# The Fantasy Section in the Book Store (And Why Most of it Bores Me)



## Philip Overby (Mar 31, 2011)

I like to visit book stores.  Just something I like to do.  I always make a bee-line for the fantasy section as soon as I get there.  Usually, I am faced with a monumental task.  Staring blank faced at a bunch of names I don't know, with a bunch of titles that sound droll, with a bunch of synopses that bore me to tears.

Why is it that the fantasy section (of all the sections) seems to be full of so many generic books?  Seriously.  Go into a book store.  Pick a random author you don't know.  Does the book sound interesting?  

I have to say, Amazon (as much as I hate to admit it) has saved me probably thousands of dollars on books.  Why?  Because of their recommendations.  It's sad to say that I trust readers' reviews from Amazon much more than I trust a blurb from some random author who I've also never heard of or a professional book reviewer.  

It's sad, because I really love fantasy.  But this is something I've just always noticed.  I'd say in any given book store, that only about 1 percent of the fantasy books they have on the shelf are books I'd read.  I'm an extremely picky reader.  It takes a lot to impress me.  Who are reading these books?  And why are they on the shelves?  I swear, I must see the exact same books that no one is buying in the same places everywhere I go.  

Does anyone else feel this way sometimes?  Am I having too high of expectations?

And...rant over.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 31, 2011)

I dunno Phil... I'm way less picky then most people. I'll read just about anything fiction in general so I rarely have the problem of finding a book I like. I have noticed that the books in my collection I tend to think I WON'T like and put off reading them, I end up liking them better  then most of my "favorites". Then again I refuse to be a sheep and disregard a book simply because a bunch of people said they don't like it LOL. That right there would make me read it LMAO! I tend to go against the norm of main stream thinking so gimme your "This book sucks" selections and I'll draw my own conclusions on it. I've noticed though that most people that don't like a book don't like it for the wrong reasons  I guess that's why I'll read them before I read something by someone I know


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 31, 2011)

I don't think it's being a "sheep" if I'm picky.  I just don't want to waste my time reading something stupid.  It sounds like an elitist way of thinking, but so be it.  I don't have as much money to throw away on books that I'm not going to read to just pick up any random thing.  

Generally, when people say something sucks, they say it sucks for a reason.  Hence, the hatred against Twilight.  I don't have to read it to know that I don't want to read it.  

That's not being a sheep.  It just means I don't want to waste my time.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 31, 2011)

You're a guy most guys DON'T like Twilight and it has nothing to do with sparkly vampires LMAO! It's because there's very little action in it and it's more the life of a teenage girl's love life even if it's with a vampire.. albeit a strange vampire... Meyers really went outside the box with the whole sparkly thing LOL. I happen to like the Twilight books.. Meyers definately gave me some new ideas to toy with when it comes to the vampire anatomy LOL though I doubt I'd ever have sparkly vampires.. Her theory on male vampires being about to impregnant humans is definately an interesting one LOL. Just for the record... I don't buy books before I borrow them from the library LOL I'm picky enough to know I won't waste my money on the off chance that I won't like the book. So I borrow it first and if I like it I get me a copy. Lord knows I never have a book I wouldn't read more than once LOL


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 31, 2011)

There have been many stories about teenage girls I like.  Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, believe it or not.  Pan's Labyrinth.  Uh...Labyrinth.  Coraline.  Most of these are movies and books, but the point is I don't care if a story has no action or is about teenage girls.  If it's a good story, then it's a good story.  

Twilight honestly sounds like a Harlequin romance novel.  Maybe that's not a bad thing.  I do admire Stephanie Meyers's ability to manipulate mythology to appeal to a younger audience.

Sadly, this was done at the expense of de-fanging the vampire.  A cool monster which has sadly become weaker and weaker as time goes on.  Add werewolves to that list too.  And zombies.

And this has also happened to dragons.  Because too many mediocre writers have written books about slaying dragons so now dragons are just normal creatures instead of something that used to be awe-inspiring.  I guess that's my point.  There are just too many fantasy books that just retread the same material over and over.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 31, 2011)

Really Phil... It's not THAT bad... The type of vampire the Cullens are not a new kind. The "vegitarian" Vampire is as old as any other... If you're basing your dislike over how "soft" you think the vampires in it are.. it's not ALL vampires.. Hell it's not even all the Cullens.. and there are NO were wolves in any of the Twilight books.. the Quilliute tribe are shape shifters not were wolves.... Jacob is the only one that calls them werewolves for lack of knowing what his people are. The story really is interesting if you go into it with an open mind and not go in thinking what you do... I thought the same thing about them... you know the old thing about vamps and weres fueding. there's no werewolves in the books only shapeshifters. and the Cullens are the only "good" vampires in the story for  real, the others are "normal" vamps LOL


----------



## Chilari (Mar 31, 2011)

So these other vampires in Twilight burst into flame and burn up if they go out in daylight?

