Mmmm.

grief, it's a long time since i've read any MArxist literary criticism - though eagleton was a uni favourite... you may have to bear with me here!

The world is certainly more brutal and political (there's a lengthy thread around here somewhere, and i've got the latest, but i;ve realised i need to read all the rest again before started a feast for crows, and i don't have the time right now!).

But i think i do remember an element of prophecy magic in the way its formulated, with returning scions etc, which do go close to the genre staples. Though he's a good writer, this is x-rated fantasy rather than a genuine departure...

I would suggest that China Mieville is a much more ambitious bender of fantasy than Martin. or Jonathon Carroll or people like that. do check it out, let us know what you think.

I mean, to turn the distinction in another direction, Moore was supposed to have killed the Superhero genre dead, exploding out of the constraints of the genre, but what actually happened was that the rest of the superheroes grew darker and more adult.

And i'd expect the same to happen to our retrospective understanding of Martin... very very fine, but a development rather than a revolution.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Murphy (last sane man in the asylum),

Yes, absolutely agree. Martin keeps plenty of the staples but shifts one major element--basically, the old good/evil dualism. I think that's why it's a shock, because so many of the staples are still there that you think you know what to expect in all the aspects.

And I can't agree more about these type of things being a development rather than a genre-breaker. I think that's great, in fact.

(I'll edit rather than post again; I keep thinking about this, bleh...)

Although he's not really genre-bending, I do think Martin is avoiding the main complaint of Jameson in that he's not using magic as an end-run around the "ideologically unsound" aspects of feudalism. His is not a nostalgic look back at the good old days of Arthur and Merlin, if you know what I mean? He does not deny history in that same way. His ideology is much more postmodern than feudal. (I'm not sure I'm expressing this well.) (Also, the Martin thread seemed too long to start reading now, so forgive me if I'm rehashing old hash.)

Also, thank you very much for the recommendations for Mieville and Carroll. My reading in fantasy is not very thorough at all. Any starting points you'd recommend?

Thanks!

-Bai

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Xiao Bai,

Fantasy looks back, sf looks forward. I associate Neil's style with blurring; I assiciate William Gibson's style with clarity.

In "On Fairy-Stories," Tolkien said that a horse is realer than a car. I'm sure that was true for him, but I've been a city boy all my life. Cars are a daily reality, while horses are the scary, uncanny demon-things people used in olden times.

awww...i love horses...they are fabulous life forms...and you feel such a connection with them when you ride them...whereas a car is just a mechanical monstrosity.

quote:

Originally posted by The Scoundrel:
I understand your argument but I respectfully disagree. Ray Bradbury writes science fiction without an ounce of science.

And often, so called 'science' is as much of a macguffin as anything else.

eh, i'm more of a sci-fi guy, but i've never really been into the medieval stuff.

So we've heard that SF and Fantasy are both subcategories of speculative fiction, or that SF is actually a subcategory of Fantasy, or that they are similar and yet one is superior to the other. A friend of mine made the argument that -technically- all fiction is Fantasy because if you write a story about a guy who gets up in the morning and eats a bowl of Lucky Charms but that guy never existed, nor ate the Lucky Charms, it follows that the man and his Lucky Charms are fantastical. Boring, but fantastical. That was the distinction she made between Fantasy and everything else...a matter of interest. An extreme case, but interesting. My professor seems to think it's a matter of possibility, as relative to the author and the age. Was it considered as a thing that could ever be possible? Dragons, no; sentient computers, maybe. A blog I happened upon recently made the argument that it was a matter of triumph. Triumph of the will v triumph of the mind. Which brings us to compatability and combination. The PC game Arcanum had two basic choices for your character to pursue--magic or technology. They were not compatable; each created an aura that interfered with the other. For the record, it was set in an industrial revolution "steam age." But is magic always the past and SF always the future? Star Wars says "A Long Time Ago..." even though we see it as the future. And if I write a novel about things being inventd before that are now common, is it any less SciFi? It was also suggested that the line is subjective--each creates his own perspective. If that's true, is my 'everything-is-fantasy' friend right? H.G. Wells defined his own work as "fantasy" in comparison with Jules Verne's. Then we have to consider, among the myriad other subgenres, "hard SF" v "soft SF." Is soft SF a nice way of saying "fantasy in disguise?" Or is there yet a distinction between "soft SciFi" and Fantasy? The formulaic as opposed to the symbolic? Or are there no such distinctions here?

