Matthew D. Ryan's Blog, page 23
August 1, 2013
Fantasy Literature: World Building and Limits
The world is an awfully big place. It really is. Seven continents, thousands of languages, and an endless variety of cultures. There’s really only one dominate species on the planet (us humans), but we have thousands of years of written history. The goal of world building in a fantasy literature environment is to provide a background to the story that is as believable as the real-life background that our very real world provides to the stories and events that take place here. However, trying to be as complete and exhausting in detail as the real world is impossible and ill-advised. One can only work within certain limits, within which you, as the author, have free reign. You can develop a world with but one continent or just a vast collection of islands, with one language and culture, or many, and so on. What I’ve found in my own writing, though, is that there is an upper limit to the number of facets that can be adequately described. As a rule, the writer does a certain amount of world building, but only uses about 10% of that material for his/her book. That may seem like a waste, but it really isn’t. Although you only use 10% of your world building materially directly in your book, the other 90% does influence the work: It provides the context for that slice of material that you do use. You will draw on this other 90% in subtle, yet important, ways. A conflict between two religions can be spelt out in detail in your world resources and because you know the why’s and wherefore’s of this conflict, you can incorporate touches of it in a striking, realistic manner that does not overwhelm the reader with unnecessary details, nor pull her out of the story as she is reading.
The important thing to remember when using the material in the book is, as my title suggests, limits. The human mind can only handle so many details at once (there’s a reason phone numbers are only seven digits long—barring area codes). I think a good number range is 3-5 for any particular aspect of world building. You can, if you wish, develop thirteen different cultures on your world (in fact, to be realistic, there should probably be many, many more), but I think you would be ill-advised to use more than five in a particular novel, or say, seven, if it is a very long series like “The Wheel of Time” by Robert Jordan/Brandon Sanderson. For a single stand-alone book, in fact, I would recommend limiting yourself to three. That lets you develop each one fully without overwhelming the reader. Remember, it is far easier for an author who has written, re-written, edited, and re-edited the same work several times to keep all the details straight than it is for a single reader who only reads the book once. The goal is to strike the appropriate balance, producing a world rich in detail, but not overwhelmingly complex and confusing. The same can be said for religions, races, creatures, or what-have-you. A smaller number of well-developed world building aspects will probably serve you far better than a hodgepodge of everything under the sun.
July 29, 2013
Stupid Hobgoblin Jokes
For the record, I absolutely do NOT endorse jokes targeting an individual’s race or ethnicity or any such thing, so don’t interpret today’s post as some subtle offhanded slight to whatever group you feel inclined to include. It is meant to be a completely silly post. Nothing more. But the fact remains, due to increased sensitivities of the public at large, we (all of us) can no longer poke fun at anyone without being branded insensitive or worse. So, to rectify that problem I give you ten Stupid Hobgoblin Jokes (be warned, I am not a particularly skilled joke crafter. These jokes are really awful, and I mean really awful), because hobgoblins don’t exist, and even if they did, they’d be too stupid to recognize that they were being made fun of.
1. What do you call 1000 hobgoblins at the bottom of the ocean?
–A good start.
2. What do you call 999 hobgoblins at the bottom of the ocean?
–One short of a thousand.
3. An orc, a troglodyte, and a hobgoblin walk into a restaurant. The waiter asks: What will you have?
–The orc says, “An elf.” The troglodyte says, “A human.” The hobgoblin says, “I already ate.”
4. An orc, a troglodyte, and a hobgoblin walk into a bar. The bartender asks: What will you have?
–The orc says, “Elf juice.” The troglodyte says, “A Bloody Mary.” The hobgoblin says, “I’ll have what they’re having.” Then, he steals the drinks and runs away.
5. An orc, a troglodyte, and a hobgoblin step onto a train. The conductor says to the orc, “You have to pay ten dollars.” The orc says, “What? Ten dollars? Never.” And he steps off the train. The conductor says to the troglodyte, “You have to pay thirty dollars.” The troglodyte says, “What? Thirty dollars? Ridiculous.” Grumbling, he fishes in his pocket for the money, hands it to the conductor, and takes his seat. The conductor says to the hobgoblin, “You have to pay twenty dollars.” The hobgoblin says, “What? Pay?”
6. How many hobgoblins does it take to screw in a light bulb?
–Two. One to screw it in, and one to bash it to bits when the light comes on.
7. How many hobgoblins does it take to screw in a light bulb?
–Silly question. Light bulbs weren’t around when hobgoblins lived.
8. What’s a hobgoblin’s favorite dessert?
–Blood Pudding.
9. Why did the hobgoblin get arrested after visiting the graveyard?
–He ripped apart all the gravestones.
10. Knock, knock.
Who’s there?
A hobgoblin.
A hobgoblin who?
Who? Me?
