20th Century Fantasy Canon (long)
Ethan A Merritt
>There have been a number of threads in this group recently trying to
>define a canon for science fiction; I have not, however, seen any
>attempts to do the same for fantasy. So let's give it a go.
>
>First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
>be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
>does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify. Let
>
>I can find only *three* works that I believe to belong in the canon.
>
>_The Lord of the Rings_ - J. R. R. Tolkien.
This is probably the only one people will agree on. We'll see.
>
>_Little, Big_ - John Crowley.
I think this is an "almost made-it". To my taste Crowley doesn't
quite pull it off in _Little, Big_. This place should go instead
either to Mark Helprin (for _Winter's Tale_) or, ducking arguments
about "fantasy" to Gene Wolfe for _The Book of the New Sun_.
>
>_Mythago Wood_ - Robert Holdstock.
Yuck. This doesn't even merit serious consideration.
Overblown, pretentious, no meat or consistancy behind it,
a clever idea that was not well executed. Besides which,
are you going to argue it was "influential in the field"?
>C. S. Lewis' Narnia series is, in the end, too heavy-handed in its
>Christian allegory for adults to fully appreciate. We learn too much
>about Lewis, and too little about Narnia.
I agree with your summary, but that doesn't disqualify it on
any of your three stated criteria.
>I may have missed one or two worthy candidates. However, it seems
>highly unlikely that there are more than half a dozen contenders.
You're not looking hard enough. How about:
E. Nesbitt (various works), _highly influential_ both on several
generations of children and on several generations of writers.
Hmmm, maybe she missed the 20th century cutoff, I can't remember
whether she was pre- or post- turn of the century.
Andre Norton. I really, really, really can't believe you didn't list
Norton. Really.
Peter S Beagle - has been writing steadily and excellently but sadly
not too rapidly. _The Last Unicorn_ is a non-derivative fairy-tale novel,
_Lila the Werewolf_ broke new ground in urban fantasy, later brilliantly
followed up in _The Folk of the Air_. And to top it off his latest,
_The Innkeeper's Song_ is a strong contender for current F&SF awards.
Ursula K Le Guin - The _Earthsea_ books
And what about H P Lovecraft - influential and surely you're not going
to tell me that's science fiction rather than fantasy?
What about Ray Bradbury's _Something Wicked This Way Comes_ and
_Dandelion Wine_?
I'm sure I'm overlooking at least as many more, but that should at least
be enough to re-open your list to new thoughts.
Ethan A Merritt
mer...@u.washington.edu
Elizabeth Willey
Mirrlees), no Lord Dunsany, no Fletcher Pratt, no Mervyn Peake, no
Sylvia Townsend Warner, no James Branch Cabell, no E. R. Eddison, no
C. S. Lewis...
What kind of anemic list are you trying to fob off on the world here?
Elizabeth Willey
Mark Pitcavage
In addition to _The Lord of the Rings_, _Mythago Wood_, and _Little, Big_ (all
of which I would agree belong to the list of canon), I would add the following:
The Worm Ouroboros, by E. R. Eddison
The Dying Earth, by Jack Vance
The Digging Leviathan, by James P. Blaylock (or another representative
Blaylockian work)
Zothique, by Clark Ashton Smith
The Once and Future King, by T. H. White
Titus Groan, Gormenghast, and Titus Alone, all by Mervyn Peake
The Well of the Unicorn, by Fletcher Pratt
A Wizard of Earthsea, by Ursula K. LeGuin
The Green Man, by Kingsley Amis
The Phoenix and the Mirror, by Avram Davidson
Gloriana, by Michael Moorcock
Nifft the Lean, by Michael Shea
Aegypt, by John Crowley
Andrew C. Plotkin
(Well, maybe not. But:)
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk (Mike Scott) writes:
> First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
> be well-written, influential in the field and original.
I don't think you support "influential" very well. Tolkien, fine.
(He's *canonically* canonical in the fantasy genre :-) But _Mythago
Wood_ and _Little, Big_ are teeny tiny works in that respect. Nobody
has heard of them except from SF snobs like us that recommend books to
all our friends and post too much.
Sadly, "influential" in the 80s was Terry Brooks. He changed the face
of fantasy publishing by proving that you could steal Tolkien blind
and get away with it. (Actually, that was only his first book. His
later books proved that you could steal *yourself* blind, while
stealing Tolkien only very sneakily, or for that matter just write
total garbage, and it wouldn't matter as long as you were an
Established Author who got the hardback contracts and big
advertisements.)
Pardon me. I grow somewhat bitter.
Influential. Someone said Le Guin, with which I agree in spades.
Someone said Norton, with which I would like to agree but I haven't
read any of those books. How about McCaffrey and M. Z. Bradley? Those
are SF/fantasy blurred, but I'd say that there *are* a lot of such
sort-of-fantasy books today precisely because of those two authors.
(Kirstein and C.S.Friedmann, for example, are very much in that
tradition.)
Now is the part where I tear apart all your rejections, but I'll make
it short. I thought that...
Tigana was very original, the Covenant books were worthwhile in spite
of bad prose, Tepper is to my taste, children's fantasy is as
justifiably canonical as anything else (The Hobbit! The Prydain
books!), MacAvoy is as good as anyone, Pratchett is better, and
Zelazny can't quite be dismissed as SF.
This is, by the way, a much more interesting thread than the "10 best"
kind of things. Everybody has favorites. I should really delete my
comment above about Pratchett because, although I think he's one of
the top few authors in the field, that doesn't make him more canonical
than, well, the other people I think are tops. (None of whom were
mentioned by you, BTW.) (The only one I might diffidently suggest is
McKillip's _Riddlemaster of Hed_ trilogy.)
> I may have missed one or two worthy candidates. However, it seems
> highly unlikely that there are more than half a dozen contenders.
> Similar exercises in the field of science fiction can turn up dozens of
> candidates quite easily. I believe that we can only conclude that
> depsite its current success in the marketplace, modern fantasy is in
> poor shape, and is stuck in a rut of formulaic writing.
Heh. 90% of it is. The other 10%, I've found, is startlingly original,
and bypasses the whole canonicality debate by being *unlike* other
works both before and after. All right, not 10%. But a lot of the
stuff I like. _The Anubis Gates_ wasn't *influential*, it was just
really good. That's not Powers' fault; nobody *tried* to imitate him.
The above paragraph is gross generalization, of course. Dilute 50% for
best results.
By the way, and to totally change the subject, I'd define "canonical
work" as "one you'd better have read if you want to understand the
genre." Which, unsubtly, implies that "the Canon" is a construct of
critics, rather than People Who Just Like To Read The Damn Stuff.
Unfortunately, I am both, which is why I'm posting at all. Sigh.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Mark Pitcavage
>> I may have missed one or two worthy candidates.
>Tim Powers, The Drawing of the Dark
>Charles De Lint, Moonheart
>Robert Asprin (Ed.), Thieves World
>Windling and Arnold (Ed.), Borderland
>Keri Hulme, The Bone People
All of the above, _especially_ the anthologies are far too generous, IMO, for
"canon."
>Mark Helprin, A Winter's Tale
I could agree with Helprin.
>T.H. White, The Once and Future King
I already am on record suggesting that, so I could hardly disagree with it. :)
Jo Walton
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk "Mike Scott" writes:
> First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
> be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
> does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify. Let
> us not get bogged down in an attempt to define fantasy - I think that
> all of the works I discuss can be generally agreed to be fantasy rather
> than SF or mainstream.
>
> I can find only *three* works that I believe to belong in the canon.
> These are:
>
> _The Lord of the Rings_ - J. R. R. Tolkien. This has been imitated and
> pastiched so many times now that it's easy to forget how stunningly
> original it was back in the fifties. Tolkien also had a much better ear
> for language than 99% of his imitators.
Yes.
>
> _Little, Big_ - John Crowley. Crowley's masterpiece, a skilful blend
> of fantasy and near future sf, with the fantasy predominating. Defies
> description or categorisation.
I've just had this recommended to me, but I haven't read it, so rain check.
> _Mythago Wood_ - Robert Holdstock. A dark journey back through the
> racial unconscious to the dreams and nightmares of the first humans.
But so old fashioned in style, and so unbelieveable, and I thought you said
influential - what has it influenced? I think Ian McDonald's _King of Morning,
Queen of Day_ makes this look like _Winnie the Pooh_.
I would suggest:
Poul Anderson's _The Broken Sword_ which was a big influence on Moorcock, among
others, and is well written and very original. It was written before _LotR_ and
published the same year. It set up the section of fantasy that deals with Law
and Chaos rather than good and evil.
Diane Duane's _The Door Into..._ series. Although not finished and therefore
not eligible to qualify, or influence anyone, they are stunningly orginal,
beautifully written and seem to come from a different universe than most
fantasy books. When someone looks back on C.20 fantasy they may seem more
important.
Ursula Le Guin's _Earthsea_ trilogy. Although written for children they lose
nothing when read by an adult, and their realism and attitude to magic is very
original. Also the style of the first book is absolutely stunning - it is
written as a fairytale in such a way that you don't even notice unless you pay
close attention. Never fails to impress me. I think they have been influential
on a lot of people too.
Michael Swannick's _The Iron Dragon's Daughter_. I don't like this book. But it
is undoubtedly fantasy. It is undoubtedly well written. And it is undoubtedly
original. Too early to say if it will be influential, however.
> Unworthy of consideration are Brooks, Weis & Hickman, Anthony, Eddings,
> Feist, Jordan, Wylie and Lackey. And doubtless many more. Many of
> these authors produce entertaining work, but they fall far short on all
> three counts.
Agreed, totally.
>
> Guy Gavriel Kay is a much better writer than most, but so far has not
> shown great originality. He may have a masterwork in him, but he hasn't
> written it yet.
He's learnt from and built on Tolkien, which most of Tolkien's imitators have
not. I really like his work, and hope that he will produce something of
stunning originality RSN.
> Stephen Donaldson's First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant might qualify,
> but unfortunately the man has a tin ear and has swallowed a dictionary.
> The Second Chronicles are virtually unreadable.
Agreed.
> Orson Scott Card's assorted fantasies lack just a little in all three
> departments, but the Alvin Maker series might qualify when (if?) it is
> completed.
The fact that the series seems to be wandering away from the point doesn't make
it any less original - if he'd just written _Seventh Son_ I would say it
qualified. The style, again, is excellent, and the whole attitude to the world
and the magic is very different from other fantasy.
> Sheri Tepper's work is not to my taste, and has not had the widespread
> favourable critical attention that I would expect of a contender for the
> canon.
Most of her work is SF, however it is disguised. Only _Beauty_ would be a
contender, and it may be. The fact that I hate it passionately probably
precludes me from commenting on it, but if someone else wants to defend it I
would have to say it is original and well written. Again it's too soon to say
for influence.
> C. S. Lewis' Narnia series is, in the end, too heavy-handed in its
> Christian allegory for adults to fully appreciate. We learn too much
> about Lewis, and too little about Narnia.
Well - I don't want to argue all night, but I really like them. However, they
don't qualify on originality, he was too influenced by Tolkien (personally).
> _Tea With the Black Dragon_, by R. A. MacAvoy, is the nearest miss. It
> received considerable acclaim at first publication, but now appears to
> have sunk without trace.
It would have been the ideal book to win the Booker Prize if it had been
published in the mainstream. Again, I like it, but it can't be seen as
influential. Her _Damiano_ trilogy are also original, though not as good.
> I may have missed one or two worthy candidates. However, it seems
> highly unlikely that there are more than half a dozen contenders.
> Similar exercises in the field of science fiction can turn up dozens of
> candidates quite easily. I believe that we can only conclude that
> depsite its current success in the marketplace, modern fantasy is in
> poor shape, and is stuck in a rut of formulaic writing.
>
> You, of course, may hold a different opinion - that's what Usenet's for.
Unfortunately, on the whole, I agree with the drift of your argument. People
want more sub-Tolkien, so when something unusual does appear it is usually
coming out of SF (e.g. Swannick, Ian McDonald) and not fantasy even when it is
fantasy, fantasy readers don't like it because it is different, or whatever.
One of the things that strikes me as a positive sign in fantasy is the recent
re-writing of fairytales, which is going beyond Tolkien to the roots of
(Western European, mostly) fantasy. So Robin McKinley, Jane Yolen, Ellen
Kushner and others are pushing at the boundary of what fantasy is, and
expanding that boundary to make room for the next really original work. I don't
think any of the work produced in this area (yet) qualifies for the canon, but
possibly _Deerskin_ may when it has had a chance to become influential.
--
Jo
*********************************************************
- - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
*********************************************************
Jean-Louis Trudel
in my voice behind Mervyn Peake and Ursula K. LeGuin as two authors
who deserve to be canonical. Influential? No for Peake and, probably
for LeGuin. Exploring new directions, which probably describes much
better Holdstock: yes for both.
But, just to let the fox loose in the hen house, why not also include:
_Cien Anos de Soledad_, by Gabriel Garcia Marquez,
a book that should qualify on all conceivable grounds?
Or is this just supposed to be an English-language canon?
Jean-Louis Trudel
Jeff Tang
>There have been a number of threads in this group recently trying to
>define a canon for science fiction; I have not, however, seen any
>attempts to do the same for fantasy. So let's give it a go.
>
>First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
>be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
>does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify. Let
>us not get bogged down in an attempt to define fantasy - I think that
>all of the works I discuss can be generally agreed to be fantasy rather
>than SF or mainstream.
>
>I can find only *three* works that I believe to belong in the canon.
>These are:
>
>_The Lord of the Rings_ - J. R. R. Tolkien. This has been imitated and
>pastiched so many times now that it's easy to forget how stunningly
>original it was back in the fifties. Tolkien also had a much better ear
>for language than 99% of his imitators.
Fine. Everyone will agree to this.
>
>_Little, Big_ - John Crowley. Crowley's masterpiece, a skilful blend
>of fantasy and near future sf, with the fantasy predominating. Defies
>description or categorisation.
I'll grant you well written and original, but influential? Maybe on a small
subset of fantasy, but it's influence is small.
