Literary Snobbery (Part One): The Idiocy of “Artistic Expression”
I try not to dig into these sorts of issues primarily because, generally speaking, the arguments against genre fiction (specifically science fiction and fantasy) are almost all the same, almost always utterly ignorant, and almost always the mark of someone who, unfortunately, takes pride in thinking he or she is above someone else because he or she reads a certain kind of book (which is like saying that George W. Bush is better than Al Gore just because he won; I think we all now wish Gore had won). But, on occasion I come across an argument that is particularly idiotic and makes points that are largely irrelevant or contradictory. And that is what this post is about. I use Google Alerts to send me blog posts based on a set of keywords, and this post sprung up for “fantasy literature.” After reading it, I knew immediately that I had to blog about it. For identification purposes I’ll stick to calling the author Roby. Roby is one of those folks who, while apparently not someone that dislikes fantasy as an idea or mode of expression (he seems okay with a literary novel containing fantasy elements), but holds a particular disdain for fantasy as a genre (the popular form as we know it today). His argument, however, offers a lot of explanation as to why it is that fantasy is popular and literary fiction has largely fallen to the wayside, and why it is that literary purists simply do not understand literature at all. Roby starts off by saying that fantasy isn’t literature, but pulp fiction, and goes on to make this distinction: Literature is created out of a desire for artistic expression, commentary on life, and contributing to humanity’s understanding of itself. It’s part of a giant, centuries-spanning dialogue that informs our identity as a species. Yeah, this is all high-minded, but really, it boils down to this: if the author sat down and wrote something they thought was important and worth others’ time, it’s literature. The pulps, by contrast, are written purely for your entertainment. The author sat down and tried to figure out what you would like, and then tried her level best to serve you exactly that on a silver platter. There’s no attempt to communicate there, nothing that the author thinks is important. The book or short story or whatever is purely intended to allow you to spend time enjoyably. It’s fluff. I’m sorry, but what? Let’s break this down: literature is about artistic expression and the author’s intent to produce something that is worth our (the reader’s) time, while pulps are there for entertainment purposes. That doesn’t compute, at all. First off, sitting here and presuming we understand every author’s intent in creating some piece of written work is foolish; often times we don’t know. Secondly, he just said that literature and pulps are the same thing. Both forms have to be “worth others’ time,” otherwise nobody would read either of them. It stands to reason that the problem with literary fiction is that it fails to connect with most readers and is, as such, not worth their time, while popular fiction forms, invented to be worth their time, are, well, popular as a result (and none of this is an indication, in my book, of whether one form is necessarily superior to the other, as this is often up to taste). Then there’s this bullcrap that you constantly see in the literary world about how literature is about expression and yadda yadda. Yes, of course it’s about expression, but no individual can sit there and say that a fantasy novel written in a modern, popular fiction style isn’t an attempt at expression. It’s just a different kind of expression. While literary fiction places heavy focus on language to convey hidden meanings, etc., popular fiction tends to shift focus to the plot and ideas. That doesn’t make it fluff; that makes it different, just like rock music is different from pop. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean the expression isn’t there; there are many ways to show artistic expression and literary fiction isn’t the only way. And I’m calling bull that there is no attempt to communicate in fantasy. If anything, fantasy authors are attempting to communicate to the human imagination, offering an escape from the mundanity, or banality, of the real world so they can play the hero or heroine. That communication, that allowing for the reader to become a part of something that isn’t real and thus be consumed into the fantasy, is as important and valuable as the communication provided through clever uses of language that make up literary fiction. Because this critique of Roby’s argument is quite extensive, and I understand that folks don’t like reading extremely long posts (the same can be said of myself), I’m going to cut it up based on the theme. So, stay tuned for other installments and feel free to leave a comment with your opinion!
Steampunk Reading List?
