The
Leopard and The
Lady: What has shaped Marakand’s
epic fantasy? by KV. Johansen
The
Book Plank asked me to write about epic fantasy
influences and why I used them the way I did in my story. I don’t really think
about ‘whys’ much when I’m working. I write, first of all, for myself, and when
I write fantasy I write what I like best to read. I like protagonists who are
on the edges of humanity, one way or another: Ahjvar, cursed with immortality,
possessed by a savage and soul-hungry ghost; Ghu, a deep well of calm who is a
mystery even to Ahjvar; Moth, the devil forced to serve her enemies the Old Great
Gods; the Blackdog, Holla-Sayan, who was possessed by a goddess’s guardian
dog-spirit but became something else along the way and now finds himself again
caught up in a war not his own; Mikki, the half-demon who is bear by day and
man by night and has become the partner and the stability of the villain of his
childhood stories . . . . I like worlds that are vast and deep in both
geography and history, even if a particular story is showing the reader only a
tiny glimpse of that. In the world of The
Leopard and The Lady, current
events are shaped by the past. The landscape, alive with the local gods of the
high places and goddesses of the waters, plays an essential role in shaping the
story. I want my characters, trapped though they may be in desperate circumstances,
to have some hope within themselves of finding a way through. That hope may be
denied, or self-delusion, in some cases -- I have no objection to tragedy --
but it has to be there. You can’t have real tragedy unless there is some
possibility of the alternative; in a hopeless world, there is no tragedy or
disappointment, only a choice of futilities. A friend, a place, a home behind
or ahead or someday to be created -- characters have to have something to keep
them struggling on. Even Ahjvar, who would end his own existence without
hesitation if only he could, has Ghu. These things all combine to make a story
I want to explore, a world and people I need to know more about, and that’s
what keeps me writing it.
The reality of the book doesn’t spring
fully-formed from the imagination, though, like Athena from the head of Zeus.
Everything one reads, good and bad, becomes part of the sea in which one’s
creative mind is swimming, but I don’t find that my writing is very heavily
influenced by contemporary trends within the genre. It’s mostly things outside
contemporary fantasy that influence me and that can and should influence epic
fantasy as a whole -- a genre feeding on itself becomes very sterile. That’s
what happened to fantasy a couple of decades back when naive-teen-boy-destiny
quests formed the standard pattern of secondary world fantasy, and a reader
could certainly be forgiven for getting the feeling that some of those were
written by people who had never read anything but other naive-teen-boy-destiny
quests. Some who had never bothered to read Tolkien (or who gave up because
they couldn’t cope with semi-colons) were condemning him as shallow and
composed of stock parts, like the worst of his imitators; fantasy as a whole
was dismissed by those same critics as empty, shallow, and derivative of
itself. And some of it had become so. However, those decrying that fact seemed
to extend their dismissal to anything bearing the genre label (and they’re
still out there, and they still do). It’s possible to see how that could happen
again, developing another self-devouring loop in which writers try to replicate
the impact of something that already exists by repeating it, reducing it in
doing so to a caricature of itself. Make the hero even more destined! Or these
days, even more brutally “gritty and realistic”. (As if only pain, misery, and
futility were realistic, a fallacy to which Lit adheres as much as sf.) When
that happens, the genre runs the risk of once again becoming sterile and
self-derivative. This is not to say that we don’t all read things sometimes and
say, “Wow, I want to do that!”, “How does she do that? I need to figure that
out,” or, “I’m really bothered by this approach to such-and-such,” and we react
by trying to do it, or doing something that by its existence stands against it,
in our own work. The poetic prose of McKillip, Bujold’s way with psychology of
character, Diana Wynne Jones’s plot-unfolding, and Cherryh’s rigour in sticking
to a limited narrative perspective amid complex politics all impress me, for
instance, and give me heights to aspire to, while if I want hopeless and bloody
futility I can have recourse to the news, and lately find myself paying a more
conscious attention to the standards of honour and ethics my characters hold
themselves to. Or their lack thereof -- but I think about it more. On the
whole, though, it’s not so much what I read and enjoy within current fantasy
that pushes and prods and haunts my writing, shaping the way my own story is
growing. It’s things outside the genre -- history, scenery, current affairs,
archaeology, anime, real world fears and wishes -- that drive the development
of the world and situation I’m writing.
