What gives a fantasy author the mark of greatness???

[BAYLOR]

What he/she said.

Ah Baylor, are you viewing the forum from oldest threads to newest? Or do you just like digging up ancient topics?

It seemed like an interesting topic and it has gotten a bit of a discussion going.

 

[Alchemist]

I am reminded of something Bill James, a baseball historian, said about great baseball players: as a general rule, great players have unique statistical profiles - they aren't easily interchangeable with other players.

I think something like this is true for "great" fantasy authors. Yes, the three pillars of world-building, character, and plot are all important, but an author can be "great" without being great at any or even all of those pillars. In a way the "greatness" comes from being more than the sum of their parts - the "glue" that binds those three factors together. It may even be that an author is exemplary in the three pillars, but lacks that extra something that makes greatness - perhaps a distinct, unique voice.

I would also add another factor, which is important to me at least - and it is something like mystery or wonder, or pure imaginative fantasy. It is the author's ability to create a story that feels like fantasy, that teases the mind on its edges, never fully explaining or rationalizing, but always tantalizing. For me a truly great fantasy author doesn't feel like the master of their work, in the sense that everything is controlled and known. That is more a function of literature - where the author is akin to a conductor, and maintains perfect control over the entire "orchestra." But fantasy is different. It is more like being...a fireman, with a barely-controlled firehose. In fact, the fireman can't control the power of the water, only guide it, channel it. The water, in this case, being the deep mythic domains of imagination and fantasy.

To put that another way, and to summarize, in my opinion a great fantasy author is one who:
1. Has a strong proficiency (although not necessarily mastery) in the three pillars of setting, character, and plot.
2. Has a unique quality that is more than the sum of those parts, but binds or connects those parts.
3. Is connected with something greater than their own conscious, rational mind, so that the story feels and breathes with its own life.

A brief note on "standing the test of time." This really only applies to cultural impact and greatness, not literary or artistic merit or greatness. A work can be truly great but gathering dust in an attic, or on the shelves of used book stores. That said, I think great published works just about always find an audience, even become cult classics. Further, greatness is often connected with universality - so while a great author need not attain the popularity or consensus appreciation of classics, the story should span different times and places and not be so tied to a specific spatial-temporal context.

 

[Ochos]

A publisher would just say "Sales"

 

[Av Demeisen]

A publisher would just say "Sales"

f**k the herd.

 

[Kingsman]

f**k the herd.

Well at least sales is one metric that is not subjective. The herd likes what the herd likes

 

[Av Demeisen]

Well at least sales is one metric that is not subjective. The herd likes what the herd likes

If you feel successfully pandering to the lowest common denominator is an outstanding metric for greatness, then I respect your opinion. I just don't share it, and the often accompanying deification of the artists, etc. of meager talent in question is nauseating.

 

[BAYLOR]

If you feel successfully pandering to the lowest common denominator is an outstanding metric for greatness, then I respect your opinion. I just don't share it, and the often accompanying deification of the artists, etc. of meager talent in question is nauseating.

So in your opinion, popularity plays no real role in defining greatness?

 

[Ochos]

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth sold over 25 million copies in over 20 languages, I'm sure he feels great about it

 

[Adganong]

taking around a thousand years to release an anticipated novel

 

[Mark Lawrence]

I addressed the temporary nature of the business in a review of one of the books my mother had as a child:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/441524529

"So, 80 books, obituary in the Times, a play for Hitchcock, born of actors and writers, descended from Thomas Jefferson ... and the 11 million members of Goodreads have given 10 of his 80 books a grand total of 11 ratings.

Time is the fire in which we burn and also the tide that drowns us. "

 

[Randy M.]

Just to point out, H. P. Lovecraft died nearly penniless and in obscurity. He now has a Library of America volume, multiple editions from other publishers, academic writings explicating his work, etc., etc.

So, yes, contemporary popularity doesn't translate into lasting fame, but contemporary obscurity doesn't necessarily mean forever obscurity. Matthew cited Melville, but he could just as easily have cited Poe, and, really, in the 1950s who would have thought Philip K. Dick might have doctoral thesis written about him or several Library of America volumes?

