Fantasy Book Club discussion
Archived threads
>
TOPIC IN FOCUS - for new authors to discuss why they write fantasy
Wastrel wrote: "But you're right, there's quite a teenage-boy sensibility to a lot of fantasy: family is there to send you out into the world, maybe to return to in the end, or if you're unlucky to motivate you by being killed off..."To be fair, fantasy is not really about families or relationships, it's about saving the world, or at least your own little bit of it. Literary fiction might be about relationships, or perhaps chick-lit, but fantasy has broader goals, and it's not a cliche for the hero(ine) to have to break away from his/her family, it's absolutely essential, usually. Not that it's impossible to have the whole family fighting the Big Bad, but I imagine it's easier to write with just a single protagonist (or a small number).
I'd also note that it's weird for people to say we can't break away from elves, orcs, dwarves and dragons, given that elves, orcs, dwarves and dragons are all creations (in their modern sense) of Tolkien. Yet Tolkien was popular, so it's not as though people couldn't 'get' elves. "
But all these are deeply rooted in legend or mythology or fairy tales. Tolkien simply tapped into that cultural memory, as it were. Now hobbits he invented out of the whole cloth, and so far as I know, no one has ever written about hobbits since.
Pauline wrote: "To be fair, fantasy is not really about families or relationships, it's about saving the world, or at least your own little bit of it. ..."I don't think fantasy is that limited. I don't recall anything like that in Modesitt's first Imager book, for instance, but it's been a while since I read it. Not my favorite due to lack of action. It might also have to do with how you define fantasy. I'm really bad at pigeon-holing books into genres.
Pauline wrote: "But all these are deeply rooted in legend or mythology or fairy tales. Tolkien simply tapped into that cultural memory, as it were. Now hobbits he invented out of the whole cloth, and so far as I know, no one has ever written about hobbits since. "
But Tolkien was attempting to establish a mythology for his country. He probably believed using established legends the English people could relate to was the best way to go about this. That's not wrong or right, it's just what Tolkien did. Doesn't mean writers have to follow the same blueprint. We can start from scratch.
Wastrel wrote: "And rather assumes that you think there is such a thing as "femininity"."
Maybe it's simply my western attitude. Who knows.
I do believe that heroes (and heroines) have to break away from their families to find their own place in the world. Same thing in real life. A teenager goes off to college to learn, live, and grow into his or her self, to break away and test the family ideals and find if those are really his or her own as well. Family is important, it is a foundation. However, striking out on your own is also an important part. Some heroic figures need a push, a death or public execution of a parent/family, to drive them into the world to discover who they are.
Jim wrote: "Pauline wrote: "To be fair, fantasy is not really about families or relationships, it's about saving the world, or at least your own little bit of it. ..."I don't think fantasy is that limited. I don't recall anything like that in Modesitt's first Imager book..."
I'm not sure that 'saving the world' is a limitation, actually. There are a billion different ways of doing that, the only limit is the author's imagination. I've not yet read any Modesitt, but very often the first book in a series is more about establishing the hero(ine), and the saving the world part is the culmination of all 3 (or 7 or however many) books.
Fantasy is probably a broader genre than most, but there has to be some kind of conflict, and most variants of it do tend to follow a vague formula. At its simplest, there's a Hero(ine) and a Big Bad and a final confrontation. At its most subtle, the conflict is between two different ways of life, neither one necessarily any better or worse than the other. And (just to be clear) 'saving the world' might simply mean saving the village or craft guild or the right to use magic, or whatever.
But it seems to me that if there's no conflict of that type, something which potentially changes things in a big way, by the end of the story (which may be several books down the line) then it's not so much fantasy as... well, something else. Speculative fiction, maybe. Or literary fiction. A fairy tale, perhaps.
It might also have to do with how you define fantasy.
Very true. I suspect that if you asked 100 fantasy readers to define it you'd get 100 different answers.
