The current state of fantasy literature

[Merova]

A Comedy of Manners

Forget about all that. State your opinion about the work, and explain why. The words "subjective" and "objective" are just red herrings in all this -- they don't add any value to anyone's opinions. You have to support your ideas if you want others to accept them. No support, no acceptance, and saying they're objective truths or subjective opinions won't change that.

Hi all!

I totally agree with your post. However, it is fair to make a distinction regarding the premise of a work of art, then extrapolate it's potential value in terms of entertainment and/or intellectual stimulation of a given audience. For instance, the romance genre oftentimes features elements of Comedy of Manners and Comedy of Errors, with the "alls well that ends well" stipulation.

It's fair game to say that comedy of this sort is less of a valued intellectual commodity in the current viewpoint of mainstream fiction. Therefore the works of such writers as Jo Beverley or Stef Ann Holm will probably not address the aesthetic interests of non-romance readers. Yes, this isn't saying that they are objectively inferior to the latest hot "mainstream" novelist, but that their aesthetic focus is appealing to a "limited" audience.

The same holds true for the fantasy genre. The focus on exploration of setting over prolonged situational "adventures" is a huge interest to those people that buy fantasy fiction. It doesn't matter if it's derivative of JRRT's work. What matters is that new fiction fulfills the interests in the buying readership, at least from the publisher's point of view. A "quality" writer can meet the marketplace needs while creating a distinct work of fiction.

However, by focusing on the prolonged explorative style of story framing, the writer does run the risk of rehashing well-explored territory. A good writer will not, but there's still Sturgeon's Law.

Thanks for reading.

---Olivia

 

[takyris]

Okay, in no particular order:

Objective versus Subjective: If we try really hard, we can prove that it's impossible to know anything for certain, at which point the best thing for you to do is to bang your head against the wall a few times to make sure it's solid and not just a construct of your imagination. Failing that, you can reword your arguments to say that your objective judgment of a book's merits is based on an agreed-upon system, and that's about as objective as one can be within that system, and people are still gonna argue, but at least the argument is about specific aspects of a book as opposed to whether or not a tree makes a noise if it falls in the forest while we're out complaining about objectivity being impossible and secretly trying to figure out how to work our Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance quote in.

High art versus Low art: In some recent high-falootin' critics' circle thing, Ulysses was the number-one English-language novel of all time. The best part about it was that most of the critics voted it into that spot without having read it. It's a classic in the modern cynical sense -- a book that it's more fun to say you have read than it is to actually read. I've read it, and I loved it, but that was because I got to spend an entire college quarter going through it with a fine-toothed, comb, figuring out all the cool things Joyce did.

In another thread, somebody mentioned that Ulysses was a turning point in literature, the point where high art separated from low art -- where something became only critically good if it was hard to read and generally unenjoyable for the common folks, such that only the cultural elite could understand it. Before that, there was little or no distinction made along those lines, and books could be accepted as literary classics and as good entertainment. Which I, as a writer, find annoying, because I try to write stuff that, you know, has a point, but is also entertaining as heck.

The Fantasy Market: Sure, it's more complex than it was portrayed in that post, but as somebody submitting to it and trying to figure out how to make my splash, I can say that it's most definitely geared toward series right now. Whereas before, you had standalones and trilogies, new writers today are being explicitly told that trilogies (or, you know, heptologies, or duodecologies) are what the market wants, so that is, by and large, what's going to get accepted. This is bad for the writers, who find themselves limited in scope to ideas that can be done for eight or nine books; for readers, who don't get to read good tight novels very often anymore because of what the publishers have decided we want; and for the publishers themselves, who are going to beat the horse until it stops moving and a "market correction" sends things into a tailspin.

Exceptions exist, as always. There are good single-book stories out there. There are authors who have become powerful enough to do what they want and know that it will sell. There are always folks who beat the odds. I'm not saying that any of that isn't true. What I am saying is that the message is being clearly delivered to new authors, implicitly through the shelves at Borders and explicitly on author's contracts -- "Do not write about new things each book. Stick with what worked in the last book. Keep the series going for as long as possible."

My plan as a writer is to try and play it both ways. If I write eight books that are all in one series, I can only try and sell the first one, because few people buy the fourth book in a series (Star Wars being the exception that proves the rule). But if I write eight books, each in their own world, then I can try and sell all eight -- and if I leave each book open-ended enough to give me possible sequels, I've got a possible series to sell, even if I have to make a deal with the editors: every even-numbered book will be a book in the popular series, and every odd-numbered book will be a book in an original world that might possibly
be popular to spin off a series of its own (like Modessit seems to do).

