• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

What's wrong with fantasy novels?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tokkun

Member
IamMattFox said:
I would put romance novels and science fiction on the same level.

A creative writing class I distinguished the genre fiction (fantasy, horror, romance, etc.) from the general fiction section that you'll find at your local Barnes and Noble by saying that the genre fiction is simple while the regular fiction is sophisticated. Simple fiction tends to be plot driven, while sophisticated fiction is character driven.

I agree with the comments about genre fiction, however not every science fiction book is genre fiction. Consider books like 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Snow Crash, or Slaughterhouse Five, which are generally well-regarded on a literary level.

If you only equate fantasy as being swords and sorcery, then yeah, you're going to find a lot of poor-quality genre fiction, however there are plenty of fantasy novels with the quality of sophisticated fiction. For example, I'm currently reading a pretty good fantasy novel called Kushiel's Dart that takes place in an alternative version of pre-revolutionary France in which the dominant religion is a sexually-charged offshoot sect of Christianity.

As has been mentioned in this thread if you want to read good fantasy read Erikson, Martin, or Wolfe.

I really doubt that anyone who is not already a fantasy nerd would like Erikson. I read the first two Malazan books on GAF recommendation, and found them to be pretty bad examples of what people hate about genre fiction.

On the other hand, I'm a big Martin fan. I introduced A Song of Ice & Fire to my brother and a close friend who both have English Lit degrees and normally scorn fantasy, and both of them became fans too.
 

I_D

Member
echoshifting said:
No offense - at all - but man I couldn't read twenty pages of this shit. The praise Robert Jordan sometimes pulls, I get even though I hate the books, but I will never understand the love for these books. The craft is horrific.

Here are the first three pages. Please defend this.

Eh, if you don't like it, you don't like it.


If that's the only book of his you've tried to read, though, I recommend maybe the Cleric Quintet.

Icewind Dale was the first set he wrote in that series, so his writing style wasn't 100% matured yet.
 

datruth29

Member
Don't really have much experience reading fantasy novels. So far the only 3 I have read is LotR, Neverwhere, and American Gods (the latter 2 being this month). So far it's been pretty good, but from what I gather in this thread, I might lucked out for my 3 first shots.....
 
Obviously it's not the genre itself that is at fault. Any genre can be high art in the hands of a skilled writer.

Jane Austen is pretty well regarded in most literary circles, and her books are just more sophisticated romance novels. Same thing with Gene Wolfe in the fantasy genre, or Philip K. Dick in the sci-fi genre, or H.P. Lovecraft in the horror genre. Even Stephen King wrote several works that are full of literary merit (The Stand, The Dead Zone and Salem's Lot for starters).

Anyone who says that one genre is inherently inferior to another loses all credibility in my book.
 

QVT

Fair-weather, with pride!
Jane Austen is your defence? The person that Mark Twain wanted to dig up, zombify, and beat back into the void with her own bones?

And this is clearly you overreacting to something that you think is being implied here. Fantasy novels as such aren't a genre but a classification of works. Dragons, gold letters, hero and his mate on the cover alongside what number of the book in a series it is.
 
QVT said:
Jane Austen is your defence? The person that Mark Twain wanted to dig up, zombify, and beat back into the void with her own bones?

And this is clearly you overreacting to something that you think is being implied here. Fantasy novels as such aren't a genre but a classification of works. Dragons, gold letters, hero and his mate on the cover alongside what number of the book in a series it is.
Implied?

Fritz said:
Sorry to say this, but Fantasy is just lame. Course I loved Fantasy when I was younger, but eventually you grow out of it. Seriously, there are so many fantastic reads out there that have so much to offer. Why would anyone waste his time on a mediocre book. And when you think about it, there's a reason why none of those fantasy authors ever won a Nobel-prize and every grown-up man with some self-respect stays away from them. Man, it already makes me cringe to read the titles.
But, to be fair, same goes for all the Love-, Crichton-, Sci-Fi-, Horrorstuff etc.

IamMattFox said:
I would put romance novels and science fiction on the same level.

