Boy, do you have that right.

Personally, I like both. Sometimes I need the cheerful, but there is something that feels a little more introspective in the dark. It depends on my mood. Do I want to cry happy or sad tears?

But when it all comes down to it, it’s all about the story. If it’s good readin’, then I don’t care what kind it is as long as it holds my attention.

But you’re right about Marvel. Too often the soap opera outweighs the superthero aspects of the story.

I also enjoy both sorts of stories, depending on my mood. But I also get a certain pleasure from reading stories that begin in the happy place. They possess a wistful sweetness and longing that (nostalgia?) that I can often savor throughout the entire book. Regardless of whether the protags even get back to the happy place or not.

Conversely, there are plenty of dystopian fantasies that end much more unequivocally. The hero triumphs, despite his flaws, and the venal regime he was fighting is torn down.

How a book starts is not necessarily reflective of how it’s going to end.

I think it’s because there is a lot more possibility for elaborate conflict in a more corrupt scene. One great evil, in fact, surrounded by a happy, idealistic world can’t take a storyline in many directions.

Now, Tolkien has a theme of corruption, of turning great good into great evil (which is why Gandalf absolutely refused the ring– he would have become another great evil, while Smeagol was a pathetic, wretched character)… that doesn’t really fit into an ‘idealistic’ fantasy setting. I’d almost say that the thematic elements of good and evil were so displayed that Tolkien doesn’t fit in either box, since Realistic Fantasy gains its conflict from the depravity of men.

Now, take a hypothetical realistic fantasy– the heroes have struggles that relate more to their situation, instead of the abstract concepts of good or evil. Morality may or may not be the focus. It is surrounded by people who have their own dilemmas, who jostle each other and interfere, with their own lives and subplots. There is an opportunity for immediate conflicts of interests that are more easy to relate to, and yet the fantasy element remains.

As someone who likes to think, who likes to watch detailed characters, who loves a well-woven series of sub-plots, realistic fantasy is a clear winner.

OTOH, the dystopian story tells us that it’s normal to struggle: that good doesn’t always triumph and that the world we’ve got is the only one we’re going to have and when the chips are doen most of us will be true to our natures – no blinding flash of light; no sudden transformation – just normality, which is pretty shitty, really, people being what they are:-)

I don’t like reading dystopian fantasy every day when I come home, either, but the fact is, that, however little interest you may have in dystopia, dystopia tends to be rather intrusively interested in you, and it behoves all who do not intend to spend their golden years begging for spare change to consider what could happen and how to deal with it. In that sense, reading dystopian fantasy is much like the perennial wargaming that military staffs do — perhaps we’re not in a war right now, but Shit Happens and the shit that we prepare for is more effectively handled than the shit that we don’t. As Marines of my acquaintance like to say, “You can only do what you’ve trained for.”

But that’s just me. Everybody calls me an old gloom-buckets and I confess that it might be true.