Realistic Fantasy Required!
I believe that of all writers, fantasy writers have the hardest job. This is of course excluding textbook writers. I also will not address young adult fiction here because I believe that young adult fantasy is an entirely different genre from regular fantasy simply because the rules on what works are tremendously different. Children and young adults are more likely to believe in things that would otherwise cause suspicion in adults. This is why children enjoy fairy tales and believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the like. They don’t question the reality of these things because, generally, children have no interest to. They live almost in a fantasy world of their own so long as they remain children. Adults, however, have seemingly lost their innocence and become aware of the world around them. For that reason, we generally don’t find the same enjoyment on a literary level of fairy tales and the like. We don’t believe in Santa or the Easter Bunny, or gnomes, elves, or the bogeyman. That’s simply part of becoming an adult. As such, I won’t address young adult fantasy in any way during this post because it is an entirely different beast.Fantasy is, to put it frankly, one of the most fascinating, and most difficult genres at the same time. On the one hand there is a tendency for it to be highly derivative. In fact, the entire genre is derivative, and not just because of Tolkien. Tolkien himself was not an entirely original writer. His world was a product of his education. Fantasy writers, therefore, have been using mythology and history to write some of the fantastic stories we all have come to love and enjoy. On the other hand, however, fantasy also has the tendency to push the boundaries of reality, which can, and is, a problem.Fantasy must, as a rule, be more realistic and believable than any regular fiction story or a science fiction story, barring once again historical texts and the like which are, hopefully, real anyway. This is true because, while fantasy is filled with magic, kingdoms, prophecies, kings, soldiers, and a million other commonly ‘medieval’ ideas, it must present these ideas so that the reader can accept them as being realistic in the context of the world presented. While Tolkien may be a poor example in this post, he is, interestingly enough, the most recognized example. When you read Tolkien you are not suddenly encumbered with magic toting wizards that seemingly throw magic around the same as a non-environmentally conscious human being tosses trash on the side of the highway. Gandalf and Saruman both are powerful wizards, yet their magic is used sparingly. We’re led to believe, then, that magic is not something available in vast, unrestrained quantities, and one cannot simply do magic without extensive knowledge, something which both Gandalf and Saruman have plenty of. Perhaps Tolkien is an example of ‘high fantasy’ rather than an example of fantasy in general, but in the case of fantasy that is intentionally serious, it is clear that magic must have a reason to exist and be balanced. Unless your entire world is built on magic, and therefore everyone uses magic, the magic in a fantasy world must be believable. We can’t think that a knight would have any chance alone against a sorcerer with unimaginable power that seems to be endless and easy for the sorcerer to use.Of course, this doesn’t apply to all fantasy. In the case of fantasy that is intentionally humorous, magic may or may not have a need for balance. We might call these types of stories ‘fairy tales’ for adults. An example might be Stardust by Neal Gaimen. For any that have the read the book you’ll have to excuse me. I am basing this on seeing the movie. However, the magic in Stardust, while with limits, is not necessarily balanced in any traditional sense. Presumably, if the witches manage to get hold of a star, they will be granted youth and amazing power, power which seems to be very hard to counteract without other magic involved. But it doesn’t matter. In context of the story, things don’t have to seem entirely real because that’s not what the story needs to exist. Stardust is a love story with a fantasy twist.Magic, therefore, has two purposes–realism and entertainment. Still, since the majority of fantasy happens to be of a serious nature, I will only address magic in context of seriousness. In serious stories, as I’ve mentioned, magic must make sense. It must be real and believable. If every character can summon the almighty evil monster from the depths, then there is almost no purpose for magic to exist. Magic must have a reason to exist, otherwise it becomes like technologies that we no longer find of use today. We all rarely, if ever, use typewriters since our computers now can do the same thing, but with more functionality.Now that magic seems to have been address, I’ll have to divert my attention elsewhere. Another feature of fantasy that must be taken seriously is race creation. This refers to any sort of creatures you might create, or have been created previously. We have all heard of elves, dwarves, and the myriad of other fantasy races that have already been done before. For that reason, I see no reason to address them since it is apparent that they are all relatively accepted as believable creations anyway. However, I will address creature creation in general. Because a fantasy story deals exclusively with things that do not exist in our world, and couldn’t exist in our world–which takes care of science fiction being included here–it is apparent that whatever you or someone else creates must have a purpose, much as magic has a purpose. If you create a creature that has an arm come out of its head, that arm better have a reason to exist. It would be unbelievable to have such a creature, which we will call
The SF&F Canon Project, etc.
