APOD July 11, 2006

matociquala sent me this link. Which people who follow the APOD religiously will have seen already. But I think it's like the coolest thing ever, and so I offer it in lieu of actual content.

this is matociquala's fault (and she says it's <user site="live

Eleven things I will serve my best never to put in a fantasy novel unless I am trying to undermine them, and in fact could do without entirely from now on, thanks

1. The word "orb." Unless we're talking about orb-weaver spiders, in which case, rock on.

2. Beauty correlating with goodness.

3. Quests.

4. Protagonists who are protagonists by virtue of being Special, particularly if their Specialness correlates with #2.

5. Telepathic companion animals.

6. Young women who live in a cod-medieval society and yet, somehow, are athletic, assertive, bad at sewing, and generally dressed in trousers. See also #4.

7. Social predators (thieves, assassins, etc.) with whom the reader is supposed to sympathize. Particularly if we're supposed to sympathize because of #4.

8. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL.

9. Heteronormativity. Likewise sexism, Default Fantasy Caucasianism, and the unquestioned assumption of middle-class values.

10. What Edward Gorey called P.R.O.s (Priceless Ritual Objects). See also #1, #3.

11. Saving The World. See also #8.

The difference btw "hero" and "antihero"--and that tiresome creature, protagonist

So my list of eleven common characteristics of fantasy I can do without has sparked some discussion, particularly of # 7, in the course of which it has become clear to me that I have, once again, failed to say what I mean.

So, because I'm stubborn and a slow learner, I'm going to try again.

What I said was:

7. Social predators (thieves, assassins, etc.) with whom the reader is supposed to sympathize. Particularly if we're supposed to sympathize because of #4 [the correlation between beauty and goodness].

What it looks like I'm saying--and I freely admit this interpretation is right there at the front of the line--is that I object to social predators as protagonists. Which I don't.

My objection is to something more subtle, which is probably why I didn't articulate it well. So let's talk about heroes, antiheroes, and protagonists.

"Protagonist" is the fancy litcrit technical term, and means the character in the story who acts. In general, this is also the main character of the story (if your main character isn't your protagonist, your story may well be in trouble--I have historically had more than a little trouble with this) and also your viewpoint character (ObException: The Great Gatsby). These--"protagonist," "main character," "viewpoint character"--are all value-neutral terms, which is why I personally prefer them to the word "hero."

"Hero" has a lot of baggage to schlep around with it; calling a character a hero assumes that he or she (it even assumes the character's a he, hence the word "heroine") is Good, that he does the right thing and wants to do the right thing, that he stands for Truth, Justice, and the American Way, and if in light of what America's been doing recently, you have some questions about how well those three things actually go together ... well, this is where the word "antihero" comes in.

An "antihero" is a protagonist who isn't a hero--aggressively so, even. My all-time favorite example is George MacDonald Fraser's Harry Flashman, who is a coward, a liar, a braggart, a bully, a lech ... and an amazingly engaging narrator.

This is where the word "sympathize" was the wrong word. Because as a reader, you can certainly sympathize with antiheroes. What I was trying to get at was the habit in fantasy novels of treating social predators as if they were unproblematically heroes, rather than highly problematical antiheroes.

I'm actually all in favor of antiheroes and morally ambiguous protagonists, and think fantasy could use more of them--as long as it treats them honestly.

Another way to put it is, I don't think murder should be sexy. Even in fiction.