The Sword and Laser discussion
This topic is about
Lev Grossman
2012 Reads
>
TM: Lev Grossman says what fantasy is about
date
newest »
newest »
Lepton wrote: "...I also don't think that longing for another different world is confined to the fantasy genre in any way.... I agree. I love anything about space travel and sometimes find it hard to bring myself back to reality where such wonders don't actually exist. Sigh!
I would recommend reading the following by R. Scott Bakker (an author of epic fantasy who has A LOT to say about literature and genre fiction)1. Guilt By Socialization
This is a blog post that is in response to a couple comments on the Wall Street Journal article Wanted: Respect for Wizards, Orcs written by Lev Grossman.
A quote from R. Scott Bakker's post:
"Let me make a suggestion: the social RELEVANCE of fantasy lies in its audience, the fact that it reaches millions upon millions of people. All you have to do is look at fandom to realize that fantasy moves people far, far more profoundly than so-called ‘literary fiction’ (which, as you all know, I think has devolved into a spectacular in-group exercise, like-minded authors writing for like-minded readers, pretending to challenge all those out-group ‘adolescents’ (who never read them) with books literally designed to alienate readers without any specialized training. Popcorn, in other words, masquerading as salad.)
Make no mistake: the difference between fiction in general and literature is moral. The latter is supposed to be good for you in a way the former isn’t. This means the difference between fiction in general and literature has to do with real world consequences – whether or not it ‘resembles’ what counted as literature in ages gone by is pretty much meaningless once those forms cease to have real literary consequences for real readers."
2. The Incredible Shrinking Sublime This is a more in-depth essay that addresses the point(s) of divergence between the literary establishment and the popular mainstream.
From the introduction paragraph:
"Since humans seem to possess an innate preference for hyperbolic representations, denigrating the spectacular and embracing the quotidian allows literary producers and consumers to identify themselves over and against the general population. The alienation of popular readers has become essential to literary self-identification. The result, I argue, has been a troubling compartmentalization of our culture. On the one hand, the writers supposedly most invested in challenging readers generally communicate only with those who already share the bulk of their values. On the other hand, readers in the popular mainstream rarely if ever encounter anything that challenges their preconceptions, reinforcing what I call ‘interpretative illiteracy,’ the magical belief that one’s own interpretations are the only interpretations worth serious consideration."
In another blog post, Mr. Bakker uses an analogy of broccoli (literature) and doughnuts (genre fiction) and has this to say:
"Saying broccoli is better than doughnuts means nothing so long as you are talking about taste. Saying broccoli is better for you, on the other hand, is saying something quite different...So doesn’t this suggest that the literati are right? That, like broccoli, their writing is ‘just better for you’ than what you find in genre?
As I keep saying, if you stubbornly refuse to ignore the communicative dimension of conventionality, if you obnoxiously insist on pairing readers with your writers, the conceptual landscape is radically transformed. Once we do this, we can see, for instance, that the broccoli metaphor is quite misleading. Broccoli is healthy because the link between what it is and what it is does is more or less fixed. Fiction, on the other hand, possesses no such stability. As ‘semantic objects,’ books quite literally do not exist independently of readers, at least not the way broccoli exists independently of eaters."
Interesting that he would illustrate his article with the picture of a 'rakshasa' from Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakshasa...
AndrewP wrote: "Interesting that he would illustrate his article with the picture of a 'rakshasa' from Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Monster Manual.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rakshasa..."
If you hover over the pic in Mr. Grossman's blog post, you will see a message that reads in part
"When I was 10 it represented all that wass cool and manly to me. On some level it still does."
If my ten year old self was allowed* to look at a D&D manual, I most likely would've thought the same thing.
*I was not allowed to look at D&D for fear of becoming possesed by the devil. Seriously. I was also not allowed to play with He-Man toys for the same reason. The church I grew up in had a special sermon one Sunday to let parents know the dangers of D&D and He-Man as well as other toys/games that were invitations to satan. They even included yoga, but I had no idea what yoga was at the time (this would've been mid 80s).