As to specific works, what is Dune? Rich in science and prophecy, which is it? Or the Ender's Game Saga? One direction of sequels gets farther and farther out there while one almost completely abandons scientific theory for politics and psychology/sociology. Are they different genres?

I like this term "genre-bending" because we apply it to a genre we haven't really examined..or, if we have, that we haven't defined without using the world in the definition.

Phaedrus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<hijack>

quote:

Originally posted by Murphy:
Mmmm.

grief, it's a long time since i've read any MArxist literary criticism - though eagleton was a uni favourite... you may have to bear with me here!

Mmm, Eagleton. *drool* Was introduced to his writings last semester, and it was good.

</hijack>

quote:

Originally posted by Xiao Bai:

Also, thank you very much for the recommendations for Mieville and Carroll. My reading in fantasy is not very thorough at all. Any starting points you'd recommend?

Thanks!

-Bai

If you're interested in Mieville, check out Perdido Street Station. That's his first book in his New Crobuzon fantasy world and it lays a lot of groundwork/world-building for the other two.

Carroll, I'm not so sure. I've only read White Apples (which was dedicated to Mr. Gaiman) but that didn't really do anything for me. I've heard Land of Laughs is good, though, and I've been meaning to give him another shot.

For Johnathon Carroll i'd say "From the Teeth of Angels" is his best.

For China Mieville... I don't think Perdido Street Station is his best by a long way. It's essentially a guide book of a city with a story in there somewhere.
Now, 'the Scar'... now that's tight, to a purpose, and a real coming of age.
But PSS blows most other fantasy clean out of the water.

I thought PSS might be better precisely because it does sometimes feel like a guidebook and it's a nice way to be introduced to the world (I say it reads like a guidebook but I was never ever bored reading it).

That said, the Scar is also excellent, slightly shorter, and is probably tighter. Either one would be well worth reading.

And let's not forget Looking For Jake. A little cyberpunk, a little horror, some sci-fi, and a novella where something otherworldly happens that's neither magical nor scientific.

in fact, anything he's ever written works!

Thanks! Looks like I can't go wrong no matter how I go.

oooooh...
just merembered another
and another must read for the gen(d)re-benders...

Steph Swainston - "the year of our war" is her first, and good but patchy, and the second, "No present like time" which is very very good indeed.

Not as radical as Mieville and not as literary as Carroll, but damn good nontheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Phaedrus:
So we've heard that SF and Fantasy are both subcategories of speculative fiction, or that SF is actually a subcategory of Fantasy, or that they are similar and yet one is superior to the other.

I would certainly not argue for any innate superiority of one over t'other... But i would suggest that both genre's have their staples of weakness. So in fantasy, we have the lazy use of medieval social structure, and an assumption that this is right. Yes, there are stable boys a-plenty who rise to become kings or sorcerors, but generally they struggle up the pyramid, rather than trying to overthrow it. there is also magic, which allows predestination of mighty or touched people... I think as a Marxist critical reading this is what Xiao Bai was driving at.

and in sci-fi, we have the fetishistic space battles and wars of laser and alien...

and in both we have the unthinking destruction of the 'other'.

Of course this is a totally subjective view, but my view of sci-fi is that it is inherently a philosophically led genre - taking the fears of today and putting them into an extreme form. So the Cyberpunks begin to challenge where a person ends.

I can't recall reading fantasy that challenges on the level of 'A question of Conscience' or 'Lord of Light'...

quote:

A friend of mine made the argument that -technically- all fiction is Fantasy because if you write a story about a guy who gets up in the morning and eats a bowl of Lucky Charms but that guy never existed, nor ate the Lucky Charms, it follows that the man and his Lucky Charms are fantastical. Boring, but fantastical. That was the distinction she made between Fantasy and everything else...a matter of interest. An extreme case, but interesting.

