Why I don't read epics right now

[Toby Frost]

Reading the various recommendation threads has made me realise why I don't read more fantasy despite wanting to, and what I don't like about the genre at the moment. Plenty of books have been recommended to me, and I've either started them and given up or not bothered, without quite knowing why.

Now I realise what it is: it's not that they're bad, but that I can't justify the time spent to read them given their length. I don't have enough time to read a three - five book series that is "pretty good": to justify that length of time (in which I could have read several shorter books) it would have to be consistently excellent. That's why I find myself going to shorter, self-contained novels: furthermore, I wonder whether there are many ideas or issues that require over a thousand pages to properly explore. The length of the Gormenghast books (primarily the first two) is perfectly justified to my mind, because they include so much that is very good: The Lord of the Rings less so to my mind, but I still can see how they are very readable.

Clearly I am not the idea demographic here. I find myself missing the days when a story, however complex or bizarre, was wrapped up in three hundred pages, and following books would be either seperate stories or something entirely new. I appreciate that people want value for money in the books they buy, but until the sprawling epic urge fades, I can't see fantasy producing its equivalents of The Big Sleep or Of Mice and Men.

Any thoughts?

 

[HareBrain]

furthermore, I wonder whether there are many ideas or issues that require over a thousand pages to properly explore.

Possibly not, but ideas and issues aren't how most people approach fiction. The question of length for most readers is whether they're interested enough in the characters and setting to want to spend that much time with them. I agree with you that in not many cases is it worth it. When I was younger, immersion and escape were almost more important than anything, and long series excel at those.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm a little weary of epics, too ... and yet when I love a set of character I want to know more about them and not have them abandon me after the first book. I know that sounds inconsistent and conflicted.

Maybe I just want shorter books and more of them in a series. Maybe I want serialized stories like Victorian authors used to write. Maybe I want ...

The problem is that I'm typical. I don't know what I want, and until we all do know, publishers will continue to give us what we've been wanting up until now.

Inconvenient for me, because I'm trying to get readers to take a chance on a shorter book right now.

 

[Mouse]

They're too long and I don't have enough time. I don't see why they have to be so long!

I've got ADWD sitting on my shelf unread. I keep looking at it and then realising I could read two or three books in the time it took me to read that huge thing. So I've not bothered.

Prefer stand alones.

 

[J-Sun]

I started a thread on this awhile back (which was inspired by a thread linked in it) asking whether people agreed that a big book is a big misfortune. That has many folks' thoughts, including mine. I'd add one: the publishing industry doesn't work this way but, in principle, I'd much rather have books be half the price than twice the length. I think that's the main pro-big theory after immersive escapism: that if I'm paying 9/15/25 bucks for something, I'm not going to do that every day and want books to take eons to read. But that's kind of like wanting to be chained to a table and force-fed tofu because the joint's only selling tofu and overcharging while they're at it. I'm still going to prefer a 10 dollar plate of Veneziana Calzone to a 10 dollar vat of tofu.

-- Oh. Re-reading the thread, I see you've posted on it, so I'm pointing you where you've already been. Sorry about that.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Prefer stand alones.

And yet you bought ADWD. And as long as readers do that, publishers will keep publishing long books and long series.

Maybe we should have a short book/stand alone/ short series book club. But when it came down to it, I doubt that many people would join, because they couldn't agree on the same short book.

 

[TheTomG]

I watched Game of Thrones on telly. My wife has the first book. I have never read it.

The fact that it "goes on and on" means I am just not interested. If it was a standalone book, then I'd likely plan on tackling it, but I have to admit that I don't care how great a book or writer is, I don't really want the same story to go on for more than 3 books max - unless they are nice and short and digestible!

I liked the Amber series back when I read it, because each book was a rather short one (at least that's how I recall it.) Seems to me that "flavor of the month" has turned to making books longer and longer, and then making the set of which they are part longer and longer too.

I'm a patient man, but cliff hangers that takes years between episodes? Left wondering what is going to happen in story, knowing that it isn't over, for that length of time?

Not for me.

Now, I did read all the Harry Potters, having started when they were about 4 books in, but I'll be honest, I think that could have used less books in the set and each one a little shorter too.

