You are viewing grrm

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hugo Recommendations - BEST NOVEL

Hugo
The Hugo Award for Best Novel is "the big one," the last to be presented at every Hugo ceremony (well, except that one year when Lester del Rey screwed up the presentations), the category that typically draws the most nominations and the most votes (well, along with Dramatic Presentation), the most prestigious award in the field, and the oldest. Other Hugo categories have come and gone over the decades, but Best Novel has been there since the beginning. The first one was awarded in 1953, and went to Alfred Bester for THE DEMOLISHED MAN. The books and authors that have won the award in subsequent years form a virtual Hall of Fame for our genre, the best that SF and fantasy have to offer. Heinlein won it four times. Zelazny, Le Guin, Simmons, Haldeman, Leiber, Pohl, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Walter M. Miller... that's company that any writer worth his salt would be proud to keep.

So who should be nominated for the Big One this year? Well, once again, I do have a horse in this race. A DANCE WITH DRAGONS was published in July, and is among the eligibles. I should probably leave it at that. My best chance of making the ballot would be for all those fans of mine who liked DANCE to nominate it, and nothing else.

I can't do that, however. There are five lines on the nomination form, after all, and it wouldn't feel right to leave four of them blank when there were so very many good books published in 2011. I am sure many of you have your own favorites. I won't pretend to have read all the books published last year, or even just the good ones. There's just too much. But I have read some terrific ones, so let me recommend them to your attention.

For science fiction, my favorite novel of the year was a classic old-fashioned space opera titled LEVIATHAN WAKES, by James S.A Corey.



I'll be the first to admit that I was favorably disposed toward this one, since "Jimmy" Corey is actually a collaborative pseudonym for two of my friends, my sometime collaborator Daniel Abraham and my assistant Ty Franck. However, I have a lot of friends who published books last year, and this is the one that kicked my ass the hardest. It's a terrific read, a page turner. If you love SF the way they used to write it, you will love this book.

Also worthy of a good look when filling out your ballot is HEAVEN'S SHADOW, another solid and engrossing hard SF novel from David S. Goyer and Michael Cassutt.

In fantasy... well, damn, it was a great year for fantasy. I read at least half a dozen books so good that they made me say, "I wish I'd written that." THE HEROES by Joe Abercrombie was an action tour de force, an entire novel built around a single battle. Lev Grossman's THE MAGICIAN KING was a worthy successor to THE MAGICIANS, and proof that last year's Hugo voters knew what they were about when they voted Grossman the Campbell Award as the best new writer in the field. And Daniel Abraham... yes, him again, damn him... did something I would not have thought possible. He published a novel called THE DRAGON'S PATH, the first volume in the new epic fantasy series called THE DAGGER AND THE COIN, and it was just as bloody good as his Long Price Quartet.

Any of those books would be worthy nominees, but none of them were the best epic fantasy I read last year. For my money, that has to be THE WISE MAN'S FEAR, by Patrick Rothfuss.



WMF is the second volume in Rothfuss's Kvothe series, and it took him nearly as long to write it as I took for A DANCE WITH DRAGONS (hey, I'm glad it did, he drew some of the fire). But it was worth the wait. I gulped it down in a day, staying up almost to dawn reading, and I am already itching for the next one. He's bloody good, this Rothfuss guy. THE WISE MAN"S FEAR should rightly contend not only for the Hugo, but also for the World Fantasy Award.

Last, but far from least, is yet another huge tome of a book that kept me up reading all night, a science fiction novel by a writer best known for horror -- and that's 11/22/63, by Stephen King.



Now, I'm a major Stephen King fan, and have been for decades. King is tremendously prolific author, and when you write that many books, inevitably some of them are going to be better than others. That being said, 11/22/63 is the best King for at least a decade, a major piece of work... and it's NOT horror. This is King working outside his usual comfort zone, stretching his considerable talent to write a pure-quill time travel novel, about an English teacher who steps through a hole in space and time to prevent the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

That's hardly a new idea. Lots of people have done it before. Hell, we even did it on THE TWILIGHT ZONE back in the mid 80s, when I was working on the show (an episode called 'Profile in Silver'). But no one has ever done it as well as King does here. He handles the JFK/ Oswald stuff masterfully, I think... but there's so much more to the book than that. This is a love story as well. A wonderful period piece that brings the late 50s and early 60s to vivid life. This is a classic proof of something that I have long contended: that story is more than plot, that it's the journey that matters, not how fast you arrive at your destination.

