Fantasy series with multi-layered, intricate stories?

[End of Disc One]

I find that this is some of my favorite stuff and want to know what books I'm missing out on. Some examples:

R. Scott Bakker's Prince of Nothing trilogy.  This has some truly impressive world building, and you have numerous factions with their own agendas who believable impact each other and co-exist in the same world.  I've only read the first book of the second sequence so far, and while enjoyable it was a step down in this area.

The first two books of Mark Charan Newton's Legends of the Red Sun.  Here you have several characters who are completely unrelated and have their own agendas, and you get to see their stories intersect with each other.  The next two books were alright but I really loved the first two with their intricate plotting and weirdness.

Those Game of Thrones books qualify but I haven't read them.  The show has more characters than any other story, but they just need to get Khaleesi over to the Seven Kingdoms to take the Iron Throne and fuck shit up.

[Gendry_Goldeneyes]

Malazan Book of the Fallen

The world building is impressive

[End of Disc One]

Malazan is actually my #1 series, but the plotting feels more loose, if that makes sense.  Like anything can happen at any time because we don't know the rules of the world.  Makes it harder to see the ripples caused by small actions.  It definitely fits the "multi-layered" part though.

[polishgenius]

You read Miles Cameron's The Red Knight and sequels yet? Has that glorious epic feel you love from Malazan, but married to a more slowly unfolding multi-stranded plot. All the more notable because there are frequently several different plans going on at one time and you get to see them crash into each other (the bad guys get PoVs too, which is an interesting take, especially when it comes to battle sequences). It took me a little while to get into the first book but I'm glad I did.

The first book of The Wolfhound Century by Peter Higgins (titled the same), set in a world inspired by Soviet Russia, has a bit of what I think you mean. Haven't read the sequels yet, so I don't know how it plays out, but worth a look.

Guy Gavriel Kay largely doesn't write series, but some of his standalones capture this feel quite well. In particular Lions of Al-Rassan and Under Heaven.


And if you fancy something similar but in sci-fi/space opera, if you haven't already definitely give Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space a try- the initial trilogy is relatively straight-forward on the surface, but when you start combining things with the various standalones and short stories there's a real depth to the world and a sense of things really running over time.

And Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky, also SF, is one of the best examples of a standalone doing that sort of thing I can think of. It's technically a prequel to A Fire Upon the Deep, which is also awesome but a bit different (more straight-up fighting-evil adventure, although there is some complexity too), and you don't have to read the first book (though it's highly recommended on its own merits).

[End of Disc One]

I own The Red Knight and am still planning to read GGK some day...looking forward to it.

[Mars447]

I wouldn't say that The Red Knight has particularly good worldbuilding.  The nature of the Wild is interesting enough, although it's kind of well trod territory, but the worldbuilding is basically ripping off of Medieval Europe with its Fantasy England, Fantasy France, and the Fantasy Holy Roman Empire.

It's still totally worth a read, though.

[Darth Richard II]

I think the world building gets much more interesting in the third book. It certainly has lots and lots of POVs, that's for sure though.

[Jo498]

There seems to be not much somewhat recent (since late 1990s or so) fantasy without multiple PoVs, or am I mistaken? Any good ones with an "auctorial" (omniscient) narrator or with only one PoV (Curse of Chalion is an example for the latter).

I am obviously in the minority but I think the multiple PoV is one factor that leads to the blowing up of books into not just one doorstopper, but a whole series of them (and it might prove the doom of SoIaF, several of the major problems of books 4+5 are due to multiplying PoVs without necessity).

(Of course there are many books who succeed despite? (too) many PoVs and respective lengthiness but as a general tendency I think it is a mixed blessing.)

[Errant Bard]

18 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

There seems to be not much somewhat recent (since late 1990s or so) fantasy without multiple PoVs, or am I mistaken? Any good ones with an "auctorial" (omniscient) narrator or with only one PoV (Curse of Chalion is an example for the latter).

Hmm, if we include both series and standalone, among best-sellers... Rothfuss, Gaiman, Butcher, Mieville, Rowling (iirc, most stuff is narrated by Harry?), Brust, KJ Parker Tom Holt, Elliott, Addison Monette? Omniscient third person I cannot think of any example though... damn.

Quote

I am obviously in the minority but I think the multiple PoV is one factor that leads to the blowing up of books into not just one doorstopper, but a whole series of them (and it might prove the doom of SoIaF, several of the major problems of books 4+5 are due to multiplying PoVs without necessity).

(Of course there are many books who succeed despite? (too) many PoVs and respective lengthiness but as a general tendency I think it is a mixed blessing.)

