Critic Ginia Bellafante, who writes in the New York Times, has angered fantasy fans by suggesting that HBO's adaptation of George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones is 'is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.'
She explains:
'The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise.'
In other words: Action and gore for the boys, some sex for the girls. Stereotypes aside, this strikes me as odd, given that there has been – to date – far more bonking than bloodshed in Game of Thrones. Using this warped logic, it would make more sense to describe the series as 'girl fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population's other half.' However, both these statements are naïve and condescending. Game of Thrones is so much better than that.
The overall tone of Bellafante's review is one of vaguely sneering condescension:
'The series claims as one of its executive producers the screenwriter and best-selling author David Benioff,' she writes, “whose excellent script for Spike Lee's post-9/11 meditation, “25th Hour,” did not suggest a writer with Middle Earth proclivities.'
'If you are not averse to the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic, the series might be worth the effort.'
Such comments suggest different reasons for this critic's dismissal of HBO's production. What she is really saying is that no woman alive would watch this because it is fantasy. But what, exactly, is wrong with fantasy? Ms Bellafante explains:
'Since the arrival of “The Sopranos” more than a decade ago, HBO has distinguished itself as a corporate auteur committed, when it is as its most intelligent and dazzling, to examining the way that institutions are made and how they are upheld or fall apart: the Mafia, municipal government (“The Wire”), the Roman empire (“Rome”), the American West (“Deadwood”), religious fundamentalism (“Big Love”).
When the network ventures away from its instincts for real-world sociology, as it has with the vampire saga “True Blood,” things start to feel cheap, and we feel as though we have been placed in the hands of cheaters. “Game of Thrones” serves up a lot of confusion in the name of no larger or really relevant idea beyond sketchily fleshed-out notions that war is ugly, families are insidious and power is hot.'
Since all institutions are made, and then are either upheld or fall apart, then Ms Bellafante is saying that HBO is at its most intelligent and dazzling when it examines institutions. But only real world institutions. When those institutions are fictional, then it's somehow “cheating”.
This same attitude explains why so many publishers declined Orwell's Animal Farm. Talking pigs? Getoutahere! It seems to me that there are many people (often those with leanings towards literary fiction) who dislike, or have trouble accepting, fantasy because rather than simply holding up a mirror to human conflict, fantasy takes that conflict and applies to it a process of abstraction, whereupon the real world is often viewed through the lenses of metaphor, analogy, allegory or satire. These are lenses of the imagination. Some people have no trouble peering through them, but others struggle. They see no worth in examining human conflict or human institutions if they are presented outside recognisable real-world parameters. What's the point of imagining anything beyond our own experience? Dragons?Fairies? Minotaurs? Gods? Giant Beanstalks? Talking wolves and magical glass slippers? Getoutahere! Such foolishness, they seem to snigger, has no real value. I disagree, of course. But then, I, like all fantasy readers, have this odd ability to suspend disbelief, to let myself wander happily through places that I know don't exist. It's one of the benefits of having an imagination.
Game of Thrones, like all stories, is about people. It's about conflict, power and love. It does have dragons in it. And it is superb.
3 comments:
Dear Alan,
First of all, congratulations on your blogging! It might not be how you usually work, but I for one have greatly appreciated your latest blogs.
Second of all, just finished reading Sea of Ghosts and liked it quite a lot. Now I think I can explain what I meant in my previous post more clearly: your writing is organically creative. You take some concepts and bring them to life in such a way that the world (and various more traditional elements of the story) feels real.
But there is something I have to complain about the novel: its packaging. The blurb on the back cover not only happens at the middle of the book, its true significance can only be grasped after one has already started reading the book, yet it spoils much that is yet to come! The blurb inside the jacket is also quite flawed in my opinion: it fails to mention Granger's relation to Ianthe and the last paragraph mentions events that only start to appear at the very end of the novel and even then are not so clearly described.
(I am saying all this in the belief that it was not you that did it... If so, sorry for the heavy criticism...)
The cover art, as one could expect, is pretty fitting and rather striking as well, even though I prefer the Deepgate ones...
Now, on to less you-related topics:
It is truthfully irritating how people often see fantasy as a lower class of genre. I mean, the very fact that most people believe there is such a thing as 'literary fiction' is simply pretentious.
I think lots of people believe that fantasy is inferior to other 'more realistic' styles of writing, but the truth is that even much of what is considered 'literary fiction' is pretty fantastic. The winner of the Best of the Booker (meaning the best book to win the prestigious Booker Prize for the past 40 years or so) is Rushdie's Midnight's Children, which is nothing if not fantastic... Shakespeare too often delved into fantasy in order to explore humankind, but very few people seem to remember that...
Thanks for the comment, Stefano. I see what you mean about the blurb on the back. I didn't know that was there until I saw the hardback myself, and I can certainly understand how it can be seen as a spoiler.
I did look over the inner blurb, pre-publication, however, and changed a few things from the original, but I clearly missed the relevance (or lack of it) in the last part. I do see what you mean now. Sometimes, when you're close to a book it's hard to notice what seems obvious to others.
Cover art... I love it. :) Loved Dominic's Deepgate covers too.
And I'm very much on the same page as you regarding certain people's attitudes to the fantasy genre. Shakespeare is an excellent example. Fantasy is such an integral part of our mythos.
p.s. For some reason, I'm missing these comments - previously blogger emailed me when a new comment was posted. It isn't happening now, which means I'm slow to put them up. I'll look into it.
My wife and I haven't had any television beyond Netflix for two years. We recently got DirectTV primarily to watch Game of Thrones. Now I feel guilty that I was only feeding into my adolescent self while my wife was able to enjoy sexual related content involving people much more physical stimulating than myself. It is hard learning you've been living a lie.
On a more serious note, it is good to see what are considered to be more "literary" authors, such as Michael Chabon and Justin Cronin, coming out in support of and writing speculative fiction. In addition to these authors’ voices, the success of shows like Game of Thrones will hopefully help increase the respect that a great deal of fantasy, horror and science fiction deserve.
Post a Comment