Is epic fantasy oversaturated?

[Prefx]

Although recently fantasy has branched out into sub-genres like "New Weird" and "urban," most fantasy authors still cater to the epic, and more specifically, through series. However, where is the epic novel going to progress from here? I'm curious in seeing your opinions: we have the high fantasy crowd like Tolkien and Jordan (RIP), among many more who are still alive, and we also have the newer, gritter epic authors like Martin and Erikson.

Of course this is not a problem (is it even a problem?) limited to fantasy. Mystery and romance have one overbearing sub-genre as well.

 

[Perpetual Man]

I don't think so. As you noted mystery and romance survive quite happily, with book after book being turned out, and I don't think that fantasy, popular as it is at the moment, seems to be at the same kind of publishing levels.

As long as the books are different and readable keep them coming - there may be similarities but there are enough differences to make them, well, different!

 

[Werthead]

Epic fantasy has definitely dropped off in the last couple of years as paranormal romance, the New Weird and urban fantasy has risen in popularity, so I don't think it's as much of a problem as it was a few years ago. Plus the newer epic fantasy authors such as Bakker, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Lynch, Abercrombie, Morgan, Abraham, Redick and Brett all seem to be bringing different ideas and approaches to the field, which I'm pretty happy with. Among the recent fantasy debuts, only Ruckley struck me as sticking too closely to established epic fantasy tropes, but evenso his book was a decent yarn.

 

[ratsy]

I am a huge fan of the epic fantasy so I say keep it coming. Of course I have been very impressed with the new ideas coming out and breaking the mould of the old fantasy formula. Rothfuss's debut was spectacular and I was a HUGE fan of Sanderson's Elantris. (I have picked up Mistborn but havent made it to it yet)

Even the epic story such as Hobb's Farseer and Tawny series stray from what you would think of as classic epic fantasy but are epic in their own right.

Martin and Erikkson have really created a new way to think of Epic fantasy and I can see in the near future more authors following in those kind of footsteps rather than the older ones.

 

[Connavar]

Epic fantasy has definitely dropped off in the last couple of years as paranormal romance, the New Weird and urban fantasy has risen in popularity, so I don't think it's as much of a problem as it was a few years ago. Plus the newer epic fantasy authors such as Bakker, Sanderson, Rothfuss, Lynch, Abercrombie, Morgan, Abraham, Redick and Brett all seem to be bringing different ideas and approaches to the field, which I'm pretty happy with. Among the recent fantasy debuts, only Ruckley struck me as sticking too closely to established epic fantasy tropes, but evenso his book was a decent yarn.

Im thankful for the current fame of urban fantasy. When its Jim Butcher type i love it to bits. Its good to see it being popular without needing paranormal romance stuff with vamps,sex etc

Its just good to read a urban fantasy series done well. I love the genre crossings too.

Right now im reading Liz Williams's Snake Agent. The cover says it combines Fantasy/Mystery,SF thats like all my favorites genres at once

When like me epic fantasy dont get you automaticly excited its nice to like and read UF.

 

[Lith]

I've been expecting epic fantasy to take a long vacation for years now, and it never seems to. People DO love elves, wars, and magic.

 

[Stephen Aryan]

I would say no, because everyone like something different from their version of epic fantasy. Some people have to see elves, dwarves, orcs etc in the truly old school D and D, LOTR for it to quality as epic fantasy, whereas others don't care as long as its a good yarn.

Likewise some people need to have magic and wizards in there and when it doesn't have that element they see it more as historical fiction, so I guess it all comes down to finding what is out there and knowing what you like because right now there has never been so much choice and I am absolutely loving it. Lynch and Abercombie are the two I've read most recently and they are very very different, and yet both would be classed as epic fantasy.

 

[Nikitta]

Lynch and Abercombie are the two I've read most recently and they are very very different, and yet both would be classed as epic fantasy.

I've never heard anyone call Lynch epic fantasy before, so I looked "epic fantasy" up on Wikipedia (thinking that I must've gotten the definition wrong, myself) where I found a pretty broad and diffuse definition. I still don't like calling Lynch epic fantasy, though.

 

[Saeltari]

I would disagree as I find that Epic fantasy seems to be less available. For me epic fantasy would be based on a hero's growth over time, including much magic and sword and magical animals that spans several cultures and much travel. I haven't found much recently to match the definition. We have a lot of fantasy out there at the moment but for me most of it is not classified as epic.