A creative writing class I distinguished the genre fiction (fantasy, horror, romance, etc.) from the general fiction section that you'll find at your local Barnes and Noble by saying that the genre fiction is simple while the regular fiction is sophisticated. Simple fiction tends to be plot driven, while sophisticated fiction is character driven.

I see what you're saying. You're separating the fantasy novels that you feel do possess literary merit from the average stuff. That's fine, but they really are the same genre.

And it doesn't really matter if you don't like Jane Austen. I don't either. Her books are still taught in upper division literature classes. But maybe I should say Charlotte or Emily Bronte instead.
 

mugwhump

Member
Fafnir and the Gray Mouser > Lord of the Rings

Tauntaun said:
075640407X.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


READ IT!
I was planning on it actually, saw it on Amazon, good reviews...
 

Fritz

Member
Green Shinobi said:
I see what you're saying. You're separating the fantasy novels that you feel do possess literary merit from the average stuff. That's fine, but they really are the same genre.

don't know man. Maybe it comes down to how you define genre. I see genre novels as novels whose sole purpose is to cater to a certain taste/audience. So while i.e. Kafkas work sure has fantastic aspects, its used to transport the message and not for the sake of having fantastic aspects. Thats why it's not genre. As it was posted before, genre novels focus on the setting first. It might be fun to read, but its not comparable to ambitious literature.
 
Immortal_Daemon said:
You better like Orson Scott Card books though....

You've mentioned this author twice now but I don't believe he ever wrote fantasy. I guess I could be wrong about that, though.

On Jane Austen, Charlotte Brontë, Emily Brontë: Revile them if you like, they're all classics and worthy of the study and critical examination they continue to gather. Sorry folks!
 

Gaborn

Member
echoshifting said:
You've mentioned this author twice now but I don't believe he ever wrote fantasy. I guess I could be wrong about that, though.

The Tales of Alvin Maker? (his fantasy series)? Enchantment? Folk of the Fringe?? HART'S HOPE? SONGMASTER? (well, Songmaster had a mix of fantasy elements in a sci-fi environment) I'm not a huge fan of much of Card's work, but especially his earlier work is excellent.
 
Gaborn said:
The Tales of Alvin Maker? (his fantasy series)? Enchantment? Folk of the Fringe?? HART'S HOPE? SONGMASTER? (well, Songmaster had a mix of fantasy elements in a sci-fi environment) I'm not a huge fan of much of Card's work, but especially his earlier work is excellent.

I was genuinely unaware of this. I'll have to check it out sometime. Thanks!
 

I_D

Member
echoshifting said:
You've mentioned this author twice now but I don't believe he ever wrote fantasy.

The first time I mentioned him I also mentioned that I classify scifi novels as fantasy. I guess I should have reiterated that.


I don't see how people can put them into separate genres.

Both "genres" are fantasy. One just happens to be futuristic, and one just happens to be in the past.
 

tokkun

Member
Immortal_Daemon said:
Both "genres" are fantasy. One just happens to be futuristic, and one just happens to be in the past.

It's not only about the time. Fantasy usually has magic in it. That makes for a big difference as it determines that the book's universe does not have to follow rules of logic.
 
How is anyone challenging the literary merits of Austen? Also in what ways are the works of Mark Twain so superior to that of Austen that his opinion of another author carries so much credit? If Hemingway said that Mark Twains works were shit that would make it so?
 

QVT

Fair-weather, with pride!
I was just making fun of her, I hate her. I find it amusing how much Twain did as well.

Did you really have to use the term literary merit? :lol
 
I don't read as much as I should but when I do read, I stay away from most fantasy.

I'm not some lit snob (Or snob of anything, I hate the idea that art has any objectivity to it), I just really cannot get into the whole...I dunno....how they all seem to place white, Europeans, on some sort of magical pedestal. I've never been introduced to any fantasy that acknowledged that there is people like me out there, people who also have a history, who also have cultural particulars that are worth writing about, people who weren't vikings or knights at one point in their history....


