And an altogether different take on fantasy

[Larry.]

Well at least you haven't seen him (or hopefully another) under "Randian" or "Randfanatic"

[The Wolf Maid]

I still don't get how he came up with Gordon Brown and Ned analogy. Or that Martin is a Tolkien clone. Even if he had just scanned through AGoT, the differences would have been quite clear.

There's a very good reason for not writing books in order to sell your own politics: it makes the books suck!

I concur. That's why SoT sucked (even more) when TG incorporated Objectivism into the books.

Well that's the problem entirely. It's when you get to the "what the genre should be" part that you need to shut up. Critical thinking and observations are great, but you get into real dangerous territory when you establish one single rubric for Why People Should Write.

Or also, I think in his case, "What People Should Write." I keep getting the impression he wants everyone to write like Prachett when it comes to fantasy.

So is it possible to set out to write a fantasy novel without any of the genre's tropes in mind and if it were possible, would that work still be fantasy?

Swordspoint by Ellen Kushner comes to my mind at this. It's still fantasy, but not at all Tolkien-like.

Randfanatic

Perish the thought. Do not want.

[Starkess]

Tossing in off-hand insults to readers is never a good way to start out an article.

My favourite example of this, as I mention in the Aesthetics of Fantasy articles, is the case of Stark, in the first book of A Song of Fire and Ice, carrying out his executions himself. Martin takes this to be proof that Stark does not sentence men to death lightly and takes the job so seriously that he carries it out himself personally but within that idea are the unexamined assumptions that capital punishment is necessary and that a willingness to kill someone yourself is somehow indicative of greater character than having an underling do it. If Gordon Brown were to insist that he be allowed to behead people for their crimes, most people would think that he was some kind of sadistic sociopath, but in the context of a fantasy novel, most people don't even blink.

To me, this has absolutely nothing to do with fantasy. It has to do with the time period. Of course I would think beheading in a modern setting is sadistic, but in a medieval setting? It's the norm, and Ned's willingness to do it himself rather than delegate it as an unpleasant task does say something about his character. It would be completely unbelievable if he was like "Well, I'm a good moral person, so I shall oppose capital punishment via beheading several centuries before anyone else raises the issue..."

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Come on, this guy is completely retarded (or simly a troll which I admit also is a possibility). He just knows beforehand all fantasy is shite and Martin is a cheap Tolkien clone, and is not interested at all in comparing his notions with reality (which is a characteristic of authoritarian mindset, BTW). I just loved his argument that fantasy fans are sheeplike because the most popular authors have biggest discussion boards. It is what "popular" means, right? I also find the opinion thatsomething whioch is "reactionary" can't by definition be "real literature" exceedingly strange. I suppose it is past time to kick out that imposter Dostoyevsky from university courses.

[MinDonner]

Gah... this type of attitude makes me really angry. Why the hell does he think he's qualified to pontificate about a genre that he doesn't even read? I don't read Westerns and may well not like them very much, but I wouldn't skim through half a Zane Grey book and then write a long article dissing the entire genre...

"The problem with Westerns is that you can always tell immediately who the bad guy is because he's wearing a black hat. He is also named "One-eyed Jake", showing the genre's disdain for the physically handicapped. The constant shootouts at high noon also show the author's love of violence and belief in vigilante justice, and I worry for the legions of sheep-like fans who follow such a dubious moral position. Imagine if Gordon Brown turned up to save a village wielding a six-shooter!"

[Zulofritter]

Lots of interesting stuff in the comments there.

Is anyone familiar with the fantasy based on a liberal interpretation of history genre? I didn't see anything but the Baroque Cycle/Cryptonomicon listed.

It's frustrating that I agree with the blogger to a point, there are authoritarian tendencies in fantasy. Possibly some in all the myths that are treasured most. This is why it's so satisfying to see GRRM dissect an authoritarian society as it's still writhing around.

[Tom the Merciful]

Unf***ingbelievable!

I've never read anything more stupid in my life.

You know, there are some things that a raging liberal and and raging conservative have in common:

They're both raging stupid.

They both want change history.

They both want to impose their stupidity on everybody...

...and they can both go to hell as far as I am concerned.

[Errant Bard]

Considering his stance, the guy must hate Shakespeare with a passion.

I feel his comment about authoritarian society in Fantasy is not devoid of value, though. It's a fact that one thing that defines fantasy (at least a big chunk) is the middle-ages social structure of the society.

[salinea]

Lots of interesting stuff in the comments there.