>_Mythago Wood_ - Robert Holdstock. A dark journey back through the
>racial unconscious to the dreams and nightmares of the first humans.
I found this dreary and pointless, and I can't see any influence at all.
>I welcome more ideas. However, in a futile attempt to cut down on
>useless debate, let me mention a few authors who I have considered and
>dismissed.
>
>Unworthy of consideration are Brooks, Weis & Hickman, Anthony, Eddings,
>Feist, Jordan, Wylie and Lackey. And doubtless many more. Many of
>these authors produce entertaining work, but they fall far short on all
>three counts.
Maybe you can dismiss them, but let's take a look. The strongest contender up
there is Anthony. I nominate _A Spell for Chameleon_. Everything he's put out
for years and years now has been worthless, but his early stuff is good.
This is probably Anthony at his best, and it's good. It's not the greatest
ever, but very good. An original work, it seems pretty non-derivative to me. If
we count the rest of the Xanth series, the influence in terms of fantasy books
sold is pretty great. Even without that, I'm seeing lots of very silly books,
more than before. I'm sure Anthony's success has something to do with it.
>
>Guy Gavriel Kay is a much better writer than most, but so far has not
>shown great originality. He may have a masterwork in him, but he hasn't
>written it yet.
I believe his work has been among the best, but it's too early to tell what its
influence will be.
>Roger Zelazny's colourful works, of which the best are _Lord of Light_
>and the first Amber series come close. I believe that Zelazny himself
>has damaged their reputation by going on to produce similar but inferior
>works which detract from the originals. _Lord of Light_ might qualify
>anyway, were it not so resolutely written from the SF point of view - it
>certainly belongs in the SF canon, and we shall leave it there.
Don't forget the Amber series.
Beyond the others I've seen nominated, how about:
_The Wizard of Oz_ Baum
_Swords against something_ Lieber
_Conan the Adventurer_ Howard
_The Incompleat Enchanter_ de Camp?
_The Face in the Frost_ Belairs
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Something of Leiber: probably _Swords and Deviltry_ as it is the original,
> although I prefer _The Swords of Lankhmar_ (This elevation of Leiber not
> many will go along with, I suspect).
Hmm, I would say that de Camp/Pratt's _Incomplete Enchanter_ would be a
better choice to represent _Unknown_, but it's close...
[snip-snip]
> _The Master and The Margharita_ by Bulgakov
Er... _The Master and Margarita_ (and *do* try to avoid the first
(abridged) edition.) A fine book, but I don't think it was very
influential outside of Russia.
[snip]
> You've headed the thread 20th century fantasy... if you hadn't, I would have
> added:
[list snipped]
How about Stoker's _Drakula_?
> ... but you have, so I won't. It might be interesting to compare the writers
> from this century with past periods. Have the last 90-odd years been
> stronger or weaker than, say 1800-1895?
> People you don't discuss, and who I wouldn't add to the list but who deserve
> a worthy mention include George MacDonald, Jack Vance, Susan Cooper, Michael
> Moorcock [snip-snip-snip-snip]
Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu was probably more influential than we realize,
Robert W. Chambers' _The King in Yellow_ was definitely an influence,
Thorne Smith inflienced American popular culture to a significant extent.
Then there is John Collier, William Hope Hodgson, William Morris,
Kuttner/Moore (both Northwest Smith - borderline fantasy - and _The Dark
World_ (and other 'science fantasy' novels)), etc.
--
Ahasuerus
http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer (including the Heinlein page)
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/heinlein.faq
Christina Schulman
to degenerate into everybody listing their favorite books, which
skews the list ridiculously toward recent years. On the other hand,
they're fun to argue about, and pointless discussion is a way of life.
The purpose of a canon is to have a body of work we can point to and
say, "These are the major influences on the field. These stories have
had a profound influence, direct or indirect, on the fantasies being
written today." Tolkien certainly falls into this category; Crowley
and Holdstock are too recent to have had much of an effect, World
Fantasy Awards or no. (Besides, I think Holdstock's vastly overrated,
but I'll pick on him some other time.) Many of the other authors
people have named are also, IMHO, way too recent. (Although I can't
argue with the people who said that Terry Brooks and Piers Anthony
have had a profound effect on the marketing of current fantasy, more's
the pity.)
Elizabeth Willey <el...@ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>I'm simply boggled. No Angela Carter, no _Lud-in-the-Mist_ (Hope
>Mirrlees), no Lord Dunsany, no Fletcher Pratt, no Mervyn Peake, no
>Sylvia Townsend Warner, no James Branch Cabell, no E. R. Eddison, no
>C. S. Lewis...
Most of these authors can be found in the Ballantine Adult Fantasy
line, which makes a pretty damn good canon on its own except for the
lack of Tolkien and Lewis. The whole list can be found at
<ftp://gandalf.rutgers.edu/pub/sfl/authorlists/Ballantine.Adult.Fantasies>;
I won't waste bandwidth by including it here. In addition to the
authors Elizabeth listed, it also includes Peter Beagle, Clark Ashton
Smith, H.P. Lovecraft, G.K. Chesterton, de Camp & Pratt, and lots more.
The only problem with these books is that they're so hard to find; I've
been picking up the Ballantine Adult Fantasies and Ballantine/Del Rey
Best of <science fiction author> books whenever I see them, on the
grounds that even if I haven't heard of the author, sooner or later
somebody on rec.arts.sf.written (usually Dani or Ahasuerus) will say
something to make me reach for the book.
I agree with Andrew Plotkin that most of the best fantasies are the
startlingly original ones, but original doesn't necessarily mean good
(look at Holdstock, for instance--I did say I'd get back to picking on
him) and blatantly derivative fantasy can be great (for instance, the
Deed of Paksenarrion). But a "canonical" fantasy is one that helped to
define the cliches against which the better authors today are reacting.
Elizabeth, what did Angela Carter write?
--
Christina Schulman schu...@pitt.edu
"The book is probably as close to a perfect invention as we are likely to
see for some time. It is compact, relatively lightweight and portable, and
can act as a paperweight or, in the case of the average Stephen King novel,
a doorstop." -- Stephen H. Sterns
Mark Pitcavage
>>
>>_Little, Big_ - John Crowley. Crowley's masterpiece, a skilful blend
>>of fantasy and near future sf, with the fantasy predominating. Defies
>>description or categorisation.
>I'll grant you well written and original, but influential? Maybe on a small
>subset of fantasy, but it's influence is small.
It would be very difficult _not_ to list _Little, Big_ in the fantasy canon,
given that Alan Bloom in his recent infamous book on the Western canon, lists
this as one of the "must-read" books.
>Maybe you can dismiss them, but let's take a look. The strongest contender up
>there is Anthony. I nominate _A Spell for Chameleon_. Everything he's put out
>for years and years now has been worthless, but his early stuff is good.
>This is probably Anthony at his best, and it's good. It's not the greatest
>ever, but very good. An original work, it seems pretty non-derivative to me. If
>we count the rest of the Xanth series, the influence in terms of fantasy books
>sold is pretty great. Even without that, I'm seeing lots of very silly books,
>more than before. I'm sure Anthony's success has something to do with it.
_A Spell for Chameleon_ isn't anything more than lowest-common denominator
fantasy. Take away the cute magical tricks and you have no characterization,
not much setting, mediocre prose, and not much else.
Soren F. Petersen
Andrew C. Plotkin <ap...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Sadly, "influential" in the 80s was Terry Brooks.
In the sense we're using the word, I don't think Brooks really counts.
Sure he sold a lot of books, but has he inspired anyone good? We'll
know a few more years down the road when we get some really-good-
writers-who-read-*Shanara*-when-they-were-12-and-didn't-know-any-
better.
I don't deny the commercial effect, but I thought we were being
unapologetically snobby here.
(And for that matter, I don't even think it's all negative. After all,
if Brooks made the multivolume tolkein-rip-off a commercial reality,
then we get to thank him for *Memory, Sorrow & Thorn* and *Wheel of Time*
(which may or may not belong on any sort of elitist canonnical list, but
which I at least enjoyed immensely).)
>By the way, and to totally change the subject, I'd define "canonical
>work" as "one you'd better have read if you want to understand the
>genre." Which, unsubtly, implies that "the Canon" is a construct of
>critics, rather than People Who Just Like To Read The Damn Stuff.
I like your definition of canon much better. It's explicitly
subjective, and I suspect it points to a list much closer to what we
are actually looking for than any list where we have to scrutinize
applicants for "originality" and "quality".
Any way, some stuff that I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned
(using the above definition):
Robert E. Howard
H.P. Lovecraft
the sort of urbane, contemporary stuff that Campbell was
publishing in UNKNOWN (Pratt/De Camp's *Compleat Enchantor*,
Lieber's one about all women being witches (forgot the title),
etc--I wish more of it was in print.
Mervin Peake
At least some works of contemporary urban fantasy (I don't like
de Lint much, but he probably counts, my favorite of the sub-genre
is probably Megan Lindholm's *Wizard of the Pigeons*).
By the way, I haven't actually read any Howard or Lovecraft. By my own
lights, then, I do NOT understand the genre, and can be safely ignored.
--
--
Goethe wasn't necessarily thinking of you...
so...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
Conrad Dunkerson ... Wharton NJ
: First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
: be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
: does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify. Let
: us not get bogged down in an attempt to define fantasy - I think that
: all of the works I discuss can be generally agreed to be fantasy rather
: than SF or mainstream.
: _The Lord of the Rings_ - J. R. R. Tolkien. This has been imitated and
: pastiched so many times now that it's easy to forget how stunningly
: original it was back in the fifties. Tolkien also had a much better ear
: for language than 99% of his imitators.
I agree completely.
: _Little, Big_ - John Crowley.
Interesting, I've never even heard of it.
: _Mythago Wood_ - Robert Holdstock. A dark journey back through the
: racial unconscious to the dreams and nightmares of the first humans.
It's original, well written, and not very influential so far as I know.
I also didn't like it. Nice concept, boring presentation. The brooding
mysticism fell flat for me.
Judith Tarr's 'Hound and the Falcon' trilogy comes to mind as a strong
example of historic fantasy; well written and original. Unfortunately,
it doesn't enjoy any popularity or influence that I know of.
It really is difficult to think of books that would qualify for all three
considerations. I've read alot of GOOD fantasy, but not alot of ORIGINAL
fantasy. Even Tolkien borrowed heavily from mythic sources.
Michael Moorcock, 'War Hound and the World's Pain' Original,
well-written, and practically unknown. The Elric books are more popular
and could almost qualify except that I consider the writing somewhat weak.
--
Conrad B. Dunkerson > Bertrand de Levinwirth > con...@earth.planet.net
Mike Scott
thought it would stir up a little controversy...
Sadly, I've not read everything suggested as additions, but of those I
have read I would add:
_A Wizard of Earthsea_, Ursula K. Le Guin
_Red Shift_, Alan Garner
_Gormenghast_, Mervyn Peake
_The Once and Future King_. T. H. White
I might also, reluctantly, delete _Mythago Wood_.
I should point out that I didn't intend to include either horror (e.g.
Lovecraft) or magical realism (e.g. _The Bridge_ by Iain Banks), but I
didn't make this clear.
Someone made the very valid point that this is an extremely
English-language centred list. I'm afraid that I've not read much
non-English fantasy (not even _Five Hundred Years of Solitude_), so
perhaps somebody else would care to comment.
--
Mike Scott || Confabulation is the 1995 UK national SF convention
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk || Mail Con...@moose.demon.co.uk for more details
Bernard Peek
subgenres missing. That's one of the reasons why I suggested that
children's fiction and sword & sorcery should be included. And here
does dark fantasy fit in? My suggestions included several urban
fantasy titles and one of the earliest (and still best) shared world
series.
One thing that I am sure of, the canon has to include some of the work
edited by Terri Windling. For short stories I'd go with the Elsewhere
anthologies. For novels, pick one of the fairy-tale series.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
(In search of Cognoscenti.)
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
Mark Pitcavage
>Well, I'm gratified by the quality of the responses to this thread. I
>thought it would stir up a little controversy...
>Sadly, I've not read everything suggested as additions, but of those I
>have read I would add:
>_Red Shift_, Alan Garner
I think this is a fine addition.
(books I've previously commented on deleted)
>I might also, reluctantly, delete _Mythago Wood_.
I'm pretty sure MW is more popular in the UK than in the US, but I see no
reason why it shouldn't stay on the list.
>I should point out that I didn't intend to include either horror (e.g.
>Lovecraft) or magical realism (e.g. _The Bridge_ by Iain Banks), but I
>didn't make this clear.
Sometimes it's hard to draw the line. For instance, what would you call the
Straub/King collaboration -The Talisman-?
Mark Pitcavage
>One author not as yet mentioned, who meets at least two of the three
>criteria suggested for "canonical" twentieth century fantasy writers is
>Mary Gentle. It's perhaps too early to say how influential see will
>prove to be, but she is never less than good and "Rats and Gargoyles"
>is magnificent. (As always in these matters, YMMV, of course.)
Gentle is someone who seems to kindle strong like or dislike in people. I've
always thought her writing undisciplines but she certainly has her adherents.
>I'd strongly support those who put forward LeGuin (I'm in the minority
>who think that "Tombs of Atuan" was the best Earthsea book and that
>"Tehanu" was good) and Zelazny. A writer who has not been the least bit
>influential, but in his "Bird of Kinship" series wrote in my opinion
>one of the two or three best fantasy works of the century, is Richard
>Cowper.
I haven't read anything by Cowper. But a misreading of part of the above
paragraph has made me think of Tanith Lee, who has been quietly producing some
excellent fantasy over the past few years.
Peter Westlake
> > C. S. Lewis' Narnia series is, in the end, too heavy-handed in its
> > Christian allegory for adults to fully appreciate. We learn too much
> > about Lewis, and too little about Narnia.
I disagree. The worlds of Narnia and the Cosmic Trilogy are well-developed
and the latter especially has great emotional power. It has a severe beauty
all of its own, completely alien to anything I could actually believe in,
but *on its own terms* very consistent and convincing. _Perelandra_ has some
of the best examples - the passage which implies that humans are at the
centre of creation ("and who shall gainsay them?") but then goes on to say
that everything else is too, sends shivers up my spine.
