The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Luke_B]

Just a side note: Bardos was referring to, I presume, John M. Ford's The Dragon Waiting. Very good, very fascinating book on the what-ifs of the time of Richard the III's (?- sorry, been a long time since I read this) reign. Plus there's a vampire.

I also love the first part of the book, which has a murder mystery. Where else can you find all of that in a standalone book?

Unfortunately, I have a feeling this book is OOP.

There's a UK edition people can order from amazon.co.uk.


I've never read it, but I think I should.

 

[Luke_B]

Hey Arch, I don't think any book has made a significant social impact since Uncle Tom's Cabin, but drips on the stone and all that...

 

[Archmage]

One could also make the case that any time anyone reads something it somehow affects their world view, whether that is the intent of the author or not, whether he's trying to be socially relevant or not. In having an impact on a reader's world view just through the natural effect of reading, does it then follow that an author should have some responsibility to consider what that impact will be on the readers, what values and ideas s/he's putting forth? I'm not saying that those values need be of any particular slant, but given that they will naturally occur, does an author who is out to do more than simply make a few bucks craft his work in a different way than one who isn't in it for the money?

Yes, obviously an author would use a different approach if they were crafting their work with the idea of making direct and pertinent social statements about of our current world situation. And as for the responsibility issue, IMO the author has the responsibility to create the very best work they can. Whether or not they choose to make it socially relevant is up to them. Furthermore, the only real 'responsibility' an author has to follow are legal ones, plagarism being one of the main ones. Also in non fictional works that are about another person or a group of people, an author has to make sure they have solid evidence to support their claims and theories because they always have to be wary of going over the line and therefore being privy to defamation of character lawsuits. So the only true responsibilities an author has are legal ones.

Does the fact that any time a person reads a book it will change their outlook then render certain types of books less valuable than others, less able to promote "positive" (I understand this is a completely relative term) change, not on a grand scale, but even in just the slice of society that reads the book? This ties in to Mono's question of whether or not Fat Fantasy as it exists today may be inherently bad for "society" or those slices of society which partake of it. Or is it inherently neutral? Serves the good?

First question. No type of book or genre is less valuable or less able to promote social change on an individual or small scale. On a large scale though, Certain types of books or genres I don't see being able to facilitate large scale social change or have a large scale social impact. Fantasy and Sci Fi, as wonderful as they are, often deal in concepts that are simply to complex and metaphoric to effectively open minds on a large scale. As for the question of good or bad for society. It is neither. First of all, Epic Fantasy is read by a very small portion of the population. Secondly, I don't see how Epic Fantasy could have a large scale, social impact. Third, how could Epic Fantasy be thought of as "bad for society" or the people who read it? I see no foundation for that argument whatsoever. There is nothing inherently positive or negative about Epic Fantasy. It strikes me as a rather harmless form of literature that I think most people read because they enjoy it. One could make an argument that there are other books out there.....(biting my tongue trying to be respectful and toe the line)...that have historically been "bad for society" and have caused much chaos,dissarrary,negativity, and division within our speicies. These/Those books are most certainly not in the realm of Epic Fantasy.

It seems to me that this is how any change occurs, from the grass roots level, by starting with a few people who are outspoken and bring along others. No matter how large a social change may look in retrospect, they all start with one or two or a handful of people standing up and making some noise. Then other people get up and join in.

