I think what draws people to GoT and other analogous dark fantasy isn't the cachet of "serious genre literature", or the pleasures of schadenfreude, or to see classical notions of heroism immolated. It's in seeing characters retain and strive for humanism, sardonically and imperfectly, in a world marred by bummer big arcs bending definitively away from justice. Tyrion and Bronn and The Hound are what linger for me. Not the set pieces. Not the Walkers. Not Kit Harrington's brooding. It's the Bogie-in-Casablanca angle that's appealing; the begrudging sort-of-heroism. It feels real and authentic because, well, it is. And even half-assed heroics look valiant against backdrops of despair.
I haven’t read any Salvatore. But my usual gripe with high fantasy is basically that high fantasy seems overly indulgent. Much of the book ends up being about the world building: describing magic systems, cities, quirky culture and customs and religions. I end up wondering, is this book even for me (the reader)? Or is it for the author--to spend time in a fun world of his/her creation? Just having a blast imagining all the aspects of the world? Compared to dark fantasy, where the fantasy world just feels like the setting and the story is really driven by the characters. Have you experienced that?
It’s not that high fantasy isn’t art, it’s that it’s cheap art, easier art, and that’s ok. It can still outperform dark fantasy in terms of your enjoyment of it or nostalgia for it, but that doesn’t make it equal with dark fantasy.
I’m glad Martin killed the traditional hero!
I’ll help him bury the body. After, we can go wallow together in the luxurious mist of stories that maximize our suspension of disbelief, that really allow you to lose yourself in a world that your soul believes in. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to know who didn’t love Sauron enough. I think most stories would be improved by a smear of darkness across their litehearted dispositions.
I love that you wrote this. Your content is so aligned with my interests and I learn so much about myself when I read your stuff.
I think Gene Wolfe is an example of an author who perfectly synthesizes 'literary' and 'genre' fiction, at least for my tastes. He primarily wrote science fiction and fantasy and certainly achieved a lot of recognition within those circles, but was never able to penetrate into the mainstream, presumably due to his commitment to writing genre fiction. Although it didn't seem to bother him, it's sort of ironic because his work is often challenging in all the ways you would expect of anything aspiring to be literary. The prose is typically dense and we never get a straight-forward story with a big pay off in the end. Instead, his stories are more like puzzles that beg to be solved. Commonly, the narration is told from the perspective of one of the characters, replete with all the contradictions, biases and gaps of an unreliable narrator. The result is that the reader often misses key details for interpreting the larger story, and it is not until you go back and read it again that you understand the point. And yet, his stories still contain all the usual aspects of entertaining sci-fi, like world building and descriptions of ingenious speculative technologies. It's a shame that he isn't more widely read as I believe more than most he is able to write stories as equally entertaining as they are deep.
I think what draws people to GoT and other analogous dark fantasy isn't the cachet of "serious genre literature", or the pleasures of schadenfreude, or to see classical notions of heroism immolated. It's in seeing characters retain and strive for humanism, sardonically and imperfectly, in a world marred by bummer big arcs bending definitively away from justice. Tyrion and Bronn and The Hound are what linger for me. Not the set pieces. Not the Walkers. Not Kit Harrington's brooding. It's the Bogie-in-Casablanca angle that's appealing; the begrudging sort-of-heroism. It feels real and authentic because, well, it is. And even half-assed heroics look valiant against backdrops of despair.
I haven’t read any Salvatore. But my usual gripe with high fantasy is basically that high fantasy seems overly indulgent. Much of the book ends up being about the world building: describing magic systems, cities, quirky culture and customs and religions. I end up wondering, is this book even for me (the reader)? Or is it for the author--to spend time in a fun world of his/her creation? Just having a blast imagining all the aspects of the world? Compared to dark fantasy, where the fantasy world just feels like the setting and the story is really driven by the characters. Have you experienced that?
It’s not that high fantasy isn’t art, it’s that it’s cheap art, easier art, and that’s ok. It can still outperform dark fantasy in terms of your enjoyment of it or nostalgia for it, but that doesn’t make it equal with dark fantasy.
I’m glad Martin killed the traditional hero!
I’ll help him bury the body. After, we can go wallow together in the luxurious mist of stories that maximize our suspension of disbelief, that really allow you to lose yourself in a world that your soul believes in. I don’t know about you, but I’d love to know who didn’t love Sauron enough. I think most stories would be improved by a smear of darkness across their litehearted dispositions.
I love that you wrote this. Your content is so aligned with my interests and I learn so much about myself when I read your stuff.
For that, I thank you.
I think Gene Wolfe is an example of an author who perfectly synthesizes 'literary' and 'genre' fiction, at least for my tastes. He primarily wrote science fiction and fantasy and certainly achieved a lot of recognition within those circles, but was never able to penetrate into the mainstream, presumably due to his commitment to writing genre fiction. Although it didn't seem to bother him, it's sort of ironic because his work is often challenging in all the ways you would expect of anything aspiring to be literary. The prose is typically dense and we never get a straight-forward story with a big pay off in the end. Instead, his stories are more like puzzles that beg to be solved. Commonly, the narration is told from the perspective of one of the characters, replete with all the contradictions, biases and gaps of an unreliable narrator. The result is that the reader often misses key details for interpreting the larger story, and it is not until you go back and read it again that you understand the point. And yet, his stories still contain all the usual aspects of entertaining sci-fi, like world building and descriptions of ingenious speculative technologies. It's a shame that he isn't more widely read as I believe more than most he is able to write stories as equally entertaining as they are deep.