Interleaved, below:

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's make a good faith effort, by the way, to
> deal with objections to weird fantasy. We're
> looking towards an argument for the artistic
> legitimacy of weird fiction. That argument will
> be strengthened if we acknowledge sincere
> criticisms that may be made against the genre.
>
> After all, other genres have been criticized, and
> defended. For example, Neoclassical poetry (Pope
> et al.) has been criticized for its moralism,
> didacticism, artificial diction, mechanical
> metrics, etc. A case for the artistic legitimacy
> of Neoclassical verse that takes account of such
> criticisms and is still able to argue for its
> achieving worthwhile things achievable in no other
> way will be more convincing than an assertion of
> liking for Neoclassical verse that leaves the
> matter at that.
>
> So... this might take some effort, since
> presumably everyone here likes at least some weird
> fantasy... but what are objections to it that
> might be entertained? Will we be able to show
> that, though the various objections may indeed be
> true of much wf, they are not absolutely inherent
> in it?
>
> Here are a few that occur to me, to get this ball
> rolling. But that's not to say we should stop
> adding examples of works that are, or are not, wf,
> nor that we shouldn't devise a definition of wf
> before we get too deeply into a defense of the
> genre.
>
> 1.Weird fantasy is misogynistic. Writers of wf
> often aim for effects of terror and horror.
> Believing that women are usually more susceptible
> to these emotions, the writers again and again
> write scenes of fear, horror, panic involving
> women as victims. Examples: many of the stories
> by Robert Bloch.

This, to me, is too close to allowing popular sensibilities of a given period to dictate whether or not a work is of value or not.

It would be a lot like criticizing the prosecution in former times of cannabis possession simply because it is now lawful (here in OR, for example). I tend to react to this sort of litmus testing of former norms by current sensibilities as a form of cultural chauvinism...

"Oh, they used to make terrible assumptions about women, but we're far past that now, and know The Truth(tm). Therefore these works of a former era are devalued..."

Nope. Not for me.

So I'd reject #1 as an area of valid criticism.

>
> 2.Weird fantasy is reductive. That is, its
> tendency is to turn from the artistic rendering of
> human complexity to oversimplified depictions of
> people as mentally ill and nasty (the perpetrators
> of various bad deeds) or as lacking in perception
> (the typical victim who walks into the bad place
> when the reader can see that any reasonable person
> would not do so) or as the object of cynical
> superiority evoked in the reader. Reading weird
> fantasy is liable to make its addicts impatient
> with literature that portrays human depth more
> searchingly; they are bored by it, and crave the
> simplicities of wf.

Seems of value to me. I'd categorize the use and reliance on stock characters to use to advance a narrative as lazy and weak. Poor artistry, in short.

Worse yet, if accepted by a broad swathe of readers, "poor aesthetic sensibilities".

>
> 3.Weird fantasy is formulaic. Countless wf
> stories are just variations on Bad Things
> Happening to Curious People. You start a weird
> story not only assuming it will work out in
> familiar ways, but probably because you assume it
> will work out in familiar ways. This is lazy
> reading as well as lazy writing.

Maybe. But one (or me, at least) never tires of reading new takes on traditional themes, because bad things happening to curious people is really just Pandora/Prometheus/Icarus retold.

I mean, I never tire of a well-motivated revenge tale. That theme will not wear out for me, yet it's predictable as hell.

Now, what this says about *me*, I'm reluctant to consider... ;^)

>
> 4.Weird fantasy is childish or primitive.
> Everybody really knows that there are no such
> things as vampires, ghosts, demons, gods, books of
> magical spells that really work, and so on;


Not to put too fine a point on it, but in an epistemological sense, I *don't* know this for a fact. I know that I've never in 72 years seen convincing evidence of it, but...

> furthermore, there is no evidence that there is
> intelligent nonhuman life anywhere in the
> universe, so tales of alien invaders are silly.
> Some people never grow up but retain an immature
> desire to pretend to be scared of strange
> creatures. Like the character in the movie Signs
> says, they need girlfriends.

