Teacher's Bad Rowling Advice

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

It's always struck me as odd that "modernism"- the mandatory artistic creed for most of the past century- has actually meant so many and often contradictory things. "Modern" literature - I remember not long ago some pompous poster on rabt going on about the "post-World War I consensus" (meaning of course the bourgeois novel)- seems to be obsessed with "realism" (preferably of course gritty)- and the Literati seem always to prefer petty, miserable stories about the petty, miserable little lives of petty, miserable little people in petty, miserable little suburbs. Whereas over the same period visual art, of course, has been running screaming away from anything resembling realism, and the 'serious' musical world utterly rejected tonality, realism's aural analogue. How bizarre! How can what is purported to be the same intellectual movement denounce la phantaste as childish, yet praise Paul Klee to the skies?

I suspect a very great deal of it has to do with snobbery. Nothing that peasants and philistines might enjoy can possibly be any good.

Yes, Klee could have taken some lessons in perspective from my seven year old daughter. I wonder if she'd receive a passing grade in art class if she presented a Klee painting as one of her own? It's rather like the tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes', isn't it? Literati walking about in naught but cellulite and freckles putting on airs (or airing it out, as it were). For years I made the effort to read through Joyce's 'Finnegan's Wake', and finally gave up in disgust. For all its supposed brilliance, it becomes rather quickly an indecipherable hodgepodge of allusive obscurities, even though critics like Northrop Frye (whom I respect greatly) considers it the greatest modern ironic epic. But I think there comes a point where the iconoclasts (or decronstructionists) of art and literature hammer the shards of their work until it is indeed only vaguely intelligible. For all Joyce's brilliance (and he was uncanny and a fantasist of sorts, as described by Joseph Campbell), he alienated far more readers than those he snared.

But Joyce was unlike Tolkien in that sense. Tolkien's style is deceptively simple and familiar, whereas Joyce's is deliberately dense and daunting. But the farther one goes, the further one gets a feeling of infinite corridors being opened in Tolkien's work, and suddenly nothing is simple or familiar. Hence, 'The Lord of the Rings' is always atop the reader's polls of great novels, while Joyce's novels tend to receive the critics' accolades on a comparative list. Like this one for instance...

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlib...estnovels.html

Please note the inclusion of several fantasies on the reader's list (like LotR and Watership Down), as well as inclusions from the Science Fiction genre, whereas the critic's list is devoid of either (save for Huxley and Orwell, which are more political/social commentary and thus 'acceptable').

It is unfortunate, as davem so eloquently pointed out, that in the vast sea of mundane fantasy novels there are but few islands of true magic and profundity. The derisive term 'pulp' has long been a desriptor of the genre in general, and a brief perusal of the major book chains' fantasy aisles seems to bear that out. One could certainly say the same for the Science Fiction genre (for every Heinlein, Herbert or Asimov, there are hundreds of non-entities and thousands of throw-away Star Wars and Star Trek serializations). And regarding serializations, I think perhaps one problem with the fantasy genre is that authors with even nominal success are required to continue expanding their sub-created worlds beyond trilogies and tetralogies and septologies in imitation of Tolkien's standard. One wouldn't have gone up to William Golding and asked, "Hey, when's the sequel to 'Lord of the Flies' coming out?" (it is with much ironic humor that I remember an ill-fated attempt at offering a sequel to 'Gone With The Wind' a few years back ). Yet it seems there are fewer and fewer recent standalone fantasies of note being published.

[davem]

I've linked to this piece by Tom Simon previously, but I think its relevant here:

http://superversive.livejournal.com/49083.html

That was a sign of things to come. Publishers began to discover the selling-power of big books and multi-volume novels, and after the disappearance of the dollar paperback, made them the mainstay of their business. The loose and sloppy prose of the word-processor generation was perfectly suited to their needs. They were publishing books in greater numbers and at greater length than ever before, with editorial staffs constantly shrinking; one hears of cases where a single editor is expected to acquire and publish a hundred books per year. Meanwhile print runs were shrinking, advances and royalties remaining static at best; so that a mid-list author, to survive, had to become a hack, churning out vast quantities of work and sending them to press only half revised. The result: countless acres of what in our especial field is called, with a perfectly justified sneer, ‘Extruded Fantasy Product’. (The more general term ‘Extruded Book Product’ is occasionally used as well. I Googled that phrase and found to my chagrin that my own LiveJournal profile topped the list.)

