I've long recognized that I have dichotomous tastes. A life-long fan of comics (mostly superhero comics, but there are some others that I appreciate), video games, and parts of anime, I've grown up subsisting on a steady diet of the fantastic. The Chronicles of Prydain formed a background of middle grade and young adult fantasy (since Harry Potter wasn't around--and when he showed up, I was anti-Potter), with Anne McCaffery's worlds filling in the gaps. I watched some Star Trek with my mom, thought Star Wars was fine (until it wasn't, ruined by constant viewings of the VHS tapes by my little brother--to the point it bred a bit of antipathy in me about them), and I read Animorphs. Both science fiction and fantasy swirled throughout much of my early life.
Because of my obsessive personality, I definitely focused on Spider-Man a lot more than other properties, relying on that fusion of science fiction/fantasy that, frankly, has always been the most comfortable melange of genres for me. Perhaps that's why I finally sat down and wrote a story in which a dragon fought a spaceship, though I had an explanation for how a dragon could have evolved--the science behind the fantasy, as it were.
On the whole, I believe that I've put a lot of time into the geek world. And so when new properties take the [insert fandom here], it always gets my antennae wiggling. There are some things that are too large and/or too well loved for me to want to carve out a niche for myself. Doctor Who is a good example: Despite my anglophilic tendencies, the Doctor and his companions have failed to snag my interest. It's at such a low level, I don't even want to try the series, despite the love it's engendered in many of my friends. Yet, thanks to the internet, not only can I easily identify the Doctor (though I don't necessarily know which number he is--and it's always a he and if they'd made a woman Doctor I might have given a bit more thought to picking it up), but I know about the Weeping Angels and Daleks and I know what a sonic screwdriver is (a science fiction version of a wand and don't try to argue that it's anything different).
Other properties are on the video game front. If I can't get it on the PlayStation or my phone (which are two very different platforms, I know), then there is approximately zero chance that I will play it. Steam sales and PC-only titles simply don't happen. Having a diversity of platforming options was always about fragmenting attention and devotion. The natural consequence for that is there are only so many gaming hours available to me, and I'm less likely to try out something--even as highly regarded as, say, Undertale--if I can't get it on the limited platforms I have.
But I also keep myself in a different world, a different culture that is similar in its use of the fantastic (which could be why I like it so much), and that's within the classics. Not just classics like Alice in Wonderland (which is inferior to its sequel, in my opinion), but Classics like Paradise Lost and Beowulf. I have a working knowledge of The Iliad and The Odyssey, plus an intimate familiarity with Inferno and other parts of The Divine Comedy. In other words, I put a lot of my energy into the ancient geek culture, the ancient fantasies and imaginative explorations.
There is, if not a hypocrisy, a latent incongruity between people who disdain modern fantasy (and its secular counterpart, science fiction) and claim only the fantasy of the remote past is worthwhile. This isn't to say that The Lord of the Rings is on par with Homer. There's really only a handful of contenders on that front and none of them was born after 1608. And it makes me wonder what it is about the fantastical past and our fantastical present that is so different.
Part of it, of course, is that the present has to take the past into account. Love him or hate him, no Western writer who sits down to write can ignore Homer or Shakespeare. Go around them? Confront them? Subvert them? All possible. But ignore? Nope. Like Freud in psychology, there are some figures that cast shadows too long to escape. In that way, then the past is always ahead. It reminds me of my determination to catch up to my older brother's age (who is about two and a half years older than I). Every time I got to where he was, he was two years ahead of me again.
I think the prevalence of geek culture works against it, too. Could there be something better than Homer out there? Well, I suppose there's a possibility, but part of the reason he's remembered is because he's the one that's stuck around. And I do mean the one. There's no one before him, and, so far as we can tell, there isn't anyone at the same time, either. It's easy to be Homer when you're the only game in town.
Significantly, Homer has continued to be Homer throughout the centuries. He isn't likely to be dethroned so long as the West survives, and I think perhaps even then he'd elude effacement. Shakespeare has enough momentum to continue for as long; his immediate bardic successor, John Milton, however, will fade. I say this as a matter of expectation due to the post-capitalist need for a thing to be marketable* to have value. There will likely be Miltonists for as long as people read, but those numbers will dwindle--after I'm gone, of course.
