As I said elsewhere, I'm reading the new Tad Williams for review and I'm struggling to see the point of it.  It's not terrible it's just that not very much happens, no ideas are explored, lots of proper names are bandied about and the pages tick past like the seconds of our lives.

So, given that this is a gaming forum and gaming's fantasy dominated, I wonder if people could help me understand the attraction of epic fantasy novels.  What's the attraction?  why do you read them?

Well, before you made me look like a fool in the other thread, I said that Well, maybe it's an appealing backdrop for fairly standard dramatic situations. Pulp sf is similar - it's usually cowboys & indians type stuff with rockets and ray guns - in another thread someone mentioned Battle of the Planets which, as any ful no, is The Magnificent Seven in sf drag.

I would venture that as sf seems to naturally blend with detective stories (eg, Jon Courtney Grimwood, P F Hamilton's Mindstar series, lots of stuff by Vance and Asimov) fantasy seems to blend with soapy romance - that's why these series go on for fucking ever. Who is the current king-lord of Shanara is as interesting to fans as who is now the landlord of the Queen Vic.

I don't really know, though, as I don't read much fantasy these days.

Ned

Pretty much all of Stross' novels are spy stories in drag and the spy story's just a variation on the detective.

I don't read much fantasy either so I'm kind of adrift in trying to work out whether Williams' book is good fantasy.  I could just write what I think of it but that's kind of dull... I want to engage with the values of the genre.  But other than "it's familiar so you don't have to think too much in order to get into it" I really can't find any value to it... I honestly don't understand why someone would pay money to read this.

You might be right about long running fiction being phatic in the way that soaps and sports are but that applies to any hack fiction, not particularly to fantasy and I doubt that the genre tropes are all about being as bland as possible.

I don't think it does apply to all long running fiction. Stuff like Tom Clancy or, say, the Rebus/Wexford/Morse novels, most recurring detective novels, in fact, don't have that "continuing saaagaaa" appeal. Those novels tend to stand more-or-less alone until the author gets bored and tips their guy over the Richenbach Falls. (NOTE: I don't read these much either, so I could be wrong.)

I think vanfan (as everybody calls it these days) also appeals to renfairies who get off on the whole aesthetic of the thing. The stories don't really matter much to them, they are concentrating on the backdrop. This is true of a great deal of sf too. I suspect it's the case in stuff like Honor Harrington, but I don't read those either.

Maybe I'm not the best guy to field this question... (although it's one that interests me, too).

Ned

It comes down to familiarity, I think. I can't really sell you on them, because I think it isn't a taste for everyone. Either you get into it, or you don't. Vanilla fantasy (as it pertains to literature, not gaming, I suppose I should mention here I'm only discussing the one) for a lot of folks, I think, is a warm blanket, a "guilty pleasure", as it were. There's a comfort, I think, in reading about familiar tropes and ideas. For example, I'm not a Trekkie, but I can sit and watch TNG because I grew up with it syndicated in my house every Saturday—there's a familiarity of theme there, if not character, that I can jump right into. There's no difficult initiation, no learning curve. It's there, and it's available.
 
Intellectually overpowering? Likely, no. Then again, not everything has to. I read George R.R. Martin and David Gemmell, but I also read Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Homer, my poetry books, and Dante. They entertain in different ways. And frankly, there are some days where I don't want to read something heavy. I want to be around familiar old friends, themes, and stories.
 
And there is such a thing as bad vanilla fantasy. In general, a poor fiction writer is a poor fiction writer, no matter his chosen subject. For example, I find that I can stand familiar, even generic characters, but not boring ones. Hell, they can even be predictable, so long as it's all in good rollicking fun and adventure. I still watch John Wayne movies and love them, even though I may know the basics of how things will likely go.
 
Plus, there's the idea that if you go with the basic, easily-recognized themes in vanilla fantasy, you can get the background out of the way a bit and focus more on characters and actual story. YMMV on that one (or on all, I suppose).

Actually, after googling, it appears that the term "vanilla fantasy" (aside from body lotions) is only used by gamers.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou might be right about long running fiction being phatic in the way that soaps and sports are but that applies to any hack fiction, not particularly to fantasy and I doubt that the genre tropes are all about being as bland as possible.

Ned's right, this isn't so for other genres.  I read a lot of crime fiction and although characters may continue one to the next plots don't, there is no neverending saga.  

Why are you reviewing this by the way?  You don't seem to me a natural choice of reviewer for this, it seems a bit like asking you to review a romance novel, it's out of your field I'd have thought.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalActually, after googling, it appears that the term "vanilla fantasy" (aside from body lotions) is only used by gamers.

I think fat fantasy is the term used for these kind of novels.

