Is most of the better Fantasy fiction being written by women lately?

[2D8HP]

So while eagerly awaiting a new novel A Conjuring of Light by Victoria Schwab that's supposed to be published later this month, to tide me over I picked up A Whispering Storm by Michael Moorcock (an old favorite), and The Invisible Library by Genevieve Cogman (an author that's new to me), this week.

So far I'm findingThe Invisible Library more page turning, but what I'd really like to see is another book by Susanna Clarke, and that sparked a thought which made me go look at my bookshelf and check something:

Genevieve?

Susanna?

Victoria?

Ursula?

Poul Anderson, Robert Howard, Fritz Leiber, and Jack Vance are all still on my bookshelf, but I noticed that while at least 9/10th of the fiction that I've enjoyed reading that was published in the 20th century had male named authors, at least 4/5th of the fiction published in the 21st century that I've enjoyed has been written by women (I also read a lot less science fiction, and a lot more fantasy than I used to), and most of the fiction written in the 21st Century by male authors (Gaiman, Moorcock, Pratchett, Wolfe) that I'm reading is by authors I read in the 20th century, while most of the younger authors I'm reading are women.

Why might that be?
(What does it matter? Your probably wondering with good reason, but when I notice a curious pattern, I get curious!)

Maybe it's just mostly women being published?

To test this, I went to a Barnes and Noble (instead of Dark Carnival which is my usual bookseller), and I looked over the shelves. The "Fantasy and Science Fiction" section is much larger than it once was, and since except for a little Bradbury, and a lot of Tolkien, most of the older books I knew aren't there, but it didn't look like titles written by women were overwhelmingly what was on the shelf, so to find a short cut as to what may be the "best" I picked up the January/February issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (it's been over a decade since I subscribed), and I counted five men authors, and four women authors, so almost equal. I picked up The Best American Science Fiction and Fantasy 2016 which had ten female, and ten female authors, so exactly equal, which is what you'd expect, so why was I enjoying mostly men's writings in the 20th century, and mostly womens writings in the 21st?

Just a fluke?

Or is there a pattern?

What might that be?

If it's a clue, I started to read less Science Fiction and more Fantasy, after Cyberpunk became the popular sub-genre in the 1980's, and as well as Swords & Sorcery, I'm reading more Gaslamp Fantasy, a sub-genre that except maybe for Avram Davidson's Doctor Eszterhazy tales I previously never saw.

Please feel free to argue by mentioning books you like!

Thanks!

[Blackhawk748]

Son of the Black Sword by Larry Correia was published last year IIRC, so i think it may just be an odd coincidence for you. Honestly i've got a mix author wise from all of my books and the bulk of them are pre 2000 and id say around half are women, though the Dragonriders of Pern may be throwing that average off a bit.

[Lethologica]

There is no shortage of male fantasy authors. For example, here (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/88.Best_Fantasy_Books_of_the_21st_Century) is a list of popular fantasy novels of the 21st century. Taste or no (I lean towards 'no'), it offers plenty of male authors. Similarly with a more focused list (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/20917.Can_t_Wait_Sci_Fi_Fantasy_of_2013).

Also, you're not just reading recent work by women. le Guin broke out in the '60s, and her crown jewels are '70s novels (published before The Silmarillion, even)--I don't know if that really counts as 'lately'. She was born only three years after Poul Anderson, who you name as an old fart; she was in the same high school class as Philip K. ****.

[Kitten Champion]

I suspect it's a matter of you being disinclined towards contemporary trends in Fantasy fiction which a number of the more heavily marketed male authors tend to produce and also tend to be directed towards Men. More multi-part door-stoppers in general, more grittiness in the flavour of Martin, and a lot of action and whole clothe myth making like with Sanderson -- I'm sure you can do a deeper analysis if you've the time but from the covers and the descriptions alone its easy to tell what publishers are trying convey and to whom based on the language of 2000's genre fiction that most of us understand even if we don't put it into words.

Of course there's still a wide audience outside of that specific but highly lucrative block who are buying genre books en masse, and quite of lot of that is catered towards and provided by women. While obviously most of it is also pretty bad like with anything, you've grown a distinct fondness for the gems.

[Razade]

If you want some good works done by women I'd suggest Mercedes Lackey, some books are hit or miss but over all the world she's weaved in her major series is pretty good. Goblin Emperor, not by Lackey, is also really solid.

[2D8HP]

If you want some good works done by.....

I just want to read good stories regardless of who writes then.

To be clear, I have read and enjoyed works by women authors in the 20th century (Leigh Bracket, Ursula LeGuin, Catherine Lucille Moore, etc.), and I have read works be new male 21st century authors (Jon Hollins, Scott Lynch, Rodrigo Garcia y Robertson, etc.) that I've enjoyed, it's just how the preponderance of who is writing what I enjoy has changed that's got me curious.

[Traab]

If you want some good works done by women I'd suggest Mercedes Lackey, some books are hit or miss but over all the world she's weaved in her major series is pretty good. Goblin Emperor, not by Lackey, is also really solid.

Basically, anything in her valdemar lineup is generally something you can assume is good. She is always finding new gaps in the timeline to insert more stories into the overall history of her world. As for the topic at hand, I dunno, aside from lackey and anne bishop, I dont have a lot of ladies as authors on my list. Eddings, gemmel, tolkien, weber (he has at least one decent set of fantasy novels, not just sci fi) butcher, jordan, etc etc etc.

[lord_khaine]

Basically, anything in her valdemar lineup is generally something you can assume is good. She is always finding new gaps in the timeline to insert more stories into the overall history of her world. As for the topic at hand, I dunno, aside from lackey and anne bishop, I dont have a lot of ladies as authors on my list. Eddings, gemmel, tolkien, weber (he has at least one decent set of fantasy novels, not just sci fi) butcher, jordan, etc etc etc.

I actually ended up deciding those Valdemar books were bad. Or certainly not to the taste i had grown to like. Main complaint is incompetent villains. As well as 95% of the book focusing on relationship drama, with the suposed plotline then being resolved in a single chapter at the end. Oh.. and all the coincidences, where people just.. know things.. because it would be inconvenient otherwise.

[DomaDoma]

To be honest, I have not read much in the way of recent fantasy at all. With the helpful note that I absolutely despise George R.R. Martin, particularly his division of every human action into villainy or folly and his clear preference of the former... what's good lately?