I'd suggest that it's to distinguish from the realist or the formalist schools of literature.

quote:

My professor seems to think it's a matter of possibility, as relative to the author and the age. Was it considered as a thing that could ever be possible? Dragons, no; sentient computers, maybe. A blog I happened upon recently made the argument that it was a matter of triumph. Triumph of the will v triumph of the mind. Which brings us to compatability and combination. The PC game Arcanum had two basic choices for your character to pursue--magic or technology. They were not compatable; each created an aura that interfered with the other. For the record, it was set in an industrial revolution "steam age." But is magic always the past and SF always the future? Star Wars says "A Long Time Ago..." even though we see it as the future. And if I write a novel about things being inventd before that are now common, is it any less SciFi? It was also suggested that the line is subjective--each creates his own perspective. If that's true, is my 'everything-is-fantasy' friend right? H.G. Wells defined his own work as "fantasy" in comparison with Jules Verne's. Then we have to consider, among the myriad other subgenres, "hard SF" v "soft SF." Is soft SF a nice way of saying "fantasy in disguise?" Or is there yet a distinction between "soft SciFi" and Fantasy? The formulaic as opposed to the symbolic? Or are there no such distinctions here?

'hard' sci-fi, i think, is generally defined as the type of sci-fi that we see in the 50s... where there is a kind of speculation of the way direct scientific development will work. It really tries to explain the science behind.

Soft sci-fi, IMO, is a philosophical genre. So we have Iain M Banks' Culture with their almost limitless power, but no attempt to explain the science, so it becomes a debate over intervention and politics and power.

quote:

As to specific works, what is Dune? Rich in science and prophecy, which is it? Or the Ender's Game Saga? One direction of sequels gets farther and farther out there while one almost completely abandons scientific theory for politics and psychology/sociology. Are they different genres?

I like this term "genre-bending" because we apply it to a genre we haven't really examined..or, if we have, that we haven't defined without using the world in the definition.

Phaedrus
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

and here endeth my random thoughts

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Murphy (last sane man in the asylum),

I don't know...I tend to view fantasy as extremely philosophical. Though not in the same way, perhaps, as SciFi. I wonder if this goes anywhere? SF as localized, modern philosophy v Fantasy as broadstream, general philosophy. SF hits on specific, determined issues, but Fantasy sticks to good v evil. This also seems to fit with SF using specific, defined technology v Fantasy's magic and symbolism. Hmm...

On another note, said Prof is giving the class the option of a paper or a short story...who here thinks it's possible to write a quality science fiction story set in a classic fantasy-style background? What would you deem necessary to define it as SciFi? In particular, I enjoy considering Lord of Light here (though, to assuage those who would worry here, I am not going to attempt to rip it off). Was that really SciFi? Speaking of which, I love the term gendre-bender! I'm going to have to use that in the future.

Phaedrus

I'm not sure you can call the question of what it is to be a human a localised, specific story, which is what you get in novels like 'headlong'. and in 'a question of conscience' you get very precise consideration of good/evil from a theological perspective.

Again, i do realise i am speaking from a personal perspective, but i'm not sure the themes of good/evil are particularly interesting in most fantasy.

I'm trying to think of a fantasy novel that challenges ... but i'm open to ideas. So if you have any suggestions i'd take it from there. Ursula Le Guin is a good example of someone who can do this, but i think her best work is in sci-fi rather than her fantasy.

absolutely it's possible to write a sci-fi story in a fantasy style background... I'd offer the planet of the apes as a tale of this kind... whether you'd say this is quality is another matter.
And what about 'Inversions'. Iain Banks does this precise thing. if you are interested in this field i'd say this is the perfect book to reference.

(and i reckon Lord of light is absolutely sci-fi. no question!)

quote:

Originally posted by Murphy:

quote:

Originally posted by The Scoundrel:
I understand your argument but I respectfully disagree. Ray Bradbury writes science fiction without an ounce of science.

And often, so called 'science' is as much of a macguffin as anything else.

I'd say Bradbury has a scientific imagination. Or say that his "magic" is purely a magic of perception, of nostalgia. Bradbury couldn't write a straight swords and sorcery story, he's just not wired that way.

A scientific imagination is a nice way of putting it But Bradbury's got people building rockets out of scrap in their garages and setting up hot dog stands are Mars. Don't get me wrong, I'm a Bradbury geek. But I love him for his imagination (and his giddiness). I imagine he upsets lots of hard sci-fi readers who want everything explained through scientific rationale.

quote:

Bradbury couldn't write a straight swords and sorcery story, he's just not wired that way.

True, but he does write some groovy horror.