ŷ������

I am keen to hear the views of members in regards to the quality of writing in the fantasy genre. These days you can see a fantasy author write one novel and if it becomes a success, suddenly it may spawn into an extra large series of many paged novels. This may be due to publisher’s requests and the saying 'if you’re on a good thing stick to it'. But is the quality of the writing being compromised with extended volumes filled with drawn out words and plots that are only to keep readers buying more books in the series once they are hooked.

The fantasy genre has been a very successful one of late with the Lord of the Rings being declared by some as the book of the twentieth century and then the start of this century we have seen the great success of the Harry Potter series of novels. Fantasy tales of giants and monsters have been around from the beginning of time and now it has started to become seen as a genre worthy of value to publishers. Authors are now self publishing and becoming successful and daily we see new authors spring up and sell in large quantities. The fantasy genre once had a very small space on the book store shelves stuck in amongst the science fiction novels, now it has grown and slowly is being seen as a genre worthy to stand alone.

Does fantasy writing need to be of a high literature standard or is just a good story no matter how well written, all that is needed?

Some links of interest on this subject:



"Fantasy opens the door to experiencing the magic that is in the world around us and more importantly the magic in ourselves. As a genre, fantasy is about moving from our world into the world of experiences beyond. By tapping into those experiences we come to know more about ourselves." - T.A. Barron

J.J. writes: Does fantasy writing need to be of a high literature standard or is just a good story no matter how well written, all that is needed?

A book can be quite enjoyable because of its imaginative and engaging plot, and DESPITE mediocre writing quality. I've read many such books and will most likely do so in the future. However, no matter how beautiful and skilled the writing, if a book's characters and plot don't engage me, I won't finish it. Books that have both tend to win prestigious awards.

Leslie made nearly the same point I wanted to. When I think of an amazing story line with a mediocre writing style, I think of Dune, but that's a tad more sci-fi than fantasy.

There have been a few occasions when I've picked up a fantasy novel because the cover or synopsis just seemed too ridiculous to be a published story, and walked away from the book glad that I decided to read it.

In pure fantasy a decent story line is sometimes enough to cover up the writers faults. I think the mystery lies in needing to see the characters through to the end of their journey. Or wanting to see what new devices a writer will use in their world building, or magic system.

Even if the writer is poor at every aspect of writing other than character development I will usually stay on board, just to see a favorite character through to the end.

This would not make me pick up a sequel, or a separate stand-alone novel, but it will keep me reading until the end of the novel.

I read a book to see what happens, preferably to the character. I've seen many books 'of a high literary standard' that left me completely cold. I get the feeling that the author is more interested in the words than in the story. Something wonderful may happen, but I can't see the story for the words.

At the other end of the galaxy are the books with the stock characters and the barely-concealed wish-fulfillment storylines. The characters end up the same way they went in, and the payoff probably isn't as valuable to me as it was to the author, so why bother?

Unfortunately the quality of the writing depends on the quality of the readers, and the motivations of the publishers. I'm sure many a good book has been left in the drawer because the publisher wanted something they could sell to teenage girls, or win a n award with whether anyone read it or not.

JJ wrote: " I am keen to hear the views of members in regards to the quality of writing in the fantasy genre. ... But is the quality of the writing being compromised with extended volumes filled with drawn out words and plots that are only to keep readers buying more books in the series once they are hooked. "

I'm not sure that the quality of writing necessarily suffers, but I do think the quality of story often does. There are a lot of books in big series which I feel are sort of "filler". That I don't like, especially when it's overly formulaic.

JJ wrote: "Does fantasy writing need to be of a high literature standard or is just a good story no matter how well written, all that is needed? "

For me it's a good story, and good characters, all the way. If this is matched with literature standard writing, then all the better.

The first example that comes to mind is Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell. I loved the writing and the characters. It faltered in places, but overall, I really enjoyed it.

Then there's something like The Monsters of Templeton. Interesting writing, but annoying characters. I enjoyed the style of the writing, and some parts of the narration, but since I didn't really care about the characters, it ended up not being that enjoyable for me, even though it was well written. I'm feeling generally the same way about the book I'm currently reading, The Thirteenth Tale. Some epics fall into this category, too, where the author is so in love with the detail, the plot or characters sometimes get lost, whereas others use those details to expand the depth of their story, both within and without the characters.

But, lastly, there's the books where the writing is pretty simple and straightforward, but I love the characters and the story. Harry Potter, for me, falls in this category. I wouldn't necessarily call it high literature, and Rowling's not very good at writing action sequences, and the coincidences of the last book had me rolling my eyes - but I still love the series, overall, because I loved the world and the characters and the story. Ranger's Apprentice is another one - tho he handles action much better. It's a pretty simple adventure story, but it's so much fun.

So, yes, an interesting story can go a long way to forgive mediocre writing. Not bad writing, though - because then it's so distracting you can't even get into the story. But exellently woven words with a lackluster story and/or characters are usually just that - pretty words with no lasting impression.

I once went to Russia when the iron curtain was still up, in the year when relationship with the west re-opened, and the country allowed tourists from here for the first time in decades...let me tell you, that trip taught me what happens when one standard of measure decides what should be and not be, for everyone.

Individual expression matters to me far more than what standard people consider to be "the best" or whatever label.

After that, personal preferences have the fullest range of choice. And different times and walks of life have their own comfort zones. Even mood changes what I'd consider a good read, in the moment.

