Are fantasy readers more forgiving?

So amazon has that lovely $35 free shipping thing that always compels me to order at least that much so as not to pay $6 to ship an $8 book. As a result, I'm often reading reviews and looking for tips on things to add to my order and I noticed a pattern the other day while reading the overwhelmingly positive reviews for Blood Song... fantasy scores/rating are WAY higher than any other scores. To whit:

GRRM averages about a 4.4 on goodreads (his last two books less), ditto for Harry Potter. Patrick Rothfuss has over a 4.5 for NotW. Brandon Sanderson has NEVER scored below a 4.3 and his most recent 1200 page monstrosity (part of a 10-book series no less) is an absurd 4.8 or so. LOTR is obviously a solid 4.5.

I get that these are all highly acclaimed authors/series, but compare to:
Dune - 4.1
Ender's Game - 4.2
Phillip K Dick - 3.8-4.1
Tiger Tiger/Star My Destination - 4.1
John Scalzi - 3.7-4.2
Hyperion - 4.1
Maltese Falcon - 3.9
Long Goodbye - 4.2
Dennis Lehane - 3.7-4.1

I tried to pick a mix of legends and modern acclaimed works to contrast... you can see that other "genres" struggle to achieve the same consistency of praise that epic fantasy gets. The legends of noir and sci-fi don't come close to the scores of high fantasy.

The reason I note this is that I'm always looking for recommendations and keep getting sucked in by the rave reviews for these epics, and find most of them to be truly underwhelming if not dreadfully bloated and slow (Rothfuss and GRRM in particular). At the same time, the fantasy series I did truly love (Dragonlance from adolescence, Abercrombie's First Law, Gemmell) all hover around a 4.1. I can't help but notice that one huge difference between my favorites and the fantasy fan favorites is that mine are shorter and the pacing moves much quicker.

It's gotten to where I feel like I can't trust the opinion of fantasy fans anymore because their praise is so effusively over the top. On the one hand, maybe it indicates that fantasy fans are more positive and look for reasons to like a book rather than reasons to fault it and thus their reviews are more positive. On the other hand, I can't help but think there's an element of soap opera fandom going on here... where longer = better and authors that crank out massive, never-ending sagas are by default better regarded than an author that wraps a story up in one book with some brevity. The former is conflated with depth and the latter dismissed as shallow.

Am I being too harsh here? I've just gotten disillusioned by the number of times I've read a 5-star fantasy only to feel dreadfully bored and then swapped it for a "less serious" work that has been infinitely more enjoyable. Is this due to misguided efforts to ape Tolkien? The makeup of fantasy readers (ie. they're more positive/forgiving/patient than me?? Me being nuts and having too much time on my hands?

I don't think you're being harsh at all. Personally, I ignore all 5-star reviews and all 1-star reviews, but for certain types of highly popular fantasy it surely is the case that the adherents - the acolytes, if you will - go completely over the top in their reactions.

I've found the same thing, and I wonder if one reason is that some fantasy authors are more able (quite possibly without any deviousness of their part) to get large numbers of their fans to post reviews, maybe because more of their readers follow their blogs etc compared with other kinds of authors.

I've seen some distinctly average self-published books with legions of five-star reviews, and I wouldn't mind betting that those readers post the reviews as part of feeling like an online community centred around that author or their website.

If you look at the books/authors you've mentioned they're all series. I think many of these reviews are coloured by the fact that the reviewers like the series regardless of whether the individual books are good or not. This is a problem with large ongoing series I think, and it's not restricted to fantasy. Long sci-fi series suffer with this problem equally. *cough*Honor Harrington*cough*

Another factor may be that GRRM is extremely popular right now due to the current tv show and general publicity. The sci fi books you are comparing the ratings to are classics, and most of them do not have a current movie or tv show to bring them to the center of people's attention at the moment. They lack the backing of the current pop culture to artificially inflate them.

Interesting thread! I wonder if much pop fantasy, especially the series books, does not appeal to people who don't read well, as explained in C. S. Lewis's enlightening little book An Experiment in Criticism. These would be readers who read to indulge in self-pleasing daydreams, building castles in the air. The writing they like is at once superficial and absorbing.

Interesting to note that three of your lower scoring classics are part of series--Dune had about five sequels. Ender's Game had a couple of direct sequels. Hyperion had The Fall of Hyperion and the two Endymion books. And the Hyperion Cantos aren't short books.