I think it's the other way round: authors want(ed) to write epic saga, and the industry pushed them to, leading to contracts on like ten yet unwritten books being signed, and to match that ambition, authors use the latest style flavour: multi-pov structure. On the ASOIAF subject, I feel that the problem is the author's lack of discipline that's at fault, as other guys are able to actually lead their story correctly despite having the same multi-pov structure, like Abercrombie, Lynch, Stover, Pratchett, etc.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

Omniscient third person I cannot think of any example though... damn.

Omniscient third person has the disadvantage of being so "old school" that modern authors find it hard to pull off without slipping into head hopping. Really, you have to go back to the likes of Tolkien and Lewis to find it in fantasy, and it has dropped out of modern literature generally.

[The Marquis de Leech]

2 hours ago, Errant Bard said:

On the ASOIAF subject, I feel that the problem is the author's lack of discipline that's at fault, as other guys are able to actually lead their story correctly despite having the same multi-pov structure, like Abercrombie, Lynch, Stover, Pratchett, etc.

I think Martin's problem is that he's a much better short story writer than he is a novelist. There are big structural differences between writing short and writing long, and Martin's weakness at fitting everything together has been magnified by the length of the series. 

[End of Disc One]

Bakker uses omniscient 3rd at times...love it when he does that. It really gives things an epic feel. 

[End of Disc One]

5 hours ago, Mars447 said:

I wouldn't say that The Red Knight has particularly good worldbuilding.  The nature of the Wild is interesting enough, although it's kind of well trod territory, but the worldbuilding is basically ripping off of Medieval Europe with its Fantasy England, Fantasy France, and the Fantasy Holy Roman Empire.

It's still totally worth a read, though.

There was discussion of worldbuilding in another topic recently, and I noticed that people have different ideas about what "good worldbuilding" means.  Does it mean interesting ideas, or internal complexity and consistency?  In my opinion it's the latter.  ASoIaF only meets the latter definition and I think it has great worldbuilding.

[Jo498]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

I think Martin's problem is that he's a much better short story writer than he is a novelist. There are big structural differences between writing short and writing long, and Martin's weakness at fitting everything together has been magnified by the length of the series. 

I agree but I think that the PoV structure also has a role here. On the one hand it made that strength for short stories or even "vignettes" (like most ASoIaF pro- and epilogues)  usable for the longer narrative. But then it backfired and he got sidetracked because he 1) had to introduce lots of additional PoVs as none of the core personnel could have been present at important events and this got blown up because no PoV can only report, he has to be involved and some backstory, psychology etc. and 2) was so in love with some characters that their arcs became bloated and 3) was so in love with some decent but subsidiary vignettes that those had to be included as well.

Of course it is not all the fault of PoV. But once an author is committed to a PoV structure they seem reluctant to let anything happen "off screen", rather introduce another subsidiary PoV of an uninteresting character.

And while Errant Bard is right that it is hard to tell the direction of causation here, I think that many PoVs lead to long books in relation to what actually happens. E.g. First Law is also considerably longer than it would have been with fewer PoVs or another narrative style. My problem is that obviously not all characters deserve psychological depth and backstory but PoV writers seem to feel compelled to give it to them as well as longish descriptions of their feelings (like really having to take piss real soon, you know) and give them a somewhat individual voice (which often fails because the writers are stylistically too weak and have everyone's inner voice talking like a foul-mouthed 21st century thriller hero)

One can do "discrete" omniscient without a "narrating uncle" or commenting auctorial voice. And also "discrete" PoV without lots of irrelevant backstory and kitchen psychological inner monologues. Don't get me wrong, there are also advantages of PoV and I cannot deny that to some extent I enjoy the snarky first person of Archie Goodwin or Vlad Taltos and I think Martin does a good job in the first three books (although less is more could have been applied there as well). But I think there were good reasons that "traditional" epic fantasy used often "pre-modern" narrative styles. (I am aware that really pre-modern epic styles are different and older than typical "omniscient" narrators of 18th - early 20th century fiction. But one can emulate or draw from those as well as Tolkien did in the Silmarilion and similar pieces or Anderson in "The broken Sword")

[Darth Richard II]

Wait, did you just say that you don't like the narrative style if TFL? O.o

[Jo498]

No, I think FL does also show that the PoV style is a mixed blessing. Errant Bard above said that FL was a positive example for multiple PoV not bloating things. I beg to differ. This does not ruin those books (as it may still ruin what's left of SoIaF if it will ever be finished at all), they are still quite good but for me it makes them lengthy at times. And yes, I think that if everytime someone is in a tense situation we are told that he feels he needs to take a piss is tedious.

But my main point was that the PoV structure tends to make things bloated, and that most writers are not skillful enough to really give the different PoVs their own "voice". Pet Leech will say that this is only because Martin became sloppier and in all respects weaker in the later books and it may be true but I think Martin did those distinctions considerably better in the earlier books.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, when it comes to unique pov voices I rank Abercrombie #1, plus I thought TFL were kind short, so...*shrug*