Why Are So Many People Snobby About Fantasy Fiction?

[Philip Overby]

I saw this interview with writer Kazuo Ishiguro who writes mostly literary fiction with speculative elements. His next book is an Arthurian legend and it apparently getting backlash because it's not "serious." He seemed baffled by this reaction and details his thoughts in the interview. He makes good points about writing that is fun seems to be considered not as good by some people.

Do you see any kind of hierarchy in fiction? Why do you think this is so?

Why Are So Many People Snobby About Fantasy Fiction? | WIRED

 

[Penpilot]

You can get past the snobbery by just calling it Magical Realism instead of fantasy.

I don't write Urban Fantasy. I write surrealistic environments overlaid on top of a postmodern landscape with mythical overtones.

 

[Ophiucha]

As I've taken classes in literary criticism taught by fantasy-hating professors, here's one reason:

By some definitions, the primary definable difference between literary fiction and genre fiction is - essentially - how fun the work is. Is the work meant to be entertainment, or is it meant to be thought-provoking and explore the human condition? It is then a question of 'does anything need to have dragons to expound its philosophy? or is their inclusion only for fun?'. Dragons could be an allegory, certainly, for the flames of hell and the futility of virtue in the life of a damned man... but many literary critics would argue that their presence is a distraction from that allegory, because it's just as easy to look at them and go 'ooo, what pretty wings~'. Having a more human (natural) force represent the meaning makes it clearer, or more precisely, makes it harder to ignore.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

As I've taken classes in literary criticism taught by fantasy-hating professors, here's one reason:

By some definitions, the primary definable difference between literary fiction and genre fiction is - essentially - how fun the work is. Is the work meant to be entertainment, or is it meant to be thought-provoking and explore the human condition? It is then a question of 'does anything need to have dragons to expound its philosophy? or is their inclusion only for fun?'. Dragons could be an allegory, certainly, for the flames of hell and the futility of virtue in the life of a damned man... but many literary critics would argue that their presence is a distraction from that allegory, because it's just as easy to look at them and go 'ooo, what pretty wings~'. Having a more human (natural) force represent the meaning makes it clearer, or more precisely, makes it harder to ignore.

Valid, but not exactly a good reason if you ask me. Simply because it's harder doesn't make it less valuable. Besides, there are some concepts that are...difficult to do using more real things. Like for one of my WIPs I am planning on exploring certain legal principles like positivism vs natural law and I'm using a magic system based off of certain common law principles. Sure, I can do this the old boring law review way, but dang it that's duller than dirt. Sure I could make a legal fiction about a man struggling with these concepts, but most people would be all like "Bro, that's boring." But add in magic, wars, and a healthy bit of adventuring on top of a legal/political drama and by golly people will read it!

Who cares what a person says if no one ever reads or hears what you believe.

 

[ThinkerX]

For some reason, I am reminded of a comment made against Hemingway:

'that his readers would never need to go to the dictionary to look up a word' - as though that were a bad thing.

(apologies, paraphrase from memory)

As I recollect, Hemingway's response was devastating in its own right.

 

[Ophiucha]

I assume literary critics care because pontificating on boring, obscure novels is what gets them paid.

I tend to agree with you, particularly since I like to explore political ideas in different contexts. It's impossible to write literary fiction that explores, say, communist ideology without spending a hundred pages going over the pros and cons of the specific, imperialist dictatorship that dominates the dialogue in our world. In a fantasy setting, you could explore a setting with 'all for the people' theocracy or a radically reworked monarchy and comment on those same issues, explore improvements and note the shortcomings that come with the system, without having to so much as mention Russia. And if you do want to have an allegorical Soviet Union, they can be dragons. Dragons who are trying to get to the moon. That's just awesome.

 

[cupiscent]

There's definitely an elitist element in the whole thing, I think. If just anyone can read the book and understand it, after all, there's no prestige in having read and understood it! So books that are more accessible in writing style - usually realist narratives, which describe what is happening - are worth less prestige than ones that are tricky or difficult to read. To which I say: wankers.

My general view is: read whatever you find most interesting and enjoyable to read. There are lots of people who enjoy tricky literary fiction because they like stretching and bending their brains that way (my father-in-law is one), and there are lots of people who enjoy reading fun stories with dragons, and there are lots of people who don't mind a little of each, possibly even mixed up together.

Also, I love Ophiucha's allegory of dragons for the fires of hell, and I think it just strengthens the allegory that dragons are impressive and can be admired. After all, sin can be pretty enticing...

 

[MineOwnKing]

I have found much of the snobbery to be coming from fantasy writers and less from the target audience.

That is one of the main reasons I like this site, I find the people here to be very professional.

Part of the modern angst is stemming from the level of stress accumulated from having to write, self-publish and self-market with little or no appreciation, compensation or glimmer of hope.

Such stress is pushing and jamming and cramming and squeezing the life and literary soul out of the kind, intelligent and well meaning lovers and writers of Fantasy. We have become brother against brother, squabbling over an intangible dilemma.

