Mainstream Fantasy

[JP Dogberry]

which is the problem.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Yeah, Tolkien drew heavily on norse and finnish lore when creating his Elves. They're not exact analogues, but that's not a requirement.

I'm sorry Ent, but I got a very "I like Tolkien" vibe from Jordan as well. As for Trollocs being "described very different," if you describe a portly short fellow with a humongous nose, but he's still without peer on the longbow and has a connection to the natural world and inhuman capabilities, he's still an elf, even though he looks different. Trollocs may look different, but from what I read, they're essentially orcs dressed differently.

As for the original world:
I concur with EUOL's points, because they make sense to me. If you're writing for publication, it may not be fair, but you will not just have a little trouble, but great difficulty selling a world that has elves and dwarves and humans interacting together. I'm not sure what you're doing so different that makes it different, but having those three does an awful lot to blend it in with a thousand other stories. It'll be hard to make it different enough to sell.

On the other hand, if your writing for yourself or for fun and for the love of this world, there's no reaosn to move on.

But let me emphasize, if you want to sell novels, I think you'll find the barriers nearly insurmountable.

As for why?

Well, Go read The Brega Path and then you'll know why. It's not original enough. Spec. Fiction is a genre of originality. And the next "cool thing" isn't enough.

Think of it like drugs. Let's face it folks, reading is escapism. I'm not saying that makes it bad, but I'm saying that's what it's read for: to get someone else's experience, not your own. Fantasy is more escapist than many others. You want to be pulled much further away from your own reality. But just like you get used to whatever pharmaceuticals you're taking and the small dosage is no longer enough, staying int he same realm over and over and over no longer pulls you way because you've adopted so much of the new world.  Readers want to see something they're not used to.

Now, I await lambasting for this position (note: I know that probably many of you are exceptions, or at least think you are, to this position, but I maintain that the majority of readers DO fit this pattern. And no, I don't count your friends, because I think if you really DO break out of this pattern, that you tend to not have much in common with those who don't, and thus aren't close friends with many of them).

[Skar]

EUOL said:

Almost everyone who wants to break into this genre has a pet world they've been working on since they were fourteen.  The problem with these worlds is twofold.  First, it will be TOO big.  You'll have too much you want to show--and because of that, your narrative will get laden down with your worldbuilding and the whole thing will sink.  Secondly, you are putting all your eggs in one basket.  If this world isn't good enough to catch an editor's eye, you won't get published, no matter how many books you write in it.

I disagree (from my pitiful and paltry position of having published only one short story, ever, and that was mainstream LDS at that) with some of the implications of this statement.

Having a fully fleshed out world is not a bad thing, whether you've been working on it since you were fourteen or not.  It is ESSENTIAL.  What is bad is, as EUOL said, insisting on including too much of it.  The dreaded info-dump.

If your world is not fleshed out enough, and enough translates to extremely fleshed out, it will look and feel hollow to your readers.  99% of worldbuilding will never be directly seen or even referenced in a good novel.  However, it will be felt if everything that IS referenced has an underpinning, a common infrastructure, with everything else.  Even if the author never tells you that orcs were at one time made from elves, the inference is there in the enmity elves feel for the orcs and the kinds of things the bad guy does, etc...

Readers can feel the presence or absence of the vastness of the world the author has created. Its presence makes the world feel rich whether the author included all kinds of detail about it or not. As long as what detail he does provide is consistent. (It's really hard to be consistent if you're making up the whole world as you go along)

If you've got a world you've been working on since you were 14 and can resist the urge to info-dump or include that one character you made up and are so in love with, even when he has nothing to do with the story you're currently telling, you're in pretty good shape.  Write a good story with good characters, plotting and dialogue, and it will be a good story and read really well.  The vast world will only help you.  

