Steam Punk and The Anubis Gates
cyberdiction
I've been investigating what category of fantasy "The Anubis Gates"
fits into and I've found two opinions that it belongs to the sub-genre
Steam Punk(SP):
"Shadowing the slippery netherworlds of role-playing games like Magic
or Dungeons & Dragons, Daniel's quest to retrieve the magic stone and
discover who killed his mother becomes a bravura act of storytelling,
both a free-spirited adventure and a parable about the powers within
us all."
There is also the historical fantasy tie with The Difference
Engine(also SP)
and old English poets. I've also been comparing "Stone Junction" by
Jim Dodge
with "Last Call" as Tarot themes and Alchemy are linked by
transmutation
of the inner self into Fulfillment. Steam Punk is described as
"elusive"
when placing writing into a category. It is this historical element
which
reminded me of the Corenelius stories and Michael Moorcock.
http://www.strangewords.com/archive/anubis.html
Egyptian Steam Punk
..."Three young wanna-be authors - KW Jeter, James Blaylock, and Tim
Powers
- the founding fathers of the science fiction sub genre of Steam Punk.
Tim Powers' seminal contribution to Steam Punk is his 1984 Philip K
Dick
Award-winning The Anubis Gates (Ace, 1983). Power's protagonist,
Professor Brendan Doyle, is a published but perishing light-weight
California academician specializing in 19th century British poets. His
personal life
is no brighter,..."
Regards,
Stephen
Chris Camfield
Gates' action in the 19th century preceded the industrial revolution. At least,
I don't remember any steam-powered technology or other advanced devices based on
19th century technology in the book. Just because a book takes place in a 19th
century or Victorian setting does not make it steampunk. I mean, The Anubis
Gates has Egyptian sorcerers in it, right?
On 3 Nov 2002 13:03:38 -0800, cyberd...@yahoo.com (cyberdiction) wrote:
>I've been investigating what category of fantasy "The Anubis Gates"
>fits into and I've found two opinions that it belongs to the sub-genre
>Steam Punk(SP):
>
>"Shadowing the slippery netherworlds of role-playing games like Magic
>or Dungeons & Dragons, Daniel's quest to retrieve the magic stone and
>discover who killed his mother becomes a bravura act of storytelling,
>both a free-spirited adventure and a parable about the powers within
>us all."
What does this have to do with either steampunk or The Anubis Gates? I'm
puzzled here.
Chris
Stephen Harris
"Chris Camfield" <ccam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3dc5986d...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> I'd disagree. It's been a while since I read the book, but I thought The
Anubis
> Gates' action in the 19th century preceded the industrial revolution. At
least,
> I don't remember any steam-powered technology or other advanced devices
based on
> 19th century technology in the book. Just because a book takes place in a
19th
> century or Victorian setting does not make it steampunk. I mean, The
Anubis
> Gates has Egyptian sorcerers in it, right?
>
Yes. I mentioned the definition of Steam Punk is "elusive". Perhaps the
Difference
Engine was steam powered, I think so. 1810 is the era of Steam Punk
which was patented in 1769 by James Watt. You'll find it hard to locate a
strict definition of Steam Punk on the Internet.
http://www.gigamesh.com/libro002laspuertasdeanubis.html
"A legendary novel that originated a new subgenus, the steam-punk."
"To his amazement, it works. Amidst sound and fury, the party arrives on the
outskirts of a much earlier London and head in to town for a brilliant
Coleridge evening. Doyle is elated by visions of his sure-to-be rejuvenated
career and the deep conviction that finally his life has turned a decisive
corner. It has, though not in the way he expects. Unbeknownst to them, the
futurists' arrival through Time was observed by sinister wizardly forces
with many questions and absolutely no scruples about getting answers. Head
in the clouds, Doyle walks straight into the waiting arms and chloroformed
gags of gypsy kidnappers, who bungle his capture but also make him miss his
ride home to the twentieth century. Marooned in 1810 London, hunted by
demented sorcerous forces set on the destruction of Britian, Doyle must
somehow survive through his drink-sodden wits and encyclopedic knowledge of
the period's not-yet-famous poets."
http://www.silcom.com/~manatee/powers_on.html
"I really enjoy the creativity of author Tim Powers, as he has the ability
to
take historical elements, here the wild days of piracy in the Caribbean, and
add in elements of fantasy and intrigue...his particular style is termed
"steam punk", I believe."
> On 3 Nov 2002 13:03:38 -0800, cyberd...@yahoo.com (cyberdiction) wrote:
> >I've been investigating what category of fantasy "The Anubis Gates"
> >fits into and I've found two opinions that it belongs to the sub-genre
> >Steam Punk(SP):
> >
Actually three links, ~manatee, gigamesh and *strangewords which said:
*"Ranked by many as one of Tim Powers' best, The Anubis Gates is a
must read for Steam Punkers of all ages." and "Three young wanna-be authors
- KW Jeter, James Blaylock, and Tim Powers - the founding fathers of the
science fiction sub genre of Steam Punk.
> >"Shadowing the slippery netherworlds of role-playing games like Magic
> >or Dungeons & Dragons, Daniel's quest to retrieve the magic stone and
> >discover who killed his mother becomes a bravura act of storytelling,
> >both a free-spirited adventure and a parable about the powers within
> >us all."
>
> What does this have to do with either steampunk or The Anubis Gates? I'm
> puzzled here.
>
> Chris
Both The Anubis Gates and Stone Junction(Daniel) are found under fiction
not SF in the library. I meant there are role-playing Steam Punk games.
Which is why I don't think Powers/Dodge fit neatly into the fantasy
category,
so I presenting other opinions supporting this. The stories remind me of
each other.
One is a hero making a hero's journey and the other is a Hero making the
journey.
I wrote:
"I've also been comparing "Stone Junction" by Jim Dodge
with "Last Call" as Tarot themes and Alchemy are linked by
transmutation of the inner self into Fulfillment. Steam Punk is
described as "elusive" when placing writing into a category."
Here is a link to Thomas Pychon's (Gravity's Rainbow) Introduction
to Stone Junction:
http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_stone.html
http://yuk.net/steam/index-e.html
"This is my Original Steam Punk TRPG (TabletalkRolePlayingGame) page."
The Difference Engine:
http://www.rc.umd.edu/villa/vc97/june00/difference.html
"So persuasive has their historical conceit been that it has spawned a
sub-genre of science fiction known as "steam-punk," which includes Rudy
Rucker's The Hollow Earth (1992), Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age(1995),
and George Foy's The Shift (1996)."
Also the thread Steampunk on rec.arts.sf.written had this to say:
In addition to Sterling and Gibson's Difference Engine , cyberpunks and
punkesqes like Paul di Filippo ( Steampunk Trilogy ), and Rudy Rucker
( The Hollow Earth ) have tried their hands at Steampunk. Leave it to
post-cyberpunk Neal Stephenson to produce a post-steam-punk in The
Diamond Age-'s new Atlanteans.
and a definition:
From the Clute/Nicholls _Encyclopedia of SF_ (1992):
<quote>
STEAMPUNK. Item of SF terminology coined in the late 1980's, on
analogy with CYBERPUNK, to describe the modern subgenre whose sf
events take place against a 19th-century background [...] in essence
Steampunk is a US phenomenon, often set in a London, England, which
is envisaged as at once deeply alien and intimately familiar, a kind
of foreign body encysted in the US subconscious.
</quote>
Some of the novels mentioned in the rest of the article:
KW Jeter _Morlock Night_, _Infernal Devices: A Mad Victorian Fantasy_
James Blaylock: _Homunculus_, _Lord Kelvin's Machine_
Tim Powers: _The Anubis Gates_, _On Stranger Tides_, _The Stress of
her Regard_
Powers is acknowledged as being closer to magic realism.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Jo'Asia wrote:
> Martin Skj ldebrand wrote in message <04jX8.15728$p56.5...@newsb.tel
ia.net>:
>
> > I read a review of Mieville's "Perdido Street Station" that called it
> > "Steampunk". Is this an acknowledged category in SF/Fantasy? What else
fits
> > into that category in that case?
>
> I'd say The Differential Engine by Gibson and Sterling.
>
> Jo'Asia
>
Stephen: The definition says a 19th century background but does not specify
the use of steam in the story(unless edited) but I would be happy to go with
"magic realism" as a label for not the not quite fantasy aspect of Powers
writing.
I guess things don't always fit neatly,
Stephen
P.S. a final opinion I found:
Steampunk is also called Victorian Science Fiction (VSF to some) and
Scientific Romance (I think, less certain of the use of the latter term). To
me at least Steampunk stories are set, very generously, between 1814 and
1914, idealy in the last two or three decades of the 19th century. If not on
Earth they involve steam-powered levels of technology as you might imagine
as well as treating Victorian science and science fiction as real, often
giving a culture something - such as mechanical men or time machines - far
ahead of when such an item could really exist, if it ever could to begin
with.
Stephen Harris
Anubis
> Gates' action in the 19th century preceded the industrial revolution. At
least,
> I don't remember any steam-powered technology or other advanced devices
based on
> 19th century technology in the book. Just because a book takes place in a
19th
> century or Victorian setting does not make it steampunk. I mean, The
Anubis
> Gates has Egyptian sorcerers in it, right?
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=steampunk+definition&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe
=UTF-8&selm=lawrenceperson-C66751.18363326102001%40news.jump.net&rnum=1
> This is a really good book, but it's not steampunk.
Under what definition?
>More like alternate history or something.
>
> >Tim Powers - The Anubis Gates, The Stress of Her Regard
>
> These two are set in the same time period as steampunk, but they're
> fantasy.
>
Again, under what definition? When K. W. Jeter first coined the phrase,
Anubis
Gates was one of the books specifically included. It's rather like arguing
Bruce
Sterling isn't a cyberpunk due to some post-facto definition that excludes
him...
Chris Camfield
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
(quotation from Lawrence Person: )
>"Again, under what definition? When K. W. Jeter first coined the phrase,
>Anubis
>Gates was one of the books specifically included. It's rather like arguing
>Bruce
>Sterling isn't a cyberpunk due to some post-facto definition that excludes
>him..."
Well, you'll note that I posted a reply to that thread. Regarding Anno Dracula:
"Well, I personally would have called it an alternate-history vampire
novel. What elements of the book (I did read it once, but it was a
year or two ago now) dealt with technology more advanced than existed
in the Victorian era?
I wouldn't have called The Anubis Gates steampunk either, but then
again, I didn't coin the term. :-)"
Maybe the problem with the term steampunk is that it had a hazy definition to
begin with. From the point of view of someone who hasn't read about exactly
what books were referenced when the term was defined, "steampunk" is an obvious
riff of "cyberpunk", which combined cyberware technology with punk
sensibilities. "Steampunk" implies to me fantastic steam technology and punk
sensibilities. It also implies a subset of science fiction.
I mean, is "Mairelon the Magician" going to labelled steampunk now? Or the Lord
Darcy mysteries?
Chris
Chris Camfield
add this:
On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 00:29:24 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> >"Shadowing the slippery netherworlds of role-playing games like Magic
>> >or Dungeons & Dragons, Daniel's quest to retrieve the magic stone and
>> >discover who killed his mother becomes a bravura act of storytelling,
>> >both a free-spirited adventure and a parable about the powers within
>> >us all."
(This seems to be a reference to The Stone Junction, not The Anubis Gates.
Confusingly placed after a paragraph about the latter work.)
>> What does this have to do with either steampunk or The Anubis Gates? I'm
>> puzzled here.
>>
>
>Both The Anubis Gates and Stone Junction(Daniel) are found under fiction
>not SF in the library.
This would frankly surprise me (about The Anubis Gates). But then again my
local library files all fiction together, with the possible addition of genre
tags to book spines.
>I meant there are role-playing Steam Punk games.
True. But in a game like Castle Falkenstein, the technological element is much
more pronounced: air dreadnaughts, landfortresses, etc. Compare with The Anubis
Gates in which the only fantastic technology (that I recall) is the time travel
machine that sends the protagonist back in the time in the first place.
[snip]
>P.S. a final opinion I found:
>Steampunk is also called Victorian Science Fiction (VSF to some) and
>Scientific Romance (I think, less certain of the use of the latter term). To
>me at least Steampunk stories are set, very generously, between 1814 and
>1914, idealy in the last two or three decades of the 19th century. If not on
>Earth they involve steam-powered levels of technology as you might imagine
>as well as treating Victorian science and science fiction as real, often
>giving a culture something - such as mechanical men or time machines - far
>ahead of when such an item could really exist, if it ever could to begin
>with.
That's not bad. Would it include _Anubis_, though?
Chris
Brian D. Fernald
It was always my understanding that steam punk was cyber punk translated to
an
earlier technological era.
The important distinction I would make between The Anubis Gates and
steampunk
is that the technology (time travel machine) is not central to the plot.
The story
would work equally well, if the time travel party all drank magic potions
and woke
up in the past.
<snip>
I also considered The Anubis Gates to be fantasy, so ymmv.
--
Brian F.
FSOBN.
Al Griffith
> I wouldn't have called The Anubis Gates steampunk either, but then
> again, I didn't coin the term. :-)"
Is there some reason why The Anubis Gates can't just be classified as "fantasy"?
Al
Helgi Briem
No, but there are some people who feel that it is only
fantasy when the tech level is Renaissance period or
lower and if higher, it must be something else.
I believe the label 'steampunk' was specifically for
the Sterling/Gibson novel "The Difference Engine"
because it had computers before electronics.
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is
A: Top posting
Q: What is the most irritating thing on Usenet?
- "Gordon" on apihna
Al Griffith
>>Is there some reason why The Anubis Gates can't just be
>> classified as "fantasy"?
>
> No, but there are some people who feel that it is only
> fantasy when the tech level is Renaissance period or
> lower and if higher, it must be something else.
How odd.
Al
Steve Taylor
>> No, but there are some people who feel that it is only
>> fantasy when the tech level is Renaissance period or
>> lower and if higher, it must be something else.
> How odd.
Especially considering that my favourite sort of fantasy story is a type
that used to be pretty popular in the fifties - something set in the
current day with one odd incident intruding into someone's life - and as
likely as not a strange little shop that they can never find again.
Surely the word 'fantasy' hasn't been hijacked to mean only 'a triple
decker novel involving a quest of some sort, set in something resembling
medieval Europe'. Please?
> Al
Steve
Al Griffith
> Surely the word 'fantasy' hasn't been hijacked to mean only 'a triple
> decker novel involving a quest of some sort, set in something resembling
> medieval Europe'. Please?
I'm afraid that an awful lot of people seem to think that way. Possibly
because in many bookstores that's all you'll find.
Al
Roger Christie
"Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Ebjx9.44083$Mb3.2...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Chris Camfield" <ccam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3dc5986d...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> > I'd disagree. It's been a while since I read the book, but I thought
The
> Anubis
> > Gates' action in the 19th century preceded the industrial revolution.
At
> least,
> > I don't remember any steam-powered technology or other advanced devices
> based on
> > 19th century technology in the book. Just because a book takes place in
a
> 19th
> > century or Victorian setting does not make it steampunk. I mean, The
> Anubis
> > Gates has Egyptian sorcerers in it, right?
> >
>
> Yes. I mentioned the definition of Steam Punk is "elusive". Perhaps the
> Difference
> Engine was steam powered, I think so. 1810 is the era of Steam Punk
> which was patented in 1769 by James Watt. You'll find it hard to locate a
> strict definition of Steam Punk on the Internet.
Nevertheless, it ought to include 'steam' somewhere. Totally inappropriate
when
applied to Anubis Gates.
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
Particularly as it makes a large chunk of Fritz
Leiber's work "Steampunk".
Pratt& DeCamp, steampunk pioneers. Or did Clark Ashton
Smith/H. P. Lovecraft write anything that would qualify
under this elastic definition?
William Hyde
EOS Department
Duke University
Stephen Harris
<wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:yv7z65vd...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu...
> Al Griffith <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:40:34 GMT he...@decode.is (Helgi Briem) wrote:
> >
> > >>Is there some reason why The Anubis Gates can't just be
> > >> classified as "fantasy"?
> > >
> > > No, but there are some people who feel that it is only
> > > fantasy when the tech level is Renaissance period or
> > > lower and if higher, it must be something else.
> >
> > How odd.
>
I think it is to distinct from fantasy to call it fantasy, partially because
it is supernatural and because it has an ordinary setting like fiction
and then sort of creeps from things people nominally believe in like
Tarot cards to potentially immortal sorcerers--a lot of these alternate
history books start like that then bring in time travel or a magical
dimensional portal.
Well if you allow future science without calling it SF but want to
call it fantasy then why bother to categorize? I was thinking of
both Lord Valentine's Castle where it does seem natural to call
it fantasy and then Croyd which you would think is SF but I read:
"Wallace was (is?) sort of a modern Van Vogt in that his stories tend to
have an "unreality condition" in them, something that makes you go
"huh?". He uses a nominal SF setting, but the books are really more
fantasy. It is a conceit of his books that they take place on (or off
of) "Erth", a place both like and different from Earth. His overall
title for all his work was something like "Adventures of Minds in Bodies"."
Tolkien has elves as an alien species. Blish has Lithians. Does it all
boil down to the mode of transport to the location of the human/
alien interaction as to whether the story is SF or Fantasy? If you
allow time travel as fantasy then how could you ever judge? I think
you wind up without criteria to distinguish SF from Fantasy except
in easy cases like space operas and super AI spaceships. Because
of Stone Junction I like a label like magical realism which should mean
something other than fantasy or steampunk.
From what I understand The Anubis Gates was defined as steampunk
by the coiner of the term and it was that definitional interpretations
would serve to disqualify it (steam power or just Victorian science).
Regards,
Stephen
> Particularly as it makes a large chunk of Fritz
> Leiber's work "Steampunk".
>
Didn't he write the Gray Mouser series, that is what I think of
and it seems like swords and sorcery not steampunk though
I suppose you have something else in mind.
Chris Byler
wrote:
>Al Griffith wrote:
>
>>> No, but there are some people who feel that it is only
>>> fantasy when the tech level is Renaissance period or
>>> lower and if higher, it must be something else.
>
>> How odd.
Yeah.
Also, I thought one of the defining characteristics of steampunk is
that it _isn't_ fantasy per se - there's nothing actually impossible
going on, just some implausibly good engineering given the materials
then available. So _The Anubis Gates_ couldn't possibly qualify -
even neglecting the time travel, there are wizards and gods.
Allowing the "steam" part to be taken figuratively and not requiring
any actual steam, most of Jules Verne could qualify (and the
unfortunately short-lived TV series "The Secret Adventures of Jules
Verne" definitely does).
>Especially considering that my favourite sort of fantasy story is a type
>that used to be pretty popular in the fifties - something set in the
>current day with one odd incident intruding into someone's life - and as
>likely as not a strange little shop that they can never find again.
Like _War for the Oaks_?
>Surely the word 'fantasy' hasn't been hijacked to mean only 'a triple
>decker novel involving a quest of some sort, set in something resembling
>medieval Europe'. Please?
No, of course not.
Fantasy is a very broad category and includes anything with
supernatural beings, forces, powers or abilities. (Have I covered all
bases?) "Supernatural" meaning anything that can't be rationally
explained from the known laws of science, any reasonable extrapolation
thereof, or any reasonable new law of science proposed by authorial
fiat - common examples include gods, demons, wizards, ghosts, mind
readers or fortune tellers that reliably get it right, etc.
Some works are both SF and fantasy since they include some reasonable
fictional science and some fantasy elements.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the
baker that we expect our supper, but from their regard to their own
interest." -- Adam Smith, _The Wealth of Nations_
Stephen Harris
"Chris Byler" <cby...@REMOVE-TO-REPLY.vt.edu> wrote in message
news:3dc76788...@news.intelos.net...
I have kept pusuing this topic and thought of Dion Fortune and occult
fiction.
This lead me to the website of Jacqueline Lichtenburg who is also an
occultist.
http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/columns/0393.html
"Both Delan The Mislaid and The Gate of Ivory are fast paced action
adventure
with a very distant sf background and a fantasy flavor in the foreground. To
me,
this seems to be the coming wave in sf, the hint of a new genre being
defined by writers and readers. More on that later. First let's look at two
good examples.
...
For many years now, I've been struggling to define what makes "this kind" of
sf different from "that kind" of sf, and since the field has never really
agreed on a workable definition of sf, my struggle has been very difficult.
In an attempt to clear the confusion, I'm going to risk adding to the
confusion by proposing a new subgenre name -- a designation that would
identify similar books even when they are published under different labels,
for this material turns up in hard sf, soft sf, High Fantasy, Dark Fantasy,
Adult Fantasy and in Young Adult books of all sorts. It also can be
identified in material outside the sf/f field. It's not limited to books,
but has been turning up in successful tv shows, too.
I am calling this kind of fiction Intimate Adventure.
The sf/f genre has been traditionally regarded as a subdivision of the
Action/Adventure field, and thus if an sf novel isn't at least nominally
Action/Adventure, it isn't likely to be published.
In the Action genre, the plot is driven by a physical problem which has a
physical resolution. "Abe is the only entity that can save the universe, but
the entire Klin empire has sworn to hunt him down and kill him." The stakes
in Action stories are society, civilization, territory, or possession of
things or power over people. The means of settling the dispute involve
physical courage and combat of some sort.
In the Adventure genre, most often seen in children's and young adult
novels, a person either chooses to leave the comfort and safety of home or
is jarred out of a routine life by events. Leaving the known lifestyle
behind, the person goes out into the world to meet new things, people, and
challenges, to "go where no one has gone before."
Both Action and Adventure usually focus on a main character who is heroic or
who becomes heroic through the experience of events. And so Action/Adventure
is a sub-category of Heroic fiction.
In Heroic fiction, the characters are painted larger than life. They are The
Best or The Only one for the job, and they have the character traits we
associate with competent adults -- the courage to do what's right, no matter
the personal cost, the ability to assess a problem, make and implement
decisions, then get people to cooperate, the knack of beating the odds. (For
you would-be writers, this is what Market Reports mean by "strong
characters." Not characters with lots of muscles, but characters who don't
whimper and whine and wring their hands in the face of adversity while
waiting for someone to do something to help them. Characters who take their
destiny into their own hands, and who refuse to accept the unacceptable.)
