Fantasy Aficionados discussion

I came across this article on the Wall Street Journal website. It's about the recent trend of the blurring lines between genres and how more and more literary fiction authors are incorporating science fiction and fantasy elements into their works. Mostly because it sells better, apparently. Hey, as long as it leads to more good books that I can enjoy I'll gladly welcome our new brothers and sisters into the fold. :p Lets hope that it leads to less genre snobbery too.

It mentions a good number of books by 'literary' writers following that trend, slated for release later this year. Some of them look very interesting. Going of the synopsis of some others though, I keep thinking: "Hey if you would've read some more genre, you'd know this stuff has been done before. A lot."

Anyway, I've read two books the past year from acclaimed literary fiction writers, who made the cross to genre, and I both enjoyed them a lot. The Reapers are the Angels by Alden Bell is one of my favourite books ever and epic post-apocalyptic vampire novel (with non-cute vampires!) The Passage by Justin Cronin was awesome if a bit slow at times.

What do you guys think?

I'm never quite sure what constitutes 'literary' fiction... but I'm happy to have a read of anything that sounds interesting. Like you said, though, I do wish people would read around the genre if they're planning to use it.

I don't see how it's blurring anything. If you include fantastic elements in your story, you're writing fantasy. And what's "literary" fiction? Most of the authors mentioned are popular authors. The only time it gets blurry is in surrealistic novels where the fantasy itself is difficult to define. I'm thinking of the work of Jonathan Carroll or Amanda Filipacchi.

I think I mostly agree with Scott. While I'm glad that the mainstream is losing the knee-jerk reaction against sci-fi and fantasy and whatnot, I get irritated when a book isn't considered genre just because it's "literary". Like Scott said, I'm not even sure I know what "literary" means beyond "not denegrated as "genre" by the literature snobs".

^what Colleen said.

"In a sign that the geek revolution is well underway, publishers pushed fantasy titles by the dozens this week"

Yay!

Ursula LeGuin had a very interesting piece on the artificial division of what constitutes "fantasy" and how it's become viewed as sort of a ghetto compared to "literary fiction." I'll have to dig it up, but this link gets at her frustration as a writer- (and lol at "vegetable fantasy")
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/Alternat...

Lol....this makes me like her more : ) Great link, Carol!

'Literary' to me is like 'pornography', it's hard to define, but I know it when I read it.

But, beyond the particular examples given on the article, which were new to me and perhaps of interest, I think the article rather specious. Such things have been going on for ages and there are numerous examples of literary genre novels.

For some high-brow examples of Fantasy from the ages read Milton or Dante, Homer and Virgil, Beowulf or the Nibelungenlied or The Táin. Fantasy has been with us always. Perhaps the 1st SF ever is literary: Frankenstein. The Book of Revelations is wonderful speculative fiction.

And, much literature that is definitely genre is literary. Dhalgren and American Gods spring to mind. Indeed, a theme of Dhalgren is what is literature (in a sense). There are many, many more examples from Stranger in a Strange Land to Dune to LOTR...

Perhaps, by your definition a, that's why I'm not a huge fan of "literary books", with a few exceptions. There have been a few books, like the Thirteenth Tale, in which I thought the language was very good but the story was stupid, and I ended up rating it poorly because, for me, I read to be told a good story, not to read some pretty words which amount to nothing.

Well, they probably did address a human theme, it was just a stupid one. ;)

Like most things, literature goes through fashions and, right now, 'Geek chic' is in. That will probably change in a few years when the 'next big thing' arrives. In the meantime, it means more choices for those of us who actually love the genre.

However, like someone else said, I found much of the article specious. Fantasy is one of the oldest forms of literature - which of us didn't grow up with Grimm's fairy tales, Mother Goose, or, for that matter, the Bible.

