Fiction of Manners

[nancylebov]

I hate fiction of manners, but that's not going to stop me from writing about it in some effort to see if I can figure out why. I hope that people who like fiction of manners will tell me whether I've got an accurate impression of the genre. (I admit that I might be as wrong as someone who hates sf trying to talk about sf, but I also feel it's occasionally necessary to look like a fool in public in order to learn things.)

Imho, fiction of manners is almost entirely about emotion and status, and a lot of my problem with it (aside from a probably neurotic aversion to paying attention to status maneuverings) is that I'm left feeling very claustrophobic when I read it. People don't seem to notice any material object except for its status possibilities. They don't talk about ideas. They don't make things. They hardly get out of doors.

Their status maneuverings are for very high stakes in terms of their personal happiness (frex, in a classic CoM, the cost of a bad marriage might be serious poverty), but the physical cost of losing is kept off-stage. (The emotional cost, say being the poor relative-companion of someone obnoxious, may well be on-stage.)

In a discussion I can't find easily papersky said that _Tooth and Claw_ was too savage to be fantasy of manners. I think it's not just savagery--people in fiction of manners aren't very embodied, whether for pleasure or pain.

Comments

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I think this is connected to what kate_nepveu meant when she talked about the "cool" nature of the things. They're distanced. I'd say that Swordspoint is very embodied though.

I do find the people in C.19 novels of manners very alien.

This is, of course, why I wrote about them as dragons, or why I thought about writing about them as dragons in the first place.

[avram]

Is "fiction of manners" a broadening of "fantasy of manners", or a separate thing?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It's a broadening.

[avram]

I suspect you've got an inaccurate impression of the, well, not so much a genre as a way of talking about fiction that Don Keller liked thirteen years ago.

[mneme]

I think Avram's right that you're looking at the stereotype of the subgenre, rather than the actual works in the subgenre itself.

To take some specific examples...Court Duel (Sherwood Smith) is a Fantasy of Manners, but is as much about the statecraft, about learning, and a variety of other things (I'm not, well, done with it yet) as it is about the manners and romance itself.

Similarly, Sorcery and Cecelia, from my inaccurate memory of it (definately time to re-read it, given the issue of The Grand Tour) is an entertaining mystery, with FoM chrome around it.

Similarly with Swordspoint -- it's really all about the characters, who are decidely embodied.

To an extent, this may be the major difference between Genre Fiction of Manners (not necessarily fantasy, though I don't have non-sf examples in my experience...actually, di do: the Irene Adler mystery novels!) and purer (and less interesting) FoM—that genre readers demand a story that stands on its own merits within the genre in -addition- to having a FoM substory and chrome. In effect, the FoM in GFoM replaces the alternative chrome bits (of, say, "generic medieval", "grunge medieval", or whatnot), not the actual plot bits.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I think fiction of manners can be that, but at one end of the spectrum. At the other end it's not about status, but about changing the rules. Some COM reinforces the status quo (Oscar Wilde) and some make fun of it (Vanity Fair) and imply that change needs to be made. Fantasies of manners can posit what those changes might be.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

We may be talking past each other. I wasn't saying that I have trouble with fiction that supports the status quo, I was saying that I have trouble with fiction where characters are doing a lot of status manuvering. I don't like having to keep track of who's got a grudge and who's related to who. (I don't think this is one of my saner traits, but it's a pretty strong one.)

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Okay, fogbrain is getting a better picture. Yes, it just might come down to a taste thing. I've always found the tools of social position, if that makes any sense (haven't had my tea yet) fascinating, so books that use these to tell the story draw me in. Especially if they are funny. But I can see that another reader who might feel the same way I do about important matters, and might otherwise think a story's thematic arc is a good one, will not enjoy the story if that particular tool is the conduit for that thematic arc.

Just like I'm told Stephen King writes all about redemption, a theme I sometimes enjoy...but I cannot bring myself to wade past all the horror in order to get there. I'm never going to say that he's a bad writer or his books or bad, only that I cannot be in his audience.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

I'm currently in the middle of that coffee_and_ink discussion, and I think [Bad username or site: <liligo @ livejournal.com] put a finger on it. I don't want to read stories that are mostly about negotiating social obstacles. I'll finetune it by saying that I'd probably be fascinated by stuff about figuring out what combination of accent, clothing, etc. would get a person past bigotry--it's the having to deal with individuals in a complex web that I don't like.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

That should have been loligo.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

[avram]

People don't seem to notice any material object except for its status possibilities. They don't talk about ideas. They don't make things. They hardly get out of doors.

Have you actually read Don Keller’s “The Fantasy of Manners” (New York Review of Science Fiction, #32, April 1991)? Your description doesn’t sound at all like what he was talking about.

The essay isn’t online, but coffee_and_ink summarized it.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Well, this is turning out to be educational, but not quite in the way I expected which I suppose make it even more useful.

Afaik, I've never read other people's stereotypes of FoM. I've tried Jane Austen (but was probably too young--I'm more interested in people now and should give her another chance.) I've been bored out of my skull by WJWilliams' professional trief novels, though I like his other work. Likewise for Moon's SFoM, though I've liked some of her other work. I liked Panshin's first two Villiers novels a *lot*, and it's not just Torve the Trog.

I've read _Swordspoint_ and liked it fairly well--got distracted when I tried to reread it, but I want to give it another chance as prep for reading _The Fall of the Kings_.

On the other hand, I have no idea where I'd find other people's stereotypes about FoM. This is in contrast to stereotyes about sf or romances--*those* stereotypes are all over the place.

Please take my word for it that what I've described is really how at least some FoM looks to me. Now maybe it's inaccurate--it's hard to pay meticulous attention to something when you hate it. (Sidetrack--I have a faint memory of something in the Sayers notes to the Divine Comedy about a belief that love is a form of knowledge--sounds right to me.)

I'm forced to conclude that at least some of the prejudice against sf isn't just people repeating nonsense to each other--the prejudiced version might just be how sf looks to people who are allergic to it.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're trying to convince you that you like FoM or that some of what you see doesn't look like what you see. I think we're mostly trying to see if we're all talking about the same thing.

When I think FoM, I think Swordspoint. I think Tooth and Claw. Kushner praised the Villiers books in the FoM panel at WorldCon. These all seem to fall under the category of stuff you like.

Can you give us titles of the stuff that bored you? I quite understand if you can't -- these would be books you didn't want to spend more time with than necessary, I'd guess -- but it would help to see if we're all talking about the same thing.

Were you at the FoM panel?

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Checking back, I find that only mnemex said that I was reacting to the stereotype.

I grant that I've been using FoM to refer to "that stuff I don't like", and forgetting about rather similar stuff (such as the Villiers books) that I do like.

Here are the titles of the ones I really hated: _Hunt Club_ by Moon (can't remember if I tried any of the sequels) and _House of Shards_ and _The Crown Jewels_ by Williams.

I may have read Keller's article--if so, I didn't remember it consciously. Some of the books on the core list strike me as not fantasy of manners--_War for the Oaks_ is about music and about defending what makes life worth living. IIRC, the social relationships aren't nearly complex enough put it in the sub-genre.

_Godstalk_? I'd call it heroic fantasy. The main character has retractable claws, superpowers, and amnesia. The humor probably overlaps comedy of manners, though.

I forgot to mention _A College of Magics_--I did like that one. It's the right period for commedy of manners, but I can't remember how much negotiation of social obstacles it had.

And I like _Tam Lin_, but again, I didn't see it as a comedy of manners--imho, it's mostly about the best of being a student at a good small liberal arts college.

I didn't go to the panel. It's certainly possible that we aren't especially talking about the same thing.

[drcpunk.livejournal.com]

I'll try to write up my notes on the panel. Haven't read Godstalk. I do consider College of Magics at least borderline FoM. Tam Lin, yeah, sorta, but in an odd way, 'cuz it's set in our time. I do have issues with Tam Lin, but that's another story.

War for the Oaks as FoM? I wouldn't put it there either. Hm.

I wonder how much stuff that's "we like the cool dialogue" gets put there, and how much should. Must ponder.