Another book of this sort is David Lindsay's _A Voyage to Arcturus_, which
has another austere and even bleak cosmology (certainly not one in which
one would want to live) but is nevertheless unbelievably good. Ironically,
Lewis himself felt about this book rather the way I feel about his.
Likewise E. R. Eddison's ZImiamvia trilogy. Both of these should be on
your list too.
Peter.
--
Peter Westlake, Harlequin Ltd, Barrington Hall, Barrington, Cambs CB2 5RQ.
Peter Westlake
> Well, I'm gratified by the quality of the responses to this thread. I
> thought it would stir up a little controversy...
>
> Sadly, I've not read everything suggested as additions, but of those I
> have read I would add:
>
> _A Wizard of Earthsea_, Ursula K. Le Guin
>
> _Red Shift_, Alan Garner
Not to mention _Elidor_, _The Weirdstone of Brisingamen_, and _The Moon of
Gomrath_. When I first read the latter two many years ago, I agreed
whole-heartedly with the author's note to the effect that the use of real
Celtic names (from myths lost and otherwise) made the story feel much more
convincing. I still feel that way, but the effect is weakened by all the
hordes of generic Celtic fantasies that there have been since then. What I
want to know is, did Alan Garner's books indirectly start that whole genre?
That would certainly qualify them as influential, as well as good.
Matthew Hunter
> First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
> be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
> does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify. Let
> us not get bogged down in an attempt to define fantasy - I think that
> all of the works I discuss can be generally agreed to be fantasy rather
> than SF or mainstream.
Let us not get bogged down in an effort to define "original," either.
Fantasy, more so than SF, is capable of quality repetition; so long as the
"standard" plot device or "standard" concept is dealt with in an -original-
manner the work should not be discarded for "lack of originality."
For example, Weis & Hickman, while they have their good points, do not have a
particularly original interpertation of "speak word/make gesture magic."
However, in Barbara Hambley's works, very similar "speak word/make gesture
magic" is treated in an original manner. Apologies if I'm just stating what you
meant over again, but I think it is a valid point to make.
> Unworthy of consideration are Brooks, Weis & Hickman, Anthony, Eddings,
> Feist, Jordan, Wylie and Lackey. And doubtless many more. Many of
> these authors produce entertaining work, but they fall far short on all
> three counts.
Agreed, with the possible exception of Jordan -- depends on how he finishes
things up.
> Guy Gavriel Kay is a much better writer than most, but so far has not
> shown great originality. He may have a masterwork in him, but he hasn't
> written it yet.
Try Tigana -- more than original enough to qualify, IMHO.
> Stephen Donaldson's First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant might qualify,
> but unfortunately the man has a tin ear and has swallowed a dictionary.
> The Second Chronicles are virtually unreadable.
That seems a rather arbitrary judgement... He's certainly wordy, but to use
that as a _dis_-qualifying point?
R. Thornton
: Michael Moorcock, 'War Hound and the World's Pain' Original,
: well-written, and practically unknown. The Elric books are more popular
: and could almost qualify except that I consider the writing somewhat weak.
I'd like to add my vote for this one. If you had to pick a book for Da
Canon that would represent Moorcock and his philosophies, this would be
it. Although I must admit that the Elric series would probably end up
there because of its seminal influence on the "dark fantasy" types.
Here's a radical suggestion, BTW. How about Heinlein's "Magic, Inc."? It
got Poul Anderson to write a fantasy book in the same universe
("Operation Chaos") and it could be seen as an early inspiration for many
writers who manipulated magic in a "rational" fashion and reversed Clarke's
Law (i.e. "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from
technology.")
And as a consequence, he may also have been one of the first to
explicitly pull "laws of magic" from real folktale sources like "The
Golden Bough" and use them by name as if they were scientific principles.
Before that, characters just cast "spells" that did whatever was necessary,
and you accepted them because the author convinced you that the
characters were magical and they could do want they want.
So there's my case. Vote for "Magic, Inc." now!
Rob
from
r...@clark.net
Lea Crowe
J...@kenjo.demon.co.uk "Jo Walton" writes:
> Michael Swannick's _The Iron Dragon's Daughter_. I don't like this book.
> But it is undoubtedly fantasy. It is undoubtedly well written. And it is
> undoubtedly original. Too early to say if it will be influential, however.
Yes, it is too early to say, but I rather think that it will be. Swanwick's
"alchemical fantasy" setting is an extraordinary reappraisal of stock fantasy
ideas, and I think the fantasy genre will find it as hard to ignore as, say,
Mary Gentle's "Rats and Gargoyles" (some irony intended). Mike's original
posting, however, admitted Crowley's "Little, Big" to the canon, and I'm not
clear what influence that has had on the genre (twelve years on!). I don't
think "influence" is necessarily the issue -- just whether people are still
*reading* the thing when it's no longer being advertised. Crowley's passed
that test; we'll see about the Swanwick...
> [regarding Sheri S Tepper]
> Most of her work is SF, however it is disguised. Only _Beauty_ would be a
> contender, and it may be. The fact that I hate it passionately probably
> precludes me from commenting on it, but if someone else wants to defend it I
> would have to say it is original and well written. Again it's too soon to say
> for influence.
I wasn't too keen on "Beauty" either, and while I'm prepared to acknowledge
a measure of originality, I wouldn't say it was well written. Some good
*bits*, but very incoherent and too full of cliche ideas. I don't think
people will be coming back to this one as an example of classic fantasy.
I haven't finished reading this thread yet, but no-one has yet mentioned
Alan Garner. "The Wol Service", though it doesn't have the `literary'
status of "Red Shift", is perhaps Garner's most vivid and fantastic work,
and surely counts as a contemporary classic.
--
l...@hestia.demon.co.uk Ka ao, ka ao, ka awatea!
Chad R Orzel
Mike Scott <Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There have been a number of threads in this group recently trying to
>define a canon for science fiction; I have not, however, seen any
>attempts to do the same for fantasy. So let's give it a go.
>
the elitist "Great Litrachure" crowd that always sneers at my tastes in
books...
But, for the sake of argument, OK.
>First, I believe that to be included in the canon a work of fantasy must
>be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
>does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify.
Like most of the other posters, I would question how you define
"influential in the field." Does a book have to inspire other authors to
imitate it (a la Tolkien), or is there some other measure for "influence?"
Market share, in which case we have Brooks and Anthony heading the list?
Critical acclaim? Does that mean _anything?_
Let
>us not get bogged down in an attempt to define fantasy - I think that
>all of the works I discuss can be generally agreed to be fantasy rather
>than SF or mainstream.
>
>I can find only *three* works that I believe to belong in the canon.
{In a later post, you add LeGuin, Peake, _Red Shift_ and _The Once and
Future King_}
You seem to have added "and I have to like it" to the list, but we're all
guilty of that, so...
>These are:
>
>_The Lord of the Rings_ - J. R. R. Tolkien. This has been imitated and
>pastiched so many times now that it's easy to forget how stunningly
>original it was back in the fifties. Tolkien also had a much better ear
>for language than 99% of his imitators.
>
It's more or less impossible to argue with this. I could quibble about
various definitions of "ear for language," but I won't. No-one has matched
Tolkien at what he was trying to do, and I doubt anyone ever will.
>_Little, Big_ - John Crowley. Crowley's masterpiece, a skilful blend
>of fantasy and near future sf, with the fantasy predominating. Defies
>description or categorisation.
>
>_Mythago Wood_ - Robert Holdstock. A dark journey back through the
>racial unconscious to the dreams and nightmares of the first humans.
>
Here's where we start running into trouble with the criteria.
I loved both of these books, but how are they _influential?_ I can't
really think of anyone who has obviously imitated either of these. There
are some people who write in a similar vein- Peter Beagle's _A Fine and
Private Place_ seems (to me) to be rather similar in tone to _Little, Big_
but I couldn't say it was an imitation...
But, on the other hand, I don't see how one could come up with a "canon"
and _not_ include _Little, Big._ I could understand the exclusion of
_Mythago Wood,_ maybe, but not the other.
I'd probably go with another poster's definition of the "canon" as the
list of books that you more or less _have_ to read if you want to claim an
understanding of the full scope of the genre.
In which case, your list is far, far too short.
>I welcome more ideas. However, in a futile attempt to cut down on
>useless debate, let me mention a few authors who I have considered and
>dismissed.
>
>Guy Gavriel Kay is a much better writer than most, but so far has not
>shown great originality. He may have a masterwork in him, but he hasn't
>written it yet.
>
<shrug>
Kay's work, particularly _Tigana_ and _A Song for Arbonne_ struck me as
being fairly original. Granted, he lifted both those worlds more or less
intact from medieval Europe, but I would claim that this is as valid an
approach as any, and worthy of inclusion if only for that.
And Kay handles this sort of thing better than anyone else I've seen try
it.
>Stephen Donaldson's First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant might qualify,
>but unfortunately the man has a tin ear and has swallowed a dictionary.
>The Second Chronicles are virtually unreadable.
>
One of these days, Real Soon Now, I'm going to have to re-read these...
My memory of this series isn't as painful as everybody else seems to
think...
Certainly, Donaldson has tried very hard to write an Important Book. I
can't really say whether or not he's succeeded, as it's been years since I
read the books. I remember them favorably, but the fact that I never have
gone back to read them again is probably a vote for leaving them off the
list...
>C. S. Lewis' Narnia series is, in the end, too heavy-handed in its
>Christian allegory for adults to fully appreciate. We learn too much
>about Lewis, and too little about Narnia.
>
<shrug>
I'd leave it in. It does a pretty good job with the infamous "sense of
wonder," at least for the first few books, and has definitely influenced
the genre. IMNAAHO.
>Diana Wynne Jones has an unfortunate inability to write for an adult
>audience - try _A Sudden Wild Magic_ for proof. Her children's fantasy
>is superb on its own terms, but too restricted in theme.
>
I'm not sure I would agree with leaving out "children's" books. I can't
comment directly on Diana Wynne Jones, as I haven't read any of her stuff,
but a good number of my more vivid images of fantasy are drawn from
"children's books." Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper, Lewis, Bellairs' _Face
in the Frost_- not "adult" books per se, but definitely a strong influence
on how I see the genre.
>Terry Pratchett is, of course, Terry Pratchett, but I do not consider
>that the Discworld series quite qualifies.
>
Oh, so silly is out?
(Actually, I would agree with that...)
>James Branch Cabell has his devotees, but his stories now seem very
>dated and have little to say to a modern audience.
>
I don't see how this squares with your list of criteria. Sure, they're
somewhat "dated," but you can't possibly deny that they were both original
and influential.
I can't see any way to draw up a "canon" for science fiction without
including HG Wells, and probably Jules Verne as well. Likewise, I can't
see a "canon" for fantasy without Cabell, Eddison, and the rest of the
early influences.
Sure, it's "dated," but that doesn't keep Shakespeare off the mainstream
"canon," does it?
>I may have missed one or two worthy candidates. However, it seems
>highly unlikely that there are more than half a dozen contenders.
I'd say you've gotten that many and more in the followups to this...
Certainly, if the idea is to give a clear overall picture of the genre,
you need to add books to cover a few more subgenres. The sword-and-sorcery
subgenre, while not particularly "Literary" (in the most pretentious sense
of the word) has been a major part of the field- any representative list
would need to include at least one of the better books of that type (Leiber,
most likely...). Also, some of Moorcock's work should be thrown in- I'm not
overly fond of it, but that sort fo brooding, dark fantasy has been fairly
common. Maybe some examples of "urban fantasy"- _Little, Big_ almost fits,
but something more along the lines of _Wizard of the Pigeons_ would be
worth adding.
Gene Wolfe almost certainly belongs in there somewhere.
>Similar exercises in the field of science fiction can turn up dozens of
>candidates quite easily. I believe that we can only conclude that
>depsite its current success in the marketplace, modern fantasy is in
>poor shape, and is stuck in a rut of formulaic writing.
>
Yes and no. I would agree that _both_ genres suffer from a surfeit of dreck
-Sturgeon's Law, and all that- but not fantasy more so than science fiction.
For one thing, you've been (IMNAAHO) rather too restrictive in drawing up
your list. Also, fantasy doesn't (so far as I can tell) have an equivalent
to the so-called "Golden Age" of science fiction, which produced a vast
number of authors who "need" to be included, thus swelling the list.
>You, of course, may hold a different opinion - that's what Usenet's for.
>
Really? Here I thought it was all a giant conspiracy to keep me from ever
getting _any_ work done...
Just in case I haven't been clear about it, all of the above is MNSHO.
YMMV, and so on.
Later,
OilCan
Mike Oltz
>Graham Head (Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk) wrote:
[snip]
>> This business about influence is getting very difficult. [snip] To tangle
>> the debate further with a requirement for - what? pan-National influence?
>> influence in at least two languages/cultures? influence on writers in
>> English? seems to me to be taking it too far.
>> I'd rather drop the criterion of influence altogether.
>[snip]
>But I don't think we can. Granted, it's a fuzzy concept, but what kind of
>'canon' are we going to create if we allow books that had no influence on
>the genre in?
Why, a LOOSE canon, what else! :)
Alan Bellingham
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk "Mike Scott" writes:
[snip]
>
> I should point out that I didn't intend to include either horror (e.g.
> Lovecraft) or magical realism (e.g. _The Bridge_ by Iain Banks), but I
> didn't make this clear.
>
> Someone made the very valid point that this is an extremely
> English-language centred list. I'm afraid that I've not read much
> non-English fantasy (not even _Five Hundred Years of Solitude_), so
> perhaps somebody else would care to comment.
_One Hundred Years of Solitude_ is an excellent work, and fully qualifies
Marquez for his Nobel. However, you've already excluded it by rejecting
magic realism.
Alan Bellingham
--
Al...@doughnut.demon.co.uk "But now it's an avalanche we ride
ACCU: Association of C & C++ Users Head over heels into Eden
+44-(0)1763-262629 Laughing inside"
Diane Duane
>
>E. Nesbitt (various works), _highly influential_ both on several
>generations of children and on several generations of writers.