There is beauty in a rough cut stone, and beauty in a simple one, and beauty in the rough and tumble, as well as in the formal cut - thanks, but I'll have all kinds of story telling, formal, inept, uneducated, rough or exquisitely, even brilliantly refined - for the wealth of choice it offers.

JJ wrote: "Does fantasy writing need to be of a high literature standard or is just a good story no matter how well written, all that is needed? "

I guess I'm going with everyone else on this one for the most part and saying that while I believe authors should strive to have their books well written, it's really the story that we're all looking for. I can't help but use the Twilight books as an example. It really is a great story but the writing was just not that good at all! She kept me hooked though, and I read the entire series. Other books like the Kushiel's Legacy books and the Sevenwaters Trilogy I feel are amazing stories and really well written. Their ability to combine both and do them so well is what makes these my favorites!

To me, you can't have a well-written book without a good story. If the story is not compelling, by definition, the book is not "well written". High literature is that because there is something important about it that makes it eternal. You can't tell me that Shakespeare was not a great story teller, and his plays are considered the highest of literature. To get more recent, just about all of Dickens' books are incredibly readable, because the stories and characters are so bloody compelling, and he combines humour with relevant social commentary together with a compelling drama that makes a book like Oliver Twist or Nicholas Nicholby or Great Expectations as readable today as they were when they were published.

I guess the story is the first piece of good writing. The style just makes them better.

I have to agree with Lochaber. You need a good story. You have various levels of writers today, but even if I know a writer isn't "good" in terms of technique aspects (say Kelley Armstrong), I still enjoy the books because of the story or the character. Then there are writers like Terry Pratchett where everything is like a fine wine.

I do have to also agree with Marc who pointed out the impact of readers. I think this is a huge part of the problem. I think there are too many readers that read only in a comfort zone, and those comfort zones are small. Those readers are also very, very, defensive. Everything thier writers write is wonderful. It seems this view comes from not reading widely. I love Pratchett, but not everything he writes is the "da bomb" as it were. I read Kelley Armstrong but I also know she isn't the best writer in the world. Too often, it seems that reader's don't want to move out of a narrow zone. Don't want to read something that will make them think. They want cookie cutter stories.

Chris, Janny's comments above are also apt. Reading is subjective. I could not read Tolkien's Children of Hurin for several months, because having read The Silmarillion (several times) I knew that the story did not "end well", so to speak, and I was going through a very difficult time with my wife being very ill, trying to juggle looking after her, work, and two young children. Reading a sad story at that time was impossible, so for that summer, I read light fluffy stuff. I read Children of Hurin this past summer (my wife is quite well, now), and enjoyed it immensely. It is easily the best of what Christopher Tolkien has done with his father's work.

Sometimes you need the rough stone, sometimes the highly refined marquis-cut diamond, and sometimes, you need somewhere in the middle.

Chris, your point about reader's view is important. One must be willing to venture out of their comfort zone. It's far too easy to stagnate in there.

Reading is so subjective that the very best take is to have your own opinion - or, to at least rely on reviewers who are proven trustworthy in the similarity of taste.

So many times I see "ratings" that are viciously off, from readers pushed out of their comfort zone, or, taking seriously a book that was meant as fluff or fun, or, killing a book with depth because it was not shallow or copycat, or predictably cookie cutter for the genre.

Some readers are downright threatened by ideas outside their norm, or by language with imagination, or with dialogue that doesn't sound like it was written for a TV script.

Few who report on books tend to examine the premise upon which a story was written: what sort of read it was meant to become. The fit with personal expectations is usually the determining factor with a book being "good" or "Quality" - if I've seen any trend, it's a shortening of patience. Many readers will not give a story time, before reaching a conclusion. Some review or rate when they have not finished - which skews the result, since how do they know why a story was made, if they could not manage to stay for the ending?

I've no problem with opinions - we all have them. Or with time - life is too precious to waste on what we do not love.

But I find labels that don't stand back and examine a book's purpose utterly useless. They can (potentially) put off the very reader who might cherish what was written - or bring in a reader who was foxed into thinking a story would fall in with their taste.

The best of stories, for me, blow the labels all to heck...which sort of wrecks the purpose of trying to standardize what is quality or not.

I'd prefer to examine TRENDS - not quality/not the subjective idea of what constitutes quality. And there are, today, several prominently emerging trends - urban fantasy, sensual romance, simplified or extremely simplified language coupled with modernized dialogue - what is quality and not is elusive, but the faddish turns that rise and fall provide more food for meaningful discussion.

Having worked many years in L-space (aka public libraries, for the Discworld virgins among us) I've seen that there's something out there for everyone, and even what I consider the best, like Terry Pratchett, may not be for all readers. Personally, though, I don't sit still for bad writing, abuse of the English language - except in the interest of characterization - or trite, poorly plotted non sequitur "action scenes" with no continuity in between. Writers who are cleverer than I am are always welcome. Writers who have a wicked sense of humor and don't pound me over the head with it are welcome. Writers who love gore and horror and have to state, restate and overstate everything may be excused. I love first-person narratives, like Dean Koontz's Odd Thomas stories, both for the richness of observation and the sense of connecting with someone who has a fascinating life. A striking image, like an elegant metaphor in the middle of a straightforward narrative passage, is always a plus. The author should not have to tell me how to react to anything, because the story should "feel" real, even though it's set in an imaginary world, such as Neil Gaiman's London Down Under. Writing like this takes real effort, and as a reader I appreciate that.

