
Fantasy must shake off the tyranny of the mega-novel - dnetesn
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/may/15/fantasy-tyranny-mega-novel-george-rr-martin
======
kbutler
I think the response is more accurate - that big ideas and epic world-building
require a lot of space.
[http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/may/20/fanta...](http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2015/may/20/fantasy-
imaginary-worlds-george-r-r-martin-robin-hobb)

And I would cite Brandon Sanderson as a good example (and good counter-example
to the original article) - smaller ideas get novellas (Legion, Emperor's
Soul), medium-sized ideas get novels (Elantris, Rithmatist, Warbreaker), epic
ideas get large novels in series(Mistborn, Way of Kings).

All excellent, by the way...

~~~
fabian2k
One huge point in Sanderson's favor is that he writes fast and consistent
enough that his epic series might be finished in a reasonable amount of time.
I also get the impression that he plans a lot more in advance than many other
fantasy writers, so I doubt he'll add a few more novels to his series at the
end.

------
mklim
I grew up just reading whatever I could pull off the shelf from my local
library—finding the SFF short story scene in my late teens was a huge and
welcome discovery. Not sure why, and it could just be confirmation bias, but
in my experience the quality of writing in short stories tends to be a lot
higher than the writing in a novel, or series. Short form has some of my
favorite works now, and I tend to read that first since it's much easier to
make time for. It's really worth looking into it if you've only been exposed
to published novels before. Tor.com is free and has a great collection.
Clarkesworld and Asimov's both charge subscription fees but are completely
worth the price.

------
adwf
I've completely given up on reading multi-volume epics. Either stick to a
defined 3 or 4 novel series (ie. call it a trilogy from the start), or go with
a series of interconnected, but standalone, novels like Iain M Banks Culture
books.

The major problem I find is that I just can't be bothered to re-read the
previous books. Yet inevitably, I will have forgotten a lot of characters and
plot (particularly with character dense fantasy), and _must_ re-read or be
completely lost when reading the new book.

This isn't really a problem with trilogies, usually I don't need to re-read at
all for the final book, or even if I do it's relatively quick. But the moment
you start writing huge, 5-6+ novel series I get very annoyed with authors.

Take George RR Martin for example. I still haven't read the latest book,
simply because there was a 5 year gap, then a 6 year gap between publications
of the last two. During that time, I've nearly completely forgotten what went
on in the books. I re-read after the first gap, but I'll be damned if I'm
doing it again...

There are successful authors who manage to write large, interesting
worlds/stories without needing to descend down into the muck that is the mega-
novel series. Like Iain M Banks with his standalone Culture novels that form a
coherent world over time. Or Terry Pratchett, with the Discworld.

~~~
gaius
The sad thing is that this very real phenomenon "punishes" those who start
series early, the very people that validate the business model or writing
sequels at all. I don't expect I'll bother with book 6 of GoT for the very
same reason you state. And the TV series will be in syndication by then most
likely!

~~~
adwf
Yeah, the TV series has put me off reading them too. I'd rather just
experience the one version of the story. I've been waiting for it to catch up
to where I remember in the books.

Having said that, I have bought the latest book and will probably buy the
rest, I'm just not sure if I'll get round to reading them until the series is
finished. Which given the overall slowness so far, could be another 10-15
years! That's why even though I highly enjoy a good epic, I really can't stand
reading them anymore. It's a love/hate thing now.

~~~
itsybitsycoder
I haven't read the books but it's my understanding that the show has caught up
with the books & that you may be confused if you try to jump straight from the
middle of the books to the middle of the show, since they've changed many of
the characters' storylines.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I haven't read the books but it's my understanding that the show has caught
> up with the books & that you may be confused if you try to jump straight
> from the middle of the books to the middle of the show, since they've
> changed many of the characters' storylines.

It likely will have caught up to or passed the books by the end of this season
(assuming that, given the divergence in storylines, the comparison is even
meaningful anymore; but there are some signs that at least some of the
divergence is just keeping the number of independent threads down and may
converge back somewhat), but all of the existing storylines in the show that
can reasonably be compared to the book remain behind the parallel storylines
in the book.

