The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Priestvyrce]

hey, you are absolutely right. my bad.....

I hope that you aren't angry, but this part of the discussion has been going on for pages and though somewhat interesting, it does seem that everyone as gone off topic(which can be good). Now, if this all ties into the theories part of the thread then all and good. I just don't want you to think that I'm being some type of thread nazi or what have you.


Okay?

 

[Scott Bakker]

Why in the world do you say that: those who live off the labour of others is what it means to be wealthy?

Because what it means to be wealthy is to have disproportionate access (either actual or potential) to goods and services, (which is just to say, the proceeds of other's labour). We all by and large give the same portion of our life to the system, but what we get back differs greatly, depending on whether we're a CEO or a dishwasher.

Are you suggesting the wealthy don't have more access to goods and services? Of course they do: 'wealth' would be meaningless otherwise, a bunch of useless paper tickets, or abstract numbers on a statement. And when someone is has more access to the labour of others, it means that someone else has less, or in other words, that someone is poor. And this just means there's no relative wealth without relative poverty. I'm not sure how the fact that we all depend in on the labour of others changes this in any way.

On a different note, I think this has a lot to do with epic fantasy!

 

[Gary Wassner]

Is there no sense of merit involved, or is it all totally unfair? I am not sure what your point is. Of course some people have more and some have less. Some people work harder and have more, some people work harder and have less. the opposite is true as well. And?

If you want to tie this in to Epic Fantasy in any real way, then look at the appeal of power in fantasy? Look at the appeal of the magnificence of the mighty dollar (gold and silver and 'mithril') in fantasy. People strive for value, both material and moral. They need not always be diametrically opposed to one another. Not all wealth is ill gained. Not all power is unwarranted.

My point before was simply that we are all interdependent. There may be worker bees and queens, but nature is riddled with heirarchy. Is it natural or unnatural? Is it always fair? NO. But neither is cancer or a birth defect. Epic fantasy seems always to take place in a world where power rules and leadership, enigmatic leadership, is almost sacred. I have no problem with your politics, No Dog. You are entitled to believe whatever you choose. But there is not logic in assuming that someone who was once a worker and works hard and achieves, whether it is for power or wealth, stops being a worker when they attain what they are working for to begin with. I have yet to read a proletarian Epic Fantasy, though I could be mistaken.

 

[Grantaire]

GemQuest, I actually had an interesting discussion with Aldarion on another website about the proletarian influences on epic fantasy. A bit off of what you were saying, but if you're interested, here's the link



Link

 

[Scott Bakker]

Is there no sense of merit involved, or is it all totally unfair?

My views aren't as extreme as you seem to think, Gemquest. If you go back to my original posts on the topic, I think you'll see it's all there: merit vs. patronage and heredity, the necessity of hierarchy, and the ways material inequities are justified...

Regarding the appropriateness of the topic to fantasy, I was just about enjoin Aldarion to answer (but Grantaire beat me to the punch!), since he plans (if I remember correctly) to spend some time discussing how fantasy expresses real world economic conditions.

Went to see Dream Theater and Yes last night. Good God, I'm hungover, and with 'Roundabout' going round and round in my head no less!@

 

[Larry]

My views aren't as extreme as you seem to think, Gemquest. If you go back to my original posts on the topic, I think you'll see it's all there: merit vs. patronage and heredity, the necessity of hierarchy, and the ways material inequities are justified...

Regarding the appropriateness of the topic to fantasy, I was just about enjoin Aldarion to answer (but Grantaire beat me to the punch!), since he plans (if I remember correctly) to spend some time discussing how fantasy expresses real world economic conditions.

Went to see Dream Theater and Yes last night. Good God, I'm hungover, and with 'Roundabout' going round and round in my head no less!@

Yeah, I was going to answer this (after sleeping almost 16 out of the past 24 hours due to utter exhaustion from working double shifts this weekend), but I guess that link states most of my previous stances on the topic.

As for my social/political bent, I'm obviously to the Left of most any national political spectrum. However much I might be influenced by a Marxist model of history, I am not a Marxist-based politico of any stripe. Instead, it'd be more like a more radicalized Centre Party if anything. Not a solid comparison, but close enough to make some of you wonder and research

Speaking of Marx, he had this very interesting thing to say in a letter to Lasalle that certainly touches upon a key point No-Dog and I have been making for a while now. Here's the link: Letter

As for the hungoverness, at least you didn't hit on any transvestites, right? Right?

