Well, I am finally back to producing the podcast. It has been a while, but I have a few new episodes lined up in which I will be discussing general subjects related to the fantasy genre. In that sense, we might think of this as the General Series, season 2. This should occupy me through to December, at which point I will break from teaching and be able to produce a lecture series on another fantasy novel.
Direct Download – 22:29 – 20.7mb mp3
This episode basically deals with the changes in fantasy over the last 30 – 40 years. I look at those changes through the lenses of sex, cursing, and violence to see how the genre has “grown up” and become much more mature in its themes.
I, of course, have my own opinions on whether this is all good, and I am not afraid to share them, but I’d love to have a discussion with you about it, so drop me a comment if you agree or disagree.
Tracy Falbe
/ October 23, 2011I often find the gritty realism appealing in fantasy. I appreciate the acknowledgment of the flaws and shortcomings generally inherent in human behavior. I suspect many readers today are beyond the so-called innocence of earlier generations (if such a thing actually existed) and find sexless “white hat” characters sort of empty. I like the more nuanced approach to characters that gives them reality inspired traits. Such characters can still be uplifting. They can do honorable deeds. They can defend the weak. They can fight evil. But they can still lead genuine lives. Personally if I was a brave hero on the eve of battle I would certainly be looking for some nookie, considering I might be dead on the morrow. To read an epic fantasy that goes on for months or years and not have any of the characters seek or encounter romance or at least a fun hook-up seems a bit lacking. I realize some readers don’t want sex in books, but tastes vary and many readers do appreciate the injections of passion and the interpersonal dramas that arise from such basic feelings. Placing these normal human needs into a narrative helps make the characters more relatable and genuine. Their visceral experiences through sex and violence prompt a stronger response in the reader. Personally I like the mix of intellectual and visceral stimuli in what I read. I very much acknowledge my own spiritual and physical needs and consider them equal.
Of course if a story is exceptionally engaging, I can greatly enjoy an uplifting tale that is “clean” as you say. I truly love The Lord of the Rings and it is the foundation for my love of the genre. Tolkien’s work is truly uplifting literature that has inspired my courage throughout my life. That said, when I first read the trilogy when I was about 13, my first reaction was “Wow, that was totally brilliant and awesome, but I wish it had more kissing.” Let me tell you, if I was Eowyn I wouldn’t have let Aragorn get away without at least a one night stand. You also mentioned the famous Conan stories by R.E. Howard. These also made me love fantasy although they were entirely different from Tolkien’s books. I loved the violent action, naked girls strapped to altars, and how Conan always knocked up every princess he came across. Fantasy has a broad spectrum and can entertain on many levels. Readers’ tastes vary and I think the genre can service all needs.
Going deeper I also believe that fantasy attempts to serve our craving for mythological guidance. I study the writings of Joseph Campbell, and he explains how myths are supposed to help us relate to our society and our journey through life. He also states repeatedly that modern people have no guiding myths. In my opinion many fantasies are attempting to define some type of metaphorical map to help us understand our spiritual relationship to society and life. As you say, many current popular fantasies are always showing that “nice guys come in last” and “Evil has been defeated for a while but it will come back.” These are arguably defining characteristics of the modern world. It’s not pretty I know, but fantasy literature at least attempts to speak to it. There still remains a great deal of possibility to construct uplifting tales to help good people imagine how they will perform in such terrifying circumstances.
Brondt
/ October 23, 2011On the whole, I don’t disagree with you. It is a discussion that is certainly influenced by personal biases, and I feel I acknowledged that overall. The genre itself in many ways mirrors the changing culture in the West over the past generation or so, which was kind of the real point here. I agree that much of LotR is sort of sterile, but I also think that an Eowyn-Aragorn one-nighter would actually have detracted from both their characters. I don’t think many modern authors (if any) could get away with drawing such characters anymore, but in the context of Tolkien’s Middle-earth, it just wouldn’t work. At the same time, those who say the characters don’t suffer enough are, in my opinion, wrong–they just suffer in less-physical ways than many modern characters, and this I think is another sign of Tolkien’s genius. Many writers feel they have to physically torture their characters in order to show the reader how much they are suffering for the greater good. Tolkien’s characters, though, suffer incredibly in a psychological sense, though there are no broken limbs, etc.
As for Campbell’s myth-seeking, I completely agree that modern fantasy, as a genre, is a sort of cultural quest for our own mythos. I would, however, draw a distinction–a binary one, admittedly, but then also only a starting point in my thoughts: Tolkien’s mythology is distinctly different from Martin’s, and even Goodkind’s, though similar to, I think, Sanderson’s. Tolkien and Sanderson seem to reaffirm a more traditional mythology, shall we say; they are archaists, in a way, looking to the past for answers to questions that exist in the present. I think it no accident that both authors are openly religious as well. Martin and Goodkind, though quite different writers, seem to be more actively engaged in creating a new mythology; I’m more familiar with Goodkind’s books, so can speak more clearly here. Goodkind clearly rejects the traditional, religion-based answers offered by Tolkien and Sanderson, while yet still offering up what might be termed a “conservative” world view, though it is clearly more libertarian than anything. Still, proper, modern libertarianism is not conservative in any traditional sense because it is not rooted in traditional values and religion, but is essentially a non-religious philosophical ideology.
That may seem a little off-topic (though it sounds right in my head), but I think the issue can be clarified by referring to something I talk about in the podcast: sex. Goodkind’s Richard Rahl and Kahlan Amnell think nothing of sleeping together before marriage, though the reader spends much of the first five books in that series thinking, “Will they or won’t they?” Tolkien’s books, as mentioned, are entirely devoid of this (Peter Jackson, perhaps seeking ways to sex-up the Aragorn-Arwen relationship, dresses Liv Tyler in some rather diaphanous outfits, but this is not even hinted at in the books–to my recollection). Even the subject of rape, a topic that comes up multiple times in Goodkind’s books, is not hinted at in LotR. The Orcs might lust after man-flesh, but clearly not after wo-man-flesh. Sanderson, likewise, takes a rather puritanical view on sex, though he does acknowledge that it exists and is something enjoyed between a husband and wife. Martin, well, I don’t think we even need to go there, as the books pretty much make the point all by themselves if you’ve read even 100 pages, or so.