Top 10 mould-breaking fantasy novels.

[hitmouse]

An interesting list from the Guardian. Not sure I agree with all of it, and there are some omissions, but the main thing is the discussion thread which follows, which is of a much higher quality than usual.

Lisa Tuttle's top 10 mould-breaking fantasy novels | Books | theguardian.com

 

[Toby Frost]

I know I'm in a minority here, but I think The Haunting of Hill House is overrated. It was quite good as a character study, but overall it left me pretty cold, to be honest.

 

[HareBrain]

Why is The Magus on it? Her explanation:

How else could even the most eccentric, wealthy old man play his "god-game" and interfere in the life of a young Englishman without recourse to magic?

What? So if you can't explain something, it's magic? Isn't this the kind of attitude the Enlightenment was supposed to get us away from?

Also, it's not the product that breaks the mould, it's its creator, so the article's title makes no sense, and that's even before you start asking what part of book production involves casting.

Mood = intolerant.

 

[Randy M.]

I know I'm in a minority here, but I think The Haunting of Hill House is overrated. It was quite good as a character study, but overall it left me pretty cold, to be honest.

Jackson was playing the Henry James game of not bringing ghosts to the forefront. And yes, it was a character study, but that character would not have had the same trajectory in any other setting. I'm not saying you're wrong, only that I disagree, that the novel had a profound effect on me early on in my life and that the 3-4 times I've read it I've always walked away disturbed. For me, it is the model and maybe the pinnacle of the haunted house story.

Besides the Jackson, I've also read The Land of Laughs, Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, The Course of the Heart and The City & the City and would include each of the first three (along with Jackson's novel) near the top of my list of favorite fantasy novels, all novels that I would argue were radically different from anything else I saw on the stands at the time. As for the Mieville, that's a fine book, too, though I might not put it as high on my list of favorites.

All of that is just to say that Tuttle chose some interesting novels and given that half of them are books I'm enthusiastic about and that The Silent Land, Mortal Love and Aegypt are at various levels of my TBR mountain, I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Also, she's not the only one to include The Magus as fantasy: David Pringle included it in his list of the 100 best fantasy books.

Randy M.

 

[Lord Soth]

Seem's like a cheap way of promoting her own book to be honest...

 

[Fried Egg]

I saw that article a few days ago and thought about posting about it here. It is a question that is of particular interest me, someone who has become quite disillusioned with the usual fantasy tropes and want something different.

I really liked "Haunting of Hill House" but I wouldn't have labelled it a fantasy novel.

I would possible have thrown something by Christopher Priest and Jeff Vandermeer in there too.

 

[Randy M.]

Seem's like a cheap way of promoting her own book to be honest...

Probably one reason she wrote it. But if she'd wanted fan-love, she could have listed a lot of more popular titles like those suggested over and over in the comments section. And any time you see an article from a writer, part of writing such is to keep your name in the minds of your audience and potential audience. The other part is, as a writer of fiction, you are supposedly somewhat expert at evaluating the writing of others, and so you get invited to write articles like this one; it's very possible the Guardian asked for this article.

I recall a few years ago that Michael Swanwick wrote a similar article and that Ellen Datlow and Terri Windling thought so much of it they included it in that year's Year's Best. I can't recall everything he listed, but I do remember he raved about Greer Gilman's Moonwise, a book I hadn't heard of before and have heard very little of since. Writers can be as idiosyncratic in their tastes as anyone else; note again some of the inclusions in David Pringle's 100 Best Fantasy Books (approximate title).

The value in articles like this isn't how right or wrong the writer is, but in offering a perspective perhaps a bit different from the mass of readers, airing the titles of books that interested readers might have missed and offering reasons for why the writer values those books which in turn keeps the discussion of books going and on a plain elevated above, "I don't/like it."

I'm not trying to defend Tuttle or her choices, I'm just suggesting this article makes a better springboard for discussing things like,

• what are your favorite fantasy books?
• what makes for good fantasy?
• are there recent books that push the boundaries of genre fantasy?
• are there recent books from sources outside genre fantasy that would be of interest to readers of genre fantasy?

and so on than for criticizing the writer of it.

By the way, The Silver Bough was first published in 2006, so it's not like she rushed right out with this article as a form of promotion. I think the Guardian mentions it because it's the custom to mention the latest published work of an author invited to contribute to the paper.


Randy M.

 

[Randy M.]

[...]I really liked "Haunting of Hill House" but I wouldn't have labelled it a fantasy novel.
[...]

Me, neither, yet I have come across it mentioned as fantasy a couple of times. Besides the Pringle book, Eric Walker at his Great Science Fiction and Fantasy Works website includes it as well. This always struck me as odd because Eric dislikes 'horror' and has very little of it listed at his site, yet for me Jackson's novel very firmly comes down as an exemplar of that genre.


Randy M.

 

[Montero]

Interesting as to what can be seen as mould breaking. This thread reminded me of a blog post by Juliet McKenna (and after delving I found it all the way back in January - how time flies.)
If you want the full text, see here:
http://www.julietemckenna.com/?p=992


This is the part I was particularly thinking of:

This morning I am particularly taken with this review of The Thief’s Gamble over at Fantasy Review Barn. Not because it’s a gushing outpouring of praise – it gives the book three and a half stars. Fair enough, everyone’s entitled to their opinion and the reviewer here has read the book thoroughly and thoughtfully.
What really makes me smile is reading “I was fine with the generic feel of it, but be aware that no new ground was broken here.” and ” It hits all the nice fantasy tropes, and doesn’t see any reason to bend them, break them, or subvert them.”
Okay, that’s the view of this book by a new reader in 2013. Back in 1999, the reviews said things like “pleasing to find a female lead who’s properly representative rather than the usual tepid mix of heroine and victim.” and ” a beautifully drawn world with a rich history, interesting and realistic characters and a plot that drags you along at breakneck speed.”, “What’s different and interesting about this book is what Ms McKenna does with it.” And more besides.
So why am I smiling? Because this shows just how far the epic fantasy genre has grown and developed in this past decade and more. Readers are used to so much more in terms of realism and depth of plot and characterisation, more complex themes and subtext.