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

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.

October 9, 2007 | Filed Under Writing | 5 Comments

Exo-review: Dave Hebblethwaite on The Solaris Book of New SF

David Hebblethwaite, a fine fellow who used to contribute regular and always-thoughtful reviews to the old TAO site, has a review of The Solaris Book of New Science Fiction - which I mentioned myself a while back - posted over at SFSite.com.

It's interesting to note that we seem to share pretty much the same opinion about most of the content; particularly in the case of James Lovegrove's 'The Bowdler Strain' and Stephen Baxter's 'Last Contact'. Although in the case of the latter, whilst Dave and I both agree that it was an extremely powerful tale from an emotional and cathartic point of view, he had problems with the inherent science of the story, which I had to admit wasn't something that even crossed my radar when I was reading it.

I confess, though: I do have an extremely un-scientific background and so I do tend to read short fiction - even short science fiction - much more for the interaction of the characters than for whatever speculative and / or extrapolative scientific elements might be used to support the narrative. To be honest, I'm generally quite happy if everything is black-boxed neatly away, just so long as the principle protagonists are interesting.

All-in-all it's a very fair and well-balanced review with some good, solid analysis from Dave; worth reading if you're contemplating
picking up the anthology (which you jolly well should be...)

Edit, 17.04.07 Via the always-excellent Velcro City Tourist Board, a link to a David Soyka penned Strange Horizons review that compares and contrasts the Solaris Book of New Science Fiction with Pyr's Fast Forward 1: Future Fiction from the Cutting Edge. Interesting reading again, well worth a look.