So you write Epic Fantasy, do you?

[Gary Wassner]

I would like to read something of yours, Alison. Maybe we should exchange some books?

 

[KatG]

Sadly, YA sci/fi, which in a sense is the market it was always geared to, is fading.

No, just temporarily quiescent because YA and children's fantasy have exploded, thanks to Rowling, Pullman, and Lemony Snickett. Fantasy has always been the dominant sub-genre in children's with sf having a much smaller market. Now fantasy is the powerhouse sub-genre of children's and it's hurt the picture book market and made things difficult for other children's writers. Plus it's creating a glut, which should continue okay with Harry Potter #6, but after that, it might collapse, causing real problems. Eventually, though, children and YA sf might have the best shot in the market, better than adult sf. All it will take is one good sf series that builds up a sizable following.

Yes, the publishers and editors complained that they cannot find enough that is ahead of the imaginations of today's readers and today's scientific possibilities.

I apologize for being cryptic and then disappearing. My exclamation of dismay was not for one moment because I believe that publishers really can't find sf of scientific imagination and that's the problem. I was sad to hear what the editors at the convention said because such nattering indicates that major sf/f publishers are going to do a purge, and that purge will probably not be only in sf.

SF surged ahead along with fantasy in the seventies and eighties. There were a number of sf "stars" like William Gibson who provided sf with a lot of market power. A lot of the sf was sociological sf -- focusing on cultural and social issues with science as the backdrop, instead of the more difficult to find an audience hard science stories, and there were concerns that hard sf would disappear because of soc sf and fantasy. What happened instead was that in the nineties, sf shrank back down to more normal sales levels. Cyberpunk lost media and fan interest (though the Matrix movies kept it going in film,) and hard sf, along with military sf -- perhaps fueled by computer games -- started making a comeback but at a smaller rate of growth. Fantasy sub-genres also saw their market shrink back down, except for epic fantasy, which was buoyed by a wave of new fans, and children's fantasy, which was revolutionized by Harry Potter and other big kids fantasy successes.

Right now, sf/f publishers are not happy with sf numbers, even though some sf authors are doing quite well. There are no break-out stars, the movies are only buying rights to classic sf stories, and sales aren't growing at a fast enough rate for them, especially compared with leading epic fantasy authors. They also have a glut of inventoried titles, especially in epic fantasy, and sales are dropping in fantasy, except for big names where sales are increasing. They are under pressure from their corporate heads and from booksellers to produce bestselling stars. In such circumstances, publishers may do the following: close down most acquisitions of new titles unless a title is believed to be a potential breakout star right out of the gate (bestseller or bust mentality); cut authors with modest followings that aren't considered to be growing fast enough, even if they have low returns and sales increases; let classic titles of the backlist go out of print; reduce promotion and support of the booklist. This happened in the mystery genre in the nineties and recovery has been slow. Look at how small the mystery section of the bookstore is now, with bigger names being moved to general fiction.

When sf editors say that they are not seeing any new stories to match technology, then, what they really mean is not that sf writers are suffering from a paucity of imagination, but that they aren't finding a story that they believe to be sexy, able to attract media and Hollywood interest and become an instant star, like William Gibson's "Neuromancer." It means that they are going to be cutting and reducing their sf lines and not doing much to support those sf titles they do put out. And this will likely carry over to fantasy, with epic fantasy acquisitions dropping, promotional support going exclusively to star names and shelf life for all titles decreasing. It may also mean that the renewed interest in contemporary urban fantasy, in such authors as Gaiman, Hamilton and Mieville, will not spur an increase in publishing titles in those sub-genres.