Well, I said I was thinking of doing it, and so I have. I’ve created a blog for the Science Fiction and Fantasy Canon Project. The name is changeable, but right now it suits because it says what the project is about. Now, there isn’t much there right now. I have the template up, but really there isn’t any information, just a single post. Feel free to check it out, give some opinions on the look. Perhaps there are some things you think should be added, etc. The site doesn’t look like much, but it’ll get going pretty soon–this weekend hopefully–and we’ll see how things go. Remember, spread the news about this! The more people we get in on this idea the better. To other news, I was reading a post here and I thought I’d ask anyone here what magazines you read. I mean any magazines, even ones that aren’t literature based. If you read Vogue, well, then say so. Only zines count too! Reading that post, though, made me realize how much I’m missing out. I had hoped after I quit working and started packing to come to UC Santa Cruz that I would get to subscribe to a whole bunch of magazines. I even made a list, but unfortunately that never happened.I’m currently subscribed to:Reptiles MagazineWriter’s DigestSmithsonian Magazine Yeah, nothing really related to the field I am writing short stories for, which disturbs me. I might have to dig up some money and buy some subscriptions. It’s also sad that the short story market is dying! There has been a lot of talk in the blogging world about this and it really scares me. Some of the best stories out there are short stories. I’ll have to write a post about why I think the short is dying! Anyway, so there you all have it! Comment and join up in the canon project!
Technophobic SF
I recently was reading this post and it got me thinking about this very subject. What exactly is the allure about technophobic SF? I’m not talking just literature here, but science fiction as a whole. From the Matrix to I, Robot (the book and movie), to even 1984, it seems to be something very common in SF. Why? You’d think that with SF writers predicting vast, amazing futures, there might be more interest in the good side of technology. Certainly we can say that technology has been mostly positive when we look at how it has changed our every day lives. Computers make communicating and researching infinitely easier and faster; the notebook makes bringing that computing goodness with you as easy as lugging around a few extra pounds. Cell phones, despite their downsides, have made our lives complex and simplistic at the same time. Medical technology is constantly changing, advancing, and making our lives ‘better’–though you could probably argue against this.Yet science fiction stories commonly address futures where technology has gone out of control, where technology is ‘evil’. This doesn’t just mean AIs gone bad, robots turning on masters, or any of the many other examples of technology actually turning on mankind, but it also means the use of technology by man against man. Perhaps SF writers are trying to address and issue that we as a society of human beings are not ready to face. Are we as a species willing to accept that at some point our fiddling could turn against us? Sure, building AIs is interesting and definitely a worthwhile adventure, but what happens when we go too far? Genetic engineering is right around the corner in humans. Are we prepared to build supersoldiers or choose how to build our children? Could something like the Matrix happen if we go too far and really play god? These are questions asked and answered by SF writers on a regular basis. There’s good reason, though. Of all the writers out there, SF writers are preoccupied and concerned with the future. And, as much as we might want to deny it, our future is one that will be fraught with conflict. Not just war–which will be enhanced by technology too no doubt–but in our arguments over the ethics of technology. Cloning will become a reality once we realize we cannot stop everyone from doing it. Stem cell research and genetic manipulation are going to open up doorways that should otherwise be closed.There’s nothing wrong with technophobic SF. Not at all. In fact, in a lot of ways, almost all SF is technophobic–by nature it has to be. It’s intentionally technophobic. Perhaps it has to be in a lot of cases, considering the type of future we are inevitably going to have to face anyway. It might seem strange for a SF book to not address the technology of the future, if such a thing is even possible. Taking into account that our future is going to be one filled with great technological achievements, it’s clear that technophobic SF isn’t going anywhere. The futuristic issues that have already been addressed, in some cases ad naseum, are going to become a part of our present reality, and as the future slowly moves in on us, more and more SF writers are going to be addressing those issues more and more. And they’ll all be looking at us at some point going: welcome to the future, and you thought we were just making it all up.
