Are we living in a 'Golden Age'?

[Devil's Advocate]

In a thread recently, a user had linked to a video interview he had conducted with Brandon Sanderson. In that interview, Sanderson made an interesting claim: that he thought we would look back at this period as the 'Golden Age' of Fantasy. An interesting thought.

What makes a period a Golden Age of anything? I think Sanderson's point was that there are several authors right now who are taking Fantasy to the next level, and are writing novels that frequently break from tradition and are, effectively, changing the face of the genre.

Only time will tell, of course, whether we look back at this period as the Golden Age. How many authors and/or novels will we remember 20, 30 or 50 years from now, the way we still remember The Lord of the Rings? Some authors, as good as they are, would probably not make the cut. I love Abercrombie's books, for instance, but I'm not too sure how they will stand the test of time. They seem very enjoyable in the 'now' but do they have enough for people to relate to them decades later?

Probably part of the reason that we remember certain 'classics' is the way they made us feel about the characters, the world, the events. As great as Abercrombie's characters are, you rarely find yourself caring for them. We're intrigued by them, we enjoy them, we're interested in them. Reading about their exploits is fun. But as much as I enjoyed Glokta, the Bloody-Nine and Bremer dan Gorst, I can't say I 'care' about them, and that is probably an essential part of our fond memories. Nostalgia undoubtedly plays a large part as well.

I do think, though, that there are some authors and novels that have what it takes to last for years. A Song of Ice and Fire will likely be one series; I actually feel that Sanderson's own Mistborn has a shot as well. They just seem to have that... epic feel to them. I know most Fantasy nowadays is, in fact, classified as Epic, but there's a difference, I think.

I'm sure there are plenty of other novels that some of you have read that might make the cut, too.

Or perhaps all Sanderson meant was the sheer number of good authors. On that ground, I suppose that argument can be made. Steven Erikson, Sanderson, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, Patrick Rothfuss, Brent Weeks, Peter V. Brett are just some of the examples of quality Fantasy authors that have made their mark in the 2000s.

What do you guys think? Could this be the Golden Age for Fantasy? What novels or series of, let's say, the last 10 years or so do you think could be considered classics decades from now?

 

[Fried Egg]

I tend to avoid series when I can, especially of the epic fantasy variety but I've enjoyed what I've read of China Mieville and J.M. McDermott's "Last Dragon" was excellent.

Whether this is a golden age or not; I'm not really in a position to say.

 

[D_Davis]

I tend to avoid series when I can, especially of the epic fantasy variety but I've enjoyed what I've read of China Mieville and J.M. McDermott's "Last Dragon" was excellent.

McDermott's Last Dragon will be known as a true literary classic in years to come. I think his Dogsland trilogy will be as well.

In addition to these, I'd also say that we are very lucky to be living while Thomas Ligotti and Michael Cisco are writing. That's pretty much like living while Kafka, Lovecraft, and Poe were writing. Not exactly strict fantasy, but definitely in that ballpark. Cisco's The Divinity Student and The Great Lover are two of the greatest works of "fantasy" I've ever read.

I'm really glad to be living while authors like these are writing.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I haven't read any of the ones you guys mentioned. I'll add them to my list.

I have read Mieville, however, and must say I am not remotely a fan. I found both The Scar and Perdido Street Station fairly boring and slow-going. I hope the others mentioned are not in the same mould?

But I suppose Mieville will probably still be considered as one of the greats of the decade. His books are critically acclaimed, and he is definitely different from most other writers, having started the whole "Weird Fiction" thing. Although I'm not sure he really comes under Fantasy. His books have some fantastical elements, certainly, but they seem more Steampunk-ish to me. Or is it Cyberpunk-ish? I don't really know the difference.

Either way, they're punk-ish.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Like you, I suspect we'll only know if this really is a Golden Age in hindsight. For myself, there are a large number of very good authors (I'm just coming to the end of Way of Kings, and very much enjoyed it) and it's pretty good to know there's a lot of good stuff for me to read in the near future.

