Pre-Tolkien Fantasy discussion
World-Building: A Plague Upon the Realms of Post-Tolkien Fantasy
I can see your point, D. I don't think a book has to be enormous, but it seems as though that is the convention now to write massive epic fantasy tomes.
I'm a huge fan of brevity, and more often than not World-Building is an assassin of the art.
I totally agree with you about brevity. I think you can convey a lot about world-building and characterization just as well with carefully chosen words.
D_Davis wrote: "The idea that fantasy works need to have this MASSIVE amounts of lore and world building is, I think, a problem invented by Tolkien and one that is a major problem today, leading to the never-ending series of books over 800 pages long. "Right on! The problem became much, much worse when series like The Wheel of Time started making serious money.
Mod
Mod
It's no big deal.
I'm a fan of the evocative writing of Dunsany etc
I'm also a fan of the beautifully planned and plotted, stufed full of characters, incident and drama of George Martin.
I'm also a fan of the mythology and Lore that Tolkien created and the way he used that as a backdrop to an epic saga full of character and heart.
I don't really understand why you have to put one against the other and state that "this" is better than that?
Nicely stated, Alex. There's no reason a person can't have it all ways.
In fairness to D_Davis, I don't think he is saying all long books are bad. I know for a fact, for instance, that he loves Stephen King's The Stand which is over eleven hundred pages long.But I think there is definitely a trend particularly noticable these days, that can innevitably be traced back to Tolkien, of long winded overblown epics. That is not to say that a book (or series) should never be long, only that many seem to get churned out simply because that's what the is expected these days.
Ask any writer and they will tell you the short story form is struggling at the moment. The balance has shifted too far towards long, drawn out epics. A balance that surely needs to be shifted back in favour of shorter works.
Mod
I'm pretty sure that the short story is still a very popular form with better writers. Stephen Donaldson wrote books of short stories. McDermott is writing great short stories, Tad Williams - grandfather of the overlong epic - is about to publish a volume of short stories, George Martin refuses to finish ASOIAF to fan's schedules because he's writing novellas and short stories too. Fantasy & Sci-Fi magazines full of short stories are being published every month.
It never has been or will be the most popular form of fiction, but, like poetry, it'll always have that niche of literary fans. I'm really not seeing the problem here.
To restate my point, the problem here is not with "overblown epics". It's not even to do with poor quality writers. The fiction market, just like the movie market, has always been flooded with poor quality knock-offs that publishers/producers hope to make a quick buck out of. The problem seems to be that Daniel, and maybe some others here, really like a particular form of fiction (pre-Tolkienian fantasy styles) and it doesn't appear to be being reproduced within modern literature, so you find a scapegoat to blame for it.
Personally, my other favourite literature is Romantic/Victorian fiction which I spent years reading after I'd tired of fantasy a little bit and I used to lament a fair bit that nobody write 3-part-sensation novels like Wilkie Collins and Mary Braddon anymore. Well, of course they don't. Tastes change, not just in terms of length and form, but particularly in terms of prose styles and sensibilities in cultures and you literally can't have everything that you want. I love George Martin, Robin Hobb etc so am not now really complaining that there aren't more writers who are Dunsany or Eddison. Daniel really loves Stephen King as a horror writer, so why complain that there isn't another Lovecraft or Machen (or whoever he's into). As has been pointed out with the Tolkien analogies, everything post-a certain author inevitably looks like pastiche anyway, so why not just be happy with what one - or many - author(s) gave us from a particular period and also look to enjoy what other authors are giving us right now too.
The multi-part-fantasy is a perfectly fine form and I think that we should stop thinking that it's the 'cause of all fantasy literature's problems. The truth is, in a roundabout way, it saved fantasy's popularity as a genre and helped make it semi-credible, its success has only given lovers of fantasy in the modern day a lot more choice. Without Tolkien maybe there'd be no Gene Wolfe or J M Mcdermott as well as no GRR Martin. Let's just enjoy what we enjoy and let others read Terry Brooks, Robert Jordan and David Eddings if they're so inclined ... it's still better than Twilight after all.
