We are thrilled to announce that the wonderful Amanda Rutter, who can be found on twitter here or at her blog here has agreed to be Voyager’s guest-blogger for the next six months, blogging on our books and the sf/fantasy world in general. After her brilliant piece on bad guys in fantasy, she has turned her masterful hand to the topic of fantasy films vs. fantasy books… Make sure you let us know your thoughts!
Fantasy Films vs. Fantasy Books: Why so Serious?
By Amanda Rutter
This time out a particular topic was suggested to me that I might like to write about: that being, why are fantasy films taken more seriously than fantasy books. I’ve pondered on this over the course of a week, and conclude finally that I both agree and disagree with the sentiment.
My disagreement stems from the fact that this serious appreciation and recognition for fantasy films has been a relatively recent phenomenon. Let’s look back to the 1980s – this was the decade that spawned the rise of the fantasy film as a form of entertainment, beginning with Flash Gordon. Films such as this, Krull and Hawk the Slayer were never taken seriously as far as I can tell. They were critically derided and adored in a cult fashion by fantasy fans, rather than being considered serious films or social commentaries. They were most definitely pulp entertainment.
That isn’t to say there weren’t some truly excellent films produced in the 1980s under the fantasy genre – I’m thinking Highlander, Ladyhawke and The Princess Bride. But, for every one of these films, we were given a Masters of the Universe or a Conan the Barbarian. Laughable films, with only a loose grasp of the source material, produced on a budget and usually accompanied by a score that involved inspirational power chords provided by a synthesizer.
This all changed with the rise of the mighty franchises of films: The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter. Suddenly fantasy films were being regarded with enough seriousness that, since then, we’ve seen such movies as The Prestige and Pan’s Labyrinth receiving hefty studio backing and picking up critical acclaim on their release.
We’ve seen big name directors and actors taking on roles in fantasy films, and some of these films have been acknowledged by such mainsteam institutions as the Academy Awards, most notably when The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King received eleven Oscars, including Best Picture (although this sweep was widely acknowledged to be a proxy award for the entire trilogy). Fantasy films are now BIG NEWS.
And yet…. Could you ever see Robin Hobb’s latest being announced as a Booker Prize winner? Or Joe Abercrombie winning the Orange Prize for Literature? The thought of this makes me giggle somewhat, in fact, just because it seems so surreal! Our beloved fantasy books are never taken seriously enough to win any of the so-called “worthy” awards in literature; we have to have our own awards to recognise those authors who are writing quality fiction (the Arthur C Clarke award, the Hugos, the Nebulas and a number of other awards). In fact, just by looking at the range of awards we have to celebrate genre fiction, it can be seen just how seriously we take it, but outside our sphere few will ever know about those books making waves. For instance, I spoke to China Mieville about winning an unprecedented third Arthur C Clarke award for The City & The City, and he decried the fact that it just didn’t count within “mainstream” fiction.
Add to this the fact that there are several well-known and well-regarded literary authors writing books with a speculative slant, but actively pushing back against the idea that their novel is fantasy or science fiction. I’m thinking here, in particular, about Margaret Atwood – the author who, when asked whether The Handmaid’s Tale was a science fiction novel, replied “No, it certainly isn’t science fiction. Science fiction is filled with martians and space travel to other planets, and things like that.” She has also referred to science fiction containing “talking squids in outer space”. To be fair, she’s since clarified her position and says that her work is speculative fiction, feeling that the science fiction banner was too narrow for the novels she had produced, but her original comments were most certainly deemed to be snobbery and had a perception of looking down on poor old genre fiction.
So why are fantasy books not taken seriously? Why are people still sneered at for admitting that they read fantasy? Do any of you readers decide against telling friends that you read fantasy for fear of being derided? Why were the Harry Potter books (some of THE best-selling fantasy books in the entire world) repackaged with adult covers, so that adults wishing to read the books were not put off by the garish children’s covers and wouldn’t be embarrassed while reading the books on public transport?