 

[Emueyes]

Artworks are not tested against "reality". They are tested against the human mind. Then, by definition, the results of those tests are not objective.

If Ulysses were actually objectively better than The Rats of NIMH, then I could give both books to any person on the planet (Any person, regardless of age or cultural background. Heck, I could give them to a space alien!) and get the same answer about which is better.

I am quite sure that my 10 year old nephew would not agree with your assessment, which indicates that your assessment is based upon what you value, rather than upon some universal truth with which my nephew cannot disagree.

Hm. Questioning my mental faculties is effectively an attack upon my person, rather than upon my position. Aside from being rude, it's a fairly weak rhetorical device. But, since you asked the question...

Even physics is subjective, much of the time. But that's way off-topic (instead of moderately).

Artworks are tested chiefly by how well they capture the imaginations of large amounts of people, and -more importantly- by the test of time. Tom Clancy may spin a good yarn about the Soviets, but a hundred years from now when people have forgotten what the world was like during the cold way do you think his themes and characters will be indelible and timeless enough to still be popular and relevant? Will Shakespeare or Bram Stoker?

If you gave Ulyesses to your nephew, I think it more likely that he would concede that he did not understand it, than that he did not like it. Even if Ulysses was objectively better than Nimh, some people might dislike books, or even specifically good books. Someone might dislike books in english, or fiction altogether.

According to my subjective value-judgment, since we both live in the objectively rudest part of the country, we're allowed to question each others' mental faculties all we like. But I was actually asking if you frequently DO separate quality from appreciation, not if you were capable. Many people just don't. I frequently lament that I like something that's in poor taste.

Back on topic: the state of pop fantasy literature is deplorable, and it always has and shall be. This is because whatever makes the most money will garner the most attention. Since the more distinct a novel is, the further it is from popular tastes, such books will continue to dominate the genre. I hope in Gene Wolfe for salvation of the genre..

 

[CCamfield]

Merova, how are we supposed build this argumentative thread into a flamewar when you keep making reasonable posts like that?

 

[Mallus]

Forget about all that. State your opinion about the work, and explain why. The words "subjective" and "objective" are just red herrings in all this -- they don't add any value to anyone's opinions.

Hey BC, nicely put. The real point of criticism isn't to establish a given works value and place it in some kind of absolute hierarchy of "good" to "bad" [thought it can seem like exactly that].

Criticism, that is, any serious discussion of art [anything from Joyce --yes, I like him-- to Star Trek --yes I like most of them] is all about gaining another person's experience of the work. Catching a glimpse into how another individual arranges the world around themselves --which is pretty much why we read/view/take in art in the first place, right?. Art [from low to high and every stop in-between] is a way in which we escape, temporarily, from the prison of our own subjective experience [into the prison of someone else's].

It about the best we can hope for, as far as I can tell.

 

[barsoomcore]

Art [from low to high and every stop in-between] is a way in which we escape, temporarily, from the prison of our own subjective experience [into the prison of someone else's].

And what THAT allows us is the opportunity to expand the bounds of our prison.

Though I prefer to think of it as a back yard. Either way, it is the route to wisdom. And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom. We experience, study, think about and analyse art in order to acquire wisdom. A wise person is one whose back yard encompasses many people's back yards, where whole neighborhoods play, trees grow and creeks bubble, well-kept lawns lie next to tangled bushes, birds sing and the occasional wild jungle cat prowls through.

Want a big back yard in your imagination? Learn about other peoples' back yards.

 

[WizarDru]

I can say that it's most definitely geared toward series right now. Whereas before, you had standalones and trilogies, new writers today are being explicitly told that trilogies (or, you know, heptologies, or duodecologies) are what the market wants, so that is, by and large, what's going to get accepted. This is bad for the writers, who find themselves limited in scope to ideas that can be done for eight or nine books; for readers, who don't get to read good tight novels very often anymore because of what the publishers have decided we want; and for the publishers themselves, who are going to beat the horse until it stops moving and a "market correction" sends things into a tailspin.

