Fantasy authors of the last 10 years

[Rob B]

We touched upon this a couple of years ago here when the first decade of the 21st Century was coming to a close:

Best SFF writer of this decade

I wonder how opinions have changed over the past couple of years.

[CodanOfCanada]

C.J. Cherryh, Gene Wolfe, Guy Gavriel Kay, Stephen Donaldson, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Lieber, Glen Cook, Richard Matherson, Brian Lumley, Avram Davidson, Sheri Tepper, Poul Anderson, Robert Silverberg, Michael Swanwick, Stephen Brust, David Gemmell, Jack Vance, Robert Holdstock, Tanith Lee, Roger Zelazny, Theodore Sturgeon, Elizabeth Moon.

It's not more prevalent. Urban fantasy did not spring into existence in 1995. Gritty secondary world fantasy did not begin in 1996 when Martin published Song. Steve Erikson worships Glen Cook. Scott Lynch willingly bows to Fritz Lieber. One of the reasons -- though certainly not the only one -- that I have become so fond of Joe Abercrombie's works is that they remind me of so many novels that I grew up with.

Yes, there was Feist (who was often considered gritty,) Terry Brooks (who did some series considered gritty,) David Eddings, etc. And the D&D tie-in books which were a very small part of fantasy fiction, mostly in the 1980's. But there was also Donaldson, who made phenomenal sales records for fantasy with his cranky, rapist leper. There were so many Elric imitators, it was funny. (But wait, no, Elric was a happy elf who had no impact on epic fantasy whatsoever -- with his bloody sword of soul sucking.) The world of fantasy did not take a major thematic and tonal shift just because there was Google and Facebook.

So could anyone come up with something that you like about these people that is not utterly historically inaccurate? How about growing internationalism? The shift from trilogies to longer series? The increase in fantasy stories that focus tightly on military units, in the tradition of Glen Cook and David Gemmell?

And next time, Codan, when you want to talk about secondary world fantasy instead of the whole of fantasy fiction, could you make that clear at the beginning?

I'm not saying that darker, grittier fantasy hasn't existed before. In fact much of the early Sword & Sorcery is as dark as much of what is being written now. I am also familiar with most of the authors named, and could probably name a few more that would fit the mold. But all those different authors come from different eras, of course there won't be as many "dark/gritty fantasy" in the last 10 years as their has been in 100. Here's what I mean:

Say we look at some of the earliest fantasists of the 19th century. Most of the author were influenced by myths, romances, epics and folk tales. And that same style, though personalized, is often what we see with authors like George MacDonald, Hans Christian Anderson, or William Morris. It was the popular and prevalent style of the time, though I'm sure there were many exception.

Then the early 20th century American authors had their own niche. Weird fiction/Sword and Sorcery. Robert E. Howard, Henry Kuttner, C.L. Moore and Clark Ashton Smith were popular, and probably some of the best remembered. Though I'm sure some influence came from the earlier fantasists this seems almost like a completely different start to fantasy. They seemed to have taken more influence from adventure writers like H. Rider Haggard or maybe even Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle.

While in the U.K. a second form of fantasy (epic/ high fantasy) was being developed by people like Lord Dunsany, E.R. Eddison and shortly there after J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. These authors are pretty clearly and admittedly influenced to the fantasists of the 19th century. At least so far as I can tell they did not achieve as much commercial success (at least internationally) as their American counterparts until a few years later.

It seemed to me that during the 80's and 90's fantasy had taken on a more epic scope. Every book was a series, and sometimes not even just a trilogy (though many abound), and every quest was of dire consequences. Often the world's seemed more black and white, good vs. evil. Also it seemed that many authors (more than say during the 70's or 60's) were taking direct influence from the Tolkien/D&D type fantasy world, or at the very least that style had become popular. I'm talking about authors like Terry Brooks, Raymond Feist, David Eddings, R.A. Salvatore and all the other Dragonlance/Forgotten Realms authors, none of which I would consider gritty.

Then from there I would say that it went onto authors and series like Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth and Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time with their multi-volume massive epics, which achieved great popularity. Too me it almost feels like and extension of the previous authors, but with even more focus on longer bigger stories.

Was there gritty fantasy before 1996? Most assuredly. But what I think separates the older S&S style like Moorcock, Howard, Wagner etc. and the new authors, is everything that happened in the middle. Now I feel that some of the current authors had taken a bit from both worlds. With long epic fantasies mixed in with dark gritty atmosphere and morally ambiguous characters. There were others before, some great examples you named, Donaldson or Cook, who seemed way ahead of their time.