Personally I don’t think I can choke down another “Look-at-what-I-can-do�� fantasy novel. Don’t get me wrong I love a well placed fight scene or a brilliant display of power by a main character, that’s what makes fantasy what it is. But when you can tell that even the author is rushing ahead with the storyline and character development, desperate to get to that all-important last fight between good and evil, it makes me sick.
You know what? I want to know why the hero is fighting; I want to know why the villain is fighting. How did they get their power/abilities? Why or why not are they the only ones at this big ‘last battle��? Why it is in almost every fantasy story I read the main character never has a clue about who he is or how to use his power, and if he doesn’t at least explain why not?
Storyline needs to grow with the character, and authors need to remember that it takes more than just one main character to move a believable storyline forward.

Kyle, you've been reading some of the cliched stuff, to be sure. That's how I felt when I flung Terry Goodkind's Naked Empire across the room into the trash bin. Sick and tired. I too want motivations, bad guys that I understand and who love their kids, people who do wrong believing that they are right. The straw-man villain twirling his moustache is just too hokey to have in print anymore. Give me a Tony Soprano type, who does evil, but is very, very human.

The whole Dark Lord concept, which is a staple fantasy theme, if it is going to be used at all anymore, needs to be used in a new and refreshing way. Patrick Rothfuss might have done so, but it is too early to tell.

Sounds to me like you'd like Janny's books in The Wars of Light and Shadow, starting with The Curse of the Mistwraith, or George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, starting with A Game of Thrones. Anything by Tad Williams. Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay. There are loads of others, who do good characters that you may not like, but they MAKE SENSE, and are human, and the story is about what they do given who they are. Fantasy has grown up, and the farm boy with the magic sword and the old kindly wizard is not "cutting it" (pun intended) anymore.

Like a lot of other posters have mentioned the characters are definitely very important. But I might differ in that I don't really care for the main, overarching (usually save-the-world/avenge-loved-one) plot.

I read for the interactions between characters more than the story most of the time. The fantasy setting is just a plus.

Then you should like my books, where the focus is on the characters and how they interact, in what happens to be a fantasy setting. I describe it as "Making lemonade from fantasy lemons."

I agree with many posters that I have to care about the characters to enjoy the book. However, if the writing is too bad it distracts me from immersion in the story. Especially with recent genre publications, I often find myself jolted by grammatical errors and incorrect use of words (wrong part of speech, clearly not meaning what the author thought, etc). At the other extreme, I will sometimes finish a not-so-interesting story if the writing is very good. So I only "don't care about the writing" if it is at a certain moderate skill level.

It does seem to be a mixature of character and writing. I guess, the way I judge is if I am willing to buy a book and in what format. I like Kelley Armstrong, but I would never, ever (sorry) buy her books in hardcover. They're not worth the cost to me. Pratchett I'll buy in hardcover, for instance. Of course, that can change over time.

What I would really like to see is better editing.

There's some really good stuff to read and it's good to see new authors emerging to enrich the genre. But there's also a trend that I don't like: some authors indulge in the spreading out of the point of view between too many characters. I think it weakens the character development, because how can we get to know the characters if we don't hang around them long enough?

I'm experiencing that problem with my current read, The Briar King. There's a change of point of view with each chapter (sometimes even inside a chapter). I only read one or two chapters each evening, so by the time the story comes back to a character, this is what happens:
Who the hell is it now? Right, the forest guy. Well, where is he again? And what was he doing the last time?

Yes, I have a poor memory, but I still think it's an abuse of bad styling. A unique point of view is good, two or three well developed ones can be good too, but I don't think it can be more.

I agree with Miriam about the writing. As I said above, I think a good character and story can overcome mediocre or standard writing, but bad writing is just too distracting for me to even really get into the story.

Someone mentioned Dickens, and, for me, I have a problem getting into Dickens. I've tried multiple times, but just can't get into his writing style. I have the same problem with several classics... Oddly enough, I seem to be able to get into the modern faux-Victorian better than actual period writing. Of course, that also depends on whether it's heavy-handed - I often balk at modern writing which tries to be too pseudo-historical. I don't mind the anachronisms that bother some others about the modern stylizations within a period story.

I also agree with Cecile about too many PoVs. I don't mind some PoV shifts, but I think 3 or 4 is the max, depending on how deftly it's all woven together. But it should be consistent. I remember one book where the vast majority of the book was with 1 or 2 perspectives, and then in the middle of the book we get a random third, for only one or two chapters, and then we never see from that perspective again. I guess the author just couldn't figure out how to give us that information without giving us that perspective, but it was jarring to be introduced out of the blue, and then disappear just as quickly.

Anyway, I'm rambling - but I think the PoV thing also depends on how well the characters are distinguishable from each other. In the Historian, one of my complaints about the perspectives is that the characters were written in such a way to be practically identical. If they didn't have the 'cheat' of one perspective being without quotes, one being with quotes, and one with italics, then you could never tell who was who. If you're going to give us different character perspectives, then don't just let it be a way to fill in the story, but to actually give us character.

If it's a more plot-based story, then third-person omnicient is a perfectly fine way to tell a story. (Of course, I'm not a huge fan of first-person narration in general, so I'm probably biased in that regard.)

I used to groan when I picked up a book and saw that the main character was "I", or in other words, a first person narrative. But over the last dozen years or so, I have really come to enjoy the first person.

Odd Thomas and Life Expectancy by Dean Koontz are my favorites by far from this author, and I think that a large part of that is due to the first person narrative.

The majority of The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss is first person as well. So are the Amber books by Roger Zelazny.

I'm not sure what it is exactly, but all of these examples read very smoothly. It is possible to lose oneself in the story, and each of the authors has a comfortable handle on the language to make it a nice fit. All good examples of great quality of modern fantasy literature, though the Amber books are a bit older.