I do find is that the epic fantasy I’m
writing now is quite different from that which I was writing back before my
children’s books began being published. However, that’s more a result of the
continuous evolution of skills and interests natural to every writer (unless
they are among those one-person novel factories who take up too many yards of library
shelving), than of a conscious decision to be influenced by contemporary genre
developments. My epic fantasy is still shaped more by what shaped my ideas of
good storytelling and good fantasy when I was young. So what did I take from
those influences?
My first real apprenticeship in using
language was from reading and rereading Tolkien as a child. Other writers --
Sutcliff, Donald Jack, Cherryh, and yes, Milne -- were also early and formative
influences on how I learnt to write, but Tolkien struck the deepest. Also, I
took from him, not consciously at that point but deep in the marrow, the
understanding that a world must be real if the story is to be real -- what he
called literary belief, in which what Lewis called “realism of presentation”
plays an important part. Reading Tolkien before I ever discovered The Famous Five also, I think, set my
imagination in the patterns of polyphonic interlace. That was simply how a
good, big story went. Even when I’ve tried a first-person narrative, I’ve ended
up cheating. Torrie tells you other people’s parts of the adventure in most of
the Torrie books. For the middle two
books of The Warlocks series, Korby,
Annot, and Eleanor write their own accounts to interweave with Maurey’s, in the
mode of The Moonstone. First person
works fine for a Buchan adventure (though even Buchan has to resort to cheating
in Mr Standfast for a bit, and in The Three Hostages too, when Hannay
really needs to tell what Mary was doing) but once the story ceases to be one
person’s adventure and expands to politics, to the manoeuvrings of kingdoms,
you either have to have long bits where someone says, “I later found out that
X”, an omniscient narrator saying, “Little did Maurey know, but in fact...”, or
you need eyes on the ground, as it were: more point of view characters,
scattered over the geographical range of the story. And there we are, back to
polyphonic interlaced narrative. You can have a cycle in the medieval sense,
such as The Matter of Britain, in
which “all these stories are going on at the same time but right now I am
telling you this one,” but if you weave all those separate stories of separate
adventures in one history together, you have what we now call an epic fantasy.
That, I most definitely absorbed from Tolkien.
From historical fiction -- from Rosemary
Sutcliff and Kipling’s Puck -- I took
in the certain knowledge that the present is built on many layers of the past,
and will in turn become one of those layers itself, Putting that together with
Tolkien, I learnt that a fictional world needs this too, if it is to have a
convincing reality.
From history, from big, deep,
mid-century histories written by men and women who were scholars of broad as
well as deep learning and assumed you could read footnotes in Latin and Greek,
I learned more of what I had started to understand from Sutcliff, plus, of
course, much about political, legal, constitutional, military, religious,
technological, and agricultural history . . . . I also gained much, much matter
for the compost of the imagination, to which I continue to add and which
continues to shape where I want my epic fantasy to go.
Glen Cook’s influence was lasting, too
-- the struggles of a bunch of people in the middle of a big mess they didn’t
cause, can’t figure out, and which they may or may not survive -- who, some of
them, retain their humanity and refuse to surrender hope for themselves and
fellow-feeling for others on whichever side.
And from Robin McKinley, in my early
teens, there came a small and simple question with the impact of a
road-to-Damascus moment: Why shouldn’t the girl get to kill the dragon?
So these are the foundations of my epic
fantasy. What has influenced the development of The Leopard and The Lady
in particular? The landscape of central Asia and the book and documentary Realms of the Russian Bear brought the Blackdog world to life and made it Silk
Road fantasy, though I’m not sure if anyone had used the term yet back when I
was writing the first half of Blackdog
circa 2003. Consideration of the impact of unremitting fear and horror and
guilt on the psyche began in The Leopard
and The Lady to shape Ahjvar, the
assassin possessed by a murderous ghost, and led to my getting quite interested
in exploring a protagonist who isn’t shaking off the legacy of what he’s lived,
what he’s done, and what’s been done to him, but who is falling apart under it.
As for contemporary influence -- reading Rothfuss now is not changing how I
write, but he is giving me hope that there is still an appetite among readers
for a book that takes the time to slow down, let words linger on the tongue and
the ear of the mind, revel in the good moments as well as the bad, and reflect.
Comments
Post a Comment