Maetrix66

I try to take the "Hyundai" approach when it comes to writing. Meet the major points, the ones that show up on Consumer Reports. Once I have the major points in my head (characters, general idea of setting, plot line, etc) I graduate past the "Hyundai" level and start writing something that's actually FUN to drive.

I find it hard, as well. Typically, I read (listen) to alot of audiobooks during my 1 hour (each way) commute to work. I try to stick with genre's that I am thinking about at the time. If I am writing a character that is slowly making the ascention into madness, I might read something by Thomas Harris (possibly Hannibal Rising). If I need something else, I go there for inspiration. I try to shy away from the same perticular genre that I am writing, or at least differ the setting as greatly as possible.

I recently finished King's Dark Tower series. I try to read King when I want to work on a characters internal struggle, which is something I think he does well. He handles the thought process inside a persons mind, as well as wherever their train of thought takes them, well. It's also why movies made from his books typically havent translated well, it's something that's hard to illustrate.

And fantasy has been getting stale, at least in my view. Of course, the only way to correct that is to infuse it with new blood. And that's why we're here, trying to write our way into the assorted publishing houses.

Ungood

We are all influenced by our world and our lives, even if we try not to "Copy" we are still influenced by what has come before us, if by nothing else then by what we "Can't Use"

If I had to force an answer I would say "When ever you feel like it".

In some cases, like Harry Potter, it seems the the "World" was unfolding WITH the Story. While in things like LoTR the story unfolded AROUND the World.

I just think is has become harder for the author work the genre correctly as there is so much out there they risk sounding like a "Rip Off" but by no means does this mean it is stale.

Case in Point: The Harry Potter phenomenon.

I mean people that did not even like magic or fantasy got sucked into it like never before. So it is not stale so much as I think it is saturated.

For me, even the most obscure fantasy that exists, giving the laws of Physics a beating like they owe you money will not make or break your story as long as it sounds believable.

Every story touches our world and plays by OUR laws, hence how we relate to the MC and the "Situation" they are in. It is at these points that they must sound valid, it must feel real.

If that breaks, then how well you can explain to me that in your wold a donkey can fly backwards by flapping it's tail is worthless.

But that is just my feeling on it.

Ungood.

__________________

Gilwing

I let a couple days go on this before getting back to this thread. I'll take the silence as a sign that we're all on the same page more or less.

Now that I have been mulling over what's been said I was thinking of looking at WHEN in a story do we tell people about the nuts and bolts of the fantasy OR do we tell them at all (and if so how much)? By Nuts and Bolts I mean how did magic/the Force/ super powers/whatever come to exist in that world. There's always a zero point - Whatever it is that pushes past the limits of our world and into the make believe it has an origin...Unless it's magic because...well it's magic.

For example in Star Wars we learn about the Force very early on in EP4 (taking that as the starting point since that's how most of us were introduced to it) and it's basic properties are soon given to us (with some room for building): telekinesis, mind control, precognitive abilities etc. We don't actually learn HOW it works until much later in the new movies. And for the most part I think we were all happy just knowing there is a Force and this is what you can do with it with the right training and if it's 'Strong with you' (cough cough Chosen One cough!) Later on they try to explain it a little better with the microscopic organisms who create the Force. But was it necessary? We had already bought into the force with so little real knowledge of its workings. (Even before the wealth of novels and such - even back when it was first airing at the movies - we all bought into the force.)

Whereas in Dune (Sci-fi examples I know but for all intents and purposes I think they works as examples) the spice is explained to us in detail and it's effects on humans over long periods of time are well documented and we learn the connection to the Sandworms. (Although oddly enough as far as technology goes, which is like magic, I don't think we really need to know too much since it's 8,000 year in the future and we can all make the leaps needed to get on board a space ship and travel without moving.) Point being- in this story we learn early about spice and it's origins are an important theme.

For a third example I'll use Harry Potter. I read the first book and only the first one (but I did watch the films) and in the first book I can't remember there being any real explanation as to what magic is (maybe we don't need one since magic has it's origins in antiquity and we can all picture it in our minds) or how it came to exist. I remember hearing somewhere that in a later book it's explained that it's in the genes? (Can anyone help fill this in?)


So back to my question for this thread - Fantasy in Fantasy - when do we explain how it works and should we at all? The lack of information seems like it can work with us as much as against us. With a really interesting story it's probably not really needed to get on the inside but the longer a work goes on with sequels and such the more likely it is for the author to reveal a little more about the under pinnings of their magic. What are your thoughts on this?

__________________
While you're reading this a friend of mine is stealing from someone you love.

Ungood

Amazing Insight to tell the truth. And great points.

For the most part it goes by necessity.

Do I need to tell you this?