[Cespenar]

"Best-seller (or favorite, or best) fantasy fiction writers" seem to be a small enough sample size that you probably can't make good statistics of them, even if it were otherwise meaningful to do so.

[Adderbane]

To be honest, I have not read much in the way of recent fantasy at all. With the helpful note that I absolutely despise George R.R. Martin, particularly his division of every human action into villainy or folly and his clear preference of the former... what's good lately?

If you haven't already, you should try Brandon Sanderson's Stornlight Archive. It's basically the antithesis to Game of Thrones. It even plays the paladin trope entirely straight and makes it work.

(If you read it though, read Warbreaker before the second Strormlight book. Just trust me on this...)

[lord_khaine]

Oh, if anyone wants something fantasy thats very different from anything else they have read, then i would like to recomend "the last Unicorn"

[DomaDoma]

If you haven't already, you should try Brandon Sanderson's Stornlight Archive. It's basically the antithesis to Game of Thrones. It even plays the paladin trope entirely straight and makes it work.

(If you read it though, read Warbreaker before the second Strormlight book. Just trust me on this...)

Thanks. :smallsmile:

[Eldan]

Well, I'd name my current favourite still publishing authors as Gaiman, Butcher, Sanderson and Miéville, so that's not true for me. But then, I'm one case, and a male one at that. That said, if I look at what I actually bought this year so far in Fantasy...

Tropic of Serpents, Marie Brennan
Fool's Assassin, Robin Hobb (pen name of Margaret Astrid Lindholm Ogden)
Victory of Eagles, Naomi Novik

So, more female authors, but I tend to like the male ones more? All of those up there are books from authors I like very much, but I feel quite a bit more emotional about Sanderson and Butcher than any of the others.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I dunno about lately - Le Guin's been crushing male writers for decades.

Taking a step back though... it seems likely that female authors will become more prominent as time goes by. Historically it has been much harder for women to get published, as opposed to men, but that is changing now. Schoolgirls today read more than boys and achieve better grades, go to university in larger numbers and make up a sizeable majority of amateur writers (if my experiences with NaNo are anything to go by). So women in general are now far better equipped to write good stories and get publishers to take them seriously. Perhaps there's some truth behind the OP's feeling.

[An Enemy Spy]

To be honest, I have not read much in the way of recent fantasy at all. With the helpful note that I absolutely despise George R.R. Martin, particularly his division of every human action into villainy or folly and his clear preference of the former... what's good lately?

That is a ludicrous oversimplification of Martin's work. Just because heroic characters make mistakes that come back to bite them doesn't mean GRRM prefers the villains. It's a pretty constant theme in A Song of Ice and Fire that dishonorable actions may work in the short term, but they screw you over down the road when everybody knows you can't be trusted. Tywin's actions earned him a crossbow bolt through the belly courtesy of his own son, Joffrey earned himself a poisoned cup of wine, Cersei earned herself a trial for treason, the Freys earned themselves the hatred of the entire realm and are being hunted down and killed.

If you haven't even read the books, don't make false statements about them.

[Traab]

I actually ended up deciding those Valdemar books were bad. Or certainly not to the taste i had grown to like. Main complaint is incompetent villains. As well as 95% of the book focusing on relationship drama, with the suposed plotline then being resolved in a single chapter at the end. Oh.. and all the coincidences, where people just.. know things.. because it would be inconvenient otherwise.

The only times I really was annoyed was with a few of her stories where she really tended to grind on the girl power stuff and other moralistic messages. The Oathbond series, By the Sword, that stuff. Where a big part of the focus is on a single aspect of the character, or in the last herald mage series, on his sexual preferences. I do admit that romantic pairings is often a rather sizeable fragment of the stories, but I honestly never minded that. There was generally enough action or mystery going on that I didnt feel like I was reading a romance novel.

Im not sure I understand the whole "just know things" issue, can you give examples? Normally I recall her as doing a fairly decent job establishing early on that characters have such and such a background that becomes handy towards the end. Its rarely an out of the blue thing. Unless you mean foresight flashes and such.

[DomaDoma]

That is a ludicrous oversimplification of Martin's work. Just because heroic characters make mistakes that come back to bite them doesn't mean GRRM prefers the villains. It's a pretty constant theme in A Song of Ice and Fire that dishonorable actions may work in the short term, but they screw you over down the road when everybody knows you can't be trusted. Tywin's actions earned him a crossbow bolt through the belly courtesy of his own son, Joffrey earned himself a poisoned cup of wine, Cersei earned herself a trial for treason, the Freys earned themselves the hatred of the entire realm and are being hunted down and killed.

If you haven't even read the books, don't make false statements about them.

"Division" was a bad word, admittedly. Villains can be fools. Especially hammered in regarding Joffrey's actions in the first book. But good is never, ever wise, and the whole story is garnished with long embittered speeches just to make sure you got that.

[Leewei]

To be honest, I have not read much in the way of recent fantasy at all. With the helpful note that I absolutely despise George R.R. Martin, particularly his division of every human action into villainy or folly and his clear preference of the former... what's good lately?

In no order, Patrick Rothfuss, Scott Lynch, Charles Stross, and Lois McMaster Bujold are all enormously entertaining modern authors.

Regarding GRRM: A Song of Ice and Fire certainly didn't hook me. I quit with a bad taste in my mouth after reading the first book in the series. That said, pretty much everything else this author has ever written has been stellar. It is by no means current, but Tuf Voyaging is very atypical and absorbing science fiction. His friend, Roger Zelazny, who died many years ago, is also a staple of sci-fi and fantasy. (Damnation Alley clearly inspired Mad Max.)

[SaintRidley]

My current reading is split between catching up on A Song of Ice and Fire and reading Nnedi Okorafor's Who Fears Death, which is pretty excellent and I think I am probably going to pick up there stuff by her after I finish.

[Eldan]

"Division" was a bad word, admittedly. Villains can be fools. Especially hammered in regarding Joffrey's actions in the first book. But good is never, ever wise, and the whole story is garnished with long embittered speeches just to make sure you got that.

That's not the impression I got. The impression I got is that those who put Honour over common sense, even if they know it will hurt them, end up suffering for it. And even then, it's only a handful of people. Even then, it's often more poetic tragedy than senseless slaughter. There's in fact a few good people who get out of A LOT of dangerous situations, sometimes through ridiculous luck. Martin's reputation for grimness and slaughtering characters is far overstated.

[DomaDoma]

That's not the impression I got. The impression I got is that those who put Honour over common sense, even if they know it will hurt them, end up suffering for it. And even then, it's only a handful of people. Even then, it's often more poetic tragedy than senseless slaughter. There's in fact a few good people who get out of A LOT of dangerous situations, sometimes through ridiculous luck. Martin's reputation for grimness and slaughtering characters is far overstated.

Who's honorable and common-sensical? Heck, who, in a series devoted to a many-sided battle for the throne, even has a consistent system of law? (The answer to that last one would, of course, be Stannis. But his is unpleasant enough that he can get away with it.)

I'm not saying that everyone with honor dies. In fact, they usually live, in considerable suffering, none of their actions having accomplished a remotely lasting good, their acts of mercy having led directly to their betrayal by the exact person they took mercy on. All the better for them to hear the aforementioned long embittered speeches.

[An Enemy Spy]

Who's honorable and common-sensical? Heck, who, in a series devoted to a many-sided battle for the throne, even has a consistent system of law? (The answer to that last one would, of course, be Stannis. But his is unpleasant enough that he can get away with it.)

I'm not saying that everyone with honor dies. In fact, they usually live, in considerable suffering, none of their actions having accomplished a remotely lasting good, their acts of mercy having led directly to their betrayal by the exact person they took mercy on. All the better for them to hear the aforementioned long embittered speeches.

It's just like that awful movie Star Wars. I turned it off after Obi Wan died, because I was so sick of how George Lucas' villains always win.

[Eldan]

Who's honorable and common-sensical?

Tyrion, Arya, Davos. Bran. Brienne's fate is not entirely sure, but I'd put her on there too. Jon Snow tries. Maybe Doran Martell, unsure where this goes. Some of these people have survived despite half the world being out to get them.

As for good, but unsuccessful people? Mostly there's Eddard Stark, who walks around his entire book with an "I'm going to die at the end of this" sign around his neck and blunders around to an astonishing degree, and his son Rob, for similar reasons.

[DomaDoma]

It's just like that awful movie Star Wars. I turned it off after Obi Wan died, because I was so sick of how George Lucas' villains always win.

You're not picking up what I'm laying down here. Villains sometimes lose (though there's always the insurance that the loss is thoroughly useless in the grand scheme of things - you'd think Joffrey's death would have more upside than down, wouldn't you?) But good guys only win by becoming villains, and the instant they try to relapse they come down with a nasty case of blindness or what-have-you. And hey, at least the villains don't have any illusions to be disabused of.

Um. Someone post on topic now please.

[Kitten Champion]

It's just like that awful movie Star Wars. I turned it off after Obi Wan died, because I was so sick of how George Lucas' villains always win.

You say that sarcastically, but Space Nazi have reconquered the galaxy for the thousandth time as per the current continuity.

[Rynjin]

At least as long as I've been alive, women have been very well represented in novels. Mercedes Lackey, Andre Norton, Ursula K LeGuin, Marion Zimmer Bradley, Anne McCaffrey, etc, etc. and all of those were writing well before I was born.

But there has been no shortage of men either in the same timespan. Robert Jordan, Jim Butcher, Patrick Rothfuss, Brandon Sanderson, R.A. Salvatore, etc., etc.

The best you could glean from that is that females from my perspective dominated fantasy literature in some nebulous period in the late 80's and 90's (because I had a good backlog by the time I could read), but that's doubtful.

[Lethologica]

It's just like that awful movie Star Wars. I turned it off after Obi Wan died, because I was so sick of how George Lucas' villains always win.
Spoiler, it doesn't get better. I mean, the protagonists' reward for taking out the enemy's superweapon is learning that the enemy can just build a bigger badder one. Being a rogue gets you packed in carbonite and sent off to your debtors; being noble gets you an amputation with complimentary cauterization from your evil dad. And even the wise old masters turn out to be miserable liars. I just hope Luke at least gets somewhere with Leia soon, the clueless git.

[Lethologica]

You're not picking up what I'm laying down here. Villains sometimes lose (though there's always the insurance that the loss is thoroughly useless in the grand scheme of things - you'd think Joffrey's death would have more upside than down, wouldn't you?) But good guys only win by becoming villains, and the instant they try to relapse they come down with a nasty case of blindness or what-have-you. And hey, at least the villains don't have any illusions to be disabused of.

Um. Someone post on topic now please.
What. The villains have SO many illusions. So, so many.

[DomaDoma]

I confess to quitting about a quarter of the way through book five, but I've not heard a single spoiler that disabuses me of my point. The process is just relentless, and if you all are actually expecting the endlessly escalating cycles of vengeance to subside any time before the Others get in and mercy-kill this miserable world, I don't know what to tell you.

Like I say, the moral of the story is explicitly spelled out, repeatedly and at length. The world is awful; be awful yourself and it won't hurt so much.

[lord_khaine]

The only times I really was annoyed was with a few of her stories where she really tended to grind on the girl power stuff and other moralistic messages. The Oathbond series, By the Sword, that stuff. Where a big part of the focus is on a single aspect of the character, or in the last herald mage series, on his sexual preferences. I do admit that romantic pairings is often a rather sizeable fragment of the stories, but I honestly never minded that. There was generally enough action or mystery going on that I didnt feel like I was reading a romance novel.



I dont mind a bit of romance either, but in the book i stopped with it really felt like one. And it kinda annoyed me that the entire deal with the evil kingdom were resolved in about a chapter or so. Until then it had almost purely been relationship stuff.


Im not sure I understand the whole "just know things" issue, can you give examples? Normally I recall her as doing a fairly decent job establishing early on that characters have such and such a background that becomes handy towards the end. Its rarely an out of the blue thing. Unless you mean foresight flashes and such.