Some time ago I found this list of Steampunk novels that someone had put together as a sort of preliminary reading list of the genre. Interestingly enough, it splits the list into three categories: proto-Steampunk, early Steampunk, and recent Steampunk. I’m not sure that there really is that big a difference between the first two categories (as named categories, not by what they contain), but so be it. The list is as follows: Proto-SteampunkGormenghast Novels (esp Titus Alone), Mervyn PeakeWorlds of the Imperium, Keith LaumerQueen Victoria’s Bomb, Ronald W. ClarkA Nomad of the Time Streaks, Michael Moorcock Early SteampunkThe Anubis Gates, Tim PowersHomunculus, James BlaylockInfernal Devices, K W Jeter More Recent SteampunkThe Difference Engine, William Gibson and Bruce SterlingLeague of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Alan Moore (Comic)Steampunk, Ann & Jeff VanderMeer (Anthology)Girl Genius, Studio Foglio (Comic)A Series of Unfortunate Events, Lemony Snicket It’s an interesting list, to be sure, and I’m curious what you all would consider to be good Steampunk reading that could be added to it. I, for one, think that a Steampunk list is required to have at least one Jules Verne novel, considering that he was sort of the unintentional father of the genre. But that’s me. What about you? Edit: These are some suggested books from the comments, etc.The Court of the Air by Stephen HuntThe Kingdom Beyond the Waves by Stephen HuntThe Rise of the Iron Moon by Stephen Hunt
Five Reasons Fantasy Is Better Than Science Fiction
It’s been mentioned to me that I don’t talk enough about fantasy around these parts. It’s true, I don’t. In fact, I don’t talk about fantasy very much at all and I think that is a horrible disservice to you, my readers. So, I thought it would be nice to start off my fantasy binge posting with a lovely little list about the reasons why fantasy is better than science fiction (there will, of course, be a second list positing the opposite). Enjoy: MagicProbably the most important aspect of most fantasy stories, magic makes the fantasy world go round. Science fiction, unfortunately, lacks magic. There are no magic baking spells in SF, no glittering fireworks spells or spells to send the evil bad guy to the fiery depths of some imaginary hell. You can’t shoot magic fireballs from your hand in an SF world either, and I think that’s a travesty. Dragons and Other Creatures You Can RideLet’s face it. If you had the opportunity to ride on the back of a real dragon, would you? Unless you’re afraid of flying or heights (or oddly afraid of fantastical critters), or simply crazy, you’d jump on this opportunity in a heartbeat. Throw in some pegasi (plural for pegasus), gryphons, unicorns, etc. and you end up with a laundry list of fantasy-based critters you can ride. Sounds good to me. The Bad Guys Always Lose (a.k.a. Happy Endings)And I mean always. You can probably cite a few good examples to the contrary, but fantasy stories almost exclusively end with the bad guy losing. This doesn’t happen all the time in SF; sometimes you nail one bad guy, but the evil corporation still exists, or another bad guy springs up from the same mold, etc. At least in fantasy you know that there’s a happy ending. Lots of cheering and good ale. All you get in an SF celebration is the dark realization that none of it really matters, because in a week some other goon will rise up and continue with the “company mission.” Unique LanguagesTrue, there are a few SF stories with unique, invented languages, but fantasy rules on this front. And I do mean rules. Tolkien wasn’t even the first one to do it, by the way, but he was the one person who made invented languages a cliche of the genre. But that’s okay. I forgive him for that. I like Quenyan and Sindarin, or the dozens of other interesting languages that have sprung up over the last 50 or so years. They’re interesting and I have the utmost respect for fantasy authors who can do it well, because I can’t. MythologyI don’t mean this in the traditional sense, although fantasy draws heavily from human mythology (obviously). By this, I mean that the fantasy genre has created its own mythology, largely due to Tolkien, of course. Science fiction, with rare exception, doesn’t have this benefit. The hordes of fans obsessively devoted to a particular world tend to be fantasy enthusiasts, not science fiction enthusiasts (with exception primarily to the Heinlein crowd and the folks that thing Dune is real). They have a lot to be devoted to: fantasy authors have developed entire histories for their fictitious civilizations, which have captivated audiences worldwide. It’s a beautiful thing. And there you have it! If you disagree with my selections, leave a comment. Or, if you would like to amend my list and put one of your own on here, leave a comment. Anywho!
Would You Rather Live in Science Fiction or Fantasy World?
