Fantasy from A to Z: X is for eXpectations

What sort of books are fantasy readers looking for today? What are the expectations that readers have for the genre?

Overall, the fantasy genre is growing. Sales are up, both in traditional and indie publishing, and the big names in the field (like Brandon Sanderson) are doing quite well. It’s clear that the fantasy genre as a whole is robust and healthy.

When you break it down by publishers and subgenres, however, things start to look a little different. Romantasy is dominating the traditional publishing world, but most of it is little more than pornography for women, dressed up with fantasy trappings. And because of how traditional publishing now relies on a few big blockbusters to make most of their earnings, romantasy is sucking all of the oxygen out of the room, making it much more difficult for debut and midlist authors in the other fantasy subgenres.

In the world of indie publishing, litRPG has begun to demonstrate some staying power. It was the new hot thing back in the early 2020s, but it’s attracted enough attention and developed enough of a following that it has become a major subgenre that is likely to endure for some time. I could be wrong about that, but from what I see, that’s where most of the innovative authors and whale readers (ie >1 book per week) are focusing their attention these days.

But because of the way that the algorithms tend to govern the indie publishing cycle (and the way that indie publishing has unfortunately turned into a zero-sum, pay-to-play game with online advertising), the rise of litRPG in the indie publishing world may very well be sucking all of the oxygen out of the room in the same way that romantasy is sucking it out of the traditional publishing world. 

Both subgenres are also very gender-biased, with women gravitating toward romantasy and men gravitating toward litRPG. This reflects the broader social and political trend of men and women going separate ways, across a whole host of different metrics. So as the gender divide continues to widen in society generally, that will probably reinforce the divide between romantasy and litRPG, creating a positive feedback loop (or death spiral, depending on how you look at it).

Sword and sorcery continues to do okay, and has probably been given a boost by the recent release of Conan the Barbarian into the public domain. But most of sword and sorcery got siphoned off into grimdark back in the 00s—in fact, you could say that sword and sorcery reinvented itself as grimdark. And while grimdark has resisted the feminization of literature, standing as one of the few remaining bastions where male readers continue to feel at home, I think grimdark has already passed its peak. In a post-pandemic, post-Trump world, I think most readers are hungry for books that are less nihilistic and more uplifting.

Which brings us to epic fantasy. While Brandon Sanderson continues to dominate this subgenre, with his massive kickstarters and huge book releases, it’s debatable whether his readers are hungry for more epic fantasy, or just for more Brandon Sanderson. He’s kind of a subgenre all to himself. Recent streaming adaptations like Wheel of Time and Rings of Power have failed miserably, and Game of Thrones has fallen almost totally out of cultural significance, with George R.R. Martin’s failure to finish the last book (and Patrick Rothfuss’s failure to finish his own series) becoming something of a meme.

In fact, the failure of these two big-name authors to finish writing their books may have struck epic fantasy a mortal wound. Because of how they have been burned, a large number of epic fantasy readers are now unwilling to commit to a series until after it is complete. But very few authors can afford to write a truly epic series and release the whole thing at once. It takes several years to write a series like that—and what are authors supposed to do if the first one flops? 

In other words, debut epic fantasy authors are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. If they release the first book by itself, it will probably sink into obscurity before they can write and release the next book. And if by some measure of hard work and tenacity they manage to write a whole series and hold back from publishing until they’re ready to release it all at once, if the first book still fails to sell, they’re SOL and all that hard work was for nothing. 

This is also why traditional publishers are so unwilling to publish a new epic fantasy series from a debut or a midlist author. A bestseller like Larry Correia might be able to dip his feet in that pond (and do quite well—I highly recommend his Sons of the Black Sword series), they won’t do that for anyone else. Which is fine, except that indie publishing epic fantasy is just as hard—arguably more so.

For these reasons, I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Patrick Rothfuss and George R.R. Martin have done more to kill epic fantasy than they have to grow it.

