What you will find in this link here is, overall, a good thing. I don’t like that fantasy isn’t taken very seriously. I don’t find a lot of peoples’ reasons for not taking it seriously to be all that solid. I think it’s good to call out behavior that appears vaguely douchebaggish…douchey? Douchesque?
You’ll note I haven’t signed said petition yet. This is, of course, partially due to the fact that the last petition I signed ended with me absently joining a cause called Marvin’s Law, which suggested that those who disagreed with the obscure political opinions of the late Marvin Gaye should be made into eunuchs. But there are other reasons.
For one, it’s never occurred to me to get upset at the BBC and those who don’t take fantasy seriously for the same reason it’s never occurred to me to take it seriously when narwhal biologists write to me and say: “You know, there’s just not enough narwhals in this book.” I’m not talking to narwhal biologists and the needs of narwhal biologists don’t really factor into what I do. This is, of course, hyperbole, since the people behind mainstream literature recognition and I presumably share similar interests, but when our agendas are set differently, I don’t really mind that they don’t match up.
But beyond that, I don’t know that the idea sits that well with me. Today, while browsing twitter, I found this quote in Adam Whitehead’s feed from this link here:
‘It’s almost like they’ve given us older writers licence to use it. Before, it was ghettoised and stigmatised. For years there has been a prejudice towards sci-fi writing, which I think has been to the loss of the literary world, and not vice versa. But with things like graphic novels now, people are taking it seriously.’ Still, he has misgivings: ‘In truth, the sci-fi label is misleading. I’m just wary like everybody else that it’ll bring in the wrong audience with the wrong expectations.’
This was from Kazuo Ishiguro on science fiction acceptance into mainstream.
And it’s those last few words that make me hesitate before fully committing myself to the cause of the anti-BBC sentiment.
“The wrong audience.”
In the context, it’s clear that Mr. Ishiguro is suggesting that people looking for narwhals won’t find them in science fiction, so to speak, which is a point worth noting in itself. But more than that, there are implications regarding the phrase “the wrong audience” that sort of haunt me.
It’s only been fairly recently that “nerd” has stopped being a dirty word. Nerds are not overweight and smelly people with thick, horn-rimmed glasses squatting in basements. D&D is something you play, not a lifestyle you live. Liking fantasy means you like fantasy, not that you live in perpetual denial of the world around you.
It wasn’t always this way. Nerds used to be the kind of people that dwelled in clandestine organizations. If you were a nerd, your interests were restricted mostly to imaginary people and paper. It was an unfair stereotype then and it’s unfair now, and a lot of people in mainstream literature still cling to it. Sadly, in some instances, so do we.
I’m going to preface what I say next with a few things:
-I can’t really cite specific sources
-It might come off as a bit whiny and self-indulgent (it’s not intended to, though)
-I don’t blame you at all if you decide to stop reading because of these
But we, as genre writers and readers, are not innocent.
R.A. Salvatore. China Mieville. One sells a ton, another wins awards. Fight scenes, weird races. Sells-a-lot, genius. Not-touched-by-Locus, critically-acclaimed-everywhere. We seem pretty content to let this lie and safely file the two authors away under their own little labels, but we’re not happy when fantasy, as a whole, is filed away under “drek.” We draw hard lines between hard sci-fi and soft sci-fi, epic fantasy and heroic fantasy, us and them. If you’re on one side, you’re not on the other and you don’t get to be in that camp.
Now, this is not at all to suggest that Salvatore is the same as Mieville, even by a little. Mieville earns his awards. Salvatore earns his paychecks.
But they aren’t really judged in the same way, are they? I’m not you, so I can’t say what you thought when you heard Salvatore’s name, but I imagine “not real fantasy” in one way or another, be it those actual words or just a brief, fleeting pang of resentful nostalgia like you feel for when you think of when you used to think Pogs were cool, cropped up. Either way, you wouldn’t think to judge them the same way.
But should they even be?
We can argue that they write different things, different styles, different content entirely and that it’s impossible to judge them by the same standard. If we do judge them the same, we live with the suggestion that we’re wrong to look at Salvatore book and sneer. If we don’t judge them the same, we send the message that it’s fine for us to judge people differently, but not for you, mainstream literature.
We might say that the issue is that Mieville deserves to win a mainstream prize because his work is just that good. But in that case, are we acknowledging that the awards he gets are not good enough for him?
Of course, it’s also perfectly fine to say that Salvatore/Mieville just doesn’t do it for us and we prefer Mieville/Salvatore. Nothing wrong with preference, in the slightest. What Mieville’s saying doesn’t really interest us, what Salvatore’s doing doesn’t really jive with us, what we’re really interested in is Sam motherfucking Sykes, right?
But then, if it’s all about preference, why does the acceptance of someone who doesn’t share our preference matter?
So, I guess that’s why I haven’t committed to anything yet. It seems we lack a pretty solid stand. Are we different or are we the same? Do we need to be recognized for what we’ve done for narwhal biology or is it okay that they don’t like us?
But maybe I’m missing something important. I’m not claiming to be making any sweeping declarations of what is and what is not here. There could be another issue that I’ve totally missed and there’s no reason for this post to exist.
If there is, though, I’d love it if you’d tell me.