 

[Fried Egg]

I have read Mieville, however, and must say I am not remotely a fan. I found both The Scar and Perdido Street Station fairly boring and slow-going. I hope the others mentioned are not in the same mould?

But I suppose Mieville will probably still be considered as one of the greats of the decade. His books are critically acclaimed, and he is definitely different from most other writers, having started the whole "Weird Fiction" thing. Although I'm not sure he really comes under Fantasy. His books have some fantastical elements, certainly, but they seem more Steampunk-ish to me. Or is it Cyberpunk-ish? I don't really know the difference.

Either way, they're punk-ish.

Mieville's fantasy is certainly different which is one of the reasons I like it so much; it breaks away from many of the usual tropes. There are often elements of SF, horror and other genres in his work but there is definitely fantasy in there too.

As for length, you could try "The City & The City" which was much less than "Perdido Street Station" at around 350 pages. If you fancy a fantasy/crime hybrid, it could be for you.

But generally, for me, what will definite this (or any other) as a "golden age" in fantasy will be if there are lots of great books/authors who are pushing the bounderies of the genre, a time of inventiveness and change. I've tried Martin's "Game of Thrones", Wurts' "To Ride Hell's Chasm" and Erikson's "Garden of the Moon" and weren't particularly taken by them. I hear a lot of good reports from Abercrombie and Weeks but I can't bring myself to start on these bulky volumes which are just the beginnings of series. I get the feeling (unfairly perhaps) that they are not what I'm looking for right now.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

As for length, you could try "The City & The City" which was much less than "Perdido Street Station" at around 350 pages. If you fancy a fantasy/crime hybrid, it could be for you.

It's not the length that bothered me. In fact, compared to most Fantasy novels, Mieville's books are positively petite. It's something about his writing style that I just don't find appealing.

Both books just seemed to really drag for me. I couldn't get excited about the prospect of reading them until well after the halfway mark. For The Scar it was around the time they landed on that land with the mosquito people (Anophelii?); and in Perdido it was when the slug thing transforms. Everything prior to that just made me think, "Who cares?"

But generally, for me, what will definite this (or any other) as a "golden age" in fantasy will be if there are lots of great books/authors who are pushing the bounderies of the genre, a time of inventiveness and change... I hear a lot of good reports from Abercrombie and Weeks but I can't bring myself to start on these bulky volumes which are just the beginnings of series. I get the feeling (unfairly perhaps) that they are not what I'm looking for right now.

I haven't read Weeks, but Abercrombie's novels seem to fit your criteria. And while he's perhaps not quite as popular here as Abercrombie, Sanderson's books do, too. At least the part about 'inventiveness'...

 

[Fried Egg]

I haven't read Weeks, but Abercrombie's novels seem to fit your criteria. And while he's perhaps not quite as popular here as Abercrombie, Sanderson's books do, too. At least the part about 'inventiveness'...

I may try one of their stand alone novels at some point.

 

[Connavar]

Its impossible to say because we can only say in hindsight.

If we are in 20-30 years talking about some of the fantasy authors who are new today like they were important, only then can we know.

History dont lie, time will erase the popularity contest and people will remember only the authors they thought was specially good.

 

[xyz]

We are in a golden age for scifi because of singularity science fiction.

 

[Primitius]

I would like to think Erikson would be remembered very well in years to come, but then I do get the impression he is nowhere near as acclaimed as, say, Martin (who I have yet to read, but is on my list right after I finish the Malazan books). I get the feeling Erikson may be on to something rather special, or at least certainly very unique, although obviously only time will tell.

 

[adamsmith]

i believe we will only know when the time has come.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Oh, I agree. This kind of question would only really be answered in due time.

I was just wondering how many thought Sanderson's claim in this regard had merit. Particularly those readers who have been reading Fantasy for a long time, how does the overall quality of work among the current crop of authors compares to a previous decade?

Because for Sanderson to be correct, and this to be the "Golden Age", there would have to be more good authors producing more good Fantasy novels now than in any period before. And I was wondering how many here agreed with that assessment?

