Anything from Homosexuality to Habitual Nosepicking

[strange_aeons]

ursulav posted this ramble about this very good article I don't think keeps has read yet. What is wrong with you? I read the post, read the article, made a very frivolous comment and figured that would be the end of it, but a couple of days later I got to thinking, something I've been told I should avoid. I was going to comment again on the same post, but I found myself running into the hundreds of words, and essentially hijacking her journal to argue with a third party who wasn't there and would never read my hundreds of words, a third party who in fact didn't even write the article and whose involvement in it consisted of one paragraph and a quick refutation, neither of which had much to do with the content of the post or with the rest of the article. Which struck me as a terribly annoying thing to do, so I'm going to hijack my own journal instead, with the promise that most of my sentences will be less tortured than the last one was, at least.

Anyway, Lev Grossman wrote,

Popular culture is the most sensitive barometer we have for gauging shifts in the national mood, and it's registering a big one right now. Our fascination with science fiction reflected a deep collective faith that technology would lead us to a cyberutopia of robot butlers serving virtual mai tais. With 'The Two Towers,' the new installment of the 'Lord of the Rings' trilogy, about to storm the box office, we are seeing what might be called the enchanting of America. A darker, more pessimistic attitude toward technology and the future has taken hold, and the evidence is our new preoccupation with fantasy, a nostalgic, sentimental, magical vision of a medieval age. The future just isn't what it used to be -- and the past seems to be gaining on us.

I see two major problems with this. The first is the one Brin addressed -- i.e., utopia my ass. The other is the one I was frustrated that he didn't, to wit, Grossman is talking nonsense. Utter poppycock. What 'new preoccupation with fantasy'? I'll allow as how the books are selling like hotcakes (the local Borders gave Tolkien a whole shelf, and it's been at least half-empty every time I've looked, for a year), and that it's not impossible that some people are getting their first real contact with fantasy through the movie and that some of these people are going on to read other fantasy when they run out of Tolkein, but I'll bet that the majority of that subgroup is quite young and would have gotten into fantasy at some point anyway. Oh dear, I said I was going to ease up on the Greeking, didn't I. And I've strayed from my point, which is:

Grossman is seeing a cause and an effect in where none exist. The cause is this 'new preoccupation with fantasy', and the effect is the LotR movies. Which is a ludicrous notion, and smacks of a failure to indulge in even one of research's less-spoken-of cousins. People have been clamoring for a LotR movie since before Tolkien was born, which Grossman would know if he had even brushed up against the fringes of fandom. If there is a 'new preoccupation with fantasy', it's the effect of the LotR movies, as mentioned above. The cause of the LotR movies is a combination of that constant pressure for somebody, anybody to make such a movie, and that technology thing -- you know, that thing we're all so disillusioned with, because if there's anything the man on the street regards with suspicion and disgust, it's four-disk DVD sets, 5.1 whatever sound, and online fora on which to tell people how much he likes his four-disk DVD set and 5.1 whatever sound? Yeah.

That technology thing has finally gotten to a point at which one can actually make a live-action LotR movie with believable visuals, which is good. If, fifteen years ago, someone had attempted to do it, the fans would have eaten it up -- but unless, possibly even if, the acting and the script were absolutely, mind-blowingly spectacular, it would have been lame. Unsalvageably lame. And a movie in which the balrog is a guy in a rubber suit that has been hastily doused with lighter fluid offscreen would have poisoned the well, and these movies would never have gotten made.¹

I get the impression that Grossman has never really encountered fantasy before. He's been living in some kind of fantasy-free bubble his entire life, but now that the LotR movies have been made, fantasy is all over mainstream media (because people are talking about these movies). His little bubble has been popped and suddenly he's seeing fantasy everywhere, so, clearly, there has been a sudden surge of interest in the genre. That's pathetic. It's not even synchronicity. It's just solipsism.