Marian of Flights of Fantasy recently had an interesting post about what kind of world she would want to live in and it got me thinking about the same thing. Warning: I will be taking this whole idea very seriously even though it’s totally fiction and unreal. My initial reaction to this question is: which world would inevitably be better for me? Both fantasy and science fiction worlds have their good and bad points (for the sake of argument, I’m going to stick with the stereotypical examples of these genres).Fantasy worlds have magic, fantastic creatures, swords, talking animals, fair maidens, noble kings, and other such goodies. But fantasy worlds also have evil overlords, evil creatures, wars, bad food of the bland variety, and prophecies that always seem to put the world in chaos for a short period before some “chosen one” can come along and put things right–why it is more rare that fantasy characters don’t get ticked off about this last one doesn’t make much sense to me.Science fiction worlds have spaceships, alien races, faster-than-light travel, cool gadgets, space adventures, and damn good food. But science fiction worlds also have interstellar wars, alien invasions, evil aliens that can’t talk, but manage to wreak havoc on ship crews, moral quandaries, technology that goes bad, and sterile environments or excessively dirty environments.Which is better? Do I want magic and unicorns or spaceships and aliens with three heads?On the one hand, perhaps I could use magic to escape from all the darkness of a fantasy world, but that assumes that if I lived in such a world I would be fortunate enough to have magic. This also makes me a terrible coward. A fantasy world also means I can’t take all the things I currently enjoy with me. No computers, no Twitter, no WISB, no nothing. A science fiction world means I can keep my gadgets, but I also would have to face dystopian societies, interstellar wars, space pirates, and the like.Do you see the dilemma? In some ways, I think science fiction worlds are harsher than fantasy worlds. Sure, in science fiction worlds a lot of things are handed to the characters: they rarely have to worry about food or water or running out of laser guns or whatever. But, these same characters live in a world (or galaxy, I imagine) where governments turn into Big Brother, robots reject and kill their masters (a simple snap of the neck will suffice), interstellar wars rage for decades, decimating planet after planet, civilization after civilization.That’s not the say that fantasy worlds are a picnic. At least in science fiction worlds death is quick (usually). Laser guns tend to kill people a lot faster and less painfully than bleeding to death on a battlefield. Characters in fantasy worlds also don’t have the luxury of food processors or good storage methods (no fridges in Narnia, I’m afraid). Plenty of salted meat, moldy fruits and vegetables, and food poisoning. Plus, the “chosen one” is almost always some stupid farm boy who takes forever to fulfill prophecy, which is unfortunate if you’re impatient like me. While fantasy characters are waiting for someone to rescue them, evil warlords are turning them into slaves or outright killing them in droves (I suppose similar happens in science fiction worlds).But a fantasy world allows me to do things that can’t be done in a science fiction world, primarily because science fiction worlds should adhere to standard rules of science. I’ve always wanted to shoot fireballs out of my hands or take a trip on the back of a dragon. Having my own set of armor and an enchanted sword would be pretty cool too. Or, I could be a bard and travel the world telling amazing stories about people that lived or never lived, captivating the minds of children and adults alike! When I think about fantasy worlds that way, it certainly makes them much more appealing.How do I decide, though? Would I be willing to give up Twitter or computers or the possibility of travelling into space? Would I be willing to give up dragons or magic fireballs or enchanted swords? Which one would be the best fit?If I had to take a guess, I would say that the science fiction world would fit best, but only because I can see how difficult it would be for me to give up technology. Technology is as much a part of my everyday life as breathing and I can’t imagine being able to toss that away without thinking long and hard on it, and even then I would be apprehensive and might even regret going to a fantasy world. But I might regret going to a science fiction world too. It all depends how it turns out. Would I end up in a good fantasy/science fiction world or a bad one? Perhaps if I knew that information ahead of time it would make the decision easier. I’d be much more likely to forego science fiction for fantasy if I knew that the fantasy world would inevitably be a better place for me, one where I wasn’t going to end up enslaved by evil three-eyed squid-like aliens.I guess I’m still on the fence. What about you? For the sake of making this argument easier, let’s assume that you could choose between a perfect fantasy world or a perfect science fiction world. Which one would you choose?
