To this day whenever a new fantasy book is released it must first pass the test of Tolkein, is better, similar, new, different, redefining? Nowadays another comparison has begun to be made in the fantasy circle( at least the ones I run in) George R. Martin.

With ASOIAF, I think its safe to say that he is the one who ushered in the era of, "Dark and gritty" at least to the general populace. Now any "dark and gritty" book that comes out must be compared to Mr.Martins books.

My question is does he deserve it, has he truly done what has never been done before, or introduced something fresh and new to the fantasy genre.
Even if its not George R. Martin, which author and books do you think have managed this.

For me, I highly endorse the Malazan book of the fallen series. So how do I think Steve Erikson has redefined fantasy.

One unlike any other book I have ever read, I can honestly say it is the first book where you feel like the author has created a true actual world. I don't mean a continent or two there, I mean an entire world that is absolutely rich in history.

This history is what has completely drawn me into the series. In this book the author reveals to you everything to know about his races( there aare about 6-7 races as of now, the fifth book.). Imagine how much history Human beings as a single race have, now imagine six other races with just as deep and complex a history and my friends you have yourself the redefining of fantasy.

Then there is the Magic or the supernatural( as in supernatural to the books world) and if you as a fantasy fan are not hooked then it is best you drop it.

The magic system is simply wonderful, you have the mages and High priests accessing their Warrens from where they can access their magic and also use it to travel. The reveal of what the warrens actually are is simply breathtakingly awesome.

Spoiler

The warrens are simply Elder gods blood and the different warrens are parts of the gods personality

I could go on and I am willing but I want to hear your thoughts on the matter. So thoughts?

 

If there were any new standard for the Fantasy genre I would say it is absolutely the Kingkiller Chronicles by Rothfuss. Even if he's a bit of a dick, he's also an awesome author with an amazing story.

 

Yeah, but it doesn't 'redefine' fantasy though.

Did you even read the post?

 

I've heard Martin compared to Tolkien before. "The American Tolkien" or some such. Personally, I don't think so. He didn't really redefine anything to me. His political plot is brilliant, sure, and I like how he keeps killing off characters, but that's hardly "redefining" to me.

Erikson didn't redefine anything outside of my personal taste and standards. I believe him to be the best fantasy writer ever, to be sure, but he really didn't redefine the fantasy genre.

Tolkien is simply too classic and well-known to be easily replaced as a standard. It's a bit like Mozart and Beethoven. While we have some tremendously talented writers right now, they aren't going to take Tolkien's place anytime soon.

It's a little silly subject, the whole redefining business. You have fantasy, as a genre. Then you have various styles of fantasy. Some styles will become more popular, and some authors will become more popular. People will create new stuff, but that won't really be redefining for me. I'm sure that someone will eventually replace Tolkien's place, but fantasy as a genre will never be redefined.

This whole thread and even my own reply confuses me.

 

Personally, I think that everyone defines fantasy differently. Either by the first series they read, or by their favourite series. Historically, that has almost always been by Tolkien, because The Lord of The Rings was just so much more popular and widely spread than anything else. So people read started reading fantasy by reading The Lord of The Rings, and so compared everything they read after to that standard.

However, nowadays we have things like A Song of Ice and Fire which have received the same level of mainstream popularity, so more people read that and start to use that as their comparison.

 

Martin has played with some of the cliches and over-used tropes of fantasy, and perhaps in that way has laid them bare and shown the problems with them, but I'm not sure how much redefining he's done. You could argue that him playing with some tropes and focusing on characters and politics and not following Tolkien's method of filling somethings in and leaving others empty or whatever can count as a redefinition but I don't think so.

It may lead to a grittier more realistic type of fantasy but I doubt it.

As for fantasy, I'm not sure it's something you can redefine, I mean, I'm looking at your post about Malazan and...it's done nothing that Tolkien hasn't done. Tolkien began his story from before his world was created. There are multiple races and more kingdoms that you can shake a stick at and their history is all detailed. This isn't something new.

 

If you want to look for the original gritty and realistic fantasy novel that turned from LotR then you need look up The Black Company. It was published mid 80s. And it is dark, along with decently political.

As to whether it drastically changed the fantasy genre... You'd be best off emailing the authors of the last 20 years and ask what inspired them to more realistic, more detailed magic system, more political intrigue, etc.

 

People keep saying this but I don't know. I read the first two books of the trilogy and they seemed distinctly...80s to me. With what seemed like a completely cliche hero that basically ran on authorial fiat and ""hurr durr destiny" (easily the worst part, if extremely common in fantasy) and barely any magic, the actual military engagements were also very limited and politics- basically bickering between Nazgul analogues...I saw little. The best thing iirc, was the portrayal of The Lady, who actually seemed like a person.

 

The storyline is far from original. However I really liked the magic (or lack there of) system. But it should still be considered near the first gritty, morally grey, good doesn't always triumph story. It was the first time while I was reading I knew not everyone was safe.

Then I started reading Martin and thought back wistfully to how easy Glen Cook was on his supporting cast.

 

I'm not sure it redefined fantasy or not (though it did market itself as accomplishing it), but The Prince of Nothing trilogy along with the following Aspect-Emperor trilogy by R. Scott Bakker. It's a very... philosophically oriented, I suppose, set of stories that try to redefine what a hero is and show what a supernaturally, coldly rational mind can do to a society that is cripplingly dependent on religion. It's not the easiest thing to read, what with a distinct lack of many likable characters and Bakker's rather involved diction and complicated prose, but it's a hell of a story. Not for everyone though.

 

Does Harry Potter count? I would argue that except for Tolkien, no other fantasy series has had such a massive impact on fantasy literature in recent times. Of course, I'm not sure if they can be compared for your purposes. HP isn't really 'epic' fantasy like LotR or Erikson's stuff.