Grass roots change is certainly one of the avenues through which change is facilitated. Although historically, grass roots change is a much longer process to facilitate. But given the advent of the internet and email, the possibilities for grass roots change having a bigger impact more quickly is there. Although, again the problem you have in America for example, is that you have a largely controlled, manipulated, and brainwashed population. Furthermore you also have a large portion of the population living close to the poverty line, having little to no education, and little oppurtunities for education and personal advancement. People can argue all they want about how much things have changed since the 60's....but I ask you, look closely, tell me how big the change actually was ? Does racism still exist on a large scale? Yes it does. Does hatred and division and discrimination still exist on a large scale ? Yes it does. Are there still large portions of our population that are still discriminated against every day ? Yes, there are. The government has allowed for change, but pulled the strings and moved it around so not nearly as much has changed as it seems on the surface. The rich continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer. Cost of living goes up, while wages go down. And do you think a work of science fiction or fantasy, which often deal with complex thoughts and ideas, metaphors, explorations of thought, will be able to make any 'real' large, scale impact ? A large portion of the population lacks the education to even begin to break down a piece of literature such as the above mentioned ones. Furthermore, the amount of people who read fantasy or science fiction are rather small and therefore again, the number of people who could possibly be truly and seriously impacted are rather small. But, all that aside, grass roots movements have occured and have helped to directly facilitate social change. And as I said, with the creation of the internet and email, and therefore the accessability to the internet, it lends further strength to movements at the grass roots level. But...one more thing, remember that a massive portion of the population can't afford to buy a computer, or do not even know how to use one. Grass root movements are a wonderful thing. A neccessary thing. An important vehicle for change. But in today's mass market manipulated world of media conglomorates, corporations, and the overall state of our social situation, to facilitate a movement and have a large scale impact, you must make the information accessable and understandable to everyone. You have to use all mediums out there...Television, Literature, Activism, Music, to reach everyone.

Can a work of Epic Fantasy or Science Fiction Literature have a large scale, social impact by itself? Unfortunately, because of all the above mentioned issues and pitfalls, I do not think that is possible. But yet, I applaud any author who is trying to make statements through fantasy or sci fi. I am sure they have reached or affected people, and that is always a good thing. And as I said, with the internet and email, the possibilities for grass roots change are there. I said it in my last post and I will say again.....I sincerely hope that I am proved wrong. I would love to see a work of Epic Fantasy or Science Fiction Literature come along and have a large scale social impact.

And one more thought....I see Science Fiction Literature as having a much better chance of making a social impact because of its relevance and correlations to our modern, technological society.

I applaud anyone who is trying to promote positive social change and open minds, whether it be through literature, music, art, television, activism, or film. Peace to everyone.

Arch

 

[Archren]

It is interesting to be discussing grassroots change, since that is exactly the sort of thing that Epic Fantasy tends to not address at all. In an Epic Fantasy universe, change tends to come from on high (the royalty and nobility feuding with each other), or from a few people at the bottom (the Fellowship of the Ring). What you don't see is a lot of bake sales and town meetings gathering momentum towards enacting proposals that will better the lot of many. Even an epic-scale book would have trouble describing all the viewpoints of all the people involved in even a small real-world social change movement.

One other point: it has been said here that the concepts of Fantasy/SF are too complex for most people to grasp. (For instance, when Archmage says "A large portion of the population lacks the education to even begin to break down a piece of literature such as the above mentioned ones.") Considering the very high literacy rate in the developed countries that it seems most people on this board hail from, and the generally good systems of public education extant in those countries, I find this statement hard to support.

Many people choose not to read. This does not mean that they are thoughtless or stupid. It means that they choose to relate to the world and gain information about it in a different way. Admittedly, I wish more people would read more. But that is my preference, and it is not for me to look down my nose at them. They will still have insights about the world that are valuable to me, simply because they are different, and often they are still quite well informed.

Of those people who choose to read, many of them feel that fiction in general is a waste of time. They feel that the way to learn about the real world is to read about the real world. Hard to argue with that, neh?

Of those who choose to read fiction, many feel (either through experience with the bad kind, or through ignorance) that SF/F fiction is not meaningful because they perceive it to be too simple, and not relevant to the real world. We may call this an error of perception or a deficiency of imagination, but that doesn't keep it from being a valid viewpoint.

So, the people that SF/F can have an impact on are the people who fall into none of the above groups. To say that all the people who do fall into the above groups are somehow too stupid or too dull or subliterate or any other demeaning category, is to say that we, the anointed and enlightened few, are superior to 99.5% of the rest of humanity. I personally don't feel qualified to give myself that kind of accolade, considering the very smart people I know who don't read, or don't read fiction, or don't read SF/F.

Of course, relating to that feeling of being in the annointed elite is probably one of the things that we get from reading Epic Fantasy. How's that for tying back into the thread!