The publishers haven't decided anything...they're just responding to market forces. No one has a gun to their head, forcing them to buy those books. By and large, fantasy fans enjoy multi-books series. This is not new and since the early 80s, has been the standard in the genre. The problem lately has been in the open-ended nature of those series, often written without the whole plat having been worked out. A better point would be that publishers are trying to manipulate content to make each book in those series more interdependent. It used to be that each book had a clear beginning and ending, as part of a larger story. Now, you need to read a FAQ before starting the next Jordan book. (At least, I did).

There is plenty of fantasy fiction coming out that is standalone, it just doesn't sell as well. I hadn't even heard of "Ombria in Shadow" until it won the World Fantasy Award, or Greg Frost's "Fitcher's Brides" or Tad Williams new book or any of a host of others. Not to mention that we're actually talking about a sub-genre here....D&D-like Swords & Sorcery-esque fantasy, not just plain fantasy.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

And what THAT allows us is the opportunity to expand the bounds of our prison.

Though I prefer to think of it as a back yard. Either way, it is the route to wisdom. And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom. We experience, study, think about and analyse art in order to acquire wisdom. A wise person is one whose back yard encompasses many people's back yards, where whole neighborhoods play, trees grow and creeks bubble, well-kept lawns lie next to tangled bushes, birds sing and the occasional wild jungle cat prowls through.

Want a big back yard in your imagination? Learn about other peoples' back yards.

I love that analogy. But personally, I always thought of it more as a house. Little ideas just add a knick-knack to a room, or maybe a painting on the wall. Big ideas knock down a wall or stick another doorway into the hall, giving you a whole 'nother room to fill up with mental brick-a-brac.

 

[The_Universe]

back on topic!

In order to get the discussion back on the topic of fantasy/sci fi entertainment and literature, as opposed to the merits of subjective or objective quality of entertainment, I just want everyone to know that I like Star Trek.

I mention it because it has spawned several very good books in the genre (so many that it might be considered its own genre) and several reaking piles of dung masquerading as paperbacks.

Why? Because it's popular, and people who like the "genre" enough will buy anything, regardless of quality. I bought the ENTIRE New Jedi Order series of Star Wars books over the past few years, despite the fact that I vehemently despised what the series did to what was (for me) a beloved mythology. They fill my bookshelf, but I can only point to the Stackpole and Allston books in the series as ones that I actually enjoyed. I bought them because I love Star Wars, and I felt some NEED to stay abreast of what was happening in the genre-within-a-genre.

The same is true of the genre as a whole. Despite the fact that I thought Piers Anthony books were great when I was in Middle School and early High School, I now find most of them to be vaguely disturbing masks for commentary about various sexual deviancies, most involving very young girls. Did the value of the work change? No. Did my appreciation of it?
Heck yes!

Although my reading in the genre started in around 1987 (relatively recently, I know) I haven't noticed any decline in quality--just an increase in quantity in general. There are just MORE books, so there are more good AND bad ones. Heck, even the "masters" let some stinkers go (the aforementioned Crossroads of Twilight rings a bell).

Additionally, I think that the early '90s ushered in a sort of grand experiment with unending epic fantasy. The same heroes, slogging through what is essentially the SAME story until the author gets tired and ends it. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire and Jordan's Wheel of Time are great examples of this. I predict that both will just sputter into oblivion, ending eventually, but satisfying none. Why? Because they are not written with the "end" in mind. It's all build, and no climax. I love both series, but I'd rather have some resolution, and a new story from a good author.

Am I going to get my wish? Probably not from Martin and Jordan. However, the popularization of the genre means that someone is going to get it right due to the sheer volume of publishing.

When they do, I'll be there.

PS--SM Stirling, please write another book set in the alternate earth of the Peshawar Lancers. Make a whole unending series of it (despite what I just complained about!)

 

[Mallus]

And what THAT allows us is the opportunity to expand the bounds of our prison.

Though I prefer to think of it as a back yard. Either way, it is the route to wisdom. And THAT'S what art is for -- producing wisdom.

Hmmm, yes, the backyard metaphor is a bit nicer than my use of 'prison'... Apparently I'm in a bad mood.

And the purpose of art is wisdom? I thought you were from Canada, not ancient Greece And here I was getting the impression that you didn't harbor those kinds of romantic notions about art...

Back to Mrs. Frisby vs. Leopold Bloom for a second... I like it when people try and make a case for the objective value of work of art. I don't hear such attempts as critical arguments, rather as proffessions of faith. Ones that for some reason, don't bother me at all.