Stephen King has never been nominated for a Hugo, so far as I know. That's truly absurd. Yes, he writes horror... but the Hugo Awards have always recognized horror as well as science fiction, and when you get down to it, horror is really just a subgenre of fantasy. Dark fantasy, if you will.

Anyway, those are my recommendations. I hope some of them make the final ballot. And I hope A DANCE WITH DRAGONS makes the ballot too, so I can kick their butts... winning (and losing, for that matter) is much more meaningful when you are going up against the best.

Comments

( 44 comments )
brett_andrew
Jan. 27th, 2012 06:43 am (UTC)
I'll give Rothfuss his due
The man can write a page-turner. That was a giant book, and it went down like a particularly delicious milkshake. I wouldn't rate it as the best fantasy work of 2011, though - the book has quite a few flaws, including some that it shares with the first book (such as the overly drawn-out ending, which was a flaw with Name of the Wind).

Definite agreement on Leviathan Wakes, although I was more fond of the interplanetary space opera politics and cop drama than the You-Know-What in the second half of the book.

I'm going to read the King book, but my opinion can't help but be colored by what I know about the history of Kennedy. Truth be told, he was a mediocre-to-bad President, and his flaws would likely have been pronounced even more if he hadn't been assassinated.
vanishdtwilight
Jan. 27th, 2012 06:48 am (UTC)
I honestly don't know how anyone could like Rothfuss. I must be one of the only person in the world who despises his writing.
trumko
Jan. 27th, 2012 07:03 am (UTC)
Thanks, it was interesting to hear your favorites
arabian
Jan. 27th, 2012 07:21 am (UTC)
I'm half-way through the King novel and I'm loving it. You're right, easily one of his best in years. :)
Michael Howley
Jan. 27th, 2012 07:30 am (UTC)
11/22/63
I rarely buy brand new books, mostly because of college expenses. But you can bet I made special exceptions out of Dance and 11/22/63, and I was not disappointed. I've read a couple dozen of King's books in the last few years (and still not even half of his work!), but I can easily say that this was one of his best. I was genuinely sad to see it end.
silks_ic
Jan. 27th, 2012 08:10 am (UTC)
Wise Man's Fear is the best fantasy book I've ever read. Absolutely brilliant
levifilm
Jan. 27th, 2012 08:51 am (UTC)
I've seen it
In my fires.
fl0wer666
Jan. 28th, 2012 10:03 am (UTC)
Re: I've seen it
And I saw a king burning in the flames. It's King Kong…
rhaenyskitten
Jan. 27th, 2012 09:24 am (UTC)
'Profile in Silver'
The scene with the 50 cent piece was amazing.
slowroastedhead
Jan. 27th, 2012 11:19 am (UTC)
Good luck with a nomination
Good Ser,

Here's hoping you garner yourself a nomination for a Hugo, you certainly deserve it. Both for your amazing and extended work on DWD, but also the Wildcards series.

A Hugo will look awesome in your library tower.

Good luck.
Pierce Brown
Jan. 27th, 2012 11:57 am (UTC)
I never could get into Rothfuss' debut novel. But that's part of the joy in reading a favored established writer's recommendations--makes me give some authors a second look and other authors a first look. After all, GRRM, you did turn me onto Cornwell, and I thank the Seven for that.
sekaijuuni
Jan. 27th, 2012 12:20 pm (UTC)
I agree that 11/22/63 was absolutely outstanding. I can't imagine any way I might have enjoyed it more. Rooting for it and for you!
mizkit
Jan. 27th, 2012 01:04 pm (UTC)
That King novel looks utterly fascinating. Thanks for the recommendation, and may the best DANCE win! :)
blanx73
Jan. 27th, 2012 01:38 pm (UTC)
Excellent choices, all. Forcing me to choose between Dance, WMF, and the King would be very difficult. That was King's most romantic, and melancholy (in a good way) book in forever.
avidreader19701
Jan. 27th, 2012 02:13 pm (UTC)
Secretariat!!!
Dear Ser:
No you don't have a horse in this race - you have SECRETARIAT - which we all know is MORE THAN A HORSE - just like so many of us feel DANCE IS MORE THAN A BOOK!!