Pauline, I think you're right. The Imager series is working up to saving the world or his part of it. (I skimmed a bit of the first 2 books.) Yes, there does have to be a conflict - at least for me to be interested.
As for defining fantasy, I expect you're right. When I first read your statement, I thought of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Fantasy? Certainly classical Lit.
Of course fantasy needs conflict. So does every other book. Why are fantasy conflicts meant to stop people from thinking about and interacting with their families? Even if every hero DID have to be an orphan (with surprisingly little baggage associated with orphaning, I might add), that doesn't mean every other character has to be too!Are Hobb's books not fantasy because they have families in them? What about ASOIAF makes you feel that relationships are unimportant and that it's all about facing the Big Bad (who in five books has had about ten pages on screen)?
I don't like the idea that fantasy has to be self-excludingly small as a genre - that once you start talking about 'relationships' you're into the realm of 'chick-lit'. Are only women allowed to be interested in human beings? If not, why do you think fantasy readers can't be interested in human beings?
That, to me, is the core of the issue. "Conflict" and "Big Bads" are nothing without human characters to empathise with. Human characters - real humans - are built out of relationships. They care deeply about their friends and their families, and many of their deepest problems relate to their friends and their families, and their friends and families motivate a great deal of their behaviour. Family dynamics shape a great deal of our character. So I don't think that talking about relationships makes a book stop being fantasy and start being chick-lit, I think it creates well-rounded and human characters who are easier to empathise with and frankly more interesting all round. Fantasy has a lot of romance in it, but rarely has anything more than vague relationships with distant family members. It's largely a genre of people who are alone, or who consider themselves alone - it's adolescent (set between the time you realise your parents can't control you and the time you realise you have to worry about them). I don't mind that on a book-by-book basis, but when I step back and look at the genre as a whole, I think that we would be better off having books with more diverse protagonists, including protagonists with real family lives.
I also don't buy the "Tolkien's creatures come from mythology" bit. They really don't. Elves and dwarves before tolkien (elfs and dwarfs, I should say) were indistinguishable little pixie creatures (tellingly, he originally planned to call his elves 'gnomes', a word that has retained very different connotations). Orcs didn't exist, and goblins were just evil gnomes/elves/dwarves/pixies. Dragons had a bit more identity, but not a great deal. By and large, the modern assumptions about fantasy 'races' descend from Tolkien (refined and altered by D&D).
Wastrel wrote: "I also don't buy the "Tolkien's creatures come from mythology" bit. They really don't. Elves and dwarves before tolkien (elfs and dwarfs, I should say) were indistinguishable little pixie creatures..."I thought Tolkien got orcs from Beowulf, no? And they're like ogres in many ways.
The Grimm Brothers' Snow White dwarfs (dwarves?) were before Tolkien, weren't they? All their tales were.
Lang's Fairy books had talking dragons & such in them. He wrote around the 1900's, well before Tolkien's time.
So, yeah, I think he did get most of his inspiration from older myths, tales, & lore. That's not disparaging at all, BTW. No one works in a vacuum, though.
All of the above can be found online for free on
http://www.gutenberg.org/.
Andrew Lang's stuff is fun reading.
Don't skip James George Frazer's The Golden Bough, either. There's a great pdf of it here:
http://www.usa-anti-communist.net/Wit...
Wastrel wrote: "I don't like the idea that fantasy has to be self-excludingly small as a genre - that once you start talking about 'relationships' you're into the realm of 'chick-lit'. Are only women allowed to be interested in human beings? If not, why do you think fantasy readers can't be interested in human beings?"Of course fantasy readers can be interested in human beings, and the best fantasy, I would argue, is very much character-driven. The difference is that certain types of fiction are focused primarily on the relationships and other aspects are subsidiary to that (romances, for instance, chick-lit, perhaps, literary fiction, and so on). Fantasy, on the other hand, tends to be focused more on the created or modified world and the magical aspects, and the relationships are somewhat subsidiary to that.
