D&D General No One Reads Conan Now -- So What Are They Reading?

[Bedrockgames]

But, again, the fact that Correia himself keeps getting published says otherwise. Not that either of us have to like his work, but the point is that his viewpoint has not actually been removed.

I never said he couldn't. He is published. But like I said he is right about stuff but also wrong about stuff on this front (and in my opinion Sad Puppies was just an inversion of the kind of gate keeping he was complaining about anyways)

I would argue that there is no significant narrowing. Instead, there has actually been a broadening - that there are now more points of view available in the sci-fi/fantasy world than ever before.

I dont fully disagree. I think there has been a broadening around certain things. Obviously there are places where things have opened up. But there is also a narrowing at the same time. I don't think it is black and white.

Just to bring it back to the Hugo's. If I recall, and I could be very wrong here as it was over ten years ago I think, one of the big books that sparked this was Ancillary Justice. I read the book. It was good. Not great in my opinion. But good. I think it definitely won the award because of its use of language around pronouns (and just to clear here, it isn't what people might think initially, it is because the main character is a ship AI put into a human body and the AI has no concept of gender, so throughout the book, the character switches its use of pronouns for the same character sometimes). I thought the idea of the AI was really interesting. I found the whole pronoun thing very confusing and I think you can have a reasonable discussion about whether politics was a factor in elevating that book due to its useage of pronouns. But I also don't think any of that makes Sad Puppies correct about things in general

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also, let us be entirely fair - there's a whole lot of smuttiness in "traditional" sci-fi and fantasy, but it was largely targeted at a male audience. That objections arise when the modes that are targeted at women show up seems like something we ought to think deeply about.

"No, really, I'm only in it for the literary value!" - Piers Anthony, probably never.

I don't like puritanism from conservatives or liberals in the arts

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think in getting older, we can find our tastes crystallizing, oftentimes towards the stuff of yore. Which, if a person wants to just read old stuff, fine. But I would say that it is a deep mistake when "I like older stuff" slides into "new books are garbage." It's okay to have preferences, but the danger becomes when a person equates their preferences as the sole signifier of quality.

Me, I like modern fantasy and I like old fantasy. I'll happily read Lord Dunsany and N.K. Jemisin. Romantic Fantasy isn't entirely my thing, but I've enjoyed some of it.


Just so. On the one hand, it's cool that the barriers to publishing a book have lessened. On the other hand, it has created its own set of problems.

For me it is just more about being honest about your age. I don't think something new automatically is bad. But I think there is something sad about an old man trying to act like he enjoys the hip new thing, when it is clear he doesn't. When I was in high school if my dad came in my room and said "That Obituary song Chopped in Half" is pretty cool, I'd be very suspicious lol

 

[Bedrockgames]

In effect, the Sad Puppies felt like they were being unjustly treated, when it is more that the field had become more broad, and they had real competition for a change.

I don't know. I think you can raise legitimate criticisms about how political and elite the publishing industry has become around this stuff (a lot of it does feel like it is written for the NPR crowd: and I say that as an NPR listener), without becoming Sad Puppies. I don't think either side here is operating with a narrative that really reflects what is going on

 

[Mannahnin]

I was in 2nd grade (early 1970s) when I was first formally declared “gifted”. My school tried to create a program giving me things to read that would challenge & engage me. One of the people involved in that gave me an academic reader that consisted entirely of short stories & excerpted chapters from bigger names in sci-fi, fantasy and horror- JRRT, Robert Bloch and Anne McCaffrey to name a few.

At that time- and many years that followed-genre fiction was generally NOT considered literature worthy of being taught in academic settings. So for that book to exist, be selected by that school at that time and wind up in my hands was highly improbable.

(I wish I still had that book, just for proof.)

Something published by a university press? Not, like, the annual World's Best SF anthologies, which started in '72?

Fafhrd and Grey Mouser must be really obscure characters, or perhaps locally popular only in the US or something? First time I ever saw their names mentioned was in some forum thread here about 5E and everyone seemed to treat them like their names were common knowledge.

If one wants to check out one of Leiber's books, which one should it be?

The first six collections are what you want. The stuff from the 1950s and 60s. Sadly in 1969 his wife Jonquil passed away, and Leiber's drinking got worse, and it shows in the stuff published in the 70s and especially the terrible collection from '88. The earlier stuff is great, though!

