Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 2460813" data-attributes="member: 5171">Like Emma Bull, Laura Ann Gillman, Charlaine Harris, Tanya Huff... okay, I looked through Amazon for authors I might be forgetting, and there's a "Contemporary" subsetting for fantasy, along with "General", "Alternate History", "Anthologies", "Arthurian", "Epic", "Historical", and "History and Criticism". If it has a subgenre right there on Amazon, it can't be considered innovative in that respect.So... no. No, she really isn't doing something new, at least in terms of her conventions. What she is doing is writing something good enough and engaging enough to pull in people who weren't terribly informed about the contemporary subgenre beforehand. And that's no mean feat, and I thank her for it, because I'd like to see Charlaine Harris get more space on the fantasy shelf than three inches squeezed out between the end of  Goodkind's six-shelf deluge, the brief half-shelf of Hobb, and then the juggernaut of Jordan.(And like I said: I loved Rowling. Lots of fun to read. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, a hater. I think she deserves all the hype she gets. That said, if she got less hype, I wouldn't say she was getting too little. Her stuff is good and engaging and came along at the right time to fit a good niche, and that's a combination of skill and fortune.)EDIT: Neil Gaiman, Roger Zelazny, Charles de Lint, Jane Lindskold...</blockquote>