I also found it odd they included Margaret Atwood in their list of literary authors who have switched. If so, she was way ahead of the curve since A Handmaid's Tale came out in the eighties. I suppose one could argue that it is really a story about feminism but most books have a sub-text and that includes fantasy and science fiction. Steven Erikson's roots in anthropology and his concern for the plight of First Nations people certainly show in the Malazan books, e.g. his portrayal of the Trail of Tears in Deadhouse Gates. It's hard to miss the Christian themes of Narnia or LOTR or the politics of 1984, Animal Farm, or Stranger in a Strange Land. Even Stephen Donaldson's portrayal of rape and the horrors of its aftermath are important given that it was written at a time when the Coke bottle defense was still being used in court and most literary fiction was still portraying women as objects.

The truth is that fantasy has always been a way to make sense of our world whether it was to help our ancestors feel safe in the dark, or to help children deal with danger, or to make us aware of the inequities of the world around us; and it has done it in a way that made it palatable without smacking us over the head with it.

So why should it be considered less than literary fiction? If anything, it has always been leaps and bounds ahead in showing us truths about ourselves and the world while telling a great story so, thanks, but I'll take that over 'snob appeal' any day.

Good points have been made at all. I personally don't like books that mean absolutely nothing to me. If I read the book and it doesn't move me or affect me, then I feel like my time is wasted. If a book is pointless, I find myself absolutely annoyed. A book doesn't have to be 'great literature' to have meaning or to move me. And I've read more than a few so-called literary books that failed to do both. A book that has meaning can be found in any genre. When I read most books, I automatically look for the themes in that story, and I usually can find them. It doesn't take more than being a human being to write any kind of story that addresses the human condition (that's inherent), and the speculative fiction genre gives a writer a lot more freedom to do so.

When I have the urge to call a book literary, my meaning is the writing is very good and high quality, it and evokes a visual image that is distinct and artistic as I read it. I can tell the writer put a lot of time and energy into writing it. That's what I mean when I say literary quality. Otherwise, I tend to be left cold by what is mostly considered literary fiction.

Maxine wrote, "Fantasy is one of the oldest forms of literature - which of us didn't grow up with Grimm's fairy tales, Mother Goose, or, for that matter, the Bible. "

Ridiculously offensive and unnecessary to your point. Classy. Really classy.

Lady Danielle "The Book Huntress" wrote: "When I have the urge to call a book literary, my meaning is the writing is very good and high quality, it and evokes a visual image that is distinct and artistic as I read it. I can tell the writer put a lot of time and energy into writing it."

I agree with this, although there are exceptions for me, such as what Nicki said regarding (and I'm paraphrasing) stylistic experimentation.

I read both of the books that KevinB mentions in the first post, and I would say that The Passage is "literary" according to your definition - clean, high quality writing that evokes a clear image for me and has a certain feel... I really enjoyed this book. I wouldn't call the writing fancy or over the top or anything, it didn't feel like I was reading anything "high brow", but it worked for the story. Similar to the way that I felt about The Name of the Wind.

The Reapers Are The Angels I would put more in Nicki's paraphrased category of literary stylistic experimentation. The sentences were choppy, with unusual words and slang and a lack of punctuation, etc. I liked it, it fit the main character/narrator, but I generally find that when grammar rules are disregarded, even when it works, it's a bit distracting and a bit gimmicky, like with Blindness or The Road. *shrug*

What do you mean, Nicki?

LOL... I knew what you meant by the litfic genre vs the concept of literary quality.

I was curious more about where you felt the conversation turned that way. Are you talking about my use of "high quality" regarding the writing?

Yeah, I think probably so. :) I'm not sure how else to describe what I mean though... It's just a "something" that lends a quality (meaning trait not the measurement of value) to the writing that makes it feel... literary to me.

I don't mean that I feel that the book is necessarily high quality... just that the writing has that... something. I can feel like the book is literary crap but still feel that something in the writing.

