What is considered "Brilliant Writing"?

[Loiosh91]

thanks i'm starting to get a picture, but some of you have said that fantasy,sci-fi just tells a story, and doesn't hit on anything political, social, or in any way deep or informative

to these people i recommend Max Brooks book deeply psychological, Armegeddon masterpiece "World War Z" as well as Sarah Monette and Elizabeth Bear's "A Companion to Wolves", which goes very deeply into the morality of homosexuality, or Karen Miller's books over class lines and social status "Innocent Mage" and "Awakened Mage", and countless others

people who see fantasy and sci-fi books as only stories are simply blinded by the status-quo, thats not to say these people are stupid, but you its hard to find what you're not looking for

when Magellan landed in the Americas, the native people looked to the sea and saw only empty water, and assumed he appeared by magic, however his large Spanish Galleons were in plain sight, but to a people who knew no boats any bigger than canoes, these were not even worth notice compared to the white men in shiny armor

i simply propose that most literature focuses so much on the moral of the story, the actual story is lost, and while fantasy does focus on the story, that doesn't mean the moral is any less relevant

 

[Mark Lawrence]

I think anything that is written in a well defined genre where that genre is not 'literary fiction' is not taken seriously by the literati. If you're writing in some particular vein, such as fantasy, romance, thriller etc then (to paraphrase what I think the answer would be) you're clearly not focusing _all_ your energies on deconstructing the human condition and therefore your writing isn't worthy of consideration as anything past light entertainment.

I'm sure many fantasy authors could write good literary fiction, just as many authors of literary fiction may well be able to turn out a good fantast book. However, their interests have dictated that they write what they write.

Mark
http://www.princeofthorns.com/

 

[Korenith]

Well we had an entire fantasy module at my University English course so Fantasy isn't entirely ignored by critics but you have to realise that truly great literature transcends a simply good story and makes some sort of comment about the nature of humanity, genre or literature itself etc. The writers the OP lists are spinners of good stories but I don't think they actually do much to advance literature or our understanding of ourselves.

I personally love a good fantasy novel. Wheel of Time and The Malazan Book of the Fallen and Song of Ice and Fire all rate as some of my favourite pieces of writing ever but do they really contribute much to the progress of literature as an art? Not really if we're being honest. Maybe some interesting additions and manipulation of the fantasy genre but not really the stuff you set kids to study in school. Alasdair Gray's Lannark on the other hand is widely studied and considered literary even though half of its narrative occurs in an entirely fantasy realm which is even further removed from reality than the series I mentioned because he reflects on the nature of society and the Scottish National identity through radically exagerated characters and situations made possible by a fantasy setting.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

Because most fantsy is shit.
If someone has a great plot idea he doesn't need to add dragons and goblins to it, but when someone has absolutely no ida for a plot, he just writes about brave dwarfs fighting evil orcs and people still buy it.
There are exceptions of course.

That is quite true.

There are a lot of great fantasy novels, but for every one of them there is five terrible ones that rehash the same tropes, clichés and predictable plots as every other fantasy novel out there.

 

[Korenith]

Because most fantsy is shit.
If someone has a great plot idea he doesn't need to add dragons and goblins to it, but when someone has absolutely no ida for a plot, he just writes about brave dwarfs fighting evil orcs and people still buy it.
There are exceptions of course.

That is the crappiest answer I've ever heard. Of course most fantasy writing is shit because most writers are (compared to the greats) shit. Have you seen the garbage that fills the shelves of most bookstores? Your statement could apply to any genre or any topic that writers have explored in the years. If you have no plot idea you could just as easily stick in a romance, a half assed conspiracy theory, an abusive childhood or a hundred other stock ideas which people use to make boring writing somehow seem interesting. I don't think fantasy has any more crap writers than any other type of writing because ultimately creating a believable and immersive world is just as difficult as creating a recognisably realistic one.

 

[redarmyagent]

If you have to ask then you'll never know.