Like Dion Fortune and Marion Zimmer Bradley, Katherine Kurtz is an author
any serious student of the occult should be familiar with. In future
columns, works will be measured against the standards these three have set,
and I hope to have room to discuss individual works in considerable depth.
Both Stone Junction and The Anubis Gates fulfill the Hero's Journey though
the parallel is more obvious in Stone Junction corresponding to adept
iniations.
And I like the description "distant sf background and a fantasy flavor in
the foreground". Some stories like this are not published as SF/Fanstasy.
I cant say that I like the label she chose but I do think her recognition
that
works like The Anubis Gates are not just (exactly) fantasy is valid.
Regards,
Stephen
Chris Camfield
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I have kept pusuing this topic and thought of Dion Fortune and occult
>fiction.
>This lead me to the website of Jacqueline Lichtenburg who is also an
>occultist.
>
>http://www.simegen.com/reviews/rereadablebooks/columns/0393.html
>In Heroic fiction, the characters are painted larger than life. They are The
>Best or The Only one for the job, and they have the character traits we
>associate with competent adults -- the courage to do what's right, no matter
>the personal cost, the ability to assess a problem, make and implement
>decisions, then get people to cooperate, the knack of beating the odds. (For
>you would-be writers, this is what Market Reports mean by "strong
>characters." Not characters with lots of muscles, but characters who don't
>whimper and whine and wring their hands in the face of adversity while
>waiting for someone to do something to help them. Characters who take their
>destiny into their own hands, and who refuse to accept the unacceptable.)
You seem to have left out the end quote, and the paragraph reading:
"Intimate Adventure is Adventure because one or both of the contestants locked
into the struggle for intimacy has left a known, safe existence behind, either
physically, or emotionally. Thus, one popular form of Intimate Adventure is the
First Contact novel where a human meets a nonhuman person and they must reach
across the gulf between them to form a functioning partnership. (All
partnerships involve some form of intimacy.) The movie Enemy Mine is a good
example."
>Like Dion Fortune and Marion Zimmer Bradley, Katherine Kurtz is an author
>any serious student of the occult should be familiar with. In future
>columns, works will be measured against the standards these three have set,
>and I hope to have room to discuss individual works in considerable depth.
>
>Both Stone Junction and The Anubis Gates fulfill the Hero's Journey though
>the parallel is more obvious in Stone Junction corresponding to adept
>iniations.
Whatever. I think you can find hero's journey-type structure in a lot of
fantasy novels, and I don't see how grasping after yet another person's
definition somehow automatically plunks The Anubis Gates into it.
Chris
Stephen Harris
The category of "fiction" existed before fantasy or science fiction.
I think the category "occult fiction" predates fantasy or most science
fiction.
The Anubis Gates or the Last Call trilogy fit the category of occult
fiction.
I don't think you know this because you haven't read any occult fiction.
"Whatever" is a smugly dismissive term that implies irrelevancy which
is reinforced by "yet another" which means redundant.
Occult fiction is both more original and more descriptive than the
term "fantasy" as it conveys more information. The blurring of
distinguishing
meaning is like somebody new to English use soup and stew synonomously.
Educated people use the discrimination afforded by knowledge to convey
shades of meaning within a precise vocabulary.
I quoted Lichtenburg because of her observations about nominal science
fiction settings which shift into fantasy and the creation of realities like
the
Deryini which go past the boundaries of occult fiction. She also the
mentioned
the roots of such fiction, mentioning Dion Fortune, renowned occult author.
It is hard to categorize some works because they contain elements of
various genres. But to categorize The Anubis Gates as fantasy is sloppy
because that book primarily partakes of an occult (supernatural) belief
structure which while not known to be fact, it is somewhat widely believed.
The New Agers have channels, belief in Tarot and beings occupying higher
dimensions, both archetypal and godlike. New Age beliefs are hardly new.
I think you dismissed faulting the classification of The Anubis Gates as
fantasy by misinterpreting my post as a claim for her term. I quoted her
to demonstrate that she perceived "fantasy" as an inadequate term and
so wanted to invent another. The term "occult fiction" is much more
accurate to describe The Anubis Gates. Your dismissive use of "whatever"
simply masks your ignorance of the pre-existing genre "occult fiction"(OF).
I don't believe you had a clue about OF and so generated a criticism
of irrelevancy or obfuscation to classifying The Anubis Gates as _not_
well described by the term fantasy. Your response dealt with what you
could make of my post with you missing that knowledge/understanding (OF)
which is termed: 'creating a strawman'.
I have found the people who use the word "whatever" as you did to be
generally arrogantly ignorant and desperate to defend their ignorance.
Usually of above average intelligence but short of who they think they are.
One of the virtues of occult iniation is gaining humility--honestly and
accurately assessing one's strengths and weaknesses. Humility does not
pretend the other person misses the mark because they present an
argument outside of your own level of competency and experience.
And so dismiss the point because 'If I haven't heard about it then it
can't be of much importance or true/relevant'.
The biggest mistake smart people make is assuming they have sufficient
evidence to make a decision when they actually need more information.
Big egos obscure the truth with their own grandiosity. I think you never
heard of occult fiction and so manufactured and attacked the imaginary
claim that I supported identifying The Anubis Gates as Intimate Adventure;
you weren't in a position to understand what I wrote because there was
no kenning of occult fiction required to understand my purpose/meaning.
If you think this post is impolite recall that you used the term "whatever".
So I'll create the same experience for you.
> Whatever. I think you can find hero's journey-type structure in a lot of
> fantasy novels, and I don't see how grasping after yet another person's
> definition somehow automatically plunks The Anubis Gates into it.
Yes, about the hero's journey-type structure. No about grasping another
person's definition. Grasping that defintion supported the correct
foundation
of The Anubis Gates as belonging to the older genre of occult fiction not
fantasy.
Count this as a blessing,
Stephen
Abigail Ann Young
It _sounds_ as though 'steampunk' means 'speculative fiction deriving from
a (cyber)punk sensibility but set in the 19th c Industrial Age', rather
than 'alternate history exploring the results of _effective_ invention of
computers in the 19th c Industrial Age (eg, a successful Babbage)'. That
would make more sense of Jeter's list....
AAY
--
Abigail Ann Young (Dr), Associate Editor/Records of Early English Drama/
Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W/ Toronto Ontario Canada M5S 1K9
Phone (416) 585-4504/ FAX (416) 813-4093/ abigai...@utoronto.ca
List-owner of REED-L <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed-l.html>
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html> REED's home page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html> our theatre resource page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~young> my home page
wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu
> <wth...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu> wrote in message
> news:yv7z65vd...@godzilla4.acpub.duke.edu...
> > Al Griffith <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, 04 Nov 2002 11:40:34 GMT he...@decode.is (Helgi Briem) wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Is there some reason why The Anubis Gates can't just be
> > > >> classified as "fantasy"?
> > > >
> > > > No, but there are some people who feel that it is only
> > > > fantasy when the tech level is Renaissance period or
> > > > lower and if higher, it must be something else.
> > >
> > > How odd.
> >
>
> I think it is to distinct from fantasy to call it fantasy,
In which case I don't know what you mean by fantasy.
>
>
> > Particularly as it makes a large chunk of Fritz
> > Leiber's work "Steampunk".
> >
>
> Didn't he write the Gray Mouser series, that is what I think of
> and it seems like swords and sorcery
Yes, that is fantasy.
not steampunk though
> I suppose you have something else in mind.
Sure, if we accept the above definition we have
"Conjure Wife", "Our Lady of Darkness", "Midnight
by the Morphy watch". Not that any of these are
"steampunk" by any reasonable definition, but they
fit the above.
Also "legal rites: by Asimov and Pohl. Isaac Asimov,
Steampunk veteran.
Timothy McDaniel
Stephen Harris <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Like Dion Fortune and Marion Zimmer Bradley, Katherine Kurtz is an
>author any serious student of the occult should be familiar with. In
>future columns, works will be measured against the standards these
>three have set,
As in "if you're not even this good, don't bother"? Kurtz is the
author of the two lines I hate most in fantasy works. (Her Gwynedd is
a medieval Western European country.)
In A.D. 921: "Thank you for your input, Archbishop."
In A.D. 1128: "Gwynedd expects every man to do his duty!"
Kelson and Araxie in bed on their wedding night.
Talk about grabbing me by the scruff of my neck and dragging me
willy nilly into modern times!
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Stephen Harris
"Abigail Ann Young" <abigai...@utoronto.ca> wrote in message
news:3DC80359...@utoronto.ca...
I noticed a lot of controversy about "steampunk" really is. Though just
about everybody thought The Difference Engine qualified. Though Jeter
coined the term and included The Anubis Gates I cant follow the rationale
and your explanation is ok in that steampunk is considered a subset of
cyberpunk, but I think selecting the Victorian age as the criteria to apply
to
The Anubis Gates (TAG) for pidgeonholing it focuses too much on locale and
not enough on the message or theme of the story...the locale shifts besides.
However, I think fantasy is a too coarsely-grained category for TAG just as
fantasy encompasses swords and sworcery but which category tells you more.
John Pelan
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Much snippage>>>
>
>Like Dion Fortune and Marion Zimmer Bradley, Katherine Kurtz is an author
>any serious student of the occult should be familiar with. In future
>columns, works will be measured against the standards these three have set,
>and I hope to have room to discuss individual works in considerable depth.
Surely you jest? Dion Fortune wrote one decent novel, three that were
almost amatuerishly bad and a collection that's rather excellent. Of
her books, only THE GOAT-FOOT GOD and the aforementioned Dr. Taverner
stories are of any importance.
Marion Zimmer Bradley wrote a tremendous volume of formulaic
SF/Fantasy that whhile not without charm is certainly nothing that
will likely be considered a standard that any serious work will
measured against. The same certainly goes for Kurtz.
If you want to talk about worthwhile occult novels, I commend your
attention to J.M.A. Mills's TOMB OF THE DARK ONES & LORDS OF THE
EARTH, Edgar Jepson's THE GARDEN AT 19; IRAS & NEMO by Theo. Douglas,
and nearly any of the longer works by Blackwood or Machen. Even Dennis
Wheatley's potboilers are vastly superior to most of the work by the
authors that you've cited here.
Cheers,
John
Chris Camfield
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>"Chris Camfield" <ccam...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:3dc7bb8...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 07:31:03 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
>> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> >Both Stone Junction and The Anubis Gates fulfill the Hero's Journey
>though
>> >the parallel is more obvious in Stone Junction corresponding to adept
>> >iniations.
>>
>> Whatever. I think you can find hero's journey-type structure in a lot of
>> fantasy novels, and I don't see how grasping after yet another person's
>> definition somehow automatically plunks The Anubis Gates into it.
>The category of "fiction" existed before fantasy or science fiction.
>I think the category "occult fiction" predates fantasy or most science
>fiction.
>The Anubis Gates or the Last Call trilogy fit the category of occult
>fiction.
>I don't think you know this because you haven't read any occult fiction.
Well, considering that I've read a lot of Katherine Kurtz (at least, most of the
Deryni books), I guess I have probably read a couple. What would you consider
the seminal works of occult fiction and when do they date from?
I owe you an apology for my knee-jerk reaction, but frankly I'm not sure how I
was supposed to react to someone who first labels The Anubis Gates one thing,
and after meeting resistance to that label, turns around and presents another.
This doesn't give the appearance of a well-thought-out argument; if you think
The Anubis Gates properly belongs in the category of occult fiction, why didn't
you start out by discussing *that*?
>Occult fiction is both more original and more descriptive than the
>term "fantasy" as it conveys more information. The blurring of
>distinguishing
>meaning is like somebody new to English use soup and stew synonomously.
Well, a couple of thoughts:
In a naming system, it can make sense to have general categories within which
there are sub-categories. Fantasy already includes recognized subgenres of
urban fantasy, swords & sorcery, high fantasy, dark fantasy and also includes
fantastic stories set in ancient China, Japan, Arabia, etc. And that's not even
counting stuff like _Mythago Wood_ (Holdstock) or _The Deep_ (Crowley).
Is "occult fantasy", for instance, any better or worse a term than simply
"occult fiction"? I mean, the Deryni novels might qualify as occult- something
for their devotion to detail of rituals and so on, but if you were to set that
aside for the moment and consider the general setting, characters, and actions
you'd probably the label the books, generally, as fantasy.
Also, in my opinion, obsessing over exactly categorizing things - books, games,
etc - is a futile task, particularly when one considers how far-ranging fantasy
can be, and how the edge between it and science fiction can blur in some books.
>> Whatever. I think you can find hero's journey-type structure in a lot of
>> fantasy novels, and I don't see how grasping after yet another person's
>> definition somehow automatically plunks The Anubis Gates into it.
>
>Yes, about the hero's journey-type structure. No about grasping another
>person's definition. Grasping that defintion supported the correct
>foundation
>of The Anubis Gates as belonging to the older genre of occult fiction not
>fantasy.
The point I was trying to make is that the hero's quest is rather universal,
including ancient mythology. How then can it be a defining element of occult
fiction?
Chris
Randy Money
> On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 18:53:36 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>>Whatever. I think you can find hero's journey-type structure in a lot of
>>>fantasy novels, and I don't see how grasping after yet another person's
>>>definition somehow automatically plunks The Anubis Gates into it.
>>
>>Yes, about the hero's journey-type structure. No about grasping another
>>person's definition. Grasping that defintion supported the correct
>>foundation
>>of The Anubis Gates as belonging to the older genre of occult fiction not
>>fantasy.
>
>
> The point I was trying to make is that the hero's quest is rather universal,
> including ancient mythology. How then can it be a defining element of occult
> fiction?
>
> Chris
My first thought on reading this was that "hero's journey" doesn't
reside in any one genre. One could easily argue, whether persuasively or
not, that Holden Caulfield in _The Catcher in the Rye_ was on a hero's
journey. Which point I'm making just to agree with you that it's a
structure rather than a defining trait.
Randy M.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>but I think selecting the Victorian age as the criteria to apply
>to
>The Anubis Gates (TAG) for pidgeonholing it focuses too much on locale and
>not enough on the message or theme of the story...
Plus is simply wrong. _Anubis Gates_ is *NOT* set during the Victorian
era. Possibly the end, but it really doesn't matter.
If we sorted by the historical era, AG would have much more in common
with _Sorcery and Cecelia_ or _Mairelon the Magician_ & _Magician's
Ward_. Oh yeah, with the other Powers's novels - _On Stranger Tides_ &
_The Stress of Her Regard_ - too.
I do suspect that Jeter put AG in just out of "we're all friends and
admirers" sense, rather than a real sense of belonging.
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
Lotus
All good arguments are based on clear definitions - so here's mine:
"Cyberpunk is dystopian fiction with the plot and setting drawn by
reference to technology".
Note that this doesn't need to be set in the future! The 'technology'
can be silicon circuitry, exotic nanomachinery, vacuum tube computers
or even chemical pollutants in Boston harbour. Or, of course, brass
gears propelled by steam.
This is why I like Al Griffith's point about Jules Verne: I would say
that 'Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea' is hardcore cyberpunk.
Remember, too, that the Edwardians who read this book a century ago
were reading science fiction at the boundary of forseeable technology.
That tends to make the term 'Steam Punk' irrelevant. If you disagree,
look at it from the opposite perspective and ask: what will people
call Gibson's work in a century when silicon is just as quaint as
steam?
Fantasy, though, is drawn and driven by something else: the occult.
What work of human hand and eye will ever change your inscribed name
from 'Strengths in Life' to 'Dark Shadows of Abomination'? Gear wheels
and circuitry exist in the realms of reason: the occult and the Anubis
Gates appeal to the irrational, evoking dread and darkness and
damnation.
Of course, Wintermute and Neuromancer are a reasonable substitute for
gods, devils and the unseen world. They are invisible, inscrutable,
powerful and frightening... but someone's going to build an artificial
consciousness, just as surely as the 'Nautilus' was built and duly
sailed for twenty thousand leagues beneath the sea.
Contrast this with Anubis - or whatever remnant of the ancient
religions - which remains confined to the pages of fiction and the
delusions of the priests. Fantasy is what we wish - or dread - was
true; SF and cyberpunk are fantasies played out with technologies that
someone's going to build.
Silicon_Lotus
at YAH00 dot com
> I've also been comparing "Stone Junction" by Jim Dodge
Haven't read it - can anyone point me in the direction of a good
review?
Stephen Harris
"Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:3DC92F88...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
That is usually called a coming of age story. But it is also a "hero's
journey"
because there are many of those (cyclic) in the Hero's Journey. Occult
fiction is a term which dates back to at least 1910. Much of it was written
by people who were members of magical orders. The idea was to go from
beginner to Magus through a series of psycho-spiritual iniations. Some of
these paths corresponded to Tarot cards which they claimed represented
paths on the tree of life.
So I think the classification depends upon the intentionality of the author.
For instance in Stone Junction the hero goes through a series of mentor
student relationships and graduates to the next teacher which are provided
by a magical order. The book culminates in the hero's realization of himself
as an incarnation of Hermes the god of wisdom. So the Tarot cards go
from 0 which is the incarnation of the soul to 21, The World the end of the
cycle which repeats itself in 0 again. Jim Dodge has his hero vanish at he
completes the last step of his iniation.
So these occult fiction authors take their magic seriously; it is real but
hidden.
I think Powers is such an author who employs this intentionality, perhaps
more apparently in Last Call. I think he has a style of magical realism
rather
than the style in which magic contradicts Science. Compare the fantasy of
Tolkien to the writing of Powers and I think Powers comes off as much
more mundane situated in a setting much like the real world. I suppose this
topic gets into what distinguishes fantasy from strange fiction that treats
phenomena which only some people believe in (Devil, ghosts, channeling)
as real. I dont believe the script for Ghostbusters qualifies as fantasy
just
because it contains supernatural elements whose existence is questionable.
I think the term fantasy should describe writing which you know is not real,
not stories which have a very believable real setting and which progress
into action that goes from a dubious reality into very unbelievable. Or if
you do
want to call this fantasy it should have a helper adjective to describe its
close relation to standard unusual fiction. I suppose a story where a mutant
is born with telepathic powers would usually be called Science Fiction but
I dont think it qualifies as fantasy. One could vary the "gift" and it could
be easily classified as just fiction like somebody extremely lucky with
stocks.
By "intentionality" above I mean the author knows of and consciously
incorporates an iniatory storyline taking place on a marketplace earth.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
"Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
news:3DC92F88...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
I've been reading about this and I see there is another big debate about
whether horrific fiction is really fantasy if it contains the supernatural.
Or perhaps it it contains traditional supernatural entities (demons, the
Devil)
verusu unconventional supernatural entitities.
I saw people say horrific fiction is really dark fantasy.
You wrote:
Meanwhile, some of the most effective parts of _LotR_ is dark and
gothic; _Titus Groan_, quite funny in spots, revels in its Gothic
atmosphere and teeters on the edge of horror; the Harry Potter books are
as much fun for how they frighten us as for their humor (especially the
4th book); and the best selling author of the last 20 years, Stephen
King, much as we like to shoot spitballs at that publishing mountain,
has written some fine and frequently convincing realist fiction jammed
inbetween his gouts of gushing, gnawing, creeping, crawling, slithering,
gliding monstrosities and psychos.
Not to defend the bazillion pounds of fictional sludge that appeared in
the wake of _Rosemary's Baby_, _The Exorcist_, _The Other_ and King's
success, but "horror" covers a broad range of works and effects within
works. The emotions and topics covered might all reside in the darkest
end of the spectrum, but there are variations between them.
> But oh boy, does that one do what it sets out to do.
On that we surely agree.
Randy M.
SH: Hamlet has a ghost but is still considered fiction just as King Lear.
The Anubis Gates has a strong element of traditional supernatural horror.
Evil sorcerers are accounted for by traditional occcult/horror lore in our
reality.
So it not like the Godstalk trilogy having aliens with magical abilities
involved in a conflict with The Perimal Darkling which is obvious fantasy.
Horror stories have a history and I dont see why that category should
be erased in favor of the term dark fantasy. I see The Anubis Gates as
much closer to some Stephen King stories(horrific fiction) rather than LOTR.
I suppose "horrific fantasy" would be OK but I cant see calling something
just "fantasy" which could just as well be called "horror". I think it is
correct
to describe the category with two terms, horrific fiction, but if you want
to
use the term fantasy, it should also require two terms, horrific fantasy.
It is as nearly as wrong to call The Anubis Gates fantasy as it is to call
it fiction.
An anolgy would be to call the Wild, Wild, West, science fiction because
it contained some anachronistic inventions rather than calling it a Western.
When I ask for a recommendation of fantasy I'm not expecting to get back
something basically close to Anne Rice with vampires, the Devil and holy
water.*
I would expect to hear about something like Eddings or Jordan and there is
too big a gap to use the same single word to describe Jordan and Rice:
fantasy.
Legendary supernatulism,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
"Lotus" <silico...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b7fe392.02110...@posting.google.com...
> religions - which remains confined to the pages of fiction and the
> delusions of the priests. Fantasy is what we wish - or dread - was
> true; SF and cyberpunk are fantasies played out with technologies that
> someone's going to build.
>
> Silicon_Lotus
> at YAH00 dot com
>
>
>
I think there is one word for this: horror rather than two: dark fantasy.
There seems like such a huge gap between LOTR and the Godstalk
trilogy on one hand which are quintessential fantasy and the other hand
which holds The Anubis Gates and Last Call.
The group LOTR and Godstalk mesh at many levels of comparison.
So does the group The Anubis Gates and Last Call mesh or compare well.
But I think you can find many levels to contrast these two different groups.
One area of comparison which the groups match is an element of horror.
But one is an invented horror of bad guys and the other uses real myth and
legend.
It seems to me you could name a bunch of books which fit in with LOTR
which is know to be fantasy such as Jordan, Edding, McKillip,Donaldson etc.
I dont think most people would put Powers, Rice and King in the same pile
as LOTR and friends but would put Powers, Rice and King in their own pile.
