Fantasy Aficionados discussion

161 views
Discussions about books > Is Fantasy Changing?

Comments Showing 1-50 of 402 (402 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

message 1: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I've been a fantasy reader all my life. While there are tons and tons of books I've never read, I always felt I had read a sampling of almost every basic fantasy sub-genre.

As everyone who reads fantasy knows - it's really hard to choose a new book or author! In recent years, I've had a hard time (or bad luck) choosing new books - which prompted me to read within my own bookshelves (it's pretty well stocked).

I picked up a few books here and there, but nothing really.

I didn't start to poke my head out of my personal bookshelves until I joined Goodreads. Lo and behold, it feels like the genre has changed in my time away!

It seems (to me) that the genre has skewed more towards the "gritty and grimy" than the old standard of the "fantastic." One great example of this is a book I am currently reading, The Lies of Locke Lamora (LoLL). Normally, when I try to explain to my husband the differences between fantasy and sci-fi (or other genres) I could point to a book with someone who does "magic" and say "See, this is fantasy." Not quite anymore. LoLL (at the point that I'm at right now) has no magic, just a different alternate world and lots of adult subject matter.*

YA seems to go in this ”gritty” direction, too. While I haven’t read it yet, I would also put The Hunger Games in this category. From what I have read and been told The Hunger Games depicts children fighting each other to the death for the entertainment of adults. Not quite what I would consider sweet dream material for any child.

Not sure if I explained myself very well, :-) but you get the point. What do you think of the current state of fantasy? Do you like the trend that it is taking or do you prefer something different?

*By adult subject matter I mean all mature topics (violence included), not sex specific.


message 2: by Laurel (new)

Laurel If I remember correctly, Lord of the Rings was partially a response to the growing Industrial Revolution, and therefore a commentary on the times. It seemed to me that Tolkien wanted us to remember our heritage, learn to put prejudice aside, and bask in the wonder of nature (before it was destroyed by the great engine of change).

To me, more modern works of fantasy are a response to the growing worldwide unrest, both economically and due to violence sprung from terrorism, among other things. When I read fantasy today, I see themes of people banding together to fight for freedoms, morality, and the survival of their people. It seems that there are always evil politicians at work, opposing leaders looking to smother the past or stamp out a particular group of people. The hope being presented, in my own opinion, is that good honest people are needed to weather the storm. If necessary, to sacrifice themselves for the greater good. I think of Sanderson's Mistborn series, Hobb's Farseer trilogy, Bujold's Vorkosigan adventures, and so many more.


message 3: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I can see what you are saying - but what happened to escapism? I live in DC. Anyone who lives in this general area know that we are stuffed full of news, all the time. I often get info overload and I need a break. Who wants to turn off the news of tons of people being hurt, killed, maimed, etc just to pick up a book with people being hurt, killed, maimed, etc?


message 4: by Jacen (new)

Jacen | 44 comments I'm not certain if "fantasy" itself as a genre so much is changing there has always been the violence and sexualisation aspect to a the genre. I would say it was usually much more prolific and endemic in the low fantasy or sword and sorcery subgenre. You are right that we are seeing more of this aspect of fantasy i think it more to do with a move towards a much higher quality of writing in the low fantasy subgenre lately which would lead to a higher level of product visibility from publishers. This would probably give the perception that fantasy as a whole is moving in this direction. The grittier realist violence is far from the "norm" in fantasy I would say.
I personally like the much darker violence that one finds in the first law or the gentlemen bastard sequence.


message 5: by [deleted user] (last edited Feb 17, 2011 06:32PM) (new)

Hmm...I understand where you're coming from, MrsJoseph. Fantasy isn't simple to explain but then it never really has been. Hell the genre can't even be effectively defined. People try everyday and fail to encompass the whole and with the genre expanding and evolving daily I doubt it's a definition that could ever truly be complete. I can understand escapism but I don't think that you've lost that ability. It's simply a broader world that allows different forms of escapism for different sorts. Alot of us like the gritty realistic violence found in newer popular novels. I can't speak for all the fans out there but I, for one, enjoy putting myself in a gritty character's shoes and getting to work off a little steam ;) I don't think of myself as a prototypically good person so it's alot easier to connect with these more realistic characters than with the paladins of virtue that some prefer. That's the beauty of the genre though..those paladins exist too! For those of us who do want to escape from the news and suffering and sadness there Are those paragons of righteousness that we can turn to and fall in love with all over again. I think it's great that the fantasy genre encompasses such a variety that we all can find those books and characters that can encompass that little part of us that wants to become lost :) So is fantasy growing and changing? Yes. Is it a bad thing? Nope :)


message 6: by Jason (new)

