[Update: Epics actually are a term of art, and not in the way I was using it here. Instead, most classically, think the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid. While I try to avoid jargon, I think that proper use of terms of art facilitates conversation, so I corrected the post below.]
Just in time for a Dance with Dragons, I've been reconsidering my relationship with epic[-length books]. Over the span of three months I got through the one of Steven Erickson's 1,000+ page tomes, Toll the Hounds. If you do the math, my pace wasn't that impressive which is more a consequence of the time I set aside than my speed. I enjoyed the book; one of the main villains was slowly humanized and much of the book was based in Darujistan which in the past has been one of Erickson's least depressing locales. However, I took a break or two while reading and breezed through His Majesty's Dragon and Halting State. Those breaks made clear the opportunity cost of [weight tomes]: so long as one has a reading backlog an epic must be as good as three other books and not merely enjoyable in its own right. By that standard, I'd say the first three Erickson books probably qualify, particularly The Gardens of the Moon and Memories of Ice (Deadhouse Gates is marred by a subplot that's too conventional adventure fantasy for my tastes).
Of course, books are not fungible. The stories one can tell in three quality novels tend to be different than the stories one can tell in an [grimoire-sized tale]. Bigger books can sustain more complexity and a larger cast. Neither point is necessarily a virtue in its own right. Instead, stories with grand scope or that incorporate a multitude of sometimes opposing viewpoints both can benefit from having space to develop. However, while I still disagree with some of the things Alan Jacobs says in this post I think there is a real risk that epics are becoming surprisingly limited. Certain stories, such as clashes between gods, continent sprawling wars, and tales of intrigue can all fit well within the epic[-length] genre but can crowd out everything else. This crowding out is worst when it leads to the undoing the outcomes of previous books or plotlines that feel like they're just filling space between more interesting viewpoints. There seems to be a rule that sequels to epics must also be enormous even when the best parts of the story would be better served by carrying their own 300 page novel.
Perhaps ironically, serials are another means that can support large-cast complex stories. I think by ensuring that each segment has a small self-contained story they buy time to tell longer arcs that couldn't be contained in an average novel. The Full Metal Alchemist manga is perhaps my favorite instance of this, although I've enjoyed some Dumas before and should try Dickens at some point. Of course serials, as with [giant novels], are notorious for not knowing when to end.
I suspect I will finish the last two Malazan books some day, if only because I do still on the balance enjoy them and know that they are the last two. But despite the risk of spoilers I don't think I'm going to rush to the new Song of Ice and Fire book. I actually have a bit of space on my nightstand for once and I intend to exploit that opportunity.
Recent Comments