>Hmmm, maybe she missed the 20th century cutoff, I can't remember
>whether she was pre- or post- turn of the century.
E. is one of my favorites, possibly the strongest influence
(besides Heinlein and L'Engle) on the "Wizard" books. I believe
she's just-post-turn: the 1904-1910 feeling in THE PHOENIX & THE
CARPET, etc, is very strong. Best! D.
Diane Duane
part of the Owl Springs Partnership, Co. Wicklow, Ireland
Visit our WWW page: http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~owls/index.html
(If you tried it before and couldn't find it, please try again:
I made a mistake in the address.. Sorry!...)
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Here's a radical suggestion, BTW. How about Heinlein's "Magic, Inc."? It
> got Poul Anderson to write a fantasy book in the same universe
> ("Operation Chaos") and it could be seen as an early inspiration for many
> writers who manipulated magic in a "rational" fashion and reversed Clarke's
> Law (i.e. "Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from
> technology.")
> And as a consequence, he may also have been one of the first to
> explicitly pull "laws of magic" from real folktale sources like "The
> Golden Bough" and use them by name as if they were scientific principles.
> Before that, characters just cast "spells" that did whatever was necessary,
> and you accepted them because the author convinced you that the
> characters were magical and they could do want they want.
> So there's my case. Vote for "Magic, Inc." now!
Close, but no sigar :) De Camp/Pratt (_The Roaring Trumpet_) were there
before Heinlein (5/40 vs. 8/40.) I'd say that John Campbell who encouraged
this kind of development deserves most of the credit, but that's just
me...
--
Ahasuerus
http://www.clark.net/pub/ahasuer
(including books on writing SF, the Heinlein page and the alt.pulp FAQ)
ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/ahasuer/heinlein.faq
Diane Duane
>Likewise E. R. Eddison's ZImiamvia trilogy. Both of these should be on
>your list too.
I would agree noisily about Eddison. No one has done anything
like his stuff since. (And I know some people will say, "And what
a relief." My husband one of them.) But he was early, he was
one of a kind, and he jumped out into the field unafraid and did
what was in him to do, regardless of what people thought. Best!
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> >E. Nesbitt (various works)
Edith Nesbit [one "t"]
> >_highly influential_ both on several
> >generations of children and on several generations of writers.
> >Hmmm, maybe she missed the 20th century cutoff, I can't remember
> >whether she was pre- or post- turn of the century.
> E. is one of my favorites, possibly the strongest influence
> (besides Heinlein and L'Engle) on the "Wizard" books. I believe
> she's just-post-turn: the 1904-1910 feeling in THE PHOENIX & THE
> CARPET, etc, is very strong. Best! D.
Close. Bits and pieces of the _Five Children_ series started appearing
around 1900. Book publication 1902-1907.
David Nieporent
Matthew B. Hoyt <HOY...@basf-corp.com> wrote:
>>I welcome more ideas. However, in a futile attempt to cut down on
>>useless debate, let me mention a few authors who I have considered and
>>dismissed.
>>Unworthy of consideration are Brooks, Weis & Hickman, Anthony, Eddings,
>>Feist, Jordan, Wylie and Lackey. And doubtless many more. Many of
>>these authors produce entertaining work, but they fall far short on all
>>three counts.
>Comments of this sort should appear in the dictionary next to the definition
>of "flamebait". To present an opinion as a canonical fact seems to be very
>dangerous.
It seems to be very Usenet. Isn't that the entire raison d'etre of
Usenet? To let lots of people present opinions as though they had any
basis in reality?
--
David M. Nieporent Deserves it? I daresay he does. Many who live
Niep...@pluto.njcc.com deserve death. And some who die deserve life. Can
Deer Creek/Plainsboro, NJ you give it to them? Then be not so quick to give
ORIOLES 1995!!!!!!!! the other. For not even the wise can see all ends.
R. Thornton
: R. Thornton (r...@clark.net) wrote: [snip]
: > Here's a radical suggestion, BTW. How about Heinlein's "Magic, Inc."? It
: > got Poul Anderson to write a fantasy book in the same universe
: > ("Operation Chaos") and it could be seen as an early inspiration for many
: > writers who manipulated magic in a "rational" fashion and reversed
: > Clarke's Law (i.e. "Any sufficiently advanced magic is
: > indistinguishable from technology.")
[snip]
: > So there's my case. Vote for "Magic, Inc." now!
: Close, but no sigar :) De Camp/Pratt (_The Roaring Trumpet_) were there
: before Heinlein (5/40 vs. 8/40.) I'd say that John Campbell who encouraged
: this kind of development deserves most of the credit, but that's just
: me...
I yield to Ahasuerus, who has gently reminded me to make sure I look
before I leap....
Rob
from
r...@clark.net
Simon H Le G Bisson
<Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>There have been a number of threads in this group recently trying to
>define a canon for science fiction; I have not, however, seen any
>attempts to do the same for fantasy. So let's give it a go.
Interesting idea, Mike. I for one would drop the _Little Big_, as Mark
Helprin played that genre riff first and better - not the oft-quoted
_Winter's Tale_ (though that is his best work), but the earlier _Refiner's
Fire_. One can only hope that the rumour of a critical relative's comments
causing him to end writing genre fiction are untrue, and someday soon we'll
see him writing again.
You've also missed what I consider to be the most interesting area of
fantasy: the decaying city novel. It's a possible sub-genre of the dying
Earth novel, but there's enough of a corpus for me to consider it to be a
separate fantasy sub-genre.
Anna Kavan's _Ice_ is the obvious canonical work, in its bleak addiction
allegory, though perhaps Mike Harrison's _Viriconium_ novels have had more
influence - and here I cite Simon Ings' _City of the Iron Fish_ and Storm
Constantine's entire oeuvre. You can also expand this sub-genre to include
the various works of Elizabeth Hand and Richard Grant... Gyweneth Jones'
_Divine Endurance_ is another example of a dying city novel (though here
the dying Earth links are more apparent).
The main problem here, of course, is that there is enough of a trope
cross-over for many folk to consider this to be a sub-genre of Sf rather
than fantasy, though I feel the basic structure of these novels make them
of the latter.
I'd also like to raise the spectre of children's fantasy: Eric Linklater's
_The Wind On The Moon_, Joan Aiken's short fiction, Alan Garner, J. P.
Martin's _Uncle_ novels, Mary Norton, even the renowned J.B.S. Haldane with
_My Friend Mr Leakey_...
Simon
Simon H. Le G. Bisson: net.jerrias, Internet writer, sf bibliophile
si...@fehen.demon.co.uk,si...@tardis.ed.ac.uk,Simon....@eworld.com
<A HREF="http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~simon/>Simon's Web</A>
Programme Manager, Evolution: The Next Step. UK National Sf Convention '96
Sion Arrowsmith
Simon H Le G Bisson <si...@fehen.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You've also missed what I consider to be the most interesting area of
>fantasy: the decaying city novel. It's a possible sub-genre of the dying
>Earth novel, but there's enough of a corpus for me to consider it to be a
>separate fantasy sub-genre.
>The main problem here, of course, is that there is enough of a trope
>cross-over for many folk to consider this to be a sub-genre of Sf rather
>than fantasy, though I feel the basic structure of these novels make them
>of the latter.
>
_Divine Endurance_ as being definitely sf, while everything else you
mention is, to my mind, just on the fantasy side of the border. Set
against that is a decaying city novel which is on the sf side which
really deserves a mention in this sub-genre -- _Dhalgren_ -- which
pre-dates (I think) everything you mentioned except _Ice_. The
grand-daddy of decaying cities has to be one of which there has been
curiously little mention in this thread -- Gormenghast. OK, so it's
not really a city, but the appearance of the decaying, sprawling
buildings in the modern genre starts there. Of course, there were
plenty of gothic novels before hand, but I don't think any of them
had a structure as large as Gormenghast, which is so much imposing
than a mere castle.
[Another Simon (like I use the name these days!) with a portable
Internet site]
--
\S | "And all the superhighways have disappeared
si...@bast.demon.co.uk | "One by one. And all the towns and cities and signs
| "Are underwater now. They're gone." -- Laurie Anderson
Mike Arnautov
> I might also, reluctantly, delete _Mythago Wood_.
Yes, please... :-)
> Someone made the very valid point that this is an extremely
> English-language centred list. I'm afraid that I've not read much
> non-English fantasy (not even _Five Hundred Years of Solitude_), so
> perhaps somebody else would care to comment.
Well, it depends whether by "influential" you mean influential in the
Anglophone world. If not, A&B Strugatski's _Monday Begins on Saturday_
is in, in, in!
Bulgakov's _Master and Margarita_ has already been mentioned. Overall,
though, fantasy was not encouraged (putting it mildly) by Communist
authorities, so there was precious little of it beyond the Iron Curtain.
Some stuff of Gogol's would qualify except for the 20C requirement, but
I cannot off hand think of anything else.
--
Mike Arnautov
mla...@ggr.co.uk
Mike Arnautov
> > _The Master and The Margharita_ by Bulgakov
>
> Er... _The Master and Margarita_ (and *do* try to avoid the first
> (abridged) edition.) A fine book, but I don't think it was very
> influential outside of Russia.
Well it much influenced *me* and I am out of Russia, so there! :-(
It English translation was none too good, I am afraid, but surprisingly
many people in UK are at least aware of it. I say, it should be in!
--
Mike Arnautov
mla...@ggr.co.uk
Mike Arnautov
(sorry, I didn't see the original post and its author's identity is lost
in the mists of time)
> >E. Nesbitt (various works), _highly influential_ both on several
> >generations of children and on several generations of writers.
> >Hmmm, maybe she missed the 20th century cutoff, I can't remember
> >whether she was pre- or post- turn of the century.
>
> E. is one of my favorites, possibly the strongest influence
> (besides Heinlein and L'Engle) on the "Wizard" books. I believe
> she's just-post-turn: the 1904-1910 feeling in THE PHOENIX & THE
> CARPET, etc, is very strong. Best! D.
Seconded! I only met Nesbit a few years ago, when our daughter
discovered her books, and I was amazed at her originality and strength
of writing. The details of everyday life may be dated, but somehow her
outlook struck me as way ahead of her times. I have since wondered about
several books, to what extent they were showing the Nesbit influence
and, yes, the first one of the "Wizard" series was one. I am glad to
know I had that right! :-)
--
Mike Arnautov
mla...@ggr.co.uk
Graham Head
aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> Graham Head (Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> > > Graham Head (Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk) wrote: [snip]
> > >
> > > Hmm, I would say that de Camp/Pratt's _Incomplete Enchanter_ would be a
> > > better choice to represent _Unknown_, but it's close...
> > >
> > _The Incompleat Enchanter_, I think? [snip]
>
> _The Incomplete Enchanter_ was retitled _The Incompleat Enchanter_ when it
> was reprinted in 1950. Omnibus editions have included _The Compleat
> Enchanter_ and _The Complete Compleat Enchanter_. To make things worse,
> _Wall of Serpents_ was once published as _The Enchanter Compleated_.
> Sigh...
Sorry. I bow to your superior knowledge...
>
> > > > _The Master and The Margharita_ by Bulgakov
> > >
> > > Er... _The Master and Margarita_ (and *do* try to avoid the first
> > > (abridged) edition.) A fine book, but I don't think it was very
> > > influential outside of Russia.
>
> > This business about influence is getting very difficult. [snip] To tangle
> > the debate further with a requirement for - what? pan-National influence?
> > influence in at least two languages/cultures? influence on writers in
> > English? seems to me to be taking it too far.
> > I'd rather drop the criterion of influence altogether.
> [snip]
>
> But I don't think we can. Granted, it's a fuzzy concept, but what kind of
> 'canon' are we going to create if we allow books that had no influence on
> the genre in?
>
I suspect this is yet another debate which ends with questioning why we might
be attempting to build a canon at all. Certainly in English studies, I would
submit that the 'canon' of medieval literary works (to take a subset) would
be incomplete without either _Sir Gawain and The Green Knight_ or _Pearl_. Yet
as far as we are aware, these texts had little or no influence on other
writings of the period - they were rediscovered much later (18th Century?).
They are, however, two of the great achievements of the alliterative revival,
and as such I would include them.
The practise of developing and proposing canonical works, in English Studies,
is now not common - and indeed much work in the last few years has been devoted
to the study of writings (SF and Fantasy among them) which have perhaps been
undervalue - at least in part because they were not part of the commonly-agreed
central canon of English literature. In other words, recent work has explored
those works which a more 'traditional' focus might have caused to be dismissed
or disregarded. Viewed in such a light, the quest for an SF or Fantasy 'canon'
is somewhat ironical.
And yet. The mainstream 'canon' is a construct, in the main, identifying the
'great works' of the past - if you like, the required reading for a well-read
humanist, or at least a solid english studies student. Looked at narrowly, the
canon both drives and is reinforced by english literature course syllabuses.
The existence of canonical works may be seen as a conservative pressure
to an extent resisting the development of more innovative courses (all IMHO
of course!).
It _may_ be that the development of a 'canon' of works within a genre such as
SF fulfils a somewhat different purpose, I suppose. I don't have this fully
thought through, as yet, but here are some ideas...
Delany (and following him Damien Broderick) discuss SF in terms of
learnt 'reading protocols' - a 'mega text' of tropes, stylistic nuances
and perhaps 'icons' (Gary K. Wolfe?). The generation of a canon for SF
would, presumably, focus on works which generated a richer array of new
elements for this soup or (Broderick's term) 'phase space', or which
fundamentally reconsidered older components - in other words, which
changed in some manner the way in which SF is read (modified the underlying
protocols). Under such an anlysis, ideas of 'influence' would become much
more important - and one might also want to look at some kind of
cross-fertilisation of ideas between Delany & Co. and a critic such as
Harold Bloom?
SF is a new genre (I think), and it is (probably?) still rapidly developing.
As such, a canon can only look at the recent past, where issues relating to
the development of the genre become of great interest. Again, works which
aided that development would be foregrounded and influence would be
more important.
However, fantasy is a much older type of writing, I would submit, and there is
still a significant debate about whether it can be easily constituted as a
genre at all (as opposed to a 'mode'). Is it best viewed in terms of a 'mega
text' - like SF - or is it just one strand in essentially _mainstream_
literature, but one which until recently has been de-privileged by a general
focus on 'realistic' narrative (whatever that means).
This debate also has far wider implications, IMVHO; it relates explicitly to
how we define fantasy (uh oh - defintionwars again). As a quick illustration,
from their approaches to fantasy I suspect that both Christine Brooke-Rose
and Rosemary Jackson (crudely, mainstream critics who have written on fantasy)
- if they could be persuaded to play the game - would argue
strongly against Tolkien being included in a 'canon' (influence maybe, but
benign?) and campaign instead for eg Kafka and Pynchon.
Come to think of it, Kafka is a possible, I think....???
Oh well, as you can see this is less of a reply than a meditation without
conclusion. Sorry for the length of it.
--
Graham Head
Ilya Vinarsky
Mike Arnautov <mla...@ggr.co.uk> wrote:
>Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk (Mike Scott) writes:
>Anglophone world. If not, A&B Strugatski's _Monday Begins on Saturday_
>is in, in, in!
>
Would you consider "A Snail on the Slope", "Ugly Swans" and "Doomed City"
fantasy? If so, would you agree that fantasy can be morally ambiguous?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ilya Vinarsky The supreme achievement of neuron megaloplasma! The divergent
field's curl follows the gradient back, and there, inside, transforms
the matter of the question into spiritually electromagnetic vortexes,
and from them there arises the synecdoche of answering.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> I suspect this is yet another debate which ends with questioning why we might
> be attempting to build a canon at all. Certainly in English studies, I would
> submit that the 'canon' of medieval literary works (to take a subset) would
> be incomplete without either _Sir Gawain and The Green Knight_ or _Pearl_.
> Yet as far as we are aware, these texts had little or no influence on other
> writings of the period - they were rediscovered much later (18th Century?).
> They are, however, two of the great achievements of the alliterative revival,
> and as such I would include them.
Hmm, good point... A science fiction analogy would be for Doc Smith to
write *the* ultimate space opera novel in 1934 and lose it in a flood.
Then Doc is sidetracked and never tries to recreate it. A misplaced copy
is found 60 years later. Should this otherwise superior example of space
opera be included in the science fiction canon retroactively? Will it be
included 50 or 100 years from now, when everybody forgets that it had no
influence on the genre?
> The practise of developing and proposing canonical works, in English
> Studies, is now not common - and indeed much work in the last few years
> has been devoted to the study of writings (SF and Fantasy among them)
> which have perhaps been undervalue - at least in part because they were
> not part of the commonly-agreed central canon of English literature. In
> other words, recent work has explored those works which a more
> 'traditional' focus might have caused to be dismissed or disregarded.
> Viewed in such a light, the quest for an SF or Fantasy 'canon' is
> somewhat ironical.
[snip]
> The existence of canonical works may be seen as a conservative pressure
> to an extent resisting the development of more innovative courses (all IMHO
> of course!).
I am not sure I follow this logic. I see no contradiciton between
admitting that there exists a "canon" encompassing all genre milestones
and studying non-canon or even downright obscure authors/books.
To use another example from the world of science fiction, I may agree that
Heinlein's juveniles belong to the science fiction Canon and Milton
Lesser's (or Rog Phillips', or J.T. McIntosh' or ...) oeuvre does not, and
still spend a lot of time and effort learning all there is to know about
the latter. Analogously, I don't think that Jerome K. Jerome's fantasy is
canonical, but I still consider it (a) enjoyable (irrelevant in our
context, I know) and (b) worth studying.
It seems to me that in order to deny that there exists a class of
"canonical works" (as opposed to questioning a particular canon), one
would have to declare any and all objective criteria "null and void",
something that I find singularly counterproductive.
> It _may_ be that the development of a 'canon' of works within a genre such as
> SF fulfils a somewhat different purpose, I suppose. I don't have this fully
> thought through, as yet, but here are some ideas...
> Delany (and following him Damien Broderick) discuss SF in terms of
> learnt 'reading protocols' - a 'mega text' of tropes, stylistic nuances
> and perhaps 'icons' (Gary K. Wolfe?). The generation of a canon for SF
> would, presumably, focus on works which generated a richer array of new
> elements for this soup or (Broderick's term) 'phase space', or which
> fundamentally reconsidered older components - in other words, which
> changed in some manner the way in which SF is read (modified the underlying
> protocols). Under such an anlysis, ideas of 'influence' would become much
> more important - and one might also want to look at some kind of
> cross-fertilisation of ideas between Delany & Co. and a critic such as
> Harold Bloom?
I don't think that "reading protocols" are primary in science fiction.
Here is what I wrote in a somewhat different context a few months ago
(oh, and pardon my grammar, it was getting late and I wanted to go out
and get something to eat :-) :
===============================begin include file=========================
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: SF History (was Re: Oldest Published Novelist)
Date: 21 Nov 1994 22:09:41 GMT
Dan'l DanehyOakes (djd...@pbhyc.PacBell.COM) wrote:
> Science fiction is _not_ defined by content. [snip]
> Delany has proposed (in some of the essays in STARBOARD WINE [1984]) that the
> the difference between genres is not content, but what he calls
> "reading protocols," the techniques a skilled reader brings to a text to
> unpack "meaning" from it. Delany uses as his classic examples phrases
> like "I turned on my left side," and "Her world exploded," which have
> _entirely_ different meanings in an SF novel from any other type. [snip]
I don't see how these examples prove that science fiction is not defined
by content. It is exactly because you are reading a *science fiction*
novel that a literal interpretation becomes possible. Different 'reading
protocols' do not just exist by themselves, they are made possible because
the work's *content* is different.
> Another classic example would be a sentence like "I spent a demimonth working
> as an oretracer in the monopole mines through the outer asteroid belt of
> Delta Cygni."
> A non-reader of SF, faced with that sentence, is going to be completely
> without a clue, not only because of unfamiliar words (Demimonth? Monopole?
> Oretracer?) but also because, even if the words themselves all made sense,
> the non-SF reader has no idea how to put them together and begin building
> the sociological (it is a world where a person can spend a demimonth as an
> oretracer), technological (it is a world in which asteroid belts are
> mined), economic (it is a world in which monopole ores are in sufficient
> demand to be worth mining), and physical (it is a world in which Delta Cygni
> has at least two asteroid belts) models of the imagined model which are all
> implicit in this sentence. [snip]
Well, you are right that science fiction relies on a lot of assumptions
about its readers. But if we go back 60-70 years, we'll see that genre
science fiction started with an awful lot of exposition. Inventions were
explained in (what we now think of as) excruciating detail, gadgets were
the real heroes, etc. Check any early Leinster "scientific detective"
story or even Gernsback for that matter. In other words, science fiction
readers and mimetic/mundane fiction readers were expected to use the same
protocol(s).
Oh, BTW, we have no choice but to analyze the genesis of the 'science
fiction reading protocol', otherwise your definition becomes
self-referential.
Anyways, left to its own devices (aka 'science fiction ghetto'),
magazine/genre science fiction developed a more economical style,
specifically the one that the sentence above tries to exemplify. The only
reason it became possible was that the same people - mostly young people,
BTW - were exposed to the same ideas/gadgets three times a month for a
prolonged period of time. E.g., when Zagat developed his nifty force
fields in 1935 he could rely on a (kind of) consensual reality
incorporating force planes, fields, rays etc. that had been built by Doc
Smith, Campbell and others in the late 20's/early 30's. See Malzberg's
retractions of his anti-ghetto statements in _Engines of the Night_ for
some juicy tidbits :)
> Science fiction is _very_ information-rich in a specific way very different
> from the ways in which MF (poetry, history, . . .) is information-rich.
True. But the only reason we can write (and read) it that way is that we
have a shared picture of the future in our minds. Imagine trying to
publish an extreme cyberpunk novel in 1948 - nobody would have understood
it. Just not the way the future was at the time...
[snip-snip-snip]
Different (collective) visions of alternative
(usually future, but also parallel and other) worlds are but focal points
that allow us to develop a shared 'reading protocol'.
=========================end include file====================================
> SF is a new genre (I think), and it is (probably?) still rapidly
> developing.
> As such, a canon can only look at the recent past, where issues relating
> to the development of the genre become of great interest. Again,
> works which aided that development would be foregrounded and
> influence would be more important.
> However, fantasy is a much older type of writing, I would submit, and there is
> still a significant debate about whether it can be easily constituted as a
> genre at all (as opposed to a 'mode'). Is it best viewed in terms of a 'mega
> text' - like SF - or is it just one strand in essentially _mainstream_
> literature, but one which until recently has been de-privileged by a general
> focus on 'realistic' narrative (whatever that means).
'A de-privileged strand'? Where is Mencken when you need him? :) I would
argue that science fiction, although it has been with us for a long time
(at least since _Frankenstein_), only became a genre in the mid-20's.
Fantasy as a 'tradition' or as a 'mode' (for lack of a better term), is
even older, but it has had one devil of a time becoming a genre over the
last century or so.
Lovecraft's _Supernatural Horror in Literature_, for example, can be seen
as an attempt to do some housecleaning and thus help the "coagulation"
process. Maybe. [Waiting for Marc Michaud and Perry Grayson to show up and
tell me why I am wrong :-)]
Unlike science fiction, fantasy by and large failed to use pulps as an
*effective* incubator and had to wait until the mid 70's to become a
genre. Which is not to deny that there were pure fantasy magazines
(_Strange Tales_, _Magic Carpet_, _Strange Stories_, etc) during the Pulp
Golden Age; or to floccinaucenihilipilificate the importance of Campbell's
_Unknown_ or Henry Kuttner's continuation and development of the Merritt
tradition; or to question the work done by the Arkham House gang; or ...
Well, you get the idea :)
But it took Tolkien and Del Rey to make a genre out of these er...
'strands', to misappropriate Graham's term :) I think that in order for a
genre to exist, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
1) a 'canon' of major interrelated (in terms of tropes, conventions,
expectations, etc) works must exist
2) genre's practitioners have to be aware of the canon as a whole, not
just of a subset (otherwise we may have multiple genres masquerading as
one genre, or it may be a sign that the genre hasn't 'coagulated' yet)
3) some kind of critical mass in terms of writers, readers, volume etc.
has to be reached (simply being an occasional guest in science fiction
magazines, for example, is not enough)
Oh well, just my $0.02...
Mike Seaman (SYS)
> >There have been a number of threads in this group recently trying to
> >define a canon for science fiction; I have not, however, seen any
> >attempts to do the same for fantasy. So let's give it a go.
> >
> >be well-written, influential in the field and original. Any work that
> >does not pass muster on all three of these counts does not qualify.
Since we are talking canonical (in a non-perjorative sense), I think you would
have to include:
_The Broken Sword_ by Poul Anderson
The Grey Mouser and Fahfred (spelling?) series by Fritz Lieber
Any number of things by Michael Moorcock (an Elric, a Jerry Cornelius
and _Gloriana_, at least).
Bernard Peek
be a list of works that are taken to be appropriate representative
examples taken from the genre as a whole. There are some disagreements
about why any specific work should or should not be considered
canonical.
What I would like to see are proposals of specific works for
canonisation, supported by arguments why they are eligible. I'd also
like to see the argument supported by a list of the other works that
this postulant is supposed to supplant.
So far this debate has thrown up a list of works that various posters
consider to be the best, or at least their favourites. The debate has
been enjoyable, but I don't see that we are any closer to defining a
canon.
The debate about whether a canon is desirable is, I think, independent
of the definition and delineation of the canon.
--
Bernard Peek
I.T and Management Development Trainer to the Cognoscenti
(In search of Cognoscenti.)
b...@intersec.demon.co.uk
ErolB1
Lord of the Rings - J.R.R.Tolkien. Of course.
The Earthsea Trilogy - LeGuin. But not the 4th book.
The "Complete Enchanter" stories - de Camp and Pratt. I believe they were
the first to use the "person from the real world travels into an alternate
universe were magic works" thing.
The "Conan" stories - Howard. The cantonical Sword & Sorcery stories
The "Eternal Champion" cycle - Moorcock. The other side of Sword & Sorcery
The Empire of the East - Saberhagen. 'Cause I consider this to be the best
example of "the return of magic to Earth" stories (or at least the one I
like the best).
Also a honorable mention to Saberhagen's *Dracula* stories. He did cool
vampires before cool vampires were cool.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Mike Arnautov
> Would you consider "A Snail on the Slope", "Ugly Swans" and "Doomed City"
> fantasy?
In order: no, no and no. The dividing line between fantasy and science
fiction is often a very hazy one, but MBoS is unambiguously fantasy,
whereas the above three are ambiguously science fiction. IMHO, anyway.
If so, would you agree that fantasy can be morally ambiguous?
Hehehe... You can't catch an ex-statistician in so simple a trap! Even
if I were to reply "yes" to one of the three titles, it could not be
taken as a retraction of the claim that on the whole fantasy tends to be
nowadays less ethically ambiguous than science fictoin.
--
Mike Arnautov
mla...@ggr.co.uk
Brendan Foreman
>What I would like to see are proposals of specific works for
>canonisation, supported by arguments why they are eligible. I'd also
>like to see the argument supported by a list of the other works that
>this postulant is supposed to supplant.
>
>So far this debate has thrown up a list of works that various posters
>consider to be the best, or at least their favourites. The debate has
>been enjoyable, but I don't see that we are any closer to defining a
>canon.
>
Alright, this isn't a case for a specific book but maybe several.
It seems to me that a big movement in fantasy, since the 1970s, has
been the modern fantasy novel. You know the kind: set ostensibly in
the modern world, that we so love and loathe, yet there's all these
witches and fairies and supernatural nonsense going on.
Examples are abundant. First, there is of course _Little, Big_.
Also, there's _Tea with a Chinese Dragon_ by R. MacAvoy. (I know I got
the title wrong. Also, the sequel which I just couldn't get through.
