A Fandom Fallacy

[benlehman]

A work of fantasy should only be evaluated and criticized based on its own internal world, not on the external real world that it was written and published in.

edit: Joshua has a great example

Let's say I make a fantasy novel. It takes place in a land called Uto. There are four races: the Maia (we call them "humans") and represent the vast majority of people, subjugated by the other races; the Oughal, who are cunning and ruthless, short and thick of stature, with dark skin and curly manes; the Ontali, a broad-backed people whose magic connects them (and converts to their religion) to their hive mind; and the Ikta, whose ancestors were Maia but are cursed because of an ancient betrayal. The story is about the indomitable spirit of the Maia and how, once they're united by King Anfil, fight a war agaist the machinations of the other, smaller races. Anfil leads the Maia army to victory over their oppressors and finally all Maia are granted the place of honor granted them by destiny.

It doesn't matter that this is swords and magic. It doesn't matter that the Oughal "really are" villainous, cunning, ruthless, and controlling, and that the only way for the people of Uto to achieve their destiny is by finally fighting back. Given the context of the 20th century, it's still Fascist fantasy.

Comments

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the external, real world that the work is being read in -- often different from the one it's written and published in, after all! (I'm not assuming that you've necessarily forgotten it. I just want to talk about it.)

As far as any kind of formal criticism goes, I think both external worlds are about equally important. For just thinkin' and chattin' about stuff, I tend to prioritize the one that's closer to home.

-- Alex

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

Another fallacy, fairly specific of sci-fi and fantasy fandom:

The internal thing is and must be a "world" in the concrete sense.

-- Alex

[matt-rah.livejournal.com]

areyououtthere and I don't quite get what you mean by this last--can you give an example?

Also, hi. We know lots of the same people.

Matt

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

I perceive fantasy and s.f. fandom as overly focused on the creation of alternate worlds. Like, these elaborately detailed fictional settings, existing almost for their own sake. (In RPGs, this manifests as "world-building," "canon," and giant campaign sourcebooks.) I don't think every work has to be all about a world. A lot of them set their sights on something else: a moment, an emotion, a person, an idea.

Also, hi. (Just for the record: I can't say I know Ben, just some of his work. He most certainly doesn't know me.)

-- Alex

[alexpshenichkin.livejournal.com]

Oh god wait I just realized we do know a LOT of the same people. Hi.

-- Alex