Patrick Rothfuss tells a story, and even in shifting from first to third and back, his grasp of the storytelling process makes it work. I would say there is a seamlessness to reading his book (only one so far) that enables the reader to lose oneself in the story. It is about characters more than anything, but the plot and worldbuilding is excellent too. To me, his book is a great example of quality writing. It has it all. It does remain to be seen how he will finish his story, but I have great confidence.

Other great examples of quality writing today are (to me) Brandon Sanderson, Scott Lynch, Janny Wurts, Guy Gavriel Kay, George R.R. Martin, Stephen King, and Steven Erikson. I also have high hopes based on what I've heard about Joe Abercrombie, who I intend to try very soon.

I think that the thing that sets these (and other) authors apart today is the way they are willing to take risks. Story and characters have always been important, as has good writing skill. That's nothing new. But the fantasy writers today are always looking to break out of the mold. As more and more of them are seeing success (critical as well as sales), the writing industry as a whole is seeing how readers are responding. Readers today want something new and innovative, yet hold to their high standards of storytelling. Yes, that produces a lot of hit and miss, but overall I have seen some great results.

This year alone I have broadened my own reading horizons tenfold simply by joining ŷ������ and exploring new authors as well as some that have been around for a time but I had missed or passed over. It has been real exciting to visit some of the worlds I've been exposed to, and while there have been a few I didn't care to return to, the majority of what I have tried has caused my TBR list to explode at an alarming rate.

Janny mentioned the great number of choices we have today, and that's very true. Part of the success I've had at finding those great epics I enjoy most is by narrowing the choices down to those that appeal to me. I've been open-minded, but at the same time tried to be realistic about how many books I can buy or read in a given period. And yet, the group selections of this group and others has helped to steer me to books that might have otherwise gotten shoved around on the back burners.

I would also agree that the story has to be the priority. Nobody wants to read a series of elegant an eloquent sentences that lead nowhere.

Now, call me childish, but I need some level of a happy ending. George RR Martin has one of the best stories out there, he writes better than most, he does wonders with the characters and then they die. Seriously? After the first book something in the back of my mind prevents me from getting attached to a character because he may just die. Yes, it makes the books more realistic and more believable, but truth be told, we are reading FANTASY, we wish to escape, if we wanted to see reality we would simply look out the window.

I gave up reading George RR Martin for the same reason. I got tired of horrible things happening to good people -- I read the news for that!

I never started GRRM for the same reason. Ditto with the Joe Abercrombie stuff, and, now, Assassin's Apprentice, since the discussion was saying how depressing it is.

I don't mind dark stuff (actually, I prefer it, even if I can't define it), and I don't mind gritty, but I do like some sort of satisfactory conclusion, and while I get annoyed if everyone lives, I don't see how it's more "realistic" if everyone dies, either. I want some ray of light at the end, a silver lining, a bitter sweetness - something so I don't want to go slit my wrists. (A book that I read in high school which I will always hate on some level is All Quiet on the Western Front. I liked the book a lot for the most part, but talk about a downer ending.)

That said - I know there are people who prefer the "realism" of these stories, so they're more than welcome to them. An LJ friend of mine was raving about 'A Song of Ice and Fire', and since I was looking for something new, I started reading the write-ups and reviews on amazon. Luckily I always check out a book first before I pick it up, 'cause I got enough from the reviews to know that it wouldn't be my cuppa.

Anyway, I suppose I'm childish as well, but I like a little bit of light with my dark. Nothing overly sacharrine or twee, mind you... 'cause that's just as bad. *shudders*

(And all I can hear in the back of my head is
"Who gets Humperdinck? At the end, who kills him?"
"No one. No one kills him. He lives."
"Jesus, Grandpa. What did you read me this thing for?")

GRRM is a great writer, and I have enjoyed every book in the series, except A Feast For Crows was not as good as the first three. His big problem is balance. Perhaps the series, with three books to come, will be balanced as a whole, but up to now, there is not a lot of hope or light to balance the bleakness and tragedy of the story. I think he has done great things, but his downfalls are too many POVs (though he pulls this off much better than Jordan has done) and the lack of balancing the good things humans do against the bad ones. However, there was a flicker of hope towards the end of the last book.

Fantasy can't be all victory for the heroes. Look at LOTR: victory came at great cost for the protagonists. You couldn't have the dawn of the Third Age restored, it had to pass away, along with the Ring, the Elves. Fantasy also can't be all doom and gloom, like the news to which Miriam refers. Showing the evil that humans can do to each other must be balanced by that which is sublime, beautiful, and good. Hopefully, GRRM balances the rest of the series that way. Been one hell of a journey to date (literally!).

Kinda funny - I always think of LotR as an example where not enough of the main characters died, or had really dire outcomes. It's always interesting to me the different perspectives that come from the same thread.

I will have to agree with blackrose. I thought that too many characters survived in LotR.

Yes, it might be that when the Song of Ice and Fire series is all said and done, maybe it will have a happy ending, but the problem is, you have to have this balance between hope and despair in each book, or two at the most, otherwise I just feel like the author is dangilng the carrot of hope in front of my nose to get me to buy the next book with the illusion that things might be better.

Yes, LOTR had a more or less happy ending, but look at the cost of the victory: The flower of the youth of Gondor and Rohan died on the fields of Pellenor and at the Battle of Morannon. Frodo was a broken shell of who he should have been, but for his time with the Ring. The elves would be gone forever from Middle Earth. The dwarves would slowly disappear. The remains of the Dunedain would be subsumed by "lesser" men as the Gondorians already had been. In short, the cost of the War of the Ring was that "wonder" was receding from the world. It ended well, but at a cost.

