The Role(s) of Commercial Fantasy

[McMurphy]

It was not too long ago that I finished reading the first book of Sara Douglass's The Wayfarer Redemption saga, and, to be honest, couldn't help feeling it fell far short of other sagas such as Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea.

Wayfarer didn't seem to be concerned over well-textured social critiques, plot themes offering multiple layers of interpretation, or even the basic satisfaction of making readers come away from the novel chewing on new thoughts on life. In that light, it would seem that the book was something readers should avoid.

But is that a fair comparison?

Douglass is not pretending to be another Le Guin, nor is Wayfarer attempting to promise anything beyond an entertaining fantasy epic tailored in the fashion of Lord of the Rings. There seems to be no confusion by the author of what type of literature she is providing the reading world. Even in the praise pages that proceed the first chapter of The Wayfarer Redemption (paperback, U.S. release) make comments such as 'Sara Douglass is the best and most exciting writer of commercial fantasy fiction to emerge from Australia...' (Locus).

"Commercial fantasy." The phrase prompts me to humbly put forth a few questions to the rest of you in regards to your views of commericial fantasy and its role in literature.

A.) Does commercial fantasy deserve a legitiment role in the literary world?

B.) If so, what role or roles do you think it rightfully has?

C.) Are there any roles that commercial fantasy should not try to fill?

D.) Is it fair to compare commercial fantasy writers such as Sara Douglass to the likes of Ursula K. Le Guin?

[Thadlerian]

This sounds like an interesting discussion.

I looked up the term "commercial fantasy". I have imagined the use of such a term for quite a lot of books (won't mention any names), but I had yet to see it used. On Wikipedia, I found two entries in which the term was at least used.

From what I see there, it seems hard to look at a single work of fantasy, and call it "commercial". You rather have to look at several works which look like each other a lot, with similar setting, plot elements, character stereotypes, etc...

And, of course, says itself, "commercial fantasy" is a highly subjective term. It implies a work of fantasy that is written primarily to increase the wealth of the writer. And which writer would ever admit any such thing, even if it were true? Anyone can claim they write to tell a story, that they write to themselves, that there is a superior meaning in a long series of mediocre books, and so on.

As for your questions, I can't really seem to understand what it is you're asking. A, for instance:
Do you ask whether it is legitimate to designate the term "commercial fantasy" to certain works?
Or
Whether those works we can surely confirm are "commercial" deserves a role in the literary world?

I would consider the questions if I was a little more certain there.

[Brys]

A) - Yes, though I think no author should do only commercial fantasy. Many authors need money - most authors are not making the kind of money JK Rowling makes, they have to eke out a living on a low income. Writing some commercial fantasy which will sell better may be necessary.
B) - Introducing new readers/young readers to the genre. If I had tried to read Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast at the age of 10, I'd never have appreciated it in the slightest, and it would probably have put me off reading. Reading an Eddings or Feist at the same time is a completely different matter, and makes you enthusiastic about reading more. It is a gateway into reading more advanced and "literary" novels.
C) Not really, except it annoys me if these authors (whose work is clearly commercial) try to claim originality by making false claims about the genre. But basically, as long as they don't try and distance themselves from fantasy, I don't mind what they do.
D)- It depends on the authors opinion of their own work. If like Moorcock (note Thadlerian, he repeatedly said that he wrote these to make money to finance his more literary novels and his magazine) and his Elric series, he says that it is purely commercial and pulp, then no, it isn't fair to compare it to the best in the genre. If though, they sincercely believe that they are trying to write something literary, or very good, or very original, then it is fair (Goodkind certainly thinks this, Jordan may do but I don't know for sure, I think Eddings though is pretty clear that he isn't).

[Rosemary]

I have read both of her series - The Axis Trilogy and The Wayfarer Redemption. I enjoyed them both. As to being 'commercial' what does that really mean?

Do they call LOTR 'commercial fantasy' or perhaps even Steven Erikson's Malazan series?

What about the SciFi books? Who could honestly say that Dune was 'commercial SciFi' or Star Wars?

