Timewaster's Guide Archive
Departments => Books => Topic started by: EUOL on April 07, 2004, 08:19:53 AM
-
So, I'm curious. It seems like the big, 'mainstream' fantasy stories are generally the standard 'eternal apprentice' or 'quest' style stories. (Robin Hobb, Terry Goodkind, Terry Brooks.)
I've been of the opinion, however, that this will change as readership grows older. They'll get tired of hearing the same story over and over again. However, maybe I'm wrong. Fantasy will always have a strong young adult market, and (no offense guys) that age group is notoriously affectionate of reading the stereotypical fantasy plot. Part of this is just because they haven't had as much time to get bored of reading the same story over and over again with different names.
So, what do you guys think? Will the market really change as I think it will? fantasy's really only about twenty-five years old. It's experiencing quite a boom right now--will that fizzle once people realize that a lot of the plots are similar?
-
hrm...I dunno. I mean, as long as people can find new ways to present it seems like there will always be an audience. I can't tell you the number of people who read stuff because it sounds cool, even as older adults. As if coming up with a new combination of epic powers or new combination of the standard races is enough to carry a book.
What type of thing do you feel it will evolve into?
-
And then there's the theory that every story is part of one big ur-story anyway.
I think that in children's fantasy, at least, that's something that authors are struggling with and the better ones are overcoming. I would give you examples, but I have to run and get ready for work right now. (Besides, it doesn't really answer your question about mainstream fantasy, does it?)
-
I think there will always be the stereotypical fantasy stories coming out - despite how many of them we already have. But I, for one, am getting a little tired of reading the same story plot over and over again (thus I'm starting to expand my reading to different genres). So maybe as this generation gets older, they'll encourage all those struggling authors to create new storylines, plots, worlds, and characters who do something different.
I think you're right in that there will always be the young audience ready to read about the young-farm-boy-who-is-really-the-hero-and-must-save-the-day kind of stories, but with movies coming to accept fantasy, people will grow tired of those plots much faster and authors will have to try harder and harder to come up with something new.
(Way to be ahead of the game, Brandon!)
-
I think 'Mainstream Fantasy' is an oxymoron.
-
I have to agree with EUOL. I'm having a hard time finding new authors that I want to read all of their stuff. Sadly, I think J. K. Rowling was the last one. Maybe that's just because I'm not being adventurous enough. I guess that means that I think Brandon's on the right track.
-
What track is that?
-
The one where he writes lots of fantasty that is different from what's out there and makes insane amounts of money, and we all get to say we knew him before he was famous.
-
And have cameos in one of his early books.
So maybe as this generation gets older, they'll encourage all those struggling authors to create new storylines, plots, worlds, and characters who do something different.
That's really what I'm banking on. I know I feel this way. Every time I pick up a new book and read the same 'Teenage peasants' introduction, I think 'Oh, no. Not again.' And I put the book down. This happened to me with LORD OF THE ISLES.
The last great farmboy book was probably WIZARD'S FIRST RULE, back in 95. Maybe we are moving toward something new. I hope we do--the problem with fantasy is that everyone wants to replicate Tolkien, when they should really be trying to replicate the PROCESS that Tolkien used.
-
I want you to expand on that, if you don't mind. I mean, the process v. the material.
-
The other problem with fantasy these days is that once the writers hit upon something thats good, they just keep going and going. Robert Jordan is a good example, Like Terry Pratchet and the 'Wizards First Rule' series, whose author I can't remember the name of and can't be bothered looking for.
And I don't entirely agree with what I think you are saying EUOL. Cause though using a process instead of just plain replication allows more options, in the long run it still just gets repetitive.
-
Yes, but that repetition isn't the same as everyone else's. It's your own, unique style and story. So even if you go through all the trouble that Tolkien did and still get in a rut, it'll be a rut that no one else had done, thereby people won't be bored with it nearly as fast as if you just write what everyone else is writing.
-
Tolkein created a whole world, a whole mythology, history and languages. I think that's what EUOL is refering to. Rather than just lazily writing in a "fantasy setting", we ought to be sculpting and presenting a fleshed out world and culture.
But yeah, I'd like to hear more of your theories on this EUOL.
-
Can I ask an unrelated question? EUOL, why do you capitalize all book titles instead of italicize them? Is that another one of those weird underline-instead-of-italicize things?
-
Eh, no I don't forsee fantasy stories moving away from quests and antiheroes. Do you really think horror, romance, or mainstream have fewer similarities in their genres? More unique ideas, more creativity? I just don't really see it. Wanting to see something new or make a change of pace doesn't really have anything to do with some trend, people are just like that at times.
-
I disagree . . . because I don't want the world to be that way.
I'd give a more convincing argument, but I don't read horror and romance. I do think there is difference in mainstream. You've got court fiction (Grisham), and Armed Forces fiction (Clancy), stories like Little Women and Anne of Green Gables. And that's my list, because those are my only readings outside of sf/f.
-
well, i will just complicate the argument by throwing out what we've discussed before.
Fantasy that varies from the standard usually gets called something else. No publisher would dare suggest that GLoria Naylor's Mama Day is fantasy, yet most everything that happens in the plot depends on this voodoo magic. HOw is that NOT fantasy?
-
I don't quite follow. You don't want the world to be like what?
Mainstream is kind of broad for a genre. Just because you can split it up into subgenres doesn't really mean all that much. Books are also not exactly limited to being in a single genre. You could have a fantasy story that was just as much a romance. I just happened to read Fahrenheit 451 last night and was thinking the same thing. Its a sci-fi, but you could easily put it in other genres. Same with Planet of the Apes, the Time Machine, or Frankenstein. Even Anne of Green Gables, would you really be surprised if the library had it in the romance section?
What about the novel White Fang? How many other mainstream novels are about a boy becoming a man? Hatchet and Lord of the Flies come to mind, along with several movies like Iron Will. Do you think people are going to stop writing stories like this, or reading them? Somehow I doubt its the last we'll see of this theme.
There's so much more to a book than just the plot. Just because you've read a dozen books about a farmer turned hero doesn't mean they were really all about the same thing. If we see any widescale change in fantasy, I think it will be writers thinking more about the message they story is about and less about creating some new and unique world, new monsters, or new magic.
-
More unique ideas, more creativity? I just don't really see it.
I don't want the world to be that way.
Mainstream is kind of broad for a genre.
Do you really think horror, romance, or mainstream have fewer similarities in their genres?
You named the genre as an example.
How many other mainstream novels are about a boy becoming a man?
I'd say less than 50%. A coming of age story is also a broader definition of a story than "poor boy saves the world with group of quirky friends." The broad definition of that is usually "epic."
