Changing tastes in fantasy reading

[soulsinging]

There's something else that I've come to dislike, but it's hard to quite put a finger on it. I think it's a lack of sincerity in a novel. I've read a few books where the author is basically winking to the camera, and I really dislike it. It's the same thing that puts me off Quentin Tarantino's films - if the author isn't taking this seriously (even if it is a comedy) why should I?

I think I know what you mean here and I've seen it even in authors I like. I think it's easier to get away with in film where the effect can be quick and visceral. In a book, it's more noticeable. Two people that spring to mind are John Scalzi and Joe Abercrombie. I really liked Old Man's War and the First Law trilogy, but at a certain point there did seem to be a sense of "wink nudge see what I did there? clever right??" I ate it up in my 20's, but I find myself increasingly drawn to more optimistic stories. Cynical in-jokes can be fun, but as you say later, some of those "insights" that seem revelatory or subversive when younger seem like easy targets when older ("war is hell").

It's funny you mention the Williams MS&T trilogy. I've been considering another go at that. I didn't much enjoy it when I tackled it in the days I was hooked on Abercrombie, and wonder if I'd like it more now for the same reasons I liked it less then. I often talk about my nostalgic love for the Dragonlance Chronicles trilogy and how I've found it interesting that the characters I loved when I first read it (angsty Tanis and cynical Raistlin) were far less interesting to me on a recent re-read than the characters I used to consider boring and stuffy (Sturm's nobility and Laurana's courage). Kind of a parallel notion.

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm not sure it's optimism that I'm looking for so much as a lack of irony. I can see the "winking" as being slickly appealing, but it also feels a bit like an attempt to duck the responsibility of saying "this is my story and I mean it". Ten years ago or so, I went though a patch of being bored of fantasy, because other genres (crime and SF, especially) were offering a range of subject and emotion that I just wasn't seeing. Nor were the SF and crime stories reacting to older stories: they were their own thing, so to speak.

Dragonlance is a funny thing. In a lot of ways it's crude and sometimes it falls flat, but there is something there... I agree that characters like Raistlin lose their appeal, and subtler, less angsty ones like Sturm become much more interesting as you get older.

 

[elvet]

My tastes have changed too, or perhaps evolved? There was a time when I sucked back sword and sorcery fantasy. The story was enough. I did star with Lord of the Rings, but went back to it and expanded into all of Middle Earth (Silmarillion, Histories, Tales, etc.) when I started to want more from my books. The story wasn’t enough. I needed lore and world building. The next stage was ASoIaF. A plethora of characters, grappling with all the usual human vices. No clear cut good or evil here. That led into Abercrombie and Lawrence, whose books I still love to read. Next was Malazan Book of the Fallen (and all the Esselmont offshoots), which Is just about everything I love in a fantasy book. What next? Well, I really like K.J. Parker. Hard to place in my schematic. No worldbuilding, no sorcery. But often, one heck of a story. Maybe I am regressing?

 

[The Big Peat]

Dragonlance is a funny thing. In a lot of ways it's crude and sometimes it falls flat, but there is something there... I agree that characters like Raistlin lose their appeal, and subtler, less angsty ones like Sturm become much more interesting as you get older.

Its got heart and its got drama. As such, its easy to find yourself turning the page to see what happens next... then another... and another...

A lot of today's major fantasy is missing one of those two things for my taste.

My tastes have changed too, or perhaps evolved? There was a time when I sucked back sword and sorcery fantasy. The story was enough. I did star with Lord of the Rings, but went back to it and expanded into all of Middle Earth (Silmarillion, Histories, Tales, etc.) when I started to want more from my books. The story wasn’t enough. I needed lore and world building. The next stage was ASoIaF. A plethora of characters, grappling with all the usual human vices. No clear cut good or evil here. That led into Abercrombie and Lawrence, whose books I still love to read. Next was Malazan Book of the Fallen (and all the Esselmont offshoots), which Is just about everything I love in a fantasy book. What next? Well, I really like K.J. Parker. Hard to place in my schematic. No worldbuilding, no sorcery. But often, one heck of a story. Maybe I am regressing?

Maybe its a cycle, and sometimes we get glutted of one ingredient and seek something built around another for a while, before getting glutted and moving on again.

 

[Toby Frost]

Just going off topic here: one thing I do like in fantasy, and always have liked, is professionalism in characters. I don't mean high-level ability so much as approaching an objective with a level head. Even in villains, there's something more impressive in a villain who says "kill them, make sure they're dead and hide the bodies" rather than "torture them for ever but first forget to lock the cell door properly while I chortle insanely".

 

[Karn's Return]

I've kind of taken a change to fantasy reading myself, sadly...

It's kind of hard to really find classic types of fantasy these days, at least for me it seems to be. Not that I've bought any books for a while, just have a lack of funds, but...with the way fantasy has gone this past fifteen years or so...

 

[CTRandall]

Picking up on Toby's comment, I entirely agree. More than just professional--realistic characters are shat I enjoy. Kind of weird to say about fantasy, as I'm happy for them to have powers and abilities, but realistic in the sense of emotions, foibles, common sense and, as Toby said, professionalism. It's one of the readons I dig Neal Stephenson.