Is it even important?

Many people are "Ok" with the idea that "Magic" can break the laws of our universe. It can bend the rules of space and time because it is well... Magic...

In many cases readers want this type of "That can't be real" because that is what makes fantasy... well... fantasy to them.

This "Rule Breaker" that makes the impossible... possible.

Do we need to explain it? Maybe, the question should not be "How long did I take thinking this up" but "Does it help the reader enjoy the story more"

With Dune, the Spice was a "Hinge" point in all the cultures, it was the this "Special" issue and item that everyone wanted. As such, it is valuable to know about them.

In Pern we have the thread and the "in-between", one was "magic" the other "Science" but we are told as we need to know.

I would say there is an art to that, and I am still learning how that one works. At what point do I explain this to you and at what point do I expect you just go with it.

To some "because it is Magic" is enough, and to authors that is also enough.

I would say the biggest aspect is "Consistency" more then "Nuts and Bolts" because many people want there to be something "Beyond" them, beyond the "Everyday" to make this a fantasy. From amazing technology (Light Sabers Anyone) to Incantations (Harry Potter), to just personal ability (Internal Light) there need to be a bit of "Mysticism" to the whole mess that draws us in and makes the world a little larger then life.

That is fantasy.

Ungood.

__________________

LolliAdverbs

I think it's important to remember that fantasy is only fantasy to the reader. The characters in the book, their world is reality. Do we sit around talking about airplanes work, or do we just get on them?

I prefer it when it's not explained completely. But then again, it's the prerogative of the writer. Frankly, in Dune, the description of the spice made the world easier to access. If it hadn't of been there, it would been more difficult to get into the story.

__________________
Modify yourself.

DeVorn

First, to better understand the universal hero (Harry Potter's symmetry with Luke Skywalker and so on), I highly recommend Joseph Campbell's A Hero of a Thousand Faces. It is very dense and hard to read, so you might want to look into a condensed version or supplemental guide (there's a couple popular fiction versions that are very good; I can't remember the names off the top of my head). The main premise is that all mythical stories are telling the same story, the monomyth--Campbell takes this a little too far (is the story of Odysseus really the same story as Star Wars? And do we really need to give the monomyth five hundred and thirty five different frigging corollaries to account for EVERY possible variant?!), but it remains an excellent resource for understanding at least one common incarnation of the eternal hero.

As for the 'nuts-and-bolts' of fantasy--one of the trends that's been pushed for a long time now is that magic is just another form of science, and bound to laws and theories. This was revolutionary at the time, but now it's a tired cliche that doesn't offer much fresh soil to till. What I think is far more interesting--and provides far more fertile ground with which to plant our seeds--is magic that is unbound. Fantasy has rules, yes; and just like the fairy tales of old, those rules can be broken. The idea of magic as a wild force that conflicts with science is far more compelling (to me, anyway) then magic just being an alternative to science, because it provides a dynamic and conflicting landscape of reality. What I'm saying is that, unlike science, magic ISN'T defined; there are no laws or axioms you can wield to bring it on your side.

What does this mean in a very real sense? First, I say do away with fantasy species--orcs, elves, goblins, whatever. Reality isn't carefully segmented like that anyway; the idea of species is a fabrication to ease the troubled minds of researchers and naturalists. Have a population that just has sharp teeth, or pointy ears, or monsterous characteristics. People in the narrative might say things like "Everything with pointy ears is an elf!" or "Everything with a pig-nose is an orc!", but those are just judgment calls on your characters' part.

As far as magic goes--it's magic, god damn it. Magic didn't get to be magic by playing by anyone's rules; when someone says a wizard did it, that's the frigging explanation. Despite my complete lack of understanding of physics, I like to think of magic as, in some ways, Quantum Mathematics--it's impossible to observe and describe what's going on without completely screwing up your results.

There's a lot more I might have to say on the subject but I have to go to work now. So, yeah.

__________________
www.thegreathippo.com/devorn

Maetrix66

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clark
Quote Details: Arthur C. Clarke: Any sufficiently advanced technology... - The Quotations Page

I think the difference between science and magic can be condensed to a simple analogy, in my mind.

Science=the attempt to explain why things happen the way they do.
Magic=what we call something when we have exhausted all avenues of explanation, and the phenomenon remains unscathed.

If you have children, you've already come up against this. Every child, at some point in their maturation, becomes infatuated with the question "why". New parents make the mistake of trying to answer every question their child asks them. They are the parents, they should have all of the answers, right?

You know the routine, they ask you a perfectly answerable question, which you promptly answer.

Then, sensing a loose end, they ask "Why?"

You take the next step, and try to answer that question.

and so on, and so on, until you reach the point after three or four questions where you utter the following words.