-
Izzy, I love you.
I put my vote behind all of that.
-
Thanks. :) You were my inspiration for the Anne of Green Gables response.
-
Your idea of a romance is apparently worlds apart from mine. I also don't find an Epic being limited in scope to a story of rag-tag adventures who save the world from certain doom. Fantasy is by no means limited to such plot and the entire genre isn't going to change overnight just because X percent of fantasy novels follow such a plot. It doesn't matter if less than 50% of mainstream books aren't about coming of age, it doesn't nullify the point in any way. People have told the story for as long as books have been written, and people will continue to tell stories about it. "We've read it before" isn't going to make the subject fall off the face of the earth.
-
"We've read it before" isn't going to make the subject fall off the face of the earth.
No, but it might make book sales fall off the face of the earth.
-
Lol. Yes, the quandary of all artists, how to balance both integrity and the all-important coin.
-
No, but it might make book sales fall off the face of the earth.
Then why hasn't it yet? The reason it hasn't been changed is because it's still WORKING. If it's not broke they're not going to fix it.
-
UG! Too much to respond to!
First, the easy one:
Can I ask an unrelated question? EUOL, why do you capitalize all book titles instead of italicize them? Is that another one of those weird underline-instead-of-italicize things?
That's exactly it. All caps is the default for a medium that can't italicize or underline, and was often used in the days of typewriters. Right now, people use it mostly in emails. (Though that's also the way it was represented in my contracts, incidentally.) I use it here partially because I'm lazy, and partially because I'm used to it now.
Okay, now for EP's interesting debate. (I'll expand on my theories in a bit for you, SE.) First, let's establish that change is needed. Let's use this quote as a starting point.
Eh, no I don't foresee fantasy stories moving away from quests and antiheroes. Do you really think horror, romance, or mainstream have fewer similarities in their genres?
It's hard to compare fantasy against 'mainstream,' for reasons you have already pointed out. Let's compare it to something closer to home, instead. How does fantasy compare to science fiction?
I put forth the supposition that SF is FAR more diverse than fantasy. It has numerous sub-genres--from cyberpunk, to military SF, to exploration themes. It is virtually limitless in the topics it deals with. It has many very rich settings, and it's hard to pin down exactly what the 'stereotypical' SF story is. That is because the genre is so diverse.
Fantasy could be like this, but it isn't yet. Right now, it is dominated by a single sub-genre--the Tolkieneque quest epic. Its settings are rather bland for a genre that could, theoretically, encompass everything. Yes, the magic systems get original, but how many books out there get away from the stereotypical 'medieval Europe fantasy?' How many include interesting races that aren't just Tad-Williams-style reworkings of Tolkien races?
This is what I think needs to change. Actually, I see the magic systems getting very repetitive too. How many 'telepathy' style or 'elemental' style magic systems are there now? RUNELORDS and ASSASSIN'S APPRENTICE are both good examples.
This is, I think, what holds fantasy back--and what makes it less mature of a genre than SF. I still like reading fantasy, but I think it has growing to do. Or, perhaps, the audience has some growing to do. Either way, I think the genre is capable of far more--it isn't stuck like other 'genres' are. Westerns and Romances are very different from SF/F in my mind. The previous two are very limited in what they can do, while the latter two are rather unlimited. That's why I think 'genre' is even too narrow a definition for them.
(My response to SE in the following post.)
-
Now, on to SE's comment:
I want you to expand on that, if you don't mind. I mean, the process v. the material.
Of course, though I think MoD already summarized it for me:
Tolkein created a whole world, a whole mythology, history and languages. I think that's what EUOL is referring to. Rather than just lazily writing in a "fantasy setting", we ought to be sculpting and presenting a fleshed out world and culture.
That is exactly it. What is fantasy? To me, it's more than simply 'swords and magic.' Fantasy is the genre where an author has complete creative license to rework the universe in which he or she writes. This is the ONLY genre with such complete freedom.
Tolkien did that. His process was one of extreme creativity, and he developed an entirely new setting, history, and mythology for his characters. However, instead of learning from what he DID, the authors who followed him learned from what he PRODUCED. They should have backed up a step, and rather than using LOTR as a model for writing, they should have used Tolkien himself.
This genre means freedom and originality. Why, then, is it one of the most repetitive genres on the shelves? We're selling ourselves short in the fantasy genre--by forcing ourselves into thematically similar plots and settings, we are castrating what could be the most original and flavorful of literary genres.
This is changing. Fantasy, as I mentioned, is only a quarter-century old. We're learning, and the fans are growing up. However, it's still probably going to take some time. Until then, I seem my task as one of balancing--introducing enough originality to push the genre in the direction I prefer, yet retaining enough familiarity to make the fans comfortable. (Which is important, since the entire point of this all--in my mind--is to bring people joy.)
<wipes brow> Hum, wow. If you read all of both posts, you deserve a cookie.
-
*Eats Cookie*
I suppose I hadn't considered it that way. Looking at the genre atm, there doesn't seem to be too far for it to go, before it bombs. Totally and Completely.
Out of curiosity, what general plot ideas would you present as alternatives to the antihero/quest/growing up/sudden discovery of powers general stories going round atm. I can easily see how to and design a world, races, etc. but I find it a bit hard come up with an original plot idea. But that could be because I prefer designing to actual writing at the moment.
-
/me eats cookie too.
NOw, while I agree with EUOL's conception of fantasy's capabilities, I disagree that there is an inevitable and imminant crisis. I think there's always going to be a market for the standard epic fantasy. The fact that D&D books sell at all show there's a market for even the crud at the bottom of the barrel of this particular sub-genre. This is what fuzzy and others have been saying: just because it's been used a lot does NOT mean it's going to lose popularity any time soon. A 5000 year history of epic quests (this goes back at LEAST as far as Gilgamesh) seems unlikely do die soon.
However, I did say I agree with EUOL. I think that fantasy is capable of far more. I dont' think it's bad to write the epic quest, though the better ones will be as EUOL says, and have unique world building. (it has gotten worse, lately, incidentally, as many people try simply to co-opt the Forgotten Realms or Krynn and change a couple names to pass it off). The problem is when people assume that they can just go without describing the setting, because we'll assume there's a semi-Medieval Europe setting with magic, orcs, and elves thrown in.
The other problem is not to get hung up on the world building and ignore plot and character. This is why fantasy is hard to write. Too many assumptions get made and too many extra requirements are built in.
Incidentally EUOL, this whole discussion makes me thing you might enjoy a short I wrote a few years back. It was only a first draft, and it's a spoof, but let me know if I should email it to you.
