The current state of fantasy literature

nikolai

First Post
I've been reading the Fifth Sorceress "fan" site. Fifth Sorceress is becoming a bit of obsession for me. It's almost like some-one decided to take all that's wrong with the worst fantasy and distil it into a single book. The site contains a very intelligent look at the state of play of modern fantasy, which I've quoted in full below. Any opinions?

Greeting, and welcome to the anti-Fifth Sorceress site, a set of pages dedicated to the worst book of all time. Here you'll find reviews and discussion, as well as pointers to better fantasy authors. But first, you might be asking why I'm bothering to spend time on such a website. Surely my effort would be better spent praising the best authors rather than trashing the worst ones, right? Well, let me explain.

I am a fantasy fan. Actually, I read all kinds of books ranging from classic literature to nonfiction to mysteries to science fiction. But ever since I first discovered the field of high fantasy, it's been a favorite of mine. One critic described fantasy as "the novel given wings", and to me there's no better way to express it. In this genre, authors are free to create any world that they can concieve, to populate it with any characters that they can imagine, and to tell stories that go beyond what is possible in books that are confined to the real world.

Now for those of us who follow fantasy literature, the last ten years or so have been a very exciting time. We've seen the emergence of very talented new authors such as Robin Hobb, Martha Wells, James Stoddard, and Elizabeth Haydon. Authors who have already made their names and earned their reputations in others areas are starting to turn to fantasy. Examples of this trend include George R. R. Martin, C. J. Cherryh, Lois McMaster Bujold, and Neil Barrett, Jr. At the same time, we've seen a revival of interest in the works of J. R. R. Tolkien and others classics. The number of readers who enjoy fantasy is growing, critics are giving the field more serious attention, and publishing companies are satisfying the demand by setting up separate fantasy divisions and contracting with more authors.

So, life is good, right? We fantasy fans look to a glorious future where we'll choose from the works of an ever-increasing pool of talented authors, right? Actually, wrong. The fact that fantasy publishing is turning into a big business, and attracting the attention of companies that wish to turn large profits, is not necessarily a good thing, and we're seeing a significant number of negative trends in the field right now. First of all, there's the insistance on producing series that appear to go on forever, and of making each book extremely long. The business rationale for this is simple; the more text you produce, the more money you get. The problem is also simple; authors who work on carrying out just one story for one volume after another frequently reach a limit to what they can do in the one scenario that they have created, and don't have the chance to exercise their imagination by creating entirely new worlds. Furthermore, they have a tendency to bloat their books with filler material just to make them longer. Of course, there are a few authors who have been able to write entertaining sagas that last for thousands of pages, but they're the exception rather than the rule.

More importantly, though, is the fact that the methods by which publishers find new authors have changed. A few decades ago, each publishing house had a huge staff of editors who worked with literary agents to judge the manuscripts submitted by aspiring authors. Once a work was accepted for publication, a relatively small number of copies would be printed in paperback and sent to bookstores. The author would then sink or swim based entirely on how well the book sold. Nowadays, things have changed. The publishing companies don't have huge editorial staffs; instead they have gigantic marketing departments. Rather than reading thousands of manuscripts and filtering out the very best, there are some cases where the companies consider a much smaller number of possible texts and the obvious result is lower-quality work. Then gigantic advertising campaigns are used to hype new books, often published in hardback, since the companies are convinced that they can turn any novel into a hit. The obvious result of this is the production of a huge amount of crap, while truly imaginative and talented authors struggle to be noticed. Lest you think that I am exaggerating the threat, I would point you to the example of the romance genre. When it was taken over by Harlequin and other companies that were only interested in producing long sequences of cheap, shoddy work a few decades back, the volume increased but the quality decreased. There hasn't been a single decent romance novel written for fifty years. The same thing has happened to the Western genre and the horror genre. It would be a true tragedy if this phenomenon also struck high fantasy.

The final worrisome problem is the use of pervasive and graphic sex in fantasy novels. Of course, this is hardly a new development. Almost since the genre's origins, there have been authors who basically used the fantasy label as a thin excuse for writing pornography. Whether this has actually increased in recent years is tough to say. But we certainly see sex used more and more in marketing campaigns, and more and more claims that erotic scenes are necessary to make a fantays novel adult and realistic. In point of fact, most good adult fantasy doesn't contain any sex at all (some of you may have heard of a novel called Lord of the Rings, for instance), and too often the sex scenes in today's fantasy novels seem to be tossed in just to appease a horny teenage audience.

So the bottom line is that while good fantasy authors are proliferating, we're also seeing a tidal wave of bad works hitting the shelf. Unfortunately, there's so much poor fantasy out there that one cannot takes up arms against all of it simultaneously. Instead, I'll use this page to explore the one author who stands as the worst example of all of these trends, and indeed has produced the worst book that I've ever had the misfortune to stumble across.

http://fifthsorceress.tripod.com/explain.htm
 

log in or register to remove this ad

nikolai said:
I've been reading the Fifth Sorceress "fan" site. Fifth Sorceress is becoming a bit of obsession for me. It's almost like some-one decided to take all that's wrong with the worst fantasy and distil it into a single book. The site contains a very intelligent look at the state of play of modern fantasy, which I've quoted in full below. Any opinions?
A few. First, this person has obviously never heard of the "Slush Pile". If he thinks the editors at major publishing houses were examining every submission, he obviously doesn't know much about the publishing industry. I'm no insider, but I've certainly talked with plenty of editors at cons over the years, and it's usually the interns who are assigned the task of separating the wheat from the chaff, and then the editors prune further.

His assumption that the writers should create new worlds each time they write a book seems odd to me, but I'm assuming he doesn't actually mean that literally. I notice his list is as conspicious for the names that are absent from it as it for those that are actually present. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, the staggering of hardback releases prior to paperback releases is a long-standing tradition in the publishing industry.

The only reason this didn't always apply to fantasy was because it was a consider a publishing ghetto, where only lousy books with little value to the publisher were produced. Never mind that some of us WANT hard bound copies of the books, as paperbacks don't survive the test of twenty years and multiple re-readings as well as their hardback counterparts. Authors graduate to hardback releases, not the other way around.

Multi-book series are hardly new to the genre, either. Unless you count the 70s are new, at the very least. Authors like David Eddings, Anne McCaffery, Gene Wolfe, Terry Brooks, Raymond Feist and others have been churning out works of fiction like this for decades. The difference is that, for many years, the trilogy was considered the standard form for the genre, regardless of need. A book was a stand-alone or a trilogy, but nothing in between.

My main contention with such series is that they could use a better standard of editing. Jordan has long since lost any real editor, and his wrinting reflects this. Stephen King fell victim to this for years, and they're not alone. Jordan, in fact, is a poster child for another problem in the fantasy genre, being a victim of success. He now feels the pressure of trying to deliver success after success, especially after setting such high sales marks in the past. In trying to please his fans, he's actually done the opposite for many of them, and must feel like he's painted himself in a corner.

I've never even heard of this book he's lamenting, but I wonder how bad it truly is? I've read some truly horrible stuff over the years. :(
 

It's boring, I've read worse but I put down the 5th Sorceress after trying for a month to get into it. There is no way it's the worst fantasy novel ever though. Ed Greenwood has written that book. I'd say it's on par with RPG based fantasy novels, Rose Estes, and Dean Koontz.
 

Flexor the Mighty! said:
It's boring, I've read worse but I put down the 5th Sorceress after trying for a month to get into it. There is no way it's the worst fantasy novel ever though. Ed Greenwood has written that book. I'd say it's on par with RPG based fantasy novels, Rose Estes, and Dean Koontz.
Well, if these statements are anything to judge by, it certainly has generated its share of negative criticism. However, most of the negative criticism has nothing to do with the rant linked to above. Things like perceived racism, misogyny and homophobia, as well as being poorly written and derivative, are what apparently set it apart.
 

WizarDru said:
AUnless I'm sorely mistaken, the staggering of hardback releases prior to paperback releases is a long-standing tradition in the publishing industry.

About a year ago, Baen Books sent a couple of people to the Arisia Science Fiction Convention here in Boston. If I recall what they said correctly, this is partly because the profit margins on paperbacks are pretty darned small. You need to print and sell about 15,000 paperbacks before it becomes really worth the effort, due to the setup costs. So, the higher-margin hardcovers are used as a sort of testing ground before trying to make the thing fly in a format that requires higher volume sales.
 

