Talia_Brie

Indeed.

Onward to the new thread!

__________________

Evega

I wrote some articles on creating fantasy worlds; they may help you a bit. I'll try to find them.

http://www.dev-empire.net/articles/1
http://www.dev-empire.net/articles/2
http://www.dev-empire.net/articles/3
http://www.dev-empire.net/articles/4
http://www.dev-empire.net/articles/5
http://www.dev-empire.net/articles/6

__________________
Evega Karr
Email evegak@gmail.com
MSN: evega@dev-empire.net

Kane

If I have a bitch about fantasy writing, it stems from my efforts in writing fantasy. I have noticed, through the critiques offered on my work, that there is a very small mindset in the readers of fantasy. It appears that so many people have tried to copy Tolkien that fantasy readers expect the fantasy they read to conform to certain guidelines. This seems to be contrary to the very idea of fantasy, which would allow for anything to be possible. I think that most "fantasy" writers and readers would be more accurately labelled as "Tolkien fans." After all, if it doesn't have some form of magic, elves, orcs, dwarfs, hobbits or a swashbuckling hero who is really the rightful king of such and such, it ain't fantasy, right?

In light of this epiphany, I hereby denounce fantasy in all of it's cliched sameness and boring heirarchy. I will no longer attempt to write fantasy, but rich stories of limitless capacity and fantastical imagination. I will craft tales of human struggle, entwine my readers into a world where good men die, bad men win, and good and bad are traits that can be found in all creatures.

Kane

Oh, it's not you specifically. It also has to do with when I go to the bookstores. I went a couple days ago and browsed the fantasy section for more than 30 minutes. I couldn't find one book that interested me. Everyone of them looked the same.

Coldwriter

Kane-
I have had the same problem. I recently went to Borders bookstore and rifled through the books, but every cover looked the same and when readig the back, there was always some element too close to cliche.

I like the way you put fantasy, or not put it. My mom just complained about the lack of variety in novels ( she nails movie scripts in the first 5 min). My point is yours (if i am correct), fantasy writers should really dig into new, fresh ideas, though hard because of precedent. Fall away from the past and its authors and create your own voice, and you may have a start to something beyond cliche or common.

__________________
Make me laugh...seriously.

Kane

Exactly. Basically, no one should ever be able to say, "In fantasy, you should do this," or otherwise compare one fantasy novel to another. Fantasy is not swords and sorcery. Fantasy is fiction set in a place that does not exist, or a place that does exist but is about things that could never happen. Essentially, it is like science fiction, but it is not based on things that may or may not be possible in the future. Fantasy can be about anything and everything that isn't possible in our world, in our time.

Hodge

The technical definition of fantasy is anything that's not based in fact, anything that is fantastical. Many of Ray Bradbury's works could be considered fantasy (Something Wicked This Way Comes is very fantastic).

What most people think fantasy is, though, is sword & sorcery fantasy, which is just one kind of fantasy.

__________________
Science

Coldwriter

Yes.
Blend together aspects from different movies, people, books, etc, and create your own. That's true for any genre- You see a fight, hear dialogue, visit a park, read a magazine....you dont take what is doe, but you take apart of it and combine it with another peice, add your own flavor...and viola!

__________________
Make me laugh...seriously.

Kane

That's not really how it works for me. Rather, what I see, hear, smell, or think about might cause some feeling, a feeling that makes me want to write. Then I just look within to see what there is in my world; people, places, events, struggles, joy and pain, whatever. I usually reject material that could be thought to be like something else.

Gozer

I noticed this thread, and since I am also working on a sci-fi/fantasy, I'll put down my two cents. Ahem:

First of all, please stay away from the Tolkien-esque stuff. I like The Lord of the Rings, both the novels and the movies, but c'mon, I think we've seen enough elves, dwarves, and orcs. There are only so many things you can do with the same elements over and over. If you absolutely must use these concepts, the least you can do is try to do something new with them. Do Elves have to be tall, skinny humans that live in the woods and use archery and magic? You can treat Elves quite differently from what Tolkien did. Maybe base them more on Celtic siddhe? Or even take a sci-fi route and make them evolved, telepathic humans? But damnit, don't make another Rivendell/Lothlorien culture!

If you include magic, try to stay away from the roleplaying stuff. Fireballs, lightning bolts, and all that jazz might be cool for gaming, but it gets stale on paper. Magic, though potent, should have limits. Work your magic system out. Define what magic is and how it works. Even if the characters and inhabitants of your world are unsure as to what magic is, YOU should know. Magic should be a fundamental part of your setting and universe. Flesh it out completely. Also, stay away from the whole "fire/water/earth/air" element stuff. It's played out.

