Fantasy Book Club discussion
Archived threads
>
Are we Seeing the Emergence of a new Kind of Fantasy?
date
newest »
newest »
Colin,I think that you are 100% correct. I haven't read Weeks, but have read almost all of the work by the other authors and am so excited about my favorite genre. Its grittier, less predictable, engaging, and thought provoking. I would also add Brian Ruckley to the list.
Yes, I notice that fantasy is becoming grittier and more realistic. I personally like this trend. Makes for better storytelling IMO. It's definitely a really good time for fantasy right now. Perhaps even a new golden age. I'm pleased to see many new authors coming out with debut novels that are compelling and original, redefining the genre, but at the same time embracing what makes fantasy great in the first place with that sense of escapism. It's a very exciting time for this genre.
We're getting some really interesting 'styles', too - Take Rothfuss where he tells the story, takes a little break to 'cut wood, fix drinks, etc' and goes back to the story. Take Lynch whose story is in the 'present' and then for a small chapter takes us back to Locke's past and shows how that fits in with the 'now. Take Sarah Monette who tells the story from 2 or 3 points-of-view and it works wonderfully in Melusine, The Virtu, The Mirador and Corambis. I think it's wonderful.
Since I write a 'new kind of fantasy', I'd have to say you're right. I started out 10 years ago with the notion that what I'd seen before was something I was not going to do myself. For each of my books I've created anew style. In Unbinding the Stone most of the description is from the character's point of view, not mine. If he doesn't care about it, I don't mention it, even if it's there. If he doesn't know a word, I don't use it. In A Warrior Made the story split into three parts, running in parallel until the end, where they all came together for the resolution. My latest story is so strange in its construction that I literally cannot synopsize it. In fact, I'm writing a whole other short story based on the details of the construction alone!These are my favorite authors--I mention them as often as I can, in between all the constant mentions of GRRM, Jordan and Feist. I recommend Duncan, Bujold, Watt-Evans, and Hoffman. I have read Rothfuss and enjoyed it. I have heard that Abercrombie's work was both 'vicious and sad' and I have no desire to read that sort of thing. J. V. Jones was bad enough.
Thanks for all the comments!My own work was compared to Rothfuss, which I took as a great compliment. I always felt that I was writing because I couldn't stand reading the tired old stuff out there clogging the shelves of bookshops. In the end, whether it is or isn't is something for others to judge.
I've looked at Ruckley's work and am keen to take it for a spin (it'll be joining the to-be-read pile). What I can say about it before I get to read it, is that it does have a growing buzz about it, but not something quite as lively as what surrounds the others mentioned, but maybe that's just a matter of time.
Is there any other authors people would like to add to the list?
Colin wrote: "I always felt that I was writing because I couldn't stand reading the tired old stuff out there clogging the shelves of bookshops."That was one of my main motivations when I got started.
Marc wrote: "Since I write a 'new kind of fantasy', I'd have to say you're right. I started out 10 years ago with the notion that what I'd seen before was something I was not going to do myself. For each of m..."Dave Duncan - love him! I especially liked his King's Blades series and wish he'd write more. Bujold - love Vorkosigan! Though The SHaring Knife was also good. Hoffman and Watt-Evans, never read any of theirs; can't even recall *seeing* any
My own favorite Duncan is his Seventh Sword trilogy, a very different and more 'believable' presentation of technological change in a traditional culture. In SF his Strings is really good, his other SF is less satisfying.Bujold's Curse of Chalion is superb, as is her A Civil Campaign from the Vorkosigan series.
The first Watt-Evans I read was The Misenchanted Sword, followed by The Unwilling Warlord. His stories tend to be about people who don't want power but have it thrust upon them, and how they react to that.
Nina Kiriki Hoffman mostly does YA stuff, but the first book of hers I read was an adult novel called The Thread that Binds the Bones. She has a few other novels and many short stories.
I think a lot of why fantasy has become 'grittier' and less predictable is due to the influence of the urban fantasy subgenre, and also to a certain loss of innocence we've suffered in our society as a whole.The modern fantasy reader, IMO, wants a product with less of the old-fashioned epic elements in it; i.e. farm-boy is sent on a quest for truth and justice accompanied by wise old magic user and several sidekicks, etc. What seems to be more desired these days is fantasy that deals more with contemporary issues set in worlds that don't work quite like our own.
In my own fantasy work, I strive to take very modern issues--racism, imperialism, class struggle-- and explore them from the perspective of what may look like traditional fantasy characters, but which are in reality, modern people who happen to live in a world where magic still works but it is fading and science will soon be in the ascendancy.
The main reason I like urban fantasy so much is I love the contrast between modern settings and traditional fantasy tropes. A truly splendid example of this kind of book is The Iron Dragon's Daughter by Michael Swanwick. Hands down, one of the best urban fantasy books I've read.
I guess I'll have to be the dissenting voice here. Urban fantasy doesn't appeal to me - at least not since I read Moonheart by Charles de Lint. Yet I like the grittiness of Abercrombie's First Law series (not finished with it yet and reviews of the third book are not boding well) and the innovations of Sanderson and Rothfuss. I read fantasy because I want to escape reality. Reality for the most part is unending strife, pain and heartache, with an occasional flash of redemption, light and hope. While this makes great drama, it rarely inspires or refreshes me; on the contrary, reality is draining.
So I return to the cliched epic fantasy for rest and relaxation and for a sense of wonder and adventure. I branch out and find a treasure now and then, but I always return "home" to epic fantasy.
Jon, I'm in the same boat as you. I don't like urban fantasy much at all either. I love the thrill of adventuring in a world unlike our own. You just don't get that in urban fantasy.
Cameron and Jon, I agree.I think Urban Fantasy is a different cup of tea.
I'm not sure I'd say it's a new kind of fantasy, per se. It generally strikes me as epic fantasy, but, as has been said, on the grittier side. I like some of it, but not all of it. I don't mind dark and gritty stuff - but I still like a satisying conclusion, and maybe a little bit of things working out. If things are just grim and miserable, then I don't really want to read about it.My concern is that, as with any trend or new subgenre or anything, it might become overly repetitive. As much of "classic fantasy" is a version of Tolkien, I wonder how soon this new trend it going to be over-done. As with all trends, there are some examples which are better than others, and, really, only time will tell.
That said, while I don't consider this "dark epic fantasy" to be the same as "urban fantasy", I do think that perhaps it might owe a little something to UF which, perhaps, started the trend of making things rougher around the edges. I like some UF, but I've already started being able to "spot the clones", and they don't generally live up to their predecessors. I wouldn't judge all UF on Charles de Lint, though. I know he has a good rap, but he's far from my favorite. Afterall, a lot of Gaiman's stuff is considered UF, and him and de Lint are rather far apart, imo.
Just to clarify - I loved Moonheart! I've read other urban fantasy and it couldn't compare to de Lint's work. I've read a few short stories by Gaiman and of course Good Omens but nothing novel length. I hope to read The Graveyard Book next month.
Ultimately I agree with Jon’s statement - "I read fantasy because I want to escape reality. Reality for the most part is unending strife, pain and heartache, with an occasional flash of redemption, light and hope. While this makes great drama, it rarely inspires or refreshes me; on the contrary, reality is draining."
That being said, I am enjoying the expansion of Fantasy into the newer subgenre discussed in this thread. Too much epic fantasy was becoming formulaic and poorly executed. A number of the authors discussed here have offered a fresh take on Fantasy or Speculative Literature by adding elements of realism. I consider this newer subgenre to be a blend of Urban / Contemporary Fantasy and Literary Realism / American Naturalism. It makes me think of Stephen Crane writing Fantasy. I like that it appeals to a larger audience and allows, ironically, more creative license than traditional epic fantasy. However, since at heart I truly love a solid escapist tale, I find that I like to rotate between classic fantasy books and this darker subgenre. It makes for a nice blend.
What great comments on fantasy. What interests me is that fantasy elements show up in all kinds of genres now. It's as if people can't get enough of it, but don't always want to admit, or even know that they are reading fantasy. Lately I've read books with fantasy elements or magical realism in mysteries, espionage, and romances.Although I love a really well written, gripping epic fantasy, I like a lot of the newer stuff, too. I loved Sanderson's first book, Elantris, because it was so original and held together so well. I also love his Alcatraz books just for fun. I recently finished Melissa Marr's Ink Exchange and was blown away with how well it was written. It kept me hooked, although I really didn't like the grittiness. I was grateful that it had an ending I could embrace because it was too well written for me to not like it. There is a lot in YA that is pretty gritty, too, like Hunger Games. Sometimes that's good and sometimes it's bad. On Hunger Games, I have to say I hated to love it and loved to hate it. The inherent value system in that book is just too off for me. I have a sweet, older relative who loves YA and heard all the hype about that book, but when I explained that it was essentially a book about children killing children, she decided not to read it. But the upside is that fantasy and books with fantasy elements are winning mainstream fiction prizes and getting great reviews and that means that people like us who like fantasy can look forward to more innovative books being published. Like many of you, for me something so well written I can escape into it is the primary draw no matter what subgenre or genre it is.