I'm probably explaining this horribly. LOL

I should also mention that I'm not a genre reader at all. I hardly ever even think about which genre a book is. So if I don't really think in terms of genre, or know really how to discuss a genre on its own, you'll have to forgive me. LOL

I didn't know that The Passage was "literary horror" or whatever it is when I read it. I just knew it was post-apocalyptic and that was enough for me. The same with Reapers - I was contacted and asked to review it after reviewing The Passage. All I knew was it was a post-apocalyptic zombie novel. :)

I do like when authors do experimenting, as long as it's not contrived and I can read it because it's still coherent. I think of writers are artists, so I support a writer's desire to grow and to try different things.

Nicki - I think part of the issue, though, is that it seems to me that a lot of critics and the like also conflate literary genre with literary quality. Why else would any genre book of literary quality be snatched up as literary and somehow not genre?

It's so pervasive it gets to the point where genre writers claim not to be genre writers because they're good... or they are above 'genre'.

Just want to point out she may not have meant to be offensive there.

She called the book that millions upon millions of folks, including myself, believe is firmly gospel truth, fantasy. If I know the definition of anything in this world, it's fantasy and there's no way that comparing the Bible to fairy tales could be construed as anything less than an uncalled for, disparaging, inflammatory downright shitty comment.

Well. It was not particularly sensitive to a particular viewpoint. Or maybe it was meant to be dialogue-provoking. ~feel free to weigh in, Maxine~ :)

Would the reaction be as strong if the comparison was made to the Koran? Siddhartha? I don't feel her comparison was meant to be ridiculing, only illustrating story-telling throughout history and an example of a very old form of literature most of us are familiar with.

I think Nicki hits the nail on the head with the way popular culture has tended to conflate "literary fiction" with "literary merit." Kernos gives several excellent examples of how some popular works could have been "genre-d" in a different way. While it may not matter to the readers, it matters somewhat for the livelihood of the writers, if the genre of choice is not chic at the moment...

I for one, will not miss the passing of "chick-lit" out of fashion, but resent it's sneaking into my urban fantasy. *wry grin*

Tracey, brow arched wrote: "Ala wrote: "Just want to point out she may not have meant to be offensive there."

There's kind of a lot of that going around."

Offensiveness? Or not meaning to be offensive? Trouble with forums~so hard to guess meaning sometimes.

Any mythology is fantasy by definition. Whether there are five believers or five million doesn't make a difference to that.

Margaret Atwood foams at the mouth if you call her sff.

Re literary as a genre: I agree with most of what' been said about this. But doesn't literary, as a genre itself, fall into the contemporary genre for the most part? I'm thinking of writers like John Irving, Mordecai Richler, Tim O'brien...

☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "She called the book that millions upon millions of folks, including myself, believe is firmly gospel truth, fantasy. If I know the definition of anything in this world, it's fantasy and there's no..."

You seem pretty pissed off here, so I'll just say take a breath man. Take a second, alright?

Whelp, gonna babble now.

You're a fantasy fan, right? A fantasy fanatic even. A fantanatic, if you will. Well, maybe not that last one. But you get the point, you love fantasy. You know the elements of it and the markers of fantasy and all of that. Well, me too.

Now, I can't speak for Maxine so I'll say it from my own perspective.

As a child I remember hearing stories from the Bible and Mother Goose and Grimm's Fairy tales, among other sources. As a kid, it was all the same to me. The boy who cried wolf, hanzel and gretel, jonah and the whale.

They were all just stories to me, without even a genre label of Fantasy. Just stories.

As I grew up, I learned they were Fantasy because they contained magic or monsters or things that just don't happen in the real world. They became the foundation for my fantanaticism over the years(decades(so old)).

So, to me, saying it's Fantasy isn't a bad thing. Nor do I mean to be offensive by it, either. It's simply how I would categorize it and all other mythological texts.

Doesn't change what that text means to you, but hopefully it explains what it means to me and that I mean no disrespect by it(overuse of mean, can't be helped).

It's also why I'll give Maxine the benefit of the doubt here.

I'll just stop now.

