Cynical questions about epic fantasy

[Toby Frost]

I was just glancing over the various threads about various epic fantasy series, and I noticed a few comments to the effect of “it gets better after book five” with regard to certain multi-volume stories (most of them posted over 5 years ago, for what it's worth). In other words, once you’ve ploughed through about a thousand bad or mediocre pages, the books become readable.

This makes me wonder what readers of epic fantasy really want. If 300-500 page novels can be written off in this way, what criteria make a work of epic fantasy “good” or even worthwhile? Is length in itself a sign of quality? To what extent do the normal considerations of good characterisation, tight plotting, skilful writing and so on still apply? Are certain tropes needed for the book to succeed, like a young hero learning to wield his powers?

I don't mean to suggest that people reading epic fantasy have lower standards than usual, or that the subgenre is inherently bad. I've read some very good epic stuff and enjoyed it considerably. But in a field where a reader can be seriously advised that it gets better in 500 pages' time, are the criteria for success different to usual?

 

[night_wrtr]

I don't subscribe to the "its gets better after this or that book" mentality in a series. If I didn't like the first book, I am not going to keep reading. *The only exception that I have had is in the Wheel of Time, and that is a specific scenario. The first 5 books were great, and then there is a period of a few books that suffer from various reason, then the story picks back up with a great conclusion. The only reason I would say "its gets better" is because of the fact that the series started off excellent, then had a low point. It would be worth the read at that point for me.

But still, with so many books to read these days, I am not going to keep reading a series if it doesn't start well. So it does need to fit a few criteria to keep my attention. Good characters, interesting setting and an intriguing conflict. Those three are the primary building blocks for what lures me into reading more.

 

[Overread]

“it gets better after book five” I think isn't saying that books 1 through to 5 are bad, but that they are likely not as good as what follows. Also don't forget that by book 5 the reader is heavily invested into the character(s) within the story and thus things start to really ramp up in a way that is hard to achieve with a single novel. Thus the events that unfold feel all the more powerful. It's akin to when powerful events happen in shorter novels that run into long series.


And I do agree that nearly every single long running fantasy story ahs a duller or slower period within the middle regions of the books. This typically reflects great upheaval in the first part resolving into a period of slower stability within the story before further upheaval in the last part of the story (ergo the resolution). You can see this even in long stories that the biggest events are at the start and finish.

This isn't saying the middle is bad just that its not "AS" action/event/epic etc.. as the end parts. You notice it more in epic stories because that period is often longer in writing.

This process can be lengthened when the writer continually makes reference to previous books and events in a manner which suggests that they are either trying to make each book stand-alone or that there was a long pause between publications. This process doesn't have to part of the experience and you can write like Lord of the Rings where one rolls into the next almost without pause (ok there is a pause but you don't spend the first part of the book recapping the last).


I think that you are right that some epic stories do take a long while to set themselves up and that it can take as much as what a short novel might be completed in. However in my experience this is often a case that an epic story takes smaller events leading into bigger ones; or big events that lead into massive events.

Also consider that many shorter novels make heavier use of time jumps or might have resolutions that are abnormally fast or which revolve around a niche group of characters; whilst an epic story often has multiple viewpoints and a more holistic approach to major events. You're far more like likely to get viewpoints from early minor characters before they become major players and to also have stories which might have more than one opposing force etc...


Night is correct, even an epic story has to start well. It has to be good within those first pages and certainly within the first books. That it gets even better to a point where latter books overshadow the earlier is a bonus of epic stories; but also an expected result when many might take years to produce and thus reflect changes in the authors writing skill.

 

[Brian G Turner]

are the criteria for success different to usual?

I suspect that what people mean - at least some of the time - is that the story hits a new level. So what has otherwise been a good and fun tale has become a great and intense one.

I've said something similar about Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series.

The First Man in Rome is interesting enough novel, following the development of Marius and Roman republican politics. But the characterisation of Sulla in the following novel, The Grass Crown, is extraordinary and unforgettable.

