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

[Zahir]

The whole notion of "...many of the fantasy genre's tropes were authoritarian. By not challenging a lot of these tropes, GRRM is therefore tacitly accepting authoritarianism" carries with it the assumption that Martin has some kind of responsibility to make a political comment. It presumes--despite your denial--that literature is about furthering ideology.

It is a different thing to claim that a writer's worldview becomes visible to some extent in their work. Frankly, that is an obvious (if totally valid) observation. But you did not do so, but went further. You insisted that because authors do not address institutions of which you disapprove with clear-cut disapproval in their stories that they are tacitly promoting those institutions. This omits an important aspect of any valid criticism--context.

Not simply the context of the story itself (to use ASOIAF as an example--to what extent individuals in a feudal era would address modern political ideas) but also the context of the story's nature, its purpose. I'm aware that much so-called criticism dismisses the author's intentions as of little importance, which frankly seems arrogant and myopic (at least imo). But even aside from that, it also ignores the vital context of what happens when people read the book (statements that fantasy fans are simultaneously "passive" and "sheep" yet attack you so much you leave the field to the contrary). In short, very many (I would posit most) readers do not enter into imaginary worlds for the sake of a fable but to exercise their imaginations. What then compells to them to stay are good characterization of interesting fictional persons, a compelling and surprising storyline, and good writing. Good writing in this context means an adherence to techniques of clarity, of matching rhythms, etc.

Ignoring what happens when people actually read novels when engaging in literary criticism seems akin to judging food by everything except its taste. Likewise, methinks literary criticism doesn't mean very much if it routinely ignores not only the author's intention but the actual process of reading said literature.

Meanwhile--and this is a more personal note--your attitude continues to be one of insulting others while acting as a martyr when they respond as if insulted. It cannot be denied your posts are often clever. They are also frequently condescending and--more subtly--deceitful. The crack about "a devastating critique that undermines my whole point" is a case in point. I never made such a claim. I merely used my own posts on issues that were brought up multiple times as something to which you did not respond. Until now. Whereupon you airly claimed I "...don't understand literary criticism" because I consider the author's intention to be an important factor. You don't really respond to this premise, but dismiss it on the grounds that one can analyze literature without taking such into account. Whether one should is not addressed, save by the words "Intention doesn't enter into it."

[David Harmon]

TNH is Teresa Nielsen Hayden, moderator of Making Light. Besides being a prominent forum in the SF field (Teresa is a contributing editor at Tor), Making Light is a model of how to run a forum.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

"You insisted that because authors do not address institutions of which you disapprove with clear-cut disapproval in their stories that they are tacitly promoting those institutions."

Again, I never said that. My argument was aesthetic, not political. I have no interest in GRRM's real world politics, I was merely giving his decision not to question a particular trope an example of the conservatism of the genre.

I would agree with your characterisation of the psychology of the fantasy fan. In fact, I said a lot of that in the original articles. Where we differ is that I think that one of the things that attracts people to epic fantasy again and again is that they don't have to keep re-learning the world in order to exercise their imaginations. The similarity of many fat fantasy novels is a feature for many fantasy fans as it is for one of their sub-groups, fantasy role-players.

I wasn't so much rejecting your position out of hand as saying that in the context of having so many messages to respond to, the need to have a more basic debate about terms of engagement was not particularly welcome. At a more sedate time I am more than willing to discuss these matters.

I'm not acting the martyr. I'm deciding that I don't want to go through this nonsense any more.

[Arilou]

"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."

And you will find, should you head over to the ASOIAF boards, that the same is true of many GRRM fans. (Indeed, it was via recommendations on the ASOIAF board that I ran into China Mieville in the first place) There used to be a several dozen pages long thread dissing Robert Jordan. Goodkind-bashing has actually turned into something of a meme on it's own, and there are discussions about all sll sorts of SF and fantasy (and the appreciation for different kinds of it)

Your problem is that you assumed (out of reading a single book, not even all the finished books, of a series that itself is not concluded)

You also have a tendency to dismiss anyone not rigidly adhering to your specific brand of literary critcism as "not understanding literary criticism" is as annoying as say... A marxist historian dismissing any other historical theory becuase obviously his is right.

