[Amaunette]

I was looking through the "top five fantasy authors" thread and every now and then I would come upon an author that many people like but for some technical reason I can't get past I can't read their books. I thought I'd share what elements of literature I think books should contain and specific examples of fantasy books that lack these elements.

1. Exposition -- I know it's fantasy, so the author can't translate directly how the world differs. You usually need to figure things like that out on your own eventually. But a book needs an exposition, or some sort of introduction to the world where the reader can think "oh, so this is just like medieval spain" or something so that the odd things that are happening in the story can make sense to a person living in this where and when.

Counterexample -- I feel that Steven Erikson fails miserably at this in "Gardens of the Full Moon." Right away there's action in the first chapter, but with such little introduction to the world that I have no idea what's going on or why I should care at all. I was 70 pages into this book before I returned it to the library. I don't have so much of my free time to waste on a book that doesn't properly introduce itself. The burden should be on the author to make him or herself understood, not on the reader to understand what's going on.

2. Restricted Dialogue -- All fantasy books I've read have dialogue. It's usually more entertaining to read than a paragraph of description, and it gets more information across. But the book can't be entirely dialogue. If it's just a back and forth between two speakers with no description in between, I'll lose track of who's talking and get confused.

Counterexample -- The first book of the Death's Gate cycle fell prey to this problem often. Also, authors who write for humor (like Steven Brust) also tend to succumb to too much dialogue.

3. Proper Grammar and Spelling -- This SHOULD go without saying, but a book with copious grammatic errors and spelling mistakes should never have made it to the shelves. I personally find it distracting to read, when some part of my mind is constantly thinking, "I can't believe they misspelled the main character's name."

Counterexample -- The first book of the Death's Gate Cycle again had this problem, in spades. Also, the first few chapters of "Dies the Fire" by S. M. Stirling accidentally switched the names of a male and a female character, which was also an editorial mistake.

4. Continuity -- This is more a personal pet peeve than anything else, but when I'm reading a book, I'd like to have an idea of what the character is like. I would also like to be kept abreast of changes in the character in detail, so that I can understand the dynamics of the character over time. When there are large gaps of time (years or decades) in between the last event with a particular character and the next, I no longer feel like I'm dealing with the same character.

Counterexample -- Orson Scott Card's "Memory of Earth" and "Ender's" series. The first book of each was coherent, but there was such a gap in between the first and second books that the characters were essentially completely different people, and since the details are missing, it takes much more time to understand what happened than it should. Again, it puts the burden on the reader to understand the changes instead of on the author to make him or herself clear.


This is just a short list of the elements that I feel a book should have in order to be readable. Any one of these can make me discard a book without shame or remorse. But when I discuss books with other people, I find that none of them are affected at all by the form of the book. Am I the only one that feels this way? Does anyone else care at all about the form of the literature?

[alison]

I care a lot. Though one of my pet peeves is chunks of exposition. I like my exposition to be invisible, so the world is revealed legibly without having to wade through pages of back story.

But my real peeve is dialogue. Bad dialogue is one of the flags of bad writing - it's not how much of it there is (Alan Garner's Red Shift, a completely brilliant book IMO, consists of nothing except dialogue) but how muscular and vivid it is, and how skilfully it is slotted into the prose. After much thought on this question, my feeling is that the key to good dialogue is that you don't notice it.

Alot of fantasy seems to specialise in wooden dialogue, along the lines of: "What ho, varlet, I am angry and upset because thou hast by your recent actions wounded my pride and hurt my feelings, and I will spit thee on my rapier," said T'Y'Urilonthy'Or'Ilith angrily, his feelings hurt and wounded, as he drew his rapier and stabbed the cowardly poltroon with his rapier...

[Bond]

For me it really depends. If the errors are exceedingly obvious and numerous so as to make the reading experience unbearable, then I would certainly consider dropping the book. On the other hand, in most cases I find that there are qualities with redemptive value mixed in with the errors. If they spark sufficient interest to overcome the weaknesses in writing I will carry on. Within reason I do not demand an immaculate reading experience, but I do expect to be given something worthwhile in exchange for any effort expended on my part.

Portions of Gardens of the Moon as you say were poorly elaborated on. I can understand Erikson trying to create a sense of mystery by not going into detail about certain things but concur that even with such an aim it could have been done much better. His writing later on still has moments of unnecessary vagueness, but it also happens later on that things become more clear. All in all, while there are weaknesses to his writing Erikson gives a lot of things too in compensation, some of which I find rare, so I still keep reading.

In general I get the feeling that too many critics focus on flaws and forget to consider the merits of things. It is also surprising how often things that many at first blush are considered weaknesses can upon reflection be reasonably be interpreted as strengths. To get an adequate perspective on Erikson's world for example it might take 2 or 3 books but then it sinks in how vast the scope of his worldbuilding is and I suspect many will find the effect is satisfying enough that they'll forgive the author's vagueries.