Quote: "My best chance of making the ballot would be for all those fans of mine who liked DANCE to nominate it, and nothing else. " From your mouth (or keyboard as the case may be) to my ballot!!!

Not to worry Dear Ser your "leal" fans and AVID READERS are all over this one!!!

PS I agree 100% with your post on 11/22/63and was nice to see him back on his game (he has put out quite a few stinkers probably because he writes too much - I guess I shouldn't say that as I am not a writer and don't know the process). IMHO it would behoove him to follow some others example "hint hint" and take more time a do it right!!

Mr. Martin your fans have your back this year....
medianisntmean
Jan. 27th, 2012 03:09 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the List!
That's a great blog entry, George, thanks! I always like award nominations because it lets me know what books/movies/music to keep an eye out for. You should have your own award presentation, the Georges, and pick your own winners! It would be the same as a book recommendation or something (I notice you don't update that page of your blog very often!) and would be fun. Since people like the stuff you write (or they wouldn't be here!) they probably would like to hear what you like to read as well. King should have won lots of Hugos. The Dark Tower was fantasy, wasn't it? I'm babbling now because I've just had my coffee.

I think that if all the people that liked DANCE nominates it you will have a chance to win but it looks like you have some tough competition! Gotta run! Have a nice day everyone!

Edited at 2012-01-27 03:11 pm (UTC)
ravenclaw_eric
Jan. 27th, 2012 03:23 pm (UTC)
I know the guy who wrote "Profile in Silver."
halfmoon_mollie
Jan. 27th, 2012 03:26 pm (UTC)
I read 11/22/63 in November, and I so agree with you. It's a wonderful, romantic journey and, oh yes, if you're not careful you might learn some history too. I am so very sick of people maligning Mr. King and calling him a hack. Of course, I'm sure he laughs all the way to the bank.

corvidophile
Jan. 27th, 2012 04:26 pm (UTC)
i quite enjoyed Leviathan Wakes (and just realized i'm waaaaay behind on my book reviews!). i didn't realize it was the first of a series and will definitely keep an eye out for Caliban's War!

Heaven's Shadow sounds interesting, and i'll have to take a peek at that one too.

THANK YOU for all the great scifi recommendations! i've gotten hooked on quite a few authors/series through your recommendations. :)
malcolmina
Jan. 27th, 2012 04:42 pm (UTC)
I have not read any of these! Adding them to my reading list...
Shane Killian
Jan. 27th, 2012 05:09 pm (UTC)
Malazan?
Ever read the Malazan series? They're a lot of fun. They're so ridiculously over-the-top epic about everything, that you have to enjoy it, even if the story doesn't always make sense.
fl0wer666
Jan. 27th, 2012 06:18 pm (UTC)
I might attract some resentment by the strongest King’s supporters here but Mr. Steven King is lacking some bits of thoroughness and depth in his writing.

As one of my favorite D&D RPG characters like to say: “Even the most prolific adventurer needs some time to rest.”

And that may be true for the writers as well. I don’t know but Mr. Steven King is not my candidate…
Greg Cagle
Jan. 27th, 2012 06:20 pm (UTC)
Leviathan Wakes and 11/22/63
Totally agree about 11/22/63. I've been a King fan from day one; his output has been variable, but this one is great. You should give Under The Dome a chance too.

BTW Leviathan Wakes is available as a Nook book at bn.com for a very good price.
bastun_ie
Jan. 27th, 2012 09:52 pm (UTC)
Thanks for the recommendation on 11/22/63. Likely I was going to pick it up anyway (huge King fan here too), but I may just get the hardback now instead of waiting for the regular-sized paperback(*).

Agree with some of the comments here on his writing, though - he's not consistent. 'Cell', for example, seemed to be something he just rattled off, whereas 'Lisey's Story' was just amazing. Though I'm surprised you say "and it's NOT horror. This is King working outside his usual comfort zone..." Look at his bibliography - a good third of those are - well, not straight science-fiction, fantasy or thrillers, but certainly not horror.

(*) As someone in the "trade", maybe you could explain why publishers seem to have a relatively new-found fascination with large-format paperbacks? They're horrible - all the disadvantages of both paperback (fragile) and hardback (awkward to carry around) and the advantages of neither (convenient size and durability, respectively).
Ma Rc
Jan. 28th, 2012 12:55 am (UTC)
Hm, I wish Martin would endorse writers that deserve more exposure.