Hah!

I like fantastic elements that are plausible within the setting of their own narrative universe. They tend not to be boring. I mean, consider shoggoths--what they are, how they were originally formed and for what purposes. And whatthey became. This is fairly well thought out stuff--a new take on golems.

E.g., Solaris, the Lem novel and the Tarkovsky film have little going for them other than the fantastic to the point of the incomprehensibly alien.

> 5.The sub-literary nature of weird fantasy is
> damningly evident in that some of the best-loved
> works in the genre are manifestly written in a
> slapdash or inept manner. Any story that can do
> what it's supposed to do with little or no regard
> for verbal excellence is highly suspect. An
> author may, if he or she wishes, try to tell a
> weird story using just and resourceful diction,
> but frankly the purpose of the story -- to deliver
> cheap thrills -- makes this optional.

Not sure that I can agree with this. You seem to be describing merely poor art that is popularly accepted by a broad audience. The same genre can yield superior art that is ignored or misunderstood by that same audience.

This is not bound to the genre, and it's like saying that the TV shows the Goldbergs and Deadwood can both be categorized as an open-ended TV series and are therefore more-or-less of equivalent artistic value (low) because they are both an open-ended TV series.

>
>
> 6.Weird fantasy is obviously of low social
> origins. It has typically been produced by
> writers for cheap magazines, shoddy paperbacks,
> sleazy movies, etc. that are aimed at the
> semi-educated who desire an easy-to-read escape
> from the tedium of proletarian or low bourgeois
> conditions. A love of weird fantasy is common
> among such, while those who have had a first-rate
> education and are conversant with literary
> excellence have little interest in it, except
> perhaps as indicative of interesting psychological
> abnormality on the part of the author (e.g. Poe).

Again, there are cheap commercial weird tales and there are heartfelt weird tales. The operative terms here is "heartfelt" vs "commercial", and not "weird fantasy".

>
> 7.Weird fantasy tends to absorb the attention of
> people away from more important concerns, such as
> improving the lot of oppressed classes or saving
> one's soul. It is like a drug that dulls the
> needed keenness to deal with the tasks of the day.

And what's wrong with that, I'd like to know? ;^)

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale, somehow I missed #7-#10. I'd like to deal with them now:

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

[MUCH SNIPPED...]

>
> 7.Weird fantasy tends to absorb the attention of
> people away from more important concerns, such as
> improving the lot of oppressed classes or saving
> one's soul. It is like a drug that dulls the
> needed keenness to deal with the tasks of the
> day.
>
> 8.Weird fantasy is characteristically opposed to
> diversity and multiculturalism because the chief
> thing is always fear of "the Other." Even where
> the story may avoid stereotypes of persons of
> color, people of Asian descent, and so on, it
> cultivates reactionary attitudes of dislike of
> difference. This is harmful especially in our
> global economy. We need instead a literature that
> celebrates difference and that exposes the
> intersecting prejudices that persist in
> disadvantaging some and privileging others.

I'd dismiss #7 & #8 out-of-hand as being social, and not aesthetic, concerns, and I would note that this line of criticism is more fitting in an institution that's consumed by a thirst for the appearance of "social justice"--whatever that means--and has no place in valid aesthetic criticism beyond perhaps noting how much different popular public values were when the work was written.

I'm sure not here to discuss fiction under this sort of regime--on the contrary, the MAIN reason I'm here, and not posting elsewhere, is that this site is relatively devoid of social priorities and the adoption of virtue-signaling rhetorical postures, dealing primarily with the aesthetic. If the group wants to move in that direction, it'll do so without me.

>
> 9.Weird fantasy typically deals with ugliness.
> This is especially harmful when it is read by
> young people. The beautiful is a real category of
> reality -- it is not just a matter of taste -- but
> it may take effort to develop the ability to
> perceive the beautiful in poem, painting, or music
> (e.g. Bach's keyboard works). Young readers
> develop a taste for the weird, the ugly, the
> morbid, rather than for the beautiful.


