Fantasy… Should be Fun?

The other day, when reading a blogger’s review of The Soprano Sorceress, I came across an interesting question, clearly meant to be rhetorical – what point was there to reading a fantasy if the reader didn’t like the fantasy world created by the author?  It’s a good question, but not necessarily in the way that the reviewer meant, because his attitude was more along the lines of wanting to avoid reading about worlds he didn’t like, particularly because he asked another question along the lines of what fun was there in reading about such a world.

Yet… I have to confess that there are authors I probably won’t read again because I don’t care that much for their worlds, just as there are authors I won’t read again because I don’t care for their characters.  In particular, I don’t care for characters who make mistakes and errors that would prove fatal in any “realistic” world situation, yet who survive for book after book [I presume, because the series continues, even if I’m no longer reading them].  Obviously, those kinds of books have great appeal, because millions upon millions of them sell, and maybe that’s the “fun” in reading them.

But there’s a distinction between “good” and “fun,” and often one between “entertaining” and “thought-provoking,” and there are readers who prefer each type, although sales figures suggest that “fun” and “entertaining” are the categories that tend to outsell others significantly, often by orders of magnitude.

The question the blogger reviewer asked, however, holds within it an assumption that all too many of us have – that “our” view is the only reasonable way of looking at a particular book… and that, I think, is why I tend to be reluctant in reading reviews, either those considered “professional” or those less so, because the vast majority of reviewers start from the unconscious presupposition that theirs is the only “reasonable” way of looking at a given book.  The more “professional” the reviewer is, the less likely this presupposition occurs, but there are still well-known reviewers and review publications that fall regularly into this mind-set.  The problem lies in not only in the expectations of the reviewer, but also in the knowledge base – or the lack of knowledge – that the reviewer possesses.  A novel that uses allusions heavily to disclose character will seem shallow to the reader or reviewer who does not understand those referents.  A reader unfamiliar with various “sub-cultures,” such as the corporate or legal worlds, politics, the military, academia, is likely to miss many subtleties of the type where explanation would destroy the effect.  Because of this “sub-culture” blindness, certain books, or parts of certain books, tend to be less entertaining – or even boring – to those unfamiliar with the subculture, whereas a reader who understands those subcultures may be smiling or even howling with laughter.

As a side note, despite the impression that some bloggers have apparently gained from this site, I do read blog reviews of my work and that of other authors on a continuing basis, if sometimes reluctantly.  Why reluctantly?  Because it’s more often painful than not.  As a writer, for me such blogs often raise the question of why the reader didn’t understand certain matters that appear so obvious to me.  Could I have done something better, or was the matter presented well and the reader didn’t get it?  Half and half?  Such questions and second-guessing, I feel, are necessary if any writer wants to improve, no matter how long he or she has been writing… but I suspect any author who claims the process is enjoyable or entertaining is either lying or a closet masochist.  As part of being a professional, an author should know, I personally believe, the range of reactions to his or her work, as well as the reasons behind those reactions, but, please, let’s not have commentators suggest that we’re somehow outdated, out of touch, or unreasonable when we suggest that the process isn’t always as pleasurable to us as it apparently is to those who take great delight in complaining about what they perceive as deficiencies in what we write.  Sometimes, indeed, the deficiencies are the writer’s, but many times the deficiencies lie in the reviewer, and where the deficiencies may lie, or even if there are such deficiencies, isn’t always obvious to most readers of either blog or professional reviews… or even of professional blog reviews.

5 thoughts on “Fantasy… Should be Fun?”

  1. MarcusAquinas says:

    If it helps, remember that there are no reviewers buried in Poet’s Corner.

  2. hob says:

    Creating something of worth is always a goal for those who truly try to create. And in a way any such creation is a piece of art for those who would be able to see or share its worth. But then worth is also judged by demand or the perception of demand. The lines of systematic marketing and hive/blog created hype are blurring.
    I suppose you could say that you have a paradox on your hands. To write consistently, you must believe that it has merit–things which are of worth to yourself and those that you value. And to sell(that is to sell well) you must understand or tap into current perceptions(making yourself read bad reviews).
    The question is do you value created perceptions of worth?

  3. Alan says:

    First, a quote: Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.

    While not always true, I would consider it a truism with one adaption: Those who can’t, review. I have read many reviews of many different media’s. Books, movies, magazine articles, etc. Often times on subjects with which I am closely acquainted. (As any individual in a technical field knows, you must keep up with the knowledge base of your job) And often I find myself in disagreement with the fundamental assumptions of the reviewer.

    The reviewer has no working knowledge beyond what they have studied. (Hardly a shocking occurrence) Or they work from only one half of the subject material, utterly rejecting the remainder as it suits their particular efforts.

    Not that academics don’t have their place. They do. Someone must teach. And not all of those who are performing the works are suited to teaching. These academia who do not deal with the very real results of technical and non-technical work often fail to realize all aspects of what they do.

  4. Super post – and great domain by the way:-)

  5. Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *