> I suppose this comes up occasionally. Poul Anderson, some years ago, wrote
> an essay called "Thud and Blunder", which analyzes what is (or was) wrong
> with fantasy fiction at the time he wrote the essay. I would guess this
> dates from the late 1970s or early 1980s.
>
> Anyway, I don't agree with him. That is, he admits a number of things have
> been pointed out to him, but he seems to want to strip the fantasy out of
> fantasy and still call it fantasy. I think he's describing more a
> misplaced historical fiction in an obviously fictional milieu.
>
> How much realism do you think Howard put into his worlds, and would more of
> it have helped or hindered? Should anyone care that 20 peasants would have
> supported every one of those guys the heroes kill in the stories?
>
> http://www.sfwa.org/writing/thud.htm
>
I recall the essay by Anderson that you mention. I tend to agree with him,
in that a successful fantasy or scifi story must be rooted in a pretty
believable world. This enhances the "willing suspension of disbelief."
I don't think he really meant to "to strip the fantasy out of
fantasy and still call it fantasy." "Everything fantasy" is not great
simply by virtue of its purported or attempted outrageousness, or pure
butchery of the form. Xena, for instance, is absurd and unbelievable in
every conceivable way, from the butchering of historical facts, figures, and
time periods, to the ridiculous physics-defying action sequences (with
cheese-ball sound effects) and the bad over-acting that makes Shatner look
like Olivier. The fight sequences are ridiculous and impossible, beyond
description, and how about that "armor?". And God, don't mention the
writing and dialogue--probably the WORST to ever hit the airwaves.
In fact, Xena stands as the perfect example for REALLY bad fantasy fiction.
Please tell me it's not in print....
IMHO.
--Mike
