The current state of fantasy literature

[Mallus]

For example, I hate Gene Wolf! I read the Book of the New Sun and was just disgusted.

What the H*ll is wrong with.... I mean, what didn't you enjoy about them? Where you really disgusted? Why am I hijacking a hijack? There must be pirates about.

Fantasy is easy to write in comparison because you do not need to do near as much research as a sf novel.

That postion seems to discount all the science fiction published with bad/nonexistant science that still succeed as SF. Good science doesn't neccessarily equate to good science fiction [start with Shelly's Frankenstein and continue on up through Gibsons' Sprawl, Simmons' Hyperion Cantos --the Shrike and his Tree as lovely inventions without a lick of hard science in them , and Banks' Culture --"Just say to yourself, its all done with fields"]

There's always been a place in SF for science as metaphor and literary device, where science and the trappings of SF are only a kind of idiom.

And I'd argue that writing a good fantasy epic pretty much demands a lot of research, just in different fields.

 

[takyris]

Ditto much of the above. I got my MA in English from Stanford, and I still enjoy George R.R. Martin and Robin Hobb. I also loved Ulysses and had some great conversations about Plato's Republic. And I found Aristotle bland and Aquinas pinheaded. There are certainly snobs out there, but really, once you've said "They're snobs," you pretty much have concluded the conversation.

I occasionally read King and enjoy him, because much of his work is able to draw me in. I find him great at giving me the one telling detail that turns it from a story into something I'm really experiencing.

I like Modessit because, even if I don't agree with his social extrapolations, I find it fascinating to see what conclusions he draws.

I dislike Goodkind a lot. It's only my opinion, but it's a very very strong one.

And I love Pratchett because he makes me laugh, and then surprises me by making me think.

And on Sunday, I finished the rough draft of my next novel, a swashbuckling, high-fantasy, gender-reversed retelling of Pride & Prejudice. I'd talk about the swordfight on the balcony, the coach chase, and the use of jellyfish symbiotes to facilitate spellcasting, but it's probably too dry and snobbish for you.

 

[barsoomcore]

I like to debate the finer points of why I like things, so I have no problem with it. But if I did, I'd probably do exactly what you just said above.

One of the corollaries of that is that if we want to have a community where such debates can be held, then it's the responsibility of all us to try and create an environment where people feel like they can express their opinions and be attacked not for the opinions themselves, but only for the evidence or logic that supports them.

I mean, it's PERFECTLY acceptable to say, "I like Spam and I don't know why and I don't care and I'm not going to listen to any arguments that it's gross." That's a fine argument, and frankly, I prefer statements like that rather than logical runarounds like appeals to popularity or ad hominem. If you don't want to debate your tastes, I'm never going to insist that you have to.

I think it's FUN to do so. I learn a lot by doing so. (intellectual stimulation = fun, remember?)

I don't argue with my neighbor about why I don't think Salvatore is a particularly good writer, even though he really likes him, because the reason he's a good writer to him is because he reads his books and is entertained by them. I don't think there's any right or wrong in that regard, nor is there any truth to be figured out.

Well, let us say, the opinion itself possesses no right or wrong,or truth or falsehood. I don't think investigating one's opinions on art is useful because we end up with better opinions (we might, but that's not the real usefulness of it) -- it's useful to do so because we end with a better understanding of OURSELVES.

When you defend your opinions to others, you find out what your opinions really are. You find out what actually matters to you, as opposed to what you've been telling yourself matters to you.

Since it was immediately obvious to me that I knew a great deal more about what he was talking about than he did, the fact that he stated his innaccurate information with such authority didn't really serve to move me anywhere.

How about this: it can often be clear that you have very little to gain by entering into a debate with certain people. It would be of almost no value to me whatsoever to discuss with you the intricacies of Katori Shinto Ryu kenjutsu. You're unlikely to have opinions on such a subject that will provide me with new insights (unless this is another one of those creepy cases you and I are always having where we turn out to have the same idiosyncratic obsessions).

That's not to say I should disregard anything you say -- whatever statements you do make I should consider just like anyone else's -- it just means that the PROBABILITY of you giving me new insights into such a subject is low, and therefore my incentive to invest much energy in such a discussion is low.

Of course, there's a fine line between academic snobbery here and confidence and security in your own opinion, and willingness to admit that you don't know everything all the time, though.

Actually, I would argue that snobbery derives from INSECURITY, not the opposite. True confidence doesn't need to denigrate others or prove its own superiority.

I have never pretended that there aren't snobs in this world. God knows. What I'm saying is that the idea that people either "read for enjoyment" or "read for intellectual stimulation" is a false distinction.

 

[jester47]

I have a theory of whats called "the sandbox." The sandbox is required for sucess in creative endeavors. It is simply this: The limits that are imposed on an artist, writer, performer or some other person of artistic means. Who imploses them is of no real importance. They just have to be there for genius to work. The artistry is when you toe the line between out of the sandbox and inthe sandbox. Take the lines away and you get really bad art. (obviously that is subjective but I would wager that many many more people like art that pushes the barrier and sort of stretches it to a new perspective than breaks the barrier.)