Alex said: "The short story isn't struggling, not any more or less than it always has." I can't agree with this so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Ultimately it must come down to taste. I just prefer older fantasy. There are always exceptions and sometimes I surprise myself with something modern I really like but more often than not I feel that modern fantasy is padded out. But that's just my view.
Alex said: "The short story isn't struggling, not any more or less than it always has." I disagree. The pulps are gone & that removed one of better platforms for writers, especially new writers, to get their short fiction published. Today we have a lot more writers without a really good place to get published.
-------------
In the late 19th & early 20th century, a lot of the books seemed shorter, but I'm not convinced that was always a good thing nor the true state of affairs. ERB's first 2 Tarzan & first 3 Barsoom books should have been published as 1 book, IMO. If so, they would have been pretty good sized. As it is, they're very slim & earned a lot more money since there were horrible cliff hangers. Verne, Haggard, & Wells all managed very short, complete novels though.
I've read in various places there is a push by publishers for series, but not for tomes. Steven Brust's Vlad Taltos series is as rich & well drawn as any out there, but none of the books are very long - one of the reasons I like his writing so much. Martin's ASOI&F, Jordan's WoT & Sanderson's series are all tomes. Modesitt, Briggs (regular fantasy) & Eddings all seem to be in the middlin' range.
I think length is what you look for & always has been. I've always gravitated toward shorter books. I hate long descriptions of the mundane & familiar. I don't like Jordan or Sandnerson's writing, love Brust & Zelazny's.
Mod
The pulps were a lowbrow platform for what has always been considered lowbrow writing. They're not gone insomuch that there's still lowbrow writing out there and there are still lowbrow SF and Fantasy short story magazines out there. They are gone in that the sensibilities of the writers who produce Fantasy short stories has changed.
Pulp Fiction is put on a pedestal now as some kind of lost artform, especially amongst fantasy fans, but really we look back to it as a golden moment for fantasy now because there wasn't a whole lot of "fantasy" being published and so the writers who were being published gravitated towards those particular magazines. Now we have a lot more fantasy being published on a regular schedule and its easy to focus on the dross and lament that there isn't another "Robert E Howard" or something.
This all sounds very anti-early fantasy but it really isn't. Howard was a unique and great author and I wouldn't want to take that away from him or his fans. But neither do I was to buy into this myth that fantasy is soooo terrible now.
The truth is that we have more different types of fantasy being pubished than ever before, of differing length and quality. Some of it is amazing, lots of it is dreck.
Mod
Alex said: "I don't think its that important if a work is 200 pages, 400 pages or three volumes of 500 pages as long as it is well written and uses its own length - or lack of - to its advantage. I think no one could disagree with this. Some books need to be long, no denying it.
But a larger book is a bigger investment of time however. If I choose to read an 800 page book next instead of a 200 page book, I need to know that it's a worthwhile investment in my time. If it feels padded with excess verbage that adds nothing to the story, I will feel cheated.
An my impression is that this is a more common phenomenon today than it used to be.
Simon wrote: "But a larger book is a bigger investment of time however. If I choose to read an 800 page book next instead of a 200 page book, I need to know that it's a worthwhile investment in my time. If it feels padded with excess verbage that adds nothing to the story, I will feel cheated. "Simon speaks the truth. Reading time is hard to come by sometimes and I'd rather not read a lot of padding. I've got no problem reading a 1000 page tome as long as it isn't bogged down with padding because someone has the mistaken idea that epic = long and plodding.
Mod
On the other hand, if you read an 800 page book and you enjoy it then its time well spent, isn't it?
***
It is a time committment to sit down and say "I'm going to read the entirety of Song of Ice and Fire and I admit that I partly shied away from doing so because I felt intimidated by that. Later I realised it had more to do with me not being in a good reading habit than the length of the novels though, since I don't regret a minute that I spent with them.
I've always, personally alternated between reading longer fiction and shorter fiction. I'm trying to keep a longer fantasy work on the go whilst reading shorter 200-400 page books in between. The only reason being that I think both longer and shorter works have much to offer and I wouldn't want to neglect either.
But yeah. If you start a fantasy epic and you don't like it, then stop reading it.