Some people say that fantasy and sci-fi are plot-driven rather than character-driven, but I wouldn't necessarily agree with that, although probably the plot is more important than in some other genres. But once a book is actually about the relationships, then it's hard to call it fantasy (rather than romance, or whatever).
But there are no neat boxes, and a whole lot of crossover and bleedthrough from one genre and subgenre to the next. And as I said before, we all have our own ideas of what constitute fantasy. This is mine. You disagree. No big deal.
Pauline wrote: "...antasy doesn't have to be shallow, and there are strong female characters being written, women who are good at their roles without being pseudo-men..."Way back when, when Babylon 5 was in its 1st season, J. Michael Straczynski its brain-father was active in the Bab 5 CompuServe forum. I had a lot of criticisms as the 1st season progressed, one being the character Susan Ivanova whom I thought was too masculine and asked to the point of spamming, why couldn't she be a strong woman or woman of power and also be feminine. I also told them Jeffry Sinclair was way too stiff, had no personality and that I wouldn't follow him around a corner. I got a lot of booing and hissing from the fans. JMS didn't say much about it. But when season 2 came alone, Sinclair was replaced by by the charismatic John Sheridan and Ivanova started being a women and not just a guy with hooters. I like to think all my bitching was in part responsible...
Stephanie wrote: "It seems to me that gender is never irrelevant...to who a person is or what that person can do. That's just physical reality. Amazonian warrior ladies or women knights are as much a caricature to m..."Well sure in those respects. I'm talking more about gender being irrelevant in respect to self-actualization. I'm tired of novels that have powerful female protagonists and weak males, just for the sake of feminism. I understand why they are written, but feel I've gone beyond that need. I would say the same thing about race and affectional orientation.
Wastrel wrote: "Of course fantasy needs conflict. So does every other book. Why are fantasy conflicts meant to stop people from thinking about and interacting with their families? Even if every hero DID have to be..."No one is saying conflict is not important. It is central to the story, as are the characters. Like Pauline said, some stories are more character driven than others, the latter concentrating on plot. Other stories have both. Fantasy books tend to rely heavily on world building, which is what the genre is about.
And I did say family was important. It's the foundation for some characters, others not. If the story calls for an street-hardened orphan, the lack of family is central. Other characters need the guidance of their parents. I still maintain that in order for a character to blossom, they need to spread their wings and fly into the world, to test their morals and ideals. This is my opinion, you are more than welcome to disagree.
Clinton wrote: "Wastrel wrote: "...I still maintain that in order for a character to blossom, they need to spread their wings and fly into the world, to test their morals and ideals..."Indeed! Experience is the best teacher.
Jim wrote: "..."excellent examples, Jim.
as far as elves go, there's Lord Dunsany (King of Elfland's Daughter published in the 20s). and of course, er, Shakespeare... Oberon, Titania, etc.
i'd also add that dragons were certainly a major part of Chinese mythology, with quite a bit of identity. and of course Norse mythology as well.
re. the post on Tolkein not relying on mythology or past literature in creating his creatures & inhuman races, that they all simply descend from him... just such an odd assertion overall!
Hi, folks. Can I butt in? I read this discussion with interest. And I agree that most fantasy novels put family and relationships in the background and concentrate on adventure. Furthermore, the heroes are often orphans and single. Why? Because if a hero has a wife and five kids, he can’t go adventuring. He has to put food on the table, like in real life. If there are elderly or sick parents, he can’t leave them, unless he is a soldier. Again, like in real life. That’s why many fantasy novels start off with a family being killed off by enemies, or plague, or a flood, or some other misfortune. It frees the hero to go on an adventure. It simultaneously makes him grieve or blame himself, which makes him more interesting. It’s a writer’s trick. And as a writer, I know and use it. On the other hand, in my novel that is going to be published later this year, my heroine does have a family: loving parents and an older sister who considers her a pest. It took some ingenuity to send her on her adventure. What loving mother would agree for her daughter to go into danger? If she is a good mother, she would fight that decision. The mother of my heroine fought, and lost. The heroine must be outside her family’s influence, on her own, to show the readers that she is worthy to read about. Again a writer’s trick.
