Fantasy Aficionados discussion

Razmatus wrote: "so what do you then think of ASOIAF and Malazan book of the fallen?"

ASOIAF...honestly? I think its unnecessarily grim and nasty and gross for no reason. And I would be ok with the Others coming and bringing Winter forever.


I haven't attempted Malazan as yet so I have no opinion.

Carol wrote: "Agree with you there. If I wanted a mirror of real life that includes sexual assault, blatant sexism/racism/homophobia, etc, I'd read literary fiction (and I do, just not much of it). If you are going to be imaginative enough to write in fantasy, try also to be imaginative enough to flaunt the -isms we already know so well. I'm much better with reading assault/rape/etc if it has a purpose or is part of the storyline--say, Deerskin, which was a re-imagining of a classic myth (although it was not a comfortable book), or The Left Hand of Darkness, which is about gender identity and relationships. But just because the author can't conceive of something beyond is not acceptable to me, as I recently discovered the in Night Angel series. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... "

-stands up and applauds-

Daniel Abraham wrote a really neat post on this subject a while back where he tackled the "But it's historically accurate!" defense. And there's a great post by Scott Lynch from 2005 when he ripped into somebody who complained that Red Seas Under Red Skies was unrealistic because the most powerful pirates in his world were women. Heh.

Valerie wrote: "And there's a great post by Scott Lynch from 2005 when he ripped into somebody who complained that Red Seas Under Red Skies was unrealistic because the most powerful pirates in his world were women. Heh. "

That's silly. There are so many better reasons to complain about RSURS. ;)

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "That's silly. There are so many better reasons to complain about RSURS. ;) "

Did someone mention rats of unusual size? ;)

ROUSes? I don't believe they exist...

Carol wrote: "Agree with you there. If I wanted a mirror of real life that includes sexual assault, blatant sexism/racism/homophobia, etc, I'd read literary fiction (and I do, just not much of it). If you are going to be imaginative enough to write in fantasy, try also to be imaginative enough to flaunt the -isms we already know so well. I'm much better with reading assault/rape/etc if it has a purpose or is part of the storyline--say, Deerskin, which was a re-imagining of a classic myth (although it was not a comfortable book), or The Left Hand of Darkness, which is about gender identity and relationships. But just because the author can't conceive of something beyond is not acceptable to me, as I recently discovered the in Night Angel series. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/... "

OMG. How did I miss this wonderful post??!

*applause*

I think that the next wave of sexual assault and -isms should fall to the men. Someone needs to be a whore of gold? Let it be the man. Someone needs to take a reaming for the team? Hey! That man has a hole! Anyone in the mood for some clothing ripping and gang rape?? Whelp, got a man here for you.

Have you read Thief With No Shadow, Mrs.J? The above post reminded me instantly of this book. (view spoiler)[In order to save their two women folk the two male leads have to suffer through rape. It's an uncomfortable book to say the least. But I've never seen anything like it. (hide spoiler)]

MrsJ wrote: "I think that the next wave of sexual assault and -isms should fall to the men. Someone needs to be a whore of gold? Let it be the man. Someone needs to take a reaming for the team? Hey! That man has a hole! Anyone in the mood for some clothing ripping and gang rape?? Whelp, got a man here for you."

I feel like that was done well and thoroughly in the 80s-90s when there was a great deal of 'feminist' type re-invention of the classic fantasy. Mercedes Lackey's The Oathbound and MZB's short story series Sword and Sorceress are classics to me for that reason. What I enjoy now are authors that are able to move beyond both sets of stereotypes and imagine something newer, or at least portray enough complexity in their characters/storyline to move beyond the basic -ism. Two of Lois McMaster Bujold books did that well, one with an older male MC (Curse of Chalion) and one an older female. Both managed to face a number of "traditional" challenges but avoided the piggy tropes.

You lose me at vampire, every time.

MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "so what do you then think of ASOIAF and Malazan book of the fallen?"