Which is why I don't like one word to describe the whole range: fantasy.
Stone Junction has a great deal less horror. I'll provide the Introduction,
which was written by Thomas Pynchon(Gravity's Rainbow), to SJ.
http://www.themodernword.com/pynchon/pynchon_essays_stone.html excerpt:
..."You will notice in Stone Junction, along with its gifts of prophecy, a
consistent celebration of those areas of life that tend to remain
cash-propelled and thus mostly beyond the reach of the digital. It may be
nearly the only example of a consciously analog Novel. Writers since have
been obliged to acknowledge and deal with the ubiquitous cyber-realities
that come more and more to set, and at quite a finely chopped-up scale too,
the terms of our lives, not to mention calling into question the very
traditions of a single author and a story that proceeds one piece after
another -- a situation Jim Dodge back then must have seen coming down the
freeway, because the novel, ever contrarian, keeps its faith in the
persistence of at least a niche market -- who knows, maybe even a deep human
need -- for modalities of life whose value lies in their having resisted and
gone the other was, against the digital storm -- that are likely, therefore,
to include pursuits more honorable that otherwise."
Regards,
Stephen
Chris Camfield
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
[snip]
>I think the term fantasy should describe writing which you know is not real,
>not stories which have a very believable real setting and which progress
>into action that goes from a dubious reality into very unbelievable. Or if
>you do
>want to call this fantasy it should have a helper adjective to describe its
>close relation to standard unusual fiction.
Well, "urban fantasy" is a phase which is applied to fantastic novels set in
modern times, although they may generally be a little less subtle than Powers'
works. Have you read anything by de Lint, for instance? (Other authors who
have written urban fantasy include Emma Bull and Jim Butcher, off the top of my
head.)
Chris
Beechmere
>
> I've been investigating what category of fantasy "The Anubis Gates"
> fits into and I've found two opinions that it belongs to the sub-genre
> Steam Punk(SP):
>
Nahhh...
The Anubis Gates is a non-Gothic supernatural fantasy, but a cut above
the quests and fairy trash that is mass-produced in trilogies and
septologies these days.
Steam Punk (IMO) is the literary equivilant of the movie; "Wild Wild
West". ie; Science Fiction based on the mechanical capabilities of the
years between, say, 1850 and 1920.
By coincidence, Stephen Blaylock (well known steam punk author) is a
friend of Tim Powers (author of The Anubis Gates and other excellent
novels).
Al Griffith
> By coincidence, Stephen Blaylock (well known steam punk author) is a
> friend of Tim Powers (author of The Anubis Gates and other excellent
> novels).
James Blaylock writes steampunk - books like _Homunculus_ and _Lord Kelvin's
Machine__ - but also writes fantasy in modern urban settings, like the
excellent _The Last Coin_.
Al
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> It seems to me you could name a bunch of books which fit in with LOTR
> which is know to be fantasy such as Jordan, Edding, McKillip,Donaldson etc.
> I dont think most people would put Powers, Rice and King in the same pile
> as LOTR and friends but would put Powers, Rice and King in their own pile.
> Which is why I don't like one word to describe the whole range: fantasy.
I don't see much connection between King, Rice and Powers, I'm afraid.
I do see a connection between Jordan, Edding, McKillip,Donaldson and Tolkien,
though. They all write what has been variously described as High Fantasy or
Epic Fantasy, which (IMHO) is clearly one sub-genre within the fantasy genre.
Powers, de Lint, Gaiman, etc, would then form another sub-genre of fantasy.
Al
Randy Money
> "Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
[...]
>
> I've been reading about [debate on "hero's journey"] and I see there
> is another big debate about whether horrific fiction is really
> fantasy if it contains the supernatural. Or perhaps it it contains
> traditional supernatural entities (demons, the Devil) verusu
> unconventional supernatural entitities.
>
> I saw people say horrific fiction is really dark fantasy. [Randy
> Money] wrote:
>
>> Meanwhile, some of the most effective parts of _LotR_ is dark and
>> gothic; _Titus Groan_, quite funny in spots, revels in its Gothic
>> atmosphere and teeters on the edge of horror; the Harry Potter
>> books are as much fun for how they frighten us as for their humor
>> (especially the 4th book); and the best selling author of the last
>> 20 years, Stephen King, much as we like to shoot spitballs at that
>> publishing mountain, has written some fine and frequently
>> convincing realist fiction jammed inbetween his gouts of gushing,
>> gnawing, creeping, crawling, slithering, gliding monstrosities and
>> psychos.
>>
>> Not to defend the bazillion pounds of fictional sludge that
>> appeared in the wake of _Rosemary's Baby_, _The Exorcist_, _The
>> Other_ and King's success, but "horror" covers a broad range of
>> works and effects within works. The emotions and topics covered
>> might all reside in the darkest end of the spectrum, but there are
>> variations between them.
>
> SH: Hamlet has a ghost but is still considered fiction just as King
> Lear.
Not sure I'm following your argument (sorry; Fri. after a somewhat late
Thurs. night). Fiction is the broadest catagory I was considering.
Fantasy is a sub-catagory of that. I include horror as a separate but
overlapping catagory. In my mind there's a large Venn diagram of fiction
with the fantasy circle overlapped by horror, s.f., mystery, mainstream
and other genre circles, as well as containing (or mostly containing)
sub-genre circles of its own.
I've come across some folks on the Internet who lobby for a catagory
called weird fiction -- something to cover works by Arthur Machen,
Algernon Blackwood among others, and including newer writers like Thomas
Ligotti -- and they tend to look at works from Weird Tales from the
1920s and '30s (which billed itself as a fantasy magazine) as an
example. I don't have a problem with this, but I'm inclined to say it's
a sub-catagory of fantasy.
As for _Hamlet_ -- well, _MacBeth is a ghost story, y'know, since
Shakespeare wasn't against using the supernatural nor against using the
supernatural as a metaphor. _Hamlet_, while not primarily a fantasy, has
fantastic elements and so stradles the more recent, and arbitrary
division between realist and fantastic fiction.
> The Anubis Gates has a strong element of traditional supernatural
> horror. Evil sorcerers are accounted for by traditional
> occcult/horror lore in our reality.
I agree it has, "a strong element of traditional supernatural horror."
But it's not the same thing as King's _The Shining_, Peter Straub's
_Ghost Story_, Rice's _Interview with a Vampire_, Guy Endore's _The
Werewolf of Paris_ (though it may be somewhat closer to this), or
even something harder to catagorize like Jonathan Carroll's _The Land of
Laughs_, all of which would fit into the standard "horror" catagory a
bit more comfortably than _TAG_.
Frankly, and no disrespect to Tim Powers intended, _The Anubis Gate_ was
more like the movie, _Young Sherlock Holmes_, mixing elements from
various genres and coming up with something that proceeded like an
adventure story -- maybe someone more familiar with H. Rider Haggard
territory could say if my impression of _TAG_ partially fitting in there
is reasonable. But calling _TAG_ an adventure story doesn't really
describe it, either -- your average _Treasure island_ reader probably
wouldn't enjoy it. It's a hybrid of some sort, though of what sort no
one here seems quite sure. It's not stereotypical horror since the aim
doesn't seem to be solely scare the bejesus out of the reader; it
loiters around an s.f. mindset (how many ordinary people would recall
activated charcoal to fight off a poison?); as I recall, it has fantasy
elements in the way time travel is deployed ...
You say,
> When I ask for a recommendation of fantasy I'm not expecting to get
> back something basically close to Anne Rice with vampires, the Devil
> and holy water.*
And you wouldn't with _TAG_ from my point of view. But then I don't see
fantasy as a terribly constricted genre, and I don't use fantasy to mean
one thing. If you want Tolkein-like work, you might want to say, epic
fantasy. And don't be surprised if some of what's mentioned is more like
Sword & Sorcery.
There are many overlapping tropes between fantasy and what we've come to
call supernatural horror. The trajectory of a story -- it's main
emotional effect -- may determine what we finally decide the story is,
but whenever you define your catagories too strictly, you're going to
come up with examples showing why your definitions don't work. For that
matter, my favorite parts of LOTR are those stemming from a more Gothic
sensibility: Mordor, the encounter with Shelob and the presence of
Gollum, notably.
> So it not like the Godstalk trilogy having aliens with magical
> abilities involved in a conflict with The Perimal Darkling which is
> obvious fantasy. Horror stories have a history and I dont see why
> that category should be erased in favor of the term dark fantasy.
In some cases, I don't either. But "horror" among many readers has
become a negative catagory, usually meaning cheesy paperbacks featuring
glowing-eyed kids or slime monsters from the nether depths on the cover.
It's reductive and a simple list of books with horrific elements shows why:
"Turn of the Screw" (Henry James) and _The Haunting of Hill House_
(Shirley Jackson) could be called mainstream/horror (mainstream writers
like Patrick MacGrath, Joyce Carol Oates, Ann Arensburg and Stephen
Dobyns flirted with the horror genre in the '80s and '90s; and the
Gothic inclinations of Cormac MacCarthy and Harry Crews have made them
of interest to horror fans).
"Who Goes There?" (John W. Campbell, Jr.), "Asylum" and "Dark Destroyer"
(A. E. Van Vogt), "At the Mountains of Madness" (H.P. Lovecraft), all
have elements of both s.f. and horror. (I'm sure there are more current
works but I'm blanking at the moment -- oh, yeah, "The Autopsy" by
Michael Shea).
_Perfume_ (Patrick Susskind), _The Werewolf of Paris_ (Guy Endore--
think that title's right), _Anno Dracula_ (Kim Newman) are either
historical novels with horrific elements or horror novels with
historical novel elements. (The Susskind could also fit under the
mainstream catagory.)
_Every Dead Thing_ (John Connolly), _Falling Angel_ (William
Hjortsberg), _Fata Morgana_ (William Kotzwinkle) are all mystery/horror
hybrids. _The Man Who was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton usually gets
shelved in the mystery section, probably because of his Father Brown
stories, and yet I see fantasy and horror fans who claim it as their
own. And I'd call _Fata Morgana_ a fantasy with elements of horror and
mystery.
I'm blanking of western/horror novels, but I've been assured they're out
there, and I imagine there are romance/horror hybrids, too, though I'm
not sure I'd want to read anything so labelled.
Not all of these are "occult fiction", none are straight horror novels
in the sense of their main purpose being to cause scares, but all have
fantastic elements included, from ghosts or vampires to time travel to
magic.
> I see The Anubis Gates as much closer to some Stephen King
> stories(horrific fiction) rather than LOTR.
I wouldn't entirely argue with that, but again the primary effect of
_TAG_ is not horrific.
> I suppose "horrific fantasy" would be OK but I cant see calling
> something just "fantasy" which could just as well be called "horror".
I usually try to clarify that as I suggest titles. Usually.
> I think it is correct to describe the category with two terms,
> horrific fiction, but if you want to use the term fantasy, it should
> also require two terms, horrific fantasy. It is as nearly as wrong to
> call The Anubis Gates fantasy as it is to call it fiction.
Again I'm having trouble understanding your definition of "fiction." In
my -- um -- book, _The Anubis Gate_ is fiction, _King Lear_ is fiction,
and any story made up, not pulling all of its incidents and events from
real life, is fiction. (And some non-fiction is fiction, too, but that's
a different kettle of fish.)
> An anolgy would be to call the Wild, Wild, West, science fiction
> because it contained some anachronistic inventions rather than
> calling it a Western.
But to point at _Wild, Wild West_ and say to a western fan, oh, you'll
love it because it's a western, is probably misunderstanding what most
western readers want (not that some wouldn't appreciate it). Ditto
calling _TAG_ a horror novel to a horror fan (not that some ... ), or
_The Werewolf of Paris_ a horror novel (not that...), or _Every Dead
Thing_ a horror novel (not...), or _The Land of Laughs_ a horror novel
(...) ... All of these I'd say were horror, at least in part of their
narrative trajectories, but I've heard horror fans pooh-pooh all of them
as ineffective at best. And all transgress genre boundaries.
> When I ask for a recommendation of fantasy I'm
> not expecting to get back something basically close to Anne Rice with
> vampires, the Devil and holy water.* I would expect to hear about
> something like Eddings or Jordan and there is too big a gap to use
> the same single word to describe Jordan and Rice: fantasy.
But how about Mervyn Peake and Sean Stewart? Is Nalo Hopkinson writing
fantasy in _Skin Folks_? Horror? Something else? Or is she working
across the generally defined boundaries? Do Angela Carter's twisted
fairy tales count as fantasy? If not, why? What makes them something
else? Aren't fairy tales a form of fantasy?
You see, the catagorization process is tricky. I just don't feel
comfortable making the lines too thick and solid. I like leeway. And
then, after I say it's fantasy, which mostly implies it's not realist
fiction, I usually try to say something about what kind of fantasy. I
think that works best.
Randy M.
Stephen Harris
"Al Griffith" <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CFN375689...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> On Thu, 07 Nov 2002 20:44:45 GMT "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > It seems to me you could name a bunch of books which fit in with LOTR
> > which is know to be fantasy such as Jordan, Edding, McKillip,Donaldson
etc.
> > I dont think most people would put Powers, Rice and King in the same
pile
> > as LOTR and friends but would put Powers, Rice and King in their own
pile.
> > Which is why I don't like one word to describe the whole range: fantasy.
>
> I don't see much connection between King, Rice and Powers, I'm afraid.
>
I notice below that you name the sub-genre of Epic Fantasy
but provide no name for the Powers, de Lint etc sub-genre.
Now Beechmere wrote:
"The Anubis Gates is a non-Gothic supernatural fantasy, but a cut above
the quests and fairy trash that is mass-produced in trilogies and
septologies these days."
Is that sub-genre label correct? Do you think he means the stuff by
Eddings and Jordan (multologies)? That would seem to disagree
with your classification of epic fantasy as distinct from supernatural
fantasy.
Supernatural tales that take place in ordinary life are called horror
stories
as most of them have an element of horror. That is a type of fiction.
A possible way of distinguishing between fiction and fantasy (since they
are both imaginary) is that fiction takes place in the ordinary world where
the events are possible. Now if fantasy takes place in the ordinary world
with impossible events such as a wide variety of supernatural influences
I think it collides with a known fictional sub-genre: horror stories-- which
nearly always have the supernatural within them. There is also a sub-genre
of fiction called occult fiction which has a lot less horror.
I dont see what puts Powers into fantasy and Rice into fiction. Take for
example the Godstalk trilogy which has blood-sucking shapeshifters.
This trilogy is clearly fantasy. It takes place on another world not
ordinary earth.
Rice has vampires set on ordinary earth and vampires are supernatural.
Rice writes fiction and Hodgell writes fantasy and the concept of
evil creature is very close, so the difference is due to an alien world
versus our ordinary earth.
Speculative fiction and horror fiction take place on ordinary earth and both
use the supernatural/occult. Prophecy 2 has the supernatural with good
angels
Lucifer and bad angels threatening the extinction of humanity. I think this
is
a type of fiction (supernatural horror) rather than fantasy. Are Twilight
Zone
stories fantasy? They all take place in ordinary earth than have some
surprise
supernatural twist...have you read a Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's
Court?
That belongs to fiction, I think with time travel. There are lots of
fictional works
where the Devil, demons or sorcerers appear. There is a lot of occult
fiction
which uses Alchemy or Tarot. All of this is belongs to fiction and I dont
see
how Powers combination of these themes makes him a fantasy author. It seems
to me one would have to reclassify a lot of writing that is deemed fiction
into
fantasy in order to justify putting Powers into a sub-genre of fantasy. I
think that
is why you will find in most public libraries that Powers is in fiction not
in SF.
I think creating a sub-genre in fantasy for Powers is like creating a
category
which says this is almost within the category of fiction but not quite.
From Google:
"Brenda <clo...@erols.com> wrote:
>Galen A. Tripp wrote:
>
>> What is the best science fiction that the mundane reading public does
>> not think of as science fiction?
(Using SF instead of science fiction)
Dante's Inferno (and sequels)
Dicken's A Christmas Carol
Twain's A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
Almost anything by H.G. Wells
Bierce's An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge
Henry James The Turning of the Screw
The Bible
Any number of other myths
There is a plethora of respected fiction that, if published today,
would wind up in the genre ghetto."
SH: I think rather than reclassifying older fiction into SF/Fanstasy
or putting recent publishing into sub-genres of SF/Fantasy they
should remain in fiction without constructing justifications like
'it is almost fiction but has this little difference'. My point is that
Power's writing is little different than writing already accepted as
fiction.
I think the justifications account for why you were willing to name
the sub-genre of epic fantasy(BTW, LOTR is an archetypal fantasy, IMO)
but didn't want to provide a name for Powers sub-genre. And why one writer
called The Anubis Gates steampunk. The criteria for consistenly generating
a fantasy category (sub-genre) for this type of writing is too intangible to
reach some sort of general agreement. So just leave it as fiction.
Stephen Harris
"Beechmere" <gcan...@hcf.com.au> wrote in message
news:a79cda29.02110...@posting.google.com...
I find the classification of The Anubis Gates into alternate worlds
along with the Difference Engine broad enough to be acceptable.
There is a lot of fiction that uses the supernatural.
There are a lot of different opinions. And when there is no concensus
that means the boundaries are rather blurred.
http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/thisthat.html
ALTERNATE WORLDS: history might have happened differently
The "Alternate History" or "Allohistory" novels are those in which some one
moment in time produced an event different from what we know in our
history, and things went off in a different track ever since. Other terms
for this popular genre include: "counterfactuals", "uchronias", and
"what-ifs."
"The Anubis Gates", by Tim Powers (1983), Victorian London a nexus of evil
"West of Eden", by Harry Harrison (1984), Dinosaurs survived, two sequels
"A Different Flesh", by Harry Turtledove (1988), non-extinct
non-homo-sapiens hominids
"The Difference Engine", by William Gibson & Bruce Sterling (1990),
Charles Babbage completed computer, English Empire automated
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote:
(Anubis Gates)
>maybe someone more familiar with H. Rider Haggard
>territory could say if my impression of _TAG_ partially fitting in there
>is reasonable.
Well, I read only _King Solomon's Mines_ and _She_. But I suppose they
are representative of Haggard's work.
No, not much similarity, beside the estrangement device of dropping
the character far from home. But that was widespread during Haggard's
era and is still far from unknown today.
Stephen Harris
> Thurs. night). Fiction is the broadest catagory I was considering.
> Fantasy is a sub-catagory of that. I include horror as a separate but
> overlapping catagory. In my mind there's a large Venn diagram of fiction
> with the fantasy circle overlapped by horror, s.f., mystery, mainstream
> and other genre circles, as well as containing (or mostly containing)
> sub-genre circles of its own.
>
supposed to be imaginary but it is possible for the events to happen?
While fantasy is imaginary but it is not possible for some of the events
to happen? Anyway it seems like the best idea to make fantasy
a sub-genre of fiction. My thinking was not efficient.
> As for _Hamlet_ -- well, _MacBeth is a ghost story, y'know, since
> Shakespeare wasn't against using the supernatural nor against using the
> supernatural as a metaphor. _Hamlet_, while not primarily a fantasy, has
> fantastic elements and so stradles the more recent, and arbitrary
> division between realist and fantastic fiction.
>
> > The Anubis Gates has a strong element of traditional supernatural
> > horror. Evil sorcerers are accounted for by traditional
> > occcult/horror lore in our reality.
>
> I agree it has, "a strong element of traditional supernatural horror."
> But it's not the same thing as King's _The Shining_, Peter Straub's
> _Ghost Story_, Rice's _Interview with a Vampire_, Guy Endore's _The
> Werewolf of Paris_ (though it may be somewhat closer to this), or
> even something harder to catagorize like Jonathan Carroll's _The Land of
> Laughs_, all of which would fit into the standard "horror" catagory a
> bit more comfortably than _TAG_.
>
Yes, it is less horrific. I guess you mean to little horror to be horrific
since the amount of horror varies in the horror genre.
> Frankly, and no disrespect to Tim Powers intended, _The Anubis Gate_ was
> more like the movie, _Young Sherlock Holmes_, mixing elements from
> various genres and coming up with something that proceeded like an
> adventure story -- maybe someone more familiar with H. Rider Haggard
> territory could say if my impression of _TAG_ partially fitting in there
> is reasonable. But calling _TAG_ an adventure story doesn't really
> describe it, either -- your average _Treasure island_ reader probably
> wouldn't enjoy it. It's a hybrid of some sort, though of what sort no
> one here seems quite sure. It's not stereotypical horror since the aim
> doesn't seem to be solely scare the bejesus out of the reader; it
> loiters around an s.f. mindset (how many ordinary people would recall
> activated charcoal to fight off a poison?); as I recall, it has fantasy
> elements in the way time travel is deployed ...
>
Yes, it mixes genres. I dont know about calling mixing genres as an
independent genre in and of itself. Have you read Autobiography of
A Yoga? It purports to be true but has an eternal character, Babaji.
I would call this occult fiction but it has impossible events which would
mean it is more of a fantasy like She. Then there are books by T. Lobsang
Rampa which are even more mystically fictitious. It seems to me to partake
of the supernatural albeit the Tibetan pantheon rather than the Christian
pantheon of TAG.
> You say,
> > When I ask for a recommendation of fantasy I'm not expecting to get
> > back something basically close to Anne Rice with vampires, the Devil
> > and holy water.*
>
> And you wouldn't with _TAG_ from my point of view. But then I don't see
> fantasy as a terribly constricted genre, and I don't use fantasy to mean
> one thing. If you want Tolkein-like work, you might want to say, epic
> fantasy. And don't be surprised if some of what's mentioned is more like
> Sword & Sorcery.
>
Someboyd described TAG as great fantasy. When I think of great fantasy I'm
expecting a creative work which is original and inventive. TAG tosses
together
some supernatural horrific elements and some occult fiction (time travel can
be done with portals in the occult not SF method, it is magical). The story
is
entertaining and a nice blend of other genres(alternate history). I think it
is
very much like the Last Call trilogy which uses Tarot cards. Tarot cards
have been pretty well done by Zelazny. I dont see the inventiveness and
originality and writing skills (that you see in LOTR) which generates
greatness?!