But this may actually have created an opportunity for those authors who are willing to drive into the smoke. After all, there’s much less competition if you can manage to break in and build a decent following. But how much hunger is there for epic fantasy, compared to other fantasy subgenres? And how can a newer/midlist author reach them, without a big push from a publisher or the algorithms?

Epic Fantasy vs. LitRPG: 20 more principles that set them apart from other genres

So building on yesterday’s blog post, after asking ChatGPT to contrast litRPG against epic fantasy, I asked the AI to come up with twenty more principles that show how litRPG and epic fantasy are more similar to each other, by contrasting them against other genres. In other words, I asked for another twenty principles that either 1) hold true for both litRPG and epic fantasy, but not other genres, or 2) do not hold true for litRPG or epic fantasy, but do hold true for other genres. This was what the AI came up with.

What do you think? Do you agree with the list, or do you think the AI doesn’t know what it’s talking about? I mean, of course the AI doesn’t know what it’s talking about—it’s a pattern-matching stochastic parrot incapable of actual thought—but does the list itself hold true, or not? I’m interested to hear what you think!


✅ Ten Principles That Work in Both Epic Fantasy and LitRPG (but not as well elsewhere)

1. The Long Form Is an Asset

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers expect doorstoppers; sprawling stories add gravitas.
  • LitRPG: Readers binge long series to follow progression.
  • Other genres: Overly long novels (romance, thrillers) often feel padded or indulgent.

2. Worldbuilding as a Core Pleasure

  • Epic Fantasy: Intricate maps, languages, and histories enrich immersion.
  • LitRPG: Detailed mechanics, systems, and economies are part of the appeal.
  • Other genres: Too much worldbuilding bogs down the story (e.g., in mystery or romance).

3. Reader Dedication Is Assumed

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers accept investment to reap the mythic payoff.
  • LitRPG: Readers accept grindy arcs to enjoy progression.
  • Other genres: Casual readers often want quick satisfaction.

4. Hero’s Journey as Central Skeleton

  • Epic Fantasy: Growth from obscurity to legend is the core arc.
  • LitRPG: Growth from level 1 to overpowered is the core arc.
  • Other genres: Often resist the monomyth (slice-of-life, literary realism, etc.).

5. Community/Ensemble Casts

  • Epic Fantasy: Multiple POVs enrich the tapestry.
  • LitRPG: Party dynamics (tank, healer, mage) reflect RPG roots.
  • Other genres: Large casts risk confusing readers who want intimacy.

6. Spectacle as Payoff

  • Epic Fantasy: Climactic battles or magical revelations awe readers.
  • LitRPG: Dungeon raids and boss fights provide thrill.
  • Other genres: Spectacle without intimacy or brevity (like in romance) falls flat.

7. Maps and Charts Enhance the Experience

  • Epic Fantasy: Maps show kingdoms, trade routes, and lost ruins.
  • LitRPG: Stat sheets, skill trees, and quest logs scratch the gamer itch.
  • Other genres: Appendices and diagrams often feel extraneous.

8. Bingeability

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers want to sink in for weeks.
  • LitRPG: Readers tear through serialized arcs like binge-gaming sessions.
  • Other genres: Shorter, self-contained experiences dominate (rom-coms, thrillers).

9. Immersion Requires Internal Consistency

  • Epic Fantasy: Magic systems, politics, and cultures must feel internally real.
  • LitRPG: Mechanics and progression must follow consistent rules.
  • Other genres: Small cheats or contrivances are forgiven more easily.

10. The Fantasy of Escape Into Another Life

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers escape into a mythic, larger-than-life destiny.
  • LitRPG: Readers escape into a game avatar, empowered and free.
  • Other genres: Escapism is more muted—characters often mirror real-world constraints.

❌ Ten Principles That Work in Other Genres But Not in Epic Fantasy or LitRPG

11. Economy of Length

  • Epic Fantasy: Truncated stories feel shallow.
  • LitRPG: Short books cut off progression.
  • Other genres: Brevity (novellas, short novels) often thrives in romance, literary fiction, thrillers.