-
Fire it off. I can respond to it when I respond to your comments on KINGS.
<Response to Outkast coming in a bit.>
-
i sent it before I left for work.
-
I thought about looking at this from a slightly different angle. Instead of stories with elves, dwarves, and orcs what about stories with dragons. By no means should they be in every fantasy story, but if they disappeared completely that would just be sad. Or what about wizards. Not every story needs them, but surely it can't be a point against an author if he puts one in his story, can it? I don't feel people will stop reading, or even get bored, when they pick up a new book and discover there will be dragons and wizards in it. Or maybe monsters disappearing from horror stories.
I totally get what you are trying to say, I've thought about it myself (althought on slightly different lines, my own personal reading habbits rather than the entire world's). I think there is something more to it than just setting and plot. If you really wanted to write a fantasy novel that blew people's hair back, then write it about freedom of speech, terrorism, abortion, religious freedm, what it means to be human, animal rights, the right to bear arms, or the perils of love. Don't just talk about one, make it the whole point of your book. If I predicted any great change in people's reading habbits as they got older and more mature, it would be wanting not just a new story, but a story that is really and truly about something, anything. Something with meaning, something with purpose. But maybe that's just my romantic idea (You see, romance without sex... It's possible!)
-
An author that branches out of the stereotype quite frequently is good ol' David Gemmel. He describes himself as a Louis La'mour imitator, which says a lot--it says that his books tend to be smaller in scope than typical fantasy, but also that they avoid the plots and ruts of typical fantasy (in his own words, "I hate reading a book about a poor, helpless boy, because as soon as he comes on the page I know he'll be king by the end of the book"). He's not a stunningly good author, in the literary sense, but he's a very proficient writer who's helping to expand the concept of what Fantasy is allowed to be about.
-
By no means should thinngs such as wizards, dragons, elves etc. be totally eradicated from fantasy; its just that a little more variety would be nice, and new takes.
I quite enjoyed the Black Magician trilogy for this reason, because it had no tolkien type elves or dwarves, but it had its own world, own world affairs and history, own issues, and it told a good story.
But I'm still curious to hear EUOL's reply.
-
Out of curiosity, what general plot ideas would you present as alternatives to the antihero/quest/growing up/sudden discovery of powers general stories going round atm. I can easily see how to and design a world, races, etc. but I find it a bit hard come up with an original plot idea.
That's a good question. One thing that has to be acknowledged is that storytelling, at its core, is repetitive. Even back in Greek times they were theorizing that there were only a handful of different story ideas. This, however, speaks only of the bones of the story--you can't even call these prototypical ideals 'stories.' They're more frameworks.
There is plenty of room for originality in storytelling. I'm not saying that we have to abandon 'growing up' stories. However, why do all of our 'apprentice' style fantasy heroes all have to follow the exact same life-cycle? I suggest taking this 'coming of age' story archetype and putting new clothing on the framework--making it interesting again. Instead of having the apprentice hook up with the lovely princess, have him fall for someone else. (A plotting structure Hobb used to great effect.) Instead of having him end up king of the universe, take him down a different path.
As EP pointed out, dragons and wizards are two things that have a bit more resiliency in fantasy. I even wrote a book that marginally included dragons. (Though, I'll admit, I did it partially because I really liked the title I came up with.)
Yet, I even question these fantasy staples. Too many writers, I think, describe creativity as 'I'm going to write a book about elves. It'll be creative because MY elves are different from everyone else's elves.' If you were really creative, my friend, you wouldn't need the elves.
-
That is a nice point EUOL. The assassin trilogy was very much a growing up story, but it was different from all the rest. Much darker, less glory. And all he ends up as, at the end of the 3rd book, is a guy who cripples himself in his own mind, with only a cottage, a wolf and a boy to call his own.
I must admit being way out of my depth here. I'll admit, when you look at many major fantasy series's, they all fit under the catagory of 'growing up'. However, surely the vast differences between them counts for something? Wheel of time, Belleriad, Wizards first rule, Serpent war, Narnia (?), LOTR may all be growing up stories, but they are hardly similar in other respects.
-
If all you're saying is that we need to be good storytellers, that is, not just repeating the same thing but looking at different aspects of the same things, occassionally coming up with truly original structures, I'd agree. But I think this is already being done. But has been said before "90% of science fiction is crap. But what of it? 90% of everything is crap." Just like comics, the vast majority are simply juvenile male power fantasies. But you get some people out there doing truly brilliant things, even with superheroes. It's sad that so much of it is terrible, but that's just the way it is, I think. A fact of literary life. Sift out the poor and go with the good stuff.
There's not much wrong with your first stories being formulaic, either, I think. That's how you learn to avoid being formulaic, by learning that formula is all you've been doing.
As a side step, I think style has been underestimated of late as well. I don't care so much if the story is dead formulaic if the author can express it brilliantly.
-
hear, hear!
/me harooms loudly
-
Hmmm.
I've spent a lot of time World-Building, and only finally getting around to writing (in any "real" publication-hopeful sense of the word), I've been toying around a lot with trying to come up with a plot. As a new and budding writer, Plot terrifies me. I still struggle to come up with interesting stories that are filled with "need" and "suspense" in an interesting not overdone fashion.
But apart from all this, after reading this thread, I've come upon a sort of difficulty—I have a fairly elaborate world which is specifically Tolkienesque Fantasy (Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Dragons, yup). Granted, it's a completely new creation, with several twists of its own (and some completely new races/creatures, etc.), but escaping the "Tolkien stereotype" is impossible with this world.
Will it and should it be held against me or my writing? I admit that it's not the most ultimately Creative—Tolkien did something incredible with his Fantasy. He took common English mythology (lore/stories/superstition, in addition to actual mythology), and transformed it into something new and wonderful. Now, for an American (particularly raised as I was), this is all but impossible. Tolkien was raised with those stories as a boy. I was raised with Tolkien, Heman, and X-men as a boy. I have done a deal of studying mythology on my own, as well, and the Tolkienesque interpretation of Elves and Dwarves appeals to me. Using orcs may be unoriginal, but I find Joran's "Trollocs" at least as unoriginal (that's a particular bone I have to pick with Jordan—names such as Artur Pendraeg, Bel Tine, Shai'tan, Dha'vol, etc., are all much more bothersome for their real-world similarity than interesting. I would have preferred he kept "Arthur Pendragon", "Beltane", "Satan", "Devil", etc., than twisting the name just so—as if they were his own).
I cannot do for myself what Tolkien did for himself and be completely "original". Perhaps an Asian person could, or an African, or a Native American. But I cannot. So I do not attempt to. I world-build, and in great detail, but I build off Tolkien's work, changing it where I feel, adding to it, taking away from it… using it, in other words, somewhat as he used the mythologies that came before.
