The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Gary Wassner]

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."

I spent many years studying and teaching philosophy before I left academics to pursue another profession. My field of specialization was 19th century continental philosophy, from Hegel to Nietzsche basically. I was political and subversive and quite radical when it came to ethics and behavior. As I grew older, I stopped writing technical material and began to write novels. I started my first fantasy series in 1999. My intention was to try to do exactly what you described above. Perhaps my interestes were broader and less concrete, though they were no less paramount for me. I wanted very much to work through issues regarding free will and determinism and ethical choice more than some of the others you mentioned. I didn't want to be technical any longer and I certainly didn't want to be pedantic. Epic Fantasy afforded me a medium that did not have to conform to the constraints of reality, and logical construction and proof. I was free just to write and explore without having to come to any conclusions. I try to work through the process, and my characters change their minds and their plans frequently. They function on both the emotional level, as my world is very much governed by non-cognitive elements as much as it is clear thinking and understanding.

The point of all of this was not to talk about my books, but fantasy itself as a medium for such an exploration. It is a great medium for it, and it is not reactionary in that respect, but very modern regardless of the particular trappings of Epic Fantasy. I have tried to explain this in the past here, but I don't think I ever stated it this way. In a world as cold and calculating, and as dangerous as ours is today, we still need to be contemplative and to reason and wonder at the consequences of our actions. We cannot be selfish and escapist in the way that Erfael is describing. We must deal with the bigger choices that confront us, and not only 'what movie to see next'! I couldn't agree more, Erfael, but I think that can be accomplished in an intelligent, thoughtful Epic Fantasy series, as much as it can be in any other genre.

 

[Erfael]

The point of all of this was not to talk about my books, but fantasy itself as a medium for such an exploration. It is a great medium for it, and it is not reactionary in that respect, but very modern regardless of the particular trappings of Epic Fantasy. I have tried to explain this in the past here, but I don't think I ever stated it this way. In a world as cold and calculating, and as dangerous as ours is today, we still need to be contemplative and to reason and wonder at the consequences of our actions. We cannot be selfish and escapist in the way that Erfael is describing. We must deal with the bigger choices that confront us, and not only 'what movie to see next'! I couldn't agree more, Erfael, but I think that can be accomplished in an intelligent, thoughtful Epic Fantasy series, as much as it can be in any other genre.

I agree, too, GemQuest. I've just seen the word "escapist" thrown around a lot, especially in conjunction with "whatever the author wants to write" or "whatever a reader wants to read," no criticisms allowed (not by you). And I DON'T agree with that. I think that can be a problem -- not the freedom of choice part, but the eager willingness not to participate in the world in which we live. Granted, it's happening. And I see it happening more in epic fantasy than in other areas of the genre. That's mostly what my little blurb was about. And I totally agree that it could be accomplished in a thoughtful, intelligent epic fantasy, something which I'm glad to see at least a few authors are working towards.

 

[Archmage]

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.

The barriers are numbers...and accessability. Archen mentioned "Common Sense," by Thomas Paine as having a big impact during the revolutionary war. But the fact of the matter is that you were dealing with a relatively small population and that population already had the rumblings of revolution passing through it before that book was ever written. The problem with today's world and literary impact Erfael, is pure numbers. There are simply too many people to reach, and the majority of those people have little to no accessability to books, computers, or solid educational system. Therefore, a.) Literary impact can ultimately only be small, in today's world. It must be one of the tools, but cannot be the only tool, if one is trying to effectively promote and facilitate large scale positive social change. b.) You must use all the mediums of communication that are out there to reach the largest possible amount of people c.) You must design your message in such a way that it can be understood by everyone. If you target your message to only one population group, your message is not being reached by everyone else. Your message and concepts must be designed in such a way that it can be understood across all educational, social, and cultural boundaries. Hence as I said, you start with easier, more direct concepts, and build upon those piece by piece. The goal is to reach large amounts of people. These mega multi national coporations and conglomorates and corrupt national governments have designed things in such a way that anyone who thinks outside the box is automatically typecast as a nut, or crazy, or whatever bs response they can get people to believe. Their goal is control. Control of information. Control of money. Control of education. They want people to stay in the dark. Therefore if you write a piece of literature that only impacts a small portion of any given population center, the ability of that message having the ability to become a tool through which a large scale change or impact can be facilitated becomes very negligible. It's chances of success are slim. We are dealing with 5 billion people here. With a majority of that population having little access to information and poor educational systems. In today's world, to promote large scale change, you have to reach people on a large scale. How do you do that? You use all mediums of communication. As Erfael said, most movements start at the grassroots level. So you use that medium, grass root activism. You use the internet, literature, television, film, the telephone, you use every possible line of communication you can to reach the largest amount of people that is possible. Information/Knowledge is power.

