Is it just me, or does there seem to be a new, annoying trend in fantasy novels to constantly push the envelope? It seems like new authors are so afraid of being "derivative" that they are taking their stories to absurd levels just to be "creative". I mean I know no one wants to read a hundred versions of Lord of the Rings, but does that mean that any simple, "realistic" story is not fit for print?
I am a huge fan of R.A. Salvatore. His books always center around a group of likable, relatable characters, dealing with complex, realistic relationships, and who I can usually identify with or at least see as "real" people. Of course these characters also live in a fantasy world where LOTR like problems are about, but that is the background of the story.
Sure the gang in the Demon Wars stories is going off to the big bad mountain to kill the "not-quite-a-dragon-but-suspiciously-close-to-a-dragon" thing. But, the real story is about the *people* not the quest. I am not reading to find out if the dragon thing is finally killed. I am reading because I care about the people in the story and their realistic emotional struggles.
I was actually shocked to find out that some people hated the Demon Wars books. I only discovered this when I went out in search of some new book series to read and saw the reviews on Amazon. I think they are the best books I have ever read, and certainly the best books Salvatore has ever written. All the criticism was the same. The books were derivative of LOTR stuff and boring. People wanted new and different.
It seems what people want now is to push the envelope. The most extreme example of this is a book I picked up by Anne Bishop. I think it's called "Child of the Blood" or something along those lines. I decided to jump in and see what all the fuss was about and bought this book. Not only was this the first book I chose not to finish reading, it was also the first book I have ever thrown away in my life! (I keep every book I buy in a nice neat bookshelf. I feel kind of obligated to respect something an author spent a year of his or her life creating).
Don't get me wrong, the book is *very* well written. Anne Bishop is a great writer, and she made a very fantastical world seem believable without getting bogged down. In fact, it was only the quality of the writing that kept me in the book as long as it did.
Instead of traditional fantasy, the book follows Satan, his two sons, and his seven year old daughter as they try to reclaim the world. The weird part is Satan and his group are really the good guys, which is a neat idea. The seven year old daughter is some kind of ultra powerful sorceress -- or will be once she grows up and figures out how to use magic -- and the book seems to follow everyone trying to get to her to either train her or kill her.
Sounds like a neat idea right? No magical rings, no dragon-like-things to kill. But the flip side is that’s all there is. None of the characters seem real or do anything I can relate to. Actually the characters do little more then sit around and wax poetic about how much the world sucks (all men are "slaves" to women in the book's world, even Satan's sons). Bishop is so busy not being derivative that she doesn't really give us any story to go along with this great new idea.
Add to that the fact that she pretty much just keeps pushing the envelope for the sake of pushing it. People are molested and have choice organs chopped off just for entertainment value. I know this is kind of a family site so I won't go into details beyond that. But, let's just say it goes so icky at one point, that I got up out of bed, got dressed, walked outside to the trash can, and threw the book in there. (The "heroine" is a seven year old girl, who everyone is in "love" with…yeah, you get the idea).
Bishop was trying to show us what a wicked, decedent world this was. I got that. I got it WAY before it got icky. I know the true artist never looks away and all that, but this was just ickyness for ickyness sake. There was no story. I didn't really care about anyone, and nothing was really happening. It was just wild and new and shocking.
So is that the new trend? I mean I've picked an extreme example, but I can't seem to find many new books out that are character based and give me people I care about and can relate too. It seems like the new trend in publishing is: "New? Different? Shocking? Ship it!" And, it seems that there are a ton of readers out there that agree with that thinking.
How does everyone here feel? Are you sick of "traditional" fantasy books? I am not saying every book should be "the farm boy who discovers he has god like powers and saves the world". But how about they at least revolve around a flawed, likable, realistic character who has his own problems to sort out while something in the larger picture is going to heck (the other word is illegal on this site, isn't it?).
Oh well, I didn't mean for this to be so long. I just wanted to see if anyone shared my opinion on this. It's really been bugging me lately. Am I alone?
The weird part is Satan and his group are really the good guys, which is a neat idea.
It's been done. Piers Anthony, "For Love of Evil".
"For Love Of Evil" is part of the series of novels about ordinary people who are chosen to take on various Incarnations of Immortality such as Mother Nature(Being A Green Mother);War(Having A Red Sword);Death(Riding A Pale Horse,etc.The irony in "For Love Of Evil" is that the Satan hero in the novel starts out life as a priest or monk and is later excommunicated from the Church.
Actually if you think about it Satan as hero probably goes back as far as Milton and "Paradise
Lost".Or maybe he was more an anti-hero in that poem.Ok,I admit not having read "Paradise Lost"
myself but from what I understand Satan comes across as some sort of tragic hero in it.
Anyone who HAS read "Paradise Lost"please correct me if I'm wrong here.
As far as it goes I believe every writer of Fantasy as to walk a tight rope line between being innovative and sticking to the try and true.
I agree with Jason so far that a writer (inside or outside the fantasy genre) needs to tell a good story with interesting characters rather than an interesting story with cardboard characters.
One good example of this which immediately comes to my mind is the Harry Potter hype. Rowling didn't invent any new concept - the parts have been around for a long time (witches and wizards; a child discovering new powers and grappling to get them under control; going to a boarding school and coping there; fighting evil, and deciding where you yourself stand; ...), and the combination of the parts isn't new either (there is a TV children's series about a teenage witch named mildred, who goes to boarding school to learn witchcraft, but is very clumsy. It was made in the mid-90s, based on a book I don't know how old). But her storytelling, her style of writing and her characters are interesting.
As for other recent fantasy stories pushing the envelope ... I can't tell, since I don't read enough fantasy. I think this trend can also be found with certain authors of normal novels, which try to put in sex and gore to get reaction, instead of writing interesting books.
I think an author doesn't have to draw his characters as detailed and can get away with a few flaws in his storytelling if the basic idea is interesting or new enough - michael crichton is interesting for me mostly because of the theme of his novels and his quick pace, the characters almost automatically take second place, so minor flaws I can ignore.
But authors who aren't good at writing and try to cover their cardboard characters or bad style of writing with interesting themes - it doesn't work. Likewise, a normal novel must have very good writing and very good characters to capture interest - a love story between normal characters is just boring. (an example for me for very good style of writing and interesting characters is rosemary sutcliff. I don't know why I remember more juvenile novels than adult novels, maybe I haven't read enough of the good ones.)
>One good example of this which immediately comes to my >mind is the Harry Potter hype. Rowling didn't invent any new >concept - the parts have been around for a long time (witches >and wizards; a child discovering new powers and grappling to >get them under control; going to a boarding school and coping >there; fighting evil, and deciding where you yourself stand; ...),
Personally, I always thought that the Harry Potter books were extremely derivative of the Sorcerer University computer games from the early nineties by Steve Meretzky.
Looks like I'm not the only one who had that thought:
http://www.rantsandraves.co.uk/rant4.html