i wanted to be a junkie but Buffy wouldn’t let me
by uzwi
Urban fantasy: the domestication of a few images & behavioural tics which were barely unacceptable in the first place. It was a frisson obtained not so much by glamourising or romanticising the disordered (though it did both) as by denying or correcting the trait paradigms of some common dysfunctional behaviours. It cleaned up what it claimed to be representing & always drew its conclusions from a safe space outside dysfunctionality. A normative manouevre, defining a “good” dysfunctionality (he’s an anorexic self-harming killer elf but he’s our anorexic self-harming killer elf), urban fantasy was often described as having an edge. As a result, by the late 80s, “edgy” had become the publishing synonym for “young adult”. Later, even in publishing, it came to have the same meaning as “bland”.
the m john harrison blog 
‘A normative manouevre, defining a “good” dysfunctionality’
Spot on. Interesting point: how much of this could be said for mainstream fiction? I can’t help but see something similar (do I mean desirable?) in chick-lit novels, for example. Which opens a whole psychological can of worms.
Hi Mark. I think it’s a basic tool of popular culture of most kinds, performing all sorts of normalising & reassuring services, steering generational transitions, etc. It’s like synchromesh, easing the contact of components travelling at different speeds. Urban fantasy enabled the genre to absorb & homogenise punk & anti-pretty. Every generation invents a threat posture which has to be acknowledged & made safe.
This reminds me of Kubrick’s film of Lolita. Where in the novel Humbert keeps Lolita by his side with scare tactics (horrible school for wayward youth, etc.) and bribes, in the film Lolita begs him to keep her by his side (since he’s “much better” than a horrible school for wayward youth, the specter of which she raises herself). Presumably this change was made so the film
would be less sordid and more distributable, but it has the effect of pasteurizing Humbert’s pedophilia, robbing him of the control-freakishness that is central to his crimes. By making the film less sordid on behalf of the morality watchdogs, Kubrick made it less moral.
[…] i wanted to be a junkie but Buffy wouldn’t let me « the m john harrison blog – quot;Urban fantasy: the domestication of a few images amp; behavioural tics which were barely unacceptable in the first place.quot; … quot;Every generation invents a threat posture which has to be acknowledged amp; made safe.quot; […]
[…] from the other side, demonization in action – a critical ZING from M John Harrison on urban fantasy: A normative manouevre, defining a “good” dysfunctionality (he’s an anorexic self-harming […]
Completely agree.
Sexy vampires & brooding werewolves for teens in black fishnet gloves – NO THANKYOU.
‘Urban Fantasy’ is SUCH an incredible misnomer for this kind of tosh as well.
Hi Aaron: quite. The original is ferocious, & won’t allow you to hide.
Alex, I so agree. It’s all about taming the impulse, redirecting the anger of the original gesture. Urban fantasy is milk bar rock, early Bill Haley reinscribed as late Cliff Richards. Yr mum loves it, & yes, now she’ll let you be a “rocker”.