Libby wrote: "That being said, I am enjoying the expansion of Fantasy into the newer subgenre discussed in this thread. Too much epic fantasy was becoming formulaic and poorly executed. "Hate to repeat myself from earlier, but what I was trying - and failed - to say was that my fear is that this new trend will quickly become formulaic and poorly executed. Already I've seen some examples where books try overly hard to be "gritty", and it just seems forced and hackneyed. As with all things, there will be some successes and some failures. I wonder how much of the current appreciation is novelty factor, though.
I hope to comment on this thread again after I've read 'Lies' or 'Wind', since those are the starts of two series referenced. The only one mentioned that I've read so far was 'Night Angels', which I liked overall, but which wasn't perfect.
One of the things that I've noticed in the books of the authors mentioned is that the stories are much tighter than what we think of as epic fantasy. Sanderson's Mistborn series is nearly as long as The Lord of the Rings, but the story is contained in a smaller geographic area, the story centers on a few characters rather than a whole lot of characters and the time line of the story is more compressed. The same applies to the first books of Lynch's Gentleman Bastards and Rothfuss' Kingkiller Chronicle series. The characters have homes and they stay pretty close to them. If they go to other locations, they go and stay there for a while. The journey isn't the story.
Sandi, you're on to something there, I think.Many of the old formula elements are still there, just used in different guises or to lesser degrees. In the end, the by product of doing so, usually, is an increase for the reader in unpredictability.
All of the above being said, epic fantasy has changed too. It is not all Jordan and Goodkind, with some yokel finding a sword and a kindly wizard to lead them on a quest to destroy the great brooding Evil threatening the free peoples. And Hollywood endings, where the good guy wins, are disappearing from the more recent epics. Looking at epic fantasists like Martin, Erikson and Wurts, their stories are grand, even huge, in comparison with LOTR, but they abandon the predictable formula that was used by those who emulated Tolkien. In the newer epic fantsy, horrible things happen, main characters die, and evil doers who are sympathetic, who kiss their kids and tuck them in at night (the Tony Sopranos of the fantasy world). However, the trend is to a strong grittiness that is not balanced with the better parts of human nature, and this should be avoided as a trap. Martin and Erikson might be caught there, because if cynicism is not balanced with hope and beauty, if it is all blood and guts, then we may as well watch the news, and forget about reading fantasy (oops. There goes another Stark). Janny Wurts is particularly good at balancing grittiness and the good things about humanity, and her epic Wars of Light and Shadow , starting with The Curse of the Mistwraith, is the best example of this that I know of for making fantasy REAL, while balancing it with the things that make us better.
Well said, Locaber....i think Janny does hit that very well. I would also say that Guy Gavriel Kay does that as well, at least what I've read so far.
i have read a few of those authors - Patrick Rothfuss, brandon sanderson, Scott Lynch - and I don't think theirs is a new type of fantasy, but some very nice twists on the old and familiar type of fantasy.
Chris wrote: "Well said, Locaber....i think Janny does hit that very well. I would also say that Guy Gavriel Kay does that as well, at least what I've read so far. "Kay is fantastic generally, and is really good at balance. Just look at the endings of Tigana,
The Lions of al-Rassan, The Sarantine Mosaic and The Last Light of the Sun. Tragedy and triumph are inextricably intertwined. Carol Berg, who's first two books I just finished, shows some talent in this regard, but until I finish her Rai Kirah trilogy, I'll withhold my judgment on her work.
Balance in any kind of fiction, but especially fantasy, is key. Too much good happening, and it is mere brain candy. To much bad, and you are left feeling despondent and hopeless. To be real, it must be balanced.
I agree that Rothfuss has taken old elements of fantasy and spun them in a new way. It is a coming of age story, but not a farmboy with a sword. I have yet to read Lynch and Sanderson, and Abercrombie, but they are waiting in the TBR pile...
Chris wrote: "Well said, Locaber....i think Janny does hit that very well. I would also say that Guy Gavriel Kay does that as well, at least what I've read so far. "I'm agreed with Chris and really appreciate Lochaber's comments which succulently state that which I believe lies at the heart of any good novel - balance; "tragedy and triumph . . .inextricably intertwined." This is the human condition and what really draws the reader into a book.