 

[Archmage]

It is interesting to be discussing grassroots change, since that is exactly the sort of thing that Epic Fantasy tends to not address at all. In an Epic Fantasy universe, change tends to come from on high (the royalty and nobility feuding with each other), or from a few people at the bottom (the Fellowship of the Ring). What you don't see is a lot of bake sales and town meetings gathering momentum towards enacting proposals that will better the lot of many. Even an epic-scale book would have trouble describing all the viewpoints of all the people involved in even a small real-world social change movement.

One other point: it has been said here that the concepts of Fantasy/SF are too complex for most people to grasp. (For instance, when Archmage says "A large portion of the population lacks the education to even begin to break down a piece of literature such as the above mentioned ones.") Considering the very high literacy rate in the developed countries that it seems most people on this board hail from, and the generally good systems of public education extant in those countries, I find this statement hard to support.

Many people choose not to read. This does not mean that they are thoughtless or stupid. It means that they choose to relate to the world and gain information about it in a different way. Admittedly, I wish more people would read more. But that is my preference, and it is not for me to look down my nose at them. They will still have insights about the world that are valuable to me, simply because they are different, and often they are still quite well informed.

Of those people who choose to read, many of them feel that fiction in general is a waste of time. They feel that the way to learn about the real world is to read about the real world. Hard to argue with that, neh?

Of those who choose to read fiction, many feel (either through experience with the bad kind, or through ignorance) that SF/F fiction is not meaningful because they perceive it to be too simple, and not relevant to the real world. We may call this an error of perception or a deficiency of imagination, but that doesn't keep it from being a valid viewpoint.

So, the people that SF/F can have an impact on are the people who fall into none of the above groups. To say that all the people who do fall into the above groups are somehow too stupid or too dull or subliterate or any other demeaning category, is to say that we, the anointed and enlightened few, are superior to 99.5% of the rest of humanity. I personally don't feel qualified to give myself that kind of accolade, considering the very smart people I know who don't read, or don't read fiction, or don't read SF/F.

Of course, relating to that feeling of being in the annointed elite is probably one of the things that we get from reading Epic Fantasy. How's that for tying back into the thread!

It seems as if you did not read my response very closely. I never said, or insinuated, that people who read Sci Fi or Fantasy are in any way superior. I said the fact is that many concepts explored in Sci Fi and Fantasy Literature, particularly in Sci Fi literature, are often complex, multi-faceted, and at times highly metaphoric. Therefore if one is going to use literature as an avenue to promote social change and have a large scale impact, one must design the said literature to be accessible and understandable to everyone. Meaning if you design and target your literature to appeal only to those that are highly educated, or if you make it so complex that it reads in a high brow manner, then you are failing to reach those that are not very educated or have not been given the oppurtunity for advanced education. The number of individuals in the world that have little access to information and little to no avalibility for education because of a lack of a solid educational system far outnumber the amount of people on this planet who have access to good educational systems. And take a closer look at the world my friend. Literacy rates are up overall, Education is more accessable overall, but not much has changed. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Furthermore, the quality of education varies greatly throughout the world, and throughout even different regions (ie, states, provinces, territories) within a given nation. The overall world education level is rather low. Why is that you ask? IMO the powers that be want to keep it that way. And uneducated or poorly educated population is easier to control and manipulate. The reality of the situation, in my opinion, is this....If you want to use literature as a tool to promote social change or impact society in a positive way, than you must make it accessable and understandable to everyone. Accessable also means monetarily speaking. How many billions of people on this planet could not even afford a book? Or have no access to books whatsoever? The internet is another good avenue to release literary works of a socially relevant nature, but again, how many billions cannot afford a computer, and have no access to one? You cannot promote or facilitate large scale positive global change that actually has a large scale impact through literature alone. You must use all mediums of communication available to get your message the the largest amount of people as possible.

 

[Archren]

OK, so I think we've now identified that the impact of Epic Fantasy is limited to the people who read epic fantasy, since we're not considering the impact of more popular media like movies, right? We also appear to have consensus that it is only a small minority of people that do read epic fantasy.

Mono, does that help to narrow the discussion down to appropriate dimensions?

