Why the fantasy genre has not produced any books with literary merit

[Anonymous No.21906945]

The problem is that anybody with the writing chops of a genuine bona fide Grade A+ "literary writer" will ask themselves why they should bother writing genre fiction if they have the talent to write literary fiction (I understand that the usage of these terms is contentious but you all know what I mean so bear with me here).

Let's use the fantasy genre as an example here. If you were to lift the characters and themes from The Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones or The Wheel of Time, and strip away the fantastical setting and the magic, and drop these characters and themes (leaving intact as much as you possibly can) into a "realistic setting" (for example, Faulkner's Yoknapatawpha county, Joyce's Dublin, Flaubert's Yonville-l'Abbaye), they would suddenly become very very thin. Frodo, or Jamie Lannister, or Rand al'Thor, are not nearly as vivid or memorable as characters in a "literary" setting. Transported into these mundane settings, these fantasy characters suddenly become mundane themselves.

Look at literary characters though. Truly amazing literary characters seem to live in spite of their stories. Don Quixote. Captain Ahab (and not too far behind him, Colonel Kurtz, and Judge Holden). Thomas Sutpen. Sarah Gamp. Emma Bovary. Stephen Dedalus. Humbert Humbert. I would argue that these characters could be placed into almost any setting and would still retain their vividness. Obviously not every renowned work of literary fiction has characters like this but the point still stands.

1/2

[Anonymous No.21906947]

So anything that genre fiction is capable of doing, literary fiction is capable of doing as well. And literary fiction doesn't carry the stigma that genre does. If a writer is capable of creating an amazing character and illustrating a compelling theme, why would they place these things in a secondary completely made-up fantastical world? What function does a fantasy setting (since "the setting" is one of the easiest ways to peg a work of literature as fantasy) play in a work of literature, besides providing a kind of indulgent pleasure to readers who want to experience a world with dragons and magic? It almost seems as if the fantastical nature of the setting helps cover up and compensate for the characters and themes being subpar. You could argue that Tolkien's main theme in The Lord of the Rings is the degradation of nature by means of ruthless industrialization. You know who else's works focused on this theme? Booth Tarkington. But his works were in a mundane "literary" setting, and were thus exposed for how flat and flimsy and boring they were, and he was swiftly forgotten (despite winning multiple Pulitzer Prizes). Look at the majority of most forgotten literary fiction. It's all mental masturbation, but because there is no fantastical element, it is seen for what it actually is, and is thus appropriately discarded. Fantasy, by being fantastical in nature, compensates for the writer's weaknesses by coating everything in a whimsical, sensational varnish, allowing mediocre authors to get away with bland characters and clumsy themes; these writers are excused because manchildren will read anything with dragons and epic wars and wizards in it. Most modern fantasy writers, if they tried their hand at writing literary fiction and were not allowed to add false appeal by means of stuffing their works with fantasy tropes and genre hallmarks, would be exposed for having no talent. True writers of merit are able to shine without the need for fantasy to add to the appeal and value of their work.

2/2

[Anonymous No.21906950]

[Anonymous No.21906963]

So, to sum up my argument: AT BEST, fantasy (by which I mean modern commercial fantasy of which Tolkien and Howard are the grandfathers) is capable of adding appeal to works that already have value (by having good vivid characters and compelling and well-illustrated themes); it is an extra sweet coating on top of an already solid literary work that would be just as good without the fantasy coating. AT WORST, fantasy allows mediocre and just plain talentless hacks to write and sell works that have no appeal or value outside of the fantasy coating in which they are covered.

[Anonymous No.21906999]

The only reason Lord of the Rings is considered fantasy is because so much genre fictionslop badly aped it. It's not written as genre fiction any more than, say, Odyssey was. Didn't read your post btw it's too long and too badly written.

[Anonymous No.21907004]

>>21906945
This one has literary merit. I even have a dozen books of secondary literature on the author.

[Anonymous No.21907160]

>>21906945
>Jamie Lannister
What parts of Jamie's storyline wouldn't work in a "realistic setting"?

[Anonymous No.21907182]

>>21906963
>>21906999
>tolkiendrones STILL believe that tolkien invented fantasy
LOL

[Anonymous No.21908163]

>>21907004
this but no one here has read it

[Anonymous No.21908171]

>>21906945
> Why the fantasy genre has not produced any books with literary merit
Gormenghast trilogy
Borges stories
Alice in Wonderland
Little, Big

I’m sick of retards thinking fantasy only means dragons and wizards.