Is anyone familiar with the fantasy based on a liberal interpretation of history genre? I didn't see anything but the Baroque Cycle/Cryptonomicon listed.

There's a French book which is a rabidly anarchist fantasy novel. Called Parleur, ou Chronique d'un rêve enclavé. Pretty good, too.

I think fantasy can often be authoritarian in its outlook, when it validated the nobility=good. The whole young farmboy is really the king's son and becomes a hero, is a very conservative fantasy for exemple.

Novels like ASOIAF that deconstructs the idea of nobility's role in a countrie, or which don't necessarly portray them as the main characters are more politically liberal.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

The whole young farmboy is really the king's son and becomes a hero, is a very conservative fantasy for exemple.

I really don't think so. Most conservatives I know hate this sort of thing. Basically they believe that monarchy is good because king's son is raised to be a king, not because he has betetrgenes. Most of them would chose peasant's son raised as a prince over king's son raised as a peasant.

[Lady Blackfish]

It's cliched, not necessarily politically conservative. It's "old news" true enough.

[salinea]

I really don't think so. Most conservatives I know hate this sort of thing. Basically they believe that monarchy is good because king's son is raised to be a king, not because he has betetrgenes. Most of them would chose peasant's son raised as a prince over king's son raised as a peasant.

*blinks* You know several monarchists?

[salinea]

It's cliched, not necessarily politically conservative. It's "old news" true enough.

A bit like people using expressions like "it's so gay" or "don't puss out" aren't really homophobic or sexist, they just use the expression?

Clichés can validate a world view. I do agree it's different because fiction is often a fantasy (in the more traditionnal sense of the world), a feel-good scenario that we like to explore for reasons which have little to do with real aspirations. But there's still ideas in them. Sometimes conservative or authoritarian ideas. Sometimes we don't even realise it when we read and write it.

[Deornoth]

Let me get this straight. The guy hates fantasy, hasn't read that much fantasy anyway and is able to pass judgment on an entire genre?

Maybe he's getting 'sheep' mixed up with people who actually enjoy a series and want to invest time and money completing it...

Now, how much wool can this sheep produce before ADWD is finally finshed?

[Tom the Merciful]

Now, how much wool can this sheep produce before ADWD is finally finshed?

Hehe. That's a good one Deornoth.

I think I am conservative and I agree with "monarchist" opinion transferred by BoG. Yes, there were some degenerate fools sitting thrones throughout the history. On the other hand, there are some degenarate fools writing articles on the net, as we witnessed.

Don't get me wrong, I really believe in democracy, but it seems to me that the boundary between democracy and anarchy (which I define as outright chaos) is blurred.

[Xray the Enforcer]

"even real politics lead to bloodshed and authoritartianism in fantasyland."

Thank god real politics never lead to bloodshed or authoritarianism in the real world.

Does he think SF is any better? I've seen the same problems he brings up in a lot of the sci-fi I've read.

My thoughts exactly, especially when it comes to the same glaring tendencies in SF. How many different books have any of us (those who like SF, that is) read that have a World/Galaxy Hegemony (that has, of course, a stranglehold on some poor person/colony/world who just wants to get along in this big, cruel universe)? Now that's a fetishized trope in genre fiction. And, of course, there's the hero, usually someone who's part of the fringe, or is damaged, who, above all odds destroys the Hegemony because it is what's Right. It's like Die Hard -- or some crazed, throwback American Wet Dream -- in novel form.

[Calibandar]

Can't believe so many people are giving this man so much of their time and thought. If his original article was deep, thoughtful and really interesting I could see why people are flocking like they are to post lengthy argumentations. This has me baffled.

[Xray the Enforcer]

Can't believe so many people are giving this man so much of their time and thought. If his original article was deep, thoughtful and really interesting I could see why people are flocking like they are to post lengthy argumentations. This has me baffled.

It's a slow news week.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

*blinks* You know several monarchists?

Yup. I live in strange place, you know. Quite different from most EU

[Ran]

Long live the king! Heh.

The fact is that he now says a world can be authoritarian, but it doesn't actually _operate_ that way. Which is to say that he's completely lost himself up his own arse. He's completely confused over the fact that accurately depicting the framework of medieval mindset -- where the central organizing principle is basically all about authority (who has it, where did they get it from, and what can they do with it are questions that underpin huge swathes of pre-modern history) necessarily means an unawareness of the inequities of that system.

The fact that he's revelling in his ignorance of the books, of the author, and everything else, on top of his obvious completely batty unwillingness to budge an inch from his pigheadedness, just makes it damned frustrating to read.