Cynical questions about epic fantasy

For me the hallmarks of good epic fantasy are -

1. Interesting characters that are worth spending time with.

E.g. Joe Abercrombie often writes characters that are unpleasant or morally grey. But there's usually a great hook or initial scene to pull you into the character's arc.

2. Unique and intriguing worlds.

Epic fantasy has given us a city held over a pit by chains to keep it safe from the blood-harvesting agents of hell; a race of Neolithic Undead who are still at war with a race of ogre-like glacier-masters; a kingdom ruled over by a mad sorceror-scientist with clockwork minions who condems people of crimes due to the shapes of their faces and has had his Memory Palace turned into an actual city.

3. The sense of great events unfolding.

It's interesting to see a world changing dramatically, whether through cataclysmic events or slower societal change. The Fitz and the Fool series for example deals with the rehabilitation of a formerly despised minority.

4. Pretty descriptions.

I know a lot of people skim over them but I love descriptions of strange and majestic places or even just a good turn of phrase. Try The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss or Deathless by Catherynne M. Valente. (Though not everyone would call Deathless epic fantasy).

5. Philosophy and politics.

When the rules or history of a world are yours to write you can do some fascinating thought experiments. Terry Goodkind wrote one book about a nation of true pacifists, (he also had them magically sealed away from the rest of the world so that their pacifism didn't 'infect' other nations and leave them vulnerable to invasion or tyranny but the idea was still interesting).

The books The Goblin Emperor, the Traitor Baru Cormorant and the series Mistress of the Empire all depict characters changing their worlds. Not by slaying dragons or melting jewellery but by politicking, establishing trade alliances, marrying into powerful families and embracing new technologies.

So basically a good Epic Fantasy is like the ideal life partner. It charms you, it takes you places you never thought you'd go, challenges and expands your mind and it gets better the more time you spend with it.

Also it looks pretty.

As for what others have said. I agree that spending a long time with a character and/or setting gets you invested in the characters and leads to a much bigger emotional payoff at the end. There are srries that keep getting better. But that only works if you care about the characters and their stories. So if the initial book doesn't grab you then why bother? I gave up on Harry Potter for just that reason.

The trouble with saying that something gets better after a certain point, (which I have done myself), is that you've already broken through the wall and are now in a better place. It's all very well telling your friend that you've made it through the obstacle course to an incredible hot-spring with free cocktails and dancing flamingos but that's not going to make 10 miles of mud and razor-wire more appealing to them. And your memory of the razor wire has faded because you've had 3 mojitos now and one of the flamingos is giving rides around the crystal fountain.

P.S. I am definitely a fan of the Malazan books. I love complex world building and original settings. And Stephen Erikson makes brilliant characters. I am finding his new stuff rather obtuse though.
 
Hi, my name's Peat and I've told people it gets better after Book X :p

Toby Frost said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm echoing people here, but you're possibly reading this wrong. Generally when I see people say this sort of thing, it means "I found these books good and after book 5 its amazing, so if you dislike these books maybe you'll still like after book 5 as that's where the best bits are" not "I didn't enjoy them myself either but slogged through to book five and after that its okay". I can't think of anyone who does that.

The reason people don't use the word amazing is its natural to be cautious about gushing when you suspect the listener won't agree. Or at least that's how I see it - might have been different in the examples you see.

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?
Click to expand...

I think that yes, the rules for success in a long series are different as to single books, in much the same way the rules for success are different for an hour long orchestral piece compared to a two minute punk song. But they're not that different. You still have to entertain the reader and you're still going to do that through story, writing, character and world building. Epic Fantasy readers might be more patient but they're not inhumanly patient, they're not going to slog through unenjoyable first books because they're expecting a big pay off later. They'll slog through unenjoyable middle books because they're hooked on the series - that's where the difference is - but not first books before they're hooked. At least that's how it is ime.

Maybe the priorities for fans are a bit different. I think the plot becomes super important with series of these length, and that world building is often seen as more of a selling point, which means maybe characters and writing get a bit of a pass. But maybe not. I'm wittering and, the reality is, its still gotta capture on the first book. That doesn't change.
 
The Big Peat said:
Hi, my name's Peat and I've told people it gets better after Book X :p



I'm echoing people here, but you're possibly reading this wrong. Generally when I see people say this sort of thing, it means "I found these books good and after book 5 its amazing, so if you dislike these books maybe you'll still like after book 5 as that's where the best bits are" not "I didn't enjoy them myself either but slogged through to book five and after that its okay". I can't think of anyone who does that.

The reason people don't use the word amazing is its natural to be cautious about gushing when you suspect the listener won't agree. Or at least that's how I see it - might have been different in the examples you see.



I think that yes, the rules for success in a long series are different as to single books, in much the same way the rules for success are different for an hour long orchestral piece compared to a two minute punk song. But they're not that different. You still have to entertain the reader and you're still going to do that through story, writing, character and world building. Epic Fantasy readers might be more patient but they're not inhumanly patient, they're not going to slog through unenjoyable first books because they're expecting a big pay off later. They'll slog through unenjoyable middle books because they're hooked on the series - that's where the difference is - but not first books before they're hooked. At least that's how it is ime.