As a reader though, I’m often bored by family sagas and all those complicated relationships every family has in real life. That’s why I write fantasy – to escape the unsolvable problems of family and illness. In fantasy it’s easy: find the sword, kill the bad guy, and let’s celebrate. I’m exaggerating, of course, but life is much tougher than fantasy. One woman I know just pulled a plug on life support for her 16-year-old son. It’s unbearable. I don’t want to read about it too. And I definitely don’t want to write about it: too depressing. I want to be sure my hero win his battles.
mark wrote: "re. the post on Tolkein not relying on mythology or past literature in creating his creatures & inhuman races, that they all simply descend from him... just such an odd assertion overall!..."Don't take it too seriously. I think Wastrel posts a lot of this stuff just to get conversation stirred up. No one can really be that ignorant or unread. It's a good chance to give some of the older fantasy writers some press, like L. Frank Baum & his Wizard of Oz series.
Jim,I agree that The Golden Bough is a great resource.
Shame that I find it a bit impenetrable. Not a book to read after a long hard day at work...
Hey guys, I am new to goodreads and happened upon this topic. I know you are deep into it already but I figured I'd throw my why's and how's into it as well. I helped my brother design a world for a text based role playing game (MUD) called Dark And Shattered Lands. Beleive it or not, people still play these. At any rate, I developped a character who would ultimately become the Emperor of the Minotaur kingdom of Ganth. My book is based on this character. There were so many unique interactions with the players of the MUD that stories became extremely easy to come by. My novel however is based on the back-story of my character. I originally wrote the story to complement the game character but it took on a life of its own and wound up a full length novel when I put the whole thing to text during the November 2004 NaNoWriMo challenge (National Novel Writing Month). Four years later, after several hundred rewrites, I decided to self-publish it through CreateSpace. A friend of mine who also played the MUD designed the cover for me and the rest is history.I found the MUD environment on an RP based MUD was a wealth of fodder for the aspiring author. In my years playing, I have played over 30 or so characters, each building their own stories, both background and actually played out.
If you decide to take this route, keep a few things in mind. First, you need the permission of the MUD owner to publish anything with their product's name, cities, clans, factions, wehatever, in them. Second, some MUDs have some stock areas in them with names that are copyrighted elsewhere, so you may need to change some city names, character names, so on and so forth as applicable.
Since then, I have been writing stories outside of the MUD and even outside of the Genre, but the MUD was the catalyst that helped me write my first book. Of all the genre's, I still love Fantasy the best and I hope to produce several more novels within it.
Will wrote: "Jim,I agree that The Golden Bough is a great resource.
Shame that I find it a bit impenetrable. Not a book to read after a long hard day at work..."
No, it's certainly not for reading straight though. It is fun to pick at, though.
Gus wrote: "I found the MUD environment on an RP based MUD was a wealth of fodder for the aspiring author. "I've heard a number of people say this. I believe the Daniel Abrahams/Ty Francks collaboration Leviathan Wakes was based on Francks' MUD-type world-building. And you might enjoy this blog post:
http://www.charlotteenglish.com/2012/...
Pauline wrote: I've heard a number of people say this. I believe the Daniel Abrahams/Ty Francks collab..."
Excellent blog. Thanks for the link.
I've heard a number of people say this. I believe the Daniel Abrahams/Ty Francks collaboration Leviathan Wakes was based on Francks' MUD-type world-building.i'm quite confused by this... i thought that the novel was written by James Corey? but maybe i'm just missing something, because i am entirely with unfamiliar "MUD-type-world-building". please explain, i'm intrigued.
mark wrote: "i'm quite confused by this... i thought that the novel was written by James Corey? but maybe i'm just missing something, because i am entirely with unfamiliar "MUD-type-world-building". please explain, i'm intrigued."Oh, it's very confusing! Daniel Abraham is one of life's prolific writers. He publishes fantasy under his own name, scifi under the name James S A Corey (in collaboration with Ty Franck) and urban fantasy under the name M L N Hanover. And, what's more, he produces a new book in each line every year!
