High fantasy

[mrissa]

misia doesn't like high fantasy, and lots of us do, and discussion has ensued. And part of what strikes me upon reading the comments is how few of the works mentioned I would classify as high fantasy on an immediate emotional level. Part of that is that I know of too many ways to categorize and sub-categorize, so when papersky referred to pameladean's Secret Country books, I thought, "Those aren't high fantasy! Those are other-world fantasy!" Well, okay, so there are the dragons. And also the unicorns. But Patrick! Patrick is not a character in high fantasy, so I'm standing firm on my first thoughts, on second thought! So there!

(I wanted to say, oh, how I loved Patrick, but actually I didn't much like Patrick at all, though I had some affection for him as well. Complicated. But I loved that he was there, if that made any sense. He is a very right thing to have in those books. Which, not being high fantasy, are not the subject of this post. But might be if not for Patrick.)

I was going to say that I like high fantasy because I'm not smart enough to tell the difference between it and other kinds of fantasy, but while my brain may not be smart enough, my instincts are: I didn't read anything I consider high fantasy for a couple of years, a couple more years ago. alecaustin told me to give Robin Hobb's Assassin series a try, and I would like to say it restored my faith in high fantasy, but I think the truth of the matter is that I was ready to like high fantasy again, albeit not as compulsively as once I did, and Robin Hobb was the first thing I was handed under those conditions.

The thing there is that some of the things I really like in Robin Hobb (the Rain Wild Traders, oh, oh!) are not typical of the kind of high fantasy misia doesn't like, to the point where you could probably push it out of that category if you wanted. Once you're talking about not liking muddled Western Europe with dragons and elfses, it's very easy to point at a lack of muddling or elfses to throw the work in question out of that category and into the larger, broader category of "literature of the fantastic."

Some high fantasies take Norse mythology and make them Greek mythology with fairer skin. They assume that gods play analogous roles and have analogous attitudes. But look: people are constantly getting screwed by Greek gods. Hubris is a big thing. The Norse? Not at all big on human hubris. At all at all. The gods are constantly losing to each other, to mortals, to death itself. The gods are mortal. The death of the gods is foreknown. This should mean more in fantasies that deal with Norse or pseudo-Norse culture and religion. The existence of the Allthing should mean more. Weregeld should mean more. These things get skimmed at best by some poorly done high fantasy, and it really, really annoys me. Steal from other cultures for your books. By all means. But know what you're stealing and why.

I often contrast Faust (not Greek, I know; I am not entirely stuck on the Greeks here) and Odin. When Odin gives up his eye for wisdom, he gets wisdom. He has made a bargain, and the bargain -- I think fairly clearly -- is worth it, both to him and to the other party. That's a different view of the world entirely. It is a trade, in the context of a trading culture, and other beings have something of worth to offer the Allfather: trade has some meaning with a god. Why does this not inform more fantasy novels containing big bearded men with axes? WHY? Don't get me wrong: I am quite, quite fond of big bearded men with axes. (Or, y'know, without axes. Take your pick. But not your pickaxe. Ahem. Sorry.) But as tasty as they are, they are not the good bit of Norse culture. They are not the interesting bit to steal. This is like taking the toga as the interesting bit in Classical mythology.

I feel like my friend Rachel. She used to get in arguments constantly when we were at college. We would argue that the psychology major was not a science major at our college, and she would argue back that psychology was too a science, and would end up lamenting that it wasn't taught as one at our college. I do have quite a bit of sympathy for frustration with fantasy. I have that myself. I have higher standards for things that draw on Norse mythology than I do for things that draw on, say, Sumerian mythology, because I know it much better and it resonates much more with me.

I think this is a different objection from misia's, though. I don't think she's complaining that she would love to like Norse or Celtic or Arthurian fantasies and is being thwarted by the idiots and hacks who are working in those fields. I would like to think she would like Dwarf's Blood Mead, but I really have no reason to think so except that one hopes people like one's books, and sometimes they just don't. Sometimes it's the wrong book for the person.

I think Tooth and Claw is about dragons, though. I don't think it's only about dragons, but I think I would be doing Jo a disservice if I said it only looked like it was about dragons. It really is about dragons, and also things other than dragons, and I think if it wasn't really about dragons, it would be a much worse book.

I keep having the problem that everything I try to point at as a reason to like high fantasy is also a reason to like something else, and not necessarily a reason to overcome some of high fantasy's foibles. Even papersky's excellent bit about how she likes things to matter absolutely is true in fantasies I would not classify as high at all, and in some SF, and even in some rare and lovely mainstream work.

I think it's like avocado, is what. It's a taste easiest acquired early, it's easy to get sick of in overabundance, there's no reason to force yourself to like it, its nutrients are available elsewhere, sometimes it's hard to tell whether you've got a decent one because they look roughly the same on the outside...but if you pick out a good avocado and you like avocado, there's really nothing like it.

