Which epic fantasy writer writes the best prose, in your opinion?

[Toby Frost]

We may need a separate thread for this, but what makes really good prose? I don't think a huge vocabulary is required, as suggested by the definition that Peat found above (I liked A Reader's Manifesto a lot). I strongly suspect that it's impossible to reach a consensus on this, but I'd suggest the following factors might be involved to some degree:

1) Clarity, good grammar and similar basics. It's got to be comprehensible and readable, although extreme clarity of style (Orwell and maybe Hemmingway) isn't necessary.
2) Accurate depiction of subject. The sense of "Yes, that's what it's like" or "Yes, that's what it would be like". This can be through a range of means - simile/metaphor, simple description, elaborate comparisons, etc. Uniqueness of simile/metaphor feels important here, but that might just be me.
3) Pleasant or at least compelling to read. Unlike his earlier books, the prose in The Cold Six Thousand by James Ellroy is really clunky and ugly, deliberately so. That would rule it out. Of course, "compelling" is very vague.
4) (Possibly) Uniqueness of voice. Does an author lose points for pastiche? If so, the artificially dated styles of, say, Ivanhoe and parts of The Lord of the Rings would lose points here (and a lot of other "high" language in fantasy writing). Likewise Cormac McCarthy, who seems to be imitating the King James Bible at times.
5) (Possibly) Suited to its subject and style. This may conflict with (4), eg in an epic fantasy where characters speak in some form of "ye olde" dialogue.

And beyond those very vague and perhaps contradictory ideas, I find it hard to be sure.


EDIT: a quick random thought. It might be that, beyond a certain point, the most genre-suited prose starts to become something of a caricature: hard-boiled for a noir crime novel, mock-archaic for epic fantasy, etc, and that caricature stops being especially good. So maybe (and I'm not sure of this) the most "genre-suited" style won't be the best prose.

 

[The Big Peat]

We may need a separate thread for this, but what makes really good prose? I don't think a huge vocabulary is required, as suggested by the definition that Peat found above (I liked A Reader's Manifesto a lot). I strongly suspect that it's impossible to reach a consensus on this, but I'd suggest the following factors might be involved to some degree:

1) Clarity, good grammar and similar basics. It's got to be comprehensible and readable, although extreme clarity of style (Orwell and maybe Hemmingway) isn't necessary.
2) Accurate depiction of subject. The sense of "Yes, that's what it's like" or "Yes, that's what it would be like". This can be through a range of means - simile/metaphor, simple description, elaborate comparisons, etc. Uniqueness of simile/metaphor feels important here, but that might just be me.
3) Pleasant or at least compelling to read. Unlike his earlier books, the prose in The Cold Six Thousand by James Ellroy is really clunky and ugly, deliberately so. That would rule it out. Of course, "compelling" is very vague.
4) (Possibly) Uniqueness of voice. Does an author lose points for pastiche? If so, the artificially dated styles of, say, Ivanhoe and parts of The Lord of the Rings would lose points here (and a lot of other "high" language in fantasy writing). Likewise Cormac McCarthy, who seems to be imitating the King James Bible at times.
5) (Possibly) Suited to its subject and style. This may conflict with (4), eg in an epic fantasy where characters speak in some form of "ye olde" dialogue.

And beyond those very vague and perhaps contradictory ideas, I find it hard to be sure.


EDIT: a quick random thought. It might be that, beyond a certain point, the most genre-suited prose starts to become something of a caricature: hard-boiled for a noir crime novel, mock-archaic for epic fantasy, etc, and that caricature stops being especially good. So maybe (and I'm not sure of this) the most "genre-suited" style won't be the best prose.

I would point out that Uniqueness is something that inherently is degraded by time and also very subjective. I'd say Joe Abercrombie's First Law trilogy was quite unique in its style at time of release, but if a fan were to discover it today after reading Peter McLean, Stephen Deas, David Wragg, watched Legend of Vox Machina, it'd not be all that unique at all. Conversely, how many books showing some sort of deliberately archaic prose would someone discovering Tolkien have read first today?

I'm not sure it doesn't count, but at the same time, it's a lever that's going to produce very different results.

I also think that 5 is a very good point, but think the main demand for Epic Fantasy isn't archaic language, it's very clear language. If you're going to regularly demand a reader go through 600+ pages then dense prose is rarely a friend.

 

[Toby Frost]

What I'm thinking with uniqueness (and I stress the "possibly" here) is that imitating another style of prose decreases the chance of producing great original prose - although all prose is to some extent imitative and it's hard to define what exactly constitutes imitation. If I, say, decide to write a novel in the style of Dickens, I might do a brilliant job of sounding like Dickens, but will that reduce the chance of it being great prose? I think it probably would.

 

[Bick]

I look at this first definition I grabbed off of t'internet:

"A "great prose stylist" writes sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and/or books using impeccable grammar, an enormous vocabulary, and fresh, judiciously chosen figures of speech (similes, metaphors, etc.)"