My point is that horror is a type of fiction, not a sub-genre of fantasy.
Horror uses supernatural villians. Other stories which employ supernatural
villians are a type of fiction even if they have less horror. But this has
to
do with you categorizing fantasy under fiction rather than as I was doing
which which was categorizing fantasy as something fiction was not as a
consequence of events or story assumptions being actually possible.
I think your categorizing method is better.
> _Every Dead Thing_ (John Connolly), _Falling Angel_ (William
> Hjortsberg), _Fata Morgana_ (William Kotzwinkle) are all mystery/horror
> hybrids. _The Man Who was Thursday by G. K. Chesterton usually gets
> shelved in the mystery section, probably because of his Father Brown
> stories, and yet I see fantasy and horror fans who claim it as their
> own. And I'd call _Fata Morgana_ a fantasy with elements of horror and
> mystery.
>
> I'm blanking of western/horror novels, but I've been assured they're out
> there, and I imagine there are romance/horror hybrids, too, though I'm
> not sure I'd want to read anything so labelled.
>
King wrote a gunslinger type story.
> Not all of these are "occult fiction", none are straight horror novels
> in the sense of their main purpose being to cause scares, but all have
> fantastic elements included, from ghosts or vampires to time travel to
> magic.
>
> > I see The Anubis Gates as much closer to some Stephen King
> > stories(horrific fiction) rather than LOTR.
>
> I wouldn't entirely argue with that, but again the primary effect of
> _TAG_ is not horrific.
>
I am thinking as supernatural as the primary classifier and the degree
of horror as secondary since most horror stories use the supernatural.
> > An anolgy would be to call the Wild, Wild, West, science fiction
> > because it contained some anachronistic inventions rather than
> > calling it a Western.
>
> But to point at _Wild, Wild West_ and say to a western fan, oh, you'll
> love it because it's a western, is probably misunderstanding what most
> western readers want (not that some wouldn't appreciate it). Ditto
> calling _TAG_ a horror novel to a horror fan (not that some ... ), or
> _The Werewolf of Paris_ a horror novel (not that...), or _Every Dead
> Thing_ a horror novel (not...), or _The Land of Laughs_ a horror novel
> (...) ... All of these I'd say were horror, at least in part of their
> narrative trajectories, but I've heard horror fans pooh-pooh all of them
> as ineffective at best. And all transgress genre boundaries.
>
> > When I ask for a recommendation of fantasy I'm
> > not expecting to get back something basically close to Anne Rice with
> > vampires, the Devil and holy water.* I would expect to hear about
> > something like Eddings or Jordan and there is too big a gap to use
> > the same single word to describe Jordan and Rice: fantasy.
>
> But how about Mervyn Peake and Sean Stewart? Is Nalo Hopkinson writing
> fantasy in _Skin Folks_? Horror? Something else? Or is she working
> across the generally defined boundaries? Do Angela Carter's twisted
> fairy tales count as fantasy? If not, why? What makes them something
> else? Aren't fairy tales a form of fantasy?
>
Myth and fairy tale predate the fantasy category and are archetypal.
It is hard to categorize religion and the bible as fantasy. Which is
why it is hard to categorize Autobiography of A Yoga and the
T. Lobsang Rampa books.
> You see, the catagorization process is tricky. I just don't feel
> comfortable making the lines too thick and solid. I like leeway. And
> then, after I say it's fantasy, which mostly implies it's not realist
> fiction, I usually try to say something about what kind of fantasy. I
> think that works best.
>
> Randy M.
>
I certainly agree about the trickiness. But I dont see how trickiness
justifies the claims for TAG as great fantasy. It is not the first book
to mix genres. It is clever but didn't require years to write or much
inspiration. I was thinking just then of Something Wicked This Way
Comes. I think people who consider TAG great fantasy are underexposed.
As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman.
Can someone tell me why TAG is great? People can explain why LOTR is great.
Regards,
Stephen
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>The "Alternate History" or "Allohistory" novels are those in which some one
>moment in time produced an event different from what we know in our
>history, and things went off in a different track ever since. Other terms
>for this popular genre include: "counterfactuals", "uchronias", and
>"what-ifs."
>
>"The Anubis Gates", by Tim Powers (1983), Victorian London a nexus of evil
Nitpick: _AG_ is a *secret* history. Just like _Ash_ or some other
novels.
For definitions, check <http://www.uchronia.net/>.
Funny, they put _Ash_ in allohistory, when Mary said it was a secret
history.
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/intvu/mgint.html
Stephen Harris
"Vlatko Juric-Kokic" <vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote in message
news:pnhpsu0n0fot0i838...@news.cis.dfn.de...
> On Fri, 08 Nov 2002 22:13:50 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >"The Anubis Gates", by Tim Powers (1983), Victorian London a nexus of
evil
>
> Nitpick: _AG_ is a *secret* history. Just like _Ash_ or some other
> novels.
>
> For definitions, check <http://www.uchronia.net/>.
>
> Funny, they put _Ash_ in allohistory, when Mary said it was a secret
> history.
> http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/intvu/mgint.html
>
> vlatko
> --
I suppose this includes _Chariot of the Gods_?
Several people agreed with this description of Powers typical stuff.
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> I don't see much connection between King, Rice and Powers, I'm afraid.
>>
> They all write supernatural fantasy with an element of horror.
> I notice below that you name the sub-genre of Epic Fantasy
> but provide no name for the Powers, de Lint etc sub-genre.
It tends to go by the name URBAN FANTASY, but I don't think it's a terribly
good label.
Al
Al Griffith
<rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote:
> I've come across some folks on the Internet who lobby for a catagory
> called weird fiction -- something to cover works by Arthur Machen,
> Algernon Blackwood among others, and including newer writers like Thomas
> Ligotti --
I like the WEIRD FICTION label.
> and they tend to look at works from Weird Tales from the
> 1920s and '30s (which billed itself as a fantasy magazine) as an
> example. I don't have a problem with this, but I'm inclined to say it's
> a sub-catagory of fantasy.
I would agree with that. Mervyn Peake could probably be accomodated in that
category as well.
Al
Speaker-to-Customers
> "Stephen Harris" wrote:
>
>> The "Alternate History" or "Allohistory" novels are those in which
>> some one moment in time produced an event different from what we
>> know in our history, and things went off in a different track ever
>> since. Other terms for this popular genre include: "counterfactuals",
"uchronias", and
>> "what-ifs."
>>
>> "The Anubis Gates", by Tim Powers (1983), Victorian London a nexus
>> of evil
>
> Nitpick: _AG_ is a *secret* history. Just like _Ash_ or some other
> novels.
Nitpick: AG is *not* set in Victorian London at all. Victoria came to the
throne in 1837, one month after her 18th birthday. AG is set in 1810 and
1811; Victoria hadn't even been born then.
"*Regency* London a nexus of Evil" would be an accurate description;
"Victorian London a nexus of Evil" sounds like a description by someone who
hasn't read the book, or who has so little grasp of history that they have
no business reading a time travel book at all.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> As for _Hamlet_ -- well, _MacBeth is a ghost story, y'know, since
>> Shakespeare wasn't against using the supernatural nor against using the
>> supernatural as a metaphor. _Hamlet_, while not primarily a fantasy, has
>> fantastic elements and so stradles the more recent, and arbitrary
>> division between realist and fantastic fiction.
Shakespeare can certainly be seen as a major influence on gothic fiction. In
fact both _Hamlet_ and _Macbeth_ would qualify as gothic tales. I'm assuming
here that it's possible for a work to qualify for more than one category. The
obvious example here being Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN which is science
fiction as well as being a gothic novel. William Beckford's VATHEK is another
example, I think it would fit into both the fantasy and gothic genres.
Al
Andrew Plotkin
> Nitpick: AG is *not* set in Victorian London at all. Victoria came to the
> throne in 1837, one month after her 18th birthday. AG is set in 1810 and
> 1811; Victoria hadn't even been born then.
> "*Regency* London a nexus of Evil" would be an accurate description;
> "Victorian London a nexus of Evil" sounds like a description by someone who
> hasn't read the book, or who has so little grasp of history that they have
> no business reading a time travel book at all.
That's pretty harsh. I don't know the dates of Victoria's reign
either. I *have* read the book, and I'm pretty sure I didn't
transgress the bounds of "my business" when I did so.
It's not like the plot concerns British royalty in any way whatsoever.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<gre...@manx.net> wrote:
>Vlatko Juric-Kokic wrote:
>> "Stephen Harris" wrote:
>>
>>> The "Alternate History" or "Allohistory" novels are those in which
>>> some one moment in time produced an event different from what we
>>> know in our history, and things went off in a different track ever
>>> since. Other terms for this popular genre include: "counterfactuals",
>"uchronias", and
>>> "what-ifs."
>>>
>>> "The Anubis Gates", by Tim Powers (1983), Victorian London a nexus
>>> of evil
>>
>> Nitpick: _AG_ is a *secret* history. Just like _Ash_ or some other
>> novels.
>
>Nitpick: AG is *not* set in Victorian London at all.
Nitpicky reaction:
Message-ID: <s1qisuo1mpu402j25...@news.cis.dfn.de>
vlatko :-)
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
(secret histories)
>I suppose this includes _Chariot of the Gods_?
I haven't read it ... unless you mean Karl Von Daeniken's _Chariots of
the Gods_? In that case, yes, it would be a secret history.
vlatko
--
Speaker-to-Customers
> Here, Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
>> Nitpick: AG is *not* set in Victorian London at all. Victoria came
>> to the throne in 1837, one month after her 18th birthday. AG is set
>> in 1810 and 1811; Victoria hadn't even been born then.
>> "*Regency* London a nexus of Evil" would be an accurate description;
>> "Victorian London a nexus of Evil" sounds like a description by
>> someone who hasn't read the book, or who has so little grasp of
>> history that they have no business reading a time travel book at all.
>
> That's pretty harsh. I don't know the dates of Victoria's reign
> either. I *have* read the book, and I'm pretty sure I didn't
> transgress the bounds of "my business" when I did so.
>
> It's not like the plot concerns British royalty in any way whatsoever.
Yes it most certainly does. Dr. Romany has primed the Byron-ka to kill the
*King* - even if you don't recognise the king in question as being George
III, you should spot that it can't be Victoria, because she was *Queen*
Victoria.
This is central to the Master's plan to wreck England.
As is the plot to overthrow James II and install Monmouth as a puppet king
in the loop back to 1684.
One entire strand of the plot revolves entirely around British royalty.
Paul Speaker-to-Customers
Tom Scudder
> Can someone tell me why TAG is great? People can explain why LOTR is great.
The uniquely cool thing Powers does is to write historical fantasy in
such a way that it incorporates actual historical events (I'm a bit
fuzzy on TAG these days, but the massacre of the Mamluks in Cairo is
one example - If I remember right, he even has his hero as the one guy
who managed to vault his horse over the wall) and people, while
weaving into them a magical subplot in such a way that you can't quite
tell EXACTLY where the fiction and magic start and where the
historical research ends.
Also, there are a bunch of nice touches in TAG - a well-realized snarl
of time-travel loops (including the moment when our hero realizes that
his success is NOT assured by the Course of History), the whistled
tune from "Yesterday" as a call-sign...
Andrew Plotkin
> Andrew Plotkin wrote:
>> Here, Speaker-to-Customers wrote:
>>> Nitpick: AG is *not* set in Victorian London at all. Victoria came
>>> to the throne in 1837, one month after her 18th birthday. AG is set
>>> in 1810 and 1811; Victoria hadn't even been born then.
>>> "*Regency* London a nexus of Evil" would be an accurate description;
>>> "Victorian London a nexus of Evil" sounds like a description by
>>> someone who hasn't read the book, or who has so little grasp of
>>> history that they have no business reading a time travel book at all.
>>
>> That's pretty harsh. I don't know the dates of Victoria's reign
>> either. I *have* read the book, and I'm pretty sure I didn't
>> transgress the bounds of "my business" when I did so.
>>
>> It's not like the plot concerns British royalty in any way whatsoever.
> Yes it most certainly does. Dr. Romany has primed the Byron-ka to kill the
> *King* - even if you don't recognise the king in question as being George
> III, you should spot that it can't be Victoria, because she was *Queen*
> Victoria.
Snork. Heh.
Well, I've read the book, but obviously you can't tell it by my grasp
of the plot. :-) It has been a few years, I'm afraid.
I'd like to get back to it, but not until the "unread" pile is gone...
I'll just go back over here and sit down.
Stephen Harris
"Tom Scudder" <tom...@spidernet.com.cy> wrote in message
news:55923148.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<WLYy9.8620$SY3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > Can someone tell me why TAG is great? People can explain why LOTR is
great.
>
> The uniquely cool thing Powers does is to write historical fantasy in
> such a way that it incorporates actual historical events (I'm a bit
> fuzzy on TAG these days, but the massacre of the Mamluks in Cairo is
> one example - If I remember right, he even has his hero as the one guy
> who managed to vault his horse over the wall) and people, while
> weaving into them a magical subplot in such a way that you can't quite
> tell EXACTLY where the fiction and magic start and where the
> historical research ends.
>
that LOTR is considered great is pretty much the opposite of your valuation.
"Miyazaki spent 12 years creating this incredibly well concieved world
derived partly from his own imaginings, partly from various mythologies.
It's a world so rich and detailed that it feels real."
This takes a lot of hard work and requires lots of originality. That is
why those recent fluffs by Piers Anthony take little time to write.
You wrote: "The uniquely cool thing Powers does is to write historical
fantasy in such a way that it incorporates actual historical events."
I understand this is actually called "secret history" part of regular
history
that is unknown or unreported. The thing is that writing some fantasy
into our ordinary timeline bypasses what Tolkien and Miyazaki do.
They create a new dimension for the reader to enjoy, another universe.
I think there is a huge difference in the quality of or range of uniqueness.
I guess what you call "uniqely cool", I call pretty easy to do because
a copy of our logical reality is touched up which takes far less attention
to detail to maintain consistency of believability. Powers is like regular
fiction with fantasy shaded in by using a conception of magic that is
derived from real-life magical societies like the Order of the Golden Dawn.
Writing a story like that takes much less creativity and originality than
does writing something like LOTR.
Powers writing is entertaining but it excludes a major criteria for what
makes fantasy great. A very talented basketball player who is 5'5"
is never going to be as good as a very talented basketball player who
is 7 foot tall. The 7 foot tall player can be great because he has more
fundamental backbone to make up his stature. I think Powers is great
within his genre but not all genres are created equal. I also think valuing
a detailed, believable, quite original universe, is an objective
qualification
to evaluating fantasy. Fantasy which skips creating this gift for the reader
by using a copy of our ordinary universe with a few twists is never going
to be capable of filling the shoes of fantasy which does offer originality
of universe in addition to a good plot and well-written, characterization
etc.
From google:
"Nausicaa is the only one that I would even dare comparing to LOTR.
Let me first say that storywise they don't have much in common at all. The
plot, characters and subject matter are as different as night and day. But
it's the approach of the series that mirrors much of LOTR. Miyazaki spent
12 years creating this incredibly well concieved world derived partly from
his own imaginings, partly from various mythologies. Much like Tolkien he
worked on it off and on for over a decade as a side project. It started as
a little writing experiment and grew over the years into an increadible
epic. It's a world so rich and detailed that it feels real. Unlike LOTR,
the history of the world in Nausicaa is shrouded in mystery (since there is
no equivalent to the Silmarillion). But otherwise it's approached much like
LOTR was. Furthermore it doesn't have a lick of influence from Tolkien.
That's right. A great human epic that doesn't borrow anything from Tolkien
whatosever. So not only does it have most of the virtues that made LOTR
great, it's a totally seperate experience because it's so original. That's
why it remains my favorite published work of all time, second only to
Tolkien's works."
Regards,
Stephen
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I guess what you call "uniqely cool", I call pretty easy to do because
> a copy of our logical reality is touched up which takes far less attention
> to detail to maintain consistency of believability. Powers is like regular
> fiction with fantasy shaded in by using a conception of magic that is
> derived from real-life magical societies like the Order of the Golden Dawn.
> Writing a story like that takes much less creativity and originality than
> does writing something like LOTR.
So that would mean that writing a non-fantasy novel (like a "mainsteam" novel
for example) would take no creativity or originality whatsoever?
Al
Tom Scudder
> "Tom Scudder" <tom...@spidernet.com.cy> wrote in message
> news:55923148.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<WLYy9.8620$SY3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> > > Can someone tell me why TAG is great? People can explain why LOTR is
> great.
> >
> > The uniquely cool thing Powers does is to write historical fantasy in
> > such a way that it incorporates actual historical events (I'm a bit
> > fuzzy on TAG these days, but the massacre of the Mamluks in Cairo is
> > one example - If I remember right, he even has his hero as the one guy
> > who managed to vault his horse over the wall) and people, while
> > weaving into them a magical subplot in such a way that you can't quite
> > tell EXACTLY where the fiction and magic start and where the
> > historical research ends.
> >
> I have clipped a comment which says why LOTR is great. One reason
> that LOTR is considered great is pretty much the opposite of your valuation.
>
> "Miyazaki spent 12 years creating this incredibly well concieved world
> derived partly from his own imaginings, partly from various mythologies.
> It's a world so rich and detailed that it feels real."
>
> fantasy in such a way that it incorporates actual historical events."
>
> I understand this is actually called "secret history" part of regular
> history
> that is unknown or unreported. The thing is that writing some fantasy
> into our ordinary timeline bypasses what Tolkien and Miyazaki do.
> They create a new dimension for the reader to enjoy, another universe.
> I think there is a huge difference in the quality of or range of uniqueness.
>
> I guess what you call "uniqely cool", I call pretty easy to do because
> a copy of our logical reality is touched up which takes far less attention
> to detail to maintain consistency of believability.
On the other hand, it is not possible to consult an independent
history of Middle Earth to see how closely Mr. Tolkien's portrayal of
King Elessar, or of the Battle of Five Armies, lines up with the
facts-as-they-is-recorded-in-history. A secret historian has to be
able to weave his story in among the recorded facts where an
other-world fantasist can just make stuff up.
And this isn't just a matter of clever party tricks. There's a sort of
awe/wonder that a Secret Historian can invoke that comes from showing
that the old cup in the back of your kitchen cabinet all along had
been the Holy Grail. It's something that an invented-world fantasist
can never achieve, no matter how detailed or convincing or rich his
world is, because he can't draw on our sense of mundanity to surprise
us.
> Powers is like regular
> fiction with fantasy shaded in by using a conception of magic that is
> derived from real-life magical societies like the Order of the Golden Dawn.
> Writing a story like that takes much less creativity and originality than
> does writing something like LOTR.
It takes a different kind of creativity and originality. It's the
difference between building a new building on a plain, flat lot and
refitting an existing medieval structure and putting it to an entirely
new purpose. (And, incidentally, it's not like Tolkien didn't
incorportate a bunch of existing stuff into LOTR &c. The dwarf names,
frinstance, are straight out of one of the Eddas. As is the name
"Gandalf".)
> Powers writing is entertaining but it excludes a major criteria for what
> makes fantasy great. A very talented basketball player who is 5'5"
> is never going to be as good as a very talented basketball player who
> is 7 foot tall. The 7 foot tall player can be great because he has more
> fundamental backbone to make up his stature. I think Powers is great
> within his genre but not all genres are created equal. I also think valuing
> a detailed, believable, quite original universe, is an objective
> qualification
> to evaluating fantasy. Fantasy which skips creating this gift for the reader
> by using a copy of our ordinary universe with a few twists is never going
> to be capable of filling the shoes of fantasy which does offer originality
> of universe in addition to a good plot and well-written, characterization
> etc.
On the other hand, I wouldn't want the 7 foot guy playing point guard
for my team.
Stephen Harris
I also wrote the comments below:
"Powers writing is entertaining but it excludes a major criteria for what
makes fantasy great. ...Fantasy which skips creating this gift for the
reader
by using a copy of our ordinary universe with a few twists is never going
to be capable of filling the shoes of fantasy which does offer originality
of universe in addition to a good plot and well-written, characterization
etc."
I was comparing fantasy and I said "in addidtion" which I clarified with
"They create a new dimension for the reader to enjoy, another universe."
Nothing about what I wrote implies that a good plot is not a creative
aspect.
> So that would mean that writing a non-fantasy novel (like a "mainsteam"
novel
> for example) would take no creativity or originality whatsoever?
I did say extra dimension of LOTR is not available to fiction and not
found in The Anubis Gates. So the category of great fiction and great
fantasy
are not graded by the same set of criteria.
Reality------------------------------------------->Fanstasy
It is a continuum and fiction written or contained within a biography
is going to be close to reality. And it can be well-done and creative
but it can never contain the creativity demonstrated by establishing
a new coherent universe. A biography and stronger types of fiction
use a map that has already been built for its universe, our common reality.
So there is a level of creativity not even available which is available in
LOTR, Godstalk, Lord Valentine's Castle.
So if you want to call The Anubis Gates fantasy it and all the other
historical fantasy has already had the foundation built for the story and
then builds/creates something new(superstructure). I think that obviously
takes less effort than building a foundation plus the superstructure and
requires less creativity. And since you can't call fiction which does have
a new conceptual foundation of reality fiction, but must call it fantasy
I think that is the most objective way of classifying a work: fiction or
fantasy.
I don't find your conclusion supported by what I wrote in the entire post
and I used "which does offer originality of universe in addition to a good
plot
and well-written, characterization etc." to acknowledge other types of
creativity.
Therefore your conclusion requires the assumption that writing a good plot
does not employ creativity since I list writing a good plot as an additional
form
of originality. I think it is more likely you speed-read over the part of my
post
which rebutted your conclusion. You certainly didn't quote the part of my
post
which put your selected quote in context which I wrote to clarify any
potential
misunderstanding. I think the analogy of building a foundation and then a
house
takes more work/creativity than building a house on an existing foundation
is apt.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
"Tom Scudder" <tom...@spidernet.com.cy> wrote in message
news:55923148.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<%Pzz9.6372$hK4.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "Tom Scudder" <tom...@spidernet.com.cy> wrote in message
> > news:55923148.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:<WLYy9.8620$SY3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > >
> > > > Can someone tell me why TAG is great? People can explain why LOTR is
> > great.