Perhaps, it is simply the investment involved in reading these books selects out more casual readers. If you are iffy on fantasy, are you even going to attempt to read a 1000 page novel which is the first part of a 24 volume series. The daunting nature of such a challenge would surely put you off.

Vince W said:

If you look at the books/authors you've mentioned they're all series. I think many of these reviews are coloured by the fact that the reviewers like the series regardless of whether the individual books are good or not. This is a problem with large ongoing series I think, and it's not restricted to fantasy. Long sci-fi series suffer with this problem equally. *cough*Honor Harrington*cough*

Click to expand...

Except that Dune, Ender's Game, and Hyperion all were the first books in a series, and neither they nor there sequels scored nearly as high as comparable epic fantasy series and their sequels. So it can't just be chalked up to series. Even if later books in a given series are inflated by loyal readers, it doesn't explain why fantasy is still getting rated higher than sci-fi, whether you go by standalone or series.

kythe said:

Another factor may be that GRRM is extremely popular right now due to the current tv show and general publicity. The sci fi books you are comparing the ratings to are classics, and most of them do not have a current movie or tv show to bring them to the center of people's attention at the moment. They lack the backing of the current pop culture to artificially inflate them.

Click to expand...

That doesn't really explain Rothfuss or Sanderson. And to be totally honest, I REALLY doubt a lot of people that got hooked on the HBO series are diving into 1000+ page fantasies with such fervor that they have plowed through GRRM and moved on to Brandon/Pat with such fervor that the reviews of HBO fans are skewing fantasy book scores up. Especially when you add in that my scores come from goodreads, which makes it even less likely those casual fans are not only reading GRRM's books, and then his peers... they're going on to book sites to discuss and rate them all.

Extollager said:

These would be readers who read to indulge in self-pleasing daydreams, building castles in the air. The writing they like is at once superficial and absorbing.

Click to expand...

Interesting, because this is precisely what I read for... I don't want every building and article of clothing described in intricate detail... I'm not building/sewing them. Let my imagination fill in the details. Don't know if that equates to not reading well though. I managed to get through an university literature program and then law school, so reading has never been a problem for me.

soulsinging said:

It's gotten to where I feel like I can't trust the opinion of fantasy fans anymore because their praise is so effusively over the top.

Click to expand...

I stopped putting any weight on the average ratings of fantasy novels some time ago. My tastes diverge sufficiently from the mainstream that popular opinion has little utility for me.

soulsinging said:

The makeup of fantasy readers (ie. they're more positive/forgiving/patient than me??

Click to expand...

My sense is fantasy fans today tend to be:

A) Young, and seized with radiant enthusiasm for the subjects of their affection.

B) Emotionally-engaged fans, who regard any rating below five-stars to be a vicious and unfair attack on their favourite book or author. Post a critical review of a popular fantasy novel on goodreads and you'll see what I mean. It stirs up a fierce reaction in a way that criticism of a mystery, historical fiction, or literary work doesn't.

Micheal Moorcock is one of my favourite authors. I might give a Hawkmoon book I really like four stars, which means I really enjoyed it, but it doesn't measure up to the very best fiction I've read. I think the younger generation of social-media savvy fans has a different perspective on ratings, which they regard as a kind of competitive game. You don't rate anything you like lower than five stars because it's in competition for popularity with things you don't like.

Or I could just be talking out of my ass. But yeah, there's definitely something different about fantasy fans.

Less discerning?

soulsinging said:

I don't want every building and article of clothing described in intricate detail... I'm not building/sewing them. Let my imagination fill in the details. Don't know if that equates to not reading well though. I managed to get through an university literature program and then law school, so reading has never been a problem for me.

Click to expand...

Read the first chapters of the Lewis book & see if that sounds like you. I didn't take time to explain his explanation in detail. It makes sense to me.

The problem with reading critical reviews of books is you can't always trust them . A book endorsed by a reviewer doesn't necessarily mean it's worth reading and a book panned by a reviewer necessarily mean it's bad. For me , the best approach is to pick up a book that sounds interesting and read a few pages. If it interests me in any way, I give it a whirl.