------
smegel
Oh God yes.

I look back my days of reading D&D novels (Krynn and TFR mostly) with some
fondness. Yes they were part of much larger series, but the books were usually
fully contained novels with strong story-lines and conclusions.

Sci-fi is in a similar situation (if you did not consider sci-fi to be fantasy
in the first place). Remember reading (possibly your parents collection of)
Isaac Asimoc novels? Or possibly novelettes by today's standards. Amazing
stories and imaginations in what would be the prologue of a 1500 page monster
today. And without the constant graphic violence that has become a hallmark of
modern sci-fi.

~~~
gknoy
I've read great short fiction, but nearly every time I read something Really
Awesome or Interesting, I end up wanting to read more exploring interesting
things in that world. Parallel events, precursors, Lore, etc. I dislike when
there's a constant "To be Continued...." (Wheel of Time, Game of Thrones), but
love when there's a series of related books that each can stand alone, but
also enrich a shared lore. I absolutely devoured nearly everything in the
Dragonlance novels and Star Wars extended universe books, for example.

Whenever I read the first book of a book like Dune, or Foundation, or
Earthsea, or Anne Leckie's Ancillary Justice, or the Diamond Age (or Snow
Crash) I end up wishing for more from that same universe of Lore. Sometimes
this ends up being something amazing, like the Foundation series, other times
the sequel fails to hold me, or goes off the deep end like some fantasy
serieses seem to.

I think I end up gravitating towards trilogies. I know there's more to the
story arc than just one book, and but enough written that I (in theory) won't
be left in the lurch. :-)

Then again, I also read all [at the time] of the Honor Harrington series,
because I loved the characters and political story arc(s), but ended up
getting burned out and never reading the more recent novels. I don't even know
or recall if it was a feeling that it jumped the shark, I just didn't feel I
had the energy to devote to it.

------
TillE
In terms of format, I appreciate something like Raymond E. Feist's Riftwar
Cycle, where you have a series of connected trilogies. You carry over the
universe and some of the characters, but the story is tied up at the end of
each trilogy.

Or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser short stories, which were the
individual adventures of those two characters.

There's something obviously appealing about a universe (a "franchise" or "IP",
if you must) which goes on and on, but that doesn't mean spending decades on a
single story.

~~~
panglott
Fafhrd and the Mouser are an interesting case: There are seven (pretty short)
volumes of stories, written over nearly forty years, with the major
anthologies halfway through.

Lots of those stories are just short vignettes, not more than a page or two
long, that were nonetheless published individually. In the books, they seem
like brief interludes, but they were originally written/published sometimes
years apart from the longer stories.
[http://panglott.blogspot.com/2010/08/for-re-reading-of-
nehwo...](http://panglott.blogspot.com/2010/08/for-re-reading-of-nehwon.html)

------
merrua
A lot of the shorter fantasy goes into the Young Adult category now.
Especially since the younger age categories read more books a month. Fish
around a bit for your own taste and you will find shorter novels and novellas
there [http://www.goodreads.com/choiceawards/best-young-adult-
fanta...](http://www.goodreads.com/choiceawards/best-young-adult-fantasy-
books-2014)

~~~
JoshTriplett
I find the whole "Young Adult" category strange. In film, most people don't
automatically look down on movies just because they're not rated R or NC-17.
Any book without blatantly adult-only content (which includes the majority of
books) could reasonably be read by "Young Adults".

~~~
kbenson
I think the problem is that "Young Adult" encompasses a wide level of
maturity, and authors may tailor their works towards vastly different levels
of maturity, that the quality can vary quite a bit. Some works are targeted
for young readers, but are rather mature in their execution (well explained,
well reasoned character motivations and plot, etc), while others bank on the
possibly lower expectations of the young and inexperienced reader. I've picked
up some _horrendous_ young adult fiction before and read it (I'm looking at
you, James Patterson!). That doesn't keep me from reading it, but it does make
me wary...

~~~
merrua
I've found word of mouth and reviews to help out with that. But its not 100%
proof alright.

------
davidwparker
It's interesting that they mainly start around more recent series, mentions
older ones "Les Mis", but don't say how this is and always has been a thing. I
remember reading most of the Xanth series (first book published in 1977!) when
I was in high school (1999)- and there were already 20+ books in the series.

I like long stories about characters I care about. When I stop caring about
the characters (or if the plots get too out there), then I stop reading the
books.

I think it's fine if people want to read singular episode books as well. As
@teirce says, this is why I also like Neil Gaiman (currently my favorite
author). His stuff is self-contained and quite enjoyable.

It's up to the author to decide what they want to do with their characters,
and I'll be game for it either way.