In my opinion, there was a mini golden age for fantasy writers between about 1965 to 1985. During that period there were fewer known writers and those that were published under the old publishing house guard, were more likely to be able to devote their creative energy to just writing.

I liked life better when I knew nothing about the writers of my favorite fantasy novels. I'm not sure its a good thing for fans to dig too deep within the brain of a writer. I think it dispels the fantastical appeal of the writer's work. But, I grew up in a time before cell-phones and computers and social networking is still strange to me, present company excluded.

The younger crowd just getting started is boiling thick with the natural tendencies to be idealistic. Bravo to the newbies, I remember my idealism well. Idealism was like the soles on the shoes of life that now have worn thin upon the hot pavement of midlife crisis. Ingrained idealism yearns for equality among all things as long as said things adhere to the ingrained ideal of the individual. Yet even in our best intended and conceived notions of fellowship we must at one point draw a line in the literary sand. One must defend his or her literary turf with a sword of talent and an eventual--if even for a limited time--sub-genre blood-oath.

Yet the line has faded. The new guard wants to love all sub-genres and be loved and successful. Life just doesn't work that way, it is in fact dog eat dog. In the confusion of this epic battle to be accepting of sub-genre diversity while simultaneously hoping to give absolute definition to what modern Fantasy is, nobody seems to be able to put a finger on what actually is 'serious fantasy' and what its seriousness means for the greater benefit of long term respectability.

So to get back to the subject at hand, we must ask ourselves, what it is that we want fantasy to become in the next century long after all of us are dead.

Are we as a group creating a legacy, or is the mass diversity of sub-genre expansion and blending throwing us into slip-reality? How much romance is acceptable in Fantasy before it becomes pure romance? How far can we push metaphysical fantasy before it becomes pure philosophy, and most important of all, how do we want to be remembered? Are we an army marching in singular purpose to a rewarding goal or are we doomed to cast adrift on the great Pacific of indefinable mediocrity?

 

[acapes]

There's a short Patrick Rothfuss video I posted somewhere once that is related here - he feels strongly about the topic, lemme try find it again:

 

[acapes]

I liked this idea from Ishiguro:

He’s still not sure why certain topics provoke such consternation among some readers, but suspects it may come down to insecurity. Readers who are most attached to the idea of literature as a status symbol, and who are most desperate to be seen as serious, may eschew books that seem like too much fun.

 

[Philip Overby]

@acapes That was my favorite quote as well. I think unpacking what you're reading and finding deeper meaning in it makes people feel special in some way. If a book is only intended to be a fun distraction, it's seen as "junk food for the mind" or something. I believe that writers can and should do both. Write fiction to make people think, but also write it when you want to do something to entertain. There is no rule that says you can't do both. But I'm glad he's speaking out about this as a primarily literary writer.

 

[acapes]

@acapes That was my favorite quote as well. I think unpacking what you're reading and finding deeper meaning in it makes people feel special in some way. If a book is only intended to be a fun distraction, it's seen as "junk food for the mind" or something. I believe that writers can and should do both. Write fiction to make people think, but also write it when you want to do something to entertain. There is no rule that says you can't do both. But I'm glad he's speaking out about this as a primarily literary writer.

Me too! Because snobs might be convinced to open their minds a fraction by someone they respect.

And I agree, fun is not a lesser pursuit for a reader (or writer). Fun = laughter = happiness etc and happiness for me is the ultimate goal in life - why would I look down on something that adds to my happiness? I read widely and it always surprises me when folks don't. Great stuff is found everywhere, huh?

 

[Penpilot]

For some reason, I am reminded of a comment made against Hemingway:

'that his readers would never need to go to the dictionary to look up a word' - as though that were a bad thing.

(apologies, paraphrase from memory)

As I recollect, Hemingway's response was devastating in its own right.

It's an exchange between Hemingway and Faulkner.

First, William Faulkner, speaking of Ernest Hemingway: ‘He has never been known to use a word that might send a reader to the dictionary.’

And Hemingway’s response: ‘Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words?’

 

[MineOwnKing]

A paradox is created when we seek to make our art both a literary triumph and a commercial success.

Moby Dick was not widely recognized as genius until long after Melville was dead.

So let's say one of us has combined all the elements we deem necessary for a contemporary novel. Genius, Fun, humor and introspect. Who will buy it?

How can a modern day Moby Dick of the fantasy genre compete against Bear needs a Bride?

I'm totally fine with blending subgenres. I just think that when authors use the excuse of subgenre to sell Romance Fiction in my fantasy genre it isn't fair.

Small elements of romance or sci-fi or allegory in fantasy are awesome, but there needs to be a line drawn. If you cross the line you are no longer in allegiance to the Fantasy camp....therefore stop taking up my ad space, it's expensive.

 

[Zephyr]

Incidentally, one of my favourite books is "The Once and Future King" by TH White, and his is an Arthurian Legend, which uses a good deal of humour.