[cheese]

I hate books where all the main characters are invincible. R.A Salvatore's books remind me of that. Same with Terry Goodkind, and Robert Jordan. You know whatever mess the main characters go through somehow they are still going to live. Those types of books usually irritate me.

[Bond]

I hate books where all the main characters are invincible. R.A Salvatore's books remind me of that. Same with Terry Goodkind, and Robert Jordan. You know whatever mess the main characters go through somehow they are still going to live. Those types of books usually irritate me.

Funny, that hardly ever bugs me unless it is done very poorly. I really doubt one could enjoy superhero stories at all if one was fixated on such an element. In fact it is often most interesting to see how creators deal with this that distinguishes superior writing and storytelling. For example with Harry Potter: (Possible spoiler for Book 6) Ever since the beginning of the series the Defence Against the Dark Arts Teacher has been a villain in the book. Yet Rowling I think has always managed to keep things interesting. By book 6 one would have thought things predictable, but I dare say quite a few were still shocked by the ending, even though given lots of advanced warning. In retrospect, for me that makes it all the more impressive.

[U-Borat]

Recently, I did a course on short stories and how authors need to draw the reader in early. So I was just thinking perhaps thats what Erikson had in mind for Gardens of the Moon. Or is it that epic fantasy needs an exposition to set the scene for a very long and detailed plot?

[Beleg]

1. Exposition: I am pretty much indifferent to it. I have found out through experience that books which usually start off in the middle of some action tend to grip me more than books which have a slow beginning. I do not have problems with a slowly unfolding story per se, It's just that I usually find figuring out the motivations behind a character's actions and relating it to overall context far more intriguing than reading descriptions upon descriptions of the characters birthplace, parents, grandparents, grand-grand parents and sundry all down to the first ancestor.

(There are exceptions, of course. If the prose is sufficently evocative, I don't mind reading expositionary passages. But by its very nature, dynamic action holds more fascination and thrill for me)

In any case, this one isn't a major issue for me.

2. Ah, dialogue. For me (like Alison) it isn't about the 'quantity' of dialogue but the 'quality'. Taking Alison's earlier example of 'Red Shift', I wouldn't mind reading a book ten times the size of it because the dialogue is brilliant, funny, meaningful and captures my attention far more than any battle scene ever did. But in the hands of a less skillful author writing a fantastical soap-opera, It ends up being repetitive and trite in large doses. (a case in point is Jennifer Fallon's 'Second Son' trilogy)

I think it also depends in large measure on the type of story an author is aspiring to tell. A full-blown epic fantasy, with the standard conventions and motives needs description and other techniques to flesh out the world sufficently. It will read awkwardly if there's an overabundance of dialogue. But in a completely different setting, the same ammount of dialogue can seem perfectly natural.

Personally, dialogue is generally the second biggest reason why I give up on most epic fantasies. Dialogue in epic fantasy is usually so stilted, awkward, forced and cheezy that it ends up vapourizing any satisfaction garnered from other elements of the story.

3. Grammer/Spelling: Typos are the fault of the editor in my opinion. Lousy grammer leads to awkward sentence structure which can be grouped in bad prose.

4. Prose: The most important thing in a novel for me is the prose. And the prose in most fantasy novels is truly cringeworthy. Really, the only genre which is worse than fantasy is this regard is probably erotica; even harlequins have better (if recycled) prose.


I don't care at all about the form of 'literature' as long as the author is good at the use of whatever literary technique he is employing to tell a story.

[Brys]

1. Exposition: I completely disagree - I think Erikson introduces you in exactly the right way, and treats the reader with a degree of intelligence, unlike a number of other epic fantasy authors. What I don't like is long, detailed descriptions of how the world works - I want it only to be hinted at, left for the reader to figure out, so that the plot keeps a decent pace. Not too big an issue for me though.

2. Dialogue - not too much! Some authors, like Eddings, fill their books with dialogue and no description.

3. Prose- a decent amount, with a good variety of language, but also not forced. Of course, the key examples here are Mervyn Peake and M John Harrison. What I don't like is a lack of description to make it more "accessible".
And the prose in most fantasy novels is truly cringeworthy
Which is an annoyance, but I've found that outside of epic fantasy, there's quite a lot of good prose. You just have to know where to look.

[Beleg]

Which is an annoyance, but I've found that outside of epic fantasy, there's quite a lot of good prose. You just have to know where to look.

Sucks for those of us whose preferences run along the lines of epic fantasy, doesn't it?

[Brys]

Sucks for those of us whose preferences run along the lines of epic fantasy, doesn't it?


Unfortunately, yes. I used to prefer epic fantasy, but when I realised that you had to put up with the likes of Jordan and Feist being some of the better epic fantasy, and only 3 authors writing who are writing really excellent novels, I moved away to explore fantasy more generally.

Perhaps there's more epic fantasy with decent prose amongst earlier writers.