Old vs New

[magemanda]

Hi there,

I was just wondering what proportion of 'old' fantasy people read to the 'new' authors popping up?

By old, I mean those who have been writing for years and years e.g. Michael Moorcock, Ursula le Guin, Fritz Lieber etc

And new would be people like Robert Jordan, George RR Martin etc

For those who read both avidly, which do you prefer?

What one book would you recommend in each category for those just starting out?

I have to say that I read pretty much exclusively modern fantasy (written in the last ten years or so). I have ventured into older fantasy, but never gleaned much enjoyment from the books.

Maybe someone can convince me of an author to try that would change my view?

Cheers,
Mage

 

[Kookamoor]

Really interesting topic, Mage. I read mostly new fantasy as well. Guy Gavriel Kay, who I read most recently, wrote his Fionavar tapestry in the 1980s, but that still wasn't all that long ago. I also read Charles de Lint's The Little Country, which was a little older and really enjoyed that. Finally, I just adore Susan Cooper's The Dark is Rising series - although it is primarily aimed at children, I think an adult reader can still get a lot out of it.

On the science fiction side of things, which is a genre I don't usually frequent, I read a collection of JG Ballard's short stories and just loved them. And these were written back in the 1960s.

That being said, there is an awful lot of older fantasy that I just don't enjoy. I prefer to soak up the adventure and the characters rather than read pages of songs and verbose descriptions about landscape. When I want wonderful imagery I will read something from a traditional fiction genre or classic literature.

 

[rune]

I prefer newer authors even newer than the ones you mentioned. I tend to look out for new authors, such as Kelley Armstrong, Lian Heard, Sarah Micklem, Sarah Ash etc. Authors who are havent been on the fantasy scene long

 

[Ainulindale]

I read everything, I read pre-19th century fantasy and many books by authors whose first books haven't been published yet, and have found when they published the work has no bearing on quality.


I'm not particularly interested in changing somone's view - there is simply no evidence to suggest that the quality of fantasy increased or decreased 10 years ago. There are great new authors (like China Mieville, Jeff VanderMeer, Zoran Zivkovic, John C. Wright, Charles Stross, Jeffrey Ford, Jeffrey Thomas, Michael Cisco, Kelly Link among 100's of others) and there are mindless new ones (Robert Newcomb, Christopher Pauolini) There are terrific older authors Moorcock, M. John Harirson, Roger Zelazny, Mervyn Peake, Leguin etc (agains 100's of others) and there are awful ones (Goodkind, Brooks, Jordan, Eddings)

And new would be people like Robert Jordan, George RR Martin etc

Neither one of these authors are close to being new.

 

[Kookamoor]

and there are awful ones (Goodkind, Brooks, Jordan, Eddings).

Now, I respect the opinion of Ainulindale immensly when it comes to fantasy. However I don't understand why the quoted authors are 'bad'. I think this still relates to mage's thread topic, by the way. There seems to be a group of more recent authors (I still consider these to be 'new' authors to a certain extent) that are the immensely popular yet gain a lot of criticism. Why is this? I agree that some of their writing is 'cliched' in some ways, however I also think that their fantasy writing is some of the most accessible in the genre to new fantasy readers. I also still really enjoy some of their books (although Brooks is just *too* cliched for me, and Mr Jordan infuriated me in Book 3, so I didn't stick around till Book... 12? 13? It's still going, isn't it?).

 

[Oberon]

Good thread! I'm an older reader! I don't follow SF like I used to as a younger man, and therefore, I feel like I'm really taking a chance on some of the newer authors, but it is very rewarding when you come across a Charles Stross or James Alan Garner (wasn't on your list). But there's a group missing ... Neal Stephenson, Bruce Sterling, and William Gibson have established themsleves, but they fall between the two lists you mention. I guess that's part of being an older reader ... the range is bigger! But that's the benefit of not getting stuck in a rut and trying out new writers. Those three cyberpunks paid off handsomely, as did reading Sharon Shinn, John Varley, Harry Turtledove and John Barnes.

Back in the day, I read "The Alien Critic" and "Science Fiction Review," a young writer by the name of Orson Scott Card wrote highly opinionated reviews and was a wild man SF >>>fan<<< .... following in the footsteps of another "fan" Harlan Ellison. But I haven't gone to a convention or read an SF magazine in decades!

 

[Ainulindale]

Now, I respect the opinion of Ainulindale immensly when it comes to fantasy. However I don't understand why the quoted authors are 'bad'.

By no means am I suggesting my opinions on what is bad, mindless, or for that matter good, in any way should be taken as anything other then my opinion. I think they are low quality authors, that's why I mentionrd them - by all means anyone can fill in whom ever they want instead.

There seems to be a group of more recent authors (I still consider these to be 'new' authors to a certain extent) that are the immensely popular yet gain a lot of criticism. Why is this?

If we are speaking of many authors like the ones I mentioned (Jordan, Goodkind, Brooks, and Eddings) and why teh yare smot often criticized recently, I think the reasons are two-fold. One, they are all derivative, formulaic writers who don't showcase any stylistic sense in their prose, and have nothing relevant or thoughtful in thier work. In most cases none of them have shown any example of improving, instead digressing in regards to the writing craft, which tell me they are more inetrested with sticking to a formula of publishing success then they are wriiting anythign equaling many of the more relevant writers in the genre, who are pushing the boundaries of fantasy. There work is consitently unifrom and unchanging, I started getting upset at Brooks , not because he hackedTolkien for his entire concept, but the fact that he tried to sell me the same book 10 times.