2011 was the year Steven Erikson delivered the final book to his Malazan series. These sort of "events" are never given consideration in prizes like the Hugo because reading a long series is a huge commitment and the establishment, mainstream or not, never commits to anything. Not considering this series as a significant event, disregarding the themes and problems it rises, it's a loss for the whole genre and the result of short-sightedness.

The same for R. Scott Bakker, who is writing something unique and ambitious in the genre and that definitely needs and deserves more exposure. Yet Martin decides to have the spotlight on Rothfuss, who doesn't need any more publicity and is writing a rather conservative work.

Praising guys like Abercrombie and Rothfuss is all fine. But they are quite a bit famous already and write stuff that is popular and accessible. The Heroes is great, but it does nothing new or relevant, or even different from the rest of his books. Nothing wrong with that, but it's sad to see works that try to be more ambitious being left at the margins and completely ignored in certain circles.

Fantasy discriminating itself.
grrm
Jan. 28th, 2012 02:20 am (UTC)
Bakker and Erikson have plenty of fans who champion their work. I don't think it's accurate to say they are being "completely ignored."

And maybe you don't think Abercrombie did anything new in THE HEROES, but I sure do. Has there ever been another fantasy novel that was entirely devoted to a single battle? Imagine if Tolkien had devoted not a couple of chapters, but rather an entire book, to the Battle of the Pelennor Fields. War is an important subject, and one seen in almost every fantasy, but few have ever done it as well as Abercrombie.

I admitted going in that I had not read all the fantasies published last year. There are just too many. My recommendations are my favorites from the books that I have read. I suspect that's true for 99 per cent of other Hugo votes as well.

You toss around words like "popular" and "accessible" as if they were bad things. They're not. Rothfuss wrote a terrific book. Are we supposed to pass it over for awards consideration because it sold too many copies?

If you would sooner give awards to books that are obscure and unpopular rather than popular and accessible... well, we have the World Fantasy Awards for that.

Edited at 2012-01-28 02:21 am (UTC)
Ma Rc
Jan. 28th, 2012 03:51 am (UTC)
I was arguing something specific. The emphasis is not much on "completely ignored" as it was on "certain circles". And the problem I rise is not about which book comes ahead, but that certain books don't get to participate at all.

What I mean is that, generalizing, I do expect you and others I clump in those "certain circles" to completely ignore the works of Bakker or Erikson. What I'm criticizing is that these kind of works fall completely off the radar, they simply aren't read and not considered. Written off on prejudices and misrepresentations. And not that they are disliked or not considered worthy of a prize like the Hugo.

So I'm criticizing the fact that, for example, you went and read Rothfuss or Abercrombie, but ignored Bakker or Erikson. It's consequent that at the end of the year you'd nominate Rothfuss. While I understand it's ridiculous to criticize what one decides to read in his free time, my point is that the works that Bakker or Erikson write have zero chances of even being EVALUATED for a prize like the Hugo.

Now, if we have to be honest, and I hope you will follow me to the end of this reasoning, ADWD does not deserve to win the Hugo. The reason is that the great majority of your readers, if not all of them, do not think ADWD is the best book you wrote. ASOS instead absolutely deserved to win the Hugo in 2001. It did not.

Yet, this year you have many more chances of being shortlisted, and I do believe you have real chances of winning. Why is it so? Because during this year you got the attention of the media and you reached an even biggest public. It was the year you released ADWD, but it was especially the year of the TV series. You do deserve to win, but because of incidental facts that are unrelated to the book you wrote and released this year.

So that's why when it comes to encourage readers to pay attention to this or that, I wished that the attention would be drawn to those work that aren't already under the spotlight and that deserve it for doing something relevant and precious. Because certain works that aren't directly commercial and accessible risk of being ignored.

"Popular" and "accessible" aren't bad things. Rothfuss shouldn't be taken off the list for the Hugo because he sold too much. The problem is not about what's under the spotlight, but that outside the spotlight there are works that deserve better. Read what Bakker and Erikson released in 2011, and I'd have nothing to argue if by the end of the year you still decided that Rothfuss comes ahead.

I think it's unjust that you have better chances to win with ADWD than you had with ASOS. The quality of the work is not considered.