When I see the covers of these books, or the trailers to these movies, I just can't help but thinking that somewhere out there, David Duke has some big huge smile on his face.

(Not trying to attach fantasy writers or fantasy fans, just saying, alot of this stuff doesn't seem like it even wants me to identify with it, so I don't).

I would love some fantasy that took place in a world that didn't look like Europe at some point in it's history....anything that has some Latin American, or African flavor to it, that I should check out?

On a side note, just because the topic has stirred my interest...what does GAF think of Science Fiction author Octavia E. Butler? Honestly, what I just said about fantasy, I used to think of about sci-fi, until I was introduced to her works that is.
 
Immortal_Daemon said:
I don't see how people can put them into separate genres.

Both "genres" are fantasy. One just happens to be futuristic, and one just happens to be in the past.

Easy. Science fiction deals with science. 1984 dealt with social science, I, Robot dealt with the ethics of science, Neuromancer dealt with the more technological side, but they were all grounded in reality in some way. Fantasy simply uses fantastical elements to enhance a story, whether the fantasy is in a magic sword or a rocket ship.
 

Vaporak

Member
NovemberMike said:
Easy. Science fiction deals with science. 1984 dealt with social science, I, Robot dealt with the ethics of science, Neuromancer dealt with the more technological side, but they were all grounded in reality in some way. Fantasy simply uses fantastical elements to enhance a story, whether the fantasy is in a magic sword or a rocket ship.

Exactly, I'd readily put "space Opera" SciFi in with the Fantasy Genre because it's really the same thing just with a different definition of magic and different setting. Authors use it as a way to explore characters and scenarios that simply can't happen. "Hard" SciFi/ Speculative SciFi is different though in that it focuses on real or plausible scientific and/or technological changes, and the consequences of them; particularly how they would effect people and society at large.
 
The majority here seems to be taking the high fantasy Tolkien-inspired bar code for a cover work of authors like Salvatore, Jordan, Goodkind, Brooks and their disciples as all that fantasy is. The truth is that fantasy, as a category, is extremely broad and flexible, and that a great deal of alleged great works of world literature are, indeed, works of fantasy, and their authors fantasist.

Fantasy and science fiction have long been snubbed by critics. Great works of fantasy or science fiction, that are too great for the critics and literary community to ignore, get labeled categories. Vonnegut and Orwell wrote some great science fiction and fantasy, but how often do you see it referred to as such?

Acknowledging the great works of fantasy by a Gene Wolfe or Jose Luis Borges does not mean that suddenly we must all praise Terry Brooks' latest rewrite of Lord of the Rings as a piece of divine prose. Terry Goodkind remains a shit writer even after we say and write good things about Jeff Vandermeer or M. John Harrison. Praising the solid work of George Martin's fantasy series (even as we sigh and shake our heads at the plot lines and page count spinning wildly out of his control) does not mean Robert Jordan's 10,000 pages of Wheel of Time are good for anything but cheap toilet paper.
 

Amzin

Member
Arthur C. Clarke said:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Although everyone gets a general idea what you mean when you say sci-fi or fantasy, so they're useful in conversation in that sense.

I read mostly fantasy stuff when I was younger, branching out more now. I think the point someone made earlier is totally true. . . fantasy books are based largely on the world, often focusing on building the world and the powers/items thereof instead of the characters, as opposed to a standard fiction book where the world needs no building and there's nothing to develop except the characters.

There's definitely too much repetition and similarities in fantasy books. I have ideas of writing my own fantasy novel/graphic novel some day, so hopefully I can avoid those same trappings: No elves or dwarves, wizards aren't mysterious old men, there's no farm boy protagonist with an unknowingly elite bloodline. I've got it in my head, gotta get it on paper (and have it not suck).

Somewhat on topic, what do people think of the Earthsea series by Ursula K. Leguin? I've always liked it, but no one ever mentions it.
 

mugwhump

Member
Here ya go you guys can read the first chapter of the Name of the Wind here. I think I'll get it from the library tomorrow, I haven't read anything in a while...
 
