[Studlock]

Over the past while in the Fantasy genre there has been a trend (or I guess an entire movement) of decontrusting the traditional tropes of the genre. Some great works have appeared and some terrible one's that simply use violence to shock rather than actually deconstruction. My question to you fine, well read folks is has there been any attempt to reconstruct the tropes? Ex: traditional: Silver Age comics with all there wacky storylines, deconstruction: Watchmen and slew of other comics that take the Silver Age stories to there logical conclusion, reconstruction: something like Kingdom Come or Astro City which reconstructs the tropes so that they both have the orginal feel and work logically.

I ask because while I love the both the traditional work and deconstructive stuff, the mood of both (romantic which I don't find honest and overly pessimistic which again I dont find honest.) is lacking I think. I would love something that reconstructs the tropes I enjoyed as a child whilst still making sense and not making me overly apathic. I hold tMBotF to be somewhere inbetween because while it was deconstructive in nature it had a real humanist theme. Plus I just think it would interesting to talk about.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 25 January 2012 - 12:21 AM

[JLV]

Things tend to be cyclical, and I can definitely see a major "reconstruction" movement down the road. But for that to happen, the classic tropes have to become almost completely unused, so they would appear fresh. Here in out sheltered learnedness, we know that Dragonlance novels are for the most part drivel, and Erikson is amazing. But out in the world, Dragonlance sells far more. We haven't reached the turning point yet, but I could see it happening eventually.

[worry]

I dunno, man. While deconstruction and even po-mo stuff has perhaps been on the rise, the traditional and generic stuff never really left or got replaced. Unlike comics, where a lot of that stuff necessarily comes in tandem across a publisher's titles for continuity's sake, that's inherently not the case with novels. So it'd be kinda hard -- I'd never say impossible -- but hard to be self-conscious enough without irony or subtext to pull it off in fantasy, while still being recognizably modern and not just fade into the generic crowd. In other words, I don't see how you'd get there, deliberately, without tipping your hand to deconstruction. Which is kind of weird, because I have the opposite opinion for a lot of other genre types...sci-fi, detective fic, horror...all seem fairly ripe for this kind of stuff and it probably already exists in bulk. Obviously I could be wrong about all of this, with huge blind spots or whatever.

All that said, and I haven't read it in quite a while, but would Neil Gaiman's "Stardust" fit what you're saying?

[worry]

Ah, JLV beat me to that first point.

[Studlock]

I haven't read Stardust (saw the movie but I heard they're quite different) but I'll check it out.

The reason I loved MBotF is because in the end it's about how some humans can be good even if the world is shit. I love ASOIF as much as the next guy (or gal) but it's so cyincal that it at time comes off as cartoonish so I thought I'd try to find something that fits my narrow niche of stories I enjoy the most. But it makes sense that a reconstructive period hasn't come yet since the traditional stuff sells well and the deconstructive stuff sells well too.

[QuickTidal]

JLV, on 25 January 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Things tend to be cyclical, and I can definitely see a major "reconstruction" movement down the road. But for that to happen, the classic tropes have to become almost completely unused, so they would appear fresh. Here in out sheltered learnedness, we know that Dragonlance novels are for the most part drivel, and Erikson is amazing. But out in the world, Dragonlance sells far more. We haven't reached the turning point yet, but I could see it happening eventually.

I'd never call DRAGONLANCE drivel. Sure it's YA and typical Tolkien-esque fantasy...but it's still a decent story and was worth telling. Because we've moved on from that as a genre in a different direction doesn't make it drivel. I grew up on DRAGONLANCE and though I can look back and realize it's not the best written fantasy, I don't think I'd ever turn around and call it drivel.

[worry]

Studlock, on 25 January 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

I haven't read Stardust (saw the movie but I heard they're quite different) but I'll check it out.

The reason I loved MBotF is because in the end it's about how some humans can be good even if the world is shit. I love ASOIF as much as the next guy (or gal) but it's so cyincal that it at time comes off as cartoonish so I thought I'd try to find something that fits my narrow niche of stories I enjoy the most. But it makes sense that a reconstructive period hasn't come yet since the traditional stuff sells well and the deconstructive stuff sells well too.

Eh, the movie's not that different, so if it doesn't fit what you're going for then the book probably doesn't either (though of course in a literary sense it might -- it's less jokey than the film for sure). I suppose it's more like "fun with tropes" than a straight Indiana Jones-style throwback. But it is still more interested in telling a fantasy/fairy tale story than satirizing old ones, so maybe it's on the right path. But it all goes back to what JLV said about the traditional market still thriving (but of course not what he said to spark QT's hulk-smash rage!).

[QuickTidal]

No rage. I'd just disagree on calling DL drivel is all.

[JLV]

QuickTidal, on 25 January 2012 - 04:32 AM, said:

JLV, on 25 January 2012 - 12:33 AM, said:

Things tend to be cyclical, and I can definitely see a major "reconstruction" movement down the road. But for that to happen, the classic tropes have to become almost completely unused, so they would appear fresh. Here in out sheltered learnedness, we know that Dragonlance novels are for the most part drivel, and Erikson is amazing. But out in the world, Dragonlance sells far more. We haven't reached the turning point yet, but I could see it happening eventually.

I'd never call DRAGONLANCE drivel. Sure it's YA and typical Tolkien-esque fantasy...but it's still a decent story and was worth telling. Because we've moved on from that as a genre in a different direction doesn't make it drivel. I grew up on DRAGONLANCE and though I can look back and realize it's not the best written fantasy, I don't think I'd ever turn around and call it drivel.

Well there are a few books in there that are fine, but I grew up on the newer books, not the original stuff. The newer stuff is absolutely terrible (in my opinion). They're all the same, with uninteresting characters and such.

[QuickTidal]

The nine main books (CHRONICLES, LEGENDS & WAR OF THE SOULS) are all still quality, if of a lower more basic fantasy quality.

Among the other books with the header, I can't speak since I've only read the main ones.

[McLovin]

Chronicles was OK, but the characters didn't wear well for me.

In Legends I just wanted to scream, "Oh, nut UP, Caramon!"

And as for Tasselhoff Burrfoot, I want to feed him into a chipper/shredder.

But to the OP, it's all just fashion. Styles come, they go, then they come back again.

[Mentalist]

McLovin, on 25 January 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

Chronicles was OK, but the characters didn't wear well for me.

In Legends I just wanted to scream, "Oh, nut UP, Caramon!"

And as for Tasselhoff Burrfoot, I want to feed him into a chipper/shredder.

But to the OP, it's all just fashion. Styles come, they go, then they come back again.

meh, I didn't mind Tas.

Legends were a bit of a drag, but I still enjoyed War of the Souls, which i've read after I started MMotF

also, as i've written elsewhere, Richard A. Knaak's DL stuff is quality.