So to tie this all back in to the original topic. I don't see that a work of Epic Fantasy, in and of itself, can have a large scale social impact. Today's world simply puts up too many barriers and pitfalls for such a possibility. Epic Fantasy, unfortunately, has been pigeonholed a bit. So has all Sci Fi, in a sense. Only small portions of populations read Fantasy and Sci Fi. And often the subject matter dealt with in those genres are too multi-faceted and metaphoric to be able to be processed and understood on a large scale. It can have a small impact, certainly. And maybe that small impact can spur others on to creating new messages and ideas and concepts and promoting them on a large scale. You have a better chance of making a larger impact by writing a more direct piece of literature. Something that speaks to direct issues and problems and possible solutions. But no single piece of literature can change the world my friends, at least not directly. Maybe in an indirect way, but again, then you have to find a way to make it accessable and understandable to the global population. I wish it were that easy that one single book could make a large impact. Hundreds of years ago that was a possibility. It is no longer a possibility. There are simply to many people on this planet now for any one piece of literature to be able to reach and then impact people on a global scale. I think Literature is an important, and neccessary medium to promote positive social change, but it alone cannot achieve a large scale impact. It must be used in conjuction with other communication mediums. The goal is to get people to pay attention. To pull the wool from over their eyes.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Arch - You don't think that Michael Moore's book "Hey Dude, Where's My Country?" from which his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made, has had a major impact here in the US?

 

[Archmage]

Arch - You don't think that Michael Moore's book "Hey Dude, Where's My Country?" from which his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11 was made, has had a major impact here in the US?

I think the movie had a much bigger impact than the book. Why? To be blunt, Americans are lazy. (I am an American, and yes, this is a lazy culture) Far, far more people watched the movie compared to the amount of people who purchased the book. But them in conjuction with one another reached an even bigger audience then either by itself. The book got some people interested. The movie got more interested. Together, they got alot of people interested. But will it have any affect in America ? That is yet to be seen. I certainly hope so, but we will not know until the elections are finished and the winner is announced.

But look at it from this perspective as well.....Will Fahrenheit 9/11 or the book have any global, large scale impact? How many people on the planet Earth have no access to books or movies? How many people have never even heard the name Michael Moore? Granted the goal of Moore seems to be to promote positive social change in America. But I am more concerned with the current state of the entire planet and the human race as whole at this point. We pollute in massive amounts, global warming is a reality and will get worse, we are systamatically stripping this planet of its natural resources. People are still killing people in the name of God and religion and dogma and a multitude of other reasons.

We are at a critical point in the history of our speices I think. A sort of crossroads. Do we take the next step in our evolution, or do we continue down the road we are on now, a road that ultimately leads to our own demise. Think about it in a graphical sense. Draw a graph. One line is the technological growth from 1700 to 2004. The other line is social growth from 1700 to 2004. There is a massive gap between the two lines. So in a sense, we are still acting like children fighting over toys. Except our toys are far more destructive and dangerous. We plunge head first into things we do not understand and are not ready for, with no thoughts as to the long term ramifications of what we do.

If I sound like a pessimist, its because I am. I want to have a sense of hope. A sense that change is possible. That we can grow and change and move on a better path. But as each day goes by, things seem to get worse and worse. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. And we are still arguing over the same foolish concepts that by now, should have no relevance whatsoever. I see sadness and struggle and a desensitized society when I look around me. And it makes me sad. Don't take that as an arrogant or elitist statement. I am no better or no worse than anyone else. I just see things differently than some people. Part of me thinks there is still a chance that we can change, that the world can change. Part of me thinks it is too late. That that gap between technological advancement and social advancment will continue to get wider and wider, and that because of that, we are dooming ourselves as a species. Ultimately I guess one must keep some level of hope, however small, that things can change.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Yes, and Epic Fantasy takes us back to the pre-technological days when only massive forces governed by magical intervention could destroy the world. But couldn't that all be seen simply as a metaphor for the destructive capability of science and technology in modern times? The 'Dark Lord' has morphed from this threat of 'potential nuclear proliferation' or 'renegade' use of WMD's and has become the enemy of humanity. We feel the threat when we read Epic Fantasy, but it is so indirect that it is not frightening. And we are comforted by the victory of the light over the darkness.

