Questions about fantasy books in general

[GOLLUM]

Why, why, why?! By saying this alone, you raise certain authors above others unfairly. True, you make it clear it is your opinion, and it's obvious that not everyone agrees with you, but for someone who claims to be a thinking man, you are in danger of contradicting yourself by this statement!

Surely by telling a story well, the writer achieves his/her objective. Does it grip their target audience? If their target audience likes dense text, then it is easy to know what to expect from the author, but why should that make them any more clever than someone who tells an outstanding and gripping story in simple, easy to follow, English? (Particularly if the storyline is complex.) Was CS Lewis any less brilliant than Tolkien? In my opinion, no. He was simply aiming his story at a different audience. That required him to use a different skill set.

I get the feeling that we will have to agree to differ on this one, Gollum.

Well my response to this comment Mark is sort of along simliar lines to what Jay has already posted.

I didn't think I contradicted myself at all or if it appears that way it was not intended. I agree with you that the art of storytelling combined with a great plot/storyline is of key relevance to me when I'm reading something in terms of its appeal BUT I need more in terms of something that makes me think about various social issues etc.. Now obviously that means that some authors as you say might not be "in the picture" as far as my personal literary tastes go but this still boils down to a question of personal taste. I recognise the fact that authors like eddings may have one target audience and do a good job writing to that audience whilst other authors may appeal to different audiences again but what appeals to whom is surely a direct consequence of personal taste. I think I can see what you're driving at when you use the term "unfair" if you're saying that we need to recgonise that certain authors write to certain audiences. Then we could say that Eddings is a good writer because he achieves popularity for his target audience w/o using "high brow" prose or exploring social themes to the nth degree whilst say R. Scott Bakker succesfuly appeals to another audience type adopting a different writing style. What I'm saying is that Edding's style doesn't appeal to me specifically just as Bakker's style won't appeal to others, so once again we get back to the fundamentals of personal choice and taste. As I said already if members enjoy Eddings then great, if I like Erkison and others don't then fair enough. No one author is going to appeal to everyone, a fact I'm sure you as an author yourself would recoginse.

BTW I certainly didn't intend to make myself out as some sort of thinking man in terms of being an intellectual giant or snob. Not saying for one instant you intended to imply this at all BTW Mark but I hope I don't come across that way LOL! I'm just a humble soul who likes being stimulated to think in ways I may not have done before whilst at the same time enjoying a ripping yarn.

Anyway as you suggest, let's agree to disagree on this point albeit I suspect we have a fair degree of common ground here and move on to other things..

Other things like Lewis and Tolkien. I agree with Jay and Brys in that both Lewis and Tolkien were good writers who told an engaging tale and were obviously significant writers in the Genre but as far as personal taste goes, not as great or enjoyable for me personally as some more recent writers like Bakker, Erikson, Martin, Wolfe, Peake, Calvino etc..

 

[xghostsniperx]

Well, thanks for the first few posters who actually posted about my question...

 

[Milena]

Hey - Jay's is the best list as far as tiers go so far! Tho' I must resist tier envy - Bad....
Really though 'tiers' melt into tier and genres - a lot of the very best writers wrote/write outside the genre, and lead you into a whole new area to explore... and some of us have been around a whole lot longer to read than others...

 

[Mark Robson]

What does personal preference have anything to do with some non-existant scale of fairness?

I either like something or I don't ...

I don't see the relevance of this to the "tiers" - are you saying we cannot like a certain type of work more then an another, and beyond that advocate our preferences? If your answwer is no, they I don't see what your issue is, and your answer is yes (an impossible stance to take on a online discussion community), than I just utterly diagree with you...


If i just completely misinterpited you post (as said, possible) - just let me know.

Personal preference has nothing to do with fairness - let's face it the world is not a fair place. I was merely trying to say that placing authors into tiers is a nonsense. You can make tiers until you are blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the only person the tiers are true for is the individual who wrote the tier in the first place. I suppose you could argue that by comparing one another's tiers, you can see who has similar preferences, but does that make the authors any better or worse - I don't think so.

Many here malign Terry Brooks, but he is undeniably a popular author. There would therefore be some who would put him in their top tier, which if I were analysing work for technical merit, I would have to declare a nonsense. Don't get me wrong here - I have read and enjoyed some of his work, though I would not say I'm a fan. By following this line of thought through, if the majority of people placed him in their top tier, would that make him a great author? Personally, I would have to admit that he had reached his target audience in a way that satisfied them, but I don't know that I could call him great. Do you see what I'm saying? People will place authors into their tiers for differing reasons. Some will analyse the writing for technical merit. Some will place by favourite stories. Is either less valid? The answer has to be no for the individual, but it makes a nonsense of the whole idea of a tier system for authors. I have preferences amongst authors like everyone else, but I don't bother to grade them. Personally, I feel that is a waste of time. I either like the way an author writes or I don't.

I think I can see what you're driving at when you use the term "unfair" if you're saying that we need to recgonise that certain authors write to certain audiences.

Thanks. That was exactly the point I was trying to make.

BTW I certainly didn't intend to make myself out as some sort of thinking man in terms of being an intellectual giant or snob. Not saying for one instant you intended to imply this at all BTW Mark but I hope I don't come across that way LOL! I'm just a humble soul who likes being stimulated to think in ways I may not have done before whilst at the same time enjoying a ripping yarn.

