The Reading Room

I always thought low fantasy was the opposite of high fantasy - low stakes, limited magic, more grimy fantasy stories that contrast to high fantasy with all its trappings.

But that's the screwy thing about publishing - genre is just marketing. There's a running joke that you know you're being taken seriously by the literary community when they stop shelving you in a genre section and start putting you in with "mainstream" books. Like how so much of Ishiguro's stuff is OBVIOUSLY sci-fi/fantasy but he goes on the front shelves.

There's a great quote from Margaret Atwood FUMING that anyone would call her books sci-fi because there's no "flying space squids" in her books and it's like madam, if Oryx and Crake isn't sci-fi, I don't know what else to call it.
 
I mentioned in the other thread I was gonna talk about Burroughs; I dislike him. The first John Carter story was pretty good. Maybe the first two. But they get VERY samey and progressively more out there and ridiculous and contrived as they go on. Also, there's some serious white saviour/the superiority of the American MAN, stuff going on that I got more and more put off by as I read more stories. It's a lot like realizing Lovecraft is a raging racist. Once you see it, you can't UNSEE it. At least Lovecraft's stories were almost universally really good. Burroughs' aren't.
Agree 100% on everything. I was kind of enjoying some of it but suddenly Tarzan is about to murder an African villager because he finds them mildly annoying, or discovering a lost civilisation that just happens to have the exact same ideas about racial and gender hierarchies as Burroughs' himself. His biases almost benefit from being SO obvious and ridiculous that I could easily identify and laugh at it, which is at least preferable to the more insidious bigotry of some authors. And his plots are just unbelievably lazy. White saviour, damsel in distress, lost civilisation, bam you got every Burroughs book ever

Sanderson, to my mind (and JUST my opinion) is the worst popular writer in modern history.
Harsh but fair. I have a soft spot for him as my current love of fantasy traces back to the LoTR - Wheel of Time - Stormlight Archive pipeline (well technically I got to WoT from a Blind Guardian song). But I became a massive binge reader at the time and I loved how much time and detail Jordan and Sanderson would put into every page. Meanwhile I don't even know whether John Carter's "harness" is a He-Man thing, BDSM gear or a full suit of leather armor. Nowadays I find myself slogging through Sanderson more than actually enjoying it. I read the most recent Mistborn almost mechanically, and Tress of the Emerald Sea really rubbed me the wrong way for some reason.
 
Does anyone here read urban fantasy stuff?
Not anymore, I fell out of those Dresden Files books pretty hard. Got tired of 'em. But Mike Carey did a series called Felix Castor like 15 years ago that was really good!
 
His biases almost benefit from being SO obvious and ridiculous that I could easily identify and laugh at it, which is at least preferable to the more insidious bigotry of some authors.
HA Dracula is my favorite book and that is EXACTLY why I love Stoker: he is neither subtle nor self-aware enough to bury his biases at all. “Ohhh OK this author is xenophobic, classist, terrified of women and DEFINITELY not straight”. Bingo. It’s all there, right on the surface.
 
Probably you already know this, but Tchaikivsky has written Warhammer novels too.
Two books and some shorts, none of which I've read. One is about one of the few factions/half-factions that I actively do not care about and don't enjoy reading about; Genestealers. The other novel I actually really want to read quite a lot. The shorts I actually don't know anything about, just that he did a few.


I liked Children of Time a lot. Definitely my fave of the trilogy, but that whole series sits squarely in my sphere of interest. There's a fourth coming next year, Children of Strife.
He's doing another one? Man, I'm already two behind. Gotta get on that. There's also definitely some other stuff of his I'd like to read, but as I've said many times - there's only so much time in a day that I can devote to reading for pleasure.

@Damien Feeling the same about John Gwynne's stuff. It's funny, I don't think he's a brilliant, takes your breath away storyteller, but he's not trying to be - he's fuckin' EFFICIENT. That's what I like about it. He tells a story like a craftsman and not an academic. He knows the parts of the story need to fit together and work like carpentry. I feel like a lot of epic fantasy writers huff their own sauce too much these days.
John Gwynne writes like I imagine saga-tellers 1000 years ago spoke. Just enough fluff and pomp and flower to heighten the story, but the STORY is the star. I devoured all three books and loved every second. That series, along with the Lawless series I'm currently reading, are in the list of the VERY few stories I unironically call 'true page-turners.'


No joke, Rage of Dragons was in my cart WITH Shadow of the Gods and was going to be my next pickup if I hadn't decided to read the full trilogy by Gwynne first. I'll grab that next. (Only about a third into book 2 as of today.)
Yes, do it. And then come tell me about how awesome it is while you're ordering the second book.