I had hoped that publishers had decided to put some muscle behind sf to take advantage of the wide market the fantasy rush has produced. There were some good signs -- the prominence if not high numbers of sf titles on bookshelves, the literary mainstream respectability sf has been cultivating these last years, the large numbers of paperback reprints of sf classic titles, the success of sf movies like "Minority Report," "A.I." and "I, Robot" and continued interest in sf movies and t.v., and a nice group of successful authors like Tad Williams and C.J. Cherryh who write both fantasy and sf. This would have helped to keep the momentum of sf/f growth going. But there were also disturbing signs, like S&S dissolving its sf/f imprint entirely, which would effect both sf and fantasy. If the publishers are making excuses for why they are not buying sf titles, then it means that they are probably planning to purge sf imprints. And will probably also be doing the same thing, to a lesser extent, to fantasy titles too. It means it will be even harder for new writers to break in and that we may lose a lot of good sf writers for no good reason. But, markets are unpredictable and publishers change their minds. All it would take is one good sf writer who gets a lot of buzz, media attention and a film deal and strategies would change. Even so, that might not be enough to help out epic fantasy. It's going to be interesting to see what happens over the next few years.

Sorry to ramble on again. This thread is becoming my state of the market board, but that's not really what you started it for, Gary, so I'm going to ease up here and let the conversation get back to epic fantasy.

 

[alison]

Interesting, nevertheless, KatG - thanks for the observations. I found them very interesting. I guess the problem always is that publishers are essentially in it for the business, and writers (and hopefully readers) are in it for something else. These things aren't necessarily incompatible, in the best circumstances both interests can run fruitfully together; but there is often a shortsightedness in the "bottom line" mindset that appears to me to be peculiarly self-defeating (ie, how are those supposed stars expected to emerge from a desert? surely it would be better business to, as it were, fertilise the field?)

 

[Gary Wassner]

So much depends upon your own editor. As it happens, I have a great editor for my children's mysteries. She became my editor by default, as the original editor who acquired my manuscript was subsequently fired. We had already worked together for months on it, so I was wary of what was to come next. As well, the program of books that I was to be a part of was tabled for 18 months.

Right on the button, my editor contacted me to begin again on completing the project. At first I balked at the editorial requests. A new editor, a new mindset. But she was aware of my book all along, as she is the senior editor at my publishing house, so it wasn't all new to her. As it turns out,her suggestions were right on the money. I just finished the final rewrite and submitted it today. She promised me that there will be no more changes requested and that all that's left now are minor things which she will work on and send to me for approval.

My point here was that I would not have realized what was wrong with my original text at all. My resistance to changing it at first was strong, but then I just decided that she might possibly know better. My voice remained the same, the story didn't change. But now it works.

If there were any great sci/fi editors today I am sure they could also direct the talents of their authors. Editors can really add the touch that an author needs, the direction and the guidance.

I write children's mysteries by default. I originally intended to write an adventure with a slight background of a mystery. They wanted a true mystery with my characters and setting,so I rewrote it for that, but the first book I had to back into the mystery aspect. It was much harder to do that. The second and third were mysteries from the start and much easier to write.

The industry needs good editors. I believe there are plenty of good authors around. It's the combination that sometimes yields perfection.

 

[KatG]

Interesting, nevertheless, KatG - thanks for the observations. I found them very interesting. I guess the problem always is that publishers are essentially in it for the business, and writers (and hopefully readers) are in it for something else. These things aren't necessarily incompatible, in the best circumstances both interests can run fruitfully together; but there is often a shortsightedness in the "bottom line" mindset that appears to me to be peculiarly self-defeating (ie, how are those supposed stars expected to emerge from a desert? surely it would be better business to, as it were, fertilise the field?)

Actually, I would say that publishing would be in much better shape if it were much more businesslike and only interested in the bottom line. Yes, a lot fewer books would be published and for us newcommers, it would be much harder to break in, but the business would be a lot more profitable and stable. More monochrome, but stable.

It is because publishers are not just concerned with the bottom line that a lot of the problems come up. Because they are under a lot of pressure from outside forces -- corporate owners, booksellers and media -- they do get trapped in a bestseller mentality, which has apparently been a problem since the seventies when megablockbusters in fiction publishing started. But they do gamble on a lot of works, and try to give selected favorites time to develop, which often results in big losses which make things worse. Most of the people who work in book publishing, and certainly in fiction publishing, care immensely about books and may even feel a higher obligation than corporate profits. But that doesn't mean they always pick the best strategies.

What I keep hoping to see more of is publishers trying to bump the sales of each title on their list not to bestseller size but up the next level of sales, through strategic marketing, encouraging offers to booksellers, and so on. There are some publishers doing some of this -- Hearst/William Morrow did it with Dennis Lehane's "Mystic River" with great results, but not enough. It's still too reactive rather than strategic. But Harry Potter #6 will be not only a boon for Scholastic, but other sf/f publishers as well, and perhaps this will buoy sf up in the end. My big fear is that the growth of the fantasy market will cause publishers to try too much mainstreaming of the genres (which may have been the goal in S&S UK's dissolution of their imprint,) which would be bad news for both genres, but particularly sf, because mainstream acceptance isn't high enough and they'd lose genre fan support. But the sf/f publishers would like to get bigger audiences -- they feel the lack of respect for genre authors too.

Gary -- there are a lot of good editors out there, but one problem they have is that they have less and less time to edit, to really work with authors on development and even line-editing. The average time to publish a work used to be one year. Now they can and regularly do publish titles in five-seven months. That means a lot less time to work on manuscripts, and less experience for younger editors serving their apprenticeships. The amount of administrative and organizational duties expected of editors has also increased, giving them even less time to spend on editing. It's the main reason that freelance editing has expanded as a business. Many of my clients were published authors who wanted a more in-depth editorial process than their editors could provide. The unpublished ones were dealing with the fact that with less time to edit works, publishers need works that are nearly ready to go to print and require little editing, so authors have to polish their stories to even get in the door.

 

[Gary Wassner]

KatG, though I know you have much more experience with the industry than I do, I think the issue you bring up with regard to the readiness of a manuscript and the time a publisher needs to get it ready and into print, differs dramatically from publisher to publisher. My children's book publisher only does children's books. They are very focused, which is good for them and good for their authors. Distribution is excellent and guaranteed. But aside from that, my editor told me last year that she needed 18 months to get the book we were working on ready for publication, and it is now scheduled for september 2006. She told me that we will start working around now, and right on schedule, she contacted me with the editorial changes she wanted. At my publisher, they offer programs of books, shipped in groups, to all the libraries and schools around the country. They complete about 20 books for an age group, 6th grade for example, and ship them all at once.

I just finished my final edit and I made all the changes she suggested, or almost all of them. A few I did not totally agree with, and I modified those parts of the book rather than delete them. I changed one particular thread that was important to me, to a narrative and descriptive section, as opposed to one that influences the action. But now it's in her hands. She will do the final changes and then send it to me for approval. But we will be done 18 months before the scheduled release date. I am not sure why that amount of time is required - it seems like an awfully long time to me - but that's what they need.

I am thrilled with the business like way this has been handled. It actually gives me confidence in the process, and confidence in my publisher. They are supposed to be the business end of this transaction. I am the creative end, and my editor is right in the middle, both creative and business like.

 

[KatG]

It does indeed depend on the publisher and the gameplan the publisher has to release a title, and a lot of other circumstances. I'm just talking in general about the publishing industry as a whole. Your publisher may be trying to take advantage of the school calendar, may have to take more time because the original program was temporarily benched, or because of whatever system they have for copyediting and production. But in general, editors have a lot less time to edit and work with authors than they used to. That's why I was able to stay in business doing freelance editing. We're still straying from the topic, aren't we? Ah well.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Ah yes, the topic! We write Epic Fantasy, and we love to write it because it allows our imaginations to soar and it allows us to explore all of those grand and uplifting qualities that we read about in newspapers once in a while and watch on tv when those human interest special segments appear, but we so rarely see in the course of our own lives. We write Epic Fantasy because we can escape into another world where anything is possible, and as an author you are bound to nothing but coherence. The only rules are consistency and coherence. We write Epic Fantasy because it empowers us by doing so because we can pose questions and create conflicts and generate arguments and issues that we don't have to resolve all at once, that we don't have to argue for logically, that we don't have to prove. We write Epic Fantasy because we understand that it is speculative fiction. We write Epic Fantasy because we love to dream and we believe that in so doing, we can actually answer some of those fundamental questions that plague us eternally. We write Epic Fantasy because we are passionate people with passionite ideas. We write Epic Fantasy because we cannot help it!