> > >
because
> > a copy of our logical reality is touched up which takes far less
attention
> > to detail to maintain consistency of believability.
>
> On the other hand, it is not possible to consult an independent
> history of Middle Earth to see how closely Mr. Tolkien's portrayal of
> King Elessar, or of the Battle of Five Armies, lines up with the
Our ordinary reality is logical and sequential. What you mention isn't
what is considered important. Writing something internally consistent
is considered important. The LOTR has very few flaws in its internal
consistency. That is hard to do. Consider the new Star Trek and
Voyager and all their contradictions about what is the Prime Directive
and what situations qualify. That is what I mean by inner consistency
of history. The reader doesn't wonder how it fits together in LOTR.
> facts-as-they-is-recorded-in-history. A secret historian has to be
> able to weave his story in among the recorded facts where an
> other-world fantasist can just make stuff up.
>
This is what I think is pretty easy to do. Aren't there thousands
of mystery and spy novels that fit their storyline into the known
history of our times while revealing some special secret event?
> And this isn't just a matter of clever party tricks. There's a sort of
> awe/wonder that a Secret Historian can invoke that comes from showing
> that the old cup in the back of your kitchen cabinet all along had
> been the Holy Grail. It's something that an invented-world fantasist
> can never achieve, no matter how detailed or convincing or rich his
> world is, because he can't draw on our sense of mundanity to surprise
> us.
>
I find this quality requires fiction not fantasy. There are dozens of
Holy Grail stories or other generic mystical relics. Actually I agree
with much of this point. But I dont think it takes as much originality
or creativity as creating a new plausible universe with its own
version of mystical relics while making us believe in and care
about them. The Ring is another mystical relic like the Holy Grail.
I think the reason LOTR has endured is that people can put themselves
into the story. For instance, I found the Difference Engine entertaining
but it didn't draw me into the story and bind me emotionally. The
Last Call had some binding power and then fell apart in the last two
books. I didn't feel let down my a confused ending in LOTR which
is a comparison of the writing skills of Powers and Tolkien. Which is
why I think of The Anubis Gates as pulp fiction rather than great
fantasy. There is a great deal more to discover when you read
Godstalk for instance. Piers Anthony is monotonous and boring.
LOTR is usually in the top 4 spaces of a great SF/Fantasy list.
The Anubis Gates is around 50th or lower. There must be a reason.
Irina Rempt
> I find this quality requires fiction not fantasy.
And how is fantasy not fiction?
Irina
--
Vesta veran, terna puran, farenin. http://www.valdyas.org/irina
Beghinnen can ick, volherden will' ick, volbringhen sal ick.
Stephen Harris
"Irina Rempt" <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in message
news:3201964.8...@calcifer.valdyas.org...
> On Monday 11 November 2002 21:45 Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> > I find this quality requires fiction not fantasy.
>
> And how is fantasy not fiction?
>
> Irina
>
Do you think the words are synonamous? My dictionary says
fantasy is fiction marked by highly fanciful elements. Which
means there is fiction which would not properly be called fantasy.
So there is fantasy which is not properly called fiction.
Fiction tends to write about events which didn't really happen
but we can pretend they _can happen_ in our ordinary reality.
LOTR for instance takes place in an original universe where
we pretend events happen that _cannot happen_ in ordinary reality.
My idea is in the context which states that it takes more originality
and creativity to invent an original universe plus a plot etc. than
to create a plot in our ordinary universe which has already captured
the reader's belief by its inner consistency. So fiction mainly takes
plot creativity because the infrastucture of the believability of
ordinary reality is already in place. That ordinary reality is already
known to the reader.
Further on the scale towards fantasy allows more than variations
of normal ordinary reality...which are easier to conceive thus less
creativity is required. Far right fantasy allows the creation of a
new universe/reality...and it takes a lot of work and creativity to
make this universe believable to the reader. Thus it is richer
because it contains plot creativity as well as reality making creativity.
Fiction doesn't have this extra dimension. It relies upon our ordinary
reality as a foundation and the creativity comes from the plot
charcterization etc. Far right fantasy uses those elements of creativity
too and then enjoys freedom to create variations without the restraint
of conforming to ordinary reality.
For instance Farley wrote horse stories that took place upon an
undiscovered island. The events weren't real, but this is fiction.
It is remotely possible for this to be true.
But Godstalk and LOTR cannot happen in our ordinary reality
and that makes it fantasy not fiction.
I notice the idea of fantasy as a sub-genre of fiction which is inaccurate.
Instead:
Reality/Fact---------------Fiction-------------Fantasy-->
I think there is a continuum which runs from reality to its opposite which
is fantasy.
This explains why biographies which are supposed to be factual always
contain
an element of fiction which may be hard to discern--but a biography which
contains
a story of the heroine/target riding upon a unicorn has verged into fantasy.
Something like The Anubis Gates is like spy novels which integrate into
ordinary
reality and are much easier to write than crafted stories like LOTR or
Nausicaa.
They have a level of creativity not found in fantasy pulp fiction like Piers
Anthony.
Do you think the creation of your imaginary kingdom Valdyas has taken more
effort and creativity than something written by Anthony? I cant see The
Anubis
Gates as being that challenging to create either as it is mostly ordinary. I
would
think you are trying to create consistency in the same manner as
Tolien/LOTR.
This offers more for the reader to discover and enjoy than ordinary reality.
Then a plot in this universe still has the creativity challenge. Fiction has
plot
creativity in our ordinary reality but not the added level of universe
creation
which is found in fantasy and not available in fiction. Because if you do
find it
in fiction it is not called fiction but fantasy. That is what distinguishes
it.
That and the time it takes to craft it which requires creative effort. I
think (Powers)
Last Call could have been written in 3 months and the sequels in less than
that.
Regards,
Stephen
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> So there is fantasy which is not properly called fiction.
I don't think so.
Al
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I was comparing fantasy and I said "in addidtion" which I clarified with
> "They create a new dimension for the reader to enjoy, another universe."
> Nothing about what I wrote implies that a good plot is not a creative
> aspect.
>
>> So that would mean that writing a non-fantasy novel (like a "mainsteam"
> novel
>> for example) would take no creativity or originality whatsoever?
>
> I did say extra dimension of LOTR is not available to fiction and not
> found in The Anubis Gates. So the category of great fiction and great
> fantasy
> are not graded by the same set of criteria.
You seem to be confusing the quality of a novel with the complexity of the
imaginary world in which it takes place. A novel can be set in an
extraordinarily rich, varied and internally consistent fantasy world, and
still be rubbish and display little originality or talent. And a novel can be
set in our own world, without any of the "world-building" that some fantasy
fans seem to get excited about, and display enormous creativity and originality.
Al
Stephen Harris
Yes it can. But also so can the fantasy novel in the same areas.
In addition the "world-building" of fantasy can enable new areas of
creativity.
These types of new areas are not available in fiction written which
functions within
the constraints of our ordinary world. Apparently your assumption is that
there is one dimension of creativity and "world-building" neither
contributes nor dimimishes that creativity. My position is that fantasy can
command the same creativity dimensions
that fiction uses plus the additional creative channel of "world-building"
and that
potential creativity of ordinary reality versus a fantastic reality is not
equal.
Because you can point out two or more areas where the fantasy potentials
are equal does not mean they are identical in all dimensions and thus equal.
You may think I am wrong but what is confused about my position? I doubt
that you can point out a logical flaw; so that you will need to make an
_assumption_ that the creative potentials are the same regardless of
"world-building";
you will not be able to establish your point by a logical argument which is
not circular.
LOTR is an example of fulfilling such an increased potential of creativity,
succeeding at all levels of creativity that ordinary fiction books can +
world-building.
Not is it usually in a list of the top 4 fantasy books written but it is
often
found in the top 10 of novels written in the 20th century.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
"Al Griffith" <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CFN375727...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Then I imagine you can find a review of The Lord of The Rings in which
it is described as a fictional novel rather than a fantasy work by the
majority of the reviewers? If nearly everybody describes LOTR as
fantasy rather than fiction then I think there is a reason for it and it
certainly
exists and does not require any such rule classification such as: fiction
has a sub-genre named fantasy. That is artificial like all the old fiction
which would now be called science fiction is not going to be reclassified
into science fictionthough it would if written now. Nor are artifacts of an
old
classification scheme which existed before "fantasy" became recognized going
to be retooled to reflect current usage exemplified in LOTR.
IOW, I gave a concrete example of "So there is fantasy which is not properly
called fiction." So if you "don't think so" it would seem you are denying
reality
and how words are used in reality in favor of an arbitrary, antequated,
academic,
alliterative scheme which fails to reflect the reality of how words are
actually used.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
"Al Griffith" <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:CFN375727...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
http://paradoxa.com/excerpts/1-1intro.htm
Ursula K. Le Guin Portland, Oregon
" I wish I were comfortable with the definition of our subject as
"paraliterature". The division of fiction into a category "literature" and a
category "non-" or "sub-" or "para-" reinforces what I want us to question:
the notion of fiction as a central or dominant form (realism) surrounded by
marginal forms (everything else). "Para-" is not in itself a judgmental
term, but it tacitly gives central reality to the unqualified word. To let
realistic fiction alone retain the designation "literature", while every
other form of contemporary fiction must be qualified as marginal, inferior,
or other, is to hide an absolute judgment under a seemingly impartial
terminology.
I'd like to see a reformulation of vocabulary which re-includes the
bulk of fiction (historically and currently) in the term "literature". In
this case realism is to be defined and referred to not as literature but as
a genre within literature, alongside and on a par with other modes or
genres. There is then no need for such a locution as "paraliteraure", unless
perhaps it refers to criticism.
Within this framework of parity, I'd like to see a serious attempt at
redescribing literary modes or strategies such as "fantasy", "science
fiction", "realism", "magical realism", "historical fiction", "romance",
etc. The effective differences between, say, realism and science fiction
need to be addressed in accurate critical terms, in order to develop the
critical skills and perceptions appropriate to each. The incompetence of
many academic critics and teachers to read and criticize any kind of fiction
but realism (and a narrowly defined realism at that) is no longer
acceptable.
To a mind trained only in the canonical restriction of quality to a single
kind of fiction, the active mixing and merging of so-called genres that is
going on right now, the re-invention of fiction, is incomprehensible. This
rich confusion will only get richer if and as the computer becomes a genuine
literary medium along with the book, re-embodying and further complicating
the ways in which we tell stories. I hope Para*doxa will be a useful skein
to follow into this labyrinth; I hope we will dance in all directions in
this garden of forking paths."
SH: I like the idea of Literature which contains sub-categories such as
Westerns
Mysteries, Fiction(realistic), Fantasy. This avoids calling fantasy a type
of fiction
necessitating boundary definitions between what is properly fiction and what
is fantasy.
They have equal category status under literature without sublimating one
legitimate
category into/under another because of a preferred level of realism.
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> > I find this quality requires fiction not fantasy.
>>
>> And how is fantasy not fiction?
>>
>
>Do you think the words are synonamous? My dictionary says
>fantasy is fiction marked by highly fanciful elements.
That's correct.
>Which
>means there is fiction which would not properly be called fantasy.
That's also correct.
>So there is fantasy which is not properly called fiction.
This is not correct. I don't understand how you came to this
conclusion starting from the dictionary definition.
Fantasy, the genre, is a subset of fiction.
F=(A+B+C...), where ABC are the genres.
A/=F only in the sense that a part cannot be the whole.
Of course, there's the school that thinks there's no realist fiction,
so everything written is fantasy. But, for the purpose of this
discussion, we can ignore them.
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> IOW, I gave a concrete example of "So there is fantasy which is not properly
> called fiction." So if you "don't think so" it would seem you are denying
> reality
No, but if something is fantasy, then it has to be fiction. Unless you're
going to tell me Lord of the Rings is non-fiction?
Al
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> LOTR is an example of fulfilling such an increased potential of creativity,
> succeeding at all levels of creativity that ordinary fiction books can +
> world-building.
Which has nothing to do with the quality of a work.
Al
Helgi Briem
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I also wrote the comments below:
>
>"Powers writing is entertaining but it excludes a major criteria for what
>makes fantasy great. ...Fantasy which skips creating this gift for the
>reader by using a copy of our ordinary universe with a few twists is
>never going to be capable of filling the shoes of fantasy which does
>offer originality of universe in addition to a good plot and well-written,
>characterization etc."
I disagree with this so strongly that I find myself unable
to answer further lest I get drawn into language stronger
than I would wish to employ in public.
--
Regards, Helgi Briem
helgi AT decode DOT is
A: Top posting
Q: What is the most irritating thing on Usenet?
- "Gordon" on apihna
Irina Rempt
>
> "Irina Rempt" <ir...@valdyas.org> wrote in message
> news:3201964.8...@calcifer.valdyas.org...
>> On Monday 11 November 2002 21:45 Stephen Harris wrote:
>>
>> > I find this quality requires fiction not fantasy.
>>
>> And how is fantasy not fiction?
> Do you think the words are synonamous?
No, I think fantasy is a subset of fiction: all (well, most; there are
things like _The Flight of Dragons_) fantasy is fiction, not all
fiction is fantasy. I read what you wrote as "fiction, which is not
fantasy" while you probably meant "fiction that is not fantasy". A
simple misreading.
Irina
Al Griffith
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> I also wrote the comments below:
>
> "Powers writing is entertaining but it excludes a major criteria for what
> makes fantasy great. ...Fantasy which skips creating this gift for the
> reader
> by using a copy of our ordinary universe with a few twists is never going
> to be capable of filling the shoes of fantasy which does offer originality
> of universe in addition to a good plot and well-written, characterization
> etc."
Some varieties, or sub-genres if you like, of fantasy involve the creation of
complex imaginary universes, and some varieties/sub-genres of fantasy don't
involve this. It's just different approaches to the writing of fantasy. To
suggest that one approach is inherently superior to another is, well, one word
that comes to mind is preposterous.
Al
Abigail Ann Young
>
> "Al Griffith" <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:CFN375727...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > > So there is fantasy which is not properly called fiction.
> >
> >
> > Al
>
> it is described as a fictional novel rather than a fantasy work by the
> majority of the reviewers? If nearly everybody describes LOTR as
> fantasy rather than fiction then I think there is a reason for it and it
> certainly
> exists and does not require any such rule classification such as: fiction
> has a sub-genre named fantasy. That is artificial like all the old fiction
> which would now be called science fiction is not going to be reclassified
> into science fictionthough it would if written now. Nor are artifacts of an
> old
> classification scheme which existed before "fantasy" became recognized going
> to be retooled to reflect current usage exemplified in LOTR.
>
> called fiction." So if you "don't think so" it would seem you are denying
> reality
> academic,
> alliterative scheme which fails to reflect the reality of how words are
> actually used.
>
> Regards,
> Stephen
But modern prose fantasy is simply one type of fiction -- science fiction,
fantasy, romance, mystery, all are forms of imaginative writing, that is,
fiction. So any fantasy novel is first of all a work of fiction. LOTR (to
take one of your examples) is a novel with lots of ties to older,
pre-modern fiction (like saga and epic); it's a fantasy novel that follows
an established literary convention (work by contemporary author based on an
ancient manuscript and adapted by him or her to his or her own time); and
it is an important British novel of teh First World War. Which ever of
those facets (and I'm not saying they are the only ones) we focus on, we'll
lose something if we allow it to obscure the other facets. I don't think we
should try to pick one aspect of LOTR and 'ride that hobby-horse' to teh
exclusion of the others.
I am not sure I understand how this discussion turned into a comparison
between LOTR and Anubis Gates! I'm not sure how useful a comparison it is.
Both are novels, both have fantasy elements, but they don't reflect the
same authorial milieu or have ties to the same type of earlier fiction --
someone remarked that Anubis Gates seemed to be working in the same kind of
imaginative space as Dennis Wheatley's magic/occult thrillers. I think that
was 'right-on' and given Powers' familiarity with obscure corners of 19th-c
British Romanticism, I would expect him to be familiar with some of the
obscure corners of 20th-c British Romanticism too....
AAY
--
Abigail Ann Young (Dr), Associate Editor/Records of Early English Drama/
Victoria College/ 150 Charles Street W/ Toronto Ontario Canada M5S 1K9
Phone (416) 585-4504/ FAX (416) 813-4093/ abigai...@utoronto.ca
List-owner of REED-L <http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed-l.html>
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/reed.html> REED's home page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~reed/stage.html> our theatre resource page
<http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~young> my home page
Genevieve
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:05:39 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >I also wrote the comments below:
> >
> >"Powers writing is entertaining but it excludes a major criteria for what
> >makes fantasy great. ...Fantasy which skips creating this gift for the
> >reader by using a copy of our ordinary universe with a few twists is
> >never going to be capable of filling the shoes of fantasy which does
> >offer originality of universe in addition to a good plot and well-written,
> >characterization etc."
>
> I disagree with this so strongly that I find myself unable
> to answer further lest I get drawn into language stronger
> than I would wish to employ in public.
I'm reminded of the scene in _War for the Oaks_ where two magical
illusionists are performing. One of them displays a huge castle
straight out of fairyland, complete with flags and clouds and
crenellations and what have you. The other produces...an apple. A
lumpy, home-garden sort of apple that the illusionist takes a bite out
of, and then makes disapear. Sometimes it's a great deal more work to
convince someone that magic lies in the everyday, because we're all so
sure it doesn't. And we're more familiar with the everyday, so it
takes more to fool the eye (or mind) into believing it just...could
be...real. I know I regard Byron with a lot more suspicion now that
I've read Powers!
Genevieve
Stephen Harris
I suppose the idea that painting in oil inherently has more potential
than painting in water is preposterous? Oil painting has another depth
dimension available for expression which compares to "world-building".
I think the best oil painting is better than the best water painting and
they can be compared. I certainly didn't say that all oil painting is
superior to all water color painting or that a good water color painting
is not better than a mediocre oil painting.
_Finnegans Wake_ and _Remembrance of Things Past_ which are
considered quality literature both depart ordinary reality and journey
into personal reality which is a world-building experience for the reader.
One can say that potential is infinite, but it is still embedded in ordinary
reality. That infinite potential embedded in a new universe will be denser.
Which conveys more information, a pen and ink sketch of King Arthur
or a holographic image? More dimensions raises the information potential.
Like more description enhances the building of a character which includes
his cultural milieu. A new universe allows/generates unavailable cultural
diversity because it is not a logical consequence of our familar reality.
I also think there are inherently superior writers. And the common reader
can recognize them even if their skills cannot be quantified. It is just
like
not all of us having the same inherent survival skills, the differences are
=/=.
That ties into writing through the ability to discern the nature of reality
and
communicate/portray it which is an element of leadership in search of Truth.
The truth is not all infinities are created equal,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
I find that preposterous. Creativity has nothing to do with the quality of a
work.
No more time for you.
Randy Money
> "Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
> news:3DCC232F...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
>
[ ... trying to cut to the quick of the discussion ... ]
> Someboyd described TAG as great fantasy. When I think of great
> fantasy I'm expecting a creative work which is original and
> inventive. TAG tosses together some supernatural horrific elements
> and some occult fiction (time travel can be done with portals in the
> occult not SF method, it is magical). The story is entertaining and a
> nice blend of other genres(alternate history). I think it is very
> much like the Last Call trilogy which uses Tarot cards. Tarot cards
> have been pretty well done by Zelazny. I dont see the inventiveness
> and originality and writing skills (that you see in LOTR) which
> generates greatness?!
There are always different levels of achievement: for instance, I think
Shirley Jackson's _The Haunting of Hill House_ is a great novel, but I
realize it is not at the level of achievement of William Faulkner's
_Absalom, Absalom!_.
I do wonder if you're underestimating Powers some. I think there are
things to criticize in _The Anubis Gate_ -- his prose style doesn't
always reach the levels of his story-telling -- and I don't for a moment
feel it has the heft of LOTR, but keeping the action going while also
setting the reader in time and place, while also making sure any
intentional historical inaccuracies are accounted for, while also
keeping the characters believable ... it's a hard juggling feat. Below
you mention that you don't think Powers is a craftsman. I beg to differ.
I think that is exactly what he is, a good, strong craftsman. Whether
he's an artist is open to debate. We might debate much less about
Tolkein being an artist.
[...]
>> I'm blanking of western/horror novels, but I've been assured
>> they're out there, and I imagine there are romance/horror hybrids,
>> too, though I'm not sure I'd want to read anything so labelled.
>>
>
> King wrote a gunslinger type story.
Thanks. I should have thought of that one.
[...]
> I certainly agree about the trickiness. But I dont see how trickiness
> justifies the claims for TAG as great fantasy. It is not the first
> book to mix genres. It is clever but didn't require years to write or
> much inspiration.
I might disagree about the inspiration. Most fiction of the fantastic
stems from some odd juggling of disparate elements -- _Vathek_ took
inspiration from _1001 Nights_; Tolkein took inspiration from the eddas,
but also from, I've heard, from E. R. Eddison; even someone as
apparently unique as H.P. Lovecraft gathered bits and pieces from Lord
Dunsany, Ambrose Bierce, Poe, William Hope Hodgeson, etc.
> I was thinking just then of Something Wicked This
> Way Comes.
Not sure I'm following your thoughts on this one. Is it one you'd lump
with _TAG_ for pulling together disparate elements and repackaging them?
I have criticisms of it, but that's not one.
> I think people who consider TAG great fantasy are
> underexposed. As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman. Can someone
> tell me why TAG is great?
Not me. I would call it great fun, a truly entertaining read, but I
wouldn't call it an equal of LOTR.
Randy M.
Craig Richardson
Don't bother. He has no familiarity with basic set theory. He really
doesn't understand that he needs a separate term for "fiction" and
"fiction-that-is-not-fantasy", since to him, these are arbitrary
classifications, rather than descriptions of subsets. Never argue
definitions on Usenet, even with people who are using them correctly.