After that, in Fortune's Favourites, Caesar, Pompey, and Cicero, all start to mature as characters and it's riveting stuff.

The First Man in Rome was enjoyable enough for me to want to read more, but it pales in comparison to what comes after in that series.

Also, as Overread points out, emotional stakes for characters can become far greater in a series than in a standalone first novel. Just think about the drama that can result from a major character's death in a series, by comparison to simply having someone die in a first book or episode.

 

[Lafayette]

Generally, when I start reading a book I intend to finish it. Two exceptions to this were Earl Stanley Garner's the Stuttering Bishop and Jordan's the Wheel of Time. After reading 200 pages I didn't care who the stuttering bishop was, sat it down and never finished it and I still don't care. Again with the Wheel of Time I was half way through and thought this is suppose to be great book, but I don't care about any of the characters and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I put it down and didn't finished.

I like thick books and want to get lost in them.

If I had more time and ambition I should (as a student of writing) go back and finished Wheel of Time and figure out why and how I lost interest so that I don't make the same mistakes as a writer. However I'm not ambitious enough to do that and there are too many good books out there to read.

 

[Overread]

I think that sometimes a book won't grab a persons attention not because of flaws in the book but because of the person.

Books are a very personal thing, more so than video or film because the imigary is create by the reader. Furthermore whilst books do go more into the motives and thoughts of the characters, this is still also in the domain of the reader as well to put together into the character. As a result sometimes people will really get into a book, but also into the style in which the story is presented. Others might associate with a story differently - life experiences might have left them some subtle world view differences which don't then let them make connections others do.

Of course you are right that books which mostly fail have likely got major key flaws whilst those which generally do well have likely got structure and elements more commonly associated with.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Toby, I used to force myself to read books when I wasn't into them but now (partly due to lack of time) I'm far more relaxed about not going on. The enormity is one thing that puts me off Wheel of Time. Likewise, I somewhat enjoyed Gardens of the Moon, the first Malazan book, but it was too much skirt, not enough leg, and I'm not willing to go deeper into something on that basis.

There's a similar phenomenon in videogames, sometimes. I've heard it said of FFXIII "It gets good after 20 hours". Great. That's not actually a selling point...

 

[Vaz]

I'm in the wheel of time trenches. Seriously considering getting out. Its a meander with some awesome moments, but mostly, its a slog.

 

[Phyrebrat]

If anyone couched a recommendation that something gets better after book/episode/season 5 I'd avoid it.

To say 'oh it just gets to new heights' after book five is fanboy delusion IMO. In any kind of entertainment, if you're asked to sit through something like it's a task, that's an entertainment fail.

When people say 'it gets better after...' they're not saying it reaches new heights, or their response would be 'something amazing happens in book x'. Essentially it's otherwise using an apologist mindset to offset shortcomings.

I'm a little surprised at some of the comments here. Consider this;

You've written a great ms that you love and you know the fist five chapters are self indulgent or weak. Would you consider subbing that?

Where's the self-assessment and honesty in all this?

The series could be poor till book five, or it could be not to the reader's understanding tastes. To suggest that it's a grower just sounds like someone who loves the series trying to convince someone who doesn't, to persevere.

paH

 

[Vaz]

That's why I won't touch Malazan. People who recommend it always say it picks up after the first book. Why would read an awful novel and then continue to read the series?

 

[night_wrtr]

That's why I won't touch Malazan. People who recommend it always say it picks up after the first book. Why would read an awful novel and then continue to read the series?

Yep. I tried Gardens of the Moon a while back. I heard about the steep learning curve, but it is more like a wall. Anyway, it didn't get my attention or get me settled into a character that I was willing to follow for the rest of the book, certainly not for one of the longest series ever.

 

[Overread]

That's why I won't touch Malazan. People who recommend it always say it picks up after the first book. Why would read an awful novel and then continue to read the series?

