urban fantasy & sex/love

[manifesta]

Because it's somewhat necessary in understanding what I mean when I discuss urban fantasy, I'll briefly outline my distinction between what I consider to be two very different forms of UF. For the record, I've only found one source that draws similar (but not the same) lines as do, so these are terms I've created to delineate my metanalysis and are certainly not the industry standard.

Urban fantasy, from an overarching view, is a subset of fantasy that features an urban setting regardless of the universe (but if it's not in a city yet still in the real world, it's either contemporary or historical fantasy, depending on the time period).

Traditional urban fantasy (TUF). Originated in the 80s with authors such as Charles de Lint and Emma Bull. Modern-day comparisons might include Neil Gaiman and Catherynne M. Valente's Pailmpsest. They have a lilting, literary feel that cleanly incorporates fantastical elements in an urbane setting. The connections between the characters is emphasized, and there might be sex and/or love, or there might not.

Modern urban fantasy (MUF). Originated in the 90s with authors such as Laurell K. Hamilton [and I can't remember who else--anyone know?]* and extending into the 2000s with others like Kelley Armstrong, Patricia Briggs, Rachel Vincent, Carrie Vaughn, etc. Usually MUFs feature a reportedly badass lead heroine (though not always: Jim Butcher and Rob Thurman) and contain romantic elements (perhaps even a romantic subplot) but does not necessarily end with a HEA. There may be sex, there might not. If there is sex, it may or may not be with more than one character (a freedom not exhibited in MUF's often-confused-with cousin, paranormal romance). Unlike with paranormal romance, the conjugal couple is not as firmly established. The farther into the 2000s MUF books go, the more they're written with an edgy, action-oriented style. They feature an array of paranormal species, including but not limited to vampires, werewolves/shifters, and faeries.

Now on to Philip Palmer's Is Urban Fantasy Really All About Sex?

First I'd like to clarify that when Palmer discusses urban fantasy, he's not discussing urban fantasy in general, but rather modern urban fantasy, and in particular modern urban fantasy with vampires. It is his mistake that he generalizes modern-UF-with-vamps with UF-as-a-complete-genre. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I have conflicted feelings regarding modern urban fantasy, and I am neither pro nor con.

Palmer's analogy goes like this: when vampires feed, there's an exchange of fluids, aka a bloody metaphor for sex, etc. There's been plenty of feminist critique affirming this connection, particularly given its prevalent association with coercion. I also don't think it's too far of a stretch to stipulate that forced bloodletting or conversion is akin to rape. The majority of the time the hero is a vampire, while the heroine is, for at least a while, human. Frequently she isn't given a choice in the removal of her blood or in being turned, and frequently the force involved in making that 'choice' is later justified when she experiences pleasure or decides it's okay to be a vamp--not unlike the romances in the 60s that used rape as a medium for justifying, in the real world, women's pleasure.

I do, however, wonder at his distinction between scifi/fantasy and urban fantasy.

"But my point here is that in science fiction and traditional fantasy, sex is an element of the storytelling - it's something characters do in the course of the story. But in certain subgenres of urban fantasy, sex IS the story.

In other words, the very premise of a vampire story is a sexual metaphor; the deflowering of a virgin, the loss of innocence, the ravishing of a nubile woman or a virile man, often in bed, by a monster."

This seems more like an attempt at distancing scifi/fantasy from the romance-originated subgenre of modern urban fantasy. I understand the impulse, given the trend of watered-down worldbuilding I've seen in some MUFs. Worldbuilding is the cornerstone of fantasy, and many times it gets shunted to far side in favor of building romantic relations or advancing the sexual tension. But I think Palmer is confusing MUF with paranormal romance on a grander scale. It's easy enough to do; books such as those written by Lara Adrian, J. R. Ward, Lynn Viehl, and Jeaniene Frost feature vampires in urban settings appear to be urban fantasy at first glance. However, they're labeled and marketed as paranormal romance, and the central focus of the book is how the hero and heroine push the story forward together. With MUF, there might be wild crazy sex, and it might even advance the plot, but the focus is on the heroine (or sometimes on the hero) and her/his actions. A vampire might be a walking, talking metaphor for sex, but that doesn't mean that if there's a vampire in the story then the story itself is all about sex. (Note that I'm not saying it isn't, ever, but rather that if it is, it's for other reasons.) 