I have to argue with you, though, Archmage. A piece of literature does not have to be universally accessible in order to be influential. To illustrate: "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine was very influential to the course of the American Revolution, which of course influenced all sorts of things that came after. However, it wasn't published into a country of 100% literacy, and it is a fairly complex piece of reasoning. But it still had significant impact. Even if the literature itself isn't 100% disseminated, if it is truly influential it will be discussed even in places where it isn't read.

So I guess this contradicts my point up top. Epic fantasy can influence people who don't read it, depending on if they get involved in discussing it.

 

[Erfael]

So I guess this contradicts my point up top. Epic fantasy can influence people who don't read it, depending on if they get involved in discussing it.

I want to reiterate this. A work doesn't have to be widely read or appreciated to have an impact socially or any other -ly.

If I read a book with some compelling ideas in it and then go talk to some others about it, then they find the ideas interesting and go talk to others, those ideas and thus that work have an effect.

If I really thought the book I read today had something to say about society and it moves me to go talk to my gaming club about it tonight (not RPG gaming, board gaming, so no epic fantasy buffs there), that's just a small step. But say one of those folks teaches an education course at the local college. They're moved by it, and address that idea strongly in their education courses to a whole crop of soon-to-be teachers. Now some of these soon-to-be teachers graduate and go out into the world influenced by that idea, maybe even into low-income, low-acheivement places and pass that idea about society on to the children, who then grow up with a different view of what the world can be. Now, just through one reader, me, and a network of people, that book has had an effect on society....

I can't see that many of the things you're citing have to be a barrier to an effect, Archmage.

 

[Gary Wassner]

I agree. Literature can have world shattering effects, even if it is not read by everyone who reacts against it (or in its favor, for that matter). Karl Marx's Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf changed the world. Ironically, if more people had actually read Mein Kampf when it was first released, they may have been a little more prepared for what was to come. How many right wing Americans during the McCarthy hearings in this country do you think ever even turned the first page of Das Kapital?

 

[Luke_B]

Mono, does that help to narrow the discussion down to appropriate dimensions?

Well, I never really wanted to narrow the conversation down. I was just expressing an opinion that I doubt epic fantasy really plays any important role in society. I think epic fantasy is having a negative effect on fantasy literature, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

 

[Bond]

Well, I never really wanted to narrow the conversation down. I was just expressing an opinion that I doubt epic fantasy really plays any important role in society. I think epic fantasy is having a negative effect on fantasy literature, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

I think just the opposite. But then again the kind of reasoning you seem to use in valuing stuff is generous to the obvious. It's the kind that has great difficulty recognizing the value of play, of sleep, of dreams.

Literature can have world shattering effects, even if it is not read by everyone who reacts against it (or in its favor, for that matter). Karl Marx's Das Kapital and Hitler's Mein Kampf changed the world. Ironically, if more people had actually read Mein Kampf when it was first released, they may have been a little more prepared for what was to come. How many right wing Americans during the McCarthy hearings in this country do you think ever even turned the first page of Das Kapital?

Did Mein Kampf change the world? Oh well never read it Mea culpa. Then again to atone for that I have read what is a strong contender for most influential text written this past century Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Political and Economics treatises do seem to have more recognizable influence than most other kinds of works. Hard to argue with Keynes' words

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

What are the other contenders for most influential written work of the last century?

 

[Larry]

Well, I never really wanted to narrow the conversation down. I was just expressing an opinion that I doubt epic fantasy really plays any important role in society. I think epic fantasy is having a negative effect on fantasy literature, but that's not really what we're talking about here.

I guess I better make a reply here, seeing as this thread was originally intended to coerce me into expanding more on what I'm working on for that paper I've hinted at. First, I'd respectfully disagree with the statement that epic fantasy does not play any important role in society. There are some interesting sociological reasons why people engage in activities such as reading books set in an "impossible" milieu, joining groups such as the Society for Creative Anachronism, playing Role Playing Games (whether the more traditional tabletop or the more recent computerized versions), and so forth. As someone who took a secondary MA focus in 16th-17th popular religion/cultural history, this is a fascinating development.

What do we make of all this in a world that orders itself around the provable/disprovable dichotomy of the scientific method? Why fantasy? What is fantasy anyways? How come the notion of "fantasy" really didn't (and I'd argue couldn't) exist before the latter half of the 17th century? Why did the literature of the fantastic, of the fablistic, of the supernatural become relegated to the dustbins of Western society over the past 300 years? Why has there been a resurgence of writing done in an "epic" style over the past 50-100 years? How do the modern epic writings differ/resemble those of the previous 4000 years? What themes do they address and why are epic fantasies the better selling fantasies out there?

These are just some of the questions I'm trying to address in a short monograph that I hope will be fit enough for presentation at the IAFA conference next spring. No-Dog and I have been discussing this for weeks now in emails and elsewhere, because we happen to see this field in a more cultural/philosophical sense than as a literary division or groups of divisions. We can discuss the literary merits/shortcomings of these works for days, but the writing abilities of the individual authors is almost irrelevant to the sociological need such writings seem to meet for a distinct portion of today's Western societies (a focus on the East and Third World nations would be interesting, but alas I'm not well-read enough yet on the popular literatures of most of these places, Latin America excepted).

I've read a great many articles on fantasy and its divisions and characteristics, but I just really haven't seen much of anything done that has discussed why it's appealing to so many today. Genre writing sells these days and it's no accident that even in an era of slumping overall book sales that genre publishers are releasing more books than ever before. I just want to address the connections between Reader, Author, and Subject and explore just what might be driving this increased interest in what we call Fantasy.

So while the literary aspects might be interesting to some, I believe that it's the cultural causes/effects behind this that's really important. Then again, I guess I am a bit biased, yes?

 

[Luke_B]

Hey Aldarion, I completely agree with you, but you're talking about fantasy. I'm talking about epic fantasy.

Bond - Are you arguing with me or GemQuest? Or both?

 

[Larry]

Actually, I'm talking about both - but primarily epic in the end, because there's a continuity of sorts that stretches back millenia. I just want to explore that in some detail as part of my paper.

 

[Luke_B]

Okay, proper reply this time.

What do we make of all this in a world that orders itself around the provable/disprovable dichotomy of the scientific method? Why fantasy? What is fantasy anyways? How come the notion of "fantasy" really didn't (and I'd argue couldn't) exist before the latter half of the 17th century? Why did the literature of the fantastic, of the fablistic, of the supernatural become relegated to the dustbins of Western society over the past 300 years? Why has there been a resurgence of writing done in an "epic" style over the past 50-100 years? How do the modern epic writings differ/resemble those of the previous 4000 years? What themes do they address and why are epic fantasies the better selling fantasies out there?

Aldarion, I'd love to read your paper. These are interesting questions, but do any of the answers to these actually assert or imply that epic fantasy has a big impact on society? They just seem to be questions aimed at fleshing out fantasy as a social phenomenon. Also, I'm interested in where you get your assumptions from.

No-Dog and I have been discussing this for weeks now in emails and elsewhere, because we happen to see this field in a more cultural/philosophical sense than as a literary division or groups of divisions. We can discuss the literary merits/shortcomings of these works for days, but the writing abilities of the individual authors is almost irrelevant to the sociological need such writings seem to meet for a distinct portion of today's Western societies (a focus on the East and Third World nations would be interesting, but alas I'm not well-read enough yet on the popular literatures of most of these places, Latin America excepted).

And that's my problem, because I see the sociological need for writers such as China Mieville as vastly different to the sociological need for writers like Robert Jordan. I don't think you can lump all fantasy together as one social phenomenon. For example, some fantasy has a subversive relationship with society, and other fantasy has a consolatory relationship with society. Different fantasy seems to appeal to different types of people. Which is why I thought we were specifically talking epic fantasy in this thread.

You know, I have the feeling it's not you, it's me. I just don't get it.

 

[knivesout]

Actually I will echo some of Mono's confusion here. A certain sort of epic fantasy quickly paled for me because it seemed essentially escapist or consolatory, and I have beer for that after all. However, works like Erikson's, still recognisably epic fantasy, appeal to me because they don't offer easy moral points or a particularly comforting secondary world.