Sorry but I just can't take the Twilight books seriously. I grew up with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where vampires were badass, with certain strengths (like well, strength, speed and never aging), but also with significant weaknesses, like catching alihgt in sunlight, stake to the heart, but also not being able to cross the threshhold of a human dwelling without invitation. The fact that they were (with two exceptions) soul-less, without conscience, means that there's an extra level of menace there: you can't talk your way out of being bitten. It also mean theres a very real threat to a simple walk home alone at night. The vampires weaknesses make them something you can deal with though. You can stay inside during the night and know you're safe in the day.

At the same time the vampires with souls present two very different, very enticing characters. Angel is mysterious and attractive, he's the exception that proves the rule. He has the potential to be very dangerous indeed as Angelus, or a very good ally to have as Angel, but he's also the love Buffy can never have, not permanently, because of the nature of the curse he's under. On the other hand, Spike is badass. Everything he dies, pre-soul, is for his own benefit, including, when it suits him, working with Buffy - my favourite bit in the whole thing is when he explains why he wants to help Buffy bring Angelus down:



			
				Spike said:
			
		

> We like to talk big... vampires do. "I'm going to destroy the world." That's just tough-guy talk. Strutting around with your friends over a pint of blood. The truth is, I _like_ this world. You've got...dog racing, Manchester United. And you've got people. Billions of people walking around like Happy Meals with legs. It's all right here. But then someone comes along with a vision. With a real... passion for destruction. Angel could pull it off. Good-bye, Picadilly. Farewell, Leicester-bloody-Square.


He's badass but he's logical. And okay he has a soppy moment when he's pining over Buffy, but even with the chip in his head preventing him from harming humans, he's still badass; and in the last episode of season 7 he saves teh day in a very badass way. He's cool because he doesn't care what anyone thinks (except, arguably, Drusilla and later Buffy, but let's just forget that for now).

So while I can certainly understand the draw of a male vampire/female human relationship (which, incidently, is far more common than the other way round), the draw of the relationship is the danger and the mystery and the general badassness of _both_ partners; it can't be a good pairing if there isn't some semblance of equality between them, even if they're very different (and I think the same goes for any romance, whether one partner is supernatural or immortal or whatever or not).

But back on topic, I see where you're coming from Phil. I find the same. I browse the shelf at the library or the bookshop and I just can't seem to find anything that interests me. I tend to rely on recommendations from friends who know what I write, what I like to read, and what I like to watch. In fact, more often than not I pick films to watch or books to read on the basis that there's a particular theme I'm fond of - at the moment the two I keep coming back to is loyalty in spite of circumstances and the hate turns to love romance storyline. These could be in any book, whether it's fantasy, historical, trashy romance, mainstream, fanfic, whatever. But I also prefer fantasy, and too much fantasy is about the setting and the epic quest, not about the characters and the way they interact with each other and drive the plot.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 31, 2011)

Well as far as Twilight goes let's agree to disagree.  I've seen the movies (why, I don't know) and that was enough for me not to like it.  It's melodrama.  ToMAYto, ToMAto.  Let's call the whole thing off.

I honestly don't like most versions of vampire stories.  I like Max Shreck's version of Nosferatu.  He looked evil.  And creepy.  Not like a Tiger Beat cover boy.  And I don't like Kristen Stewart.  She always looks like a statue.  

I admit, I did like Buffy...in the beginning.  Towards the end of the series, it got...well...weird.  And not good weird.  I'll leave it at that.

I'm glad I'm not the only one Chilari.  I thought I was becoming some kind of elitist snob.  I guess the older I get, the less patience I have on something that isn't going to entertain me.  I don't read just to say I read.  I want to read something that interests me.  

Most major publishing house fantasy doesn't interest me.  Tor seems to have the best track record though.  And Bantam Spectra.  They normally put out pretty good authors.  But I'm sure there are some duds in there somewhere.

And I can't say this enough.  I agree, Chilari, I need characters.  I could care less how intricate a world is or how cool the magic looks or how shiny a sword is.  If the characters suck, then I don't care.  And just from reading the back covers, most of the characters don't jump out at me.  