 

[Scott Bakker]

As for the hungoverness, at least you didn't hit on any transvestites, right?

Not this time, though I was surprised to see that Florence Henderson is now the lead singer for Yes...

 

[Larry]

Not this time, though I was surprised to see that Florence Henderson is now the lead singer for Yes...

Florence Henderson? You mean from the Brady Bunch?

*wonders if this will lead to a further exploration of transvestites and their roles in society and in fantasy*

 

[Gary Wassner]

Or the hermaphrodictic qualities of the young, male heroes in Epic fantasy?

 

[Larry]

Or the hermaphrodictic qualities of the young, male heroes in Epic fantasy?

Well, many of them are portrayed as being beautiful - not handsome, but beautiful

 

[Larry]

And to inject a bit more seriousness into the flow of things here, I think a case can be made for the connections between mass culture and epic fantasy. Although most of the forms and ideas originate in oral, popular traditions, the "something" I've been pondering about for some time in regards to what makes today's EF different really seems to be closely tied into the development of mass societies with their intendent cultures. The stories are almost like brands in presentation and packaging, the advertisements in particular really reflect this, especially in the choice of adjectives for the book blurbs. Pick out a dozen or so epic fantasies and notice how similar the descriptive words are. The writing is often at a remove, whether of one degree or many, from the stories people tell.

Speaking of the stories that people tell, how many of us actually can tell a good story of longer than 5 minutes? Seriously, think about this and how we communicate with each other. Is communication as personal as it used to be? Or could the case be made that almost everything, from our food preparation/consumption to the very nature of the forum we're using here, is of a "microwave" nature - zapped and popped out in a few minutes, only to be thrown away later for the next item?

This leads to an even bigger question - are most epic fantasies, like most books being published today, ultimately disposable? Is disposibility becoming a main trait of Western culture?

Something to think about, yes?

 

[Gary Wassner]

For you Aldarion, that was an uncharacteristically odd inference. The sheer abundance of literature today and the fact that it has become so much easier to publish generates quite a bit of disposable 'stuff' I suspect. But that does not mean that amidst the piles of manuscripts, the jewels no longer glitter. Actually, the inference should be the opposite. Due to the fact that so much more makes it into print today, the odds of a genius being weeded out unfairly by some disgruntled editor or unintelligent manuscript slush pile reader should decrease. The problem has become having some means of determining what to read and what to take seriously enough to give it a chance. Do you rely upon the big presses still to be the arbiters of our fantasy taste? For sure, websites bring authors to the forefront who were ignored by the major presses and still write under their radar. Just look at all the lists that get posted here. And many of the small presses today are providing the alt/rock of fantasy as well. There may be more crap in circulation, but the inference that there is therefor less that is brilliant is not a necessary one.

 

[Larry]

For you Aldarion, that was an uncharacteristically odd inference. The sheer abundance of literature today and the fact that it has become so much easier to publish generates quite a bit of disposable 'stuff' I suspect. But that does not mean that amidst the piles of manuscripts, the jewels no longer glitter. Actually, the inference should be the opposite. Due to the fact that so much more makes it into print today, the odds of a genius being weeded out unfairly by some disgruntled editor or unintelligent manuscript slush pile reader should decrease. The problem has become having some means of determining what to read and what to take seriously enough to give it a chance. Do you rely upon the big presses still to be the arbiters of our fantasy taste? For sure, websites bring authors to the forefront who were ignored by the major presses and still write under their radar. Just look at all the lists that get posted here. And many of the small presses today are providing the alt/rock of fantasy as well. There may be more crap in circulation, but the inference that there is therefor less that is brilliant is not a necessary one.

When I say "disposable," I mean that people tend to read it and move on, or buy it and pretend to have read it. This is unfortunately true for the majority of the people. Yes, there are exceptions to prove the rule (using the original meaning of the expression). However, how do the works of genius get spread around in this day and age? The main means of mass communication, television/radio, tend to narrow the focus down to a few sure-fire "hits." The latest Publishers Weekly columns on bookstore numbers seem to reflect this dependence on fewer and fewer big sellers (albeit those few are mega-sellers of the Clinton type) to drive the entire engine.

I'm not saying there aren't works of quality being produced or that websites (I co-run the Other Fantasy section at wotmania, so I have some idea here on how to promote unheralded books, or so I think ) aren't playing an important part of making people more aware of other authors/styles out there. But right now, the main fantasy sales are being generated by the "brands" - the D&D style, the Tolkienesque, the Martin-style "gritty fantasy," the military fantasies. When many posters comment on books, they tend to use brand-type commentaries (similar to Product X - or Tolkien, or has characters that resemble those from Product Y - say Martin) to push their product on others. Professional reviewers are often guilty of this as well.

