Materialism and the Fantasy Genre
Skimming critiques of critiques of capitalism makes you think really interesting things. Take, for example, the concept of materialism and how it relates to the fantasy genre–and more specifically its typical representations found in the big names of the genre. What does magic do to issues of hoarding, to materialism itself, and to general concerns over resources? I can’t think of many examples in which magic is used as the primary method of acquiring, well, everything the kingdom needs, but it is interesting to consider how materialism acts as a dividing force in fantasy. Individuals who hoard and who must own things are seen primarily as the enemy, or are at least on the darker side of the good guys. Harry Potter, perhaps, is one of the few series that so obviously presents oppositional forces in the world of materialism–a good and evil battle between the kinds of materialism we are familiar with today. The Malfoy family dominates much of the series as the principle nemesis family to Potter and the Weasley’s: they are wealthy, pride themselves in said wealth, and spend it with the express purpose of acquiring new and flashy things; they are the pinnacle of materialist families in the Potter universe. Harry, however, is exceptionally anti-materialist. Most of his possessions are those he has acquired not necessarily by intent, but through gift or necessity–and each of those possessions is “special” to him, having something to do with his family or his friends. Potter isn’t interested in acquiring things so much as hanging on to his links to those most important to him; the Malfoy family, however, is the opposite. And, of course, Potter is the hero, the good guy, the Chosen One. These things are seen elsewhere too. Karen Miller’s The Innocent Mage/The Awakened Mage series splits society into two distinct groups: those who typically support the King, and those that believe the King’s family doesn’t deserve to be where they are. While each of these groups are in a position of privilege and power, there is a particularly strong materialist bent in those families that do not typically support the King. These “darker” families want the throne for purely selfish reasons, while the “lighter” families want the throne to protect the Kingdom. Even the King’s magic-less son is opposed to materialist formations, rejecting much of what has been forced upon him as the son of the King. There are even splits within the royal family as well, with the princess being particularly arrogant and selfish, despite her parents’ level-headed approach to authority. But what about materialism in fantasy that isn’t definitively evil or good? How does magic influence the way the material is perceived? I can’t think of any examples, but it seems to me that if a select few individuals in a society were to have magic and were also not inclined towards ruling “normies,” wouldn’t there be a rejection of materialism in general? Why would you be a materialist if you could create anything you needed out of thin air? What of Gods? Why is it that in fantasies which contain Gods as active participants, that they are often materialist in nature? Perhaps there’s a bit of faulty thinking by fantasy writers in certain instances. It seems illogical to have materialist tendencies in societies in which magic alters the consciousness of select individuals, or even where entire societies are magically inclined. But maybe this is what fantasy does: it steals from modern society and drags it into the fantasy landscape, even if the analogy doesn’t quite compute. —————————– What do you all think about materialism in fantasy? Let me know in the comments!
Video Found: Buzz Aldrin Raps
Good lord, this is amazing. I mean, it’s completely and utterly ridiculous, but amazing nonetheless (thanks to Universe Today). Enjoy:
Question to Readers: Content Again
This question will be quick. I’ve received a few emails regarding promotional material and what not–obviously about books. Would you all be okay with a post here or there talking about books coming out, etc.? I don’t expect it to be a frequent thing, since I only have three or four bits of promotional material sitting in my email, but if that would be interesting to you all, I’ll go ahead with it. It will not replace regular programming. It’ll become, more or less, like the little extra posts I do for videos, websites, links, etc. Let me know in the comments. Thanks!
The Rules of Shelving Books: Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Their Literary Friends
David Barnett of The Guardian had an interesting post about science fiction as a label and how certain authors of the more “literary” vein see science fiction in general. It was an interesting article that highlighted the three typical responses to science fiction by “literary” authors: it’s trashy pulp, it’s just a stupid label and all labels are pointless, and there’s nothing wrong with writing science fiction, because like anything else, it has its pulpy and more literary sides (which also translates to: if you don’t want to be known as a science fiction writer, then don’t use science fiction elements in your fiction). Much of what is written in the post isn’t really all that new; some of the authors we’ve heard from before (such as Margaret Atwood), and all that is being said is mostly a repeat or a rehash of an argument genre fans are all too familiar with. But what interested me most about the post was Barnett’s questions about shelving science fiction and fantasy. Winterson, it seems, has some rather radical suggestions: Is it feasible, as Jeanette Winterson seems to be suggesting, to do away with all categories on novels, and simply file them all in an A-Z of general fiction? It might conceivably give every novel a fighting chance, but would the reader who visits a shop or library looking for the latest crime, war or, indeed, science fiction novel really be well served by such a move? Personally, I think this is a bad idea. The thing about book buyers is that they often like to sit within their comfort zones. Few people consciously read outside of their “comfort genres” (i.e. the genres they find most enjoyable, which the individual consumer is unlikely to break away from). So, while it might seem like a good idea to dispense with labels and have a big literature section with everything shoved into one place, doing so could be a real deterrent for the consumer. How exactly are they going to find the next big thing in science fiction or fantasy or crime or mystery or “literary” fiction? True, they might pick up a book by someone outside of their typical genres, but what if they do this repeatedly and end up getting so sick of the time and money wasted to find one good book that they give it up altogether? I think we have enough problems getting people to read these days that adding more to the consumptive load of the consumer could be detrimental to reading in general. Personally, I might stop shopping at a story that shelves things like this. I like to look at books, but I’m also unwilling to work my butt off to find something I might enjoy reading. While I do spend a lot of time in stores like Powell’s City of Books, it’s mainly because of its size (it has about 9 aisles of science fiction and fantasy, plus at least ten more aisles for YA, and a dozen or so other sections that I like to peruse). Quadruple the size and take away the labels and I imagine the store would lose it’s value for me. But what about the problem of shelving books that are both “literary” and science fiction? Are they right? If you want to buy Oryx and Crake or Stone Gods, should you head for the general fiction section in Waterstone’s or the science fiction and fantasy shelves? Powell’s City of Books seems to have this question well addressed: they shelve books that are clearly of two literary veins in both places, allowing such books to be more easily found. For example: You can find novels by Karen Joy Fowler in both the SF/F and literature sections (specifically her novels with a more “fantastic” feel). Granted, Powell’s is a special kind of bookstore, but cross-pollinating books seems like a good way to draw readers in from seemingly separate genres. If we were to come up with a handful of rules bookstores should follow for proper shelving, they would probably be the following: Keep all the labels (science fiction, general fiction, fantasy, mystery, etc.). Shelve books that cross genres in multiple places so as to properly cross-pollinate works that cannot be so easily fixed into the narrowed categories we are familiar with. Don’t fall into the ridiculous trap of “quality” that is often argued by “literary” folks. A book with a spaceship is probably just as fantasy as it is “literary.” Selling books is important for any author. Offer recommendations (either in the form of “we recommend this book” or “if you like A, you might like B”). If possible, have knowledgeable staff in certain genres (optional). Those rules seem like good ones to follow to me. But what do you all think? Obviously not all bookstores can do this; size is a factor. But a lot of them could follow Powell’s example and help drive people out of their comfort zones enough to pursue authors they might never have found because they weren’t labeled a certain thing. In any case, if you have an opinion, let me know in the comments section!