Oh, one vampire (well...half) I like:  Vampire Hunter D.  Now he's cool.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 31, 2011)

I agree, I want good characters more than anything else. And yes, most of the fantasy section in my local bookstores is... awful. Just awful. I should say that I'll read anything if I don't have to pay for it, and in an age of free copies at every event, ebooks, and having way too many friends who think a good example of fantasy is _Eragon_, I know exactly which books to skip over at the store. I have my brand loyalties - Random House, namely. Which is Del Ray, Ballantine, and Bantam Spectra, as far as fantasy is concerned. I look for author reviews of authors I know wouldn't blindly put their name on something, as well. Authors I trust, and aren't the sort that I just liked one book from. China MiÃ©ville is a big one for that. I not only like everything he's published, but I also love his comments (in interviews and whatnot) when it comes to other books I like (or dislike for that matter). But he's rarely the one giving the comment, so I am left with at best, some author I've never heard of, or at worst, some author I've heard of and absolutely detest.

And, yeah, the stores carry whatever's popular. If you have a big enough store near you (I have a two story Chapters about 40 minutes by train from me), then they've likely got three or four rows of bookcases for fantasy and science fiction, full of books that aren't on the NY Times Bestseller's List at this very moment. But when I go into a small bookstore, I'm lucky to find the prequels to those books (seriously, the closest bookstore to me doesn't even carry Harry Potter books), let alone anything else. Unless it's Salvatore, then they have hundreds of those. >.< /not a Salvatore fan, at all.

Honestly, I shop online. I read the 5 star reviews and the 1 star reviews, and I consider the points of both types of posters. I don't always agree. I hate Robert Jordan, and he is near universally loved in the fantasy community. And I just have a broader range of things I can buy, because yeah, I am picky. I've read a lot and I know what I like, and I'll be honest, most modern fantasy doesn't fall into that category. It's nice to be able to weed through the new releases section by filtering out authors I hate, publishers I hate, and occasionally even key words (there was one week where fifty books were released[!] and I just filtered out any with "quest" in their description and it cut the list down to twenty). Yeah, sure, I'm probably missing a couple of great books, but if they're really great, I'll probably hear about it online eventually.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 31, 2011)

Phil the Drill said:


> Am I having too high of expectations?


Yes. Dross sells. This is another case where perception defines reality. People have been conditioned into accepting 'fantasy' as being of a certain type (preferably a trilogy) and wherever possible containing dragons. Numerous pages describing a character chewing tobacco and what trade routes that tobacco arrived by are also welcomed. Personally, I rely on word-of-mouth from trusted sources to excite me about an author. It doesn't happen very often.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Apr 1, 2011)

I don't know really you never see any of the other vampires in the snulight LMAO! But what I meant by the Cullens being the only "good" ones was they're the only ones that don't drink human blood... And that kind of vampire is in mythology just like all others. So what if Stephanie Meyers made her vampires sparkle in the sunlight, would you seriously want someone to be all "I can't stand this book cause" and it be something small that has nothing to do with the story for real if it were your work? he whole glittery vampire thing was how Meyers explained why Vampires don't go in sunlight around mortals... No one said boo when people wrote about Vampires that could walk in the sunlight which completely goes against EVERYTHING ever written about vampires, but everyone was fine with that.. I think it's stupid to judge an entire story based on one insignificant detail. I don't like the glittery vampires either, but I love the story Meyers wrote


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 1, 2011)

Sorry, not going to read it.  I should've known better than to mention Twilight.  I think Twilight and Eragon are two of the most divisive books in fantasy.  

I'm not judging the book because of its characters.  Although the Kristen Stewart character seems emotionless.  So my problem isn't with "glittery vampires."  I don't like melodrama.  And the story is melodramatic.  I've seen the movie.  And I'm assuming it's not much different from the book.


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 1, 2011)

My problem is less "glittery vampires" and more "emotionally abusive relationships". :/ Seriously, Bella is psychologically ****ed, particularly in the second book, and for all that I honestly don't mind _Twilight_ because - yeah, it is just schlocky harlequin romance that somehow got famous - I can't say I much care for the Bella-Edward relationship dynamic. It's kind of grotesque. :/ Still, not the worst. Phil, might I introduce you to the worst, it is called _Marked_, and is also a NYT Bestselling vampire series:

_"She wasn't thin like the freak girls who puked and starved themselves into what they thought was Paris Hilton chic. ('That's Hott.' Yeah, okay, whatever, Paris.) This woman's body was perfect because she was strong, but curvy. And she had great boobs. (I wish I had great boobs.)