So yep, there are quite a few books out there that I think "That sounds great!" and then I see "Book one of a...." and my interest is lost. I was disappointed to realize how many books are planned in the Kingkiller Chronicles having read the first two!

 

[J-Sun]

I was disappointed to realize how many books are planned in the Kingkiller Chronicles having read the first two!

That's part of why I dropped Cherryh's Foreigner universe 2-3 books in. I came to that series a little late and she'd started the second or third trilogy before I could finish the first and, while the books were fine, they just weren't worth that kind of investment in time or money. (It's now on the first book of the fifth trilogy (13 of 15 and surely yet more to come).)

(Granted, there are even more U/A books, but they cover a lot more ground in a lot of genuinely separate subseries and aren't churned out quite as quickly and mechanically. And are usually individually shorter. And I like 'em more. )

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Well I have nothing but time but I do agree that I prefer volumes of what I read to be wrapped up at a certain point. Three or four hundred pages per volume is not too bad for me.


The problem is when you get a series that gets to be like The Wheel of Time or something similar, not only are those volumes each too long, but for there to be over a dozen volumes telling one quest story seems to be a bit too much for me. Xanth I can handle because they're different situations volume per volume just simply set in a single world. (Albeit that I do find that having over THIRTY volumes to be a little too much, Mr. Jacob!!!)

 

[Fedos]

Well, I don't have any problem with long seies as long as they are told well. Something like Erikson's Malazan for instance, or what I have read of Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire (the first two books). Those are really consistently great series (so far at least and from what I have heard). I guess it just depends on how well the author is able to maintain the level of quality. Jordan for instance didn't seem capable of maintaining the kind of altitude that he established in the first two books of the Wheel of Time in my opinion.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I agree, Toby - too much content within "epics" in f & sf is dedicated to irrelevance.

You basically get the content of one good strong novel of 300 pages, spread out across a trilogy of 1500 pages. And a lot of focus on irrelevant characters and irrelevant events, which makes the "epic" read more like a soap opera.

I think we've touched this subject before in chrons - some like it, some don't, but luckily there's still enough choice in the market to satisify both tastes.

 

[hopewrites]

I could go ether way. If an author supplies all that "irrelevant" data I am happy to read it. If they dont, I make it up for myself.
for me Epic implies more then one story is being told at one time. and since there are many stories to get out of one book, I like it when an author says "i'm going to just paint everything i see and let you find all the stories you want k?" granted I dont always like the world they paint and if that is the case I drop the series or book whichever it is.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

... which makes the "epic" read more like a soap opera.

That's exactly what a lot of them are, with the addition of swords and lots of violence so that readers can convince themselves that it isn't soap opera.

If only the economy wasn't putting pressure on publishers to cut their lists, so that there's less and less room for diverse tastes. One more reason to hope that the economy recovers sooner rather than later.

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

I agree, Toby - too much content within "epics" in f & sf is dedicated to irrelevance.

You basically get the content of one good strong novel of 300 pages, spread out across a trilogy of 1500 pages. And a lot of focus on irrelevant characters and irrelevant events, which makes the "epic" read more like a soap opera.

I think we've touched this subject before in chrons - some like it, some don't, but luckily there's still enough choice in the market to satisify both tastes.

You're right about this, and it's something that I think Eddings, for one, was really guilty of, at least in the Garion books. I think he tried too much for humor in areas that I found weren't really necessary, which led simply to some frustrations. (Like near the end of Queen of Sorcery, with Silk laughing his head off over a predicament Belgarath had gone through during a recon mission...)


I actually hate to say it, but as cool and quirky a character as Silk was, I honestly don't think he was truly necessary enough to justify him being in and I found his obsession with trade and wealth to be more than a little distracting. He was supposed to be The Guide, but I don't think he really guided Garion anywhere or on any subject...

 

[Boneman]

.
I was disappointed to realize how many books are planned in the Kingkiller Chronicles having read the first two!

There's only one more, surely? Or did I miss something?

