Are fantasy readers more forgiving?

[HareBrain]

I have to agree about the immersive quality of fantasy but I don't think that's a bad thing.

I don't either, and I'm not sure anyone has said it is. I can still get immersed in a fantasy novel -- maybe not as often or as deep as when I was younger, but I still feel it when I get it, and often hunger for it when I don't. Nor, speaking only for myself, am I criticising anyone's reaction to a book or their right to have it.

All I was saying (I think) is that we have a way of rating books -- the five/ten-star system -- that is too crude to differentiate between the various ways different types of readers use it, or the different types of things they might be expressing with it.

Don't worry about your post, by the way. It was well-expressed and (as far as I'm concerned) a valid part of the discussion, though it's probably just as well it wasn't any more heated. You should generally be fine, though, as long as you take issue with someone's argument rather than the member him/herself.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I don't think you've said anything to cause offence - you've offered a counter argument, which is valid and reasoned. And I hope you stick around, because the Chrons has always been about the variety of voices, and the fact we have that variety and mostly still bumble around together and speak at the end of the day...

I think the thread was a little dismissive of fantasy lovers in some places. But I also think things like flamewars on twitter when authors are criticised, and the critiquer attacked (I've seen a few of those, and they're not pretty) have given an impression of fans being very vocal and, indeed, aggressive to those who don't approve of their idols. Sadly, any I've seen have been around popular fantasy authors (although I mostly follow sff authors, who knows what the romance guys are up to *shudders*) I think, for me, this has left me loathe to trust reviews as I think some dissenters are not prepared to speak up. There is a massively popular fantasy author who I've run against once, innocently, and followed on Twitter for a while, and I absolutely would not tackle his fans, who seem to turn on any criticism and are not discouraged from doing so by the author, who has been known to launch the odd attack himself.

I think the point of the thread - which maybe got derailed a little - was to ask what is the value of the review system if books in one genre seem to get higher ratings that well regarded books in a related genre. I think that's an interesting question and some of that answer may lie around the type of readership, not the quality of the books per se. And if it's that fantasy readers are passionate about what they read and like to give high ratings, and SF fans are old grouches that don't (to be clear, I'm being tongue in cheek), or whatever, that's cool.

 

[MWagner]

I only brought it up because I feel like I keep getting duped by really good reviews and am starting to think I need to take really good reviews for fantasy with a grain of salt. That is it. I never said there was anything wrong with people that enjoy it, just that fantasy readers seem to rate books higher than readers of other genres and maybe I need to consider that before I spend my money on something just because it had rave reviews.

I share exactly this experience. I don't read all that much fiction these days (maybe 10 novels a year) - so unlike a lot of the more active fans of the genre, I can't simply read everything vaguely popular that comes down the pike in order to come up with my own opinions. Reading reviews and ratings to sort the wheat from the chaff is a necessary, and usually enjoyable, part of being a reader for me. Which is why I feel your question in the OP was valuable. There's real utility in knowing where the divergences are between popular ratings and my own preferences - not to make myself feel smug, but to avoid wasting my very limited time on books I will dislike.

 

[soulsinging]

I suddenly like Adam Roberts. He so succinctly puts into words what I couldn't.
By book 8 I wondered why I was still reading. I thought "Maybe the next will be the end and be much better".
I have thirteen. The last three were presents by a well meaning family member who had left home and didn't understand. Book 13 is only 1/3 read.
There is enough material for five or six.

Not to laugh at your misery, but this post had me in stitches and reminds me so much of me and my brother. I loved the first 3 books, was put off by the 4th, worried in the 5th, and gave up somewhere in book 6. My brother plowed on to 9-10 or so before he surrendered. We both talk often about trying to finish it, or even just read plot synopses and check out Sanderson's last 3 volumes, but both of us remember that almost junky-like sensation of "the NEXT one, that one's going to be the one that does it for me!"

 

[HareBrain]

There's real utility in knowing where the divergences are between popular ratings and my own preferences - not to make myself feel smug, but to avoid wasting my very limited time on books I will dislike.

That's why I don't pay much attention to the rating itself. On Amazon, I tend to read the "most useful" (often, genuinely, the longest and most intelligent) of the 2-, 3- and 4-star reviews.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

You're going to have to explain to me what agenda GRRM has. I know where you're coming from about Terry Goodkind.

