An essay that misses its own point and makes my head hurt.

SilvercatMoonpaw · January 22, 2008, 08:34:58 AM

You'll need to read this essay before you can fully understand what I'm going on about.

To summarize my reading of it: "Stories that are are unrealistic are okay, except there is no excuse for not including all these realistic details which I shall list here. But we can still retain the fun of exaggeration without the exaggeration!" (I'm obviously not giving the most objective reading here.)

I'm sorry, but no. The idea that you can take the exaggeration out of something and then expect it to retain the same sort of pizzazz and excitement is just wrong. It's wrong because the exaggeration and glossing over of boring and/or depressing details is the whole point of such stories. People don't read ancient Greek myths expecting to see the heroes struggle realistically just getting from one place to another, they read them to see heroes doing things that are amazing and probably impossible to do. Unrealistic stuff exists in a story because the story is about something other than reality.

The essay wouldn't bother me quite so much if it was just presenting a simple reality check on unrealistic fantasy. It does a very good job in that regard. What bothers me is the simple conceit [this is probably the wrong word] that unrealistic fantasy is wrong because it is unrealistic while trying to be exciting.

(All the above is just me sharing my frustration in the hopes that it would make me feel better. Thank you for your time.)

Elemental_Elf · January 22, 2008, 09:16:29 AM

Personally, I think the author gets excited about the 'little boring things' that fantasy authors gloss over. To him, those 'little boring things' bring the story to life and I can respect and support him for that.

What I can't support, is his constant barrage of insinuations that stories that gloss over the 'little boring things' are less less interesting to everyone and because they gloss over those details, the stories are less pure and loose all weight as a story.

I do, however, think there are some good ideas in the essay that can, if used properly, make for an interesting perspectives and/or entire stories. I especially like this idea for a 'Civilized-Man-Behind-Conan' story. I haven't read many books that deal with that particular angle, most likely because the front man tends to be more exciting on a base level than the man behind him. Still, an interesting idea none the less.

snakefing · January 22, 2008, 10:50:17 AM

Have you ever read any Poul Anderson? He made his chops writing and editing hard SF back when I was still a lad. (Probably before most of the readers of this board were born.) From his stories, you know if he ran a D&D campaign (and he probably does), it would surely be of the "gritty" variety. So I'm not surprised that he's a bit of a stickler for the details.

I generally agree with his take, for me. But his essay is for writers, and particularly for professional (or would-be) writers. I think you can include the details in a heroic fantasy novel without dwelling on them, and without ruining the heroic feel, but it takes a deft writer's touch. If I were to run a heroic fantasy game I don't think I could pull it off.

To put it in Silvercat's terms, the exaggeration can be made to seem even more exciting and heroic by contrast, if you include some of the grotty little details. For example, the hero who must remain true, not just out of his own virtue, but also to honor the hundreds of humble peasants whose sweat and toil is needed to support his efforts. But to retain the pizazz you can't dwell too much on the boring and depressing, or the whole campaign will slide into the "gritty" fantasy genre.

So I don't really think there is anything wrong with skipping the details to focus on the heroic, just to avoid that trap. It really wouldn't be my cup of tea - I prefer the smaller scale heroism of the man fighting for his family over the world-spanning super-heroic savior. But that is really a matter of taste, not structure.

SilvercatMoonpaw · January 22, 2008, 11:17:39 AM

My main objection to what was said was simply the feeling that Anderson hadn't even bothered to consider the point of heroic fantasy. Like I said, nothing is wrong with pointing out what parts of heroic fantasy aren't reality-accurate. Nor do I think that heroic fantasy absolutely can not be written with the "little details". The essay just comes off as "my version of your thing is better than your version of your thing, and you should accept it or you are a bad person".

snakefing · January 22, 2008, 11:32:09 AM

I tend to agree, the essay really didn't pay much attention (any attention at all, really) to maintaining the essence of heroic fiction while also including the semi-realistic details.

And it seems clear to me, not only from Anderson's remarks, but also from reading his books, that he is the sort who really revels in the details. So to some extent the essay was an exercise in trumpeting his own preferences over those of others.