'Huh' I said. Speaking of boobs-I was totally sounding like one. (Boob... hee hee)."_

Twilight looks right Shakespearean after you read that load.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 1, 2011)

Wow, _Marked_ actually seems like a "so bad it's good" type of writing.  I can dig that on some levels.  Probably still wouldn't buy it though.  Vampires mostly make me sleepy...

I don't necessarily dislike bad writing.  I actually have quite a penchant for it.  "The Eye of Argon" is one my of favorite stories ever written.  It is genius in its awfulness.  SS > SF > The Eye of Argon

Seriously, people used to see how long they could read this before they just started cracking up laughing.  

So my problem isn't really so much for bad writing or bad stories.  Because I can deal with that if it's so insane and over-the-top that I can't help but like it.  

But sadly, most books I find in fantasy are not "so bad it's good."  They are more like "so generic it's zzzz...."

Bad, I can deal with.  Boring, mediocre, and generic, not so much.


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 1, 2011)

Fair enough. I certainly take a needless amount of glee from tearing apart _Eragon_, and I think my favorite genre of movie is just "b-movie". My favorite movie _of all time_ is about Japanese rock n' roll, alien!zombies, and how love knows no boundaries. It's a work of genius, in my humble opinion.


----------



## Philip Overby (Apr 1, 2011)

Are you talking about _Guitar Wolf_ or _Wild Zero_?  Both movies, as far as I remember, are about rock and roll, zombies, and love.  Or is there another movie that also meets that criteria that I haven't heard of?


----------



## Ophiucha (Apr 1, 2011)

Wild Zero.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Apr 2, 2011)

LMAO! I like b-movies too... I know quite a few good ones >^.^<


----------



## Ravana (Apr 2, 2011)

_Sundown_. It's a vampire western. No, I'm not joking. And no, they don't glitter.


----------



## Worldbuilder (Apr 3, 2011)

Ravana said:


> _Sundown_. It's a vampire western. No, I'm not joking. And no, they don't glitter.


 
I've been kicking around an idea for one of those for awhile and didn't know one already existed - I'll have to check it out! I'm surprised there aren't more vampire westerns, actually - there were huge numbers of Eastern European immigrants coming onto the Plains in the 19th century. They were generally homesteaders rather than cowboys, but still tons of scope for the imagination there.


----------



## Ravana (Apr 4, 2011)

Hmm. Lest you be disappointed, I suppose I ought to mention that it's a vampire western set in the late 20th century. And, no, I'm still not joking.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Apr 6, 2011)

LMAO! that doesn't surprise me... I think I'll have to go poke around and look for it now >^.^<


----------



## Mindfire (Aug 31, 2012)

While we're on the subject of b-movies. Check out _The Warrior's Way_. Ninjas vs. Cowboys. I am not even kidding. It's brilliant. Either so goofy it's awesome or just plain awesome. I'm not sure which.

Also, I too have noticed that the fantasy section of the bookstore is full of that archetypal, generic "D&D-ish" fantasy. Although every so often you'll find something worthwhile. I stumbled onto the Codex Alera while sifting through the schlock at my local Books-A-Million.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 1, 2012)

I just went back and read my initial post in this thread.  While I was being honest at the time, I think my outlook on writing has changed in the past year.  It's cool seeing old Phil and new Phil.

Old Phil-I don't want to give these books a chance.

New Phil-Sure, I'll read a bit of it.

I wonder how many great books I've missed out on because I had a prejudice towards "judging a book by its cover."  Sometimes just picking up a random book and giving it a read can be sort of liberating.  With no pre-conceived notion of its reputation.   

Anyway, Old Phil...lighten up.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 1, 2012)

I just now realized how old this thread is. My bad on the necropost.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 1, 2012)

That's OK, I was a bit surprised to see this.  I've been around here for a while.  

Maybe it will get other people discussing things in any case.  I don't think the same way I did when I posted this initially, so I wonder if other people's opinions have changed as well.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 1, 2012)

I'll participate in some Necro-threadia...  

I generally don't pick up books cold anymore. I browse the fantasy section and I give books the three page test drive. I rarely find anything that's gripping enough to make me want to buy right then. I rely on recommendations from friends, and I hate to admit it but a good plug for or from an author will get me to check give something a serious look.