Jason (darkfiction) | 3204 comments Personally, I would agree with what everyone has so far had to say on this subject. I think that fantasy, a Grant said, is a giant genre. And the newer, grittier side of it is certainly an evolution of the genre. Now that it's here, I doubt you'll ever see it go away, which I'm thankful for, because I also enjoy it.

But, on the same note, you won't find the escapism fantasy go away either. Which I'm also thankful for, as I sometimes need to escape somewhere like that.


message 7: by Clay (new)

Clay (cdkorns) The thing about the fantasy genre, as already suggested, is that it's a tough genre to describe. Words are a poor medium for communicating just what fantasy is. You feel fantasy internally better than you can explain it externally. Fantasy doesn't always look the same, but it should always feel the same. I don't mean feel the same as in have the same plot devices or world elements - I mean that there is an emotional quality to it slightly more than an intellectual quality (as opposed to sci-fi which is, IMHO, the opposite). That's not to say fantasy isn't intellectual - many times it is - I'm just saying there is more of an emotional feel to fantasy.

The best example I can think of to illustrate the difference between fantasy and science fiction (when the lines seem blurred) is the difference between the Star Wars and Star Trek films. Even though Star Wars has light sabers, space ships and laser guns, it is - at it's heart - still fantasy. Star Trek is pure, unadulterated, science fiction. Star Wars deals in themes like redemption, a quest for knowledge and self discovery, the tragedy of revenge and the depths of loyalty - all emotionally driven themes. Star Trek focuses more on intellectual or scientific themes such as the, politics, biology, ecology and sociology of differing alien races and strange new worlds. That's not to say the boundaries don't get blurred between the two. But they are distinctly different on an emotional/intellectual level.

Personally, I prefer my fiction along the fantasy lines and my nonfiction along the scientific lines. Must be a right brain/left brain thing.

To answer Mrs. Josephs musings, I don't necessarily think fantasy is changing in that the essence still remains of what makes fantasy fantasy. I think it's more of the way in which the fantasy is presented that is changing. Basically, I don't think the tootsie roll has changed, I just think they've changed the wrapper.


message 8: by Weenie (new)

Weenie There has always been sex and violence in fantasy. The grittiness we're seeing is that the descriptions are more 'in your face', more graphic, whereas in the past, authors perhaps, because of what was deemed socially acceptable at the time, only alluded to and didn't/couldn't go into any detail.


message 9: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I can definitely see what you all are talking about.

To me some of the violence seems a little gratuitous at times - but I can say that it feels like the genre is changing. It seems that every book I pick up now has at least one major torture session. I just have no interest in reading every gory detail of someone having their face ripped off by sharp shards of broken glass. *shudder*

Not that I'm saying that there isn't room in fantasy for more stuff. What's a little epic pulp between friends? :)


message 10: by Clay (new)

Clay (cdkorns) That's true. I wonder if, as Laurel posted earlier, that's merely a reflection of our times - writers obviously draw inspiration from what they observe around them - or simply a natural progression toward wanting to shock an audience through more and more potent visuals...


message 11: by Mach (new)

Mach | 572 comments The Lies of Locke Lamora mrs joseph is really violent and gritty more so than most fantasy books, so i understand your thoughts. It is as Weenie said changing with time,for example books with detailed sex scenes where not published some decades ago, but now it's normal for books to have such content, it's the same with violence, not just in fantasy but in all literature and film.


message 12: by Clay (new)

Clay (cdkorns) I was kind of shocked when I picked up Stephen R. Donaldson's Lord Foul's Bane. I was somewhat misled into reading this fantasy trilogy by the praise on the book's jacket. Imagine my surprise when the main character raped an innocent woman early on in the story. Am I supposed to sympathize with him now??? The author tried to pass it off as something which occurred in an alternate realm to the protagonist who thought he was outside of reality at the time. Seriously? He. Raped. An. Innocent. Girl. End of story. How is he the good guy??? It really turned me off from the rest of the story. It's my opinion that just because you CAN write something, that doesn't always mean that you SHOULD.

