EPTOn August 17 2012 10:12 Newbistic wrote:
I'm not trying to say that fantasy objectively sucks, just why I don't like it. I guess the more accurate way to describe it is that (good) science fiction can be more easily related to the current world than fantasy. Fantasy is always (I think, unless you know differently) set in the past, not even necessarily of Earth's past, so there isn't any real point in trying to trace it forward in time to present day. Science fiction is more philosophically driven than fantasy, which allows it to be analyzed in terms of mankind's eventual development from its current state.
What would you personally recommend as some good fantasy books or series? Something that isn't A Song of Ice and Fire, which unfortunately for me falls into the "wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers" group.
I'm not trying to say that fantasy objectively sucks, just why I don't like it. I guess the more accurate way to describe it is that (good) science fiction can be more easily related to the current world than fantasy. Fantasy is always (I think, unless you know differently) set in the past, not even necessarily of Earth's past, so there isn't any real point in trying to trace it forward in time to present day. Science fiction is more philosophically driven than fantasy, which allows it to be analyzed in terms of mankind's eventual development from its current state.
What would you personally recommend as some good fantasy books or series? Something that isn't A Song of Ice and Fire, which unfortunately for me falls into the "wonderful ideas executed by terrible writers" group.
I think science-fiction drives (partly) our vision for the future, what we as people wish to see, wish to avoid and wish to become. A lot of sci-fi (that I've read anyway) derives its plots and motivations from current events and issues (at the time), so going back and forth is a no brainer.
Until recently I personally didn't read much sci-fi, and the majority of my leisure reading was fantasy and I didn't see much attraction in sci-fi. This is my own experience, but I think I needed a certain level of cynicism with regards to the world and maturity to begin to enjoy sci-fi. I started with Old Man's War and then moved way back to read Foundation. I think I share some of your sentiment in regards to the stars, but I am somewhat resigned to the fact that I probably won't be around to see us reach them, if we ever do.
I think you're trying to get too much out of fantasy, especially extrapolating it to compare it to the current day. Unless you read Pratchett, who is a category unto himself. I'll admit that part of my enjoyment that I derive from reading fantasy is the escapism, and enjoying a story for its own sake. If that doesn't float your boat then, well, everyone is different.
To answer your question about fantasy set in Earth's past/future I'd point at The Book of the New Sun, though it does not resemble Earth in the slightest and is a fantasy off-shoot from the Dying Earth branch.
For fantasy I'd personally recommend my favourite living author Guy Gavriel Kay, Tigana, The Lions of al-Rassan, The Sarantine Mosaic and so on. They're historical fantasy (in a sense), and probably not his most famous work (that's often cited as the Fionavar Tapestry which is very much a throwback to Tolkien, but I think Under Heaven has a claim now). I admit that he probably isn't suited to everyone's tastes though.
EDIT:
I just remembered an interesting response to a question by Ian Tregillis on his treatment (or lack thereof) of the Holocaust.
+ Show Spoiler +
- In my review, I wrote: “The only aspect of this novel which sort of kept nagging at me was the total absence of the pogroms and the entire Jewish angle of WWII. Considering just how important what came to be known as the Holocaust was and still echoes down the decades since the end of the war, it felt odd -- to say the least -- not to see a single mention of this atrocious genocide.”
Would you care to elaborate on this? I’m probably not the only reader who noticed that there is no mention of the Holocaust. . .
You know, there are some readers who felt that not writing directly about the Holocaust was one of the few things I did right, given my ham-handed treatment of history. I tell ya, a guy just can't win.
Just because something isn't mentioned by name doesn't mean it isn't there. (And, honestly, would you really want to read a book that attempted to exorcise the curse of its WWII setting merely by mentioning "Final Solution" a couple of times? Because I'm not convinced that merely mentioning an atrocity absolves the story of its responsibility to acknowledge and understand its context. The state-sanctioned murder of 6 million people isn't something you merely name-check.)
I thought very long and very hard about how to approach these books before I started. This isn't a project I undertook lightly.
BITTER SEEDS is achingly aware of the Holocaust, and I'm a little surprised by the suggestion that it isn't. Von Westarp carries out grisly human experimentation (which amounts, the vast majority of the time, to murder) in the service of what he believes is a higher ideal. His efforts eventually become institutionalized and formalized by the Third Reich. That horrific backdrop to the story is meant to echo the Holocaust. Later, when von Westarp is preparing for a massive expansion of his research program, the means he devises for mass disposal of bodies are specifically meant to echo some of the real-world atrocities that took place in the concentration camps. (And it's no accident that von Westarp's fictional farm is situated fairly close to the real-world site of Buchenwald. I specifically included a scene where the ubermenschen practice their abilities on prisoners from the camps. When VW's children need people upon whom to practice their powers, the SS sends over a truckload of prisoners, including Jews, from the camps.) There's also a scene where one of the major secondary characters is cremated, and his ashes rise up into the sky, then come back down mixed with snow. That was intended as a deliberate nod to a particularly chilling visual in Schindler's List. (I'm not comparing BITTER SEEDS to that film in any way, shape or form. But it's a film I respect quite a bit.)
