I think my post sounds unfairly critical of Martin. After all, he is writing mainstream fantasy, which, was sort of why I brought it up. He took mainstream fantasy, which possesses certain key wish fulfillment/escapist tropes, and added some depth and maturity to it. Definitely ought to be in the fantasy Hall of Fame.
You referenced Of Mice and Men earlier. For a large part of the book, it appears that the characters are going to get the farm, until the third act where everything is ruined. I'd argue that, until Martin's own work is finished, we can't really judge his use of the trope. Though I will disagree that tropes can be innately juvenile. A desire for freedom from the modern world, no matter how brief, can be caused by suffering real issues but having no means to deal with them.
Not really, though you may give them. I am unfortunately swamped in uni reading at the moment, which makes reading work for me at the moment.
It’s not a medieval setting that makes some compromises with the laws of physics, no. It’s a modern setting that makes some compromises with the laws of physics. Does modern versus medieval really matter? That’s skipping the implication that fantasy usually “ignores” the laws of physics, as opposed to some fantasy making specific changes to some laws. And I’m not sure if I’d use the term “melodrama” for the wildly unlikely character behavior and actions in James Bond, but I wouldn’t call it realistic either. Also, are you arguing that all fantasy is melodramatic? That all melodramatic fiction is fantasy? What’s the link you’re making here?
A lot of those kinds of novels—Bond, Bourne, Gray Man, Clive Cussler novels, are incredibly unrealistic, I agree. And when it comes to juvenile wish-fulfillment escapism it’s hard to top Cussler, but he appeals to conservative middle-aged men so it’s OK.
I agree that Cussler predominantly writes self insertion, wish fulfillment books, but why does its appealing to middle aged white men make it any more okay than other wish fulfillment novels? Or what is even the problem with any other story, unrealistic wish fulfillment or no, that the author enjoyed writing and other people enjoy reading? If someone's going to be an elitist knob, they should at least be an informed elitist knob that have actually read and understand the genre of books they're trash talking. Understanding that people will not share their specific tastes and others enjoying books they don't doesn't make these other people ignorant individuals or somehow worse than them would also be a bonus.
It really baffles me when we talk about fantasy writers making some "specific changes" to physical laws. Ah, yes, that's right, so many fantasy writers are also professors of physics and know precisely what it is they're changing. Rather, fantasy is a reduction of the modern world, and yes, that means it simply ignores physical laws. If it found some other way to introduce fantastic elements, than it would be science fiction.
That's a very interesting essay on a topic that's difficult to pin down. One person's notion of wish fulfillment and escape will be different from somebody else's. Or rather, the worth of seeking wish fulfillment and escape as the basis for a story is one that's fraught with controversy. I go back and forth on this one, myself. If the wish fulfillment aspect of the story is too banal and obvious, the story loses me. However, if wish fulfillment is bolstered by original angles of approach, and made richer by an original world in which the story is set, I'm usually on board. Sometimes I can also take away insights as well, that I can apply to my own life, or apply to observations I make about the world I live in. For me, originality usually trumps everything else. If I've heard it before, I'm not generally all that keen to hear it again.
I certainly don't. In fact, it's why these kinds of thriller/spy stories bore the butt off me. Ditto stock Westerns, even though I am very drawn to stories that are laid in a realistic 'old west.' The fact that this stuff is laid in what claims to be the 'real world' doesn't mean the real world of the stories actually mirrors what's out there. And some 'hero' or 'antihero' who can do anything and always wins the day is a bit too much wish fulfillment for me, to be honest. One thing the writers of these kinds of stories seem to do is repeat themselves as well. If Ian Fleming had just written ONE James Bond book, then stopped and went and wrote something else, perhaps people would look at his books differently. Ditto the Western writers. If they'd just written one book, they might be taken more seriously, despite the questionable scenario. However, when an author writes the same kind of wish-fulfillment story over and over again, it's kind of obvious he or she is writing for a readership that loves wish fulfillment escapism. Nothing wrong with that, by the way. But it's one of the markers for me, when I choose an author. Do they keep writing the same story over and over again? If so, warning bells go off. One of the things I like about JK Rowling is that, once the Potter series was done, she tried her hand at writing entirely different kinds of novels. Of course she had to hide (or try to hide) her identity, in order to start again and see how the new stories floated. And the jury is very definitely out on whether her new efforts are any good on their own. But she didn't sit down and immediately write a new Harry-Potter-Kind-Of-Series. I respect her for that.