--Craig
--
Managing the Devil Rays is something like competing on "Iron Chef",
and having Chairman Kaga reveal a huge ziggurat of lint.
Gary Huckabay, Baseball Prospectus Online, August 21, 2002
Stephen Harris
"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aav2tuopt5squ1tgk...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:20:21 GMT, Al Griffith
> <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:28:44 GMT "Stephen Harris"
> ><stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> IOW, I gave a concrete example of "So there is fantasy which is not
properly
> >> called fiction." So if you "don't think so" it would seem you are
denying
> >> reality
> >
> >No, but if something is fantasy, then it has to be fiction. Unless
you're
> >going to tell me Lord of the Rings is non-fiction?
>
> Don't bother. He has no familiarity with basic set theory. He really
> doesn't understand that he needs a separate term for "fiction" and
> "fiction-that-is-not-fantasy", since to him, these are arbitrary
> classifications, rather than descriptions of subsets. Never argue
> definitions on Usenet, even with people who are using them correctly.
>
> --Craig
>
>
Brian Attebery
Idaho State University
"Literature" means all writing that is produced in the acknowledged literary
genres, all writing that aspires to be literature, all writing that can
conceivably be used to endorse the dominant ideology, either directly or
indirectly - that is, until the idea of "literature" comes under any sort of
attack. At that point, it completely revises its meaning, pulls in its
borders, and becomes "only the best, the very highest quality work that has
been produced in these various genres" - which is, of course, a very
different thing."
SH: Westerns are a subset of literature as are Mysteries.
The idea of making them subsets of each other is illogical.
When a work uses a blend then use a combining term like Romantic Western.
There are Romances which are not Westerns and Westerns that are not
Romances.
You have fiction which is clearly not fantasy. I have repudiated the idea of
fiction
having subsets and instead let it be its own category not the parent set.
Then there is Fantasy which is not Fiction.
John Huntington
The University of Illinois at Chicago
The term "paraliterature", however it is understood, always struggles
for definition and recognition in the overwhelming shadow of the privileged
concept of "literature". To juxtapose the two terms is immediately to recall
arguments from an earlier time identifying and challenging the points of
difference between such unbalanced antitheses as "art" and Kitsch",
"classic" and "pop", "film" and "entertainment". But many of the
distinctions that disturbed us in the recent past seem hardly to interest us
now. Under the powerful analytical lights of deconstruction and of feminist
and ideological critique, literature's claim to truth, which seemed to
distinguish it from paraliterature for even some major Marxist theorists,
now appears presumptuous. Though there may be generic and stylistic
distinctions to be observed between high and low literature, there is
nothing essential to these distinctions; social and economic forces
determine what will be called "literature", and under different conditions a
very different set of distinctions would have developed. To one reader
paraliterature is the debased and mechanical parody of high art; to another
it is the art that is arbitrarily coded inferior while "legitimate" art is
granted a mysterious, though equally arbitrary, excellence; to another it is
the source of a lively, spontaneous energy, free from the deadly formalities
of high art.
David Ketterer
Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
One fix on the opposition or dynamic literature/paraliterature may be
gained by attempting to correlate it with two related oppositions or
dynamics: canonic literature/non-canonic literature, and good writing/bad
writing. In terms of the number of works covered, the category "non-canonic
literature" would be larger than the category "paraliterature", which - if
fiction alone is taken into account, as perhaps it should be - would in turn
be larger than the category "bad writing". Thus positioned, paraliterature
is a complex, shifting middle ground term which covers a proportion of
non-canonic writing, a proportion of good writing and presumably the
totality of bad writing as it applies to fiction. That middle ground is
constantly being amended because of the traffic which takes place in both
directions (primarily for ideological reasons) with both of the related
oppositions or dynamics. For example, over the past twenty years or so, Mary
Shelley's Frankenstein has been maneuvered into the slowly reconstructed
pantheon of canonic literature.
There appears to be a consensus that all the works constituting the overtly
formulaic genres - the detective story, fantasy, the western, etc. - belong
under the paraliterature umbrella. Nevertheless, there are a select number
of such genre works - Joseph Conrad's spy thriller, The Secret Agent, comes
to mind - which do appear to be part of the canon. Why? How may an overtly
formulaic genre be transcended? "
SH: My point is that it is fairly rare for a genre work to escape into
canonic
literature, LOTR is another example. How do you distinguish this condition
if all paraliterature is fiction; if all fantasy is fiction. How do you
acknowledge
its special status? It seems you have to deny fiction from holding all
canonical
literature and divide fiction into Good Writing and Bad Writing so that
special
works like LOTR can go into the Good Writing department of Fiction and
the mediocre fantasy goes into the Bad Writing department of Fiction so that
a distinction can be maintained between the two types of fantasy. I think
fiction
should be treated as another genre (though larger) under Literature and have
the same categorical importance (level) as fantasy. They must be
distinguishable
or "you" wouldn't say not all fiction is fantasy.
Stephen Harris
"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:aav2tuopt5squ1tgk...@4ax.com...
> <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:28:44 GMT "Stephen Harris"
> ><stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> IOW, I gave a concrete example of "So there is fantasy which is not
properly
> >> called fiction." So if you "don't think so" it would seem you are
denying
> >> reality
> >
> >No, but if something is fantasy, then it has to be fiction. Unless
you're
> >going to tell me Lord of the Rings is non-fiction?
>
> Don't bother. He has no familiarity with basic set theory. He really
> doesn't understand that he needs a separate term for "fiction" and
> "fiction-that-is-not-fantasy", since to him, these are arbitrary
> classifications, rather than descriptions of subsets. Never argue
> definitions on Usenet, even with people who are using them correctly.
>
> --Craig
>
Then I suppose another clueless eccentric?
Ursula K. Le Guin
Portland, Oregon
"I wish I were comfortable with the definition of our subject as
"paraliterature". The division of fiction into a category "literature" and a
category "non-" or "sub-" or "para-" reinforces what I want us to question:
the notion of fiction as a central or dominant form (realism) surrounded by
marginal forms (everything else). "Para-" is not in itself a judgmental
term, but it tacitly gives central reality to the unqualified word. To let
realistic fiction alone retain the designation "literature", while every
other form of contemporary fiction must be qualified as marginal, inferior,
or other, is to hide an absolute judgment under a seemingly impartial
terminology.
http://paradoxa.com/excerpts/1-1intro.htm
I'd like to see a reformulation of vocabulary which re-includes the
bulk of fiction (historically and currently) in the term "literature". In
this case realism is to be defined and referred to not as literature but as
a genre within literature, alongside and on a par with other modes or
genres. There is then no need for such a locution as "paraliteraure", unless
perhaps it refers to criticism."
SH: The following quote explains why the quality of "world-building"
is a fundamental part of registering excellence of consistent creativity
which is especially apparent in the new universe of LOTR.
Brian Attebery
Idaho State University
"What makes certain kinds of writing paraliterature rather than
literature? Looking at the list of categories in the prospectus for
Para*doxa, I can see two common threads. First, it includes nearly
everything I read for pleasure. Second, such forms as science fiction,
utopian romance, and mysteries all depend on the reader's applying some form
of outside knowledge to the text, without which the text may seem trivial or
incomprehensible. The most obvious case is science fiction, which names
itself after the body of knowledge most essential to successful reading.
Occult fiction similarly requires familiarity with the language and
commonplace assumptions of pseudo-science. Utopian literature requires us to
draw comparisons between its imagined societies and actual social
institutions past and present. Westerns depend on familiarity, not so much
with the realities of the historical American West, but with the myths
generated within and about the West.
Regards,
Stephen
Craig Richardson
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:aav2tuopt5squ1tgk...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 09:20:21 GMT, Al Griffith
>> <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 07:28:44 GMT "Stephen Harris"
>> ><stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> IOW, I gave a concrete example of "So there is fantasy which is not
>properly
>> >> called fiction." So if you "don't think so" it would seem you are
>denying
>> >> reality
>> >
>> >No, but if something is fantasy, then it has to be fiction. Unless
>you're
>> >going to tell me Lord of the Rings is non-fiction?
>>
>> Don't bother. He has no familiarity with basic set theory. He really
>> doesn't understand that he needs a separate term for "fiction" and
>> "fiction-that-is-not-fantasy", since to him, these are arbitrary
>> classifications, rather than descriptions of subsets. Never argue
>> definitions on Usenet, even with people who are using them correctly.
>>
>> --Craig
>>
>
>Then I suppose another clueless eccentric?
Neither clueless (they're a lot smarter than ... you, for example)
nor, in fact, relevant, since the word "literature" wasn't even
mentioned in the post I was replying to.
I was merely commenting that ("fantasy" _is_a_subset_of_ "fiction")
says nothing about the category (_is_a_subset_of_ "fiction" _and_
_not_ _is_a_subset_of_ "fantasy"). Deriving this result is, frankly,
basic logic, and anyone seriously arguing, even on Usenet, should be
able to grasp so simple a concept.
Dragging in arguments from authority which are not relevant to the
question is not only clearly obfuscation in the attempt to divert the
course of the argument, but in this case irrelevant, since the
authorities you cited weren't saying anything relevant.
In other words, your grasp of rhetoric is no better than your grasp of
logic. Which is not, in fact, surprising, since there is a definite
connection.
Stephen Harris
of classification. Using that subset scheme is an appeal to authority.
It is quite possible to define fiction so as to not include "lesser" genres.
Do you seriously imagine that I don't get your point?? I disagree with it
as do many others who hold qualified opinions.
> Dragging in arguments from authority which are not relevant to the
> question is not only clearly obfuscation in the attempt to divert the
> course of the argument, but in this case irrelevant, since the
> authorities you cited weren't saying anything relevant.
>
> In other words, your grasp of rhetoric is no better than your grasp of
> logic. Which is not, in fact, surprising, since there is a definite
> connection.
>
> --Craig
>
I think that you are confused. Does she mention both fiction and Literature?
Her use of "marginal forms" equates to genres or subsets.
Ursula K. Le Guin Portland, Oregon
" I wish I were comfortable with the definition of our subject as
"paraliterature". The division of fiction into a category "literature" and a
category "non-" or "sub-" or "para-" reinforces what I want us to question:
the notion of fiction as a central or dominant form (realism) surrounded by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
marginal forms (everything else). "Para-" is not in itself a judgmental
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stephen Harris
> Stephen Harris wrote:
> > "Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3DCC232F...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
> >
> [ ... trying to cut to the quick of the discussion ... ]
>
> > underexposed. As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman. Can someone
> > tell me why TAG is great?
>
> Not me. I would call it great fun, a truly entertaining read, but I
> wouldn't call it an equal of LOTR.
>
> Randy M.
>
AAY mentioned Dennis Wheatley who predates Powers and writes
Satanic stuff. It is also supernatural/occult/ horrific. I think that is the
type of writing Powers fits into. So I guess why I didn't like TAG
referred to as great fantasy was that is was only good and it does
not fit neatly into the fantasy genre, so it should not epitomize the genre.
Powers: I'm glad to hear that. It's very flattering. I've never seen a clear
border between Science Fiction and Fantasy. Or even Horror, if they mean
supernatural, as opposed to meaning just bloody hatchets and eyeballs on
corkscrews, things like that.
Here is a description of Wheatley:
Dennis Wheatley wrote some of the best & some of the lamest weird novels of
his era, a long writing career beginning in 1933 & lasting until his death
in 1977. He also wrote swashbuckling historicals, novels of international
intrigue, autobiographies, & nonfiction occult. But it is likely that the
supernatural horror is what will be longest collected.
Wheatley was a sadist & inserts sadism into the majority of his books,
especially in the Gregory Sallust adventures. These are mostly not fantasy
except at the margins (if that) yet the whole series could be regarded
supernatural by right of Gregory seeming really to be an avatar of Satan.
The exceptions that make broader use of the fantastic are a novel of
Oriental mysticism The Island Where Time Stands Still (1954); two novels of
black magic They Used Dark Forces (1964) & The White Witch of the South Seas
(1968); & a fantasy-warfare novel Black August (1934).
Well, my vacation is over.
Regards,
Stephen
John Pelan
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
>news:3DD16D7A...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
>> Stephen Harris wrote:
>> > "Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
>> > news:3DCC232F...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
>> >
>> [ ... trying to cut to the quick of the discussion ... ]
>>
>> > > I think people who consider TAG great fantasy are
>> > underexposed. As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman. Can someone
>> > tell me why TAG is great?
Certainly. Powers recreates a historical setting with meticulous
accuracy which will stand up to the most rigorous of fact-checking and
introduces elements of the fantastic. The craftsmanship is inarguable.
Were there really reports of "Dancing Ape Madness"? (yes, there were)
was there really an "Antaeus Brotherhood"? (go ahead, do the
research.) ;-)
What Powers has done is use the tropes of the "secret history" or
"occult novel" after the fashion of the aforementioned Dennis
Wheatley, J.M.A. Mills, & Dora Langlois to create that intriguing
sort of fantasy where the familiar ceases to be familiar and becomes
open to question.
Certainly some people prefer to have their fantasy reading consist of
worlds created from the ground up with only allegorical parallells to
our own world rendering them familiar, but to say that either are not
"fantasy" is absurd.
>>
>> Not me. I would call it great fun, a truly entertaining read, but I
>> wouldn't call it an equal of LOTR.
Actually, I like them equally, though for different reasons.
>>
>> Randy M.
>>
>
>AAY mentioned Dennis Wheatley who predates Powers and writes
>Satanic stuff. It is also supernatural/occult/ horrific. I think that is the
>type of writing Powers fits into. So I guess why I didn't like TAG
>referred to as great fantasy was that is was only good and it does
>not fit neatly into the fantasy genre, so it should not epitomize the genre.
This is actually a very scary statement and calls to mind the
(hopefully) apocryphal tale of a well-known work of fantasy being
rejected by an editor fussing "I can't sell this as fantasy, there
aren't any elves! Why aren't there any elves?"
>
>Powers: I'm glad to hear that. It's very flattering. I've never seen a clear
>border between Science Fiction and Fantasy. Or even Horror, if they mean
>supernatural, as opposed to meaning just bloody hatchets and eyeballs on
>corkscrews, things like that.
Word.
>
>Here is a description of Wheatley:
>
>Dennis Wheatley wrote some of the best & some of the lamest weird novels of
>his era, a long writing career beginning in 1933 & lasting until his death
>in 1977. He also wrote swashbuckling historicals, novels of international
>intrigue, autobiographies, & nonfiction occult. But it is likely that the
>supernatural horror is what will be longest collected.
>
>Wheatley was a sadist & inserts sadism into the majority of his books,
>especially in the Gregory Sallust adventures. These are mostly not fantasy
>except at the margins (if that) yet the whole series could be regarded
>supernatural by right of Gregory seeming really to be an avatar of Satan.
>The exceptions that make broader use of the fantastic are a novel of
>Oriental mysticism The Island Where Time Stands Still (1954); two novels of
>black magic They Used Dark Forces (1964) & The White Witch of the South Seas
>(1968); & a fantasy-warfare novel Black August (1934).
A pretty fair assessment of Wheatley. He was among the best of writers
and the worst of writers. In all fairness, his contributions to the
genre are pretty impressive, one of the best anthologies of the last
century, a half-dozen novels that still hold up rather well, getting
Charles Birkin to come out of retirement and write the best horror
short fiction of the 1960's and 1970's, and inspiring John Blackburn
to write his own blend of espionage/horror/SF/fantasy, (most of which
are superior to anything Wheatley himself wrote).
Cheers,
John
David Tate
> That is not the point. I and others have repudiated the subset scheme
> of classification.
Wow -- literary criticism would seem to be a much more powerful tool
than I had previously given it credit for.
(The quoted text above will immediately be posted on the Great Wall of
Quoted Usenet Commentary. Priceless.)
David Tate
David Tate
> I think that you are confused. Does she mention both fiction and Literature?
> Her use of "marginal forms" equates to genres or subsets.
>
> Ursula K. Le Guin Portland, Oregon
>
> " I wish I were comfortable with the definition of our subject as
> "paraliterature". The division of fiction into a category "literature" and a
> category "non-" or "sub-" or "para-" reinforces what I want us to question:
> the notion of fiction as a central or dominant form (realism) surrounded by
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> marginal forms (everything else). "Para-" is not in itself a judgmental
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> term, but it tacitly gives central reality to the unqualified word. To let
> realistic fiction alone retain the designation "literature", while every
> other form of contemporary fiction must be qualified as marginal, inferior,
> or other, is to hide an absolute judgment under a seemingly impartial
> terminology."
Um, Stephen, you *did* notice that Le Guin is DISAGREEING with you
here, right?
She is talking about a division of 'fiction' into mutually exlusive
subsets ('realism' vs. "everything else") -- i.e. exactly what you
have been denying. She then objects to this scheme, not because it
identifies subsets of the category 'fiction', but because it
historically has given unwarranted precedence to one subset over the
others. Her solution is to stop distinguishing among the types of
fiction -- a solution which specifically INCLUDES fantasy (and science
fiction, and westerns, and romance) in the category fiction.
You are free to contend that fantasy is not fiction, just as I am free
to contend that apples are not fruits. Neither of us would be
well-advised to claim to have established such a thing.
David Tate
Scott Beeler
> "Craig Richardson" <crichar...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > Neither clueless (they're a lot smarter than ... you, for example)
> > nor, in fact, relevant, since the word "literature" wasn't even
> > mentioned in the post I was replying to.
> >
> > I was merely commenting that ("fantasy" _is_a_subset_of_ "fiction")
> > says nothing about the category (_is_a_subset_of_ "fiction" _and_
> > _not_ _is_a_subset_of_ "fantasy"). Deriving this result is, frankly,
> > basic logic, and anyone seriously arguing, even on Usenet, should be
> > able to grasp so simple a concept.
> >
> That is not the point. I and others have repudiated the subset scheme
> of classification. Using that subset scheme is an appeal to authority.
> It is quite possible to define fiction so as to not include "lesser" genres.
Sure, but I don't think that that's the standard definition of
"fiction" now. With "literature" you might make that case -- some
bookstores use that label for their non-genre sections, others use
"general fiction" (maybe "mainstream fiction" as well), I'm not sure
if I've seen just "fiction" used for that. Whether it's a good idea
to use "literature" for that purpose is another debate.
I'd also point out that most of those quotes you included were
discussing not "fiction", but "literature" as a term for mainstream
works but excluding genre fiction ("paraliterature" as several called
them -- which I think is a very silly term which I'd never heard
before now, but I'll let that go).
> > Dragging in arguments from authority which are not relevant to the
> > question is not only clearly obfuscation in the attempt to divert the
> > course of the argument, but in this case irrelevant, since the
> > authorities you cited weren't saying anything relevant.
> >
> > In other words, your grasp of rhetoric is no better than your grasp of
> > logic. Which is not, in fact, surprising, since there is a definite
> > connection.
>
> I think that you are confused. Does she mention both fiction and Literature?
> Her use of "marginal forms" equates to genres or subsets.
>
> Ursula K. Le Guin Portland, Oregon
>
> " I wish I were comfortable with the definition of our subject as
> "paraliterature". The division of fiction into a category "literature" and a
> category "non-" or "sub-" or "para-" reinforces what I want us to question:
> the notion of fiction as a central or dominant form (realism) surrounded by
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> marginal forms (everything else). "Para-" is not in itself a judgmental
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> term, but it tacitly gives central reality to the unqualified word. To let
> realistic fiction alone retain the designation "literature", while every
> other form of contemporary fiction must be qualified as marginal, inferior,
> or other, is to hide an absolute judgment under a seemingly impartial
> terminology."
I'm reading that as "fiction as {a central or dominant form (realism)
surrounded by marginal forms (everything else)}," with Le Guin
referring to "fiction" as the whole. I might think that she's
referring to "fiction" as the "central or dominant form" except that
she then specifies that form as "realism".
In addition, right above that she mentions dividing "fiction" into
"literature" and "paraliterature". And below that she mentions
"literature" as only one particular form of "contemporary fiction"
along with *other* forms which are marginalized (clearly the genres or
"paraliterature"). So I'd think it's pretty clear that Le Guin is
using "fiction" as the overarcing category including all realistic
fiction plus SF, horror, mysteries, romances, etc etc.
--
Scott C. Beeler scott...@home.com
Stephen Harris
"John Pelan" <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message
news:3dd24b36...@usenet.cnw.com...
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 07:05:21 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
> >news:3DD16D7A...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
> >> Stephen Harris wrote:
> >> > "Randy Money" <rbm...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu> wrote in message
> >> > news:3DCC232F...@spamblocklibrary.syr.edu...
> >> >
> >> [ ... trying to cut to the quick of the discussion ... ]
> >>
> >> > > I think people who consider TAG great fantasy are
> >> > underexposed. As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman. Can someone
> >> > tell me why TAG is great?
>
> Certainly. Powers recreates a historical setting with meticulous
> accuracy which will stand up to the most rigorous of fact-checking and
> introduces elements of the fantastic. The craftsmanship is inarguable.
> Were there really reports of "Dancing Ape Madness"? (yes, there were)
> was there really an "Antaeus Brotherhood"? (go ahead, do the
> research.) ;-)
>
My idea of greatness stems from originality and inventiveness. Not from
blending stale story concepts (Devil) from a few genres in order to be a
little new.
His ideas are not very _original_ though he has fairly skillfully recombined
ideas.
Your idea of substantiating 'great' reminds me of research paper
qaulifications.
Most people of heard of Antaeus but a really real "Antaeus Brotherhood"?
JB: Is your theory of magic - as it exists in your work - derived from some
source material that you have read or some mythology or is it purely your
own invention?
http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jberlyne/powers/interview5.htm
TP: Almost I'd say it's my own invention. Jeter told me "Oh! Like Antaeus?"
and I said "Who is Antaeus?" and he explained it and I said "Oh! Very good.
Thank you. How do you spell that? I'll use that," but I had not been
thinking of Antaeus when I thought it up.
SH: I take that back, most people haven't heard of Antaeus, or have they?
"Antaeus was the son of Gaia and Poseidon. He was a frightful giant who
compelled all strangers to wrestle with him and defeated or killed them all.