Does anyone here read urban fantasy stuff?
No? But not by design or anything. I don't dislike it, I just haven't come across very much to begin with, and then sifting through to find something that got my interest just never happened. I'm sure I've read some that I liked in various short story compilations, but never enough to send me out looking for more. Dresden is the most popular urban fantasy right now, I imagine, and I fucking hate those books.
But I'm an old school Shadowrun fan, so I'm not opposed to mixing genres. I just don't know of anyone doing it well right now.


I'd be curious to know which three you read. I didn't like Warbreaker or Mistborn.
Way of Kings, Firstborn, and Final Empire, I believe?



I was both blown away and bored to tears by Children of Time. As much as I appreciated the first book—the ending was beautiful—I won't read the others. I read enough serious stuff between my job and the news. When I read at the end of the day, I need escapism. I bounce off the hard sci-fi stuff. I gave up on Asimov for the same reason. It's just too dry.
Totally get that. I kind of get being bored during the book, but also I was bored while wanting to know what will happen next? It's weird. But I loved the psychological/body horror of things like the AI/Human thing (avoiding any spoilers, but it is fucking CREEPY, depressing, and horrifying and I loved it).


I see the LOGIC behind changing names, but look at it this way: Stephen King and JK Rowling (may she rot for what she's done in the years since) sold better once people found out who was writing the books they did under a pseudonym. In modern publishing, your name is your brand and it has value. People will voraciously ONLY read books by two or three authors, so I'd rather befuddle a few readers by changing genres than lose readers by starting from scratch (esp. because unless you are a top five author - not top five percent, like literally one of the top five sellers for a publisher) the publisher will put zero dollars into marketing your new persona, so you'll be building from the ground up all over again.
NO ONE bought Fever Dream without George Martin's name on the book. It's just fact. The idea that you should change your name to write in a different genre is stupid as fuck and was NEVER intended to benefit the author.


Not sure if it's the same as "urban fantasy", but what I call "low fantasy" is usually a huge pet peeve of mine. I basically hate the tropes of magic and monsters existing in some kind of analogue of the real modern world.
Definitely not something I've ever heard the term 'low fantasy' for. Low fantasy is like.. Conan. Fantasy worlds where most normal people will live their entire lives without encountering magic or magical/monstrous creatures in any significant form.



from a Blind Guardian song
Nice.
 
NO ONE bought Fever Dream without George Martin's name on the book. It's just fact. The idea that you should change your name to write in a different genre is stupid as fuck and was NEVER intended to benefit the author.
You could fill several books with things people tell authors to do that are just ways of keeping them from making a sustainable income. I love books. I love being an author. There are days I hate publishing with the fiery passions of hell.
Just enough fluff and pomp and flower to heighten the story, but the STORY is the star.
This! He's not flash at all, but man he gets the WORK done. Also he is a solid fight scene writer, and a lot of authors are not great at that and think they are. Viscerally invested in some of the one on one fights as he writes them. "GIT HIM, ORKA, F*CK HIM UP!"
 
You could fill several books with things people tell authors to do that are just ways of keeping them from making a sustainable income. I love books. I love being an author. There are days I hate publishing with the fiery passions of hell.

This! He's not flash at all, but man he gets the WORK done. Also he is a solid fight scene writer, and a lot of authors are not great at that and think they are. Viscerally invested in some of the one on one fights as he writes them. "GIT HIM, ORKA, F*CK HIM UP!"
His fight scenes are very obviously written by a guy that is both a historical reenactor and a legitimate fan of the sagas and old stories. In fact, I can't think of any examples right now, but when I was reading I remember distinctly seeing stuff that felt very 'reenactorism' over 'actual way people fought.' He's an older gent and some of the stuff he believes has been, if not disproven at least proven to be unlikely. Bernard Cornwell is really bad for this, too.
But it's still very effective writing because he has a very good grasp of the general flow and feel of armed fighting.
 
