![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
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?
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?
Tags:
no subject
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.