My apology for cynical comments about Fantasy

Dreambrewer said:

Is there anyone on these forums that actually likes your normal fantasy, instead of all these weird new-fangled things?

Click to expand...

I'm confused by the mention of 'normal' fantasy. Fantasy, by definition, is pure imagination, therefore as far from normal as you can get. It shouldn't surprise anyone that some people have good imaginations, some bad; some can put them down on paper in an interesting way and some can't. Read what you like. I'm in the camp that says there's plenty of interesting stuff out there. Find it.

Medievalist said:

I recommend the Illiad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, Beowulf, the Táin and the Mabinogi.

Click to expand...

And of course, besides the original texts, there have been fifty bazillion modern retellings of same, by everyone from Gene Wolfe to John Gardner.

We're not in the Good Old Days. We're all modern authors writing modern work. If all modern work/authors are bad, that means we're all bad and producing meaningless drivel. So it's hard to see that opinion as anything other than self-hatred.

I think people are entitled to hate themselves and their work if they want. But there's no need to drag everyone else into it. It isn't wrong for a person to like themselves and their writing. No one should be made to feel they're doing something wrong because they like modern books and don't beat themselves with sticks.

Polenth said:

We're not in the Good Old Days. We're all modern authors writing modern work. If all modern work/authors are bad, that means we're all bad and producing meaningless drivel. So it's hard to see that opinion as anything other than self-hatred.

I think people are entitled to hate themselves and their work if they want. But there's no need to drag everyone else into it. It isn't wrong for a person to like themselves and their writing. No one should be made to feel they're doing something wrong because they like modern books and don't beat themselves with sticks.

Click to expand...

I kinda like hating myself. Sure its not the most zen of occupations BUT it does have a certain comforting familiarity and YES I write fantasy of a sort and YES I'm not sure how it fits into the genre at the moment. So naturally I'm a bit dubious about how I'm going to beat the Iliad and the Odyssey and Orlando Furiouso and Tolkien and Zelazny and Jack Vance -- but really -- shouldn't I be worried? If my excuse for how I see things is just "well this is now and I can't help it" aren't I already in trouble? Don't I need some standards and a hint of perspective? Isn't self-hatred a good starting point for self-criticism? If I give myself a A for everything just because I am in fact writing right now, aren't I just feeding the self-hatred in a round-about way?

Maxx said:

I kinda like hating myself. Sure its not the most zen of occupations BUT it does have a certain comforting familiarity and YES I write fantasy of a sort and YES I'm not sure how it fits into the genre at the moment.

Click to expand...

Like I said, people can hate themselves if they want. What I'm talking about is when it gets used as justification for trying to bring others down. There's no need to travel around threads telling people they're wrong wrong wrong for liking modern literature. However subtly it's worded, the vibe is still unpleasant.

If you're not doing that, it's not like I'll know if you're beating yourself with sticks. Because you're not using them to beat other people.

Seconding Vance and Hughart. I would also cite Patrick Rothfuss and Michael Swanwick (The Iron Dragon's Daughter.)

Amazingly enough, I get to be the first person to mention Susanna Clarke.

rugcat said:

You're reading the wrong stuff.

Sure, ninety percent of the fantasy out there is crud. But remember Sturgeons law: "Ninety percent of everything is crud".

There are some really fine fantasy writers around these days.

Click to expand...

80% of your revenue comes from repeat customers; 90% of everything you produce is shit. There is a lot of shit-eating grins out there, if you want to be pessimistic.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Definitely. I'd also add the Ramayana and the Mahabharata (the latter can take quite a while).

I'd also add the Vulgate Lancelot, the Quest for the Holy Grail, the Death of Arthur, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, and the Song of Roland.

Also the Kalevala.

And the Journey to the West.

For masochists there's the Orlando Furioso and Spencer's Faerie Queen.

Click to expand...

Others to add:

Waymisshoose (though this should only be read with an audio book, as it is still mostly told through oral history, and the most complete form is told by Louis Bird.)

