Epic
Just finished the first book of the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, as a Thing. It was good in the end, but I could have skipped most of the middle and nearly all the beginning. I started wondering why I dislike fantasy and whether I should feel guilty or inadequate in any way.
I used to love fantasy. Maybe it’s that the Lord Of The Rings was the first fantasy I’d ever read and nothing else ever measured up. Maybe it’s that I’ve turned my back on the fantasy world now I’ve discovered there is plenty to keep you busy in the real one. Maybe LOTR is the original work of fantasy and all the others are pale imitators. Maybe I was 13 when I read LOTR and 31 when I read Thomas Covenant.
I got to wondering whether LOTR really was the first “fantasy” novel, but I think it was more than that. Its deep resonance with mythology and linguistic history and the british outlook mean that other works, however imaginative, creative, epic or grand, simply look transparent.
The other question is why are fantasy books so damn LONG? and why does everything have to be a trilogy? I think (a) the fantasy reader likes to feel immersed and doesn’t like to emerge and (b) works of fantasy have to have an air of being a “lost tome” or some other romantic skewing of the fact it’s a £4.99 paperback in a bookshop and it’s your lunch hour from your dull job. I wonder also whether LOTR was the catalyst for that? Are there short fantasy books? Well Pratchett might count, though they’re a different flavour of fantasy and contain more human drama and pathos than most… Are there short fantasy books before lord of the rings? Does rupert the bear count? Aren’t they called fairy stories?
Hmm… I’ve half a mind to write a bilogy of really thin books wherein a guy with an averagely exciting life goes on a short, dull quest for a mundane object just to shake up the form a bit.