 

[KatG]

Okay, I'd probably go along with some of that. But I don't agree that epic fantasy or any fantasy is speculative fiction. That term was floated around as a possible new alternative for science fiction, which did not take for the most part. Then fantasy fans seized on it as part of a bid to try and make science fiction just a sub-genre of fantasy (see, it's all the same and we'll call it all speculative fiction!) And that didn't work, though occasionally someone uses the term that way, say for a sf/f website and such. Then there was a purist speculative fiction faction that insisted speculative fiction was a particular sub-genre that only certain types of sf stories belonged to. I got lectured about that one once at a conference, but it was never clearly defined what the sub-genre consisted of.

You could certainly say that some sf stories are speculative in that they speculate on what form the future of this reality may take. But fantasy doesn't speculate about what will be; it makes up realities. So it seems to me to be a pointless term to apply to fantasy and an unnecessary term in general. As for epic fantasy, I suspect it may morph into some other term soon, as all these shifts in sub-genre names and campaigns for new names are going on, but perhaps we'll keep it, inaccurate as it is.

 

[Gary Wassner]

not based on fact or investigation; ideal; theoretical; not established by demonstration; contemplative.

I would not hesitate to say that I write speculative fiction.

 

[KatG]

not based on fact or investigation; ideal; theoretical; not established by demonstration; contemplative.

I would not hesitate to say that I write speculative fiction.

Yeah, but using that dictionary definition of the word, all fiction is speculative, so why not say fiction instead of adding on speculative?

Part of the reason I don't like the term was that it was deliberately invented for an agenda to replace the term science fiction, which I see as totally unnecessary. Some of its proponents wanted to change science fiction to speculative fiction in hopes of gaining more literary mainstream acceptance -- to give sf a more palatable, less genre-associated label. Of course, the mainstream pays no attention to it all; most people who aren't sf/f fans would have no idea what you mean by speculative fiction. And most genre fans have a fuzzy idea of what it means, at best.

And really, can we call epic fantasy theoretical? Philosophical, okay. Contemplative, some of it. Idealistic, sometimes. But theoretical? Certainly no more than any other kind of fiction. (See, now I'm on topic but still debating nit-picky details.)

 

[Gary Wassner]

I used to teach speculative philosophy, and I enjoyed the category because it incorporated some of the technical and some of the speculative in it. No one ever really undestood what speculative philsosphy was, and that suited me just fine. It's a categorization that avoids categorizing. The fact that is is vague and open ended is what appeals to me about it. Speculative fiction does the same for me, though it doesn't really mean very much to many people.

 

[KatG]

Okay, I get the concept but I still can't like the term.

I think fantasy authors, sf authors, and particularly epic fantasy authors, if they are published in the genre and trying to sell to the genre fan audience, can be really great ambassadors. The cool thing about the sf/f community is it really is a community. It's more far flung and bigger than it used to be, but it's still there, and it is a welcoming community that realizes outsiders see them as weird and don't care and invite those outsiders in anyway. It's a genre where fans are passionate, (occasionally too passionate,) and authors often have a close relationship with fans. So I'm all for authors shouting from the rooftops that they write sf or epic fantasy, and if non-fans roll their eyes, we lecture them on the history of literature from Chaucer to Shakespeare to Mary Shelley to Jules Verne to Tolkein to Asimov and on up, until they're about to pass out, and they look ridiculous for insulting our genres and claiming they know anything about literary writing.