~~~
svachalek
As I remember them, the Xanth stories had an order but mostly stood on their
own, like the detective novels TFA mentions.

In contrast, there's hardly anything in Game of Thrones that isn't tied
tightly to everything that precedes or follows it. The division between books
is largely arbitrary and you could have divided them up in a million different
ways that would be no better or worse than the way they are now. Not that this
is qualitatively better than the older series or serial style, but I do agree
with the article that it's "different".

------
thelsdj
This is needed if only so I don't have to get sucked into a great first book
like Wizard's First Rule to then have to deal with 100 page lectures on
Objectivism if I want to find out what happens to the characters later in the
series.

~~~
ars
Very much yes! That series was a disaster. It's not even internally consistent
from the first book to the last.

The author completely changed his characters to make them fit into his new
lectures.

------
lobster_johnson
The reason fantasy (and also much scifi these days) needs the length is partly
because once you've gone to all that effort of establishing a world, you'll
want to stick that world.

A short novel with a completely unique setting would turn a fantasy story into
something closer to a fairy tale or fable, or be entirely _about_ the setting
(as is often the case with scifi; Lem's "Solaris" is a great example).

Of course, you can still tell completely separate stories set within a single
world. Which authors do: Banks with the Culture books, for example, and I
rather prefer that form of non-serial storytelling. G. R. R. Martin himself
has written spinoffs set in the Westeros world. Gene Wolfe's novels are often
set in the same universe.

The second aspect of serial, "long-form" storytelling that everyone enjoys is
the continuity; you may have lots of small stories told over the course of
several seasons of a TV series, but it's the same, familiar world, and you
don't need to be introduced to a completely new setting every time. As someone
who greatly enjoys books (though not so much fantasy) but has a huge problem
getting past the opening chapter or even the opening page, I completely
understand the attraction.

(That said, there's no excuse for bloat. G. R. R. Martin seems to have entered
into a kind of narrative tailspin as a result of having plotted himself into
several corners. Rather than chopping away at the narrative and making some
shortcuts to get the characters in the position he had planned for them to be
in, he apparently decided the solution was... more plot. The end product was
the long and tedious boat journey that was "A Dance With Dragons".)

------
colomon
I have to admit I'm kind of puzzled by this article and its countering article
"Fantasy cannot build its imaginary worlds in short fiction." Look. There is
great fantasy fiction being written in _every_ length. And that's a wonderful
situation! Why spend your time complaining because some works aren't the
length you would prefer?

------
beat
Sprawling multi-book series work kind of the way fast food does. It's a known
quantity in a world of unknown quantities.

~~~
waterlesscloud
It's also the most reliable path to income for writers.

------
teirce
This is one reason why I really like Neil Gaiman. His works tend to be on the
shorter side and self-contained, yet still managed to be quite entertaining.

------
cwbrandsma
Better are books that can be read on their own...and are part of an expansive
series

* Foundation * Dune * Discworld * Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy * Hyperion

Even worse are 5 book sets (Belgarion and Eddings novels)