Gotta disagree as well D_Davis. I think the Harrisonian idea that world building is the death of good writing in fantasy isn't a fundamental truth. The problem, I think, is analagous to the infodump in sci-fi: when the writer is so in love with the background data that he has built up for his story that he can't help but intrude it where, and in ways, that it doesn't belong in the story then it is definitely a bad thing; but world-building in and of itself is not a bad thing. The verismilitude it can create should be helping to make the fiction better, the writer just has to know how to use it properly.Also, I'll just get on my pro-Tolkien soapbox for a moment to say it's really unfair to blame the old Professor for the majority of his slavish followers having basic misunderstanding of his methods and purpose and therefore being unable to do what he did and cranking out second-rate extruded fantasy product. He'd be as horrified at the state of much of the genre as you are and had no intention of creating a marketing niche. For my money he did what he did nearly perfectly and the fact that so many others fell under his spell only underlines this. It is indeed a sad state of affairs that the powers that be in the publishing world have, as a result, decided to squash or minimize the shelf-space for non-epic fantasy, but please give the Professor a break! I'd hardly call LotR long-winded or overblown either; it was exactly as long as it needed to be to tell JRRT's story. Now GRRM and his eternally expanding universe of viewpoint characters and tangential storylines? As much as I like ASoIaF *that* is getting a bit long in the tooth.
Mod
I'm sure that the debate over its ultimate worth will rage and rage, but you can't deny that the series has managed to get everyone interested and talking about fantasy and the fact that it got produced into a major HBO TV series which also happened to be successful can only be good for fantasy lovers, right?
Yeah, I was kind of making a cheap shot of my own at GRRM's expense. I still love that series, I just think it is a prime example of the story getting away from it's creator.
It has no doubt helped popularise the genre but only by taking it in a direction that I personally don't like. I read A Game of Thrones and quite enjoyed it but I had no desire to read on. I just felt that it would likely never be concluded and that, really, that's the point; it's not supposed to conclude. It's a world and a never-ending saga that readers can immerse themselves in indefinitely. A kind of fantasy soap opera if you will.
That's fine, I don't have a problem with it, it's just not for me. The undeniable success of the series will, I believe, only encourage fantasy in a similar vein, imitators trying to jump on the bandwagon but with less talent than Martin.
So while it may be good for increasing the wider appeal of the genre as a whole, I don't think it's particularly good for the kind of fantasy I like to read. It might even be harmful if writers are discouraged from writing different styles of fantasy in order satisfy the perceived demand for this type.
Mod
I'd much rather see would be GRRM imitators (which is certainly not a new thing) on the shelves than all the vampire-porn that's trying to take over the genre.
Well, I think it's fair to say that we can point fingers at any number of sucky things that infest the genre (at least in each of our own opinions). Maybe, in the long-run it's more productive to instead call out what we think is good?Kvetching is fun, but not really going to get us anywhere.
Mod
I'd love to discuss this with you when I'm done with books 4 and 5. Jesus, this thing is looooooong...
I'd love to discuss this with you when I'm done with books 4 and 5. Jesus, this thing is looooooong... I'd like that too, but you may have to wait. I still haven't cracked open book 5 yet, and plan on re-reading the entire series before I do. I have no idea when that will be. :)
However, anytime you want to shoot the breeze on the series drop me a line.
Mod
I don't quite see the "open-endedness" or "Soap Opera" elements that people keep hurling at it as a criticism. I can't speak for the later volumes, which appear to be a bit more controversial amongst fans, but books 1 through 3 seem to have clear aims and end goals in sight. Characteristic of a soap opera is that plots arise and are dispensed with almost arbitrarily and abruptly. Characteristic of Martin's writing (so far) is that everything is planned out and foreshadowed in utterly painstaking detail.
@Alex: I'd have to agree with Simon about the soap opera. In books 4 and 5 Martin really seems to start losing control of his characters and story and introduces a lot of stuff that starts to make it look like a never-ending soap-opera fantasy (at least if the worst case scenario happens and he doesn't rein things in a bit).That being said, Martin is still a good enough writer in my opinion that I'm willing to read Soap Opera by him. :)
I don't mean to denigrate the "Songs of Ice and Fire" nor it's fans. It's just not the kind of fantasy I want to read. Obviously, some others feel the same way but we are a small minority of fantasy readers so I wouldn't let it worry you, our views are hardly going to help shape the genre.