ASOIAF...honestly? I think its unnecessarily grim and nasty and gross for no reason. And I would be ok with ..."

it is deeply rooted in medieval times, and as far as I know, middle ages werent a time where royal families were exchanging flowers and kisses, not if they werent first drenched in blood, treachery and whatnot... it's not meant as a satire or irony towards you, in case you would think otherwise... but I see your point, it may indeed be too much for some people

if you thought Martin was too much, dont even start on Erikson then... he doesnt go into details as for sexual scenes, but there are rapes, yea, and lots of guts and gore... they suit the environment, circumstances and all, they arent there for the hell of it (just as I think they werent for the hell of it in ASOIAF, but thats a matter of opinion)... it is an epic fantasy, but a lot military oriented one, following military campaigns of Malazan Empire and the convergences and other cataclysmic events surrounding those... but yea, if you disliked the gore in ASOIAF, I guess you could skip this one as well, even though you might miss out on some great philosophic statements and all, which is where Erikson beats Martin by a hair's length or two IMO :)

Razmatus wrote: "it is deeply rooted in medieval times, and as far as I know, middle ages werent a time where royal families were exchanging flowers and kisses, not if they werent first drenched in blood, treachery and whatnot... it's not meant as a satire or irony towards you, in case you would think otherwise... but I see your point, it may indeed be too much for some people"


The point I'm making is that if I was interested in the reality of the lifestyle of the middle ages or any pre-industrial age...I'd read a history book.

The whole "gritty" thing is not what I pick up a fantasy book for.

Carol wrote: "I feel like that was done well and thoroughly in the 80s-90s when there was a great deal of 'feminist' type re-invention of the classic fantasy. Mercedes Lackey's The Oathbound and MZB's short story series Sword and Sorceress are classics to me for that reason. What I enjoy now are authors that are able to move beyond both sets of stereotypes and imagine something newer, or at least portray enough complexity in their characters/storyline to move beyond the basic -ism. Two of Lois McMaster Bujold books did that well, one with an older male MC (Curse of Chalion) and one an older female. Both managed to face a number of "traditional" challenges but avoided the piggy tropes. "


Loved both of those. You know, Lackey even did a male rape of a major (and powerful) main character.

I really would prefer not to see sexual violence for any character...but I'm more than damn tired of rape. (view spoiler)[I recently read book 1 of the Kitty Norville series. And even then the damn major reason Kitty became a werewolf was due to rape. Damn it! Come up with something else for once! arrrgh! I think that casual violence to women is the reason I have a lot more books written by female authors than (I've been told) is typical. (hide spoiler)]

MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "it is deeply rooted in medieval times, and as far as I know, middle ages werent a time where royal families were exchanging flowers and kisses, not if they werent first drenched in..."

but then, should fantasy genre stay enclosed within itself and not try to progress some further? I dont say violence is a progression, but still... an example from different field - metal, for example, wouldnt remain such a viable kind of music had it not tried to progress, in some cases, to merge with other genres to create genres and sounds not done before

and yes, got you, it is not what you would pick a fantasy book for, but that doesnt mean it isnt fantasy... it is only one major way today's fantasy goes... there are others in case one doesnt like the realistic and gritty side of things... I like this new "realistic wave" as much as I like the old one that doesnt go into violent details

one thing is for certain - another example - the Chain of Dogs storyline in Deadhouse Gates (Erikson) wouldnt be so crushing had the cruelties been not described sometimes in horrible detail, I still remember some of the massacre scenes from there

as it was said in one of books I read, fantasy isnt always meant as an escape route from our world, but sometimes it is meant to depict things and such from our world in a clearer light, things that get lost under everyday mess :)

Razmatus wrote: "but then, should fantasy genre stay enclosed within itself and not try to progress some further?"

Yes.

Razmatus wrote: as it was said in one of books I read, fantasy isnt always meant as an escape route from our world, but sometimes it is meant to depict things and such from our world in a clearer light, things that get lost under everyday mess :)


That's your personal opinion. I happen to like the way my reality works...I use fantasy for something completely different.