Setting aside Lepton's issues with dystopian sci-fi (with which I agree, up to a point) the main problem with reference to this book is that Grossman doesn't have the courage of his convictions. He claims that fantasy is about a longing for "real" connection with a sublime, but is that in any way what Quentin gets? Or even what he seeks? Frankly, the character comes across as too shallow to possibly recognize the sublime when it literally reaches out and grabs him. Much of my problems with this book, and its sequel, stem from the fact that rather than the fantastical world altering our characters and their aspirations, the characters cheapen and commodify the fantastical whenever and wherever they encounter it. They're the type who would use the Holy Grail for a game of beer pong, use Excalibur to carve some dirty words into Yggdrasil.Fantasy, used well, inspires because it provides a metaphoric language to speak about subjects which are too numinous, intense, or embarassing to speak of in plain language. What Grossman has done is prove that given enough arrogance, we can haul the gods down to our level, no transcendence required...or even possible.
Dharmakirti wrote: "If you hover over the pic in Mr. Grossman's blog post, you will see a message that reads in part"When I was 10 it represented all that wass cool and manly to me. On some level it still does." "
That's kind of what I was getting at. I guess you have to be an old school D&D player to know what the picture represents. In D&D it was called a Rakshasa. If you look this up directly in Wikipedia you will find a reference that says:
"According to the Ramayana, Rakshasas were created from Brahma's foot; other sources claim they are descended from Pulastya, or from Khasa, or from Nirriti and Nirrita. Hinduism maintains that the Rakshasas were particularly wicked humans in previous incarnations.[citation needed] Rakshasas are notorious for disturbing sacrifices, desecrating graves, harassing priests, possessing human beings, and so on. Their fingernails are venomous, and they feed on human flesh and spoiled food. They are shapechangers, illusionists, and magicians."
Perhaps Mr. Grossman just likes the illustration.. then again, from the mouse over comment.. perhaps not... It certainly does not represent my vision of manly or cool.
P. Aaron wrote: "Setting aside Lepton's issues with dystopian sci-fi (with which I agree, up to a point) the main problem with reference to this book is that Grossman doesn't have the courage of his convictions. This.
Thanks for writing exactly what I was thinking.
Isn't this story all just commentary on fantasy readers and not the genre itself? Quentin is the reader. He's desperate to use the world of the fantasy to elevate his own happiness. if fantasy worlds exist it can't change you. You are what you are, even if that person is an awful shit. Actually, especially, if that person is an awful shit. The only part I'm still trying to wrap my brain around is Alice. Is she really just a foil for Quentin's bullshit? is she just another borrowed character from 24 hour party people/party monster?(obviously not literally)
Daniel wrote: "Isn't this story all just commentary on fantasy readers and not the genre itself?"If so, it's grossly inaccurate. Fantasy readers are so because they are idealists: they want to believe in a better world. Quentin is not an idealist. He can't actually believe in a better world, or a place for himself in one.
Basically, the type of person Quentin is would never, ever have read the types of books Grossman claims he read. As a commentary on fantasy readers, the MAgicians is a straw man argument.
Daniel, if the goal of The Magicians is simply to hold a mirror up to the audience and say "Escapism won't save you, your life sucks and you suck," doesn't that negate what Fantasy is?-----
I can understand people drinking to drown care or to drive away maddening thoughts well enough. I can understand the ignorant masses loving to soak themselves in drink--oh, yes, it's very shocking that they should, of course--very shocking to us who live in cozy homes, with all the graces and pleasures of life around us, that the dwellers in damp cellars and windy attics should creep from their dens of misery into the warmth and glare of the public-house bar, and seek to float for a brief space away from their dull world upon a Lethe stream of gin.
But think, before you hold up your hands in horror at their ill-living, what "life" for these wretched creatures really means. Picture the squalid misery of their brutish existence, dragged on from year to year in the narrow, noisome room where, huddled like vermin in sewers, they welter, and sicken, and sleep; where dirt-grimed children scream and fight and sluttish, shrill-voiced women cuff, and curse, and nag; where the street outside teems with roaring filth and the house around is a bedlam of riot and stench.