These authors are generally highly successful, and the ones who truly have the freedom i nregards to financial and relationship with there publisher to try new things, however they with stick to their cash cows, which I can't fault them for, however, I can say their work blows.

The second reasons is that all the examples above are epic fantasies at it vogue right now to rip epic Fantasy as being derivative, regressive, luddite, and simply irrelevant. In my case, I think for the most part that's true, simply look at the numbers IMHO, most fantasy written is epic fantasy, the last IMHO superior epic fantasy series that was completed was in the late 70's being Patricia Mckillip's Riddle Master series. Since then there have been good ones completed (Hobb's Farseer) but not many. Right now there are 3 excellent series still being written now - Erikson's Malazan series, Bakker's Prince of Nothing, and Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, which IMHO potentially could be epic fantasies magnum-opus when it gets completed. That percentage is horrid IMHO.

I agree that some of their writing is 'cliched' in some ways, however I also think that their fantasy writing is some of the most accessible in the genre to new fantasy readers.

This is unquestionably true, but as a rule I don't think of something in a better light just because it's written in a way that it promotes readership. This is the Dan Brown Davinci Code (mindless), Eco's Focaults Pendulum debate (brilliant). Bikes with training wheels make biking accesbile but they are still sorry bikes compared to the best.



Just a note - Martin started writing in the 70's, Jordan in the early 80's

But there's a group missing ... Neal Stephenson, Bruce Sterling, and William Gibson

I was keeping it Fantasy, not SF, I am well aware of the cyberpunk movement - and it's New Wave inspiration derived originally from Michael Moorcock. I did say:

among 100's of others

I didn't feel it necessary to name 100's of author for my point to be made

 

[Kookamoor]

One, they are all derivative, formulaic writers who don't showcase any stylistic sense in their prose, and have nothing relevant or thoughyful in thier work. In most cases none of them have shown any example of improving, instead digressing in regards to the writing craft, which tell me they are more inetrested with sticking to a formula of publishign success then they are wriiting anythign equaling many of the more relevant writers in the genre, who are pushing the boundaries of fantasy. There work is consitently unifrom and unchanging, I started gettign upset at Brooks not becauses he hack Tolkien for his entire concept, but the fact that he tried to sell me the same book 10 times.

These authors are generally highly successful, and the ones who truly have the freedom i nregards to financial and relationship with there publisher to try new things, however they with stick to their cash cows, which I can't fault them for, however, I can say their work blows.

As always, some great points, Ainulindale. I still think that having these more 'accessible' authors is a good way to get into the genre *because* they are an easy read and an appropriate bridge between the wider fiction genre and fantasy. It is unfortunate, but many non-fantasy readers associate fantasy with Tolkein, and, having found his books rather difficult to trudge through, give up on the entire genre.

But I'm not going to hijack magemanda's thread anymore, and I think this is getting a little offtopic now. If anyone wants to discuss this further start a thread on 'Introductory Fantasy' or something, and we can all have a chat about it there.

 

[Fistandantilus]

I think that I prefer "old" fantasy. I love the dragonlance books by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, those books have been around for 25-30 years. Another of my favourites is Ursula Le Guin, another "old" authour. In saying that, there aresome good modern fantasy authours like Maggie Furey. Most of the fantasy books I read are old.

 

[direstraits]

As for myself, I've been reading fantasy/scifi for the past 15+ years only, and while my reading is nowhere as prolific as Ainulindale's or Oberon's or Ell's or Sell Swords's, I did stick my foot in my fair share of stuff. Looking back, and given the stock of books available in my neck of the woods earlier in my reading, the fantasy I've been reading would be nearer to newer authors than the older ones. During my early reading years, bookstore shelves were pretty small and limited for stuff like scifi and fantasy, and they normally only stock popular bestsellers. Libraries stock older stuff, but selection was still pretty lean.

Now I believe magemanda's definition of old authors are those who are really old/classic, ie. Le Guin, Heinlein, Wolfe, Tolkien, Lewis, Peake, Orwell, etc etc. I too actually see people like Jordan, Goodkind, Eddings, Martin, Sterling, Stephenson and others as new authors. Even if they began writing in the 80s.

I know magemanda said the last 10 years or so. But I'll stick to the definition above for my post.

My reading has tended to skew towards new writers for the following reasons:
1. The language. Classic prose takes longer to savour and enjoy (i.e. Wolfe, Tolkien), while contemporary prose is more likely power-packed, straight to the point, punch in the gut (Mieville, Martin). This is not a determining factor for me in reading, but my inclination to enjoy a good book in a reasonable time comes more often than my inclination to patiently savour a good book at a longer time. I understand there are exceptions to this.
2. I find newer books have faster moving plots. I'm generalizing, I know. I'm impatient.
3. There are higher chances of finding something really new and fresh with new authors (who are brave enough to not be formulaic) than older authors who were breaking new grounds in their day, but not in ours.

Having said that, I'll try any book that come highly recommended by people who share my taste in fantasy, regardless of whether they are written by old or new authors.

ds