I think that the underlying assumption--that art can shape an individual's tastes and outlooks--is valid. I'm definitely not the same person that I was before reading Catch-22, for example. But actually intervening between a responsible youth under the age of 18, and say, Justine or The Story of O, or some Conan story, is the responsibility of those closest to the individual, and not the broader society.

At least that's how I see it.

>
> 10.At least among the young, weird fantasy
> promotes depression, possibly even the desire for
> self-harm or hurting others, by its grim themes,
> violent or sickening imagery, etc. It may
> compensate socially marginalized youngsters who
> need to be encouraged to interact with others
> rather than retreating into unreal worlds.

Again, a social concern and not an aesthetic concern. Me, I wouldn't care to explore it in a forum that seems to me to be devoted to aesthetic evaluation.

My opinions only, Dale. Others may feel differently.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just to be clear — the objections to weird fantasy are my attempts (sometimes, I admit, with tongue in cheek rather than entire good faith) to indicate views one might encounter, e.g. in the press, in academia, etc.

They are not necessarily my own views.

In some cases, it was easy to present straw man versions. But then I’m not sure that some o& the objections might not be close to what you would hear in, for example, a college lit seminar, or even a faculty lounge.....

Sawfish, you suggested “The Statement of Randolph Carter” as a representative work of weird fantasy. I’d say it is, sure.

A couple of thoughts about it.

1. It is unusual in being known to have derived from a dream. We would usually discuss a dream somewhat differently than we’d discuss a story we didn’t take to have an oneiric origin. So that could be a concern.

2. Probably most people wouldn’t take it to be a masterpiece, so, while it Is an excellent choice as an example of weird fantasy, it might not lend itself to the eventual evaluation of the artistic legitimacy of the genre as well as some other stories; but let’s see what others have to say.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just to be clear — the objections to weird
> fantasy are my attempts (sometimes, I admit, with
> tongue in cheek rather than entire good faith) to
> indicate views one might encounter, e.g. in the
> press, in academia, etc.
>
> They are not necessarily my own views.
>
> In some cases, it was easy to present straw man
> versions. But then I’m not sure that some o&
> the objections might not be close to what you
> would hear in, for example, a college lit seminar,
> or even a faculty lounge.....

I understand, Dale, and do not ascribe some of these points of criticism to you, but they are *patently* invalid when considering art, in my firmly held position.

My daughter attended and graduated from Vassar; she graduated last spring. Until you get some actual feedback on the day-to-day life of the mind at a place like that, it may be impossible to grasp how intellectually bankrupt the general sensibility there can be.

Much of the evaluation, and hence the limited reasoning, starts with a preconceived notion of the value of a work as it relates go a worldview of justice, depending on how closely it hues to accepted current orthodoxies. This has less to do with an assessment of traditionally recognized literary devices as it does with social conformity. In short, in an atmosphere like that, aesthetics takes a back seat to morality. And to my mind, moral priorities are transient, while the finest art is for all practical purposes "timeless" within the framework of human existence.

Worryingly so....

DEEPLY worryingly so... :^(

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Until you get some
> actual feedback on the day-to-day life of the mind
> at a place like that, it may be impossible to
> grasp how intellectually bankrupt the general
> sensibility there can be.


As C. S. Lewis said of the majority of critics of his day (when it came to science fiction), "the whole present dynasty has got to die and rot."

[www.unzcloud.net]

Today's academic hostility to the canon of standard literary works can be astonishing. And the emphasis on literary theory is dismaying. As an example, one might check the award-winning essay “‘Aggressive Disintegration in the Individual’: A Lacanian Study of Signification and the Destruction of Self in Shakespeare’s King Lear”
here:

[www.winthrop.edu]

"Lear’s dependency on the phallus-as-language is seen throughout the play....the great problem with the psychoanalytic perspective is that it views the female as the blank canvas on which the Symbolic Order of patriarchy imposes meaning...."