Think what a sapless stick this fair flower of life must be to them, devoid of mind and soul. The horse in his stall scents the sweet hay and munches the ripe corn contentedly. The watch-dog in his kennel blinks at the grateful sun, dreams of a glorious chase over the dewy fields, and wakes with a yelp of gladness to greet a caressing hand. But the clod-like life of these human logs never knows one ray of light. From the hour when they crawl from their comfortless bed to the hour when they lounge back into it again they never live one moment of real life. Recreation, amusement, companionship, they know not the meaning of. Joy, sorrow, laughter, tears, love, friendship, longing, despair, are idle words to them. From the day when their baby eyes first look out upon their sordid world to the day when, with an oath, they close them forever and their bones are shoveled out of sight, they never warm to one touch of human sympathy, never thrill to a single thought, never start to a single hope. In the name of the God of mercy; let them pour the maddening liquor down their throats and feel for one brief moment that they live!
-----
~ Jerome K. Jerome
Joe wrote: "Daniel, if the goal of The Magicians is simply to hold a mirror up to the audience and say "Escapism won't save you, your life sucks and you suck," doesn't that negate what Fantasy is?" Well I don't think that the purpose of the genre is to offer a better version of reality. Its adding a sense of the fantastic to an otherwise conventional story. Fantasy gets its roots from mythology which is prominent for attributing fantastical reasoning to conventional occurences. Lightning is the result of cosmic forces at work, and not electrical discharge. Similarly I don't think that this book is saying that Fantasy doesn't offer the fantastic, but it is positing that it won't make you fantastic. Escapism is possible and enjoyable. The characters do in fact escape and do so as a community, but when you balance the need to improve yourself onto the premise of simple escapism, you are doomed to failure. So to alter your premise I would say the book is saying "Escapism won't save you" Of course it doesn't really stop at fantasy, eventually it lump drug addiction and an urban party scene all into that field of Escapism. Things that people want to base their life on but are terrible foundations. I mean really that's how magic is kind of portrayed in the book to these kids. They use magic the same way they use drugs and each other. That's why I found the ending even more depressing, because Quentin doesn't get out. He dives back in and gets ready for an even deeper trip. He's back on the magic pipe.
While I don't necessarily disagree that there is a longing for an authentic connection to the world that people may be seeking in the fantasy genre, I would not say that is at all indicative of the characters within fantasy settings. So to the degree that we live through these characters in these stories, I don't know how readers experience a sense of "authenticity" when the characters do not. The characters are merely living their stories and not reflecting on its authenticity.
I also don't think that longing for another different world is confined to the fantasy genre in any way. Utopian/progressive sci-fi anyone? While Grossman assumes that readers or the zeitgeist have turned away from sci-fi to find more authentic worlds in fantasy, I'd say that it is the authors within the sci-fi genre, as broadly as we can define it and as simplifying as this may sound, that have turned away from positive and progressive visions of the future and the possibility of new and beneficial relationships between and among men, women, aliens, what-have-you.
Sorry to say, but more often than not, I find fantasy to be mere escapism, whereas sci-fi in many of its incarnations requires the author and the reader to engage the real world and to speculate and contemplate what possibilities there are and what those possibilities mean.
The Dystopian bent in contemporary sci-fi has robbed readers of the possibility of new and better futures.
Faced with the real and tangible fears of the modern world, authors, publishers and readers have chosen to infantilize themselves, drawing away from the world and into Narnia, as Grossman does with The Magicians. Instead of adults with adult decisions and adult agency facing the problems of the real world, we are treated to children and teenagers made to suffer fantastical terrors and wrestle with their oh-so-boring and trite emotional lives for our reading and viewing pleasure.
I for one tire of this Young Adult horse hockey and the sooner we can encourage young men and women to aspire to be better people and responsible adults rather shoving our own adult minds into nostalgizing over lost youth and innocence and such, the better off we will all be for having done so.