It does, however, have its serious philosophical musings and its dark moments. Who is to say they cannot exist side-by-side?

My own writing is not always serious, and I have drawn criticism for it. I think we have this idea in our heads now, perpetrated by the runaway success of Lord of the Rings, I imagine, that fantasy as a genre has to be something grand, sweeping, and deeply serious. This has left little room for those who want to make it light and comical... with the exception of Terry Pratchett of course!

Well, I say, there is no harm in trying to redefine a genre.

 

[cupiscent]

I'm totally fine with blending subgenres. I just think that when authors use the excuse of subgenre to sell Romance Fiction in my fantasy genre it isn't fair.

But then... where are authors of romantic fantasy supposed to advertise? In the romance section? Where all of the readers who want nothing to do with magic, elves, vampires, etc will get upset because it's not being "in allegiance to the romance camp"? And should fantasy fiction with too much military stuff in it - maybe Django Wexler's The Thousand Names? - be kicked out of fantasy and into military fiction? Maybe fantasy novels with a big mystery-solving element should be classed as mysteries instead? What makes romance the one aspect of life's tapestry that has a quota in fantasy fiction?

I'm not sure why you're arguing against subgenres when they solve your problem, and mean that everyone can find precisely the sort of thing they want to read. Surely connecting writers with the right readers is a benefit.

 

[Philip Overby]

That's the whole point of sub-genres and one thing that baffles me when writers are against them. They're not made for writers, they're made for readers. Readers like to know, in general, what they're picking up. If people like romantic fantasy, then the sub-genre helps them locate exactly what they're looking for. It's a marketing thing. If romantic fantasy was lumped in with romance, it would be more confusing because standard romance tends to be set in the real world. But there's always going to be overlap in those regards. There may be a fantasy publisher that publishes romantic fantasy alongside epic fantasy and sword and sorcery. Or there may be a romance publisher that has several different imprints to focus on different kinds of romance. As a fantasy writer, I realize that romance blows everything else out of the water as far as sales go.

 

[MineOwnKing]

This is where being a writer and also being a marketer collide.

I feel my thoughtful ideas are not being considered in depth. I feel that my words are being picked apart and negatively spun. My first comment was very clear and considerate. This is what I mean about growing out of idealism. I'm on your guy's side, same team Farva, same team.

Your original post was somewhat about understanding the nature of modern works and how that creates snobbery. I'm just saying that for now there is nothing definitive for Fantasy fans to judge by. And I too feel the angst as a writer trying to market my product in a sea of confusion.

This may be hard for Fantasy Fans to digest, but I do not believe the average Joe takes the time to investigate subgenres. I think they look at the best sellers and roll the dice. Best sellers are not marketed firstly by subgenre, they are all lumped together as fantasy. Therefore romance threatens to capsize the ship.

I get to have an opinion too. My opinion is weighted by my need to be financially successful. If I think someone is crossing the line, I feel the need to call foul. I have a wife and 2 little kids depending on my success. Happy wife, happy life.

Perhaps I need to start building an ark for a new genre. Its mission, to boldly go where no writer has gone before.

 

[Philip Overby]

If you're wanting to cast the widest net possible, then I suppose, yes, you'd aim for those readers who are looking at the mainstream to buy their books. People trawling best seller lists. However, I personally don't think romantic fantasy is in the mainstream when it comes to fantasy fiction. As it's own genre, romance is huge. But within fantasy fiction, I don't think it's on the same level.

I think fantasy readers look to other fantasy readers more often than not for recommendations. This might go something like this, "What kind of fantasy do you like to read?" "Well, I like Martin's work and some Abercrombie." "Oh, you should read, blah blah blah, then."

I don't think you're giving the Average Joe enough credit. Readers are more informed than people think they are. Even in the romance genre there are dozens and dozens of sub-genres that people seek out. Sure, some just buy whatever's popular, but I'm not entirely sure that's the majority of readers. Maybe I'm wrong though.

The genre where writers "boldly go where no writer has gone before" already exists. It's called experimentalism. And for the most part it's not mainstream.

 

[MineOwnKing]

Sales figures say otherwise.

What I'm hearing is that if I write a romance novel and add one tiny element of magic, Fantasy writers in general would be happy to classify that as fantasy just because it fit into a subgenre?

I'm not ok with that.

I think that, just as fences make good neighbors, so too should fantasy have boundaries.

But, there is nothing I can do about it and I'm not here to start conflict. I understand your points and acknowledge them, but I don't have to like them.

As a writer I'm open to fantastical diversity, as a self-marketer I'm not. I need to feel like I stand for something. And I don't feel that what I represent is in any way experimental.

My stories have romance too, but it is not the main theme. I want my own genre, and not so long ago it actually existed. I don't want to be lumped in with everyone else. When I look in a mirror I don't say, this is my nose and this is my mouth and these are my eyes, I say, this is my face. My face is fantasy, but from a marketing perspective if I look in a mirror all I see is my nose, or my ear or whatever part of my face is representative of romance.

I want the world to see my face, not my nose.