 

[j d worthington]

Well, one can make a fairly good estimation of whether or not we're living in such a time, but it takes a great deal of critical distancing to do it. Being too close to the material clouds judgment, whether that response be positive or negative.

As for myself, I've fallen out of reading most of the fantasy coming out for some time now, so I can't make any calls whatsoever; but there may be someone out there who has enough objectivity combined with openness to make a fairly good call.....

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I take it, then, you're not a fan of the Abercrombies, Sandersons and Rothfusses? Or is there some other reason for falling out of Fantasy?

Have you simply moved on to a different genre like Sci-Fi? Or do you simply prefer reading the classics?

 

[j d worthington]

I take it, then, you're not a fan of the Abercrombies, Sandersons and Rothfusses? Or is there some other reason for falling out of Fantasy?

Have you simply moved on to a different genre like Sci-Fi? Or do you simply prefer reading the classics?

A combination of things, really. I must admit that I've become rather disenchanted with a great deal of fantasy over the years -- too similar in too many ways, I find, even when a particular writer is touted as being quite different -- and in most cases I find that series have grown wearisome. This is not to say there aren't exceptions -- there are -- but that, like so much genre literature, the conventions have, by and large, overtaken the amount of genuine creativity (and by that I do not mean "world-building", which is often, I think, the very least aspect of any good fantastic fiction; important, but far less so than a good number of other things).

In addition, I've been involved in a rather far-reaching sort of literary research which has involved my reading far, far outside the fantasy (or, for that matter, sf) field, in the main (though there are a fair number of things which are connected to it, albeit most of them are of an older generation) and, yes, often centering on more mainstream and classic literature... as well as some history, philosophy, folklore studies, anthropology, and a host of other things, including a fair amount of literary criticism of the past century and a half or so (from Poe's day to the present).

My thoughts on sff (and most genre fiction) can be found in the classics-vs.-genre fiction thread; and the more I read of the former and still dip into the latter (even many of the classics of the genre), the more confirmed I become in those views....

 

[Coragem]

Just a couple of things I'd add:

(1) We live in a world of products and commodities. A book can be a saleable commodity because it ticks certain saleable "boxes" (a sexy or salacious plot, for example, as with Jacqueline Carey's books) or because the author's name is a saleable commodity (if it says Brandon Sanderson on the cover it'll sell). So, there are an awful lot of golden books out there to find, but some aren't known because they never become marketable commodities.

(2) This age is golden enough for me, because there are more wonderful books out there than I can possibly read! When I first read A Song of Ice and Fire (long before it was famous) it changed my world, to me so much better than Tolkien! More recently I read The Lions of Al-Rassan by Guy Gavriel Kay, and it will stay with me for life.

As for Brandon Sanderson, lets see what he does. What I've read so far has been light, fun entertainment. Diverting, not yet great or part of a golden age if we're in one. Similarly, Ambercrombie for me has been good fun, and for me probably more fun than Sanderson -- his character mannerisms just chime better with my sense of humour. But both men are young ... and there's FAR more out there, marketable and otherwise.

Coragem.

 

[thatollie]

I'm not really as informed as I'd like to be when making my feelings on such a subject known. However, iirc the last golden was so because of the number of magazines and anthologies printing quality work. Can we really say the same about the current era in which some established magazines have folded? Is the internet picking up the slack?

I don't really know.

 

[Connavar]

I'm not really as informed as I'd like to be when making my feelings on such a subject known. However, iirc the last golden was so because of the number of magazines and anthologies printing quality work. Can we really say the same about the current era in which some established magazines have folded? Is the internet picking up the slack?

I don't really know.

Thats a very good point, many of golden era authors of SFF wrote in SFF mag days. Today it seems like its more of publishing book grind. Shorter stories of quality is not as respected as before.

 

[j d worthington]

On this topic, though, it should be mentioned that a lot of the small, independent presses issue a lot of volumes of short stories, frequently new material as well as anthologies of previously-published work; and one shouldn't forget e-zines, either, which may not be as well-known, or found in "the corner store", but they are publishing some good material as well.... So the short story certainly isn't dead; just not as easily tracked down as it was then....