I believe we are seeing a beneficial change in the traditional fantasy genre in that it is becoming less predictable and formulaic – not all hero, sword, wizard on journey etc. However, I share the concerns voiced by Lochaber that “the trend to a strong grittiness that is not balanced with the better parts of human nature . . . should be avoided as a trap” - and Blackrose “that this new trend will quickly become formulaic and poorly executed.” I also agree w/ Sandi and Colin that “many of the old formula elements are still there, just used in different guises or to lesser degrees.” We are seeing creative new uses of the old standby elements. However, while reinventing the genre, the essence of Fantasy needs to be retained. For example, elements and themes such as characters that aspire to be heroic despite circumstances, truth and beauty protected at all costs, hope, the list goes on. To me, the heart of Fantasy is escape into something magical. I would hate to see that lost.
@ Colin – thanks for starting this thread. It’s a very fun discussion.
No worries, Libby.I do agree that the kinds of stories we're seeing now and how they're told is not so much as new, but that the numbers of them coming out and their popularity is.
I think that also has a lot to do with the maturity and broadening of the market.
In the end, there will no doubt be attempted rip-offs. I'm sure that after Rothfuss' A Wise Man's Fears becomes available (and no doubt becomes a bestseller) that publishers will start stamping trashy phrases over book covers like, "In the spirit of The Name of the Wind". Eventually, despite the hype, those books will still have to prove themselves.
I have a cover quote on the new Australian edition of my own book from Sara Douglass, "I stayed up all night." Now, as far as cover quotes go, I'd rather (as an author and a reader) see something that's timeless and an opinion, versus some kind of comparison from a publisher's marketing department.
We'll all just have to keep an eye out for the rip offs.
Well i too read fantasy to escape the real. the mundane smaeness of war and terrorism that is on the news or about the economy and such. i read it for the sake of escape.i do realize this is somewhat of subject but since this thread has to do with the whole new type of fantasy grittiness would anyone tell me if my idea for a book is good. its essentially slavery. when man has taken control of the world. thats how it starts. is this still folowing the same grittiness as stated before? Or am i doing something out of the norm? Im not sure what im asking here myself but i think what i mean is am i just being a copier as some have stated about other authers or am i good i not staying on the same track?
Wow. There is some good stuff here. I do like the new directions in Fantasy. My feelings on urban fantasy have yet to be decided. I don't know if I've even read any yet. Not sure if Jim Butcher is or isn't. I am very fond of The Dresden Files tho.
O ive heard those are really good i have yet to read them. Are they any good??
Stephen wrote: "O ive heard those are really good i have yet to read them. Are they any good??"Yes. I really liked them and finished them all in about week or so. Anything you can't put down is always good!
I agree with so many views presented here that it's hard to form my own opinion.We can definitely see an emergance of a new kind of fantsy these days. Grittier, darker, with unexpected twists and turns, and much much less innocent. Even the dialogues and prose are straightforward, sometimes using a slightly dirtier language and all kinds of slangs.
I understand why this kind of fantasy appeals to many people. It's more sofisticated, it presents something new and original, especially for those who grew up on the usual classical epics, and are now looking for something more inventive to satisfy them.
That's all very good, but at a certain point, I think, people will tire of that as well. Fantasy will always find ways to re-define itself, exhibit new ideas and concepts. That's what is so special about this genre: it encompasses so many sub-genres and can be expressed in many ways, driven to different diractions and paths. So much different in fact, that two books, while both considered fantasy, might differ entirely from each other, and therefore not relate to all lovers of the genre.
I've read some of the "new fantasy" out there (Martin, Lynch, Abercrombie, Sanderson) and I have other authors of that classification waiting on my to-read pile, but from time to time, I feel this strong need for some kind of refreshment that can only be found in the regular formulaic fantasy. Because for me that's where it all started.
And eventually that's where it will end, IMO.
Sarah wrote: "some kind of refreshment that can only be found in the regular formulaic fantasy.."It's not like the only alternative to dark gritty fantasy is regular formulaic fantasy. I don't do either, and the authors I most enjoy don't do either.
Marc wrote: "Sarah wrote: "some kind of refreshment that can only be found in the regular formulaic fantasy.."It's not like the only alternative to dark gritty fantasy is regular formulaic fantasy. I don't d..."
You have a point there, I must say. It's not like all fantasy is divided to "gritty fantasy" and "formulaic" . Like I said, there are many different types of fiction categorised "fantasy", so if someone claims to enjoy the fantasy genre it doesn't necessarily mean they enjoy each and every sub-genre of it.
There're definitely other options, of which each person may find the ones they enjoy most, and for them it is "fantasy".
I agree fullheartedly with that.
This is definitely a good time for fantasy - I think many things swing like a pendulum. For awhile there was just book after book of cookie cutter - the same story with sligtly different settings etc. At this point in time there is a great variety. I've also seen more people come to the genre who wouldn't normally pick up fantasy. I think breaking the mold while still having "roots" in the traditional is what is making a lot of the books you mentioned so good.