Anyway, back to my point: Should it be considered to be "unoriginal" or somehow inferior to world-build a new world which is still quite Tolkienesque? Or must every Fantasy writer who wants to avoid being tossed in with D&D or Warhammer novels have a completely different arsenal of races and monsters, etc.?
-
way to resurect a year old thread there bucko.
THIRD ITEM: Don't resurrect old threads.
Newcomers will often scroll through the pages and pages of threads looking for ones that are interesting to them, then post a reply to each one. The result is that dozens of old topics--ones that the forum community is tired of discussing--suddenly pop back to the top of the thread-order. This annoys the established members. I would suggest that rather than looking through old threads, you pay attention to threads that have already been posted on today, and respond to them in an intelligent way. (Note--your post doesn't have to be brilliant to be worthy of posting. If it's your genuine opinion, it has value. Posting an 'intelligent way' means posting in a polite, on-topic manner.)
http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1080380396
read it, worship it, the Forum FAQ is your god.
-
No need to be harsh spriggan. It's only when people resurrect 18 threads in a go thats annoying.
Plus the guys a warhammer fan! He earns bonus points for that.
-
You're challengeing me!?! I here by declair a Slapdown! Are you Scottish enough to accept my challenge or are you Welsh?
-
What a foolish little boy. Your the boil on my leperous backside, don't make me squish you!
-
At least I'm not Prince Charlie's Pool boy.
-
Pools? In britain?
/me laughs then puts an umbrella up
-
That wouldn't be the first, or last, time you've had to use an Umbrella to keep yourself from getting coverd in something besides water.
-
Someone sounds jealous.
-
Jade (and incidentally, you MIGHT be able to get away with using "Jade Knight" if you want to have a female pen name, justdrop the "the".
anyway, your first stories and books can be pretty generic. You're still learning, adapting. You have to start somewhere.
-
Well, see, here's my problem. I've the intention of sticking largely with just one Fantasy world. I've spent years developing it, and I'd love to spend years more working on it. I'm just wondering if I will be shunned because I follow on the Tolkienesque tradition.
I'm already beginning to think that my writing will have to be of an "exception that proves the rule" style - focusing on the less "orthodox" aspects of the world in order to remove myself from the D&D steriotype.
-
well, as EUOL told me, "if it doesn't act like an elf, than it's not an elf." so if any of the races act different, just name them different. Of course, I don't know how different yours is, not having read it, but there's something.
There's always exceptions. After all, Terry Brooks does very well with elves and dwarves and such. Of course, his first is 30 years old now, but still. i think you'd have a better shot at publishing with a completely original world, but if you're writing for yourself and the love of what you've done, then who can nay say that?
-
That begs the question of why.
Granted, Fantasy is Fantasy—Speculative Fiction. It's supposed to be "different", right? But does that mean reinventing the wheel? Tolkien didn't. Jordan certainly didn't. It sounds like Eragon didn't. We all know Harry Potter didn't.
In fact, even classics like Sir Orfeo and Gawain and the ilk were just continuations of a rich tradition of "embellishing" what we have. Some Fantasy, granted, was quite imaginative. And Tolkien took the Medieval "stereotype" to a whole new level.
But why does it have to be different for the mere sake of being different?
I like to think I'm taking a rich tradition, choosing elements I find personally pleasing or meaningful in some way or other, changing them as I perceive they ought to be, and adding my own material.
Yes, there will be new races and monsters and creatures. But why must the old also be precluded?
Do we read Fantasy merely because we never want to see the same race or monster twice, or is there a greater sehnsucht (as Lewis called it) that just makes us want to see magic in the world?
I concede, of course, that if the market is dead-set against any further Tolkienesque Fantasty, I'm going to be in trouble trying to get published in my own setting (as it stands). But, if it's that way, then why? And if it isn't that way, why are we acting like it should be?
[Out of curiosity, does the full dash above appear correctly for anyone? I'm wondering if my computer is just having formatting problems or if the forum doesn't support full ANSI]
-
The forum doesn't like apostrophies sometimes, especially if copy/pasted from outside the text box.
-
Yeah just don't copy paste, in general, and that will solve the problem.
-
All right, time to weigh in.
Jade, I have no problem with you resurrecting this thread, since it seems you have something very rational and interesting to say. Well done.
However, 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.
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.
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.
This is just my personal theory. However, 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.
This worked for me. It was hard to toss my pet world. However, the beauty in it was I was able to come BACK to that world later, after I'd practiced a lot of quick, effective worldbuilding, and then I was actually able to do it justice. I didn't do that until I'd written SEVEN other novels, however.
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?
(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.)
This was a response to your first post. Response to your second one coming next.
-
Okay, response number two. (Look above this one for my first response.)
Now let me address your questions in the second post. These were also very good for discussion, and I compliment you on them.
My reaction is as follows:
Granted, Fantasy is Fantasy—Speculative Fiction. It's supposed to be "different", right? But does that mean reinventing the wheel? Tolkien didn't. Jordan certainly didn't. It sounds like Eragon didn't. We all know Harry Potter didn't.
I beg to differ. 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.
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.
Jordan didn't, but he's fifteen years old. That was during the era where Tolkien clones were still in vogue (though, I'd argue that his books mark the transition. He used a good mixture of the old and the new. The big difference is that he made it 'feel' new. If I read 'elf, dwarf, ect' in a book, you CAN NOT make it feel new to me. You've essentially shot yourself in the foot, and all your creativity has been thrown out the window.)
Now, Harry Potter is a different story altogether. For good or for worse, much YA fantasy doesn't take itself as seriously as mainstream adult fantasy does. In the adult market, we're all a bit pompous and self-important. In the YA market, things are different, and the younger readers are willing to accept different things.
(And as for Eragon--it sold off of reputation and novelty. And it didn't sell to the traditional mainstream fantasy market.)
However, even still, Rolling reached back to the original sources (like Tolkien did) and created something new from them. 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.
But why does it have to be different for the mere sake of being different?
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 like to think I'm taking a rich tradition, choosing elements I find personally pleasing or meaningful in some way or other, changing them as I perceive they ought to be, and adding my own material.
Great! Have a blast. We don't want to read it. If you enjoy writing it, then that's a good reason to do so. However, don't expect to sell it.
Yes, there will be new races and monsters and creatures. But why must the old also be precluded?
Do we read Fantasy merely because we never want to see the same race or monster twice, or is there a greater sehnsucht (as Lewis called it) that just makes us want to see magic in the world?