Mod
That being said, Martin is still a good enough writer in my opinion that I'm willing to read Soap Opera by him. :)
Well, Simon's basing his assessment purely on "Game of Thrones" isn't he? :p and presumably the fact that the books get even longer and the series has expanded beyond an initially projected three books.
I do suspect that Martin intially had a three book storyline planned out and it seems clear to me that the overall structure of the work is according to that plan, but over time he's developed things that he wanted to do with it and further ideas that he wanted to make larger sub-plotlines out of. I don't think that's soap opera because the term is generally used against Martin to his detriment as "it's never going to end, it can't end to plan without arbitrariness or silliness"
That's a point of detail, I guess but I'm arguing it because the main point of this thread was that "multi-volume works are necessarily non-literary and bad". I don't really think that Martin is writing in a staggeringly different way from what Dumas or Charles Dickens would have done, actually. Dickens was a master at writing subplots and tangential threads that could, technically have been dispensed with or not included but hey he wrote serially and he could decide to throw in another plot if he liked the idea!
D_Davis wrote: "I'm a huge fan of brevity, and more often than not World-Building is an assassin of the art."Most of fiction was shorter then. Howard is famous for short storiesl, Zelazny,Vance wrote SFF classics that was max 200 pages. The more recent readers wanted bloaded,slower novels.
I don't have a problem with length, but I do have a problem with padding, which is what I see most world-building as. Tell me a good story. If you have a 10,000 year-long history for your world, just tell me about the parts in an active-voice that has to do with what is going on in the present narrative.
D_Davis wrote: "I don't have a problem with length, but I do have a problem with padding, which is what I see most world-building as. Tell me a good story. If you have a 10,000 year-long history for your world, ju..."Yeah the problem isnt lenght but padded, slow stories because the author is milking because he knows the fans of epic fantasy for example expect 800 page books. Thats why i dont tend to read those type of books.
I agree with D. There has been a tradeoff between good storytelling in favor of world building. I don't think there is any point in denying that fact.
I think the most perfect example of the extremes comes from Tolkien himself. On one hand you have The Hobbit, and on the other hand you have The Silmarillion. One is an exciting narrative in which we learn about Middle Earth through the adventures of the characters, the other is plodding bore of a fake-historical fiction novel.
Mod
Yeah, I will refrain from saying what I really think about D_Davis' opinion on _The Silmarillion_. Chacon son gout and all that. I will allow myself to say, however, that it's a bit unfair to judge Tollers for a book published posthumously that was edited by his son based on numerous, and often conflicting, notes.
Also (and finally) it wasn't meant to be a 'novel' in the way _The Hobbit_ or LotR were, so judging it by those standards seems a bit skewed to me.
Alex wrote: "The pulps were a lowbrow platform for what has always been considered lowbrow writing. ..."I don't think Heinlein, Asimov, & Bradbury are low brow writers. Howard, I suppose, although I really like him & I agree that the pulps didn't have a great reputation in some circles, but they provided an excellent outlet for the authors & spread the genre into the mainstream. When they went out of business in the 60's, there was a real dearth of short story outlets that actually paid enough for a writer to start a career. Is there one now?
Alex wrote: "The truth is that we have more different types of fantasy being pubished than ever before, of differing length and quality. Some of it is amazing, lots of it is dreck.
I agree, but I don't think it has the same value as the pulps. Now we're drowning in them without proper gate keepers. I've seen far too many e-magazines, come & go, some with decent editors, most without any. Not that the pulps had perfect editors, but overall they added a lot of value to the market. There's so much free stuff available that paying for a monthly subscription doesn't make sense for me & the few I have over the years seem to disappear over night.
The aspiring writer now might write short stories for recognition or awards, but not for sustenance, while many of the pulp writers actually made a living (not a great one) on short stories for years before getting into novels. It's different economies, times, & markets, but I don't think the short story is doing nearly as well as it used to.
Alex wrote: "I'd love to discuss this with you when I'm done with books 4 and 5. Jesus, this thing is looooooong... "I was very disappointed in book 5. Up through book 3, the story moved along, slowed a lot in 4, but after all those pages in book 5, I felt as if it hadn't moved a lick.