Comments

[palinade.livejournal.com]

Some high fantasies take Norse mythology and make them Greek mythology with fairer skin. They assume that gods play analogous roles and have analogous attitudes. But look: people are constantly getting screwed by Greek gods. Hubris is a big thing. The Norse? Not at all big on human hubris. At all at all. The gods are constantly losing to each other, to mortals, to death itself. The gods are mortal. The death of the gods is foreknown. This should mean more in fantasies that deal with Norse or pseudo-Norse culture and religion. The existence of the Allthing should mean more. Weregeld should mean more. These things get skimmed at best by some poorly done high fantasy, and it really, really annoys me. Steal from other cultures for your books. By all means. But know what you're stealing and why.

YES YES YES!

The cookiecuttercardboardDisneycutout High Fantasy is indeed boring, derivative, and just not that interesting. I think a lot of it has been done well; a lot of it has been done poorly. The things I like are usually the unexpected bits that make the tried-and-true much more interesting, feeling fresh and compelling.

Of course, I'm not saying anything new.

Re: high fantasy

[timprov.livejournal.com]

Now, now. Don't go slamming the sausages.

Re: high fantasy

[mechaieh.livejournal.com]

Heh. With just the right pseudo-Shakespearean inflection, "oh fuck not another elf!" could make for a provocative imperative. (Which would call for another kind of sausage-sl -- oh, okay, I'll slink back into my cave now.)

Re: high fantasy

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

No, no, it's fine if you want to, because I crit your stuff, so I can poke it and go, "Ummm, Yoon? About Tyr, here...."

There is bleakness, yes, but brightness, too. It feels very high-contrast in my head, is what.

Re: high fantasy

[timprov.livejournal.com]

I like sausages. I'd prefer you didn't compare them to those books.

What is High Fantasy?

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

"Those aren't high fantasy! Those are other-world fantasy!"

Maybe I just did debate for too long, but I'm getting hung up on definitions.

So, then, what does it take to be High Fantasy? What's the essential High-Fantasy-ness of High Fantasy?

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

It's set in another world completely, and it's told in the epic voice/mode. Those are my definitions. Some people will add a quasi-Western-European-medieval/Renaissance setting and specific elements of the fantastic like dragons, wizards, unicorns, etc. But I don't think those are strictly necessary for something to be a high fantasy.

They may be necessary to be the type of fantasy misia doesn't like, or they may not.

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

So Tolkien isn't High Fantasy, then? Or doesn't that seem, to you, to be in this world partly? It was certainly *intended* to be in the prehistory of this world.

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

To put it flatly, no, it doesn't seem to be in this world partly, though I know that's what Tolkien intended. If I had to believe in Middle-Earth as a prehistory of the world I live in, the book would fail utterly for me, and I would fling it down in disgust. If I take it as its own thing, it's much better.

Or maybe it's just that something with a genuine Ragnarok between here and it doesn't seem like "the same" world to me at all, as a general point, and it would take such a cataclysm to get there from here (or, more to the point, here from there) that it seems no more radical than calling it a different world entirely.

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

But doesn't there have to be something fairly cataclysmic between the world of High Fantasy and this world, in order for your High Fantasy to not be the same as historical fiction? What's an acceptable amount of cataclysm?

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

This doesn't make any sense to me, Scott. Cataclysm and difference are not the same. If the world of Dwarf's Blood Mead has functional, practical magic and historical Iceland does not, it doesn't mean that a cataclysm has occurred between them. It means that they're different. No continental upheaval or rains of fire required.

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[scottjames.livejournal.com]

So how is that different from Other-World Fantasy, then?

Re: What is High Fantasy?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Other-World Fantasy starts here and goes there, or vice versa. There is more than one world in other-world fantasy.

[columbina.livejournal.com]

I could be starting a fight here, but for years my standard response has been, "I'm always willing to look at high fantasy - it just can't be STUPID high fantasy."

This is less flippant and more considered than it sounds. I don't mean "stupid" as in "damn, this book is stupid," but in terms of a writer not really bothering to make their characters or situations interesting to me because - oh, look! Pretty elves! Dragons! Shiny objects!

What I mean is that it takes more for me to like a book than shiny objects. Well, usually. And it amazes me how much bad fantasy reads like "I just wanted to make a book with elves."

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

While I agree with this, it's not so useful for the purpose of recommending books, since most recommenders will not recommend things they thought were stupid or poorly conceived or lacking in reasons to like the book.

I find the shiny object comment amusing, since it seems like that's exactly what it took for you to be excited about the prospects of Thermionic Night/Sampo.

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I agree about the dragons. If it isn't really about dragons then there wasn't any point in writing it. They really are dragons and they really eat each other, and sponge blood off their scales, and turn pink, and they are so big that a gothic cathedral would be the right scale for them. Otherwise, just read Trollope.