By chance, following @J-Sun's link in another thread, I came across Adam Roberts's review of the eighth book of Jordan's Wheel of Time. This excerpt seemed pertinent (I'm not using the quote function so as to preserve italics):

***

And this is the part I can’t seem to get my head around: the fans know that it’s terribly written. They know and they don’t care. Why don’t they care? I don’t know why they don’t care. After finishing Wotviii, and after writing most of this post, I googled for some reviews; and I found this sfsite piece by James Seidman:

"In the book, Jordan succeeds in carrying forward his stunning world building in this detailed story of a struggle between good and evil … Yet, after reading A Path of Daggers, I found myself wishing that Jordan had succeeded in his original goal of completing the story in eight books, rather than the current estimate of twelve. While the novel certainly advances the plot of the series, it fails to really introduce many new themes to keep the story fresh…. I don't want to leave the impression that A Path of Daggers is a bad book or boring. It's a piece of excellent writing that is part of an excellent series. However, this particular piece of The Wheel of Time, taken by itself, seems to drag on. It seems like Jordan could have focused on progressing certain plot lines faster to give more of a sense of progress. Fortunately, several things happen at the very end of the book that suggest that the ninth book will again be refreshing and different. I would suggest that readers with enough patience wait for the ninth book to come out, then read it back-to-back with A Path of Daggers. This will probably hide any of the book's shortcomings and lead to a more pleasurable reading experience."

This is, I think, one of the most astonishing reviews I have ever read. Seidman describes the book as ‘stunning’ and uses the superlative ‘excellent’ twice despite conceding that the novel is stale, draggy and possessed of unpleasant shortcomings. He then suggests how a reader might get through the volume in such a way as to camouflage precisely those shortcomings. Assuming that ‘stunning’ is not being deployed in its abattoir bolt-gun sense, and putting aside the theory that ‘excellent’ is used sarcastically, this amounts to a reviewer saying ‘vol 8 is an excellent novel, although, obviously in a sh*t way, but maybe volume 9won’t be so sh*t, and maybe, if you swallow them both together, that as yet unwritten book will be sweet enough to disguise the shitty taste of this one.’

***

I think that supports others' points that fans aren't judging these books by the same standards as non-fans. The books' admitted faults don't significantly detract from the overall 5-star feeling of being immersed in some truly massive story. (Admittedly, this wouldn't account for the same score being given to the first of a new series, except perhaps that its readers have already put themselves into the mindset of being series fans.)

I thought a lot about this, unlike me, because it is interesting, not just in terms of reviews but how immersed in worlds fans seem to get. And I think some of this reflects a sense of belonging, that it's not just about the writing, but the world building and how much people feel bought into it. And rarely in sci fi do we see the sort of scale of worldbuilding from the likes of GRRM and Rothfuss (it was interesting the original comments about him. I agree it's a bit bloated, but I really like the world - unusually for me for fantasy - and forgave a lot for that. Whereas I can't buy into GRRM's world, so am less invested and more critical of the writing) Or, not so much we don't see worlds of the same scale, we rarely see a cycle of books set in a universe that are all interconnected and grow in the same way fantasy trilogies tend to. (Off the top of my head, ones that don't read as standalones within a shared world, would include Honor Harrington, and Vorkosigan?)

So, I had a look at some of the big worldbuilders in Sci fi. As in, whole worlds, not just amazing universes with fab ideas. Dune has been mentioned but, I think with it, there was a lack of joined up ness with the later stories to the original book - it always read to me as a universe added on to a successful first book rather than a fully thought out world in the first place. But I could be wrong.

I looked at Iain M Banks and he rates generally around the 4.1 to 4.3. However, many of his books are standalones set within a fictional universe, isn't that right? Whereas Bujold whose story grows with each book - even if she has tried to make them standalone, I think most readers of Vorkosigan would say the later books need the context of the earlier ones - come into the 4.41/4.35 (there are some lower, especially the early ones.)

So, my hypotheses is that it's less about the individual books and more about the whole world experience, and that that's more a focal point of fantasy - particularly epic - than science fiction?

springs said:

more about the whole world experience, and that that's more a focal point of fantasy - particularly epic - than science fiction

Click to expand...

Yes.
Which is why some Authors such as GRR Martin, Philip Pullman and Terry Goodkind are very Marmite. Many readers enjoy the immersive almost VR fantasy, and ignore the attitudes or agenda of story/author/characters.