 

I don't think it can be argued that Harry Potter redefined fantasy when Diana Wynne Jones, Tamora Pierce, and Lloyd Alexander were writing roughly the same stuff decades previous.

JKR did it better to be sure, but the themes and tropes we see in Harry Potter are pretty commonplace in young-adult fantasy.

On an unrelated note, I'm sad that DWJ passed away last year. I didn't discover HP until early 1999. Before that, the Dalemark Quartet, the Chrestomanci series, Dark Lord of Derkholm, and the Howl's Moving Castle series all easily made my list of favorite kid's books.

 

In my opinion a novel needs two things to be considered a turning point or to have redefined a genre. The first is, naturally, a change. It's not enough to start at the same point and then go in different tangents. The starting point itself should make the difference. And secondly, it has got to be popular. Even if the novel is a masterpiece and could completely subvert the genre, it won't change anything unless lots and lots of people read it.

Harry Potter only has one of these two requirements. The familiar story of the orphan that lives a common, unpleasant life and is then whisked away to live adventure, love and loss and face his destiny is as old as whoring. How many demi-Gods in greek mythology were born in a small fishing village? Or were farmers? Hell, even Clark Kent grew up in a farm.

JKR took a popular trope, sprinkled some good ideas, mixed it with good story-telling and had her novel marketed correctly. This doesn't mean that what she did is worthless. Quite the opposite, as there are thousands out there trying to do the same and failing all the time.

Then there is R. R. Martin, who in my opinion meets the first requirement. Remember his first book came out in 1996. Back then ASOIAF didn't enjoy a tenth of the popularity it does today. There were many readers, of course, enough to consider the book a success, but these readers were, in general, fantasy fans. You would've been very lucky to ask a random guy on the street what GOT was and get a positive answer.

Things changed of course, just like they did for Tolkien. Especially now that it's been formatted for TV, ASOIAF has become one of the most popular novels ever written. If this popularity lasts, I have no doubt that you could consider ASOIAF as having redefined the fantasy genre, even if there are other, older works similar to it, simply because they didn't receive as much attention.

 

J. Abercrombie not getting any creddit?

 

Wow, you're comparing a bunch of books that are all just pseudo-medieval Europe swords-and-sorcery as "redefining fantasy"? What have any of them added to the genre that wasn't being done decades before Tolkien by the likes of Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, Clark Ashton Smith, Jack Vance, etc.?

Or, y'know, Le Morte d'Arthur and Beowulf.

That's not a slam on any of those works, since they're great and all, but they're just retelling stories in a genre and setting that's been around forever. GRRM did not invent "grimdark fantasy" and Patrick Rothfuss is being a little bit clever in subverting some of the tropes of the genre, but he's still painting well inside the lines.

"Rdefining fantasy" would be authors like China Mieville, Neil Gaiman, Emma Bull, Catherynne Valente, Gene Wolf, John Crowley, and I'm just gonna toss Stephen King in there too.

 

Awesome though he is, I wouldn't say that he has redefined fantasy. You've got wizards, barbarians, demons (kinda sorta), epic quests...he does a similar thing to Martin, I think - fairly traditional fantasy but darker and edgier (although I think he does it better than Martin).

Edit: ninja'd.

 

My problem with answering this question echoes what Bill said: before you re-define something, you have to define it in the first place.

What are the elements of fantasy writing that are intigral and cannot be done without? Is it magic? The Quest? The setting?

Or is it even more fundamental and basic than that, i.e., that we need a character to explore something that makes us go, "Wow. Never thought of that before," or "That's new."

If it's the latter, then any book could be called re-defining. It might not even be called a fantasy.

If it's the former, we're limited in the idea of re-defining. There are only so many twists you can put on the Hero's Quest without it falling apart. We know setting isn't limiting; you can have a fantasy story set anywhere, anywhen, even the far future. We know magic isn't necessary, though it certainly adds flavour. That leaves us with the Quest.

I would argue that the Quest - whether it is Saving the World, the Escape, the War, etc., is so intrinsic to the fantasy genre that it can't be done without, not if you're trying to write something that both Changes Everything and is popular.

With that as the only absolute qualifier, I'd have to say that the whole Urban Fantasy movement is what re-defined the genre for me. Only in the last 15 years have we realized that fanatsy doesn't have to be medieval politicking or elves dancing in the forest.

In which case, the Dresden Files and the Anita Blake books (only the first) are what shifted my thinking and made me consider fantasy itself in a new light - what made me go, "Wow." The Lies of Locke Lamorra sort of walks the line between Classic fantasy and the dirtier Urban fantasy, and I think is better written than most of either (and yes, i'll include the Dresden Files in that).

 

Have you actually read Joseph Campbell? You're taking "quest" too literally. What you actually need in fantasy is the same thing you need in any (remotely conventional) fiction: some form of conflict. But you can have fantasy without "quest" stories. Fantasy requires only magic, or some form of the supernatural.

You're killing me.

Interview with a Vampire was published in 1976. The War for the Oaks in 1987. Little, Big in 1983. Strange Evil in 1957. Neil Gaiman's Sandman run began in 1989.

Those are off the top of my head.

 

I would argue you might be limiting the definition of Quest. A Quest is simply the pursuit of a great goal - not necessarily the attainment of said goal. The Quest in this context could be the search for truth, or love, or meaning, or a more traditional, corporeal goal like a weapon or treasure.

Whatever. If telling others that their idea is flawed is what makes you happy, go with it. Follow you bliss, I might say.

In the sense that 're-defining' requires a new take that also becomes popular (ie, spawns imitations and followings, captures the popular imagination) I'm sticking with the more recent surge of urban fantasy.