The purpose of a prize is to turn on the spotlight on some book, so that it gets considered by a wider public. Certain works are already popular and well known, reaching a wide public, winning the Hugo just makes their light stronger, while there are other works that barely get any light at all and have to stay in their niche of a niche. I'm not saying that they should WIN, but they should be given a chance to participate, you know.

This year you nominate Rothfuss and Abercrombie, and next year, as consequence, Rothfuss and Abercrombie will have better chances if they publish something. Because it's this exposure that creates a cumulative effect. And the Hugo, as most other prizes, will just be about the same names slapping each other shoulders, recommending each others.

It's a sad self-preserving mechanic, and that's why I wished you turned on the spotlight on some other names that, in certain circles, are ignored.
grrm
Jan. 28th, 2012 05:22 am (UTC)
I really don't know what these "certain circles" you keep mentioning might be. Me and my friends? Hugo nominees? Fantasy authors? Some kind of literary or fannish elite? I don't even have a cellphone circle. You seem to be suggesting that me and Patrick Rothfuss and Joe Abercrombie (and presumably Daniel Abraham and Lev Grossman, who I also recommended, though you fail to mention them) are all members of some secret cabal, to which your own favorites Steven Erikson and Scott Bakker were not invited.

It is true that many SF and fantasy writers know each other, due to the convention circuit. A writer who regularly attends a half dozen cons a year, as I do, is going to meet a lot of his peers. So maybe that's your "certain circle." And yeah, come awards time, writers who go to cons do have an advantage. But that hardly matters here, since all of the writers you are talking about are con-goers.

For the record, Daniel Abraham is one of my closest friends, and he and I have worked together on a number of projects. I've had dinner with Joe Abercrombie once in London, and was interviewed by him in LA; he seems to be a great guy, but that's about the extent of our relationship. I met Lev Grossman for the first time a few months after his review of FEAST FOR CROWS came out in TIME. We had drinks. I met him for the second time just last month, again for drinks in NYC. Patrick Rothfuss is someone else I have met at cons. We've talked at parties, and were on a panel together as the San Diego Comicon, but have never shared a meal.

I have met Steven Erikson as well, at the Calgary World Fantasy Con. We spent time in the bar, along with a dozen other writers, and I enjoyed his conversation. Alas, I have not yet sampled his fiction. Scott Bakker was at Semana Negra in Spain with me a few years back. I introduced him before his presentation, interviewed him, and spent a good part of that week with him and his charming wife. I've probably spent more time with Bakker than with Rothfuss, Abercrombie, and Grossman put together. And I have read and admired his first trilogy... though, admittedly, not his more recent books. (So many books, so little time)

If there is a "certain circle," Bakker and Erikson are just as much a part of it as Rothfuss, Abraham, and Abercrombie. You seem to intent on portraying them as these obscure, neglected writers, but that's far from true. MANY of my own readers are also huge fans of both Bakker and Erikson, and both men have large and active internet fanbases of their own.

You are correct in one surmise: should Rothfuss and Abercrombie be nominated for a Hugo, it would increase their chances of being nominated again next year. That cumulative effect you speak of is undeniable. I've been going to worldcons since 1971, and one truism every aspiring writer learns early on is that the first nomination is the hardest one.

I think that's true of any award, however. Oscar, Emmy, you name it, the first nomination is the toughest.

You say, "the quality of the work is not considered," but of course that's hogwash. Quality is not an absolute. That's why people VOTE on these awards. The works I've recommended here ARE quality works, in my opinion, and worthy of the award. You may disagree. Fine. You are free to make your own recommendations.

But don't be surprised, should you write a blog recommending Erikson and Bakker, if someone doesn't write in to chide you for ignoring Peter Brett, or Peter Orullian, or Peadar O Gulian, or Mark Lawrence, or Ken Scholes, or Richard Morgan, or... well, the list goes on. Some of these authors, by the way, would probably kill to get as much attention as Bakker and Erikson do.

The point being, there are a lot of fantasists out there, all doing their best, all hoping for a bit of that spotlight you mention. No one can possibly read all their books. No one can possibly recommended all of them. So you read what you can, and when you find something you like, you tell others about it.
Ma Rc
Jan. 28th, 2012 08:40 am (UTC)
I didn't really intend to go against you. I was only explaining why I had hoped you'd pick some lesser known name that needed more attention, simply because Abercrombie and Rothfuss right now have already plenty of publicity and their audience expands by inertia. Any other lesser known name would have been fine for me.