I've also developed two reading styles depending on what type of book I'm reading. Some books you just want to savor and take your time with because everything from the prose down to the story is just soooo good. Other books are just pop-corn books. I try to speed read through those because it's more about devouring the plot and learning what happened rather than enjoying every page.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 1, 2012)

I don't buy "cold" anymore either, but that's just because of how cheap book depository is. Combined with the free worldwide postage and I really don't see any reason to buy books anywhere else.


----------



## Kit (Sep 1, 2012)

Short story anthologies can be a good way to find authors that you like... without paying for (and wasting your time on) a full-length book that you aren't enjoying.


----------



## Devor (Sep 1, 2012)

Go to any bookstore, any shelf, any genre.  It's all dribble, I find, except for the book I like.  I think it's that way for everyone but with different books.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

I may be the odd one out, to some degree. I buy random books by people I have never heard of all the time, across various genres. I love doing that with books and with music, and it often leads to some great finds. Also, any of us starting out as writers, and particularly as self-published writers but also as traditionally-published ones, are asking potential readers to take a chance by even giving our work a second look. If we can't even do that for other authors, then we have no right to expect readers to do it for us.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 1, 2012)

That's one of the reasons I've changed my view on this.  I'm much more likely to take a chance on a new author than I was even a year ago.  I've learned a lot about writing and publishing in the past year (even though I haven't published anything) and have learned that sometimes making a random choice pays off.  I picked up The Last Wish on a whim and now Sapkowski is one of my favorite writers.  So,  yeah, I pick up random books now more than I would have a year ago.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Sep 1, 2012)

I still like going into bookstores and seeing what's on the shelf. It's a different experience than looking online. Also, used bookstores are an unusual treat. There, you never know what you might stumble across.

As far as vampire novels, Barbara Hambly's *Those Who Hunt the Night *is a pretty good read. Set in the early 1900s, with a detectivey/Sherlock Holmes' feel. And the vampires do not mix well with sunlight.  The sequel, I think it was called Travelling with the Dead, wasn't so good.

For an offbeat vampireish novel, I enjoyed *Knight of Black Rose* by James Lowder, which is a Ravenloft novel, but kind of blends in Lord Soth, which I think was from some other similar series. Again, the sequel Spectre of the Black Rose wasn't nearly as good of a read.


----------



## Ankari (Sep 1, 2012)

I'll try new authors, but I use the "Judge a Book By Its Cover" method.  If a nee author didn't gain the trust if his publishing company to earn a decent cover, then I won't invest in the book.  That's one of the reasons why I don't buy self-published books.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

I picked up Abercrombie's "Best Served Cold," never having heard of the guy. I'm glad I did. And since I don't read the back of books and the cover didn't have much on it, it was a leap of faith


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 1, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> I like to visit book stores.  Just something I like to do.  I always make a bee-line for the fantasy section as soon as I get there.  Usually, I am faced with a monumental task.  Staring blank faced at a bunch of names I don't know, with a bunch of titles that sound droll, with a bunch of synopses that bore me to tears.
> 
> Why is it that the fantasy section (of all the sections) seems to be full of so many generic books?  Seriously.  Go into a book store.  Pick a random author you don't know.  Does the book sound interesting?
> 
> ...



Oh, I'm the same way. Hard to find anything I consider interesting these days.

Mind, this probably has a lot to do with how old you are. When I was a teenager, I'd read almost anything fantasy-related, or at least give it a try. Now that I'm closing in on thirty, everything just looks kinda bland and similar.



Mdnight Falling said:


> You're a guy most guys DON'T like Twilight and it has nothing to do with sparkly vampires LMAO! It's because there's very little action in it and it's more the life of a teenage girl's love life even if it's with a vampire.. albeit a strange vampire...



I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I didn't get through Twilight wasn't because it's a sappy romance without action, or because I didn't like the vampires. I didn't get throught Twilight because it is a _genuinly poorly writted book_, like, in the technical aspect. I seriously have never seen worse prose printed in a real novel someone actually put to the printers.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I didn't get through Twilight wasn't because it's a sappy romance without action, or because I didn't like the vampires. I didn't get throught Twilight because it is a _genuinly poorly writted book_, like, in the technical aspect. I seriously have never seen worse prose printed in a real novel someone actually put to the printers.



This simply isn't true. It is mediocre in terms of technical proficiency, at worst. _Eragon _is about a million times worse, and I've seen any number of books on the shelves that are of a lower quality of writing.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> This simply isn't true. It is mediocre in terms of technical proficiency, at worst. _Eragon _is about a million times worse, and I've seen any number of books on the shelves that are of a lower quality of writing.



