Bittercon: It's so Magical to be Homeless! The Romance of Urban Fantasy

[intertext]

This is really a lot of open questions and food for thought than a fully developed thesis. It just struck me, in my - admittedly somewhat limited - experience of urban fantasy, that the "urban" in "urban" seemed to reflect a somewhat limited and romanticized view of the "street."

Just to put my thoughts into a context here, my exposure to urban fantasy rests mostly on Charles De Lint, most of whose works I have read, Emma Bull, Will Shetterly and Neil Gaiman, whose Neverwhere I include in the genre. I would, or could, also include Justine Larbalestier's "Magic" trilogy and there are one or two others that I have forgotten. Amongst Emma Bull's work, I have read and enjoyed both War for the Oaks and her and Will Shetterly's Borderland novels, and my comments and questions here relate to all of those.

Anyway, it seemed that among these works, there is a common sympathy for and interest in the marginal, the scruffy, the downtrodden. Not that this group is in any way undeserving of sympathy or interest, but it struck me that these works definitely downplay the disadvantages of life among the disadvantaged and - yes - romanticize life for the homeless and the income-deprived. What I wonder is, is this some intrinsic part of a greater literary tradition? Are the authors riffing on folk-tales, whose heroes, if not princesses, tend to be clever thieves, disadvantaged or displaced innocents and so on? In some ways, what I'm asking is whether in fact this is the opposite side of the "Fantasy of Manners" coin - Fantasy of Bohemian Manners?

Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere is the only somewhat anomalous example - its hero, if I remember, is an average guy who gets lost in a strange alternate or parallel world. And as far as that goes, I guess it's not really "about" magic or fantasy in an every-day urban setting. Does anyone write about magic among the stockbrokers? Or ER, except with magic?

Anyway - that's my pitch. Any thoughts?

Comments

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Yes. We work hard, lead stressed out lives, want to improve ourselves and our families, and sometimes wonder if it wouldn't all be better if we could just drop out somehow. And, people do, all the time. Not so much that we're aware of it as a big pattern, but we know there are people who've sold their homes and bought a boat to sale around the world, as well as people who for one reason or another, just don't show up at work one day, and never come back. We may worry about them and be afraid they've made foolish choices, but on some level we may also suspect, rightly or wrongly, that they know something we don't.

There was a young man sitting in front of the grocery store one day, a couple of years ago, twisting some kind of long leaf material into long-stemmed roses and humming while he did. I have no idea what his background was, but he might have been homeless. I chatted with him a bit about his work and offered to buy one, but he steadfastly refused the money and insisted I take two of the flowers. It was quite a humbling experience.

[superfoo.livejournal.com]

In regards to this, there was an article I read recently about a suggestion to help "cure" the problem of poverty/homelessness and encourage people to work through their problems.

Essentially the theory was this: Pump a ton of money into social services, and really, TRULY get people started on their feet. The article used a bee-sting analogy: for example, if a person has only one or two bee-stings, they are likely to treat them by rubbing ointment on them, or whatever. But if a person is COVERED in bee-stings, curing one or two is hardly helpful, because they are still covered. Same with cars; if a person has a new car and they get a dent in it, they will likely fix it. If a person has a run down P.O.S car, they probably won't bother dealing with another scratch.

Of course, this idea was EXTREMELY controversial, and met with people's outrage at the very thought of helping those who "did this to themselves." I wish I could find the article. . . http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_economic_inequality.html
I think that's the article.

Lidocafe - I still remember something you said one evening while we were waiting for a bus downtown. You gave a man some change and said that you had seen where some of the people who become addicts and homeless grow up, and you said "if you look at that, what other choice did they have?" As you know, I come from a background with a rather jaded view of the world, and also some amount of hopelessness when it comes to society's redeeming features, but the remark has stuck with me.

Also, I think that maybe authors with more "socially conscious" motivations for writing about the poor, the outcast, etc. are wanting to stimulate and inner-dialogue with the reader about these issues. For example, if we are to see a street person, we can walk right past without engaging them. But in a novel, we are CHOOSING to engage with characters, and perhaps by making characters realistic personality-wise, we will be more compelled to consider the homeless people who resemble the "street person" in the book we are reading. What I'm saying is, I don't know about you, but when I see people, I often think "that person is TOTALLY (Character) from (Novel)!" I'm not sure if sympathizing with outcasts and underdogs because you liked the fictional version of them is "good", but in any case, whatever gets people thinking. Literature is supposed to tell a great truth or explore perceptions and challenge widely held opinions.

Sadly, to the average person, if they were to actually look at the homeless/poverty problem in it's entirety, it would be overwhelming and heartbreaking.

[superfoo.livejournal.com]

So the article I just posted is interesting, but THIS is the article I meant:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/30/the_sting_of_poverty/?page=full

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Oh, that article makes so much sense to me. I've never been out-on-the-street poor, but I've had to deal with money problems that felt overwhelming.

I was a single mom, my ex (who had money) wasn't always reliable about sending it, I got myself into some really bad debt, and then I lost my job. Talk about discouraging. It can be really hard in those circumstances to find the will power to keep doing what you need to do.

I was lucky. I have a supportive and loving family, and with their help and encouragement, I was able to return to school and get a Bachelor's degree. The money they gave me freed me up and let me do something that was really positive. When I got out of school, I was able to get a job making 50% more than I'd been making before, even though I was working in the same field (technical writing).

So, I really think this guy has a very good handle on what goes on. It makes an incredible amount of sense to me.

[superfoo.livejournal.com]

I agree! I really like that article and often think about it, especially during discussions such as this. And in regards to getting your BA: it's amazing how liberating education can be. I think it does a lot to empower people. Which relates to the "poor in literature" thing. Most of the time the characters, although at times uneducated, are usually intelligent. Unfortunately, those in Real Life who suffer from poverty are often UNeducated, which I truly believe contributes a whole lot to the problem of poverty in general. This has been proven with other things, such as the education of women in developing countries: we see lower instances of unplanned pregnancy and STDs when women are given more control over their bodies. In the same way, when people feel they are in control of themselves and CAN work towards changing their position in life, solutions can arise.

Sadly, in many places education is not accessible.

[pdlloyd.livejournal.com]

Of course, being uneducated should not be equated with being intelligent. Many people who have had a poor (as in, bad) education, or who have never graduated from school, or who have had some form of non-traditional education, are quite intelligent. We also know, now, that there are many different kinds of intelligence, social intelligence being one that has recently received a fair amount of attention.

Yet, it may also be fair to say that the poor have a disproportionate number of unintelligent people. If you aren't smart, it's going to be harder to get or make use of an education, and harder to get and keep a job. Also, lead poisoning, poor nutrition before and after birth, genetics, and physical abuse can all be factors.

Despite all this, some extraordinary people raised in impoverished circumstances manage to find ways to bring themselves out of poverty. It bothers me, though, when people point to their success and suggest that this means that all it takes is willpower and a strong work ethic to get oneself out of poverty. No. I don't believe this, any more than I believe that I will be the next Warren Buffet.

[superfoo.livejournal.com]

Absolutely.

[lidocafe.livejournal.com]

I have to agree about the willpower and so forth. I had a rocky youth and was a teen mom and so on and so on, and I certainly have worked hard to move past that, but I was lucky enough to be doing it in an institutionally supportive setting. Without the taxpayers' money . . .

And the different kinds of intelligence point is also interesting. Social and emotional intelligence are crucial to people's "success" too, and these can be radically affected by mental illness, drugs, abuse, and so forth. Lots of people on the streets or grasping for their bit of welfare have huge difficulties dealing with other people and that will inevitably make it almost impossible to play the game.