Which it may well be, but if that is the case it behooves you to explain why your theory is right and your opponent's is wrong.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

"Your problem is that you assumed"

I assumed what exactly? that Ned Stark taking pride in beheading an oathbreaker was a tacit acceptance of authoritarianism? That's not assuming... that's observing.

I said repeatedly in the other thread that I wasn't commenting on the other books. In fact, I've requested clarification of Adam's democrats but none has been forthcoming. I made no assumptions or inferences about the rest of the books and I'm happy to be proved wrong should someone present me with proof that halfway through the series GRRM switches to a liberal view of history.

"You also have a tendency to dismiss anyone not rigidly adhering to your specific brand of literary critcism"

Not true. What I did was decide not to engage with someone who had trouble grasping the position I was arguing from. In fact, I've answered him above.

[Zahir]

Actually, I believe my description matches the vast majority of readers of all fiction.

Meanwhile, your posts continue to avoid issues. For example, this condescending air you affect about fans of a genre of which you admit you are not even remotely fond. The above crack is a case in point. All fiction is an imaginary world and my comments were about all readers, not simply those whom you called "sheep." Since you began by insulting literally thousands and thousands of people for no other reason than they enjoy a genre you do not, it seems disingenuous for you to complain about an emotional reaction. If you didn't want an emotional response, you certainly possess the writing skills not to call thousands of strangers nasty names. And while you currently claim that your objections to epic fantasy are aesthetic, up until now your words have been those of political ideology. Again, somewhat disengenous. At best. Especially given your outright complaint above about Martin's lack of a "liberal view of history" (regardless of whether such is even appropriate for his story). Earlier I mentioned the quality of irony, which one would think is something a literary critic might apply to understanding the content of various works. Case in point--Ned Stark is portrayed as an essentially honorable man who is also a failure. In fact, it is his honor--which we as readers find so admirable--that leads to the spread of corruption in Westeros. Methinks this is a far more potent area to understanding than the--to me--cheap judgment that because he behaves like a medeviel warlord (given he is one) then we're supposed to somehow find approval for authoritarianism (which is a word frankly overused in this discussion, IMHO, given that its definition is so broad as to include any leadership roles in a pre-industrial society).

[Kit Whitfield]

Sorry to hear this hasn't worked out well for you. I hope that I'm right in suspecting that, when it comes to people insulting each other, most fantasy fans, as with most fans of anything, are nice, reasonable people who are getting a bad representation from the most aggressive members of their group. Internet debates can become heated very quickly, which gets upsetting for all concerned.

Oh well. Just for the sake of clarity - people are saying here that 'authoritarianism' hasn't been clearly defined. Since I'm the troublemaker who brought it up (your original word was 'conservatism'), I guess I should step up with a definition in case it helps: I was using the word as defined in Bob Altemeyer's online psychology book 'The Authoritarians', which can be read here: http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

It's more up-to-date than Adorno's work, which you mention, Jonathan; in the footnotes to the first chapter he discusses revisions researchers made to Adorno's original 'F scale' to iron out its kinks. He uses the 'RWA [Right-Wing Authoritarian] scale': wikipedia article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_authoritarianism

I'd highly recommend it, but I'll summarise it quickly, as I'm sure everyone's busy. Briefly, its thesis is that there are actually two different kinds of authoritarian personality. The first, which is his main area of study, displays:

- A high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in your society

- High levels of aggression the name of those authorities

- High levels of conventionalism - meaning not only a desire to live according to the norms, but the belief that everybody else ought to as well

The cognitive traits associated with these three defining features include an: unusually frightened attitude towards the dangers of the world, and the belief that any deviation from the norms is likely to be the final straw that will cast the world into chaos; a tendency to compartmentalised thinking; double standards, particularly when it comes to judging the outsiders more harshly than the insiders; illogical thinking, specifically assuming that the if the conclusion is right, the reasoning must be sound, rather than the other way; credulousness towards people who tell you what you want to hear; ethnocentrism; dogmatism; and in general, a deep discomfort with having certainties questioned and a preference for having your certainties provided by trusted leaders.