I only said it's the worst I have personally read. I never claimed it's the worst one in existance.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 1, 2012)

Twilight is poorly written. There's worse out there, sure, but it doesn't redeem that pile of crap either.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Sep 1, 2012)

Twilight is differently written from science fiction and fantasy, but I'm not convinced the romance-novel style is inherently "poor." Certainly, I like some books that are arguably in Twilight's style (e.g. The Battle Sylph.)

On-topic, I seldom read a series unless it's complete, but when a series is complete, I usually find the first book boring and the later books interminable. My best luck has been with standalones.


----------



## FatCat (Sep 1, 2012)

I've always imagined looking through the fantasy section akin to garbage picking. You have to run around for about an hour until you find something somewhat interesting, but chances are you have to look for much longer than that to find true gold. This isn't limited to just fantasy, although fantasy seems to be absurd at times. At least I've found some good suggestions on this site.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 1, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> Twilight is differently written from science fiction and fantasy, but I'm not convinced the romance-novel style is inherently "poor."



No writing style is _inherently_ poor. Twilight just reads like a bad first draft, that's all.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 1, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> No writing style is _inherently_ poor. Twilight just reads like a bad first draft, that's all.



Hardly. Though you get that from writers who like to hate on it. I suspect if it were completely unknown and you asked the same people for comments, the feedback would be quite different. The fact that it is so popular irks writers.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 1, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Hardly. Though you get that from writers who like to hate on it. I suspect if it were completely unknown and you asked the same people for comments, the feedback would be quite different. The fact that it is so popular irks writers.



I don't know. People will always mock bad writing regardless of popularity, or lack thereof. For example: Stanek.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 1, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I don't know. People will always mock bad writing regardless of popularity, or lack thereof. For example: Stanek.



They mock him for infamy. The mock Meyer for fame.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> They mock him for infamy. The mock Meyer for fame.



Yes. And apparently many of them wouldn't know really bad writing if it bit them in the rear. It is mostly jealousy (among writers) and a kind of hipster-like reaction to mainstream popularity. This is the only reason you see the book still brought up, seven years after publication, by writers stuffed with sour grapes when even the fans of the series have moved on to something else.


----------



## shangrila (Sep 2, 2012)

Really? _Really?_

Disagree with my opinion if you want, but don't try and brush it off as some attempt at conformity.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 2, 2012)

shangrila said:


> Really? _Really?_
> 
> Disagree with my opinion if you want, but don't try and brush it off as some attempt at conformity.



I don't know about your opinion in particular, shangrila, but with respect to many of those opinions generally, when the comments are so far over the top and so overwrought as to be well beyond anything reasonably justified by the actual work...well, that tells me something else is going on.


----------



## Mindfire (Sep 2, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yes. And apparently many of them wouldn't know really bad writing if it bit them in the rear. It is mostly jealousy (among writers) and a kind of hipster-like reaction to mainstream popularity. This is the only reason you see the book still brought up, seven years after publication, by writers stuffed with sour grapes when even the fans of the series have moved on to something else.



Actually, I mock Twilight because its fun. Honest. No other reason. That might make me a terrible human being, but there it is. Granted, it's not as fun as it used to be _because_ most of the fans have moved on. Not as many wackjobs and zealots to mess with anymore. Now I just wish the Twilight discussion would fade into obscurity. Along with the rage over the Phantom Menace. Although that's going to be hard with Lucas re-releasing it for the 7th time in blu-ray, 4-D extra shiny edition.

Also I notice in retrospect that it was never as fun (for me) to mock Eragon as it was to mock Twilight. I think that's because Eragon never had as many zealots as Twilight did. Sure the writing was bad terrible criminal and the plot was a knockoff and it was worse than Twilight in every way. (At least Twilight had artistic integrity.) But at the end of the day, the fun to be had in mocking a work depends solely on too things: the laughs you can have with friends and the zealots you can piss off.


----------



## korabas (Sep 3, 2012)

The urban fantasy/dark fantasy/paranormal romance shelves actually make me cry a bit inside.. it's the cover designs, they are hideous!

But speaking of cover designs, I tend to make quick initial judgements based on the cover designs of fantasy books.. if it has a nice cover, i'll typically pick it up and flip through. If it has a cheesy cover, I won't. Gollancz do some nice covers.

I loved the UK cover for Lies of Locke Lamora, and that was enough for me to buy the book. I also liked the cover of Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, and picked it up several times, but didn't like the blurb. When I saw the cover design again on Amazon I actually read a bit more about the book, picked it up, and loved it! Covers are important.


