Are sci-fi writers better than fantasy writers?

[Mindfire]

I've never read this, but from the description on Amazon, etc, it appears to be non-epic. Do you consider it epic?

But still, since I've never heard of it, my point stands. I've never heard of an epic fantasy where the world (or continent or region or whatever) was not in peril. Of course, I think that's kinda' part of the definition of "epic". The issues and conflicts have to affect more than just the mundane.

Even so, although this has made me incredibly self-conscious of my own epic fantasy, it hasn't dissuaded me at all from it.

When I read it I thought it was pretty epic. But that's using the pedestrian definition of "epic." As far as stories go, I think there's two kinds of "epic". There's depth or gravity "epic" and there's size or scale "epic." The Last Dragonlord is, I feel, very depth-epic, but it's not very scale-epic.

Depth-epic is harder to do. It takes more effort from the writer. It means the reader really has to be invested in the characters, worldbuilding, and plot. Possibly in that order. Depth-epic requires more writing skill to achieve. Because of this, if a book has the depth-epic but not the scale-epic, it can still be very good, even great. Good examples of depth-epic would be The Last Dragonlord or Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, although the latter has shades of scale-epic as well. Scale-epic, on the other hand, is very easy to do because it has a much lower skill floor than depth-epic does. All one has to do is increase the size of the story or artificially increase the stakes. Because of this, stories that have scale-epic without the depth-epic to support it tend to fall flat. Examples of scale-epic without much or any depth-epic at all behind it would be Eragon and Transformers 2. However, when a writer can pull off depth-epic and scale epic together, the result is glorious. Lord of the Rings and the latter Codex Alera books would be examples.

 

[Zero Angel]

I think the issue is that in an epic story you want the conflict to have gravity. You can get deep conflict and drama even if all that's at stake is a tiny corner of the map, but it's going to be harder because you have to put in extra effort to get the reader invested in the main characters and their little corner of the map. That takes a lot more effort from the author. The "end of the world" is an easier, or some might say cheapter way to get the reader invested. But it can also backfire if the author assumes the larger stakes alone will invest the reader and neglects character development and worldbuilding.

Having said that, I don't think the world-ending plot is completely dead. I plan to use it. Just not for my first work.

I plan to start the conflict relatively small in the first book, then gradually increase the scale while scaling back occasionally. Only at the very end do I plan to use the "end of the world" card, as a grand finale of sorts.

I don't think it's dead either--or at least I am betting on it not being dead. I start relatively small as well and build up to a multiverse ending event over the course of 12-16 books. But even then, I think one of the appeals of the "end of the world" books, or maybe why it is done so often, is that you have all of these people with secondary creation. That is, they made up an entire world or universe! If they are going to write stories in that world or universe, isn't the end possibly one of the most exciting times? Or at least the time with the most on the scale? Once you make a world, it is pretty easy to see its end.

When I read it I thought it was pretty epic. But that's using the pedestrian definition of "epic." As far as stories go, I think there's two kinds of "epic". There's depth or gravity "epic" and there's size or scale "epic." The Last Dragonlord is, I feel, very depth-epic, but it's not very scale-epic.

Depth-epic is harder to do. It takes more effort from the writer. It means the reader really has to be invested in the characters, worldbuilding, and plot. Possibly in that order. Depth-epic requires more writing skill to achieve. Because of this, if a book has the depth-epic but not the scale-epic, it can still be very good, even great. Good examples of depth-epic would be The Last Dragonlord or Jim Butcher's Furies of Calderon, although the latter has shades of scale-epic as well. Scale-epic, on the other hand, is very easy to do because it has a much lower skill floor than depth-epic does. All one has to do is increase the size of the story or artificially increase the stakes. Because of this, stories that have scale-epic without the depth-epic to support it tend to fall flat. Examples of scale-epic without much or any depth-epic at all behind it would be Eragon and Transformers 2. However, when a writer can pull off depth-epic and scale epic together, the result is glorious. Lord of the Rings and the latter Codex Alera books would be examples.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that successful "scale-epics" need to have depth as well or else they end up being quite trashy. I managed to make my way all the way through the first Eragon, but I couldn't get more than halfway through the second book.

 

[Mindfire]

I don't think it's dead either--or at least I am betting on it not being dead. I start relatively small as well and build up to a multiverse ending event over the course of 12-16 books. But even then, I think one of the appeals of the "end of the world" books, or maybe why it is done so often, is that you have all of these people with secondary creation. That is, they made up an entire world or universe! If they are going to write stories in that world or universe, isn't the end possibly one of the most exciting times? Or at least the time with the most on the scale? Once you make a world, it is pretty easy to see its end.

I see. Thanks for clarifying. I agree that successful "scale-epics" need to have depth as well or else they end up being quite trashy. I managed to make my way all the way through the first Eragon, but I couldn't get more than halfway through the second book.

I must be a masochist, because I finished the first three. xD I have yet to touch the 4th one though. I feel like just reading the inheritance cycle causes my writing skill to take a dip. Then I have to spend time practice writing just to shake off the effects. Of course when I read Brisingr, my style was still developing and thus more malleable. I might be more hardened now that I'm starting to find my voice.

 

[Zero Angel]

I must be a masochist,

...there's a difference between being a masochist and subjecting yourself to something that is unnecessarily frustrating for a story that is subpar at best.

Is Paolini even doing anything anymore? Or has his age surpassed his skill level so he's not marketable anymore?

 

[Mindfire]

...there's a difference between being a masochist and subjecting yourself to something that is unnecessarily frustrating for a story that is subpar at best.

Is Paolini even doing anything anymore? Or has his age surpassed his skill level so he's not marketable anymore?

There are murmurs and whispers of a fifth book in the works, but so far nothing solid.

I think I'm gifted with a magical imagination, because my mind can somehow take that subpar-at-best story and transform it into something tolerable. Those books even manage some so-bad-its-good moments. At the part in Brisingr where Eragon waxes poetic about his new mentor's naked body, I must've thought, "what in the frozen wastes of Hel am I reading?!"