Charles deLint also seems to write fairly exclusively in this "category".
Furthermore, Ian MacDonald did a fairly effective novel in this
genre called something like _King of <something>, Queen of <something
else>_. And don't forget _The Witches of Eastwick_ by John Updike.
Now, it seems to me that if we were to compose a canon, that we would
-at the very least- need to have a representative novel of this
sort.
My candidate: _Little, Big_. It seems to encompass most of the
conventions and styles of the genre. However, contrary to my experience,
a lot of people just didn't seem to _like_ the book. So, I don't
know if a majority of people would agree with my choice.
Anyway, that's my 2 or 3 cents,
Brendan
Steve Glover
>The "Conan" stories - Howard. The cantonical Sword & Sorcery stories
No, the CANTONical S&S stories are Diane Duane's unpublished Raetian Tales...
Oh, sorry. You meant CONANical...
Steve
--
((@@@*@@@)) All the Steve Glover
(*@|||@*) Talk (Fan programme, Intersection: 1995 Worldcon)
||| Of the (__ OVDG, Evolution: 1996 British Eastercon)
\\|||// Market (\/ This space intentionally left blank)
Bernard Peek
for...@mth.msu.edu "Brendan Foreman" writes:
> >
> >What I would like to see are proposals of specific works for
> >canonisation, supported by arguments why they are eligible. I'd also
> >like to see the argument supported by a list of the other works that
> >this postulant is supposed to supplant.
> Alright, this isn't a case for a specific book but maybe several.
I think that you effectively state the case for canonisation of
_Little Big_, and point out that it is indeed influential, by listing
the later works in a similar style. Several people have put it
forward before (myself included), but without stating clearly why.
As an aside I would add Paul Kearney to the list of authors writing in
this subgenre. There are many others.
> My candidate: _Little, Big_. It seems to encompass most of the
> conventions and styles of the genre. However, contrary to my experience,
> a lot of people just didn't seem to _like_ the book. So, I don't
> know if a majority of people would agree with my choice.
It isn't necessary to like a book to accept it as canonical. SF and
fantasy are broad enough genres that they include a wider range than
any one person is likely to appreciate. They also overlap other
genres. Keri Hulme's _The Bone People_ is a mainstream novel and Tony
Hillerman's Chee/Leaphorn books are mystery novels. Both are also in
the fantasy genre too.
Any more?
Diane Duane
>No, the CANTONical S&S stories are Diane Duane's unpublished Raetian Tales...
Ooooooooo. I wish *I'd* thought of that. (snort) D.
Nancy Lebovitz
Brendan Foreman <for...@mth.msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>What I would like to see are proposals of specific works for
>>canonisation, supported by arguments why they are eligible. I'd also
>>like to see the argument supported by a list of the other works that
>>this postulant is supposed to supplant.
>>
>>So far this debate has thrown up a list of works that various posters
>>consider to be the best, or at least their favourites. The debate has
>>been enjoyable, but I don't see that we are any closer to defining a
>>canon.
>>
people are likely to *want* to read.
>Alright, this isn't a case for a specific book but maybe several.
>
>It seems to me that a big movement in fantasy, since the 1970s, has
>been the modern fantasy novel. You know the kind: set ostensibly in
>the modern world, that we so love and loathe, yet there's all these
>witches and fairies and supernatural nonsense going on.
>
>Examples are abundant. First, there is of course _Little, Big_.
>Also, there's _Tea with a Chinese Dragon_ by R. MacAvoy. (I know I got
>the title wrong. Also, the sequel which I just couldn't get through.
>Charles deLint also seems to write fairly exclusively in this "category".
>Furthermore, Ian MacDonald did a fairly effective novel in this
>genre called something like _King of <something>, Queen of <something
>else>_. And don't forget _The Witches of Eastwick_ by John Updike.
>
>Now, it seems to me that if we were to compose a canon, that we would
>-at the very least- need to have a representative novel of this
>sort.
>
>My candidate: _Little, Big_. It seems to encompass most of the
>conventions and styles of the genre. However, contrary to my experience,
>a lot of people just didn't seem to _like_ the book. So, I don't
>know if a majority of people would agree with my choice.
I'd vote for _Tea with a Black Dragon_ or _War for the Oaks_--
they're reasonably early examples of the type, and most people
like them. I suppose that deLint's _Moonheart_ would also
qualify--I have a minor hesitation about including it because I
seem to have acquired an allergy to deLint's writing--I liked it
a lot for a long time, and then suddenly found myself bored when
I tried to read any of it.
I think of _Little, Big_ as falling into a different category--
literary sf, where the writing is significantly more challenging
than most of the writing in the field. Another major contender in that
category would be _The Book of the New Sun_. My favorite piece of
literary sf is Gilman's _Moonwise_, but I don't think it's made
a big enough splash to be considered canonical.
Here's my tentative definition of a canon--books in a field that
have been loved for a long time by a lot of people and which are
good representations of the field. I'm not convinced that having
influenced other books is a necessary qualification, though I can
see that it's important if the purpose of the canon is to prepare
people for further reading. Also, since part of the purpose of
a canon is to be of managable size, I suggest that it be such
that a reasonably dedicated person can read it in a year.
My impression is that for now the purpose of a canon is
to give a starting point to people who want to explore older sf.
On the other hand, there might also be some desire for a more
academic canon--a tool for people who are at least as interested
in understanding the field as they are in reading for pleasure.
Perhaps there should be two canons, with the academic one putting
more emphasis on works of historical importance that might not
be likely to offer much pleasure to modern readers.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
NEW EDITION of the calligraphic button catalogue available by email!
"So many books, so little shelf space"
Matt Austern
> I think that you effectively state the case for canonisation of
> _Little Big_, and point out that it is indeed influential, by listing
> the later works in a similar style. Several people have put it
> forward before (myself included), but without stating clearly why.
>
> As an aside I would add Paul Kearney to the list of authors writing in
> this subgenre. There are many others.
I'd be inclined to say, though, that Crowley didn't originate any
genre. I see Little Big as quite squarely in the tradition of "magic
realism"; if any single person is to be credited with that subgenre
it's probably not Crowley, but Garcia Marquez.
It's possible, though, that Crowley was one of the first magic realist
authors writing in English. Can anyone think of earlier ones?
--
--matt
Graham Head
ma...@physics.berkeley.edu "Matt Austern" writes:
>
> I'd be inclined to say, though, that Crowley didn't originate any
> genre. I see Little Big as quite squarely in the tradition of "magic
> realism"; if any single person is to be credited with that subgenre
> it's probably not Crowley, but Garcia Marquez.
>
> It's possible, though, that Crowley was one of the first magic realist
> authors writing in English. Can anyone think of earlier ones?
I don't see Crowley as 'Magic Realist', and in any case pointing to a text
as the 'first' xyz isn't really what I thought we were talking about vis-a-vis
'influence' (a criterion I cordially dislike anyway, as I've said before).
However, an earlier English language writer many would see as writing
in the 'magic realism' mode was Angela Carter (Crowley's _The Deep_ 1975,
I think; Carter's _The Magic Toyshop_ 1967 - and not her first novel); I'm
sure there are others.
--
Graham Head
LuciusIV
Date: 28 Jan 1995 01:55:12 -0500
Message-Id: <3gcpog$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
How could _A Fine and Private Place_ be an imitation of _Little, Big_ when
the novels were written twenty years apart? Just curious.
Paul Clarke
In article <MATT.95F...@physics7.berkeley.edu>,
ma...@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
>
>I'd be inclined to say, though, that Crowley didn't originate any
>genre. I see Little Big as quite squarely in the tradition of "magic
>realism"; if any single person is to be credited with that subgenre
>it's probably not Crowley, but Garcia Marquez.
>
>It's possible, though, that Crowley was one of the first magic realist
>authors writing in English. Can anyone think of earlier ones?
>--
>
> --matt
>
I'm pretty sure that Angela Carter would predate him, and probably
Salman Rushdie as well. Crowley's first two novels (_The Deep_ and _Beasts),
which are the only ones I've read, aren't magical realism, and
_Engine Summer_ doesn't sound like it is from the brief descriptions
I've seen (any opinions?). That would put his first magical realist work
into the late eighties, so there are probably a few other people who
started before him.
This is off the top of my head, so please feel free to correct any of
my 'facts'.
DAVID LORENZO DUFFY
: In article <MATT.95F...@physics7.berkeley.edu>,
: ma...@physics7.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
: >
: >I'd be inclined to say, though, that Crowley didn't originate any
: >genre. I see Little Big as quite squarely in the tradition of "magic
: >realism"; if any single person is to be credited with that subgenre
: >it's probably not Crowley, but Garcia Marquez.
: >
: >It's possible, though, that Crowley was one of the first magic realist
: >authors writing in English. Can anyone think of earlier ones?
: > --matt
: I'm pretty sure that Angela Carter would predate him, and probably
: Salman Rushdie as well. Crowley's first two novels (_The Deep_ and _Beasts),
: which are the only ones I've read, aren't magical realism, and
Angela Carter wrote in an established tradition, Surrealism, where the
fantastic and mundane are juxtaposed in a similar fashion. The theatre of
the absurd is another older example eg Ionesco's _Rhinoceros_. One of my
favourites which I think I 've mentioned previously is _The Crock of Gold_,
by James Stephens which has mundane Dublin life and lephrechauns, and Dunsany's
_The Curse of the Wise Woman_. Rushdie's first novel was out and out
otherworldly fantasy (the edition I read had puffs from LeGuin & Silverberg),
BTW. And what about Anatole France's _Revolt of the Angels_...I think that
lots of fantasy has been and will be written (a) where the world as we know it
is fantastically altered in only a few aspects and (b) by authors who are not
genre bound. And John Crowley should definitely be included in any canon.
David Duffy.
Graham Head
>
> I am not sure I follow this logic. I see no contradiciton between
> admitting that there exists a "canon" encompassing all genre milestones
> and studying non-canon or even downright obscure authors/books.
>
which aim to give a grounding in 'the canon' of English. But they aren't the
only ones... Academia can, however, by giving a status to a work help to keep
it in print - which does raise the issue of accessibility regarding less well-
-known works (hence the feminist publishing houses which attempt to 'rescue'
neglected works by women...)
[Snip]
> It seems to me that in order to deny that there exists a class of
> "canonical works" (as opposed to questioning a particular canon), one
> would have to declare any and all objective criteria "null and void",
> something that I find singularly counterproductive.
>
I suspect I don't totally disagree with you. However, I find it hard to
identify what a truly "objective" criterion might look like (let's not start
an argument about what "well written" means, but it's hardly an objective
measure).
What we seem to do in practice, I think, is to bring our own, highly
subjective measures together and then look for common ground.
[BigSnip on reading protocols I may come back to when I've had a think]
>
> Lovecraft's _Supernatural Horror in Literature_, for example, can be seen
> as an attempt to do some housecleaning and thus help the "coagulation"
> process. Maybe. [Waiting for Marc Michaud and Perry Grayson to show up and
> tell me why I am wrong :-)]
>
> Unlike science fiction, fantasy by and large failed to use pulps as an
> *effective* incubator and had to wait until the mid 70's to become a
> genre. Which is not to deny that there were pure fantasy magazines
> (_Strange Tales_, _Magic Carpet_, _Strange Stories_, etc) during the Pulp
> Golden Age; or to floccinaucenihilipilificate the importance of Campbell's
> _Unknown_ or Henry Kuttner's continuation and development of the Merritt
> tradition; or to question the work done by the Arkham House gang; or ...
> Well, you get the idea :)
>
> But it took Tolkien and Del Rey to make a genre out of these er...
> 'strands', to misappropriate Graham's term :) I think that in order for a
> genre to exist, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
>
> 1) a 'canon' of major interrelated (in terms of tropes, conventions,
> expectations, etc) works must exist
>
> 2) genre's practitioners have to be aware of the canon as a whole, not
> just of a subset (otherwise we may have multiple genres masquerading as
> one genre, or it may be a sign that the genre hasn't 'coagulated' yet)
>
> 3) some kind of critical mass in terms of writers, readers, volume etc.
> has to be reached (simply being an occasional guest in science fiction
> magazines, for example, is not enough)
>
> Oh well, just my $0.02...
All this assumes/proves that fantasy is now a genre. I'm not happy with that;
for me "fantasy" is a publishing category (ie: 2 and 3 above), but also a type
of writing which occurs to a great extent elsewhere, in parts of otherwise
"realist" (devalued phrase) texts and in works which we tend to "place"
under other headings (rg "magic realism") for reasons I find hard to fathom.
The "canon" (1) for me should include both fantasy published both inside and
outside this category, otherwise you are excluding too much.
(In other words lets hear it for Kafka, Bulgakov, Peake and Borges!)
Just my 0.02 GBP
--
Graham Head
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
Graham Head (Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk) wrote: [snip]
> Academia can, however, by giving a status to a work help to keep
> it in print - which does raise the issue of accessibility regarding less well-
> -known works (hence the feminist publishing houses which attempt to 'rescue'
> neglected works by women...)
Well, there is "keep in print" and then there is "keep in print" :) Sure,
university publishing houses and such can keep all kinds of things in
print based on the perceived "status", but is it going to affect the
buying public and/or the genre as a whole? Any writers out there willing
to admit that they have been influenced by some otherwise unavailable
author?
I suspect that Derleth's Arkham House and Carter's Ballantine Adult
Fantasy series (plus Gnome Press and other semi-professional publishers of
the 40's/50's) did more to preserve all kinds of arguably "canonical"
works in the 40's-70's than all academia-influenced publishers combined.
Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Eddison, Dunsany, William Morris, Frank
Beklnap Long, de Camp/Pratt, Robert E. Howard, Hodgson, etc.
> > It seems to me that in order to deny that there exists a class of
> > "canonical works" (as opposed to questioning a particular canon), one
> > would have to declare any and all objective criteria "null and void",
> > something that I find singularly counterproductive.
> >
> I suspect I don't totally disagree with you. However, I find it hard to
> identify what a truly "objective" criterion might look like (let's not start
> an argument about what "well written" means, but it's hardly an objective
> measure).
