Comments on: The Modern Fantasy Diet

By: Scion9

Scion9 — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 05:48:37 +0000

Most of what I read into this is that authors that beat you over the head with their politics like Mieville are good while writers producing art or pulp or some amalgam are bad, due to their not engaging in Is-Ought wishful thinking.

By: Lea-Anne

Lea-Anne — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:23:01 +0000

How can you complain about authors you have never read, and even admit to only reading one piece of Gaiman’s work (Sandman)?

Your whole article is ignorant. If your going to complain at least complain about something you have actually read.

By: Tony

Tony — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:13:50 +0000

This is a very interesting read, and you make some excellent points, but I’m afraid that I must disagree with you.

In my opinion, there are two types of modern fantasy, the short and choppy, and the long novels which you wrote about in this essay. And quite frankly, I enjoy the long novels far more than the short ones. When I read a book, I like to get lost in it, I like to immerse myself in a world foreign to our own, learn about it and love it. I know several other people who agree with me on this, we don’t read fantasy for the fantastical elements, but to get lost in the world. That is impossible in more “traditional” fantasy.

I also disagree that the works of authors like Martin and Jordan should be classified as pulp fiction. Pulp fiction may be what inspired them, and provided the roots for the genre, but I associate pulp fiction with cheap thrills, the absence of character development, and the absence of non-flashy scenes. In pulp fiction, everything must be over the top, and everything must be exciting. That isn’t the case in the longer fantasy novels. These aren’t pulp fiction, they’re novels, they’re literature.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:48:07 +0000

Thank you for an extremely well written and interesting piece of text. I found it while googling for sources to use in a minor essay I have in English class, where we get to pick a subject and write about its recent development.

I picked fantasy because I enjoyed Tolkien’s books to the point where they shaped my taste in literature, but reading this article has opened my eyes to how many other authors, and their books, I’ve missed to read over the 18 years I’ve been alive. I’ll definitely peruse your article as I work on my essay, and I think I’ll be making a trip to the library soon as well. Time to catch up.

By: Jill Betts

Jill Betts — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:37:16 +0000

This is a new novel recently out – well worth a read. Further info on website and few reviews now being written on amazon.

By: Rhov

Rhov — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:24:29 +0000

As a fantasy writer, this has really been an eye-opening examination of the genre I love. It's true, I grew up thinking these pulp writers were gods of the genre, until I began reading the old tales. How could some court balladeer capture the imagination in a song that might have taken 2-3 hours to sing, when modern writers strive for the same thing, take 5-10 books to deliver their story, and never achieve the same goal? Perhaps they feel the modern audience can't imagine "their world;" therefore, they must delve into the intricacies they've invented in their heads for true understanding to be gained. Tolkien wrote the Silmarilian as a project saga, then mentioned the deeds stated there throughout the Lord of the Ring. But a reader doesn't have to know Silmarilian to enjoy LOTR. Modern fantasy writers should take note. I admit, I am just as guilty. I have caught myself on many occasions going on lengthy tangents about obscure religions of my fantasy world that are not in any way pertinent to the plot. It's simply a tidbit I invented and thought was interesting, therefore I feel I have the right to drag the reader through a full page of useless invention, because it's my story and I think it's important, so there! :P A harsh professor in college lambasted my wandering ways. I try to keep on subject now. It's not easy. Being inundated by epic series, seeing full shelves of dragon lore and fairy tales and Wiccan rants, makes a writer want the same. We want our own shelf in Barnes and Noble, dagnabbit! In a world where quality-equals-quantity, writers are even encouraged to take their simple story and write sequels to death. I blame Hollywood for that, more than Tolkien. Tolkien meant for LOTR to be one story, a single saga of epic size, a modern Song of Roland or Völsunga. His publisher probably wanted more money.

By: Ben2

Ben2 — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:24:06 +0000

Where’s Terry Pratchett in this story?

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:04:16 +0000

All i can suggest is, read Steven Erikson. He single handedly restored my faith in epic fantasy with his Malazan Book of the Fallen series. 8 books in and iv been hooked every step of the way. He makes a gritty world you can believe in, and that you dont want to let go of. While the supposed masters of fantasy are churning out book after book like Feist and Martin, in which the characters are no longer relevant and the world entirely stale, Erikson really manages to deliver an effect on his readers, instilling real emotion.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 02:21:12 +0000

Brilliant. Dead on. I actually got to the third or fourth book in the Wheel of Time before giving up. But that doesn’t really matter. You’re exactly right about the fantasy genre. As someone who grew up loving it and continues to love it, it’s really a sad thing to see. I don’t think I’ve gotten a new fantasy novel in literally years. I want to believe that there are people out there who can and will reverse the trend though.