Ha. Ala, despite what everyone might thinks I'm not all that volatile. *grins* Okay perhaps I am but you have to be a douche for me to get pissy and I know that's not where you're coming from, bro. It's all about perspective, Ala. Moreso it's about How you say something. The problem with the internet and all too often the written word in general is that it can be so difficult to interpret tone. I get where you're coming from and perhaps Maxine meant it in the same light but I still think it was a comment that unless well explained, much like your statement, was as I said, inflammatory and uncalled for. I don't think her insulting Christians as a whole did anything to move her argument forward. Heck, she may BE a Christian for all I know but if that's the case and her statement was innocuous in it's intention then I really wish it had been more thoughtfully worded as to not give offence. She's an adult and obviously intelligent and I'm sure that had she the desire to not be rude that she could have worded her statement in a fairer fashion.

And Carol to answer your question, yes, I would have had an equally strong reaction to the Torah or Koran or any other religious foundational work. In the real world, I'm the majority or at least down here in the South I am and even there I don't push my views on those around me nor do I disparage anyone for having views other than my own. It's not me. On Goodreads however, (sometimes it seems like on the internet as a whole) I'm a minority. I may be wrong but it sure doesn't seem like there are just a ton of Christians on here and I see more than my share of athiest/agnostic leaning opinions that more often than not I disagree with. Honestly, I'm not upset about that. I'd rather be surrounded by well intentioned Athiests than a dumbass Christian trying to shove their beliefs down the worlds throats. If I went down my friends list I bet the majority of my buds aren't Christian and that's fine. It's not something that I think about when judging someone's worth as a friend any more than I do their gender or sexual orientation or race. However, I can flat guarantee you that I'd jump all Up in a Christian or Jew or Muslim's ass if they had the temerity to insult an athiest or agnostics belief system just as quickly as I'll crawl down someone's throat and tap dance on their liver for insulting my religion.

I'll let it go. *shrugs* I'm cool. As you well know, I'm just not the type to let things I find offensive slide by unchallenged.

H&K, Grant for being able to dialogue--and i mean my version, not yours. :)

I actually like calling out "classics" as literary fiction, as that at least would seem to be potentially more inclusive for a lot of great books that were not considered part of the canon. Maybe "contemporary fiction" is a sub-genre, much like "urban fantasy?"

Ultimately, it seems to be a lot about marketing. But it does drive me nuts when I don't know where to look in the library for my favorites--they seem to be moved around quite a bit, and I've even seen some UF (Sookie, for instance) in "mystery." Hmph.

You're right! And I also agree with literary stressing on style. Though, I would argue that its not more important than story. Most the literary novels I've read were stories within stories within stories. The actual plot can be difficult to find, though, especially when the novel takes the entire life of the main characters.

@Grant: Fair enough. Also, I am e-bro-hugging you so hard right now. :P

On-Topic: I don't even know what 'literary' means.

Nicki wrote: "I mean that a lot of folk start out by talking about literary fiction and end up talking about literary merit, literary quality, etc. as though they're the same thing. They're not, though. A book o..."

I agree in part, and when I use the term 'literary' I usually mean merit. Most literature can be placed in a genre of some sort beyond the literary genre. Can anyone five examples of a publisher's literary genre that could not fit into another genre?

Nicki wrote: "...My own, purely personal definition of literary fiction as a genre is something like this:..."

My definition is operational. I consider something literary if

1. I want to re-read it
2. It spans my decades, ie, it speaks to me, teaches me about myself or the world in new ways as I mature. IOW, every time I read it I discover something new.
3. It remains pertinent to multiple generations, so that it will last.
4. It 'wow's me in it's language, levels, ideas...
5. I read it once for effect and story, then for detail and depth of ideas.
6. It causes me to research topics to better understand the book.

What I have found interesting, is the discovery of speculative and historical/mythic fiction (my favorite genres) which are literary, ie, have literary merit. I feel they are becoming more common.

This is a great thread. Two basic qualities of literary fiction are, as people have noted, quality of writing and whether it's character driven. It's also a default category for a non-genre book. Calling it literary fiction helps publishers know how to market it and bookstore owners to correctly shelve it.

