Pessimism vs Cynicism in fantasy

[Callan S.]

1 hour ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Basically, when I was in my Tolkien studies class, I always felt the "Things were great and now are getting progressively worse forever" was something of a misreading.

Spiritually it was - magic was leaving the world. In other words disenchantment / enlightenment.

And what's the most important thing to fantasy? It's the magic. Cultural progression of a nation is hardly magical, is it?

39 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Children are supposed to be fit into their neat little slots and grow up to be exactly the way they're selected to be.

Does that suggest Voldemort was a kind of anti hero, given he broke free of the programming?

[Brother Longfoot]

On 12/10/2017 at 4:44 AM, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Joe Abercrombie lacks even Martin's residual romanticism, to the point where existence in his world feels like a cruel cosmic joke (though it isn't - there is nothing cosmic about it. It's simply people being horrible to each other, with brutality begetting brutality). The First Law trilogy accordingly revolves around the conclusion that there is nothing anyone can really do to escape this cycle of oppression and bastardry, complete with one of Glotka's former victims finding his own place as a torturer.

This is a very interesting thread.  Trying to think of other authors who fit various categories.  Regarding Abercrombie though, while I think this is true of the First Law Trilogy, I don't really find it the case with the stand alone novels in the series (especially Red Country) or ultimately with the Shattered Sea series.  One of Abercrombie's big ideas in subsequent books is how when characters make easy choices/opt not to do the right thing, they ultimately wind up miserable.  Whereas while doing the right thing is generally difficult, the characters who follow this path ultimately wind up better off.  Fundamentally, the theme of Abercrombie's books is that everyone tends to get exaclty what they deserve for better or (more often) worse.  So, I'd lean more toward calling him a cynical optimist.

[C.T. Phipps]

2 hours ago, Callan S. said:

Spiritually it was - magic was leaving the world. In other words disenchantment / enlightenment.

And what's the most important thing to fantasy? It's the magic. Cultural progression of a nation is hardly magical, is it?

Ehhh, Tolkien is probably one of the fantasy worlds where magic is the least important thing to the nature of the plot. Peace and love and camraderie are the most important.

It's why I think the Hobbit getting made more like LOTOR was the worst idea ever for butchering themes.

Bilbo becomes a better man by REMEMBERING he's not a warrior but a hobbit and he saves many lives by it.

Quote

Does that suggest Voldemort was a kind of anti hero, given he broke free of the programming?

I'd argue Voldemort embodies the kind of reactionary backward thinking revolution which the Nazis and Imperial Japanese did--which is another sign Rowling drawing from real life helped her books. Voldemort isn't interested in building a modernist future, he's interested in building a theme park idealized past.

He looks to ancient wizards, Salazar and the other Founders, and uses that to provide a shred of legitimacy to his otherwise naked power grab as well as feeding off existing societal tensions to help him up.

But yes, Rowling is very much a working class Brit in all of her writing and how it deals with class and attitudes. It just has the depressing anti-Punk attitude of, "You can't beat the system and the best you can do is make it slightly less terrible by joining it."

[C.T. Phipps]

8 minutes ago, Brother Longfoot said:

This is a very interesting thread.  Trying to think of other authors who fit various categories.  Regarding Abercrombie though, while I think this is true of the First Law Trilogy, I don't really find it the case with the stand alone novels in the series (especially Red Country) or ultimately with the Shattered Sea series.  One of Abercrombie's big ideas in subsequent books is how when characters make easy choices/opt not to do the right thing, they ultimately wind up miserable.  Whereas while doing the right thing is generally difficult, the characters who follow this path ultimately wind up better off.  Fundamentally, the theme of Abercrombie's books is that everyone tends to get exaclty what they deserve for better or (more often) worse.  So, I'd lean more toward calling him a cynical optimist.

In an issue of grimdark magazine, I wrote "Is the First Law Trilogy the Anti-Lord of the Rings?"

Basically, my thesis being Abercrombie has the view of being extraordinarily cynical of things like heroism, mythology, religious/divine authority, and other attitudes built into the Lord of the Rings (but which I think Tolkien subverted as often as not--but mostly with the Hobbit). The characters, for the most part, think of themselves in a typical high fantasy tale and sometimes the reader is fooled into believing it but it's actually a story about a bunch of cynical power mongers manipulating the public with tales of glory and heroics.

And they win.