No, I don't think GRRM has a particular agenda, I was lumping three very different authors together, sorry folks!

 

[Dave]

Firstly, we have discussed before here how you can measure the "worth" of fiction. You cannot. It is impossible. One man's meat is another man's poison. You can measure the quality of the writing, the author's vocabulary, and their turn of phrase. You can say it is more "literary", but as also discussed in another thread here recently, that does not make it a "good" book, a popular book, or even a well liked book. And what is popularity anyway? It brings the author more sales and make them richer, but it won't win him awards or mean that in twenty years time they are still remembered. If I collected together all the number one record singles, would I show them to an alien and tell them that this was the best music ever written on Earth?

I believe Soulsinging is already aware of this. He realises that some reviewers will not share his taste in books. There is a problem with this online reviewing of books because, as I have just written in another thread, I believe that it is partisan and not independent. We are aware from spammers here in Chronicles that authors write their own reviews and have friends and partners post them.

There is a problem with this online reviewing in general. I've just been reading some reviews this morning about some roofing plastic sheets that I want to purchase. Reviews of exactly the same product are widely different. Then there is TripAdvisor. There was an article by a journalist about the one star reviews of London people had made - Buckingham Palace is too palatial, London Parks are too flat and don't have large animal wildlife - just silly stupid things made by people in all sincerity but who have no business making reviews.

 

[soulsinging]

I share exactly this experience. I don't read all that much fiction these days (maybe 10 novels a year) - so unlike a lot of the more active fans of the genre, I can't simply read everything vaguely popular that comes down the pike in order to come up with my own opinions. Reading reviews and ratings to sort the wheat from the chaff is a necessary, and usually enjoyable, part of being a reader for me. Which is why I feel your question in the OP was valuable. There's real utility in knowing where the divergences are between popular ratings and my own preferences - not to make myself feel smug, but to avoid wasting my very limited time on books I will dislike.

Exactly! I was embarrassed to post how few books I had time to read last year in the thread we had about it... some people must have spent all day every day reading books it seemed like! I wish I read as much as I used to, but it's harder to find the time these days and diving into a 700 page book, let alone one that's only part 1 of a big series, is a huge commitment for me. It seems like there are some people that can rip through one of those a week and maybe that makes it easy to gobble up the massive descriptions and page counts, but when I spend all day building widgets, I don't really care to read about how widgets are built in fantasy world X. There was a time when I LOVED that stuff, so I get it. It's just that now I don't really have the luxury of taking a chance on an 800 page book because that might take half my year to read... and when it seems like almost EVERY 800-page fantasy novel has a 4.5 score, I've got to start looking for distinctions among reviews and recommendation that help me find books that fit my tastes.

I'm not trying to force my tastes onto readers/reviewers, I'm trying to learn more about the readers/reviewers in an effort to make sure I'm getting the most of the reviews that cared enough to take the time to write. I sometimes read 4-5 star reviews and see that they're gushing about things I wouldn't like. I don't dismiss the reviewer, I just acknowledge that probably wouldn't work for me. I always read 2-star reviews and often notice their complaints are about things that wouldn't bother me and I go read the book. I don't think less of that reviewer for disliking a book I liked, I actually appreciate them all the more for providing a well-though critique of the book that helped me decide if it is something I would enjoy.

 

[soulsinging]

Firstly, we have discussed before here how you can measure the "worth" of fiction.

I think what I'm going for here is to discuss not the worth of fiction, but the worth of reviews. Your point about TripAdvisor is what I'm getting at. For example, I love baseball. If you asked me, my favorite part about almost every city is the baseball stadium. Let's say you are choosing between two vacation destinations. I review one place 5 stars and the other place 3 stars, but my review is based on the baseball experience and you are more into theater. It wouldn't make much sense to make your decision based on my review because we want totally different things. It doesn't mean my review is wrong or my love of baseball is wrong, and it doesn't mean theater is superior either. On the other hand, if you were a baseball fan, my review would be super helpful because I can distinguish between the various baseball experiences.