Publishers pressure authors, authors produce what publishers, & increasingly, readers want - & what they want is 'extruded fantasy product'. Yep - most fantasy fans like the 'A band of unlikely heores must travel to the Elven realm of `KUAFGHILUN to gain the fabled sword 'sghorweyhg;n` in order to defeat the evil lord 'swiogh;N' - bacause that's what fantasy novels are about. And it is junk. But its the result of a conspiracy between fans, writers & publishers of this genre fantasy. Fantasy literature has, in some way, to be liberated from the clutches of all three.

Which is not to say that here isn't very good fantasy out there - there always has been - but it seems that, unlike most literary genres, fantasy has become dominated by junk to such an extent that fantasy = junk not simply to the literati but also to the general reader.

And I think its because fantasy is percieved as 'easy' - if its fantasy you can make up the rules, stick anything in there, make it as fantastical as you like - there are no 'rules'. Well that's the perception. And I wouldn't want any child of mine to read that kind of junk. Tolkien pointed out, though, that there have to be rules - particularly in fantasy:

Fantasy, of course, starts out with an advantage: arresting strangeness. But that advantage has been turned against it, and has contributed to its disrepute. Many people dislike being “arrested.” They dislike any meddling with the Primary World, or such small glimpses of it as are familiar to them. They, therefore, stupidly and even maliciously confound Fantasy with Dreaming, in which there is no Art; and with mental disorders, in which there is not even control: with delusion and hallucination.

But the error or malice, engendered by disquiet and consequent dislike, is not the only cause of this confusion. Fantasy has also an essential drawback: it is difficult to achieve. Fantasy may be, as I think, not less but more sub-creative; but at any rate it is found in practice that “the inner consistency of reality” is more difficult to produce, the more unlike are the images and the rearrangements of primary material to the actual arrangements of the Primary World. It is easier to produce this kind of “reality” with more “sober” material. Fantasy thus, too often, remains undeveloped; it is and has been used frivolously, or only half-seriously, or merely for decoration: it remains merely “fanciful.” Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough—though it may already be a more potent thing than many a “thumbnail sketch” or “transcript of life” that receives literary praise. To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode. In human art Fantasy is a thing best left to words, to true literature. In painting, for instance, the visible presentation of the fantastic image is technically too easy; the hand tends to outrun the mind, even to overthrow it. Silliness or morbidity are frequent results.

And I have to rush off now....

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by davem

I've linked to this piece by Tom Simon previously, but I think its relevant here:

http://superversive.livejournal.com/49083.html

A very interesting observation, and one to which I alluded to in my last post. It seems that many fantasy authors have as their corpus a dodecahedronology with a book release every six months or so (having subscribed to the Stephen King book manufacturing process).

Originally Posted by davem

Publishers pressure authors, authors produce what publishers, & increasingly, readers want - & what they want is 'extruded fantasy product'. Yep - most fantasy fans like the 'A band of unlikely heores must travel to the Elven realm of `KUAFGHILUN to gain the fabled sword 'sghorweyhg;n` in order to defeat the evil lord 'swiogh;N' - bacause that's what fantasy novels are about.

Oooooh! Do you mind if I borrow your plot idea, davem? I can use it for my next book! *chuckles*

Originally Posted by davem

And it is junk. But its the result of a conspiracy between fans, writers & publishers of this genre fantasy. Fantasy literature has, in some way, to be liberated from the clutches of all three.

Not an easy hurdle to overcome in a society held in thrall by a fast-food, immediate gratification, set-it-and-forget-it ethic. I suppose this comes down to individual choice and personal decisions, which, unfortunately, has led to 'American Idol' and resultant spin-offs being the most watched TV shows in the U.S. The manufacturing of 'pop stars' goes right along with the industrial proliferation of fantasy potboilers.

[Bêthberry]

Oh my! Between all this talk of bullying literati and dumbing down, why, I hardly dare know if I should admit to enjoying such as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare--Abridged. But seeing as its for the stage--always a tart--I suppose it can't be held against me.

Originally Posted by superversive

At this point, with rich irony, we find Christopher Tolkien publishing The Children of Húrin. Half a century ago, his father could hardly find a publisher because his masterpiece was too long.

Problem is, that struggle Tolkien faced had nothing to do with quality or precision/concision. He was just as much at the mercy of publishers' requirements as these other fellers superversive mentions these days. (He really belongs here on the Downs--has anyone sent him an invite?) It was an economic imposition, nothing to do with quality.

