Page 2 of 2
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:08 pm
by wayfriend
It does appear as if some people have come to expect their literature to be ... unliterary.
Perhaps too many people demand that the fantasy (or sci-fi) genre produce the kind of glorp that other people then criticise the genre for producing. And then are turned off if someone dares to produce something profound and well-written.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:38 pm
by Vraith
I like the verbosity...unlike Tolkien's or Dickens'. The only reason anyone notices he uses certain words a lot is because they're words they probably had to look up...every author uses certain words a lot, most just use normal boring ones a lot, so no one notices.
The words make the world.
I dare anyone to write great fantasy using only words and structure found in Danielle Steele.
That being said, it's not easy/light reading...so I don't read Donaldson when I want light.
And everyone has the right to hate the books...but HLT is right: you can't blame hating it on the writer when you obviously don't understand what you've read.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:45 pm
by wayfriend
Dug this up today. Thought it beared on the topic.
It is this structural looseness, this wavering between two sets of epistemological standards, that makes the first Covenant trilogy such a puzzle for many classes of readers. The self-consciously literary reader, who is most likely to appreciate the elements of psychodrama and ‘as-if’ dream-narrative, is also likely to turn up his nose at the fantasy elements. The fantasy geek, on the other hand, is often repelled by the unheroic hero, the gaping holes in the world-building, and other flagrant departures from the template so successfully established by Tolkien’s mere imitators.
... In any given year since 1977, fantasy publishers have released a lot more books like The Sword of Shannara than like Lord Foul‘s Bane. In fact, Donaldson has the curious distinction of being perhaps the least imitated major author in the genre.
This is from a
really good opinion piece I found. It seems to do a good job of calling out the good and the bad in Donaldson's prose.
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:03 am
by Rigel
Tolkien is usually criticized more for poor plot development. You've got some nice, rising tension, and then the heroes stop for a month of frolicking picnics in Lothlorien with the Elves. Then, it's back to the story, and...
Or for the novel-length epilogue that most writers would have put into about 2 or 3 pages worth of stuff. You know, everything after Mt. Doom.
Still, that same stuff is what a lot of his fans admire so much. In the end, Middle Earth seems a much more real world because of things like that.
So all in all, it really does come down to taste (what a shocker, right?).
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:57 am
by CovenantJr
wayfriend wrote:Perhaps too many people demand that the fantasy (or sci-fi) genre produce the kind of glorp that other people then criticise the genre for producing. And then are turned off if someone dares to produce something profound and well-written.
Browse the Fantasy section of the NaNoWriMo forums. A few weeks ago, I saw someone there say (to paraphrase) 'I like fantasy to be predictable and cliched. It's not fantasy otherwise.' I've seen people criticise fantasy novels for nothing worse than not containing elves or dragons. I didn't realise until I joined that forum just how many fantasy readers are incredibly conservative.