----------



## Varamyrr (Sep 5, 2012)

korabas said:


> The urban fantasy/dark fantasy/paranormal romance shelves actually make me cry a bit inside.. it's the cover designs, they are hideous!
> 
> But speaking of cover designs, I tend to make quick initial judgements based on the cover designs of fantasy books.. if it has a nice cover, i'll typically pick it up and flip through. If it has a cheesy cover, I won't. Gollancz do some nice covers.
> 
> I loved the UK cover for Lies of Locke Lamora, and that was enough for me to buy the book. I also liked the cover of Name of the Wind, by Patrick Rothfuss, and picked it up several times, but didn't like the blurb. When I saw the cover design again on Amazon I actually read a bit more about the book, picked it up, and loved it! Covers are important.



Covers are really important. The latest Mistborn covers are so fine, that it just makes me want to read it.


----------



## korabas (Sep 5, 2012)

Varamyrr said:


> Covers are really important. The latest Mistborn covers are so fine, that it just makes me want to read it.



That's a good example! I wasn't interested in Brandon's work, except for knowing that he was finishing WoT, but I eventually picked up The Final Empire because of the lovely cover and actually really enjoyed the series. I guess we can judge books by their covers!!!


----------



## shangrila (Sep 5, 2012)

Really? I thought the new Mistborn (and his entire work) covers were all kind of bland. Too much white, not enough...anything.


----------



## Snowpoint (Sep 6, 2012)

I don't read many books, but the ones I like are really popular. Johnathan Strange, Dresden Files, Game of Thrones.

The foundation of good fantasy is a good reality. Those 3 books get the reality right and that makes the magic, the people, and the events more real. 

I imagine most books I pick up and pass over are like this: The bad guy is bad, so i will stop him. It's why CSI and Crime drama is so common on TV right now. The Hero is passive, he has zero investment in the plot. But, with CSI, it is OK to be passive, because that is the Hero's job. His motivation is just as paper thin, but he has an "excuse".

All creative endeavors are a crap shoot. Statistically, most things are going to suck.


----------



## korabas (Sep 6, 2012)

shangrila said:


> Really? I thought the new Mistborn (and his entire work) covers were all kind of bland. Too much white, not enough...anything.



I think I like them because the characters have a sketch-like quality, and I like the contemporary mix of monochrome and limited colour palette. I can see how they wouldn't appeal to everyone though, as they are quite different.

My favourite covour recently has been the lovely green one for Lies of Locke Lamora, and also the UK covers for the temeraire series have a nice quality to them.

I love the ebook covers for Jordan's Wheel of Time series (as shown on Tor.com) but I can't stand the original covers for the US books - it's a bit too 'cartoon' fantasy for me.


----------



## J.P. Reedman (Sep 6, 2012)

I agree about covers! And sometimes less is more. I used to detest those old Darryl K Sweet covers--gaudy primary colours (all in one individual's clothes), cod-medieval style no matter the setting (parti-coloured hose,naff 'Robin Hood' caps) and every character with a long red nose and side-parted reddish hair! They really put me off even picking up the books! It was nearly as bad as in the 'bad old days' (showing my age here) when every fantasy book seemed to have a generic cover with a bug eyed alien or a bimbo in a tin bra...
I find I do bost of my buying online now too, often through recommendation. I always look in the bookstore but I find much of what I look at very bland and repetitive. I tend to read page 1, just as an editor would. If I see the things I hate (in particular characters who read like modern people in fancy dress) the book goes back on the shelf.


----------



## yachtcaptcolby (Sep 6, 2012)

Given that pretty much all of the bookstores in my area have closed, I rely pretty heavily on recommendations from friends, family, and Amazon--especially now that I carry a Kindle everywhere I go. There are days when I miss carefully making my way through the fantasy aisle. Then I remember how frustrated I got with how similar it all looked and how hard it was to find something different and interesting.

That's another reason I decided to self-publish; I didn't want to be lumped in with a lot of the stuff I saw on the shelves, and I didn't want some editor or publisher asking me to make my novel fit in better by toning down some of its more creative parts or by putting a frickin' vampire in it so they'd have something to put on the cover. But maybe I'm nuts.


----------



## Philip Overby (Sep 6, 2012)

> That's another reason I decided to self-publish; I didn't want to be lumped in with a lot of the stuff I saw on the shelves, and I didn't want some editor or publisher asking me to make my novel fit in better by toning down some of its more creative parts or by putting a frickin' vampire in it so they'd have something to put on the cover. But maybe I'm nuts.



