The "What Are You Doing This Moment" Thread

[monoxide_child]

What is inherently juvenile and hackneyed about fantasy? I'll grant that there's a huge body of extremely pulpy, juvenile fantasy out there that makes heavy use of magic and dragons, but I don't think that makes the concept of magic and dragons juvenile any more than the existence of bodice rippers makes the concept of sex trite and sleazy.



It's really a question of why you read fantasy. I enjoy immersing myself in new worlds, and so a lengthy high fantasy series with a carefully constructed and highly detailed backstory and a complex narrative right up my alley, even if it fails to really say anything deep or meaningful.

I am curious why you think it reads like a video game.

I've only read one Malazan book and two GoT books but to me it's still really obvious that both Martin and Erikson pretend to think much, much further ahead than they actually do in terms of story-building. It's easy to write intricate plots when all you have to do when out of ideas is to amorally kill off your characters or to degrade them in some other way that makes them completely irrelevant to the continuation of the story.

What's strange to me is that most people don't see this kind of writing method as a cop out, but rather they praise it for being cynical and realistic and therefore more 'mature' than 'naive' fantasy like Tolkien*. It's obvious to everyone already that in real life, chance and randomness rules supreme and bad human traits win out just as often as good ones because there is no justice in the universe. There's a reason most accomplished authors of fiction don't create their narratives around the bizarre happenstances of life though; it makes it hard to follow through with any point other than that life is cold and random. Granted, you don't have to deliver a message with fantasy but even so, in my opinion it doesn't make for satisfying entertainment either to have your protagonists be complete losers.

* I believe Tolkien was actually very conscious in using romantic archetypes of good and evil like Aragorn and Sauron, but that's another discussion perhaps.

why aren't these 2 posts in the books/reading thread??

i agree with these 2 posts BTW

 

[waif]

I've only read one Malazan book and two GoT books but to me it's still really obvious that both Martin and Erikson pretend to think much, much further ahead than they actually do in terms of story-building. It's easy to write intricate plots when all you have to do when out of ideas is to amorally kill off your characters or to degrade them in some other way that makes them completely irrelevant to the continuation of the story.

You're pretty much wrong about this. Erikson created the world the books are set in together with Ian C. Esslemont back in the early 80s, and developed a very detailed story and history long before the publication of the first book. Everything that happens in Gardens of the Moon is entirely logical and consistent with the world they created, and there's nothing random about it.

As for Martin, he also worked out the various plots and schemes well in advance. Characters die, yes, and sometimes it's quite sudden, but it's never random or meaningless.

I won't say that these series are perfect or above criticism, but I don't believe that either author uses death as a cop-out. However, both series deal heavily with intricate plots and so the reader often lacks crucial information for understanding an event until well after it has occurred. I can certainly understand you disliking this style of narrative, but that doesn't make it an ass-pull or cop-out.

That's a good question. It's tough to explain. It felt like "gameplay" as I was reading, especially some of the assassin sequences in the first book. Then, in the second, that ending sequence; I can't even remember the details now, it's been so long. But they're rushing toward something, and they teleport somewhere... I just remember, as I was reading, that I was envisioning it like a video game; first-person, like when a character has been assigned a mission by the game, and is running to complete it.

I didn't necessarily think the books were bad; it just wasn't enjoyable for me. It was as though I was being described a video game with excessive anthropological and historical background. I don't mind that in video games, but it made me tense reading it in a novel form.

I can understand comparing the action sequences from Fiddler's perspective to a video game, and I also found the conclusion of Deadhouse Gates a little weird. Your comment just threw me off because the majority of the book is comprised of dialogue and inner monologues.

 

[monoxide_child]

I won't say that these series are perfect or above criticism, but I don't believe that either author uses death as a cop-out. However, both series deal heavily with intricate plots and so the reader often lacks crucial information for understanding an event until well after it has occurred. I can certainly understand you disliking this style of narrative, but that doesn't make it an ass-pull or cop-out.

there are those who kinda feel that any character's death at all in any fiction is either an ass-pull or a cop-out

 

[wandering_taco]

Any of you read Terry Brooks? One of my favorite fantasy authors. The Shannara series, which now is a huge sprawling thing, and the Knight of the Word series which ties into it, are pretty fucking epic.