1. Two Sought Adventure (1958). Collection of six short stories. Later expanded and retitled as Swords Against Death.
2. Swords and Deviltry (1970). Collection of 3 short stories.
3. Swords Against Death (1970). Collection of 10 short stories; an expanded edition of Two Sought Adventure
4. Swords in the Mist (1968). Collection of 6 short stories.
5. Swords Against Wizardry (1968). Collection of 4 short stories.
6. The Swords of Lankhmar (1968) . Expanded from "Scylla's Daughter" in Fantastic, 1963.

I think this shift began more in the 80s but otherwise agree with you. Though when I think of "doorstopper" fantasy I don't think so much of long series as large volumes, and I think most of these were the direct consequence of the massive popularity of Tolkien in the 1970s. It is almost impossible to overstate the impact of The Lord of the Rings on fantasy, in terms of both content and publishing patterns. I can't think of another novel that so completely influenced an entire genre. Maybe Frankenstein, but in a very different way (thematically rather than directly in terms of plot and character, and not at all in terms of publishing).

It was LotR that turned fantasy from a niche genre into a publishing powerhouse.

Sure. And it was that massive popularity that had Random House spin up Del Rey, which published Sword of Shannara in '77 and proved the popularity of long series, changing a breakthrough into a new format for the genre.

Further it is I think at least somewhat fair to say that Shannara is the ne plus ultra of LotR derivative-ness, in that it is literally inspired by what was once a common odd interpretation/misunderstanding of LotR, that being that LotR was set in a post-apocalyptic future, rather than in a mythic quasi-past as Tolkien actually intended. This might seem like a strange notion, but it was certainly the case, in the 1950s through 1970s and indeed was discussed in the BBC documentary series The Worlds of Fantasy (2008), which unfortunately does not seem to be available anywhere (except perhaps in Tortuga, as it were)

As for Shannara single-handedly establishing doorstopper fantasy as a genre, I've never heard that claim before, but the timing more or less works, so I can't say it's implausible. If you across any articles discussing that aspect of things, I'd very interested to read them, because I'm generally interested in the history of the fantasy genre!

Credit to TwoSix for linking the article about Judy-Lynn and Lester Del Rey making the fantasy genre into its own thing post-Tolkien, specifically looking for knock-offs and launching Shannara, Xanth, and Donaldson's Lord Foul's Bane in particular for that purpose. We see all sorts of trilogies and series get published in the wake of this move, and gradually lengthening into those doorstoppers across the 80s and into the 90s, more or less reaching their bloated apotheosis with The Wheel of Time, which debuted in 1990.

When I was little, in the early 80s, I had Tolkien and Heinlein, Le Guin and Andre Norton and Katherine Kurtz and Anne McCaffrey and such handed down from my mom and dad, and the Prydain books from the 60s which were actually written for kids. By the late 80s TSR was pumping out D&D-specific fiction, and my local secondhand bookstores were jam-packed with cheap fantasy and sci-fi being re-sold since fantasy had exploded ten years before.

Moorcock's Elric was actually a reaction to Conan and a subversion of the pulp/sword and sorcery tropes the character embodied.

It was, definitely. Though he was a big fan of the pulp swords & sorcery he was subverting, and his early stories are mostly pulp S&S themselves. He did criticize Tolkien, Heinlein, Lovecraft, and others for the politics embedded in their works. He included LotR in his co-edited 1988 Fantasy: The 100 Best Books , though, and I understand that the review in there is genuinely positive.

 

[Mannahnin]

I don't know. I think you can raise legitimate criticisms about how political and elite the publishing industry has become around this stuff (a lot of it does feel like it is written for the NPR crowd: and I say that as an NPR listener), without becoming Sad Puppies.

What stuff? My perception matches Umbran's. The Puppies are mostly annoyed that their favored type of stories are no longer the main or dominant strain. Are modern publishers asking for something "elite" in contrast to, say, Judy-Lynn and Lester publishing Shannara specifically to capitalize on genre fans and targeting B. Dalton and Waldenbooks' preferred specs, and not caring much how bad the prose was? Or in contrast to something else?

I don't think either side here is operating with a narrative that really reflects what is going on

Oh? What's really going on?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It was, definitely. Though he was a big fan of the pulp swords & sorcery he was subverting, and his early stories are mostly pulp S&S themselves. He did criticize Tolkien, Heinlein, Lovecraft, and others for the politics embedded in their works. He included LotR in his co-edited 1988 Fantasy: The 100 Best Books , though, and I understand that the review in there is genuinely positive.