As an aside, Lord Foul's Bane was published in 1978. So darker fantasy isn't exactly new. It's just a little more mainstream now. That's not to say Donaldson is a reflection of the new "darker" fantasy. Believe me, I wouldn't want to read a book where the main character was a rapist any more now than I did when I read it the first time - no matter what sub-genre a publisher decides to market their product in.


message 13: by Jesslyn (new)

Jesslyn (jesslynh) | 18 comments I have to agree with MrsJoseph and like my Fantasy like I like my movies. As an escape from 'real life'. I also like the unambiguous HEA. There's enough tragedy all around me.


message 14: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments Clay wrote: "That's true. I wonder if, as Laurel posted earlier, that's merely a reflection of our times - writers obviously draw inspiration from what they observe around them - or simply a natural progression..."

I can see that - each author trying to one up the next...


message 15: by Jason (last edited Feb 18, 2011 01:47PM) (new)

Jason (darkfiction) | 3204 comments I think that gritty reality is a popular progression we're seeing in other genres, as well. I'm no scholar or anything--far from it, in fact--but I think you could go back to the end of last century to movies like Saving Private Ryan, where this real gritty realism was, I think, introduced.

Sure, there are other movies from before that that had elements of realism, but that movie put a stamp on it. If you look at movies after Private Ryan, you'll notice a lot of them within many different genres slowly try to adapt that realism. Some failed, some succeeded.

I'm not sure you can connect these movies with the fantasy literary genre, because I'm certain that Martin played a big role in this department. And A Game of Thorns I believe came out before Private Ryan. A lot of the gritty fantasy we're seeing today, especially Abercrombie, and maybe Lynch, are due to Martin's style.

I think you could blame a conscious bubble, you could call it, where human entertainment is evolving through our collective consciousness and gritty realism has floated to the surface. It's manifesting in different medias and genres without, necessarily, being influenced by one another. Or, who knows, maybe Spielburg is a big SoIaF fan.


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments I "like" to think that the genre is more "growing" than necessarily "changing". You're right MrsJoseph that the gritty even cruder elements are in some (many?) cases taking front and center place. I'm Grant's opposite in that I do like the paladin type characters, if they are done well. The high ideals, the attempt at staying true to what's right and/or good, even if he or she does fall short or have a long or hard struggle. These are out there but unlike some years ago there are a lot more books in total so there are more to sift through.

Tolkien not only set the standard for Fantasy but opened the door. Before LotR fantasy was mostly a pulp type genre. LotR brought it into the mainstream...or at least started the process. (Tolkien resisted placing meanings and such on his books, in a later intro he called them "applicable" and said each reader would apply them to their own lives and experiences as they understood them.) I read a lot of "dross" trying to find the books I like. I'm about a third of the way through The Lies of Locke Lamora but haven't picked it up for 2 days. You can guess how my "rating" for this book will probably go if it doesn't pick-up or grab my interest soon. On the other hand I love the Paksenarrion books by E. Moon (so far anyway) and the Dresden books and I find a lot of others very good to pretty good.

"Fantasy" in it's pure form is "speculative fiction" and can encompass many sub-genres including all the Epic, High, Low, Sword and Sorcery, etc. but also includes horror, Urban Fantasy, Science Fantasy plus a a lot more and of course the "crossover" or border line books (King's Blackhouse, the Talisman, and the entire Dark Tower trilogy for example.) I think there are still all the types of fantasy we we love still out there, but there are a lot more besides and we need to search a bit.


message 17: by Robert (new)

Robert MacAnthony (steerpike7) | 218 comments Lord Foul's Bane is a good book. I don't remember anyone ever saying that Thomas is a "good" guy. In fact, he is quite decidedly not a very nice person.


message 18: by Mike (the Paladin) (last edited Feb 19, 2011 12:27PM) (new)

Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments Matter of opinion R. Scott...to each their own as they say. I was in a group that read the first Thomas Covenant trilogy ( started the second, but only read the first volume). Personally I got through them but found them...less than readable. I thoroughly disliked them, but back then I pretty much finished anything I started (and I was reading it with a couple of other people). Were I to start them today I'd not have gone on with the read probably. One person's choice of what they find an enjoyable read or good book isn't another's.