Great post, and highlights the fact that a lot of these judgments we make require context. There's a reason that fantasy gets a rep for being highly escapist, but as we've been pointing out, it's more complicated than simply saying all novels that are classified as fantasy are 100% wish fulfillment escapism and all those novels that are not classified as fantasy are 100% not wish fulfillment escapism. Some of you will say that the reason fantasy gets this rep is because of ignorance, but I've mentioned a number of fantasy novels that I have read, and I have pointed to various lists of popular fantasy.
So if a fantasy novel follows every other physical law, but introduces, say, telepathy, then it’s ignoring physical laws? One divergence, and you’re “ignoring” it all? In that case, James Bond totally ignores physical laws.
Well, people seem to be trying to explain that to you. You’re saying that you get that now? If so, why not stop condemning “fantasy” and start condemning “wish fulfillment escapism”? Edited to add: Can I assume that the lists of the most popular romances, thrillers, etc. are totally free of wish fulfillment escapism? Models of mature literary expression, every one of them?
I think the thread topic was 'why' do so many new writers favour fantasy? I think we're getting slightly off track here, discussing all other forms of literature as regards wish fulfillment. Of course other kinds of books are also wish fulfillment. But that's not the topic. The topic is why fantasy seems particularly popular with new writers. Is it wish fulfillment or something else? It's not about value judgements ...at least I don't read it that way. It's about why a certain genre which has been around for quite a while seems so popular at the moment. I was taken by a few of the reasons the fantasy writers gave, for why they favour it.
In my case, the Highly Flavored Novel is fantasy because I want particular customs and situations and characters that I don’t know for sure ever existed in the real world. So I need an invented world, and in the choice between a relatively low-tech invented world and a relatively high-tech one, I choose low. I could probably move it to a world with spaceships and declare it to be science fiction, but really, either way, it’s just invented world fiction. But that’s not a genre, as far as I know.
Heck, they often ignore the amazing breadth of fantasy that came out before Tolkein, and which came out in the 60's and 70's while being in no way imitations of him. Anyone who thinks that Tolkein was the be-all and end-all of fantasy even in that period urgently needs to read some Tanith Lee, Jack Vance or Michael Moorcock.
I know I'm attracted to 'low tech' worlds myself, which is maybe why I love historical fiction. So what era do I pick to write about? Late Victorian! When there was so much in the way of new gadgetry and machinery and faff and fuff it's spawned Steampunk. Yikes. "Invented World Fiction." Catchy! I like it. Actually, it maybe defines the category we're discussing better than 'fantasy,' which implies something that's silly and not particularly worthy or weighty, and maybe makes the category easy to dismiss or misunderstand. In real life, we talk about things we wish would happen—that can't or won't ever happen—as a 'fantasy.' Invented World, on the other hand, seems more adult and more purposeful. I think I'm going to call the 'fantasy' fiction I like to read "Invented World" fiction from now on. (If you don't mind.) It makes sense to me.
I think this is the reason writers like KJ Parker and Guy Gavriel Kay (in some of his works) choose fantasy. Books with no magic or common fantasy tropes. They want an invented world. In the case of Kay, some people have coined a new sub genre—historical fantasy. For example, The Lions of Al-Rassan, which is excellent, is based on Spain during the time of the Moors (and near the end of it I think). Kay researches his history heavily. There’s no magic in the book, no fantasy tropes. It reads like historical fiction. But it isn’t the real world. An analog of the real world, but not the real world.
You don't need to be a physics professor to have a working knowledge of physical laws. The magic system of my primary setting is based on the manipulation of energy, and behaves the relevant physical laws. Now, the way that manipulation is accomplished wouldn't work in our world, but it's very clearly not ours.
I still don't understand why people insist that if a fantasy world doesn't follow the laws of our world, then it can and should not have any laws at all. Not breaking a readers suspension of disbelief is incredibly important in good fantasy. Also not all new writers are young, just wanna point that out.
People who insist it aren't familiar enough with the genre to know they're wrong, and it's an easy way to try to belittle. Don't put more stock in it than it warrants.