Genre fiction, when done right, can be very good. Admittedly, that's not always the case; none too different from that of other genres. However, it's understandable that many people look down on genre fiction due to the nature of just how bad escapist fiction can be, and unfortunately, it feels like this type of fiction amongst the genre is often in the majority.

There's also a diversity to quality genre fiction that many seem to be overlooking here. Not only in setting, but in form. It should not be denied either that there are a range of genre fiction writers that can also be called great writers... period. Wolfe, Powers, Vonnegut, Orwell, Dick, Hobb, Erikson, Zelazny, Bujold, Donaldson, Kay, Stephen King, etc. These guys (excusing Hobb and Bujold, of course) can write.
 

NZer

Member
Amzin said:
Somewhat on topic, what do people think of the Earthsea series by Ursula K. Leguin? I've always liked it, but no one ever mentions it.

I just read a short story collection of hers - The Birthday of The World - and I had mixed feelings on it.

A problem I have with some sci-fi/fantasy (as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread) is that it spends a great deal of time creating a universe in exquisite detail, but basically unnecessarily since a) the universes often bear a striking resemblance to something we already know (almost from template), b) it often comes at the expense of character development (or at the very least readability, since it adds fluff and length and made-up words), and c) the overall plot is so basic that you wonder what the point of the setting really was.

The Birthday of the World is funny in that some of the stories annoyed me for this reason, but a couple of them (Paradises Lost and also perhaps The Birthday of the World) were really excellent and rose out of 'genre sci-fi' and were really good speculative fiction. Paradises Lost, in particular, I recommend- it's great little novella about the journey from our world to another; it's about the lives of the intermediate generations, who were born on the ship and will die before the destination, and also the impact religion might have. Very well done, I thought.

So, as for the Earthsea Series: I know it's set in a land of dragons and magic, but does it use this to say something original, or just give a story an interesting environment? I've discovered I'm much more interested in the former than the latter, although when I was younger and looking for escapism, it would have been the opposite.
 
echoshifting said:
I was genuinely unaware of this. I'll have to check it out sometime. Thanks!

+Wyrms and The Worthing Saga (borderline sf/fantasy)

Granted, I was young when I read both of them, but I remember liking them.

As for defining Scifi as dealing with science, that's far from a good enough description. There are plenty of novels who use a scifi setting simply because it allows them to create scenarios that wouldn't work in a realistic setting. But science as such is rarely the focus of such stories. LeGuin's The Dispossessed is a clear example. Interstellar travel, spaceships etc. But like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, it's more to do with politics than science.

I've come to be fond of the definition SF = Speculative Fiction. While it originally was basically a way of getting rid of the "scifi stigma", it is in truth a better definition of the genre(s) as such. It's about allowing authors to speculate and postulate certain rules in order to explore themes in ways that wouldn't be possible in a realistic setting. Whether it's accomplished by magic or in Dan Simmons' case "Quantum Physics" (ie. Magic), it's about taking an idea and exploring it as freely as possible.
 
JasonUresti said:
Acknowledging the great works of fantasy by a Gene Wolfe or Jorge Luis Borges does not mean that suddenly we must all praise Terry Brooks' latest rewrite of Lord of the Rings as a piece of divine prose.
True. But we must distinguish between fantasy and fantastic literature. Borges, Thomas Carlyle, Julio Cortázar, G. K. Chesterton, Chuang Tzu, James Joyce, F. Kafka, Guy de Maupassant, Giovanni Papini, E. A. Poe, Saki, F. Rabelais, H. G. Wells... this is fantastic literature, not fantasy. There's a difference. Thank God there is.
 

FnordChan

Member
First off, this thread should have been wrapped up as soon as Sturgeon's Law was invoked.

Second, from Stephen King's acceptance speech upon receiving the National Book Foundation's Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters:

I salute the National Book Foundation Board, who took a huge risk in giving this award to a man many people see as a rich hack. For far too long the so-called popular writers of this country and the so-called literary writers have stared at each other with animosity and a willful lack of understanding. This is the way it has always been. Witness my childish resentment of anyone who ever got a Guggenheim.