Both of those RandomHouse "100 Best" lists give me the giggles. Ayn Rand has four in the Top Ten and L. Ron Hubbard has three and Charles de Lint has seven overall but there's no Asimov in the Student list? And the list created by The New York Times readers is so perfect in hitting all the correct books for a University Syllabus in Modern Literature 301, complete with just the right touch of irony, sex, and social commitment-- it is positively suspicious as a send up. V.S. Naipaul is met by Salmon Rushdie--there's a good laugh.

Really, both these groups are notorious for playing with words and so I wouldn't find their lists as evidence for anything other than, well, what we do here.

I suppose the only place where fantasy is free of this pernicious conspiracy of fans, writers and publishers is on the Net.

EDIT: I inserted the Merisu smilie after the Squatter one, but it doesn't appear on my post on my screen. I do hope others can see it.

[davem]

Just a quick addendum.

I don't know whether Fantasy is judged to be junk, or relegated to children's literature because most of it is bad (& in the judgement of critics all of it is bad) or simply because it contains Elves, Dragons & dark lords. Perhaps it’s a combination of the two. Certainly there is a lot of junk churned out in all genres, but there isn't the same conviction that all crime, or all historical, novels are 'trash' just because a good deal of them are. So it does seem to be the subject matter that is the basis for this negative judgement.

Which probably means that even if all fantasy was of the standard of Tolkien it would still be adjudged to be trash – which kind of negates my earlier point. It seems that fantasy is considered trash because its fantasy & is not judged on its 'quality' as fiction, because it is believed to be impossible for fantasy literature to have any quality.

[Thenamir]

Before we glibly throw out the bathwater, let us make a cursory effort to extract the baby from it first.

You cannot say that all prose of "Form X", as exemplified by davem,

'A band of unlikely heroes must travel to the Elven realm of `KUAFGHILUN to gain the fabled sword 'sghorweyhg;n` in order to defeat the evil lord 'swiogh;N'

is therefore "junk". That's like saying that the great romances are junk because they follow the same basic formula as the Harlequin paperbacks.

I read once, it might have been in high school "creative writing" class back in the paleolithic age, that there are only two real plots for all stories, which can be boiled down to the phrases "A stranger came to town" or "She got on the train." In other words, stories revolve around people's reactions to either something unfamiliar entering their familiar world, or something familiar (perhaps even precious?) being taken away. What is normal has been disturbed, and the events of the story relate to the establishment of a new equlibrium, usually involving great upheavals not foreseeable in the original event.

It is not the plot formula that is selected but what is done with it that makes a book brilliant or trite -- from character development to creative plot elements to expert use of vocabulary.

Of course there's more junk than jewels -- it's easier to create junk, and if junk pays, then why exert the extra effort required to create jewels? Only the dedication of brilliant minds like Tolkien's could impel him to craft Middle Earth in such exacting detail, and it is that detail that makes Middle Earth seem so comfortably *real* despite its fantastic elements. Another author, though perhaps adhering too closely to the basic plot davem so succinctly decried, could create a believable universe with memorable characters and sufficient plot diversions and diversity such that the resulting book might rise above the mucken mire of trite fantasy. But such an author will have to *work* to ensure that quality -- it doesn't come by osmosis.

EDIT: Cross posted with davem and Bethberry -- some good points.

[Nogrod]

An interesting discussion. Thanks all!

Originally Posted by davem

I don't know whether Fantasy is judged to be junk, or relegated to children's literature because most of it is bad (& in the judgement of critics all of it is bad) or simply because it contains Elves, Dragons & dark lords. Perhaps it’s a combination of the two. Certainly there is a lot of junk churned out in all genres, but there isn't the same conviction that all crime, or all historical, novels are 'trash' just because a good deal of them are. So it does seem to be the subject matter that is the basis for this negative judgement.

Here I need to mildly disagree as someone who has actually taken part in the academic circles… There really are people among the literati who scorn all crime and historical novels as well as fantasy or sci-fi. To them these just aren’t literature but low-brow entertainment, the easy instant gratification stuff that hasn’t the merits of Real Literature. So sadly it seems that it is the genre which dictates the possible worth of a piece of writing in the academic circles. Surely the genre carries with it it’s natural subject matters so it seems to be both together.

But this academic taste seems also to catch the people’s minds outside the literature departments and academic journals as well. I’d say that the majority of the people with university education (humanistic, scientific, engineering, marketing, juristic, medical…) would answer just like the board of the Randomhouse poll shows even if they would never had studied literature or aesthetics or belonged to those circles. Not to say that they would have actually read the books they deem so worthy of praise.