As for SELLING books set in a tolkienesque world, not so easy anymore.  I'd listen to EUOL on that one.    My suggestion that might let you use your world and still, maybe, have a chance to sell your stuff, is add even more detail.  Throw in 18 completely new races and figure out how they fit in, THEN write your stories in THAT world.  A big problem I have with alot of Fantasy and even SF is that the races we see are way too homogenous to be really believable.  In a fantasy world, different races/species would likely have as much variety as we do in our single species, in the real world.  You never even see that implied in most speculative fiction.

It woudn't really be Tolkienesque if the dwarves are only ever mentioned as short-reclusive-little-money-grubbers that live way over there and have very little to do with us, if at all.  And there are some elves who think the whole fascination with music and dancing and "light" is effete and stupid.

Now, if all the stories you want to write in your world are about heroic strongmen dwarves who make unlikely friendships with elves who are really good with a bow, then you're in trouble.

It comes down to the difference between having specific stories you want to tell and just wanting to tell stories. But that's an entirely different topic.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

while I realize you're only disagreeing with implications, I would still choose to phrase it EUOL's way, had I made the point originally. The problem with "pet worlds" is that they're pets. YOu want to tell everyone about them, and it's very difficult NOT to info-dump or add too much world building into the narrative. In fact, it's often difficult to realize that you're even committing that sin.

So while, yes, there are exceptions to every rule, I'd just choose to assume everyone already knows that every rule has the occassional exception, and just state the rule.

[EUOL]

Readers can feel the presence or absence of the vastness of the world the author has created. Its presence makes the world feel rich whether the author included all kinds of detail about it or not. As long as what detail he does provide is consistent. (It's really hard to be consistent if you're making up the whole world as you go along)

If you've got a world you've been working on since you were 14 and can resist the urge to info-dump or include that one character you made up and are so in love with, even when he has nothing to do with the story you're currently telling, you're in pretty good shape.  Write a good story with good characters, plotting and dialogue, and it will be a good story and read really well.  The vast world will only help you.  

As for SELLING books set in a Tolkienesque world, not so easy anymore.  I'd listen to EUOL on that one.    My suggestion that might let you use your world and still, maybe, have a chance to sell your stuff, is add even more detail.  Throw in 18 completely new races and figure out how they fit in, THEN write your stories in THAT world.  A big problem I have with alot of Fantasy and even SF is that the races we see are way too homogenous to be really believable.  In a fantasy world, different races/species would likely have as much variety as we do in our single species, in the real world.  You never even see that implied in most speculative fiction.

Skar makes some very valid points which, in my effort to represent my position zealously, I did not include caveats to acknowledge.  I appreciate his comments.

So, let me tell you that his words are true.  If you have a very, very rich world, that will come across in your fiction.  It comes across in Tolkien--after all, Middle Earth was his 'pet' world.  Though SE rightly identified my problem with this type of project (most authors can't, then, tell a story in this world without trying to mash in all of the worldbuilding they’ve done) I think that it is quite possible to turn a pet project into an excellent book.

Tolkien, however, didn't have to make a living off of his writing.  

Lets say you are a carpenter.  You want to make a bed--but not just any bed, the PERFECT bed.  You work on it for years and years, finding--and discarding--dozens of lengths of wood.  You etch its entire surface.  You do designs and murals for the headboard.  You spend your life on it.  Then, at the end, you realize that you've made the bed too narrow, and nobody can sleep on it.

Well, someone may still buy that bed, because it's so beautiful.  However, meanwhile, the guy who has spent those years perfecting the CRAFT of bedmaking--rather than just trying to make a single perfect bed--now knows just how to design a bed that will be comfortable and useful to the people who purchase his beds.  He knows how to get the invisible details--the things that people don't see, but make the experience extremely fulfilling--just right.  He's only been able to do this because he's made bed after bed; he failed a lot at the first, but now he's pretty darn good at what he does.

Who's in a better position at the end of these years of work?  The one who wanted to be a master has found that he's gotten pretty good at making that single bed.  The other person has made a profession out of bed-making.  I'd say that the second man is in a much better position to make a perfect masterpiece than the first, since he now understands the art inherently.  It's part of him.  