Let me just stick my neck on the chopping block and say that I don’t think people like Mieville do anything to help fantasy or its PR by earning accolades while heaping contempt on other writers in the genre.
That specific beef aside… what people in the literary community need to understand is that “fantasy” as a genre is as varied as human fantasy itself, and that knee-jerk mockery of anything with a dragon or vampire in it is no cleverer than any other sort of uninformed prejudice. Distaste for anything labeled “fantasy” sight-unseen is not a sign of sophistication, any more than, say, refusal to eat anything labeled “fruit,” be it banana or avocado.
I’ve never specifically heard of Mieville heaping scorn upon anyone. I was just using him as an example. Most authors tend to be pretty supportive of one another, regardless of what’s going on. The thing is, fantasy authors are still fantasy readers and fantasy readers tend to be the ones that draw the lines between who’s who.
I don’t at all think we’re helping ourselves by insisting on labeling things, either. While we start trying to divide into swords and sorcery, new weird, what have you, we’re intentionally trying to condense that which we should be promoting as something complex and varied, as you said.
“Tolkien is the wen on the arse of fantasy literature. His oeuvre is massive and contagious – you can’t ignore it, so don’t even try. The best you can do is consciously try to lance the boil.” -China Mieville
I didn’t see the actual interview in which this came up, but is that a general scorn upon fantasy or is it just decrying Tolkien’s occasionally revered influence? I mean, if it’s the latter, I’ve spoken against it, too.
Why can’t a man just write his own kind of thing without saying the other kind of thing is an oozing pustule of some kind?
Mieville did that early in his career, but not so much anymore (or at least not so vocally.) It was Tolkien in specific that he was decrying though–racism, classism, sexism, etc.
I think I can understand the hurt, the disappointment that the coverage of an event heavily promoted by the fantasy genre did not feature a single author from the fantasy genre. It stings, it makes people angry, it makes people want to write petitions and demand equality.
Lets look at this from the BBC point of view, they are just trying to market and sell a TV show in a way that they think will get them the most viewers. It does not seem to me to be an agenda against the fantasy genre, it is selling a product based on the perception that most people in the UK are reading mainstream fiction rather than fantasy. Besides that, the BBC has been one of the staunchest supporters of the fantasy genre in the UK and without them we would not have classic fantasy television such as Doctor Who, Torchwood, Merlin, Being Human, etc.
So as a fantasy community what do we do? Do we all sign a petition demanding recognition, or do we try to understand why the perception exists that more people are reading mainstream fiction? I’m not sure what this petition is trying to achieve but it may do more harm than good. Sure people are angry but lets respond by promoting our works rather than deriding the very station that has given and continues to give us a great deal of support.
Pingback: Historically accurate misogyny, anti-genre bias at the BBC and another Doctor Who death | Cora Buhlert
Art is just that: art. Some will like it, some will not.
Many say similar things about Stephen King that can be said about Salvatore. That they have somehow sold out in favor of money and fame rather than sticking to some artificial notion of what constitutes ‘pure’ art. This despite the fact that If everyone could do what either of them do so well, then there would be no calling any writer artist.
King replies to that quite well in his On Writing. I don’t have the text on hand to quote it, but it basically boils down to the fact he believes the act of writing to be an amazing gift that borders on telepathy for cool. A gift that neither he nor anyone could sully by being popular.
The core issue is inclusion vs exclusion. We are social animals. One social mechanism is the driving of some to the fringe, where we point at them and caution others, “Don’t do as they do, you will be sent to join them.”
Because we are thinking animals, those on the fringe develop their own social mechanisms and hierarchies, “Not only are we on the fringe because of X, we are special because of X. Wait, you don’t like our X? You think it childish, bloated, inconsequential? You are banished to the lower social strata, sent to the fringe of the fringe for thinking differently.
In all things, hierarchy.
In all things, social pressure.
An individual, if they can perceive these pressures and the greater hierarchy they reside in accurately, can control what part of those pressures they wish to cave to or even relish. No one but a complete shut-in and hermit is exempt from these pressures, but even the hermit is a product of whatever society drove them to hermitage.
“No matter where you go, there youare.” -Buckaroo Banzai.
Mis dos centavos.
Pure art, I believe, is simply what you wish to do. There are certainly different types of art and you can argue relentlessly about high art, low art and whatever else, but art is art, as you say. The notion of selling out goes both ways: if you’re compromising your art for more money, you’re selling out, but if you’re compromising your art to seem more artistic, counter-culture or indie than it naturally is or that you wanted it to be, you’re still selling out…just for less money.
What sneering tone?
And more to the point, does it matter? Genre fiction outsells literary fiction, and in fact, may well be the cork-lined coffin keeping the whole publishing business afloat.
Great (insert genre here) examples often become co-opted into literary fiction, posthumously if nothing else. And I stand by the salient fact that a great novel is exactly that, and can escape any genre ghetto if it is truly one for the ages.
Let us all aim for that, and let the chips (and sneering) fall where they may.
E.
This is basically my form of thinking, too. I don’t really mind it if someone I’ve never heard of doesn’t like me or what I write.
Pingback: Review: Rides a Dread Legion by Raymond E. Feist « MentatJack