Anyway, I need to go watch Captain America: Civil War so I'm ready for the Spider-Man movie I'm going to tonight. It's going to be epic.
----
* I've often said that the fastest way to part me from my money is to put Shakespeare's face on something. It's partly true for Shax, and doubly true for Milton. But the problem with Milton? No one sells his face on anything. As a result, what's there is expensive or schlock with little in between.
Because of my obsessive personality, I definitely focused on Spider-Man a lot more than other properties, relying on that fusion of science fiction/fantasy that, frankly, has always been the most comfortable melange of genres for me. Perhaps that's why I finally sat down and wrote a story in which a dragon fought a spaceship, though I had an explanation for how a dragon could have evolved--the science behind the fantasy, as it were.
On the whole, I believe that I've put a lot of time into the geek world. And so when new properties take the [insert fandom here], it always gets my antennae wiggling. There are some things that are too large and/or too well loved for me to want to carve out a niche for myself. Doctor Who is a good example: Despite my anglophilic tendencies, the Doctor and his companions have failed to snag my interest. It's at such a low level, I don't even want to try the series, despite the love it's engendered in many of my friends. Yet, thanks to the internet, not only can I easily identify the Doctor (though I don't necessarily know which number he is--and it's always a he and if they'd made a woman Doctor I might have given a bit more thought to picking it up), but I know about the Weeping Angels and Daleks and I know what a sonic screwdriver is (a science fiction version of a wand and don't try to argue that it's anything different).
Other properties are on the video game front. If I can't get it on the PlayStation or my phone (which are two very different platforms, I know), then there is approximately zero chance that I will play it. Steam sales and PC-only titles simply don't happen. Having a diversity of platforming options was always about fragmenting attention and devotion. The natural consequence for that is there are only so many gaming hours available to me, and I'm less likely to try out something--even as highly regarded as, say, Undertale--if I can't get it on the limited platforms I have.
But I also keep myself in a different world, a different culture that is similar in its use of the fantastic (which could be why I like it so much), and that's within the classics. Not just classics like Alice in Wonderland (which is inferior to its sequel, in my opinion), but Classics like Paradise Lost and Beowulf. I have a working knowledge of The Iliad and The Odyssey, plus an intimate familiarity with Inferno and other parts of The Divine Comedy. In other words, I put a lot of my energy into the ancient geek culture, the ancient fantasies and imaginative explorations.
There is, if not a hypocrisy, a latent incongruity between people who disdain modern fantasy (and its secular counterpart, science fiction) and claim only the fantasy of the remote past is worthwhile. This isn't to say that The Lord of the Rings is on par with Homer. There's really only a handful of contenders on that front and none of them was born after 1608. And it makes me wonder what it is about the fantastical past and our fantastical present that is so different.
Part of it, of course, is that the present has to take the past into account. Love him or hate him, no Western writer who sits down to write can ignore Homer or Shakespeare. Go around them? Confront them? Subvert them? All possible. But ignore? Nope. Like Freud in psychology, there are some figures that cast shadows too long to escape. In that way, then the past is always ahead. It reminds me of my determination to catch up to my older brother's age (who is about two and a half years older than I). Every time I got to where he was, he was two years ahead of me again.
I think the prevalence of geek culture works against it, too. Could there be something better than Homer out there? Well, I suppose there's a possibility, but part of the reason he's remembered is because he's the one that's stuck around. And I do mean the one. There's no one before him, and, so far as we can tell, there isn't anyone at the same time, either. It's easy to be Homer when you're the only game in town.
Significantly, Homer has continued to be Homer throughout the centuries. He isn't likely to be dethroned so long as the West survives, and I think perhaps even then he'd elude effacement. Shakespeare has enough momentum to continue for as long; his immediate bardic successor, John Milton, however, will fade. I say this as a matter of expectation due to the post-capitalist need for a thing to be marketable* to have value. There will likely be Miltonists for as long as people read, but those numbers will dwindle--after I'm gone, of course.
Anyway, I need to go watch Captain America: Civil War so I'm ready for the Spider-Man movie I'm going to tonight. It's going to be epic.
----
* I've often said that the fastest way to part me from my money is to put Shakespeare's face on something. It's partly true for Shax, and doubly true for Milton. But the problem with Milton? No one sells his face on anything. As a result, what's there is expensive or schlock with little in between.