I suppose, in Palmer's terms, what I'm arguing is that in UF, like with traditional sci/fi, sex is an element of the story, and not the story itself.

Palmer later says:

"My simple point though is that there's a strong subgenre of urban fantasies which are love stories as much as they are kick-ass supernatural thrillers; and that fact intrigues me."

The model for writing MUF is different than the model for writing paranormal romance. The character(s) in MUF might be seeking love, but many times they do not end in a HEA (at least not until a great many books later). While they're off searching for the Sceptor of Orr, they might have sex, but that sex does not necessarily = love. And despite my many complaints with the genre, I see the freedom from the sex-love paradigm as a good thing.

I suppose this is illustrates my confusion with Palmer's article--he uses the terms "love" and "sex" interchangeably when arguing what (M)UF stories are all about. It's difficult to accurately analyze his argument when, from what I've perceived, MUF stands in defiance of the norms established by traditional romance, adhering to neither its standards regarding sex nor love.

Still thinking on this. A part two might be forthcoming.

*I consider Charlaine Harris contemporary fantasy, not urban, because as far as I know her series is set in the middle of a swamp, not a city. Feel free to correct me on this.

Comments

[kaigou]

There's something rather funny about using "traditional" as an additional adjective for a genre whose name fundamentally means "fantasy set in our modern world" -- what does that make the first half of the genre, "traditional stories in a modern world"? Heh. I tend to make the same distinction you're making, except I think of them as literary contemporary fantasy versus action-adventure contemporary fantasy. The first kind (like DeLint) focuses more on internal, a dose of character development, and the finale may have some action but it's still considerably less external-focus than, say, the Bourne Ultimatum. The second kind is far more like its super-spy and action-thriller cousins, with far less focus on internal character development (sometimes almost none at all) and far more focus on the Big Bad and a finale with a massive bang-crash-slam kind of showdown, often also with guns.

I ran into the whole "what is urban fantasy" when reading books classed as "paranormal fantasy" that felt off-kilter somehow from what I expected, but I wasn't sure what I'd expected, so naturally contemplation must follow. I eventually came up with a way to differentiate paranormal from UF in terms of romance, and then later expanded that in terms of the fundamental difference between paranormal and urban fantasy. By that measure, then, pretty much most of the vampire/werewolf/etc books I don't count as "urban fantasy" but more as "occult" or "supernatural/paranormal". It's not a market division, but it's a handy mental measure for me to be able to determine which books would appeal to me -- I've little interest in paranormal, and much prefer fantastical.

As for Palmer's essay, I think you're right on target with the critiques, though I'd add that I think much of what makes it possible (in a 'this is allowed' sense) for him to say all that is that UF (or MUF, as you point out) is overwhelmingly dominated by female authors and female protagonists. I can't help but get the impression that it's one more essentialist move: when a man does X, then doing X is just part of the whole, while when a women does X, suddenly the woman is utterly defined by X.

A rather clunky way to describe how a man can write about sex and oh, that's just "something characters do in the course of the story" but a woman writing about sex and suddenly we can dismiss any other aspect of her writing/characters because really, "it's all about sex" -- with the underlying meaning there really being "it's all about sex as written by a woman" with the latter unspoken part amounting to "and therefore we can dismiss it as unimportant". Unlike, y'know, when it's written by a man, and only then does it not consume, define, or limit a view of the author or his work.

Basically, as I see it, Palmer is simultaneously saying UF can be dismissed for being nothing more than, y'know, a bunch of women writing porn that's cloaked in UF metaphors -- and then in nearly the same breath, he pats himself on the back for wanting to actually pay attention to that which he's effectively said can be dismissed as trivial. And to top it off, he seems to expect someone to give him a cookie for the maneuver! Idiot.