------
mynegation
It is somewhat surprising result in the world of short attention span. I
stopped watching Game of Thrones after 3.5 seasons, stopped reading Terry
Goodkind's Sword of Truth after 4.5 books and Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber
after 2.5 books (notice the pattern of dropping the things halfway through the
installment). For me it sort of goes downhill from production value and/or
captivating action to a pointless nonsense _with no end in sight_.

~~~
jerf
I've noticed that my brain has developed an actual revulsion to fiction that
never ends attains closure on anything. It is starting to feel very similar to
the dream most of us have had of the quicksand we can't get out of because
however high we go it's always higher. I don't mean that as a metaphor, I
mean, I really do get a very similar feeling out of both.

So many of these things seem to start out tight, then just drag out forever. I
have more experience in the TV-series side.

I am happy to not have all the answers, I'm happy to watch something
overarching that goes on for a while, I'm even happy to watch something that
_ends_ ambiguously. But I've got little and ever less tolerance for those
authors who think the way to make their universe last longer is to _never
resolve anything_. No... you resolve things, and then there are _more_ things.
Preferably consequences, anticipated and otherwise. Just like, you know, real
life. Don't simply stretch your story out... and out... and out... and out...

Stargate SG-1 attained the nearly-perfectly-correct balance for me. And it
made some of the developments in that series legitimately surprising to me,
when they actually upended their universe a bit in _several_ of the season
finales, because I so casually expected "nothing to ever change" in a series
like that. (Now it's more normal, but at the time especially I was surprised
by their boldness. They never did quite take the step of making the program
public knowledge, though...)

(Special callout for Alias, by the way, who also scraped against my brain in
such a way that I'm also extremely irritated by "but wait, there's a
conspiracy behind _that_ "... by the fourth or fifth time it's like the dream
hallway that never ends. And my suspension of disbelief really breaks down
too... how, exactly, does one become the guy in change of the conspiracy under
the conspiracy under the conspiracy under the conspiracy under the conspiracy
under the conspiracy? Is there a college track I should be focusing on for
that? Does the n+1th conspiracy conduct secret interviews? Is a member of
conspiracy-4 really supposed to be _surprised_ to discover conspiracy-5?)

~~~
prewett
After watching "Babylon 5", the first American TV series I knew that had a
fixed length and didn't try to go as long as possible, I decided that if you
don't have an end, you don't have a story. So unless I know there's an end, I
don't bother. It's worked out pretty well; Robert Jordan's series kept getting
longer (= doesn't know how to finish) until it got so long he died. GRRM seems
be having similar problems--taking 5 and 6 years to write the latest two
suggests to me he is getting bogged down (= doesn't know how to finish).

I had similar problems with "Alias." You can't just upend who is good and who
is bad every month. It isn't believable, and it feels like you're playing with
your audience. It also indicates you have no idea what you are doing (= no end
point). I watched season 3, and quit early on in season 4 after I realized...

------
guard-of-terra
Sapkowski has a hilarious article on why fantasy authors tend to produce
multi-volume monsters.

"There is no gold in the Grey mountains", struggling to find it online.

~~~
wakkadakka
Is it in English?

~~~
guard-of-terra
I guess there should be a translation somewhere, he's a major writer after
all.

------
panglott
Not just mega-novels, it seems like the long novel of 400-600 pages are more
common too. Seems like back in the day you could get a good story in 150-200
pages. But now reading books is a bigger commitment. I think I'm going to
start on the "novella" category of the Hugo winners =/

~~~
seasoup
I agree! My book is 175 pages because I tried to keep in the good parts and
trust the reader to figure out why character A got to point B without
explaining the entire journey. Skip to the interesting parts and let a couple
lines of some dialogue explain the in between.

------
m3mnoch
it feels like it's starting to get shaken out. the whole mega-popular digital
book thing is enabling wider distribution of formats like novellas.

heck, even sanderson is getting in on the gig with all of his recent success
with the shorter novels like "the emperor's soul" or "legion" \-- which are
both fantastic, btw.

------
markbnj
Oh Lord, yes. Signed. Upvoted. Just give us good stories with a scope the
author can deal with in a human lifetime.

------
VieElm
If anyone is interested in a great single volume fantasy book, I recommend
Tigana by Guy Gavriel Kay. It's a very good book.

~~~
NathanKP
Thanks I'll check it out. I'll add my own recommendation: anything by China
Mieville. Although he does have a few books that are set in the same fantasy
world they are each stand alone storylines although they may loosely reference
each other (kind of like the Discworld series does). He also has quite a few
single volume books, each with its own rich and fascinating world.