I disagree with the notion that heroes have to be larger than life and have superpowers. If you ask me, it's more interesting to read about limited people who overcome great odds. I mean, if everyone can just throw fireballs at each other, than it takes away the specialness of having such power because everybody can do it. Also, it turns conflicts into Dragonball Z-type battles where dudes just lob spells at each other. It's more fun if the powers of your protagonists are more limited and defined, because it makes you come up with more strategies. If your character is just a dude armed with a knife, and he's going up against a demon sorcerer from the 7th Plane of Hell, it makes you wonder how he's going to win, and therefor forces you to be more clever. Otherwise, if he's got all these powers, the conflict just comes down to them duking it out, and that's boring. But if you know the character is gonna get vaporized if he challenges the enemy openly, it makes you wonder just what the hell he's going to do, and it makes the reader wonder as well.

One of my favorite writers is Robert E. Howard, creator of Conan. In my opinion, Conan is one of the finest characters in literature. As strong as he is, he's still a normal human who can be killed. And yet he fights sorcerers, monsters, god-like beings, and hordes of enemies. He does this through his own personal skill and ability. He doesn't have superstrength, or invulnerability, or a +5 Hackmaster 3000. How he deals with conflicts and obstacles is dealt with very realistically given the context. Personality wise, he's actually a very fleshed out character.

I wish I was more coherent, but it's late and I've got a headache.

Kane

Robert E. Howard is probably my favorite writer. Followed closely by Brian Lumley.

Anarkos

Cohen > Conan.

Kane made some very good points.

__________________
My latest work: Bags - The Hooker - Going Rogue - Flashing Out - The Problem with Being a Grifter
I always appreciate fair criticism, and will endeavor to reciprocate.

Supreme Radness

Recently I read a fantasy novel called The Hollowing. It was a completely different read than most fantasy I have read, because it appealed to the magic and mystery of tradtional fantasy while also incorporating the dreamy elements of paranormal novels and the rationality and context of scifi. I would recommend it as a good read for anybody. Fantasy really needs to move away from Tolkien to become more relevant in today's world, and I believe this is a step in the right direction for fantasy that still appeals to Tolkien fans.

Now, this whole magic thing. Having more powerful enemies is a must. No question about it. If there is no insurmountable problem to overcome, there is no story. If new problems and greater evils just appear when they are necessary, there is no story. I do not want to assume because I have not had time to read Ilyak's work yet, but I think this may be a genuine concern. Additionally, simple description of action has a tendancy to become dull. The plot should drive things, not the action. In most good fantasy, the action does not need to be described deeply if the conflict is important.

I completely agree with the Gandalf conflict. However, if Gandalf used magic the whole time the sense of mystery about his origins would be ruined and the great climaxes would be less relevant. Gandalf's power was sacrificed for character, and after reading the Simillarion, it becomes evident that Gandalf had other reasons not to use his full power. However, the moment where Gandalf faces the lord of the ringwraiths and commands him not to pass the gates is all the more gripping because of the lack of magic until that point. There are advantages and disadvantages to both sides.

A good example of a magic system that is not overpowering yet still enjoyable is that of Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time. Characters have limits, secrets, and different advantages, all in his idea of magic. There is technology and other hidden depths involved in the magic, making the magic itself one of the enthralling, deep areas of his world. Characters get tired easily, but some do not, and rules govern their actions. He manages to keep your interest in the magic because you have no idea what new thing will develop next. Additionally, there are major weaknesses caused by the magic including how males go insane if they actively use it. It is so intricate it is difficult for me to describe how it works, but his system succeeds in appealing to the mind as well as to the inner eye. Additionally, many of his characters that lack magic are even more appealing, such as a particular man I cannot recall the name of that has the unfortunate yet attractive attribute of uncontrollable luck. While he may win every game of dice, he will be attacked by the man he is playing against for cheating. While he can easily avoid any attack the man makes, he must run outside and sleep in the rain. While he may avoid getting hit by lightning, the friend standing next to him will be hit. It is truly amazing.

Characters are the most important thing to the story, and not what powers they have but why they choose to use their powers, and how their skills and actions reflect their desires. A person who is intricately described as they kill off enemies is seen as a skilled fighter, but their humanity is lost on the way. In my own large-scale scifi saga, where the magic is forged by technology, but just as entralling as the old-school magic, my main character is the only one out of his group of friends lacking great power. While his friends are deeper too, and develop their powers and other strengths over time, and lose thing along the way, the main character still proves to be deeper than the rest. He is imbued with a percieved strength that actually starts off by only hurting him, and is something he must deal over time. He learns how to use it to his advantage, but it is a struggle that takes him a long time to end. Therefore, he has a talent that is unreliable but useful when necessary, and all the more interesting when it is used. Additionally, one of the other main characters is the opposite. He possesses great power and talent, but the way he uses it is the problem. He is still on my protagonist's side, but conflicts often result in their choice of tactics, as the side character often desires to take a purely hack and slash, strike and burn attitude. He is a less interesting character because of that, which is why I would never have him be the protagonist even though his power is necessary in the story. In the case of the side character, the occasions when he decides not to use his obvious power and attempt other tactics are the enthralling moments.