[Anonymous No.21908180]

one hundred years of solitude - marquez
little, big. - Crowley
I'm sure there are others

[Anonymous No.21908200]

>>21908171

[Anonymous No.21908213]

>>21908171
>>21908180
>little, big.
I really enjoyed his most recent book KA: dar oakley. Not on the same level as Little, Big, but its still fantastic.

[Anonymous No.21908224]

Because “literary merit” is assigned by publishers and academics, who have ulterior motives or simply no clue.

[Anonymous No.21908225]

Don Quixote = fantasy fiction because it takes place prior to the late 19th century. Literary fiction = fiction but takes place between 1860-1980

[Anonymous No.21908231]

>>21906945
I agree. The rest of the posts on this thread can be ignored since they didn't read it in its entirety. Although thanks to the anons for the recs either way. To add something else, fantasy, mordern genreslop at least fucking suck, and I fucking hate Brandon Sanderson. Thanks for the good read, OP.

[Anonymous No.21908239]

Can someone post those fantasy authors seething at magical realism for being well respected literature while their stories about wizards and spaceships are considered genreshit?

[Anonymous No.21908294]

>>21906947
Even if that is the main theme of lotr you aren’t going to properly address it in a modern setting. How would you depict the degradation of nature when nature had already been degraded by mechanistic science and Calvinism hundreds of years before Tolkien was born? You aren’t going to get people to sympathize without actually showing people what was lost, by showing them “the real Middle Earth” ie Fantasyland. People can’t even fathom a reason to defend nature that isn’t completely humanistic. If we don’t save the heckin’ nature we are gonna heckin’ starve and burn to death! This is because nature is conceived of as meaningless biomass by all people in the modern world, not just industrialists. So maks the trees characters! All the Ents died in Middle Earth, maybe they all died here too!!

[Anonymous No.21908297]

>>21908225
what's literary fiction called after 1980?

[Anonymous No.21908329]

>>21906945
>Most modern fantasy writers, if they tried their hand at writing literary fiction and were not allowed to add false appeal by means of stuffing their works with fantasy tropes and genre hallmarks, would be exposed for having no talent
Explain why appeal deriving from the setting is false but appeal deriving from the characters is genuine

[S10241875 No.21908343]

>>21906947
>What function does a fantasy setting (since "the setting" is one of the easiest ways to peg a work of literature as fantasy) play in a work of literature, besides providing a kind of indulgent pleasure to readers who want to experience a world with dragons and magic?
Because the main subject of fantasy is often a beautiful (and terrible) and wonderful world, its laws and features.

>Look at literary characters though. /// still retain their vividness.
(With Don Quixote, you specifically made a mistake.) This is literature that focuses on emotional experiences, the inner life of the hero. Such a hero can be placed in any setting, because when depicting his experiences, the landscape does not play a special role (not always)

The literary establishment is engaged in circular masturbation. So it’s roughly clear what you need to write if you want the Nobel Prize in Literature (spoiler: boring shit). As Tolkien said, "a poet is a person who turns his soul inside out for the audience, and not one who sings about things beautiful, beautiful and amazing." If you want an award, write about your "homosexual" suffering. It's like in ancient China, where only poems written in a special meter on narration topics as a commentary on Confucius were recognized as literature.

>You know who else's works focused on this theme? Booth Tarkington.
Let me guess: he did badly.


>Most modern fantasy writers, if they tried their hand at writing literary fiction and were not allowed to add false appeal by means of stuffing their works with fantasy tropes and genre hallmarks, would be exposed for having no talent.
Lack of talent in general is the property of modern authors, no matter what they write. I agree with the following: if Tolkien had been forced (of his own free will, he would not) write about the mean Argentinean gambler and his roman with the one-legged Turkmen fortune-teller, he would still have written about Middle-earth, since it was not Tolknin who wrote about Middle-earth, this Middle-earth manifested itself through Tolkien.
The reverse is also true: writing fantasy requires living fantasy, and many mainstream writers don't have it.

The answer is simple: in the 19th century, literary realism appeared, which by the second half of the century became "literature", displacing everything else. In the 20th century, realism rotted into modernism, which, despite all the rotten stuff, remained mainstream. Then modernism rotted once again becoming post-modernism, which continues to rot, but by inertia is considered and will be considered the only true "literature". Fantasy is anti-modernism, an attempt to revive the healthy from the days of pre-realism, and therefore literary academics fear and hate it.