[holyschist]

*mines your posts for books to read*

[manifesta]

Literary contemporary fantasy vs. action-adventure contemporary fantasy seems about right, too. I usually shy away from describing TUF as "literary" because I'm not a huge fan of what society considers to be mainstream "literature" and thus it doesn't sit right in my head, but it makes sense. The difference in pace between the two subgenres of UF also become more apparent with your description, too; in terms of recomendations, I could see how labelling both types of books as "urban fantasy" would evoke images that doesn't correspond with, say, de Lint, and put a potential reader off from reading.

Your post on paranormal vs. UF reminded me of a few things; I hope you don't mind if I comment on the original post with them?

I've found it interesting that vampires and wereolves and such have become the face of UF when in reality they were a genre unto themselves (or considered horror) prior to the development of UF. I think your second post accurately reflects a lot of the problems I've had in the past when trying to read a good UF that doesn't involve vamps or werewolves. I'd still be hard-pressed to recommend a solid MUF even with them. Maybe Rachel Caine (which is perhaps more contemporary than urban) or Marjorie M. Liu. I, too, tend to prefer fantastical over paranormal, but then my true love lies in fantasy, not romance, and I think that's where the line between the two is typically drawn.

I really liked this part: "Paranormal, done right, can explore questions about discrimination, bigotry, conflict based on what are now-opposing viewpoints of what may have once been shared views." Something to keep in mind.

I feel like MUF and paranormal romance each possess far more potential than has been expressed thus far. It's difficult at times to pinpoint where and why I begin to lose interest, though if anything at least there are individuals such as Palmer who generously provide the springboard to analyze the topic further. Likewise, I definitely agree that there appears to be a gender boundary, as illustrated by his distinction between what elements are part of the story and what elements ARE the story, and of course, it's the sex written by men (in scifi/fantasy/horror/whathaveyou) that is simply part of the story and the sex written by women (in MUF/para rom/mainstream romance) that encompasses the entire novel. Which isn't necessarily an inaccurate perception, sometimes, but still allows vast generalization (of which he recognizes and yet indulges in anyway) and the trivilization of women's writing. Particularly when gender itself becomes hidden beneath the discourse, such as what I think happened in Palmer's essay.

Thank you for posting links to your entries! It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks about genre this way.

[holyschist]

Originated in the 90s with authors such as Laurell K. Hamilton [and I can't remember who else--anyone know?]

I don't know how influential she was, but maybe Mercedes Lackey's Diana Tregarde and her urban elf books?

I'm a little hesitant to describe all vampire stories as sex metaphors: while sexy vampires are trendy right now, there are definitely narratives, even UF narratives, with not-sexy vampires, where feeding is feeding, and ones where things are more ambiguous (Robin McKinley's Sunshine--I can't remember how urban it is--and perhaps Patricia Briggs's takes on vampires both come to mind). Jim Butcher's Red Court vampires are pretty damn unsexy, unsexual, and unmetaphorical, too, although he balances them out with literal sex vampires. (Interestingly, the TV version sexed up the Red Court vampires in a more conventional way.)

So I don't even buy that vampires are automatically sex metaphors--often, and it's a long tradition, but not always. I'm also not so sure that MUF is "awash with sex"--I can think offhand of several authors who have very little or no sex (or even romance in some cases) in most of their books, although I'll grant that they're mostly male or writing steampunkish UF.

(I'm puzzled by the Peeler excerpt as a sex metaphor...really? I don't read it that way at all. And definitely don't buy that absence of sex is always about sex--there's a reason I call Twilight "abstinence porn" but don't use that term for any book without a sexual focus.)

Hmmmm, lots to think about.

[manifesta]

I've only ever read Lackey's epic fantasies, but I've heard her name tossed about in terms of UF before. She's a big name in epic fantasy, so if she wrote UF in the 90s, I could see her as having some sway.

Definitely a good point. Vampires haven't always been sexualized, and occasionally they still aren't (the movie 30 Days of Night in 2007 springs to mind). I wonder if our perception of vampires has become a sex metaphor because of the MUF/paranormal romance boom that placed vampires in a sexual context, and so certain parts of society have begun to think of them that way? So the linear progress wasn't vampire --> sex metaphor but rather sexual context --> vampires --> sex metaphor. Hmmm.

Abstinence porn. Oh my, haha.