I would love to find a good new epic fantasy.

I have read Erickson and others but wouldn't consider his epic fantasy under my terms, it's good though. I would consider Martin epic fantasy, but strangely enough I haven't read his books.

 

[Dozmonic]

I really wish I could get into Martin's stuff, but how anybody could think any of the 50 pages following the prologue in a game of thrones is good is beyond me. I am determined to get past it and see if it is the gold mine people say, but I can't tear myself away from my own writing long enough ;-)

 

[Scifi fan]

I keep thinking of this scene in the movie, Amadeus, where Mozart was asked to write operas about Gods and Heroes, because they represent the noble in us. Mozart said there were so many Gods and Heroes that you'd think they excrete marble.

Sometimes, story telling can get pretentious, and that can happen even to SF or Fantasy, which should be the least likely genres to do so. I love epic tales, but they can get pretentious. Now, I don't read fantasy, but I think that SF can and does get a little pompous at times.

 

[Shoegaze99]

I no longer read epic fantasy. I've no problem with it, so keep it coming for those who like it, but I pay it no attention these days and have no interest in it. There was simply too much of it, and not enough it was any good. Plus, my tastes have changed.

Honestly, I'm quite glad it's no longer the dominant subgenre in the fantasy market. It's nice to have legitimate choices in my fantasy reading. Room for all styles, says I. There is enough variety out there right now that I can totally avoid epic fantasy and yet fans of epic fantasy have plenty to dive into.

Win/win.

 

[Clansman]

Problem with definitions? Everyone's are different. The word "epic" for me does not conjure up elves, dwarves, orcs and dragons. Rather, it conjures up the vision of a story that is massive, and takes many books and years to tell. You can have books and stories that are epic in proportion, yet have nothing to do with fantasy (The Godfather is often called an epic). High fantasy, to me, is a better description of that kind of fantasy that speaks of fantastic races, lots of fantastical creatures and elements, etc. VERY HARD TO DO HIGH FANTASY WELL, nowadays.

I would not hesitate to call GRRM's ASOIF Epic fantasy (it is huge), but it is not high fantasy. Janny Wurts' Wars of Light and Shadow, and Erikson's Malazan books, are both epic (they are huge), and they are high fantasy, though not of the traditional kind, as they use different races and systems of magic from the traditional high fantasy associated with Tolkien.

Where epic fantasy failed (whether it is high or not): Jordan's WoT, which got lost (but appears to be recovering), Brooks' Shannara books, which got repetitive, and worst of all, Goodkind's Sword of Truth junk (which I understand is even worse on film).

If we keep getting epic fantasy of the likes of Martin, Wurts and Erikson, I say bring it on! And having a broader range of fantasy types inside of epic fantasy is a good thing (high, low, urban, dark, etc.).

 

[Stephen Aryan]

I've never heard anyone call Lynch epic fantasy before, so I looked "epic fantasy" up on Wikipedia (thinking that I must've gotten the definition wrong, myself) where I found a pretty broad and diffuse definition. I still don't like calling Lynch epic fantasy, though.

That's fair enough but I would still class it that way, and as I said, everyone has their own interpretation of what they require for it to be classified as epic in their mind. In Lynch's case the world is changing, but we are seeing it from the underbelly side of the world instead of where we normally see it from.

 

[Stephen Aryan]

I really wish I could get into Martin's stuff, but how anybody could think any of the 50 pages following the prologue in a game of thrones is good is beyond me. I am determined to get past it and see if it is the gold mine people say, but I can't tear myself away from my own writing long enough ;-)

I would say press on with it. I was initially daunted by the size of the books given how I had been burnt by Jordan where it started out so well and then slowed down to a crawl in later books. Martin just keeps on punching you in the gut when you're not looking and it is fantastic stuff. And, we might be seeing it on TV as apparently HBO are working on a pilot.

 

[Dozmonic]

If they are putting him onto TV then I'll definitely force myself to press on with his stuff so I can be justifiably disappointed at the TV production lol

 

[HareBrain]

I'd say keep going with Martin. I was dubious during the first few chapters but then read the next 3000 pages in under two months.