[Anonymous No.21908349]

>>21908343
That's not what ancient Chinese literature was THOUGH

[Anonymous No.21908400]

>>21908297
Cyberpunk

[Anonymous No.21908410]

Gene Wolfe has more literary merit than anyone

[Anonymous No.21908434]

>>21908410
Are his books too complicated for a Discworld enjoyer?

[S10241875 No.21908466]

>>21908349
I speak conditionally for the sake of example.
Chinese classical novels were considered by Confucian intellectuals to be vulgar and malicious, created not to instill respect and good morals, but shameful entertainment.
Literature develops in this way: new marginal and peripheral genres gradually become mainstream, and the former mainstream becomes a thing of the past. As for example with epic poetry in hexameter.

[Anonymous No.21908533]

>>21908466
>Chinese classical novels were considered by Confucian intellectuals to be vulgar and malicious
Yes in contradistinction to the lyric poetry which was about spontaneous self confession

[Anonymous No.21908835]

Jesus fucking christ the reading comprehension on this board is absolute dogshit. Everybody in this thread so far that has attempted to answer OP has either completely misread the argument, or clearly didn't read through to the end of it.

[Anonymous No.21908850]

>>21908171
>>21908180
See my closing statement: I'm specifically referring to MODERN COMMERCIAL FANTASY, which I cited Howard and Tolkien as the grandfathers of, here >>21906963

>>21908225
This is completely retarded, please see above

>>21908294
Intriguing but not sure I fully understand; can you elaborate?

>>21908329
Because the appeal derived from the setting is juvenile; i.e., I read this because I like reading about dragons, or wizards, or magic systems.

>>21908343
>(With Don Quixote, you specifically made a mistake.) This is literature that focuses on emotional experiences, the inner life of the hero. Such a hero can be placed in any setting, because when depicting his experiences, the landscape does not play a special role (not always)
Yes; great characters are great regardless of their setting, so hypothetically there could be a fantasy work with an amazing literary character on the same level as the ones I mentioned. This is what I meant when I said "AT BEST, fantasy (by which I mean modern commercial fantasy of which Tolkien and Howard are the grandfathers) is capable of adding appeal to works that already have value (by having good vivid characters and compelling and well-illustrated themes); it is an extra sweet coating on top of an already solid literary work that would be just as good without the fantasy coating." Here >>21906963

>>21908343
You're ranting about the modern literary establishment and what is required to win modern literary prizes. This isn't really relevant because I'm talking about vividness and quality of characters and themes; these are two things you can discover for yourself by reading those books; they were not assigned to the books by the "literary establishment."

>The answer is simple: in the 19th century, literary realism appeared, which by the second half of the century became "literature", displacing everything else. In the 20th century, realism rotted into modernism, which, despite all the rotten stuff, remained mainstream. Then modernism rotted once again becoming post-modernism, which continues to rot, but by inertia is considered and will be considered the only true "literature". Fantasy is anti-modernism, an attempt to revive the healthy from the days of pre-realism, and therefore literary academics fear and hate it.
Ok, that's great and all, but I'm not talking about literary academics. Like I said, almost any person with high enough reading comprehension can read Dickens and then read Martin and will probably come to the conclusion that most of the characters in Dickens are more lively and interestingly drawn than the characters in Martin (or Tolkien, for that matter). I didn't mention the modern literary establishment or modern literary academics anywhere so this just sounds like typical genre persecution complex seething to me.

[Anonymous No.21908853]

>>21908850
>I'm specifically referring to MODERN COMMERCIAL FANTASY
See: >>21907004

[S10241875 No.21908922]

>>21908850
Okay, I figured out that you're not talking about modern awards, critics and so on.
Why do you think that literature should be focused on the inner life of the character:? There are other themes. Well, as in painting. There is a portrait, there is a landscape, there is a "still life", there are everyday scenes and many more. You take a landscape and say "it's just a bad portrait - the eyes are barely visible and the chin is not even." Not all writers work with characters, more precisely, not all writers study the psychology or spiritual life of characters.

[Anonymousn No.21909164]

I agree on an instinctive level with OP, but -- stopping to think -- what does 'literary merit' actually mean? Is Kafka a profound chronicler of the inner lives of his characters? Does Beckett evoke a humanist verisimilitude? They're both obviously up to something quite different.