 

[Krigloch the Furious]

sweet monkey sack
It is humid as shit!

 

[Dak]

What is inherently juvenile and hackneyed about fantasy? I'll grant that there's a huge body of extremely pulpy, juvenile fantasy out there that makes heavy use of magic and dragons, but I don't think that makes the concept of magic and dragons juvenile any more than the existence of bodice rippers makes the concept of sex trite and sleazy.

I think that's an apples-spaceships comparison: not even remotely related.

Outside of using magic purely as a technological substitute, things like magic, superpowers, mythical (superpowerful) creatures, etc., are often the retreat of those lacking in real power in the most absolute way: Children and those of a childish nature.

Its why things like Harry Potter, Pokemon, and the plethora of superheros are so appealing. It's a preferable, vicariously lived life. Children lack any sort of control over their world to an extreme, and the more control we feel lacking, the more we retreat into fantasy (of course it doesn't have to just be of the "high fantasy" sort or neomedieval etc). Simplistic thinking also feeds this, as we see injustice "win" in our own lives, we look to escape into a world where "justice" wins. and so on.

I left this behind long ago, and now, as you and I mentioned, enjoy/appreciate world building.This is what makes Tolkien one of the masters of fantasy, not merely because he was "first".

 

[waif]

Any of you read Terry Brooks? One of my favorite fantasy authors. The Shannara series, which now is a huge sprawling thing, and the Knight of the Word series which ties into it, are pretty fucking epic.

I think that's an apples-spaceships comparison: not even remotely related.

Outside of using magic purely as a technological substitute, things like magic, superpowers, mythical (superpowerful) creatures, etc., are often the retreat of those lacking in real power in the most absolute way: Children and those of a childish nature.

Escapism is childish? If that's what you're saying (that's how I'm reading this) then that's just, like, your opinion, man.

But beyond simple escapism and aside from metaphorical uses, fantasy and science fiction both often use such elements (the "technology" of most sci fi is functionally the same as the magic of fantasy) to create interesting moral or philosophical dilemmas similar to the thought exercises favored by actual philosophers. Not all of them do this, but it's certainly common enough that it must be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Its why things like Harry Potter, Pokemon, and the plethora of superheros are so appealing. It's a preferable, vicariously lived life. Children lack any sort of control over their world to an extreme, and the more control we feel lacking, the more we retreat into fantasy (of course it doesn't have to just be of the "high fantasy" sort or neomedieval etc). Simplistic thinking also feeds this, as we see injustice "win" in our own lives, we look to escape into a world where "justice" wins. and so on.

I think it's rather condescending to dismiss power fantasies as childish. They're something that anyone who lacks control over their life naturally indulges in, and there's nothing inherently childish about that simply because children do it too.

 

[-CC-]

So imaginative = childish now?

 

[Dak]

Escapism is childish? If that's what you're saying (that's how I'm reading this) then that's just, like, your opinion, man.

But beyond simple escapism and aside from metaphorical uses, fantasy and science fiction both often use such elements (the "technology" of most sci fi is functionally the same as the magic of fantasy) to create interesting moral or philosophical dilemmas similar to the thought exercises favored by actual philosophers. Not all of them do this, but it's certainly common enough that it must be taken on a case-by-case basis.

I think I distinguished between such. Although I dislike scifi in general, the technology end of it is not the reason. We have made many strides towards realizing what used to be scifi "fantasy". We are not any closer to Narsil or Pikachu. Thought exercises can be done with or without magic.

I think it's rather condescending to dismiss power fantasies as childish. They're something that anyone who lacks control over their life naturally indulges in, and there's nothing inherently childish about that simply because children do it too.

I stand by my psychoanalysis, and it doesn't have to be condescending. Our current/recent culture has created adult children in systemic fashion: Unable to internalize the locus of control. I pursue my studies because I care about rectifying this. Not that any mode of treatment necessarily involves "putting down the comics" or whatever. The desire for escapism diminishes on it's own as quality of life improves.

So imaginative = childish now?

facepalm.jpg

 

[waif]

Thought exercises can be done without magic, but many of them involve such extreme constraints or implausible scenarios that for them to occur organically within a larger narrative, some nonexistent force is required, be it magic, technology or some spiritual thing.