If you have any Stupid Hobgoblin Jokes you’d like to share, just tack ‘em on in the comments. Finally, I’ve set up a poll so you can give me feedback on the quality of these jokes: Stupid Hobgoblin Jokes Poll. The poll will stay active until 8/29/2013.
July 25, 2013
Fantasy Literature: Mail and Armor
Did you know that ring mail never existed (according to Wikipedia)? It’s a myth fabricated by gamers or someone. Actually, I think I read once that it was a result of misinterpretation of artists’ renderings of chain mail from the Middle Ages. Actually, to be very precise, I’ve also heard it said that chain mail really shouldn’t be called chain mail, just mail, because that’s all there was. Of course, us AD&D players of yesteryear all “know” that armor comes in many varieties: There’s leather, studded leather, ring mail, scale mail, chain mail, splint mail, banded mail, and plate mail, not to mention field plate and full plate. Apparently, a good number of those never really existed: ring mail and possibly banded mail … or are just names for the same basic thing: splint mail and plate mail. For myself, I never quite understood the difference between field plate and full plate … I mean, aren’t they both basically a full suit of armor? I was also kind of unclear on splint mail and banded mail. Fortunately, since banded mail might not even really exist (Wikipedia) and splint mail is the same as plate mail, I don’t have much to worry about.
But is that true? Why shouldn’t I worry? All those armors listed above are common fare in most roleplaying games and many fantasy stories. I could write a story in which most everyone was decked out in chain mail or plate, but, at a certain point, wouldn’t that be kind of boring. Ring mail never existed. So what? I’m a writer of fantasy literature, high fantasy if you will. My story world is richer because I opt to include ring mail and all the other types of armor listed. I also read somewhere that the weight of armor is reasonably well-distributed across the body so it’s not as heavy as many people make it out to be. A knight really doesn’t need a winch or whatever to mount his horse. He probably can’t go swimming in it still, but he can move around a battlefield with relative ease. He can even run in it. I think that bit of detail I will keep for the armor in my worlds. It’s good to remember and know. But I feel I have free license to add in ring mail and banded mail and even, if I desire, to create some entirely original armor of my own design. That could be cool. It’s fantasy, after all. There are no limits except the ones you impose.
So, what do you think? Should a writer limit him/herself to just the types of armor that actually existed? Or should he/she exercise some poetic license?
July 24, 2013
Announcement: This Blog is Moving
July 22, 2013
Old Movie Review: The Monk (2011)
My friend and I rented “The Monk” (rated R) because it sounded kind of intriguing: A mix of medieval monks, mystery, and sin. The basic plot is that the main character, Ambrosio, is abandoned at the doorstep of a monastery as a child and raised as a strict Capuchin monk. He grows up into a fervent disciple of Christ, renowned for his splendid, inspiring sermons and his great faith. Then, he gets involved with a woman and everything goes to pot (That’s putting it mildly). It is quite a spectacular fall from grace. The most holy monk of his order goes on to commit a whole litany of sins: fornication, incest, and finally murder.
Overall, the movie was interesting; it kept me engaged even though it was a foreign film and all in subtitles. I’m not sure if I should be annoyed at the portrayal of the religious here (I was raised Catholic). It’s set in the 17th century and the church did do some nasty things (like the Inquisition) in medieval times. Still, I don’t know if they would have starved a nun to death for getting pregnant. Maybe they would have. I don’t know (They certainly wouldn’t do that today!). Anyway, they are portrayed as very strict and sometimes, as in the above example, cruel and heartless. That was the backdrop of the movie, and it makes Ambrosio’s ultimate hypocrisy all the more profound. Satan makes a couple of appearances in the film. There’s dark magic, ghostly apparitions, and profound vice. All the elements of a twisted tale, and a twisted tale it was.
Strengths: the acting was good, the script, although twisted, was coherent and logically sound (assuming you accept the premise of Satan, Satanic witches, and what have you). The downfall of the Monk was portrayed quite well. Weaknesses: I think I saw every one of the twists in the movie coming. I mean, they were good twists, it’s just that they were kind of predictable. Again, I remain ambivalent about the portrayal of the church, but since I’m really not up on the history, I can’t really formalize a complaint. Also, the special effects were kind of lacking. I’ve said it before, special effects alone will not make a movie, but they can add to it. Here, they were obviously low budget and not very impressive. Finally, the ending was a little unclear to me. Part of me (most of me) is convinced that Satan wins, but there is a last fleeting image before the credits that made me wonder.
Anyway, I’ll give “The Monk” three and a half, or maybe four, out of five stars.
July 19, 2013
Blurb Blitz Blog Tour: Stop #20
July 18, 2013
Blurb Blitz Blog Tour: Stop #19
Movie Review: The Heat
July 17, 2013
Blurb Blitz Blog Tour: Stop #18
July 16, 2013
Blurb Blitz Blog Tour: Stop #17