It's not about seeing the same monster or race twice, Jade. It's about seeing it a HUNDRED times. There's a reason why Tolkienesque fantasy sold so well through the 80's. It was still fresh then. However, it's been done so much that it's worn thin.
I concede, of course, that if the market is dead-set against any further Tolkienesque Fantasy, I'm going to be in trouble trying to get published in my own setting (as it stands). But, if it's that way, then why? And if it isn't that way, why are we acting like it should be?
Trouble? Try A LOT of trouble. I'm not sure if I understand those last two questions. Why is it hard to sell Tolkienesque fantasy? For the same reason that it would be hard to sell SF books with Klingons, or make a comic book character called Spider-guy. Copyright issues aside, we already have those stories. We want new ones.
I ask you, why are you so set on using Tolkien's races? If your take on them is original, then why are they Tolkien's races any more, and why do you have to give them the same names?
Again, I'm hitting it harder than, perhaps, I need to. However, I do believe what I'm saying. Also, I do have a little bit of experience with selling first novels....
-
Now, Harry Potter is a different story altogether. For good or for worse, much YA fantasy doesn't take itself as seriously as mainstream adult fantasy does. In the adult market, we're all a bit pompous and self-important. In the YA market, things are different, and the younger readers are willing to accept different things.
Um, EUOL, I beg to differ. The YA market takes its work seriously enough. But it grows out of a different tradition, perhaps. One thing we talked about a lot at the conference I was at this weekend was how in the 1950s, juvenile SF shifted from being written by SF writers like Heinlein to drawing mainly from writers for children. They have different goals. SF writers wrote with an eye for the hard science, and writers for children focused on other things, such as social interaction and society building, and the hard science became secondary. I think the same might be said for fantasy, though there is a bit of crossover in the older age groups. Perhaps what you might be referring to is a willingness to draw upon archetypes? I really don't see the distinction as that of seriousness. Would you elaborate on what you mean by "different" things that younger readers are willing to accept?
Harry Potter, by the way, is strictly middle reader to early YA, until the last book, if you're going to slot it in any one age group.
-
Stacer,
I knew you would take exception to this, even though I meant it as a compliment.
The YA I have read--and yes, I am a philistine who puts middle-grade together with YA--has been much more lighthearted than the typical 'adult' fantasy.
Harry Potter. Lemony Snicket. Artemis Foul. All three of these tell very good stories, but the authors don't seem to take themselves quite as seriously as people like Jordan, Donaldson, or Goodkind. They aren't as worried about inconstancies in the worldbuilding, and they don't have the ponderous air of seriousness that I see in their mainstream fantasy counterparts.
The 'different' I was talking about refers mostly to worldbuilding, I think. But, there is also an air of whimsicalness to the YA lit I've read, something that is mostly absent from the adult counterparts.
-
I'll give you that, but only because your sample size is small and tends toward middle readers. All three of them, actually, go in the middle reader section of the bookstore (to use your definition of genre), not the young adult. Thing about your "philistine" view, is that there really is a big difference between those age groups.
I'm currently reading Charles de Lint's Riddle of the Wren, which is YA fantasy, and it more resembles the non-whimsical, though world-building is still not the top of the list. But that's not to say that his world-building isn't good. But he's also a crossover writer. Who knows, even though it's currently being marketed as a YA, it might have been released as an adult book back in 1984 when it was originally published. He does publish specifically for the YA market now (The Blue Girl, which I reviewed last fall, is his most recent) while still publishing books for adults, sometimes in the same world.
What do you think of the idea, though, about juvenile SF changing in the 1950s? Do you think something similar is what's going on in fantasy? I'd say yes, though I'd qualify it that there was never a shift in YA and children's fantasy the way that there was in SF, but the idea remains the same: fantasy writers for adults have a much shorter history to draw upon, if they're just looking back to Tolkien. This goes back to the idea that fantasy has long been considered the realm of the young. Alice in Wonderland, George MacDonald, Water-Babies...all the Victorian fantasists, and then the American fantasists like Frank Baum, are a foundation that current children's writers build upon and react to (in addition to Tolkien--another boundary-crosser--and adult fantasists).
But it's not just the history, I don't mean to say that--it's also the emphasis. Just because they don't focus on worldbuilding doesn't mean that they're not taking other elements seriously. They just focus on other elements, such as characterization and plot.
-
Stacer,
I knew you would take exception to this, even though I meant it as a compliment.
Hey, I like to argue with you. It's been a while since I've had a good one. ;)
-
Tolkiens elves were not based upon fae (which were celtic) but upon the nordic elves. Not sure what they were like either, but from what i've seen his dwarves are pretty close to the original myths.
The Midkemia books still sell, featuring elves and dwarves (though he did start writing them into the sidelines after the first book).
Finally, uh, how is Jordan a tolkien writer? It has trollocs (which are described very differently from orcs) some other critters (again, different) and humans. While it has similar 'everything great is gone, the present is the twilight of the past' theme to LoTR, thats hardly uncommon.
-
which is the problem.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
Ya, I have no problem with people deleateing their own posts. I do it sometimes too.
-
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]
-
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.
-
[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?
-
[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.
-
Well, I really have two responses:
1) if your racial personalities are still divisible by "tribal" or "subracial" lines, it's still too homogenous. Take any group of guys from, say, an Indian reservation. Their attitudes toward the dominant culture will vary quite a bit. So will the way they act on those attitudes. That's not something we often see in fantasy. That's why non-human races are difficult to use well.
2) let me just point out that, as you probably know, you've got people here who are generally more open-minded about things, but are also more realistic. If you're having difficulty convincing us, think of the reaction someone will have who doesn't speak with you openly. All they see is an elf on the cover. What's going to be their reaction? Even if a buddy tells them about it and they hear "elf" they're going to put you in the same category as D&D novels. It may not be fair, but there's your market.
As a writing decision, I don't know your ability, but I think it's possible to pull it off. As a business decision, I think you'll be hurting yourself.
-
1. You mean individual v. tribe? I'm actually reminded of the Elfquest novels I've read. . .
2. I understand. I think it's too bad, though. Not that that changes anything.
-
So what you're saying, JadeKnight, if I may be permitted to paraphrase 8 pages of discussion into one sentence, is that you know there's a million reasons not to write a Tolkienesque fantasy, but you're going to do it anyway because that's "who you are" as a writer. Am I close?
-
Nope, not really.
It isn't so much about "who I am". If you said it was about "what I like" you'd be closer to the mark.
And the only good reason NOT to write Tolkienesque Fantasy I've heard is that it doesn't sell. Don't give me any of that blarney about originality. I don't feel a burning need to be more original than Tolkien, who borrowed extensively from Norse, English (/Anglo-Saxon) and Celtic lore. Ultimately, THE reason to avoid Tolkienesque Fantasy is because the editors wont bother with you if you do. That's what I've taken away from this discussion, at any rate.