He was invincible for as long as he remained in contact with his mother (the
Earth) for she supplied him with strength. Heracles discovered his secret
and lifted Antaeus from the ground and strangled him. The battle with
Heracles is depicted on many Greek vases and even on coins."
> What Powers has done is use the tropes of the "secret history" or
> "occult novel" after the fashion of the aforementioned Dennis
> Wheatley, J.M.A. Mills, & Dora Langlois to create that intriguing
> sort of fantasy where the familiar ceases to be familiar and becomes
> open to question.
>
> Certainly some people prefer to have their fantasy reading consist of
> worlds created from the ground up with only allegorical parallells to
> our own world rendering them familiar, but to say that either are not
> "fantasy" is absurd.
>
> >>
> >> Not me. I would call it great fun, a truly entertaining read, but I
> >> wouldn't call it an equal of LOTR.
>
> Actually, I like them equally, though for different reasons.
> >>
> >> Randy M.
> >>
> >
> >AAY mentioned Dennis Wheatley who predates Powers and writes
> >Satanic stuff. It is also supernatural/occult/ horrific. I think that is
the
> >type of writing Powers fits into. So I guess why I didn't like TAG
> >referred to as great fantasy was that is was only good and it does
> >not fit neatly into the fantasy genre, so it should not epitomize the
genre.
>
> This is actually a very scary statement and calls to mind the
> (hopefully) apocryphal tale of a well-known work of fantasy being
> rejected by an editor fussing "I can't sell this as fantasy, there
> aren't any elves! Why aren't there any elves?"
> >
The analogy would be more telling if it represented a sub-sub-sub-genre
(TAG)
which has some elements of fantasy. Supernatural stories have their own
genre.
> John
John Pelan
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>u...
>> >> >
>> >> [ ... trying to cut to the quick of the discussion ... ]
>> >>
>> >> > > I think people who consider TAG great fantasy are
>> >> > underexposed. As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman. Can someone
>> >> > tell me why TAG is great?
>>
>> Certainly. Powers recreates a historical setting with meticulous
>> accuracy which will stand up to the most rigorous of fact-checking and
>> introduces elements of the fantastic. The craftsmanship is inarguable.
>> Were there really reports of "Dancing Ape Madness"? (yes, there were)
>> was there really an "Antaeus Brotherhood"? (go ahead, do the
>> research.) ;-)
>>
>
>My idea of greatness stems from originality and inventiveness. Not from
>blending stale story concepts (Devil) from a few genres in order to be a
>little new.
>His ideas are not very _original_ though he has fairly skillfully recombined
>ideas.
>Your idea of substantiating 'great' reminds me of research paper
>qaulifications.
Indeed?
>
>Most people of heard of Antaeus but a really real "Antaeus Brotherhood"?
>
>JB: Is your theory of magic - as it exists in your work - derived from some
>source material that you have read or some mythology or is it purely your
>own invention?
>http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~jberlyne/powers/interview5.htm
>TP: Almost I'd say it's my own invention. Jeter told me "Oh! Like Antaeus?"
>and I said "Who is Antaeus?" and he explained it and I said "Oh! Very good.
>Thank you. How do you spell that? I'll use that," but I had not been
>thinking of Antaeus when I thought it up.
>
>SH: I take that back, most people haven't heard of Antaeus, or have they?
>"Antaeus was the son of Gaia and Poseidon. He was a frightful giant who
>compelled all strangers to wrestle with him and defeated or killed them all.
>He was invincible for as long as he remained in contact with his mother (the
>Earth) for she supplied him with strength. Heracles discovered his secret
>and lifted Antaeus from the ground and strangled him. The battle with
>Heracles is depicted on many Greek vases and even on coins."
Very good. What I find delightful in Powers is knowing that some
things I may take to be invented are derived from a factual source and
other things which may seem likely to be based on fact are pure
invention. I find the same sort thing fascinating in the works of
James Branch Cabell.
By this I take it that you're advocating micro-genres? Be definition a
fictional work with supernatural content is "fantasy" is it not?
If not please read any of the following and tell me what exactly they
are if not ultimately "fantasy:
Bury Him Darkly - John Blackburn
On Stranger Tides - Tim Powers
Lords of the Earth - J.M. A. Mills
The Flying Beast - Walter S. Masterman
Vampires Overhead - Alan Hyder
Cheers,
John
Stephen Harris
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:30:58 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >u...
> >> >> >
> >> >> [ ... trying to cut to the quick of the discussion ... ]
> >> >>
> >> >> > > I think people who consider TAG great fantasy are
> >> >> > underexposed. As a writer, Powers is not a craftsman. Can someone
> >> >> > tell me why TAG is great?
> >>
> >
insisting upon looks something like this:
--------------------------------Fiction-------------------------------
| | | |
| |
Satanic Horror Occult Supernatural Fantasy
etc...
So you said "ultimately fantasy". Which would mean a representation like:
Fiction---->Fantasy---->Supernatural--->Satanic--->Occult--->Horror
for The Anubis Gates and something similar for Last Call without Satanic
Not that I care particulary for this genre system but I dont think it works
the way you suggest. For TAG I would rate it as
Occult--->Supernatural--->Fantasy/Satanic
The reason is that fiction that doesn't fit into the fantasy description
has its madeup events happen in our ordinary reality. Occult fiction
which dates back to at least 1910 starts off with the same ordinary
reality and then shifts to the occult/supernatural reality potential.
I am not so sure there was a fantasy category then. This evaluation
also has to do with the proportions of each genre accentuated.
Currently a fictional work with supernatural content is put in
the supernatural genre I think and though it contains fantasy
or occult those are not neccesarily sub-genres of a particular
work. I think to answer your question yes requires saying
Horror and Satanic fall _under_ the Fantasy genre as well
as the Supernatual genre you stipulated. But then Westerns
and Mysteries with no fantasy would have equal stature to
Fantasy. So the genre setup is less than ideal IMO.
I think of it as Ordinary Reality = OR; New World-Building Universe=NW_BU
Fiction with OR----Fantasy with some OR----->Fantasy with NW-BU
(A continuum going from Ordinary Reality to the most fantastic reality)
Which means the farther away a conception is from our ordinary mundane
reality the more it moves toward fantasy. There is more fantasy involved
the more you need to dream up a consistent, coherent paradigm universe.
I admit their is cleverness involved in making a Secret History work within
an existing framework. But more effort and inventiveness to create an
entirely new framework which doesn't have believability
flaws/contradictions.
It takes people years to do this. That is the definition of fantasy to me:
not
partaking of our ordinary grasp of reality. Fiction makes believe but still
within the constraints of ordinary reality. Fantasy requires a non-ordinary
reality and the further removed from ordinary reality then the more
fantastic.
The more fantastic the more work it takes to make the story believable to
the reader.
So maybe 35% of the people in the world believe in the Devil, thus not very
fantastic.
Will take me awhile to read through your list,
Stephen
John Pelan
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>I'll look into this. The classification scheme that people have been
>insisting upon looks something like this:
>
>--------------------------------Fiction-------------------------------
>| | | |
>| |
> Satanic Horror Occult Supernatural Fantasy
>etc...
Piffle. Such classifications are fairly useless as I hope a perusal of
the books I suggested will prove. I'd say these are all subsets of
fantasy, though something horrific may not necessarily have fantastic
elements. I'll cite Charles Birkin and Maurice Level as examples here,
very few of their stories contain supernatural elements, yet they are
most definitely horror, and as a publisher of (primarily) supernatural
fiction, I've yet to have one customer carp about the lack of
fantastic elements in Birkin's stories.
>
>So you said "ultimately fantasy". Which would mean a representation like:
>Fiction---->Fantasy---->Supernatural--->Satanic--->Occult--->Horror
>for The Anubis Gates and something similar for Last Call without Satanic
>
>Not that I care particulary for this genre system but I dont think it works
>the way you suggest. For TAG I would rate it as
>Occult--->Supernatural--->Fantasy/Satanic
Personally, I think most attempts at labels are generally pretty
silly. I think the good folks at Philip Allan had the right idea in
the 1930's when they labelled everything "Thriller".
>
>The reason is that fiction that doesn't fit into the fantasy description
>has its madeup events happen in our ordinary reality. Occult fiction
>which dates back to at least 1910 starts off with the same ordinary
>reality and then shifts to the occult/supernatural reality potential.
>I am not so sure there was a fantasy category then. This evaluation
>also has to do with the proportions of each genre accentuated.
Occult fiction dates at least a hundred years earlier. If there wasn't
a "fantasy" categorey, what was it that William Morris was doing? How
about George Meredith? William Beckford?
>
>Currently a fictional work with supernatural content is put in
>the supernatural genre I think and though it contains fantasy
>or occult those are not neccesarily sub-genres of a particular
>work. I think to answer your question yes requires saying
>Horror and Satanic fall _under_ the Fantasy genre as well
>as the Supernatual genre you stipulated. But then Westerns
>and Mysteries with no fantasy would have equal stature to
>Fantasy. So the genre setup is less than ideal IMO.
Why would the "stature" of Westerns or Mysteries be a concern?
>
>I think of it as Ordinary Reality = OR; New World-Building Universe=NW_BU
>Fiction with OR----Fantasy with some OR----->Fantasy with NW-BU
>(A continuum going from Ordinary Reality to the most fantastic reality)
>Which means the farther away a conception is from our ordinary mundane
>reality the more it moves toward fantasy. There is more fantasy involved
>the more you need to dream up a consistent, coherent paradigm universe.
>I admit their is cleverness involved in making a Secret History work within
>an existing framework. But more effort and inventiveness to create an
>entirely new framework which doesn't have believability
>flaws/contradictions.
I quite disagree. It's far easier to get the reader to buy in on a
completely invented milieu than it is on a somewhat familiar one.
>It takes people years to do this. That is the definition of fantasy to me:
>not partaking of our ordinary grasp of reality. Fiction makes believe but still
>within the constraints of ordinary reality. Fantasy requires a non-ordinary
>reality and the further removed from ordinary reality then the more
>fantastic.
>The more fantastic the more work it takes to make the story believable to
>the reader.
>So maybe 35% of the people in the world believe in the Devil, thus not very
>fantastic.
>
>Will take me awhile to read through your list,
Hope you enjoy them...
Cheers,
John
Stephen Harris
> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 11:33:57 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'll look into this. The classification scheme that people have been
> >insisting upon looks something like this:
> >
> >--------------------------------Fiction-------------------------------
> >| | | |
> >| |
> > Satanic Horror Occult Supernatural
Fantasy
> >etc...
>
> Piffle. Such classifications are fairly useless as I hope a perusal of
> the books I suggested will prove. I'd say these are all subsets of
> fantasy, though something horrific may not necessarily have fantastic
> elements. I'll cite Charles Birkin and Maurice Level as examples here,
> very few of their stories contain supernatural elements, yet they are
> most definitely horror, and as a publisher of (primarily) supernatural
> fiction, I've yet to have one customer carp about the lack of
> fantastic elements in Birkin's stories.
>
I presented that as the standard evaluation scheme that is in place.
You are saying Fiction has a subset Fantasy which has subsets
of supernatural, occult, most horror, Satanic.
So what are you doing with Westerns and Mysteries? Are they
a subset of Fantasy also? If not, then they are at the same level
on the organizational chart. (which I meant by "stature" below)
---------------------------Fiction---------------------------
| Westerns | Mysteries |Fantasy
|supernatural |occult
So does Fantasy subsume Westerns and Mysteries.
Or are they sets at the same level which then have subsets?
> >
> >So you said "ultimately fantasy". Which would mean a representation like:
> >Fiction---->Fantasy---->Supernatural--->Satanic--->Occult--->Horror
> >for The Anubis Gates and something similar for Last Call without Satanic
> >
> >Not that I care particulary for this genre system but I dont think it
works
> >the way you suggest. For TAG I would rate it as
> >Occult--->Supernatural--->Fantasy/Satanic
>
> Personally, I think most attempts at labels are generally pretty
> silly. I think the good folks at Philip Allan had the right idea in
> the 1930's when they labelled everything "Thriller".
>
I suppose you mean if it were not conventional fiction.
> >
> >The reason is that fiction that doesn't fit into the fantasy description
> >has its madeup events happen in our ordinary reality. Occult fiction
> >which dates back to at least 1910 starts off with the same ordinary
> >reality and then shifts to the occult/supernatural reality potential.
> >I am not so sure there was a fantasy category then. This evaluation
> >also has to do with the proportions of each genre accentuated.
>
> Occult fiction dates at least a hundred years earlier. If there wasn't
> a "fantasy" categorey, what was it that William Morris was doing? How
> about George Meredith? William Beckford?
>
That argument is specious. I haven't read them. But there are a lot
of books that would be labelled SF or Fantasy if they were published
today when the label "fantasy" exists; but when they were written
they were simply called fiction because some labels did not exist yet.
You are getting into another issue if you are suggesting that certain
old fiction books should be re-labelled because we have new labels today.
I agree with you if you are trying to establish that the genre system is a
bit broken because of anachronisms.
But you haven't given a definition of fantasy. No definition of fantasy
enabling one to distinguish between occult and supernatural and limit
their meaning so that they fit into more finely defined subsets.
As it stands now I think these are all on the same level of subset:
Western, Mystery, Fanstasy, SF, Occult, Satanic
and the parent set if Fiction.
I mean this is the present convention. To change this to Fantasy
owning most of these subsets you need also to change the
relationship of Fiction to Fantasy, IMO. Like have Fantasy
replace Fiction and then have a continuum that runs from
make believe in ordinary reality to make believe in weird reality
and remove the idea of subsets by replacing it with areas in a spectrum
which are all in the same set. Essentially having Fact vs. Make Believe
and you could call Make Believe fantasy. This will eliminate subsets
which are exclusions and introduce spectrums/colors which are
inherently mixed shades. Colors reflect the proportional amount
of wavelength and the hues derived would conceptually represent
the intensity of elements from "genres" present in a particular work.
Our macrocosm, common reality is perceived as continuous not discrete.
(Quantum theory is discrete in the microcosm, is not universal, and serves
the continuous macroscosmic perception of reality esp. time. If you want
to disagree argue with David Bohm and what served as a standard
university textbook: Quantum Theory. There are people who would like
to make QT universal, that is not in dispute.)
> >
> >Currently a fictional work with supernatural content is put in
> >the supernatural genre I think and though it contains fantasy
> >or occult those are not neccesarily sub-genres of a particular
> >work. I think to answer your question yes requires saying
> >Horror and Satanic fall _under_ the Fantasy genre as well
> >as the Supernatual genre you stipulated. But then Westerns
> >and Mysteries with no fantasy would have equal stature to
> >Fantasy. So the genre setup is less than ideal IMO.
>
> Why would the "stature" of Westerns or Mysteries be a concern?
> >
To make a consistent scheme for organizing written works.
> >I think of it as Ordinary Reality = OR; New World-Building Universe=NW_BU
> >Fiction with OR----Fantasy with some OR----->Fantasy with NW-BU
> >(A continuum going from Ordinary Reality to the most fantastic reality)
> >Which means the farther away a conception is from our ordinary mundane
> >reality the more it moves toward fantasy. There is more fantasy involved
> >the more you need to dream up a consistent, coherent paradigm universe.
> >I admit their is cleverness involved in making a Secret History work
within
> >an existing framework. But more effort and inventiveness to create an
> >entirely new framework which doesn't have believability
> >flaws/contradictions.
>
> I quite disagree. It's far easier to get the reader to buy in on a
> completely invented milieu than it is on a somewhat familiar one.
>
??. Readers buy a completely invented milieu because they like it better.
It is more imaginative and gives them more bang for the buck. That is
why they are willing to suspend disbelief, for the offer of greater
entertainment value, the greater divergence from ordinary reality.
Of course readers are going to be more skeptical about fantasy
that they expect to have strong connections to ordinary reality.
That is what they are looking for. Neither did you "disagree". You
responded on a tangent to my point. I made the point that there
is less to do in Secret History to make it consistent. That is why
the reader is going to be skeptical, or even can be skeptical,
because he already knows the ordinary reality of the Secret History.
In a completely invented milieu the reader doesn't have a standard
to compare it to(ordinary reality). He or she will judge it for its
internal consistency as the story unfolds as well as how interestingly
creative it is. The reader has no inherent structure to judge the
new universe, the story has to unravel first. In Secret History the
skepticism can exist because the reader already owns a model
of the underlying ordinary reality. Your disagreement is of the
an apple isn't an orange type, rather than an organge isn't a grapefruit.
>
> >It takes people years to do this. That is the definition of fantasy to
me:
> >not partaking of our ordinary grasp of reality. Fiction makes believe but
still
> >within the constraints of ordinary reality. Fantasy requires a
non-ordinary
> >reality and the further removed from ordinary reality then the more
> >fantastic.
> >The more fantastic the more work it takes to make the story believable to
> >the reader.
> >So maybe 35% of the people in the world believe in the Devil, thus not
very
> >fantastic.
> >
> >Will take me awhile to read through your list,
>
>
> Hope you enjoy them...
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
How about Anne Rice and Stephen King?
How do you think most readers would fill in the blank?
Anne Rice and Stephen King write _______________
"supernatural horror books." or "fantasy books."
Regards,
Stephen
Scott Beeler
> "John Pelan" <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message
> news:3dd3aae9...@usenet.cnw.com...
> >
> > the books I suggested will prove. I'd say these are all subsets of
> > fantasy, though something horrific may not necessarily have fantastic
> > elements. I'll cite Charles Birkin and Maurice Level as examples here,
> > very few of their stories contain supernatural elements, yet they are
> > most definitely horror, and as a publisher of (primarily) supernatural
> > fiction, I've yet to have one customer carp about the lack of
> > fantastic elements in Birkin's stories.
>
> I presented that as the standard evaluation scheme that is in place.
> You are saying Fiction has a subset Fantasy which has subsets
> of supernatural, occult, most horror, Satanic.
>
> So what are you doing with Westerns and Mysteries? Are they
> a subset of Fantasy also? If not, then they are at the same level
> on the organizational chart. (which I meant by "stature" below)
>
> ---------------------------Fiction---------------------------
> | Westerns | Mysteries |Fantasy
> |supernatural |occult
>
> So does Fantasy subsume Westerns and Mysteries.
> Or are they sets at the same level which then have subsets?
Why not? Does what "level" of sub-category something is make a
difference? The important thing to me is the usefulness of a set of
categories for descriptive purposes, and I think that things which
could be labelled Supernatural, Occult, Epic Fantasy, Urban Fantasy,
Sword and Sorcery, all sorts of subgenres are all closely related
enough and contain enough similar elements that they should be
considered part of Fantasy.
Those other genres *do* have subsets, also. Mysteries you can
subdivide into detective stories, crime stories, police procedurals,
etc for example.
> But you haven't given a definition of fantasy. No definition of fantasy
> enabling one to distinguish between occult and supernatural and limit
> their meaning so that they fit into more finely defined subsets.
I tend to think of Fantasy as stories containing elements of the
fantastic, the non-real, the magical. There are naturally going to be
gray areas, as there are in any sort of definition of it, but I tend
to be fairly literally content-oriented like that. Within Fantasy, if
one cares to define subgenres that can be done by the type of
fantastic elements used, or the setting, or style of writing, or the
amount of scary horror elements, or whatnot.
> As it stands now I think these are all on the same level of subset:
> Western, Mystery, Fanstasy, SF, Occult, Satanic
> and the parent set if Fiction.
> I mean this is the present convention.
Present convention of what? Bookstore categorizations don't generally
have Satanic Fiction or Occult Fiction sections, while they do have
Western and Mystery sections. Usually indeed Science Fiction and
Fantasy are put together. Sometimes there's a Horror section which
might have some of those Occult and Satanic books but it's likely also
got non-supernatural serial-killer-style horror books too.
For discussion purposes I believe the denizens of this group for
Science Fiction/Fantasy discuss Occult and Supernatural type fiction
along with other types of Fantasy readily enough.
> To change this to Fantasy
> owning most of these subsets you need also to change the
> relationship of Fiction to Fantasy, IMO. Like have Fantasy
> replace Fiction and then have a continuum that runs from
> make believe in ordinary reality to make believe in weird reality
> and remove the idea of subsets by replacing it with areas in a spectrum
> which are all in the same set. Essentially having Fact vs. Make Believe
> and you could call Make Believe fantasy.
I don't see why these types of measures would be necessary, but maybe
that's just me. Fantasy as a genre, including various subgenres,
works fine for me.
> > I quite disagree. It's far easier to get the reader to buy in on a
> > completely invented milieu than it is on a somewhat familiar one.
> >
> ??. Readers buy a completely invented milieu because they like it better.
> It is more imaginative and gives them more bang for the buck. That is
> why they are willing to suspend disbelief, for the offer of greater
> entertainment value, the greater divergence from ordinary reality.
> Of course readers are going to be more skeptical about fantasy
> that they expect to have strong connections to ordinary reality.
> That is what they are looking for. Neither did you "disagree". You
> responded on a tangent to my point. I made the point that there
> is less to do in Secret History to make it consistent.
I think there's craftsmanship involved either way -- in making a
believable imaginary world, or making fantastic events fit smoothly
into our world. In either case it can be done well, or badly, and
readers can appreciate it when it's done well. Different will have
different tastes and may favor one over the other, but they both take
a lot of skill to carry off convincingly.
I don't think that created-world Fantasy necessarily offers "greater
entertainment value" or that readers "like it better". Some readers
do, some don't. Some of these books sell very well and are very
popular, but a whole lot of non-Fantasy and other-types-of-Fantasy
books sell very well and are very popular.
David Tate
> John Pelan wrote:
> > I quite disagree. It's far easier to get the reader to buy in on a
> > completely invented milieu than it is on a somewhat familiar one.
> >
> ??. Readers buy a completely invented milieu because they like it better.
Says who? YOU may like it better, but you are not "readers", unless
you have clinical issues I'm not aware of.
> It is more imaginative and gives them more bang for the buck.
You keep saying this, but not everyone agrees with you. In
particular, I don't agree with you.
