• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

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

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
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 o_O I guess that's why I'll read them before I read something by someone I know o_O
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Auror
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 Miéville 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.
 
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.
 
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Auror
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Auror
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

Staff
Article Team
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?
 

Worldbuilder

Dreamer
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.
 
Top