Fantasy Book Club discussion
General Chit-Chat
>
How is the writing quality in fantasy
I don't think that genre has much to do with an author's writing skill or talent for imagination. In my experience, it all boils down to ratios. There is a ratio-let's, for argument's sake, say it's 80:20 (bad-to-mediocre:good-to-exceptional). This ratio, in my belief, holds true across all genres of writing, and indeed, across all trades, arts, and professions. It basically represents my personal theory that only a certain relatively small percentage of people care enough (or have enough natural talent) to excel at their job. Most of the rest drift endlessly along the shoals of mediocrity, while some are truly bad at their jobs.To my mind, it doesn't matter what genre you prefer, the majority of what's out there is crap, and the more popular a given genre is, the more crap it will have. However, the RATIO of bad:good stays the same, so if a genre is popular, there will also be more good writing in that genre as more authors decide to write within the genre.
As far as Rothfuss is concerned, I believe that it's difficult to write the opposite sex in a convincing manner. Rothfuss, although a fine writer, is certainly not alone in this. I have noticed, however, that it seems much more common to rag on a male author for his "sexist" portrayal of female chracters than to traduce a female author for a lackluster portrayal of male characters.
Why is this?
Bryan wrote: "I have noticed, however, that it seems much more common to rag on a male author for his "sexist" portrayal of female characters than to traduce a female author for a lackluster portrayal of male characters."This applies to unskilled portrayals versus sexist ones, by authors of both sexes: Because being unskilled/lackluster in portraying someone of the opposite sex has to do with one's abilities as a writer, whereas portraying biased or outright harmful stereotypes of an opposite-sex character may be done by a writer who's either skilled or unskilled.
The ratio of harm caused is very different; a lackluster or unconvincing character bores the reader, whereas one that's bigoted in some way introduces or reinforces some genuinely malignant attitudes and behaviors. Come to think of it, that might be the one time that an unskilled writer is to be desired, at least for me--if s/he's set on portraying sexist stereotypes, the less skilled, the better.
And speaking of skill, I agree with you on the 80/20 ratio of good/average-to-bad in any profession, generally speaking. Until yesterday I would've said it was true for all writers as well, but I read a thread elsewhere that made it seem that the ratio for self-published authors is very different. (Which rather upset me. I haven't submitted yet, but I'm not arrogant enough to think there's no chance of me self-publishing.)
The 80:20 rule seems quite universal in its application. Yes, a vast majority of books in a bookstore are below par, and none of them are self-published. Somehow, 'par' inexplicably positions itself around the 80 percentile mark :-)One would expect that to be higher (say, 90-95 percentile) for self published books simply because there are no filters. I say this having self published.
But coming back to my earlier point, I seem to feel that fantasy writers are better at some emotions and not so good at others. I may feel so because I read more fantasy authors (even some middling ones) due to my interest in the genre as a writer. I am more picky about what I read in other genres.
Bryan wrote: "... much more common to rag on a male author for his "sexist" portrayal of female characters than to traduce a female author for a lackluster portrayal of male characters.Why is this?..."
Good question. I've seen female authors criticized for other reasons, but cant think of one ragged for portraying male characters poorly. Lets see what others say.
I think you should take into consideration where the story is happening. If its a woman writing in woman's dominated genre, then all the other women are think its all right. Don't see much wrong with it. But if a guy takes a look at the same story, he's going to see something horribly off with those girly boys. Lol.Its also a question of positive discrimination. Meaning that a woman commits less of a 'crime' portraying girly boys. When a man gets is wrong, then we all scream sexism and what not.
Its also interesting to see how women and men write sex scenes. Generally speaking, female author has less of it, but with more sugary emotions and connotations happening all the time, even when there is nothing psychical going on. And the scene stretches across 5 pages going in flowery details.
A guy author is more technical and physical.
As for me, Erikson managed to get a huge variety of emotions from me, and in his newest book Forge of darkness even more so, as the focus on characters got more intimate... e.g. love - in his novels, it often fails against life itself and its hardships, but when it eventually works out, it is all the deeper and heartedly felt... I mean, who wouldnt shed a warm tear at the stories of Onos Toolan and Hetan, Korlat and Whiskeyjack, or my fav, Crokus and Apsalar?
