Golden Age of Fantasy and the Big Three

I remember Orson Scott card saying that this is the Golden Age of Fantasy. I'm inclined to agree.
In today's genre, we are finally beginning to see writers of color and Epics steeping away from the eurocentric enviroments and mythologies. With Chris Kastensmidt, I'm seeing Brazil/Africa. With Aliette de Bodard, I'm seeing Mexican fantasy come to life. But it's not just the racial and enviromental contexts that have changed.
The familiar tropes have "bent" as well. We all know of the dark tones that Epic Fantasy has decided to turn, and how Brandon Sanderson turned one of Fantasy's traditional tropes upside down, but we have more authors. Joe Abercrombie twists and tears at the role of the hero with his (dar I say?) anti-heroic heroic fantasy trilogy "The First Law". Scott Lynch comes out with an interesting way to use the well-loved thief trope in his "Gentlemen Bastards" sequence. Even Sam Sykes and N.K. Jemisin have discussed on the role on the chosen one.
Yes, the shelves are still shadowed by Tolkien's influence, but THIS IS the Golden Age of Fantasy.
Which leads me into an interesting question. I was looking a A Dribble of Ink the other day, reading an interview Aidan Moher did with Daniel Abraham for his forthcoming book, The Dragon's Path, and noticed how he said that the Big Three in Fantasy were Rothfuss, Lynch, and Martin.
Now, I did not criticize, but I pondered, who did I think were the Big Three? Well, I thought Rothfuss, Sanderson, and Abercrombie were today's Big Three.
Who do you think are the Big Three?

Not *the* definition of (Epic) Fantasy but *my* definition of (Epic) Fantasy

Last night, a friend of mine asked me what Epic Fantasy was when I mentioned Patrick Rothfuss to her. She knew what Fantasy was, but did not know what Epic Fantasy was. This got me thinking. More or less, the first essay I had in mind which attempted to define Epic Fantasy was by Vox Day here, and I found it appalling and slightly offensive to what I stand for: creativity and imagination. Consider the following definition from Vox Day and his girlfriend:
"An epic fantasy is a very long and fundamentally serious story set mostly or entirely in a fantastic secondary world, typically defined by the existence of magic and often fleshed out with maps, appendices, and other paratextual devices; it's usually an encyclopediac, stylistically direct, structurally uncomplicated story in which characters notable for their active agency combat (against) a defined evil, often by forming an alliance, and generally are involved with a world-transformative event."
As a veteran reader, an aspirant writer, and an aspirant academic fantasist, I see this definition as the answer of why Epic Fantasy suffers as it does, but that is a different discussion.
While thinking of ways to explain what (Epic) Fantasy was to my friend, I thought of some of the memorable Epics in the genre such as "A Wizard of Earthsea", "The Wheel of Time" and "The Chronicles of Narnia". I thought of Epics that are large in volume, but worthy of reading without wasting words. I thought of how we writers and readers should begin calling our genre "Fantasy Literature" instead of "Fantasy Fiction". I thought of the sub-genres of Fantasy which plays on an Epic scale. I thought of people of color such as Yoon Ha Lee, Saladin Ahmed, David Anthony Durham, and Nnedi Okorafor. I thought of how fantasy can change the minds of people. I thought of Maya Angelou's quote. Thinking on these things, I created a definition which implies to what I stand for on a humanist scale, a racial scale, and a speculative scale.
Consider *my own* definiton of Fantasy; Epic Fantasy, Steampunk, etc. :
"Fantasy-Speculative literature which aims to both entertain an audience while simultaenously educating said audience using either a created secondary world or an alternative Earth in hopes of changing an individual's perceptions of some part of the real world."

Where's the Intellegence?

The other day, I almost threw a fit when Aidan Moher posted on "A Dribble of Ink" "Are Fantasy Readers Dumber than Science Fiction Readers?". The title of the post comes from Jim Cormier someone made on Aidan's review of Daniel Abraham's "The Dragon's Path". The more I read the post, however, I found myself agreeing with what Jim has said. And this is what I have to say.
So, I ask, where is the intellegence in Fantasy? Where are the Daniel Abrahams and the R. Scott Bakers? Or even Steve Eriksons, Yoon Ha Lees, N.K. Jemisins? Do people really only care for the redundancy of Epic Fantasy? To twist the same thing until something new pops out? Well, it isn't really new, it's just different. It's really not different either. It's redundant.
It seems like the majority of Epic Fantasy publishers only want this kind of Fantasy, this sort of redundancy. However, Fantasy readers are smart, and I know a throng of such readers who want a change in this genre. I don't think we're being noticed. That, or we're not loud enough.
Either way, it's not the readers who are dumb. Fantasy is getting where it needs to be.

Through My Alter-Ego's Eyes: Thoughts on First-Person Narrative

The first first-person narrative prose I've read was Twilight. Since then, two years ago, I've been traumatized to read another first-person. The Magic of Recluce healed the wound a bit (I was forced to read it, buying it and realizing later that it was FPN, and already too late in returning it.), but I was still scared. Every story I read from Beneath Ceaseless Skies, Clarkesworld, etc. that was in the FPN, I turned the other cheek.
Until Saladin Ahmed.
I've said this so many times, but his story "Mister Hadj's Sunset Ride", was written in the FPN, and I absolutely love it. I've read some works by Nnedi Okorafor, and I loved it. Soon, I started reading, and eventually writing in the FPN.
Trying to write poetic lines in the Third-Person Narrative is hard. Even after writing in the TPN for years, it's hard. When writing FPN, it's easier, fun, and my lines come straight from the heart.
Yes, it is limiting to one character, but using the FPN can give other characters a sense of history and mystery. This too, is why I love FPN.
When writing in the FPN, first, be familiar with it. Just don't write about "I" and "Me", have the character talk, think, move, act, and share his or her philosophy. Read Saladin Ahmed, Nalo Hopkinson, N.K. Jemisin.
Writing in the FPN can be so rewarding, especially when it comes to characterization.
Alright, that's the end, now either comment or get off my blog!
Kudos!