In my relatively long life, I have read quite a bit of fantasy. The Lord Of The Rings obviously, and Conan, not to mention Thongor and Brak. I've read Silverlock, I devoured The House On The Borderland, and I started The Worm Ouroboros. I've read Eddings' Belgariad and Malloreon, Pamela Dean's Secret Country and its sequels, Thieves' World and Leiber's Fafhrd and Mouser stories. I've read Moorcock, Cabell and de Lint; Kay, Kurtz and Kress. I've read R A MacAvoy, Sheri Tepper and Tanith Lee; Joel Rosenberg, Mercedes Lackey and Louise Cooper. And of course I've read Diana Wynne Jones.
And my question, in the light of the frequent allusions in various posts on Diana's death to her very funny and acutely written Tough Guide to Fantasyland, is this; where is all this routine, clichéd, boilerplate fantasy I keep hearing about?
Before anyone shouts, I will give you Terry Brooks. The Sword of Shannara was indeed an attempt to tread as precisely as possible in Tolkien's footprints, and it succeeded. One imitation does not, however, a cliché make, and the one thing I have noticed in all my fantasy reading is that every author, every series, every book, is different. Not just as different as two birch trees side by side; different as two separate species of tree half a world apart.
I have a theory about this. I think the notion of countless inept hacks haplessly churning out endless "routine sagas of elves and quests" has a twofold origin; firstly, in the minds of people who do not like, do not read and try not to notice fantasy any more than they can help, but have no problem whatsoever in pouring scorn on what they think it might be like; and secondly, in the proliferation of fantasy role-playing games whose campaigns can all too easily assume a depressing similarity. What puzzles me is that fantasy fans sit still and take it.
But it has given rise to the Tough Guide, which is just as funny whether the clichés it lampoons are real or not, so I guess it can't be all bad.
And my question, in the light of the frequent allusions in various posts on Diana's death to her very funny and acutely written Tough Guide to Fantasyland, is this; where is all this routine, clichéd, boilerplate fantasy I keep hearing about?
Before anyone shouts, I will give you Terry Brooks. The Sword of Shannara was indeed an attempt to tread as precisely as possible in Tolkien's footprints, and it succeeded. One imitation does not, however, a cliché make, and the one thing I have noticed in all my fantasy reading is that every author, every series, every book, is different. Not just as different as two birch trees side by side; different as two separate species of tree half a world apart.
I have a theory about this. I think the notion of countless inept hacks haplessly churning out endless "routine sagas of elves and quests" has a twofold origin; firstly, in the minds of people who do not like, do not read and try not to notice fantasy any more than they can help, but have no problem whatsoever in pouring scorn on what they think it might be like; and secondly, in the proliferation of fantasy role-playing games whose campaigns can all too easily assume a depressing similarity. What puzzles me is that fantasy fans sit still and take it.
But it has given rise to the Tough Guide, which is just as funny whether the clichés it lampoons are real or not, so I guess it can't be all bad.