These were all movements in the scene of fantasy. Were their exceptions? Tons, probably as many or more as there were those that participated in the individual movements. But something did happen at each of those times that made it so that a certain style was more prevalent or more popular. Also of course with a genre as imaginitve as fantasy there is many authors that blur the lines. Steven Erikson for example, his series is both incredibly long as well as dark and gritty. It flouts the cliches of past fantasies but also uses them too. He also slipped right in the middle, starting his massive epic later than other authors of the time, and predating by a few years the next few authors like Abercrombie, Lynch etc. Or a truly great author like Guy Gavriel Kay, whose poetic, imaginitive and insightful style I would classify as high fantasy, but ultimately is all his own (or if not please inform me of someone that damn good!).

So it's not to say that every new author is making this style of book, but it does seem that there are more going in this direction. Besides I don't think it's just the authors that came before that influence current authors, but also our surrounding situations. The rise of the internet and social networks, the economic down turn, wars, terrorism and revolutions etc. all have a huge impact on how we see the world, and our own experience would influence us as much as someone else's writings.

Also I forgot to mention I'm refering to secondary world fantasy

[KatG]

How exactly were Donaldson and Cook "ahead of their time" when you already acknowledge that they were following the gritty fantasy of writers from the 1960's? You're just moving the happy elf claim up, limiting it to the 1980's (a time period when "gritty" fantasy was, as now, considered the creme de la creme and widely explored,) and the 1990's when the D&D tie-ins had already cratered and big epic series were expected to be fairly dark because of past bestsellers. (Also, when I say the books I grew up with? I'm not that old, thanks. I grew up in your happy elf period like many here.)

As I said, "Yes, there was Feist (who was often considered gritty,) Terry Brooks (who did some series considered gritty,) David Eddings, etc. And the D&D tie-in books which were a very small part of fantasy fiction, mostly in the 1980's."

But it's very important in the establishment of a happy elf motif to say that those guys were the guys who dominated everything in secondary world fantasy. They weren't. Goodkind (who actually many considered gritty for his torture and other scenes,) and Robert Jordan (who most conveniently forget was actually considered to have a lot of grit when he first started the series,) were very big and had imitators, but there were other major, bestsellers throughout the 1980's and 1990's who were quite different and also had imitators. The reality is that fantasy during that time period -- expanding in thousands of titles -- was a very diverse country. And fantasy today -- with even more thousands of titles -- is even more diverse. But because we must have eras --ages shall we say -- with a dominant theme, somebody has to be the happy elf so that the latest generation is always the new, really dark, really gritty stuff. Do you realize that in the 1980's, that was always the refrain? That what you're saying about the newer authors was said about the ones in the 1980's -- that they had cast off the shackles of the 1970's and fantasy had a new gritty future that was a reflection of events in the 1980's? And they weren't just talking about urban fantasy. And that they said the same before that? I wouldn't always bristle at the happy elf now we've gone dark theories if they hadn't been around for about fifty years. (Along with SF being dead.)

Take the list I quickly did: C.J. Cherryh -- gritty battle slaver?, no, not so much, but moral ambiguity and complexity that was imitated frequently by others, yes. She started off in the late 1970's, but the bulk of her work, where she dominated as a major bestseller, was the 1980's, followed by a continued strong presence in the 1990's and the last decade. Gene Wolfe had a few novels in the 1970's, but the bulk of his work -- where he dominated as a bestseller and the critical voice of his generation of SFF, was -- the 1980's, and he also continued as a strong presence in the 1990's and the 00's. Guy Gavriel Kay -- his first novel was in 1984. He was a major bestseller as well as critically acclaimed in the late 1980's. His 1990's novels -- Tigana, The Lions of Al Rassan, etc. -- were not only major sellers and award winners but spawned lots of imitators. Stephen Donaldson's first novel was 1977 (just like Brooks,) but he broke sales records no one had broken before for SFF in the 1980's. Glen Cook -- nearly all his work has been in the 1980's, going into the 1990's and the oughts. He's spawned so many descendents, including Erikson, they ought to give him a plaque. Sheri Tepper -- 1980's, 1990's bestseller. Michael Swanwick's major influential work, The Iron Dragon's Daughter, was 1993. Steven Brust -- one of the biggest sellers and talked about series in the 1980's and early 1990's -- started in 1983. His Jhereg series, like Cook, spawned enough descendents to fill a truck convoy. All those wisecracking assassins? Thank Brust (although of course it did not start with him.) David Gemmell, who the bulk of the oughts epics today are following, which is why Abercrombie and co. get nominated for the Gemmell Award -- 1980's and 1990's domination. Robert Holdstock, whose Mythago Wood, well, defined everybody really, 1984, and then into the 1990's. Elizabeth Moon -- 1988 on up, and she was just one of the epic fantasy authors experimenting and getting large audiences in the 1990's.

