dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) (06/02/85)
THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCCE FICTION TODAY
PART IV: Fantasy, Or How To Hack A Hobbit And
Build A Balrog In One Easy Lesson
by Davis Tucker
_____________________________________________________________________________
Whether we want to admit it our not, science fiction includes fantasy, though
given the preponderance of fantasy titles on the shelves, the casual viewer
might wonder which is the baby and which is the bathwater. Fantasy has long
been to science fiction as science fiction has been to mainstream literature:
I think we can all draw the comparison. But fantasy has its own problems and
faults and foibles, many common with science fiction, many unique, and these
are dragging it down into a muck of mimicry and mediocrity, where once again
the same old themes get repeated time and time again. What's even more annoy-
ing about fantasy is that much too often, the same *characters* get repeated
from author to author. I've lost track of the number of Gandalf clones I've
come across, the hordes of Hobbit lookalikes, elves and trolls, etc., and
of course what is most odious and just plain silly, the squadrons of stupid
dragons that seem to jump from every page whenever an author paints himself
or herself into a figurative corner and has to throw a reptilian red herring
across the reader's face... grrrrrrr.
Had J. R. R. Tolkein known what he was spawning when he wrote his books,
good English gentleman that he was, he most likely would have burned
every one of them rather than perpetrate upon the world the monstrous
assault upon good taste that has arisen in the wake of his success.
Just as if Dr. Frankenstein had seen into the future, to see what he
was going to unleash... Tolkein's works are finely crafted, well-written,
and show an understanding of that element of mythos which is essential
to good fantasy. It is not enough in fantasy to build a delightful escapism
from the real world of meter maids, Type A behavior, and taxes. You have
to do something with it. And precious few of his imitators have bothered
to understand and explicate that gut-level need in every human being for
good against evil and magic against all with any more subtletly and finesse
than a Ginsu knife commercial.
What distinguishes good fantasy from the mediocre? The same thing that
distinguishes good literature from mediocre literature of any kind. The
additional factors are interest, environment, mythic consistency, and
probably most important, the ability to inspire in the reader that willing
suspension of disbelief which is so necessary to any fiction, but vital
to fantasy. What is usually lacking in the fantasy novels ground out today
is readable dialogue and character motivation, which go hand-in-hand with
silly plots. Why is it that every fantasy novel is about some quest for
a magic sword or a magic rock? Why is it that every fantasy novel has a
wizard who's a little scatterbrained and a little malefic, but who's still
a good guy? And various little characters who prance and gambol about his
feet and end up getting the job done under impossible odds (and usually
without much food, either). The traditional plot-line seems to go as
follows - protagonist is enjoying/hating his daily life in some paradise/hell.
Protagonist discovers secret sword/manuscript, or alternatively it comes
into his hands from some wizard/old crone. Protagonist decides, "hey -
let's go on a quest, guys!" and gathers together a company of friends or
acquaintances or magical beings (notice that the "company" idea is always
used). After this, they run afoul of the bad guys and lose a few buddies
and have a few swordfights, get lost in some caves, and use their magical
resources. The wizard usually gets lost around this point, going off to
fight some battle of his own, thus pounding the point home that good deeds
can be accomplished without magic. Well, a lot of stuff happens, a lot of
fancy fairy palaces get described, and our protagonist and his pals finally
get to the end of the trilogy and have a climactic showdown and get the
magic sword and then everybody lives happily ever after except if you want
to write a second trilogy, in which case you leave the bad guys alive.
Subtlety is thrown out the window. It is a rare fantasy novel indeed which
introduces a fair amount of grey area between good and evil, which concerns
itself with that fine gradation which makes some of us heroes, some of us
good men, some of us cowards and malcontents, some of us fanatics, some of
us inscrutable. If you've ever read the original Brothers Grimm tales, you'd
see that it is precisely this balance and dichotomy in each person's soul
which is so wonderfully exhibited, and what makes them so challenging and
disturbing. In much of ancient mythology, this greyness, this almost exist-
entialist world of petty gods and danger at every door, is put forth with
more power and beauty and humanity than most fantasy today. Jason wasn't
exactly the nicest guy in the world, and Ulysses had some serious problems
himself. Happy endings do not always, and should not always occur. Fantasy
is not exempted from dealing with inevitable truths just because it's
make-believe.