12. Standalone Closure

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers expect series and arcs across volumes.
  • LitRPG: Readers expect sequels and continuous leveling.
  • Other genres: Standalone novels dominate many markets (romance, crime).

13. Minimal World Detail

  • Epic Fantasy: Sparse settings break immersion.
  • LitRPG: Thin systems or game mechanics disappoint.
  • Other genres: Often better to focus tightly on character or conflict.

14. Immediate, High-Speed Pacing

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers accept gradual build-up.
  • LitRPG: Readers accept grind loops before climax.
  • Other genres: Quick, relentless pacing (thrillers) is a selling point.

15. Subtlety Over Spectacle

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers want grandeur, not quiet minimalism.
  • LitRPG: Readers want flashy abilities, loot drops, boss fights.
  • Other genres: Subtle slice-of-life or understated literary fiction works well.

16. Ambiguous Endings

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers want resolution—wars won, empires reshaped.
  • LitRPG: Readers want progression arcs to complete.
  • Other genres: Literary realism thrives on ambiguity.

17. Everyday Banality

  • Epic Fantasy: Mundane routine (work, school, dishes) feels like filler.
  • LitRPG: Grinding without purpose or progress feels like padding.
  • Other genres: Slice-of-life, contemporary drama thrive on the ordinary.

18. Romance as the Core Engine

  • Epic Fantasy: Love enriches but rarely drives the whole tapestry.
  • LitRPG: Love plots are secondary to leveling and quests.
  • Other genres: Romance is often the primary driver.

19. Prose Minimalism

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers want at least some richness, tone, and weight.
  • LitRPG: Readers want clarity and detail in mechanics, not Hemingway sparsity.
  • Other genres: Minimalist prose shines in lit fic or thrillers.

20. Compressed Timelines

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers want generations, years, or at least a long journey.
  • LitRPG: Readers want long campaigns and layered arcs.
  • Other genres: Stories that span a weekend or a single evening work beautifully in mystery, romance, lit fic.

⚖️ Big Takeaway

  • Shared Strengths (1–10): Both genres embrace immersion, scope, detail, and reader investment. They reward readers who want to live in another world for a long time.
  • Shared Weaknesses (11–20): Neither does well with brevity, minimalism, ambiguity, or everyday mundanity. Those principles thrive in other fiction but undermine the immersive, long-game experience of epic fantasy and LitRPG.

Epic Fantasy vs. LitRPG: 20 principles that work in one but not the other

So I was doing some genre research using ChatGPT, comparing epic fantasy (which I write) to litRPG (which I do not write—at least, not yet). After going back and forth for a while, I had ChatGPT list a bunch of principles that set each subgenre apart from each other. In other words, each of these principles holds true only for the one subgenre and not for the other.

It’s an interesting list. But being AI-generated, I’m not sure how much I can trust it, so I’d be interested to get your feedback. How true do you think these principles holds? Is it a pretty solid list, or are any areas where the AI got it wrong?


✅ Works in Epic Fantasy but Not LitRPG

1. Slow, Majestic Pacing

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers savor patience, waiting hundreds of pages for payoffs.
  • LitRPG: Readers expect regular “level-ups” or stat reveals—slow burns feel like stalling.

2. World as a Living, Breathing Character

  • Epic Fantasy: Setting is alive, with cultures, histories, and myth shaping events.
  • LitRPG: Worlds are often coded, constructed systems; too much “world-agency” risks breaking the conceit of “game mechanics.”

3. Archetypal Myth and Destiny

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers love prophecy, ancient bloodlines, and cosmic fate.
  • LitRPG: Players expect agency and control; prophecy undercuts the appeal of player choice.

4. Elevated, Poetic Language

  • Epic Fantasy: Slightly archaic or grand prose enhances the mythic atmosphere.
  • LitRPG: Readers expect clear, modern, accessible prose—too much ornament feels like “lag.”