Best example i can think of is when the series big bad, Falconbane, is at last freed from the spirit possesing him by some random dude randomly introduced. And he then meet the sworn enemies he have tormented for god knows how long or in what way. But they can just look into his eyes and see "oh.. this is not the monster we are looking for. No explanation needed, we wont try and disembowel him"

[An Enemy Spy]

I confess to quitting about a quarter of the way through book five, but I've not heard a single spoiler that disabuses me of my point. The process is just relentless, and if you all are actually expecting the endlessly escalating cycles of vengeance to subside any time before the Others get in and mercy-kill this miserable world, I don't know what to tell you.

Like I say, the moral of the story is explicitly spelled out, repeatedly and at length. The world is awful; be awful yourself and it won't hurt so much.

And now you're just making things up. For example, who are these heroes that become villains? Jon? Nope. Dany?. Nope. Tyrion? Nope. Sansa? Nope. Brienne? Nope. Davos? Nope. Arya? At worst she's a Punsher-like anithero.

The only true example I can think of is Catelyn, and I can't imagine that George wrote her to be the moral example we're meant to follow, what with her being a horrible murderous zombie and all.

If you don't like the dark tone of ASoIaF, that's perfectly okay. The series obviously isn't meant to appeal to everyone. Just don't lie about it.

[DomaDoma]

I think of villainy versus heroism as being a matter of what you do, not whether you chew the scenery about it like Gregor Clegane does. So on that basis, you're left with a) heroes who only succeed when they do evil, and b) heroes who are left to mope about doing nothing but stare at the surrounding awfulness for chapters on end.

[An Enemy Spy]

I think of villainy versus heroism as being a matter of what you do, not whether you chew the scenery about it like Gregor Clegane does. So on that basis, you're left with a) heroes who only succeed when they do evil, and b) heroes who are left to mope about doing nothing but stare at the surrounding awfulness for chapters on end.

Provide examples from the text. Actual quotes, not just your skewed version of it. I want to see actual lines of text lifted straight from the book of the heroes only succeeding by doing evil things.

[Eldan]

Yeah, that. I can't think of a single hero doing much evil.

[DomaDoma]

Will need to hit a library first, so: tomorrow evening. Side debate adjourned.

[cobaltstarfire]

There might be more women publishing now than in the past, because it's easier now. Haven't woman authors had to sometimes resort to pseudonyms in the past because of the notion that buyers won't pick up a book with a woman's name on it? I'd hazard to say that there aren't more, it's just now the women are less likely to be rendered invisible for one reason or another.

I don't think women are inherently better equipped to write though, the whole women are better with words/writing thing is a self reinforcing social construct, and doesn't do service to men or women. (I'm not denying that the existence of this stereotype is causing there to be more women engages in reading/writing, just that it's an idea that needs to be broken, not repeated as fact)

That said an authors attributes aren't really what I care about when choosing what books to read, their name alone can't tell me anything about the story, sometimes even when it's an author I know. That's what the pretty covers and blurb on the back are for.

[An Enemy Spy]

I see lots of books written by women and lots of books written by men, and the only pattern I've noticed in quality is that good writers are good and bad writers are bad. It's got nothing to do with sex or gender.

[Traab]

I dont mind a bit of romance either, but in the book i stopped with it really felt like one. And it kinda annoyed me that the entire deal with the evil kingdom were resolved in about a chapter or so. Until then it had almost purely been relationship stuff.




Best example i can think of is when the series big bad, Falconbane, is at last freed from the spirit possesing him by some random dude randomly introduced. And he then meet the sworn enemies he have tormented for god knows how long or in what way. But they can just look into his eyes and see "oh.. this is not the monster we are looking for. No explanation needed, we wont try and disembowel him"




You mean, the random dude introduced at least a book earlier that has a historical connection to this guy and is well established as a pretty badass mage? I mean, the entire plan to take down falconsbane involved the spirit locked inside him feeding them information and being able to influence falconsbane when needed to set him up and they were pretty specifically going to try and free him, though there were no promises he would survive. And while he does fall into the dumb bad guy category, we even learn WHY. Its not like people treat him as some omnipotent villain who we readers see is a moron. The good guys spot the massive holes in his planning and learn WHY he acts that way. I actually found that part to be interesting. Certainly far more interesting than ancar and his "EVERYONE CHARGE AT THE ENEMY TILL THEY DIE!" battle tactics.

[Coidzor]

I'm pretty sure by weight and by volume, there's more women writing and reading these days.

Couldn't tell you why, exactly, since it seems to be one of those areas that scientists and those who fund them don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

[lord_khaine]

the random dude introduced at least a book earlier that has a historical connection to this guy and is well established as a pretty badass mage? I mean, the entire plan to take down falconsbane involved the spirit locked inside him feeding them information and being able to influence falconsbane when needed to set him up and they were pretty specifically going to try and free him, though there were no promises he would survive. And while he does fall into the dumb bad guy category, we even learn WHY. Its not like people treat him as some omnipotent villain who we readers see is a moron. The good guys spot the massive holes in his planning and learn WHY he acts that way. I actually found that part to be interesting. Certainly far more interesting than ancar and his "EVERYONE CHARGE AT THE ENEMY TILL THEY DIE!" battle tactics.

Yeah, i felt he were more randomly pulled out of the blue than anything else. "oh here is btw, a wizard as good or better than the one that got everyone quivering in their soles.
Also, he were certainly incompetent. I dont recall what he really managed to accomplish. But it does not make taking him down sound like an accomplishment on its own.
Though how and why he were taken down is not one of the things i called out as eventually driving me off the serie.

[tomandtish]

I actually ended up deciding those Valdemar books were bad. Or certainly not to the taste i had grown to like. Main complaint is incompetent villains. As well as 95% of the book focusing on relationship drama, with the suposed plotline then being resolved in a single chapter at the end. Oh.. and all the coincidences, where people just.. know things.. because it would be inconvenient otherwise.


The only times I really was annoyed was with a few of her stories where she really tended to grind on the girl power stuff and other moralistic messages. The Oathbond series, By the Sword, that stuff. Where a big part of the focus is on a single aspect of the character, or in the last herald mage series, on his sexual preferences. I do admit that romantic pairings is often a rather sizeable fragment of the stories, but I honestly never minded that. There was generally enough action or mystery going on that I didnt feel like I was reading a romance novel.

Im not sure I understand the whole "just know things" issue, can you give examples? Normally I recall her as doing a fairly decent job establishing early on that characters have such and such a background that becomes handy towards the end. Its rarely an out of the blue thing. Unless you mean foresight flashes and such.