But don't take my comments on what I've seen develop as meaning that I believe this to be a monolithic case. It's just that there's been a trend toward consolidation, toward having fewer "big-name" authors and more midlist or small press writers being dragged in their wake (and under the radar). Whether or not this is a positive or negative thing is up to the individuals to decide. I happen to be worried about consolidations, especially after seeing the damage being done to the music field, err...excuse me, the music industry.

 

[Dawnstorm]

Speaking of Marx, he had this very interesting thing to say in a letter to Lasalle that certainly touches upon a key point No-Dog and I have been making for a while now. Here's the link: Letter

Interesting indeed:

Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history. One has to put up with the crude English method of development, of course. Despite all deficiencies, not only is the death-blow dealt here for the first time to "teleology" in the natural sciences but their rational meaning is empirically explained.

What intrigues me most, is the part about "the death-blow to 'teleology'". He seems to consider that a good thing. I would think, his historical-dialectic progression of stages (feudalism - capitalism - communism) is in itself a "teleological" construct with "communism" being "the point of it all".

If Marx refutes "teleology", not only is there no way to know that communism will follow on from capitalism, but also there's no reason to assume it will be the end-point of development should it arrive. Being aware of this would make proposing a "class-struggle" with a defined outcome an inherently political statement; not so much concerned with the description of reality, but rather with the establishment of a "truth" - countering a perceived ideology with his own. Or differently put, Marx's not feeding the people opium, but LSD.

Imagine an alternate history where Marx hadn't written a manifesto but an epic fantasy based on his ideas! It would be quite different from Orwell's Animal Farm, I suspect.

 

[Scott Bakker]

sheer abundance of literature today and the fact that it has become so much easier to publish generates quite a bit of disposable 'stuff' I suspect. But that does not mean that amidst the piles of manuscripts, the jewels no longer glitter.

This reminds me of Salvatore's argument against the New Wierd set: that mainstream sales of epic fantasy are what makes the publication of 'fringe work' possible. There has to be some truth to this.

Imagine for a moment that books were no different than any other retail commodity. If that were the case, then we would likely include things like ease of use, stylishness, and reliability among a book's primary virtues. Stylish, easy-to-use, reliable commodities tend to sell.

The thing is many think that books should do more than this, that books should make trends rather than follow them, challenge readers rather than comfort them, and surprise them rather than deliver what they expect - in short, that books shouldn't be stylish, easy-to-use, or reliable.

In other words, that they be entirely unlike most other commodities.

I think it's simply a fact of human nature that the majority prefer things to possess 'commodity virtues' rather than 'book virtues' (though education has the potential, at least, to play a decisive role). I also think that in a consumer society, which is to say a society organized around the production and consumption of commodities, there is always going to be a 'commodity bias' to contend with: this is actually a powerful argument for the necessity of things like public television and public support of the arts.

Because of this, Aldarion, I think the problem you refer too is both inevitable and a matter of degree. (This is also why I think (and I'm referring to past debates here) railing against commercial epic fantasy because they embody commodity rather than book virtues is a non-starter. It's like blaming your mechanic for a mistake made by a design engineer at GM). What makes you think it's getting worse rather than (as I tend to believe) better?

 

[Larry]

This reminds me of Salvatore's argument against the New Wierd set: that mainstream sales of epic fantasy are what makes the publication of 'fringe work' possible. There has to be some truth to this.

Imagine for a moment that books were no different than any other retail commodity. If that were the case, then we would likely include things like ease of use, stylishness, and reliability among a book's primary virtues. Stylish, easy-to-use, reliable commodities tend to sell.

The thing is many think that books should do more than this, that books should make trends rather than follow them, challenge readers rather than comfort them, and surprise them rather than deliver what they expect - in short, that books shouldn't be stylish, easy-to-use, or reliable.

In other words, that they be entirely unlike most other commodities.

I think it's simply a fact of human nature that the majority prefer things to possess 'commodity virtues' rather than 'book virtues' (though education has the potential, at least, to play a decisive role). I also think that in a consumer society, which is to say a society organized around the production and consumption of commodities, there is always going to be a 'commodity bias' to contend with: this is actually a powerful argument for the necessity of things like public television and public support of the arts.