5. Moral and Philosophical Depth

  • Epic Fantasy: Readers enjoy wrestling with justice, faith, and power.
  • LitRPG: Too much moral philosophizing slows down what should feel like gameplay and strategy.

6. Earned Heroism Through Suffering

  • Epic Fantasy: Heroes rise through sacrifice, scars, and loss.
  • LitRPG: Heroes rise by optimizing builds and winning battles. Too much suffering without progression feels like poor game balance.

7. History as Weight

  • Epic Fantasy: Ancient wars, dynasties, ruins, and forgotten myths enrich immersion.
  • LitRPG: History matters less than mechanics; world “backstory” is often secondary to the system’s function.

8. Layered Political Intrigue

  • Epic Fantasy: Kingdoms, councils, conspiracies—slow, strategic plotting excites readers.
  • LitRPG: Readers may skip political detail to get back to quests, loot, or progression.

9. Villains as Ideologies

  • Epic Fantasy: Antagonists often embody philosophies or cosmic balances.
  • LitRPG: Readers want enemies to be challenges, bosses, or rival players—not treatises on ideology.

10. The Reader Must Feel Small

  • Epic Fantasy: The awe of mountains, empires, or gods dwarfs the individual.
  • LitRPG: Readers want to feel powerful, not humbled—progression fantasy is about growth and mastery.

✅ Works in LitRPG but Not Epic Fantasy

11. Constant Tangible Progress

  • LitRPG: Frequent “dings,” new skills, and stat boosts scratch the gamer itch.
  • Epic Fantasy: Constant visible gains feel artificial—growth should be slow, hard-won, and often invisible.

12. Game-Like Structure

  • LitRPG: Clear quests, dungeons, XP, and loot tables create satisfying loops.
  • Epic Fantasy: Too much structure breaks the illusion of a living world—life doesn’t hand out quests so neatly.

13. Crunchy Mechanics

  • LitRPG: Readers relish stat blocks, skill trees, and optimization discussions.
  • Epic Fantasy: Overly mechanical explanations kill immersion—magic should feel mysterious, not like a spreadsheet.

14. Frequent Combat Encounters

  • LitRPG: Battles are core gameplay; readers expect frequent fights.
  • Epic Fantasy: Endless combat risks exhausting readers who want battles to feel rare, costly, and decisive.

15. Player Agency Above All

  • LitRPG: The protagonist must feel like a player making choices.
  • Epic Fantasy: Fate, prophecy, or the “burden of destiny” often guide characters beyond their control.

16. Meta Awareness

  • LitRPG: Characters can reference game mechanics, genre tropes, or player logic.
  • Epic Fantasy: Meta jokes break immersion—characters can’t wink at the audience about being in a story.

17. Loot and Rewards as Story Fuel

  • LitRPG: New gear and loot drops are story progression.
  • Epic Fantasy: Magical swords and treasures matter, but they’re rare, symbolic, and usually secondary to inner growth.

18. Episodic, “Grindable” Arcs

  • LitRPG: Dungeon runs, quests, and side missions can be modular and satisfying.
  • Epic Fantasy: Too episodic undermines the long-arc gravitas; the story must feel like a single tapestry.

19. Power Fantasy at the Forefront

  • LitRPG: Readers want to imagine themselves growing invincible.
  • Epic Fantasy: Too much power fantasy feels hollow—readers want awe and cost, not invincibility.

20. Immersion Through Familiar Systems

  • LitRPG: RPG tropes are comforting—readers enjoy seeing familiar mechanics at play.
  • Epic Fantasy: Familiar mechanics feel derivative—immersion comes from originality, history, and myth.

⚖️ The Big Picture

  • Epic Fantasy: Offers immersion in a mythic, awe-inspiring legend, with patience, gravitas, and weight. It humbles and uplifts.
  • LitRPG: Offers immersion in a game you can read, with momentum, mechanics, and constant progression. It empowers and energizes.

They share world immersion as a value—but diverge in what kind of immersion the audience craves: awe vs. agency, myth vs. mechanics, destiny vs. progress.