No, the main characters did not die, but Tolkien wrote his story in a different time. Were he writing now, he might have changed his story to suit this more cynical age. But that is speculation.

I suspect that Tolkien deliberately depicted serious losses other than death as a reaction to the World Wars. Following the wars (esp the First WW) there was a lot of idealization of the "heroic dead" and attempts to white wash horrible experiences; it is much easier to do this with dead soldiers far away than with crippled, shell-shocked veterans who come home shadows of their former selves.

Marco, I seriously doubt if anything Martin writes is done to get people to buy the next book. If all of his work was about marketing ploy, it wouldn't take him 5 or 6 years to crank them out. He has to know he will lose readers that way, but the story is more important to him done right than half-assed to get it out on the shelves to turn a fast buck.

Chris, wasn't it you that talked about readers being defensive of "their" authors? I do believe GRRM is a great writer, maybe a lazy one, since it does take him five years to crank up a novel. There are plenty of authors on GRRM's level that don't take as long. Think about it, he spends four years developing a novel and the characters in it and then kills them. These are valuable characters, funny characters, likeable characters, what is this need to kill them?

Marco wrote: "Chris, wasn't it you that talked about readers being defensive of "their" authors? I do believe GRRM is a great writer, maybe a lazy one, since it does take him five years to crank up a novel. Th..."

I'm that Chris.

I did read GRRM for a while. He's great, but I'm fed up with the older siblings always getting the shaft. It's not him; it's me.

I like realism, but I also don't like writers who kill off their characters just because they can. Conversely, I don't really care for writers who make it widely known that they will not kill off central characters. For instance, I'm reasonably sure that Rusch won't kill off Miles Flint; however, the series isn't called Miles Flint; the series is called Reterival Artist. Therefore, Miles isn't 100% safe. Laurell K. Hamilton has gone on record as saying her central characters are safe. I like the uncertainity. Boy, am I picky!

I don't GRRM is like that, though.

The way I saw it, for LotR, is that the elves and dwarves have to disappear because isn't it sort of supposed to be our world, back in some ancient past? Obviously those things don't exist in the time that Tolkien was writing, but it was based on mythos of creatures which are said to have existed, since we're talking primarily Norse lore. They couldn't have remained, because they didn't, if that makes sense.

But, then, perhaps it's just because I'm familiar with the older mythos, and the magical creatures always end up going off to the West, or to the mounds, or whatever, as a way to explain why they're not around anymore. It's a common element of 'the mythic past' in many of the "mythic histories" of man.

Besides, they were sort of removed from the world in the first place, so they'd almost made themselves moot. *shrugs*

I mean, I do get what you're saying, but I guess I saw it as inevitable from the outset. It wasn't the war that made it happen, really, since the elves were already planning on leaving and some had to be talked into staying. The dwarves were alreading hiding out and away from everyone, and the Dunedain were all but a memory, anyway.

And while Frodo was damaged, he also got to go into the West with the elves and Gandalf and Bilbo, which doesn't seem all that bad of a fate to me. And of all the youth who died in battle - they were pretty much all nameless. You never care as much when the nameless ones die in a story. Right or wrong, good or bad, it's the main characters you empathize with, and they were, with the exception of Frodo, Boromir (who was kind of a jerk), and the king of Rohan (whose name I forget - and whose death was heroic and redemptive), none of the main ones die.

Meh - regardless, it's a matter of perspective, and what I was left with was not the pain of the loss as much as the glory of the victory. But, then, nothing less would be expected from a modern Norse epic. Those crazy, crazy Norse. *grins*

Marco, I don't think for a minute that GRRM is lazy. He may have issues with focus, but he always has LOTS going on. He is always busy with something, it just might not be what his readers want him to be busy with.

As far as his "right" to kill his characters, well it is his story. He has every right to write it as he sees fit. He is the one and only judge of what is right/wrong for his story. No matter what he does or doesn't do, someone will disagree with it. So it all boils down to what HE feels is right for the story he is writing.

Those that don't agree with him have every right to not read him, to find someone who writes stories they want to read, or perhaps even write their own stories.

Martin's job is to write a story and sell books. If his story is good, the selling should take care of itself. And if he doesn't see a single copy, he should still write the story the way he sees fit. Otherwise, why bother writing at all?

Tying back into the original question, it is this kind of writing that gives the genre its quality. The great storytellers will tell great stories. There are readers that won't like a particular story, but there are plenty that will - our tastes vary as much as the stories themselves.

Chris wrote: "If his story is good, the selling should take care of itself."

No. It don't work like that.

Realism and suffering are more directly linked to reader and author taste than to quality of writing. Some people enjoy them and some don't - and probably many, like myself, enjoy them in some moods but not others. I have no objective objection to an author making horrible things happen to his characters. I DO object to authors who substitute horrific experiences for more demanding approaches to plot interest and character development, but that is a separate issue.

Marc wrote: "Chris wrote: "If his story is good, the selling should take care of itself."

No. It don't work like that."

I was being simplistic, with my point being that he shouldn't sell out and write "crap" that suits a majority of readers just for the sake of selling the books. I hope that most writers I read write for story rather than sales.

And I also said "should", to imply the process in a perfect world.....

Interesting bend this discussion has taken.

Seems to have shifted focus from quality, to a debate over content, which is also subjective.