Plus, if literature's about reflecting the world, why are our fantasies not equally part of the world? Why do we want to banish the appeal of mossy ruins, or the appeal of grotesque beasts, to a region we can only enter with embarrassment and a smirk of disavowal? The appeal of those images is surely psychological, because there is no sort of appeal that isn't an appeal to something in our psychology. It's circular reasoning to say that the psychological (meaning, I suppose, the realist novel conventions of motivational cause-and-effect) is good because it's not superficial, and that the superficial is bad because it's not psychological.

And what does 'false' mean? What's the implicit mistake being made? Is Raymond Chandler (not a fantasy writer, but the only genre writer I really know) making a mistake in evoking a sprawling LA underworld in a fun and flashy way? I think being fun and flashy is an achievement, and doubly so if it unlocks a sprawling LA underworld. What Kafka did with the Hotel Occident in Amerika, Chandler does with the dive bars and canyon mansions of the Marlowe novels: they make space active and dense and criss-crossed with trajectories, which is not an easy feat.

OP seems to think that literary merit relates purely to certain elements ('themes' and 'characters') that are incidental and external to their 'setting', which is considered a sort of shameful necessity. Well, why should literature not aim to be also a literature of setting, and of the inextricable (not merely external) relationship of people and culture and drama to the specifics of the world they live in? Something is unmistakably different, different forces are tangibly active, when two men look at each other tensely across a smokey roulette table in an illegal boat-casino in the San Francisco bay versus those same men looking at each other tensely across the dining room table of a Victorian novel's drawing room. Why not investigate the difference? Why not enjoy it? What anxiety motivates the divisions and prohibitions about which OP seems to fantasise?

What's really superficial is the way OP has bolstered their argument with second-hand assumptions without bothering to put any of those assumptions to the test of experience or thought.

[Anonymous No.21909178]

>>21906945
So this is what as meant by midwit.

[Anonymous No.21909221]

>>21906945
Jamie Lannister would be a great character in any setting.
He could be a star football player whose secretly fucking his sister and widely despised for betraying his team but they don't know it was to stop his coach from setting the stadium on fire and he would be just as great but not nearly as fun.

[Anonymous No.21909474]

>>21909221
You're still talking about what Jaime Lannister is doing. Which shows that you didn't understand. OP is talking about a character's character. Their personality. Which Jaime Lannister is lacking in.

[Anonymous No.21909518]

>>21908850
>Intriguing but not sure I fully understand; can you elaborate?
Yeah I'm saying it's kinda uncharitable to say that the fantasy stuff is just a coat of paint. Yes I know that there are mountains of fantasy shlock. But there are times where it is more than fodder to bait geeks in. I think that the theme you're getting at about the industrial revolution can't be fully expressed and then negated in a setting that is familiar, modern, "realistic". The fantastic and the magical can be used to create a rupture in the reader's mind that allows them to better comprehend the gravity of a phenomenon like the desacralization of nature or the disenchantment of the world. Something like "the elves have passed away and the ents have all lost their voices" is far more compelling (to me at least) than "concrete bad, green things good we need green things to live". By including that fantastic-mythological content the radicality, or at least the emotional impact, of Tolkien's critique becomes more significant

[Anonymous No.21909596]

Tolkien was good enough for WH Auden so good enough for me, I will use that as an excuse to uncritically continue to CONSOOM Jack Vance and Ace Science Fiction softbacks I find at Half-Price Books for $4 and I will be happy.

[Anonymous No.21909895]

>>21908850
>Because the appeal derived from the setting is juvenile; i.e., I read this because I like reading about dragons, or wizards, or magic systems.
What is juvenile in liking to read about dragons? I like dragons

[Anonymous No.21909911]

>>21906963
>>21908850
Literary value =/= characters and themes

[Anonymous No.21909988]

>>21906947
I think you answered your own question in a way. I think it allows you to take mundanity and package it in something entertaining to the human imagination. I think that this may be evil. As I grow older I have regained a similar mesmerism for my one world. The view out of my backyard. A hike up the mountain. Cooking food on a rainy day. These things are to me just as fantastical than LOTR and are more pleasing aesthetically because they belong to me. I think fantasy lures is away from the beauties of our own reality but I’ve also come to the point where fantasy can enrich my own appreciation for my own world of the stories are written well enough. The way hobbits enjoy their meals for instance has sort of meshed with my own experienced in a sort of intimate bond with the idea of hobbits and their characteristic love of food.

[Anonymous No.21910809]

>>21907182
>Tolkien hater
>functionally illiterate
checks out