As a side note, perhaps controversial:
It's a mistake of course to assume the Author agrees with the attitude of the MC. But often the overall tone of a book at another level reflects the attitudes of the Author. I believe many Fantasy fans are either less discerning, or in some cases support (perhaps unconsciously) the portrayed attitudes or underlying agenda. Why after all was Wolfstien, Doom, Grand Theft Auto etc popular in their original releases? Or certain kinds of violent films etc? GRR Martin, Philip Pullman and Terry Goodkind's books certainly have very unsavoury characters, events and in some cases possibly a deliberate agenda. They certainly have a different ethos to Raymond E Fiest, CJ Cherryth, Tolkien and David Eddings.

springs said:

Dune has been mentioned but, I think with it, there was a lack of joined up ness with the later stories to the original book - it always read to me as a universe added on to a successful first book rather than a fully thought out world in the first place

Click to expand...

I think you are correct. Only Dune Novel itself has much worldbuilding.

springs said:

I looked at Iain M Banks and he rates generally around the 4.1 to 4.3. However, many of his books are standalones set within a fictional universe, isn't that right? Whereas Bujold whose story grows with each book - even if she has tried to make them standalone, I think most readers of Vorkosigan would say the later books need the context of the earlier ones - come into the 4.41/4.35 (there are some lower, especially the early ones.)

So, my hypotheses is that it's less about the individual books and more about the whole world experience, and that that's more a focal point of fantasy - particularly epic - than science fiction?

Click to expand...

Yes Iain M. Banks' Culture books are all standalone stories set in the same universe, but I would argue that each Culture novel adds layer upon layer of worldbuilding as he deliberately examines a specific theme in relation to how the Culture interacts with itself and the rest of the universe. And one could chart a growing 'maturity' and complexity in the themes being examined as you go up the series (perhaps?)

Thus the worldbuilding accumulates and gets richer while each story remains more or less unconnected (well, there are a few touching points of course, Mr Cheradenine Zakalwe please step forward...)

But then they are Space Opera in my eyes, so close to fantasy anyway.

Why do you feel Space Opera is close to fantasy? It shouldn't be, it should be very much grounded in a sf setting. Space Fantasy maybe, yes, but not space opera.

@springs
I agree, the EE 'Doc' Smith Space Opera are not in the least like Fantasy, IMO, he practically invented that Genre. Of course it has unrealistic, fantastic infeasible elements, it can have similar plots. But it's not really ordinary Fantasy, literary Fantasy (Ray Bradbury, John Wyndham) or High Fantasy.

I must read yours soon. Is there consumption of fried breakfasts?

Ray McCarthy said:

@springs
I agree, the EE 'Doc' Smith Space Opera are not in the least like Fantasy, IMO, he practically invented that Genre. Of course it has unrealistic, fantastic infeasible elements, it can have similar plots. But it's not really ordinary Fantasy, literary Fantasy (Ray Bradbury, John Wyndham) or High Fantasy.

I must read yours soon. Is there consumption of fried breakfasts?

Click to expand...

Not in this one, but in one of the Irish setting ones I did a lovely description of an Ulster fry. My betas told me to cut it, that I had way too much detail.

(And thank you. I hope, if you read it, you like it. Now, back to edits...)

springs said:

Why do you feel Space Opera is close to fantasy? It shouldn't be, it should be very much grounded in a sf setting. Space Fantasy maybe, yes, but not space opera.

Click to expand...

The problem here is there are no hard and fast definitions of what is what - I believe it's subjective - so I fully respect if you disagree with me.

I shall try to explain and I can only speak for myself, although I am sure there are others that would agree with me (George Lucas for example stated the same views I am going to propose here in the directors talk over on my Empire Strikes back DVD!)

There is a fantasy genre and a SF genre and each book will have attributes (that we can agree or disagree on, so it gets messy already but). So if we are in a binary mood we can chuck one book in one genre and another in the other one. However I do think there is a continuum of points between each genre i.e. there can be mixing. In my mind Space Opera, the genre, sits in the middle between Fantasy and SF as it shares a number of attributes of each. Now of course as a continuum some of these books can be much more fantasy than SF, or vice verse. Either way if I think it is Space Opera it is closer to fantasy than a SF book! (And anyway I'm one of those that says SF = speculative fiction, of which science fiction would be a bit more specific, so maybe that complicates things?)

I've never heard of the term Science Fantasy being applied to any book I've read - but that might just be the circles I've been in - I believe it's a very old term used in the 30's-60s i.e. before my time.