Let me give you an analogy from a different area of literature. I
claim that the relationship between _de novo_ worldbuilding and
reinterpretation of a familiar world is like the relationship between
free verse and structured poetry. Free verse offers more scope for a
certain kind of inventiveness on the part of the poet -- but by the
same token, it is 'easier'. Any boob can write free verse, and any
halfway skilled poet can write good free verse.
By contrast, traditional metrical forms impose a severe limitation on
the poet's scope for (that particular kind of invention), but by doing
so they require even more creativity of a different kind. It is far
harder to write a sonnet than it is to write a piece of free verse of
comparable length and quality. Similarly, a villanelle is far harder
than a sonnet. It takes a good poet to write a good sonnet, and a
great poet to write a good villanelle.
I would say that choosing to set your fantasy in "real history"
imposes similar constraints of form. You cannot simply revise the
world to meet your needs of plot and theme; you have to make that plot
and those themes work within the strictures of what is known to have
happened. That requires *more* creativity, not less. The ultimate
achievement in this genre might be to write a work that succeeds in
convincingly reinterpreting known history AS fantastic events, without
having to add any 'facts' at all to the available public facts.
> [...] I made the point that there
> is less to do in Secret History to make it consistent.
But this is false. There is MORE to do to make it consistent, because
it has to be not only internally consistent, but also consistent with
known history. A completely invented milieu need only be internally
consistent -- as you yourself pointed out.
Cheers,
David Tate
Stephen Harris
"David Tate" <dt...@ida.org> wrote in message
news:9d67e55e.02111...@posting.google.com...
> "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<n5VA9.13584$hK4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > John Pelan wrote:
> > > I quite disagree. It's far easier to get the reader to buy in on a
> > > completely invented milieu than it is on a somewhat familiar one.
> > >
> > ??. Readers buy a completely invented milieu because they like it
better.
>
> Says who? YOU may like it better, but you are not "readers", unless
> you have clinical issues I'm not aware of.
>
> > It is more imaginative and gives them more bang for the buck.
>
> You keep saying this, but not everyone agrees with you. In
> particular, I don't agree with you.
>
If you don't agree with me does it mean you prefer the hidden history genre?
Are you a reader? It appears to me that there are other readers who share
your preference. So what is wrong with the sentence:
Readers buy a secret/hidden history milieu because they like it better.
I didn't deny that such a faction existed. You responded like I wrote
all readers which would suppose I meant no readers bought the secret
history genre. I wrote: "Readers buy a completely invented milieu because
they like it better." which makes equal sense to me as Readers buy a
secret/hidden history milieu because they like it better.
My reasoning seems obvious to me. Why do you think people buy
books of a certain genre if they dont _prefer_ that genre?
I think plenty of readers prefer a completely invented milieu or
there would not be so much available to chose from and they buy it.
> Let me give you an analogy from a different area of literature. I
> claim that the relationship between _de novo_ worldbuilding and
> reinterpretation of a familiar world is like the relationship between
> free verse and structured poetry. Free verse offers more scope for a
> certain kind of inventiveness on the part of the poet -- but by the
> same token, it is 'easier'. Any boob can write free verse, and any
> halfway skilled poet can write good free verse.
>
A rotten analogy. Consistency in an invented milieu is a requirement.
That means it is stuctured. Let me give you an example. They have
computer programs which can produce/compose music which sounds
like a number of different famous composers. So given a particular
composing structure(composer's style) a seed can be introduced which
the program can expand to appear to be creating something original.
That is not the same process as inventing the original structural style.
This is why an AI program can imitate a human for a short period of
time but not long enough to pass the Turing Test.
Now in the secret history genre which partakes significantly of
ordinary reality, both the reader and the writer share the same
underlying reality. It comes fully structured and is consistent.
They share the same map. The writer is creating a buried treasure
on the map. How hard is this to do? There is a bunch of historical
fiction. There are a bunch of spy stories. The spy stories fish something
out of TOP SECRET for all we know...this part of reality is unknown
to us. Then it unfolds in ordinary reality but behind the scenes and
has its consequences and then we return to our ordinary perception of
reality.
Because the author and the writer share a map of this type of reality the
reader has a tool to question the consistency of the author very quickly,
the reader can be skeptical almost immediately. This is a challenge to the
writer. Now the writer of the completely invented milieu gets a lot more
openmindedness from the reader. The writer is creating a new reality
which has its own map. The reader has no map to compare with the
writer's version as is the case in the hidden history/mostly ordinary
milieu.
So the reader has to go much futher before finding false directions on or in
a
completely invented milieu. This is the basis of my remark in context:
SH:
>But more effort and inventiveness to create an
>entirely new framework which doesn't have believability
>flaws/contradictions.
JP:
I quite disagree. It's far easier to get the reader to buy in on a
completely invented milieu than it is on a somewhat familiar one.
What he says is true, but the reason is not because easier creativity.
What he says is true because the fundamental structure of the two
types of reality under discussion don't allow for equally quick
assessments. The hidden secret genre has a tool which allows early
sketicism because of a shared map which allows comparison and
then the ability to discover unbelievable deviation from the map.
That is why it is more difficult or can be, for the reader to buy in
on the more familair reality---he has a means to legitimately object, now.
This is not the case for the completely invented milieu (is is proportional)
because the reader and writer don't share the same map. The writer
is supposed to have a structured map which he shares with the reader
during the story. So there is nothing for an immediate basis of comparison.
The suspension of belief has to last longer in the completely invented
milieu before the reader can gather enough evidence to evaluate the
consistency.
That is why one can get the reader to buy into the completely invented
milieu
easier. It has to be that way because the realities are fundamentally
different.
The reader doesn't have a method to immediately reject some part of the
framework as inconsistent; because he has no prior knowledge of the new map.
Here is case of a malfunction of the completely invented milieu. The
Godstalker
trilogy. The first book was excellent, the second quite good. The third was
a
disaster. This is where the foreshadowing materializes as mystical action.
This
book kept making me say to myself, How did this happen? Hodgell didn't
have a clear idea of the magical mechanisms she was employing to carry along
the action so she couldn't write/describe it. There was vague reference to
what I thought of as the Norse snake that circled the earth. I wound up
thinking the ending was confused slop. So it took a lot longer in this story
which was a completely invented milieu to arrive at a point where the reader
could shake his head in disbelief of the reality the author was trying to
portray.
I get the impression from your analogy that you think free-form and
completely invented milieu are the same thing, which is pretty much
without structure. That is not the case and again the LOTR which was a
completely invented milieu has a great deal of stucture--the details of its
inner consistency meshed with two great books and one nearly great.
You don't think this is much greater challenge.
They have built a lot of Expert systems, computer programs which can
do one aspect of the human experience quite well. But they have not
been able to build the whole structure. They make the expert system fit
with the already existing structure of the human mind. But they have not
been able to integrate a bunch of experts systems so they they emulate
the function or structure of a human mind. Building a system which is
structured to integrate and prioritize sub-systems is much harder
to do than building one sub-system or stucture which is aimed at
accomplishing a specific purpose. And I liken specific purpose onto
inserting a specific episode as a hidden history which is part of an
already complete logical structure(ordinary reality). Scaling up in this
situation is becomes exponentially difficult. It is not quite the same thing
but there are a lot of factors which go into making a newly invented
reality believable that one would take for granted in ordinary structure.
I tried to get Irini Rempt to contribute on this topic because she may
have experience in creating both types of stories: completely invented
reality and a secret/hidden history contained within an ordinary reality.
> By contrast, traditional metrical forms impose a severe limitation on
> the poet's scope for (that particular kind of invention), but by doing
> so they require even more creativity of a different kind. It is far
> harder to write a sonnet than it is to write a piece of free verse of
> comparable length and quality. Similarly, a villanelle is far harder
> than a sonnet. It takes a good poet to write a good sonnet, and a
> great poet to write a good villanelle.
>
I mostly agree with this concept. It seems though, that you think a
completely
invented milieu doesn't need to be constrained by structure. It also
has to eventually pass believability tests of the reader. The secret
history may not employ all of ordinary reality so the writer is only
making it fit in with a part of that structure which is less confining.
> I would say that choosing to set your fantasy in "real history"
> imposes similar constraints of form. You cannot simply revise the
> world to meet your needs of plot and theme; you have to make that plot
> and those themes work within the strictures of what is known to have
> happened. That requires *more* creativity, not less. The ultimate
> achievement in this genre might be to write a work that succeeds in
> convincingly reinterpreting known history AS fantastic events, without
> having to add any 'facts' at all to the available public facts.
>
> > [...] I made the point that there
> > is less to do in Secret History to make it consistent.
>
> But this is false. There is MORE to do to make it consistent, because
> it has to be not only internally consistent, but also consistent with
> known history. A completely invented milieu need only be internally
> consistent -- as you yourself pointed out.
>
> Cheers,
> David Tate
In the short term, the secret history reader experiences a more skeptical
viewpoint, but that skepticism is focused on a much smaller portion of
reality than when the complete invention milieu reader gets to the
skeptical phase; the area under scrutiny is then magnitudes greater
and so the possibility of discovering an anomaly increases dramatically.
It is far easier to learn a living language than to create a living
language.
That is because the language already relies and uses pre-exisiting supports.
I would like for a writer who has tried both ways to make a statement.
And I dont think this is one of those things that depend upon the writer.
Regards,
Stephen
Stephen Harris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allan Griffith" <agri4042@REMOVE_THIS.bigpond.net.au>
To: "Stephen Harris" <stephen....@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: Steam Punk and The Anubis Gates
> In article <n5VA9.13584$hK4.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> you(Stephen Harris) say...
> > > Occult fiction dates at least a hundred years earlier. If there wasn't
> > > a "fantasy" categorey, what was it that William Morris was doing? How
> > > about George Meredith? William Beckford?
> > >
> >
> > That argument is specious. I haven't read them.
>
> Now that's funny.
>
> Al
>
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/farp/history/history.html
"What we today mean with the fantasy genre is something which came into
being in the 1960's as an off-shoot of the recent wave of science fiction
which was undergoing considerable changes at this time."
SH: So I accepted that those authors along with Lord Dunsany who I
had read had written fantasy type books if published today.
I did not need to know the content just the approximate date of publication
which was mostly in the late 1800's in order to know they were written
before there was a fantasy genre so they were not included in the fantasy
genre
when they were written. I pointed out that a lot of books would be
reclassified
if they were published now. But that doesn't automatically change what these
books were classified as. I was talking about classifying according to
fantasy
as a genre. His argument points to when fantasy as we know it now first
existed in literature which perhaps could be traced to stone-age pictures.
Since they didn't have a fantasy category they called weird tales
gothic fiction, horror fiction, or supernatural. Because these older works
would fit the fantasy genre of today if published today, does not mean
they were called fantasy, implying a fantasy genre, when published in the
past.
That was why I thought his argument was off target and moved into
the rebuttal while skipping some foundational material. How we think of
fantasy today is far more inclusive than another logical token hanging
beneath
Fiction with Westerns and so on. If you consider the psyche of humanity
then fantasy/religion/myth is also a visual root which bypasses the
intelligently
abstracted conception of Fiction which was probably first labelled as a lie.
Stephen
John Pelan
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>That is because the language already relies and uses pre-exisiting supports.
>I would like for a writer who has tried both ways to make a statement.
I did. ;-)
Cheers,
John
Stephen Harris
I am looking for a response from a writer who has successfully published
something from the secret history genre such as _The Anubis Gates_ but
does not need to be that good, and something from the completely
invented milieu such as LOTR or Eddings or Godstalk/Hodgell genre.
Though I mean favorably received, not necessarily 4 stars.
Then the writer will be in position to comment about the effort and
imagination involved from their own experience. I noticed that you
have participated in writing _Family Tradition_ which you describe
as essentially Mythos style. So I can't see that counting as an actually
successful example of the completely invented milieu genre and I
didn't find any such reference connecting that genre and your writing.
Though I only wrote "tried" at the end of the post, the middle of
the post included the tried successfully =experience=published idea:
"I tried to get Irini Rempt to contribute on this topic because she may
have experience in creating both types of stories: completely invented
reality and a secret/hidden history contained within an ordinary reality."
What is an example(you wrote) of your successfully published and received
book which is an example of the completely invented milieu? My purpose
is to avoid pretending how hard it is or weighing theoretical criteria which
attempts to translate what a reader likes into his/her judgment of the
imagined difficulty of writing(by the author) of what the reader likes.
Sort of like a question which asks: Is it harder to write a Western or a
Mystery? ought to be answered by somebody who has written both well.
Regards,
Stephen
John Pelan
<stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>"John Pelan" <jpe...@cnw.com> wrote in message
>news:3dd62438...@usenet.cnw.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 00:34:11 GMT, "Stephen Harris"
>> <stephen....@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >That is because the language already relies and uses pre-exisiting
>supports.
>> >I would like for a writer who has tried both ways to make a statement.
>>
>> I did. ;-)
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>
>I am looking for a response from a writer who has successfully published
>something from the secret history genre such as _The Anubis Gates_ but
>does not need to be that good, and something from the completely
>invented milieu such as LOTR or Eddings or Godstalk/Hodgell genre.
>Though I mean favorably received, not necessarily 4 stars.
I've published a good deal more than FAMILY TRADITION and speak from
experience having written pretty much everything in the genre of
fantastic fiction other than hard SF.
>
>Then the writer will be in position to comment about the effort and
>imagination involved from their own experience. I noticed that you
>have participated in writing _Family Tradition_ which you describe
>as essentially Mythos style.
It's about as much "mythos style" as Arthur C. Clarke. ;-) I said
there are certainly elements of the mythos involved, there are also
elements of haute cuisine, but it isn't a cookbook, either.
> So I can't see that counting as an actually successful example of the completely invented milieu genre and I
>didn't find any such reference connecting that genre and your writing.
I'll assume this is merely ignorance, rather than an attempt to be
snide.
Have you read THE LAST CONTINENT? Thought not.
>
>Though I only wrote "tried" at the end of the post, the middle of
>the post included the tried successfully =experience=published idea:
Sorry to disillusion you, but since I sell everything I write, "tried"
= experience = published.
>
>"I tried to get Irini Rempt to contribute on this topic because she may
>have experience in creating both types of stories: completely invented
>reality and a secret/hidden history contained within an ordinary reality."
>
>What is an example(you wrote) of your successfully published and received
>book which is an example of the completely invented milieu? My purpose
>is to avoid pretending how hard it is or weighing theoretical criteria which
>attempts to translate what a reader likes into his/her judgment of the
>imagined difficulty of writing(by the author) of what the reader likes.
>Sort of like a question which asks: Is it harder to write a Western or a
>Mystery? ought to be answered by somebody who has written both well.
I don't pretend to assume that I write well, though checks from
publishers seems to indicate that *they* think I do... ;-)
Not to dismisss your arguments out of hand, but I think you'll be
hard-pressed to find anyone that's writes professionally to agree with
your theory; just as I think you'll find few champions of the
micro-genre classifications you seem enamored of.
Once again, it is far easier to create a believable fantasy world out
of whole cloth and readers generally are far more accepting of same
than it is to create a "secret-history" where real events are subject
to scrutiny and any errors whatsoever usually bring letters of outrage
(or Usenet posts) ;-)
Also, for your consideration, perhaps the most difficult of all is the
continuation of a secret history where fiction and fact have been so
throughly blended as to create a very defined reality. As "Exhibit A"
I present the world of Sherlock Holmes, fictional to be sure, but
historically plausible. Further, the series has been throughly studied
by avid devotees for nearly a century and hundreds of volumes of
annotations, chronolgies, and concordances exist. Can you imagine how
difficult it is creatively to add the fantastic elements of
Lovecraft's Mythos to the world of Sherlock Holmes and remain
consistent to the established chronology? I just assembled and
contributed to such a volume with Michael Reaves, Richard Lupoff,
Steve Perry, Barbara Hambly, Tim Lebbon, Simon Clark, Neil Gaiman, and
several others. Watch for it next from Del Rey...
Cheers,
John
Vlatko Juric-Kokic
>Can you imagine how
>difficult it is creatively to add the fantastic elements of
>Lovecraft's Mythos to the world of Sherlock Holmes and remain
>consistent to the established chronology? I just assembled and
>contributed to such a volume with Michael Reaves, Richard Lupoff,
>Steve Perry, Barbara Hambly, Tim Lebbon, Simon Clark, Neil Gaiman, and
>several others. Watch for it next from Del Rey...
Hey! When?
vlatko
--
_Neither Fish Nor Fowl_
http://www.webart.hr/nrnm/eng/
http://www.michaelswanwick.com/
vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr
John Pelan
<vlatko.ju...@zg.hinet.hr> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 22:55:31 GMT, jpe...@cnw.com (John Pelan) wrote:
>
>>Can you imagine how
>>difficult it is creatively to add the fantastic elements of
>>Lovecraft's Mythos to the world of Sherlock Holmes and remain
>>consistent to the established chronology? I just assembled and
>>contributed to such a volume with Michael Reaves, Richard Lupoff,
>>Steve Perry, Barbara Hambly, Tim Lebbon, Simon Clark, Neil Gaiman, and
>>several others. Watch for it next from Del Rey...
>
>Hey! When?
>
>vlatko
Hard to say, we're turning in the final revisions over the next couple
of weeks so assuming there aren't any delays, I'd guess it could be
anytime between August and the end of year. The month I've heard
bandied about the most frequently is October, which makes sense on a
lot of levels for a book that's getting a huge push. The title is:
SHADOWS OVER BAKER STREET, edited by John Pelan and Michael Reaves
I'm really pleased with the way this one came together, Neil Gaiman
read his bit at WFC and it brought the house down. Neil's story is
exceptional, but there's some tremendous stuff in the book.
I hope you enjoy it!
Cheers,
John
Stephen Harris
No I haven't read _The Last Continent_ and I rarely read short stories.
So I was not being snide as I researched Amazon under your name
and found examples of being an editor and author of short stories
but no books. I made it clear the author needed to have written books:
"What is an example(you wrote) of your successfully published and received
book which is an example of the completely invented milieu?"
and the examples I cited contained at least three volumes, meaning they
were long enough to produce evidence of contradictory writer structure.
> >
> >"I tried to get Irini Rempt to contribute on this topic because she may
> >have experience in creating both types of stories: completely invented
> >reality and a secret/hidden history contained within an ordinary
reality."
> >
> >What is an example(you wrote) of your successfully published and received
> >book which is an example of the completely invented milieu? My purpose
> >is to avoid pretending how hard it is or weighing theoretical criteria
which
> >attempts to translate what a reader likes into his/her judgment of the
> >imagined difficulty of writing(by the author) of what the reader likes.
> >Sort of like a question which asks: Is it harder to write a Western or a
> >Mystery? ought to be answered by somebody who has written both well.
>
> I don't pretend to assume that I write well, though checks from
> publishers seems to indicate that *they* think I do... ;-)
>
> Not to dismisss your arguments out of hand, but I think you'll be
> hard-pressed to find anyone that's writes professionally to agree with
> your theory; just as I think you'll find few champions of the
> micro-genre classifications you seem enamored of.
>
I don't care about the people who write professionally. I care about
people who have written both secret history and the completely invented
milieu, produced a book thick enough to contain internal structure so
that inconsistencies have the possibility of being discovered by the reader,
who then have had the book(s) published and favorably received (checks
from reprinting etc.). That is narrower category of professional writers
than you refer to above. I've already stipulated this and you are not
going to redefine yourself into this narrower category by short stories.
> Once again, it is far easier to create a believable fantasy world out
> of whole cloth and readers generally are far more accepting of same
> than it is to create a "secret-history" where real events are subject
> to scrutiny and any errors whatsoever usually bring letters of outrage
> (or Usenet posts) ;-)
>
There is no doubt a challenge to writing to writing secret history stories.
And the response time for criticism can be much faster because an
inconsistency can be discovered in the first chapter.
It is not possible for the reader to discover an inconsistency in the
first chapter of a longish book or in a short story because the structure
hasn't been displayed yet that allows finding any inner inconsistencies.
But this structure does exist in completely invented milieus or a writer
would not face a challenge of inserting a secret history into that milieu.
For instance inserting a hidden history into LOTR will have to abide
by the structure already created in LOTR and it is possible that
the hidden history would be inconsistent. If LOTR hadn't created
a structure (such as a wizard is powerful but can't kill an army) then
including a hidden history would be no problem (so that a wizard
could kill an entire army).
The structure takes longer to develop in the completely invented
milieu book(considering artificially divided books into sequels
as one book) so the reader can't immediately discover an inconsistency
like they can in the pre-structured secret genre. That is why the
reader must suspend disbelief for a much longer period of time, there
is no other choice. The short story has little room for this process.
The process does occur in longer books and is usually described as
an ending which doesn't meet the reader's expectations, falls flat.
That is a common criticism of trilogies. The first book is good
and then the next two go down hill. Last Call trilogy for instance.
I was disappointed with the Godstalk trilogy last part Seeker's Mask.
From what you have written so far there is no evidence of you
having the experience of creating a book-length completely invented
milieu. The complexity of writing a short story does not scale up
in a linear fashion to the complexity of writing a book. A book
has functions which do not appear in a short story and the reader
does not expect them. I am not interested in theories for the same
reason a software engineer, no matter how good, has to test the
software to see if it performs properly. When somebody thinks about
a complex topic it is not possible to consider all factors which will
actually be present in the reality of the situation. Anthropological
and Astronomical theories are reconsidered every once in awhile
in view of actual observations.
That is why I want an experienced book-length author of both
genres to express a comment and not a projected theory by
someone with experience not really commensurate with the
topic under discussion. Readers, editors, and professional writers
who have not actually written, then had published, then received
public approval are only speculating on the relative difficulty involved.
There is a great deal of hubris in pretending one's thinking or theory
is an adequate substitute for an actual observation made by a writer
who has performed the experiment, so to speak. I don't think
writing a short story is produces relevancy for predictions about books.
That is why translators of Homer for instance who share equally
formidable educational/academics do not produce equal quality
translations. Education does not make a writer who can produce
"gifted" translations; much depends upon living a self-examined life.