Lord Foul's Bane: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

The Illearth War: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

The Power that Preserves: http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...


message 19: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I could not get past the rape scene in the book. To me, it ruined the entire book for me (well, that and Thomas' whining). So, for me, it's a bad book. :(

R. Scott wrote: "Lord Foul's Bane is a good book. I don't remember anyone ever saying that Thomas is a "good" guy. In fact, he is quite decidedly not a very nice person."


message 20: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I do love a good paladin, Mike. :-) I need my HEA :-)


message 21: by Bill (new)

Bill (kernos) | 350 comments R. Scott wrote: "Lord Foul's Bane is a good book. I don't remember anyone ever saying that Thomas is a "good" guy. In fact, he is quite decidedly not a very nice person."

One can be a 'good guy', but still 'not a very nice person'


message 22: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments Kernos wrote: "One can be a 'good guy', but still 'not a very nice person' ..."

Do you think so? Is it possible to not be a nice person and still be a "good guy." I'm not talking about someone who is gruff but has a "heart of gold" but someone who does mean things to people for no reason.


message 23: by Weenie (new)

Weenie I have to say that I struggled with Donaldson's book because of the rape - with some bad guys, I want to find out what happens to them, what happens next. With Thomas Covenant, I didn't care to be honest.


message 24: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments Yeah, me either.


message 25: by Robert (new)

Robert MacAnthony (steerpike7) | 218 comments I think those are probably the prevalent viewpoints, honestly. There's a reason you don't see much Fantasy along the lines of Donaldson. I don't think most fantasy readers will go for it.

Another good example is Ian Graham's MONUMENT, where the main character is not someone you can like in the least. Good book, though.


 Danielle The Book Huntress (Wants to Read More) (gatadelafuente) I'm not as well-read in fantasy to really say how it's evolved, but I think fiction is always a reflection of society, as has been mentioned. I love antiheroes, but I'd have issue with the 'hero' doing certain things in a book, and with no reasoning or character dissection for me understand why he/she did such a thing. What I liked about The Lies of Locke Lamora was that although the heroes were thieves, swindlers, and liars, they weren't beyond the pale morally (according to my feelings about such things). I also like pure good guys so long as they are layered and complex. I am moody, so I like to read different sorts of books. Sometimes I want a dark/noirish book, and sometimes I want a light, purer read. I hope that there is always a good variety available for us readers to find what they want.


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments I don't want to come off as if confrontational, I'll not and I have a friend who read the Covenant avidly. So I agree with Danielle, there should be variety. All that said, actually R. Scott, I think there are quite a few books that go down a plot line at least close to these. Dark Fantasy is much in the ascendancy and good well written straight heroes are sometimes difficult to track down (though still out there.) I tend to veer off books that have a more nihilistic outlook but that doesn't mean I think they are in some way wrong or inferior. They're just not something i care to read whereas others (yourself for example) like them. That's a positive actually.

Sometimes you get a given writer who writes different protagonists from different points of view, even minute points of view. For example Simon R. Green who writes both the Nightside and the Secret History Series. The two protagonists remind me of each other but I like Edwin much more than I like John. It's a matter of taste as both sets of stories are readable and enjoyable overall.


message 28: by Robert (new)

Robert MacAnthony (steerpike7) | 218 comments I think you definitely see a lot of darker, gritty fantasies out there. Most of them, even when they have characters who aren't exactly nice, you can find some point of identification or empathy with them.

With Thomas Covenant, I didn't like anything about the guy. I think that's rare to find in fantasy, or maybe in books in general. I mentioned MONUMENT, above, and that's another really good example. A good book, and I suspect a lot of people who didn't like Covenant would enjoy that one.

But I can't think of too many books where there the reader doesn't like the protagonist at all, in any way. A great non-fantasy example of this is Vladimir Nabokov's LOLITA, which is brilliantly written and engaging, but where I'd be worried about anyone who identified with the protagonist.


