14 replies to this topic

[Garlan the Gallant]

For those of you who have ever taken a world religion course in college, you will know that religious action is categorized under the labels of "sacred" and "profane." Generally, sacred is defined as the opposite of profane and profane is defined as the opposite of sacred. However, those labels can also be fleshed out to gather more meaning depending upon the chosen field of study.

In todays world of modern fantasy, there are two types of books being written. The first is the 80's fantasy type book, where there is an ultimate good and an ultimate evil. The second is the child of George Martin where morality is thrown out of the window and everybody is just a different shade of grey.

If you were to define these two types of fantasy books with religious connotations, you would get something like the following.

80's fantasy:

Sacred = Protecting life and fighting for the greater good.

Profane = Any action which harm's life and the greater good.

The hero is often attributed to pursuing the sacred and the villain pursues the profane. Profane acts are: conquering the world, oppression of the masses, murder, rape, stealing, lying, etc. Profane acts can become sacred acts when they are used to protect life and fight for the greater good. This can be seen when the hero murders the villain because the villain pursuit of the profane would have adversely affected the greater good. Generally speaking, any profane acts that become sacred acts are highly justifiable and are relegated to punishment fitting the crime.

Martinesque fantasy:

The profane and sacred cannot be applied here because actions are not restricted to morality and are justifiable if said actions protect one's own self and his or her own interests.

Heroes are those who's actions least effect others like themselves for the worse. Villains are those whose actions effect "heroes" the most for the worse. Generally speaking, it is identified, by the reader, as justifiable if a hero effect a villain for the worse. One should note that these actions are all done in the pursuit of the hero's survival own expansion of their own interest.

Now that I have defined these things, I can begin my topic of conversation.
---------

I recently read Peter V. Brett's novella, "The Great Bazaar and Other Stories." The book included a short story that discussed Arlen's, the hero, journey to find a lost city.

BEWARE OF FOLLOWING SPOILERS!!!!

Near the end of the novel it is revealed that one of the main POV characters, who the reader has identified to be a hero in this book as well as the previous novel, has used Arlen to frame a business competitor for the intentional harm of a city priest. It should be noted that the business competitor was a bully who used his status as an ex-warrior to steal from and boss around the POV character. However, at the conclusion of the scheme, the reader receives this passage:

" 'You are Khaffit now, Amit of no lineage worth mentioning' the dama said. 'for the short painful remainder of your life, know this, for when your spirite leaves this world, it will forever sit outside the gates of heaven.'

'The dama looked up at the warriors. 'Confiscate everything of value in his pavillion,' he said, 'and bring it to the temple. Use his women, if you life, and then have them sold. Put any sonts to the spear.'

The dama looked won at Amit in disgust. 'Haul this filth to the Chamber of Eternal Sorrow,' he told the dal' Sharum, 'that the Damji might take their time in falying the skin from his misbegotten bones.'"

Now when I first read this, I didn't pay it any heed.

I am pretty sure that most people would agree that Peter V. Brett writes 80's fantasy. There are clear good guys and clear bad guys and an ultimate evil. Heroes protect life and villains seek to destroy life.

As I began to think about this quote, I began to see it as a great contradiction to everything Brett had written before. Not only is one of the heroes, that the reader is intended to identify with, clearly acting in Martinesque way, but he cannot even be classified as a hero. The POV character framed the business competitor for an action that he did not commit. This resulted in his loss of warrior status, his business being confiscated, his wives and daughters rape and selling into slavery, his sons deaths, and his impending imprisonment and death by flaying of the skin. One should note that the business competitor did steal from the POV character and did bully the POV character. But at no point did he kill, mame, rape, or do anything else so egregious as to what he received in return. It can only be that the POV villain can thus be classified as a Martinesque villain.

So, my question to the board is this: Did any other readers find this a vast contradiction to Brett's other writing. Also, we can discuss the mixing of the two types of fantasy in other novels and how it may or may not have jarred the reader out of the story.

Disccus

[Wastrel]

I don't understand.

First, your definitions seem flawed. What you call 'sacred' is just good, and what you call 'profane' is just bad; it doesn't seem to address the quite orthogonal character of the sacred/profane divide at all, so I don't know why you don't just say "Good" and "Evil".

