tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24904037.post6334338598369493792..comments2024-01-11T04:57:37.530-04:00Comments on The Furious D Show: The Book Report: What's In A Head?Furious Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07934529688753875751noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24904037.post-12872787151250814722015-11-28T11:56:36.810-04:002015-11-28T11:56:36.810-04:00Bumped into this on Twitter while composing someth...Bumped into this on Twitter while composing something for my own blog. I think you're on to something here, but I would quibble on a few points:<br />1. Lovecraft is more varied than phantasmagoric cosmic-horror. He's most famous for that, but he's got more in his toolbox. He's got more variety than Tolkien, even if Tolkien is, as you say, mostly straight up high fantasy. But I still agree with your overall point: fantasy awards should not be busts.<br />2. It's not obvious that Arthurian legend is the proper basis of the genre either. It's certainly in the source material, but still too niche. And if you are going to change up the iconic sword, then you lose touch with Arthur and make the sword into the symbol of fantasy. I don't think that's right either.<br />3. It's a tough problem to pick a good ur-symbol for the genre, which I suspect is what the WFA is running into now. I think you need something abstract or weird in itself. Maybe an open tome with an androgynous hero emerging, half human and the rest disintegrating into monster and machine or something bizarre. Or just go super-abstract, but I don't know what that would be.<br />Anyway, thanks for the post.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com