It's easy to be pessimistic. I agree with your comment, and I think it is a very astute one, that the gap between social advancement and scientific advancement is a wide one. We have not become more peaceful or less barbaric, though our weapons have become so much more deadly. Socially, much of the world has stagnated, and now it even seems to be regressing, yet the danger of mass destruction grows daily. We have unleashed upon the world forces that we seem to be losing control of, weapons that we can not contain, 'dark' and 'sinister' forces. And we do not have the heroes any longer who can combat this, if in fact there ever were such heroes in history. We may simply have believed that there were, and myth and legend reinforced those beliefs. We are suddenly bereft of the hope that a leader can rise up from the ranks and solve the world's problems.

Bush ironically used 'fantasy' terminology to characterize the 'enemy' and I think that is quite poignant. He referred to those he opposed as the 'axis of evil' and he reverted to the rhetoric of days long past. He evoked the battle of good vs. evil, and I am sure many people responded emotionally to it and supported him by virtue of their incoherent sense of fear and helplessness in the wake of the world's spinning out of control.

So how different really is today's political rhetoric from the themes of Epic Fantasy? It may not be the case that fantasy itself is escapist, but that politics in fact has resorted to the use of fantasy's tropes to make it's case today!!

 

[Erfael]

Bush ironically used 'fantasy' terminology to characterize the 'enemy' and I think that is quite poignant. He referred to those he opposed as the 'axis of evil' and he reverted to the rhetoric of days long past. He evoked the battle of good vs. evil, and I am sure many people responded emotionally to it and supported him by virtue of their incoherent sense of fear and helplessness in the wake of the world's spinning out of control.

So how different really is today's political rhetoric from the themes of Epic Fantasy? It may not be the case that fantasy itself is escapist, but that politics in fact has resorted to the use of fantasy's tropes to make it's case today!!

I noticed this rhetoric, as well, and it sort of irritates me. It's pure manipulation. We're no more right than the "terrorists" are. We just have different concepts of "right" and "wrong" based upon our world view. I'm sure these folks aren't sitting around the camp wondering what "evil" thing they can do next in the world. They're probably at their wits end about whatever is bothering them and feel that the only step available to them is to do things like 9/11. And for Bush to call that evil is extremely narrow-minded. It's a classic example of two ideologies clashing in a world that's grown too small to keep them both as they are. Either the ideologies need to change or one group has to completely blow the other off of the face of the planet. I wish that one or the other would just happen, already (preferably the ideology change).

But does the pure good versus pure evil example in epic fantasy really relate in some way to the world picture, where one group is only doing what it thinks is best and the other what they think is best and they end up clashing over and over because neither stops to try to find a compromise?

 

[Bardos]

OK, with the good vs. evil theme you are comforted... But, you are comforted once, you are comforted twice. Do you always want to be comforted? And what's the point in being comforted? An excuse not to think the more complicated parameters of a problem?

Now, look what Erikson is doing with epic fantasy. He doesn't write a tale that lets you get comfortable; it makes you think about the situation at hand. I mean, especialy his last book, Midnight Tides... it totaly blew my mind! Now, there's a thoughtfull epic fantasy. There are really matters of serious discussion coming from the pages of that book.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Bardos, you speak as if finding comfort when you are troubled is a bad thing. I didn't say they become complacent becasue of it, or that they falsely believe that the world has suddenly become a safer and more friendly place. I also believe that continuing to have hope that things can get better is healthier than being a cynic all the time. Cynicism leads to complaceny and detachment. Hope may lead to action. Why must all 'serious discussions' be painful ones? These ideas function on two different levels, the emotional and the intellectual. Something can be emotionally soothing and still be intellectually relevant. There is some truth to the statement that what doesn't kill you can make you stronger. But we can still find comfort in action as easily as we do in denial, and that comfort need not preclude the impetus to act.