Does portrayal of emotions change whether a book is in first, second or third person? Say Rothfuss for an example. The reader sees the female characters through Kvothe's eyes. He may not be the must objective observer when it comes to women. So I guess that makes a difference for me. I can understand a more slanted portrayal when the reader only gets to see through one character's eyes.I have not read Robert Jordan but my husband loves the books and says they are the best portrayals of both sexes that he has run across in fantasy. Do you guys agree?
A lot of fantasy authors do seem good at the big, epic emotions. Since many of them are writing big epics that makes sense. In the grand scheme of things the smaller emotions get lost.
Regarding my earlier post about wrting charcters of the opposite sex, you make a very good point, Sumi, about the difference between a poor charcterization and a sexist one. I suppose that my beef with the whole thing is that I feel that many women unfairly criticize male authors as sexist, when in reality they may just be lazy or less skilled writers. I don't want to say that there is no sexism in the genre(John Norman's Gor novels raise their ugly heads here), but really, this is no longer the early twentieth century, and most authors who hold sexist views wisely know to keep these views largely to themselves. Also, actual sexism has decreased dramatically since the 1960's. So the idea that there are still so many sexist authors strikes me as pretty unlikely.Going back to the original question about writing emotions, I see love as the most epic of all emotions, and love is a huge part of many of the most epic fantasy series(that I've read), so I don't really see that love gets overlooked in fantasy just because it is one of the so-called gentler emotions. I also think Amanda may have a point about first-person versus limited omniscient perspectives, and I believe this point carries over into the debate about portrayal of emotion. It's easier for an author to portray, and thus a reader to identify with, emotion when it's conveyed through a first-person narrative. Perhaps this affects how we read emotion in fantasy(not sure how, but just throwing it out there).
Also Amanda, I've read all the Wheel Of Time books and enjoyed(most of) them, but for my money, they were probably the worst portrayals of men and women I've ever read in fantasy.
Bryan wrote: "Regarding my earlier post about wrting charcters of the opposite sex, you make a very good point, Sumi, about the difference between a poor charcterization and a sexist one. I suppose that my beef..."I don't know where you live, but if it's in the US, surely you're aware that sexism is very much alive and well.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "I don't know where you live, but if it's in the US, surely you're aware that sexism is very much alive and well. "I think he covered that there is the possibility of sexism in the beginning of his paragraph.
The issue is perspective in that regard. One person may see sexism while another sees a lazy writer. One reader may see a flat character that looks like any other woman character, while another reader may see a character written daringly by the author.
I regards to the original topic, I would say the darker emotions are more readily used in modern fantasy simply because that is the expectation of the masses. Sadly, the masses are not the readers of fantasy, so it is difficult to include the lighter, softer emotions and still have a larger fan-base. If a fantasy novel is dark and mysterious, it fits the genre and so is read by those who expect that kind of atmosphere in a fantasy. Trying to fit humor and proper romance into fantasy confuses those who do not expect it, and sadly pushes them away unless the plot and character development is exemplary.
Bryan wrote: "I suppose that my beef with the whole thing is that I feel that many women unfairly criticize male authors as sexist, when in reality they may just be lazy or less skilled writers."Ah. I see what you mean, Bryan. When you put it that way, it does seem unfair. The only thing I can think of to explain that is that when a writer of any sex is lazy or unskilled, s/he has a tendency to reply on stereotypes. In the case of women portraying men, the dominant stereotypes may be flat (alpha male, joker/clown, misfit/loner, terribly earnest chap, etc.), but most aren't seen as negative. When the shoe is on the other foot, however, and men rely on female stereotypes, the ones that have been immortalized in literature are mostly unflattering (shrew, whore, madonna, good little wife, etc.). Et voila...instant negative portrayal, even if that isn't the intent at all.
My experience with the WOT books (I only managed to make it through the first four) matched yours; I found the male/female portrayals lacking in both dynamic and dimension.
Amanda, I think you're right in that it's much easier to excuse a biased portrayal if it's in first-person rather than omniscient. The biased first-person stuff may lead me to distrust the character's views on/relationships to women, but for the most part, unless they're really malignant I tend to attribute sexist views in first-person to a sexist character...not a sexist author.
Rana wrote: " I would say the darker emotions are more readily used in modern fantasy simply because that is the expectation of the masses. Sadly, the masses are not the readers of fantasy, so it is difficult to include the lighter, softer emotions and still have a larger fan-base..."I agree. Most fantasy writers would have been avid fantasy readers first. And that could have shaped their writing style and skill with emotions. It is therefore not surprising that they are much better in depicting 'typical fantasy' emotions.
Very good points made about the stigmas attached to female stereotypes, Sumi. I hadn't ever considered literary archetypes in this way before, mainly because whenever I spotted characters who were merely thin stereotypes I simply thought to myself, "Stereotype. Bad writing," and moved on. Thanks for giving me the feminine perspective.With regards to writing emotion in fantasy, I'm still not convinced that fantasy authors suffer a deficit in this area. Hobb is a brilliant example of a fantasy author who can do it all. (As an aside, I will say that comparing Rothfuss with her isn't totally fair. Hobb has something like 15 books under her belt, plus another 10 under her other pen name AND a short story anthology. Rothfuss just put out his second novel a year or two ago. The more you do, the better you get. At anything.) But Robin Hobb is not the only author portraying emotion well. You want humour? Check out Fritz Leiber's Fahfrd And The Grey Mouser saga. Romance? The first books with romance in them that I actually enjoyed reading about were Tad Williams' Memory, Sorrow, And Thorn trilogy. You just have to look to the best authors in the genre, instead of any old thing you pick up in the fantasy section of your nearest bookstore(or the sidebar ads on Goodreads!).
Just entering into the conversation here. First I want to say that Robert Jordon is TERRIBLE at portraying the sexes--his women are nagging, screaming harridans and his men are clueless and dumb. I agree that Robin Hobb is a skilled writer in all accounts including her portrayal of gender. (and be aware that she writes not only under that name but other names as well and has been around quite a long time).I actually think fantasy does a better job than some genres in portraying genders--say romance. Or horror. yes, the darker emotions tend to be better depicted, but this fits the plotlines and the atmospheres of most fantasy. In most fantasy the hero/ine is facing A BIG DARK EVIL so there's a lot of fear, anger, despair, etc. Gentler emotions are often not the focus of the plot as they might be in romance, women's fiction or other genres. Emotions in fantasy tend to be exaggerated because the threats are exaggerated.
I do admit that romance is often clunky in fantasy, which is a shame. Romance is difficult to write in any genre, I think--I see similar problems in thrillers and science fiction.
Bryan wrote:"...whenever I spotted characters who were merely thin stereotypes I simply thought to myself, "Stereotype. Bad writing," and moved on."Which seems to me to be the appropriate response, Bryan. If only all readers were so discerning; the negative stereotypes--of sex, race, sexual identity, etc.--would die the obscure death they deserve.
Judy wrote: "Just entering into the conversation here. First I want to say that Robert Jordon is TERRIBLE at portraying the sexes--his women are nagging, screaming harridans and his men are clueless and dumb. I..."
I agree with you on Robert Jordan's women and men; the characterizations and dynamics were like fingernails on chalkboard after a while.
I'm not sure I agree that fantasy does a better job in portraying genders than romance; I *am* sure that the stereotypes are different, and that I tend to find the fantasy ones less condescending to women (mostly). I've found well-portrayed gender dynamics in both fantasy and romance, but frankly I think you're right in that romantic relationships are difficult to write in *any* genre--general literature, mystery, thrillers, etc. It's one of the most complex human dynamics in existence (along with, I think, sibling relationships, which are just as multilayered and long-lived--and well-written ones are just as rare).
I also agree that, given the usual 'quest' structure in fantasy--overt conquering of some outside threat/force--the focus on the negative emotions that come with such struggles is natural. Joy and triumph are usually reserved for the end, and so don't seem to require as much description.
Yes, joy comes at the end and there is little need for much description. But given the abundance of despair and evil before that, there should be ample room for hope too, should an author chose to dwell upon it. What drives Frodo & Sam after they get separated from the others is hope.And there is always room for love. And it does not have to be of the man-woman variety.
I would very much like to read a fantasy novel where these softer emotions are portrayed well. Any suggestions? My initial observation on emotions was based on currently popular fantasy authors like Sanderson, Rothfuss, Weeks, Salvatore etc.
Well Kevan, there's a great old classic fantasy novel by James Branch Cabell called Jurgen. It's about a man in search of love in fantastical places, and it's funny, sexy, and as far as I know, it's a stand-alone.I hope you check it out!
Bryan wrote: "Well Kevan, there's a great old classic fantasy novel by James Branch Cabell called Jurgen. It's about a man in search of love in fantastical places, and it's funny, sexy, and as far as I know, it..."Thanks, Bryan. Haven't heard of this author. Will check it out - just looked it up on Wiki. I am a little tired of the monotony of current fantasy books. I take refuge in Pratchett and in other genres. Jurgen sounds like a good break.
Please do suggest good old fantasy novels - I'd love to read some.
If it's older fantasy you're interested in, I know of a few good ones. I'm really into seeking out the origins of things, as they are so often(but not always) so much better than anything derived from them.If you're interested in reading some stuff by the guy who literally coined the phrase "sword and sorcery", check out the Fafhrd And The Grey Mouser series by Fritz Leiber. The first book is called Swords And Deviltry, and although it's not the best of the series, it does provide a good introduction to the characters. This is sword and sorcery at its finest, with tons of wit, magnificent prose, fast-paced action and scenes and settings which speak of an incredibly ripe imagination.
If you like old-school quest-driven fantasy, try The Worm Ouroboros by E.R. Eddison. This is a flawed book, which nevertheless contains a compelling tale of epic proportions; a tale so epic, that when the heroes complete it, they want to do it over again!
I would be remiss if I didn't also recommend Tales Of A Dying Earth by Jack Vance. I actually laughed out loud when I read some of these, which doesn't happen very often to me. A heads up; the first story, The Dying Earth, is nothing at all like the other three.
In my opinion, they just don't make books like these anymore.
Thanks, Bryan.Given the minuscule fantasy market in India, one is not exposed to enough authors. It is so important to read original trend setters (rather than formulaic ones) to learn to write better.
Will try the ones you suggest. Have started on Jurgen. Couldn't find it in bookstores, but realised that it is in public domain, and downloaded it from Gutenberg.
Cool. I'll add you as a friend so I can read your reviews when you're done.
In terms purely of prose, the quality of writing in the fantasy genre is in general exceedingly low. I think a part of this is the tendency to adopt a slightly archaic fauxdieval tone both in dialogue and to a lesser extent in narration - which would be fine, except that most modern authors, naturally enough, aren't entirely comfortable in that register, so it comes out clunky and inconsistent. Another part is that the fantasy genre is traditionally friendly to very, very long stories, which means there's less pressure to get every word right. Someone like GRRM, for instance, I think is no more than passable as a prose stylist, but it doesn't matter that he can't convey as vivid a picture of something in a simple description as some authors, because unlike them GRRM's allowed to describe the same place or the same characters a thousand times over, or to devote more pages to a single minor scene than authors outside the genre would be able to devote to a major plot development. It also probably doesn't help that the fantasy genre is relatiely ghettoised - a lot of fantasy readers just read fantasy, so they don't really know what else is out there, so they don't demand as much in terms of prose.
Wastrel wrote: "In terms purely of prose, the quality of writing in the fantasy genre is in general exceedingly low. I think a part of this is the tendency to adopt a slightly archaic fauxdieval tone both in dialo..."not everybody has to write like Elliot or Joyce to write well... or add multiple ends to a novel... or whatever postmodern c... gets out these days... I dont get whats so bad about slightly archaic stuff
I thoroughly enjoyed GRRM btw, and Erikson even more at times...
ghettoised... not that many I suppose - I read fantasy, and besides that historical non-fiction mostly... which was something that both GRRM and Erikson stirred me to read :)
Did I say anything about Elliot [sic] or Joyce, or multiple ends to a novel, or postmodernism? The last two in particular have nothing to do with what I said, since I specified that I was talking "in terms purely of prose", NOT in terms of plot, structure, themes, or anything like that.
[I'm not sure what writing prose like Eliot would entail, since I don't think he wrote any prose fiction.]
In terms of the genre, I'd mention people like Margo Lanagan, Christopher Priest, Gene Wolfe, GK Chesterton, Ursula LeGuin, or Alfred Bester. In particular, Lanagan's prose isn't just beautiful, it's seemingly whatever she wants it to be. But not very much like Joyce.
I told you what was bad about the archaic stuff - the fact that most authors don't seem entirely comfortable with it, so it becomes clunky and inconsistent, particular when they start out [Hell, just compare the prose quality between A Game of Thrones and A Dance With Dragons!]. If you're not completely comfortable with a certain register, you're going to struggle to be completely in command of your prose. And even if you master the register, it's not the native register of your audience either, which makes it harder to have the right impact on them.
There's really no need for fans of any particular author to insist that their people are perfect in every way. Prose in fantasy novels usually isn't that good - it doesn't have to be, that's not what people come to fantasy for in most cases. A writer like Lanagan can make you cry more for nameless character introduced two pages earlier in a short story than most epic fantasy authors can wring out of you for a tragic end for your favourite character after ten books of build-up... but the guy writing the epic probably has other skills instead, in plotting and in structure and pacing and deep characterisation and misdirection and so forth. [Eg Lanagan's novels, themselves quite short by fantasy standards, in my opinion read like the novels of someone who's better at writing short stories.]
Wastrel wrote: "In terms purely of prose, the quality of writing in the fantasy genre is in general exceedingly low. I think a part of this is the tendency to adopt a slightly archaic fauxdieval tone both in dialo..."Fair points, Wastrel, particularly the one about the impact of length. I largely read crime and literary apart from SFF. So I don't have as wide a perspective as I perhaps should. But I do feel that modern fantasy authors tend to focus more on the world and magic system than on the prose or economy of words.
Sometimes, I wonder if it is fair to compare the prose of yesteryear authors and the current ones. The expectations of an author are very different now. You mentioned GK Chesterton. He is one of the authors I liked for both prose and plot. Christie, of instance, wrote simply and almost invisibly - something I appreciate whenever I read clunky language that comes in the way.
Generally, I'd put writing in 3 buckets:
1. Skillful writing that moves you with eloquence. It has beauty.
2. Adequate writing that doesn't come in the way, and is invisible.
3. Bad writing that distracts from story. Often uses more cuss words than needed.
I'm finding a lot of #3 lately, and it may not be genre specific. I've read some recent thrillers that fall into that category. Authors tend to create 'tension' where none exists, by using unnecessarily confrontational language that sticks out like a sore thumb. Friends who read romance seem to lament about crass language there.
Though I agree with some of your points, Wastrel, I must say that GRRM is better than passable as a far as prose is concerned. While he may not be on the level of Mervyn Peake, he's surely more "good" than "passable". Not trying to say he's perfect as a stylist, either, and I'm also not saying that his prose is amazing, but I feel that "passable" is a little unfair.In terms of the reasons people come to fantasy and what they expect out of it, I think you're quite right. Fantasy is essentially a mythopoeic genre, and thus prose style is weighted more lightly relative to other attributes in the fantasy author. This is because in myth, unlike in what is somewhat erroneously termed "literary fiction", the words do not embody the essence of the theme or story of the myth. In myth, what is most important is the events; the events are the body of the myth, as the words are the body of the poem. When one thinks of a particular myth, one is generally thinking of what transpired in the story, not of the words which a specific author or poet used to tell that same story.
In this way, the fantasy author is rightfully most concerned with plotting, character, and structure, and less concerned with economy of prose or other prose stylings. His/her primary job is to tell a story whose events stay with the reader long after the reader has put down the book and forgotten the words. Some do this better than others, and the best can also throw in some great prose, but that's icing on the cake as far as most fantasy readers are concerned.
what im not particularly liking here is that fantasy readers, from some of viewpoints expressed here in this thread, might seem like ppl who read for the sake of story and dont really give much damn about prose... like... fun and relax readingas for GRRM, I liked him not only cos of story and whatnot, but also how he utilised the language... and this "economy of words"... while I see the point in modern promoting of it, too often do I find wordy books being called at like this could be cut down to this and that size... I mean, yea, there are indeed authors wasting words, but sometimes ppl sound as if long automatically meant either bad or lesser quality writing
as for Erikson, I feel the quality of writing goes up with each new book of his, and while Deadhouse gates remains my probably fav, gotta admit that Forge of darkness was a pretty matured offering
I agree that long doesn't automatically mean bad. WOT now exceeds 4 million words, and I don't hear many complain about the quality of writing. The second book of Kingkiller Chronicles is long, but the prose was perhaps the only thing I liked in it (the first book was different).But take Christopher Paolini for instance. The first book was very different from the others in terms of usage of words. As the series went on, it seemed to me that he used three words when one would suffice. I thought the writing deteriorated with each book and he rambled. Absence of a word count ceiling may have been one factor. Granted that he was pretty young then, but his editor/publisher (who are also responsible) didn't seem to weigh in to correct it.
Does writing quality reflect the quality of the language of the time? There could be an argument that English in general has declined in quality. Movies, Internet speak and books sometimes feel to me like they have lost ability to use words effectively.I don't know if they have though. Languages change and adapt and modern writing styles may be different because the English language is not the same now as it was twenty years ago. Some novels that we consider classics were not considered literature at the time.
I guess I see writing style as a reflection of the times. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Only time will tell.
I see adequate prose in fantasy books and series. Robert Jordan was a great descriptive author, but falls into the "no-adverbs" trap. It's not an adjective if you misuse it - it's a misused adverb and it's grating. Great prose in Fantasy comes from those who created the genre - they are, by no means, "modern."Personally, I don't think the genre attracts authors of prose. With few exceptions, Fantasy is a formulaic genre. The best prose I've read come from non-formulaic authors. Haruki Murakami comes to mind as his books don't fit into genre. In fact you could consider some of his to be fantasy, though that seems far fetched to me. Similarly, Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go is categorized as Sci-Fi; it is anything but.
I guess what my point boils down to is: it depends on what you consider Fantasy. I personally disclude Urban Fantasy completely from the genre. Rings, Swords, and Monsters: Exploring Fantasy Literature (eAudiobook) is a great audio course that boils down the genre. Maybe excluding certain types of Fantasy is counterproductive, but I think you can find much better prose in these outliers than in the Tolkein influenced work - which is ironic given the extent of Tolkein's own prose.
I have to object to the idea that fantasy is a formulaic genre. There are many fine, fine fantasy writers who write stories that are far from formulaid. To name a few: Guy Gavriel Kay, Janny Wurts, Patricia A McKillip, Catherynne M Valente, Carol Berg... need I go on?
Kathy wrote: "Good fantasy is not formulaic. But there is a lot of formulaic fantasy out there."Of course there is. There is junk in every genre. And a lot of bad writing in every genre.
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Good fantasy is not formulaic. But there is a lot of formulaic fantasy out there."Of course there is. There is junk in every genre. And a lot of bad writing in every genre."
Sturgeon's Law applies.
J.D. wrote: "Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Good fantasy is not formulaic. But there is a lot of formulaic fantasy out there."Of course there is. There is junk in every genre. And a lot of bad writin..."
LOL, yes!
Wow, I just joined this group and I have to say that fantasy fans discuss books from a higher level of scrunity and thought process than other groups. These threads are excellent.
Deonna wrote: "Wow, I just joined this group and I have to say that fantasy fans discuss books from a higher level of scrunity and thought process than other groups. These threads are excellent."We have a great group going! Thanks to some articulate members.
Many of my favorite fantasy authors have advanced literary degrees and teach at universities. They are excellent writers. When I take a break from the fantasy genre to read popular mystery/thriller novels, I notice a big drop in writing quality.
Yesterday, I would have said that authors that write fantasy are more original and better writers than others. Today, after finishing Neil Gaiman´s American Gods, I think they´re not better than any other paranormal writer, be it middle grade, YA or adult. All the same. Using mythological beasts, characters (gods, people). Not original, just simple. I thought more of Mr. Gaiman. Usually, I give less than a star to books with mythology in it (especially if nordic), but this time I´ve made an exception.
Interesting discussion! Are we talking indie fantasy or traditionally-published fantasy? Because I think there's a lot of great stuff - and a lot of rubbish - in both areas.I don't want to generalise, but it's been my experience that a lot of indie stuff suffers from bad editing. Some authors seem to be in a rush to release their work at the expense of quality. That said, even a well-edited story can seem like a waste of ink if the writing's not up to much (I found The Night Circus a total yawn-fest).
In terms of quality of writing, some of the most beautiful books I've read have edged into the realm of fantasy. The Song of Achilles is one of the starkest, most deftly-written stories I've ever come across. Robin Jarvis also puts my vocabulary to shame on a regular basis - he has a knack for finding the perfect word to describe something. He's been accused of being overly flowery, but there's no denying his descriptions are to die for.
We are taking about traditional publishing (at least that how I started the thread).Compared to other genres, fantasy writers have two additional devices at their disposal - the world and the magic system. Does the availability of additional devices affect the other devices?
Logically, it should not, as Rothfuss and Hobb have shown. But there are critics who feel that putting together a new world and magic system suffices for a book to sell, even if the writing is indifferent.
Scott wrote: "....When I take a break from the fantasy genre to read popular mystery/thriller novels, I notice a big drop in writing quality. "I agree 100%. Not a huge fan of the mystery/thriller genre, but the few I have read were not written well at all. I have always had this thought in my head that there were Writers and there were Authors. There are also some Writers have have flashes of being Authors. I am glad that some of these great Authors who have been mentioned in previous posts, chose the fantasy genre! (Or maybe the fantasy genre chose them but that's a whole 'nother discussion!)
I am glad that I am not the only one who has had problems with the qualtiy of writing and the writing styles of fantasy authors.
For me, the prose is an important part of the book. Poor writing can cause me to stop reading a book, even if it has received good reviews in terms of plot and characterization. Someone mentioned that fantasy readers do not readers do not read for the good writing quality and style, but for plot, events and characters. I think this leads to authors putting more emphasis on what the readers want and then they begin neglecting the prose. In my opinion, this shows that the author is not taking pride in his/her work, and is not putting effort into writing a beautiful story, but into writing a book that will sell well. Do these authors only want money, not the satisfaction of knowing that they have written a wonderful book? Why are the readers who want a well written book still reading (and buying) these books with worse than mediocre writing?
Kevan wrote: "Generally, I'd put writing in 3 buckets:
1. Skillful writing that moves you with eloquence. It has beauty.
2. Adequate writing that doesn't come in the way, and is invisible.
3. Bad writing that distracts from story. Often uses more cuss words than needed."
I definitely agree with this. I would put Susanna Clarke (I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell) and J.R.R. Tolkien into the first bucket.
The second bucket: Brandon Sanderson, Robert Jordan.
Third bucket: Joe Abercrombie and Tom Lloyd, and maybe even Glen Cook. One of the main problems that stood out when I was reading Best Served Cold was that Abercrombie often wtires many lines of direct speech without saying whao says what. This confuses me and then I have to spend a minute or two figuring out which character siad which line. Cook's writing can be described as sparse. I did not make it past the 4th chapter of Chronicles of the Black Company.
As for pronfanity, Lloyd and Abercrombie use way too much for my liking. I know that it can be effective sometimes, but then it must be used very rarely. Although I first found Sanderson and Jordan's use of world-specific swearing a bit strange, I quickly became used to it and I can see why they do it. Am I the only one that feels swearing (using our "conventional" swear words) does not really belong in fantasy writing?
For me, the prose is an important part of the book. Poor writing can cause me to stop reading a book, even if it has received good reviews in terms of plot and characterization. Someone mentioned that fantasy readers do not readers do not read for the good writing quality and style, but for plot, events and characters. I think this leads to authors putting more emphasis on what the readers want and then they begin neglecting the prose. In my opinion, this shows that the author is not taking pride in his/her work, and is not putting effort into writing a beautiful story, but into writing a book that will sell well. Do these authors only want money, not the satisfaction of knowing that they have written a wonderful book? Why are the readers who want a well written book still reading (and buying) these books with worse than mediocre writing?
Kevan wrote: "Generally, I'd put writing in 3 buckets:
1. Skillful writing that moves you with eloquence. It has beauty.
2. Adequate writing that doesn't come in the way, and is invisible.
3. Bad writing that distracts from story. Often uses more cuss words than needed."
I definitely agree with this. I would put Susanna Clarke (I really enjoyed Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell) and J.R.R. Tolkien into the first bucket.
