The current state of fantasy literature

[RiggsWolfe]

That postion seems to discount all the science fiction published with bad/nonexistant science that still succeed as SF. Good science doesn't neccessarily equate to good science fiction [start with Shelly's Frankenstein and continue on up through Gibsons' Sprawl, Simmons' Hyperion Cantos --the Shrike and his Tree as lovely inventions without a lick of hard science in them , and Banks' Culture --"Just say to yourself, its all done with fields"]

There's always been a place in SF for science as metaphor and literary device, where science and the trappings of SF are only a kind of idiom.

And I'd argue that writing a good fantasy epic pretty much demands a lot of research, just in different fields.

You know, I've never given it much thought before, but I much prefer Science Fiction with "Bad" science to Hard Science Fiction as it's called. Perhaps because the novels with bad science feel more imaginative to me.

 

[Pielorinho]

A couple brief hijacks:

First, if you wanna read a fantastic western written recently, pick up something by Cormac McCarthy. Might I specifically recommend Blood Meridian? Not only is it a great story, it's even all literamary 'n stuff. It's definitely got good inspiration for running scary creepy games, too.

Second, for a good romance written recently, check out Joyce Carol Oates' A Bloodsmoor Romance. Someone described it "as if Little Women were written by Stephen King." Great description of a hilariously weird book; again; it's also a hifalutin book by a Real Live Respectable Author. But that's less important than the fact that you'll have great fun reading it (if you can get past the rather slow first third).

Third, there's plenty of great standalones being written; the book I'm reading right now, The Grand Ellipse, is one such book. If you see it at the library, pick it up and read the prologue; if nothing else, it'll teach you how to run elementals in your D&D game .

Fourth, very interesting conversation; carry on!

Daniel

 

[RiggsWolfe]

1. Epic quests that span several books where the beginning of the story and end of the story are in separate books are really just one book broken up like LotR, Sword of Shanara etc.

2. Episodic novels and short stories where places and people and concepts are reused but are self contained stories.

3. Serials. These can be shorts ala the Three Musketeers or Foundation, or they can be big long stories like Robert Jordans current work.

Combine these with the sandbox and you have a way of looking at the state of fantasy lit in such a way where we can see the terrain.

Aaron.

Oddly enough you listed them in the order I prefer to read. Probably my big disappointment with Jordan is I got into it thinking I was reading Type 1 and am now stuck with Type 3. Still reading, though I have decided not to pick up "The New Spring".

 

[Mallus]

Not only is it a great story, it's even all literamary 'n stuff. It's definitely got good inspiration for running scary creepy games, too.

Blood Meridian is good inspiration for crawling under a large rock and never coming out.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Sorry to hijack. On the one hand, some of the comments hit close to home, because the idea for this novel was a direct result of me saying, "You know, I'm coming close to writing stuff I wouldn't want to read out of a desire to be seen as Good and Intriguing by all the writing folks I hang out with. I need to bring back the fun goofy stuff I'm actually good at."

Ah-ha! A perfect example of my proposed two camps. Fun and goofy vs appealing to the "writing folks". Give me fun and goofy anytime!

As for finishing your novel. Good job. I used to write alot, but then my muse was savagely murdered, drawn and quartered, resurrected, staked and turned to dust. As a result I haven't written so much as a short story in more than ten years. The urges hit alot lately though.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Sure, literary snobs exist, but what's the point in talking about them?

Its much more interesting to do as BC suggests and create an environment where people people can discuss their differing repsonses to different works with the goal of mutual enlightment and enjoyment. Without resorting to words like 'snob', 'jaded', or 'bug-f*** crazy'.

The reason I brought them up is that I felt that the writer of that website that got this whole thing started rested very firmly in the literary snob camp. That and it made me cringe to see an author's work attacked so savagely in what is a very public way. (The internet) I just sort of felt this irrational urge to defend the guy for some reason.

 

[Mallus]

Ah-ha! A perfect example of my proposed two camps. Fun and goofy vs appealing to the "writing folks". Give me fun and goofy anytime!

Not so fast...

It could also be a perfect example of the ever-evolving process of finding's one voice. And the specific manner of fiction one wants to write.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

That would be Jules Verne. A much better story-teller than ol' George.

It's funny readin Around the World in 80 Days when you have some political context -- watching the philosophical and still pragmatic French servant save the day for his fussy, stuck-up, egotistical English employer is pretty comical.

Ack! You're right. I switched them. I tend to do that alot with those two for some reason. Some kind of mental block. I pretty much imagined the Englishman in that story like the characters in this old Nintendo game I had. They'd walk blindly forward and you had to raise and lower doors, change ramps, lower boards over pits, etc to keep them alive. Of course they never noticed.

I just remembered another of the classics I Did like. I tended to enjoy H.G. Wells alot and I liked Frankenstein, though not Dracula. I also really liked Edgar Allen Poe.

 

[RiggsWolfe]

Not so fast...

It could also be a perfect example of the ever-evolving process of finding's one voice. And the specific manner of fiction one wants to write.