How do those who use the words "mature" or "gritty" to describe contemporary fantasy define the terms?
For me, personally, I would define 'mature' fantasy similar to an R, NC-17 or even X-rated movie. Adult themes, adult language, explicit sex, graphic violence, etc. etc. I feel that 'gritty' presents an oxymoron - realistic fantasy.
Just my thoughts. :)
Jon wrote: "For me, personally, I would define 'mature' fantasy similar to an R, NC-17 or even X-rated movie. Adult themes, adult language, explicit sex, graphic violence, etc. etc. I feel that 'gritty' pr..."
I thought so too but, not having read much in the genre, I wasn't sure. I stay away from movies with those ratings and like to stay away from similar books. For me, they disturb far beyond any entertainment or literary value they may have. I don't like to visit those worlds. It's terrifying enough that some humans perpetrate graphic violence, and nonconsensual sex with violence, on other humans. We all live already on a planet where such things are daily news, and take daily energy. I've read my history and my newspapers. I don't want to spend my recreational time visiting similar fantasy worlds. I want to feed my hopes and efforts for a better place, because I know already what much of the reality is. And I just want to get out of here sometimes. That, to me, is what a good fantasy book is for. I'm with Madeleine L'Engle, who said, "We have been overexposed to the darker side of the human heart."
Peregrine wrote: "I'm with Madeleine L'Engle, who said, "We have been overexposed to the darker side of the human heart." ... "Amen. :)
Jon wrote: "Peregrine wrote: "I'm with Madeleine L'Engle, who said, "We have been overexposed to the darker side of the human heart." ... "Amen. :)"
I don't consider "adult read" or "mature story" to mean a book that's X rated with regard to sex.
When I use that term, I generally infer that a story has more complexity, deeper themes, is not a "coming of age/youthful hero saves his world" simplistic view that would appeal to the freshness of a teen (or older reader who wants that archtypal predicatability).
If I felt a book was X rated, or, explicit, I'd say that in straightforward language.
I'd consider "gritty" to mean realistic, and not oversimplified - stick a sword in a character and walk away whistling, that is not "gritty."
I don't like the term in its current, broad use - some fantasy (not my taste) is just plain relentlessly dark and ugly. Dark for dark's sake, that glories in sharp cynicisim, or ennoblizes violence and despair - with no balance. This may, for some, feel "realisic."
To me, such books just wallow/even revel, in the utter lack of hope. I like my dose of ugly placed and illuminated in contrasts.
The "real" world has both. I like the fact that today's fantasy is bold enough to explore, for all tastes. And take the more enlightened view, that there are many angles to pursue.
Sorry I've been away, my friends -- my little band is on tour and they need me to play. But this topic drew me (I am on a two-day break). I must strongly agree with Lochaber (again).
To me reality is a combination of joy and hard striving, punctuated by moments of fear and horror.
For me, it is neither boring nor unpleasant (maybe I'm just lucky)
In this sense, Janny Wurts' Wars of Light and Shadow has the kind of balance I appreciate. As an optimistic realist, I find her treatment of characters -- from the F7 down to the necromancers, and especially the two princes, to be the most relevant to my world view. They are mostly many-sided, well-rounded, complex, and very human. And they all evolve (or devolve). Must be my English teacher background, but Wurts has me spoiled. I find that I am increasingly disinclined to read much else, just now. I am waiting like a hungry wolf for the next installment.
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Vital Parts (other topics)The Last Light of the Sun (other topics)
The Lions of Al-Rassan (other topics)
Tigana (other topics)
The Curse of the Mistwraith (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Jim Butcher (other topics)Guy Gavriel Kay (other topics)
Guy Gavriel Kay (other topics)
Guy Gavriel Kay (other topics)
Charles de Lint (other topics)
More...
Over the last few years we've seen a steady trickle of new authors who are tackling fantasy in a new and refreshing way. Some of the stuff that they're coming up with is quite simply 'mature' while almost all of it is taking at least one good and long stride away from what's come before it. In the end, for me, they've managed to hook me back to a genre that I'd all but lost interest in.
Who am I thinking of?
Patrick Rothfuss
Joe Abercrombie
And perhaps (this is based on the buzz about them, but their books are on my to be read pile):
Scott Lynch
Brandon Sanderson
Brent Weeks
Is something new emerging, or am I wrong?
I'm sure that there have always been some strong books out there that have been fresh, but the numbers coming through now make me wonder if the audience has matured enough to demand something more than the pulp copies of what's come before.
What do you think?