>In most fantasy there's really nothing risked. There's no struggle,
>there's never any feeling that what happens is real, or matters. The good guys
>*will* win, none of the major characters will die, and when the story is
>done, it's done. No loose ends, no wondering about what happened after
>the story, no sense it will go on without you or ever existed before you.
>When his characters make choices -- there are consequences. Choice and
>sacrifice are always significant issues in his writing. And while there's always
>some sort of tragedy/sadness, it's always redeemed in some way by something
>transcedent. Bittersweet covers it nicely.

That's because, unfortunately, a lot of fantasy is just not good writing.
Probably because a lot of writers are looking toward having a franchise. 
(Which is something which can irritate the heck out of a reader - I can think 
of several times where I was thinking "how is this different than the book 
previous in this series?")

There are, thankfully, a number of writers of fantasy and science fiction who 
aren't afraid to deal with the consequences of what happens and are, in fact, 
quite prepared to be extremely realistic within their own little worlds - 
prepared to deal with the effects of what someone who is truly ruthless would 
do in case a or b, who will shock you by killing a main character in the very 
next chapter after hearing how their men are about to organize an escape, who 
will have a seemingly small decision backfire dramatically later based on its 
effects in the rest of the world.  These are the authors who make me mutter 
aloud as I'm reading - curses, cheers, gasps, snarls, triumphant cries.  These 
are also the authors who keep me coming back for more and who I feel need to 
write and publish faster, dammit. :)

>>I wonder if that's, in part, on of the attractions of the Harry Potter
>>series. People die. There are choices. There are consequences of wrong
>>choices. Characters are affected by what has happened as a result of
>>their choices and losses. I wonder if it's the feeling of risk that has
>>contributed to people of all ages being hooked - and to the Far Right
>>religions (not just the Christians) trying to prevent their kids from
>>reading the series.

I suppose that's possible, though I admit that I tend to believe the 
Christians, that it's all about the "practice of witchcraft"
corrupting the 
youth.  [Let me clarify that statement: I believe that's what they mean, not 
that they're anywhere near correct in that belief.]  (And, really, said 
religious right's been about making the same sort of stupid comments for years 
about video games, TV Shows, etc. [what I found ironic, too, is that violent 
kids shows are ok, but one mention of something mystical, and we're talking 
Evil!] It's just that Pottermania is that much stronger and so their protests 
get that much more play as the media wants to publish anything Potter-related).

The one thing about the Potter books that I appreciate is that the characters' 
perspectives do shift as the characters age and are exposed to new things - so 
each book basically ends up "feeling" targetted at a slightly
older audience, 
with an increasing amount of that sort of 'reality' being added each time - 
not that it was ever dipped in honey for the consumption of kids in the first 
place (unlike, say, almost every Disney movie ever - certainly those post 
1990).  [I mean, I know as a kid, I *hated* being condescended to and so a 
whole lot of the "young adult" reading I was pointed at didn't
get finished.]

Of course, I'm hardly an expert on the subject of Potter.

-N

---
  Neal Bouffard					neal.bouffard{at}dynacan.org
  "Why do psychics need to ask your name?"
---

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha