The Commonwealth of Fantasy and why I'm no longer a part of it.

One of the most interesting developments to emerge with the growth of online culture has been the expansion of the idea of a commonwealth of knowledge beyond academia and towards the general public.  Academics, despite frequently being in competition frequently wed themselves to the idea of serving their wider intellectual community, putting information and ideas out there for people to share in the hope of someone returning the favour.  This idea is what allows people to produce PhD's based on taking someone else's ideas and modifying them or expanding them to new areas without having to pay royalties.  Everyone benefits from this free exchange of ideas and everyone freely contributes to it, thereby creating a commonwealth.

The internet has taken this idea and run with it, meaning that a lot of people produce stuff for free purely in order to get stuff back somewhere down the line and to contribute to a wider scene because they themselves benefit from it in the long run.  The modern concept of the online "scene" functions a lot like a commonwealth.

Following the events surrounding THIS post (intended as a reply to Kit Whitfield's response to a couple of articles I wrote six months ago) I've decided that I don't want to contribute to the commonwealth of fantasy any more.  While I've never reviewed that much fantasy or really had a huge interest in it, I have occasionally devoted some energy to thinking about it and some people have appreciated those ideas and taken the time out to debate them if they disagreed with them.  Similarly, I've added to the online publicity of a few fantasy authors by reviewing their works and generally getting people talking about what they've written.  By and large it's worked pretty well for me and my Technorati rating suggests that it works pretty well for a number of others.

However, when people call into question the whole point of criticism (or "treating a book like an essay") and others post links to here on their blogs consisting of nothing but personal abuse, it's pretty clear that my motivation for contributing to the online fantasy scene is going to dry up pretty quickly.  As a result, I've decided that from now on I won't write about fantasy.  At all.  I won't review any books, I won't review any films, I won't review any TV and I won't share any ideas I might have whether they're controversial or not.  Simply put, I don't want anything to do with fantasy any more if some of the charmers who've linked to my post over the last few days are any indicator of the kind of person that is interested in reading about fantasy.  I'm done.

I'll continue to write about SF and other matters but from this point forward, I'm done with fantasy.

Comments

[A.R.Yngve]

Well, then I look forward to reading more of your articles on science fiction.
:)

[Hotspurdog]

While I understand your frustration, I do think it is a bit short-sighted. Whatever you think of the "fantasy community" that is made up of those pounding abuse into the blogosphere and Martin realm, that is merely a fraction of the community. I think it is supremely unfair of you to paint fantasy with such a broad brush. The people who read Neil Gaiman, China Mievelle, Lucius Shepard, Jeff Vandermeer, Michael Swanwick, M. John Harrison, Charles de Lint, Matthew Stover, Jonathan Carroll, etc. are not part of the same community that worships George R.R. Martin, Tad Williams, Robert Jordan, and so on. Sure there is overlap and people who enjoy both, but that doesn't change anything.

In fact, I think your attitude and surrendering in the face of big box epic fantasist geekyness goes hand in hand with what you were supposedly rallying against to begin with.

Just because George R.R. Martin fanatics might abuse you does not mean you should give up on supporting, discussing, promoting Mary Gentle or Forrest Aguirre. They are NOT the same community.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

To a certain extent you're correct Hotspurdog. I don't write for the popular fantasy scene. They have their blogs and forums and I tend to stay well clear, occasionally dipping into fantasy when the mood takes me.

Over the past year or so, pretty much every time I've strayed into the arena of popular fantasy I've been appalled at the nature of popular fantasy fans. It's a completely wretched scene full of people who not only don't understand why I'd want to "write about a book as though it's an essay" but consider "you're a retard" to be an acceptable synonym of "I don't agree with you".

So it's clear that I won't ever write about popular fantasy again because, frankly, the fans are wretched and I don't want them reading my words and I don't want to contribute to their enjoyment of fantasy by inadvertently providing them with reviews.

The problem then is that there's really no telling what I might say that will attract their attention. That post wasn't intended to attract anyone's attention other than Kit Whitfield who was nice enough to respond to one of my old posts.

The only way for me to properly take my ball home is for me not to engage at all with fantasy from this point onwards.

You're right I'm surrendering; I'm taking my ball and going home because I don't like some of the players. If I were in a different emotional state than I am now then I'd continue to fight and send broadsides across but I'm not in that emotional state. I just want rid of them and abandoning fantasy completely is the only way to be safe.