 

[Korenith]

Because most fantsy is shit.
If someone has a great plot idea he doesn't need to add dragons and goblins to it, but when someone has absolutely no ida for a plot, he just writes about brave dwarfs fighting evil orcs and people still buy it.
There are exceptions of course.

That is quite true.

There are a lot of great fantasy novels, but for every one of them there is five terrible ones that rehash the same tropes, clichés and predictable plots as every other fantasy novel out there.

And that doesn't happen in every other form of writing ever invented? For every genre there are far more crap writers and wanabes than decent ones. What makes you think fantasy has more crap writers than other forms?

 

[binvjoh]

I started out writing a response, but halfway through I realize that I am not nearly experienced enough to make any sort of judgement on the topic. Reading and writing are not activities that I enjoy very much.

 

[redarmyagent]

Because most fantsy is shit.
If someone has a great plot idea he doesn't need to add dragons and goblins to it, but when someone has absolutely no ida for a plot, he just writes about brave dwarfs fighting evil orcs and people still buy it.
There are exceptions of course.

That is the crappiest answer I've ever heard. Of course most fantasy writing is shit because most writers are (compared to the greats) shit. Have you seen the garbage that fills the shelves of most bookstores? Your statement could apply to any genre or any topic that writers have explored in the years. If you have no plot idea you could just as easily stick in a romance, a half assed conspiracy theory, an abusive childhood or a hundred other stock ideas which people use to make boring writing somehow seem interesting. I don't think fantasy has any more crap writers than any other type of writing because ultimately creating a believable and immersive world is just as difficult as creating a recognisably realistic one.

The guy has a point, though--the last resort of someone who doesn't understand conflict and narrative is to make his setting "interesting" enough for people to wow over everything BUT the plot--what with there being no real plot.

So yes, 90% of EVERYTHING is shit, but a lot of shit follows Kukul's rule: when you can't write, write fantasy or sci fi. It is the sad, sad reality of the actually GOOD writers of those genres.

 

[Lilani]

I consider writing to be brilliant when it takes hold of me and won't let me go. It can be one of many things: a character, a plot point, a place, or an idea. Even the writing style, or the way things are described. If I'm not into what I'm reading, I lose interest and probably won't finish it. But if a book takes hold of me and won't let me go, and keeps me up late into the night to see what happens next, that is what I call brilliant writing.

For me, it doesn't have to be the most significant or "perfect" piece of literature ever made from a technical standpoint. It just has to draw me in and never let go. That's why I read.

 

[Arsen]

Being able to convey an idea in the simplest form, while composing a sense of beauty, poetry, compassion for the characters and their situations, and the want and will to serve the reader in the journey of the tale, is the writer's aim.

Screw philosophy, screw the intellectual mentality most academic elites suggest is higher than the merit of the soul. Forget them and their irrelevance and lack of ability to be compassionate towards those of a "lesser intelligence" than they are. A mind alone is worthless without a soul to guide it. A Robert Frost poem will always be more composed of soul, nature, and the love for mankind and humanity over the rhetoric of the so called "Intellectual mind". Pick anything brilliantly worded. It couldn't stand on it's own feet in comparison to a work of art that is heartfelt.

It's about soul, in other words...

 

[redarmyagent]

I used to ride the "There is no Great Literature" bandwagon as fervently as the rest of the post-modern, ironic know-it-alls. But then I took a hard look at what's considered "great literature" and realized how different it is from so-called "genre fiction."

Simply stated, "great literature" is far more descriptive, patient, and directed toward making some kind of comment about the human condition than "genre literature." So-called "literary" works may rely on popular culture for subtext, but they're unique in that they create an entire world in and of themselves, one in which a diligent reader can get lost in. Lots of "genre" works move quickly and presuppose a lot of knowledge because their goal is largely just to entertain for profit, and not make some kind of final statement about humankind.