That's one strategy, the other is movies. Guy Gavriel Kay's novel is apparently definitely in the works, and that's exciting because it's an epic fantasy that wasn't written eons ago. (Okay, twenty years ago, but it's a start.) And Neil Gaiman has a movie at Sundance. Of course he's worked in British t.v. and film for years, but again, good for us. While a lot of epic fantasy could never cross over to film, a few does increase mainstream interest and acceptance. Which is not why we write it of course, but does effect who we're hopefully selling it to.

So I can't like speculative or other vague, substitute terms because for me, it just sounds like we're ashamed of what we're writing and trying to dress it up so the popular kids will like us. And I think that hurts us. But I understand you're coming at it from a different, philosophy theory perspective.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Glad you understand, and I too am very proud to say that I write Epic Fantasy. In fact, when anyone asks me, that's exactly what I say. If I said fantasy, their minds unfortunately go in the very wrong direction, and if I said speculative fiction they wouldn't have a clue in the world what I meant.

Regardless, I am very very proud to be an author of Epic Fantasy for all the reasons you stated and more. It suits ME. It suits my temperament and my psyche. It is what I love to do.

 

[Susan Boulton]

Just wondering Gary what your thoughts are on Epic fantasy with a small "f" no dragons, elves wizards etc... everything that we are told fantasy should be about. What about stories about other places, other worlds where all the trappings of epic fantasy are not the answer to the quest or problem. Yet the story is still epic, still fantasy by the fact that there are elements that could not exist in this world, that the land/world created in the story is fantasy?

Though I love reading "traditional epic fantasy" I don't like writing it very much, I much prefer to anchor my work in the possible, far more than in the impossible.....

 

[Gary Wassner]

Mieville? Gaiman?

Personally, I can enjoy all types of Epics, but I don't know that I would call them Epic Fantasy. I am confused as to what to call Perdido St. and I am likewise more confused about American Gods. I don't know that I really need to categorize them so succinctly. But I suppose doing so helps us to understand where to place them in the heirarchy of our memories (or our reading lists).

What though would make American Gods epic? What makes Perdido St epic? When I think of epic I think of more than just another world. Epic is grand or on a grand scale.

Fantasy, on the other hand, could be what you are describing it seems. A fantasy can be on any scale.

A reviewer many years ago reviewed a book of mine and he began with a disclaimer that 'I am not a fan of Epic Fantasy. I prefer the real to the make believe.' Of course I was immediately discouraged and I thought that perhaps I should stop reading at that point. But he considered my book a 'Fine piece of Epic Fantasy', though he didn't like it.

What is real? Is the fact that science fiction is supposedly based upon possibility thus real? No, it's still speculative, though perhaps possible.

The difference is that fantasy is not possible, not meant to be possible and not making an effort to appear to be possible now or in the future or the past. It is pure in that sense, and I love it for that reason.

A book like American Gods, though a brilliant piece of literature in its own right, left me wanting much more. It may have been fantasy, but it was not fantastic!

So for me, the scope and scale of the fantastic is so appealing. As I said, I can certainly enjoy and respect many many kinds of writing, but I don't know that I would call them epic unless the some of the elements that I mentioned are present.

 

[KatG]

Here we go again. Okay, these are market terms. They break down like this:

Genre fantasy: Fantasy works that are published by genre fantasy publishers expressly for the genre fan audience. What is a genre fantasy work? Fiction containing fantastic magical or supernatural elements for which there is no science/reality-based explanation. This is also the definition of non-genre fantasy published by non-genre publishers.

Market sub-genres of genre fantasy:

Epic fantasy
Urban/contemporary fantasy
Comic fantasy
Dark fantasy
Alternative dimension fantasy (for want of a better name)

Epic fantasy -- traditional, classical fantasy, originally called high fantasy or sword and sorcery fantasy. Epic in scope, high stakes plots, often involving VIP's (kings) and war conflicts, often with large casts. But the number one defining characteristic of the epic fantasy sub-genre is that it be a pre-industrial setting, whether it be a historical Earth setting or an imaginary realm setting. Essentially, if the setting is similar to Earth culture in the 1800's or later or in an imagined future time, it's not usually considered epic fantasy. If the setting is similar to Earth's ancient, medieval, Renaissance or Englightment periods of history, it's epic fantasy. Tolkein, Jordan, Brooks, Goodkind, Feist, Hobb, Cherryh, Martin, et al. are epic fantasy writers. Gary is an epic fantasy writer. In fact, Gary is possibly the definition of epic fantasy writer. Epic fantasy does not have to have dwarves, elves or dragons, though these are commonly used in the sub-genre.