I don't want to contribute, even inadvertently, to the epic fantasy scene and if that means not giving coverage to the people that arguably deserve it then it's a price I'm happy to pay.

I'll re-examine how I feel in a few months time once things at home have settled down but right now I want out.

[L. L. Daugherty]

I discovered your essays on fantasy in the last week (how I missed them I'm not sure) and was, quite simply, blown away. They were articulate, lucid, objective and I've been thinking about them quite a lot, particularly in relation to my own writing. I'm sorry I've come too late to the discussion and I'm sorry, in particular, to hear that you've been attacked for them. I can understand divorcing yourself from the discussion rather than dealing with the hot heaping hate of the blogosphere. At the risk of sounding fawning, just know there is one fat fantasy fan (yes, I do enjoy mental chewing gum from time to time; I have to do something, since I don't have cable) out here that enjoyed the hell out of your essays.

[Franky]

I'm sorry to hear, um, read that... But maybe it's for the best : reviewing books belonging to a genre you dislike is probably neither enjoyable to you nor useful to your readers.

What truly saddens me is that this discussion about authoritarian tropes in epic fantasy was a worthy one, and didn't deserve being polluted by all the arguing and name-calling.

I think what ignited tempers was your putting GRRM's fans in the same category as the legions of common "fat fantasy" lovers. You should be aware that Martin's fans consider themselves well above those who worship Goodkind, Feist or even Jordan - and not without reason : Martin is among those few fantasists out there whose books possess genuine literary quality, unlike the more superficial, childish stories which make up the bulk of modern epic fantasy. (ASOIAF may be full of kings and knights and battles, but at least you won't find any 20-year-old ex-farmboys capable of flattening entire armies with a flick of their hand...)

And in their outrage, many did not realize that your post was not an universal critique of GRRM, and in fact completely missed your point. Calling them "passive" and "sheep-like" probably didn't help, either ...

This sorry incident really cast fantasy fans in a bad light, but I hope you'll realize that not all of us are uncivilized - it's just that the blogosphere is a place where people often show the worst of them.

And maybe someday you'll get to write a positive review on GRRM - after all, he used to be a successful sci-fi writer before he mired himself in his multi-volume epic, and he swears that if he ever manages to complete ASOIAF he, too, will be done with epic fantasy...

[Jonathan McCalmont]

L.L. -- Many thanks for the kind thoughts and I'm glad you enjoyed my ideas :-)

Franky -- You're right that I partly brought it upon myself but if GRRM fans honestly think they're a cut above your average popular fantasy fan then they really are completely deluded.

My desire to review more fantasy and more popular stuff came partly from the fact that I tend to get a lot of advance review copies of popular fantasy sent to me and partly from the fact that I realised a few months ago that I was being read by the same group of people and that the wider SFF community was really quite badly served by their reviewers who tend to limit themselves to plot synopses and brief evaluations. So I thought it would be interesting to deal with popular writers but in a critical fashion.

However, now I realise that not only are popular fantasy fans not interested in new ways of looking at things, they're actively hostile to them (thereby confirming a lot of the charges I laid at their door). So there's no point at all in me trying to engage with them and I no longer want to contribute anything to their commonwealth of reviews and discussion.

I realise that not all fantasy fans are closed-minded tribal cretins but my experience has shown me, not just from this episode but from a few others, that the fantasy scene really is much more unpleasant than other similar scenes.

If I write a negative review or make a cutting remark about an SF writer I usually get thoughtful, polite responses expressing disagreement. When I write a negative review about a fantasy author I get sprayed with shit. It really is that simple and as a result I've decided that the bulk of fantasy fans simply aren't worth engaging with.

Having said that, I was offered a review copy of a book about fantasy that "treats books like essays" and I intend to write about it when I get it.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

PS, as a basis for comparison, a few months ago I wrote a damning review of Hamilton's The Harlequin. The Anita Blake fans got hold of it and I got a similar treatment to the one i received from GRRM fans, which is fair enough because I was hugely rude about Hamilton, her books and her fans.

However, the hostility and the hatred from GRRM fans was far more intense than it was from Hamilton fans who were content to reject me out of hand as "not a fan" or make a few insulting remarks and leave it at that. When it spread from the forums to the blogosphere I received some flack but most of the Hamilton fans that linked to me presented it as "here's a review that I really disagree with".