Someone like Mieville, even though I see him as less radical than many seem to assume, just doesn't fit the because the moral divides are ambiguous, there's a greater social consciousness, that may be more relevant to our own world in a deeper way than the usual largely feudal set-up, the secondary world is far from attractive or pleasant, and the stories do not deliver comforting resolutions.

Or perhaps these are just exceptions that prove the rule?

 

[Gary Wassner]

First of all, Aldarion, I completely agree as well that it is probably often cultural/sociological issues that draw people to certain types of books or themes. I think that holds true for music and art as well. For those who create it, the intent may be different. The literary aspects, the proficiency of the author, so to speak, then might determine what specifically is chosen. And, the author's intent may not be important at all. I am anxious to read your ideas when you finally do put them down on paper. It's an ambitious project, but I think the process will really be an informative one. It is a thesis length topic!

Mono - you might be right when you make that distinction between the needs of the reader and their choices within a genre. That is if you even consider Mieville and Jordan to be writing in the same genre. I am not sure that I do at all. But I still don't understand why you feel the effect is a negative one. What is being denied by reading Epic Fantasy? What do you feel a reader walks away with when he/she is finished reading?

Bond - Why don't you start a thread on books that changed the world? I would love to see what people here feel really has made a difference over the years.

Am I alone here in not thinking that Mieville is a wunderkind? I have only read Perdido St, but I was not awed by it. I found it lacking in many aspects. I am not saying that it was bad by any means. Maybe it just wasn't my cup of tea. I had a hard time envisioning his world and his creatures, and therefor I couldn't immerse myself in it as thoroughly as I like to do in a great book. I felt as if I was watching it happen from the outside, and I could never see it clearly. I am also not comfortable characterizing it as fantasy. It feels much more like sci/fi to me.

Has anyone ever read Dragon Lords by an English author, C. Dunbar? As dark as Mieville perhaps, shorter, but totally wild.

What's wrong with escapist literature anyway? Don't we frequently look to books and music and movies in order to escape the mundane? Still, I don't believe that Epic Fantasy needs to be pigeon holed as escapist. It depends totally upon the author and his ability to or interest in dealing with issues outside of the scope of the adventure itself. Some do, some don't.

 

[Larry]

Okay, proper reply this time.



Aldarion, I'd love to read your paper. These are interesting questions, but do any of the answers to these actually assert or imply that epic fantasy has a big impact on society? They just seem to be questions aimed at fleshing out fantasy as a social phenomenon. Also, I'm interested in where you get your assumptions from.

I'll see if I can explain in short, because this is shaping up to be a paper where one will have to read it carefully, because of the very nature of having to explain what appears to be contradictory causes and results.

What I left out last night was that over the centuries, people have developed a passion for telling and retelling (mind you, I also need to focus on the shift to the written form as being a key turning point, because of a simultaneous division into popular and patrician cultural polarization with the advent of the printing press, which drove the two further apart - and yes, I'm sympathetic with the neo-Marxists to an extent, although I'm not one) stories with heroes, large quests, tragic occurrances, and so forth. Why would people tell stories of Heracles, the Argonauts, Gilgamesh, Alfred the Great, Siegfried and the Dragon, etc.? I see a lot there that seems to indicate some sort of connection with the heroes we want to have today, but I'll have to explore this further before I decide anything.

And that's my problem, because I see the sociological need for writers such as China Mieville as vastly different to the sociological need for writers like Robert Jordan. I don't think you can lump all fantasy together as one social phenomenon. For example, some fantasy has a subversive relationship with society, and other fantasy has a consolatory relationship with society. Different fantasy seems to appeal to different types of people. Which is why I thought we were specifically talking epic fantasy in this thread.

You know, I have the feeling it's not you, it's me. I just don't get it.

Here's a question for you: Why can't Tolkien's works be subversive as well as consolatory? A rejection of the current and a glance back at the past does not necessarily mean a reactionary movement. After all, consider the adoptation of "revolution" in the rhetoric of those who demanded fuller rights from the autocrats. Some would argue that in order to go forward, one must first glance at what's passed.

