The layers are as follows, and I quote:
- Nival. The story is ridiculously moralistic, with everyone clearly labeled as good or evil. Often whatever the protagonist does is good, even if it's butchering pacifists or torturing people who've already talked—generally in service to an ideology readily identified as that of a political movement in the author's homeland. Ex: Sword of Truth, Eragon.
- Sub-Nival. The story is idealistic, only complexified by human faiure. The protagonists know their principles, though they may sometimes fail to achieve their goals. Ex: Lord of the Rings.
- Alpine. The story will be essentially idealistic, but complexified; the protagonists will struggle with their principles, but the ideals aren't truly in doubt. Ex: Dragonlance.
- Montane. Though the story will be pretty cynical, and the protagonists might be pretty amoral at times, idealism isn't actually denied, just held to be a bit unworkable. Even the amoral protagonists will occasionally stand for principle, though. Ex: Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, Conan.
- Lowland. The story is pointlessly ugly and sordid, drowning in misery and oppression—usually because it lacks the author's pet ideology, whatever it is (especially because, as everyone knows, human happiness is impossible without the Sacred Gospel of Liberty!, which, of course, subsists exclusively in the Enlightenment Liberal Tradition, as understood by Anglos). Ex: A Song of Ice and Fire.
Yeah, obviously for "Lowland" read "lowland desert". Basically the extremes of Mary Sueniverse High and Crapsack Low are "bad fantasy", which I thought was interesting. Then again the very hardest and softest SF is largely unreadable, too. Maybe it's an Aristotelian thing, or even Taoist.
No comments:
Post a Comment