But giving an award like this to a guy like me suggests that in the future things don't have to be the way they've always been. Bridges can be built between the so-called popular fiction and the so-called literary fiction. The first gainers in such a widening of interest would be the readers, of course, which is us because writers are almost always readers and listeners first. You have been very good and patient listeners and I'm going to let you go soon but I'd like to say one more thing before I do.

Tokenism is not allowed. You can't sit back, give a self satisfied sigh and say, "Ah, that takes care of the troublesome pop lit question. In another twenty years or perhaps thirty, we'll give this award to another writer who sells enough books to make the best seller lists." It's not good enough. Nor do I have any patience with or use for those who make a point of pride in saying they've never read anything by John Grisham, Tom Clancy, Mary Higgins Clark or any other popular writer.

What do you think? You get social or academic brownie points for deliberately staying out of touch with your own culture? Never in life, as Capt. Lucky Jack Aubrey would say. And if your only point of reference for Jack Aubrey is the Australian actor, Russell Crowe, shame on you.
There's a writer here tonight, my old friend and some time collaborator, Peter Straub. He's just published what may be the best book of his career. Lost Boy Lost Girl surely deserves your consideration for the NBA short list next year, if not the award itself. Have you read it? Have any of the judges read it?

There's another writer here tonight who writes under the name of Jack Ketchum and he has also written what may be the best book of his career, a long novella called The Crossings. Have you read it? Have any of the judges read it? And yet Jack Ketchum's first novel, Off Season published in 1980, set off a furor in my supposed field, that of horror, that was unequaled until the advent of Clive Barker. It is not too much to say that these two gentlemen remade the face of American popular fiction and yet very few people here will have an idea of who I'm talking about or have read the work.

This is not criticism, it's just me pointing out a blind spot in the winnowing process and in the very act of reading the fiction of one's own culture. Honoring me is a step in a different direction, a fruitful one, I think. I'm asking you, almost begging you, not to go back to the old way of doing things. There's a great deal of good stuff out there and not all of it is being done by writers whose work is regularly reviewed in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. I believe the time comes when you must be inclusive rather than exclusive.

FnordChan
 
Shrike_Priest said:
As for defining Scifi as dealing with science, that's far from a good enough description. There are plenty of novels who use a scifi setting simply because it allows them to create scenarios that wouldn't work in a realistic setting. But science as such is rarely the focus of such stories. LeGuin's The Dispossessed is a clear example. Interstellar travel, spaceships etc. But like 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, it's more to do with politics than science.

I've come to be fond of the definition SF = Speculative Fiction. While it originally was basically a way of getting rid of the "scifi stigma", it is in truth a better definition of the genre(s) as such. It's about allowing authors to speculate and postulate certain rules in order to explore themes in ways that wouldn't be possible in a realistic setting. Whether it's accomplished by magic or in Dan Simmons' case "Quantum Physics" (ie. Magic), it's about taking an idea and exploring it as freely as possible.

Science includes more than just technology. If it deals with the social sciences, then it is still just as much science as metallurgy.
 
D

Deleted member 20415

Unconfirmed Member
Immortal_Daemon said:
Read the entire Drizzt Do Urden series from R.A. Salvatore (including the Cleric Quintet).

That crushes any other fantasy series out there, IMO.

I'm really not trying to be a dick here man, but reading R.A. Salvatore is like reading those Bazooka Joe comics you get in the gum. I really think of him as the Bazooka Joe of fantasy.

I remember back in middle school reading the HELL out of D&D-based books. I loved everything Dragonlance by Weis and Hickman, but when I tried to read some Salvatore, I couldn't get through the first few chapters without noticing spelling mistakes (in the printed book) and being bored by it because it was so generic.
 
Liara T'Soni said:
I don't read as much as I should but when I do read, I stay away from most fantasy.

I'm not some lit snob (Or snob of anything, I hate the idea that art has any objectivity to it), I just really cannot get into the whole...I dunno....how they all seem to place white, Europeans, on some sort of magical pedestal. I've never been introduced to any fantasy that acknowledged that there is people like me out there, people who also have a history, who also have cultural particulars that are worth writing about, people who weren't vikings or knights at one point in their history....