Gardens of the Moon is a great book; but it is complex in how much it throws at you character wise. The second book then throws you into a new continent with a new cast of characters acting alongside those events in the first book*. As a result when you hit the third book and return to characters from the first and start to see the connections between those two stories and then the connections between not only the local battles but the grander god-war you start to REALLY get some big moments. Indeed the third book is almost a barrage of epic moments.

Epic moments that without the build up would be nice but not really that epic. The good previous books build into them and make those moments epic because they are dealing with characters that you've already been on a huge adventure with.


That said I fully agree if you can't get into the story then you won't progress and even if you did those epic moments won't feel epic because you won't have connected with the characters previously.



I think its just that people who talk about epic stories tend to focus on the latter books because they tend to be full of those epic moments. Take Lord of the Rings - its the big battles; the huge revelations; the conclusion of the story; the huge world building coming into itself that people talk about. The build up in the Fellowship is "less" interesting even though its still a great book in its own right.



* and I will admit I was nearly thrown but quickly grew to love the new characters!

 

[KGeo777]

I have never been interested in world building fiction. I make an exception for REH's Conan but his work was on the short side. And it is grounded in the real world and they function as self-contained, one shot stories, not a soap opera.
If an author was going to do that I either expect them to be a really good storyteller even with weak material or to have planned it out in advance (like Babylon 5 appeared to).
If I read a book I have to finish it so I choose carefully.
Same with a movie. I rarely will turn something off, no matter how bad I stay with it until the end (and then celebrate)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think it may be the case that the people who say "it gets better" are readers who actually liked the first books pretty well, but felt the series became even better later on, thus advise sticking with it to get to the best parts. Sometimes a series does improve. If the writer is a fairly new one it's not surprising if they become a better writer in the course of writing and finishing several books. (But if they achieved great acclaim for the first one, it's also possible that they may feel they have nothing to learn and stay pretty much the same. It depends on the ego of the writer.) On the other hand, I agree that readers who enjoy the series may become more and more invested in certain characters as the story continues—that would be quite natural as their understanding of the characters deepens—so that the events involving their favorite characters take on a greater intensity for them regardless of whether the writing improves or not. But it's not an experience that is likely to be shared by readers who found the first books wanting.

I'm trying to remember whether I've ever heard this advice given to someone who actively disliked the first book in a series, or whether it's just something said to people who found some things they liked in a series but not enough to be sure they want to continue—and perhaps are leaning toward not. I don't remember, but I suspect that it's usually said to readers who are unsure, rather than those who say they don't meant to go on.

 

[zmunkz]

In the context of a single book, I've said this sort of thing to people when a novel has a steep learning curve, but I know it ultimately pays off emotionally beyond the investment. These are cases where it is worth assuring someone their effort will be properly rewarded. Even this case doesn't mean the book in question started poorly... every new story begins with the reader trying to gauge if the author is going to deliver an emotional payoff for them. If they aren't sure, they may put it aside rather than risk being disappointed.

In the context of a series, I've never heard this to mean early books weren't good. It strikes me as odd to interpret the comment in that way. If I said, "The ending of Elantris is excellent," we'd all scratch our heads if someone replied with, "Then why should I bother reading the beginning?" because nobody is saying the beginning isn't good. Same for a series, no?

An example that comes to mind: I was told this about Harry Potter back in the day; specifically, my friend said it was a great series that gets even better in book 3. Having now read it, I'd agree with that. And I'd say it gets better still in book 5. Neither me nor him are implying earlier books aren't good.

 

[Toby Frost]

In fairness, I think the first volume in a series is often quite different to the others because the author hasn't quite got the characters doing "their thing" yet. I've heard this said about the Vorkorsigan novels, and it's definitely true with Blackadder, where the roles of some of the characters are the "wrong" way round. In my own writing, Space Captain Smith doesn't contain some of the running jokes in the later books, because the character details weren't quite there yet. Which isn't to say that they're worse, just not quite bedded down.