Having read a lot of Valdemar, I'd argue that the bigger issue there is not so much anything is "bad" versus it starts getting repetitive. Once you've read two or three of the trilogies in Valdemar, you generally aren't reading anything substantially different in each one. Not quite as bad as Eddings, but still very obvious.

I prefer a lot of her collaborations actually. Obsidian Trilogy is excellent (with James Mallory).

[Blackhawk748]

To be honest, I have not read much in the way of recent fantasy at all. With the helpful note that I absolutely despise George R.R. Martin, particularly his division of every human action into villainy or folly and his clear preference of the former... what's good lately?

Son of the Black Sword was a fun read for me.


I'm pretty sure by weight and by volume, there's more women writing and reading these days.

Couldn't tell you why, exactly, since it seems to be one of those areas that scientists and those who fund them don't want to touch with a ten foot pole.

They have done studies, they just get yelled at when they post their findings. Id say it may have to do with that a) it seems like more women than men are English Majors (this was my impression in college), b) Women are starting to outnumber men in college (i think in New York it was like 5/3 in favor of women) and c) Women are now publishing under their own name.

[Traab]

Obsidian trilogy, yes. Thats a very good series. I guess they wrote a follow up trilogy, but I only read the first book and since it was a new release, by the time the next one came out I had lost all interest.

[Knaight]

Back on topic - it easily could be the case. If the field is restricted to notable authors who produce good stuff (on the basis of the rest not being better fantasy fiction or being low impact enough that it can't be quantified easily) there's few enough authors that the balance could easily tip one way or the other. An exact 50-50 split is unlikely, and there are definitely a number of women writing fantasy right now who are extremely capable writers. I'd need to spend some time with a big database and more time reading to say more than "it could be" though.

[lord_khaine]

Having read a lot of Valdemar, I'd argue that the bigger issue there is not so much anything is "bad" versus it starts getting repetitive. Once you've read two or three of the trilogies in Valdemar, you generally aren't reading anything substantially different in each one. Not quite as bad as Eddings, but still very obvious.

I prefer a lot of her collaborations actually. Obsidian Trilogy is excellent (with James Mallory).

It could very well be the main problem. I just know i grew tired with the serie after 4-5 books.

But thanks for the recomendation of the Obsidian Book. Perhaps a co-author were all that was needet.

[Corvus]

Currently the whole literary industry is dominated by women so it is little wonder that a lot of current fantasy is being produced by women. The majority of readers, authors, agents and publishing execs are now women.

I work in a school library and I see far more female readers borrowing, and by far the majority of new books we get in are written by women.

It is actually getting to be a bit of a concern just how little boys are reading at the moment.

[lord_khaine]

Currently the whole literary industry is dominated by women so it is little wonder that a lot of current fantasy is being produced by women. The majority of readers, authors, agents and publishing execs are now women.

I work in a school library and I see far more female readers borrowing, and by far the majority of new books we get in are written by women.

It is actually getting to be a bit of a concern just how little boys are reading at the moment.

Hmm.. the biggest names in fantasy i recall reading, Butcher, Sanderson, Erikson, is stil men though. Any females writhing anything in that sort of style?

Else, is it anything out of the ordinary? Is it not always girls who have been reading the most? Is the only new thing not just that they have begun to move into fantasy in larger numbers?
(they are for that matter welcome to do so :smalltongue:

[ngilop]

If you haven't already, you should try Brandon Sanderson's Stornlight Archive. It's basically the antithesis to Game of Thrones. It even plays the paladin trope entirely straight and makes it work.

(If you read it though, read Warbreaker before the second Strormlight book. Just trust me on this...)



WHAT?!?!?!

I absolutely abhor that unsavory GRRM and any of his works. You are telling me there is a series of novels such as you have described is unto a light shining in the darkness of hopelessness to me.

Most everything I have picked up since the damn TV show started to me has just seemed SOFAI "inpsired" and to me that means even more crap than the latest RA Slavatore trilogy and thats saying a lot from me.

What order do I read the book(s)?

[Knaight]

WHAT?!?!?!

I absolutely abhor that unsavory GRRM and any of his works. You are telling me there is a series of novels such as you have described is unto a light shining in the darkness of hopelessness to me.

Most everything I have picked up since the damn TV show started to me has just seemed SOFAI "inpsired" and to me that means even more crap than the latest RA Slavatore trilogy and thats saying a lot from me.

What order do I read the book(s)?

There's plenty of stuff that's still highly optimistic in fantasy. I like GRRM's work well enough (though this particular series has been a bit rough for a book or two), but that doesn't mean I can't suggest fairly optimistic stuff all day long.

[Corvus]

Hmm.. the biggest names in fantasy i recall reading, Butcher, Sanderson, Erikson, is stil men though. Any females writhing anything in that sort of style?

Else, is it anything out of the ordinary? Is it not always girls who have been reading the most? Is the only new thing not just that they have begun to move into fantasy in larger numbers?
(they are for that matter welcome to do so :smalltongue:

None of them are what I'd call recent - they've all been kicking around for over a decade. I'm not up on more current authors but there are a lot more female ones now than there used to be.

I'm not sure whether in the past there were more girl than boy readers but there has been a marked drop off in the numbers of boy readers. And you are probably correct that girl readers are moving more into fantasy than in the past, which is helping drive the demographic change in authors as well.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have no idea. Sadly I have almost stopped reading books, time does not lend itself between work, marriage, two dogs, and trying to fit in my main interest Computer Games.

That said I have two more or less irrelevant points:
1. Why is this this interesting? Please don't take this as a snub towards the OP but what does it matter?
2. "Back in my day" there were plenty of female fantasy writers. Elizabeth Moon, Merchedes Lackey, Barbara Hambly... Etc etc. In fact I think at least 50% of all titles I found in my local SF / Fantasy bookstore in the late 80s or early 90s were written by women.

[Themrys]

Hmm.. the biggest names in fantasy i recall reading, Butcher, Sanderson, Erikson, is stil men though. Any females writhing anything in that sort of style?

Else, is it anything out of the ordinary? Is it not always girls who have been reading the most? Is the only new thing not just that they have begun to move into fantasy in larger numbers?
(they are for that matter welcome to do so :smalltongue:

I am pretty much sure that girls have always been reading more than boys.

