Escapism as reader-responsibility
For my SF class, we read this blog post in which the author argues against the negative depiction of escapist fiction in any genre or media, but most specifically speculative poetry. My response wandered a bit, but I thought I’d add it here, since I felt it was almost certainly lost on a forum where there is no intercommunication. So, my random argument that “escapism” is a style of writing that grew out of the reading public’s habit of approaching materials in an escapist manner:
First off, I found it distracting that the author shifted from talking about works that allow the reader to escape into them to talking about works that are about somebody escaping. Not the same thing. I feel that the issue here anyways isn’t really something that is primarily a writer’s issue. Escapism is a reader’s issue. It is a way to approach a work. While at times a challenging undertaking, one can read almost any work in an escapist manner. I myself am guilty of reading Othello in an escapist fashion: I read it for the deliciously diabolical character of Iago and enjoy his mental acrobatics without allowing myself to get mired in the issues of jealousy and racism and whatnot. It may not be so easy to accomplish with other works that are staunchly against being read as escapism. I imagine that it is difficult to read, say, Heart of Darkness in an escapist fashion, but it is possible that it may be pleasantly escapist for someone.
Writers are also readers. Many writers also write in a way that will encourage readers to read their books (with style, content, characters, logical progression of events, that sort of thing). With these two things in mind, it is logical that writers would write works that facilitate being read as escapist. If people are going to read it as escapist anyways, where is the point in making it a deep psychological condemnation of mankind? Or, why not do both? If an author throws in some aspects that encourage escapist reading: absurd creatures, exciting color schemes, attractive people, melodrama, he or she can also work in other things, social commentary, etc. Hominids comes to mind, with the attractive French-Canadian woman. Oh, pardon, she was a scientist…. who stripped down to her (lacy) underwear within the first 10 pages of the novel, neatly signaling to readers “Hey, I’ve got some good escapist elements here! You may have to sift through my ravings against humanity, but there are probably breasts in here! Almost certainly!” The fact that he reneges on this promise is of no account.
So we have works come about that are written to focus on the huge market for escapist reading: the old pulp works that our author was trying offhandedly to defend, and the many many sf works out there that focus mainly on the elements mentioned above (possibly without the color scheme, but on that note, anyone seen the Avatar preview? Just how blue do these aliens have to be before we stop taking them seriously?). Expectations of escapist readings effect the plot of the story, as well. We all knew that Bella was going to end up with Edward. Or Jacob. Or at least die dramatically due to her refusal to chose between the two. I haven’t even read them and I can tell you that much was bound to happen. She wasn’t going to get sick of this nonsense and go get a sane life as a bank teller or an insurance agent. I hear that Meyers even offers a solution for the age-old problem of what to do with the left-over lover once the love triangle is resolved. If you don’t know, ask your friends. It’s pretty hilarious, in a creepy sort of way.
Works, of course, that are trying to dissuade people from reading them in an escapist manner (the author uses the term “realist” here, but I’m not sure if his sense is immediately accessible) will try to avoid things that we as readers know trigger an escapist reading: breasts, pretty people, happy endings, that sort of thing. (Okay, I’m being somewhat flippant here, but really we all know what our escapist stories have in them and there is probably an enormous amount of overlap that may or may not surprise you.) Anyways, let’s call the reading approach opposite “escapism”… “illuminating”. It isn’t the best, but “intellectual” has some of the wrong connotations, so illuminating will have to do. By that, I mean that the reader is approaching the text with the intent to acquire some insight, to determine and evaluate the author’s stand on a variety of different issues. This is generally the sort of reading encouraged in our literature classes. Again, one can approach almost any text with this sort of reading, hence our sf class, however, it is again facilitated or made difficult by the contents of the text.
To conclude, I am claiming that “escapism” is first and foremost a reader’s action, not the writer’s. Escapist works are those that aim to be read in this fashion, but terming any book strictly escapist or not escapist is problematic because there is always that one smartypants (or occasionally, lots) who says “yeah, well, I can watch Star Trek for its deep anxieties over whiteness and the postcolonial societies that it grew out of.” Or there are troublemakers like myself who say “Yes, I know Othello is a tragedy concerning a man’s destruction of himself and those he loves because of his failure to think twice about his actions, but, really, I just read it for Iago. He’s so dreamy. They should totally make a new movie of Othello with Iago played by Hugh Jackman.”
