I read your rant on fantasy novels, Faux Pas, and I was amused, but also dismayed that that's as much depth that you see in fantasy. I'll address the essay point by point. For those of you who haven't read Faux Pas' rant, I recommend you read that first (check the link in Faux Pas' original post).

Point one: Fantasy stories are all slight variations of the same single story.

In general, you are correct. I think you've missed out on a large percentage of the fantasy realm (I can't imagine that you've read a broad sampling of the genre if you hate them so much, unless you're a sadist), but for the most part, I agree with this point. Where I disagree is that this is necessarily a bad thing. Your article suggests all modern fantasy is a rip-off of Tolkien. But hey -- Tolkien is as much a rip off as anything. The Lord of the Rings is the same old archetypal hero myth that the Greeks thrive on and the Bible features prominently -- stuff thousands of years older than Tolkien himself. Tolkien is respected, however, for two reasons: (1) it's clear he put a ton of work into fleshing out his world, and (2) he was the one who brought the archetypal hero myth story to his generation and made it popular again. Let's face it. None of this is new stuff. But before you rattle of a refutation of this paragraph, let me do it for you.

Where Tolkien was DIFFERENT than the archetypal hero stories of the past was in his IDEAS. And that's my primary problem with your denouncement of the fantasy genre. You have to read deeper than the surface events and world characteristics. I'm not an authority on Tolkien, but I do know that there is a lot more depth to the trilogy than "inexperienced heir and a wise wizard defeat an ancient evil with a magic talisman."

And that argument can be extended to refute the rest of your article. Yes, there is a lot of schlock out there that rips of Tolkien (or whatever) and fails to provide additional depth to justify its existence. But there is also a lot of genuinely good stuff that bears a surface resemblance to the "same old" archetypal hero myth, even a surface resemblance to the specific incarnation of the hero myth known as The Lord of the Rings. As I mentioned in another post on this thread, I *adore* Terry Brooks' Shannara series, but I'd also be the first to admit that The Sword of Shannara is a thinly disguised Lord of the Rings in terms of plot structure. But it is different in that it studies different ideas, different human passions, and studies those things with insightfulness, depth, style, and yes, entertainment.

A *good* fantasy novel will do these things. A *good* fantasy novel may well have the stereotypical fantasy characters, but it will develop them beyond the stereotypes, into fully-fledged, rounded, human characters. If a book -- any book, fantasy or not -- can create real characters (and many do!) then it has already made an accomplishment well worth noting. If it can study ideas and present new ways of looking at things, it has already succeeded at more than it fails. And yes, many -- a great many -- fantasy novels do that.

One of Roger Ebert's favorite mantras is: "It's not what it's about, it's how it's about." Ebert repeats this mantra time and again, and ANY self-respecting critic of any medium believes it. "Casablanca" is about a love triangle. Whoopee. Big deal. Been done before, countless times. But *how* Casablanca tells the love triangle story is a fascinating joy to behold. It's a great movie, perhaps the greatest of all time, yet calling it a "romantic triangle" movie accurately describes the bulk of it. Your criticism of fantasy novels is ineffective the same way. Yes, 99% of fantasy novels are "heir defeats ancient evil" stories, but using this as evidence for their badness is not a valid argument. It's not *what* they're about that determines whether they're good or not -- it's *how* they're about. How do they tell the story? Some fantasy novels fumble it. Others do it with style, insight, panache, and intelligence. And those are the good ones.

As for Science Fiction, a genre you distinguish from fantasy as being a "good" genre, the same rules apply. Perhaps the surface plot structures aren't as consistent, but believe me, you CANNOT show me a science fiction novel that doesn't have a plot that's been done, done many times, and done long ago. The good science fiction novels will have fleshed, human characters and/or intriguing ideas explored with insight, and preferably both. The bad ones won't have these things. There are plenty of good ones, and plenty of bad ones.

In short (too late), there is no such thing as a *genre* that is "good" or "bad." Fantasy is a genre. It CANNOT be "bad." *Bad* fantasy is "bad." *Good* fantasy is not.

I guess I didn't address your article point by point, like I set out to do. Also excuse typos, if any. I wrote way too much to proofread before posting this thing.