This isn't a thread about what fantasy should or shouldn't do. It's a thread about things that personally turn people off of books. (It was originally meant to be about things mentioned in blurbs that turn people off but, well, we've expanded a bit... )

And it's kind of tacky to tell someone that what turns them off is somehow wrong.

And no one is saying it isn't fantasy. What MrsJ said was that if she'd wanted a "gritty and realistic" take on medieval times then she'd read a history book, 'cause that's not what she, personally, reads fantasy for.


ETA: And this tangent of the discussion is amusingly ironic considering it comes on the heels of the posted link which points out, quite aptly, that there wasn't one homogeneous Middle Ages.

Of course, that particular bugaboo is a constant issue as a lot of groups that were made up of individual and unique tribes are often lumped together into one whole. Like the Celts, or Native Americans, or countless others.

I think the point is Razmatus that some of us like one thing and some another. In my reviews I've made it plain that what I call the "life is crap and then you die" novel is always pretty much going to get a poor rating from me. I live real life and I don't seek it out for my leisure time reading.

I'm a male and a graphic rape scene will pretty much get a book a down-check from me to.

Sometimes a fiction book will transcend leisure time reading and break through. Those I look at differently, but when I rate and review books here I do it subjectively. What was "my" experience with and of the book. That way perspective readers can get an idea of how they'll react to it.

If you like a more real world feel including tragedy, suffering, angst and so on in your fantasy, then there are plenty of books that supply that. But all of us won't like those.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "ROUSes? I don't believe they exist..."

Have I told you that I love you today?

MrsJoseph wrote: "± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "ROUSes? I don't believe they exist..."

Have I told you that I love you today?"

Um, I think you just did? :>

Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I think the point is Razmatus that some of us like one thing and some another. In my reviews I've made it plain that what I call the "life is crap and then you die" novel is always pretty much goin..."

yep, pretty much... I wasnt saying someone was wrong here... was more of trying to point why I like the realistic approach... also cos before I thought that fantasy didnt have this kind of stuff much in it, that it didnt that much mingle with other genres (lets say ASOIAF has a lot of historical fiction tinge to it, and Malazan book of the fallen has the feel of an enlivened chronicle of an empire with some short philosophic treatises inserted into it)...

as for me (underlined), I can digest many things in a novel, as long as I find good grounds, justification for it to be there... those grounds dont have to make sense to everyone

Razmatus wrote: "Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "I think the point is Razmatus that some of us like one thing and some another. In my reviews I've made it plain that what I call the "life is crap and then you die" novel..."

I think that you may be in the wrong thread. there's another thread that's opposite of this one.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "That's silly. There are so many better reasons to complain about RSURS. ;)"

Haha, I agree with you. I think he's pretty awesome, but the pacing in that book was reeeeeally bad.

Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally, reeeeeeally bad. ;)


Which is a shame, 'cause the end was cool.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally, reeeeeeally bad. ;)


Which is a shame, 'cause the end was cool."

And this is the guy who wrote...? Scott Lynch, right?

Yeah... Lynch writes the Gentlmen Bastards series: The Lies of Locke Lamora and Red Seas Under Red Skies. When I started it I thought it was gonna be a trilogy, but then I found out it's supposed to be 7, or something... and I'm not really sure I'm in it for the long haul.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "Yeah... Lynch writes the Gentlmen Bastards series: The Lies of Locke Lamora and Red Seas Under Red Skies. When I started it I thought it was gonna be a trilogy, but then I found out it's supposed ..."

7? File that under "series overload."

At least he admits it up front I guess. I really liked the first book but the second one has that whole ship and water thing going for it and I haven't gotten it yet. I admitted somewhere in here, or maybe same question other club, that I have a problem with ship books. Long, heavily detailed ship books.

Series overload is definitely one of those 'eyes of the beholder' things. Afterall, HP was 7 books and I didn't consider that overload, but, then, I ♥ HP. I am less enamoured with Gentlemen Bastards and the thought of 7 of the (imo) bloated things does not fill me with glee.

I know a lot of people who love the first two and can't wait for the third, though, so I'm sure they're a-ok with the prospect of 7.