That's why I say write a lot of books.  Save your masterpiece for another time.


(Oh, and SE--I didn't want to be presumptuous and edit your post, but it really makes things look bad when you censor someone's words, then berate them somewhat vulgarly in your own post.  Could you, perhaps, rephrase your line so that it is more polite?  You may remove this comment too, if you wish.)

[Skar]

In all fairness, unless you're talking about censorings on other threads, SE did not in fact censor me here.  I went back and deleted some things I said (thought SE was going to delete everything back to his response to my world-building in a fit of mutual good will but hey, no matter...) and so SE's responses stand alone and look garish.

Just FYI.

Good analogy with the bed thing.  

[EUOL]

Ah, well then, I apologize, SE.

You know, it might make things less confusing if we had a general 'Don't delete, just edit' policy.  That way, you could change your posts to 'content removed' that would show you were the one who edited your own post to change things.

[Spriggan]

Yes, the only person that should deleate posts is JP or Tage, besides that only edit them.  Heck anyone should ask JP if he's online to do so before doing it yourself (unless your a deparment mod for that thread).

[Entsuropi]

I'm sorry Ent, but I got a very "I like Tolkien" vibe from Jordan as well. As for Trollocs being "described very different," if you describe a portly short fellow with a humongous nose, but he's still without peer on the longbow and has a connection to the natural world and inhuman capabilities, he's still an elf, even though he looks different. Trollocs may look different, but from what I read, they're essentially orcs dressed differently.

Well, an orc is just a barbaric guy who fights nasty and goes around in big groups, right?

So... vikings are orcs? We could say then, that Zulu is the story of a group of Elves fighting off an army of Orcs.

I think description is more important than you say.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Yeah, sorry, should have been more clear on that. I deleted one of my posts, but I wasn't looking at it. Skar and I have worked things out with each other independent of the forum. I probably should have done more of my own.

I don't have a problem with people deleting their own posts, though perhaps if they do more than one there should be an explanation. However, it's not that big a deal to me and I guess this isn't really the thread for it.

[Spriggan]

Ya, I have no problem with people deleateing their own posts.  I do it sometimes too.

[The Jade Knight]

Yeah just don't copy paste, in general, and that will solve the problem.

Actually, I didn't cut and paste.  It doesn't like full ANSI, I've decided.

I see myself in a little bit of a position to give advice on this matter.  Don't take anything I say too harshly--I'm partially just playing devil's advocate here.

I understand.  And I have complete respect for you and Saint E's experience and knowledge in the area.  I want to tease the issue out a little bit further than just leaving it at this, though.

Your take on Tolkienesque fantasy will not be original, and it will not sell.  You've spent years working on a world.  Good job.  Write a book (one) in that world, and do it quickly, then move on.

I think I can understand where you're coming from on this, but I think you're getting caught up in the definition of the matter.  It's not as much you don't think my take will be original, as you think that the mere fact that it's Tolkienesque Fantasy will make it unoriginal.

This certainly appears to be an opinion you don't share alone, however.

Almost everyone who wants to break into this genre has a pet world they've been working on since they were fourteen.  The problem with these worlds is twofold.  First, it will be TOO big.  You'll have too much you want to show--and because of that, your narrative will get laden down with your worldbuilding and the whole thing will sink.  Secondly, you are putting all your eggs in one basket.  If this world isn't good enough to catch an editor's eye, you won't get published, no matter how many books you write in it.

Well, there's no denying the second point.  I'm considering writing some comtemporary fiction, would consider historical fiction when I feel I've a good enough grasp on any period to put it in, and modern mixed fantasy (I'm not sure what you call this genre.  Dark is Rising could be considered to fall into it).  But at this point, I'm okay with having only one Fantasy world.

