Are There Any Valid Criticisms? (aka Kalessin's Rant)

[Kalessin]

I'm writing this after reflecting on this year's Oscars, where the LotR movie sadly failed to pick up the most prestigious awards. I don't want to debate the merits of individual films or performances, but to suggest that perhaps the 'fantasy' genre (as opposed to Disney or Pixar) is still not taken as seriously as 'proper' movies or literature.

Now we all know that fantasy books sell really well (and LotR was a huge book and movie hit). And I also know that we here are all converts, and don't need to be persuaded how wonderful Tolkien is, and probably many of us also enjoy fantasy works created by others - for example, I would cite Ursula Le Guin's 'The Earthsea Quartet' in literature, or John Boorman's movie 'Excalibur' as personal favourites - but I wonder whether there are any "good" reasons why the genre is still not acknowledged or accepted as at least the equal of Crime or Horror, and certainly seen as less meaningful than the traditional novel.

Maybe you could argue that it is accepted, except by a cultural establishment that is still snobbish or elitist. Or that there is still an association in some people's minds between fantasy and fairy tales ie. being childish and escapist (I'm not sure I believe this). Or that stereotypes of fantasy aficionados - as beardy fashion disasters, maladjusted gothic teens, or anal-retentive sociopathic gamers - are still prevalent. Or maybe you would argue that I'm wrong, that the genre only suffers the same slings and arrows as any other, and that "WE HAVE ARRIVED".

But I'm going to be a devil's advocate and ask whether there are any VALID criticisms of the genre - or of its icons. No, I'm not rehashing the "Book of the century" thread (I already have enough enemies). But when I browse through the Fantasy sections in local bookshops, having waded past the huge Star Trek section, I do find myself being put off by the following ...

1. Endless volumes of the same story or series - ie. "Dragonmaster's Destiny : Number 37 in the Chronicles of The Dark Raven Storm Warrior ; Volume III of The Ancient Scrolls of Atlantis ; featuring Tarnak, Prince of The Bejewelled Crested Eagle Wings (as featured in 500 other titles) ; Book 15 - Secrets of The Necromancer (Part II) ..." OK, I'm exaggerating [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] But do you get my point?

2. The formulaic and superficial narrative which seems utterly dependent on tired genre cliches - ie. "Deprived of his kingdom by the dark sorcerer Voldorn, Saraan and his band of followers must embark on a perilous quest to recover the magical Baubles of Aldoren, and unlock the Ancient Fire of Stormwrath. In so doing he will learn his true identity, and face an inner demon that will lead him to a final cataclysmic destiny, at the edge of the abyss between destruction and redemption ..." (me again [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] )

3. Feeble attempts at Tolkienesque cosmology - ie. "Gnaar Hrothragha! cried the Arnak. He had dwelt but a few Kaeaons upon the Omulagh (see Appendix 290), and was considered a mere Jyfdwq by the Elders. Upon his mailed swordarm lay the the engraved symbol of Yangfrey (see Book 9, Trilogy 4, Volume 6, Part IX).

4. The dire attempts at epic language and form ... I'm not going to skit this too much, except to say the words "Lo!" and "Destiny".

5. The cultural homogeneity at work - aren't most heroes pretty much heroic, generally white, male and handsome (or female and pneumatic). Our beloved Hobbits, and the anti-heroes of Philip K D1ck are exceptions that prove the rule here. I'm not aware of many overtly gay or black leading roles (not in the endless series' anyway, or only as minor lackeys) ... I'm still looking out for my copy of "Captain Camp and the Disco Invaders". My point is that stereotypes still abound.

[img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Now there is a serious point here. Tolkien, Moorcock at his best, and others, are obviously masterful writers and able to rise above what appear to be the pitfalls of this genre. But their craft and imagination only makes the rest (ie. the majority) look and seem all the more feeble and banal. More generally, for every LotR or Philip K D1ck masterpiece there are 10,000 Star Wars/Trek/other dire spinoffs ... or am I just imagining it?

And yes, there are equally formulaic and unremarkable works in other genres - the endless Crime outpourings featuring one pet detective or another, or the romantic literature phenomenon that is Danielle Steele.

But I'm not talking about other genres. I'm talking about the area that WE love. That particular combination of archetypes and references that WE find most appealing. And what I'm asking is this ... are there valid criticisms of the genre and its protagonists?

These boards are full of open-minded, articulate and intelligent types. I'm wondering whether we can look in our own house and find the skeletons in the cupboard ( [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]). Did the success of LotR give rise to some of the lamest excuses for epic fantasy? What do we have to do to complete the integration of fantasy into the mainstream?

Hopefully you can tell me how wrong I am, and list the authors or works that defy the above conventions. But this is my question - are there any valid criticisms? Of Tolkien, or other leaders of the genre - or of the genre itself, is it by definition limiting and lowbrow (I don't believe that). Or, in the end, is it us - the readers - that make it what it is? After all, we're the ones who keep publishers in business.

Peace

[ April 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kalessin ]