Even if one grants, for the sake of argument, that Lacanian theory is valid (which I do not grant) and that it is used appropriately here, I would still object, because time spent studying theory is time that can't be invested in reading the literary works themselves. It's dreadful, how literary study on the one hand increases the time the student spends on theory (usually of a strongly leftist bent) while, at the same time, students arrive in college having read fewer works of literature than was the case formerly with those who were going to study literature; or so I suspect. It would be interesting to see -- but no English Department is likely to do it -- a list of the standard literary works that the students taking bachelor's degrees read during their time in college -- or that they failed to read. Students are not likely to be reading them on their own, outside of class, while in college, since so many hold jobs, socialize, spend time online, watch movies, and so on.....

I've gotten some things off my chest here (and there's a link to real Machen rarity!):

[wormwoodiana.blogspot.com]

As I note in that piece, the academic talk about critical "lenses" for reading "texts" seems to me questionable. Rather than "lenses," a better metaphor for the emphasis on literary theory (feminist, queer, postcolonial, etc.) might be urban light pollution. You might have to go off by yourself in order to see the stars.....

In the meantime, literary discussion can go on in other places.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12 Dec 19 | 01:31PM by Dale Nelson.

Interleaved:

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Until you get some
> > actual feedback on the day-to-day life of the
> mind
> > at a place like that, it may be impossible to
> > grasp how intellectually bankrupt the general
> > sensibility there can be.
>
>
> As C. S. Lewis said of the majority of critics of
> his day (when it came to science fiction), "the
> whole present dynasty has got to die and rot."
>
> [www.unzcloud.net]-
> 1965mar/63-67//
>
> Today's academic hostility to the canon of
> standard literary works can be astonishing. And
> the emphasis on literary theory is dismaying. As
> an example, one might check the award-winning
> essay “‘Aggressive Disintegration in the
> Individual’: A Lacanian Study of Signification
> and the Destruction of Self in Shakespeare’s
> King Lear”
> here:
>
> [www.winthrop.edu]
> search/AMullerArticle.pdf
>
> "Lear’s dependency on the phallus-as-language is
> seen throughout the play....the great problem with
> the psychoanalytic perspective is that it views
> the female as the blank canvas on which the
> Symbolic Order of patriarchy imposes meaning...."
>
> Even if one grants, for the sake of argument, that
> Lacanian theory is valid (which I do not grant)
> and that it is used appropriately here, I would
> still object, because time spent studying theory
> is time that can't be invested in reading the
> literary works themselves. It's dreadful, how
> literary study on the one hand increases the time
> the student spends on theory (usually of a
> strongly leftist bent) while, at the same time,
> students arrive in college having read fewer works
> of literature than was the case formerly with
> those who were going to study literature; or so I
> suspect. It would be interesting to see -- but no
> English Department is likely to do it -- a list of
> the standard literary works that the students
> taking bachelor's degrees read during their time
> in college -- or that they failed to read.
> Students are not likely to be reading them on
> their own, outside of class, while in college,
> since so many hold jobs, socialize, spend time
> online, watch movies, and so on.....

For what little it's worth, I largely agree with what you're saying.

I'd allow as how deeply studying literary theory can help illuminate *why* a given writer has created certain works, but personally I'm far more interested in *how* he/she achieves his/her goals. Techniques, and even external ***stylistic*** influences. Philosophical/political/ideological not so much, unless it can be demonstrated that these affected the stylistic palette used (and how).

So I guess I come at this from the perspective of an appreciation of a superior piece of craftsmanship that can often express higher artistic goals (those works that can generate a sort of transcendent feeling of aesthetic or emotional enjoyment), rather than from a theoretical direction.

>
> I've gotten some things off my chest here (and
> there's a link to real Machen rarity!):
>
> [wormwoodiana.blogspot.com]
> t-machens-glitter-of-brook-and.html
>
> As I note in that piece, the academic talk about
> critical "lenses" for reading "texts" seems to me
> questionable. Rather than "lenses," a better
> metaphor for the emphasis on literary theory
> (feminist, queer, postcolonial, etc.) might be
> urban light pollution. You might have to go off
> by yourself in order to see the stars.....