Regarding the first point, that's a matter of discretion, not something automatic.  Now, you read over Talyon's Quest, and while there was a lot of work that needed to be done on the story (which you pointed out, and I appreciated), you never once complained of "world-overload".  Now, I could pass it around and see what people think, but I don't think that's going to be a problem with my stories.

I think that if you force yourself to write consistently in new worlds, you will get better at writing much more quickly.  You will force yourself to be more original so that you don't repeat yourself, and you will get practice starting new plots, worlds, and characters from scratch.

Mayhaps.  But shallow world-building always bothers me in writing.  And it is enough work to create one depth-filled world.  I am not in a habit of reusing characters much to begin with, and in the little writing I've done I don't recirculate plots at all, and I'm not planning on starting.  Shifting worlds constantly wont chang that.

I guess the short answer to your question is: Yes, writing a book with elves and dwarves will seriously hamper your ability to get published.  People are tired of reading those stories (no matter how clever your take on them) and editors are tired of reading them.  

You want to think yourself an exception?  Well, I truly wish you good luck.  Exceptions get published all the time.  However, why start yourself out of the gate so far behind everyone else?

Why?  Two reasons:  One - fidelity to self.  I am quite happy with my little world.  Completely revamping the whole thing just to get published smells a little of literary whoring to me.  I'm not so far disillusioned yet that I'm willing to take that step.

Two - I'm content with waiting until my story-building talents have reached a much greater level to jump into the market.  It's plot I struggle with most right now, not world-building.  If I feel I've mastered plot and need to shift my focus again, I'll maybe reconsider.

(By the way--most current fantasy I read has very few, if any, non-human races.  Also, remember that Robert Jordan--the last big Tolkienesque writer--started fifteen years ago.  The genre has changed a lot since that day, even though he has enough momentum to keep selling large numbers.)

I also don't consider Jordan Tolkienesque, but that's a matter of opinion, I'm sure.

I'll touch on non-human races more later.

[Another post to follow]

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

On the matter of non-humans:

I find myself using non-humans. To wit: I find myself using the fae. Not elves, but fairies. In the Rennaissance style. They're not something I think I've seen dealt with as-is very much. Feist actually did a novel called Faerie Tale that did a good job, but you don't see medieval fantasy done with faeries. or, rather, I don't. I may be corrected.

I also refuse to let go of dragons. Maybe I need to. We'll see.

[The Jade Knight]

[post 2 of 3]

Where did orcs come from?  I know of no mythological foundation for them.  Also, Tolkien's elves.  They're very different from fae folk I've read of in lore.  He did create quite a bit, and the rest he changed.

"Orc" is the Old English word for "demon", and Tolkien's Orcs were essentially demons taken and solidified into a tangible race.  Granted, it wasn't a pure borrowing, but there's definitely a foundation for them.  Even more so for Elves.  They're hardly different at all from the Fae I've read in some Middle English stories (I'm a sucker for ME stories, I'll admit).  I mean, how terribly different are the Fay in Sir Orfeo (or some of the Mabinogion, for that matter) than Tolkien's Elves?

Within LotR (or perhaps in the Silmarillion, I forget), Tolkien talks about how with every passing age, the Elves fade and grow smaller.  In the Middle English tales I've read, the Fay are tall and majestic, not the little dinky Santa-style Elves they were considered to be in contemporary England.

The difference between him and you is that he did it first.  I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.  Because Tolkien did it, and because he had such an effect on the market, anyone who uses 'elf' in a fantasy book has to react against what Tolkien wrote.

I wont disagree.  But no one raised in Western culture can effectively do the same thing Tolkien did again.

I'm not going to address the whole YA thing.  My point wasn't about those specific books though.  My point was that there is a rich tradition of "borrowing", and a huge portion of the best-known books/worlds (Tolkien is certainly NOT exempted) are based on borrowed lore.

If you're using Tolkien as a primary source instead, I think that you're kind of making a copy of a copy, which weakens the piece intrinsically.

