I like Urban Fantasy as a genre quite a
lot. I like the blending of fantasy elements with modern trappings. I
like the deep diving for weird monsters from around the world. It was
booming a decade ago, and now nobody really talks about it. Why?
My introduction was Neverwhere
by Neil Gaiman. Great book. Probably his best that isn't Good
Omens. But its a standalone. It
doesn't need a sequel or a series. American Gods
was okay, but the ideas it played around with were better than the
text itself, which tended to wander aimlessly in the heartland for
chapters on end. I remember finding Anansi Boys
to be much more entertaining, but oddly enough, more forgettable.
Still, I wanted more.
From
there I moved on to Jim Butcher's Dresden Files.
It kicks ass. Can't recommend it enough.
I wish most of the rest of the genre
wasn't garbage. Something From the Nightside was
pretty terrible (Sorry, Mike!) but that's for another day. Suffice it
to say, I drifted away from the genre because it turned into a boom
of clones sitting on shelves that all have the same covers of a man
or a woman standing in a generic static pose, possibly holding a
weapon. If there's a background, its a street at night. I started to
write my own (which turned into a trilogy that's not quite ready for
prime time, but Soon™)
Today I discovered an essay written in
2008 by Lilith Saintcrow, who's a leading name in that genre. I have
not read any of her works, but her name is familiar, and she's a
prolific working author with a cool name. I respect that. I've also
found out that I'm blocked by her on Twitter without ever having
interacted with her, so...I don't feel too bad about critiquing a
decade old essay on Urban Fantasy by someone who might be using a
blockbot.
This is the essay:
There are some things I agree with in
the essay. Notably that UF carries a lot of heritage from old pulp
detective fiction. I agree that the “Literature” and “Mainstream
Fiction” genres get too much respectability from people who tell
you their opinion on literature is important.
That's kind of it, though.
I disagree that “lowbrow” is
something negative. I disagree that Paranormal Romance is considered
lowbrow and trashy because it its female. Its considered lowbrow and
trashy because it doesn't try to be anything more than simple
entertainment. Sci-Fi and Fantasy are usually considered trashy and
lowbrow for that same reason. So are old comic books. So are old
detective novels. I've come to respect works of fiction that get a
reputation for being “trashy and lowbrow” because that's become
an accurate code for “doesn't shove the author's message down your
throat.”
I have never heard of anyone referring
to Tom Clancy novels as “serious” literature before this essay, because the last
time I checked, thrillers were in the same “trashy and lowbrow”
ghetto with the rest of the fun books. Its all explosions, action and
technology porn, which is fine
for the audience that consumes it.
Just like masturbatory fantasies about humping sexy vampire lords is
fine for the audience that consumes it.
My mother read a LOT of Harlequin Regency Romance books while I was
growing up. The covers and back of the book blurbs were all
effectively identical. My mom knew they were simple entertainment
that wasn't going to change the world. They served an audience that
loved them and kept buying them, respectability be damned.
“Respectable
Literature” is a trap for anyone who pursues it.
Its
also insulting to female writers and characters of the past that to
say Urban Fantasy is socially groundbreaking for making female action
leads the protagonists. C. L. Moore's (a female author who absolutely outclasses most modern male authors) Jirel of Joiry armored up and
went into Hell so she could take revenge on someone who conquered her
kingdom in 1934. Dejah Thoris has been kicking ass and taking names
since BEFORE WORLD WAR I.
They
keystone of the essay though, and the part that I disagree with the
most is that the key to the success of Urban Fantasy back in its
2008-era boom, was Moral Ambiguity.
What
does respectable literature have by the bushel? Moral Ambiguity. What
does post-modernist thought have in copious amounts? Moral Ambiguity.
What does pink slime fantasy and science fiction shove down the
throats of people who showed up for magic and spaceships? Moral.
Ambiguity.
Guess
what rising genre bubble crashed less than a decade after its big
boom?
Moral ambiguity drives audiences away,
male or female. What makes Harry Dresden work is that he is a flawed
but fundamentally good man trying to save people and punish evildoers
at great personal cost. The reason I tossed Something from the
Nightside aside after reading it
was because John Taylor is a smug, selfish, unlikable
asshole antihero.
That's
what happens when you take an antihero, give them special powers, and
then unleash them on a morally ambiguous setting. You have assholes
on power trips who don't have to answer to anybody.
Villains,
really.
I'm
honestly surprised that an essay that lauds Raymond Chandler as an
influence would sing the praises of moral ambiguity. Chandler's
fiction is set in a dark, gritty urban environment, true, but Philip
Marlowe is himself a rigidly moral hero. Not anti-hero. Hero.
Sure he drinks and smokes and occasionally sleeps with women, but
these are minor flaws. Like his spiritual grandson Harry Dresden,
Marlowe is working class hero who's operating in slums he really
doesn't belong in, but he crawls through the crime and muck helping
people who probably don't deserve it and bringing justice to villains
who absolutely do.
“But
down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is
neither tarnished nor afraid.”
Chandler wrote
that sentence in his essential essay “The Simple Art of Murder.”
Its the core of the noir hero's appeal. Take a dark setting and throw
an unflinchingly moral hero into the mix like a grenade.
What killed
Urban Fantasy? Moral Ambiguity.
Addendum: Eagle-eyed readers will
notice a lot of words in that essay from 2008 that sound awfully
familiar in [Current Year]. Make of them what you will.