If you admired a character like Mother Teresa, unless you are a masochist, you'd not look to pick up and relish The Watchmen...though by gosh, that would make a rather interesting story, to mix the two ideologies headlong.

If content registers in defining a quality story, its another playing field altogether, I think.

Janny wrote: "Seems to have shifted focus from quality, to a debate over content, which is also subjective."


Content is what makes a quality story. Without believable characters and storyline to go with it, it would make for a pathetic lack luster book, I think.

To me, content is included in the overall story, but it is one of several attributes. To me, it is more the writing itself and aspects of that than what they are specifically writing about.

Kyle wrote: "Janny wrote: "Seems to have shifted focus from quality, to a debate over content, which is also subjective."


Content is what makes a quality story. Without believable characters and storyline ..."

It was the debate over preference, in content, that was the interesting turn, not that the content was not important.

Let me put it this way: Do we prefer realism in our fantasy stories even if that means killing beloved characters or do we prefer happy endings even if they make the story less believable?

I agree with Janny, quality is subjective and I do believe content has to play into it. I don't read just because I like to stare at a piece of paper and run my eyes dry, no, I read because I want to experience a good story. To me it's like a movie. You can have the best actors, great photography and special effects, but if there isn't a strong story to back them up, then its just a bunch of talented people making the right faces at the right times.

It is interesting (and a bit sad) that we all seem to agree that "realism"= depressing. I think you can have realistic happy endings, you just have to plan the story out so that it seems believable when things work out. For instance, I just finished Mimus, where the characters suffered quite a bit but survived to prosper once more. Given the situations Thal created for them I just didn't find it plausible that everything worked out.

On one hand, I agree with you that classics are often over-rated just because they're "classics". For instance, I agree with you that LotR is too long and drags. I can't finish Dickens, I enjoyed the movie versions of Pride & Prejudice better than the book. So on and so forth.

That said, I'm not sure I would agree that writers now are better than writers then. I generally tend to think it just as to do with norms of time and society. I'm fairly certain that if some Victorians read a book written today, even a good one, they'd probably think it was horribly done - and I'm not just talking content.

It's sort of the same as the fact that many people prefer the music they grew up with over either the classics, or the stuff that's coming out now, or will be coming out in the future. (There are, of course, always exceptions to the rule.) All this shows, imo, is that we are often biased towards the contemporary, not that it's actually any better or worse.

And regarding modern trash, there's a lot of stuff I've read which I found mediocre, hackneyed, and general tripe which other people have raved about, and books I love which others lambast.

Mayhaps all this really proves is that opinions are, indeed, subjective. But, then, that should really be able to go without saying. Unfortunate, though, that that doesn't seem to be the case.


On a side note, re: self-publishers, I often balk at the price of a self-published book. I know it's not their fault that they don't get the mass-produced discounts, but if I'm going to slap down the amount of a hardback book (which I almost never buy), then it's got to have either really good, and believable, word of mouth, or an excellent synopsis. (I am amazed at how many synopses blurbs are generic and badly written. If a blurb is generic, I will assume the book is generic, and dismiss it.)

Publishing today is just as political and elitist and money-driven as it ever was. That's why, I think, we see so many writers turning to online self-publishing. Evaluating somebody else's writing is often subjective when we're deciding if we like it, but when an editor has to decide whether or not to publish it there are guidelines that are followed. Some of them have nothing to do with literature. Considerations such as "how many inches of shelf-space will it require?" and "Does it fit with our current slate of material as to setting, content and tone?" are limiting for editors and frustrating for writers, but they are the real reasons why most manuscripts are rejected. Money rules. What gets to the stores is what is expected to make money. Quality is sometimes sacrificed. btw William Shakespeare and Henry David Thoreau will probably not read this blog, but Stephen King might, and spelling is still important.

@Gary: Your opinion of your own objectivity is noted... Moving on.

To your first point: One of the interesting things about the 'classics' and storylines is that they were sometimes the first of their genre. While these tropes can be drawn on and adapted and made better, and worse, there is still some respect owed to the progenitors of the stories we read today. I think it is this reason, more than anything else, why modern stories are compared to older stories - especially in the cases of obvious derivatives.

As to the trash that "I referred to", this was actually in response to your comment about trash being published. My point, there, was merely that what is deemed as trash is subjective, and was not directly related to the rest of the conversation.

Your second point is moot.

Your third point seems to suggest not that writing as evolved and has gotten better, as you say elsewhere, but rather that because people pump out more now than they did in the past that they have more chance of stumbling upon something of worth. This seems little more than the monkeyss typing Shakespeare theory. Sure, if people pump out thousands of reams of mediocre writing, they might be bound to stumble across something decent. I would say, though, that this particular argument actually favors those of old who wrote less, and yet still managed to, sometimes, come up with some good stuff.

Poe is an interesting example. Perhaps he wasn't as prolific as you, and yet he wrote some poetry which is still well known today, and he created the detective story. I admit, though, that I am more partial to his poetry than his stories.

As for Stephen King. I've read some King, but not much. My fiance has read his entire body of works. He's a big fan, though he also maintains that King has two problems: 1) he often writes, essentially, the same story but in different ways, though there are exceptions and 2) his endings often leave a lot to be desired.

As for his prose, which is at times highly metaphoric, it's perfectly servicable, I agree. I, personally, can't compare it to Hemmingway, as I've never read any. However, I also think this is a fools errand, essentially comparing apples and oranges, which brings us back to the essential point of my original post, which doesn't seem to have been addressed at all.