I remember the afternoon of 9/11 so well. I found comfort in volunteering for a search and rescue unit, even though, as we sadly found out, there was no one to resuce. But it was comforting for me to be doing something positive in the face of those cloying feelings of helplessness and despair!

Erfael - There is a difference between bad politicians and terrorits! I hope I wasn't painting them all with the same brush. I didn't intend to. Terrorists kill innocent people who are not part of the political machine. Politicians may say a lot of crap, but they are not blowing up babies in trains.

 

[ironchef texmex]

I noticed this rhetoric, as well, and it sort of irritates me. It's pure manipulation. We're no more right than the "terrorists" are. We just have different concepts of "right" and "wrong" based upon our world view. I'm sure these folks aren't sitting around the camp wondering what "evil" thing they can do next in the world. They're probably at their wits end about whatever is bothering them and feel that the only step available to them is to do things like 9/11. And for Bush to call that evil is extremely narrow-minded. It's a classic example of two ideologies clashing in a world that's grown too small to keep them both as they are. Either the ideologies need to change or one group has to completely blow the other off of the face of the planet. I wish that one or the other would just happen, already (preferably the ideology change).

I hear ya! Man, I hear folks talk about things like "evil" and "moral depravity" and I'm like -- what are you people even talking about? Jeffrey Dahmer had different culinary tastes than I do, but so what? Do I really have a right to look down on his chosen source of protein? And think about it, who invests more time in lives of the next generation than a child molester? The Khmer Rouge? Hey, whatever you think about there so-called ideology, just think about how much nitrate all those mass graves put back in the soil.

I hear Osama and his buddies talk about "what it is that's bothering them" -- in this case, our existence -- and I say, no wonder they're at their wits end. I just won't die. Black and white, live and let live vs. THINK LIKE ME OR DIE... dude, what's the difference?


Oh, Gem. A little side note. I don't think a poll is feasible, but I sure would be interested to see if there is any correlation between the group that doesn't care for "simplistic" epic fantasy and the those who espouse moral relativity. not a joke, not a slam, I'm just curious. I think a close correlation between black and white thinkers and Jordan-type fandom might go a long way to prove your point about the appeal of epic fantasy.

 

[Erfael]

I hear ya! Man, I hear folks talk about things like "evil" and "moral depravity" and I'm like -- what are you people even talking about? Jeffrey Dahmer had different culinary tastes than I do, but so what? Do I really have a right to look down on his chosen source of protein? And think about it, who invests more time in lives of the next generation than a child molester? The Khmer Rouge? Hey, whatever you think about there so-called ideology, just think about how much nitrate all those mass graves put back in the soil.

I hear Osama and his buddies talk about "what it is that's bothering them" -- in this case, our existence -- and I say, no wonder they're at their wits end. I just won't die. Black and white, live and let live vs. THINK LIKE ME OR DIE... dude, what's the difference?

Either that's tongue-in-cheek, or it's taking some of what I said to an extreme that wasn't intended, or you're an extremely open dude, Tex. I can't exactly tell which.

I'm not implying that all things one might consider evil are not in some way wrong. I am however saying that to merely call something evil that one doesn't understand and hasn't made an effort to try to understand simply to gain support for a war is a bit underhanded. I'm not saying they're not evil, sitting around their camp trying to come up with more mean things they can do to our people. But I don't KNOW that. And to simply say that they're evil is a cop-out, a consolatory answer, something to make me feel like I'm on the good and right side and all is okay with my little world and I can go about my day to day business while my president carries out war against random places on the map. I get a sense that Osama, et al., feel that we have done something (or many things) against his people, something that is equally as bad as 9/11, something that we've not atoned for or made amends for in some way. And as such, he may feel that there isn't a good way to deal with our country (or that our country hasn't addressed his concerns) outside of "terrorist" acts.

I say this not out of some unpatriotic view, but for the simple fact that out of all the news shows I listen to (and there are many), I never really have had anyone address, in terms that I'm satisfied with, if at all, WHY.

And whenever something like this happens now, I always think back to Lions of Al-Rassan and the joint scene of the Asharite leader and the Jaddite leader both kneeling down to pray to their gods about going to war, neither out of some pure hatred of each other or any sort of evil. They're both men, with the concerns of men, acting against each other due to a system that refuses to incorporate both of their world views into the larger picture. The same thing happens with Rodrigo and Ammar, two men who very well could be friends forced against one another by the structure of the world. And that's what I feel is happening in the world today, not just in us vs. the terrorists, but in many other cases. And until many people's concept of the world changes from "us vs. them" (something that Bush's Axis of Evil can't fail to conjure up in many people's minds) to "we have to find a way to make all this work," there will continue to be problems.