Only now that they manage to get books published that the male establishment is worried about losing dominance. Or whatever else they worry about.

But there's no need for that, really. I did a count of the books at my public library (all books currently owned by the library, not just those on the shelves); there's between 20 and 30 percent of female writers in the fantasy section, and 30% is exactly the percentage of female contribution where people (even those who consider themselves not at all sexist!) start to feel like women are dominating the discussion, so that fits.

Sci Fi, the percentage of female authors is closer to 5% if that, and most of that is Le Guin still lingering there; few books by younger female writers.

@ngilop: If you hate GRRM, have you read "The Goblin Emperor" by Katherine Addison? It is only one book, there are very few deaths, the protagonist is thoroughly decent, as are many of the people around him, and the author name consists of only two names versus Martin's four. I feel like if there's something that can be said to be the opposite of ASOIAF while still being fantasy, it is that book.

[Adderbane]

WHAT?!?!?!

I absolutely abhor that unsavory GRRM and any of his works. You are telling me there is a series of novels such as you have described is unto a light shining in the darkness of hopelessness to me.

Most everything I have picked up since the damn TV show started to me has just seemed SOFAI "inpsired" and to me that means even more crap than the latest RA Slavatore trilogy and thats saying a lot from me.

What order do I read the book(s)?

Most of Sanderson's fantasy series share a universe referred to as "The Cosmere" There's no required order to the books, but they are connected, and in some the connection is more relevant. In sort of a "after credits scene" in book two of The Stormlight Archive there is a very significant reveal that loses some of its weight if you haven't read Warbreaker yet. Mistborn gives a good view of the greater Cosmere cosmology, but isn't as necessary to enjoy SA. Of course if you like SA id recommend the rest of Sanderson's stuff too!

In terms of tone, SA is the polar opposite of GoT. Where GoT is a very dark, realistic, and also low-magic, SA has a world where warriors in magical power armor face off against giant crustacean monstrosities and continent-spanning magical hurricanes ravage the world on a weekly basis (leading to some really cool ecosystem worldbuilding). It really puts the epic back in "epic fantasy ". The protagonists are undoubtedly heroes, not any of this morally-grey stuff so popular lately. Dalinar Kholin is basically who Ned Stark could've been.


Life before Death,
Strength before Weakness,
Journey before Destination.
--The First Ideal of the Knights Radiant

[endoperez]

WHAT?!?!?!

I absolutely abhor that unsavory GRRM and any of his works. You are telling me there is a series of novels such as you have described is unto a light shining in the darkness of hopelessness to me.

Most everything I have picked up since the damn TV show started to me has just seemed SOFAI "inpsired" and to me that means even more crap than the latest RA Slavatore trilogy and thats saying a lot from me.

What order do I read the book(s)?

Spoilers because it's getting off-topic.

The theme of Sanderson's books is "a light shining in darkness" quite literally. They aren't the happy-go-lucky type of heroic fantasy. These are characters who suffer, in a world that isn't and never was a fairytale land, and a past cataclysm/armageddon/end of the world/where villains won is a recurring theme.
And OMG when the heroes get to the hero moment, all of that just emphasizes the themes. There's arc words that ooze pure heroism. There's desperate men refusing to abandon their ideals, and being empowered.

Sanderson is also known for incredible magic systems. There's inner logic in his systems, where realizing an additional rule you saw but didn't recognize might send shivers down your spine and send you to reread earlier scenes, where the effects are stated plain as day. It's like a reverse murder mystery: "how did he not die?" It's awesome.

Suggested reading order


Stormlight Archive is incredible. the first book, The Way of Kings, is also incredible. It's also a doorstopper. XD It's about idealism, about a broken man in a broken world and whether the fight is worth fighting when there's struggle but not victory in sight. According to this book, the answer is a triumphant, roaring yes.

It will make more sense if you've read his other books. I found Mistborn made certain things in the world make more sense. The second book, Words of Radiance, makes a small reference that you can connect to something in Warbreaker. All the man writes is good, but so far Stormlight Archive is his greatest work, so you might just want to dive in first. It's going to be a 12-book series eventually, so you'll end up rereading at some point any way. I personally started with Mistborn, and that was fantastic too.

---

Warbreaker is decent, but out of his standalone books it left the weakest impression on me. It's set in a different world. It takes place in a court, and one of its major themes is about self-sacrifice, giving of your self to benefit others.
In book 2 of Stormlight Archive, there's a small reference that only makes sense if you know Warbreaker. However, Stormlight Archive is already so chock full of references to things that won't be clear until the later, as-of-yet-unwritten books that you won't really lose that much for skipping this IMO.

---

Mistborn trilogy, is set in a yet another different world with vague connections to Stormlight Archive. It starts from The Final Empire, is an urban fantasy where there's a caste system, a corrupt elite and the downtrodden masses, and a villain at the top. A young woman learns to use her powers for people who want to change that. It was Sanderson's breakthrough story. It's great. For many authors, it'd be their best, but this is Sanderson.

A second Mistborn trilogy, starting from The Alloy of Law, is set centuries later after everything has changed. The tiniest of blurbs is enough to reveal much about the first trilogy, so don't look into that.

---

Elantris is a standalone book set in yet another different world. It's about two young people who are actually happy about their looming political marriage, but then a magical curse/plague gets one of them. It's one part political maneuvering, one part zombie apocalypse, one part coming of age and coming to terms with your heritage. It has a lawful neutral/not-evil paladin of an evil god, which makes for a very interesting antagonist. Another early work that's not his best; I still found it a good read.

The Emperor's Soul is a standalone book that has nothing to do with Elantris even though it's set in the same world. It's about a criminal using a very specific type of forbidden magic to do very forbidden things for a good man for very good reasons. The story is about how every person has potential to do good, and how it might be wasted, and how it might be encouraged. I liked it a lot, but it's more of an expanded short story, and has little in the way of action or excitement.

[2D8HP]

....Why is this this interesting?....


O.P. here: Mostly just curious, but if I can discern a pattern to the fiction I like, so I may more easily find more that would be awesome!



....In fact I think at least 50% of all titles I found in my local SF / Fantasy bookstore in the late 80s or early 90s were written by women.