C.S. Lewis and Madeleine L’Engle Meme
Discovered this interesting, but short, meme here while perusing Google. Anyone who wants to do it for their blog is welcome to (I’m too lazy right now to tag people individually). Here goes: Have you read any of Madeleine L’Engle’s books?Yes, but unfortunately not a lot. Which is your favorite?A Wrinkle in Time happens to be the only book I’ve read of hers. This is probably the case for a lot of people. Have you read any of C.S. Lewis’ books?Quite a few, actually, though not as many as I would like. Which is your favorite?I’m quite partial to The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It’s a classic and a good opener to an entertaining series. Do you like fantasy fiction?Actually, while I babble a lot more about science fiction on this blog than I do about fantasy (which is a fault of mine, unfortunately) I do enjoy fantasy fiction about as much. I simply don’t allow myself to become delusional about the genre–I accept that cliches exist and pay more attention to the story and how the author presents everything. Are you a science fiction fan?Goodness no. Why would I blog about something unless I hated it? And yes, that is sarcasm. What is your favorite genre of book?Edit: Apparently I’m an idiot today!Favorite genre? Science fiction, obviously, although I love fantasy as well. If I had to pick a favorite subgenre of science fiction it would likely be dystopian or space opera.
Werewolves and Misconceptions About Science Fiction
I was perusing Yahoo! Answers today and saw an interesting inquiry: I know that very technical stories like one of Jules Verne’s are science fiction, but what about stories of werewolves, etc. Does this count as science fiction? Does it count as fantasy fiction? Is fantasy fiction a subgroup of science fiction? I’ve never heard of fantasy as being a subgenre of science fiction, which is why these questions are rather interesting. Since when have science fiction and fantasy been at all synonymous? They’ve always seemed to be rather opposite categories to me, connected only by the fact that they both deal with elements of the nonexistent. Science fiction, in theory, looks at these elements through the lens of the possible, while fantasy looks at them through the lens of the impossible. Spaceships are real, while wizards and dragons are not. Answering the question, however, leads me to a bit of a paradox. I’ve always automatically lumped werewolves in with horror and fantasy, but is it possible that werewolves could be allowed in science? I’m inclined to think so. Perhaps not in the traditional sense that we have seen in the movies, but in a different sense. Werewolves are easily fantastical creatures, yet they could also be scientific creatures. It all depends on how it is done. If the werewolves change because of a curse or “blood” without explanation of why they are genetically the way they are, then it’s clearly fantasy or horror (or both). But if the werewolves are explained to be, say, genetic experiments in a government lab, or genetic anomalies explained by mutations in the cells, then they become part of a science fiction universe. That aside, I was surprised by the response that was chosen as the “best answer” by the questioner (note: I’ve edited it so it’s readable, which will only help to a certain extent): Sci-fi is a HUGE category. From aliens to elves, wizards to talking animals and everything in between. So, I think that werewolves can be counted as fantasy fiction, and horror like someone else said. Sci-fi is interesting, because it can intertwine itself with many other different genres without getting confusing. Of course, there is the basic story plot that is pretty sci-fi, and then it can venture off into different courses. Horror being one of them. So yeah, it can! Actually, no it can’t. You see, here’s the problem with this whole discussion. Science fiction isn’t fantasy. Fantasy is not a part of science fiction, it’s a part of the broader term “speculative fiction.” Speculative fiction encompasses all literatures of the fantastic/nonexistent. Fantasy and science fiction each deal with specific forms of speculative fiction. Aliens and elves are not synonymous with the same thing. Aliens are almost exclusively the realm of science fiction while elves are almost exclusively the realm of fantasy, with little exception. In fact, to make such generalizations is rather ignorant of what the genres actually entail. You can have elves in science fiction, but not Tolkien elves or traditional fantasy elves. The parameters are different for science fiction elves; fantasy elves are not the same as science fiction elves precisely because they follow different rules. Vulcans from Star Trek are science fiction elves and you can clearly see that they aren’t the same as the elves that Tolkien created, where magic and enchanted rings exist. So, while there may be some similarities between the genres, it is important to maintain a separation. The two are, with rare exception, distinct from each other. Without that separation it becomes near impossible to provide appropriate classifications for speculative literatures. If science fiction and fantasy can be anything, then they cease to become categories at all–they cease to be important. Before long, all categories could become unimportant (and trust me when I say this will wreak havoc on book shoppers).