Question: Fantasy for experts.

[JustaStaffer]

Ok, so I'm working on an article for the blog about fantasy for advanced readers.

So you're 300 books in as a fantasy reader. You've read ASoIF, you've read WOT, you've done the Eddings and Dragonlance catalog. You've read all the Sanderson stuff, Brent Weeks, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, etc.

What's next? How does someone start to challenge themselves?

I've got a preliminary list going:

KJ Parker right at the top (perfect?), Catherynne Valente (need to read), China Mieville (genre bending and literary?), Steven Erikson (post-modern?), Lev Grossman (deconstruction?)

What do you guys think?

-Justin

 

[3rdI]

Ok, so I'm working on an article for the blog about fantasy for advanced readers.

So you're 300 books in as a fantasy reader. You've read ASoIF, you've read WOT, you've done the Eddings and Dragonlance catalog. You've read all the Sanderson stuff, Brent Weeks, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, etc.

What's next? How does someone start to challenge themselves?

I've got a preliminary list going:

KJ Parker right at the top (perfect?), Catherynne Valente (need to read), China Mieville (genre bending and literary?), Steven Erikson (post-modern?), Lev Grossman (deconstruction?)

What do you guys think?

-Justin

Personally I have never found any work of speculative fiction to be challenging but that is another discussion for another time. Mieville (Bas-Lag books and Kraken) and Grossman (The Magicians) are excellent choices btw.

Gene Wolfe - The Book of the New Sun, The Wizard-Knight
R. Scott Bakker - The Prince of Nothing/Aspect-Emperor (Second Apocalypse)
Patrick Rothfuss - The Kingkiller Chronicle

 

[JustaStaffer]

Personally I have never found any work of speculative fiction to be challenging but that is another discussion for another time. Mieville (Bas-Lag books and Kraken) and Grossman (The Magicians) are excellent choices btw.

Gene Wolfe - The Book of the New Sun, The Wizard-Knight
R. Scott Bakker - The Prince of Nothing/Aspect-Emperor (Second Apocalypse)
Patrick Rothfuss - The Kingkiller Chronicle

Obviously I don't mean James Joyce challenging, but something that asks more of the reader. What's going on behind the narrative? Is there something being done to demonstrate a philosophical viewpoint (Prince of Nothing) or provide genre commentary (Grossman, Erikson)?

Wolfe is a good one certainly and probably the most difficult to read of anything in the genre.

 

[Loerwyn]

Modesitt, maybe? Modesitt's always good, and his four fantasy series (Saga of Recluce, Corean Chronicles, Spellsong Cycle and Imager Portfolio) spans about... Thirty something books, I think.

There's also Goodkind. As unpopular as he is, I still think he should be at least tried for the sake of balance. Debt of Bones is pretty good, but I don't think the series will hold much for "expert" readers.

Continuing with the thinky theme, I think it's worth putting Newton in the list, as he'd compliment Miéville and Wolfe. You could then further compliment Miéville with Gaiman.

Not sure what else to suggest.

 

[Winter]

Michael Cisco (The Narrator, The Great Lover, The Traitor, The Tyrant, The Divinity Student, The SanVeneficio Canon)
Michal Ajvaz (The Other City, The Golden Age)
Tea Obreht (The Tiger's Wife)

 

[JustaStaffer]

Michael Cisco (The Narrator, The Great Lover, The Traitor, The Tyrant, The Divinity Student, The SanVeneficio Canon)
Michal Ajvaz (The Other City, The Golden Age)
Tea Obreht (The Tiger's Wife)

Three authors I know nothing about. Good one.

I have to say the Tea Obreht one reminds me of TIGER MOM, which scares me a little.

 

[KatG]

Ok, so I'm working on an article for the blog about fantasy for advanced readers.

So you're 300 books in as a fantasy reader. You've read ASoIF, you've read WOT, you've done the Eddings and Dragonlance catalog. You've read all the Sanderson stuff, Brent Weeks, Joe Abercrombie, Scott Lynch, etc.

What's next? How does someone start to challenge themselves?

I've got a preliminary list going:

KJ Parker right at the top (perfect?), Catherynne Valente (need to read), China Mieville (genre bending and literary?), Steven Erikson (post-modern?), Lev Grossman (deconstruction?)

What do you guys think?

-Justin

I would class you as an intermediate reader, not advanced.

But if you want a challenge, try Hal Duncan's Vellum and Ink duology.

 

[JustaStaffer]

I would class you as an intermediate reader, not advanced.

But if you want a challenge, try Hal Duncan's Vellum and Ink duology.

Thanks for putting me in my place.

Good suggestion, I've been considering Duncan's stuff for a while. Definitely one of the more polarizing authors out there.

 

[Erfael]

Not to speak for Kat, but I was going to suggest something similar in different terms. Everything you have listed there under "So you've read 300 books" all come from a pretty slim slice of the fantasy pie. They're all strict secondary-world, epic, swords/fireballs/politics-type stuff.