Well, I for one do NOT get being bored by Children of Time! :) The whole thing fascinated me, it's directly up my street. But I actually am a big fan of the harder sort of sci-fi, especially when it takes the biology and evolution of its aliens more seriously. And Tchaikovsky's at his best (to me) when he's trying to write from the perspective of non-human intelligences. I'd say the hardest I've ever read is Greg Egan, who you should definitely avoid if you don't want like equations and stuff in your novels. :)
 
His fight scenes are very obviously written by a guy that is both a historical reenactor and a legitimate fan of the sagas and old stories. In fact, I can't think of any examples right now, but when I was reading I remember distinctly seeing stuff that felt very 'reenactorism' over 'actual way people fought.' He's an older gent and some of the stuff he believes has been, if not disproven at least proven to be unlikely. Bernard Cornwell is really bad for this, too.
But it's still very effective writing because he has a very good grasp of the general flow and feel of armed fighting.
Yeah, wasn't a ton of stuff from Cornwall's books proven as historically silly? Like the overuse of the shield wall and all that? Then again I watched eight seasons of Vikings knowing historically it is about as accurate as Disney's Hercules is to the Greek myths and still enjoyed it a lot.
 
Well, I for one do NOT get being bored by Children of Time! :) The whole thing fascinated me, it's directly up my street. But I actually am a big fan of the harder sort of sci-fi, especially when it takes the biology and evolution of its aliens more seriously. And Tchaikovsky's at his best (to me) when he's trying to write from the perspective of non-human intelligences. I'd say the hardest I've ever read is Greg Egan, who you should definitely avoid if you don't want like equations and stuff in your novels. :)
I do get bored easily - especially when I feel like I know what's going on but the author keeps on telling me anyway instead of just getting on with it. I found that happened sometimes in CoT. Not frequently, mind. But often enough to be noteworthy.


Yeah, wasn't a ton of stuff from Cornwall's books proven as historically silly? Like the overuse of the shield wall and all that? Then again I watched eight seasons of Vikings knowing historically it is about as accurate as Disney's Hercules is to the Greek myths and still enjoyed it a lot.
Vikings is about as accurate to history as Disney's Hercules is to ... history. I can't fucking stand on that show even just as a piece of entertainment. I would have respected it, at least as pure entertainment, if it just changed the names and was a generic fantasy show.

And you're correct, sort've, about Cornwall. The use of the shield wall is still HOTLY debated in academic circles. Cornwall is criticized more for acting like that's the only way anyone fought, even though it's certainly possible it was the primary formation at the time. We just don't really know.
Cornwall's books are also kind of (in)famous for how he uses the seax. In his battle scenes he describes warriors like Uhtred actually putting away their swords and drawing seaxes in the shield wall because it's shorter and more maneuverable. We have no evidence at all that they did that and actually it doesn't really make sense, or fit with anything we know about medieval combat. It seems like trying to pass off Roman tactics onto Germanic peoples from several hundred years after the collapse of the Western Empire. Very weird.
He also presents the seax as an armour-piercing weapon and has it power through mail quite a lot in battles, which it absolutely would not have been able to do.

Just, in general, Cornwall also commits the historical sin of treating battles more like Hollywood does than like they really were. Giant battles with lots of casualties and fierce dudes fighting for their homes or honor or glory or whatever. It's just... probably wasn't like that very often at all. But, to be fair to Cornwall, he gets a LOT right and his books are incredible. Actually, Cornwall wrote three of my favorite books ever, and it's not the Saxon Chronicles.
 
Posting my response to a post in the TTRPG thread here:
I'm the same way - I get overwhelmed if I see a series of five or ten 350,000 word books. I'm old! I don't have time for that! (Some day I'll finish Malazan, I respect what he did there, but boy howdy that's a lotta fuckin' pages).
I have a friend who's been asking me to read Malazan for years. I genuinely want to read it, but realistically, the entire series will take me a full year. That's a big commitment when there's so much else out there.

If I'm reading a series, I tend to focus on it. Maybe I'll read one book between entries, but it's basically a sprint to the finish once I start. That's a tough ask with Malazan, given its tone and length.
 
Posting my response to a post in the TTRPG thread here:

I have a friend who's been asking me to read Malazan for years. I genuinely want to read it, but realistically, the entire series will take me a full year. That's a big commitment when there's so much else out there.

If I'm reading a series, I tend to focus on it. Maybe I'll read one book between entries, but it's basically a sprint to the finish once I start. That's a tough ask with Malazan, given its tone and length.

Same. And the thing is if you take a year or three between books, they’re so dense good luck remembering where you left off. I’m kind of in my “standalones, three big books, or maybe five lean books” fantasy novel era.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Amateurs.

I have severe ADHD. I'm literally reading seven books right now.
 
I'm reading two different books and two different graphic novels right now...
 
I don't count graphic novels/comics because I'm always reading like 15 of them. I haven't tried reading multiple books at the same time since high school. I could probably handle it, but I don't see the point. If I don't like the thing I'm reading, I buckle down so I can get to the next thing quicker.
 
Back
Top