Those are authoritarian followers. Altemeyer also describes authoritarian leaders, who may cast themselves as being similar in thinking to authoritarian followers to get support, but in fact are characterised by different qualities: a strong desire for power; a belief that the world is a jungle and it's every man for himself; a conviction that kindness is for suckers and it's better to be feared than loved; lack of sympathy for those weaker than themselves; an amoral belief that right and wrong are irrelevant in comparison to what you can get away with; and, in general, a desire to be on top and a willingness to lie, pretend and screw people over to get there.

Those two personalities are a natural fit for one another and often work together to everyone's detriment, hence, despite the fact that they're very different, it can be easy to assume somebody is talking about one when actually their talking about the other, leading to confusion. When I said 'authoritarian' in my original article, I meant authoritarian followers. I'm pasting this definition to the bottom of it, for future reference.

Hence, it's possible to have a book written by an authoritarian follower - or else, in the style of thinking that an authoritarian followers displays - that posits noble leaders who are protecting their flock from the evil and chaos of the world, because that's the kind of leader that authoritarian followers want to believe in. It's also possible to have a book written by an authoritarian leader, or in the style of one, in which the hero gets what he grabs and the divvil take the hindermost.

I wouldn't necessarily assume that somebody who write a book in the style of an authoritarian leader or follower must inevitably be one in real life; Robert E. Howard's Conan stories, for example, are heartily of the authoritarian leader persuasion, but in real life he was an extremely shy and unhappy man who shot himself at the age of thirty after the death of his mother, poor guy. A very sad story, but not at all an authoritarian one.

Anyway, thanks to you and everyone on the threads for giving me much food for thought; I hope you all have a nice day.

[Kit Whitfield]

Oops, typo: 'actually their talking about the other' - I mean 'actually they're talking about the other', of course. Sorry; that's a mistake that always annoys me.

[Max Cairnduff]

Hey Jonathan,

There is a fair bit of excellent fantasy fiction out there, typically however you will not find it on the bookshop shelves under the fantasy heading. As a rule it's either out of print or recategorised.

I doubt there is any genre devoid of literary merit, I would imagine there are great romance novels though I know of none.

The thing is, fat fantasy fans don't read as a rule the better works of fantasy, because fantasy writing at its best is subversive and alien to our experience, or has a mythic tone to it.

Most fantasy fans have no interest in or knowledge of mythology, hence their preference for alternate realities which are essentially less interesting variants on our world plus magic. Most fantasy fans distinctly do not want subversion, which is why they prefer GRRM to Viriconium.

The sad thing with GRRM is that he set out intentionally to literarise (to make up a word) the fat fantasy genre, but instead I think has got bogged down in it.

Anyway, my point such as I have one is that there is great fantasy fiction, but it is so different to fat fantasy as to be almost a separate genre and the fat fantasy fans have generally neither knowledge of nor interest in the high end stuff.

Present a Jordan fan with Grendel and most will not know what to make of it, they certainly won't recognise it as a wry commentary on the myth of the hero and as an existentialist text. They read for comfort, not for insight.

Tolkienian fantasy is a literary cul-de-sac, and one that sadly has throttled most of the fantasy genre, it is IMO the antithesis of fantasy, as it is not fantastic.

A map in the front of the book, a glossary of terms, carefully detailed histories, a codifed approach to magic, geography history and economics aplenty. That's all very well, but none of it is fantastic and the fat fantasy genre is IMO profoundly misnamed, because the fantastic is exhaustively excised from it.

I finished reading The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie today, Saturday I finished Hangover Square, both novels are essentially realist literary fiction but both also contain more true fantasy than a thousand Goodkinds because both permit of the possibility of transformative experience and the inexplicability of life, issues which fat fantasy fans actively avoid.

[Franky]

“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.”