The Harry Potter Fiasco
To be honest, I’m a little sick of Harry Potter right now thanks to all this recent news. I have good reason to be. I have no problem with a character being homosexual, and that isn’t what this rant is about, but I do have a problem with begging for media acceptance and manipulating the public simply because you have the audience. The sad part of this is that J. K. Rowling has the power of a god among kids, so for her to say “being gay is cool” would be instantly accepted by millions not because they truly believe that homosexuality is okay, but because someone else told them so. Morality is not determined by those with knowledge, but those that don’t understand immorality. To simply tell people that something is right or wrong does nothing but implant an idea with nothing to support it.Another thing is that everyone is playing this off as a big victory for the gay community when if they really thought about it they’d realize that it is far from the truth. First, Rowling never made it even remotely clear that Dumbledore is gay in the books. All the little passages being analyzed and flouted as being ‘hints’ at his gayness are nothing short of ambiguous–well, sorta. If I told you that when I met my friend Kyle we took to each other fast, you could take that as either he and I becoming fast friends, or that it was a gay relationship, but the more likely solution is that we were good friends. There’s little in that phrase that implies homosexuality. I particularly like this quote: There are not enough gay characters in literature, the argument runs, especially in children’s books, which reinforces the view that being gay is unusual and not normal. I’m sorry, what? How does having a character that is gay hide the fact that he is gay doing anything short of reinforcing the idea to children that being gay is strange/abnormal/different? Or alternately, how does not making it clear as the writer that the character is gay do anything but reinforce the idea to children that homosexuality is strange? That sentence makes absolutely no sense. To add, the text doesn’t do anything but prove that people in power who happen to be homosexual should make sure to keep that part of them hidden. What kind of victory is that? It’s not. It’s a step in the wrong direction for the gay community, but is anyone thinking about it? In fact, if Rowling had not said anything, most of us would have just thought him a nice old man and only a small, minute group of us would have fantasized–these being the same people that romanticize relationships between Ron and Harry, Malfoy and Harry, among others. I see this as a media ploy by Rowling, which sickens me. Maybe she thought of this all along, but to me, it doesn’t feel that way. Why didn’t she reveal it sooner? Why hide something like that? Would your poor sales have hurt because the Christians who read your book might suddenly avoid it? It’s as if this was all a forethought that Rowling thought she’d use to milk a little more out of her fans. The fact that she called it ‘fan-fic worthy’ despite her dislike of the dirtier side of fan-fic is a clear indicator of this. If she had truly thought of Dumbledore as gay, then why not put that in the book? Why? What is the purpose of keeping it hidden if it is such an important part of the character? The truth is, there isn’t a reason for it, and the likely reality of the situation is that Rowling just threw it out there because she, like the rest of us, realize that she’s done. There are no more HP books, and nothing more to add to the universe that won’t hurt its integrity.Shame on your Rowling. Shame on you.
Cover Designs: Yet Another Take
This very subject has already been discussed here and here. Given that, I have to say that I have always thought about covers, not necessarily because I care how a book is packaged so much as I care about what is inside that particular book, but because I am one of those types that pays attention to a cover when I walk through a book store looking for something new to read. Maybe this makes me a terrible reader, but I can’t help it. The way a book is packaged influences whether or not I pick something up, especially if it is a new author or an author I am not familiar with.But I also realize that a cover does not bear any significance in relation to what is found within the pages. We should all realize that. A book could have a cover that could win an art award and still have a terrible story, or be poorly written. But, there is no doubt that more books are judged by their cover than by anything else.Current trends find that science fiction and even fantasy are frequently being packaged in a more mainstream sense. There are good and bad things with this. The good part is that the book is suddenly open to a new range of readers–the mainstream. And if they like it, they might be inclined to ignore their preconceived notions of what science fiction is–which more often than not is that stereotypical idea that SF is Star Wars and Star Trek remakes, only worse–and perhaps buy other books in the genre. There’s nothing wrong with that. Drawing in new readers is a good thing. The downside is that people unfamiliar with the authors being packaged as more mainstream might not ever look at the book. If they are anything like me, they go straight to the SF & F section to start looking, or alternately they go to the new releases section, which is right there in the front of the store at Borders, and look at the books.To give you an idea of my usual book experience, here is a typical book-buying day. First, I go to the store. Duh! I can’t buy books if I don’t go to the store. I usually only go to Borders. There is a good reason for this: Santa Cruz, California, despite being the home of Heinlein for many years, has absolutely no respect for speculative fiction whatsoever. The local stores carry little SF & F, and of the stuff they do carry, it’s generally unorganized and rarely books of significance, or at least books that would interest fellow genre readers. So, I go to Borders because it is the only place within thirty miles that has a decent enough section of SF & F. Second, I peruse the new releases section, the bestsellers section, and the on sale section (4 for 3 deals, 40% off, and the like). This all is usually right down the middle