Oh, Gem. A little side note. I don't think a poll is feasible, but I sure would be interested to see if there is any correlation between the group that doesn't care for "simplistic" epic fantasy and the those who espouse moral relativity. not a joke, not a slam, I'm just curious. I think a close correlation between black and white thinkers and Jordan-type fandom might go a long way to prove your point about the appeal of epic fantasy.

And I think a poll like this would be possible--something along the lines of "I like this, and I think like this." "I don't like this, I don't think like this." "I like this, but I don't think like this." "I don't like this, but I do think like this." Some sort of paired or tripled statements that encompass the largest sorts of ideas and the largest categories of opinion on epic fantasy. Or find some sort of moral relativity test online and have people take it and then check the box with their score paired with their opinion of epic fantasy...not impossible.

 

[Leiali]

I haven't closely followed this thread, so apologies if this particular view point has been made, but one of the reasons I love epic fantasy is the complex machinations of politics created by many an author. This seems relevant to the previous post in some respect, but though I am extremely interested in current affairs, I feel this particular subject too delicate to discuss on this forum. Not that I have extreme views I hasten to add! It is just that there is a tendency (demonstrated here) to do the 'them' and 'us' thing in such discussions, and as a member of this international site, I find that disappointing. Anyway, I have always had an interest in moral scruples, ethics, politics and history, so epic fantasy would always have an appeal.

 

[ironchef texmex]

Either that's tongue-in-cheek, or it's taking some of what I said to an extreme that wasn't intended, or you're an extremely open dude, Tex. I can't exactly tell which.

None of the above. It was satire Erf, specifically meant to take what you said to an extreme for the purpose of examining the underlying beliefs.

As for Osama and the boys, I hate to rain on the parade, but if I'm understanding their rhetoric then the attacks on Western society have nothing to do with real or imagined grievences, and everything to do with a belief that one comes closer to God by attacking the people that God doesn't like. But no, I know what you're talking about with the political use of "us and them" and I agree.

As for the poll, I think you have an interesting idea. As long as it wasn't as simple as Black and White or Relativist - pick one, it might be possible.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Ironchef - could you get a little more specific so that I understand what you really want to find out with the poll or the thread, or whatever?

 

[Davis Ashura]

Questions:
What is meant when it is said that Tolkien is consolatory? What exactly are those who love Tolkien needing to be consoled about? This always struck me as heavy-handed snobbery that sounds neat but always made little sense to me. You can stop reading here because this is the question I actually want answered. The rest of the post is a bit of a rant.
Is it possible to understand the thinking behind the Khymer Rouge or the leaders of North Korea? If it is not, then is one acting in a narrow-minded sense by naming their actions as evil? Or do the words 'good' and 'evil' no longer have meaning since everything is relative?
If American culture is lazy, is the rest of the world hard-working, or are all cultures lazy?
When did it become an unassailable fact that global warming exists? The models of global warming are not supported by the data thus far or at least the data is conflicting. To state it is a fact is nonsense. I will reserve a healthy amount of skepticism for any scientist who claims they have a global model that can actually predict future weather patterns when the basis of their model is flawed or it is founded on such limited knowledge that it may as well be flawed.
Is it alright to criticize other candidates for high office and their policies (or lack thereof) or just George Bush?
And Erf, what's with the lemurs?

 

[Gary Wassner]

Values have to have meaning or we couldn't function. But are they ever going to be clear and absent of some relativity? I don't think so. They can be relative and still work, probably because there is a sense of certainty behind them that just has fuzzy, blurred edges when you move from society to society and culture to culture. I like to believe that Plato was right to an extent, and that it is just very difficult for us to define what we really mean.

 

[ironchef texmex]

Ironchef - could you get a little more specific so that I understand what you really want to find out with the poll or the thread, or whatever?

Oh, I'm still not sure how it would work. But the point is this: I think a strong correlation between people who lean toward concrete moral thinking and the people who are strongly drawn to epic fantasy would go a long way toward proving up the point that the resurgence of interest in epic fantasy has to do with the culture's growing dissatisfaction with moral ambiguity. Of course a weak correlation would probably blow the idea out of the water.