So while GRRM fans might consider themselves a cut above the average fantasy fan, I can, from experience, state categorically that they're more tribal, closed minded and vindictive than people who read stories about A Mary Sue that fucks vampires and werewolves.

[Franky]

Well, I won't deny that Martin's fans can be a pretty rabid lot. After all, Martin himself had to ban some of them from posting comments on his own blog...

Btw, what's the title of this "book about fantasy" you mentioned? I've always thought there was a serious lack of nonfiction books dealing with modern fantasy.

[Serdar]

I'm sorry to see that you came to this decision - frankly, I think you not talking about fantasy at all is a bit of a loss for all involved. Also, I know there's a good deal of non-cliche' fantasy out there (China Mielville [sp?] comes to mind) that would be well worth talking about.

Don't let the fact that a few people don't know how to have a civil discussion dissuade you.

[Serdar]

Oh, p.s. on my part: I would be lying if I said I wasn't doing this because I was afraid that you would consequently never look at one of my books in the future. I'd rather have a negative review from someone of your caliber than a positive review from any other people.

[A.R.Yngve]

I just don't know why some people take their enthusiasm for genre fiction too far. It resembles the behavior of cults, and I can't stand cults.

I think there's genuine value in discussing and analyzing fiction -- partly but not only because novels reflect the larger culture we live in -- but fanatical worship of fiction, any fiction, is plain dumb.

Genre authors write books, people -- not holy books.
:-/

[Adam Whitehead]

I found this post to be remarkable. You claim to have limited knowledge about a genre, make some insulting and sweeping generalised comments with no evidence to back them up, then present yourself as a martyr wounded by some vindictive hate campaign when in fact people with greater knowledge of the genre simply called you on your mistakes and you were unable to provide reasonable answers?

Astonishing. If you cannot handle robust debate, why have a debating blog in the first place?

[Jonathan McCalmont]

I welcome robust debate.

What I don't want is people who think that "this guy's obviously a troll", "he's a retard" and "his views are disgusting" are acceptable responses to someone you disagree with.

Many of the respondents were insightful and I hope a lot of them stick around but a sizeable chunk of the responses were not what I consider acceptable and so I've decided that I'll be a lot happier if I stay away from that particular demographic.

I don't think anyone presented me with questions I couldn't answer. Most, yourself included, seemed to not quite grasp my position; preferring to either point out that the medieval period WAS authoritarian, pointing out that GRRM is a liberal or arguing that because he's actually hostile to the nobles, he's actually critiquing authoritarianism.

I think the third argument had the most legs but the first two just aren't engaging with my position.

[Zahir]

I've read the entire thread of debate to which you refer. And it seems to me you have failed to answer many of the points made by respondents who--for the most part--were polite in responding to your claims. On the other hand, you immediately began by labelling fans of epic fantasy "sheep" and then went on to make some fairly extraordinary claims which you then did not defend.

For example (and this is just vis a vis my own replies) you did not reply to my claim that the motivation and goal behind fiction is not propoganda. Nor to the suggestion that you were using a much-too-broad definition of "authoritarian." Nor to my own testimony that fans of fantasy actually cover a broad political spectrum.

At most you (above) implied that to believe "a novel is not an essay" somehow negates the whole idea of literary criticism. That I will take issue with right this moment. Your premise seems to be that the proper purpose behind literature is to advance specific ideological agendas. You would look upon Ben Johnson and C.S.Lewis as examples of what writers "should" be doing--telling stories with specific and predetermined lessons to be imparted. But I would maintain--and as I pointed out before, Virginia Wolfe would agree--that the impulse to write stories is more complex. Most of the truly powerful, longest-lasting examples of literature do nothing of the kind. Shakespeare, Tolkien, Austen and others are examples of writers who create a "history" from which the reader gains not a specific answer to a pre-planned question but rather an experience of life which sinks into the bones. What we as readers learn is entirely up to us, like life. By throwing life into sharp relief, writers and other artists enact a ritual intended to change the audience, but not into copies of what we think they should be. This is art which grants liberty to the reader first and foremost.

Not all writers do in fact seek to create stories in this way. Terry Goodkind, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Philip Pullman all are fairly explicit in their attempts to convey a message. Their works of course should be judged along those lines. After all, not to do so would be akin to assessing the design of a boat based on its ability to fly! But to claim or hint that such is the proper way to judge all literature seems mistaken at best. Many very great pieces of literature continue to baffle and confound those who seek a "meaning" from it all. Quite rightly, because some of these works do not have any such meaning. They are not fables. Indeed, the fact we have the word "fable" would indicate an awareness that other forms of storytelling exist.