I read lots of pre-'80's Science Fiction in my youth, but with the ascendance of "Cyberpunk" my interest in the genre waned. Of Fantasy mostly I read pre-'80's (indeed pre-'70's stuff suggested by Gygax's "Inspirational reading" Appendix N, which while it some women authors (of them LeGuin's "Wizard of Earthsea" was the best work that was listed), most of the works Gygax listed were by men.

In the late 1990's and early 2000"s I subscribed to "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction", and I seldom read novels then, only short stories.

I'm increasingly buying novels again, and of those new (21st Century) novels I seem to by far be enjoying novels by women more.

Like I said before it's probably just a random happenstance that the 20th century novels I enjoyed were mostly by men, and the 21st Century novels I've enjoyed have been mostly been by women, but if I can learn a short cut to selecting fiction I like that would awesome!

Just getting more book recommendations from the Forum (we all like OOTS at least?) is a plus too.

:smile:

[lord_khaine]

I absolutely abhor that unsavory GRRM and any of his works. You are telling me there is a series of novels such as you have described is unto a light shining in the darkness of hopelessness to me.

Most everything I have picked up since the damn TV show started to me has just seemed SOFAI "inpsired" and to me that means even more crap than the latest RA Slavatore trilogy and thats saying a lot from me.

What order do I read the book(s)?

Do second the nomination for The Way of Kings. It is about deeply flawed or broken characters rising above their trouble.
And yeah, Sandersons paladins are a little tarnished, but that does make them shine all the more where it matters.
Also, for fun, light hearted reading i would recomend his Alcratraz books. Mainly because they are funny. And because they tell the message that knowledge is the biggest weapon.
(they also reveal the global liberian conspiracy, so wear a false beard if you want to get them from your local libery.)


I am pretty much sure that girls have always been reading more than boys.

Only now that they manage to get books published that the male establishment is worried about losing dominance. Or whatever else they worry about.


Actually, the only thing we really worry about in the secret loges where we control the libery spendings from, are something happening to the handful of people guys able to write good fantasy.
That and mistreated books.

[Sapphire Guard]

Brent Weeks writes a good novel that is tonally upbeat through various horrific things happening -the rough idea is that virtue is (very) difficult but worthwhile.

Don't see any real change along gender lines, Robin Hobb has always been excellent, Ursula Le Guin's been writing since the sixties, etc.

Do think GRRM'S rep for darkness is overstated, and not because I'm that much of a fan of his work. He's just another writer to me, someone I'd read, but not go out of my way for.

[GloatingSwine]

1. There have always been women writing really good fantasy (it has historically been easier for women to get published writing fantasy than science fiction)

2. There are probably more women being published and promoted writing really good genre now than there have been for the last few years because of pushback against the Puppy brigade at the Hugos. (Think: Gamergate but for genre novels, some of the same faces are present, has had broadly the opposite of the effect intended by making women in genre fiction more visible and publishable than ever.)

3. Regarding the above, if you didn't read NK Jemesin's The Fifth Season stop whatever it is you're doing and go and read it because holy ****.

[Czhorat]

I'd say yes, at least for my tastes. This is also a yat in which women swept the major categories in the Nebula awards.

Some favorites over the past year's:

Elizabeth Bear
Charlie Jane Anders
Caetlyn Kiernan
Cat Valente
Naomi Novik

If you include SF, there's also NK Jemisin and Nnedi Okorofor.

On the male side, I'm very interested in Ken Liu's work. On SF, there's Scalzi and Bacigalupi and maybe Neil Stephenson.

Still question that - for me - the writers whose books excite me most are your women.

[Velaryon]

Gah, I hate coming into interesting conversations late. It leads to multi-quoting a whole slew of different subjects in one post, which is both messy and hard to get replies to everyone I hope to talk to.



I actually ended up deciding those Valdemar books were bad. Or certainly not to the taste i had grown to like. Main complaint is incompetent villains. As well as 95% of the book focusing on relationship drama, with the suposed plotline then being resolved in a single chapter at the end. Oh.. and all the coincidences, where people just.. know things.. because it would be inconvenient otherwise.

I've only ever read one trilogy of Lackey's novels, and while it sounds like it bothered you more than me, I was underwhelmed by the villains as well. It seemed like every time they clashed, the heroes would talk about what an incredibly powerful and dangerous villain Falconsbane was, and then proceed to walk all over him like a 20th level Fighter against a random patrol of orcs. To a lesser degree, I felt the same about David Eddings's Elenium and Tamuli series, where it seemed like literally all the competent people were heroes and all the villains were foolish, cowardly, weak types who had totally blundered their way into power.



There might be more women publishing now than in the past, because it's easier now. Haven't woman authors had to sometimes resort to pseudonyms in the past because of the notion that buyers won't pick up a book with a woman's name on it? I'd hazard to say that there aren't more, it's just now the women are less likely to be rendered invisible for one reason or another.

Sometimes pseudonyms, sometimes using initials instead of a name. For example, this is from the FAQ section of S.E. Hinton's website (https://web.archive.org/web/20071013090947/http://sehinton.com/misc/faq.html):

Q: Why do you only use your last name instead of your full name? (Question submitted by Jason)
A: I use my intials instead of my first name because the pulishers were afraid the first reviewers would assume a girl couldn't write a book like the Outsiders. After that, I found liked the privacy of having a "public" name and a private one, so it has worked out fine.

She's far from the only female author to do this, though there are also plenty of male authors who have done so as well (Tolkien, Lewis, Milne, etc.), so there's clearly more than one reason to use initials instead of a full name.



In terms of tone, SA is the polar opposite of GoT. Where GoT is a very dark, realistic, and also low-magic, SA has a world where warriors in magical power armor face off against giant crustacean monstrosities and continent-spanning magical hurricanes ravage the world on a weekly basis (leading to some really cool ecosystem worldbuilding). It really puts the epic back in "epic fantasy ". The protagonists are undoubtedly heroes, not any of this morally-grey stuff so popular lately. Dalinar Kholin is basically who Ned Stark could've been.

On the other hand, Kaladin complains so much you'd think he was living in Westeros.:smallbiggrin:



O.P. here: Mostly just curious, but if I can discern a pattern to the fiction I like, so I may more easily find more that would be awesome!