There's the same danger with self-publishing though.  If you don't make your cover, synopsis or whatever stand out in some way, then you'll be lumped in with all self-published writing that's guilty of the same problems traditionally published books have.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Sep 6, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Hardly.



Okay, I exaggerate. It reads as a _mediocre _first draft.



> Though you get that from writers who like to hate on it. I suspect if it were completely unknown and you asked the same people for comments, the feedback would be quite different. The fact that it is so popular irks writers.



Nah, it doesn't irk me. I mean, that's probably true for a lot of people, but it never bothered me. Meyer wrote a book that, for one reason or another, a lot of people actually enjoyed and that earned her considerable fame and fortune. And, you know what? That's fair. If you write a book a million people loves, you deserve all the fame you get from it. I can't deny her that seeing as one of my own goals in becoming a writer is to earn huge piles of money - _literally _piling it up, I mean.

And believe me, I honestly tried to be as fair and objective to Twilight as I could. But I still found myself actually editing it in my mind as I was reading it._ Why is Bella spending most of the opening paragraph talking about her clothes?_ I thought. _In fact, this entire paragraph could be cut out, because the next one makes for a better opening anyway._ And so on. 

Twilight has one of the most insanely constructed sentences I have ever seen in a book. I actually had to stop and underline it with a pen just so I would be able to find it again. I'd quote it here, but I'm not sure where I have my copy of the book. Trust me, it's _amazing._

What I'm saying is, it's the lack of quality control that surprises me. I think it should have gone through at least another draft before it was published. And, really, the blame is probably more on Meyer's editor than Meyer herself.


----------



## yachtcaptcolby (Sep 6, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> There's the same danger with self-publishing though.  If you don't make your cover, synopsis or whatever stand out in some way, then you'll be lumped in with all self-published writing that's guilty of the same problems traditionally published books have.



That is certainly true. Ha! Now I'm not sure which crowd I'd rather be lumped in with...


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 6, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> What I'm saying is, it's the lack of quality control that surprises me. I think it should have gone through at least another draft before it was published. And, really, the blame is probably more on Meyer's editor than Meyer herself.



That may be the case from a certain perspective, but the question that comes to my mind is this: if it had gone through another edit and changed substantially, would it have been the success it was? Remember, in its published form Meyer's agent turned down something like a $300,000 advance. Turned down. For a complete unknown quantity and first-time author. They settled on $750,000. That's not the sort of thing that makes you think "Hmmmm, maybe this needs to be redone."

I don't think the writing itself is that bad. I can point to a sentence here or there in many books, but on the whole it was competently done, though nothing stellar. You also have to keep in mind the target audience. Why is Bella worrying about her clothes? Because that's the sort of thing teenage girls are apt to talk about (and, consequently, the sort of thing teenage girls are apt to read about).

On the one teen-targeted project I am working on, I mention my character's clothes as well, whereas in my other writings I spend very little time on character description. I decided to do it after flipping through half a dozen of my daughter's books and seeing that all of the authors did so. So I look at that more as a target-audience decision, even though it is something I would not normally do or care about.

I read an article a while back where an author was looking at Twilight objectively, trying to come to the 'truth' about its success. i think she rightly noted that the writing was more or less mediocre, and then also rightly noted that the story itself is engaging and, more than that, told in an engaging way. To paraphrase one comment in particular, she said that storytelling trumps writing quality _every time_. I think this is absolutely true, and I've made that point regarding Twilight, before.

If you're not writing for the same audience, the factors behind Twilight's success are largely irrelevant, except in the statement of broad principles (like storytelling trumps writing). What I find interesting is that so many people who are actually writing the same types of material and targeting the same audience spend so much time masticating their sour grapes rather than actually looking at the book with clear eyes and figuring out why it worked. As I've said before, it is not accident that a company was willing to shell out $3/4 of a million on it (think about that - first you'd have to find an editor who was willing to offer that much, then the editor would have to get the rest of the publishing company to go along with it; and it wasn't because they thought it was terrible but could be marketed into a success). The reason they handed Meyer that much cash is that they knew there was something that very much worked about the book, and that it had the potential to be huge. And they were right.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Sep 7, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yes. And apparently many of them wouldn't know really bad writing if it bit them in the rear. It is mostly jealousy (among writers) and a kind of hipster-like reaction to mainstream popularity. This is the only reason you see the book still brought up, seven years after publication, by writers stuffed with sour grapes when even the fans of the series have moved on to something else.



Didn't anyone tell you that we only bring up Twilight now in order to get a rise out of you?


----------