Next, I don't think your interpretation of Martin is valid. "Actions are not restricted to morality" - well, obviously not, as in all fiction. That's why there's Evil at all! If all actions were moral, there wouldn't be Evil. "Actions... are justifiable if said actions protect one's own self and his or her own interests." What? Sez who? You might think that, but I don't think that's a common view of the books. Littlefinger's actions; Cersei's murder of children; Gregor's love of rape, torture and murder; the Others; Tywin; Aerys; Melisandre..... they're all trying to protect themselves and their own interests, but I don't think most people consider everything they've done 'justifiable'. And again, "Heroes are those who's actions least effect others like themselves for the worse" - what? Ned's actions affected those like him terribly, but he's not considered a villain! (By most people).

The message of Martin isn't that there's no good or evil (Gregor is evil!) but that good and evil are often difficult to tell apart. It's about complexity, not about relativity.


Then, your problem seems to be that Brett's story has a twist, in which someone you think is a hero turns out to be a villain. Well, what of it? Such twists, and the reverse, are commonplace even in eighties fantasy. It's just a sign that Brett isn't appallingly formulaic all the time, not some leap across the barricades.

[Sometimes it seems as if devotees of 'eighties fantasy' seem to be determined to define their subgenre as only including rubbish books - to the extent that any book with a glimmer of originality or complexity is immediately exiled from the category... and then they complain their subgenre isn't taken seriously any more.]

[Serious Callers Only]

Fuck you Wastrel.

[Wastrel]

I apologise if I've given any offence to the board; I assure you this wasn't my intention. Perhaps you could tell me which part exactly is problematic, so that I could edit or remove that section?

[I assume that that was a specific reaction to the post, rather than a general reaction to my continued presence here... which I would find perfectly understandable, considering, and for which I also apologise... but I would suggest that that sort of complaint might be better dealt with via PMs, rather than by hijacking the nice man's thread]

[Serious Callers Only]

Fine, i exaggerate and overreact. But the sophistic praise for the gritty-grim-dark of fantasy of "traditional" - meaning boring for you - fantasy is err - misguided. Yet highly annoying.

Quote

[Sometimes it seems as if devotees of 'eighties fantasy' seem to be determined to define their subgenre as only including rubbish books - to the extent that any book with a glimmer of originality or complexity is immediately exiled from the category... and then they complain their subgenre isn't taken seriously any more.]

Rubbish books eh?

Edited by Serious Callers Only, 13 March 2010 - 03:32 PM.

[Wastrel]

I don't understand your post. 'the sophistic praise for the gritty-grim-dark of fantasy of "traditional"' - I literally don't know what this means, so I don't know how to argue with it.

On the second point: what is your point? "rubbish books, eh?" isn't much of an argument. Are you saying that eighties fantasy is all rubbish books, or that it isn't? Either way, how is it disagreeing with me, let alone reason for a 'fuck you'?

Let me be clearer:

1. I am not a fan of 'eighties fantasy', nor of 'traditional fantasy' (are you saying that these two are the same, or that they are different?), and have never used those terms myself, because I don't see how they're helpful.

2. In trying to enforce strict boundaries on their subgenre, those who insist on the uniqueness of that genre are doing a disservice to what one might consider canonical texts of that genre. On the issue of moral ambiguity, twists of moral perspective and morally striking character developments: I grew up reading Weiss and Hickman, Feist, Donaldson, Gemell, lots of Shadowrun, and lots of other TSR... and they've all got those 'modern' 'non-traditional' features. Even Eddings at least tries! [Particularly in the Mallorean, where we see behind the scenes of the enemy countries]. I suppose you could say that Jordan lacks this, although even he gestures in the direction of getting you to sympathise with Seanchan and Forsaken.

3. The boundaries chosen seem to make it impossible to write good books that are acceptable as 'eighties fantasy' - once you add in originality of any kind, unexpected developments, any sort of ambiguity or complexity or anything thought-inducing, it suddenly stops being proper eighties fantasy. As in the OPs "oh no! Brett has included a twist where one of the protagonists is actually revealed to be a bastard! He's guilty of a 'contradiction' that means he's become all 'Martinesque'!" complaint. When a.) that sort of thing was commonplace in the original 'eighties fantasies', and b.) that's the sort of thing that we normally say is good, interesting, worth reading, etc.