I think it's completely awesome through Book 5 and I'm looking forward to more.See, some actually like huge sprawling epics with lots of world building. Depends on individual moods and tastes, I imagine.
Mod
I don't think that the Academy and the critics and the keepers of the "canon" would consider them to be literary greats. Acceptance is coming but I think it would be wrong to think that anything that came out of a pulp magazine was considered by most to be amongst the more important work of thr twentieth century. Proust, Ford Maddox Ford, Hemmingway, Conrad, Woolf, Kafka ..... Asimov?
We think they're great and we can criticise the establishment as much as we want (and I'm pretty sure D Davis is going to take the opportunity after this post) but other people simply don't. Fantasy and sci-fi fiction has never been "in" and it's purely thanks to the publicity it's had post LOTR movies that it is even remotel considered a genre one doesn't use as bonfire material.
I think that publishing "now" would in no-sense be comparable to publishing in the 60s so I do't know how you'd make a judgement call regarding what worked then and what worked now. The climate is different, the economy is different, the publishing industry is different. So much is different it simply doesn't make sense to me to blame one brand of fiction that you don't happen to enjoy reading for any perceived problems. As I've said before, short stories are being written and lots of them. As readers we are not being deprived of the opportunity to read them, so what's the problem exactly?
I agree, but I don't think it has the same value as the pulps. Now we're drowning in them without proper gate keepers. I've seen far too many e-magazines, come & go, some with decent editors, most without any. Not that the pulps had perfect editors, but overall they added a lot of value to the market. There's so much free stuff available that paying for a monthly subscription doesn't make sense for me & the few I have over the years seem to disappear over night.
The aspiring writer now might write short stories for recognition or awards, but not for sustenance, while many of the pulp writers actually made a living (not a great one) on short stories for years before getting into novels. It's different economies, times, & markets, but I don't think the short story is doing nearly as well as it used to.
I think you're mythologising the pulps because they were from a perceived better period of publishing. How amazing were they for how many authors that they provided more literary opportunities than self-publishing on the internet does now. Then, as now, the fact is you'd succeed if you were good and had a lot of lucky breaks. Or if you were shit and had a lot of lucky breaks.
Not to say that I think you are 100% wrong in what you are saying. Maybe there was a slightly more thriving market in short stories and that overall more people read more of them than they do now, but do you actually have any solid statistics to prove that, or is that a gut feeling because you like pulps and classic fantasy and read less newer short fiction yourself? Personally, I have absolutely no idea and I'm not really bothered because a) I'm interested enough in going back and reading fiction that was written 50, 100, 200 yrs ago that I have enough to read for the rest of my life that I want to read without ever reading a new published work again and b) I'm interested in what is being published now for its own sake and I don't see that a newer work *has* to be written in a certain form for it to be worth reading.
I would argue that Bradbury is as good a writer (in prose style, substance, and narrative) as any of the so-called great, canonized western writers. Dandelion Wine is as good as any other American novel ever written (that I've read).
I would not argue the same for Asimov or Heinlein.
I would not argue the same for Asimov or Heinlein.
I don't have any solid evidence, but I have heard authors such as Stephen King lament the death of the short story as an art form, especially in America.
However, the rise of the "literary single" on the Kindle will sure be a boon to the art form. Just look at what McDermott has been able to do with "Death Mask and Eulogy," and "King Basilisk's Palace."
However, the rise of the "literary single" on the Kindle will sure be a boon to the art form. Just look at what McDermott has been able to do with "Death Mask and Eulogy," and "King Basilisk's Palace."
Mod
I've only read Something Wicked This Way Comes. He's a very, very good prose writer actually. Is he as good as Conrad, or F Scott Fitzgerald?
I really don't know. I like them all!
I'd personally say that Gene Wolfe is as good, if not better than Don Delillo, but the latter is a critical darling who has his name in the annals of literary fame and postmodernism, the former is read by a bunch of fantasy loving die hard geeks...
What *is* cool is that I recommend Gene Wolfe to people, and generally they like it. Because he's awesome.
Mod
However, the rise of the "literary single" on the Kindle will sure be a boon to the art form. Just look at what McDermott has been able to do with "Death Mask and Eulogy," and "King Basilisk's Palace."