In the end, those two marketing necessities have a lot to do with how a book is categorized. That's why the publishing world often hates crossovers or fusion fiction. Where will they put it?

Ala wrote: "☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "She called the book that millions upon millions of folks, including myself, believe is firmly gospel truth, fantasy. If I know the definition of anything in this ..."

☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "Maxine wrote, "Fantasy is one of the oldest forms of literature - which of us didn't grow up with Grimm's fairy tales, Mother Goose, or, for that matter, the Bible. "

Ridiculously offensive and un..."

Discussing fantasy/mythology in a 'clinical' fashion rather than from a religious point of view, I have to say that I did not find Maxine's statement offensive.

A class I took in college (I was a literature major) which was entitled "Comparative Mythology" had us studying Greek and Roman mythologies, Norse mythologies and Native American mythologies as well as religious writings ... including the Bible. All of these writings were discussed not on the basis of belief systems, but compared as to themes common to all of them.

I found that class extremely interesting and 45 years later Itend to remember things from that class when I don't even remember some of the other classes I took at the same time.

Not finding offense is your point of view, Sharon. Finding offense is mine. *shrugs* I don't mind the Bible being compared to mythology or the stories contained within being called myth. Tolkien and Lewis both saw the Bible as true myth and I agree with that. Comparing the Bible to fairy tales though? Negatory. I have a bachelors in literature and had my time studying the same subject matter, Sharon. At no point, however, was a story from the Bible compared to Little Red Riding Hood or Jack and the Beanstalk.

True myth?

"Dyson and Tolkien showed me… that if I met the idea of sacrifice in a Pagan story I didn’t mind it at all… I liked it very much and was mysteriously moved by it… I was prepared to feel the myth as profound and suggestive of meanings beyond my grasp tho’ I could not say in cold prose ‘what it meant.’ Now the story of Christ is simple a true myth…. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets … while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call ‘real things’” C.S. Lewis The Pilgrim's Regress: An Allegorical Apology for Christianity Reason and Romanticism

"Myth does not equal the non-historical; myth equals the non-describable" C.S. Lewis Perelandra

True myth.

Both the bible and fairy tales are lesson stories. Fairy tales are rumored to have bits of truth in them as well...in their folk tale origins.

"Literary fiction" is different from genre fiction in its intent. Whether it is the author or the publisher trying to position a book, a "literary" book is about making a point. Becoming the next Great American Novel that tells the Truth of our times. The drunk housewife. The unhappy car salesman. The time traveling husband. The Spanish civil war. whatever. "Literary" fiction tends to also have multiple layers of meanings. Genre fiction can have some wonderful "themes" but usually that is not the first intention of the story. It is only a generalization, but "genre" fiction is primarily for enjoyment. I think Jim Butcher is a really good writer, but I am not looking to analyze him for the theme of the turn-of-the-century. I am just about finished reading The Magicians, and I am guessing that this would be considered "literary" fantasy because it seems to be more about a particular point than about the actual fantasy.

I think of The Magicians more as satirical fantasy fiction, not "literary" at all. But then again, it depends on how you define what "literary" fiction is. To me it sounds all serious and boring... The Magicians is definitely not serious!

hmmnnn...I think The Magicians is pretty serious. I'm not sure I like that part about it either. It's theme of (view spoiler)["there is no point to anything we do"...."always looking for the next great escape" is somewhat depressing to me. Thoughtful, yes, but it seems like the point of the book is highlight the pointless of fantasy, not the fantasy itself. (hide spoiler)] Did you find it funny? It didn't feel satirical to me because I didn't find much humor in it, but then maybe my mental examples of satire are too narrow.

☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "I have a bachelors in literature and had my time studying the same subject matter, Sharon. At no point, however, was a story from the Bible compared to Little Red Riding Hood or Jack and the Beanstalk."

There are definitely widely varying points of view. Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of the Greek and Roman mythologies rather than 'fairy stories' as in Little Red Riding Hood.

