More follow-ups and reaction to the current 'quality fantasy' debate

Filed by: Darren Turpin on October 9, 2007 at 8:42
Filed under: Writing

UK fantasy author Joe Abercrombie has added his own thoughts on the topic, highlighting George R.R. Martin's ongoing Song of Ice and Fire series as a good example of how a concentrated, focused dose of innovation within a narrative that's structured on familiar fantasy themes and tropes can produce impressive results. As Joe says: "Epic fantasy is, in book terms, extremely successful and so it tends also to be conservative. But that doesn't mean you can't offer something new while still working within the form," and adds a few pithy thoughts on the non-desirability of too much innovation, which will do nothing to diminish his burgeoning reputation as a notorious potty-mouth...

Meanwhile, in the comments on my previous post, Mark Newton - of the UK's Solaris Books - points out the hard commercial realities afflicting the publishing industry at the moment, due to the mergers of various conglomerates into even larger super-conglomerates and the internal pressures that this generates, which he hopes will allow mid-list publishers - like, say, the UK's Solaris Books - to step in and offer a wider range of material to exactly those readers who are crying out for more than just the same-old, same-old.

And in the same thread, David Hebblethwaite wonders: "...how many writers of unchallenging fantasy actually do make a comfortable living from their writing? Are there any writers of good quality material who make a living; and, if so, what differentiates them from writers of similar stuff who do not?" Good questions. Any writers out there care to comment?

Also, SF Diplomat, pondering the issue further, asks whether the problem only applies to fantasy and why, indeed, that should be the case: "...why is it fantasy's job to be weird and different? Isn't the problem, from Harrison's perspective, that there aren't enough genre publications in general that are all that interested in The Other?" And he's rewarded in the comments on that piece with a visit from the man himself, who elucidates further on his original polemic: "To me, the very word 'fantasy' is what's at issue here, & my rant really asks the question, 'How do we bring the fantastic back to fantasy?' ... It's my contention that, by normalising and rationalising 'myth' and 'magic' the sub-genre you call 'non-weird populist' fantasy has become actually anti-fantastic. As a result, the appetite for the genuinely fantastic is less well served."

And finally, a certain Mr GBH Hornswoggler, Gent. is terribly, terribly bored by yet another debate on the death of quality genre fiction. Well dammit Mr Hornswoggler, but if we all spent as much time reading and writing blogs as you do then we'd all be just as well-informed and just as adroitly cynical about the whole jejune mess, I'm sure. But until that happy day, you'll just have to excuse some of us for being shallow... ;)

Mind you, our Mr H also makes a rather important point, opening with: "Insert my standard rant about the world primarily needing books that real readers will want to spend their own money on." Yes, this is exactly what we do need. As I posted in the comments thread back on Mr Chadbourn's original piece this morning: 'Without a receptive audience, any brave pioneers leaving the beaten track will run the risk of ending up in the literary wilderness - legends in their own literary lifetime, perhaps, but more than likely unable to sustain a decent income.'

So what we need to do is prime the readers to be more receptive to the sort of quality work that we're all pretty much in agreement here about wanting to see.

Again, more on that later in the week. Hopefully.

Comments

5 Responses to 'More follow-ups and reaction to the current 'quality fantasy' debate'

The Quality Fantasy Debate « Failed Sutra on October 9th, 2007 6:10 pm

[...] And it's all been summarised, for now, on Ariel's Genre Files site. [...]
gavsstudio on October 10th, 2007 1:05 pm

My problem with Epic fantasy is that you have to make a huge commitment to it. It's 900 pages of wondering around doing nothing exciting. And that's only Book 1!

Cut it down people. If you can't tell your story in 600 pages or less (preferably much less) per book I ain't likely to finish you. Simple as that.

Mark Chadbourn manages brilliant fantasy tales that are sweeeping in their ideas but are controlled in what is explained/explored. So does Garth Nix, JK Rowling's earlier books were much better for being tighter.

Dave Duncan, I've enjoyed in his Great Game Trilogy, three books and you're done. Storm Constantine had to be cut in her last Grigori Trilogy. James Stoddard told a brilliant tale in his two-part High House/False House Books,

Four hour films aren't that watchable even if it is Lord of Rings.

I'm a more of them same reader and a ooo this is new reader. I don't really mind as long as the writing is tight, the story is controlled, and I don't have to put up with pages and pages and pages of non-important story.

The quality and readers I think will improve when we get more books that are more accessible. Think Pratchett most of his books are set in the same universe it helps to have read some of them before but you don't have to.

End of rant and I'm probably on my own but long books put me off no matter how many people love them.
Ariel on October 11th, 2007 11:16 am

Actually Gav, I'm with you on the book length issue. I can read a 900 page book if it holds may attention, but with so little actual reading time these days (since I started working from home 18 months ago and lost a 40-min each way tram commute it's been slashed to ribbons) I really do have to pick and choose.

As a result I've tended to pick shorter novels, or collections of short ficiton, for preference because it enables me to feed my craving for variety. So I haven't read the last two Steven Erikson Malazan books (and probably won't be reading Cam Esslemont's Raturn of the Crimson Guard, which Pete at PS Publishing tells me hasan absolute monster word-count) and neither have I read the latest in George Martin's Song of Ice and Fire, despite those two being among my very favourite ongoing series.

Which may sound daft, but we live in the Long Tail age of almost infinite choice and ever-scarcer time resources, so choices just have to be made.

So yes, I too would rather my favourite authors wrote tightly-plotted, concise 300-400 page novels (or even novellas!) rather than 600-page monsters. And I'm sure we're not alone...
Why Do People Read? « Failed Sutra on October 24th, 2007 5:53 pm

[...] up certain debates doing the rounds, I can't help but think of one essential question at the [...]
Jeff C on November 6th, 2007 5:41 pm

I actually dont have a problem with the length of books, but with the publishing delay between books. Its hard for some folks (myself included) to build up interest in a series knowing that it might be 5-10 years before we get a conclusion. Back in the 80s and 90s, it seemed like authors turned out 1 book per year..sometimes more. Now, we have to wait a miniumum of one year, sometimes 2-4 for the next book. I know some of this is due to writer speed, but sometimes its also due to the publisher wanting to fit the book into a schedule. For instance, I heard that the latest JV Jones book was ready in early 2006, but just came out last month. And I believe Daniel Abraham's series is complete, but we still have a year to wait between each of the last 2 books.

I dont think is a coincidence that the Karen Miller series, and Naomi Novik's first 3 books sold so well here in the US..each book in the series was released 1 month apart..so readers knew that they would have the succeeding books to read in a rapid time frame. If I am sitting on a fence about a series..knowing that it is being published rapidly gives me incentive to try the first book (whereas i might wait until later books are released to jump into book 1).