But you are correct in saying that there are different styles and intentions. Before I can address epic fantasy in a historical sense, I must first focus on the very existence of this nebulous thing called "fantasy."

 

[Gary Wassner]

Yes, most definitely! When was the word 'fantasy' first used? You should do some etymological research as well, so that the word itself has both an objective and a subjective meaning - objective so that we can all discuss it now and agree upon its current meaning, and subjective to the various periods in question. When did legend and bardic recounting morph into a style, separate and distinct from historical depiction? When did fantasy stop attempting to explain history or creation? As science became the harbinger of fact and certainty, did fantasy become a medium for moral introspection and entertainment?

This is a great topic and I envy you the opportunity to go into depth and really analyze it.

 

[Erfael]

What's wrong with escapist literature anyway? Don't we frequently look to books and music and movies in order to escape the mundane? Still, I don't believe that Epic Fantasy needs to be pigeon holed as escapist. It depends totally upon the author and his ability to or interest in dealing with issues outside of the scope of the adventure itself. Some do, some don't.

I see this as a problem because the world needs our attention. And if people simply "escape" from it all the time, there's a certain responsibility I see as going unfulfilled. Some people escape for a little while, then get back to what they're doing, not just in the world, but with, to, and for it. Others would escape it all the time, and have nothing to do with it. I see it as a problem when this happens. I understand someone will come up and say that it's their choice to do so, but people didn't have that choice hundreds of years ago and I think it highlights a problem in the current thinking that someone could think that they have no responsibility to the world (be that their local group, the tree outside, etc." Until people make themselves aware of the world around them in a very real sense, things will not improve in this world, and escaping for hours and hours a day and getting nothing constructive out of it but a picture of life that is no more doesn't help.

As you sit at your desk, look around you. Pick something on your desk. Now try to imagine everything that went into making that item, the raw materials, how they came to be, the animals that may have been displaced to produce that item, the various people whose went into making it, their lives, etc. We used to live in a world where it was very obvious that each person depended on every other one and the world around them. To get meat, you had to go to the butcher. To get a candle, you had to go to the chandler, who got his fat from the butcher. The butcher couldn't do his job without the efforts of the smith who made his knives. The smith couldn't do his job without wood from the woodcutter. There's a whole chain of reliance that people can't see today. And as such, they probably never think about it. They go into their local superstore and pick everything up they need and don't think one more time about it. They're too worried about what movie to see next or which book to escape into.

So when I say that I think it's a problem that everyone is "escaping" into all these media and that I think authors should have some responsibility to be relevant to the world, that's what I mean. That's why I have a problem with escapist literature that brings nothing else to the table.

 

[Larry]

Yes, most definitely! When was the word 'fantasy' first used? You should do some etymological research as well, so that the word itself has both an objective and a subjective meaning - objective so that we can all discuss it now and agree upon its current meaning, and subjective to the various periods in question. When did legend and bardic recounting morph into a style, separate and distinct from historical depiction? When did fantasy stop attempting to explain history or creation? As science became the harbinger of fact and certainty, did fantasy become a medium for moral introspection and entertainment?

This is a great topic and I envy you the opportunity to go into depth and really analyze it.

From what I can tell, the origins of the word go back to the Greek phainein (to show, reveal) and there is still that element of illusion, of unveiling, present in such writings throughout the millenia, although Horror today could claim to follow this sense of illusion and sebsequent ripping away of deception more closely than other genres. There is another connotation of the word meaning something mentally vivid, albeit often disordered and even weird. Actually, this sense of the disordered is what appeals to me, having had some study into mentalitiès years before. The term apparently wasn't applied to writings/oral accounts until the late 18th or early 19th centuries and certainly there wasn't a semi-defined genre for it until the mid-20th century.