Homer did all this thousands of years ago, and without a wizard. You'd
think somebody would have improved on at least the basic plot outline in
that time. The Brothers Grimm did a damn good job. "Pinocchio" has more
meat and substance and mythical elements than the Darkover novels. Once
again, as with science fiction, the readers and authors have entered into
this incestuous relationship that perpetrates infinite loops of the same
story. The Thomas Covenant books started off with promise, and an interesting
premise - that a leper is fundamentally different in his world-view from
you and me. But fifty pages or so into the first book, the ten warning
signs of mediocre fantasy start screaming at you. Giants, evil wizards,
etc., etc., etc. And by the time you finish the first three, there's this
horrible realization that this is a story that can and will go on forever.
And that you will continue to watch the English language be butchered
and bent for no purpose, and that you will read the word "rue" on every page.
It seems that especially in fantasy, even more than in science fiction,
that nobody knows when to call it quits, take the money and run. Every
author seems to go to the well once too often, because it takes less work
to put old characters through the same old paces than it does to come up
with someone and something new.
Fantasy suffers from cuteness these days, a horrible terminal cuteness
best exemplified in Robert Athprin'th "Lithp Myth" books. It also suffers
from being trite. Without a raised standard for fantasy writing, instead
of such drivel as "The Sword Of Shannara" held up as a shining light,
dire consequences will result. Even the worst of Michael Moorcock is
better than this insult to the intelligence. For every fantasy novel
like Orson Card's "Hart's Hope", we have a thousand like "Camber The
Heretic".
Well, that's all for today. Tune in next week for "THE PROBLEMS
OF SCIENCE FICTION, PART V: Rays Of Hope Through The Clouds Of Despair".chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (06/06/85)
> > THE PROBLEMS OF SCIENCCE FICTION TODAY > > PART IV: Fantasy, Or How To Hack A Hobbit And > Build A Balrog In One Easy Lesson > > by Davis Tucker > _____________________________________________________________________________ > The Thomas Covenant books started off with promise, and an interesting > premise - that a leper is fundamentally different in his world-view from > you and me. But fifty pages or so into the first book, the ten warning > signs of mediocre fantasy start screaming at you. Giants, evil wizards, > etc., etc., etc. And by the time you finish the first three, there's this > horrible realization that this is a story that can and will go on forever. Interesting, I'm reading Mr. Tuckers presentation on what he considers to be the problems in sf/fantasy today (sometimes agreeing/sometimes not) and just when I began to wonder what his views of the Covenant books are, this little bit comes up. Well, you have struck a deep cord with me on this one. Namely this: I consider the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant to be one of the best books in the fantasy field (or any field for that matter). Certainly in the top ten. I can remember many times getting into disagreements over people about these books, and it has become apparent to me that no one who has ever read them (or tried to read them) has been able to remain neutral about them. Either they consider it one of THE best stories ever written or they despised it exceedingly (At least I have never met anyone with a neutral opinion). Most of the complaints I have heard against this story are mainly against the character of Thomas Covenant himself. I will be the first to admit that he is not your typical fantasy/sf hero. I'm not even sure you can classify him as an anti-hero (ala Elric). The inability to classify him is one of the reasons I have enjoyed him so much as a character. You can't pin the guy down. Here is a character who is who he is despite how the reader feels he should be. Covenant is a Worm. This is the most commonly heard complaint about him from the detractors. He's always down on himself; he never allows others to help him; he hurts others without seeming to care; And so on and so forth. I have only one thing to say: How in the world can he act any other way? Look at where the guy is coming from. He's an outcast from society and he knows it. He has also got the brains to realize that if he let's societies cold shoulder get to him (ie if he begins to care) he will go nuts. In the story, the impossible (in his view) happens: He enters a world totally unlike the one he lives in. He is suddenly inundated with Health and loving when he had just come to live with the idea of never having those things again. To keep himself from going mad, he dis-believes it. He says that he is only dreaming. And he knows that if he is dreaming, then one day he will wake up to find