Of course it was an example of finding one's voice. But read it again. He was speaking, in my opinion of course, of feeling a pressure to write something that would be recognized by the academic establishment as having merit. Along the way he changed his mind and decided to write for himself and make it "goofy fun".

Edit: About your signature, I recently read that there is now a theory that Joan of Arc wasn't burned at the stake after all, that another woman was killed in her place and she was sort of quietly retired and lived to a ripe old age.

 

[barsoomcore]

Actually, I have never commented on your specific reading habits one way or another.

Indeed you have. You claimed that there were two types of people -- people who read for enjoyment and people who read for intellectual stimulation.

Given that I read for intellectual stimulation (among other things, but still) then any statement you make about those people in general must apply to me in specific.

I'm not getting defensive. If I was getting defensive I'd be indulging in "Yeah!? Sez who?" kind of behaviour. What I'm doing is applying your generalizations to specific cases -- mainly in order to show that making generalizations like this is useless. If they don't apply in all cases then how do you determine in which cases they DO apply?

What we are seeing in this very debate is that your generalizations fail the moment they get applied to ANY individual -- you always have to start from scratch anyway so you've wasted your time developing and presenting these generalizations. They haven't helped you.

It is being implied that if you like King and not Borges then you must like inferior trash rather than classics. (snip) When a group tries to imply not that "King sucks" but that King's fiction is inferior to Borge's fiction and with it, carry a implication that those who like it aren't discerning readers well....

I happen to think King's fiction IS inferior to Borges'. I happen to think I can show why.

I am NOT implying that people who like King aren't discerning readers. YOU are making that implication, not me. A statement of taste is nothing more or less than that. If you want to take from that an attack on yourself, it is YOU who are doing it.

I'm not saying (again) that snobs don't exist. But you are saying that ANY statement of the type that fiction A is inferior to fiction B carries with it an implication of insult to people who hold opposing viewpoints -- and that's not true.

It is possible to discuss ideas without any reference to the people who hold those ideas. Indeed, that ability is at the very center of rational debate.

I didn't say I don't enjoy intellectual stimulation. I said it's not the reason I read. I read for enjoyment. If I get intellectual stimulation, that's an added bonus.

Okay, let's examine that. You didn't say that you don't enjoy intellectual stimulation.

That's not quite the same as saying that you ENJOY intellectual stimulation. But let's assume that it's true, that you enjoy intellectual stimulation. If my assumption is incorrect, then I'm wasting my time, but that's okay.

So you enjoy intellectual stimulation. Which means, at the very least, that intellectual stimulation falls into the category of "things that can cause enjoyment". So when somebody reads for intellectual stimulation, they are reading so as to experience one of the things that can cause enjoyment. Similar to reading for humour, or action or romance, or whatever. I think this is identical to saying that they are reading for enjoyment.

Ergo, people reading for intellectual stimulation ARE reading for enjoyment. Ergo, your distinction between the two categories is false. This isn't my opinion, it's a result of logical analysis. If there's a flaw in my reasoning, please point it out.

Categorization (generalization) like this inhibits communication.

This statement is hard to respond to.

That's because it's true. It's not HARD to respond to -- it's IMPOSSIBLE to refute.

Generalizations inhibit communication. Is that untrue? Prove it. I don't believe you can, because I believe it's true.

Of course noone is TOTALLY in one camp or another.

Then why try to divide them into these camps in the first place? It accomplishes nothing. You still have to deal with each individual on their own terms, so why waste time trying to pretend there's these easy categories you can stick them into?

Exceptions DON'T prove the rule. They do the opposite. A rule that admits to exceptions isn't a rule at all, it's a false generalization.

Ok. (snip) Just because some people straddle a line doesn't mean the line doesn't exist.

Yes, it does. Or at least, it means the line doesn't show us anything very useful -- so why should we waste time worrying about it? Logical distinctions ought to make understanding easier. Generalizations about people do not do this. They make it harder. They lead us to false conclusions. They make it easier for us to be lazy.

Shades of gray are very difficult to argue.

Shades of grey are NOT difficult to argue. If you want to argue that something or other is a little bit of this and a little bit of that -- that's not any more difficult to argue that to say that it's all one or the other. Both need evidentary support if they're going to carry any "convincibility".

It's alot easier to generalize two different sides and go with the assumption that to some extent most people belong to one side or another.

Yeah, it sure is.

I don't like Hemingway because I find his novels hard to read and they are from a viewpoint I don't particularly empathize with. Reading Hemingway to me is like being told a story by a very wordy old man and it's not even an interesting story. I like Asimov because despite being writtenin the 1950's it still feels "modern". In addition, I have never felt like Asimov was condescending to me.

If you have any interest in getting to like Hemingway (not saying you should, but IF) first off, read his short stories -- he's one of the best short story writers ever (I would not say he was one of the best novelists). Secondly (or firstly) read Death in the Afternoon a non-fiction book he wrote about bull-fighting. It really is a wordy old man telling you stories -- but what stories. It's really awesome -- after you finish reading it, I guarantee you will want bullfighters in your campaign.