> What we seem to do in practice, I think, is to bring our own, highly
> subjective measures together and then look for common ground.
"Measures" or "preferences"? Some people seem to contribute their list of
favorite books, which is fine in other contexts, but hardly helps us with
the canon. But arguing about "measures" is what this thread is all about,
don't you think? If we can come up with an agreed-upon list of criteria
that any work must satisfy before it can be canonized, then we'll be so
much closer to creating a workable canon. "Influential", "representative"
and "original" have all been proposed at different points. Anything else?
> > But it took Tolkien and Del Rey to make a genre out of these er...
> > 'strands', to misappropriate Graham's term :) I think that in order for a
> > genre to exist, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
> >
> > 1) a 'canon' of major interrelated (in terms of tropes, conventions,
> > expectations, etc) works must exist
> >
> > 2) genre's practitioners have to be aware of the canon as a whole, not
> > just of a subset (otherwise we may have multiple genres masquerading as
> > one genre, or it may be a sign that the genre hasn't 'coagulated' yet)
> >
> > 3) some kind of critical mass in terms of writers, readers, volume etc.
> > has to be reached (simply being an occasional guest in science fiction
> > magazines, for example, is not enough)
> All this assumes/proves that fantasy is now a genre. I'm not happy with that;
> for me "fantasy" is a publishing category (ie: 2 and 3 above), but also a type
> of writing which occurs to a great extent elsewhere, in parts of otherwise
> "realist" (devalued phrase) texts and in works which we tend to "place"
> under other headings (rg "magic realism") for reasons I find hard to fathom.
> The "canon" (1) for me should include both fantasy published both inside and
> outside this category, otherwise you are excluding too much.
> (In other words lets hear it for Kafka, Bulgakov, Peake and Borges!)
Hmm, I find it *very* useful to differentiate between genre and non-genre
*science fiction*. I see no reason why we can't use the same concept in
the fantasy field. Donaldson, Jordan and Duane write genre fantasy, Kafka
and Borges write non-genre fantasy. Bulgakov may be a part of the Russian
genre fantasy canon (_Diaboliad_ going back to Gogol and _The Master and
Margarita_ influencing everybody and his brother after 1966), but ... this
thread has already mutated far enough :)
Jo Walton
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 1995 09:25:24 +0000
Message-Id: <791198...@kenjo.demon.co.uk>
I ordered _Little, Big_ from the library, and it just arrived. I think it must
be the first time any book has made me ROTFL without even opening it. Bearing
in mind that I ordered it because of Mike saying it was one of the 3 most
influential books in the Fantasy Canon - and on the front in big letters it
says "...a book which all by itself calls for a redefinition of fantasy" Ursula
K. Le Guin. So there you go.
--
Jo
*********************************************************
- - I kissed a kif at Kefk - -
*********************************************************
Juvena@kcbbs.gen.nz (Scott Davies (Juvena)
Bernard Peek
aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> I suspect that we are drifting a bit here, but what the heck :)
True
>
> > > But it took Tolkien and Del Rey to make a genre out of these er...
> > > 'strands', to misappropriate Graham's term :) I think that in order for a
> > > genre to exist, the following conditions have to be satisfied:
[...]
> > > 2) genre's practitioners have to be aware of the canon as a whole, not
> > > just of a subset (otherwise we may have multiple genres masquerading as
> > > one genre, or it may be a sign that the genre hasn't 'coagulated' yet)
No. The genre will never "coagulate" because there will always be
subdivisions possible. We have already looked at Magic Realism and
identified a number of works that fit that subgenre.
Sword and sorcery is another.
The "SF" genre was, until recently, taken to include Science Fiction,
Speculative Fiction and Fantasy. We have now redefined these as
separate genres (hence the start of this thread).
> Hmm, I find it *very* useful to differentiate between genre and non-genre
> *science fiction*.
But does this distinction arise from the works themselves, or just
that certain authors are already claimed by another genre --
"literature"?
> I see no reason why we can't use the same concept in
> the fantasy field. Donaldson, Jordan and Duane write genre fantasy, Kafka
> and Borges write non-genre fantasy.
Or should they be considered to be in a different subgenre? I see no
reason why a work can't appear in two or more genres. There are plenty
of examples of SF/Mystery works. Clearly they exist in both genres,
but may not be typical members of either.
Graham Head
[Snip]
>
> Well, there is "keep in print" and then there is "keep in print" :) Sure,
> university publishing houses and such can keep all kinds of things in
> print based on the perceived "status", but is it going to affect the
> buying public and/or the genre as a whole? Any writers out there willing
> to admit that they have been influenced by some otherwise unavailable
> author?
>
> I suspect that Derleth's Arkham House and Carter's Ballantine Adult
> Fantasy series (plus Gnome Press and other semi-professional publishers of
> the 40's/50's) did more to preserve all kinds of arguably "canonical"
> works in the 40's-70's than all academia-influenced publishers combined.
> Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Eddison, Dunsany, William Morris, Frank
> Beklnap Long, de Camp/Pratt, Robert E. Howard, Hodgson, etc.
>
Ouch. You're right of course. I was thinking more in terms of the effect of
the canon in 'English Studies' which doesn't really apply here (or with other
genre fiction?). Also, these imprints just don't seem very visible in the UK,
I guess (at least they don't seem that visible to me).
[Snip]
>
> > What we seem to do in practice, I think, is to bring our own, highly
> > subjective measures together and then look for common ground.
>
> "Measures" or "preferences"? Some people seem to contribute their list of
> favorite books, which is fine in other contexts, but hardly helps us with
> the canon. But arguing about "measures" is what this thread is all about,
> don't you think? If we can come up with an agreed-upon list of criteria
> that any work must satisfy before it can be canonized, then we'll be so
> much closer to creating a workable canon. "Influential", "representative"
> and "original" have all been proposed at different points. Anything else?
>
The only one that comes to mind at the moment is "exemplary" - ie not just
to find a representative "decaying city" novel, but the most
"decaying city"-ish - the one that includes all of the tropes/sub-topics/etc?
[As an aside, what are the dates for _The City of Dreadful Night_? I suspect
it's just too early, but I'm not sure.]
And I _know_ that in one sense I've just raised it to a meta-level - what does
'"decaying city"-ish' consist in? At the same time, it does help us to
compare like with like.
[Snip]
> > (In other words lets hear it for Kafka, Bulgakov, Peake and Borges!)
>
> Hmm, I find it *very* useful to differentiate between genre and non-genre
> *science fiction*. I see no reason why we can't use the same concept in
> the fantasy field. Donaldson, Jordan and Duane write genre fantasy, Kafka
> and Borges write non-genre fantasy. Bulgakov may be a part of the Russian
> genre fantasy canon (_Diaboliad_ going back to Gogol and _The Master and
> Margarita_ influencing everybody and his brother after 1966), but ... this
> thread has already mutated far enough :)
Hmmmm... this is the bit that most prompted me to reply, really, and I haven't
thought this out properly, but I suspect I want to introduce notions of 'value'
here (much-derided term) - and a lot of broad generalisations... (here goes)
A lot of non-genre SF seems to 'miss the point' or belabour ideas which genre
writers have been handling with finesse and (often) as a given for some time -
ie writers from outside the field often have little knowledge of what SF can
do or how far it has developed. Hence, in drawing up a canonical list of SF
writings I feel quite comfortable in - more-or-less - concentrating on genre
works, particularly after 1950ish.
The trouble is, with fantasy I think the reverse is the case - or pretty nearly
so - a lot of the more imaginative and worthwhile work (exploring, pushing
back the bounds) seems to be being done _outside_ the field of genre fantasy,
often under other labels (?magic realism? ?postmodern fiction? ?young adult
fiction? or just the 'literary mainstream'?).
Does this matter to the strand this started out with? Maybe not, but I feel
you end up constructing a differently-slanted canon if you focus too much on
the genre material. Not just different books but the selection mechanisms
(the 'criteria') may also change, or be very differently interpreted. This
applies particularly, I would guess, in discussions of what is/was
'influential' or 'well-written'. I can't easily prove this, however ;) - but
it is one of the reasons I would argue for as _wide_ as practical a definition
when drawing up a canon for 'fantasy', while I'd be less concerned when
doing so for SF (the latter has different problems).
On a different tack: Does anyone apart from me get the feeling that Mike Scott
may have been correct - at least to some extent - when he suggested that the
canon might be _relatively_ small - at least within his definitions and for
the 20th century? Not just the three books he nominated at the start, of
course, but I suspect (is anyone counting) the total number of alternatives
offered is still under 50 - which feels low???? And how many texts are there
which have been suggested which would have the general acceptance of the
'community' (or some such)?
--
Graham
> I suspect that we are drifting a bit here, but what the heck :)
...so (as we seem to be the only people debating this) I'll revert to mail and
save everone else's bandwidth.
>
>
> Hmm, I find it *very* useful to differentiate between genre and non-genre
> *science fiction*. I see no reason why we can't use the same concept in
> the fantasy field. Donaldson, Jordan and Duane write genre fantasy, Kafka
> and Borges write non-genre fantasy. Bulgakov may be a part of the Russian
> genre fantasy canon (_Diaboliad_ going back to Gogol and _The Master and
> Margarita_ influencing everybody and his brother after 1966), but ... this
> thread has already mutated far enough :)
--
Graham Head
Graham Head
> save everone else's bandwidth.
--
Graham Head
Soren F. Petersen
the title page Cawthorn and Moorcock's *The 100 Best Fantasies*. There
are more than 100 titles, as they sometimes list multiple titles (as in
a series) in a single entry.
I'm not presenting this as any kind of definitive "answer", but it's
an interesting attempt by two British guys in their late forties, who
have probably read more fantasy than you have.
There is another similar book, by David Pringle which limits itself to
works published in the last 45 years. If I track down a copy, I'll
enter it in. As I recall, there is a fair amount of overlap for the
period they have in common.
(If anyone cares, I'm using it as a checklist. A '+' in the first
column means I've read it, a '^' means I have a copy, but haven't
got to it yet.)
-------------------------------
*Gulliver's Travels*, Jonathan Swift (1726)
*The Castle of Otranto*, Horace Walpole (1765)
*Vathek*, William Beckford (1786)
*The Monk*, Matthew Gregory Lewis (1796)
+ *Frankenstein*, Mary Shelley (1818)
*Melmoth the Wanderer*, Charles Robert Maturin (1820)
*The Narative of Arthur Gordon Pym*, Edgar Allan Poe (1838)
^ *A Christmas Carol*, Charles Dickens (1843)
^ *Wuthering Heights*, Emily Bronte (1847)
^ *Moby-Dick*, Herman Melville (1851)
*Uncle Silas: A Tale of Bartram-Haugh*, J. Sheridan LeFanu (1864)
+ *Alice's Adventures in Wonderland* (1865) &
+ *Through the Looking-Glass*, Lewis Carroll (1871)
*Flatland*, Edwin A. Abbott (1884)
^ *She*, Henry Rider Haggard (1886)
+ *Doctor Jekyll and Mr Hyde*, Robert Louis Stevenson (1886)
*The Twilight of the Gods*, Richard Garnett (1888)
*The Story of the Glittering Plain*, William Morris (1891)
^ *The Picture of Dorian Gray*, Oscar Wilde (1891)
*Dracula*, Bram Stoker (1897)
*The Turn of the Screw*, Henry James (1898)
+ *The Man Who Was Thursday*, G.K. Chesterton (1908)
^ *The House on the Borderland*, William Hope Hodgson (1908)
*Black magic*, Marjorie Bowen (1909)
*Zuleika Dobson*, Max Beerbohm (1911)
*A Princess of Mars*, Edgar Rice Burroughs (1911)
*Tarzan of the Apes*, Edgar Rice Burroughs (1912)
*The Lost World*, Arthur Conan Doyle (1912)
+ *The Night Land*, William Hope Hodgson (1912)
*Herland*, Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1915)
*The Citadel of Fear*, Francis Stevens (1918)
*A Voyage to Arcturus*, David Lindsay (1922)
+ *The Worm Ouroboros*, E.R. Eddison (1922)
*The Haunted Woman*, David Lindsay (1922)
*Lady into Fox* (1922) &
*A Man in the Zoo*, David Garnett (1924)
^ *The King of Elfland's Daughter*, Lord Dunsany (1924)
^ *The Ship of Ishtar*, Abraham Merritt (1926)
+ *The Trial* (1925) &
*The Castle*, Franz Kafka (1926)
*Witch Wood*, John Buchan (1927)
^ *War in Heaven*, Charles Williams (1930)
*Turnabout*, Thorne Smith (1931)
*The Night Life of the Gods*, Thorne Smith (1931)
^ *Dwellers in the Mirage*, Abraham Merritt (1932)
*Zothique*, Clark Ashton Smith (1932-51)
*The Werewolf of Paris*, Guy Endore (1933)
*Lost Horizon*, James Hilton (1933)
*Northwest Smith*, Catherine L. Moore (1933-40)
^ *Jirel of Joiry*, Cahterine L. Moore (1934-9)
*The Circus of Dr Lao*, Charles G. Finney (1935)
*Land Under England*, Joseph O'Neill (1935)
^ *Conan the Conqueror*, Robert E. Howard (1935/6)
^ *At the Mountains of Madness*, H.P. Lovecraft (1936)
*To Walk the Night*, William Sloane (1937)
*Roads*, Seabury Quinn (1938)
*The Once and Future King*, T.H. White (1939-77)
*Slaves of Sleep*, L. Ron Hubbard (1939)
*Caravan for China*, Frank R. Stuart (1939)
*Fear*, L. Ron Hubbard (1940)
+ *Darker Than You Think*, Jack Williamson (1940)
^ *The Case of Charles Dexter Ward*, H.P. Lovecraft (1941)
^ *Land of Unreason*, Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp (1941)
+ *Conjure Wife*, Fritz Leiber (1943)
^ *The Book of Ptath*, A.E. van Vogt (1943)
*The Dark World* (1946) &
*The Valley of the Flame* Henry Kutner (1946)
+ *Titus Groan* (1946) &
+ *Gormenghast (1950) &
+ *Titus Alone*, Mervyn Peake (1959)
*The Exploits of Engelbrecht*, Maurice Richardson (1946)
*Mistress Masham's Repose*, T.H. White (1946)
*Adept's Gambit*, Fritz Leiber (1947)
^ *The Well of the Unicorn*, Fletcher Pratt (1948)
*You're All Alone*, Fritz Leiber (1950)
+ *The Dying Earth*, Jack Vance (1950)
*The Devil in Velvet*, John Dickson Carr (1951)
^ *The Tritonian Ring*, L. Sprague de Camp (1951)
*Three Hearts and Three Lions*, Poul Anderson (1953)
*The Sword of Rhiannon*, Leigh Brackett (1953)
*The Broken Sword*, Poul Anderson (1954)
+ *The Lord of the Rings*, J.R.R. Tolkien (1954-5)
*The Golden Strangers*, Henry Treece (1956)
*The Great Captains*, Henry Treece (1956)
^ *The Haunting of Hill House*, Shirley Jackson (1959)
+ *Stormbringer*, Michael Moorcock (1963)
^ *The Serpent* (1963) &
*Atlan* (1965) &
*The City* (1966) &
*Some Summer Lands*, Jane Gaskell (1977)
^ *The Crystal World*, J.G. Ballard (1964)
^ *Black Easter* (1967) &
^ *The Day After Judgement*, James Blish (1968)
*Rosemary's Baby*, Ira Levin (1967)
+ *A Wizard of Earthsea*, Ursula K. Le Guin (1968)
*The Green Man*, Kingsley Amis (1969)
*Neither the Sea nor the Sand*, Gordon Honeycombe (1969)
*The Philosopher's Stone*, Colin Wilson (1969)
+ *The Pastel City*, M. John Harrison (1971)
*The Infernal Desire Machine of Dr Hoffman*, Angela Carter (1972)
*Red Shift*, Alan Garner (1973)
+ *The Compleat Enchanter*, L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt (1975)
*The Alteration*, Kingsley Amis (1976)
*Our Lady of Darkness*, Fritz Leiber (1976)
+ *The Drawing of the Dark*, Tim Powers (1979)
*The Sending*, Geoffrey Household (1980)
+ *The Colour of Magic* (1983) &
+ *The Light Fantastic*, Terry Pratchett (1983)
^ *The Businessman: A Tale of Terror*, Thomas M. Disch (1984)
+ *Hawksmoor*, Peter Ackroyd (1985)
+ *Expecting Someone Taller*, Tom Holt (1987)
--------------------------------------
--
Goethe wasn't necessarily thinking of you...
