![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Apologetics for common fantasy tropes
May. 1st, 2009 10:22 pmA bunch of kids stumble into a fantasy land and are hailed as the fulfilment of age-old prophecy, monarchs (all four of them - did you know Lewis failed math repeatedly in school?) and proceed to do battle with the supposed usurper, on the grounds that only a true human (or set of humans) can be kings and queens, and the usurper isn't really human.
A ranger avoids telling anyone who he really is, though an awful lot of people seem to know that he's destined to take over from the decrepit line of crazy stewards of the throne and save the world from their incompetence in the face of a war with the forces of evil.
Two examples. There are others. L.E. Modesitt Jr. has done this trope at least twice that I'm aware of. Mercedes Lackey does a modified version, as does Anne McCaffery. Raymond Feist did a variation on it. The variations usually consist of, "kid discovers they're massively powerful magician/dragonrider/herald, expected because the world, including their local monarch, needs prompt saving."
But what if the usurper wasn't a nasty? I mean, nobody in Narnia even pretends that there might be a scientific explanation for the long winter, because Narnia doesn't deal much with science (and yes, I'm familiar with the framing of technology = industrialization = raping the natural world, and the feudal lord setup is somehow natural and right and good and. . . misogyny, mythogyny. It's natural order, deal with it.)
My point is, if you change the story very slightly - say, add in a very high volcanic explosion to explain the winter, and take out the part about only a human can rule, and eliminate all the stuff that makes her a nasty person and is used to justify the war, well, you're left with a bunch of kids coming in and usurping the role of a monarch. It takes some contrivance to justify it to begin with - especially the part where they can't seem to actually win without the help of an outside agency. Divine Right never had it so good - they couldn't win without a god to put them on the throne and bring the reinforcements. But it's really just one absolute ruler taking the place of another.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the tropes of a good fantasy novel. Good versus evil rocks my socks. Like every other little girl, I played at being a princess. My daughter still considers it a viable career goal.
But when you get down to brass tacks, what you've got is a story where might makes right, and justifies it by painting the other side as unremitting evil. Narnia doesn't have a lot of colour in its characters. Lackey shoves the white imagery in your face and holds it there until you're suffocated by it. Adding in an angst factor comes across as avant-garde when it should be de rigeur. It's archetypal but sloppy writing nonetheless, because life isn't like that.
Nothing bugs me more than a two-dimensional character in a contrived role. I think I'll save this particular fantasy trope for someone else. And it's time to shake up my daughter's viewing to include more complex characters.
A ranger avoids telling anyone who he really is, though an awful lot of people seem to know that he's destined to take over from the decrepit line of crazy stewards of the throne and save the world from their incompetence in the face of a war with the forces of evil.
Two examples. There are others. L.E. Modesitt Jr. has done this trope at least twice that I'm aware of. Mercedes Lackey does a modified version, as does Anne McCaffery. Raymond Feist did a variation on it. The variations usually consist of, "kid discovers they're massively powerful magician/dragonrider/herald, expected because the world, including their local monarch, needs prompt saving."
But what if the usurper wasn't a nasty? I mean, nobody in Narnia even pretends that there might be a scientific explanation for the long winter, because Narnia doesn't deal much with science (and yes, I'm familiar with the framing of technology = industrialization = raping the natural world, and the feudal lord setup is somehow natural and right and good and. . . misogyny, mythogyny. It's natural order, deal with it.)
My point is, if you change the story very slightly - say, add in a very high volcanic explosion to explain the winter, and take out the part about only a human can rule, and eliminate all the stuff that makes her a nasty person and is used to justify the war, well, you're left with a bunch of kids coming in and usurping the role of a monarch. It takes some contrivance to justify it to begin with - especially the part where they can't seem to actually win without the help of an outside agency. Divine Right never had it so good - they couldn't win without a god to put them on the throne and bring the reinforcements. But it's really just one absolute ruler taking the place of another.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the tropes of a good fantasy novel. Good versus evil rocks my socks. Like every other little girl, I played at being a princess. My daughter still considers it a viable career goal.
But when you get down to brass tacks, what you've got is a story where might makes right, and justifies it by painting the other side as unremitting evil. Narnia doesn't have a lot of colour in its characters. Lackey shoves the white imagery in your face and holds it there until you're suffocated by it. Adding in an angst factor comes across as avant-garde when it should be de rigeur. It's archetypal but sloppy writing nonetheless, because life isn't like that.
Nothing bugs me more than a two-dimensional character in a contrived role. I think I'll save this particular fantasy trope for someone else. And it's time to shake up my daughter's viewing to include more complex characters.