Well, I imagine that Stephen King feels similarly to a lot of people here. He's an author of the people, which is one of the nice things about him. Let's invite him along to joing this conversation, I'd like to hear his thoughts :D
Yes, I agree, I think that the Kindle will have far-reaching effects in the publishing world It's potentially an exciting time. McDermott has been writing a lot of shorts and frankly I'll happily keep buying them....
Alex wrote: "I don't think that the Academy and the critics and the keepers of the "canon" would consider them to be literary greats..."I'm not so sure of that & certainly disagree, but then I could swear that those 'keepers of the canon' try to keep people from enjoying reading, too. I had enough English teachers who fit the bill.
;-)
Alex wrote: "I think you're mythologising the pulps because they were from a perceived better period of publishing. How amazing were they for how many authors that they provided more literary opportunities than self-publishing on the internet does now...."
I think you missed the point about gate-keeping. A friend of mine said she spent quite a bit of time reading free stuff on Smashwords & came to the conclusion that it's all garbage. I disagree with her, but understand the problem - it's hard to figure out what is good & what isn't. The pulp editors did a pretty fair job, from what I can tell, of weeding out the dross & publishing the gems. Pricing is a big problem as is knowing what to actually spend money on.
No, I don't have a lick of proof to back up what I'm saying beyond my own experience & some that I've heard (read) from others on GR. I use people's recommendations here for short stories, but I'm reading a lot less of them than I once did & that's a shame. They are an art form. I think e-texts are a huge help in that works no longer HAVE to be a certain length. I've seen too many stories that have been obviously ruined by being fit to a specific length.
I'm not saying the old way was perfect or believe they were THE Golden years. Too much has changed to go back, anyway. The printing houses on the train tracks that printed the pulps were acquired in a merger & then shut down, bringing the end to that era, as I understand it. Even if they hadn't been, the world has moved on, hence I mentioned e-mags. Unfortunately, most seem to have the life span of a mayfly among other problems. We're in a state of flux right now & I think things will settle down in a decade or so.
It would be interesting to find the numbers and compare how many short story collections have been published during each decade.
I'd wager that we'd see a decline in the numbers, especially from the '50s until now.
What that says about the short story in general would be up for grabs.
I'd wager that we'd see a decline in the numbers, especially from the '50s until now.
What that says about the short story in general would be up for grabs.
D_Davis wrote: "I don't have any solid evidence, but I have heard authors such as Stephen King lament the death of the short story as an art form, especially in America.However, the rise of the "literary single"..."
Stephen King has said this. He said it 30 years ago. He said it 10 years ago in his book On Writing. It's not a new thing.
If anything, the internet and the e-readers have increased the amount of short story writing in the last few years. It's easier to get one published, and they're easier for readers to find them. Are they the dominate form of books being read, no. They haven't been in years.
How do you find quality short stories?Short story collections in book form are a different kettle of fish than those in a monthly magazine, I think. Isn't there a different process for obtaining them?
I think short stories are an underappreciated format because writing a short story well is not easy. You have to conceive, develop, and conclude a story in a very short time, and there are often execution flaws.Like some of the other posters, I not overfond of long books. I don't think there's anything wrong with a long book, but I feel that it seems obligatory to write longer epic fantasy than shorter, maybe because the market calls for it. I like a book that I can read in a few days. It's not necessarily an issue of intricacy, I like it. For me, the problem is I like a story that keeps moving. I don't like slow, plodding writing very much. I'd rather read a book that is concisely written due to excellent word choice, not necessarily because pertinent details are omitted. If I had to choose between a prematurely concluded novel with a horrible cliffie and a longer book that has a natural conclusion, I'd choose the latter.
I respect Tolkien for what he has done for the fantasy genre. I just don't believe everyone has to write Tolkien-esque fantasy to be taken serious or write massive epics to be be considered quality fantasy.
Pre-Tolkien Fantasy
Books mentioned in this topic
Islandia (other topics)A Game of Thrones (other topics)
The Stand (other topics)
The idea that fantasy works need to have this MASSIVE amounts of lore and world building is, I think, a problem invented by Tolkien and one that is a major problem today, leading to the never-ending series of books over 800 pages long.