Why does the fantasy genre have such a bad reputation?

[Albertosaurus Rex]

So I was chatting with an uncle of mine the other day, when the discussion turned to books. He asked me what kind of stuff I like to read.
"I like fantasy," I say.
"Garbage," he replies.
"Excuse me?"
"It's garbage."
"How do you know? Do you ever read fantasy?"
"No, because it's garbage."
"So how can you know it's garbage?"
"Because it is."

One might think that I am exceggerating (Did I spell that right?), but I'm not. This is exactly how it happened. (Well, the conversation was in Dutch, but you get what I mean.) And it's not the first time I've encountered this kind of attitude: people who just know that all fantasy (and often all science fiction too) is garbage, when they either never read it or have just read some bad Tolkien knock-off.

Just let it slide past, one might say. Those people don't know what they're missing. But I can't. I usually get along fine with my uncle, but that conversation hurt and offended me at some level, as this kind of conversation always does. Because I love the stuff. Because I want to write the stuff. And because of that elitist, condescending attitude that comes with that opinion. If he had said "It just doesn't appeal to me", fine. Not everyone has to like everything.

An aside: of course there's a lot of bad fantasy around. That's just to be expected. (Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.) But there is so very much fantasy around these days that there are also more quality reads than ever. Surely we've moved away from endless series of LOTR-clones?

Another thought just occurred to me. The newspaper that I read has a books section on saturdays. There are a few reviews of non-fiction and "literary" novels, a small corner for a thriller review and a summary of other recent releases, both original Dutch and translated fiction. Fantasy is never included on those lists, even though a sizeable amount is being released. (Mostly translated - there are Dutch fantasy authors, but not a lot.) Why? Why is that?

My rant is getting a bit long, but I think you're getting my point. Why does fantasy (and science fiction often too) such a horrible reputation?

[Mervi]

It's not just that some people feel all fantasy is bad Tolkien knock-off (although I have to agree that a part of it IS, sadly), there's also people who think that Tolkien himself is "juvenile trash" and even ~dangerous and so anything in the same genre is as well.

I wish I was kidding. Just last week, there was a radio show in Finland where the topic of discussion was the Lord of the Rings, and although the guests and most people who called in were very enthusiastic about the book, there were a few people who heavily emphasized they had read it only because they had read it aloud for their children, and one caller who warned that it was a nice story, but it would be dangerous to become "too involved" in it. Or another example, this article about how Tolkien as C.S. Lewis were not ~real~ artists.

I know I've recced this before, but Tom Shippey's excellent book J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the Century (that's a BD affiliate link) deals with these prejudices and criticism amongst other things, and discusses why the literati think fantasy is not real literature.

[Albertosaurus Rex]

I like how that article states that stuff like the Odyssey is literature because Homer really believed in the stuff he was writing about. Perhaps some writers of fantastical literature did and still do believe in the things they write. I don't know.

Another thought occured to me after writing my rant. It might be human nature to have to look on something. Think about it. Just like many literaci look down on fantasy/sf, there are sf readers who look down on fantasy and fantasy readers who look down on urban fantasy, or tie-in novels (be it based on television, videogames, rpgs or whatever) or fantasy that is too much like Tolkien. (Having elves does not automatically make one a LOTR knock-off, as long as something interesting is done with them.) And just about everyone looks down on romance.

I don't know if this phenomenon is known in other countries, but here in the Netherlands, some thrillers are being marketed as "literary thrillers". What on Earth does that even mean? I don't read all that much thrillers so I haven't been able to discern the difference, but it just smacks of readers or authors who are ashamed to be associated with thrillers. Likewise, one does not read comics but "graphic novels".

And just what does "being literary" mean? It can't be just entertainment, one hears the snobs say. But look at the great writers of the past! I'm currently in the middle of Dumas' The Three Musketeers and I've read The Count of Monte Cristo before recently. Those are novels about adventure and revenge, which were originally serialised in newspapers. It's entertainment, pure and simple. (Which isn't to say that they have no depth - they do, especially The Count of Monte Cristo. Stuff that is entertaining and has real depth, that's the real good stuff.) Likewise, Dickens wrote entertainment. Shakespeare wrote entertainment. That's why their works have survived. Who are we to judge what is and what is not "literature" based solely on genre? In the end, if it's not fun, nobody will remember it in a hundred years. (Although sadly, a lot of good stuff will be forgotten, simply because times and tastes change.)

[redchild]

It may be that the element of suspension of disbelief can so easily be abused in fantasy stories. It's just too easy for a writer to come up with something corny or contrived, as things don't have to be so rooted in reality.

