What makes for a bad fantasy novel?
Now that's a pretty open ended question, with so many sub genres it's difficult to say if any one genre is better or worse than another so let's narrow that down: What makes a bad fantasy novel, in it's primary sub genre?
I'm wondering this because I personally am not a fan of G.R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series, I think he doesn't understand the logistics of medieval politics and military, he thinks 7 kingdoms would be large enough to occupy a 3000 mile long continent, and he spends a lot of time writing about nothing in particular, with few meaningful events happening (especially lately, lately being subjective with a ten year gap for some books).
The problem though is, as much as I love Tolkien, the same complaints can be leveled at his own books. But I think Tolkien was an amazing writer and I don't think that's because of nostalgia or rose tinted glasses, he accomplished what he set out to do with his books. So then what's the difference?
I think it comes down to this: Martin is trying to write a series about political intrigue and war, and yet he doesn't actually know how the logistics of a war would actually work, or how medieval politics worked, he knows enough to write a story sure but not enough to write a fantastic series. On the other hand Tolkien wanted to write a mythology, he wanted a new contemporary mythology for the British, because even their Arthurian legends were ultimately french in origin, and in working towards that goal he accomplished it, creating a setting that feels mythological. So really, what makes a bad fantasy novel, is one that fails to competently write about it's subject matter, and by the same sentiment, a great novel doesn't need to be completely competent about the subjects it's not focusing on?
tl;dr: If both Tolkien and Martin were shit at making maps and kingdoms, why do we give one a pass and the other not
Discuss?
>>48117796
Tolkien actually wanted to write about his experiences in the war, WWI and possibly throwing some intrigue in about WWII. Ultimately, he wanted to write a book about war and the human condition in war, about hardship, horror, courage, and friendship in the darkest of times, much of it based on his experiences at the Battle of the Somme.
The thing is, he didn't want to be just one among many war memoir writers of the time, so he used the language and narratives of fantasy and mythology to cloak his war story. That's where we get the Hobbit, and later the LotR from, and potentially why they're so enduring; there's an undercurrent of real-life experience coloring these fantastical events.
I can't speak about Martin because I don't know what his process is behind writing his books. I do dislike him for not knowing what the fuck he was talking about when he shit-talked Tolkien's works, but that's ultimately beside the point of what motivated him to write his narrative.
>>48119533
Okay, and I'll add an aside here;
Martin shit-talked Tolkien because Tolkien didn't portray war as "realistic." You know, without the shock and horror (and rape) and stuff. This guy says someone who fought in THE BATTLE OF THE SOMME in THE GREAT WAR doesn't know what he's talking about when he writes about war.
Point is, fuck Martin in my opinion.
>>48117796
Story that serves as an excuse to give opportunities for world exposition, instead of a world that serves as an excuse to progress the story. World should service story. Story should not service world.
If it doesn't need to be a novel, let it be a short story or a novella. Don't turn 50-100 pages of quality storytelling into a 500 page novel by adding 400 pages without adding any substance. A novella is a good thing. A collection of short stories all set in a unified world is a good thing. Filler is filler.
I am a fan of neither Tolkien nor Martin, however both wrote excellently overdescriptive text-books on how to turn their visions into satisfying screen media.
>>48119644
GRRM's novellas of Dunk and Egg are way better than the core GoT books.
>>48119644
I think that's a bad way of looking at it, an excellent example of a story that suits the world is tristram shandy, and it explicitly does that by having it duck in and out of several stories going on and simply exploring the world.
>>48119644
Story should flow from the action of characters, but to have convincing characters they have to come from a convincing world.
>>48117796
>because even their Arthurian legends were ultimately french in origin
I'll be sure to tell the Welsh that, see what they think.
>>48119778
correct me if I'm wrong but Arthurian legend as it's seen today is from "le monte de arthur" right?
>>48119778
Probably something quite angry, but no one would be able to understand them.
And what kills a lot of fantasy literature for me is PURPLE FUCKING PROSE.
I can't stand Tolkien's prose but I can tell when someone isn't even doing it well. Just because you're fantasy doesn't mean you nees to spend 5 paragraphs on every tree, piece of clothing, and meal like you're trying to fill a word count.
>>48119828
>le monte de arthur
Morte, and to put it simply 'its complicated' since all of western Europe adopted the Arthurian myths and wrote their own stories in its canon. The Arthurian cycle didn't get overly Frenchified until Lancelot was introduced by the French under Chretien de Troyes, something that happened post-Norman invasion. From there the French spread the Arthurian stories to the rest of Europe. Before then the Arthurian stories were very firmly Breton stories.
Le Morte d'Arthur was just another retelling that become popular, most likely because it was the one released closest to the advent of the printing press, but the myths had been re-examined, recycled and expanded since the 11th century. Every generation added things or twisted stuff. The Crusades brought Saracen characters into the canon, the encounters with Black African Christians brought in Sir Morien, the Germans added stuff, the Spanish did too.
Arthur didn't become French so much as it became European, and was used as a device to reflect the changes found all through Europe through the centuries.
>What makes for a bad fantasy novel?
Terribly written characters, plot holes, constant asspulls, a confusing plot, etc. At the very least you can filter out a lot of bad fantasy purely on criteria that would apply to normal bad books.
I think beyond that a lot of it comes down to personal taste.
>>48119965
Huh, learn something new every day, thanks alpharius
Allow me to speak to you of a particular series of novels. I have, sitting right here, Terry Goodkind's "Wizard's First Rule". I found this book to be mostly passable. It sets up a world I can get invested in, does some interesting things with it, presents a plot that's not "kill the bad guy" so much as it is "the bad guy has already found the magical plot mcguffins, and we need to stop him from getting the last thing he needs. If we can do this, his failure to use them correctly will stop him for us."
It creates an interesting enough world that I can buy into, has a villain that I find despicably evil but oddly believable, has an excellent take on magic being not only physical flashy spells but something as simple as the art of manipulating people, and you might be wondering, for how much praise I give this book, why am I bringing this up in a thread about bad books?
So about 3/4 of the way through this engaging quest to stop the necromancer from gaining ultimate control over the world, the protagonist is dramatically captured for no real reason by, and I really am not exaggerating here, a horrible torturous dominatrix. Then for three or four whole length chapters we are treated to a complete tonal shift consisting of "protag in his cell, being tortured by a hot babe, and being broken by it. But not completely because he's got protag power!"
If it wasn't blatantly obvious by now, I'm trying to say that we get dragged into Goodkind's personal magical realm for a good chunk of the book and it's so completely different in tone from the rest of the book that it really adds nothing to it, and in fact takes you out of the experience of the world he's crafted.
I got like a few chapters into the second book and it was mostly about evil heretic-nuns who fuck bladed-penis demons. At this point I lost interest in the series entirely. And it's a damn shame.
A good book is consistent in its tone, and delivery of the basic expectations it creates in the reader. This isn't.
>>48119714
>tristram shandy
You mean a collection of independently-solid short stories existing in a single setting? You mean that thing I specifically noted as a positive?
>>48119745
>to have convincing characters they have to come from a convincing world.
Counterpoint: convincing characters in an unbelievable world? Terry.... Pratchett... *Drops Mic*
