white lady said:
i just too lazy so ill sum it up in 1 title................LOTR.
I'm not too sure I agree with that one, Tolkien's work can be a bit clumsy and overbearing at times. He was very skilled at world building though, something in which I think few non-fantasy authors display alot of talent in.
I have to concede also, that much commentary on genetics and religion can be discovered in LOTR ... I just don't like him so I'm leary of praising it too much.
ObjectsInSpace said:
If you compare Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time with Raymond E. Feist's Magician series, you'll see what I mean. Magic users in Randland run the risk of killing themselves or burning away their ability to use magic if they take in too much of the One Power, but in contrast there's no price in Midkemia/Kelewan (at least, as far as I remember; I always found those series to be the Poor Man's Wheel of Time).
Oddly enough, I find Feist's series (well, some of it - the Tsurani trilogy - later stuff like conclave of shadows is eh) to be superior to Jordan's works - it deals with politics, dysphoria, immigration and imperialism. Jordan however, has produced a rather generic story which uses and re-uses elements from other narratives in a very obvious manner (Dune for e.g) and addresses few social or ideological points. What is all Jordan is the physics of his 'magic system', which in of itself is quite complex and intelligent.
While I quite enjoy the above two given examples, I'm not sure I'd give they're exactly the best representation of what fiction could or should be. Then again that lies dangerously close to the high culture vs. low culture argument.
<3 fantasy...so most things.
BUT FUCK OFFFFF anyone who says fantasy isn't valid in the way described above.
It can make AMAZING social commentary.
Would anyone consider Gulliver's Travels to be Fantasy?
Think of the satirical beauty and social commentary contained within it, and it was achieved primarily though using elements of the fantastic.
Fucking shitcunts who don't appreciate the power of the supergenre of the fantastic.
I'd definitely consider Gulliver's to be fantasy (at the very least it is fantastical) - you've got lilliputs, giants, intelligent horsies and flying islands etc. There's so much in it too - it works as a parody of human nature as well as the literature we used to depict it. I don't think it would have been nearly as effective without the expansive imaginary world it constructed.
Another interesting example, at least I think it is, is the Alice in Wonderland books by Lewis Carroll. Alot of serious stuff is interwoven with the weird and zany world Lewis made.
Which is perhaps the downfall of alot of fantasy (in the critical) - it can be easy to fashion a world simply with the aim to distract and entertain but not include the useful commentary like Gulliver did.
Tulipa said:
Most modern fantasy is fairly rubbish. There's a lot less cohesion and I think most of the writers are getting sloppy as they try to make more money out of the bandwagon.
The only fantasy I've ever enjoyed that was written within the past twenty or so years is Phillip Pullman's Dark Materials series. There was something incredibly potent and adult lying beneath the surface of that children's series.
I much prefer magical realism, a la Isabelle Allende and Gabriel Garcia Marquez and even then I don't read much of that. It has to be done meticulously, otherwise it falls flat on it's face.
Isn't that the curse of alot of contemporary fiction though? (Dan Brown *cough*) So much of it is made simply for the gimmicky aspect in order to sell. Much of the niche or slightly underground work seems a tad better in that respect. I think you could apply similar principles as you do with music - alot of the mainstream music lacks artistic integrity or variety as it gives into the pressure to conform. i.e the issue isn't so much whether something is fantasy but whether it's simply popular mainstream fiction.