[Elio M. García, Jr.]

"... acceptable responses to someone you disagree with."

I would caution that remarks people make off on some random blog or forum are not really responses to "you" as a person in any real sense, not least because I'm sure we're all aware of the experience of thinking ill-thoughts about someone in private (or semi-private; forums and blogs often engender the feeling of the clubhouse) which you'd never actually express to their face (although here the internet loosens things up a bit, too).

From the actual comment thread, for the most part I felt people were quite restrained, especially given that you had insulted many of them first. Possibly you have been deleting posts.

As to whether it's acceptable for people to be dismissive (and rudely so) regarding your remarks... well. Let me digress:

Speaking of what's acceptable or not, regardless of what topics you write about in the future, I believe pre-emptively calling potential commentators 'passive' and 'sheep-like' is just asking for trouble. It immediately provided a combative frame of reference. Many were capable of (mostly) ignoring that, but obviously some didn't.

But as I said, that was a digression...

I would suggest that you may be "shit" upon by fantasy fans (I assume you mean those of the epic variety primarily) because, as far as I can tell, you are actually hostile towards their favored genre ("fantasy is shit and is for nerds") and speak on the topic from a position of hostility. Given your remarks in the post, and from my brief skimming of your prior posts, you seem rather more open towards science fiction and so I suppose you are, whether you realize it or not, less hostile when you address it and whatever flaws or graces you perceive in it, and so for the most part your responses from readers are also tend to be less hostile.

It makes a difference.

[David Harmon]

So, just glancing across my bookshelf:

Ray Bradbury
Robert Asprin
Louis McMaster Bujold
Steven Brust
Madeline L'Engle
Diana Wynne Jones
Andre Norton
Roger Zelazny
Sharon Shinn
Scott Westerfield
Gene Wolfe

Now, many of those don't only write fantasy... but really, who are you hurting here? Tain't me! And please, let's skip the "no true Scotsman" arguments; the most basic problem with your position is that "fantasy" covers a lot more ground than you think. Now, I actually do follow several "fantasy by the pound" authors, but I can also appreciate the more venturesome works, and I don't confuse the two subgenres.

Regarding the inappropriate and abusive comments you got, I suggest you adopt TNH's practice of diemvowellment; I think you'll be surprised just how much difference it makes. The merely hostile comments, you earned. (q.v. previous commenters on this thread)

[David Harmon]

Typos, bah. TNH's practice is disemvowellment. But desiblification might be an entertaining variation! ;-)

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Elio -- I stand by my claims that the epic fantasy audience are passive, and going on this little display I'll add tribal, closed-minded and rabidly intolerant.

I repeat, GRRM fans are considerably worse in this regard than Hamilton's fans. I took a hatchet to the Harlequin and didn't get anywhere near as much shit flung at me as I "earned" in making a passing comment about how GRRM tacitly accepts the authoritarian view of how society works.

Fine, I dislike epic fantasy. So what? plenty of people hate what I hate and to me that doesn't make them "retards" or "trolls"... it makes them wrong. I'm happy to be wrong, it's everything else that I've been accused of that's made me no longer want any kind of engagement whatsoever with epic fantasy fans.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

David -- I have no idea who TNH is I'm afraid. I have no problem covering books that are also read by epic fantasy fans because obviously there's a good deal of bleed between genres and scenes but I don't want to contribute to the online scene purely of epic fantasy fans.

As it is, when I post a review it frequently gets picked up by various forums and it's there for people when they google a review. I don't want my stuff to be out there for them. I don't want to provide any more resources.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Zahir --

1) I never claimed that ASOIAF was authoritarian propaganda. The claim I made from the beginning was that many of the fantasy genre's tropes were authoritarian. By not challenging a lot of these tropes, GRRM is therefore tacitly accepting authoritarianism.

2) Intention doesn't enter into it. A work doesn't need to be as preachy as The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe to "make a point". A point can be made subconsciously by virtue of the assumptions an author uses and the received wisdom he does not question, and that's without entering into the world of postmodernism where anything that can be coherently extracted from a text is considered a part of that text even if the author actively disagrees with it. "The Author is Dead" and all that.

Tolkien is an excellent example of this. He claimed that his books were not about anything but that which he wrote about but if you examine the text you see the traces not only of the attitudes of his day and his upbringing but also events that were going on at the time. These weren't necessarily intended but they're nonetheless in there.