WizarDru said:
Well, if these statements are anything to judge by, it certainly has generated its share of negative criticism. However, most of the negative criticism has nothing to do with the rant linked to above. Things like perceived racism, misogyny and homophobia, as well as being poorly written and derivative, are what apparently set it apart.

For the record, I don't think the book is racist. However, this is just about the only thing it isn't.

I do think the book is uniquely bad. It is bad in terms of the design of the setting, the characterisation, the plot and the writing. I also think the points in the rant do stand when leveled again it; it's part of a three book series and the guy has just signed a contract to deliver another three books. Parts of the book are just bloated descriptions where nothing much happens. There was a big marketing campaign "epic fantasy of the year" around it. And there's a totally crass use of "adult" themes.

Flexor, I don't know how far you read. This is far worse than Greenwood ever was.
 

There hasn't been a single decent romance novel written for fifty years. The same thing has happened to the Western genre and the horror genre.
Hmmm. Someone should tell Danielle Steele and Barbara Taylor Bradford that. "Sorry, mum, we need to go back to using logs in the fireplace, instead of the stacks of money you're using now."

Western I have no knowledge of. Horror? Horror has never been big business and probably never will be, discounting early Stephen King. Yes, there was a lot of shlock horror published after he became successful, but it never approached the intensity of the romance and western releases. Or the mystery releases.

The final worrisome problem is the use of pervasive and graphic sex in fantasy novels. Of course, this is hardly a new development. Almost since the genre's origins, there have been authors who basically used the fantasy label as a thin excuse for writing pornography.
I'd like some names, please. (*whap* No, not for that reason). I certainly don't pretend I read every fantasy book that comes on the shelves but apart from some of Anne Bishop's stuff and part of the Anita Blake / Merry Gentry (?) books, I'd be hard-pressed to think of a fantasy book (esp. a series) where sex was 'pervasive and graphic'.

I don't really think FIfth Sorceress points to a system that's broken but rather that sometimes crap gets made regardless what you do.
 
Last edited:

Umbran said:
About a year ago, Baen Books sent a couple of people to the Arisia Science Fiction Convention here in Boston. If I recall what they said correctly, this is partly because the profit margins on paperbacks are pretty darned small. You need to print and sell about 15,000 paperbacks before it becomes really worth the effort, due to the setup costs. So, the higher-margin hardcovers are used as a sort of testing ground before trying to make the thing fly in a format that requires higher volume sales.

Huh...interesting, while at the same time a tad ironic for me. I generally do not buy hardcover books and prefer to wait for the paperback. I wonder how common that is?

Myrdden
 

WizarDru said:
Multi-book series are hardly new to the genre, either. Unless you count the 70s are new, at the very least. Authors like David Eddings, Anne McCaffery, Gene Wolfe, Terry Brooks, Raymond Feist and others have been churning out works of fiction like this for decades. The difference is that, for many years, the trilogy was considered the standard form for the genre, regardless of need. A book was a stand-alone or a trilogy, but nothing in between.

Yeah, you've a point. Obviously multi-book series aren't new (The Once and Future King, Gormenghast & EarthSea obviously spring to mind), but I have the impression that in the 90s they became more dominant than they were before. Multi-book series just dominate the fantasy section, with the huge open-ended series being a natural development. I'd say the authors you name trail-blazed the way, and "epics" automatically spanning books became the norm. It's not just apeing Lord of the Rings either, LotR is short compared to a lot of the stuff out there.

It's obviously hard to prove this one way of the other though, or to date the moment it happened. Though I heard the rot started with The Sword of Shannara. John Rateliff, dates it to the "the 1980s and '90s"

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=books/main/classicswizardearthsea
 

nikolai said:
It's obviously hard to prove this one way of the other though, or to date the moment it happened. Though I heard the rot started with The Sword of Shannara. John Rateliff, dates it to the "the 1980s and '90s"

Without trying to pin it down exactly...

Asimov's Foundation books date back to the 1950s. Katherine Kurtz started her Deryni series in 1970. Moorcock's Elric books date back to 1972. I think Aspirin's Myth books go back to 1974. Varley's Gaea Trilogy started in 1979. Same for Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide. The TSR fantasy trilogies are 1980's vintage as well.

Along with all the stuff others have mentioned - mostly stuff from the 1970s and 1980s - the trend towards multi-book series started long before 1990. Mr. Rateliff seems to be off by about a decade :)
 

Remove ads

Top