The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum - View Single Post

Kalessin · 12-09-2002, 04:32 PM

The interesting question posed begs another - a working and acceptable definition of the fantasy genre.

If, as it unfortuantely appears from time to time, what qualifies a work as fantasy is merely the presence of swords, horses, scantily clad (pneumatic) women, a series of unpronounceable names, elements of wizardry and magic, and dialogue along the lines of "No, Agnarren!" exclaimed Raven Swordpolisher, "'Tis not yet the time for ye to meet your mystic destiny ... first we must recover the Crystal Crow of Karnath" ..." [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], then whilst I am a big LotR fan, you can count me out.

On the other hand, some people I know (and bookshops) consider Fantasy and Science Fiction as indistinguishable, interchangeable parts of a rather geeky whole. The fact that several notable authors (Le Guin, Moorcock, Anderson) work in both arenas might also make this a feasible generalisation.

And where, for example, does the fantasy genre end, and a number of other genres begin? Traditional myths or fairy tales, the works of Oscar Wilde, the 'magic realism' of Marquez,the works of Borges and Allende etc. ... all of these could arguably called fantasy.

I don't know if the genre is clearly defined, or if such a definition is possible. Tolkien is often seen as the 'Godfather' of modern fantasy, but his work is so different - in both scope and quality - from nearly all his successors that there is a strong argument for simply placing him in the wider context of literature.

Part of the point I am making is that I am not sure if liking fantasy has anything to do with having more imagination, or anti-modernism, or spirituality, and so on, than anyone who does not like the genre. Often what we like is what does NOT challenge us, what reassures us, and what is couched in the language (literal and symbolic) that we are familiar with. Liking fantasy in this context could be more of a cop out, like wanting chips with everything [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

Genre-specific sections in bookshops or libraries are indeed useful, but they are also an excuse not to go into the wider spheres of writing. I am as guilty of that as anyone else, skimming past the various classics or innovators to get to my favourite spot [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img].

I would argue that liking a genre is as arbitrary as liking a particular food - it can arise from habit, culture, peer pressure and so on - and does not imply any particular shades of imagination or personality. And not liking fantasy does not imply a lack of these. And of course, people can change what they like.

To coin a phrase - "there's no accounting for taste".

Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Kalessin

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]

12-09-2002, 04:32 PM	#12
Kalessin Wight Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Earthsea, or London Posts: 175	The interesting question posed begs another - a working and acceptable definition of the fantasy genre. If, as it unfortuantely appears from time to time, what qualifies a work as fantasy is merely the presence of swords, horses, scantily clad (pneumatic) women, a series of unpronounceable names, elements of wizardry and magic, and dialogue along the lines of "No, Agnarren!" exclaimed Raven Swordpolisher, "'Tis not yet the time for ye to meet your mystic destiny ... first we must recover the Crystal Crow of Karnath" ..." [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img], then whilst I am a big LotR fan, you can count me out. On the other hand, some people I know (and bookshops) consider Fantasy and Science Fiction as indistinguishable, interchangeable parts of a rather geeky whole. The fact that several notable authors (Le Guin, Moorcock, Anderson) work in both arenas might also make this a feasible generalisation. And where, for example, does the fantasy genre end, and a number of other genres begin? Traditional myths or fairy tales, the works of Oscar Wilde, the 'magic realism' of Marquez,the works of Borges and Allende etc. ... all of these could arguably called fantasy. I don't know if the genre is clearly defined, or if such a definition is possible. Tolkien is often seen as the 'Godfather' of modern fantasy, but his work is so different - in both scope and quality - from nearly all his successors that there is a strong argument for simply placing him in the wider context of literature. Part of the point I am making is that I am not sure if liking fantasy has anything to do with having more imagination, or anti-modernism, or spirituality, and so on, than anyone who does not like the genre. Often what we like is what does NOT challenge us, what reassures us, and what is couched in the language (literal and symbolic) that we are familiar with. Liking fantasy in this context could be more of a cop out, like wanting chips with everything [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. Genre-specific sections in bookshops or libraries are indeed useful, but they are also an excuse not to go into the wider spheres of writing. I am as guilty of that as anyone else, skimming past the various classics or innovators to get to my favourite spot [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]. I would argue that liking a genre is as arbitrary as liking a particular food - it can arise from habit, culture, peer pressure and so on - and does not imply any particular shades of imagination or personality. And not liking fantasy does not imply a lack of these. And of course, people can change what they like. To coin a phrase - "there's no accounting for taste". Peace [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] Kalessin [ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]