In fact, because of this discussion, I'm thinking that my novels, at least initially, will have to take place in the human nations of the world, and will generally have to ignore the large Fay portion. The world is big enough to not HAVE to include the Elves in any stories I should need to write. And I could just as easily leave out Orcs or any other more traditional "bad guy", though I'm still not entirely sure I want to. Leave off Orcs, maybe.
Would editors have just as big of a problem with me if I used trolls or ogres?
My policy is that, if you're looking for something to fit a world-building "gap", for example, you've come up with a creature or race or something, that you want to have look and act a certain way to fill a certain world-"niche", see if there's already one out there in the [public domain] that you can use. If there's already one that fits perfectly, use it. If not, invent your own.
This is why we [I confess - "my" world is actually a group effort] have some standard races, and then others which are very different, such as the "K'Sharr".
But I guess the default in the Fantasy world today is that there's something wrong with using the Fay and Dragons and the ilk. We've heard those words too often, so we'd prefer it if people invented things that served the same function and were named differently.
While I'm at it:
What is it with Fantasy and prophecies? Wheel of Time, Sword of Truth, Darksword . . . it seems that practically (if not actually) a majority of Fantasy novels deal with prophecies. Why? I find the whole prophecy shindig getting older than Elves or Orcs.
...or has this topic already been discussed?
-
They are good plot devices, and allows the reader to try to figure out what the author is getting at.
That's why they are used in RPGs as well :)
-
as far as orcs go, why not just name them something else? Call them goblins, which is a fairly generic and easily recognizable term, but also allows them to be of various physical appearance.
I still want to stand by the originality argument. Your work will be more original the less you borrow from sources that have already be borrowed from. It will be different from them. Different is what people want to read, and that's partially because originality is a virtue in our modern climate of artistic endeavor.
As for prophecy, that indicates destiny. It's an easy way to create a source of information for characters and readers to learn together. I think that is why it is used so often. Plus it is something we're fascinated by. If it's a true prophecy, then it HAS to come true, right? That means that we have a free will/fate conflict. Can you defy the prophecy? Can someone else fulfill it? Was it a true prophecy in the first place? There's a lot of things to explore, and if maturely handled, it can still be very insightful in terms of theme and conceptualization of our world. Adding an elf to a story doesn't have that same benefit.
-
as far as orcs go, why not just name them something else? Call them goblins, which is a fairly generic and easily recognizable term, but also allows them to be of various physical appearance.
Wait, so you bash jordan for trollocs and then turn around and suggest that jade does the same?
-
nooooooo.... that's not exactly what I did. But even what Jordan did is better than just using "orcs"
-
I actually disagree, personally.
I think it would have been better to see orcs. I see nothing inherently redeeming about Trollocs, especially not their name.
There was an element of my world, the Telyar, Druidism, etc., that I was originally planning on generally ignoring.
However, in order to cater to the "need" for something different, basing "forces" along Telyar-divided lines might make for something rather interesting. Instead of using more traditional enemies, like I had planned, I can focus more on shadow and darkness (one of the Telyar, the Artificer, is sort of a Lord of Shadow, but in a very different way than in the Jordanian style). Always lots of room to play there. Unfortunately, to me, that smacks of too many other worlds. I don't know. I might be able to come up with something creative.
-
I guess I'm just clinging to the "make it different" attitude. I think you can ditch elves, come up with something new, which will change your world, obviously, but will make it better. If you're using original ME sources, why not go ahead and name them like the norse did? Isn't it "Aelf" or something like that? Aelfheim being their realm?
-
What you have to realize, Jade, is that your attitude regarding original vs borrowed sources is 180 degrees removed from almost everyone on this board. We could all talk 'til we're blue in the face, but the root of the issue is that you see certain similarities as positive, while we see them as inherently negative.
Remarkable, really, that we've all stayed pretty civil about it despite that fundamental rift.
-
As I read this thread I'm starting to move my position. The reason Trolloc felt so stupid to me was because the name felt like an obvious combination of troll and orc. It felt forced and artificial, like all the apostrophes in people's names in that series.
I read several books by a dead guy named Paul Edwin Zimmer (Marion Zimmer Bradley's brother) that had elves in them and dwarves and so on. I loved his stuff. Not because it was more of the same but because he did medieval fighting more realistically than anyone I've ever read and made it entertaining. He focused a great deal on human warriors in his work and it was dense hard hitting character driven stuff.
So there's a case where an author "copied tolkien" but made it different enough that I was enthralled anew. I think it would have bugged me if he'd called his elves by some other name, especially since they were so obviously elves, woodland creatures of light and music etc...
Now, there's a definite catch here. Zimmer was publishing during the Tolkien craze but he didn't sell well and none of you have probably ever heard of him. He did commit suicide when he was really young so that may have had something to do with it.
Maybe there *is* room for "Tolkein redone" in today's market as long as you don't really redo Tolkien but just borrow from his world. (or type of world in JadeKnight's case)
-
Funny, the jordan names never bothered me. I never even stopped and realised that Shai'tan and Trolloc are Satan and Troll Orc. Didn't even clip my radar that the names were worth thinking about.
-
Yay, one sympathizer!
Regarding Jordan names:
Yeah, a lot of language-related things bug me that few other people seem to notice.
How many people were irritated by Goodkinds names? How many were annoyed by the linguistic inconsistencies in Jordans treatment of dialect and language?
I'm a hardcore conlanger. Comes with the territory, I suppose.
I'm not planning on using Norse names as much as I can avoid them except where they've already been Tolkienized. I may use Middle English words so long as they are not mere respellings of Tolkien names. For example, I might be okay with referring to Elves as simply "the Fae" or some such in context.
I may have to keep them out of my first novel to keep the editors around, though. What do you all think?
-
well, I've said what I think. If you want to keep editors around, make up new races entirely.
Another, slightly less "keep editors around" option but more friendly than what it sounds like you're proposing, is to make it feel like a historical novel, like many treatments of Arthur do. Again, using Middle English or Norse names will distinguish you from Tolkien a littl emore, and if you want it published, I think you need to consider those options. Using "the Fey" I think would be a good alternative.
Yeah, Ent, just about everything Jordan uses is a term from the real world. The biggest problem is that he's not consistant. He borrows from Arabic and Celt customs, but he doesn't make those customs fit in with the rest of what's going on. That's what bugged me about them. Not that he used Beltane and Shai'tan, but that they didn't work the way he took them out of context.