Since you read Bakker a good part of my argument is defeated. I wasn't arguing "quality", I was arguing that certain types of Fantasy are dismissed without being given consideration. You read it, and that's enough.

You said that "winning is much more meaningful when you are going up against the best". That's what made me decide to comment, because it's not really a big victory if you get to cherry pick who participates in the fight. I got annoyed by that comment.

Honestly? I'd eat my hat the day I see Bakker's work, or something with a similar style/genre, being shortlisted. It just won't happen. Even Abercrombie is unlikely. And if it was with an epic fantasy series it would be impossible.

Have Mieville or Gaiman published something in 2011? Because if so they get in the list automatically. There's definitely a kind of secret cabal or "literary" circle existing within the genre and that mimics the forms of what happens between the genre and "mainstream".

I said that the quality is not considered because the "fight" is already rigged if said fight is precluded to certain works.

Erikson certainly isn't unknown, and probably more popular than Bakker. I mentioned him only because finishing the ten volumes series is a significant achievement, and what he did through the whole breadth of said work is also a significant event that the genre should celebrate at large. Rothfuss and Abercrombie may have published great books in 2011, but Erikson completed a work that took all his time for more than a decade. For that reason he would deserve at least to be acknowledged. Then judged.

One last thing. One of many other factors why you make a bigger splash (not a very important one, I admit, but still there) is that your Fantasy is "low on fantasy", excuse the wordplay. You acknowledge this in interviews. It can be read as if you agree that Fantasy, as a genre, can't say anything relevant or worthwhile. The mainstream argument. It's as if you're saying your fantasy works because it has almost nothing of fantasy and so can reach and engage your readers more easily. As if the Fantasy you write is good because one almost doesn't notice it's fantasy. So, by celebrating your work, is as if one celebrates the validity of the mainstream claim.

That Fantasy and Sci-fi are useless, because by being removed from reality they can't say anything pertinent or true about the human condition.

Erikson's work should be celebrated also because of this specific reason, that instead builds high walls of prejudices. He reaches deep in what the genre has to offer, without restrain pulling in gods, magic and all kinds of myths. It's as fantasy-heavy as it can get, and yet demonstrates how these fictional conceits are all grounded in our real life, and there's nothing he writes, any magic, that doesn't happen here in the real world as it happens in his fictional one. He shows how the metaphoric and anthropomorphic values can connect even more directly.

To conclude, celebrating Erikson's work in an official way would be finally a way to recognize that Fantasy as a genre can have its place as a significant work. That it can say something relevant without surrendering its qualities. Otherwise Fantasy that gets publicized and recognized outside the narrow circles is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, Fantasy that mocks and envies other genres and other forms of writing.

Mieville, Gaiman, and in certain ways your ASOIAF, are works that get accepted in the measure they are not-fantasy. Because they make genre flirt with mainstream.

For once I'd really see a work with both feet solidly into either Fantasy or Sci-fi, that is celebrated for what it is, and not for what it resembles.



Jason Kenney
Jan. 28th, 2012 10:04 pm (UTC)
For what its worth...
I haven't read Erikson, never even heard of him. But then my work is so busy, I generally stumble onto new books. (I discovered Harry Potter and Game of Thrones that way), Name of the Wind on the other hand was recommended to me by an acquaintance. And it blew my mind.

Rothfuss' prose is so good I recognized parts where I had to reread because the crunchiness was sooo enjoyable I didn't pay attention to what was actually going on. The only two author's I've read with a similar effect is F. Scott Fitzgerald and Kaufman (He translated Nietzche.. I actually don't know where credit goes here).

I also get so tired of hearing about mainstream and fantasy... etc. The reason most fantasy works don't get recognized is not because of how "hardcore" they are. It's because fantasy for the most part adheres to very ancient storytelling and is also usually part of the romantic movement which was studied and done with 200 years ago.

Literary Criticism for the most part cares about authors that push the form as a whole, and there is a certain disdain for "genre" writing simply because writing to a "genre" means constraining oneself to a set of tropes and a form. But also consider the fact that you are also competing with a millennia of literature, and these are the people most likely to have read some of the best stories Mankind has written. And one sub-genre of Fantasy has gotten attention: that would be Magical Realism.