I found it funny, in a very dry sarcastic way. And seeing as though I'm pretty sarcastic myself, that type of humor appealed to me. But yeah, (view spoiler)[it also presents the whole life sucks and then you die, everything is hopeless point of view. But I meant satirical in that it blatantly is a satire version of Harry Potter, Narnia, and with little bits of The Wizard of Oz sprinkled in for good measure. It has a point, of course... Most book do have a point, or at least try to have a point.. But I'd say it's most definitely satire. And funny as well... I mean come one, honk honk honk honk honk?? :) (hide spoiler)]

I've only read about half of The Magicians so far, but I agree with Michele. If we are to define "literary" as books where the theme is the main focus, then I think I agree with this for the Magicians. One of my complaints, actually, is (view spoiler)[that there's not enough time focused on the learning, on the characters, on the magic and classes - and I think this is because the real focus of it is on that feeling of longing in Quentin, and that feeling like he's missing something. That looking outward to find satisfaction. (hide spoiler)]

I also don't find it particularly funny. I mean, yeah, it has some funny bits, but I wouldn't describe it as a funny book - and I am also a fan of dry and sarcastic humor.

I'm also not sure I'd consider it satire. Yes, it has (view spoiler)[clear homages and nods to Narnia and Hogwarts and whatnot, but that does not a satire make.

On the other hand, as satire is defined as "a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule" then I could see The Magicians being a satire in that it sort of derides the notion that we can find happiness if only our if onlys were met... if only magic were real... if only I was taken away to a magical school... if only someone loved me... so on and so forth.

But I also think that a satire, but it's very nature, has a focus on theme. It seems a little paradoxical, to me, to say that the focus of the story is not on its point and to also call it a satire since, as I said, to me a satire seems to be written with the purpose of scorning that what it is satirizing. (hide spoiler)]

Anyway - thus far, I do find The Magicians to be far more serious than not. And the jury is still out on boring. ;)

It may be literary... Like I said, I'm not even sure how to define literary. To me it just sounds old and stuffy and boring. But it's definitely a satire. Not just a satire of Harry Potter and Narnia, but also in a way a satire of (view spoiler)[the audience that reads Harry Potter and Narnia, craving that same sense of escapism that Quentin is unsuccessfully looking for throughout the entire story. (hide spoiler)] I really don't see how it could not be considered satire. Satire doesn't necessarily have to be humorous, it just usually is.

Dawn, as I said (view spoiler)["On the other hand, as satire is defined as "a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule" then I could see The Magicians being a satire in that it sort of derides the notion that we can find happiness if only our if onlys were met..."

Which is, to me, the same as what you're talking about with the sense of escapism. (hide spoiler)]

Sorry Colleen, it's early, I guess my brain glazed over on that part :)

No worries. I'll forgive you. This time...

☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "...If I know the definition of anything in this world, it's fantasy and there's no way that comparing the Bible to fairy tales could be construed as anything less than an uncalled for, disparaging, inflammatory downright shitty comment."

Hmmm. Sensitive subject and difficult to talk about in a virtual community. I agree calling it a fairy tale sounds derogatory, since fairy tales are parochial, local in comparison.

I consider the Bible a compendium of ancient history, myths and legends, philosophy and poetry. Many in our cultures find truths to base their lives on in the books. I find my truths by walking in the woods or peering at the stars, in Nature and consider the study of Nature the highest form of Human endeavor.

Being very interested in where we came from, I find the Bible to be source material of 1st importance as are works of Homer, Hesiod, Virgil, Ovid, Buddha, The Mahabharata and many other ancient texts.

And all sources of some great fiction, literary and genre.

Colleen ~blackrose~ wrote: "No worries. I'll forgive you. This time..."

I mostly missed it because you stated it so much smartlier than I did, if that makes you feel any better :)

Smartlier? (^_-)

But, hey, it's not like appealing to my ego and vanity could hurt your cause any, right? ;)

Smartlier is totally a word. Or it is now, at least. I say so.