The story behind 'Leviathan Wakes' is that Ty Franck had developed basically a whole futuristic universe, with races and cultures and technologies and places for some gaming purpose (MUD or D&D or something of the sort, not sure exactly what), and it was too good to waste so they wove a story into it. Not sure where the collaborative name James S A Corey came from, but the two authors wrote more or less alternate chapters of the book, one writing one protagonist, the other one writing the other. Sounds weird, but it works really well.
Daniel Abraham is one of my favourite authors (in all his incarnations). He always comes up with intriguing, thought-provoking plots and strong characters.
As Gus said, a MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) environment is a great way for an aspiring writer to start off. You have to develop places, characters, the whole enchilada, but because it's text based, it's all done in words. Great practice. I recommend the Charlotte English link I posted for a good description of the process, for anyone who's interested.
Wow, this has been an in-depth discussion. Reading it, I completely forgot what the thread was about until these last couple of posts, haha.My story is a little different. I started writing a fantasy story when I was in college, which featured all of my friends cast in an exaggerated light. I thought it would be kind of funny, to write some cookie-cutter kind of story so that my friends could pick it up, read it and say "Oh, that's me!".
But when I started writing it, something strange happened. First, I was continually unsatisfied with it being so...unimaginative, I guess. I'd been a long time reader, so writing anything that had huge holes in the story bothered me, so I filled them. Then, I expanded the plot a bit. The next thing you know, my little story became sort of serious. I wrote about six chapters, then trashed it. Then I completely changed it, keeping only some of the characters I imagined from the original story. I wrote maps, studied ancient holidays and crops and boats and horses and so many things that my brain nearly exploded. I came up with cultures, and eventually wrote a history for my setting. Before I realized what had happened, my story became pretty serious and special to me. Over the years, it had become kind of a hobby, and then suddenly I wanted to publish. I didn't really set out on the path of a serious writer, I just sort of stumbled onto it.
Now I've published a 370,000 or so word novel. And I find that I really enjoyed the writing, and the world and character building. People who've read my book tell me that they can't put it down, and that gives me a good feeling, so I think I'll keep writing lol. I write fantasy because I love it. I guess I could have just said that.
D.w. wrote: "Wow, this has been an in-depth discussion. Reading it, I completely forgot what the thread was about until these last couple of posts, haha.My story is a little different. I started writing a f..."
Good for you D.W. It's good to hear that a hobby bloomed into something special and life affirming. My story is the same so I can related.
DW, I've just realised on the cliche thread that I've started having more fun writing the villains than the heros in my stuff.Who do you guys like writing most?
Will wrote: "DW, I've just realised on the cliche thread that I've started having more fun writing the villains than the heros in my stuff.Who do you guys like writing most?"
I actually don't have villains as such. My books have situations which allow some people to act badly and some to act well, but no one is going out of their way to create that situation, which is what I would expect of a villain. Often my heroes are dealing with situations caused by desperate people in bad situations, but no one is really to blame. I like discovering all of my characters, in their various ways.
Marc, that's probably very real life.But I rather enjoy writing the characters who set out to be bad ( although mine are actually, well, bad at being bad.).
I tend to enjoy writing characters who try their hardest to be heroes but who foul up the quest/ fight each time. Good intentions sometimes lead to evil. Finding a way to get the character out of those messy situations is the fun part, redemption is all the more sweater when we need to struggle through the mud.Characters living in the grey are also fun to write, they tend to have the complicated pasts.