 

[TheAlchemist]

it's the same as a tv-show. Everybody keeps telling you it gets great after a certain season. While sometimes this might be the case, for example, I did not really like Game of Thrones until after season 1, it's probably not your type of show. IMO a book, or film/series for that matter should not be good only after book 5. it should be great right from the start, if it fails to deliver, then it's probably not a good book.

But sometimes there are exceptions, i usually tend to finish the first book, (unless it's really not my thing) before making an opinion. i just can't wait for it to be good at book 5.

Maybe try stand-alone novels. The thing with a series of books is that they take a lot of time for the characters to develop, but if you take a book that's not part of a series the whole story must be told in just one book.

 

[The Ace]

That's probably why Pratchett found such an appreciative audience when he booted the genre in the nadgers (a bit like you did with Space Opera).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This week I had a stonkingly good review of Abendau's Heir* in the BSFA journal, no less (so I can't share it - you'll all have to take my word for it). The reviewer - Allen Stroud whose reviews I really enjoy and who is very insightful, I find - talked a little about the second part of the book. For those who have read it, this is the section where Kare is at the Banned, the section that feels a little YA. He points out, as many have, that this is the weakest section of the book (and I agree). But, he also makes the comment that the section is needed because without it the payback late in the book would not be as satisfying.

His comment made me think of the Vorkosigan saga and how the first books were enjoyable but not knockout, but they led to the series of books from Brothers in Arms through to A Civil Campaign, including the majestic Memory, that are just so good -because of how well I know and love the characters by then.

And that's why, I think, readers are prepared to try a series that gets better. They know that, done right, the payback is immensely more satisfying for having read the slow parts and really got to know the world and characters better.




*And Abendau is, for sure, one of those series that people say gets better as it goes on

 

[Gonk the Insane]

In fairness, I think the first volume in a series is often quite different to the others because the author hasn't quite got the characters doing "their thing" yet.

Yes, I'd noticed this as a reader long before I started writing, and it's something that seems consistent across genres - and not just the SFF ones.

I noticed a few comments to the effect of “it gets better after book five” with regard to certain multi-volume stories

Well, I think @Teresa Edgerton summed it up perfectly with how this may be a relative judgement (it's good but gets even better) but it's also just occurred to me that if you scale down these behemoth multi-volume beauties in comparison to single novels (or even a trilogy) then this may be equivalent to saying, "yeah, I liked it overall, but once I got a third of the way in it blew my tiny mind" or something like that.

I think another factor for Epic Fantasy novels is that in order to be Epic (more here for anyone like me who forgets the definition and mostly goes by whether it feels Epic: What Makes ‘Epic Fantasy’ Epic? | Fantasy-Faction ) in the truest sense, this will likely involve proportionately more time devoted to setting the scene and conveying a sense of the world than, say, a single novel set in only a few locations. Perhaps not much more, but with a bigger scope there's more that needs to be in place for a reader to get context of the setting and fully appreciate the epicness of things. There should still be a self-contained story within, I think, but the groundwork for the rest of the series may mean a slightly slower pace in that first volume, whereas in later volumes - much like later chapters of a standalone when all the plot strands come together and everything's been set up for the resolution - there's less description of setting and character required because the reader's already familiar with them.

I think it may be a difficult balance to strike, but there are also Epic Fantasy novels that kick you in the head in the very first volume. A number of years ago I saw a display in the local bookstore for Steven Erikson, who was about to visit that day for a book-signing. I'd never heard of him but the book looked good so I picked it up and started reading that night. After a few chapters I was especially annoyed that I hadn't taken a chance and gone to the book-signing anyway (it was too late by that point), because the opening volume of the Malazan series blew me away. I liked the whole series when it eventually all came out, but I think that first one was as good as any (and better than most).

the Vorkosigan saga and how the first books were enjoyable but not knockout, but they led to the series of books from Brothers in Arms through to A Civil Campaign, including the majestic Memory

I really need to catch up then - I haven't got that far yet, but I think Shards of Honor in particular was awesome, so if it gets even better...