I'm also saying... maybe baseball fans have a different set of expectations? As long as it has beer, bathrooms, and a baseball game, I likely won't rate it below a 4 because that's all I want from the experience and that makes me happy. Maybe theater guy is a little more critical in his love of theater. That means that to someone that likes both things... a 3 star play he saw might be every bit as good as a 4-star ballgame experience from me, but because of differences in the goal of each activity and the interests of the person reviewing it, the scores could be notably different.

 

[BAYLOR]

Steven Erickson Malazan series is my favorite fantasy series right now, dark, gritty and very offbeat and dizzyingly complex . Ive recommend it to lots of people , Most liked it some didn't like it for various reasons. He's definitely not for everyone.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think the problem I have - probably the problem identified in Soulsinging's original post - is the overhyping not of bad books to good ones, but of good books to brilliant ones. I would say this about A Game of Thrones, The Lies of Locke Lamora and the First Law trilogy: they're all good. They're all decent novels and do interesting things and were entertaining to read. But none of them is genius. They've got problems, either of tone or of slackness, that put me off. I finished A Game of Thrones and thought "That was entertaining, but not enough to justify reading five more books of it to see who gets to the end". I would be interested to know what people thought of that book alone, and not the series.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think the problem I have - probably the problem identified in Soulsinging's original post - is the overhyping not of bad books to good ones, but of good books to brilliant ones. I would say this about A Game of Thrones, The Lies of Locke Lamora and the First Law trilogy: they're all good. They're all decent novels and do interesting things and were entertaining to read. But none of them is genius. They've got problems, either of tone or of slackness, that put me off. I finished A Game of Thrones and thought "That was entertaining, but not enough to justify reading five more books of it to see who gets to the end". I would be interested to know what people thought of that book alone, and not the series.

I thought Games of Thrones to be excellent read. Unlike many fantasy ive read, this one puts more emphasis on the characters and the story and less on the magic. These are very flawed and complex characters , you can not completely like the heroes nor completely hate the villains . I like these kinds of books.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

this one puts more emphasis on the characters and the story and less on the magic.

Except I didn't like the overall story or any main characters as characters (well enough written). The magic amount to me is irrelevant. I just found it too "gritty" and obsessed with violence.

 

[Nechtan]

I have to apologise. I should have paid more attention to what people were actually saying and not have been so accusatory. It wasn't my intent to criticise people and if it came across that way it's my fault for not being more careful with my words and tone. Thank you for the kind words and understanding. I really do appreciate it. You all rock!

 

[Brian G Turner]

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

It's interesting that you mention Gemmell, because it's long been my opinion that if he'd have written a long-running series, it would have been very popular and he'd have broken through into the American market much more than he did.

However, my reading so far of Gemmell is that his books appear to be written as standalones with very limited connections to one another, if at all. Even a great series like the Rigante does not follow the same characters, merely the geography. And though Druss appears in various books, these do not exist to tell the story of Druss through multiple volumes, as much as simply provide a basic familiarity for readers coming from Legend.

And as you observe, epics that follow the same characters closely through multiple volumes can be especially popular. It's almost like a soap-opera effect - a need to see how plotlines will resolve to an ending.

 

[BAYLOR]

It's interesting that you mention Gemmell, because it's long been my opinion that if he'd have written a long-running series, it would have been very popular and he'd have broken through into the American market much more than he did.

However, my reading so far of Gemmell is that his books appear to be written as standalones with very limited connections to one another, if at all. Even a great series like the Rigante does not follow the same characters, merely the geography. And though Druss appears in various books, these do not exist to tell the story of Druss through multiple volumes, as much as simply provide a basic familiarity for readers coming from Legend.

And as you observe, epics that follow the same characters closely through multiple volumes can be especially popular. It's almost like a soap-opera effect - a need to see how plotlines will resolve to an ending.

He's very good writer but ive noticed that the book store I go to seem to be carrying fewer of his titles. I think if they Druss film it would kick start his popularity,

 

[Toby Frost]

Possible controversial opinions ahead...