of the store and starts in the front. If I find nothing here, I go to SF & F. Third, I look at covers and titles and authors. If a cover doesn’t catch my attention, then I look at a title, and if that doesn’t work I look at the author. I am a speculative fiction reader at heart. When I peruse these books I look for the ones that look as if they are genre. That usually inspires me to pick up the book, read the back cover, or the inside cover if it is a hardback, and go from there. More often than not I put a book down and think about it for later. The sad thing is, I rarely pick up books that look as though they are mainstream. Why? Because I just am not attracted to those sorts of covers. I like spaceships, dragons, and other nifty stuff that is clearly genre. I can’t help it. More often than not the cover of a book will get me to dig into a book to figure out what it is about. Seeker by Jack McDevitt and Old Man’s War by John Scalzi were both buys that were the result of my looking more into the book after seeing the cover. The title of the book becomes meaningless to me because the cover has already captured my attention and hopefully the synopsis did too.But if the cover hasn’t caught my attention, perhaps the title or author will. The sad thing is, I don’t generally buy books by the title or the author. In fact, unless a book comes off to me as genre, I probably won’t even look at it. That’s just the way it is and the way it is for a lot of people. For me, the trend of making books look more mainstream isn’t working. I’ve never read a Neil Gaimen book because of the way they are packaged, and as I’m learning, that is a very horrible thing. I saw the Stardust movie and it was one of the best films of the year–yes, it was that good despite what the stupid box office reported for sales. I should have read the book, and his other novels too, but I never have because the covers never strike me as fantasy. If Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card had not had this cover:I would have ignored it entirely. Hopefully at the end of my perusal I have looked at enough books to satisfy me and I can move to step four. Fourth, I buy whatever it is that I was really interested in. I hate leaving a bookstore empty handed. I love books. You all should see my collection. I have almost 1,000 books and I’m only 24. I certainly have not read them all, and almost all of them are SF & F–a good chunk are Golden Age SF–but I love books so much. Books are fresh, new, and fascinating. A movie can never fully
The First SF & F Canons?
I wish. Despite there being plenty of recommended reading lists from organizations, authors, and fans, there has yet to be an actual SF & F Canon. This is of course from my understanding. Perhaps someone has written their own canon, but from what I can tell and from what I know there is no official canon of SF & F works.Well, I wonder if this is because people don’t care or because nobody has taken the time to make their ideas reality. I cannot no more say that I am qualified to create a legitimate canon, but I certainly know that I can be objective enough to be involved in deciding what novels make it into such a list. There are plenty of novels I have read that were fantastic, but I know do not deserve to be in a literary canon because they are not, generally speaking, a work of literary merit, or at least not necessarily a work that will greatly influence the genre. There’s nothing wrong with such books at all. You can read a book that you really enjoy and it is still literature, but you can see immediately that such a book just isn’t a book you would put on a list with some of the greatest works in the field. The same thing happens with regular and literary fiction too of course.So, I was thinking hard on this subject while trying to find some sort of personal canon that someone had put up. Alas, I could find none. There were a few discussions on the subject, but it seems as if no real list has been made, or at least no list that could be considered to represent a significant portion of speculative literature. Why has an organization like SFWA not set out to make an official list? Certainly they have the authority, or at least seem to have the authority to do such a thing, and with an enormous list of members–all published authors–they should easily be able to get input. But from what I can tell they haven’t worked on creating a canon. Maybe they don’t see a point in it. Well, I do! We need a legit canon–desperately. I propose creating one, but there have to be specific guidelines to how books are selected. Perhaps this will all flop, but there is a desperate need for a collaborative effort to create a literary canon of science fiction and fantasy. The guidelines might be as follows: PopularityThis is not what it sounds like. No books should be chosen purely on the fact that everyone out there bought it, read it, and loved. At the same time, though, the book has to have had a mark on the public to even be recognized and have influence. A book that is read by five people has just about no influence on the genre. But popularity should be taken with a grain of salt. There are plenty of books that are popular, but are at the same rather lax in literary merit (perhaps the Da Vinci Code would be an example). LongevityThe novel or even novella, since we should not exclude works that today would not be considered novels, should have stood the test of time. It has to have had a lasting influence. Critical SuccessIt has to be recognized in some way for its importance. This could mean it has won awards or simply has been analyzed or referenced. There may be many novels, particularly older novels, that would not have won awards but still have influence. InfluencePretty obvious since I’ve mentioned it already. It has to influence other writing. That influence has to be genre defining, powerful. Not simply that it made people buy books in that genre, but that it actually changed the direction of SF & F literature in some way. Perhaps there is need for more criteria, but perhaps those four are good enough. In any case, i think it’s time to begin paving a way towards a literary canon for science fiction and fantasy. So, who’s with me? Leave a comment! Add new criteria, edit my criteria and explain why, and let’s get this thing started!