Every text, be it fiction or non-fiction can be examined for intentional and unintentional theoretical baggage. That's part of what criticism is all about.

That's the perspective I'm writing from. If you look back over my posts you'll see that it's always been the position I've written from.

So your criticisms of my position have been unfounded as the position you're attacking is not mine.

You haven't asked questions I'm unable to answer. You haven't put forward a devastating critique that undermines my whole point. You're mistaken about what my position is.

Given that I was receiving so many posts, I simply could not be bothered to explain literary criticism to you. If you'd made that accusation at a time when I wasn't having to spend huge amounts of time responding to other people then I would happily have taken time out to explain to you why you're mistaken about me (as I am now), but at the time it seemed less pressing than answering the posts of the people who did understand where I was coming from.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Elio -- I'm aware that many of the remarks aren't addressed at me and, to my mind, that makes it worse.

I understand the sociology at work here. One sees one's peer group throw it's weight behind a certain position and in order to ingratiate oneself to that peer group you chime in with one's agreement or one ups the hostility a bit to make one look really outraged and therefore really part of the group.

It's the mentality of the mob and it really is profoundly ugly and, need I say it?, one of the elements of Adorno's authoritarian personality.

[Elio M. García, Jr.]

"I stand by my claims that the epic fantasy audience are passive"

Well, of course you stand by your pre-emptive framing remarks that those who read GRRM are "sheep-like". It's what one does in these situations.

It was your choice to frame the dialog in combative terms, so I see no reason to offer up apologia for the fact that you "received" remarks in kind. Would it have been better if they said "troll-like" or "retard-like"? You called them sheep, and some called you an asshole. Well, what of it?

As to Hamilton fans, I've several thoughts on why they treated you more "nicely". Some of them have to do with that particular readership ("I also suspect that it's a question of frame of reference. From what I've seen of the LKH forums, I get the impression that LKH's core fan-base is quite young and therefore not very widely read."). And another may be that while you bashed that particular book, you did not bash the paranormal genre as a whole. That's a much larger topic, and so I'm not surprised that people were rather a lot more engaged.

For that matter, looking at your Hamilton review, I see that the fans who "abused" you (the quotes because I still do not consider remarks not directly addressed to you as "abuse" in this particular context; you are either a sensitive soul or you are rather cynically painting a very large community with a broad brush) almost to a one didn't bother to actually respond to you in your own blog -- the responses you received in your own thread were largely back-patting remarks cheering you on, rather than any serious and thoughtful disagreements.

It's hardly a surprise, then, that you were comfortable with it when they were off in a forum somewhere so that you could condescend to these supposedly inexperienced young women who hadn't read broadly and wouldn't give you much of a debate. But now that you drew the attention of quite a lot of people who actually responded to what you wrote, and made any number of arguments against your remarks (from the way you framed it to your conclusions), you pick up the ball and go home snarling about "close-minded tribal cretins".

Quite the performance.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

That is why I say that they're tribal.

I'm an SF fan. If you were to point to Star Trek tie-ins and those Horatio Hornblower in Spaaace books as evidence of the passivity of SF fandom, I'd agree with you and direct some choice invective at my fellow fans.

But a GRRM sees someone pointing out that fantasy audiences are passive and sheep-like in their conservatism (a fact amply supported by the fact that the likes of Karen Miller outsell Scott Lynch and China Mieville by some depressing ratio) and their response is to call that person a retard and a troll.

But that's neither here nor there as the big bone of contention was not that I called them sheep-like but that I said that GRRM tacitly accepted authoritarianism.

That's what brought people here, that's what the debate was about.

I fail to see how I'm a troll for making that accusation.

[Brahm]

"I never claimed that ASOIAF was authoritarian propaganda. The claim I made from the beginning was that many of the fantasy genre's tropes were authoritarian. By not challenging a lot of these tropes, GRRM is therefore tacitly accepting authoritarianism."

