Fallen Fantasists

[daranthered]

There's been a debate going on around the web lately about fantasy, specifically the tendency toward less morally elevated characters and stories..  I thought I'd post some of the articles here and get some reactions.

It started with an article, "The Bankrupt Nihilism of Our Fallen Fantasist," by Leo Grin talks about the increase in nihilistic and gritty fantasy as opposed to the more traditional Sword and Sorcery of Robert E. Howard, and High Fantasy by Tolkien.  The article uses the works Joe Abercrombie as as its main example of this trend

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2011/02/12/the-bankrupt-nihilism-of-our-fallen-fantasists/

Abercrombie replied, rather glibly I thought, on his blog.

http://www.joeabercrombie.com/2011/02/15/bankrupt-nihilism/

The Black Gate ran an interesting rebuttal to several remarks Ambercrombie made.

http://www.blackgate.com/2011/02/20/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-fantasy-novel/

I don't know if this is one of those things which is a lot of sound and fury, but I find the discussion intriguing.  As someone who enjoys the more traditional moral heroes (like Dresden) and more traditional stories where people are basically decent, and are distinct from the bad guys, I don't much like the more nihilistic fiction trend.  I have for a long time known that I had to avoid works that were more "real," or "gritty."  I'm not saying that there's no place for works like that, but they're not to my taste.

Frankly, I find the idea that works like Abercrombie now dominate fantasy (an idea expressed in the first article, the one that started it all) is absurd.  The more traditional fantasies are still the ones that sell.  There hundreds who want to be the next Jordan, or Sanderson or Butcher.  I don't know many people who want to be the next Abercrombie.  There might be a few who want to be the next George R.R. Martin, and that's a scary thought.  But I think that the former authors are popula,r and inspire emulators, not because they sell so well, but because there is a joy in reading that kind of fiction, and a joy in writing in that vein.

Anyway, that's my opinion.  What's yours?

[SuperflyMD]

Interesting. 

I have to admit, I'm torn.  I love classic good vs evil stories, but like a bit of grit as well. I found Stover's second book to be completely captivating and was left wanting more, but sometimes I read a modern fantasy and feel like I need a shower. I also get really tired of the soap opera in so much fantasy (loved the "Tolkien 90210" tag in Gin's article). I couldn't make it through another Anita Blake novel if you paid me.

To extend a bit to other genres, I am baffled by my love of Dexter--books and TV.  I simultaneously don't get it and can't get enough of it. Why do I root for a serial killer and cheer when a cop gets blown up?  It makes no sense, but it is what it is, and I am a fan.

In the end, I guess there's room for all. I'll read what I like, avoid what i don't, and let others do the same.

[Piotr1600]

"There's no accounting for taste - or lack of it."  (Don't know anything about the origin of that quote except that my grandmother was *very* fond of it. )

I don't care for novels at *either* extreme, myself. But I admit to enjoyment in inverse proportion to however depressing/tragic/sad the story ends.
I've read 'em. In multiple genres, because the nihilism isn't just a factor in fantasy - it figures prominently across IMO all genres.
With a few rare, incredibly well written, exceptions - the ones at the far ends of the spectrum don't go on my bookshelves and get re-read time and again.

But I want *you* to read whatever trips your trigger!

[Nickeris86]

As someone who enjoys the more traditional moral heroes (like Dresden) and more traditional stories where people are basically decent, and are distinct from the bad guys, I don't much like the more nihilistic fiction trend.

See I have to disagree with you on saying that Dresden is a traditional moral hero because he really isn't. There has been more than one occasion in the series where he has done some pretty morally questionable acts.

(click to show/hide)

When he took on the mantle of the Winter Knight he had to murder a helpless individual, or when he broke the snake guys legs with a baseball bat, these are not actions of the traditional hero.

Harry does have morals and he is a good guy but he is human which what makes him such a good character to read, he has moral quandaries and doubts and he feels bad about the ugly decisions he has to make but he makes them because he has too. The Knights of the Cross and Murphy are more traditional moral Hero's than Harry is.

As for the topic at hand I would have to say that I like to read both as long as they are written well. I love the LOTR where all the evil in the world was connected to Saron in some way and I like the Black Company books where the main characters spend most of their time fighting for the evil empire. having said that however, I would have to say that my favorite fantasy is like Dresden Files, where the main character isn't a saint while still maintaining the good guy persona.

[daranthered]

Dresden is a traditional hero by the standards of the argument.  He is forced to moral questions, but that's something every good hero has to do.  Compared to Stover's, or Abercrombie's characters Marcone would come out a hero; because he has a code, and isn't needlessly violent.

Dexter (which I also love) is an interesting character because he's a moral villain, versus an amoral hero.  One of the great things about that show (and the novel) was the sort of "You shouldn't be rooting for this guy." *wink*