[Gary Wassner]

My editor wanted older and longer. I wanted innocent and childlike. We compromised. I wrote a more sophisticated story for a slightly older audience and I kept the relationship between the two main characters intact, though I matured them somewhat. I gave up nothing in the end and the book is far better than it was.

But, I did have two editors, one for a year and one subsequent to his departure. My new editor is more candid and more frank, but also more comfident in her approach. I respect that. I liked my previous editor, but my current one is more effective. I seem to have less of a desire to argue with her and more of a desire to satisfy her.

I have had only one editor for GemQuest, and I agree totally with what you said about sf/f. Same person throughout with only another consulting in the background.

[Gary Wassner]

Since Juzza asked me the question about Epic Fantasy's detractors in another thread here, I would love to hear why you write and read Epic Fantasy. Do you think those who criticize are just painting everyone with the same brush, or is there truth to the comments? I gave you my opinion. What's yours?

[KatG]

I read epic fantasy because I like fantasy. It just happens that epic is the large sub-genre in genre fantasy. I'll read any type of fantasy, though, and any type of sf. And mysteries and thrillers. And romance. And chick lit. And literary contemporary works. And...well you get the idea. I like fantasy because it takes reality and twists it into something new but still connected to us. Epic fantasy does this by going into past history and reconfiguring it. It's all very emotional and rich and fun. It's a different world from us, yet it's where we came from.

I write epic fantasy, but not only that. But I do it because it gives me a type of canvas on which I can create certain types of stories that I am drawn to.

Since it was created in the 1970's, there has always been a lot of criticism of fantasy and epic fantasy from outside the genre and from people in conjoined sibling sf, which resent fantasy's intrusion into their domain. What we're seeing now is a lot of criticism of epic fantasy within fantasy, and that I think comes partly from resentment that epic fantasy has dominated in sales and thus, in publishers' lists. It is also growing pains -- the expansion of other fantasy sub-genres toward 1980's levels, having a new generation of fantasy writers who want to experiment, having the fan base change again as new fans are drawn to fantasy, the success of non-epic children's fantasy such as Harry Potter and Lemony Snickett, the glut of epic fantasy which is seen as weighing fantasy down, the influence of foreign writers as the genre becomes more global, and the increased popularity of epic fantasy which always increases critics' ire. It's a time of change, and in a time of change, the "old" and traditional is always decried, especially if it's getting a lot of attention.

That doesn't mean that the criticism is totally unfounded. Fantasy, including epic fantasy, and sf could all benefit from better variety, particularly in expanding cultural settings and characters. And epic fantasy can also benefit by a greater variety in story forms, which is happening, but at a glacial rate. But there will always be a place for classical, Western European epic fantasy. People like it. They've liked it for a couple thousand years. Many of our most beloved legends come from that tradition.

Right now, nobody is sure how far genre fantasy can grow without collapsing, and how all that is going to effect sf and the rest of the market. Publishers are trying out different strategies. Booksellers are gung ho, but if sales drop too fast, they'll pull back quickly. And epic fantasy is beginning to have to deal with the aftermath of the 1990's explosion.

But I believe firmly that people should have all the stories that they might want, whatever they are. There's a singer up in Canada, Barlow, who has a song with the line: "You can have your amusements, but keep your hands off the music." That's basically how I feel about books too.

[Gary Wassner]

I used to read everything I could get my on. Now, since I read so infrequently, I am so careful what I choose, hence the request above for four great books to read when I go away next month. I can't read a long series now because I just don't have the time, so I must find some stand alone books. I would absolutely love to return to that time in my life when I craved the longest series I could find and then I knew that I had a few months of great reading ahead of me.

[Gary Wassner]

So are we really saying anything important when we write Epic Fantasy? Or are we just pretending that we are literary and profound? Are we addressing issues that are relevant to the times? Are we helping people to discover things about the world we all live in, or are we just fooling ourselves? In other words, are we writing intelligent stuff or are we writing crap? Are we attempting to answer questions about value and choice that are now being answered in other disciplines and in other ways, that preclude our efforts?