I don't know if I'm unusual in this regard, but I think a part of the attraction for me is related to my view of ethics. Not so much in the conscious "my way or the highway" fashion. I don't go out of my way to find fiction authors who think like me. But still, I can think of several books (mostly sci-fi) that I've read recently that seemed to have been written from a morally ambiguous viewpoint and I found myself thinking "don't these people stand for anything?". Someone like me may find a book written in 'shades of moral grey' to be unrealistic. Someone who thinks the opposite may read a book written in a morally concrete fashion and think the same thing "this isn't the way the world really works, this book is too simplistic."

Now this brings up the central problem that has been getting batted back and forth - what is the definition of 'Epic Fantasy' and specifically, is a certain type of ethics intrinsic to the term. I'll leave that little detail to No Dog and Aldarion. I do think that the mind of most people during the middle ages leaned heavily toward the 'black and white'. If you're looking for a good book that really tries to get into the medieval mindset, I recommend The Autumn of the Middle Ages by a guy named Johan Huizinga. Good book.

 

[Archmage]

Goodbye

I am leaving the forums. It has come to my attention today, that someone on this forum actually posted something I said on this forum, posted my thoughts, on their web blog without my permission. I find that to be beyond disrespectfull. I would never fathom posting something someone else said on this forum anywhere else without first asking that person if it was okay to do so. I have enjoyed my time here and wish you all joy, happiness, and success in all your endeavors in life. May you all find whatever it is you are seeking for in life, and may your journey bring you peace and love.

Sincerely,
Arch

 

[Gary Wassner]

I don't know if I'm unusual in this regard, but I think a part of the attraction for me is related to my view of ethics. Not so much in the conscious "my way or the highway" fashion. I don't go out of my way to find fiction authors who think like me...But still, I can think of several books (mostly sci-fi) that I've read recently that seemed to have been written from a morally ambiguous viewpoint and I found myself thinking "don't these people stand for anything?".

That is what I have been saying all along. I do believe that people appreciate and enjoy the ethical discussions and issues that characters in Epic Fantasy often seem to face. I think they more than enjoy it. It is not simply a "Hey, that was fun" kind of enjoyment, but rather a way for them to sort out their own sense of right and wrong and focus upon moral issues outside of a classroom, religious institution or lecture hall. Moral indifference is abhorrent to me. Cruelty is as well, and I too don't find any solace or satisfaction in books that don't appear to have any ethical point of view. I am not presupposing any particular point of view, but I respect an author who has a clear perspective, even if that perspective is one that necessitates a continuous quest for understanding. On a purely intellectual level, relativism is very appealing. But it is not so appealing on a practical level. It feels very hollow and unstable when you try to apply it to your actual life and that of your family, parents, children etc.

 

[Dawnstorm]

I don't know if I'm unusual in this regard, but I think a part of the attraction for me is related to my view of ethics. Not so much in the conscious "my way or the highway" fashion. I don't go out of my way to find fiction authors who think like me. But still, I can think of several books (mostly sci-fi) that I've read recently that seemed to have been written from a morally ambiguous viewpoint and I found myself thinking "don't these people stand for anything?". Someone like me may find a book written in 'shades of moral grey' to be unrealistic. Someone who thinks the opposite may read a book written in a morally concrete fashion and think the same thing "this isn't the way the world really works, this book is too simplistic."

You may be onto something there:

It's probably safe to say that I'm on the other side of the scale (if there is a scale...). I don't much like clear cut positions if they're treated as anything but communicative tools. I've acquired an allergy to the mere mention of the words "good" and "evil", to the point where that aversion gets in the way of thinking. It's something I'm working on, but it's hard. (On a side note, I feel that the "morally concrete" position may tie in with the "Strunk'n'White school of style", with their emphasis on clarity ond bold stating of positions. Need I say that I consider the book more harmful than useful to the style I want to read?)

Adding to that: Epic fantasy as a genre has never managed to draw my attention in book form. I prefer the epic on screen (silver or computer), where I can admire the splendour of the setting and the effects, and where it's easier to ignore the story.

It's not so much about the way the world works, though. It's just that I can't find my way into that kind of thought.

My self-observation does support the Chef's hypothesis, doesn't it?

I'd be interested in more "data", too.