so...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> >2) genre's practitioners have to be aware of the canon as a whole, not
> > just of a subset (otherwise we may have multiple genres masquerading as
> > one genre, or it may be a sign that the genre hasn't 'coagulated' yet)
> No. The genre will never "coagulate" because there will always be
> subdivisions possible. We have already looked at Magic Realism and
> identified a number of works that fit that subgenre.
> Sword and sorcery is another.
I don't think there is a contradiction between having subgenres and "being
aware of the canon" in its entirety. But if you can write (and sell) _Drak
the Barbarian in the Kingdom of the Dark God of Death_ without *being
aware* of most high fantasy milestones, then I suspect we have reached
that point where S&S is not a subgenre any more, rather a full-fledged
genre. A matter of definition, I know, but I think that mine is somewhat
more useful :)
> The "SF" genre was, until recently, taken to include Science Fiction,
> Speculative Fiction and Fantasy. We have now redefined these as
> separate genres (hence the start of this thread).
I am afraid I am not following you :( Does "until recently" refer to 1900,
1926, 1939, 1975 or two weeks ago when we started this here thread?
> > Hmm, I find it *very* useful to differentiate between genre and non-genre
> > *science fiction*.
> But does this distinction arise from the works themselves, or just
> that certain authors are already claimed by another genre --
> "literature"?
Isn't "literature" what's left when you subtract "genre fiction"? :) So, I
guess, the answer is "yes, pretty much by definition" :) I mean, when a
literary trend reaches that (often imperceptible) point when new books are
not merely influenced by other books of the same persuasion but take them
for granted, well, then I say we have a genre on our hands. And the reader
should be aware of genre conventions, protocols etc, or else s/he is going
to have a very hard time figuring out what's going on.
> > I see no reason why we can't use the same concept in
> > the fantasy field. Donaldson, Jordan and Duane write genre fantasy, Kafka
> > and Borges write non-genre fantasy.
> Or should they be considered to be in a different subgenre?
Er... <looks lost> Which tradition are we talking about here?
> I see no
> reason why a work can't appear in two or more genres. There are plenty
> of examples of SF/Mystery works. Clearly they exist in both genres,
> but may not be typical members of either.
Sure, sure. But why is it relevant in our context? [I have a nagging
feeling that we are not communicating here, maybe we should re-examine our
terminology or something...]
Graham Head
dld...@welchlink.uoregon.edu "DAVID LORENZO DUFFY" writes:
> Paul Clarke (pa...@broken.isltd.insignia.com) wrote:
[Snip... on pre-Crowley English language magic realist writers...]
> Angela Carter wrote in an established tradition, Surrealism, where the
> fantastic and mundane are juxtaposed in a similar fashion.
[Snip]
For a variety of reasons I'm not comfortable with this, although I can see
some of the arguments in favour of this assignment. I suspect that one reason
is that - as you hint - there is overlap between the two traditions.
At the same time I don't think surrealism is a good description of the area
that AC worked in: to a large extent (and like many good writers) she was
resistant to categorisation. Where I do detect similarities with other writers
they tend to be writers working within what we can (loosely) call magic realism
(Borges' _Labyrinths_ comes to mind).
If you want to claim her as a surrealist, fine, but for me she is still
better thought of (if in a 'camp' at all) as in the magic realist tradition.
(Not an argument, I know, more an assertion....;))
--
Graham
Bernard Peek
aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> Bernard Peek (b...@intersec.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> [snip]
> > >2) genre's practitioners have to be aware of the canon as a whole, not
> > > just of a subset (otherwise we may have multiple genres masquerading as
> > > one genre, or it may be a sign that the genre hasn't 'coagulated' yet)
>
> > No. The genre will never "coagulate" because there will always be
> > subdivisions possible. We have already looked at Magic Realism and
> > identified a number of works that fit that subgenre.
>
> > Sword and sorcery is another.
>
> I don't think there is a contradiction between having subgenres and "being
> aware of the canon" in its entirety. But if you can write (and sell) _Drak
> the Barbarian in the Kingdom of the Dark God of Death_ without *being
> aware* of most high fantasy milestones, then I suspect we have reached
> that point where S&S is not a subgenre any more, rather a full-fledged
> genre. A matter of definition, I know, but I think that mine is somewhat
> more useful :)
What I was attempting to point out is that it's not clear where the
borders between genres/subgenres lie. For that reason I don't think
that waiting for the fantasy genre to coagulate is useful, because it
never will.
There will always be more different definitions than there are people
attempting to define the genre. This is because not only does everyone
have a different definition, but the same person may have different
definitions at different times.
> > The "SF" genre was, until recently, taken to include Science Fiction,
> > Speculative Fiction and Fantasy. We have now redefined these as
> > separate genres (hence the start of this thread).
>
> I am afraid I am not following you :( Does "until recently" refer to 1900,
> 1926, 1939, 1975 or two weeks ago when we started this here thread?
Probably two weeks ago. If you look at most lists of the 100 best SF
books you will probably find several books that are clearly fantasy.
(You will of course find more that are neither/both.)
> > > Hmm, I find it *very* useful to differentiate between genre and non-genre
> > > *science fiction*.
>
> > But does this distinction arise from the works themselves, or just
> > that certain authors are already claimed by another genre --
> > "literature"?
>
> Isn't "literature" what's left when you subtract "genre fiction"? :)
My definition is different. "Literature" (large L) is a genre. Thus
all literature (small l) belongs to one or more genres.
Graham Head
s...@bast.demon.co.uk "Sion Arrowsmith" writes:
> In article <792238...@nunhead.demon.co.uk>,
> Graham Head <Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > ...so (as we seem to be the only people debating this) I'll revert to mail and> > save everone else's bandwidth.
> >
> Just because no-one else is replying, don't assume that they're not
> interested in what you're saying!
>
> --
You're right, of course. My apologies.
--
Graham
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> [As an aside, what are the dates for _The City of Dreadful Night_? I suspect
Circa 1890.
> A lot of non-genre SF seems to 'miss the point' or belabour ideas which genre
> writers have been handling with finesse and (often) as a given for some time -
> ie writers from outside the field often have little knowledge of what SF can
> do or how far it has developed. Hence, in drawing up a canonical list of SF
> writings I feel quite comfortable in - more-or-less - concentrating on genre
> works, particularly after 1950ish.
> The trouble is, with fantasy I think the reverse is the case - or pretty nearly
> so - a lot of the more imaginative and worthwhile work (exploring, pushing
> back the bounds) seems to be being done _outside_ the field of genre fantasy,
> often under other labels (?magic realism? ?postmodern fiction? ?young adult
> fiction? or just the 'literary mainstream'?).
Ah, but genre science fiction has been around for the last 70 years or so!
*Most* stories from the first 25 years (1926-1951) are rather abysmal.
Campbell's Golden Age was confined to _Astounding_ and _Unknown_, the
latter one being mostly a fantasy magazine. Everything else, i.e.
_Marvel_, _Amazing_, _Wonder_, _Startling_, _Fantastic_, _Planet_, etc.
for the most part published things that would make Piers Anthony blush :)
It was a necessary step, of course, and much needed "genre development"
work was done during the first 25 years, but 99% of it is not something
you want to include in any half-decent canon.
It wasn't until 1945/46 when Sam Merwin made _Startling_ and _Wonder_
mostly readable that Campbell lost his near-monopoly on quality science
fiction. The floodgates opened in 1950 with _Galaxy_ and _Magazine of
Fantasy and Science Fiction_ becoming major voices in the field. Even the
minor magazines of the 50's were often surprisingly readable.
Genre fantasy right now may be where science fiction was in 1947. There
are good original books drowning in a sea of generic fantasy. But the last
20 years have seen incredible growth and development of genre conventions
within the genre which made the good stuff available out there possible.
Are we going to see a change in the signal-to-noise-ration any time soon?
Is fantasy on the verge of a breakthrough the way science fiction was in
the late 40's? Who knows... More importantly, maybe my analogy is
fundamentally flawed...
Graham Head
aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
Well argued and I'm _almost_ convinced. One sticking point for me is
_The Skylark of Space_ (written 1915-20, in 'Amazing' 1928 (Nicholls
_Encyclopedia_ 1st edition)) which I feel should be in an SF canon
for its influence - even if only seen as minor now. (Any 'style' issues
should be picked up by comparing it with its contemporaries, in which case
IMVHO it doesn't seem quite so awful).
[I know you didn't say _all_ stories from the first 25 yrs or so of the
genre, but all the same I think the point holds... the infant genre
SF was kicking quite hard]
I would also suggest that publishing is not as it was 70 years back, which
would also cast some doubt on the analogy (eg you aren't discussing a
short-story led and magazine-published developing genre).
--
Graham Head
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> [Ahasuerus wrote:]
> > Genre fantasy right now may be where science fiction was in 1947. There
> > are good original books drowning in a sea of generic fantasy. But the last
> > 20 years have seen incredible growth and development of genre conventions
> > within the genre which made the good stuff available out there possible.
> > Are we going to see a change in the signal-to-noise-ration any time soon?
> > Is fantasy on the verge of a breakthrough the way science fiction was in
> > the late 40's? Who knows... More importantly, maybe my analogy is
> > fundamentally flawed...
> Well argued and I'm _almost_ convinced. One sticking point for me is
> _The Skylark of Space_ (written 1915-20, in 'Amazing' 1928 (Nicholls
> _Encyclopedia_ 1st edition)) which I feel should be in an SF canon
> for its influence - even if only seen as minor now. (Any 'style' issues
> should be picked up by comparing it with its contemporaries, in which case
> IMVHO it doesn't seem quite so awful).
Yup. I used to work next to the building where Blackie DuQuesne had had
his HQ and I was quite fond of taking long walks around it (in case he
tried to come back :-)
> [I know you didn't say _all_ stories from the first 25 yrs or so of the
> genre, but all the same I think the point holds... the infant genre
> SF was kicking quite hard]
Most assuredly. But are you sure we won't see similar "diamonds in the
rough" when we look at contemporary genre fantasy 40 years from now?
> I would also suggest that publishing is not as it was 70 years back, which
> would also cast some doubt on the analogy (eg you aren't discussing a
> short-story led and magazine-published developing genre).
Well, there were many novels published during the pulp era, just look at
Lovecraft, Taine (after 1928), early Heinlein, the self-same Doc Smith,
Merritt, etc. Most novels were short (40,000-70,000 words), but they were
novels nonetheless.
You are absolutely right about the "magazine-published" aspect, but one
could argue that original mass market paperbacks serve the same purpose
these days as the pulps of yore back then.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see...
Bernard Peek
aha...@clark.net "Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew" writes:
> Graham Head (Gra...@nunhead.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > [Ahasuerus wrote:]
> > I would also suggest that publishing is not as it was 70 years back, which
> > would also cast some doubt on the analogy (eg you aren't discussing a
> > short-story led and magazine-published developing genre).
>
> Well, there were many novels published during the pulp era, just look at
> Lovecraft, Taine (after 1928), early Heinlein, the self-same Doc Smith,
> Merritt, etc. Most novels were short (40,000-70,000 words), but they were
> novels nonetheless.
>
> You are absolutely right about the "magazine-published" aspect, but one
> could argue that original mass market paperbacks serve the same purpose
> these days as the pulps of yore back then.
Short stories and magazines don't lead the mass-market, but still have
an impact within the genre.
To have an effect on the genre they only have to affect the writers,
not the majority of readers. How many of today's and tomorrow's
writers still read magazines and anthologies.