And if you were to point at Karen Miller or all those fantasy writers content to re-hash LotR and Conan as evidence of the passivity of fantasy fandom, I don’t think you’d have been called a troll either. Indeed, most of the crowd hanging out on the ASOIAF boards would probably have cheered you, and the Karen Miller fans probably wouldn’t have reacted any worse than the Anita Blake people.
But the fact is, there’s a large epic fantasy audience out there who does *not* want to read the same tired old stuff, but expects something new and different from its authors. And though certain old genre tropes may persist, in many ways authors like Martin, Bakker, Hobb, Lynch, Kay, Erikson, Durham and others do contribute to a genuine renewal of the epic fantasy genre, bringing it further and further away from Tolkien and Lewis. While it certainly doesn’t excuse the insults, this may help explain the outrage caused by the words “passive and sheep-like”.

Besides, since it seems the debate about Martin is not closed after all, I might as well contribute a bit further.

Your claim is that Martin adopts the "authoritarian" way of explaining major historical changes rather than the "liberal" one.
I don’t think he chooses either, since ASOIAF does *not* depict any major historical changes. Martin’s kingdom of Westeros has remained “frozen” for thousands of years in a feudal society similar to England and France ca. 1100-1150. There have been periodic outbreaks of wars between rival lords, some even bloodier than the “War of the Five Kings” depicted in the novels, but these wars have caused no significant change (except cosmetic ones, such as one House replacing another). They’re, in fact, a normal feature of this type of society.
The only real event since the invention of steel was the unification of the Seven Kingdoms, which resulted from the introduction of dragons in Westeros – and even this transformation seems about to be reverted now that the dragons have died out.
What makes this particular war so special is that it weakens the kingdom at a critical moment, just before the coming of a terrible, supernatural Winter – a winter which, unlike the war, will be a true factor of change.

As for Martin’s supposed acceptance of the authoritarian nature of the medieval society – well, examples of the iniquities of the feudal system, and the pointless suffering and death they cause, abound in ASOIAF. Many characters do express the view that “a kingdom needs a strong ruler“ – but solely because the only choice these characters can conceive is between one big bad tyrant and a hundred small ones (and the latter is certainly worse than the former, as the people of Somalia or Iraq have learnt at their expense).
The “people who question the feudal order” in ASOIAF are not “democrats” in the classic sense, just people who have grown disillusioned with lords and knights of every hue – which is why they style themselves the “Brotherhood without Banners”. They’re not trying to impose a different order (at least not so far), but looking for ways to feed the starving people, and offering them some measure of protection against the roving bands of mercenaries and men-at-arms in the service of both Stark and Lannister.

From what I’ve read of his works, GRRM is no authoritarian, but a rather pessimistic liberal who, not being a historian or a social scientist, prefers to avoid the difficult questions. And who says he has to tackle them anyway?

[mhayinde]

I hope you change your mind about reviewing fantasy, but I understand your decision!

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Max -- Quite so. Hope you're feeling better by the way.

[Arilou]

Kit: The irony is that both authoritarian leaders and followers abound in Westeros (not strange, the society *is* authoritarian) but I cannot for the life of me understand how one can assume that the story *supports* this view (unlike say, the Conan stories)

If anything Martin is highly pessimistic in gneeral: Both naked ambition/realpolitik and honour-bound idealism seem incapable of solving the actual problems faced by society. There is none of the glorification of the strong leader that is latent in the Conan stories, not even the traditionalist awe of kingship that lies in LOTR. His *characters* exhibit all of those traits, but not the story itself, becuase we repeatedly see them fail. I can see how a person might interpet this pessimism as conservatism, but I think that is probably wrong.

[Greg Shaffer]

This is hilarious. From this and the previous post it's abundantly clear that your definition of "sheep" is "anyone who disagrees with me."

But when the "sheep" call you out on your BS and present you with point after point that you simply have no answer for, your response is essentially a "screw you guys, I'm going home." It's always fun to see the condescendingly arrogant taken down a notch or two. I'm sure that in your mind we all just don't get your brilliance, but that's the beauty of pomposity: you're never wrong, even when the facts say you are.

[Zach H.]

I’m a fan of epic fantasy, and it’s qualities like “the possibility of transformative experience” and “the inexplicability of life” that I actively embrace in my favorite works. Here I’m thinking of Gene Wolfe’s The Wizard Knight, and the title character’s revelation on love and longing, or Donaldson’s Covenant work, where sympathetic, hack and slash heroes were thrown out the window in exchange for an honest exploration of survival and redemption in a race with as much corruptive, destructive capacity as humanity. But again, I’m a fan of epic fantasy, and to me an epic is a sweeping struggle to overcome an obstacle that blocks the realization/achievement of a greater truth. Obesity has nothing to do with it.

- Zach H.

[Terry Weyna]

Jonathan, as you know, I read both epic fantasy and the more off-beat, New Weird and slipstream stuff. I tend to prefer the latter, especially when I have my literary critic hat on, but sometimes a big fat book that lets me really "go away" is just the ticket.

I think the discussion here, if heat and light is deleted, is an excellent one, full of good points on both sides. I don't understand why tempers must flair, and I certainly don't approve of the insults thrown in your direction.

Is it really that hard to just politely talk about books, for heaven's sake? Why?

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Terry -- You are quite right. I'm prone to responding to hostility with even more hostility, which doesn't help things but I think what disappointed me really was the level of vitriol directed at me both here and elsewhere.

I don't mind everyone thinking I'm wrong, what I object to is people calling me a "retard" because I don't agree with them.

[Kit Whitfield]

Arilou: I feel I should in courtesy reply to you as you were good enough to address me, but all I can say is that when it comes to Martin, I only read a few of his books a few years ago because a friend of mine asked me to, and I can't even remember what Westeros is. Hence, I'm going to have to decline to enter into any discussions of his work with anyone on this thread, as there's no better way of making a fool of myself than opining on stuff I only hazily recall. If anything I've said is interesting or useful to you, or has helped you clarify your thoughts, I'm delighted, but I think you'd better save it for discussions with people more informed on Martin than me, because really, I'm no use on that subject. :-)

As the discussion keeps returning to Martin, which is a subject I've got nothing to say about, I'm going to have to bow out. Anyone who wants to chat with me, you can link to my blog by clicking on my name, but when it comes to George R.R. Martin, bless him, I've got nothing to say, so I'm off. Best wishes to you all.

[Zahir]

"I don't mind everyone thinking I'm wrong, what I object to is people calling me a "retard" because I don't agree with them."

I don't mind that you dislike epic fantasy. What I object to is you're calling me a "sheep" because I do.

[lol]

lol I dont read Fantasy at all and just randomly stumbled on this site and its pretty clear that you got owned and are in fact retarded.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Your time, your choice. It seems to me that you're simply experiencing the fact that there is a small but consistent percentage of asshole idiots in the universe, including online. Your fantasy articles were popular enough that you got some in your readership.

I prefer SF by rather a lot anyway. But I must say that, here in SF fandom where I live, the existence of that small percentage of malignant idiots is NOT in doubt!

[Franky]

"I don't mind that you dislike epic fantasy. What I object to is you're calling me a "sheep" because I do."

You mean you dislike epic fantasy, Zahir ?(lol)

Seriously, I think Jonathan called GRRM's fans "sheep" not because they like epic fantasy, but because they worship an author who, in his opinion, does nothing more than recycling old genre tropes.
So the big question is, is GRRM really such a conservative (in which case we would deserve being called "sheep"... baaa), or not (the point most of us here have been trying to make).

Does Jonathan deserve being called a "retard" ? Only if GRRM's liberalism is glaringly obvious to anyone who reads the first few chapters of ASOIAF. And I don't think it is.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Zahir -- "I don't mind that you dislike epic fantasy. What I object to is you're calling me a "sheep" because I do."

I did no such thing. I called fantasy fans, as a demographic, passive and sheep like because they are. I made no inferences from the group to the individual.

Similarly one can talk about Americans being fat and religious as a group without necessarily speaking about any particular American.

The former is akin to sociology, the latter is racism.

Franky -- "Seriously, I think Jonathan called GRRM's fans "sheep" not because they like epic fantasy, but because they worship an author who, in his opinion, does nothing more than recycling old genre tropes."

Except that I didn't single GRRM fans out for any such treatment. I used a specific example from a GRRM book but made no particular remarks about GRRM fans. Up until the events of this weekend I had no experience of GRRM fans as a group and I've been clear throughout the process that my remarks on GRRM were limited to quite a specific example which only widened in the course of discussion and even then I never looked beyond the book and a bit that I've read.

I think fantasy fans are conservative, passive and sheep-like because the economics of the fantasy genre show that less adventurous books systematically outsell anyone who tries to progress the genre. Even populist fantasy like Scott Lynch's is massively outsold by the likes of Karen Miller and his innovations are being urban rather than rural and a little bit gritty.

I make no assumptions about any particular individual epic fantasy fan (I'm very fond of one particular one) but I do have quite firm opinions about fantasy fans as a group.

[Roland]

Ok, so - my written english is so vastly inadequate to the task, that I was almost considering not posting this at all. In the end I obviously did, so I'd like to appologise to everyone who will be forced to fight his way through my spelling and grammar.

------------
What I fail to grasp (both here and in the previous discussion) are two things:

1. WHICH are the "authoritarian tropes that make up that genre"? WHERE did you read those and how the Hell (since you yourself stated that you read fantasy only occasionally) did you decide there is such all-encompasing thing in epic fantasy?

2. WHY, since so many posters stated rather clearly that ASoIF not only does NOT stand for authoritarian principles, but actually bashes them in so many ways, even though the story is set in a mainly authoritarian setting, do you continue to insist on something that is obviously if not wrong, than open to debate? I mean, you haven't read the books except for the first one (and let's face it, to say "I was only talking about the first book" sounds almost like "I was only reffering to the Pope when he's bathing without his robe" in an argument where you insist the Pope is NOT actually a Catholic) and you haven't given a SINGLE answer to the people explaining the difference betwen "conforming" and "using for his storytelling".

All you keep doing is stating that not writing about pseudo-medieval society in terms other than clashes, battles, kings and knights is in some as-of-yet-unarticulated way "wrong". WHY is it wrong? Because it doesn't use fantasy in a new way? Even if the author is (and that is the critics talking, not me) considered the very best example of using realistic medieval society in fantasy writing?

What I don't like in both this and the other topics is the way you say something and then close yourself for the answer. You say epic-fanatsy fans are sheep-like and passive, and the epic fantasy community was IIRC "wretched". But when someone actually answered that, you began quite literally whining. You stated that epic fantasy is - at it's core - authoritarian and conservative and when you gave the most absurd example for such a claim and people answered that, you began repeating yourself over and over again and accusing everyone of not really understanding you, instead of actually comment on the speccific arguments they gave you.

Quite frankly I could not in good faith care less about weather you will write about fantasy ever again or, for that matter, if you will even read a fantasy book again. I wouldn't bother reading your reviews (not only about fantasy but about anything else) because you strike me as too conservative, incapable of accepting oppinions that differ from your own (even if so obviously more learned in the specific topic as were many people here), too stubborn with defending... shall I say less-than-complex ideas, and other things which I will not say, because I'm such a kindhearted person and wouldn't like to see you cry.

But I'd deffinitely like to see you answer those questions. If not mine specifically, then the ones of the MANY posters here, who actually asked the same ones...

[Roland]

On a side note - did it ever occur to you that "less adventurous books systematically outsell anyone who tries to progress the genre" for the same reason that Dan Brown will ALWAYS outsell Dostoevski? Because they are easier to comprehend and demand far less from the reader? I mean, it would be really vast hypocrisy to suggest this is some kind of epic fantasy-phenomenon and does not occure in SF or really every other genre there could possibly be. And I happen to be mainly SF-fan so I'm not making conclusions up.