I had trouble getting into Elric but from what I did read the style seemed very grounded in pulp. One thing I liked about that era was there often was a kind of ongoing conversation where they might be fans of something that came before but have objections and criticism, which showed up in their work. That I think is healthy. Where it becomes unhealthy is just wanting something you are critical of to go away

 

[Bedrockgames]

What stuff? My perception matches Umbran's. The Puppies are mostly annoyed that their favored type of stories are no longer the main or dominant strain. Are modern publishers asking for something "elite" in contrast to, say, Judy-Lynn and Lester publishing Shannara specifically to capitalize on genre fans and targeting B. Dalton and Waldenbooks' preferred specs, and not caring much how bad the prose was? Or in contrast to something else?

I am not defending Sad Puppies. Like I said, that has become its own form of gate keeping. I do think the initial criticism that it started with (that awards and critics favored more literary works with politically progressive themes) has merit. I do think we live in an age when there is a large divide between the critic class and, for lack of a better term, the audience class. I don’t think the way to fix that is to start a more conservative award or critic system though

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I haven't read a lot of romantasy, or romantasy-adjacent stuff, but I don't think it was at all wrong to put in the fantasy section. Like, Sarah J. Maas I think is on the borderline, but isn't romantasy, the romance is more of a backdrop, however wish-fulfilment-y, to a more straightforward adventure tale. T. Kingfisher (Ursula Vernon) is clearly romantasy, I remember thinking "Omg I'm reading a romance novel!", but guess what? I finished that book and the first sequel (and might read another)! Because frankly, the world-building and fantasy elements were better than the vast majority of fantasy novels I've read. More interesting, more engaged, more real-feeling even somehow? And without being grimdark!

So I don't think that's a real problem. As you say, genres are flexible, and there's always been a lot of romance and adventure in fantasy novels, it's just a matter of how they lean. Far better romantasy than '00s grimdark rape-obsession, I say! We survived that!

What might kill fantasy as a genre, frankly, is if LitRPG and closely linked subgenres start getting published by major publishers and put on the shelves/recommend heavily by Amazon etc. to people who read fantasy, to the point where it starts to eclipse other types of fantasy. Thankfully this is not currently the case, and I don't anticipate it becoming the case, given that so far that genre seems to combine "being really ultra-niche/bad-nerdy/head-in-ass" with "having no elements with crossover appeal". So I'm not too worried.

I've loved all the T. Kingfisher stuff I've read, and have enjoyed Sarah J. Maas' books (my wife loves the Court of Thorns and Roses).

LitRPG won't necessarily kill the fantasy genre, but I could see too much of it making the genre less respected as a whole.

 

[Mannahnin]

I had trouble getting into Elric but from what I did read the style seemed very grounded in pulp. One thing I liked about that era was there often was a kind of ongoing conversation where they might be fans of something that came before but have objections and criticism, which showed up in their work. That I think is healthy. Where it becomes unhealthy is just wanting something you are critical of to go away

Trouble getting into it may have depended on what you tried as your entry point. A lot of people make the (IMO) mistake of trying them in in-world chronological order. IIRC the White Wolf reprints are partially responsible for this. The original stories published between '61 and '64 are pure pulp energy. He wrote a novelette and novella in '67 and '71 building on the world, and then the first full-length novel in '71. This was set earliest in Elric's life and digs into his backstory and origins more, but it gets away from the original pulp energy. It and much of what follows is much more introspective and slow (IMO), and relies on the reader either being into that kind of story or already in love with Elric as a character and so willing to go along with the slower character exploration.

I always tell people to start with the original stories from the 60s. Nearly as much or just as much pulp energy and action and velocity and excitement as Howard, with more imagination and weirdness, and basically none of the distasteful elements.

I am not defending Sad Puppies. Like I said, that has become its own form of gate keeping. I do think the initial criticism that it started with (that awards and critics favored more literary works with politically progressive themes) has merit. I do think we live in an age when there is a large divide between the critic class and, for lack of a better term, the audience class. I don’t think the way to fix that is to start a more conservative award or critic system though

Isn't that a bit tautological, though? Haven't critics always favored more literary works, with more symbolic or allegorical meanings? Back when Lester was signing Brooks I'm sure he knew the critics would crap on it (as they did), but that the audience wasn't as critical.

As Ruin Explorer mentioned, as recently as 10 or 15 years ago even the better-written fantasy like GRRM tended to get backhanded compliments in mainstream criticism, implicitly judging anything good as a rare exception out of a genre sewer.

Nowadays, as other folks pointed out earlier, we have a broader range of talented writers who grew up with fantasy and are more ambitious and skillful writers than a Brooks or a Piers Anthony, and we have fewer men reading fiction overall. No wonder if some of those men are seeing the publishers catering to them less and complaining about it.