I would take a look at Bloom's list of Western Cannon, that is what a new fantasy book must compete against. (And btw there is quite a lot of fantasy works on there, most are just very old.)
grrm
Jan. 28th, 2012 11:16 pm (UTC)
Re: For what its worth...
Of course, literary fiction itself has become a genre.

It's true, fantasy is part of the romantic tradition. I would despite that romanticism was "done with" two hundred years ago, however.
mariefoxprice
Jan. 29th, 2012 12:47 pm (UTC)
Re: For what its worth...
I have to agree here. Romanticism is most certainly not done with. As a literature student, I've studied it at university and the question was raised regarding whether we are still in a Romantic era. I consider myself a Romantic so I MUCH prefer that to the alternative, that we are in a Postmodern era (I don't really care for Postmodernism).

I have to admit there seems to be a certain snobbery as regards literary fiction compared to genre fiction. I took a module about writing fiction and every book on the required reading list could be fitted into the literary fiction genre, even if they also fitted into genre categories as well. The funny thing was, not one member of the class was interested in writing literary fiction. Most people were interested in one branch or other of the fantasy genre and the remainder were interested in contemporary fiction and historical fiction. Yet we barely talked about genre fiction at all!
Ma Rc
Jan. 29th, 2012 08:02 pm (UTC)
Re: For what its worth...
(my comment was blocked, possibly because it contained a link, so I'll try to repost it without, even if that link is quite important for my argument)

I haven't read this second book of Rothfuss, so I don't know. But I've read as many readers praising his prose as criticizing it. The day an excerpt was published on Tor.com website there were loads of negative comments criticizing especially the prose. So it's very much a personal opinion and reaction. Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, Erikson satisfies me especially because he experiments with the form and structure, so I agree even on the interest about "pushing the form" instead of basking in the familiar and predictable. But when one does read Erikson what is right on the front is the use of very fantastical imagery and characters that are like a barrier to many readers. The fact it's so fantasy-heavy (and with a first book that does a poor work showcasing the qualities Erikson brings to the series) flattens the perception of what's there. While there are undoubtedly Erikson's own flaws that come into play, it's also a cultural barrier made of instinctive reactions. Bad vibes because it's fantasy.

But as I said, I was only arguing Erikson specifically because 2011 is the year he finished his series. What I'd like to see is someone, whoever he may be, who gets recognized for writing "unrestrained" Fantasy. Erikson describes the roots of his work in Beowulf and Homer (and then surely the popular fantasy genre blended in). Is Beowulf part of the romantic tradition?

Scroll this to read what Erikson thinks about Epic Fantasy and how this genre stands in modern times: clarkesworldmagazine.com/epic_interview1/

You are aware that genres do not exist and are only used to frame something that is a lot more fluid. The romantic movement is not "done", and a lot depends on how you use these tools and frames. If you look around for interviews and articles you'd also notice that Erikson affirms using certain devices and structures that belong to post-modernism. He's not the writer who writes his thing, blind of what happens outside his room. It's the opposite. So you could say he also flirts with mainstream, but he does this without pulling himself out of the fantasy genre, or dancing on the edge. It's as fantasy as it gets, but it has more than one levels. It is seen and interpreted in a contemporary way.

If one compares the way Murakami describes the necessity and use of the magic/fantastic element in his work, with the way Erikson describes it, one would find them corresponding to the same approach. Murakami doesn't write Epic Fantasy, he writes the "magic realism" that is popular these days, yet the tools are similar. There are ways to write fantasy that are not old or trite, and are especially meaningful today. Especially today that we have the magical, internal world completely obscured, or unknown and misunderstood. Erikson essentially anthropomorphizes everything, and that gives him the possibility to tell a story, because that's a level a human being can understand. We don't perceive nor understand complexity, we understand a narrative. It speaks in symbols and internal correspondences. And it speaks of that contrast between the internal perception and a world that crushes and tortures it.

In James Hillman's psychology, which operates at a deeper level than most well known psychology, you can't lose the symbol if you truly want to understand something.

That's my personal take. But this is my question: is high/hardcore Fantasy disregarded because it's intrinsically stale, or because we are unlucky and no truly good writer tackled this genre?
querldox
Jan. 28th, 2012 01:09 am (UTC)
Actually, King's won a Hugo. 1982, Danse Macabre, in what was then titled Best Related Non-Fiction Book. No nominations for his fiction though.
grrm
Jan. 28th, 2012 02:10 am (UTC)
I stand corrected.