I think that there might touch on one of the reasons. For good or ill, fantasy is still seen as being the province of elves and dwarves and creatures out of fairytale: in other words, creatures that children would be interested in. I don’t believe many people outside of the genre boundaries realise just how far fantasy has jumped forward since Terry Brooks and David Eddings were two of the main players. We are at a point now where “fantasy” seems to narrow a term to really define all of the wonderful types of books we have access to under the genre banner: epic fantasy, gritty fantasy, New Weird, urban fantasy, rural fantasy, classic fantasy, historical fantasy, comic fantasy… Is it simply a matter of trying to re-educate literary readers as to the treasures that can be found on the fantasy and science fiction shelves? And, certainly, it is time for them to realise that fantasy is not for children.
I also believe that those who do not read fantasy and who stick to worthy literary works are not aware that many of the fantasy/science fiction books deal with just as weighty considerations. We see characters agonising over their choices in life; children orphaned; the futility of war contemplated – I mean, those three issues alone would sit easily in a Booker Prize winner! Maybe mainstream readers would find much to enjoy, if they left aside the fact that imagined races are represented in the book, rather than just human beings?
This next point might receive a little flak, but I wonder how much of mainstream disdain towards genre comes as a result of the success of Terry Pratchett? To a lot of people unfamiliar with the fantasy/sci fi section in a bookstore, Pratchett would be one of the few familiar names – and his books are not taken seriously by anyone! (It is a whole other argument that his satirical observations on life are sharp and knowing, and should therefore be considered a rich source of social commentary). Is this part of why the fantasy genre is somewhat looked down upon?
To wrap this up, I want to end on a note of optimism. Thanks to the fact that fantasy films are now being marketed as serious and worthy forms of entertainment, many people are looking to the source material and picking up books they might never otherwise try. Friends of mine have watched the Twilight films, read the books and then asked me for recommendations of other books they could try in the same vein (haha, geddit? *slinks away in embarrassment thanks to poor pun…*) The same for those who tried the Lord of the Rings in the wake of those films – and I took the greatest of glee in showing them all the books I actually consider superior! So, although we have a way to go in making speculative fiction just as highly-regarded as other genres, we are at least welcoming new readers to our ranks with every fantasy film released – and that is a win as far as I am concerned.
And, y’know, it could always be worse: we could be readers of Westerns. Those guys have it bad *grin*.
Tags: Amanda Rutter, fantasy films, opinions
Amanda, you write about the Booker as though it’s an award worth winning. For me it serves as a warning that it’s a book I’ll probably hate.
I think one of the big barriers to fantasy crossing over into films is simply the length of the stories. In recent years there’s been a trend towards slightly shorter novels, especially in urban fantasy, and this makes it so much easier to adapt works into film. It’s not an insurmountable problem, but just look at the shoehorning they had to do to get the Harry Potter films squashed into less than 3 hours.
Great post Amanda!
I can remember back at school (long moons ago) continuing to ask the English teachers why we couldn’t study Lord of the Rings instead of Chaucer and Maestro and wotnot.
What I reckon the scene needs is to build up it’s own “awards” to a major level of prestige. So that winning the Fantasy award is known around the world.
Don’t know how you’d do that though.
Would like to hear your thoughts on story-telling in television. Reality TV’s dominance vs actual story-telling .. That kind of thing.
And Westerns will make a comeback thanks to Red Dead Redemption
Heh heh.
I like many of your points, but I’m going to quibble on one point: _Conan the Barbarian_ is actually a terrific fantasy film. John Milius did very well understand the source material, and brought its subtexts out into the foreground in his adaption. He took Howard’s half-baked Darwinian ideas and placed them in Nietzschian framework.
And the score by Basil Poledouris is actually one of the most memorable scores of the last 30 years (and not synth at all!), and has influenced a lot of film scores.
OTOH, I detest _Ladyhawke_, but it’s mostly because Broderick is entirely out of place and because I hate the score (which _is_ synth) with the heat of a thousand suns.
Your post made me think that mainstream readers don’t realise that fantasy (and SF for that matter) has grown up and still think it’s fluff in the same way that they often sneer at chick lit. Prejudice is hard to conquer, since it isn’t all fluff or easy reading.
