This is a big piece of the puzzle. I disagree that all books contain the author's "worldview." Some books are simply about an author's fantasy. This applies to various genres but...I mean, the word fantasy, which can refer to one's own personal desires, is literally the word used for this genre. Also, the biggest tropes, which aid in fulfilling the ultimate fantasy, one's own grandeur (chosen one, inherent powers, destiny, simplified, low tech, world that does not require all the hard work and patience ours does), are all associated with popular fantasy.
Saying that because the genre is called fantasy it must be what the authour desires is like saying the genre is called romance because the authour is in love with their characters. The name of the genre does not relate to the author's relation to their work. All books will contain their author's worldview either consciously or not. If people wish to write humans in a believable way, then the way they act is what the authour perceives as believable. That is why in many historical novels women would often faint from shock because it was thought of at that time that women were prone to such things, despite it not being true. This then expands out to idealogy as well
Right? I wonder if people even think about what they’re posting. In any event, one of the most popular subgenres of fantasy right now is dystopian fantasy, where the world is typically much more difficult to live in than the real world and certainly don’t appear to represent the desired existences of either the author or the readers.
Are you saying that soap operas have their writers putting soap in their mouths while singing in Italian?
I like this characterization. Most readers in genre of any kind want the Grisham experience. That’s why these are the most financially-successful types of authors. You can find plenty of books in the latter category that fit within genre as well, and for readers who want to do the work they’re great. It’s not a situation peculiar to fantasy.
No, not generally. I do think some writers incorporate personal fears. Lovecraft incorporates his fear of water, for example. But most just like the genre, I believe. I like horror. It doesn’t scare me in the slightest, I just like well-written books in the genre. This thread is built largely on ignorance. Don’t expect much more than that from the basic premise the underlies the current conversation.
I think we might be arguing the same thing - I've lost track of who is saying what this has got so sprawling. For the record I don't believe that a fantasy writer is just exploring their own desires
I'm not a younger writer but one of my books is fantasy genre and I do a lot of research as well as writing to work out ideas for myself before putting down a draft. There may appear to be great freedom in the genre.. for ideas, yes. For phoning it in, absolutely not. The titles mentioned by the o.p. have set a high bar not just for storytelling but for detail and continuity of the story. I'm also taking great care with the magic employed by my wizards.. nothing preposterous based on the common understanding of physics..a few leaps of faith, but with a unifying logic. I feel that if I get published, and someone shells out $10 forba copy, the least I can do is to provide a good story that holds together, as well as one that inspires and entertains.
@big soft moose @Steerpike I think you were both making fun of one of my points and one of you replied to the wrong person at some point.
Well, if someone centers their writing on Romance, they probably have a fixation on some aspect of romance in real life. And horror writers probably have some fixation on the macabre. So sci-fi/fantasy being a very multifaceted genre, it's difficult to say what exactly the author has a fixation on. But they probably do have some kind fixation, or interest. Many might have a fixation on supernatural things or otherworldly things and may even want to escape to an extent. But just because someone wants to escape, that doesn't mean that that's all they want. I don't think the genre really matters that much, to be honest. If the author is good, then writing a fantasy won't hinder the value of their work. Any subject or setting is fine if it's well-written and contains something that's true to reality. Even the escapist stuff can tell us something about human nature if you take a look at the popular ones and who reads them. But I agree that the author's worldview emerges subconsciously in bits and pieces. But that's fine. A good piece of work is basically the result of the author's accurate observations of life. Escapist work, as I see it, is a result of that, but I think that it offers the author's desired solution, in a sense. When I was in middle school, I loved Harry Potter and Eragon because I didn't have much friends and didn't really enjoy life. So reading Harry Potter was a way I could escape to a magical world where, living vicariously through Harry, I could have adventures and all that. As I grew up though, I just wasn't into the fantasy or sci-fi works (with exceptions) aimed at older audiences because they often seemed pointless and trying to answer problems by looking at some cliche fantasy land that draws few parallels to reality.
Yes. You can’t phone it in and expect a good result in any genre. In some ways, some fantasy and science fiction works take more care in this regard than works set in the real world, because of the extent to which the author has to maintain the logic and consistency of an invented world.
Give me a break, guys. Horror writers horrify. Mystery writers mystify. Romance writers romanticize. Fantasy writers fantasize. Science fiction writers fictionalize science. Same with historical fiction. Don't act like the word behind the genre is meaningless--if it is, then this entire discussion is pointless.
Horror as a genre is more based on the author's fear than the Macabre. Someone referenced Lovecraft earlier, so I'm going to use him as an example. He was a major racist, so was widely against interracial relationships. Shadow Over Innsmouth is about half human half monsters created by humans breeding with monsters. None of Lovecraft's creatures are from earth, with many not even being from our reality, futher showing a fear for the "other" or the outside. Others added to his mythos however, which adds other themes. I'd argue that fantasy as a genre is not about ideal solutions. Some of them are, in that they present worlds in which slaying the dark lord brings an end to his army, but more and more the genre has moved away from it. As said, Urban fantasy, which is your Dresden Files, Hellboy, and things along those lines, don't have any of that. Game of Thrones more or less is calling out the genre on that for the most part as well. In my own writings I constantly find myself exploring themes of empire, and am not sure if it's some form of latent cultural guilt, or being born in a former empire which has lost and continues to lose much of it's power. But I am not conciously chosing to repeat it thematically.
