Angry Chicks in Leather: Is Urban Fantasy lowbrow crap?

[pat5150]

Hi guys,

Urban fantasy author Lilith Saintcrow just penned an article titled [i]Angry Chicks in Leather[/i] for my guest bloggers' [i]ad lib[/i] column.

When she was looking for something to write about, I suggested that she comes up with a piece on urban fiction and those who consider it lowbrow crap. Well, she took the ball and ran with it, and she turned in a very interesting article.

I'm sure many here will agree with Saintcrow... :)

Here's the [url="http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/12/ad-lib-column-lilith-saintcrow.html"]link[/url].

Patrick

[Ran]

Good idea!

Ursula LeGuin on YA and Ellen Kushner on alleged chick-lit afterward, perhaps? ;)

[pat5150]

[quote name='Ran' post='1621555' date='Dec 16 2008, 15.01']Good idea!

Ursula LeGuin on YA and Ellen Kushner on alleged chick-lit afterward, perhaps? ;)[/quote]

Hey, you never know! :P

Patrick

[Ran]

It's an interesting guest post, BTW, so really, a good idea having this sort of thing. Not an author I'm familiar with.

[kcf]

It's an interesting article - of course what bothers me most is how the defintion of urban fantasy has shifted over the last 5 years or so. It didn't used to be synonymous with chick kickin ass in fantastic way. Of course I'm usually not too happy with labels anyway.

I was particularly interested in the references to sexism...gives some food for thought.

[Shryke]

[quote name='kcf' post='1621656' date='Dec 16 2008, 15.58']It's an interesting article - of course what bothers me most is how the defintion of urban fantasy has shifted over the last 5 years or so. It didn't used to be synonymous with chick kickin ass in fantastic way. Of course I'm usually not too happy with labels anyway.

I was particularly interested in the references to sexism...gives some food for thought.[/quote]

I was always wondering what this "explosion of urban fantasy" actually consisted of.

Apparently the answer was Anita Blake and Twilight?

[Calibandar]

Her idea is basically that paranormal chicklit fantasy is more interesting because it contains female characters rather than her percieve gripe, which is that it is a genre that is being looked down on by many "[i]as lowbrow and thrash because it is female[/i]".

While the actual fact is that it is being looked down on as pure tripe is because it is just that.

And there are plenty of predominantly male genres which are dismisses as fluff, junk and as the fast food of the world of literature. She chooses not to consider and acknowledge that in order to make a point which is basically that society is ok with males being violent and feeling totally ok with that, but not when women do so. Which is bullshit.

It's a paranormal Harlequin romance novel. Nice if you can actually sell that to your predominantly female customer market. But don't try to pass it off as more than it is.

IMO :)

[kcf]

-Cal

My instinct is to agree with what you've said. But I haven't read very much of this new urban fantasy to know just how true your points are. My gut says that as with everything else, 90% of it is crap. And I don't know about the remaining 10%

[Maia]

Well, her own books are pretty lowbrow, IMHO. I have skimmed through a couple of them and yea, it is definitely a guilty pleasure. And it has nothing to do with the gender of her protagonists, but with how the things are presented. Definitely seemed like trashy romance novels in fantasy guise to me.

[polishgenius]

There does seem to be a fair amount of shoulder chippage in that article. Starting from the fact that something like Clancy which she refers to as being accepted as somehow literature is smirked at at pretty similar levels to urban fantasy.

[Bellis]

Yes.

[sailor]

[quote name='pat5150' post='1621547' date='Dec 16 2008, 14.53'][i]Angry Chicks in Leather[/i][/quote]

Sounds sexy! And there is a whole genre for this?!

With pictures? [drool]


Is there a spandex counterpart? :leaving:

[Shryke]

Ok, so is "Urban Fantasy" actually mostly shit like Anita Blake and Twilight?

I thought it was mostly China Melville and such.

[Shield]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1621897' date='Dec 16 2008, 23.27']Ok, so is "Urban Fantasy" actually mostly shit like Anita Blake and Twilight?

I thought it was mostly China Melville and such.[/quote]


I think the terms Urban Fantasy and Paranormal Romance are being deliberately confused. Plenty of people who wouldn't dream of picking up a Paranormal Romance are being "misled" into picking up an Urban Fantasy. And then being stunned that the arrogant doctor/self made millionaire/journalist with a heart of gold, has simply been repackaged as a Fairy (often spelled "Fey," usually high ranking), werewolf, or a vampire(usually not sure if he's good or bad.)
I've been "tricked" a few times. No more. I can see through the blurbage at the back now. I gave up reading Mills and Boons at the tender age of thirteen and a half. I don't need to read any more angst about whether it will all ever work out with Jason, or Roderick, or Pagan, or Lord Fairy or Mr. Hairy.
Although I will give her the violence angle. I do think the world needs to acknowledge the absolute rage of the female sex. It's been simmering a long time while everyone pretended it didn't exist. So, yes to that, although it's tiresome to have to dress up in leather everytime you want to roar at injustice and kick some ass.
Especially when you're a vegetarian.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1621897' date='Dec 16 2008, 15.27']Ok, so is "Urban Fantasy" actually mostly shit like Anita Blake and Twilight?

I thought it was mostly China Melville and such.[/quote]
[url="http://matociquala.livejournal.com/1244039.html"]Elizabeth Bear[/url] has a blog post on the subject.

[quote]In the US, it's usually used for what seem to be two or three distinctly different marketing categories. Which is to say: (1) books such as War for the Oaks, the sort of classical urban fantasy, which involves modern everyday persons in a city setting in sudden contact with the numinous; (2) modern-day fantasy noir detective novels, a la Jim Butcher; (3) romance (or smut) in a fantasy suit, a la Keri Arthur, aka "Paranormal Romance," which I guess is a term the Romance genre hates to have us appropriate, because they have their own uses for it.[/quote]

[beniowa]

I've read a fair amount of Urban Fantasy and Elizabeth Bear says it pretty well. Saintcrow does sound like she has a chip on her shoulder. A lot of that is like Shield said, there's a lot of confusion between Urban Fantasy and Paranormal Fantasy. As to why there's confusion, between writers, publishers, and critics, there's probably enough blame to go around. Frankly, I don't consider Paranormal Romance to be any more fantasy than the main Romance genre. Urban Fantasy does tend to be character-oriented but then you could make arguments about all novels in general.

There's plenty of authors that do Urban Fantasy with well written protagonists of both genders: Jim Butcher, Toby Barlowe, Carrie Vaughn, Liz Williams, Charlie Huston, and now Daniel Abraham to name a few. I haven't read any of Saintcrow's books yet so I can't say where she falls on this.

[Deluge]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1621897' date='Dec 16 2008, 18.27']Ok, so is "Urban Fantasy" actually mostly shit like Anita Blake and Twilight?

I thought it was mostly China Melville and such.[/quote]
Yeah, when I read the title, I was like "wait, Miéville has a book about angry chicks in leather? Fuck YES!"

[Bronn Stone]

If all the literary legitimacy Lilith Saintcrow is looking for is that given to Tom Clancy, she's not set the bar very high.

[Ski the Swift]

Why are there women out writing and doing things when they should be in the kitchen or laundry? :P

[Lupigis]

I feel old! This type or urban fantasy:

[quote](1) books such as War for the Oaks, the sort of classical urban fantasy, which involves modern everyday persons in a city setting in sudden contact with the numinous[/quote]
...is the only one I've ever heard of. It seems like I'm missing the new trends...