For example, I read and thoroughly enjoyed "Orlando Furioso" which is generally considered to be classic heroic fiction. And it seems to fall prey to every tendency that Anderson disparages. It is nevertheless fun and effective, though it certainly creates a very different feel from what Anderson seems to be aiming at.

What other books (or poems, as the case may be) are out there that are like that?

SDragon · January 22, 2008, 12:09:50 PM

I only glossed over the article, but I dunno... it seems when he's asking for "realism", he's really asking for verisimilitude. In the introductory prose, I can understand arrows glancing off his chainmail if it was made with exceptionally nimble fingers, but it's not quite as "real" if it's normal, everyday, run-of-the-mill mail. Obviously, my understanding of this doesn't rule out exaggeration at all, but instead asks for a logical explanation for it (yes, the explanation itself, as I've shown, can be exaggerated).

If I missed the point of the article, then I'll have to read it over again, when I have more time. Personally, I think exaggerations are completely allowable, so long as they don't ruin my personal suspension of disbelief. Once they start doing that, I'm demanding explanations.

Epic Meepo · January 22, 2008, 12:22:08 PM

Wow, that essay was the most obnoxious, self-serving, illogical thing I've read in a long time.

First, the author is complaining that most heroic fantasy lacks certain elements that, frankly, most heroic fantasy stories do have. Complex societies, political maneuvering, non-combatant characters, dark city streets, bandits. The author even has the gall to say that few sea voyages in heroic fantasy involve pirates. Sea-faring heroic fantasy stories without pirates! What heroic fantasy is this guy reading where each sea voyage doesn't involve at least one pirate attack?

Maybe I'm just spoiled by playing D&D, where rich, detailed settings are the norm. Maybe I'm missing the point because I actively seek out good reading material instead of reading any two-bit filler in a publisher's release schedule. But it seems to me that all of this guy's complaints about details being glossed over are relevant only to a subset of crappy, sub-standard heroic fantasy novels. The ones I read have complex, detailed worlds where people behave - and do battle - in semi-realistic ways.

Second, the author is complaining that heroic fantasy is too Eurocentric. Then, he gives a long list of things that wouldn't work using Medieval European society and technology as a model. Interspersed, he has comments like "of course, that would work with a Japanese sword" and "the only poison that works that way is found South America." Well, hey, genius: maybe people who write heroic fantasy aren't really as Eurocentric as your essay's unfounded statement would have us believe. Maybe the hero is wielding the fantasy world equivalent of a Japanese sword. Maybe the assassin is using the equivalent of a South American poison.

And maybe, just maybe, heroic fantasy authors are assuming that their fantasy worlds have some small hint of modern scientific knowledge, instead of being the SCA-style European historical recreation that the essay wants us to believe that heroic fantasy must so obviously be. (Because, after all, the author belongs to the SCA, so apparently, the SCA version of reality is the only one permitted in heroic fantasy.)

Third, the author is claiming that heroic fantasy too often glosses over the pain and suffering of the people the hero is chopping up in battle. Well, duh. Heroic fantasy isn't a morality play. It's a genre that's all about a hero lucky enough to live in a world where most of society's evils can be taken down with a sword. Complaining about unrealistic depictions of violence in that sort of genre is like saying we don't know enough about the inner pain of those three nameless guys the action hero just gunned down in this year's blockbuster action flick. That's not the freakin' point of the story!

To summarize: that essay only applies to sub-standard, Eurocentric heroic fantasy that claims to be a morality play instead of an action-adventure. In other words, it applies to virtually nothing that actually exists in the world of literature.

LordVreeg · January 22, 2008, 06:12:43 PM

[blockquote=Epic Meepo]To summarize: that essay only applies to sub-standard, Eurocentric heroic fantasy that claims to be a morality play instead of an action-adventure. In other words, it applies to virtually nothing that actually exists in the world of literature.[/blockquote]
I wonder when Anderson wrote this? I have to venture a while ago.
There was a time in the 1970's and early 1980's when this particular essay would have been much more useful and indicative of the dreck that was passing for the average paperback. Meepo is correct as the genre has grown up, the versimilatude, the variety, and the pure quality has grown tremendously. I am guessing Anderson's essay was directed at the period where there were a few good writers, and a lot of bad stuff that found it's way to the bookshelves that should have been birdcage filler.

