Terri Windling has an infuriating piece up at Endicott Studio about artists who have been pushed out of the very arts community in Tucson that they developed and maintained over the years. (Terri was one of them.) As she explains in her entry, this story of artists moving into an undeveloped part of town, revitalizing it and then having to leave because of the high rents that followed them is not new, but it has gotten me thinking on a purely literary manner. My entry several days ago about normalcy in fantasy (which was sparked by multiple entries from all over but most notably here and here, at Black Holly's) directly questioned just what readers want from urban fantasy and its penchant for artsy characters. Is fantasy following real life a tad - we want artists - we want art - but really we want it in upscale galleries and boutiques that raise the property values and give us the impression of living in a thriving creative communtiy without having to look at the paint covered artists?
In other words, have our middle class, McMansion, SUV driving sensibilities bled over to all aspects of the arts, both real and imaginary? (And if you don't like a particular author, I understand - I'm talking only in the most general terms here.)
(Ironically, Charles de Lint who was at the center of the debate on many sites has another new book coming out from Subterranean Press centered on Newford, his very artsy fantasy town. This one seems to be about musicians although I'm not sure that's all that different.)
I've been thinking about this stuff for purely selfish reasons - I'm writing an urban fantasy and my main character is interested in reading and research, which I guess makes her not normal. But then I wonder - just what the hell is normal? At Janni's they bring up Susan (of course) but also how one character likes tennis in Pamela Dean's Tam Lin and gets made fun of by the artsy crowd. So is tennis normal? Are all sports normal? If my character likes to watch hockey and write does that balance her artsiness?
And here's the thing - have we forgotten how if you don't like sports you get made fun of - alot - in high school, on the job and maybe even at the dinner table? How many of us have watched a football game because everyone else is and you've been invited to a football party and everyone at work will be talking about the game the next day? (And I even understand the rules and have deep affection for players like Walter Payton but for God's sake, why must football be glorified as normal and painting seem like something from the finges of society?)
Then there is the concern for the starving artist as a character. Clearly from Terri Windling's piece we get that the rising cost of studio space was the reason why they had to leave the Tooleshed building behind. Some artists are quite wealthy but most are not investment banker wealthy. I worked in a bookstore while I was going to grad school, and as an instructor for soldiers and at the Company (of course) but none of these were six figure a year jobs (oh please). But I lived just fine with roommates and later my husband. The question is how do artistic characters have to live in order to be credible? They have their own apartment and that's unbelievable? They work part time in bookstores or diners and that makes them elitest? (And still not credible because they aren't complaining enough.) I thought I would put my crew in a rented space they acquire from a family friend but then I thought i was making it too exotic. Must you live in squalor? I've never lived in squalor so I don't know what it's like. In other words if I lived just fine on below average income, can my artsy characters live that way as well without seeming "not normal"?
This whole issue is just never ending.
Your political news for the day - if the UN now says the Palestinians are living in apartheid conditions does that mean poor Jimmy Carter will be let off the hook?
And also, here's a fun way to learn modern history while enjoying a blast from the past. Replace the words terrorism with communism, Al-Qaeda with Ho Chi Minh and Iraq with Vietnam (Afghanistan with Cambodia, etc.)
"The notion that free countries can turn our backs on what happens in places like Afghanistan or Iraq or any other possible safe haven for terrorists is an option that we simply cannot indulge," Cheney said in a speech in Sydney.
"If our coalition withdrew before Iraqis could defend themselves, radical factions would battle for dominance of the country," he told the Australian-American Leadership dialogue.
It's even more fun when they talk about the spread of sectarian violence throughout the Middle East. Just call the that the new Domino Theory and we might as well be listening to Lyndon Johnson in 1965.
There's got to be a good drinking game in this somewhere.
