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.