-
First of all, it may be noted, Saint E, that "Fey" and "Fay" have two different meanings (at least in modern American English usage). Where "Fey" is an adjective that means "visionary", "crazy" or "doomed", "Fay" refers to the "fairy-folk", as it were. The etymology of the two words is very different, so it's a distinction worth noting.
However, that wasn't the reason I decided to resurrect this thread yet again. I have another question!
Do you feel that Fantasy needs to be Epic or have a strong epic feel? Certainly, most traditional Fantasy seems to be epic, but is that a requirement for enjoyable Fantasy, or a historical Fad?
For example, neither Sir Orfeo (largely) nor Sir Gawain and the Green Knight are epic in nature (really), though both smack strongly of Fantasy (as Middle English works). Is there something inferior about non-epic Fantasy?
-
mayhap there's a distinction. It's not one relevant to my point, however.
It must be epic to feel epic. That's kind of the definition of epic unless you're talking about classical verse.
It doesn't have to be epic to be good fantasy though. It only must be epic to be epic fantasy.
-
Not mayhaps: www.m-w.com
See for yourself. Though I agree it isn't relative to your point. And, actually, a "The Fey" (very different from "The Fay") would be a very cool concept, when I think about it.
But you've sort of entered into a tautology: "Epic Fantasy must be epic". I would think that would go without saying.
I've just noticed that most of the [modern] Fantasy "classics" out there are Epic Fantasy. I'm wondering if we could explore this trend.
EDIT (for Saint E): I just noticed that it appears you've misread my initial post. I said "or", not "to".
-
It doesn't have to be epic to be good fantasy though. It only must be epic to be epic fantasy.
Did you not see that? Or are you just obsessed with finding problems with my statements? Of course it's a tautology. It is still part of my argument and a valid rhetorical device that does nothing to weaken my point. I'll try to use monosyllabic words then (and failing that, I'll use some with two syllables):
good books not all epic
only epic books need be epic to be good.
-
I guess what I lacked was the wisdom to see how your tautologies reinforced your point that Fantasy need not be epic to be good, or how they answered my question about whether there's some perk to Epic Fantasy not found in non-epic Fantasy.
Essentially, I was asking about the merits of epicism. Not "whether good epic Fantasy is epic".
I'll go so far as to say that much Fantasy takes epicism (new word) well above and beyond the call of duty by making sure the novels are earth-shatteringly (sometimes literally) epic.
-
you asked yes or no questions: "Do you feel that Fantasy needs to be Epic or have a strong epic feel? Certainly, most traditional Fantasy seems to be epic, but is that a requirement for enjoyable Fantasy, or a historical Fad?"
My answer was no. It just seemed that there was confusion about what my answer was?
-
No confusion at all, on my part.
I'm still wondering about the trend towards Epic Fantasy, though.
The short of it: "Why?"
-
Ah, but that ISN'T what you asked previously. You simply asked if, not why. If that's what you want, don't try to take apart a simple answer that responded to your question, just ask the question you want.
I think the better question is why not? or rather, "Why do you think it must be epic?" There are several works that are successful and loved that aren't epic, more prominantly in the YA arena (oh yeah, I went there) Maybe they aren't as numerous, but they're still extant, which at least proves it's possible.
I'm not sure I can justify "why" beyond the basic answers: people are drawn to well-drawn characters, good or interesting use of the English language, intriguing plots. Epic tends to draw people to them because of their inherant drama, but that's not the only appeal. So I turn it around: why WOULD epic be the only reason to read fantasy?
-
is that a requirement for enjoyable Fantasy, or a historical Fad?
I asked two questions. That was one of them, which I didn't feel you'd answered sufficiently (you intimated that it wasn't required for enjoyable Fantasy, but you didn't address the other half of the question). I clarified what I had intended in three of the following posts I made, much to the effect of your post immediately preceding this.
My initial question wasn't clear. I guess I need to work on articulating my thoughts a little more clearly, then, eh?
So, yes, again, why do we prefer epic Fantasy, as a rule (to read or to write)?
-
If we grant that reading fantasy is, in a large part of its readership, a mechanism for escape. Then we see that an epic fantasy not only takes them to another world but also makes them important in a big, earthshattering kind of way. It takes them to another world but also to another sphere of power, where they mingle with kings, or wield god like power, or save the world.
I find that the cliche fantasy I think of when I try to define what I don't like is not just elves and dwarves but elves and dwarves and a world saving quest. So there are three parts: a world I've basically seen before, the same scope(world saving) as I've seen before, and the same pattern (quest).
Break any one of these three samenesses and I think you've got something fun and new rather than old and tired. But it may not appeal to the escapist crowd as much as another rehash.
A fun one I read a few years ago was by a guy named Joel Rosenberg and was about (essentially) a detective in a fantasy world. I mention it because I enjoyed it and reviews hailed it as something new.
I think you could write killer novels that appeal to lots of folks if you used the world you've talked about here and fiddled the other two bits I listed into something different than Tolkien did.
So I guess what I'm saying is, back to the start of the thread, that the world is not the only thing that determines if fantasy is cliche. Its Epicness is just as big a factor.
-
I believe that last question is answered by my first answer. "No, it doesn't have to be epic." Instead of tearing apart my answer, wouldn't it have been better to say "why not?" right away?
Again, I think it's because of the drama. That's why we look at it so often. It's easier to package and promote drama and action than character and nuance. It's not that either is bad or good, but "interesting character" is harder to communicate on the back of a book cover than "the fate of the entire world" is. So, we're more convinced by the bit about the epic plot. I think, primarily, that it's a marketing thing. Although I do think there's a tendency to think "bigger, better, faster, more" in general. But this would be the gut reaction rather than a careful screening of the material. But again, I think that can pull that back to marketing. We want to present the material, and we have an easier time convincing others about "epic proportions" than we do about "nuance." It's easier to use to impress. And that's why we write in an epic mode.
If nothing else, an epic quality is easier to evoke than a well-written character. You know when you're doing it more instinctively.
-
So I guess what I'm saying is, back to the start of the thread, that the world is not the only thing that determines if fantasy is cliche. Its Epicness is just as big a factor.
case in point:
The current JLA comic series premiered and sells on the basis that it now has all the powerhouses, all the archetypes on staff now. Supes, GL, Flash, Wonder Woman, all of 'em. Yet I grew tired very quickly of the JLA comic books. Every single storyline was the best and biggest and most powerful superheroes saving the entire universe... again. How dull. The best story at all, in fact, was one that focussed on Green Arrow trying out. He is the weakest of the major players in the DCU. He has no superpowers, but he's not as smart or as well trained as Batman. He can just shoot an arrow really well. So when he's the only one not caught, suddenly things are interesting again.