4. As I'M not the one classifying things as 'eighties fantasy', I'm not the one saying that this book or that book is rubbish. But when I see people classifying things as 'eighties fantasy' in a non-chronological sense, and try to find out what they mean, it generally seems to amount to a definition of being a bad book (whether they use it as a term of criticism or of praise). Which, as someone who liked the original eighties fantasies (except Brooks... never could stand him), I find rather dismissive.

Edited by Wastrel, 13 March 2010 - 06:55 PM.

[Garlan the Gallant]

Wastrel, on 13 March 2010 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't understand.

First, your definitions seem flawed. What you call 'sacred' is just good, and what you call 'profane' is just bad; it doesn't seem to address the quite orthogonal character of the sacred/profane divide at all, so I don't know why you don't just say "Good" and "Evil".

Next, I don't think your interpretation of Martin is valid. "Actions are not restricted to morality" - well, obviously not, as in all fiction. That's why there's Evil at all! If all actions were moral, there wouldn't be Evil. "Actions... are justifiable if said actions protect one's own self and his or her own interests." What? Sez who? You might think that, but I don't think that's a common view of the books. Littlefinger's actions; Cersei's murder of children; Gregor's love of rape, torture and murder; the Others; Tywin; Aerys; Melisandre..... they're all trying to protect themselves and their own interests, but I don't think most people consider everything they've done 'justifiable'. And again, "Heroes are those who's actions least effect others like themselves for the worse" - what? Ned's actions affected those like him terribly, but he's not considered a villain! (By most people).

The message of Martin isn't that there's no good or evil (Gregor is evil!) but that good and evil are often difficult to tell apart. It's about complexity, not about relativity.


Then, your problem seems to be that Brett's story has a twist, in which someone you think is a hero turns out to be a villain. Well, what of it? Such twists, and the reverse, are commonplace even in eighties fantasy. It's just a sign that Brett isn't appallingly formulaic all the time, not some leap across the barricades.

[Sometimes it seems as if devotees of 'eighties fantasy' seem to be determined to define their subgenre as only including rubbish books - to the extent that any book with a glimmer of originality or complexity is immediately exiled from the category... and then they complain their subgenre isn't taken seriously any more.]

You make some excellent points. Indeed, you have pointed out that my definitions are flawed. Good catch mate. However, I wouldnt say that the character turns out to be a villain, but the truth of that statement depends upon how Brett writes the character in the Desert Spear. However, if he does pick up in the next book by identifying the character as a "hero", then how am I, the reader, or others like me suppose to identify the character in a series where morality isn't written, at least thus far, in grey tones, but rather in black and white?

I guess what I was trying to say was that I don't think its fair to switch your "type" (out of the two) of writing should change after one whole novel in the series and a whole novella. In truth though, I guess we have to wait to see how the Desert Spear plays out.

Also, I want to point out that this consequence of the POV's action was like the worse thing to happen to any one character, good or bad, in the series. (Was it jarring for anyone else?)

As per the last bit , I think that a lot of what I define as 80's fantasy can be fun. I would put writers such as Sanderson, Brett, Charlton, and even (maybe, possibly, really depends on your opinion) Hobb in this category. I have enjoyed all of these authors. That being said, the majority of the fantasy that I like is of the Martinesque category, but it all depends on the writing and if it is of good quality. Heck, I'd read the phonebook if it was entertaining and well written (*waits for Aidan to make some funny comment about this statement* ).

[Wastrel]

Garlan the Gallant, on 13 March 2010 - 11:37 PM, said:

You make some excellent points. Indeed, you have pointed out that my definitions are flawed. Good catch mate. However, I wouldnt say that the character turns out to be a villain, but the truth of that statement depends upon how Brett writes the character in the Desert Spear. However, if he does pick up in the next book by identifying the character as a "hero", then how am I, the reader, or others like me suppose to identify the character in a series where morality isn't written, at least thus far, in grey tones, but rather in black and white?

How about not just sticking a 'good' or 'bad' label on every character, but admitting that they may have some depth? What do you mean 'identifying the character as a hero' - presumably Brett doesn't actually step into the book and shout 'he's a hero!' at you.
When I hear that so-and-so is the hero of a book, I assume that either they are shown doing good things, or they are the protagonist. If you mean the former - well, lots of characters do good and bad things. Depending on the ratio, that might make them an 'anti-hero' or just a 'flawed hero'. If you mean the latter - well, lots of protagonists in fantasy aren't actually admirable people.