One thing all the people learn in Uni is that Uni is a respectable institution which has a priviledged position to the Truth. This might have a ring of truth in it regarding the “hard sciences” but with humanities it’s more difficult to see the inevitabliness of the claim. It’s as well a question of taste and of the position of the academics in the world we live in. For example many academics want to differentiate themselves from the commercial world and the values it carries with it and thence see their position in the opposite direction: what sells can’t be good, what entertains can’t be good, what is easily approached can’t be good etc.

Just to defend the academics a bit in the end. Yes I fully agree with Bethberry about Shakespeare – and would go even further - I like the unabridged versions even more… As a non-native speaker I have never dared to approach Finnegan’s Wake (Proust is another one I have managed to duck as I know I should read it in French and that’s a challenge I’d not wish to take) but I kind of liked Joyce’s Ulysses and writers like Kafka, Beckett, Ionesco, Broch… I still hold them as my favourites. So arrogantly intellectual and elitist as they are. So why? Because they are geniuses!

So as you Morthoron protested that your seven year old daughter could teach Paul Klee about perspective, I think you should reconsider. If anyone of you have seen some early works by say Picasso or Kandinsky you know what I mean. They really knew how to paint and they were masters in the art. They just decided consciously to do something completely different – and they had their reasons for it. Just read any of the theoretical discussions there is a wealth of by modern artists like Cézanne, Matisse, Kandinsky, Picasso, Leger, Malevich… you name it.

Just an anecdote to sum up. Two years ago I was visiting my sis in London and took a decent walk in the National Gallery, walking through the whole museum in chronological order (it was hard to keep it all the time but I managed somewhat well). What made an impression on me beside the great paintings was the notion that the few self-evident truths of academic art history were in fact so true! So the renaissance really was something! It was like an explosion after the middle-ages (in which there is nothing wrong… there are great pieces of art there as well)! But then even bigger bang was the advent of modernism… how refreshing it was after centuries of doing the same nice thing all over and over again! It was like fresh air coming into the room in a hot day!

So the literati aren’t always wrong or stupid and thence we should seek for the bad publicity of the fantasy also from other areas. Prejudiced the academics may be – and they are, trust me, I know enough of those people to say this – but there surely are other issues, like ones we have been talking here about… mass-producted moneymakers, lowest common denominator searchers, instant gratification seekers…

I’d agree with Bethberry once again. Read Iain Banks - with M. in the middle or not!

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

For example many academics want to differentiate themselves from the commercial world and the values it carries with it and thence see their position in the opposite direction: what sells can’t be good, what entertains can’t be good, what is easily approached can’t be good etc.

The cynic in me sometimes feels that the literati feel the need to justify their existence at Uni. You can even see it here with the, "Yes, I know that a Lit degree wasn't that practical..." - and note that I make no judgment on that, as if we were all scientists and engineers, the world would be pretty boring and colourless. But, that said, do some feel that if the stuff that they are teaching is 'pedestrian,' handed out with each child's Happy Meal, then just how darned hard could it be to teach? Also think, as mentioned about the deconstructionists, that by seeing something so bizarre as 'great,' you give the impression to those either not in the know, or more likely, not interested or not having the time to look too closely, that what you're saying/showing/displaying is not only the Emperor's clothes, but his whole wardrobe.

Just to defend the academics a bit in the end.

So the literati aren’t always wrong or stupid and thence we should seek for the bad publicity of the fantasy also from other areas. Prejudiced the academics may be – and they are, trust me, I know enough of those people to say this – but there surely are other issues, like ones we have been talking here about… mass-producted moneymakers, lowest common denominator searchers, instant gratification seekers…

To defend the other side a little - yes, they are in it for the money. You may want to make art, but these publishers/editors/hacks are governed by the bottom line. Should they invest in one superb book that may or may not catch the fancy of Joe and Jane Q. Public? Or is the better business model to McPublish - shoot out as many medium-to-low quality books as possible that, though not feeding the souls of the readers to any great extent, give them a little something that may make them come back for another bite? Use and reuse, glom onto any author's name recognition (or their parent's), immediately copy/bandwagon any idea that looks promising and sell sell sell. And don't forget any movie or toy spin-offs.

Should I have my illustrators read the novels for which I have them create covers? Or, if the novel is fantasy, should we slap on the usual barbarian with sword with accompanying buxom 'babe' with a dragon in the background? Oh, that's right, there's elves in this one, so show some solemn people with 'alien-like' faces and pointy ears, and that should suffice.