Hah! An excellent metaphor, Dale!

>
> In the meantime, literary discussion can go on in
> other places.

Here. Perhaps now's the time to share where I'm coming from as an appreciator of literature.

I graduated in the mid-70s (had to stop studying and work, intermittently) from one of the Cal State schools, Cal Poly SLO, which is sort of like Texas A&M in that it's a technical school primarily. However, my major was English, Creative Writing emphasis, and my thesis was a longish short story bordering on novella length. I realized that I really had no talent as a creative writer, and hence made my living in SW development. Nor did I really enjoy certain aspects of the creative process in that I recognized that to write my best stuff (still objectively mediocre), I had to "open up" much more than I was comfortable in doing to achieve a degree of honesty and verisimilitude--which were probably my strongest points.

But the major had lots of enjoyable survey classes, and I got tremendous pleasure in reading as much of the stuff as I could--and as you said earlier, it's doubtful that I'd have read any of it on my own, were they not assigned. Subsequently, I've re-read a lot of this stuff, to my greater understanding.

But I'm definitely the better for it.

Now combine this with the idea that I see no honest attempts at art as unworthy or unacceptable purely on an assessment of the moral messages contained therein. To this end I've read some effective artistic expressions that represented just hideous attitudes and worldviews, but nevertheless were *art*. Practically speaking, what this means is that I'll likely not read very much by this particular writer--their views are too repellant for me, personally (or too vapid, or too arrogant, etc.)--but neither would I ridicule or derogate their works as being unartistic, if, indeed, it was an effective piece of communication and stylistically interesting.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> For a definition, we'd need three things:
>
> 1.the term to be defined ("weird fantasy")
> 2.the category to which that term belongs
> 3.the characteristics that set "weird fantasy"
> apart from the other things that belong in the
> category


Are we ready to create a provisional definition of weird fantasy? To give us some text to work with, I submit the following. Edit away till you like it.

Demonstrably, people of widely separated cultures have told stories of wonders. Some of these stories may have been believed to be true at first (and I would not rule out the possibility that some small number of them really were; but that's another topic), but the time came when even the stories originally regarded as true were told without express belief in their truth, or indeed with disbelief. We may say that, in modern societies where the truth of such stories may be believed by nobody, even so the tale of wonders may appeal to many readers (or listeners, viewers, etc.).

So here is the first of two definitions for discussion.

The tale of wonders is a variety of fictional narrative that deals with the unreal.

Now here to kick around is a definition of weird fantasy.

Weird fantasy is a variety of the tale of wonders that emphasizes the uncanny, the strange, the eerie, and the mysterious.

You'll notice that I have hesitated to include "the fearful." That may be a weakness, since this definition might be too broad without something like that added. Or must a work of weird fantasy include "the fearful" or frightening?

Examples of tales of wonder that are (at least for the most part) not[i] weird: William Morris's [i]The Well at the World's End; the Chronicles of Narnia; Lord Dunsany's "The Bride of the Man-Horse," Beagle's The Last Unicorn, etc.

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> William Sloan's To Walk the Night and The Edge of
> Running Water -- Gothic sf


Should be Sloane with an E.

What about Solovyov's/Soloviev's "Tale of the Antichrist"? I would probably include this unusual futuristic, apocalyptic short story as an example of a weird fantasy, but I wonder if others would.

[archive.org]

[en.wikipedia.org])

I used to assign it as a follow-up to Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov when I taught a course on Russian literature in translation. The final book was another fantasy, the recent novel by E. Vodolazkin, Laurus.