The sin that was so bad, the Bible barely mentioned it

I don’t usually post long-form podcasts on Sunday, but this one seemed appropriate (though I wouldn’t recommend listening to it if little children are around).

Ward Radio has been doing a lot of deep dives into the apocrypha & pseudopigrapha, and this one was particularly interesting, since the Bible barely touches on the sin of the antediluvians that was so terrible that God decided to send the flood. “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

(As a companion episode, it’s also worth listening to this one where they talked about the true meaning of “nephilim” in Genesis, which is usually translated as “giants.” It’s probably not what you think!)

Fantasy from A to Z: W is for Worldbuilding

What is the biggest thing that sets fantasy apart from all other genres? Without a doubt, it has to be worldbuilding. In every other genre (even science fiction, to some extent), the writer can get away with a loose or surface-level understanding of the world. But in order to do fantasy right, you have to build the world from the ground up, and include such an immersive and visceral level of detail that the reader feels like it’s a real world that they can lose themselves in. That is the feeling that readers want when they pick up a fantasy book.

At the same time, I think that most writers put too much emphasis on worldbuilding. It’s become trendy in writerly circles to talk about worldbuilding, almost as if it’s something you do for its own sake. In the best books, though—even in the best fantasy books—the worldbuilding is always in service to the story, and not the other way around.

For many of us writers, the act of dreaming up a world is the thing that immerses us the most in it. Daydreaming about our fantasy worlds and working out all of the details about it—that’s often the fun part, and the thing that got us into writing fantasy in the first place. But it doesn’t translate very well to the page. The things that seemed so cool to us when we were dreaming them up often come across as dry and boring when we write them out in a huge info dump.

In order for a reader to feel immersed in the world, they need to have a character that they can follow through it. The character’s experience of the world becomes the reader’s experience. But the character needs to be in motion—they need to have some sort of goal or objective that they’re working toward, even if they don’t consciously realize it yet. And it needs to be a struggle for them, at least on some level. Even in cozy fantasy, where the stakes are typically pretty low, the characters still have to put some effort into getting the things they want.

That’s because characters show us who they really are through the trials and struggles that they face. Just like in real life, hard times make us see what people are made of. Without that, readers have a difficult time connecting with the characters through whose eyes we want to show them our fantasy worlds. It’s through a character’s struggle that we find that we can relate to them.

Another thing I’ve noticed, particularly in some recent big-name traditionally published fantasy, is that the viewpoint characters are often just terrible people. If I met them in real life, I often think that I would find them petty, narcissistic, and repulsive. At best, they are amoral, and at worst, they are little better than the villains who oppose them—and yet, from the way they’re written, it’s clear that we’re supposed to latch onto them simply because they are the main character.

As a reader, that doesn’t work for me. If I’m going to connect with a character deeply enough to get that immersive fantasy experience, I want them to either be the kind of person I can admire, or the kind of person I feel like I can hang out with. Preferably both. And if the character is going to do something morally repulsive early on in the book, I need to see them wrestle with the ethics of it first, and perhaps feel some remorse afterward. Otherwise, it’s going to throw me out of the book.

Anything that throws the reader out of the book is also going to kill that immersive experience, rendering all that worldbuilding utterly ineffectual. In some ways, the reader first has to feel immersed in the characters before they can feel immersed in the world.

This is why the characters in the best fantasy books often have more depth and nuance to them than the characters in any other genre. When the book is set in our own familiar world, the characters themselves are often larger than life. The heroes are billionaires or ex-Navy SEALs, the love interests are supermodels or billionaires, and the villains are criminal masterminds or rival billionaires. But in fantasy, the larger-than-life element is the world itself, so the characters (or at least the viewpoint characters) often feel much more like real people, so as to ground us in the story.

I’ve often heard people say that worldbuilding is a bit like an iceberg, in that only 10% or so should be visible. But I think it’s more precise to say that worldbuilding should be grounded in the character (or characters) through whose eyes we get to see it. Of course, those characters are grounded in the conflict or plot of the story, since that’s what shows us who they really are. And the plot itself is grounded in time and space, which brings us back full circle to setting and worldbuilding. So ultimately, it’s all a virtuous cycle.