It’s also interesting to think of Lovecraft in terms of the scientific discoveries and state of knowledge of the time. The cosmos was something we were just peering into with modern science and was largely a mysterious unknown. Lovecraft’s work is often a commentary on humanity’s pursuit of what was hidden knowledge of the universe.
It's also worth noting that his idea that we are, as a whole, irrelevant, went very much against the idea of American exceptionalism, and the greater self-importance the US started to put on itself after the first world war.
Genre titles have some meaning (though a lot of what gets called science fiction is just fantasy I’m a space setting) but it’s impeotant not to read too much into them. They’re marketing categories, and old ones at that. The fantasy genre fit more neatly, far more neatly, into that category in the 1960s than it does today. That’s one reason I say these arguments are borne of ignorance. People who don’t spend a fair amount of time with it have a very limited and in many ways outdated concept of the genre.
Don’t act like it’s anything but a marketing tool, either. And flipping nouns to verbs is a game that we’re not required to join you in. A book that, say, paints government as being filled with wise and kind people totally lacking in self-interest would be romanticizing government, but it’s not a romance. The genre “romance” and the dictionary word “romanticize” don’t march in step. Neither do the genre “fantasy” and the dictionary word “fantasize”. Fantasy tends to refer to wholly invented worlds, or worlds that contain magic and magical creatures, or both. Fantasy meant to frighten with certain types of dangers is often called horror. Fantasy containing spaceships is often called science fiction. Fantasy focused on politics and with little to no magic may be called dystopian fiction. Fantasy with a lot of swashbuckling and some real-world historical places may be called adventure. Fantasy without a handy bucket to fall into remains fantasy. The lack of a bucket doesn’t suddenly require the work to obey the wish fulfillment variation of the dictionary definition of “fantasize.” Edited to add: and I’m totally prepared to learn, from folks that understand the genres better than I do, that I’ve got them wrong. My main point is that they don’t march in step with dictionary definitions.
Soap Opera Writers Soap Operafy. The point is not that the word behind the genre is meaningless, but to simply say that genres are named after the feeling they induce in the reader is wrong.
I sounds like to me that you read a good book and enjoyed it. I really loved Hawkeye from Cooper's Last of the Mohicans. Buddy, that literary ship sailed with Gilgamesh,Beowulf, and Gassire. You ain't sinking it now.
I think the main cause of the disagreement here is not understanding the actual sides and views being presented. I'm going to try and capture the nuances of each side, but please correct me where I fail. Two Sides: 1. The majority, but not all, of Sci-Fi/Fantasy focuses on escapism and less on good stories and less on interesting, "literary" things. The point being not that Fantasy as a genre is inherently scant of value, but more that the popular body of work in fantasy, de facto, often is. This is because the majority of the Fantasy audience wants escape, so the suppliers, becoming privy to this, meet the demand. The implications here are that writers who focus on fantasy do this for the purposes of escapism as well. I mean, come on, don't tell me that all you really wanna do isn't to imagine being special, powerful, or living in a more interesting setting where everything is different from reality and screw the plot, just add elves and wizards doing stuff and I'm happy. 2. Sci-Fi/Fantasy is just as valid a medium, de facto, as any other genre. The majority of stories, including popular ones, in the genre of Sci-Fi/Fantasy are meaningful in some way. Sure, bad ones are bad. That applies to any genre. Focusing on escape is not a bad thing. In fact, that's the basis of a good story is that it provides you a bit of a reprieve from life. There are popular literary fictions which have elements of escapism. All good stories have elements of escapism. Don't tell me you read The Great Gatsby without at least wondering what it would be like to be rich like Gatsby(tragic flaw or not), go to the wild parties or host them, or be in the position of Nick, witnessing it all. At least while you were reading it. Does that mean you can't learn something? No. Understanding of Escapism: 1. Escapism is mostly bad. Escapism is avoiding reality. People who want to escape are weak and can't face reality, so hide within in a fake world. AND/OR People who want to escape are seeking distraction from reality as opposed to wanting to learn something or feel something or "broaden their horizons", as they say. 2. Escapism is not bad at all. Escaping is an experience. We're all escaping, one way or another, when we read a gripping story. Whether a story is positive or negative, if you care about the characters, if you're interested in the setting, you could describe that as escaping in a way. It is not mutually exclusive with learning, etc. In fact, the shallow - depth continuum of any genre fluctuates from story to story. And some things which are meaningless to others could actually be meaningful to someone else. Conclusion: Basically, I think we all have our hearts in the right place on this one and the general meandering nature of this debate is due to not really agreeing on what constitutes escapism. We probably still don't agree after, but I think beyond that one point it really is a matter of preference. For example, I was saying escapism is bad. But if you think escapism means the second one here, that's not what I mean. I mean people who are super into the world and characters to the point of dressing up like them. And yeah, I look down on that. And maybe I just don't understand it, but it seems incredibly goofy to do something like that. Throw a LoTR-themed party? Okay, sure. But having conventions and dressing up, or role-playing within the world? I really just don't understand. The fact that Fantasy tends to inspire such people in this way indicates, to me, that it inherently lends itself to that kind of reaction. But, here's what I think in the end: an audience will do what they will. A good writer is, more often than not, trying to say something or make some observation about the world. Doing it through fantasy elements might just be more interesting to them, for whatever reason.
