Thanks for your reply! I’m not sure I’m worthy of calling myself a “worldbuilding geek” maybe (I lack the patience required to construct robust languages, for example), but I try to get things right, which so far has entailed a lot of reading up on economics, politics, history, philosophy, postcolonial theory, etc. Creating a world without falling into easy trope-traps like “those guys are evil” takes a lot of work and involves confronting a lot of moral ambiguity on the Earth we inhabit than most folks (me) tend to do on a daily basis.

It’s heartening to hear that even someone at your comparatively advanced stage of the writing career has to work to identify & overcome “points of irrationality” (nice phrasing, by the way). I do the same thing, and it’s good to have a reminder that it’s both a constant and a worthwhile task.

Taking your points by number:

1) I’m not reviewing anything, and I didn’t say I was. I was stating why I did or didn’t want to see two films, based on the available information I’d seen (at the time of this post, almost a month ago), and my own values. It’s the same conversation every moviegoer has, if only in the silence of their own head: do I want to go see this movie? Why or why not? I’m just having that conversation publicly, in writing.

2) I’m talking about specific kinds of fantasies (note the words “a lot of fantasies” and “those fantasies which”) which have a particular problem. Obviously there are fantasies which don’t have this problem. They’re not the ones I’m talking about.

3) Dude, you’re reading this on a publisher’s blog. Everything you see here, explicitly or implicitly, is an advertisement. What were you expecting, impartial journalism? You need a news site for that.

And you really shouldn’t trust me, you know. I’m a fiction writer; I tell lies for a living.

As to the Eugenics comment with Wizards having inherited power, considering a small percentage of us can see further into the UV spectrum than others (From Personal experience -It really gives violet some serious ‘depth’), the idea that some humans represent an ‘unsustainable and inferior genome’ is real. Extinction is real. It happens – even for the Human Race.

do you feel you spend a great deal of time & effort examining your work to see where (or if) your subconscious is tipping its hand?

I do, but I kind of do that anyway, since I’m a psychologist in my dayjob. Obsessive self-examination is a job hazard. ^_-

But even so, in the last few years I’ve been doing a lot more examination of the ways in which my background/culture informs my work — more sociology than psychology, with some economics and other stuff thrown in. I think that’s mostly because I’m a worldbuilding geek; I’m fascinated by alternative societies and also how our own society got the way it was. I try to recognize patterns and build those into my created societies. And I try to recognize and avoid points of irrationality — for example, my tendency to default to male characters, thanks to growing up in a sexist society — though I’m still working on that.

Thanks for the links! I’ll check them out when I get a chance.

I was pleased with “Daybreakers” too. The instant that I saw the first starving vampire, the beggar with the “will work for blood” sign, I was happy, because I knew the movie wasn’t going to gloss over classism or economic privilege. And the subplot between Sam Neill’s character and his daughter — his attempt to impose his will on her, and its backfire — made the movie for me, far more than the rest.

1) You start out by essentially reviewing two movies you haven’t even seen. Don’t try to tell me you were making a point about marketing, because you explicitly refer to the films themselves when you say one tries to do a good job and one doesn’t.

2) You use the word “fantasy” to refer only to the epic sword-and-sorcery Tolkien derivatives with magic and kings, neatly leaving out brilliant writers like Neil Gaiman, Kelly Link, Angela Carter, Ray Bradbury, Joe Hill, Clive Barker, etc. etc.–authors that do not by and large use any of the tropes you mention.

3) The rest of the article plays out like a thinly veiled advertisement for your books. I understand and empathize with a writer who wants to get the word out about her novels any way she can, but disguising an infomercial as critical analysis leaves the reader feeling like they’ve been bullshitted. If you’re going to sell us on how great your books are and why we should read them, you have to put that on Front Street; otherwise, we get to the end of the article feeling like we can’t trust you.

In response to S.V. Rowle, who said, “You also touched on something dear to my heart — heroines who have to *earn* their place in history as opposed to ones who inherit it. That bugs the hell out of me in fiction. Why is Harry Potter so freaking special? I love the guy, but seriously. Destiny is what you make of it.”

Er, did you even read the series? It’s very clear that Harry must grow and change to meet his destiny; it’s not handed to him on a silver platter. One of the many touches I found so brilliant about that series is that Harry isn’t the smartest wizard, or even the most talented (that would probably be Hermione); he’s just been thrust into something almost completely against his will and now either has to stand up to meet the challenge or let the entire magical (and Muggle) world fall prey to an evil tyrant. He’s a victim of circumstance, not a recipient of any particular genetic gift. And he definitely gets by with a little help from his friends.

Thus I enjoy what I call “speculative fantasy” which the Inheritance Trilogy promises to be – looking at fantasy worlds through more the eyes of cause-effect than Following The Legend. After all, if I can throw fireballs and people can make potions that heal any wounds, is the world REALLY going to be some Renaissance Faire re-enactment, or something FAR different and more alien?