Maybe this is why the fantasy novels are placed as they are in the store, as how can anyone take a book seriously with such stuff on the cover - is every book about Conan? Surely you don't expect me to read this stuff, as the pile is growing as we speak?

One of my daughters, nicknamed, "Boog," watches TV intently. We as a family do not watch much, and we limit what the kids do watch, but I can see that its message ("Buy! Buy! BUY!") has already sunk into Boog. She already knows that the story that she's watching (when left to her own unchoice in channel - whatever happens to come on next) isn't really that interesting, will be forgettable but will have just enough sparkly to keep her attention until we get back to the commercials.

She's just starting to learn her letters, but think about it - when she learns to read, what are her expectations given what the world (and not her parents... I say as I begin to pat myself on the back) has already prepared her for? Tolkien or McPublished Robert Jordan (as in Wheel of Time)? Even video game producers see the new trend as, "For the most part, the industry has been rinse-and-repeat," [John Riccitiello] was quoted as saying. "There's been lots of product that looked like last year's product, that looked a lot like the year before."

Frank Herbert, my favorite SciFi author, and arguably one of the best, published the first Dune novel via Chilton, the same small company that produces auto repair manuals, having been passed over by the biggies. His glomming son, continuing the Dune series is McPublished by Tor Books, part of the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group.

What to do? Teachers are a part of the culture, and either spend time sifting the wheat from the chaff or just exclude it a priori. Or they could use the advice of experts, teach goshawfully eclectically boring stuff and, as a result, turn the kids to Rowling.

[davem]

I'm wondering whether the negative reaction of the literati & the educationalists isn't some kind of hold over from the old puritan work ethic. Isn't fantasy just too far from the real world to have any 'relevance'? Maybe they feel that reading should 'produce' some valuable (in 'real' terms) effect - make readers better, more effective citizens, better able to 'contribute'.

Maybe Tolkien shot himself in the foot by denying that LotR had any 'meaning'? I do notice that many of the books about Tolkien are written by people who want to show the 'meaning' & relevance of Tolkien's works, whether pointing out the 'religious' meanings, or the philosophical subtext & the like. Its as though if the books can't be shown to be 'relevant' they are worthless.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

But this academic taste seems also to catch the people’s minds outside the literature departments and academic journals as well. I’d say that the majority of the people with university education (humanistic, scientific, engineering, marketing, juristic, medical…) would answer just like the board of the Randomhouse poll shows even if they would never had studied literature or aesthetics or belonged to those circles. Not to say that they would have actually read the books they deem so worthy of praise.

Yes, Nogrod, I do believe there are requisite works that must be on every given list of literary excellence, whether anyone has read them or not. I believe sometimes folks stock their bookshelves more for the bindings than the content. Milton's 'Paradise Lost' is just such an example. I'm sorry, but Milton's ponderous poem makes one actually wish for death, and head to heaven or hell directly, thus circumventing the dreadful tedium of reading every canto. Even in the 18th century, commentators were aware of this work's odd dual status of acknowledged greatness and unacknowledged dismissal:

Paradise Lost is one of the books which the reader admires and lays down, and forgets to take up again. Its perusal is a duty rather than a pleasure. --Samuel Johnson

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So as you Morthoron protested that your seven year old daughter could teach Paul Klee about perspective, I think you should reconsider. If anyone of you have seen some early works by say Picasso or Kandinsky you know what I mean. They really knew how to paint and they were masters in the art. They just decided consciously to do something completely different – and they had their reasons for it. Just read any of the theoretical discussions there is a wealth of by modern artists like Cézanne, Matisse, Kandinsky, Picasso, Leger, Malevich… you name it.

I was being facetious in my comment regarding Klee, Nogrod. I am aware he had to train quite diligently over many years to eradicate his natural aptitude. I myself subscribe to the Al Capp view of abstraction in art:

Abstract art? A product of the untalented, sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered!

Originally Posted by William Cloud Hickli

Oh, as to "genre fiction"- I love the very, very clever Umberto Eco setting out to give the Literati a finger in the eye over this, boldly writing a historical detective novel that's as highbrow as anyone could want- he even concludes it by quoting Wittgenstein, fer crissake.

'The Name of the Rose' is one of my favorite novels, and perhaps it is because of Eco's genre-bending. It is a wonderfully taut mystery, but it is cherished by many staunch medievalists as well for its attention to detail. I don't believe I've ever read a better fictionalized account of the early 14th century. Not to say there are many out there.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Oh my! Between all this talk of bullying literati and dumbing down, why, I hardly dare know if I should admit to enjoying such as The Complete Works of William Shakespeare--Abridged. But seeing as its for the stage--always a tart--I suppose it can't be held against me.