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments True. I agree that a totally unlikeable...dislikeable protagonist is unusual. have you read the Flashman books? Not so dark, but I despise the protagonist. :)


 Danielle The Book Huntress (Wants to Read More) (gatadelafuente) That's why I decided not to read those, Mike. I have to like a character at least to some degree, even if they aren't completely 'good.'


message 31: by Robert (new)

Robert MacAnthony (steerpike7) | 218 comments I have not read those, Mike. Who wrote them?


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments George MacDonald Fraser...the first one was published (I believe) in 1969. Flashman (Sir Harry Paget Flashman) is a self-centered, cowardly, adulterous, scoundrel...I mean lying scoundrel, who always manages to come up smelling like a rose. He constantly (through like a dozen books) gets credit for what others have done and escapes the consequences of the things he pulls. I read a couple of the books, but the humor could never overcome my dislike of the character.


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments I know Danielle, I'd read the synopsis and they'd sound humorous, but when I read them I couldn't help but be totally disgusted by the guy. I remember one scene where the British are trying to hold a fort against terrible odds. A sergeant knew what a coward he was. In the end as everyone was killed Flashman is trying to surrender. He's pulled the flag down and is trying to give it to the enemy when he's knocked down... This happens just as relief arrives...and they find him wrapped in the flag and assume he was heroically trying to protect it from capture. The sergeant is dead and Flashman make a big show of mourning him. The guy's a real creep.


 Danielle The Book Huntress (Wants to Read More) (gatadelafuente) Ugh! I know that's not for me now!


message 35: by Brett (new)

Brett (battlinjack) | 114 comments The discussion about Thomas Covenant has been interesting. I read the series when it first came out and yes, the rape section is as nasty as it gets, I kept going and found that I loved the books. They are exceptionally well written (as are most of Donaldson's) and that Donaldson took a chance writing such a provocative story.
There was a lot of discussion back than just like this one (it's SO different now with the internet!) and a great many people condemned the book for that section and refused to read any more.

They missed the point of the story.
You're not supposed to like Thomas Covenant. He is NOT a 'hero' in any way. He has leprosy and is mentally unbalanced to one degree or another throughout the series.
Thomas Covenant is not a hero, he is an anti-heroic protagonist.
You can still enjoy a story while hating the protagonist.
In the story Thomas is constantly at war with himself in trying to survive his illness and to deny that the "Land" is real.

I could go on as there is so much depth to the series, but I think (hope) I have gotten my ideas across.

Of course in the end, it's all about choice. Ours as readers and the characters as written. We have the right to like or dislike with or without any logic attached.
I personally feel that 'The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever' is one of the best series ever written.


message 36: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments Brett wrote: "The discussion about Thomas Covenant has been interesting. I read the series when it first came out and yes, the rape section is as nasty as it gets, I kept going and found that I loved the books. ..."

Eh, to each his own. I totally got what Donaldson was attempting to do. It just FAILED dramatically when it comes to me (and a lot of other people it seems). I hated the character and therefore could not enjoy the series. Covenant was a total whiner as well. I hate whiners and there I was reading a book with a sorry rapist whiner. Gag.


message 37: by Tina (new)

Tina | 177 comments Man, I have never read the Thomas Covenant series and probably won't but he sounds a lot like Angus Thermopyle in Donaldson's Gap series. Which I admittedly loved, but Angus was a rapist creep who gets a redemptive arc in the series. He is the hero of the series but he is about as anti as they come. But weirdly, I loved the series. Still won't read Thomas Covenant though.

Harkening back to the MrsJoseph's original question..yes I do see some evolution in the genre. Admittedly my first fantasy book was the Belgariad series. Looking back, especially in comparison to the big guns now like Martin, Ericksen, etc. that series seemed so....innocent. I wonder are there any being written like that now? You know, just friends on a quest to find an orb? or kill a big bad?

I too am looking back to older books a bit more since I am feeling a bit nostalgic about the genre. I have never read the Dragonlance series so I am kind of excited to start those.


message 38: by Robert (new)

Robert MacAnthony (steerpike7) | 218 comments I thought the same thing about Angus Thermopyle when I read the Gap series. Immediately made me think of Thomas Covenant.