To whit, of course the prose of Hemmingway would be different from King's. I would even almost be willing to say that of course it generally sounds better to us, in that it flows better to our modern ears, because of the contemporary bias I mentioned. Now, I'm generally a contemporary reader, and I see nothing wrong with this particular bias. But I think that it has to be remembered the styles and standards would be different, not necessarily better or worse, because of the times they were written in. People though, acted, and, most importantly in this instance, talked differently. Prose which may seem stilted to our hears may have very well flowed much more naturally to the audience for which it was written - to Hemmingway's contemporaries, for instance. People, at least those who were likely to read these books, spoke more formally than we would today.

Not only would the language of the time be different, but so, too, would the rhythm of life, the themes of interest, the topics of engagement. Of course it would not read to you as breezily as a contemporary author, because the style is very different from our current one. This is to be expected. But to say that one is necessarily better is like saying that The Beatles are better than Mozart.

To your fourth point, I think it would be helpful if you actually laid out the 'old criteria' and the 'new criteria' by which you think things are judged and by which they should be judged. I think very few people, except perhaps literature professors, actually judge a modern book based on the standards of old. I think that the most often comparisons, as I said in the beginning, have to do with derivative plots and themes and devices more so than actual writing technique or style. Of course, I know literature professors who don't do this and, even for those who do, who listens to these people except for others who study literature? You seem obsessed with these "pipe smoking morons", and yet they have very little to do with what books get published, or read, or even how they are received by modern critics.

But, anyway, I also disagree with the notion that critics can not find fault in some of our great modern works. Unfortunately, I can't speak to most of your examples as I've never read them (GRRM), have no interest in reading them (Secret Life of Bees), or have never even heard of them (Lynn Margulis).

The only one I have read is 'Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister', which I did enjoy, though I prefered 'Wicked' for its social commentary and religious and political satire, even though it did suffer as a story here and again. And, honestly, while I liked 'Confessions', I can't remember much about it which stood out for me so much that I thought "this is brilliant", and some of his other stories, like 'Mirror, Mirror', just didn't appeal to me at all. Not so sure where this places him in terms of consistency...

Metaphor, by the way, is not a bad thing. Silly metaphor, perhaps, is another thing entirely. It shouldn't be overused, of course, but can be quite useful. While browsing through King this weekend, it seems that he has a fondness for simile. But I digress.

Fifth brings us back to standards of evaluation, which you never actually go into any real detail about, except for descriptions and metaphor. (I, personally, don't favor an abundance of description, but know many who like to have the world fleshed out for them on that level. I maintain is a matter of preference.)

But, then, I have never had a teacher tell me a book was great because of loads of description or mounds of metaphor. I have had a teacher tell me a story was great because it spoke, deeply, to human nature and also had biting social commentary. Perhaps you just had bad teachers?

Anyway, I can barely make out the point of your paragraph about 10 books pre-1950s and 10 post 2009, and having 10 new books on the shelves. I assume you mean 10 greatest books since 2009, whether or not they've been published? What an abstract example.

But, regardless, I do agree with you that 10 good modern books would probably trump 10 good older books, but, again, not for the same reasons. I think that the 10 good older books would be written in a style and voice which is not the "in thing" for our time, and so publishers, of course, would choose the more contemporary. Modern record industrials would opt for 10 new modern bands over 10 new classical orchestrations, as well. Modern things speak to modern people and modern sensibilities more than things with an older voice and older themes.

I do agree that modern things should be judged based on its own merits, and not on some abstract set of 'classic literary notions', though I also believe that the fundamentals of writing haven't changed all that much - only voice and them and style.

But, then, if we are not to judge modern writing based on old standards, then why on Earth should we judge old writing based on modern standards? It seems absurd, personally.

Of course, you are more than free to your opinion, for opinion I maintain it to be. I will not respond to any further attempt to try and convince me that it is objective fact, for while I am all for agreeing to disagree, or for noting that we are all free to our opinions, I dislike being told, whether through implication or otherwise, that my opinion is, thus, objectively mistaken.

Toodles.

I have little to add, really. As I've said before, I am not classicst myself. I do not hold the classics to the highest regard, and have often felt the same as you do - the reason they are held as classics is merely because we're told they are. I've thought this for both books and movies. Citizen Kane, for instance, I found interminably dull - but I recognize the contribution it made to cinematics.

Classics often were groundbreaking for their time - but I agree that they are not the end all and be all, nor should they be held as such. I do think that if the classics are to be taught in school, then they should be taught with a fuller level of background - the Moby Dick was widely criticized when it was first published, and that even many contemporary critics praise it for its exploration of themes, and not its literary merit. That Poe struggled to make a living as an author, and was best known, in his time, for being a critic. That some stories he wrote simply to suit public taste at the time, and some he wrote as satires. (Not to mention I never even knew Poe wrote detective stories, let alone practically invented the genre, until I was well out of school.)

So I do think that schooling does a disservice if it teaches that such things are classics, without giving any background and discussing for what reasons they are classics.

I suppose the place where I differ is that, with the exception of one particularly pompous blowhard of a teacher I had in college, I don't really recall coming across the idea that they were, necessarily, the epitome. Sure we learned some of the classics, and perhaps I am merely lucky in that I had a teacher who was truly passionate about his subject, but who also showed us movie clips of the Dickens books we were reading, which helped make them a bit more accessible than I found the books themselves.

Of course, in that same class, I also discovered 'To Kill a Mockingbird', 'Animal Farm', '1984', 'Frankenstein' and I read 'The Hobbit' (as opposed to just going by the cartoon). And I can truly say I enjoyed all of these books, and these are all, with the exception of 'The Hobbit', popular more because of their themes, I believe, than because of some epitome of writing they are meant to represent.

