[Gary Wassner]

You bring up an interesting point, and I do think there is some truth to that. It's a terrible and unfair misconception, regardless. But it's also one that will probably never go away. Make believe characters in make believe worlds just can't say anything valuable about our lives. We may be writing metaphorically in many instances, and we may have broader and more compelling issues to talk about in our books than most of what reaches the best seller lists, but the characters are not real. Readers can't make that leap.

[JRMurdock]

Similar things can be said about regular fiction (the characters and situations are made up), but people always take straight fiction seriously and fantasy as, well, fantasy. I have always felt that even Sci-Fi gets more credit than fantasy writing because much of what they write about is based in fact and potential futures. Many non-writers can name several sci-fi writers, but not many can name more than one or two fantasy writers. This is a sad situation.

I agree that a writer, no matter the genre, has something to say. Be it about the world we live in, the human condition, exploration of the past, exploration of the future, whatever, writers don't usually write just because there was nothing better to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time.

How do you get the masses to believe that?

People start out reading with what? Fairy Tales. Disney. This is what many people think fantasy is about. Only a select few make that leap from Fairy Tales to YA Fantasy. Even fewer still take that leap of faith from YA to Epic Fantasy. Most slip into the mainstream Fiction. Why? Why do so many people 'evolve' away from Fantasy? Why does the public still have trouble taking Fantasy seriously? Is it the genre name of Fantasy? Should it be re-grenre-ized?

What is the way for an Epic Fantasy author to break out of the mold?

This seems a burning question you've been getting at methinks.

[Gary Wassner]

I just posted this on Scott's forum. We are having a similar discussion there.

Listen, my tastes are very eclectic. I am not making any value judgments here. I am just confused. I think many people are just totally misinformed about fantasy. They don't read it because they never read it. And they never read it because they assume it is not for them. You need a good imagination to read fantasy. Most people don't have very good imaginations. Reading is supposed to be a relaxing endeavor. So if the subject matter is hard to assimilate, then it is no longer relaxing. I suppose under those circumstances it would be like picking up Proust for the average person, or trying to read Hegel. The difference is that the reader assumes fantasy is childish and incomprehensible, while Proust and Hegel may be incomprehensible, but because they are too esoteric, not because they are childish. It's funny, but Nietzsche never received credit while he was alive because he was so untraditional during a very exacting time. Aphorisms instead of didactic treatises? Many tried to trivialize his thinking as well, and for years he was relegated to the back shelf of philosophy and not taken seriously.

I also suggested earlier in jest that we stop calling it fantasy and call it speculative fiction instead. But something else just occurred to me. How can the public take what we write seriously when most of the publishers present them with covers that make them seem so silly? Who is marketing these things?

[JRMurdock]

Oh I disagree. Many of the covers are good, unfortunately they're aimed at the 16-20 age group. Sex and violence is what used to sell a good book. Unfortunately the 16-20 age group is more into X-box, playstation, and movies. Epic Fantasy can still be called fantasy, but it needs a re-image.

The covers from your books are a prime example of what the industry needs. If the cover can appeal to and intrigue the older reader, the catch is there. But that's the difficulty I see, and KatG has pointed this out elsewhere: The publishing world is a slow moving giant. How do you convince the publishing execs of the world that it's in their best interest to change the image of fantasy? First you've got to have a novel that will 'change the face of fantasy' then you need to make it a success. Then and only then will you have that power.

It saddens me that J.K Rowlins was as successful as she was. Now that her books are movies, she's moved into the 'too powerful' bracket and is taken as an exception to the rule. If she had retained modest success, we might have had a speaker for our cause. :)

[Gary Wassner]

She writes YA fantasy though, so adults were able to justify their reading of it because of precisely that. They were not pretending to really enjoy it as adult literature, but because their kids loved it so much. They could get their vicarious pleasure without sacrificing any of their implicit integrity.

What did you disagree with, BTW, in what I said. I think that covers can be intelligent and artistic, but the buxom sorceresses and the romantic-novel-looking warriors trivialize the content even further. I spent so much time working with the artist for my covers. I wanted something different.

All they need to do for a Stephen King release is put his name on the cover in very bold letters. We certainly need more, but do we need to make it seem juvenile when it isn't?

[JRMurdock]

I disagree that covers don't sell books and are silly. :) It's just that they're targeting an audience that grew up with covers from their youth in the hopes nostalgia will bring them back. The covers, much like comic books, need to 'grow up' too yet still appeal to the youth. That's a tough billet to fill. I doubt it'll happen.

As for Stephen King's book, he justified his writing of that book as 'for my daughter' which is why it was looked down upon. Here's the horror god writing a children's novel. And it has since been shunned from polite society.

As for Rowlings, yes she writes YA fantasy, but I'm amazed at the number of adults who've read that one fantasy series (even those without children) who still resist Epic Fantasy. The allure is there. The temptation is there. Yet it's still treated like a forbiden fruit. People who I associate with are compeled to read fiction instead because it makes them look more 'adult'. Pfft. Dan Brown writes a good book, but it's still very much fantasy, just set in modern society.

My hope is that she'll finish with Potter and write an Epic Fantasy, but with how long it takes her to actually write a book. *sheesh* Her last novel was just over 200,000 words and it took two and a half years to come out. Tad Williams took two and a half years for 'To Green Angel Tower' but that was darn near 1,000,000 words. Quite a difference.

I still ask, what can a Fantasy author do to convert the masses? I'm sure you're still asking the same thing. :)

[Gary Wassner]

We are not disagreeing on the the cover issue. I think they very much do sell books. But I also think that they tend to categorize the books and sometimes pigeonhole them as well. Just as some people are embarassed to read a romantic novel in public which is steamy and overtly sexual, or a gay/lesbian themed book that might depict a same sex couple on the cover, so they also find comic book style covers on their novels to be beneath them. It's just part of the mind set that plagues fantasy today, and my point was that many of the publishers don't realize that or don't care about it. They too think their target audience wants only swords and sorcery.

What can we do as authors to counter that mind set and the mind set in general that denigrates fantasy? I wish I knew. Get on Oprah? Be interviewed by Larry King? Have New York Magazine review you? Do we really crave mainstream recongnition? I don't. I just wish people understood that many of us write serious, compelling, intelligent literature. It may not be your choice or your taste, but it is no less valid therefor.

[JRMurdock]

On covers, my feeling is just what you did. Authors need to get involved. Too many big imprints take the manuscript from the author and the author's part is now over. They end up with a cover that doesn't depict the story or establishes it as something far less than it is. We can site examples all day I'm sure.

So let me ask you this direct question: Do you seek fame or fortune?

With your last statement, I'd wager neither. Rather you seek understanding. Would that be understanding of you or your work? or both? Is that the driving force behind your writing? Gosh we could get really philosophical about this couldn't we.

Where do you want to see Fantasy writing in general go? Gaining readership or gaining a token belief that it's worthwhile?

[Gary Wassner]

Do I seek fame or fortune? Honestly? Fortune, no. I don't want this to sound wrong, but my business provides me with more than I need, and certainly more than most authors earn, with a few obvious and notable exceptions. Fame? If it means that I couldn't live my life as I do now, no to that as well. I don't want ever to be recognized when I go out to dinner in NY. I see celebrities all the time in restaurants, fashion shows, theaters etc. and it is not fun for them. But recognition as an author? Absolutely. Do I ever want to be a household name? No way.

[JRMurdock]

I find it interesting that you 'fight the good fight' yet seek no benifit from it. I'm impressed. Not at all what I had expected from an author. I can understand most of what you're saying and appreciate it.