Accepted. And I was not intending to call you a snob, I was merely trying to drive home the point above. Sorry for any perceived offense. None was meant.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I have to agree with you, Mark, that all this comparing and grading (or tiering) of writers seems pretty pointless.

Personally, I'm quite likely to pick up a book because someone has told me something interesting about it, and not in the least likely to be influenced one way or the other because someone has listed it as one of their top ten, twenty, or one hundred.

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

Yep. I think this is more an issue over styles of posting than the notion of anyone having a heirarchy of authors in their mind (I'm sure you do, too Mark - perhaps it's graded on basis of sheer enjoyment rather than supposed intellectual merit, but we all find reasons for why we enjoy things, and intellectual merit is a nicely fancy explanation!). I prefer to talk about individual authors and books I like as and when it seems apt, or the fancy strikes me, and try to convey a sense of why I feel so enthused. Simply offering a list can be pretty hit-or-miss if people don't know where you're coming from.

A friend and I were talking about fantasy fiction yesterday. We share simila rtastes - Mieville, VanderMeer, Moorcock, Erikson. And we realised that entertainment really was the key merit that made us fans - we really felt drawn into the worlds in these authors' books, their characters and the things happening to them, for whatever reason. It's great that Mieville is exploring different political elements in fantasy, the VanderMeer is a sort of new Borges with tentacles on his mind, and so on and so forth, but most of all each of these authors entertained us, and that's the only reason we cared enough to read on and come away with all the other more profound thoughts and ideas we like to believe we can glean from fiction.

 

[GOLLUM]

Accepted. And I was not intending to call you a snob, I was merely trying to drive home the point above. Sorry for any perceived offense. None was meant.

No problem Mark none was taken, just didn't want to come across that way as I really dislike IRL those people who do look down their noses at others...

I have a tier system in the sense that I generally enjoy reading some authors more than others because I happen to like a particular style of writing but I agree that tiers and lists are probably more relevant to the person making that list than to other members. Having said that we do have the recommendation threads where I've posted a list of my top say 20 fav authors or so but where I also try to detail why I like that particular author's specific books/series because it's a recommendation thread after all and may be of some use as a starting point for some members who like that sort of approach. Personally I've found several members on this and other forums providing feedback to me thanking me for such a list (incl. details about the books, a key point I think) because they hadn't perhaps read that much in the Genre and found it a helpful guide to get started or had a particular style or theme they tended to enjoy and had found similar type books on the list. In this respect I can certainly see these types of "detail" lists having some practical use for some people.

I think Kinvesout makes an excellent point when he says that he tends to get drawn into the worlds, characters and I assume storyline first and foremost that makes for a ripping yarn or enjoyble read and that gaining extra sociopolitcial insight or some profound idea from the book, at least in my case, is more of a bonus or secondary thing. Having said that I do prefer reading books where I can glean further insights or that make me stop and think, whilst at the same time enjoying a wonderfully entertaining story. In a sense that then becomes a "double bonus" for me if you see what I mean. Just my opinion of course.

Also I tend to like certain books from specific authors and not always all of an authors' material they've written and in these cases ensure that I point out the specific series I particularly enjoy, rather than listing a name unless of course everything that author has ever written I happen to particularly love (not that common).

Anyway I for one have nothing much more to contribute to this topic, so see you around on the other threads...

Over and out.

 

[Mark Robson]

Making a recommendations list (particularly one that details why you would recommend something) is very different. It's almost like reviewing a book, though not in so much detail. This offers great benefits to those looking for certain types of writers or stories, but I see little point in lists like the above, as without the sort of details that you give in some of your posts, they are meaningless.

I would add my thanks to those of others for the time you spend detailing recommendations with pointers as to why you like certain material. This is very much a worthwhile task offering great benefits to those who take the time to read them. Sadly I don't have time to offer such detailed input often, but I do applaud the likes of you, Alia, Rune, Knivesout and others putting such detail into your work here. It is much appreciated.

 

[Alia]

Sadly I don't have time to offer such detailed input often, but I do applaud the likes of you, Alia, Rune, Knivesout and others putting such detail into your work here. It is much appreciated.

*blushes* I'm mentioned... wow. Why thank you Mark!

I've been avoiding this thread for a reason, I felt a little insulted by the several posts when in the lowest teir there was mention YA books. I think that if your going to compare and group books you should do so when they're all on the same level or all Adult books or all YA books. It's like comparing apples to oranges. The quality of books for YA can't compare to a more in depth adult book, they're not design as such. And while your designing tiers you should leave YA books out of the lists. If your going to rumble about literature one should keep to the same level of reading. There should be two set of tiers going one for YA and one for Adults, they should not be inter mixed.

Now after reading this thread I have to agree with McMurphy:

For me, I break down the difference between good literature and great literature as follows:

Good Literature = (and you put it well) A story that is well told and provides a satisfying and entertaining adventure regardless of the target audience it was written for.

Great Literature = Everything that good literature achieves and yet offers a subtext within plots and themes that invites readers to re-examine certain elements of life and encourages thinking and rethinking.

For example, I believe that Harry Potter is good literature, while Watership Down is great literature.