I finally got around reading "The Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss. After browsing the internet, not only did I find that the second book was just released (perfect timing!) but I also stumbled upon this interview: http://www.sffworld.com/interview/224p0.html. The last question there was the one I'd like to discuss:


I find Rothfuss answer to be reasonable here: He doesn't aim to be "veritable" litterature and that's fine. What draws my attention is the interviewers way of expressing it, and from there I'd like to start:

Should fantasy receive more respect from the litterature community than it does?

I'll start by saying I love fantasy myself (which I suspect most of us do; this is still the TES forums in my head). HOWEVER, I've never considered it to be veritable litterature (I should add that I'm not really sure how to express the distinction in english, so I'll use the article's expression). It's not dikeens, Dostoevsky, Kafka, Salinger, Orwell etc. Why?

Let's use The Name of the Wind as an example. It's a story. An awesome story even, which I enjoyed immensly. But like almost all fantasy, it remains a modernized fairy tale. There's a hero, the story about this hero and how he became to be, there's magic, intrigue, love, adventure etc. But it somehow remains superficial. There's no deep delving into the human mind, no well-constructed critique of society, no philosophical thought experiments. It's just entertainment.

In contrast, I recently read "The World According to Garp" by John Irving (which I definitely recommend for everyone!). It's a completely different experience, the way I see it. It's a story that leaves you thinking; about death, sixuality/gender, relations, life in general. Unlike "The Name of the Wind", it engages me to a whole different degree than fantasy books have ever made. That said, "The World According to Garp" didn't hypnotize me into staying up later than I could handle just to read a few more pages. Rothfuss managed that though.

There are exceptions of course. Terry Pratchett's books are orgies of references and in the humor there's a depth that, just like with "veritable litterature", keeps you thinking afterwards. I'll also agree to the fact that a lot of the veritable litterature is mind-numbingly dull, and it's hard to spread your message if people won't read your book

I feel like fantasy could be so much more. There's nothing saying that a fantasy story has to be modernized fairy tales, but it seems to be what most writers pump out. At the same time, I don't see anything wrong with books "just" being entertainment. But if it's only entertainment, why try to convince people into believing fantasy is something it's not (yet)?

Do you think fantasy deserve more recognition from the litterature community?

If you agree that fantasy is "just" entertainment and modernized fairy tales, should it be considered positive if the genre tried to evolve?

Is the opinion I've just shared something everyone agrees on and I've gotten a crooked view from reading odd opinions online? :unsure:

TL;DR: See the fat, large text. It shouldn't be hard to miss.

it should not deserve respect simply for the sake of deserving respect.

technically any genre should be appreciated... fantasy is not above crime/horror etc..

genre is a personal thing of course.

I like fantasy because it reminds me of days of old.. noble knights, honour, loyalty etc.. all these positive character traits which sort of seem absent from modern society where its all money, possesions, looking good, american idol etc...

the kind of strong characters you get in fantasy ie Aragorn from lotr to me define real strength and courage, where you are strong and sensitive at the same time. Strength is not just big muscles and beating up the weak, real strength comes from the heart and nothing portrays this better than fantasy literiture.

A lot of fantasy has little depth. It may be very enjoyable, have excellent characters, and a great story but by in large the fantasy genre doesn't delve much deeper than this. It's not the only genre that tends to be rather light in this regard and these other genres (like mysteries, thrillers, and romances) also tend to be regarded as less than "literature" even if they are well done and otherwise great stories.

To be honest I don't have a problem with this. In my opinion if you want your story to be considered literature it needs to be more than just a good story with good characters. There doesn't need to be some enormous social message weighing down the story but there needs to be some greater meaning and depth to what is going on. Take The Lord of the Rings, which often is considered literature. Not only is there a big good vs. evil moral thread running through the series but it tackles issues of industrialisation, environmentalism, and the folly of isolationist "it isn't happening here so why get involved" sentiments, In my personal opinion it's this level of the story which brings something from being a story to being literature.

There aren't any genres that are unable to reach this level but there are genres that tend to more heavily favor lighter story telling . . . . and is that really a bad thing? I enjoy reading the works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn but sometimes I'd rather have pick up a techno-thriller by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child, just because Solzhenitsyn's works have more depth and weight doesn't mean it's inherently better in my opinion. Now it would be nice if more fantasy novels did strive towards literature by my definition, science-fiction has a huge repetroire of such authors and there's no good reason that fantasy can't achieve this as well.

Hungry Donner's got it right - for every decent author in any genre, there are a crap load of bad ones; it just so happens that fantasy and sci-fi seem to have a disproportionate amount. But that isn't to say that trashy pulp fiction paperbacks have no merit whatsoever; there are gems out there that allow authors to explore different areas of their craft. Think of it as slight genetic mutations - the mutations that are beneficial and useful will be noticed and reproduced and those that aren't will die away in time.

I guess the hardest part about fantasy is the inclusion of mythical creatures. It brings the story out of line with your normal human experience and if you're not careful with its application you will confuzzle the reader into a mindless mish-mash of confusing terms, language and scenes. I guess the reason why The Lord of the Rings worked so well was because Tolkein gave us the story behind them, fleshed them out and explained their significance - gave them a face, a voice and a personality. Compare that with, say, that Elder Scrolls novel which was a truly horrible thing to read. There is, I believe, a magic ratio between the normal and the fantastical that all authors have to find before their work begins to take life. Likewise, Roald Dahl's childrens' novels are a rather large collection of tall tales yet they are all believable because it allows you to suspend reality just enough to allow for things like Willy Wonka, Mr Fox, telekinesis and giant peaches.

Sci-fi and fantasy are pretty much the only books I read. Honestly I never knew about this idea that the genre is less respectable than others. I mean what would you have me read? Phil Collins's autobiography? The Science of Politics? If that's what it takes for a book to be respectable I'll stick with the non-respectable ones, thanks.

I don't enjoy reading as much as other activities, but if I'm going to read, it's NOT going to be a fantasy book. Every fantasy book I've ever read seems catered to twelve year olds. Books like Harry Potter or thw Twilight series keep my attention for about five minutes.

I don't think the genre should be respected more or less than..Well...Than it is. As a whole, the genre is filled with poorly thought out characters in a town that isn't believable by any stretch of the imagination who break physics and basic laws of nature. Generally the books seem childish, bland and predictable. For me, they're a waste of time.

I believe I speak for everyone when I say Harry Potter and Twilight are very bad examples of the genre.

Tolkien's Lord of the Rings (and various associated writings like the Simillaron) are some of the most beautiful pieces of world building, language experiments, and just downright enthralling story, that I have ever read. If they aren't considered good literature, then I don't know what is.

Woah woah woah, Harry Potter may not be Shakespeare but it's a fantastic series.