Quote

I guess what I was trying to say was that I don't think its fair to switch your "type" (out of the two) of writing should change after one whole novel in the series and a whole novella. In truth though, I guess we have to wait to see how the Desert Spear plays out.

Whereas I think there's no such thing as these 'types', and that if there were it would be good to break out of them.

Again, I go back to actual eighties fantasy. Take a pretty irrefutably canonical example like the original Dragonlance Chronicles. In that, you've got one protagonist, Raistlin, the protagonist most people seem to identify with most strongly, start out as both protagonist and implied 'hero', only to end up going completely to the dark side partway through the series (although this is strongly foreshadowed about half a book before it happens). This isn't a flaw; this isn't Dragonlance become all 'Martinesque'; it's integral to the series and its tone.

Being upset that a pseudo-"eighties" author should have a 'hero' do bad things seems like demanding that "eighties fantasy" has to be MORE formulaic and LESS nuanced than Dragonlance, itself not noted for its literary qualities or originality. This is what I mean by insisting that only rubbish books can be true eighties fantasy.

Quote

As per the last bit , I think that a lot of what I define as 80's fantasy can be fun. I would put writers such as Sanderson, Brett, Charlton, and even (maybe, possibly, really depends on your opinion) Hobb in this category. I have enjoyed all of these authors. That being said, the majority of the fantasy that I like is of the Martinesque category, but it all depends on the writing and if it is of good quality. Heck, I'd read the phonebook if it was entertaining and well written (*waits for Aidan to make some funny comment about this statement* ).

I don't know how on Earth Hobb could be considered reminiscent of the eighties; I'd place her right next to Martin in terms of style (and indeed somewhat beyond him in rejecting good/evil dichotomies and focusing on character rather than epic plot).

[palin99999]

I think Brett is a hybrid of the 80's/Martin fantasy. He has some slightly straightforward characters in that we view them as all looking for the greater good. However, in The Warded Man Rojer

Spoiler

steals the warded circle to leave the rapists to die.

I feel that Brett is trying to make his series a little more mature. Even though in The Warded Man his characters go through some horrific events the book still felt somewhat YA-ish. However, in The Great Bazaar he continually uses the term demonshit. If I remember correctly he didn't swear at all in The Warded Man. Now, I like the series a lot - it's prose has a great flow, but I would like to see Brett continue to mature his series and bring it more in line with a GRRM-type fantasy.

[aidan]

palin99999, on 17 March 2010 - 03:03 PM, said:

I think Brett is a hybrid of the 80's/Martin fantasy. He has some slightly straightforward characters in that we view them as all looking for the greater good. However, in The Warded Man Rojer

Spoiler

steals the warded circle to leave the rapists to die.

I feel that Brett is trying to make his series a little more mature. Even though in The Warded Man his characters go through some horrific events the book still felt somewhat YA-ish. However, in The Great Bazaar he continually uses the term demonshit. If I remember correctly he didn't swear at all in The Warded Man. Now, I like the series a lot - it's prose has a great flow, but I would like to see Brett continue to mature his series and bring it more in line with a GRRM-type fantasy.

I (literally) just finished The Desert Spear and had these exact issues. Brett's storytelling is grim and dark, but his prose and dialogue often don't match up with the tone. It's a curious combination.

[Garlan the Gallant]

aidan, on 18 March 2010 - 12:22 PM, said:

I (literally) just finished The Desert Spear and had these exact issues. Brett's storytelling is grim and dark, but his prose and dialogue often don't match up with the tone. It's a curious combination.

So in your opinion, the series didnt really get any better with the second novel?

[aidan]

Hmm. It's hard to say. The first quarter of the novel (which tells the story of Jardir) is fantastic, and a huge step up in terms of evolving the story from The Warded Man, but my opinion after that is a bit wishy-washy.

[Garlan the Gallant]

aidan, on 19 March 2010 - 10:43 PM, said:

Hmm. It's hard to say. The first quarter of the novel (which tells the story of Jardir) is fantastic, and a huge step up in terms of evolving the story from The Warded Man, but my opinion after that is a bit wishy-washy.

Are you going to post a full review on your blog

[aidan]

Garlan the Gallant, on 19 March 2010 - 11:28 PM, said:

Are you going to post a full review on your blog

Yep.

[Garlan the Gallant]

aidan, on 20 March 2010 - 10:51 AM, said:

Yep.