On the other hand, this is one of the only articles I've seen in Salon that didn't antagonize me, directly or otherwise. (The Grossman quote doesn't count.) If they keep publishing articles by Brin, I might have to stop despising them.

¹ I'm not going to comment on the possibility of an animated movie. I have been made to watch the animated Hobbit movie on more than one occasion, and it has scarred me. Whatever other feelings I may have about anime, at least in Japan they've figured out how to make an animated movie that's not for kids.

Comments

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

*chuckle* Well, thank you for the concern, although I wouldn't really mind if you cluttered my journal with such interesting ramblings. I agree, as a matter of fact--these movies couldn't have been made, and had justice done to them, before the last few years--look at the travesty that was the animated version. (On second thought, don't. It's tragic. The Hobbit, though being Very Very 70s, at least only had a very short and straightforward story to abuse.) I also agree that fantasy and the love thereof has been with us for a long time. Fantasy tabletop RPGs outsell sci-fi ones consistently, and most of the successful MMPORPGs are fantasy, there's tons of computer games set in fantasy worlds (including very successful ones like Neverwinter Nights) to say nothing of the popularity of authors like Mercedes Lackey and Terry Brooks (neither of whom I'm particularly enamored with, but the fact that they sell so well tells us something about the appetites of the public!) But I think there's this longstanding habit of dismissing fantasy as geek-fodder and "mere" escapism, and when LOTR and Harry Potter suddenly come out've the blue, with enormous popularity, it's much easier to say "Obviously there's been a big switch to fantasy," instead of admitting that "Well, okay, a lot of people have always liked that, and we just ignored it because we thought it was silly. I mean...dragons, y'know. Guess we were wrong."

And yes, Brin rocks.

[oneironaut.livejournal.com]

Well, thank you for the concern, although I wouldn't really mind if you cluttered my journal with such interesting ramblings.

I'll keep that in mind.

I agree, as a matter of fact--these movies couldn't have been made, and had justice done to them, before the last few years--look at the travesty that was the animated version. (On second thought, don't. It's tragic. The Hobbit, though being Very Very 70s, at least only had a very short and straightforward story to abuse.)

Wait a minute, wait a minute. There's an animated movie version of the Lord of the Rings? Not just the Hobbit? Really? Why was I not informed?

... it's because everyone's been trying to spare my sanity, isn't it?

Mercedes Lackey

She wrote a retelling of Beauty and the Beast that was pretty good, at least. Or I thought it was good when I last read it, which was ... I think I was thirteen. Can't for the life of me recall its title, though.

But I think there's this longstanding habit of dismissing fantasy as geek-fodder and "mere" escapism, and when LOTR and Harry Potter suddenly come out've the blue, with enormous popularity, it's much easier to say "Obviously there's been a big switch to fantasy," instead of admitting that "Well, okay, a lot of people have always liked that, and we just ignored it because we thought it was silly. I mean...dragons, y'know. Guess we were wrong."

That hadn't occurred to me, but I rather suspect you're right. Science fiction is dismissed pretty often as geek-fodder too, but as intellectual geek-fodder, which makes all the difference. You never see documentaries about fantasy tropes in which people with letters after their names appear onscreen to talk to the audience about the ecology of Middle Earth; I think that sort of treatment has done a lot to legitimize science fiction in the public eye. (This is high irony.) Plus fantasy is less likely to have guns and explosions in it, which makes it less appealing to The Masses, and I think it's regarded as the less adult genre.

Er, which is to say, yes. Good thought.

Lackey's "beauty"

[klawzie.livejournal.com]

The title is, "The Fire Rose". And, I agree, VERY good. She also retold "Sleeping Beauty" ("The Gates of Sleep"), which was also fairly good, but not as good as Fire Rose, and I assume some Indian fairy tale "The Serpent's Shadow" - (because this series seems to be about re-telling fairy tales, I assume it must be based on an Indian one - whoop, I'm told it's a retelling of Snow White. Goes to show me. ) Shadow was also good, but not as good as Fire Rose.