Urban/contemporary fantasy -- they could never come up with a good name for this one; initially it was a catch-all category. In the eighties, it started being called urban fantasy, even though much of it wasn't urban in nature, to tie it in with the excitement over cyberpunk sf. But writers hate that name, so contemporary fantasy became more used. It is fantasy stories set in a post-industrial setting -- 1800's on up into the future. So Barbara Hambly's "They Hunt the Night" about vampires in late 1800's England, is considered "urban" fantasy, not epic fantasy. Neil Gaiman's "American Gods" and "Neverwhere" which take place in the current day are considered urban or contemporary fantasy. Urban/contemporary fantasy may have elves, dwarves, pixies, dragons and whatnot, or not, as it please you.

Comic fantasy -- fantasy focused on being satirical or humorous. Terry Pratchett and his Discworld novels is the leader in this sub-genre.

Dark fantasy -- Essentially, most horror, that which contains fantasy elements, is a sub-genre of dark fantasy, but horror is usually considered a separate market category of stories intended to scare and horrify. Dark fantasy stories are intended to spook and titillate. They are ominous, noir and Gothic in atmosphere, focus and tone, and sometimes gross and bloody. Tanith Lee is one of the most well known dark fantasy writers. Technically, China Mieville is a dark fantasy writer, though it could be argued he is an urban/contemporary fantasy writer. (More on that below.)

Alternative dimension fantasy -- There is a group of novels that are not comic or dark but don't quite fit in the pre-industrial/post-industrial division either. These are alternative dimension fantasies in which a person from the modern world slips into an epic fantasy realm. They've never really been given a formal name or separate sub-genre. Instead, they are usually thrown in with comic fantasy, if they are comic, which many of them are, or epic fantasy, or occasionally contemporary fantasy. Donaldson's Thomas Covenent series for instance, which is one of these, is put in the epic fantasy category usually. I mention the group here just to avoid confusion.

Recently, writers and fans have been mobolizing to create a new sub-genre, or rather gather titles from dark fantasy and urban fantasy into a new category. It has been given the unfortunate name of the New Weird, though other names have been floating around. It is essentially dark fantasy with industrial or futuristic elements, like Mieville, and urban fantasy with a noir touch, like possibly Gaiman or Laurell K. Hamilton. Whether the New Weird will become an established official market sub-genre is uncertain, but publishers have started to use the term, and that is how chick lit got started. Plus urban fantasy could really use a new name, but it is doubtful contemporary fantasy writers who don't write noir will really fit into a New Weird category. So there may end up being even more new terms.

But basically, you can set a fantasy in the modern world, or even a futuristic world, you can have elves and dragons or leave them out, and it can be epic in scope or very small, and other writers have already done it before you. And there are already loosely enclosed categories for you to be slotted into.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Oh, but we all so love these categories, don't we? How would we know what we are reading otherwise?

Yes, I am an author of Epic Fantasy, and I take that as a compliment, KatG, that you emphasized that. I hope you meant it as one, or at least not as a criticism. Today, you just never know. The resistence to 'derivative' literature seems to be almost de rigeur by some. In my opinion, just about everything is derivative in one way or another, and it doesn't particularly bother me. When some aspects of something work so well....

 

[KatG]

It means I'm reading about trees right now and they're very epic. I'll give a fuller explanation when I've finished reading about the trees.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Ah, I see. Just remember that according to Grace Slick of the Jefferson Airplane, the human name doesn't mean s... to a tree. Now, she may not have been acquainted with any of these kinds of trees. Although in the 60's and 70's with all that was going on, you just never know.