I don’t think I’ve ever found an author who does character better than Ursula K. Le Guin. I haven’t read much of her fantasy, but I did read Powers, and I felt so totally immersed in that world because I felt like I knew the main character even better than I know myself. It was an incredible reading experience, just like the best of her science fiction, which I adore.

Brandon Sanderson also tends to buck the current trend of morally ambiguous main characters who never really earn our sympathy or admiration. In almost all of his books, his protagonists strike me as good people—the kind that I can admire and hang out with. That fact, combined with how his books tend to be much cleaner than most contemporary fantasy, go a long way toward explaining his tremendous success (though of course, Sanderson’s greatest strength is his ability to write killer endings).

Bottom line, the best worldbuilding in fantasy is only as good as the characters through whom we experience it. Worldbuilding should always serve the story, and not the other way around.

Fantasy from A to Z: V is for Villains

Back in the early days of the internet, when it was still a fun and carefree place, there was this thing called the evil overlord list (which is still up, if you want to read it). The list is organized like a top 100 list of resolutions that the smart evil overlord has made, in order to avoid the fate of all the not-so-smart evil overlords who have come before him. It’s got some really hilarious zingers, including the last one:

Finally, to keep my subjects permanently locked in a mindless trance, I will provide each of them with free unlimited Internet access.

Yikes. Explains a lot about the world today, doesn’t it?

But all joking aside, villains are a staple of fantasy literature—including the super campy villains that we love to mock with things like the evil overlord list. And there’s a very good reason for that. Every great hero needs an intractable problem to overcome. And while man vs. nature and man vs. self provide a certain degree of conflict, nothing provides a hero with more opportunities to prove himself than man vs. man.

When I was learning how to write fiction, the popular advice when writing villains was to remember that every character is the hero in their own story. Thus, every villain you write shouldn’t think of himself as the bad guy. Instead, he should think of himself as the good guy, who only does morally questionable things because that’s what needs to be done.

I do still think that there is validity to this advice. I still remember the moment when, as a young boy who was starry-eyed for all things Star Wars, I first saw the opening cinematic for the computer game Tie Fighter. It blew my nine year old mind to think that my beloved Rebel Alliance might actually be a band of terrorists, opposing the forces seeking to restore law and order to the galaxy. Suddenly, the one-dimensional conflict at the heart of my favorite franchise had a whole other dimension to it. I was hooked.

But in the last few years, I think people have become hungry for villains who are truly evil to the core. The transition probably began a while ago, around the time when Breaking Bad was still new. Walter White is an extremely complex and nuanced character, with a rich and well-developed character arc, exactly in line with the old writing advice. And yet, by the end of the show, he is genuinely evil. He gets a bit of a redemption arc in the last episode, but he is not a good guy by any stretch—and he admits it. In fact, the scene where he finally admits as much to his wife is, in many ways, the capstone of his character arc. He has no illusions about the fact that he never was a hero—not even in his own story.

These things tend to be cyclical and generational. From the mid-1960s to about the 2010s, I think most readers preferred villains who were nuanced. Even in Lord of the Rings, which really took off in the 1970s, Sauron is more of a force of nature than an actual human person. Besides, the true villain of Lord of the Rings is the ring itself, and everyone who interacts with it has a slightly different reaction, with some of them passing the test, and others failing (and, in the case of Boromir, redeeming themselves afterward). Besides, Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings at the tail end of the last cycle, where from the 1910s through the 1950s the villains were unambiguously evil. Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories are a great example—there is no redemption arc for the Stygian priests or the remnant of Xuchotl.