But where were we? Oh yes, Brooks, Feist and Eddings. Brooks who wrote everything from comic fantasy to dark urban fantasy that he worked into his epic series. Feist, who was known for gritty realism of his military stuff. And Eddings, who, get this, used to be cautioned about on YA recs back in the 1980's for his morally ambiguous characters. And then there's R.A. Salvatore, who became D&D tie-ins big kahuna for his gritty military violence and morally ambiguous characters. And then there was Stephen King's Gunslinger and Eye of the Dragon, Clive Barker's Imajica, etc., hey throw in John Norman's Gor novels, which was a whole other arm that went into the 1980's. And the fact that D&D tie-ins loved morally ambiguous main characters -- neutrals, lawful evil, etc. Erikson made his series off of D&D and similar games.

So no, there was no happy elf period between 1980 and 1996. There were thousands of gritty epic fantasies. You all just don't talk about them. You talk about Brooks, Eddings and Feist while trying to pretend that Donaldson didn't exist or was an outlier who nobody imitated despite his being the bestselling novel of all types of fiction for the year 1982. And then there are the thousands of epic fantasies being done now that aren't particularly gritty and are selling really well -- better than Lynch and often Bakker as well, but you all don't talk about them either. Let's pit Abercrombie against Eddings and not Cook, so we can have the rise of grittiness 4.0. Yes, there are more authors "going in that direction." That's, again, because there are more authors -- quadruple what we had before in total, not just the gritty side.

And no, the war in Afghanistan has not turned us towards the gritty, imo. When Cook used the Vietnam War as a jumping off point for Black Company, he'd served in the Navy when the Korean and Vietnam wars were going on and guys of all sorts were being drafted and experiencing those wars. As opposed to Afghanistan where it's a professional military, no draft, and the majority of the epic fantasy authors you're toting as being effected by it haven't served at all. The economic downturns in the 1980's and 1990's -- and not just in the U.S. -- were severe. The Great Recession wasn't until 2008. So again, you're basically arguing that the mere fact of the Internet -- which was, again, a 1990's thing -- and the invention of Google and Facebook more recently -- somehow turned all those boys grittier than black paint. (And pay no attention to those horror writers who often dipped their toe in epic.)

Do you know how many novels have been written about assassins in the past 30 years? Enough with the now we finally have frequent morally ambiguous characters. It's. Not. True. These are wonderful writers, doing interesting things, but it's not true.

Things that are true: the idea of parallel worlds and the multiverse, so much a part of the fabric of fantasy fiction and epic fantasy, drifted off in the 1990's. It's made a bit more of a comeback now, with authors looking for things to play with, and never totally disappeared, but the idea of just having a separate world definitely became more interesting in that 1990's time period. The oughts: epic fantasy authors like to write about cities -- set up a city kingdom and have the whole story right there. It can have post-industrial traits, pre-industrial ones, etc. but whether it's the more magic realist dreamscape, gritty noir, war siege, happy unicorns, whatever, that big city most recently is a favorite with a large swath of fantasy authors. And that probably does represent the shift from rural/suburban to suburban/urban of our Western populations perhaps.

But I will continue to call bull on the now we finally get to have lots and lots of morally ambiguous characters theory, or the version that goes we lost them but now we've found them again. And give Glen Cook his dratted plaque.

[CodanOfCanada]

I have the feeling that talk of "gritty fantasy" has left you with a chip on your shoulder. You have become argumentative, I see no point in continuing in this discourse.

[KatG]

Sorry, Codan, I was way too grumpy and should have fixed it in tone. I have an illness situation at home and couldn't continue discussion anyway. My apologies. Just continue on. I'll try to add modern suggestions of other "gritty" authors to the list later with much less chip.

[Mark Lawrence]

I thought this recent list from reddit/r/fantasy might prove ... provocative

http://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comm..._modern_works/

*tosses it into the mix and runs away*

[CodanOfCanada]

Sorry, Codan, I was way too grumpy and should have fixed it in tone. I have an illness situation at home and couldn't continue discussion anyway. My apologies. Just continue on. I'll try to add modern suggestions of other "gritty" authors to the list later with much less chip.

I'm sorry to hear that. The apology is appreciated too. I actually agree with much of what you said (at least of the authors I am familiar with). Maybe gritty isn't even the right word for what I am thinking. And also like I said earlier, there's quite a few of the more recent authors I haven't even had the chance to read, so I am partially talking out my rear and basing opinions on others.