The basic point in writing is to make events epic by making them singular, irregular, rare events that can only happen once in a story. Using epic images sparingly is what makes the images epic, not the sound of the words. The unexpected is god in making shivers run up the readers spine, and god only comes down to help us make the reader's care every once in a long while.

Tim

__________________
I'd feel far too individual without a unique signature.

Supreme Radness

Gandalf was not allowed to use his full power. Say our species uncovers an alien race with two very different genetic lines. One side are evil, disgusting Wharhogs. The other side are kind, peaceful Wippyhats. The Whippyhats are far more intelligent than the Wharhogs but they lack any idea of what battle is. Despite how they connect to the human race in a far better way, we feel compromised in helping the Whippyhats. The Transplanet Ethics Comission decides that nobody can alter the development of two inferior species on another planet, and must let the battle happen how it happens. (Each species is less intelligent than ours but the Wippyhats are far more likely to develop civilization) However, the humans supporting helping the Wippyhats manage to do one thing anyways. The Transplanet Ethics Commission decides that we can still send a human or two to the planet where they can teach the Wippyhats how to battle, because they are intelligent enough to do so well but just lack prior knowledge of fighting. However, our emissaries are limited by a single rule: no utilization of human technology unless it is absolutely necessary. However, one of the emissaries goes nuts and decides to support the Wharhogs. He begins to use his technology in destructive ways and the emissaries have a new goal: help out the Wippyhats when they see them, but do anything necessary to stop the Wharhog-supporting emissary. Without revealing what actually happens in Tolkien's Simillarion, I have just described the basic gist of what Gandalf is limited by. Gandalf is the emissary, and Saruman is the evil one helping out the king of the Wharhogs, Sauron.

If it appears to the reader that the problem is manageable, then it does not appear to be a problem. There are various ways to dispel an insurmountable-looking problem, and many times the whole book is the quest to end this problem with smaller adventures along the way. I wholeheartedly agree that sending more heroes at a problem is one way to fix it, but if this is done every time it may become dull, and if the heroes are just being pulled out of a hat by suddenly appearing, the reader loses the sense of immersion into the story. I agree that I would want Gandalf to be way cooler, but if he used his magic all the time there would be no conflict, no insurmountable problem, and the story would have been dull. The story matters, not the action, but it is definitely MAJORLY KICKASS if the action gets the full treatment every once in a while.

There should be a good explanation of why this new character suddenly appears to save the day, and I advise doing it however you like as long as it is believeable. Make sure there is a backstory behind this character, and maybe do not indicate which character it is that is saving the day until the last moment. Give this character a strong motive, and a strong origin story behind his power, and possibly put this backstory, at first seemingly unrelated, into the other stuff the reader knows about. Every time this character shows up the reader will be wondering things "Who is this guy?" "What is his secret?" "Why is he being written about?" "Is he involved with the story?" "When will he show up? Will he show up? What will he do if he does?" If you make the reader want to know this, they will keep reading. When they realize that this character who is dramatically saving the day is that character they were wondering about, the one that they wanted to show up oh so badly, it will be even more effective, and that spine-tingling feeling is all the more closer to your grasp. Some readers will guess what character it is right away, but those more intelligent ones will still get something, a sense of accomplishment in "outsmarting" the story. You are never ahead of all readers, but Harry Potter books would not appeal to adults if they felt annoyed whenever they had already started putting the pieces together and found out that what they had suspected is true.

The hunting down of artifacts is a good problem, because even if the characters can destroy any enemy, they have to use other skills to find the crystals. However, this device is slightly cliche, and I suggest adding some deeper layers to the concept so it is not the only thing holding up the story. Robert Jordan's series has one or two item hunts, but they happen every once in a while (every couple books) and are not the entire focus of whatever book they are in, though interesting subplots and very rewarding once the object is found. I would suggest reading his work to get an idea of NOT what type of fantasy works, BUT how to weave plot together well in a fantasy universe. I cannot say his books are the best, but his plot is so dynamic, complex, deep, expanisive, and additionally extremely long that it is truly a learning experience to see how he weaves so many plots and so many hundreds of characters together. He almost hurts himself because he has so many long books in his series and so much complication, but it is benificial to see how he manages to fit it together and also when he fails to make ends meet.

Good luck crafting your story. I don't want to be repetitive, but I want to remind you that in a video game, the plot can be redeemed by an enjoyable battle experience, and usually improved by the action. However, when writing fiction the action can never redeem the plot if the plot is sour, only complement it on occassion. Gandalf doesn't need to have a crowning moment, even though it would be really damn cool. The plot still stands without it. Without your action climaxes, would your plot stand? Ask yourself.

I hope I helped out,

Tim

__________________
I'd feel far too individual without a unique signature.

playstation60

Sometimes the ultimate use of power is not actually using it in an overt way, but instead knowing when to use it. I believe that Gandalf didn't open up a can, so to speak, because he instead inspired others to take up arms and fight. Why do all the work himself, putting greater risk of failure on HIMSELF, when he can have many help, and increasing the chance of success?

__________________
24,372/50,000