The Quality of Fantasy writing today - what are your views

[Stephen light]

Wow now that i have read most of this im shocked at how much is in this on only two pages. As for me i have got to say that fantasy has not so much lost its spark recently but many of the books seem to revolve around the same basic plots and loves stories and what have you. but i have noticed a few writers who step that extra mile and go beyond these mundane same old stories. Fantasy is beyond this world it to me is magical. i know this really doesnt have to do with this topic but fantasy cannot be compared to in anyother genre.

[Marc]

Stephen wrote: "fantasy has not so much lost its spark recently but many of the books seem to revolve around the same basic plots and loves stories and what have you...."

I would invite you to check my profile, since most of the books I like are books that avoid this trap. It amazes me that I hear so much criticism of sameness and formula in fantasy, and then I hear endless recommendations for the same small set of authors. I don't know if GRRM avoids the old formula, since I've never read his work beyond chapter two of book one, but it sounds like he's becoming a new trap for the unwary.

[Stephen light]

Ok ill give it a look.

[Stephen light]

What do you recomend In your list as the best?

[colleen the convivial curmudgeon]

@Gary: I'm not quite sure how we're in total agreement about Harris when I said the writing was bad, but enjoyable and you said she has above average prose. *laughs*

But, anyway - about clarity I agree, mostly. I think there are times when an author does mean to be vague or unclear about relationships and intentions because it's part of the intrigue of the story. But from a pure writing aspect, I definitely agree that overuse pronouns are confusing, such as "he was wondering what he thought about... " leaves me wondering which he is which.

I find that, often, action sequences seem to be very unclear and hard to follow as to what's going on. I always thought that this was not one of Rowling's strongest points, for instance. Her action sequences are often rather short and abrupt. But she's hardly the worst offender, I just can't think of a good example off the top of my head. But, then, action seems hard to write.

(And, by the way, if we're speaking of Jo (aka J. K.), then it is Rowling, and not Rawlings. You're killing me, over here, with the Rawlings thing.)

As for the passive voice thing, I never got it, personally. I used to get slammed by certain professors because I tend to write in the passive voice rather often. I never really understood why it was such a big deal, but I know that they like to harp on it.

But, anyway, both of these criteria seem like general rules of grammar, at least ones I remember from school. (Though I'm the first to admit my teachers would probably be horrified at my sloppy and haphazard use of punctuation.)

When I think of quality of writing, I tend to think more along the lines of style. Some people just have a voice which captures the attention, whereas others write in a sort of rudimentary and basic style. But these measures of quality are more ephemeral and, thus, impossible to quantify or define.

[Terence]

Dang, this topic is still too big to get a grasp on :-)

But here I go...In answer to the original inspiration for this thread - "What do you think about the quality of fantasy today?" - I'll answer that, overall, I think things are "good," certainly no worse than at any other time in literary history. True, the advent of the internet, cheap self-publishing and the post-Tolkien flourishing of the genre mean we have to wade through more trash to find the pearls but that's not necessarily a bad thing - when you read as much SF/Fantasy as many of us do in this group, you develop instincts that help you steer clear of the dross. Just keep your preferences flexible and be willing to take the occasional chance. (A veiled plug for James Branch Cabell's work :-)

What, though, is "quality"?

Here's where I get tripped up since I don't think Gary's correct that there's a difference between older and newer works in terms of the means by which we judge them. We may not find much that speaks to us in older works (how many people read 19th century boys-adventure stories anymore, regardless of the quality of writing?) or find the writing conventions of an older era awkward but that doesn't make them worthless or justify the absurd claim that books written in the last 50 years are "better" than older ones.

I'm going to fall back on the critic Daniel Mendolsohn's definition of what makes a book (or any medium) "quality":

(1) Meaningful coherence of form and content;
(2) Precise employment of detail to support (1);
(3) Vigor and clarity of expression; and
(4) Seriousness of purpose

And an author can still be a pleasant enough diversion if they only fulfill 2 or 3 of the above criteria. This is where I'd class that vast majority of authors we all read, including Rowling and Harris.

I'm going to shamelessly quote another favorite lit-critic of mine regarding this subject: Mark Edmundson tackles this question in Why Read in regards to why Stephen King is a "good" writer but not a "great" one, why his books are "good" but not "classics" (and it has nothing to do with overuse of the imperfect tense):

"[Steven:] King is an entertainment. King is a diversion. But when you try to take him as a guide to life, he won't work. The circles he draws on the deep are weak and irresolute. And this is so in part because King...is a sentimental writer. In his universe, the children...are good, right, just and true.... But bring this way of seeing the world out into experience and you'll pretty quickly pay for it. Your relation to large quadrants of experience...will likely be paranoid and fated to fail...."

[Marc]

Stephen wrote: "What do you recomend In your list as the best?"

I'd like to say my own, but I'm afraid Lois McMaster Bujold's Curse of Chalion is the best fantasy novel in the last decade. Dave Duncan's Seventh Sword trilogy is an excellent and very different take on the coming of technology to a traditional society. He also did the Great Game trilogy, which I think of as the Bible done as a fantasy novel. Lawrence Watt-Evans focuses almost entirely on the characters, his main theme being 'what do you do when you achieve/acquire power you don't want but must keep?' But feel free to start with me.

[Robin]

What a great post - I've really enjoyed reading all the opinions. I too am very 'story driven' - Michael did a great post on his blog once about the differences between writers and storytellers. I can really appreciate a "well constructed" tale and if you have a plot twist - wham that is golden for me.

As to the beauty of the prose...I a gree with Leslie that no amount of beautiful writing will make up for a bad story...but...if the story is "okay" and the writing is wonderful then it goes up a notch for me - doesn't mean I'll make it a "must recommend" -- just that I get something out of it that I wouldn't have otherwise.

The most recent example I can think of is "Alhpabet of Thorns" - the story and characters were "so-so" but some of the writing -- really put it over the top for me.