Submitted by JingleHelen11 t3_119gk8k in books
dirtoffmyshoulder t1_j9maslx wrote
I think A and C from your list are very important in books, and D supports A imo. I can do without super sophisticated world building (even a little inconsistency) as long as it doesn't detract from the story. No, I don't think those standards are too high, although I guess it might always be clear cut what is coherent/cohesive enough to pass muster.
Personally I would also add that the book should be well paced. I've read some novels recently that felt rushed at the beginning (not enough exposition) or at the end (not enough resolution), which made the whole thing feel half baked.
Do you think maybe the high concept queer fantasy novels you've been reviewing are written by relatively inexperienced authors? Since it is an emerging genre I'd expect the authorship to be on the young side, which means the writing may not be polished.
JingleHelen11 OP t1_j9mea3d wrote
> Do you think the high concept queer fantasy novels you've been reviewing are by relatively inexperienced authors?
That's very possible. I mentioned the titles of the two traditionally published ones in another comment, In Deeper Waters by FT Lukens and House of Hunger by Alexis Henderson. I'm not sure about Lukens but Henderson has an earlier novel that I've generally heard good things about. House of Hunger I'll also say was the most passable of the books I'm talking about. By the writing quality alone it feels like a final draft but I really struggled to understand a number of plot/pacing decisions and the main characters actions were entirely unmotivated and nonsensical to me
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments