(urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?

[David Stockhoff]

Let's also keep in mind a useful distinction between novels and short 
stories, which at least can be said to hold for literary fiction: that 
short stories are about what happens, while novels are about characters. 
Much of pulp was written for publication in periodicals and thus is by 
definition short.

But even longer sf/s&s works are often episodic, eroding this 
distinction so that they are as much about process/genre expectations as 
they are about characters. Worlds are developed as much as or more than 
characters, and even long-running characters (Elric, Conan) max out as 
well-developed caricatures at best.

Rarely are characters as developed as Severian, who interposes himself 
between the reader and the created world so that no matter how carefully 
worked out, it is never the main interest.

On 12/16/2011 10:32 AM, Craig Brewer wrote:
> Yeah, I think that's fair to say. Tolkien does get called "high" 
> fantasy and s&s is a term more often associated with the pulps.
>
> Like all these terms, though, they really only work as reliable 
> categories in the abstract or with very early examples. But I think 
> where they are useful is in looking at how people (like Wolfe) 
> challenge them. You say, for example, that Wolfe is in between them, 
> and I think he is, too. But it's important to say how/why: his surface 
> can often look like s&s (a gothic dude with a big sword wandering the 
> countryside) but it serves the purposes of "high" fantasy (he's on a 
> quest to save the earth, he encounters allegorical figures, etc.). And 
> what that looks like in the end when you discover that "fantasy" is a 
> thin veil over a "sf" story that's might also be a veil over a 
> religious story/allegory/"fantasy"/gospel (?), then you're in another 
> realm altogether. But you get there by moving through the genres and 
> playing them off against each other.
>
> And it works with other people, too: is George R.R. Martin and those 
> like him (Steve Erikson, Glen Cook, Joe Abercrombie, etc.) "high" or 
> "low"? They're not just s&s because their doing a more "cinema verite" 
> thing, and the scale of their world-creation often reaches for the 
> "Tolkienesque." But the thematic approach takes the violent world of 
> s&s and places it in the realm of politics and even 
> religion/philosophy. These are worlds where politics is "real politik" 
> and where no one, not even the supposedly "idealistic" characters, are 
> really any better than Conan. There are no Gandalfs or figures of Good 
> and Evil in the sky to provide the world a compass. So you get what 
> often looks like the surface of high fantasy (huge empires with long 
> histories and complicated mythologies), but the ultimate impact is 
> like taking Conan seriously as a nihilistic philosopher. :)
>
> In other words, I think generic categories are necessary and useful. 
> But they're necessary and useful as *jumping off points*, not as 
> conclusions about a piece of work.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>
> *To:* Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com>; The Urth Mailing List 
> <urth at lists.urth.net>
> *Sent:* Friday, December 16, 2011 9:03 AM
> *Subject:* Re: (urth) Gummed-Up Works or Got Lives?
>
> Good points again, Craig.  But I wonder if Tolkien is to some degree 
> High Brow Sword & Sorcery, and Conan and the like are Low Brow Heroic 
> Fantasy?  Wolfe, would again perhaps fall between these.
>
> -DOJP
>
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Craig Brewer <cnbrewer at yahoo.com 
> <mailto:cnbrewer at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>
>     Lee wrote:
>     >Great observation and recognition Antonio. Perhaps I am not alone
>     in having assumed that LotR was
>     >more of a prototype or archetype of S & S while Conan is more of
>     a cheap comic book derivative.
>     >A cultural bias? Conan (like Tarzan) is a European character
>     created by an American, while LotR seems
>     >somehow more authentic and refined- high brow British characters
>     created by an Englishman.
>
>     To me, the generic markers of "s&s" vs. "Tolkienesque" usually
>     break down like this:
>
>     s&s - adventure tales where action and "marvels" are what drives
>     the story. (The magazine _The Black Gate_ is trying to revive this
>     right now.)
>     Tolkienesque - fantasy that tries to inspire a sense of scope and
>     "history" and is infused with moralisms ("good vs. evil,"
>     maturation and "coming of age" stories, religious/mythic allegory,
>     etc.)
>
>     Some people certainly try to imply markers of quality in the
>     definitions, but I've heard both terms used as praise and
>     derision. I don't think it's integral to the terms.
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Urth Mailing List
>     To post, write urth at urth.net <mailto:urth at urth.net>
>     Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111216/2f1ee796/attachment-0003.htm>