himself once more a leper, and he can't face going through that again. So instead of facing a danger to his sanity, he refuses to believe in his cure. Despite all the evidence, the health, the loving the others in the story give him; he stands strong by his leprosy. It is all he has left TOO stand on. In his article, Mr. Tucker complains about the introduction of the generic fantasy elements into the story. The point I think he fails to see is that it is these elements that set of the whole story. This is not a fantasy novel whose main character happens to be a leper; this is a story of a leper who must come to terms with the nature of his disease when he suddenly finds himself in a fantasy setting. Furthermore, the so-called generic fantasy elements are in my opinion far from generic. This book has some of the most creative fantasy elements I have ever seen in any book. Even Tolkien borrowed heavily from mythology when he wrote LOTR, but Donaldson had to create a totally new setting. In the Land there were no elves, dwarves, dragons. Nor were there kindly old though somewhat absentminded wizards (The Lords of Revelstone may have wielded some "magic" but they were very naive in there understanding of it). The people of the land were quite diversified with many fascinating backgrounds. The Bloodguard with there Vow to the Lords; the Waynhim and there rebellion against there brothers the ur-viles; the Ramen and the Raynhim who they attend with a devotion approaching a religion; and foremost, the Giants. The Rockbrothers and there story make one of the most interesting sub-plots to this tale. The very nature of it's telling ranks on par with mane "real" stories out of earth mythology. But of course, let us not forget the other side... The "bad guys" (to use a generic term) were also quite unique (except for maybe the cave wights who have many of the same characteristics as trolls and orcs). First there are the ur-viles, an artificially created race who have no true ancestry. They are the only race in the Land who truely do not belong simply because they were not a part of the "nature" of this world. But even better were the Ravers. Possession may be an old mainstay of other fantasy stories but nowhere other then the Covenenant books have I seen a truly wonderful indepth look as to how possession affects the possessed (actually this becomes one of the main themes of the second trilogy). Finally, of course comes Lord Foul the Despiser himself. along with ranking Covenant as the best main character of any book I have ever read, I place Foul at the top of any listing of antagonists. I could go on for pages about the nature of Fouls being (and give away a major part of the story in the meantime). Suffice it to say that when I gave this book to a World Lit teacher of mine in High School (a women who, mind you, HATED "modern" sci-fi/fantasy), she was overflowing with comments on the symbolism involved in the Covenant/Foul duo. These two characters are perhaps the best match-ups of protagonist/antagonist I have ever seen. You think that Sauron was a good antagonist? Look closer. The character of Sauron never (and I do mean NEVER) surfaces in LOTR. He's always in the background setting up events, but you never actually get a look at the guy himself, what his motivations are, that sort of thing (though Tolkien does remedy this somewhat in "The Silmarillion"). Anyways, sorry for going on so long about this but like I said, I love this story and I will defend it against all critics. Chris Andersen UUCP: tektronix!azure!chrisa
asz@warwick.UUCP (Frank N Furter) (06/07/85)
In article <1095@druri.UUCP> dht@druri.UUCP (Davis Tucker) writes: > >Whether we want to admit it our not, science fiction includes fantasy. I don't want to classify science fiction and fantasy under the same banner. I think they are different, even if the boundaries are a little fuzzy and the exact categories a bit difficult to specify. Or can't I have them as different, because after all _you_ say they are the same. >Tolkein's works are finely crafted, well-written, >and show an understanding of that element of mythos which is essential >to good fantasy. Tolkein's characters are the best crafted stereotypes I have ever seen. How often did they get around to the basic pleasures in life, like __x. >And precious few of his imitators have bothered >to understand and explicate that gut-level need in every human being for >good against evil and magic against all with any more subtletly and finesse >than a Ginsu knife commercial. > _Gut level good against evil_ I would say "you make me throw, but I'm too kind. >Jason wasn't >exactly the nicest guy in the world, and Ulysses had some serious problems >himself. Thomas Covenant was hardly a great hero (being a rapist etc). I think fantasy has managed to come up with the anti-hero since Jason and Ulysses. Ever read Moorcock (or maybe that's SF). --Alex -- ... mcvax!ukc!warwick!asz