The older I get, the more I have come to appreciate stories with unambiguous heroes and villains. That doesn’t mean that everything has to be black and white—just look at Lord of the Rings for that. But there’s a lot more room for nuance and complexity between two extremes than there is between different shades of grey. Again, Lord of the Rings is a good example of this. You can make a solid case that the true “hero” of that story is Gollum, who succumbed entirely to the ring and had absolutely no desire to save the world at all. And yet, the ring is unambiguously evil, and Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, etc. are all unambiguously good.

What would a revised version of the evil overlord list look like? Most of the tropes in the original list are based on recycled old franchises that have mostly faded from cultural relevance now. Would the new list include things like “I won’t waste time fretting about the corruption of my soul” or “I’ll harbor no illusions about being the good guy”? I don’t know, but I suspect that a good number of items will remain relevant for a long time. After all, whether or not the villain sees himself as the hero of the story, a good villain is always very competent at what they do.

All my ebooks $2.99 until August 3st!

For about the last year, I’ve been running periodic $2.99 sales on all my ebooks every two months or so. No special announcements or promotions, just a price drop from $4.99 for the novel-length books, down to $2.99 (this does not include my book bundles, which are all $9.99).

Interestingly, even with very little promotion, and the lower royalties due to the price decrease, I have found that my sales and revenue actually increase every time I run one of these sales. But the boost only lasts for about two weeks before falling back again, and I have to wait about two months before I can get a similar boost.

However, since I could do a better job promoting these things, I figured it’s worth promoting on my blog. From now until the end of August, all of my $4.99 ebooks are now $2.99 across all ebook retailers. You can pick them up wherever you get your ebooks, but if you get them from my online store, the files are yours to keep (none of this licensing vs. digital ownership nonsense). Check it out!

Where do you keep your books?

Now that we’ve moved back into our old house, unpacking all of our stuff and finding places for it, I just have to wonder… where in the heck do bookish normal people keep all of their books?

My in-laws have a dedicated library in their house, and while we were house-sitting for them, they were gracious enough to clear out several shelves for us so that we could put all of our books (more or less) within easy reach. But our house is a fairly small single family home, with a main floor and a basement. It’s about 2,300 square feet, with four bedrooms and three bathrooms—which is plenty of room for our small family—but there isn’t much space for bookshelves.

This is our main family room (please excuse the mess—small children and all). It has a little bit of shelf space by the stairs, which we could use for maybe a few dozen books, but we have a lot more than that. Boxes and boxes more. Behind the camera is the kitchen/dining area, so there isn’t much space for books there. And everything else on this floor is already taken, with bedrooms for the kids and a master suite for my wife and me—and my wife doesn’t want to cram all our books in our bedroom. With another small child on the way, I can’t blame her.

This is the downstairs main room. Again, please excuse the mess—we’re currently using this area as the kids’ play room. The bookshelves either have games or kids’ books, so those are taken. Behind the camera is a kitchenette area that we’re currently using to hold our food storage (and we have a lot of it, so that’s probably not going to change). Besides the main room here, there are two bedrooms, one of which is currently for storage, and the other is an office for my wife and me. Again, there’s not much space for shelves in either of those… and besides, we’d rather have our books out where people can see them (or at least where our kids can easily browse them).

What I suppose we could do is get rid of the massive TV (my wife won it from her work during a holiday raffle, and we don’t use it much, so it wouldn’t be a big deal to downsize) and move the dresser into another room, so that we could use that whole wall for shelves. That might fit all of our books, if the shelves stretched from floor to ceiling. It would be a big project, since we would have to use all of that space—and would probably also have to move the light switch—but it could be done.

Another idea I’ve had is to install shelves in the family room up above the main window. We could probably wrap it around most of the room, even into the dining room area if we had to. Have any of you done something like that? I’m a little bit worried it would make the room feel cramped, but it is a place where we could put a shelf.

Other than that, I’m kind of at a loss. I could try to get rid of most of my books, but I have no idea how successful that would be, since I tend to acquire new ones as quickly as I lose the old ones. It’s a blessing… and a curse. I’m sure that most of you can relate.

In any case, what do you do with all of your books? Where do you keep them? What would you do if you lived in our house?