I understand viewing pulpy fantasy like The Wheel of Time as childish, but no more so than a Tom Clancy novel or some Danielle Steele thing. Your personal tastes may not favor magic in general, but that's no reason to dismiss it as categorically childish.

 

[Master_Yoda77]

So this thread was hijacked with fantasy discussion. I dig.

Can't people just read stuff because it's fucking fun and interesting and not to find some deep philosophical or intellectual meaning behind them? Sure, those are awesome when they are done right, but fuck, give me a good Poe story where people are evil and other people die for no reason and just enjoy the fuck out of it cause it's cool.

I'm fucking intrigued with all the Malazan and Bakker discussion though. Too much shit to read and not enough fucking time.

 

[Einherjar86]

I stand by my psychoanalysis, and it doesn't have to be condescending. Our current/recent culture has created adult children in systemic fashion: Unable to internalize the locus of control. I pursue my studies because I care about rectifying this. Not that any mode of treatment necessarily involves "putting down the comics" or whatever. The desire for escapism diminishes on it's own as quality of life improves.

Don't you think that this normalizes what an adult should be? Assuming that "rectifying" the problem will result in them "putting down the comics" is rather... presumptuous. Escapism isn't necessarily a direct result of poor quality of life, and adults should not normally avoid comics or fantasy texts. You seem to be reading this as a symptom of some greater problem.

Can't people just read stuff because it's fucking fun and interesting and not to find some deep philosophical or intellectual meaning behind them? Sure, those are awesome when they are done right, but fuck, give me a good Poe story where people are evil and other people die for no reason and just enjoy the fuck out of it cause it's cool.

But Poe's stories are steeped in philosophical and intellectual meaning...

 

[Dak]

I understand viewing pulpy fantasy like The Wheel of Time as childish, but no more so than a Tom Clancy novel or some Danielle Steele thing.

I agree.

Too much shit to read and not enough fucking time.

Too much of everything to do and see and read and hear etc and only one life to do it in. How the fuck does someone ever get bored?

Don't you think that this normalizes what an adult should be? Assuming that "rectifying" the problem will result in them "putting down the comics" is rather... presumptuous. Escapism isn't necessarily a direct result of poor quality of life, and adults should not normally avoid comics or fantasy texts. You seem to be reading this as a symptom of some greater problem.

Not in all cases, but it's common enough for a generalization. Another option is that instead of "putting down x", the focus of appreciation changes: From escapism to appreciation of the finer details.

 

[Dak]

Came across my FB feed, thought it was relevant:

 

[Einherjar86]

Not in all cases, but it's common enough for a generalization.

...

This sounds a bit like conjecture to me Dak, or at least anecdotal evidence based on people you've met.

 

[Dak]

...

This sounds a bit like conjecture to me Dak, or at least anecdotal evidence based on people you've met.

Yeah, there's been no research done on this at all. I'm pioneering new thought.

Superheros are a makeshift coping mechanism, and can be a useful training tool for children. Of course, like WAIF mentioned, they can offer a dis-abstracted example of complex ethical dilemmas, psychological trauma, etc. Psychologists are not, of course, in agreement in general about heros/superheros in general. I have my opinions. Unfortunately I find more research analyzing the superheros themselves than the interaction between the literature and people. But that's what is going to sell, and why does escapism sell so well? That's of more importance to me.

 

[Einherjar86]

You keep calling it "escapism," as though fantasy and SF are automatically escapist literatures. That's where a big problem is for me; you're assuming they sell because they're escapist. Furthermore, you're assuming that's a problem...

 

[Blind Guardian]

Came across my FB feed, thought it was relevant:

What does it say about Gandalf as a judge of character that he picks Frodo instead of Sam for the task? Even Gollum helps more with destroying the ring than that useless tool Frodo.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here's the deal:

Anyone other than Frodo would have succumbed to the power of the ring. Yes, he's whiny; yes, he's a total jerk when it comes to the ring; but if anyone else other than Frodo carried it, that person would not have succeeded. Frodo had to withstand the torture of carrying the ring, which inflicts psychological torment on its bearer.

Is it teleological and contrived? Sure; but that's why Frodo's the hero.

 

[Matt]

Sam didn't carry the ring, though. If he had been carrying it the whole time he probably would've been fucking up too.