were your referring to? The numbers of sales are indicitive of the numbers of sales, that's all. They are significant numbers.

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.