It sounds to me as if the writer of that 'review' was using those particular words because he/she just felt like writing something different for a change!

[cyborg_cinema]

Originally Posted by McMurphy

Does commercial fantasy deserve a legitiment role in the literary world?

...pulp has its place—used book stores are loaded with pulp romance novels.

[lazygun]

On a similar note I think,was going over the SF writer Norman Spinrads' site..

Where he has quite a bit to say about the major publishing houses,and their fixation with projected sales histories/niche expectations,etc.
To the extent that Publishers have broken the Writer/Reader link....
If they don't think it will sell,...I won't get to read it,and if they don't think it will sell,you just wasted your time writing it.
Used to be Publishers would just use/push talent,which is what they are for...
Unfortunately they now seem to think they know what Talent is....

[Foxbat]

To me, Commercial Fantasy depends on the writer - did that writer create the story because that is what he/she wanted to do, despite the risks that it may fail? or did that writer create/compromise the story purely to hit a specific market?

I doubt if Tolkien could be called commercial because there was not much of a genre before he wrote LOTR (and therefore, it was very unclear as to whether it would actually become the major best-seller that it has). Anybody setting out after him purely to tap into that new audience would (in my book ) be commercial Fantasy writers.

Does it have a role? Probably yes, both as introductory material and to fill airport bookshops

What it should or should not do -
Commercial Fantasy should be honest with both itself and its readership. It will soon get found out if it starts to make grandiose claims.

Fair to compare?
It's Human nature to compare and it's likely that Fantasy writers will be compared (regardless of their position within the market).

Just my thoughts

[dwndrgn]

I'm not going to answer your questions specifically because, to be honest, I'm tired from a long night of work and I've had few libations...so I can't truly remember what you are asking but I have to throw my two cents in anyway I'm like that.

Anyway, 'commercial fantasy' connotates a fantasy story written only for the profit. Now, don't get me wrong, I"m a huge fantasy fan but all books are published to make a profit. Some writer may write something that they feel they need to get out there to the public for the message, but I"d say 90% are out there in print for profit. Otherwise they'd write it out and hand it to everyone they see to pass the message...

Saying that, all published fantasy is commercial fantasy.

Now, if you want to argue the point of those authors that write for their own sake and publish just 'cause they can', well, put them in that 10%.

All that being said, I will agree that some authors carry their stories, series or what have you to a point way beyond what they originally imagined because their work was so commercially acceptable. Quite often this allows works to be published that aren't quite 'up to snuff' but really, if people keep buying them, why shouldn't they keep publishing them? You can't blame the authors. The public allows this to happen, you can't get good stuff when you don't demand it. And to a commercial enterprise like a publishing house, what the public buys, you publish. It's a simple fact.

Ok, keep losing my train of though, must go to bed.

[Brys]

I'd disagree that all published fantasy is commercial fantasy. Many authors write purely because they enjoy it, without any intention of it making any significant money. If the author is well known, publishers will probably take the risk and publish it. For newer authors, they may think it will sell well, even if it wasn't the authors intention.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Whatever the author's intention, I think we can take it as pretty much given that if a book gets published and distributed to the bookstores, somebody thought it was commercially viable. The days when a Stanley Unwin could give his son the go-ahead to publish LOTR at an estimated loss of a thousand pounds simply because he thought the book deserved to be published are long gone.

Somebody has to be a money-grubbing capitalist or that masterpiece we're all hoping to come across any day now is not likely to ever make its way into our hands. Nor do I think that a writer's desire to make a living as a writer taints the finished product. He or she has still chosen to write over some other (probably more profitable) occupation. And I've seen enough unpublished manuscripts written by people who just want to tell their story to know that's no guarantee of high art.

Besides which, books that you and I may regard as highly commercial trash might nevertheless move their writers and their readers in ways that we just don't understand. Just because a book is technically inept and full of cliches doesn't mean it wasn't written with as much passion on the part of that writer as something more polished and original by somebody else.