Because of this, Aldarion, I think the problem you refer too is both inevitable and a matter of degree. (This is also why I think (and I'm referring to past debates here) railing against commercial epic fantasy because they embody commodity rather than book virtues is a non-starter. It's like blaming your mechanic for a mistake made by a design engineer at GM). What makes you think it's getting worse rather than (as I tend to believe) better?

Interesting enough, it's our education priorities/levels that has led me to believe that this trend will continue to grow. As a few of you might know, I taught for 5 years (counting half a year subbing for my sick mother teaching HS English) and what I saw dismayed me. It wasn't that the students in general were "dumber" than before, it was more that their priorities were mostly on concrete, lower-level (according to Bloom's taxonomy of learning) processing of material. They wanted to consume what had to be consumed, regurgitate it on the exams, and then move on. When they read, they wanted stories that were easy to figure out, with comfortable themes. When I had to explain the workings of a Sherlock Holmes mystery to them, many had a difficult time until I acted out parts of the action to illustrate the point. Their brains are more wired for processing visual images than for processing word meanings on a printed page.

With this in mind, is it any wonder that they want most everything laid out for them, with info-dumps galore? As I've said before, we're moving into a post-literate society. What's to happen to literature should be interesting, if somewhat dismaying for those who understand and appreciate the more challenging works.

 

[Scott Bakker]

I certainly understand what you're talking about - it pretty much parallels my teaching experience. The problem, however, is that you're making a comparative claim without any fixed reference point. I'm not convinced kids are any less capable of critical or textual thought now than they were 20 or even 50 years ago, and I suspect they're a whole lot more open-minded. In fact, according to Perry's 'schema of undergraduate development' (I always chuckle when it comes to these things), most kids arrive in university already at level 4: capable of appreciating that most claims are relative to different viewpoints.

In fact, I find one of the biggest challenges is to getting them to understand that not all perspectives are equal.

 

[Larry]

I certainly understand what you're talking about - it pretty much parallels my teaching experience. The problem, however, is that you're making a comparative claim without any fixed reference point. I'm not convinced kids are any less capable of critical or textual thought now than they were 20 or even 50 years ago, and I suspect they're a whole lot more open-minded. In fact, according to Perry's 'schema of undergraduate development' (I always chuckle when it comes to these things), most kids arrive in university already at level 4: capable of appreciating that most claims are relative to different viewpoints.

In fact, I find one of the biggest challenges is to getting them to understand that not all perspectives are equal.

Gah, I hate being caught out when I'm being lazy in my response! The problem for me in establishing any fixed reference point would be that of where to start - do I use my own childhood (being born in 1974) or do I start with my parents' or my grandmother's childhoods? I could reference student projects and expectations from those time periods, however, since I do have some evidence lying about that would illustrate differences in paper assignments and the expectations teachers had for the students.

Now in terms of capability, there really isn't much of a difference in terms of inherent potential - however, the level of counter educibility (retraining their minds to process information in a different way) would vary. But that's a topic for another time, yes? (If you think it'd be a good idea, I can write an entry about this in my new Blog)

But I do agree with your comments about the difficulties of getting students to realize that even relative perspectives are not always equal. It was almost maddening at times trying to explain the limits of points of views to a freshman English class. At least I had an easier time with my college survey class, teaching them how the Europeans and Native Americans came to see the other. But again, another story for another time, right?

 

[Gary Wassner]

Interesting No Dog that you said you suspect it wasn't too much different 20 years ago. It wasn't. I was teaching philosophy to freshman at a very very good college during a time when all they wanted to do was pass so that they could fulfill their requirement. They were all interested in pre-med and pre-business degrees and liberal arts was just 'one of those things they had to complete'. It was a radical transformation from only a decade prior in the 60's and early 70's when the arts were paramount and meaning lay in cultural achievement, passion, self-expression and revolution. It was a stifling time to teach.

 

[Bond]

"I think I forgot to ask my prof what the difference between Sartre and Kant was."

Kant believed that reason (thinking clearly, rationally) could lead us to a determinate answer to the question "how should I behave?"

Sartre believed this to be false and that neither reason nor human nature could help to answer that question.

Thank you Prunesquallor! I was always meaning to thank you sooner but I wasn't able to get a round tuit (still haven't actually) and the thread kind of disappeared.

So am I to deduce that at its simplest the difference could be characterized by saying that Kant was an optimist and Sartre wasn't?