I'm still eager to read Winds of Winter already, hehe :P

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "Series overload is definitely one of those 'eyes of the beholder' things. Afterall, HP was 7 books and I didn't consider that overload, but, then, I ♥ HP. I am less enamoured with Gentlemen Basta..."

I think it maybe more of the same. I couldn't get through LoLL due to grossness and boredom...

...but I'll happily read the Belgariad and the Mallorean back to back...and that's 10 books.


Hmmm....

Razmatus wrote: "I'm still eager to read Winds of Winter already, hehe :P"

That's book 3?

MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "I'm still eager to read Winds of Winter already, hehe :P"

That's book 3?"

haha very funny :)
no, thats book 6 of ASOIAF that I am looking forward to :P

Razmatus wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "I'm still eager to read Winds of Winter already, hehe :P"

That's book 3?"

haha very funny :)
no, thats book 6 of ASOIAF that I am looking forward to :P"

Hope you're prepared for another 10 year wait. :>

Razmatus wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "I'm still eager to read Winds of Winter already, hehe :P"

That's book 3?"

haha very funny :)
no, thats book 6 of ASOIAF that I am looking forward to :P"


Really? LOL, I'm clueless.

± Colleen (of the Crawling Chaos) ± wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "MrsJoseph wrote: "Razmatus wrote: "I'm still eager to read Winds of Winter already, hehe :P"

That's book 3?"

haha very funny :)
no, thats book 6 of ASOIAF that I am looking forwa..."

it's not like I will be sitting on my butt just waiting for it :)

got enough good books on my shelf to completely raze the wait, no matter how long it is :P :P :P

The beat-to-death trope where a woman gets abused/raped/enslaved/degraded in the first chapter ONLY so we know who to label the bad guy.

Scenes that are meant to gross me out, scare me, just put the purely mean and ugly in my face - where the character in question Does Not Change, and there is no story motivation other than Ogle-porn.

Janny wrote: "The beat-to-death trope where a woman gets abused/raped/enslaved/degraded in the first chapter ONLY so we know who to label the bad guy.

Scenes that are meant to gross me out, scare me, just put t..."

Ooooh. Agreed!

Yes, me too. i also think it is very lazy characterization, like the only way to understand sex discrimination is through rape, or automatically creates a 'sympathetic' character. I haven't read/saw The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo because I've heard there is a rough rape scene.

Carol wrote: "Yes, me too. i also think it is very lazy characterization, like the only way to understand sex discrimination is through rape, or automatically creates a 'sympathetic' character. I haven't read/sa..."

My husband read the 1st book and told me that the original title Men who Hate Women is much more true to the book.

Yes, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has very tough scenes to take. If you're sensitive to abuse avoid at all cost.

Good to know. And will do.

Traci wrote: "Yes, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo has very tough scenes to take. If you're sensitive to abuse avoid at all cost."

That's what hubby said, too. He told me he was a little disgusted, too.

It's sometimes a hard book to read.It's well written and a good plot but in some ways that can add to the bad part. I read all 3 of the ones he got published before he died. They can be difficult.

My biggest problem with the depiction of the abuse that happens in GwtDT is that I felt it was gratuitously descriptive. I just don't think it's necessary to be as descriptive as the book was in order to portray the fact that, yes, rape is bad, and I can't help but agree with this article, at least a little, in that it crosses the line in misogynistic fantasy.

Squick factor to the extreme.

Unfortunately, I didn't think it was particularly well-written or engaging on top of the squick factor, so it had little in the way of redeeming value for me. I've been told the next two books are less descriptive in the squicky bits - but considering how bored I was for much of the first book (when I wasn't disgusted or, occasionally, curious), I never bothered finding out.

Well to each I suppose. I skimmed a lot of those portions. Many books do hit political feelings. I don't think that was Larson's intent. Note that people have taken exactly opposite sides of the argument.