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments Brett, I got what Donaldson was doing...I understood the books...and I still loath them. It's (as said before) a matter of taste not understanding. I won't ask you to agree with my take on the books, you like them, and that's fine. But please don't assume that anyone who dislikes them doesn't understand them. Look over the reviews of any book and you'll find differences in opinion about it. My reviews of the Covenant books are posted, I to read them when/as they were published. To put it mildly, not my cup of tea.


message 40: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I think you just hit the nail on the head! What happened to that part of fantasy? Not saying its gone, it's just hard to find. I can say I recently completed Geist (Book of the Order, #1) by Philippa Ballantine and it was pretty darn good. It didn't have the depth of a 10 book series but it was a page turner and I enjoyed the journey. I really hurt when I realized it was book 1 in a 4 book series... the next one isn't due out until June.

Tina wrote: Harkening back to the MrsJoseph's original question..yes I do see some evolution in the genre. Admittedly my first fantasy book was the Belgariad series. Looking back, especially in comparison to the big guns now like Martin, Ericksen, etc. that series seemed so....innocent. I wonder are there any being written like that now? You know, just friends on a quest to find an orb? or kill a big bad."


message 41: by mark (new)

mark monday (happy-end-of-the-world) | 380 comments i don't necessarily have to like a protagonist or even identify with him or her to enjoy a novel. but what i can't stand is a novel where the author seems to hold his or her characters in contempt, where they are just 'straw men', so to speak, and just exist for the author to make a point or put through hell, etc. like the horrible (to me) Black Butterflies. i don't need to like someone to empathize with them or their situation...i just need that human connection to be present in some form. i don't enjoy books where the author condescends to the characters or to the reader.


message 42: by Tina (new)

Tina | 177 comments MrsJoseph wrote: "I think you just hit the nail on the head! What happened to that part of fantasy? Not saying its gone, it's just hard to find. I can say I recently completed Geist (Book of the Order, #1) by Philippa Ballantine and it was..."

That actually looks interesting, I think I'll add it to my tbr.


message 43: by Brett (new)

Brett (battlinjack) | 114 comments Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Brett, I got what Donaldson was doing...I understood the books...and I still loath them. It's (as said before) a matter of taste not understanding. I won't ask you to agree with my take on the book..."

Hey, that's cool. I wasn't trying to bust your chops. Like I said at the end of my post, It's all about choice and we all have the right to like or dislike.

I understand what you're saying and agree with some points. The last thing I would ever do is condemn someone because they like something different than I do, that's just not cool.


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments Cool. I wasn't trying to be confrontational. Just clearing the air. To each their own as they say.


message 45: by Rachel (new)

Rachel Cotterill (rachelcotterill) Clay wrote: "The thing about the fantasy genre, as already suggested, is that it's a tough genre to describe. Words are a poor medium for communicating just what fantasy is. You feel fantasy internally better t..."

I'm fascinated by your definitions - where would you put Dune? I always feel it's an interesting borderline case, one that "feels" like fantasy, to me, despite being very detailed in its science.


message 46: by Clay (new)

Clay (cdkorns) Rachel, I'm that weirdo who's never read Dune nor seen the movie. Not sure why... People tell me it will blow me away. I actually have it on my Kindle so I am planning to get to it soon. But I'll post back here whenever I get it read (which should be soon).


message 47: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I've never read Dune, either. I think I watched the movie too young - it really would freak me out. I keep telling myself to read it but I never do.


message 48: by Jason (new)

Jason (darkfiction) | 3204 comments Dune, the book, is so much better than the movie. But, I wasn't blown away by the book, either. It's good, but I'm not sure why some are so fanatic over it. (Don't tell Aloha--she'll turn me into stew!) lol


Mike (the Paladin) (thepaladin) | 5387 comments I had the same experience with Dune that I've had with several other "extended" series. I liked the "first" book (in other words I liked Dune itself), but I just haven't cared for any of the endless sequels (Frank Herbert's or anyone else's). It was a good idea and the original story was well told, but then it was simply run into the ground for some of us. (Of course some love the entire thing...I suppose it's like that, everyone has their own taste, some people like boiled okra.)


message 50: by MrsJoseph *grouchy*, *good karma* (new)

MrsJoseph *grouchy* (mrsjoseph) | 7282 comments I like fried okra. :)


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
back to top