What I do believe is that stories in the last while seem to have more multi-faceted characters and/or more fleshed out or realistic worlds. George R. R. Martin definitely has more complex (not just morally) characters than 95% of fantasy authors. Also he put a lot of work into the politics of his world, a piece often lacking in secondary world fantasy. Steven Erikson's sort of the same way. Though I don't necessarily feel that his characters are overly complex or realistic (I'm not saying they are unrealistic and one dimensional either) but his whole world is so huge and expansive, and I love his work with religions, cultures and gods in his world. His outside influences as an anthropologist definitely influenced his work. Same could probably be said for Ian C. Esslemont, though I have only read Knight of Knives. Another one is David Keck's character Durand. Hardly a hero, he feels more like a regular young man trying to strike out on his own and make his own path in life. He's often cranky or boneheaded, but he learns from his mistakes. He wasn't born into power and he wasn't meant for greatness.

Maybe some fantasies aren't so much going in a darker or grittier direction (though I would say that seems to be popular coinage) but perhaps more down to earth and less escapist. I'm not actually saying anything against older authors either. I really liked Feist and I grew up reading Salvatore and Terry Brooks.

[KatG]

The child is alive! Okay, it wasn't actually that dire, but definitely I should not try having a discussion about modern fantasy when there are midnight vomiting incidents. But the child is now on better meds. My coherence, however, is not necessarily improved.

So, stuff:

What I do believe is that stories in the last while seem to have more multi-faceted characters and/or more fleshed out or realistic worlds.

I firmly disagree. It's not that I don't think current books mostly don't have multi-faceted characters and/or more fleshed out or realistic worlds. It is, however, that I disagree first that some of the novels, a number of leading newer novels, have realistic worlds as a main focus. Noir is not realistic. Military melodrama (and I mean that word in a good way,) is not particularly realistic. Joe Abercrombie's world, for instance, in a number of ways is deliberately non-realistic, as is Lynch's. And second, I disagree that the older books mostly lacked either multi-faceting or developed, realish worlds. If you want to argue that say Peter Beagle doesn't do multi-faceted characters? I'm going to argue back. If you want to argue that Katherine Kurtz didn't do a realistic world in her bestselling 1980-90's Deryni series, I would disagree. In fact, it was so politically realistic, that Ursula Le Guin famously scolded her for not being mythic enough in an essay. So no, again, if you take a very narrow sample, you could make the argument. Deal with the breadth of bestselling, influential epic fantasy, then it doesn't hold up for me.

I agree that Steven Erikson's anthrogopolgy background probably did help in his work, although he was mostly drawing on traditional myths and gaming structures. But the older authors were often made up of historians, folklorists, lit professors, etc. -- people who studied culture in their day jobs, and it was actually a far more common background for authors in the 1970's and 1980's, like Terri Windling. But what was also common back then was suspense, the blending of modern mores with pre-industrial societies, like Glen Cook did and others before him. This was especially common in the 1980's.

But the reality is that epic fantasy has continued to be, in these worlds, largely white European with cultures resembling Asia, Africa, and occasionally the Amerindians thrown in. Even Martin's work is largely in this vein -- a version of England in the War of the Roses, with more exotic cultures mixing Europe and Africa in the other continent. We do have authors doing interesting work, like N.K. Jemisin, etc., but Erikson, Lynch, Abercrombie, Rothfuss, and even Bakker to a degree, stick to that not particularly multi-cultural milieu. There's a lot of cultural blending -- it's not monochrome, but it all has as a main focus European myth. Feist's extensive Asian territory for his world, Alan Dean Foster's Catechist novels, etc., there are many past books that worked on multi-culturalism, though often it is narrow for the sake of story structures, now and in the past.

I really liked Feist and I grew up reading Salvatore and Terry Brooks.

I understood that. But in growing up with them, you're trying to cement the development to just them, and the development was far more multi-stranded than that, with those different strands being prominent. So narrowing the argument seems to me unnecessary. We can see cultural strands. The success of horror in the 1970's and 1980's, and horror films as well, does now, I'd agree, effect what authors try for more horror-oriented epic fantasies, like Peter Brett's Painted Man series. The influence of video games seems to me to have had far more influence on a lot of authors writing from 1995 to present than the Internet itself, especially when it comes to military scenes (less realistic and more flamboyant now.) But when we look at those things, we're looking at small clusters, not dominating styles of the whole field, I feel.

Mark -- that's a very scattershot and random list with a lot of missing "cannon" even for the newer stuff. I assume it's a list in progress? (But congrats for being on it, in any case.)

However, you'll note that list does not confine itself to secondary world fantasy. With authors doing many types of fantasy fiction -- and having also done so in the past -- increasingly trying to treat secondary world as a separate country is not very workable if we're talking about new voices in the field.

Ran out of time tonight on names of authors. May do an owlcroft list tomorrow.

[CodanOfCanada]

I'm actually convinced. I mean I haven't read most of the authors you named here but you do bring up a good point. The part about secondary world fantasy is mostly just for selfish reasons, it's just generally the style of fantasy I prefer to read. I guess all that's left to ask is this; who or what is popular in secondary world fantasy in the last 10 years?