The second most interesting storyline was when Amazo came back, programmed to have the powers of all the members of the Justice League. THe JLA kept letting in new members to fight him, and he'd get their powers, and thus smack them down. Until Supes disbands the JLA, leaving Amazo powerless. The threat wasn't nearly as epic as their other stories, and the way to defeat the threat was essentially to stop all action. A very nice twist (if a rather unbelieveable basis for the conflict).
So yes, certainly being epic for the sake of being epic gets tiresome and cliché rather quickly.
-
Ok. I tried. I really did. I went and looked at other threads and repressed all my urges in responding to this old (already jumpstarted once) thread. I finally couldn't control myself any longer. I'm a newbie. You can slap me down, curse me, whatever appeases your irritation, but I have to put in my two cents worth, because it's killing me.
Nothing to do with Jade, but with something EUOL said....
Fantasy is old, man. More than a quarter of a century old. You can trace it back all the way to Lord Dunsany, a century ago, with THE KING OF ELFLAND'S DAUGHTER and his other novels. (Try Hope Mirrlees' LUD-IN-THE-MIST, same time period.) If you like, you could go back further and argue that ALICE IN WONDERLAND and THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS are early fantasy works. Heck, I've even seen scholars claim that WU-THERING HEIGHTS ( ;D ) is a fantasy novel. And if that doesn't count, certainly the intense fantasy worlds created by the Bronte siblings do.
Fairy tales are in the fantasy genre: tales told first by mouth centuries ago, before they were even written down or bastardized by Walt Disney. The Arthurian saga (completely muddled by the French) represent a perfect example of medieval fantasy, very popular and mainstream at the time. Although I don't honestly believe Homer, or the Celts and the Norse, the Chinese, the American Indians, etc. thought of their great mythological stories as fantasy, we as fantasy writers draw upon their work in creation of our own.
The reason Tolkien gets so much attention, and so many imitators is because he thrust open the floodgates in this country. Prior to the publication of THE HOBBIT and even afterwards, the only works accepted by publishers (who published anything other than mysteries, romances, or literary works) was science fiction. These were the glory days of Heinlein, Asimov, and others. Fantasy was the dark, second cousin that crouched uninvited in the doorway. People like Fritz Leiber had trouble getting their fantasy work published. Robert E. Howard's Conan thrived in the pulps, and he would be a good example of one person who was able to feed the need for fantasy.
Then came Tolkien. My father remembers when the bootleg additions were first released in this country; back when people were starved for Tolkien and had to have copies shipped from overseas. Suddenly, people wanted fantasy. Publishers wanted fantasy, too - not just any fantasy. They wanted more Tolkien. So other writers wrote in the same vein, and they were published, to feed the market. If you want to trace the "Tolkien-esque fantasies" back to their source, there it is.
But I don't personally believe the market is drowned in it today. I see the copies, and the wannabes, and I usually glide right on past their books. I love Tolkien, but not enough to read quest novels by other people writing Tolkien. And thankfully, I don't have to. That's why I'm curious. EUOL, you mentioned all the divisions in SF, and those are true - but you don't seem to mention all the little branches of fantasy you can find today.
There's the dark fantasy of Tanith Lee and Joyce Carol Oates; the return to the fairy tales (started by Terry Windling and Ellen Datlow - read FITCHER'S BRIDES as an excellent example of this dark, rich fantasy series). I love Tim Powers, of course, with his LAST CALL and DECLARE; there's Jonathan Carroll (LAND OF LAUGHS); William Browning Spencer (ZOD WALLOP); the works of China Mieville, which read like the opium-addicted offspring of Marvyn Peake and Edgar Allen Poe. How about the novels of Octavia Butler?
Dark fantasy, urban fantasy, contemporary fantasy, magic realism, historical fantasy, weird fantasy....the list goes on and on. I see the Tolkien-esque fantasy as only a minor drop in the bucket of a far richer world. There's room enough for all of us to write what we like - to read what we want - and never, ever lack.
This is a very old genre, and its roots go back in time towards the beginning. The stories we tell now have been told a thousand times before. But like any romance reader will tell you, it's not what's the same, it's how different it seems.
-
I'm a moronHERING HEIGHTS
Hey, I forgot about that filter.
-
I'm a moronHERING HEIGHTS is a fantasy novel.
I need to read that book I think, sounds amusing.
(here be overreacting profanity filters arr...)
-
It's okay. I figured you guys would have to slap me down. I'm just too passionate about fantasy to shut up about it. And I probably stepped on someone's toes. Sorry.
I'm also intriegued as to why I can't change the modification to my post. But I'll assume some higher-up has control over that.
-
It's part of this forum. When you type something the admins deems to be vulgar, it automatically replaces the text with something different (usually something the admin in question thought was the height of humour, but it rarely is).
To get rid of it, you have to remove the text. Try putting in numbers or spaces to break up the offending word.
-
Well THIS particular filter was specifically designed in response to a newbie who was very gangta' and used a lot of net abbreviations. One he used all the time was "w u t" for the word "what". So they filtered it so that everytime he typed that it would change it to I'm a moron. Nothing personal against you, but man it was hilarious at the time.
I really do like what you have to say about fantasy, but when I saw that in Wu-thering Heights, I just busted up laughing.
Don't worry about it. ;)
-
I've seen scholars claim I'm a moron too.
-
Ok. That explains so much. :) I was worried I had really offended somebody, and I felt bad about it.
Actually, though, it is very funny ? that newbie must have been so frustrated!
From now on it's WU-THERING HEIGHTS
-
ChasingIsis, I completely agree with you on all your arguments about fantasy. No time to respond, though.
-
actually, i'm removing that line. We don't usually think it's ht height of hilarilty, just an accurate depiction of what we think about the use of the filtered word.
-
Well its safe to say wut
-
I think science fiction is fine as main stream, ive read a lot and i do not get bored I just can't find stories that are good enough . . . .
Some say authors such as Robert Jordan should have kept their series short and continued for too long but i completely disagree! The newer books are of a slightly different style than we are used to but they are still equally as good as the older books, they are just a bit more complex and may require slowing down the pace to truly understand them. . .
I believe that mainstream will always be popular, it is merely finding mainstream fantasy that has a sufficiently intriguing plot! The epic/quest/coming of age style is still my favourite!
-
less thread necromancy please.
-
I had no idea Fantasy was only 25 years old.
In asia there are tales witch are thousands of thousands of ears old.
Anyways.
I belive that as time pass, more readers will flock to our obsessive behaviour and some will keep reading, some will stop. But some, will start writing their own fantasy's :)