But to me, it may really be because most people think fantasy to be a "waste of time," when there are so many things in reality that are so much more "practical" and "real." Frankly I find that all BS. It's the complete opposite. Fantasy and mythology is so deeply ingrained in the human psyche. People identify with the archetypes because they are part of being human. How is it impractical or unreal to want to expand and explore ourselves?

And just what does "being literary" mean? It can't be just entertainment, one hears the snobs say. But look at the great writers of the past! I'm currently in the middle of Dumas' The Three Musketeers and I've read The Count of Monte Cristo before recently. Those are novels about adventure and revenge, which were originally serialised in newspapers. It's entertainment, pure and simple. (Which isn't to say that they have no depth - they do, especially The Count of Monte Cristo. Stuff that is entertaining and has real depth, that's the real good stuff.) Likewise, Dickens wrote entertainment. Shakespeare wrote entertainment. That's why their works have survived. Who are we to judge what is and what is not "literature" based solely on genre? In the end, if it's not fun, nobody will remember it in a hundred years. (Although sadly, a lot of good stuff will be forgotten, simply because times and tastes change.)

That is a very good case. You should bring this up with your uncle. Perhaps you can change his mind. :)

[Albertosaurus Rex]

Somehow, I think that is unlikely. He will probably come up with the "It has made-up stuff so it's bullshit argument". Anyway, it might be a while before I speak to him again at length - he happens to live in Romania.

I do think that it's true that the suspension of disbelief can be abused. Bad fantasy does that. One sometimes hears people say "fantasy writers can just make everything up." No. A fantasy writers needs to create a consustent set of rules for his magic - how it works, what it can or can't do - and stick to it. Otherwise, yeah, you might get some deus-ex-machina situations.

It isn't real. If people ever have a real argument for disliking fantasy/sf, that's what they say. But that's only half the truth. Because the author writes about magic and made-up worlds, he has to work hard to make it consistent and believable. Above all, the characters need to feel real - and doesn't about every author write about imaginary people, whether they be dragonslayers, space pirates or some American housewife? (And once again: if people say "I don't like it personally", that's fine. But when they say "It's all trash", that's when I get mad.)

[Mervi]

Exactly - the "made-up stuff" argument has always sounded so odd to me. I mean, most of fiction is made-up stuff. Sure, some of it might be based on reality, or inspired by it, but if those who argue that speculative fiction such as fantasy or science fiction is somehow weaker because dragons and elves and colonizing faraway planets isn't "real", I'd like to ask how real they think are the serial-killers and super talented detectives and heroic soldiers they are reading about? (Obviously, I'm not including things like memoirs, autobiographies and non-fiction here.) I... simply think it's a sad world where people think that dragons aren't possible.

But anyway, digress if I go that way. (There's a whole rant bubbling under the surface about how humanity would never advance on anything if we didn't imagine "impossible" things.)

I believe one of the reasons fantasy is so often belittled is because we think that fairy-tales are only for children. This has of course not always been the case, but by banishing the make-believe to the children's room, we've somehow managed to make ourselves think that we've grown up - not just as individuals but as a society. I think redchild is right in saying that myths are deeply ingrained in the human psyche. And although I'd argue that fantasy IS escapism in that it often takes your imagination out of this world (and that's a good thing!), that doesn't mean that you can't deal with real problems in an imaginary world. Sometimes, I think it's easier to recognize (for example) social problems when they occur in an imagined culture and then contrast to what you leaned from such a story to the ~real~ world. (Good) fantasy still carries in it moral teachings and high values that are so often completely lacking in (modern) literature, the same kind of stuff we used to find in fairy-tales. And I believe many readers take some of those things with them when they close the book after the final page, so that they always carry with them parts of the imagined reality and especially what they learned of themselves and other humans while visiting it. I guess this is actually the very thing that some people find problematic or even dangerous - I just think it shows that we humans still have a hunger for the such things.

[Albertosaurus Rex]

Sometimes, I think it's easier to recognize (for example) social problems when they occur in an imagined culture and then contrast to what you leaned from such a story to the ~real~ world. (Good) fantasy still carries in it moral teachings and high values that are so often completely lacking in (modern) literature, the same kind of stuff we used to find in fairy-tales. And I believe many readers take some of those things with them when they close the book after the final page, so that they always carry with them parts of the imagined reality and especially what they learned of themselves and other humans while visiting it. I guess this is actually the very thing that some people find problematic or even dangerous - I just think it shows that we humans still have a hunger for the such things.

I think you hit the nail right on the head there. For example, if you asked me what the Farseer and Tawny Man books (in short, the books about Fitz) were about, I would say that it was (among other things) about taking responsibility.