DANSE MACABRE was a worthy winner, too.
ngungonvn
Jan. 28th, 2012 02:27 am (UTC)
Kvothe vs. Jaime
I was truly amazed by Rothfuss' "Wise Man's Fear". The most intriguing part about it is that the story itself does not even seem anything particulary new (Young magician going to a magician's university... now, where have I heard that again?), but the writing is absolutely breathtaking. Rothfuss makes full use of First person writing as a creative style to push the story forward or delay it as he pleases.

When I read the story, I several times thought back on how you killed Kvothe and Bast in your short cagefight vs. Jaime Lannister story, and although at that time I rooted for Jaime, I have to disagree now: Jaime/Tyrion together don't seem to stand a chance against Kvothe. He seems too cunning for that. Plus, he is the sort of interesting grey character you would want to advance. ;)

Edited at 2012-01-28 02:29 am (UTC)
grrm
Jan. 28th, 2012 03:10 am (UTC)
Re: Kvothe vs. Jaime
The cage matches were a lot of fun, but let's face it, none of my characters would really stand much of a chance against the vast majority of the other contestants. My guys are fundamentally just human beings... skilled at swordplay, maybe, cunning, but still just people, fighting against gods and demigods. I mean, hell, Jaime had to face Cthulhu.

I do agree that Kvothe is a fine character. But he couldn't take Cthulhu either.
m00nprophet
Jan. 29th, 2012 07:32 pm (UTC)
Re: Kvothe vs. Jaime
I think it depends on which Kvothe were fighting too. Inkeeper Kvothe (who got his ass kicked by two hired thugs at the end of WMF) vs. One-handed Jaime would probably be a pretty fair fight.

P.S. In the Rand vs. Jaime matchup, I thought it was nice that you let Rand live so he could fight the Last Battle and defeat the Dark One.
slowroastedhead
Jan. 28th, 2012 11:17 am (UTC)
Leviathan wakes
Dear Ser,

Though I am a leal fan of your works you have convinced me to cast my vote for 'Leviathan Wakes'

While this is an initial book by this author, it's got great character development and action from the first page. It really was a fun read for me. I was sceptical about it at first, since it's a team written book, but it was brilliant and I couldn't put it down. This is the best Sci Fi space opera I've read since Dune.

Edited at 2012-01-28 11:58 am (UTC)
bandofsisters
Jan. 28th, 2012 05:26 pm (UTC)
oh no no, do you realize that this post makes my wish list a lot longer?! LOL thanks for the recommendations, have a good weekend
Patrick Rothfuss
Jan. 28th, 2012 10:23 pm (UTC)
Wow.
That's all. Just wow.

pat

P.S. Thanks.

Edited at 2012-01-28 10:27 pm (UTC)
poeticloner
Jan. 29th, 2012 04:01 pm (UTC)
As a huge Stephen King fan (I've read every one of his works) I really appreciate your review of 11/22/63. I've been disappointed in his books the last few years...Cell, Lisey's Story, Blaze, the awful Just After Sunset. I enjoyed Duma Key and Under the Dome although they don't rate as re-reads. And I'm a person that re-reads some King books every year and who believes that The Dark Tower series is an epic adventure.

In short, GRRM, I'll be picking up this book sooner rather than later based on your review. Live on fellow SK fans!
heathenfriar
Jan. 30th, 2012 03:33 am (UTC)
I agree somewhat with the Ma Rc person that the award is too much like the Oscars in that it's a popularity contest first, and a recognition of achievement/talent second. It is a travesty that none of the first three novels in ASOIAF won the Hugo; they are masterpieces. Now that everyone's on the GRRM bandwagon after watching the TV series, A Dance With Dragons has a good chance of winning even though it (along with AFFC) pales in comparison to the first three. Something's wrong here.

I think Rothfuss is pretty awesome, though.
Michael Fitzgerald
Feb. 2nd, 2012 02:02 am (UTC)
11/22/63
I just finished that book, I thought it was great. The part where Jake says something along the lines of "If you ever think how great it would be to go back, remember the sign that says 'colored' that leads to a board over a ditch." I wasn't crazy about the ending, but I think it was the right way to do it. I'm surprised that King hasn't gotten anything for the Dark Tower books at least.
( 44 comments )

Profile

Spain
grrm
George R.R. Martin
George R. R. Martin

Latest Month

December 2014
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner