![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This panel was rather more interesting--in the Chinese sense--than I had expected, since I learned at about 9:30 Friday morning that I was going to be moderating it.
Luckily for me, my fellow panelists--P. C. Hodgell, Tiffany Trent, and Diana Sherman--were articulate and thoughtful, as was the audience. We spent most of our time trying to circle in on a definition of dark fantasy (a lot of panels at sf cons have definitions as their raison d'être, and I actually think that's kind of cool as long as nobody gets possessed by the spirit of Linnaeus), boucing it off urban fantasy, secondary-world fantasy, heroic fantasy, horror, the gothic, and tragedy. And we came up with a few formulations that at least give the shape of the thing we all thought we were talking about.
--Dark fantasy is about internalizing darkness. Both horror and fantasy, in their different ways, externalize evil, make it a separate entity to be fought against. Dark fantasy (we argued) says that darkness is internal, one way or another, and the books that are dark fantasy are about dealing with that darkness as a part of the self.
--If in a different book, your hero would be the villain, you are probably writing dark fantasy.
--Both horror and dark fantasy are about the relationship between the self and the Other. Horror demonizes the Other (sometimes literally) and insists that if you do not defeat it, it will defeat you. Dark fantasy admits that the Other is also the self and tries to negotiate a way to survive that revelation.
--We also talked about gender/sexuality (Shock. Amazement. Faint in coils.) and the possibility that for men the Other is the masochist while for women the Other is the sadist. This idea was put forward by someone in the audience and (a.) I don't remember exactly what she said, (b.) we were kicking the possibility around, not glomming onto it as gospel truth, and (c.) the foregoing sentence is my formulation/summary and may not be an accurate representation. I think my formulation, while tidy, is in fact reductive, but it's the best I can do to reconstruct the idea.
That's everything I can remember. If you were at the panel, as participant or audience member, I encourage you to post comments to expand and correct and refine on what I've said. And if you weren't at the panel, I encourage you to join the conversation here if you're interested. But please, if you don't have an lj account, SIGN YOUR COMMENT.
ETA: forgot one. We also agreed that dark fantasy is, in one of its protean forms, fantasy in which "dark" things happen and in which the protagonist has to deal with the psychological consequences. This is another way of internalizing darkness.
Luckily for me, my fellow panelists--P. C. Hodgell, Tiffany Trent, and Diana Sherman--were articulate and thoughtful, as was the audience. We spent most of our time trying to circle in on a definition of dark fantasy (a lot of panels at sf cons have definitions as their raison d'être, and I actually think that's kind of cool as long as nobody gets possessed by the spirit of Linnaeus), boucing it off urban fantasy, secondary-world fantasy, heroic fantasy, horror, the gothic, and tragedy. And we came up with a few formulations that at least give the shape of the thing we all thought we were talking about.
--Dark fantasy is about internalizing darkness. Both horror and fantasy, in their different ways, externalize evil, make it a separate entity to be fought against. Dark fantasy (we argued) says that darkness is internal, one way or another, and the books that are dark fantasy are about dealing with that darkness as a part of the self.
--If in a different book, your hero would be the villain, you are probably writing dark fantasy.
--Both horror and dark fantasy are about the relationship between the self and the Other. Horror demonizes the Other (sometimes literally) and insists that if you do not defeat it, it will defeat you. Dark fantasy admits that the Other is also the self and tries to negotiate a way to survive that revelation.
--We also talked about gender/sexuality (Shock. Amazement. Faint in coils.) and the possibility that for men the Other is the masochist while for women the Other is the sadist. This idea was put forward by someone in the audience and (a.) I don't remember exactly what she said, (b.) we were kicking the possibility around, not glomming onto it as gospel truth, and (c.) the foregoing sentence is my formulation/summary and may not be an accurate representation. I think my formulation, while tidy, is in fact reductive, but it's the best I can do to reconstruct the idea.
That's everything I can remember. If you were at the panel, as participant or audience member, I encourage you to post comments to expand and correct and refine on what I've said. And if you weren't at the panel, I encourage you to join the conversation here if you're interested. But please, if you don't have an lj account, SIGN YOUR COMMENT.
ETA: forgot one. We also agreed that dark fantasy is, in one of its protean forms, fantasy in which "dark" things happen and in which the protagonist has to deal with the psychological consequences. This is another way of internalizing darkness.