Also, fantasy is often considered the ultimate form of escapism. You read a magical/otherworld story which takes you far away from the rut of daily life. For many of us that is an added benefit of reading speculative fiction, for many if not most THE reason they do so. But Literature (and the capital L was intended
) isn’t mean to be light and escapist, it’s supposed to be work and you need to take something profound away from it, at least that is the impression I often get from reviews and the blurbs on the books.
Films on the other hand are supposed to be entertainment and a way to get away and have a good time for at least the duration of said film. Thus, I think, the recent relatively smooth transition of fantasy onto the silver screen and the fact they’re taken more seriously than novels: the escapism is an expected part and parcel of the experience and the setting doesn’t really matter, be it drama, action or fantasy.
But that’s just my theory lol
Amanda, thanks so much for your wonderful blog.
I grew up loving mainstream fantasy and science fiction, but often felt that there was an emotional angle missing in many books. To my delight we now have the growth in paranormal romance and urban fantasy that mixes the embrace of imaginative world building of F/SciFi with more focus on relationships. I love it!
But in terms of not having books taken seriously? Try pulling out a paranormal romance book on the train, one with a cheesy romance cover complete with fangs. Then picture the look you get when someone asks you what you’re reading, you show them, and then try and say ‘ no, but it’s really good… no, really …. ummm, yes I know the cover’s awful, but it’s a GOOD book…’)
Yes, I love film and the visual feast it delivers, but I can’t help but laugh at the parallels between movies like Conan and the worst of the paperback romance covers (oh those manly chests!).
Do I think there is a growing recognition of just how excellent so many spec fiction books are? Well yes, but it’s slow. And frankly, my aims aren’t very high – keeping my head up and proud as I whip out my latest PNR book in public! As for the Booker Prize – that might be a while away yet for spec fiction!
Ah, thank you for all your wonderful comments – nice to hear a varied response to my post.
@Ros – sure, the Booker Prize winner is an indication to you that you’ll probably hate it – to many other people (who read Literary), it’ll be an indication of quality and something they definitely want to read!
@Stu – thing is, I think there is mileage for certain genre books to be studied at school! Especially some of the excellent dystopian fiction, or the wonderful YA novels being written currently.
@Elio – oh, believe me, a friend of mine has already taken me to task about Conan! I was lectured thoroughly on the fact that I got that one wrong. I will confess – I haven’t watched Conan. It’s one of the few fantasy cult films that I haven’t, and so I shoehorned it in with all the rest. That’ll teach me to do my research in future!
@Mieneke – it’s a very valid theory, IMO!
@Rosie – I think you make a GREAT point in terms of covers having a big effect on the seriousness with which the contents are taken.
” Laughable films . . . produced on a budget and usually accompanied by a score that involved inspirational power chords provided by a synthesizer.”
Um, Conan the Barbarian is nothing like that. Highlander, which you label as an excellent film, is exactly like that. It has a big guys cutting each other’s heads off to a Queen soundtrack for crying out loud!
I think the problem is this: a high percentage of people don’t read at all. Those that do often think of themselves as high brow and turn their noses up at genre work like fantasy. Films are much more mainstream on the other hand so they don’t encounter the same snobbery. But it is there to an extent. The Harry Potter films are financial successes, but they’ve had few awards or stellar reviews. Return of the King got an undeservedly high amount of Oscars after a huge public outcry for the snubbing of the previous two films. Pirates of the Caribbean 2 & 3 were blasted by critics for upping the fantasy aspects.
There was some interesting comments from Neil Gaiman’s recent reading in New York, where Neil questioned whether dividing books into genres was worth it at all. He said: ‘The only thing that I think it’s useful for is that it keeps the reader from wandering into an area of books that they don’t like.’
The quote came from this article (http://www.nypress.com/blog-6667-neil-gaiman-vampires-and-werewolves-donrst-belong-in-the-literary-ghetto.html) – which in itself is a pretty apt example of how a lot of the media dismiss fantasy as the stuff of ‘nerds’, ‘balding Goths’ and ‘girls with jutting chins’, even when they’re writing an article about how mainstream it is!