And after re-reading it, I think that has a lot to do with SilvercatMoonpaw's trouble; in that Anderson nearly takes the stance that you have to have this 'realistic-fantasy' or don't bother. But he does this due to the context of the time it was written in. There would be no point in writing this today, the genre has learned and grown past the need for such rudimentary lessons.

SilvercatMoonpaw · January 22, 2008, 07:46:02 PM

Quote from: LordVreegAnd after re-reading it, I think that has a lot to do with SilvercatMoonpaw's trouble; in that Anderson nearly takes the stance that you have to have this 'realistic-fantasy' or don't bother. But he does this due to the context of the time it was written in. There would be no point in writing this today, the genre has learned and grown past the need for such rudimentary lessons.

I still think it's more obnoxious than it needs to be. It's like an art snob looking down on some new fad just because it doesn't meet their taste.

Haphazzard · January 22, 2008, 08:11:06 PM

I agree, many of his points are moot in good stories and the majority of the genre. However, this was directed towards BAD hf story-writing. Also, being an essay, it's his opinion. As far as I'm concerned the title of the essay should be "If Your Realistic Fantasy Books Sell For $0.50 in a Few Shoddy Bookstores Then You Should Read This."

P.S. It is a touch outdated, too, I believe.

SA · January 22, 2008, 10:47:06 PM

Hmm. That introductory vignette just drove home for me: I am well and truly done with casual bloodshed. I know culpability and realism isn't the point but... damn. I've had enough. No more heroic fantasy for me.

On the essay itself, I got less than halfway and thought: irrelevant.

Polycarp · January 23, 2008, 12:36:10 AM

This essay, assuming the problems he describes are as grave as he makes them out to be, makes me think my general avoidance of the fantasy genre in bookstores is well considered. I can't say the essay itself does much for me, but he may have a few valid points.

On the other hand, I'm not sure if "Lord of the Rings: Now with Abysmal Poverty and Chamber Pots" is what anybody really wants.

Stargate525 · January 23, 2008, 12:45:11 AM

Considering the copyright is 1995, and the page hasn't been modified since 05, we can see this is pretty old. And honestly, what little I read of it applies only to drivel. Most of the stuff put out today is good.

SA · January 23, 2008, 05:34:29 AM

Quote from: Stargate525Considering the copyright is 1995, and the page hasn't been modified since 05, we can see this is pretty old. And honestly, what little I read of it applies only to drivel. Most of the stuff put out today is good.

"Good" being a very relative term...

American and British book stores might be very different from Aussie ones, but when I flip through fantasy books at the store so many of them read like the same darn book, regardless of their qualities of realism or literary skill. Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of good authors out there; only that perhaps some readers are responding to the literary sameness rather than their poor quality (and after a point, I think the former soon results in the latter).

SilvercatMoonpaw · January 23, 2008, 08:07:27 AM

Quote from: MOWL (my Money's on the One With Legs)American and British book stores might be very different from Aussie ones, but when I flip through fantasy books at the store so many of them read like the same darn book, regardless of their qualities of realism or literary skill. Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of good authors out there; only that perhaps some readers are responding to the literary sameness rather than their poor quality (and after a point, I think the former soon results in the latter).

I my opinion nearly all fiction reads like this. Granted I only work through the sci-fi and fantasy section, but you read the back blurb and you feel like its a form document with blanks for filling in the few different details.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

An essay that misses its own point and makes my head hurt.

SilvercatMoonpaw

Elemental_Elf

snakefing

SilvercatMoonpaw

snakefing

SDragon

Epic Meepo

LordVreeg

SilvercatMoonpaw

Haphazzard

SA

Polycarp

Stargate525

SA

SilvercatMoonpaw