These things are there, and they're there for a reason. They're my way of acknowledging that the story would never have been possible outside an environment where a horror like the Holocaust was taking place.
Readers may disagree with my choice to approach the subject discreetly, and that's absolutely their prerogative. But just because something is addressed obliquely doesn't mean it's being dismissed, or approached with a cavalier attitude. I made the choices I did because it became clear while thinking about how to approach this book -- and, in fact, the very question you raise about the Holocaust -- that there's a fine line beyond which devoting scenes to an exploration of the Nazi genocide would have meant devoting the entire *story* to that subject. Otherwise, it would have read like Hogan's Heroes. (Think on that, and shudder in revulsion as I do.)
Over at Making Light recently, Debra Doyle wrote about some of the pitfalls of writing alternate history. One of her points is so germane to this discussion, and her take on it so perfectly right, that I'm going to quote her (the full text of her post is here). In her case she was talking about the American Civil War. She said, in part:
"Concentrating on any one aspect of it, within the confines of a novel, is inevitably going to mean not dealing with any number of other aspects, and at that point you’re a fit victim for the 'there is no mention of Z in this book' line of criticism. For which the only honest answer a writer can give is, 'A book about Z would have been a different book, and the book that I wanted to write was this one.'"
And she's right.
Earlier, I said that the Milkweed books were my attempt to tell myself an entertaining adventure story. So, just as a thought experiment, let's recast this discussion in terms of films rather than books for a moment: Nobody ever criticizes "The Guns of Navarone" for not being "Schindler's List". Why, then, are books different? "Navarone" (not my favorite film, but a suitable example for this discussion, and in fact based on a book by Alistair MacLean) is a WWII action/adventure movie about a completely fictitious commando mission in the Greek Isles. The Nazi genocide doesn't play a direct role in the film. Is that a failing? If so, how should it have been incorporated into the story?
Well, I think it becomes pretty obvious that directly incorporating the Holocaust into "The Guns of Navarone" would be a completely different movie. Not a bad movie, per se, but a different one. Different from what the filmmakers wanted to pursue. Which again is neither good nor bad, but a simple fact.
And, frankly, I don't think an action/adventure movie (book) is necessarily a good venue for serious, respectful contemplation of the horrors of the Final Solution. (Again, the worst-case scenario would be something akin to "Hogan's Heroes". Which, if you can't tell, was a TV show I really hated.) I suppose one could argue that perhaps this suggests that any action/adventure stories set during WWII are inherently flawed because they're not a commentary on the Holocaust. It's not for me to say one way or the other, but that argument does strike me as tarring things with an awfully wide brush.
Alternatively, then, maybe the argument is that WWII stories that don't directly address the Final Solution should be avoided. But I still think that's deeply flawed reasoning. For instance, if BITTER SEEDS had been a book about the Pacific theater, or about the Japanese occupation of Manchuria, or about the Burma Road, or about a naval battle off the coast of Argentina, would it have been odd to omit a discussion of the concentration camps in Europe? Of course not. So where do we draw the line between compulsory inclusion and egregious name-checking? The Second World War is an enormous subject. No one story can cover it all. History books that attempt to cover the entire war are thick beasts.
Now, just to be 100% clear, I'm not saying there's no need for stories about the Holocaust, whether fiction or nonfiction. Because there is, and there always will be. I feel very strongly that any story -- book, film, stage play, whatever -- that *does* touch on the horrors of the Holocaust should do it honestly, unflichingly, and respectfully. But not every story is the proper framework for that.
full interview: http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/interview-with-ian-tregillis.html
Would you care to elaborate on this? I’m probably not the only reader who noticed that there is no mention of the Holocaust. . .
You know, there are some readers who felt that not writing directly about the Holocaust was one of the few things I did right, given my ham-handed treatment of history. I tell ya, a guy just can't win.
Just because something isn't mentioned by name doesn't mean it isn't there. (And, honestly, would you really want to read a book that attempted to exorcise the curse of its WWII setting merely by mentioning "Final Solution" a couple of times? Because I'm not convinced that merely mentioning an atrocity absolves the story of its responsibility to acknowledge and understand its context. The state-sanctioned murder of 6 million people isn't something you merely name-check.)
I thought very long and very hard about how to approach these books before I started. This isn't a project I undertook lightly.
BITTER SEEDS is achingly aware of the Holocaust, and I'm a little surprised by the suggestion that it isn't. Von Westarp carries out grisly human experimentation (which amounts, the vast majority of the time, to murder) in the service of what he believes is a higher ideal. His efforts eventually become institutionalized and formalized by the Third Reich. That horrific backdrop to the story is meant to echo the Holocaust. Later, when von Westarp is preparing for a massive expansion of his research program, the means he devises for mass disposal of bodies are specifically meant to echo some of the real-world atrocities that took place in the concentration camps. (And it's no accident that von Westarp's fictional farm is situated fairly close to the real-world site of Buchenwald. I specifically included a scene where the ubermenschen practice their abilities on prisoners from the camps. When VW's children need people upon whom to practice their powers, the SS sends over a truckload of prisoners, including Jews, from the camps.) There's also a scene where one of the major secondary characters is cremated, and his ashes rise up into the sky, then come back down mixed with snow. That was intended as a deliberate nod to a particularly chilling visual in Schindler's List. (I'm not comparing BITTER SEEDS to that film in any way, shape or form. But it's a film I respect quite a bit.)
These things are there, and they're there for a reason. They're my way of acknowledging that the story would never have been possible outside an environment where a horror like the Holocaust was taking place.
Readers may disagree with my choice to approach the subject discreetly, and that's absolutely their prerogative. But just because something is addressed obliquely doesn't mean it's being dismissed, or approached with a cavalier attitude. I made the choices I did because it became clear while thinking about how to approach this book -- and, in fact, the very question you raise about the Holocaust -- that there's a fine line beyond which devoting scenes to an exploration of the Nazi genocide would have meant devoting the entire *story* to that subject. Otherwise, it would have read like Hogan's Heroes. (Think on that, and shudder in revulsion as I do.)
Over at Making Light recently, Debra Doyle wrote about some of the pitfalls of writing alternate history. One of her points is so germane to this discussion, and her take on it so perfectly right, that I'm going to quote her (the full text of her post is here). In her case she was talking about the American Civil War. She said, in part:
"Concentrating on any one aspect of it, within the confines of a novel, is inevitably going to mean not dealing with any number of other aspects, and at that point you’re a fit victim for the 'there is no mention of Z in this book' line of criticism. For which the only honest answer a writer can give is, 'A book about Z would have been a different book, and the book that I wanted to write was this one.'"
And she's right.
Earlier, I said that the Milkweed books were my attempt to tell myself an entertaining adventure story. So, just as a thought experiment, let's recast this discussion in terms of films rather than books for a moment: Nobody ever criticizes "The Guns of Navarone" for not being "Schindler's List". Why, then, are books different? "Navarone" (not my favorite film, but a suitable example for this discussion, and in fact based on a book by Alistair MacLean) is a WWII action/adventure movie about a completely fictitious commando mission in the Greek Isles. The Nazi genocide doesn't play a direct role in the film. Is that a failing? If so, how should it have been incorporated into the story?
Well, I think it becomes pretty obvious that directly incorporating the Holocaust into "The Guns of Navarone" would be a completely different movie. Not a bad movie, per se, but a different one. Different from what the filmmakers wanted to pursue. Which again is neither good nor bad, but a simple fact.
And, frankly, I don't think an action/adventure movie (book) is necessarily a good venue for serious, respectful contemplation of the horrors of the Final Solution. (Again, the worst-case scenario would be something akin to "Hogan's Heroes". Which, if you can't tell, was a TV show I really hated.) I suppose one could argue that perhaps this suggests that any action/adventure stories set during WWII are inherently flawed because they're not a commentary on the Holocaust. It's not for me to say one way or the other, but that argument does strike me as tarring things with an awfully wide brush.
Alternatively, then, maybe the argument is that WWII stories that don't directly address the Final Solution should be avoided. But I still think that's deeply flawed reasoning. For instance, if BITTER SEEDS had been a book about the Pacific theater, or about the Japanese occupation of Manchuria, or about the Burma Road, or about a naval battle off the coast of Argentina, would it have been odd to omit a discussion of the concentration camps in Europe? Of course not. So where do we draw the line between compulsory inclusion and egregious name-checking? The Second World War is an enormous subject. No one story can cover it all. History books that attempt to cover the entire war are thick beasts.
Now, just to be 100% clear, I'm not saying there's no need for stories about the Holocaust, whether fiction or nonfiction. Because there is, and there always will be. I feel very strongly that any story -- book, film, stage play, whatever -- that *does* touch on the horrors of the Holocaust should do it honestly, unflichingly, and respectfully. But not every story is the proper framework for that.
full interview: http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/interview-with-ian-tregillis.html