The problem with discussing the morphing of bardic/legend tales from history is that the very word "legend" is derived from the Latin legere (to collect, gather, read) and legenda (things that are read/told/collected for sharing) originally meant almost anything that had a moral purpose. History itself was not a separate, rigid field until a couple of centuries ago. Before, historia (stories) included almost anything that had a point of value, whether it be a chronicling of the past, a mythical story along the lines of George Washington's cherry tree, or a fable that explains the world in a way that provides meaning, regardless of how scientifically accurate these tales might be. But if I had to make a stab at a date, I'd again say around the end of the 16th century with the spread of the printing press into the cultures of Western Europe in such a way that the literate elite and the oral popular cultures began to diverge in more and more drastic ways. I also suspect that the origins of the notion that fantasy is low-brow arose during this time, but I need to do a bit more research into this first.

One could argue that fantasy has never truly stopped explaining the world and our place in it. There is much in Tolkien, to use a universally known story, that indicates that he's explaining not just the moral truths of the past, but also that he's exploring the effects of the world of his today (the effects of rapid industrialization). As for science, the major problem with the scientific method in replacing earlier constructions of how the world is ordered (the Great Chain of Being) is that it is inherently dubious of any certain explanations, always ready to leave open the possibility that everything can be disproven. In such a doubting mindset, it's no wonder that many have turned to the vivid world of fantasy to explore alternative vistas, to make statements about the world today, to dream a dream of heroes being able to exist again, and so forth - but very little of this is really just reactionary. There appears to be an almost constant referencing of the present (ever notice how fantasy and sci-fi stories are starting to reflect more and more the current Culture War debates? Ah, to discuss Goodkind and Miéville in that context is so tempting, but I suspect it'll have to wait until later) in these writings and increasingly, the worries of the characters seem to reflect the worries of individuals today - can I make it in this cold, hard world?, what is my place here?, why do I exist and why are bad/good things happening to me?

When I interviewed Scott Bakker for wotmania back in June (and before then, when I met him at a book signing), he said that one main reason why he loved writing epic fantasy was because there was so much more to explore within those parameters. There's a lot of truth to that which I believe many have overlooked in their rush to proclaim it all to be derivative of Tolkien. First, epic fantasy affords more opportunities to look at the "big picture" than do other fantasy types, because the scale is meant to be more global. There is the potential for exploring the effects of cultural practices such as religion, philosophy, political science, etc. in a setting that appears on the surface to be benign and "safe" because for many, "it's just not real." But yet...there's always room to subvert, to draw up a competing (or compatible) ideology that allows the reader to think about the problems of today in a way that he/she might not have if the story was "realistic."

However, many have justly said that a lot of epic fantasy is poorly written and ill-imagined. I can see their point. It is very easy just to use a template that another has created to tell his story and try to cram it into a story you want to tell. That's the tragedy of it all, because the medium is so potentially powerful that shortcuts in terms of creating scene, mood, and character can just leave certain readers feeling flat and bored with it all. But if presented in a fresh way, there is the opportunity to make bold social statements in a manner that causes the reader to step back and reconsider matters. For example, Steven Erikson is doing an incredible thing within the parameters of epic fantasy. He has created a world that has a huge sense of history behind it without using Tolkien's techniques; he has applied his training as an anthropologist toward constructing a world full of archaic cultural practices, taboos, and hatreds and has then peopled this world with characters that are increasingly more diverse and hard to categorize with each passing volume. And once he's set the reader up, he then has hit us with a very pressing issue of the moment: the relationship of individuals to their governments. It is hidden in his earlier novels, but by the time one reaches his latest novel, Midnight Tides (and its focus on the government of Letheras, among other matters) and his just-published novella, The Healthy Dead, Erikson has managed to make a stinging condemnation of certain social/political beliefs and practices.

And Erikson is just one of many that are doing this. Look at the introduction recently of characters who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual in fantasy. Before, such might have been portrayed in a negative light (as Goodkind does with a certain character in his first novel), but increasingly fantasy authors are following the lead of those like Ursula Le Guin or Nicola Griffith in making a fantasy realm (both epic and non-epic alike) more closely akin to a society they would like to see here today.

I've written a lot more than I had planned, but I hope this starts off another round of discussions. I do feel kinda guilty, seeing as it appears that I've given so many sneak previews to what I'm working on that it seems as though the finished product won't have as much of an impact on readers. But such is life, yes?