He is accepting authoritarianism insofar as that means that he believes that the Western Middle Ages were authoritarian in nature. To accept the position that the Medieval Period was not authoritarian at all seems far removed from history to me- after all, authoritarianism is described as "a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical-" which reflects the feudal system in England quite well. Your only arguments seem to be that GRRM doesn't give any credence to some sort of middle class or challengers to the king's power (which, as others have pointed out, is not true- I recommend reading the rest of the series before criticizing)- but the existence of a small middle class does not negate the authoritarian aspects of the Middle Ages. So, its quite as simple as Martin wanting to set his world in the Middle Ages, and trying to do it realistically- what would you have him do, have merchant revolutions and parliamentary wars, just so as not to be labelled as "accepting authoritarianism?" Give me a writer who will sacrifice his beliefs over writing a good story over a writer who uses the story solely as a means to advance his beliefs at the cost of the story anyday. If this isn't contending your position, then you might consider making your position much clearer, since it seems incomprehensible to most, apparently.

And please, stop trying to paint yourself as a martyr. I'm sure there were several hostile and sarcastic posts- however, the majority of them were polite and provided arguments and examples, many of which you did not respond to. As others have pointed out, you have been hostile to fantasy fans as of the "sheep" comment- further calling them "tribal, closed-minded and rabidly intolerant" and then complaining that some of them call you a troll does not seem very gentlemanlike to me.

In conclusion, fantasy isn't for you. You said that as of your first post in the other article- you said that you don't "get fantasy," and then launched into a critique of it anyway. I don't get Jane Austen- I don't read Jane Austen. If you don't get fantasy, and don't like reading it, then not reading epic fantasy is the best choice you can make.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

"He is accepting authoritarianism insofar as that means that he believes that the Western Middle Ages were authoritarian in nature. To accept the position that the Medieval Period was not authoritarian at all seems far removed from history to me- after all, authoritarianism is described as "a form of social control characterized by strict obedience to the authority of a state or organization, often maintaining and enforcing control through the use of oppressive measures. Authoritarian regimes are strongly hierarchical-" which reflects the feudal system in England quite well. Your only arguments seem to be that GRRM doesn't give any credence to some sort of middle class or challengers to the king's power (which, as others have pointed out, is not true- I recommend reading the rest of the series before criticizing)"

I've addressed this argument a number of times now but I'll do it one last time because I can't be arsed to do any work.

The historical analysis of the middle ages that GRRM tacitly uses and which you seem to place so much faith in has actually become less and less fashionable as a means of examining medieval history. 50 years ago you'd be hard pressed to find anyone arguing that history was made by anything other than the conflicts between important people. Nowadays though, a lot of historians and political scientists favour the idea that aristocrats had little real influence over events when compared to social and economic pressures such as the rise of the middle class, the early modern "mini ice age" depriving the aristocrats of their traditional agricultural economic base and a number of other issues like that.

I have books about medieval history that talk about the big events of that period exclusively in terms of social pressures with the aristocrats largely figureheads for wider interests or people resisting or surfing on the wave of social change.

Like most fantasy, GRRM does not adopt this second "liberal" understanding of history. His story is all about noble houses wailing on each other.

In his decision to take this approach to history, GRRM is no different to the likes of Tolkien, Lewis, Weiss and Hickman or most fantasists who have written over the last 50 years.

I think that this is unfortunate.

I haven't read the sections that involve the people questioning the feudal order but it's quite possible that these people, while professing a need for democracy, are in fact doing so in a manner entirely consistant with traditional authoritarian fantasy.

For example, if it's a load of knights or warriors who operate as yet another squabbling house but with more democratic principles the underlying social ontology would remain authoritarian. As I've said, it would depend upon how this plot-line were handled.

"you said that you don't "get fantasy," and then launched into a critique of it anyway"

I did no such thing. What I did was say that I didn't get fantasy and then attempted to understand (based on discussions with a number of fantasy fans) what fantasy fans see in epic fantasy.

I also said epic or fat fantasy. I've made it clear that I'm not talking about the more transgressive stuff that wins prizes but doesn't shift many copies.

In my more recent post what I did was respond to a number of precise points made by Kit Whitfield. That was me returning a blog "tag". So again I was not launching into a critique of fantasy.

Besides which, if I had launched into a critique of fantasy that would have amounted to no more than "I don't like fantasy for reasons X, Y and Z" I fail to see why this should attract hostility from anyone.

"I don't get Jane Austen- I don't read Jane Austen."

Well maybe that's the difference between us. You don't like things and then make no effort to re-examine your tastes. I like to push myself outside of my comfort zone.

If I wanted to stay within my comfort zone I'd read nothing but hard SF and historical non-fiction about Vikings and Early Modern France. However, I wanted to take another look at fat fantasy and thought I'd share my attempts to understand a genre I traditionally find tiresome and pedestrian.