The closer to the edge of the sandbox your art gets without spilling over, the more people like it. And since the edge of the sandbox stretches when this happens, good art makes it move slowly. So eventually your cutting edge art becomes mainstream. I think this is what happened between the Hobbit and LotR. The Hobbit was right on the edge when it came out. So JRRT added a bunch of sand and went to work on a magnum opus. But the extra sand often overwealms the readers. With Dune (appropriate for the sandbox analogy, no?) the problem was not too much sand but getting out of the sandbox. The first two books are in the sandbox with the first streatching the sandbox a little and making room for the second. Then we get started with the third book and the work rapidly goes out of control and gets too weird for most.

There are some interaesting concepts here:

1. Epic quests that span several books where the beginning of the story and end of the story are in separate books are really just one book broken up like LotR, Sword of Shanara etc.

2. Episodic novels and short stories where places and people and concepts are reused but are self contained stories.

3. Serials. These can be shorts ala the Three Musketeers or Foundation, or they can be big long stories like Robert Jordans current work.

Combine these with the sandbox and you have a way of looking at the state of fantasy lit in such a way where we can see the terrain.

Aaron.

 

[barsoomcore]

And on Sunday, I finished the rough draft of my next novel, a swashbuckling, high-fantasy, gender-reversed retelling of Pride & Prejudice. I'd talk about the swordfight on the balcony, the coach chase, and the use of jellyfish symbiotes to facilitate spellcasting, but it's probably too dry and snobbish for you.

Hey, loving the dry and snobbish. Feel free to elaborate.

And congratulations, taky. How do we go about getting review copies?

 

[Mallus]

And on Sunday, I finished the rough draft of my next novel, a swashbuckling, high-fantasy, gender-reversed retelling of Pride & Prejudice. I'd talk about the swordfight on the balcony, the coach chase, and the use of jellyfish symbiotes to facilitate spellcasting, but it's probably too dry and snobbish for you.

Hey, Taky... nicely done. Its always nice to hear about people finishing drafts of novels [nope, not a trace of self-recrimination and perhaps even self-pity in this post. Nope, not at all...].

It sounds interesting. Do you put samples of your work on the Web?

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Grumpy Celt, you missed a perfect opportunity to invoke Sturgeon's_law]Sturgeon's Law

I had never heard of Sturgeon's Law before, but I would say that is fair - if harsh - assesment.

Of course, in this day and age, it's much easier to do some on-line research

Well, I am not hung up on the classics - Howard irritates me and Tolkien can be exhausting - but I sample books based on the rep. of the author, to see if I like it.

 

[mmadsen]

I had never heard of Sturgeon's Law before, but I would say that is fair - if harsh - assesment.

Nothing harsh was meant, Grump; it simply was the perfect opportunity to invoke Sturgeon's Law.

 

[takyris]

Sorry to hijack. On the one hand, some of the comments hit close to home, because the idea for this novel was a direct result of me saying, "You know, I'm coming close to writing stuff I wouldn't want to read out of a desire to be seen as Good and Intriguing by all the writing folks I hang out with. I need to bring back the fun goofy stuff I'm actually good at."

On the other hand, I completed a draft of my novel on Sunday, which means that you could ask me about how to get dog-poop out of the treads of your sneakers and I'd find a way to work my novel into it ("Well, ideally, a sharp stick and then something rough, like a welcome mat, which reminds me, in the novel I completed just last week, I had this great scene where the hero compares the villain to ostrich dung...").

As for web stuff: Nope, since I'm planning to rewrite it and send it to editors, and putting it up on the web raises questions about prior publication. It's just generally considered a no-no. When I send it to my buddies, I usually do it from a secure, out-of-the-way FTP site. My slightly out-of-date website has links to two of my short stories online, though: http://patrick.wuut.net

As for review copies: How about when I get done with the next draft? You know the one where I added a setting, fixed the enormous plotholes, figured out the voice I want my characters to use, and made the prophecies coherent? One of the reasons I actually finish novels is the fact that I'm not afraid to write a really lousy first draft. I can't fix something that isn't done yet.

Mallus: Just do it. Sit down every day and don't get up until you've got 500 (or 1000, or 250, or whatever) words cranked out. And don't go back to fix things up unless you need to fix a glaring plothole. Keep moving forward. (Um. This is what works for me. YMMV)

As for elaboration: Don't even get me started. What I will say is that after writing one of these swashbuckler dealies, I understand why every swashbuckling movie has a stage-coach fight. Coach fights kick ASS. And on the snob note, I reread P&P so that I could outline the plot events, and I was amazed, upon reading it with new eyes, at how incredibly sarcastic and angry Austen was. She was writing something revolutionary, showing how the supposedly passive women could scheme and plan just as much as the supposedly active men, and she was just enormously peeved at all the unfairness of it -- and she managed to turn that anger into a kickass love story.

I don't capture that, not by a long stretch, but if I can find some way to take that idea and at least use it to be true to what I want my own story to be, that would rock.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

There are still quite a few people out there writing old-fashioned, mind-blowing hard SF. Greg Egan comes to mind - check out Diaspora. He's also written a lot of great short stories, like "Reasons to be Cheerful" and "Oceanic", some of which can be found online. Great stuff.

Ooh, and while I'm posting: yes, there are forms of insecurity that lead to attacking everyone around you in an attempt to make yourself look good. There are also forms that deny the existence of any kind of standards and insist that "everyone's opinion is valid", even though it violently refuses to consider the idea that the opinion that not all opinions are valid is valid. I suspect this is really just an alternate, inverted form of the first kind of fear, one that strives for universal equality by dragging everything down to its level.