Quote from: Zachary The FirstIt comes down to familiarity, I think. I can't really sell you on them, because I think it isn't a taste for everyone. Either you get into it, or you don't. Vanilla fantasy (as it pertains to literature, not gaming, I suppose I should mention here I'm only discussing the one) for a lot of folks, I think, is a warm blanket, a "guilty pleasure", as it were. There's a comfort, I think, in reading about familiar tropes and ideas. For example, I'm not a Trekkie, but I can sit and watch TNG because I grew up with it syndicated in my house every Saturday—there's a familiarity of theme there, if not character, that I can jump right into. There's no difficult initiation, no learning curve. It's there, and it's available.

  You're not going to sell me but what I'm after is what people get out of it subjectively.  The talk of familiarity and phatic discourse explains the popularity of fiction but it doesn't really encapsulate its charms to fans of the genre.

  When I was a teenager I read it because I was a gamer.  So reading Curse of the Azure Bonds was like sitting in on a gaming session with the added benefit that they'd occasionally mention Elminster or Waterdeep.  But once I bought a proper SF novel I never looked back.  However, most people who read fantasy aren't gamers so clearly it being a bit like sitting in on a game session doesn't really do it for them and surely no one actually says to themselves "I think I'll pick up that new Tad Williams today, I won't have to think at all while reading that book!" even if, in fact, the complete lack of anything different, unfamiliar or challenging might perfectly explain why people like his books.

Quote from: BalbinusWhy are you reviewing this by the way?  You don't seem to me a natural choice of reviewer for this, it seems a bit like asking you to review a romance novel, it's out of your field I'd have thought.

  Orbit books sent it to me for free and I don't want to piss them off lest they don't send me something when they release something good (though their output is mostly fat fantasy so why they're called Orbit rather than Dragonflame publishing I don't know).

  They sent me a huge box of fat fantasy novels a few weeks ago and I've given most of them away but as the Tad Williams is a big name, a big release and quite new I thought I'd give it a bash.  I'm also genuinely trying to get inside the head of the fantasy fan.  It's easy to sit back and sneer and talk about "fat fantasy" and "stupid elves" and so on but I thought I'd try and read a proper work of fat fantasy with an open mind.

  So I've sat down, with an open mind and... nothing.  There's some stuff about the Fairy Kingdoms encroaching on human lands as in Exalted but I'm really struggling to get why you'd pay to read this book rather than stare at a blank wall.

  Rather than just review the book ("It's shit... take up skag instead.  It'll be better for you in the long run") I've decided to try and wring a more sociological article out of the experience.

No, but as humans, conciously, or subconciously, we do have our comfort zones. And I think that does figure in large part why folks pick up Fiction Subject A over B.
 
And the other bit is, pure escapism. Hawt elf chicks, master swordsmen, mysterious scrolls, last-ditch heroic stands, the rise of kings and madmen? Sho' nuff. For Honor Harrginton fans, it might be epic space battles and the pageantry of a space monarchy. For Harlequin romance readers, it might be ripping bodices and unrequited love. They get the basics, then they get to the good stuff.
 
People don't just read as an intellectual exercise, they read to see themselves or be inspired by a story.  For a lot of folks, the fantastic does that for them.

I'm familiar with that explanation too but it always strikes me as counter-intuitive because if you want escapism, why do you keep reading the same kind of book over and over again?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI'm familiar with that explanation too but it always strikes me as counter-intuitive because if you want escapism, why do you keep reading the same kind of book over and over again?

Everyone has their own particular favorite fantasy, I suppose. Some want it set in the stars, other in a fantasy world, others on the deck of a British frigate or in a mutant-torn comic book city.
 
Stories can have the same basic building blocks or even premise, but be presented in a radically different way (like how comic book fans get excited when a new writing/artist team takes over their favorite hoary old superhero). For plenty of folks, what they find therein is enough to keep them coming back. Similarities aside (and boy, does vanilla fantasy have plenty), most fantasy worlds have their own twists to throw in, and it’s those changes, those variations, those different characters, leads, portrayals that keep them coming back. As much as it may seem to blend together to you, vanilla fantasy is not truly monolithic—just—familiar.

The differences are cosmetic though.

Ok, as to whether a particular fat fantasy novel is a good or bad example of its genre I would probably ask the following questions:

Is the representation of magic interesting?  Are there any tweaks to how magic works that add flavour?

Are the characters sympathetic?  Do I care what happens to them?

Does the world depicted make sense?  Do I care about that world?

Is the plot comprehensible?  Is it interesting?

Of course, I don't actually know any fat fantasy novels that I would say yes to those things in respect of, but they seem to me the relevant questions.