Then there's Ellen Kushner, Delia Sherman, Patricia McKillip, and Theodora Goss.

Heya Bird. Nice to see you out of the Politics form. Here's some bread. *tosses*.

This is all I'll say on the topic: Fantasy is ridiculously easy to write. Heads and tails, balls and bones... simply a joke easy. Hell, wrote fantasy since I was 9. Completed my first fantasy novel at 16.

Writing GOOD Fantasy is ridiculously hard. Heads and tails, balls and bones... simply stupid difficult. I've not written a single Fantasy novel that's held up and I'm in awe of people who can.

Phaeal said:

Amazingly enough, I get to be the first person to mention Susanna Clarke.

Click to expand...

Damn... I knew I forgot someone.


Random old book: The Well at the End of the World


Also, Patrick Rothfuss isn't that different from Tolkien and the generic stuff being produced these days, although he does have a lovely magic system and a few kick-ass scenes here and there.

I submit to you Ann McCaffry (not sure if I spelled her name right) and her Riders of Pern Series.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Also, Patrick Rothfuss isn't that different from Tolkien and the generic stuff being produced these days, although he does have a lovely magic system and a few kick-ass scenes here and there.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Rothfuss is trying to subvert traditional fantasy tropes, but he doesn't really succeed.

Kehengto said:

I submit to you Ann McCaffry (not sure if I spelled her name right) and her Riders of Pern Series.

Click to expand...

Meh. First, technically it's science fiction, not fantasy, dragons notwithstanding. Second, it's very much not going against traditional tropes. (Farmboy of Destiny is instead the Kitchenmaid of Destiny.)

posting for future ref.



oh, and to give BB a

Filigree said:

Urban fantasy and paranormal romance tend to make my eyes burn, because too many newer writers have simply not read anything older than themselves.

Click to expand...

How far do you mean? Do you people such as Anne Rice, or even farther, such as Dracula? Could you list some examples?

So when you say "apology" do you mean you're apologizing for cynical comments, or is this a defense of cynical comments? I'm unclear.

Dreambrewer said:

By normal, I mean that which springs to your mind when you hear "generic". The stuff that consists of around half the stuff ever written about fantasy.

Click to expand...

I'm a little concerned by the idea that "normal" and "generic" are interchangeable. If you just mean some of the main tropes of the genre (magic, multiple races, high stakes) then I think most of us are fine with them. If you mean the same kind of magic we've all seen before, the same versions of mythological races, the same kind of plot... I'm not interested in that from any decade of writing.

Amadan said:

Agreed. Rothfuss is trying to subvert traditional fantasy tropes, but he doesn't really succeed.

Click to expand...

As much as I enjoy his writing in general, I'm pinning my hopes on the third book being the convention-defying one. There are so many tropes present and unsubverted, I feel like the conclusion must be something different if it's going to be only three books.

Susannah Clarke, yes. I'm always surprised Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell hasn't had more of an impact on the fantasy tradition. And her short stories are so deft and eerie, small masterpieces.

Ian Isaro said:

As much as I enjoy his writing in general, I'm pinning my hopes on the third book being the convention-defying one. There are so many tropes present and unsubverted, I feel like the conclusion must be something different if it's going to be only three books.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The third book is going to determine whether or not this is one of The Great Subversions or just beautifully written more of the same. I mean, the question that's been posed since the very beginning is, "How did he fall so far?" The answer will make or break the entire series for me.

Marya said:

Susannah Clarke, yes. I'm always surprised Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell hasn't had more of an impact on the fantasy tradition. And her short stories are so deft and eerie, small masterpieces.

Click to expand...

Maybe to make more of an impact she should write several shorter books, not one doorstop.

I mean, I love that book, but I know lots of people who couldn't finish it. And a few who couldn't start it.

I agree with you, Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell takes stamina.I put it aside for two weeks, came back and bogged down in the labyrinth again. It took me three months to get through it. But magnificent fantasy all the same and I plan to reread it again next year.I also wish she would just do a novella or shortish novel but I don't think her imagination works that way.