Lavie Tidhar on the World SF Blog and the Kitschies:
To begin with, I don’t even know why I was feeling uneasy about accepting the award. I was looking forward to coming along and not having any responsibilities, like having to go on stage (my World Fantasy Award acceptance speech was two lines), and just being able to relax and enjoy myself. But I think I know what was bothering me, which crystallised when I stood up on that stage at the Free Word Centre.
I was looking out on a sea of white people.
Sofia Samatar, Reading feminist theory on the bus:
Him: What are you reading?
Me: Feminist theory.
Me (showing him the cover of Undutiful Daughters): Feminist theory. Ideas about feminism.
Him: Are you into women?
Me: Umm, why are you asking?
Him: I mean–what’s feminism?
Him: Feminism. What is that?
SF Signal on Epic Fantasy and the Dreams It Offers:
And yet, if you start looking for attempts to define the term “epic fantasy” you discover that they exist in abundance. The entry for it in Clute and Grant’s Encyclopedia of Fantasy links it to the classical poetic form but says that its use “by publishers to describe HEROIC FANTASIES that extend over several volumes” mean that the term has “lost its usefulness.” In The A-Z of Fantasy Literature Brian Stableford characterizes it as a label for multi-volume immersive fantasies that “gradually build up detailed historical and geographic images of secondary worlds, within which elaborate hero myths are constructed.” “[M]ost epic fantasies are strictly commodified,” he continues, but “the format readily lends itself to greater ambition.” Most definitions highlight structural aspects: length, scale, massive detail, but these are just means to an end. As Chloe Smith noted in a piece at Fantasy Faction, “The word ‘epic’ suggests a certain weight, a significance to the work that raises the stakes of the drama, that gives the tale it tells distinctive power and gravitas.” Jeremy L. C. Jones summarizes it thusly: “‘Epic Fantasy’” is gloriously broad, vague, and… resonant.”
(via Stefan Raets.)
I find Stevens’ conclusion later in the post somewhat vacuous and over-broad – What dreams? How do such “dreams” work? And particularly important in many cases, whose dreams are in question? These questions are implied but not answered, and I may have further thoughts on’t, but I lack time at present to complete them.