Of course, I was never forced to read 'Moby Dick', either, and for that I am grateful.

Anyway, as I said, I don't doubt that some of these authors would have trouble getting published today. Some write in the conventions of their time period, which are now considered outdated, and others weren't entirely well received even in their own time. But, then, such is always the case, and I imagine it's quite possible that years down the line people might say the same about Harry Potter. Heck - they already are. :>


As for the monkeys typing Shakespeare, I did not mean to imply that people were trying to emulate Shakespeare, or anyone else. It's just an expression (which I thought was rather well known) about inifinite math something or other, and what I was reminded of by your comment that someone who writes dozens of things would have better odds of "stumbling across a well turned phrase". (Of course, as a side note, as a sometime poet, I know the horrors of stumbling across a good phrase, and then trying to hammer out an entire work around it.)

I'm still not sure I agree with the more is better thing, because while there is more, it seems harder and harder to find the good stuff. Harder and harder to have an original voice or idea. Of course, when it does happen... well, we all know the joy of coming across something we truly love within the endless mire of mediocrity.


As to the criteria - I don't really think there is any, except the aforementioned "ground breaking for its time" and, of course, long dead. I do agree that some people place too much emphasis on something having been the first. I think some of the derivatives of LotR are better than the original, because they flow better and aren't as dry and academic. But I give due credit to Tolkien for the depth and breadth and world building and creation that he went into. I treat most of the classics this way. In this regard, we are in agreement.

But I guess I just don't see the epidemic of brainwashed children - and I went to Catholic school! (ba dum bum) (Though I dp wish you wouldn't pick on Poe so much - he is something of an idol of mine. More his poetry than his prose, though. His prose, I agree, is a bit dry. But, as I said, different time periods, different conventions, so on and so forth. )

Sure, there are people who don't read outside of school. This could partially be because of learning the classics - though I would guess it has more to do with swearing off reading after being forced to read stuff they didn't like, as opposed to thinking that nothing could possibly be as good. (But Tom Clancy as an example? Really? ;> )

But I guess I just never encountered it on the same level. From what I hear, a lot of schools are using Harry Potter in classes now, because people are so excited about them and eager to read them.

Maybe it's a generational thing, and it's dying out. I'm only 30, and I didn't encounter the system wide brainwashing you seem to be suggesting, and, judging on what my niece gets to read for her book reports (recently including 'Coraline'), I'm thinking it's on its way out, if its not already dead.

I think Blackrose made an intersting point about school. There seems to be this desire on the part of some teachers that students should only read literature. What is worse, they should like because literature is wonderful, moving, and so on.

The problem with that approach is that it doesn't really work. When you teach reading, part of the problem is generating interst. I'm not suggesting that students deteremine the course readings, but at least in the pre high school level there should be free reading time when the students read whatever they want without comment from the teacher.

When I was a child, I read what my parents considered too much fantasy and SF. My mom was upset because I hadn't read all of Austen by age 11, the age which she read it. She kept trying to force me to read classics.

That said, there is a place for the classics, but students should also be encouraged to read on their own. And classics should not be over taught. The students should be required to do a line by line, deep symbolism exploration. At least not at the pre college level.

Of course, some people narrowly define classic literature.

A very interesting thread, particularly the latest back and forth 'tween Blackrose and Gary. The concept of "quality" is so vast, though, that I fear we're all talking past each other.

And despite Blackrose's repeated entreaties, I still have no idea what criteria Gary is judging new and old works by - "I can definitely tell you what the new criteria is" - Gary, please do!

Looking past personal preference (which, in my case, makes me loath Patrick Rothfuss and shrug my shoulders at J.K. Rowling but love Tolkien, Erikson and James Cabell) I think the definition of "quality" was captured by Somerset Maugham when he commented on an artist of his day:

I have written this because it may have escaped the notice of many who have admired her brilliant performances that they are due not only to her natural gifts...but to patience, assiduity, industry and discipline. Without these it is impossible to excel in any of the arts.

And you can see that in the pulp fiction masterworks of Robert E. Howard compared to the hack work of Lin Carter. (Apologies to Lin Carter fans out there :-)

I keep thinking "I may not know art, but I know what I like."

I'm also reminded of what King said about Rowling and Meyer: "Both Rowling and Meyer, they’re speaking directly to young people. ... The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good."

I know some people who will admit that Twilight is not a good book, but they love it. Sort of like Sookie Stackhouse - it's like reading a soap opera, and it's really badly written, but it's fun, and that counts for something.

I suppose one of the reasons I'm not that worried about the literarti is because I'm much more worried about the power of the Oprah Book Club. My gods, but that woman has power.

Anyway, I'm sort of all over the place right now. I think my final thoughts on the matter are pretty much thus: 'quality', I think, is more about basic writing skills, and part of this is style and convention, but a lot of it is just the basic ability to write well. Everything else, though, is a matter of taste and preference.

**ETA: Oh, as for reviews. Since there's a lot left to taste, the best reviews and opinions are from trusted sources. People you know have similar tastes as you. Without some context, other people's opinions are pretty worthless.

That said - if I go onto amazon and there are nothing but glowing, 5 star reviews, I am immediately suspicious. I prefer to read a selection of 1, 3 and 5 stars to try to get a rounded perspective, and garner some idea if it'll be my kind of book or not. That is, of course, in those instances where I don't have a trusted source to turn to for their opinion.