Rather, I've looked at his primary sources, and I've decided I rather like a few of his interpretations of them, so I'm using the same interpretations as him, in some areas.  Definitely not in all.  But this is why I really like using "his races".  I've read a lot of Middle English narratives, and I rather like the Elves in them, which are, more or less, the same as Tolkien's Elves (Dwarves are a more Norse element, but I could ignore them in my world without any real problem.  The Elves, on the other hand . . .)

Because that's one of the reasons people READ fantasy.  To get something different!  If it's the same as Tolkien, then why read your book?  I'll go read Tolkien!  Or one of the people who ripped him off with style, like Tad Williams or Stephen Donaldson.

I do not read Fantasy to "get something different" [than what I've already read, which is what you're implying].  I never have.  I read it because it calls to me (sehnsucht).  I like magic, and dragons, and those sorts of things.  The whole "bigger than life" aspect.  I want something different from the life I live.

And it obviously wouldn't be the same as Tolkien.  Even if the worlds were identical (which they are very far from), my stories and way of telling them are different from Tolkien's!  Tolkien was a brilliant scholar and a master world-builder, but I've read better writers.  The only similarities are that there are elements of the world (such as Elves and Dwarves) that are very Tolkienesque.

I got a very "I like Tolkien" vibe from Jordan as well. As for Trollocs being "described very different," if you describe a portly short fellow with a humongous nose, but he's still without peer on the longbow and has a connection to the natural world and inhuman capabilities, he's still an elf, even though he looks different. Trollocs may look different, but from what I read, they're essentially orcs dressed differently.

I agree about Trollocs (consider them Trolls, not Orcs. but it doesn't really matter).  But I still don't consider Jordan very Tolkienesque.

Ironically, it bothers me more that he didn't call them Orcs than how similar Trollocs are to Orcs.

Fantasy is more escapist than many others. You want to be pulled much further away from your own reality.

I don't think I want to be pulled further away, so much as I want to be pulled a certain direction (magic, knights, dragons, the ilk).  I don't really consider reading Fantasy as the same as taking drugs, but whatever.  So does all this make me an atypical Fantasy reader?

[The Jade Knight]

[post 3 of 3]

In a fantasy world, different races/species would likely have as much variety as we do in our single species, in the real world.  You never even see that implied in most speculative fiction.

True.  I've five(ish, not including the "Wild Elves") races of Elves, with different attitudes towards life, different ways of living, different languages (to an extent), etc.

It woudn't really be Tolkienesque if the dwarves are only ever mentioned as short-reclusive-little-money-grubbers that live way over there and have very little to do with us, if at all.  And there are some elves who think the whole fascination with music and dancing and "light" is effete and stupid.

Now, if all the stories you want to write in your world are about heroic strongmen dwarves who make unlikely friendships with elves who are really good with a bow, then you're in trouble.

According to you, my world wouldn't be Tolkienesque, even though my Elves are tall, agile guys with pointy ears who live a long time and are usually good in nature(if anyone's curious, Talyon's Quest is about an Elven Necromancer - who's still generally a good guy).

The thing is, I don't want to write ANY stories in my world about heroic strongmen Dwarves making friendships with bow-skilled Elves.  That's just it - my world may be similar in SOME respects, but I'm trying to develop stories that are going to break away from the Epic High Fantasy mold a little.

while I realize you're only disagreeing with implications, I would still choose to phrase it EUOL's way, had I made the point originally. The problem with "pet worlds" is that they're pets. YOu want to tell everyone about them, and it's very difficult NOT to info-dump or add too much world building into the narrative. In fact, it's often difficult to realize that you're even committing that sin.

I'd love to have you read Talyon's Quest and see if you think I info-dump.  I'm a strong believer that the deeper the world, the better, and that a writer with some self-control can stop himself from dumping too much on the reader.


But your points are well-taken, and I appreciate them.  Particularly the bed-analogy, EUOL.


But I find it strange that we should tire of Elves when we refuse to tire of Wizards and Dragons, wot.   Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned for my own good.