I had been on the verge of shelling out for a copy but the first review on Goodreads has dissuaded me (well, that and the price point). Admittedly it does end by saying people should read the book anyway, but it picks sufficient holes that I'd rather get the jist of it second hand until I find the book second hand as well. Apparently all Portal Fantasy is inherently imperialist? Hokay then. I'm still not particularly up for engaging my brain at the moment but if the review is true and she admits that most books cross the boundaries, that does seem quite obvious. Take LotR - Frodo is in a land of non-human creatures that treats the visit of a wizard as casually as the visit of any celebrity; we are definitely immersed in it being a fantasy. Then the story of the Ring and the Black Riders is definitely invasive. Only after its visited two other of the supposed categories does LotR become portal (and if she can acknowledge that in Harry Potter, why not in LotR?). And a lot of the early Epic Fantasies copy the model lock, stock and barrel. How do you qualify SoIaF? The North is more fantastic than the South, by and large. So what is Sansa's story? She's started in a faintly immersive/invasive world, gone out to a less fantastic world (in which her most fantastic element is stripped from her), and now is coming back. Is A Wizard of Earthsea Immersion or Portal? Oh and apparently in a Portal-Quest Fantasy the protagonist must accept the world as it is explained? That's why Hermione goes around kicking off about House Elves' rights? Can't say I noticed Rand Al'Thor accepting the world as explained to him. Oh, and considering Wheel of Time is an inherently imperialist piece of work, its strange how it casts the only empire in sight as a bad thing, and shows considerable amounts of culture clash, and has Rand actively avoiding being an emperor. Come to think of it, Wheel of Time dodges the idea that all Dark Lords are intruders (which has a certain amount of truth) as The Dark One is inescapably part of the world. Although many of them are arguably corrupted pieces of the world rather than intruders. I dunno. I'm on second-hand info here and sure the whole point of it is to make me think. Which its making me do. But... ultimately the arguments smack of hyperbole. I want to shy away from the world of hyperbole and politicisation. Oh. The Invisibles would be be Portal/Quest Fantasy by some possible readings. And The Invisibles is about as imperialist as my left bollock with a picture of Gandhi saying "Free Nelson Mandela" drawn on. I've done my thinking. There's a usual definition in terms of "You go to the fantasy", "The fantasy's already there", and "The fantasy comes to you". But lets not overgild the lily. And lets not forget that in most books, there's always the revelation of something new, so the tone of the book will shift anyway. Initiation never ends. I would like to see an examination of fantasy from an angle of attitude towards the authorities; whether the big bad is an invader that must be forced back with help of the authorities, the big bad is a tyrant that must be rebelled against and replaced with a new authority, or the big bad is something the authorities can't do anything particularly helpful about.