[Jules Dante]

It's possible to write something important with epic fantasy, most definitely. Without disappearing up between my own buttocks, I'd say it's a breeding ground for effective allegory; or even better, explores universal themes that are (or at least should be) close to people's hearts without using allegory at all. Tolkien did this for example (he flatly denied that LotR was allegorical, which is common enough knowledge), which is what attracts me to LotR. It provides a full range of emotional contact save for sexual romance (which quite frankly is over used these days).At the same time as this, its a ripping good yarn in its own right, and a thoroughly developed world. To create so much background that you can't even finalise it before you pass awaytakes real drive and involvement, as well as some understanding of how the real world fits together in terms of races and cultures for references. As an established writer you know the drill.

The nature of fantasy itself specifically appeals to parts of us that had never died instinctively. Sorcery can derive from animism and religious sentiment concerning mysterious higher powers that has never quite disappeared from even the most hardened cynics. Technology is just their new wizardry. The emotional contact with the power magic and tech weilds is incredibly similar.

As for fighting you opponent with swords as opposed to rifles...it works on so many levels. Someone had to make that sword. Its one of a kind. Its special. Its what you survive by; and a vendetta is never truly solved until you get close enough to someone to feel their last breath.

Fantasy is important because it appeals to the 'ghost limbs', the parts of us that are no longer exercised on a daily basis.

As for the Epical; well, its the joy of seeing entire worlds, whether they be at peace or at war. Thinking about an entire nation at war makes you wonder about the place of the individual, especially in a marching army, especially when everyone is always so close together, side by side, and after the armies are gone there are no barriers any more. Not to your homelands and not to the friends that were irresponsible enough to stay home and hope that it blew over. Somehow, the individual seems bigger this way. Even fear becomes heroic when armies and realms of such magnitude are involved that there is no excuse to be left behind; nothing else matters except doing your bit.

[Gary Wassner]

I know this, and you know this, but do they know this?

[Jules Dante]

Who's they? are they onto us?
They can stuff themselves.
Joking of course.
The genre classification precludes any plea that fantasy in general can be particularly valid in literary terms. Of course we know that this is wrong; we know that Fantasy work can be as Valid as (and far more interesting than, to be frank) the likes of Middlemarch . It's a hard to sway people, maybe we can never 'convert anyone', never make them 'see the light'. People who are drawn to epic fantasy and see its virtues just happen to be so, I guess.
It sounds dumb to say in a commercialist climate, but if you can't beat 'em, ignore 'em. If people wont be convinced, they won't be convinced. Who wants to corrupt something we hold dear for the 1% chance of victory?

[Gary Wassner]

No matter what you write, you have to write from the heart. No. I take that back. You don't have to. So much of what I see on the shelves at Barnes and Noble was written for commercial purposes, and that's fine. There is no pretending there. Chic lit is chic lit etc etc. Epic Fantasy, for it to be really good in my opinion, has to be written from the heart. The author has to be lost in his world to the point where the issues that his characters confront and the conflicts that they endure are almost personal. They mean something to the author. It has to be real, regardless of how fantastic it might be, how unreal the environment is and how grand the scale of the problems is.

This is a personal thing with me. The authors that I love and have loved over the years, each in his or her own way, wrote amazing, unique, personal adventures of discovery. Dostoevsky, Mann, Isherwood, Hesse, Nietzsche, Joyce, Oneil, Lewis, Tolkien, and the list goes on and on. Their struggles come out in their writing and that's what makes it so incredibly poignant and so meaningful.

[Jay_T]

Mr. Wassner (and others), first a very interesting thread:) I have a question however. I see China Mieville's name being brought up on several occasions (and this is understandable as I am aware of his various articles etc) and although I notice and find non-genre critics to be rather ignorant on many fronts, what is you opinon on remarks by someone in the genre, and who is not a new author, but in fact one of the most influential authors in fantasy history, that being Michael Moorcock. Mieville can be accused of simply being a new author trying to seperate his work from more traditional elements, but Moorcock has been arguably the most influential still living and current writer of fantasy. In most of Mieville's articles he refernces Moorcock's essay Epic Pooh, and yet it seems most who argue the points choose to cite Mieville, but never reproach Moorcock. I am referring to this article Here (http://www.revolutionsf.com/article.html?id=953). Opinion?


BTW ijsu twant to say that I am fan not of any particular branch, but of what I presume to be good writing, which includes the likes of, and among others, Mieville, Moorcock, and Mr. Bakker.


fantasybookspot.com (http://fantasybookspot.com)