When I see the covers of these books, or the trailers to these movies, I just can't help but thinking that somewhere out there, David Duke has some big huge smile on his face.

(Not trying to attach fantasy writers or fantasy fans, just saying, alot of this stuff doesn't seem like it even wants me to identify with it, so I don't).

I would love some fantasy that took place in a world that didn't look like Europe at some point in it's history....anything that has some Latin American, or African flavor to it, that I should check out?

On a side note, just because the topic has stirred my interest...what does GAF think of Science Fiction author Octavia E. Butler? Honestly, what I just said about fantasy, I used to think of about sci-fi, until I was introduced to her works that is.

Try Erikson's Malazan Book of the Fallen or Raymond E. Feist's and Jane Wurst's Empire trilogy. Mainly Erikson, though.
 
You know I'm not lying because the covers have black and brown people on them.

51iE1-WRtLL._SS500_.jpg


51WoXykk2-L._SS500_.jpg


51Y2PE6GWQL._SS500_.jpg


Empire culture is based off of Japanese and inca/aztec societies. Malazan has too many different cultures to list but of interest to you might be the middle eastern, asian, and nomadic cultures in the books. Hell, I was floored when I realized that a number of the characters I had been reading about for a long time were, in fact, blue skinned for some reason.
 

KevinCow

Banned
The only fantasy author I can read is Terry Pratchett. Hell, he's really one of the only authors that can hold my attention at all. I like that he keeps things relatively concise, going into detailed explanation only about the things that need it, and when he does go off into exposition, it remains entertaining to read.

I once managed to force my way through the first book of the Wheel of Time, and it's amazing how almost nothing happened in the entire 700 or so pages. The structure of the book was something like, a hundred pages of pointless and boring exposition, ten pages of the next plot point, a hundred pages of wandering around and doing jack shit and pointless and boring exposition, ten pages of the next plot point, and so on.

And is it really necessary to randomly toss apostrophes into names and other proper nouns? Yes, we get it, the name Alklanzor is from a fantasy world, he's probably an elf or demon or some shit, you don't need to make it Al'k'lan'zor to get that point across.
 

Scribble

Member
KevinCow said:
The only fantasy author I can read is Terry Pratchett. Hell, he's really one of the only authors that can hold my attention at all. I like that he keeps things relatively concise, going into detailed explanation only about the things that need it, and when he does go off into exposition, it remains entertaining to read.

I'm surprised there aren't more mentions of Terry Pratchett in this thread. I haven't read any Discworld myself, but doesn't the series make fun of the kind fantasy novels people are bitching about in this thread?
 
Trip Warhawkins said:
True. But we must distinguish between fantasy and fantastic literature. Borges, Thomas Carlyle, Julio Cortázar, G. K. Chesterton, Chuang Tzu, James Joyce, F. Kafka, Guy de Maupassant, Giovanni Papini, E. A. Poe, Saki, F. Rabelais, H. G. Wells... this is fantastic literature, not fantasy. There's a difference. Thank God there is.
And where exactly are you drawing this line? There are tons of books that could fit either one of your definitions. This kind of arbitrary division leads to unnecessary elitism.

What makes the works of Wells, Poe or Maupassant any more literary than Stephen King's The Stand? IMO, nothing (I don't think all of King's books qualify as literature, but that one does).
 

BluWacky

Member
Scribble said:
I'm surprised there aren't more mentions of Terry Pratchett in this thread. I haven't read any Discworld myself, but doesn't the series make fun of the kind fantasy novels people are bitching about in this thread?

Not really. They used to be funny fantasy novels (not parodies, just funny) but now they're more like contemporary-theme-in-fantasy-world stories anyway.

Besides, they're not great works of literature or anything, they're unlikely to make someone who doesn't like fantasy read them.
 
And when it comes to science fiction, Ted Chiang's anthology Stories of Your Life and Others is a must-read. The guy is absolutely brilliant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom