#fantasy talks

And it is quite interesting how recurring the motif of "Magic before and after our time" is. You know, the alliance of both "There used to be a time of wonders and magic in the distant past, but it went away" and "There will be again spells and monsters and demons once the apocalypse happened". The idea of a distant-past fantasy mixed with a distant-future fantasy was usually complimentary.

Today most people think of "Adventure Time" as a depiction of this motif, even thinking of it as a "subversion" because it shows magic was there before humans appeared, then went into hiding, and returned only after humanity was destroyed. Itself comes from "Wizards!" the movie which also has this take that "the fairies of old could only thrive after the nuclear winter". And deep down it can all come back to the vintage classic of fantasy Shannara, which depicts a Middle-Earth copy as a post-apocalyptic universe where most of fantasy elements are born of mutation or ancient technology... Except for the elves and some nature spirits which existed before humanity appeared and do come from the "time of legends".

More recently fantasy readers will be also accustomed to this through the cyclical time structure of "The Wheel of Time", where the fantasy adventures we read about are both the distant past from which our myths and legends will be born, and yet the aftermath of the apocalyptic fall of an hyper-advanced society of our future...

But by the very foundational works of the fantasy genre, in the early 20th century, this idea of "before and after", or of "cyclical magic" is there.

Take Jack Vance. He mainly did two fantasy series which seem to be part of two very different continuities. His "Dying Earth" series, which named the entire "dying earth" genre the same way his magic ideas named the "Vancian magic" trope popularized by D&D. And his Lyoness series, which is Vance doing a fantasy take on Arthurian material and old European fairytales. One set in the distant future of the planet where the sun is dying and civilizations collapsed, another set in the time of the realms of Logres and before the Holy Grail was found, back when fairies still walked the earth... Yet, when you read both series, you realize that they are meant (or strongly implied) to be set in the same continuity or universe, as the magic system and various fantastical elements are shared in an obvious way.

And before Jack Vance, there was Clark Ashton Smith. Where Vance remained implicit and discreet, mostly dropping connecting elements as Easter eggs for faithful readers, Smith went full on explicit. Because when you read his famous "dying earth" unofficial series (a "dying earth" series from before Vance's own Dying Earth), the dark fantasy/Orientalist Gothic "Zothique", it is said that this world is a fantasy one because the end of time and the death of the planet allowed for magic, gods and demons to return... Those of "Mu, Poseidonis and Hyperborea". Which are some of his other fantasy settings - from a mythical Antiquity (Poseidonis is part of Atlantis) to a Prehistoric fantasy (Hyperborea is fantasy adventures by the time of the saber-toothed tigers and mammoths).

It is really fascinating how instinctively it used to be woven in fantasy that "the end will be like the beginning" or "as before, so after".

So where do I even stand?

So many of the witch posts I see from the community are directed at women and femininity. It's supposed to be inclusive but...it just makes me feel like an outcast.

And I want to say: the reason I enjoy these type of works is because, while they are grimdark, they are fun. And it is part of what made the "grimdark" genre in the first place, grimly fun works filled with dark humor. They're bleak, bitter, cynical and depressing, but they're still gifted with enough morbid jokes and edgy laughter to make it all pass down. Even if the plot gets a bit weak or the characters simple in their evil you don't mind because the work (and the author by extension) fully assumes it because we're here to offer unashamed dark fantasy very aware that it plays with tropes and subvert expectations. And we are past the age of subtle reversal and discreet opposition - like with Moorcock's works.

I want somehow to oppose Abercrombie to Robin Hobb. Don't get me wrong, I truly respect Hobb's work and I admire her worldbuilding and series. They're not always for me (I started but never finished the Assassin Apprentice series) but I admit they are works filled with effort, dedication, care and imagination. However here's the thing: they are dark and bleak in a very unfunny way. It becomes so tough and unpleasant you wonder what is the point of it all and you don't want to engage in it further because it is just a misery feast. And don't get me wrong, it is not the work being nihilistic that is wrong (nihilism can be immensely cool, grandiose and beautiful without being funny - see True Detective), but it is the way... again the "misery".

I precisely thought back about one series, "The Soldier Son", the most unfamous series of Hobb. Lot of people hate it, for good reasons, and most people gave it up, and I also did it while in the middle of it. Because it is a bleak work all about the character being miserable and constantly making mistakes while failing each and every goal of his in a ultimately hopeless situation. But it is no dark grim fun like Kafka (Kafka did say his works were meant to induce laughter). The problem I had (and that presumably others had) was that we engaged with the characters and sought the main one as a protagonist in the common sense ; but as I learned, this series is MUCH better enjoyed when you take the main character as a protagonist in the literal sense, as "just the characters that happens to be at the center of the story". Give up any empathy, care, interest or feeling for the character because it is just a useless struggle that will exhaust you - because in truth the character is here merely to convey a plot that is more about worldbuilding, world conflicts, and exploration of religious, magical, social systems of all sorts and kinds.

That's by going under this angle that I could finish the series and actually enjoy it (because "The Soldier Son" is a great, complex and wonderful world that offers a lot of very interesting and inventive concepts and marvelous nuances in all sorts of domains). By understanding the character not as a character but as a mere tool for a story to unfold, a world to be explored, conflicts to be presented, but it is not about the character. Which is basically the complete reverse of Abercrombie's handling of his trilogies (as far as I can tell) where it is ALL about the characters with the actual plots and events taking a step back. I mean they are important, of course, but the characters come first - and thus entire chapters where nothing happen can get interesting because the characters sell you the thing. And whereas in her series Hobb can create a whole cast of unpleasant jerks and annoying idiots and decent but obviously doomed characters (in this sense there's something of G.R.R. Martin here) in such a way that you don't care about what happens to any of them, Abercrombie does the same thing but brings panache, fun, realism (not in the bleak "naturalist" sense) and humanity to them, making sure to give us enough to sympathize for each, enough to hate each, presenting us the different point-of-views so that we actually have them jump back and forth between protagonist and antagonist, and so yeah it is bleak massacres and depressing wars and repulsive manipulations, but ultimately you don't care much because no matter who wins in the end you will have a reason to root for them.

That's the difference of feel between these works. "I don't care who wins because I don't care about any of them" versus "I don't care who wins because I can go with either one".

I suspect Hobb falls more into this because she... sort of has a misery-kink? It is something I noticed here and there in fantasy works, and it is sort of the "untold sub-rule" of the classics of the genre. "Sub-rule" to the wider rule "In fantasy, authors have a blast with their kinks and it is sort of here for". Feminist or machist fantasies are the foundations of fantasy works, political ideologies of each side slips into it, it was the one place to explore alternate sexualities and sociologies... And there's distinctive recurring motifs like this whole trend of authors to include BDSM elements more or less explicit ; or this other trend (of which Hobb seems to be part of) of authors deeply enjoying to make their characters miserable in the most outlandish ways possible. And it is not just within the fantasy genre - there's a lot of authors who create characters just to delight in torturing them to no end.