"I don't know, I guess it's magic"
or
"It just does"

And that, the extent where our knowledge of something (science) ends, is where magic takes over.

Native Americans thought the rifle was a magical lightning wand. The colonists must have appeared like "magicians" when they saw it shoot for the first time.

Maetrix66

Saw these when I was trying to find a reference in the post above.
They apply to various things mentioned, so I'm including them here.

Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.
C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963)

It's not enough to create magic. You have to create a price for magic, too. You have to create rules.
Eric A. Burns, Gossamer Commons, 06-15-05

About the most originality that any writer can hope to achieve honestly is to steal with good judgment.
Josh Billings (1818 - 1885)

A-L

I think that magic and its use in fantasy novels can be original, as was afore mentioned about magic being wild and uncontrolled in a sense that it is a force of its own is very intriguing, because you rarely see a author that manages to make magic seem as a natural force that occurs in nature instead of making it so controllable. To me magic or any other form of unexplained means, should be as raw yet lucid as possible to the reader.

potatoBell

Hi,
it's not a construtive response but here's my two cents.

To me, fantasy is like a dream.
We know it is happening in us but never the reality. But in the dream, it is our only reality. All readers have fantasies that they dream of. The usage of fantasy in fantasy is similar to asking “Can I dream in my dream?” I don’t think there is yes-no or right-wrong answer to the question, for we all dream but just not equally.

DeVorn

There was a time when magic covered the realm of the unexplained--when it lived in the parts of the maps that said 'Here There Be Dragons'--but we've long since observed away all those niches and corners, leaving very little mythical room in our daily lives for magic. I think in a lot of ways this is why magic in fantasy has taken form as an alternative type of science (or vice versa); because we have explanations for all these different types of phenomenon now, we expect any coherent system of magic to offer fully lucid and rational alternative explanations--instead of just saying "IT'S MAGIC!" and flapping its arms really hard.

But I just don't find these things interesting anymore. Magic without rules is still far more interesting to me then magic with rules--regardless of what some other author who I've never met says to the contrary. It strikes me as a lot harder then regimented, obedient magic, but also far more rich with potential. Of course, it might just boil down to an author's preference; some authors might do much better with a world that functions by well-thought out and regimented rules.

But if I may be a jerkface for a moment: Magic that's just an alternative ruleset for reality isn't very mythical. Mythology does not play by rules; sometimes it says it does and sometimes it'll even pretend for a while, but at the end of the day it'll flip those rules around and use them to give you a wedgie. That's why I think that someone who's interested in 'mythological fantasy'--fantasy that deals primarily with a mythical world (and not just an alternative universe of our own)--needs to first do away with regimented magic. "See, my form of magic is based off of different types of metal!" isn't very mythical; it's more of a science fiction thing (as far as my eyes see, anyway). And though I love science fiction, it's for entirely different reasons then I love mythical fantasy.

__________________
www.thegreathippo.com/devorn

Candrah

Magic that only works as a set of rules or magic that works because it does...

I take the second option every time. And in my fictional world, there be Dragons everywhere...

Ilasir Maroa

Interesting thread. Personally, I like magic where you don't know the rules. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't any, but if you don't reveal them, you get an internal consistency and the chance to see "magic" as a wild, untamed force of nature. I don't mind science magic, and all my systems have rules, but I try to keep that as low-key aspossible so as not to spoil the wonder that bad-mannered magic can create/instill.

__________________
My hopeful book:

Crap! Haven't posted it anywhere yet, darn!


"Only tyranny cloaks itself in shadows. The light of justice can not be hidden."

Elipsis

One thing that i have noticed, would be that if you try and use your imagination and make of some fantastic world outside of your own and build it up to be this great thing, then it always seems to be so much like every other fantasy book with the same concept (LOTR, D&D, ect). It seems in other worlds, there are always wars going on, dragons burning people alive, and princesses getting themselves into some sort of trouble.
Star Wars was successful only because it took the stories we loved before, like the princess and the dragons and the fighting, and put it in a whole new light. The princess stayed the same, the dragons turned to space ships, and the fighting took place not in a field, but among the stars.
If you look at your own surroundings, and let your imagination fly, there are so many more possibilities than another world. That is where originality meets the ordinary. I think that would attract more people than anything else.

__________________

Ungood

I personally believe that Magic needs to play by rules. Not that anyone IN the story knows the rules, but that does not mean that there are no rules to magic. Like for example, the world obeyed the laws of physics before anyone knew what they were.

This did not mean they did not understand things: IE: They still understood how to build something so that it would not fall down. But they did not fully grasp how things worked, they did not know the "Rules" even they did play by them.

Just a thought to ponder.

Ungood.

__________________