Unfortunately, I think that is a dreadful definition. Orwell wrote terrific prose (few would argue; you know it when you see it) and he argued against using an enormous vocabulary. He was one of a number of authors who thought that, for the clearest, most pure English, you shouldn't use the Latinate version of a word, when the Anglo-Saxon variant would do. i.e. don't use 'purchase' when you can use 'buy', or 'commence' instead of 'begin'. Hemingway was the same - great prose, but he used words like 'big' and 'good' an awful lot, when lesser writers would have used a long word that had you reaching for a dictionary.

I agree that 'great prose' is a nebulous concept - and personal subjectivity sure comes into it - but I think that if you've read a lot, you can recognise it when you read it. It has much to do with effortlessly shaping an image or emotion in the mind's eye with words that seem to naturally fall together in a way that looks easy, but most certainly isn't. And there are many different ways to do that. McCarthy and Orwell are chalk and cheese, but both wrote great prose in their own styles.

As it happens, I've said before that I think Asimov actually wrote good prose. It's not the same in style or imagery as Peake or Tolkein, but it carried his tales with such an effortless cleanliness, that I think it was considerably better than some think. I'm not sure it was great, but it was good. He was a natural writer - perhaps that's some of it.

Other SFF writers whose prose I appreciate include Silverberg and Moorcock (but only at their best, as they are both variable).

 

[The Big Peat]

Unfortunately, I think that is a dreadful definition. Orwell wrote terrific prose (few would argue; you know it when you see it) and he argued against using an enormous vocabulary. He was one of a number of authors who thought that, for the clearest, most pure English, you shouldn't use the Latinate version of a word, when the Anglo-Saxon variant would do. i.e. don't use 'purchase' when you can use 'buy', or 'commence' instead of 'begin'. Hemingway was the same - great prose, but he used words like 'big' and 'good' an awful lot, when lesser writers would have used a long word that had you reaching for a dictionary.

I think most of us agree it's a bad one - I mainly stuck it in for the bit about innovation.

I have to say I'm generally with the small vocab people, although Gene Wolfe absolutely thrashed the hell out of his and it's not hard to find people holding him up as the greatest American writer of his lifetime.

I agree that 'great prose' is a nebulous concept - and personal subjectivity sure comes into it - but I think that if you've read a lot, you can recognise it when you read it. It has much to do with effortlessly shaping an image or emotion in the mind's eye with words that seem to naturally fall together in a way that looks easy, but most certainly isn't. And there are many different ways to do that. McCarthy and Orwell are chalk and cheese, but both wrote great prose in their own styles.

As it happens, I've said before that I think Asimov actually wrote good prose. It's not the same in style or imagery as Peake or Tolkein, but it carried his tales with such an effortless cleanliness, that I think it was considerably better than some think. I'm not sure it was great, but it was good. He was a natural writer - perhaps that's some of it.

Other SFF writers whose prose I appreciate include Silverberg and Moorcock (but only at their best, as they are both variable).

Silverberg's Book of Skulls left a huge impression on me. To write four so distinctive voices is one hell of an achievement. His Gilgamesh was very different too, although I liked it less well. I think in some ways Tolkien's biggest gift is that his work felt so ancient and weathered without sacrificing accessibility.

I think I agree with what you say about what great prose is. I don't think it entirely lines up with what great prose is often held to be, and I don't know about you but I sometimes struggle to separate what people would have me believe to be the case with what I actually believe. See me naming only Kay to begin with.

I have to say that on those lines, Hobb is a very good prose writer for my money; perhaps not lyrical, but very clean and evocative. It bugs me that I dislike her story telling choices so much.

 

[Bick]

I have to say I'm generally with the small vocab people, although Gene Wolfe absolutely thrashed the hell out of his and it's not hard to find people holding him up as the greatest American writer of his lifetime.

Yes, I think Wolfe could be very good. Not always, but he had a way with his use of language that could stand out.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Some of the prose in The Book Of The New Sun is breathtaking. All so deeply imagined too.

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

"Earthsea"? I think that alone qualifies her.

Strong Opinion: LeGuin's the Spec Fic GOAT. At the literary prose level, especially; but, really, in every meaningful way.

 

[BAYLOR]

Strong Opinion: LeGuin's the Spec Fic GOAT. At the literary prose level, especially; but, really, in every meaningful way.

She very good one of the best no argument

Writer you might find of interest

The Forgotten Beasts of Eld by Patricia Mckillip

 

[Mark_Harbinger]

She very good one of the best no argument

Writer you might find of interest

The Forgotten Beasts of Eld by Patricia Mckillip

Ah, yes. Riddle-Master of Hed was wonderful (that's her, right?). The exemplar of a 'slow burn' narrative...

 

[BAYLOR]

Ah, yes. Riddle-Master of Hed was wonderful (that's her, right?). The exemplar of a 'slow burn' narrative...

I have yet to read Riddle Master .

Other I could suggest
Though not strictly a fantasy Islandia by Austin Tappan Wright . about land that never was . once you begin reading it it's hard to put down
I will leave it at that.

 

[Ian Fortytwo]

Oops.

 

[hitmouse]

I have yet to read Riddle Master .

Other I could suggest
Though not strictly a fantasy Islandia by Austin Tappan Wright . about land that never was . once you begin reading it it's hard to put down
I will leave it at that.

I quite enjoyed Islandia, but great prose was not a strong point.