As long as you're not referring to the bowdlerized version of Shakespeare. *shivers*

If you have not done so already, take a look at Isaac Asimov's Guide to Shakespeare. I used it often in school when stumped by particularly obscure allusions.

In regards to the political polarization of school faculties, as I said earlier, my friend's syllabus for her Master's program is more radical than the same program I took nearly 20 years earlier. I'll ask her for a copy so I can share the ludicrous direction the curriculum has taken. There is virtually nothing pre-20th Century, and if I recall much of the class content dealt with 'Topics in Contemporary Culture', realism, assimilation, naturalism, urbanization, immigration, colonialism, construction and reconstruction. There were some recognizable writers, like T.S. Eliot, Toni Morison and Gertrude Stein (the mama of Dada), and movements like Modernism and Postmodernism and cultural phenomena like reification. It was more an excursion into sociological extremes than literature.

I asked her if she got to read or comment on any good books lately. She laughed and said 'No'.

So, given the seemingly insurrmountable chasm that engulfs this forum's favorite genre, I wonder if fantasy will ever get the respect it is due (at least for the few pearls slung among the swine). Perhaps in another 500 years Lord of the Rings will be likened to Beowulf and become the sole province of curmudgeonly academics clositered away in stodgy studies.

P.S. In regards to modernism and the avant-garde, perhaps the most devastating critique of commonality and stream-of-consciousness writing regarded Gertrude Stein's work and was offered by her own frustrated editor, A.J. Fifield, who was provoked into parody when reading her latest manuscript:

I am only one, only one, only one. Only one being, one at the same time. Not two, not three, only one. Only one life to live, only sixty minutes in one hour. Only one pair of eyes. Only one brain. Only one being. Being only one, having only one pair of eyes, having only one time, having only one life, I cannot ready your MS three or four times. Not even one time. Only one look, only one look is enough. Hardly one copy could sell here. Hardly one. Hardly one.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Thenamir

Before we glibly throw out the bathwater, let us make a cursory effort to extract the baby from it first.

You cannot say that all prose of "Form X", as exemplified by davem, is therefore "junk". That's like saying that the great romances are junk because they follow the same basic formula as the Harlequin paperbacks..

No, ok. Most fantasy is formulaic, but some, judged objectively, is great literature. Yet, accepting Nogrod's point about the 'dismissal' of crime & historical fiction one could offer Crime & Punishment as a crime novel & War & Peace as an historical novel which are not dismissed as 'trash'. They are taken up into the 'genre' of serious literature for grown ups. So while the genre of 'crime' or 'historical' novels may be dismissed as worthless the literati are prepared to consider taking novels out of them & placing them alongside ''proper' books. However, they don't seem prepared to look at the fantasy genre at all. It may be possible to find 'gems' among the crime & historical trash, but it seems that its impossible for such gems to be found among fantasy novels - by their nature (ie because there are Elves or dragons in them, & characters with 'odd' names) fantasy books must be bad - no-one can write a serious, adult fantasy novel which is great literature, however great a writer they are, because all fantasy books must be bad.

But is there any way around this? Will we ever see a time when 11 year olds aren't told to forget the fairies & write something 'gritty'? Are children always going to be forced out of faerie by 'well meaning' adults?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by davem

Yet, accepting Nogrod's point about the 'dismissal' of crime & historical fiction one could offer Crime & Punishment as a crime novel & War & Peace as an historical novel which are not dismissed as 'trash'. They are taken up into the 'genre' of serious literature for grown ups. So while the genre of 'crime' or 'historical' novels may be dismissed as worthless the literati are prepared to consider taking novels out of them & placing them alongside ''proper' books.

There is a straightforward explanation to this... "Crime & Punishment" and "War and Peace" are old enough... That's why Homer's epics and Malory's Morte d'Arthur are considered real Literature as well...

[davem]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

There is a straightforward explanation to this... "Crime & Punishment" and "War and Peace" are old enough... That's why Homer's epics and Malory's Morte d'Arthur are considered real Literature as well...

So all we have to do is wait a few decades & LotR will be acceptable?

[Thenamir]

Originally Posted by Nogrod

So the literati aren’t always wrong or stupid and thence we should seek for the bad publicity of the fantasy also from other areas.

That reminds me of the old joke -- "97 percent of lawyers (or literati) are giving the rest a bad name."