I have been thinking about what any literature can teach readers. It started when I read an article in a Dutch newpaper about the novel Twee vrouwen (Two Women), centering around a lesbian relationship. "It shows us that, regardless of gender, we can become completely entranced by another person..." No, I thought. It doesn't show anything. Those people have never existed. All a book can ever convey is what the author thinks about a certain matter, and thus, maybe, in a very roundabout way something about the world itself. And whether the author chooses to do so in a real or imagined setting, that which the author wants to tell us will still shine forth. (And who doesn't like some dragons thrown into the mix?)

Of course, this does not apply to those cases in which real-world historical or scientific information is integrated into the story. In fact, good "hard" sf should be a double whammy for this very reason.

[Chrischa]

Very interesting discussion. I agree that Fantasy is a study of myths, but I also think that it goes further then that; it broadens the mind to other possibilities. I think that, if you can integrate yourself in a completely made-up fantasy world with different laws, morals, religions and behaviours, it will also help you to form a deeper understanding towards Earthly cultures that are different from your own. I think that this, in combination with the study in mythology and history that it offers, is something which should not be underestimated.

But I also think that Fantasy is looked down upon because many people like to think of books as Art. The holy cow that must be worshipped. I spend ten years in art school and if there's one thing that is left with me from that time, it's a hatred of Art. That blasé attitude of being better and higher then anything else, something that must be revered and worshipped... bah. So I think that when these Arty people have to consider something like romance or fantasy to be part of their branch of Art, it makes them shiver in their shoes, and they'd much rather pretend it was beneath themselves.
Not to say anything bad about your uncle, though, Albertosaurus Rex, I'm sure he's a lovely person and it's most likely an opinion that's filtered down to him from other people, like so many things we do and feel.

That's my opinion anyway... it's something I feel quite strong about.

[redchild]

But anyway, digress if I go that way. (There's a whole rant bubbling under the surface about how humanity would never advance on anything if we didn't imagine "impossible" things.)

Reminds me of Arthur O'Shaughnessy's Ode:

We are the music-makers,
And we are the dreamers of dreams,
Wandering by lone sea-breakers,
And sitting by desolate streams.
World-losers and world-forsakers,
Upon whom the pale moon gleams;
Yet we are the movers and shakers,
Of the world forever, it seems.

And I believe many readers take some of those things with them when they close the book after the final page, so that they always carry with them parts of the imagined reality and especially what they learned of themselves and other humans while visiting it.I guess this is actually the very thing that some people find problematic or even dangerous - I just think it shows that we humans still have a hunger for the such things.

Absolutely. Without such a hunger to push the boundaries, people would just stagnate; individually and as a collective whole. The greatest thinkers, artists, scientists in the world pursued their thoughts, even if they were deemed 'dangerous' or 'outrageous;' yet they illuminated so much insight into the human condition and the universe around us. A lot of people consider such pursuits to be trivial and impractical to present reality, but really the process and the discoveries made enhance our lives so much, in every aspect.

I feel as if the world is slowly leaning towards a healthier attitude of openly exploring and sharing ideas. But there are still many people who would prefer to (or are pressured to) stick with whatever they feel comfortable with.

I spend ten years in art school and if there's one thing that is left with me from that time, it's a hatred of Art. That blasé attitude of being better and higher then anything else, something that must be revered and worshipped... bah. So I think that when these Arty people have to consider something like romance or fantasy to be part of their branch of Art, it makes them shiver in their shoes, and they'd much rather pretend it was beneath themselves.

What school did you go to that left such a negative impression on you? Although I understand how you would stereotype fine artists as snobs, that's quite an overreaching generalization. There are many people in completely different professions who have that same sense of arrogance and cynicism. The elitist attitude is illusory: a mask to hide their own insecurities and their wish to keep their special social circle exclusive in order to feel self-important. Anyone like that obviously has no respect for themselves or for their profession because they are the ones who are in the job for prestige and not out of love of art. They don't produce anything of value and neither do they contribute anything but snarky comments on the sidelines.

There are actually many, many artists trying to destroy the stereotype that art is not for regular people; but breaking that stereotype also requires that non-artists let go of the notion that art is the exclusive domain of rich, intellectual snobs who "get" art.

[Albertosaurus Rex]

You know where this thing is parodied, of all places? The new music video "Fuck me, Ray Bradbury". (NSFW, although that should go without saying. It's not visually explicit, although suggestive... The text is kinda vulgar.)



Now watch the censored version (Hint: it's not the f-word that is censored!):