Don't get me wrong. I prefer comic books and the Lord of the Rings to award-winning literature nearly all the time. But keep in mind that, like classical music, "great literature" serves a valuable function as its own self-contained art form, i.e., it can stand to inspire future artists and show them what can be done with skill and hard work. It may not always be fun, but it shows how effective the written word can be.

I know that sounds really stuffy, but I hope I've made some kind of coherent point.

Dude, I know we don't know each other and this might be a bit forward... but I love you right now. You just stated exactly what needed to be said. This isn't the first time there's been a thread on this forum with some illiterate saying "[insert great artist] is overrated!" and nobody could tell the guy why he was wrong.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

Because most fantsy is shit.
If someone has a great plot idea he doesn't need to add dragons and goblins to it, but when someone has absolutely no ida for a plot, he just writes about brave dwarfs fighting evil orcs and people still buy it.
There are exceptions of course.

That is quite true.

There are a lot of great fantasy novels, but for every one of them there is five terrible ones that rehash the same tropes, clichés and predictable plots as every other fantasy novel out there.

And that doesn't happen in every other form of writing ever invented? For every genre there are far more crap writers and wanabes than decent ones. What makes you think fantasy has more crap writers than other forms?

I never said that other genres didn't. I was only referring to fantasy because it was what the OP was asking about, but I never once said that other genres are the same. I learned that the hard way after buying various political thrillers, crime novels etc just to find out that they still didn't get interesting by the time I finished a third of the book.

 

[katsumoto03]

To be 'brilliant writing' it needs to be well written and smart, not to mention creative. Personal preference will always come into play, but as long as you have those three things it still fits.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Fantasy, like comic books, heavy metal and games are all childish.

Honestly.

Totally.

And require imagination. Imagination isn't part of the school curriculum.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Nineteen-eighty-four can be classed as a dystopian fantasy. The Road is also a fantasy. So is The Pesthouse. Peter Pan? A Midsummer Night's Dream? Lord of the Rings?

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

You know, I always wondered this myself. I think that it's because fantasy can have no basis at all in reality, so it's very hard to paint a picture of what goes on sometimes that doesn't sound dry and convoluted, with a lot of exposition thrown in.
Tolkien was guilty of this to some degree.

 

[The-Story]

it really depends what sort of "fantasy" you are talking about here... Books like CSLewis' and Tolkein's are considered "brilliant" works of art, but few are since... it is a genre that is shrouded over by "the nerd". People relegate it to a niche, and let it lie there. Much like Syfy actually. There are many amazing works in both these fields, but most professionals ignore it or relegate it because it is not.... concrete. It's banking too much on imagination.

 

[adakias]

Mm. I don't read a lot of fantasy novels, so I'm probably not a good judge of this... but in my experience, "brilliant" books are the ones with revolutionary ideas, or at least ones that seem to differ from the social norm. I'm probably not phrasing that right...

Um, look at "The Brothers Karamazov". That whole "if God does not exist, then anything's permitted" theme seemed quite novel at the time (which was... what, the late 1800's?) Stuff like that. Danielewski's "House of Leaves" was considered brilliant and revolutionary (or gimmicky, depending on who you're talking to), because of the experimental style and the convoluted plot-within-a-plot. They are both imaginative and innovative, and the latter is actually very fantasy oriented (a house that's larger on the inside than on the outside? that's fantasy, right?).

I guess that kind of stuff is my definition of brilliant literature. I'm not saying it all has to be super pretentious and stuff (Nietzche, Joyce, Dostoyevsky, etc), but that does seem to be the status quo, at least from my observations.

Do fantasy novels present new ideas or creative plots, or do they stick to the tried and true method of "hero quests for artifact, saves heroine from mountain of doom, etc.", which some random pseudo-plot twist thrown in there for its own sake? I genuinely don't know. That's kind of how I view them, and I guess maybe that's how a lot of non-readers may look at the genre. Maybe it's a lack of awareness??

I'm not sure what my point is, but it's in there somewhere. ._.;