I think that, for a long time, Tolkien (unintentionally) squashed fantasy as no single writer has ever done to any other genre. For a long time, a lot of fantasy was based around the elements of The Lord of the Rings: long story, big scope, clear good-vs-evil, semi-medieval setting etc. However, some of the big books that imitated this weren’t particularly good or particularly innovative. Because of this delay, (big) fantasy is only just catching up with a lot of other genres, and some of the things that have happened in other genres for ages are treated by some reviewers as incredibly innovative when they happen in fantasy. If you were to more-or-less literally translate Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or The Long Goodbye into fantasy terms - a wizard tries to discover which of four princes is a traitor, say, or a poor knight investigates the death of a powerful merchant friend – it would be considered innovative now (either of those plots could easily be made “epic” with suitable journeys, battles etc) despite the fact that those books are decades old.

Large fantasy is still often judged by criteria that are somewhat different from most other novels, and in some cases feel rather out of date or more similar to how you’d judge a soap opera (or an actual opera) than a single book. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. You wouldn’t judge Chaucer in the same way that you’d judge The Bourne Identity and it would be silly to try to do so. But there is at least a consensus that that’s how you judge Chaucer. It seems that, in large fantasy, the criteria for deciding that the book or books are good can be very different depending on who's discussing it.

As an aside, some of the comments to the Wheel of Time articles seem to suggest that big fantasy novels appeal to a childish streak in the reader. I think there is something slightly crude in novels that divide everyone neatly into goodies and baddies, but I don’t think this is necessarily childish: films like Taken do this all the time. What does strike me as really adolescent, though, is the idea that saying that life isn’t fair is new or important, and that there’s something inherently clever in the prince and princess not living happily ever after. Other genres realised this decades ago, and have done a lot with it since.

 

[MWagner]

Because of this delay, (big) fantasy is only just catching up with a lot of other genres, and some of the things that have happened in other genres for ages are treated by some reviewers as incredibly innovative when they happen in fantasy. If you were to more-or-less literally translate Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or The Long Goodbye into fantasy terms - a wizard tries to discover which of four princes is a traitor, say, or a poor knight investigates the death of a powerful merchant friend – it would be considered innovative now (either of those plots could easily be made “epic” with suitable journeys, battles etc) despite the fact that those books are decades old.

George RR Martin introduced historical fiction to an audience and a generation that had never read historical fiction. Fantasy is almost growing into the uber-genre, swallowing other genres whole. At it's roots, I think, is a bedrock antipathy to any story that takes place in the real world, past or present. So appetites for intrigue, war, heroism, coming-of-age, romance, etc. must all be catered to in fantasy worlds.

 

[Wraith01]

I find newer authors are easier to read than classics and their stories aren't as predictable (old books being predictable because they have influenced movies and TV for so long that we know the twists before reading them).

 

[hopewrites]

When I was a girl, the review system consisted of people with columns in the paper, review boards, and/or ask a friend.
In that system one knew each separate reviewers tastes, and could follow those whose tastes coincided with one's own, and ignore those whose tastes wandered erratically in and out of one's own.

The new review system makes every stranger a columnist, every friend a review board, with little to no consistency outside of broad strokes.

I have yet to find a personal system for understanding ratings of subjective material. In all honesty I'm still working on a system for non-subjective material (ether the air conditioner worked or it didn't... right?).

I wouldn't say that it's fantasy fans who are more forgiving/passionate, but escape artists. One can escape into almost anything, true, but some things are easier to escape into for us than others. It's not about having more time to read epic unending sagas, it's about getting out of a life one hates and into something else. Whatever it is that gets you off planet.

These reviewers are mixed in with those who read for other reasons; broadened horizons, intellectual stimuli, don't want to talk to the gossip gang at the lunch table.... Those who prefer living to reading are naturally more particular about what they read just as those who have enough to eat what they like, rather than whatever they can get a hold of.


Looking at Sci-Fi v Fantasy from an escape artists view there's less world hopping needed if you can get a hold a a few authors who churn out million page epics in one realm. The Sci-Fi I've got a hold of seem to be angled to make the reader think about their life, question norms and/or fight injustices... as an escape artist that's not all that appealing.

Naturally there will be escape artist fans in any genre, skewing reviews to the positive where the material is engrossing and has the capacity to erase whatever reality they are escaping. The fewer there are the lesser their power to skew though.

Because the new review system is based on a numbers game. I'd stick with Ask a Friend as I've never trusted numbers games. Friends are more inclined to know your tastes, and make relevant arguments for why you should or shouldn't like a piece your thinking about buying.