My suggestion was going to be that I'd consider the next step in fantasy reading a broadening out of one's definitions of fantasy, an exploration of what fantasy can do outside of the constrictions of the epic mold.

Some authors that come to mind, in no particular order:

Peter S. Beagle - Last Unicorn, obviously, but also A Fine and Private Place, or anything else in his catalogue

Some of the retold fairy-tales/myths bunch - Kij Johnson, Juliet Marillier, some of CJ Cherry's Russian things, Cat Valente's Orphan's Tales (as a synthesis of these sorts), Patricia McKillip (not actual fairy tales, but they may as well be), Robert Holdstock, Tim Powers

John Crowley's books - these are divisive, but Little, Big or the Aegypt cycle are the big ones. Even more interesting for this discussion are Beasts and The Deep.

Those taking the real world and messing with it in wildly different ways - Jonathan Carroll, Graham Joyce, Tim Powers.

Those are just some ideas to kick one out of the BFF types you list in the initial post.

 

[JustaStaffer]

Not to speak for Kat, but I was going to suggest something similar in different terms. Everything you have listed there under "So you've read 300 books" all come from a pretty slim slice of the fantasy pie. They're all strict secondary-world, epic, swords/fireballs/politics-type stuff.

My suggestion was going to be that I'd consider the next step in fantasy reading a broadening out of one's definitions of fantasy, an exploration of what fantasy can do outside of the constrictions of the epic mold.

Some authors that come to mind, in no particular order:

Peter S. Beagle - Last Unicorn, obviously, but also A Fine and Private Place, or anything else in his catalogue

Some of the retold fairy-tales/myths bunch - Kij Johnson, Juliet Marillier, some of CJ Cherry's Russian things, Cat Valente's Orphan's Tales (as a synthesis of these sorts), Patricia McKillip (not actual fairy tales, but they may as well be), Robert Holdstock, Tim Powers

John Crowley's books - these are divisive, but Little, Big or the Aegypt cycle are the big ones. Even more interesting for this discussion are Beasts and The Deep.

Those taking the real world and messing with it in wildly different ways - Jonathan Carroll, Graham Joyce, Tim Powers.

Those are just some ideas to kick one out of the BFF types you list in the initial post.

I'd point out, I just listed a bunch of stuff that's familiar. It's not exactly my list of what I've read or even what I find particularly good.

But these are absolutely the suggestions I was looking for. Stuff outside the box. Thanks.

 

[Erfael]

Stuff outside the box.

I feel like it's a skit from Seinfeld. "It's not outside the box. There's the box. It's right inside the box. This IS the box. That other stuff, it's over there in one corner of the box."

 

[JustaStaffer]

I feel like it's a skit from Seinfeld. "It's not outside the box. There's the box. It's right inside the box. This IS the box. That other stuff, it's over there in one corner of the box."

Maybe a different box inside the larger box.

 

[Loerwyn]

Is Schrödinger's Cat inside one of these boxes?

 

[3rdI]

I do not believe the OP was asking sffworld to determine his/her literary competency level. If I read the thread correctly, he/she is simply compiling a list of works of speculative fiction that could be recommended as advanced reading material.

To the OP...if I got that wrong feel free to correct me.

This notion of advanced is a bit much. What qualifies as advanced? Who makes the qualification? How do we even define challenging? Are we talking structure? Are we approaching this from a thematic perspective?

I have never been challenged by any work of literary or genre fiction. I have never had a difficult time reading a work nor have I ever read a work that I did not understand or could not understand. Furthermore I have never read a work of fiction that changed me in any way. No work of fiction has ever changed the way I look at the world. Now by all academic indicators I have always been an "advanced" reader from elementary school all the way through college. So am I missing something here? Did I sleep thru the wrong lit class?

Quite honestly I think complexity can be the only relevant measure here. No two readers are going to interpret any work exactly the same way. I am fairly certain the vast majority of the membership is fully capable of reading and comprehending anything put in front of them.

Of course then we find ourselves in another debate entirely. What constitutes complexity? Is it the prose? Is it plot development? Character development? World building? Which element is more important? At what point can we brand something complex?

I think we can toss aside structure here. Anyone can write about a simple concept in a very complex way. That doesn't make a good author. Using that logic that leaves the subject matter. Still not entirely accurate though. An author can write about very complex topics but the story itself can end up being fairly simple.

I would argue that unless we know ahead of time the author's true purpose, all critical analysis is really nothing more than a collection of inferences and educated guesses.

It is time I finished up here before I fall too far down the rabbit hole. My apologies to the OP I did not mean to hijack the thread. Bottom line in all this for me is that the gulf between what the academic/critical world views as advanced and what your average reader might think is advanced is not nearly as large as they want you to think it is. All the pretty language in the world doesn't make for a complex story. The best definition of advanced I can come up with is that an "advanced" book explores complex themes and concepts. Although as I pointed out before, that just isn't quite right either.

Peace.

 

[Twinner]

3drI said,
"I would argue that unless we know ahead of time the author's true purpose, all critical analysis is really nothing more than a collection of inferences and educated guesses."

