Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe differences are cosmetic though.

Not always, no. General subject matter commonality does not equate to only & mere cosmetic differences. Balb just put down ways a vanilla fantasy novel could be quite different (tweaks to magic, world composition), both in terms of composition and quality.
 
To be honest, I appreciate that this just doesn't seem to be your thing, but since it isn't, I'm not sure of how else to explain it to you, except the terms I've already used. Sorry for that.

Could it just be that people like magic? Why does there have to be a deeper meaning?

I used to read these years ago, the only author I recall was Lawrence Watt-Evans.

Why do I remember him?

He thought through the magic, how it worked and what it's implications were.  In one book there were about six different ways of doing magic, the hero works through them all, and all of them were fairly well thought out.  I remember it being quite interesting.

In another he addressed the implications of a new magical discovery, and its impact on the society.  That too was quite fun.

Plus his characters lived in a world where people seemed to act credibly given the givens, if you see what I mean.

Would I like him now?  I don't know, but I think that why I did is linked to why others like the genre still.  A good trad fantasy novel takes familiar ingredients and makes them fresh, the skill is in using the parameters of the form well.

Or something, that's my guess anyway.  If I'm right by the way and the skill is in clever use of familiar ingredients (which is how the Blues work by and large) then without an awareness and appreciation of those ingredients I suspect it would be a struggle to know when it was being done well.

I'm not 100% sure that "vanilla fantasy" (or "van fan", as all the cool kids are calling it) and "fat fantasy" aren't justa phrases for "fantasy we don't like", in the way that "speculative fiction" inevitably equates to "science fiction we like, not that Star Trek shit".

In particular I was dwelling last night on the Lyonesse series by Jack Vance, trying to decide whether it was vanfan or not. I think it is, but it's still a work of near genius. The things that make it "good", IMO, are the prose style, the dialogue and the incidental colour. The plotting and characterisation are fairly fantasy-standard, but Vance's ear for melifluous verbiage and eye for exotic detail elevates it above the pack.

In terms of shit-but-popular books in general, I think that readers fill in a lot of detail for themselves and the more vanilla it is is, the easier it is to do. To an extent, their very crapitude allows readers more leeway, perhaps a greater buy-in because they can put more of themselves in there and have less of the pesky author bumming their trip with his/her literary fiddle faddle. Maybe.

Some readers, of course, like literary fiddle faddle.

Ned

I was discussing this with my GF last night (she who has recently rid herself of a huge fat fantasy collection) and she listed the following things :

1) Pure escapism comprising exotic worlds that are different but easy to get into (something of a balancing act) and ease of identification with the protagonists (whereby you can imagine yourself exploring these places and being on the quest... quests are evidently quite a selling point).

2) Familiarity.  I read SF for the sake of encountering The Other so it was natural for me to look at the familiarity of fantasy as a similar psychological aesthetic whereby people would want to slip into a world they know.  In truth, the familiarity is largely an economic factor.  The age at which people generally get into fantasy is around 12 or so... not quite a teen and not a child either (which explains why Japanese RPGs are so full of tweenagers)... this is also a time when you don't have a) a huge amount of disposable income and b) much knowledge of books or c) ways to find out about cool new books.  As a result, on a trip into a book shop, people are likely to want familiarity not of content but of quality and experience so they go for a book "a bit like that one that they enjoyed that time" and if it's a big long one then even better.  This explains the high output of fantasy writers and the extremely long series they write... brand loyalty is a BIG issue in fantasy town.  This continues into adulthood as people don't suddenly become more knowledgeable about books or start reading reviews on websites.

This also explains why the online reviewing scene is so heavily dominated by SF and fantasy gets such short shrift.


I think Balbinus' aesthetics of fantasy also play a part but some of it (particularly the coherence of the magic) puts me in mind of the kind of SF itches that China Meville's fiction scratches by treating magic as a natural science.

You're also right Ned, Vanilla Fantasy and Fat Fantasy ARE negative terms.  Fans tend to call it Epic or High Fantasy so as to distinguish it from Sword and Sorcery-style short and punchy novels (which I actually think is now pretty much the sole preserve of the D&D-school of authorship.  I can't remember the last time I saw a 300 page fantasy novel full of action).

Ah yes, and characterisation also seems to function differently.  In drama or SF "characterisation" is frequently one medium through which to say something about the human condition.  This doesn't apply in fantasy, "good characterisation" seems to lead to engaging characters no matter how cliched their characterisation might be.  So it's perfectly acceptable to create a warm-hearted princess who is as wet as a fish's wet bits.

Plot and character are deeply entwined - the schematic quest plots in vanfan (the new sf/f buzzword that everybody's using) almost require cardboard cut-out... er, I mean, archetypal characterisation.

Ned

Nobody's using vanfan so stop trying to encounrage it's use you naughty person.

What do you mean by schematic plots?  Is that different from saying that there are stock characters and stock plots and that the two have to fit together or it doesn't make sense.

No, no different at all.

Ned

I think Ned has a point in the other thread that the sf comparator to vanfan probably isn't people like Egan or Reynolds, it's stuff like Star Wars novels or Star Trek novels, plus maybe the Honor Harrington stuff.

We're not comparing like with like, we're comparing stock vanfan with high end sf.

By its nature, vanfan is closer to a Timothy Zahn sf novel than a Greg Egan one.

I agree that they're not like for like but that's kind of my point.

In fantasy, the hacks seem to have taken over the asylum to an extent that isn't true of Sf (probably because SF's not that popular a genre so it can afford to have niche aesthetics).

See? All the cool people are using it!

vanfan - it's the new new wierd!

EDIT: I did like "vantasy" as well, but I'd like to reserve that term for murals of chain-mail bikini girls airbrushed onto actual vans.

Ned

Why continue to read the same type of novel again & again? Odds are it'll be something you'll like. Familiar, comfortable, entertaining. Less risk and effort than finding a type of novel new to you and understanding it enough to enjoy it.

Romance novels come to mind. They get cranked out, bought, read, sold, resold.

I'm not like this with fantasy (or romance) novels but for example I have a similar liking for giant monster movies and Mystery! programs. If I tune in it's almost a sure bet I'll enjoy the show regardless of what's on.

(edit: beaten to the punch by Mr. A's gf it seems :hehe: )

World Fantasy Award Winners:

2005 - Jonathon Strange & Mr Norrell (Susannah Clarke)
2004 - Tooth & Claw  (Jo Walton)
2003 - Facts of Life (Graham Joyce)
2002 - The Other Wind (Ursula K LeGuin)
2001 - Declare (Tim Powers)
2000 - Thraxas (Martin Scott) (whoa! although also cool!)
1999 - The Antelope Wife (Louis Erdrich)
1998 - The Physiognomy (Jeffrey Ford)
1997 - Godmother Night (Rachel Pollack)
1996 - The Prestige (Christopher Priest)

There's your comparison.

Ned

Okay... fair enough.