Are you familiar with the term "appeal factors (https://www.ebscohost.com/novelist/our-products/novelist-appeals)?" In their never-ending quest to prove that they're worth the tax dollars, public librarians have spent a lot of time and effort trying to perfect the skill of pairing up readers with the books they would like. I've even taken a graduate-level course on the subject. Of course, since there are a million and one ways that a certain book can appeal (or not appeal) to any given reader, it's not exactly what you'd call an exact science.

Anyway, if you have a public library that you use, I'd like to add one more thing to your toolbox for hunting down new books, authors, and series that might be up your alley. Most public libraries will subscribe to a database called NoveList (the people I linked to above), which will list common appeal factors to a given work, and provide reading suggestions based on similarities between subject matter, writing style. etc. Libraries will pretty much always provide personalized reading recommendations upon request, but this is one of the primary tools for doing so, and you strike me as the type of person who might prefer to cut out the middle-person and find them yourself, which this can help with.



But there's no need for that, really. I did a count of the books at my public library (all books currently owned by the library, not just those on the shelves); there's between 20 and 30 percent of female writers in the fantasy section, and 30% is exactly the percentage of female contribution where people (even those who consider themselves not at all sexist!) start to feel like women are dominating the discussion, so that fits.

I'm curious, how did you go about this count? Even a small public library will have tens of thousands of titles, so this would be quite an undertaking. Are you also counting nonfiction titles? Children's books? Are you counting multiple titles or different editions of titles (reprints, large type, audiobooks, etc.)? As a librarian myself, I'm not aware of an easy or convenient way to count this, so I'm curious whether you went through the entire library one title at a time (which would be hugely time-intensive), or whether you've got some other way to do it that might be useful for me to know.

[2D8HP]

....Are you familiar with the term "appeal factors (https://www.ebscohost.com/novelist/our-products/novelist-appeals)?"...


Thanks for the tip!


...As a librarian myself...


Oh man, at 16 librarian was the job I most wanted (after I realized I would never have any chance of being an astronaut), sitting in a room with a hundred other people taking the test to be a "page" at the Library killed that dream (my current job I got by being in a room with 200 other people taking a test to be a plumber).

I'd be more envious of you except for knowing that your job has you surrounded by people as well as books.

[lord_khaine]

I've only ever read one trilogy of Lackey's novels, and while it sounds like it bothered you more than me, I was underwhelmed by the villains as well. It seemed like every time they clashed, the heroes would talk about what an incredibly powerful and dangerous villain Falconsbane was, and then proceed to walk all over him like a 20th level Fighter against a random patrol of orcs. To a lesser degree, I felt the same about David Eddings's Elenium and Tamuli series, where it seemed like literally all the competent people were heroes and all the villains were foolish, cowardly, weak types who had totally blundered their way into power.


I most likely bothered me more than you because i were stubborn enough to read more trillogies, and see more of the overall pattern.
I can see there were simularities in the Elenium serie. But i did not think it were quite as bad. The villains at least seemed like they had a few braincells, and some were fairly powerful. What bothered me most in that serie were the double moral standards.


On the other hand, Kaladin complains so much you'd think he was living in Westeros.

He is kinda excused, at points his life had sucked enough to make you think he lived there... :smallamused:

[Sapphire Guard]

The Elenium and the Tamuli especially, the heroes were far more powerful and that was pretty much acknowledged by everyone, Martel knows how things are going to go pretty early on, but by then he's locked into his path. And pretty much everyone in the Tamuli knows they're screwed once the leads get involved.

[Velaryon]

Thanks for the tip!


Oh man, at 16 librarian was the job I most wanted (after I realized I would never have any chance of being an astronaut), sitting in a room with a hundred other people taking the test to be a "page" at the Library killed that dream (my current job I got by being in a room with 200 other people taking a test to be a plumber).

I'd be more envious of you except for knowing that your job has you surrounded by people as well as books.

No problem! NoveList is a wonderful resource, though it's also no substitute for conversation with other readers. I also find that talking about appeal factors helps a lot of people express why they liked a certain book better than they could otherwise (although that's probably less true here since we have a lot of pretty articulate and well-read folks here).

With regard to the job, it has its ups and its downs, as I'm sure does any job. Regrettably, we aren't able to just chill out and read all day - a large part of the job is customer service and answer questions about everything from "do you have <book or movie> available?" to "what's the phone number for <business or government office>?" and everything in between. And of course buying the books for the collection. Anyway, I don't know what field you did end up in, but odds are fairly good that it pays better. :smallwink:



I most likely bothered me more than you because i were stubborn enough to read more trillogies, and see more of the overall pattern.
I can see there were simularities in the Elenium serie. But i did not think it were quite as bad. The villains at least seemed like they had a few braincells, and some were fairly powerful. What bothered me most in that serie were the double moral standards.



He is kinda excused, at points his life had sucked enough to make you think he lived there... :smallamused:

Oh definitely. While Sparhawk and friends did seem to just be way better at everything than their enemies, it didn't feel quite as one-sided as the Valdemar books that I read.

And yeah, Kaladin's life is pretty awful sometimes, but his sour disposition is responsible for at least some of his troubles.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm curious, how did you go about this count? Even a small public library will have tens of thousands of titles, so this would be quite an undertaking. Are you also counting nonfiction titles? Children's books? Are you counting multiple titles or different editions of titles (reprints, large type, audiobooks, etc.)? As a librarian myself, I'm not aware of an easy or convenient way to count this, so I'm curious whether you went through the entire library one title at a time (which would be hugely time-intensive), or whether you've got some other way to do it that might be useful for me to know.

Computerised inventory? Export to excel, pivot table to count number of books by author, sum books by female authors.

[Velaryon]

Computerised inventory? Export to excel, pivot table to count number of books by author, sum books by female authors.

Unless Themrys is a staff member (which wasn't evident from that post), I don't see how exporting to Excel would be doable. Can you access your local library's entire catalog and then export it to Excel? If so, please teach me.

Even so, it sounds like a huge and time-consuming task since you'd have to manually identify the gender of every author (Excel doesn't know, it's not typically included in an item's bibliographic record, and there are plenty of names that either aren't obviously gendered or can be used as both a male and female name). Further complications include books with multiple authors, short story collections, and authors writing under pseudonyms (which may or may not be identified in the item's records and furthermore, may or may not be the same gender as the real person).