I say.... Ditto. Well said.

 

[Loerwyn]

Furthermore I have never read a work of fiction that changed me in any way. No work of fiction has ever changed the way I look at the world.

It is time I finished up here before I fall too far down the rabbit hole.

Sorry, I just couldn't help but giggle at this. Clearly you have been changed by literary works, otherwise you wouldn't have referenced Alice in Wonderland (Plus there's your praise of Rothfuss, which did change you post-WMF).

But that said, if you've not had your views or ideas challenged by literary works, then you're doing something wrong. Maybe you're not being challenged because you're closed minded towards those books? Some of the better written books that I've read exist to make you question the world you're in and the people you meet, but also they challenge your views. Whether it's Newton's Legends of the Red Sun or Zamyatin's We, many popular books thrive because of their philosophical and social commentaries.

You do raise a good point, though, in how we define challenging. I would say that a challenging book, to me, is one that questions why we think or act why we do. It challenges you to explore and question your views and behaviour. Something that's just obtuse would simply be labelled, for me, as a difficult read.

 

[JustaStaffer]

I do not believe the OP was asking sffworld to determine his/her literary competency level. If I read the thread correctly, he/she is simply compiling a list of works of speculative fiction that could be recommended as advanced reading material.

To the OP...if I got that wrong feel free to correct me.\

That's correct. Most of the lists out there of BEST FANTASY are very narrow and I'm trying to consider how to expand that. I've read some of the more "advanced" fantasy, but I know there's a lot out there that I haven't been exposed to. I'm trying to get a better reading list to try to piece together a reading guide for those interested in pushing themselves a little further - something the vast majority of the specfic reading community never does.

This notion of advanced is a bit much. What qualifies as advanced? Who makes the qualification? How do we even define challenging? Are we talking structure? Are we approaching this from a thematic perspective?

That's why I left it nebulous. Perhaps the use of "expert" or "advanced" wasn't appropriate. More the point - after someone has read alot of the high/epic fantasy, where do they go next? I love a good romp as much as the next guy, but sometimes I like to stretch. I could turn to post-modern lit, which I do from time to time, but there's great work being done in the fantasy genre if people are willing to give it a shot. One of the biggest problems is mainstream readers won't read fantasy (see Atwood's insistence of not being fantasy) and a lot of fantasy readers won't read heavy material.

I have never been challenged by any work of literary or genre fiction. I have never had a difficult time reading a work nor have I ever read a work that I did not understand or could not understand. Furthermore I have never read a work of fiction that changed me in any way. No work of fiction has ever changed the way I look at the world. Now by all academic indicators I have always been an "advanced" reader from elementary school all the way through college. So am I missing something here? Did I sleep thru the wrong lit class?

Challenged, and struggled are two different things. I think Grossman's stuff is challenging - it challenges convention. There's nothing difficult about the narrative or the language, but the deconstruction he underwent was different.

Of course then we find ourselves in another debate entirely. What constitutes complexity? Is it the prose? Is it plot development? Character development? World building? Which element is more important? At what point can we brand something complex?

I think we can toss aside structure here. Anyone can write about a simple concept in a very complex way. That doesn't make a good author. Using that logic that leaves the subject matter. Still not entirely accurate though. An author can write about very complex topics but the story itself can end up being fairly simple.

All of the above. I think Parker's sparse and elegant is worth reading - not to mention the irony. Is it hard? Not really. But it's brilliant in its own way.

I would argue that unless we know ahead of time the author's true purpose, all critical analysis is really nothing more than a collection of inferences and educated guesses.

I love this subject. Once the author lets the work into the world, does their intent matter anymore? Only our interpretation matters. Or something like that.

It is time I finished up here before I fall too far down the rabbit hole. My apologies to the OP I did not mean to hijack the thread. Bottom line in all this for me is that the gulf between what the academic/critical world views as advanced and what your average reader might think is advanced is not nearly as large as they want you to think it is. All the pretty language in the world doesn't make for a complex story. The best definition of advanced I can come up with is that an "advanced" book explores complex themes and concepts. Although as I pointed out before, that just isn't quite right either.

Peace.

Worthy hijack.

 

[Erfael]

Jeff Vandermeer does a very interesting retake on the Orpheus myth with Veniss Underground, which is one of the very few books I can think of with sections told in 1st, 2nd(!), and 3rd person perspectives.

And his Ambergris Trilogy, while it has its problems here and there, is a captivating, evocative, thorough picture of a city over millennia of its history (with sentient mushrooms!!!).

 

[Erfael]

Christopher Priest's books are often mind-bending twists of reality. The Affirmation is one of the very best fantasy books I've read this year.

 

[chris777]

I wouldn't take offense, not that you have. Some people like to consider themselves the end all, be all, of fantasy knowledge and literary works. And if you aren't as well..you are not advanced. =) I personally found the comment quite rude. But it wasn't directed at me, so I'll stop there.

Anyways, I applaud the effort. I myself have no suggestions as I am not advanced. The opposite of advanced. Nor will I ever, or even have the personality to become advanced.