The second bucket: Brandon Sanderson, Robert Jordan.
Third bucket: Joe Abercrombie and Tom Lloyd, and maybe even Glen Cook. One of the main problems that stood out when I was reading Best Served Cold was that Abercrombie often wtires many lines of direct speech without saying whao says what. This confuses me and then I have to spend a minute or two figuring out which character siad which line. Cook's writing can be described as sparse. I did not make it past the 4th chapter of Chronicles of the Black Company.
As for pronfanity, Lloyd and Abercrombie use way too much for my liking. I know that it can be effective sometimes, but then it must be used very rarely. Although I first found Sanderson and Jordan's use of world-specific swearing a bit strange, I quickly became used to it and I can see why they do it. Am I the only one that feels swearing (using our "conventional" swear words) does not really belong in fantasy writing?
Ross wrote: "Am I the only one that feels swearing (using our "conventional" swear words) does not really belong in fantasy writing?..."Guess it comes down to choice, Ross. Personally, I don't appreciate swearing in any genre. JK Rowling's Cuckoo's Calling, for instance, turned me off for that reason. I would have liked Lies of Locke Lamora a lot more had it had less swearing.
But there are any number of readers who disagree. Many feel it is a necessity that brings realism to the book.
I really don't mind swearing in books that I'm reading.But it can be a pain if I'm listening to an audio book and my daughter walks in.
She's old enough and has probably heard worse at school but it still very annoying.
But in fantasy you often find some writers like Sanderson come up with there own swear words that you know what it translates to. And that's fine with me.
I still couldn't knock the lies of Locke any stars because of the swearing.
I think cuckoos calling uses the dreaded c word if I'm not mistaken. And believe me it is a word you hear around more and more in the streets!
But still made me wince coming from Jkr.
I read a fair bit of horror too but I sort of expect it in that genre.
Ross do you not feel that the characters should be as real as poss.A lot of people swear a lot of the time.
And even when you make up your own swear words in book the meaning behind them is the same. They are only words after all that we deem to be taboo?
Maybe it wasn't obvious, but what I meant was that I do not feel that the normal swear words people use belong in fantasy. In my opinion, the made up swear words add more realism to the world and characters.
I'm not a huge fan of swearing in fantasy, or any genre really. I think it's all personal preference though. I think some authors do it to make their story gritty and realistic, but sometimes I feel that it's a bit overdone.
Ross wrote: "Maybe it wasn't obvious, but what I meant was that I do not feel that the normal swear words people use belong in fantasy. In my opinion, the made up swear words add more realism to the world and c..."Why? The whole of the rest of their speech has been 'translated' into contemporary English, why shouldn't the swearwords be?
Wastrel wrote: "Ross wrote: "Maybe it wasn't obvious, but what I meant was that I do not feel that the normal swear words people use belong in fantasy. In my opinion, the made up swear words add more realism to th..."I get what you are saying, but what if the characters have things that are more worthy of becoming a profanity, especially if the character is not human. I made up swear words that made sense to the character/species, but they are real Englsih words. It's just somethat that the character finds profane. So, yes, I agree with Ross.
I don't mind a sprinkling of profanity in any book, but I have read some where it becomes redundant and loses impact. Much like in real-life, that just makes the character sound childish. I guess that's fine if it is what the author intends.
It comes down to taste, and there is an audience for every book. The issue is to find your portion of the library.
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lies of Locke Lamora (other topics)Chronicles of the Black Company (other topics)
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell (other topics)
Best Served Cold (other topics)
The Night Circus (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Robert Jordan (other topics)Glen Cook (other topics)
Susanna Clarke (other topics)
J.R.R. Tolkien (other topics)
Brandon Sanderson (other topics)
More...
My own view is that the 'darker' emotions like anger, hatred and fear are depicted better than softer emotions such as hope & love. While there are exceptions, I think this hold true for the larger part of fantasy writers. And if I drill down into love as an example, I find some authors a tad inept at depicting & handling female characters and their emotions.
A scan of reader reviews suggests that Rothfuss's and Hobb's writing styles are appreciated more that others'. Even there, Rothfuss's female characters have come in for a lot of criticism.
So, what do people think? How are fantasy writers at handing emotions when compared to writers of other genres?