Sawfish, I was mostly allowed to teach my literature courses as I wished (composition courses not so much). I didn't have to reduce time spent on firsthand reading of literature in order to teach theory. But they offered me early retirement & my wife urged me to take it, and I did. Mostly teaching was a good experience, but I do seem to remember that, when the time came to leave, I remembered lines from one of Bob Dylan's songs (grins merrily):

I'm crestfallen, a world of illusions at my door.
I aint haulin' any of my lambs to the marketplace any more.
Prison walls are tumbling down, there is no end in sight.
I gained some recognition, but I lost my appetite.
Sweet beauty, meet me at the border late tonight!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12 Dec 19 | 08:21PM by Dale Nelson.

Hah!

I knew it!

You are a *superior* literary scholar, Dale!

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Read a lot of good books, anyway.

Another question about weird fantasy. Does it have a fatal tendency to glamorize evil?

Simone Weil on Fantasy Vs. Reality
“Nothing is so beautiful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy as the good. No deserts are so dreary, monotonous and boring as evil. But with fantasy it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied, intriguing, attractive and full of charm.”

Comments?

Dale Nelson Wrote:

> Weird fantasy is a variety of the tale of wonders
> that emphasizes the uncanny, the strange, the
> eerie, and the mysterious.

Question: Must weird fantasy include an element of the sinister? Are there stories that belong to the category of weird fantasy but that are free of the sinister?

Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dale Nelson Wrote:
>
> > Weird fantasy is a variety of the tale of
> wonders
> > that emphasizes the uncanny, the strange, the
> > eerie, and the mysterious.
>
> Question: Must weird fantasy include an element of
> the sinister? Are there stories that belong to
> the category of weird fantasy but that are free of
> the sinister?

Interesting...

I don't think that weird fantasy necessarily has to include a distinct element of the supernatural--personally, the defining term that comes to my mind is "uncanny"--but *maybe* it does need to have an element of the sinister ,or at least threatening.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:

> I don't think that weird fantasy necessarily has
> to include a distinct element of the
> supernatural--personally, the defining term that
> comes to my mind is "uncanny"--but *maybe* it does
> need to have an element of the sinister ,or at
> least threatening.


We could test this. Can anyone think of a story that should be classed as weird fantasy, but that has no appreciable element of the sinister?

I mentioned Dunsany's "Bride of the Man-Horse" earlier as a story that didn't seem to me to be an example of weird fantasy, even though Dunsany wrote some well-known tales of the type. Is it the element of the sinister that disqualifies "Bride" -- if it is disqualified?

(Btw, having read it again this week, I'll acknowledge that there's an element of what could be called the sinister in that the Man-Horse grabs his intended bride by the hair. I'd forgotten that. But, if it is "sinister," is it the right kind of sinister to make the story a weird fantasy? If it's sinister but not the right type of sinister, what is the right type for wf? I suppose it might not be necessary to spell that out, if it's figured that the other characteristic "notes" of wf -- eerie, etc. -- control for that.)

This might be a comment that's dissolving into niggling.

But I think there is an agenda item here worth kicking around.

The more broadly we define wf, the less likely it is that it will need defending as artistically legitimate. For example, if any story with an eerie ghost in it is weird fantasy, then Hamlet may be mentioned, and probably nobody's going to want to deny that play's attainment of very high literary value. If one literary work shows the characteristics of weird fantasy AND attains high literary achievement that could be achieved no other way -- then, it's been contended, the legitimacy of the genre is demonstrated. QED.

The more narrowly we define wf, the more exacting will be the task of defending its artistic legitimacy. Of course, we don't want to define wf so narrowly that our definition excludes works that, by any reasonable reckoning, must be included. For example, if we defined weird fantasy as "a variety of pulp entertainment specializing in black magic, gore, horror, and cheap thrills," we'd have a task all right to defend it -- but is that a satisfactory definition of wf?

All the same, if we're getting tired of poking at this business of definition, would someone like to say "Here's a definition I think is good enough" and propose that we move on to the question of the genre's artistic legitimacy?

By the way, tomorrow (Sunday) may be the last day for a while that I will be contributing to this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 14 Dec 19 | 10:03AM by Dale Nelson.