I read it (them) simply as (a) novel(s). They have significant draw backs and I tended to go up n my ratings after I'd finished the books instead of while reading them. I suppose the "you're a man" argument could come up, but I don't think that's it. For instance in the Thomas Covenant books I find the rape drove me totally away from the books and I never "forgave it". I hate the entire series because of the attitude "in the protagonist" that allowed it. The same is true of The Fountain Head. Once the rape scene happens (and Rand argued that it wasn't truly a rape scene...go figure) I found that it gave me an attitude toward Roark that no matter what happened later this act was almost irredeemable (an attitude I find isn't widely shared, oh well).

I think it may simply be that I read over some of what bothers as I skimmed some of the book. I found some of it unpalatable.

I read the first one because I heard about the shock factor. And I couldn't believe how boring the first part was. I didn't care for the male lead. At all. For the most part I liked it. Not as much as others. I'm actually surprised that with its violence and sexuality, sometimes at the same time, it's as popular as it is. Glad I read it but would never, ever, recommend it unless I knew the potential reader would be fine with it. Not a book I'd give my mom.

Can't stand love triangles. Well, I mean, the first few I came across were tolerable, but then the entire trope soon devolved into the same old cliche, mostly an otherwise good girl split between a similarly good guy and a bad boy.

Another thing that's getting kind of old is the whole last-man-alive post-apocalyptic thing. The sort of thing could be horrifically frightening, but people are turning it into paranormal romances. I mean, seriously, people?!

I'm well aware of the fact that people have taken the opposite side of the argument and see Lisbeth as some sort of empowered woman. I had actually written a bit in my previous comment about how a (view spoiler)[revenge trip (hide spoiler)] does not empowerment make, but decided to delete it. (view spoiler)[(Though, admittedly, the revenge bit was one of my favorite parts of the book. But, then, I like a good revenge story.) (hide spoiler)]

And, honestly, I'd written off the fact that you liked the book more than I did by the simple fact that you seem to read and enjoy a lot more mystery thriller type books than I do, as they're not really the type of thing I go for and I'd probably not have bothered with this book were it not for all the hype and a coworker recommending it to me.

As far as Larson's intent... I certainly don't think his intent was to titillate or be misogynistic, but I do think his politics are in the book:

"When Larsson was 15 years old, he witnessed the gang rape of a girl, which led to his lifelong abhorrence of violence and abuse against women.[26] His longtime partner, Eva Gabrielsson, writes that this incident "marked him for life" in a chapter of her book that describes Larsson as a feminist.[6] The author never forgave himself for failing to help the girl, and this inspired the themes of sexual violence against women in his books.[27] According to Gabrielsson, the Millennium trilogy allowed Larsson to express a worldview he was never able to elucidate as a journalist. She described, with a great deal of specificity, how the fundamental narratives of his three books were essentially fictionalized portraits of the Sweden few people knew, a place where latent white supremacy found expression in all aspects of contemporary life, and anti­extremists lived in persistent fear of attack. “Everything of this nature described in the Millennium trilogy has happened at one time or another to a Swedish citizen, journalist, politician, public prosecutor, unionist or policeman,” she writes. “Nothing was made up.”[6][28]"

So, yeah, Blomkvist most definitely inserted his political feelings into the book - the question is whether his, imo, unnecessarily descriptive descriptions of the abuse further convey the horror of the situation, or do they cross the line. As it's a subjective thing, obviously there will be people on both sides.

But, anyway, as I said, it's not the only reason I didn't like the book. I found it rather plodding and not particularly well written, to boot. If I skimmed every part that bothered or bored me, I would've ended up skimming a good 3/4 of the book. ;)

Lizzy wrote: "Another thing that's getting kind of old is the whole last-man-alive post-apocalyptic thing. The sort of thing could be horrifically frightening, but people are turning it into paranormal romances. I mean, seriously, people?! "

I really don't get the need to turn a dystopian or post-apoc book into a romance, but it does seem to be one of the latest trends.

I wouldn't go out with you if you were the last man on Earth...oh, wait you are. Well, um...I mean okay. Maybe. I didn't really mean...damn.

;)

I can see where a character in a book being the last man on earth could be a serious obstacle to writing a gay romance novel...