I'm not saying that all books are created equal and that literary value counts for nothing. But deciding whether any one book is "commercial" or not is a tricky business.

[Foxbat]

I feel the crux of the matter is the fact that we (or somebody) see a need to differentiate. We do the same thing in music for example with Classical and Popular music - that's not to say that Classical isn't popular - just that we label it as being different.

This (I see) is the same as is happening here with 'Commercial Fantasy'. Another example - some people talk about High Fantasy - but how is that really different from the norm? And if it is different then perhaps Commercial Fantasy has a similar line of demarcation? All in all, it's just a foible of our Human nature and our need to pigeonhole.
I think that what I'm trying to say is that perhaps the label itself is misleading and (if there is a need to differentiate) perhaps it would be better calling it by another name. Fantasy Lite?

[Brys]

Or, as Hal Duncan (author of Vellum) put it, McFantasy.

[Foxbat]

McFantasy.

Now that, I like

[McMurphy]

Okay, we may be hinging on whether anything published must be considered commercial fantasy or not.

Think of commercial fantasy as pop music or sitcom television. Obviously, not everything published to the masses is considered pop music, and, therefore, not everything published to readers is considered commercial fantasy. Yes, there may be a certain level of subjective perceptions even with the distinctions, but marketed intent and author's approach to the subject should be the guidelines. For example, the expressed intent of a sitcom is purposely designed by both the creative team and the marketers to provide a highly digestible, nonthreatening, non-challenging piece of entertainment to people who wish to relax after a hard day's work. Commercial fantasy (read: any bit of commercial literature) has more or less the same objective. It is designed to provide a piece of highly digestible and nonthreatening literature to a target audience that wants a simple escape and relax. To accomplish this objective, the literature is laced with easily recognizable traits and themes that the masses are already readily familiar with.

With that in mind, works like Dune is not commercial; rather, it is a source that commercial fantasy/science fiction draws from. Lord of the Rings is not commercial fantasy, but it is the source of commercial fantasy written by the likes of David Eddings or Sara Douglass.

What I was really asking is whether or not commercial literature should be considered less legit than, say, the groundbreaking works they draw from or the less successful contemporary works that are exploring different and new ideas that are not yet fully digested by the masses. Should commercial literature feel comfortable with commenting on any subject? How about race issues or current events?

On the latter question, I would have to say that commercial literature should avoid showcasing hot button subjects because the approach often leads to oversimplification and doesn't encourage a thoughtful look at the subject. I do believe that it has somewhat of a role. Although not fantasy, Uncle Tom's Cabin is a great example of commercial literature tackling an important subject and helping to bring about a change. The book was the first work of fiction to sell over a million copies in the United States, and its approach on slavery, while never being confused with well written, gave the masses an easily digestible demand for change. Therefore, commercial literature (in my opinion) should steer clear of pretending to approach these subjects in a thoughtful manner, but they are right at home with providing powerful and useful propaganda pieces (and I don't mean that term in only the negative sense).

[Thadlerian]

And now for the questions:

Originally Posted by McMurphy

A.) Does commercial fantasy deserve a legitiment role in the literary world?

I have to drink some Tolerance Potion before I answer this one...
Yeah, I believe all genres and types of fiction have their roles in the literary world. For a nice, pluralist society to work, the non-intolerance must be 100%, even though it pains me to see Larry Niven write The Man-Kzin Wars by the dozen.

B.) If so, what role or roles do you think it rightfully has?

Off the top of my head; it's nice to have something to relax on after working your way through One Hundred Years of Solitude or UBIK.

C.) Are there any roles that commercial fantasy should not try to fill?

Well, yeah, any other possible, thinkable role, I guess. Except for blotting paper, ballast or building material.

D.) Is it fair to compare commercial fantasy writers such as Sara Douglass to the likes of Ursula K. Le Guin?

Would depend on on what basis you compare them on. If it's just overall quality, then yes. For a published book, commercial or no, you should be able to expect a certain level of quality, otherwise it shouldn't have been approved.