Yep. Totally random, sorry. ^^;

Re: Lackey's "beauty"

[oneironaut.livejournal.com]

Ah! The Fire Rose! I thought it had the word 'rose' in it somewhere, but I wasn't sure if I was just mixing it up with Robin McKinley's (very good) Rose Daughter, my favorite treatment of that fairy tale. The only other book of hers I've read is Children of the Night, which was good when I was thirteen and exceedingly mediocre when I reread it earlier this year, thus my skepticism.

Yep. Totally random, sorry. ^^;

I like to think I set a tone of utter randomness and non sequiturality in my journal, so your comment is quite appropriate. And that title would have bothered me all week; thanks.

Re: Lackey's "beauty"

[klawzie.livejournal.com]

I have Children of the Night, as well as another Diana T-something novel. But not "Jinx High". So I'm waiting for that one to show up in some garage sale or used book store, just to say that yes I HAD read all three. ^^;

Lackey's a damn good writer, when she can be bothered to take the time to work on them rather than letting herself be prodded into spitting them out every three months.

Best thing I ever read by her was "The Black Swan" ... Though you might have mentioned that one. My memory banks have already purged that particular file. >_<

Erm. As a sort of, "PS" I'd have to agree that the man must have been living in a fantasy-free zone for him NOT to have noticed fantasy in our culture before. I mean, Ren Faires at the very least, c'mawn.

Re: Lackey's "beauty"

[boojum.livejournal.com]

Have you read McKinley's _Beauty_ too? Same fairy tale, earlier in her career, in the stealth fluttering-bosoms romance novel cover. In one of several fluttering-bosoms covers, actually. I don't think it exists in a sensible cover.

Re: Lackey's "beauty"

[oneironaut.livejournal.com]

I've read it, but years and years ago, so I'm left with nothing but a vague impression of, as it happens, bosoms. I'm pretty sure I've got it in a box somewhere, but which box? I've actually been looking for it for a while, and I'm beginning to suspect I may have leant it to someone.

[kiya]

It's to spare your sanity.

Besides, they only did half of it.

[oneironaut.livejournal.com]

Besides, they only did half of it.

Christ, that's even worse.

Half of it is better than all of it.

[klawzie.livejournal.com]

Trust me. I'm still traumatized and attempting to block out the memories of having been forced to watch them in... middle school, I think. I didn't read the novels, even though I had them, until AFTER I had seen the first movie, I was so traumatised by the animated versions. I think part of it had to do with the music.

Then again, most of animated movies from that time period scare the beejebus out of me. Watership Down, something I watched my Freshman year of college, still gives me the shivers. Though one should never watch trippy movies after midnight during your first finals week either...

Re: Half of it is better than all of it.

[keeps.livejournal.com]

I watched Watership Down as a child, and all I remember of it is a bit with rabbits looking up in terror, clutching at their faces as the camera spins some, and then blood drips down the screen. It's all very confusing, and I keep meaning to see it again just to see if it was really that bad.

I much preferred Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.

[keeps.livejournal.com]

Actually, I have read it. And the post. I've silently scoured ursulav's entire journal, doing my best to be the cyberstalker she's always wanted.

And it would've worked, too, if it weren't for you meddling kids! And your little doggy too! And that side trip to see the Two Towers; that really ate up a lot of my plotting time.

Plus, Brin rules. I've stalked him on many occasions. You're in good company, ursulav.

[oneironaut.livejournal.com]

I've silently scoured ursulav's entire journal, doing my best to be the cyberstalker (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=ursulav&itemid=3885&thread=27693) she's always wanted.

Hey! Hey! I saw her first! Besides, what kind of stalker are you if you come right out and admit to it?

[keeps.livejournal.com]

I didn't! Not to her, anyways. Directly. Except immediately after I said that. But briefly, it was secret.

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

I promise I won't tell me nothin'.