[holyschist]

Yeah, the Diana Tregarde books were kind of like MUF but with very little sex (the heroine had a steady vampire boyfriend, but the romance was pretty secondary)--she stopped writing them after three books, supposedly due to loony letters or threats or something, so the third book ends on a very unresolved note. She's still going strong, with co-authors, on the urban elves.

Thinking about it more, I think part of my issue with the vampires = sex metaphor is that if the vampires are just violent predators, but one argues that it's still a sex metaphor because of penetration and fluids, then it's a rape metaphor. And I don't think sex and rape metaphors are the same thing at all. Although I'd still argue that vampires can just be non-metaphorical predators/parasites.

Bram Stoker's Dracula and a lot of the Victorian vampire literature are really heavy-handed about the sex metaphors, though, so I wouldn't put that down to MUF. Since at least the Victorian era, sex-metaphor vampires and horror/parasite vampires have coexisted in fiction, but at different times one will dominate the narrative over the other (I'd say in SF right now, parasite vampires are dominant, for example).

Abstinence porn. Oh my, haha.

It IS! It's like porn for people who don't believe in reading actual porn. Kind of like how a lot of Christian teenagers read Christian romances largely for the Terrible Naughty Behavior of the hero/ine pre-reformation!

It's totally different from a story that just isn't about sex.

[surpassingly]

Ah, this post gave me so much to think about. ♥

I've been thinking about this too (sort of) since one of the stories I want to write this year involves a manananggal, which is sometimes treated as close enough to vampires that I'm trying to examine the issues involved. I've noticed quite a few people assume equivalencies between vampire stories and stories about sex, whether overtly or not, and although I haven't been very comfortable with that kind of assumption it's been a bit difficult to say exactly why. But this helped me make some progress, so thank you for this!

[littlebutfierce]

Yay for more stories w/Filipino mythology in them!!

To the OP: very interesting! I remember seeing that LJ article & being glad that someone was differentiating b/t stuff like Emma Bull & stuff like Kelley Armstrong: or, rather, that they both were urban fantasy since it seems in libraries, bookstores, etc. increasingly what you call MUF is taken as the whole.

I haven't really thought that much about why I like certain MUF (what a useful term!) more than others (well: I don't like when they use shapeshifting/vampirism as excuses for gender essentialism/male domination, one of the reasons I love Carrie Vaughn's stuff), but your post gives me some stuff to chew on, & I must go read the ones that kaigou linked as well.

(BTW the Harris books are set in small-town Louisiana, not a swamp particularly.)

[holyschist]

I don't like when they use shapeshifting/vampirism as excuses for gender essentialism/male domination

OMG, this. I pretty much can't stand most werewolf stuff these days for exactly this reason, and it makes me sad because I ADORE real wolves and would love to read about werewolves that are more like real wolves and less like some retrogressive idea of humanity, with bonus shapeshifting. (I've got to catch up on Carrie Vaughn.)

[littlebutfierce]

Heh, I couldn't judge how much Vaughn's werewolves are like real wolves, but Kitty certainly spends a fair amount of time (especially in the first book or two) pushing back against werewolves who expect that packdom means male wolves having their way (both sexually & otherwise).

Also I love that so much of her books are about finding the balance between human nature & wolf nature, & how having one or the other doesn't make you a bad (or good!) being automatically.

Her books push a lot of other yay! buttons for me (I love the relationships between the people Kitty eventually ends up having as her pack of sorts--& not just the potentially/romantic relationships; & all the DJ stuff is funny!) too, heh.

The covers, though, have got to go. The half-turned woman w/ass-shot trend in book covers doesn't really bug me (I mean, it makes me roll my eyes), but all of the covers for Vaughn's books look pretty much the same. I don't mind one butt-shot but... over & over & over, meh.

[holyschist]

I don't remember being totally asquee when I read the first few books, so probably not as much like real wolves as I'd like, but they're still way less frustrating for me than most werewolf books.

As far as the covers go, I suspect she doesn't have much control over them; perhaps I shall ask (although I doubt it's something she'd publicly comment on).

VimlVUweLn

[(Anonymous)]

Vf8eqB THX that's a great aneswr!