Maybe the priorities for fans are a bit different. I think the plot becomes super important with series of these length, and that world building is often seen as more of a selling point, which means maybe characters and writing get a bit of a pass. But maybe not. I'm wittering and, the reality is, its still gotta capture on the first book. That doesn't change.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I loved the Malazan books because there was interesting and epic stuff happening in them from the get go.

Other series had a more slow burn approach. The Artefacts of Power and the Symphony of the Ages series both start out fairly slow but offer many wonders for the patient reader. But I stuck with the series because I was enjoying spending time with their main characters, not in expectation of future epicness.
 
Of course I was an impressionable teenager when I started reading the Symphony of the Ages series, (I think it was just called the Rhapsody series back then). So the author pretty much had me at "There is a character who can detect heartbeats. Also he has a special crossbow style weapon which fires volleys of shuriken at ridiculous velocities. This means that he can kill people through walls. Did we mention that he's an assassin? He's so cool."

Of course I'm much more sophisticated and discerning these days. *Whistles loudly and looks at the ceiling.*
 
Well, if the thread proves popular, I can probably stretch it to a few more pages...

The reason I ask these questions isn't that I think epic fantasy is bad or that it's readers have lower tastes. It's more the worry that, as someone trying to write an epic fantasy story, there are boxes that I'm not ticking which I don't know need to be ticked. To give a comparison, there is a whole load of terminology that Romance readers use to describe the nature of the story (whether it ends happily, whether there are sex scenes and so on) that someone outside the genre wouldn't know about. I would be concerned that there was something roughly similar that I was missing in epic fantasy.

I actually suspect that there isn't: at least, the boxes to be ticked are nowhere near as obligatory as they are in Romance. What I've read here is reassuring. But I think it's worth asking the question.
 
Wizard and Glass is still my absolute favourite of the Dark Tower series, I have a sense of anticipation whenever I start the series again, so I probably fall into the category of saying "it gets amazing at book four..." The first three are less amazing, but book four wouldn't be amazing without the incredible build up. Wheel of Time started well, but just got worse and worse, by contrast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vaz
Wheel of Time is the only series I've ever given up on reading. I forced myself to read upto book 5 The Fires of Heaven and then declared no more.
 
I hear Page 4 is just an endless discussion of clothing and bad puns, probably best just to skip that one :)

Toby Frost said:
Well, if the thread proves popular, I can probably stretch it to a few more pages...

The reason I ask these questions isn't that I think epic fantasy is bad or that it's readers have lower tastes. It's more the worry that, as someone trying to write an epic fantasy story, there are boxes that I'm not ticking which I don't know need to be ticked. To give a comparison, there is a whole load of terminology that Romance readers use to describe the nature of the story (whether it ends happily, whether there are sex scenes and so on) that someone outside the genre wouldn't know about. I would be concerned that there was something roughly similar that I was missing in epic fantasy.

I actually suspect that there isn't: at least, the boxes to be ticked are nowhere near as obligatory as they are in Romance. What I've read here is reassuring. But I think it's worth asking the question.
Click to expand...

Its absolutely worth asking the question.

I do think Epic Fantasy fans naturally gravitate towards books the size of a small elephant to the point where it is a tickable box. And while I think the market has shifted recently, the majority of those series making it big are still bildungsromans. If I rack my brain looking for big names that aren't, I get The First Law (although it had a CoA for one character), maybe The Traitor Son (main character is just after that age and very well formed in terms of powers)... yeah, I'm running out. I'm not the greatest on modern fantasy but I've done my best to catch up and teenagers still seem the norm. I don't think you have to tick that box but you might want to consider doing so.

A lot of EF fans seem to be very (overly imo) interested in world building and magic systems. I'd suggest that's another tick box. So too is the whole mix of armed conflict/political intrigue/hint of romance/mystical growth. I'd say the big boys on the block provide all of them.

Is a gigantic cast and a sprawling storyline that sees them all go off to do their own thing a tick box? I really ****ing hope not but its there in WoT, SoIaF and TFL, so maybe it is. If you do go there, please only introduce it after a tight focused start. Some people seem to think mid-Wheel of Time sprawl is an acceptable way to start a book and I struggle to remember that throwing said authors to the crocodiles is not in fact an appropriate response.

Super powerful main characters? Maybe. The heroes are pretty much always a cut above, but they're not all Rand Al'Thor destroying armies single handed. I think characters whose abilities are superhuman may be a tick box. Like, Bruce Lee plus level fighters.

That's just off the top of my head. Might sit down and try and work out a better tick box list tomorrow.

But now that I understand your question better... yes, I think size and scale of ambition are tick boxes. That doesn't mean it has to be 10 books each the size of two bibles; look at The First Law. But TFL packs in a huge amount for a trilogy (which is even more impressive considering how much dead space the quest takes up). Go big or go home.

