The Great Chain of Reading
I don't like admitting that I read Dragonlance. When amongst the company of real-life people, I only mention Dragonlance under duress, and with much coughing and clearing of throat. It's like admitting that I enjoy pr0n, or that I think the Dungeons and Dragons movie is high art (which I don't). I can't be the only one: when discussing books with people outside my gaming group and outside the bookstore, I notice most strangers will only admit to reading Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms while looking shamefaced.
If you've never noticed it before, try being part of discussions about books not Dragonlance. If it's a high-brow crowd, chances are that the whole genre of science-fiction and fantasy may be snubbed in preference for the great literary classics or exemplary pieces of modern literature. Or Chicken Soup for the Soul. Even in discussion groups for science fiction and fantasy, fantasy books like Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms are more often put down than recommended and praised. I've worked out roughly the order of book genres in the great chain of being, from the most highly regarded genres to the least:
Quantum Physics—math, advanced science texts, obscure histories and philosophy—"great literary classics"—history, economics, business administration, programming books, the Bible—National Geographic—self-help books—celebrity autobiographies—modern literature—latest bestselling potboilers—Harry Potter—latest fiction anything—glamor and celebrity mags—science fiction and fantasy.
And within the genre of science-fiction and fantasy, the sub-genres are ranked thus: Hugo/Nebula award winners, science fiction classics—"hard" science fiction novels—acclaimed new science-fiction, World Fantasy Award winners, fantasy classics—acclaimed new fantasy books—not so acclaimed new fantasy books—Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, or any fantasy novel with some Wizards logo on the cover.
The first list was compiled from what I'd call the academician/non-fantasy reader's point of view. The second list, from watching and listening to science-fiction and fantasy book discussions and forums. There are opinions that books like Dragonlance aren't even about fantasy as much as gaming, putting them lower on the chain. The ways and laws of these worlds are D&D generic, they say; the books aren't about new concepts, but, to borrow someone's comment, just about the author playing with toy cars in the sand box—change some place names and character names, create a new monster and a name for it, play with the plot, and one ordinary fantasy novel is not much different from another. Pulp fiction. Worse—fantasy pulp fiction. Too many fantasy books are just watered-down/repackaged Tolkien. Is that true? Is that true of Dragonlance? Can it, should it, be changed?
Dragonlance may never win a literary award, even within the genre of science-fiction and fantasy. It's been suggested that Dragonlance can be taught in a literature class—but that was also publicly shot down. If Dragonlance is being used as a text in an English class somewhere, let me know of it. I'll be surprised if it is. (Sure Dragonlance books have their strengths, but they are far from being qualities exclusive to Dragonlance.) The heart of the matter is that, no matter how seriously Dragonlance fans take Dragonlance, and how seriously its creators do the same, Dragonlance is considered toy-car entertainment and low down in the reading chain. Screamin' and hollerin' by rabid Dragonlance fans won't change that perception... but what we can do, perhaps, is to ask for more quality writing (or editing as the case may be), and to keep on recommending Dragonlance as, if not high literature, just great reading for fun. And if it's worth reading, we'll still keep reading it. Just keep it in perspective by remembering that it's just one link in the chain.
Dragonlance Underground is owned and operated by Mages of the Plains.
Dragonlance is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. All contents are copyright of their respective owners. Please refer to our Legal Page.