tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post6172562092850083403..comments2023-04-03T18:40:42.735+09:00Comments on The Caffeinated Symposium: Fantasy: 1977 to 2011. Wrapping It All UpDave Cesaranohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-68009134889457102292015-12-15T18:27:55.407+09:002015-12-15T18:27:55.407+09:00I don't understand the dislike for Tolkien som...I don't understand the dislike for Tolkien some modern fantasy writers have. Can't believe how easy they are to manipulate with articles like Epic Pooh. There is a lot to say about that article, but I'm not sure it would be worth to invest a lot of time and energy to write it a reply in the comment section on the net, where it would be ignored by most people.<br /> <br />Modern fantasy is sadly often too bloated. Novels that (in my opinion) are excellent get far less recognition than (again in my opinion) hyped ones. What I do agree with, is the clichés about the concept of evil. There is an evil force out to destroy the world because it is evil, plane and simple. Evilness that bites itself in the tail. The antagonist should have a more credible motivation than simply being evil.Hansenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03972219789961366511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-17733098446689689632015-08-14T00:30:43.892+09:002015-08-14T00:30:43.892+09:00I'm gonna have to take issue with your lumping...I'm gonna have to take issue with your lumping Abercrombie in with Nicholls and Morgan. From your comments equating all three writers as essentially the same in content and motivation, I'm going to assume you haven't actually read any of Abercrombie's stuff and are instead writing based solely on his reputation.<br /><br />I have read Abercrombie's <i>First Law</i> trilogy and I find that it is essentially a leaner, meaner take on George RR Martin's approach to fantasy writing. His focus is on visceral character development and he crafts some of the most in-depth characterizations I've ever read. In lesser hands, a man like Glokta would be thoroughly unlikeable, a stereotypical boo-hiss villain incapable of drawing an iota of sympathy from the reader. In Abercrombie's hands, he comes off as more sympathetic than anyone else in the book.<br /><br />Also, reading comments from the author's blog, Abercrombie is definitely NOT trying to just be an "anti-Tolkien". He respects Tolkien, rightly reveres him as the father of the genre he writes in. But he correctly states that Tolkien has already mapped out one corner of the fantasy genre, so it would be wrong of Abercrombie to stick solely to those paths. As far as I'm concerned, Abercrombie is head and shoulders above the likes of Morgan and Nicholls and deserves to be thought of as Martin's successor.<br /><br />I have said before that writers who employ a healthy dose of cynicism, grit and realism in their fantasy writing have helped broaden the genre and help people understand that it's not just all fanciful swill designed to entertain children. Writers like Martin, Erikson, KJ Parker, Bakker, Matthew Stover, China Meiville and yes, Abercrombie, are not just "rebelling against Tolkien" but are instead rising beyond the formulaic approach of Brooks, Eddings, Salvatore, et al. They are the modern Glen Cooks or Mervyn Peakes, showing what more the genre can be.WriterJoshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08297293527408652148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-4983638166229507502011-10-10T02:50:46.344+09:002011-10-10T02:50:46.344+09:00I'm a little late to the game here, but thank ...I'm a little late to the game here, but thank you for this excellent post. I'm not sure I'm with you on accepting Tad Williams, as I found <i>Memory, Sorrow, and Thorn</i> interminable, but I can get behind everything else you've written here. Murgen and Sleepy tried so hard to measure up to Croaker as narrators, and just couldn't manage it... though I think even the later books of that series are better than much of the rest of what's available.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13333781524640845035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-38743382632438269832011-08-03T09:19:27.237+09:002011-08-03T09:19:27.237+09:00I liked this series a lot as well, nice job Dave. ...I liked this series a lot as well, nice job Dave. This paragraph is very telling:<br /><br /><i>In the end, the blame must be laid at two sets of feet--the publishers and the readers. The publishers are at fault because instead of being motivated to publish literature they are instead motivated by profit in only the most cynical manner (as exemplified by the del Reys). The readers are at fault by being so hidebound and ignorant of literature that they are bereft of any and all taste, motivated by a desire to either see Middle-earth last forever or be violently overthrown.</i><br /><br />While I think both camps are at fault, publishers are in the end only giving readers what they want. Though I do wonder how much pressure fantasy authors receive from publishers ("You want me to turn my 500 page novel into three books in order to triple the sales? Okay, I guess I could do that.")Brian Murphyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05563309422791320114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-3061875241782678292011-08-01T22:27:10.292+09:002011-08-01T22:27:10.292+09:00@Dennis: Glad you liked this series. I hope some...@<b>Dennis</b>: Glad you liked this series. I hope some of the POSITIVE comments I've had for some books, like C.S. Friedman's stuff, for example, were helpful in inspiring your reading. Dunno if you looked up any of Erikson's <i>Malazan</i> stuff, but you should.<br /><br />@<b>Lagomorph Rex</b>: I'm glad you enjoyed this. Yes, I was a bit hyperbolic about Robert Jordan, but that is because he has <i>so many</i> fans. If he had a smaller fanbase, I wouldn't feel that he were dangerous. I do feel that way <i>because</i> he's so many fans and his influence on their reading/writing is going to be profound.<br /><br />I agree that the ultra-subversives can be dangerous as well.<br /><br />Glad you enjoyed the series. It was pretty challenging and time-consuming to write but I've been wanting to do something like this for a while.Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-23754289204063554432011-07-31T09:17:39.259+09:002011-07-31T09:17:39.259+09:00It was a very good series of posts.
I don't ...It was a very good series of posts. <br /><br />I don't know how I feel about your dislike of Robert Jordan. I agree he is no, Melville or Dumas. Yes if he were a better writer he likely could have turned his Wheel of Time series into a single 3000 page epic and it would have been better for it.. but I'm not sure he would have been as popular. <br /><br />But I'm not sure he's dangerous. <br /><br />That being said. I tend to consider the books that are the most subversive of the status quo, to be the most dangerous. Where as those that maintain the status quo are the least threatening. <br /><br />Maybe thats the whole point though. If you aren't subversive at all, you wind up like Brooks and Jordan.. if you are too subversive you wind up like Abercrombie.. The trick is to be just enough subversive to do your own thing, while not pissing all over everything that came before.Lagomorph Rexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06385231158384929598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-81348688907246738482011-07-31T08:25:55.754+09:002011-07-31T08:25:55.754+09:00Awesome series of posts, Dave! I really enjoyed r...Awesome series of posts, Dave! I really enjoyed reading it. I haven't read most of the later (2000's) authors you wrote about, and I skipped some of the 80's and 90<br />s writers, too, but you do a great job of pointing out the flaws of modern fantasy.Dennis Laffeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03053699552003336733noreply@blogger.com