The current state of fantasy literature

[WizarDru]

Western I have no knowledge of. Horror?

Louis L'amour and Larry McMurtry have been selling huge numbers for decades. Maybe you've heard of 'Lonesome Dove' or "The Sacketts'? Not exactly starving, either, the western genre.

I'd be hard-pressed to think of a fantasy book (esp. a series) where sex was 'pervasive and graphic'.

The Sword of Truth series, at least the second one, had some fairly graphic demon sex and borderline BSDM material in it that I could have done without, frankly. I stopped reading Thomas Covenant after the rape scene in the first book (and No, I'd rather not discuss that series merits). But I don't know that I'd call it pervasive in that series. GRRM's "Song of Ice and Fire" has some graphic scenes, but I wouldn't call them gratuitious (although Daenrys gets plenty of sex scenes, early on). By and large, pervasive isn't really what I'd use to describe them, though.

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"

Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun: 4 books, 1980-1982
Robert Silverberg's Lord Valentine's Castle, 3 books, 1980-1983
Terry Brook's Shanara Series, 3 books, 1977-1985
Eric Van Lustbaders Sunset Warrior, 5 books, 1977-1980

and you mention a few of the tons of others. But you're right, in the 1980s, it did get more pervasive. But that has primarily to do with one factor, IMHO....D&D. In 1980-1982, D&D was white-hot, and gamers suddenly made fantasy a hot literary topic. And young fans wanted more of the same, so suddenly we got lots of not always subtle knockoffs...and many books based on people's D&D campaigns! (Joel Rosenberg, Steven Brust, etc.) [side note: some D&D games should be as good as Brust's earlier books ]

I just think this guy overstates his case. He forgets Sturgeon's Law.

 

[Pants]

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."

Money does not equate quality, as can be seen by Robert Jordan's 'Bestselling' Crossroads of Twilight which has one of the lowest scores on Amazon. Ever.
Also I think that this is exactly what the article was arguing against; producing low quality schlock that will sell millions.

 

[Umbran]

Also I think that this is exactly what the article was arguing against; producing low quality schlock that will sell millions.

"Quality" is a highly subjective thing. I know plenty of folks who absolutely love those "schlock" romance novels, and who hate those things I'd call "quality" literature.

Ultimately, how good a thing is is merely a matter of how much you like it. If lots and lots of people like it, that's a measure of "quality". The critics hate such popular measures, but denying it exists doesn't make it go away.

 

[nikolai]

Ultimately, how good a thing is is merely a matter of how much you like it. If lots and lots of people like it, that's a measure of "quality". The critics hate such popular measures, but denying it exists doesn't make it go away.

I'm not entirely sure. Lots of trashy fantasy novels regularly get rave reviews (Eragon? maybe) and are really enjoyed by large numbers of people. This is happening more and more, particularly - I think - with the recent fantasy explosion in children's literature.

I think you could make a case that the reason these book are considered "good", when some people would argue they're objectively not, is because their readers haven't been exposed to fantasy tropes and standards the way jaded cynics like myself have. If you haven't read Tolkien you may think Sword of Shannara or Eddings - for example - is breathtakingly imaginative and innovative. People think these books are good because they don't know any better, lots of decent fantasy is tricky to find and buried under mountains of rubbish. Fantasy isn't reviews or criticised very well - I find it very hard to separate the wheat from the chaff and really have to look long and hard before I find something good.

I think people make be reading one or two books of questionable value because of sophisticated mass-marketing campaigns. They may love them, but that doesn't mean they're good. In fact they may be a pale shadow the the stuff they're being cloned from - people just like them because they like fantasy and that's all they've been exposed to.

 

[nikolai]

Double post, my apologies.

 

[CCamfield]

Eric Van Lustbaders Sunset Warrior, 5 books, 1977-1980

That's interesting... I didn't know he'd written anything else fantasyesque. I picked up, for some reason, a recent book of his (I think Pearl was in the title) and... gahhh. I thought it was awful, and stopped reading after a few chapters. Fortunately it was a library book, so I could return it without any loss other than my disappointment.

It's true that multi-book series are not new, but the used to be a bit more closed - trilogies or series of five - and each volume was shorter. Looking at my copy of the Great Book of Amber (a mistake to buy it, since I had the single books already): the five books of the first Amber series totalled 577 pages, and the second series of five books totalled about 700. That's, what, less than the size of a single Robert Jordan book? Less than two, I'm sure.

 

[CCamfield]

"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."

Actually, Robin Hobb is not a "new" author. She previously published quite a few novels under her real name, or another pseudonym, Megan Lindholm.

I tried following the link to inform the site owner of that, but (even trying to guess the root address by changing the URL) I can't actually find the main site, just the explanation.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I didn't get that far to find all the 'isms that are attributed to it. But there was nothing in there as bad as the writing in Spellfire. Worst Book Of Any Genre Ever!

 

[barsoomcore]

WAsimov'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.

I think what would be an interesting study is to look at what sort of contracts were offered these writers. I would be surprised, for example, to hear that Michael Moorcock received a 5-book deal for Elric, or that Asimov received a multi-book deal for the Foundation trilogy.

What's REALLY happened is that the market has grown enough that the profits to be made are getting significant. Thus, the publishers naturally want to maximize their returns. They've discovered that if one fantasy book sells, multiple books based on that premise will produce predictable sales. So if a writer comes out with one book that does well (or gives the appearance of being likely to do well), the publisher wants to sign that writer to multi-book deal, hoping that they can generate another Wheel of Time and realise immense profits, with very little risk to them.

The downside is that a writer who might have produced disparate good ideas gets strongly encouraged to instead keep all their ideas inside the "series sandbox" -- reducing the originality and quality of their ideas. In addition, writers who maybe only had one or two good books in them end up with 10-book deals that they just don't have the ability to create, thus diluting the market with crap.

 

[Umbran]

I think you could make a case that the reason these book are considered "good", when some people would argue they're objectively not...

Some people might argue that they are objectively not good books, yes. But you know what? Those people would be talking through their hats, because there's no such thing as an objective measure of literary quality! This is art we are talking about - it's value and effect are subjective, not objective.