So, you do the best you can, and maybe you get an audience. Someday.


Randy M.

 

[Av Demeisen]

So in your opinion, popularity plays no real role in defining greatness?

No.

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth sold over 25 million copies in over 20 languages, I'm sure he feels great about it

I'm no avid fantasy reader, so I have no opinion on the quality of Terry Goodkind's work. I begrudge nobody their hard-earned success. It's sad to see someone who produces work of great originality and quality get recognition only (long) after they have passed away.

 

[Matthew Hughes]

Popularity is neither here nor there. Some acknowledged greats were popular in their time (Shakespeare, Dickens, Steinbeck). Some had to wait generations to be discovered (Poe, Melville). And most very popular authors are forgotten before their bones have turned to dust.

The true test is the test of time.

Now, me, I'm happy to think I might be recognized during my grandchildren's time -- assuming I ever have any -- but I wouldn't mind a little more popularity before I push on into the immensity. For one thing, my car needs some work and the part alone costs $345, before taxes.

So everybody hop over to my website, read some excerpts, and buy some books, please.

 

[BAYLOR]

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth sold over 25 million copies in over 20 languages, I'm sure he feels great about it

He's a successful writer. He get's to enjoy it.

 

[BAYLOR]

No.
I'm no avid fantasy reader, so I have no opinion on the quality of Terry Goodkind's work. I begrudge nobody their hard-earned success. It's sad to see someone who produces work of great originality and quality get recognition only (long) after they have passed away.

There's more then a few writers and books that fall into that later category.

 

[Takoren]

Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth sold over 25 million copies in over 20 languages, I'm sure he feels great about it

Proof that greatness and popularity do not necessarily go hand in hand.

 

[Davis Ashura]

I'm pretty sure the mark of greatness is dependent on an author's name. Any author whose first name begins with the letter "D" and whose last name ends with the letter "A" is bound to be great.

I kid. A little.

In reality, I've been thinking about this question a lot. What Matthew Hughes, the former UFC welterweight champ, and Mark Lawrence (the new one) pointed out simply shows what a crap shoot it is. Jane Austen's novels remained essentially continuously in print for a hundred years after her death but were trashed by critics in large measure for that entirety. Then in the mid-20th century, the books were reassessed and now they're part of the Canon. For me, that kind of story, and countless others, just reinforced the futility to write for some perceived 'greatness'. If such a determination is rendered, it is utterly out of the author's control, no matter how he/she might strive to write for 'greatness'.

 

[Ryan Mueller]

I don't write for greatness. I write because I enjoy it and hope my readers will too.

 

[Alchemist]

While popularity itself has nothing to do with greatness--otherwise Justin Bieber (for example) is great--I do think there is something to the notion of "standing the test of time." What does that mean exactly? Or rather, what makes a work or artist stand the test of time?

What are the qualities of a work standing the test of time? I think it is (mainly, but not entirely) threefold, that is it comes down to three factors:

1. To what degree a work emblematizes a specific historical-cultural zeitgeist.
2. To what degree a work essentializes the human condition in a relatively universal manner.
3. To what degree a work brings something new or original, or innovates in some way.

This isn't a formula. In other words, a work could do all of the above and still not be considered "great." But I would say that the more a work accomplishes the above, the greater likelihood it has of becoming great. If it does one of the three really, really well, that alone could make it a great--or at least a classic (need we differentiate between great and classic? Perhaps the latter is a "lesser great," or a work that is distinctive and historic, but not great; e.g. Risky Business is a classic 80s film, but I wouldn't call it great).

 

[Matthew Hughes]

To what degree a work emblematizes a specific historical-cultural zeitgeist.

You could also replace "emblematize" with "transcend."

One example: Philip K. Dick's works, while written in the 60s and 70s, speak to our world of the twenty-teens, one reason why they're so often the basis for contemporary movies and tv.