And... I think having these big "Wow" game changing moments late on in the series are, if not tick boxes, then an opportunity to really win over readers and an opportunity you don't really get in many other genres. If you're building up to something for five books, you can really make it hit. And you need to make it hit, as to a certain degree readers are grading based on that end game. But that doesn't mean you can neglect the first book, or that you can't build some real powerful "Wow" moments into Book 1 (to state the obvious). Great series are like great albums - it isn't just a few hit tracks at the beginning, or a few at the end, its hit tracks pretty much every track. Except maybe a few in the middle.

Finally - mystery. I think WoT and SoIaF were both really clever in leaving unsolved mysteries around to engage readers and get them talking. I don't think any other series has done that quite as well and that's why those two are top of the class. Not a tickbox, but maybe it should be.
 
Toby Frost said:
It's more the worry that, as someone trying to write an epic fantasy story, there are boxes that I'm not ticking which I don't know need to be ticked.
Click to expand...

All you can do is try to keep reading as widely as possible in your target genre. Even if you don't like or even finish every book, at least you can get some sense of what the author is doing and trying to achieve, not least in terms of setting, character, plot, etc.
 
I used to be very forgiving of series, especially the epic fantasy. I mean, I read the whole WOT series, all the Sword of Truth, and countless others. Now I tend to stay away from the epic genre, mainly because I have so much to read on my kindle and pile at all times, that I really don't want to commit to a massive series. I still read Hobb, Abercrombie, Lynch, and Sanderson, with a plan to read more by authos like McLellan, Weeks, and Brett when I get time to make it to them. But there are still a lot I want to read, namely Anthony Ryan, Brian Stavely, Jen Williams and a few others. But dear god. Seeing a 600-1000 page book is a huge turn off to me these days.

My kindle is full of 250-350 page SF books, and I have been just loving them. So many great writers, telling fun stories with no fat in them. Even Hobb, one of my all time favorites, needs to trim the fat. I mean, this book is 825 pages Im reading now, and at some points, 50 pages goes by with not a whole lot happening.

That being said, I talk to authors who tell me they have readers on their lists who read a book a day, so there is a market for large books. I'm just not sure I'm in that category as much these days.
 
Brian G Turner said:
All you can do is try to keep reading as widely as possible in your target genre. Even if you don't like or even finish every book, at least you can get some sense of what the author is doing and trying to achieve, not least in terms of setting, character, plot, etc.
Click to expand...

Devil's advocate - if a storyteller reads wheel of time, song of ice and fire, the first law, lord of the rings and Harry Potter, then what extra do they get out of reading the belgariad, chronicles of Narnia, prince of thorns, ririya revelations and assassins apprentice?

And would they get more out of reading a bunch of history/philosophy etc. Books for inspiration, or books outside the genre to pick up something new to make their books stand out?

You've got to know the genre, but you don't read every book on the subject to get your degree. And we're all time finite. We all need to be efficient. How many epic fantasy series do you need to read to know epic fantasy?
 
First up, working from Peat’s list, I can confirm that I can tick a lot of the boxes: multiple story arcs, armies fighting, people fighting, the fate of the world (okay, the pseudo-Europe bit), and sheer length. The characters are skilled but not Chosen Ones. There isn’t much romance, at least in the stereotypical way, and no teenage dramas or coming of age (I’m afraid that teenage stuff just doesn’t feel terribly important when the world itself is threatened). The ages of the characters vary, but most are skilled professionals. Some are physically lethal, others powerful like spymasters, and one is just a really good painter. And some of them die, and don’t come back.

Anyway, more generally, I can see pros and cons in reading a lot of epic stuff (beyond the sheer amount of time it would take). Obviously, it’s good to get a feeling for what gets into print – perhaps, I think, a wider range of stuff than the medieval semi-Tolkien stories people expect to see. You also start to see how an author “runs” a long story, like a Games Master running a campaign of Dungeons and Dragons.

But there are issues. First, there’s a lot I don’t want to read about, and teen angst is near the top. I think keeping magic mysterious, as Tolkien did with Gandalf, is a good idea. Secondly, well, how can I put this? Some of the older series just don’t seem to be very good. Some are decent, many are average, and a few big sellers are just plain rubbish (also, the “rules” have moved on since then). A lot carry the influence of The Lord of the Rings very obviously, although their prose is just functional. The things that have influenced me most so far have been real history, spy novels, paintings and myths that aren’t Tolkieneque. I’ve found that horror and crime novels are good for pacing individual scenes. It's definitely a double-edged sword.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Guttersnipe Multiple Questions Regarding Ambiguous Endings in SHORT Stories Book Discussion 4
Draven Vertigo Had some questions about 1st Novel Writing Discussion 7
D Why mesh? (And other plot questions) SFF Lounge 6
C Questions about grocery store items as characters Writing Discussion 10
Foxbat Director's Cut? Or am I just too cynical? Blade Runner 14

Similar threads


Back
Top