I love a really long book, with a caveat that it's got to be well-written. And I could just as easily say I love a short book as long as it's well-written. But the truth is, I prefer longer books. I always feel slightly 'ripped-off' if the book is very short, and especially if it is part of a series, because I get the (probably incorrect) feeling that the publisher is trying to milk it for all it's worth. Whereas a large book looks like it's getting my money's worth.

Quite often I've picked up a smaller book, been interested, and on seeing it's part of a series, put it back until the series is all out, and then got them from the library. Which means the publisher and writer didn't get as much money as they could have.

But the title of this thread mentions epics, which does tend to lean itself towards 'high fantasy', and it's got to be damn good writing for me to start the journey with them. Like Mouse, I never got into ADWD, because the story seemed to be lost in the complexity of characters and worldbuilding, even though the writing itself is good. And I realise that one of my all-time favourite series - by Stephen King (The Dark Tower) started with a short book, and got longer and longer, a bit like Harry Potter.

But I always go for the big books in Waterstones when I'm browsing.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't actually mind; if the story grips me early, I'll read it, if it doesn't I'll put it back. I also don't feel beholden to get to the end of a series, I stopped Dune after Children because I didn't especially like Paul's son and have had no desire to go back and see what happens.

Length of book doesn't put me off, but I do find long character lists tedious as I can't keep track of who's who and what they're up to - a lot of flicking back! For this reason I haven't looked at Wheel of Time or Game of thrones; I figure I'd get confused. (I just about kept up with the Stand! and I still struggle to remember who did what in LOTR.)

 

[Hex]

Depends on the book.

I haven't managed to get into GRRM, which I'm very disappointed about because I was looking forward to having five (?) apparently excellent books to read.

I was absolutely delighted when I realised that Carol Berg's (*) Spirit Lens wasn't a standalone but the first of a trilogy; she writes well and intelligently and not as if she's packing in all sorts of extra junk to bulk things out.

Oh -- I knew I was involved in a long series -- Michelle Sagara's Chronicles of Elantra -- I'm really enjoying the books. I just read number 6. She's doing clever things with long-term background story and specific book-length stories. The books aren't massive and they're all from one POV (close third from the central protagonist, Kaylin), and she can maintain the quality of the story and of her writing over a series of that length.

I've been loving the Kingslayer books and I'm liking the Demon Cycle (The Painted Man etc) too.

Series that are incredibly long tend to make my heart sink though because it's not often an author can sustain the sort of story I'm interested in (given I find POV/ story switches difficult) over that length.

And can I just take a moment to defend Silk -- I loved him. He was my favourite character in the Garion books.

(*) Sorry -- I know I sound like a broken record, but she is one of my all time favourite authors.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I quite like series, but I agree with the general feeling on this thread that sometimes it amounts to a good plot being stretched too thin to try and make it feel epic.

I think stand-alone books that are set in the same world and have overlapping characters and storylines can work well. Things like Tales of the Ketty Jay, for example, or Space Captain Smith.

By the way, are you doing a Christmas special this year, Mr. Frost?

 

[Mouse]

And yet you bought ADWD. And as long as readers do that, publishers will keep publishing long books and long series.

Maybe I should've said I now prefer standalones.

Was a long, long time ago I started reading ASoIaF. Back when I did enjoy reading epics. I didn't realise I'd have to wait so long for the series to be completed (when I started it, I thought it was complete ). So I bought ADWD because I liked the first books. But as I'm not into those sort of books now, I've not read it yet.

Same with JV Jones's 'sword' books. I tried really hard to get into the third one (even went and bought the fourth!), but just couldn't.

Too long. Too much waffle. Not enough happening. Get on with it already!

Short books for the win.

 

[Coragem]

Briefly (I'm supposed to be writing now!), I would say I've learned more about writing (or about the sort of writer I want to be) from GRRM than from anyone else.

I don't go in for his gruesomeness, and I don't really like so much sexualised stuff, but in terms of style and use of character POV ... It's what I aspire to, in my dreams.

On the other hand, there are many books that I don't read now, even though I know I'd enjoy them greatly, just because I have limited time and I don't think they'd stretch me enough as a writer. Examples include David Gemmell, Brandon Sanderson, and David Weber.

I remember loving Gemmell's work, and still do in my "heroic heart", yet I know the writing will not challenge me and help me learn.

Coragem.