I mainly write fantasy because I can get away with things!It's fun too - my latest (The Avalon Trilogy) has been a marathon and I'm glad it's finished, although I'll miss the characters - how weird is that?
Will wrote: "DW, I've just realised on the cliche thread that I've started having more fun writing the villains than the heros in my stuff.Who do you guys like writing most?"
That's a tricky one to answer. I think that I love my main characters, the "good guys" more, but that I enjoy writing my "villains" more because in my story (The Sentient Fire) they are sort of twisted, and have a lot of issues. The two main villains from my first book are brothers, and one of them hates the other to the point of murder, but they need each other, so the dynamic was very fun to write. Plus, they have a whole mess of issues from their past, and revealing that a little at a time was lots of fun, too. I find that when I sit down to write sequences that include my protagonists, it goes a little slower and I tend to take more care, but with the antagonists I dove in with gusto and I put down pages in less than half the time. So, I guess the answer is that I like writing them both, but the villains are definitely more fun.
Julie wrote: "I mainly write fantasy because I can get away with things!It's fun too - my latest (The Avalon Trilogy) has been a marathon and I'm glad it's finished, although I'll miss the characters - how wei..."
I always miss my characters. It's pretty much torture when I have to kill one of them off...
K.A. wrote: "I always miss my characters. It's pretty much torture when I have to kill one of them off.."I think this is the case with all of us though. It's tough to let go of a much loved character, especially after all the work that goes into developing them.
K.A. wrote: "I always miss my characters. It's pretty much torture when I have to kill one of them off..."It's torture for us readers, too:-) Which raises an interesting question - how and why do you writers decide that a character has to be killed off? You have the power of life and death, so what makes you say - this one has to die?
Pauline wrote: "It's torture for us readers, too:-) Which raises an interesting question - how and why do you writers decide that a character has to be killed off? You have the power of life and death, so what makes you say - this one has to die? "Some deaths are deserved, bad guys who are really bad. Some deaths are tragic, a guy who simply got in over his head, for whom death is a mercy. Some deaths are heroic, the noble lord who falls in battle. In all cases the death has to propel the story, a death that just happens is not a death I would record, unless it affects another character in an important way. I'm a chicken about killing off my guys, very reluctant to do that.
Pauline wrote: "K.A. wrote: "I always miss my characters. It's pretty much torture when I have to kill one of them off..."It's torture for us readers, too:-) Which raises an interesting question - how and why do..."
It's hard to say. Ask any writer why a character does what they do, and most writers will tell you the characters have a life of their own.
Sometimes it's just time for that character to go. Sometimes there's a bigger picture to see, or a heroic self sacrifice. My characters are as alive to me as you are. They have personalities, hopes, dreams, desires, and yes, sometimes bad things happen.
I think Thomas has the right of it. Usually a death serves the bigger picture. The death will propel and motivate other characters to take heroic action or any action for that matter. Other times, it has to do with collateral damage, especially in stories with huge battle scenes.For instance: In "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows", (view spoiler) I would argue that you can't have a huge battle like the Hogwarts final showdown without people dying. Of all the people there, you are going to have some of the more loved characters bite the bullet. Law of averages. Their deaths also mean more to readers because they care for the characters.
Another example: In "Game of Thrones" (view spoiler) Most will argue his death was shock value. However, a lot of the story could not have moved along without it. His death galvanized the other characters into actions or onto paths they might have not taken otherwise.
That's how I think of deaths anyway. Shock value is something to always consider but there is less meaning.
Pauline wrote: "K.A. wrote: "I always miss my characters. It's pretty much torture when I have to kill one of them off..."It's torture for us readers, too:-) Which raises an interesting question - how and why do..."
Usually for me it's a motivator for other characters. In one case (but no spoilers!) it has to occur in order for a solution to be possible later.
On the flip side, when a character kills someone else, I make sure he/she feels the consequences if that character is someone unaccustomed to killing.
K.A. wrote: "Julie wrote: "I mainly write fantasy because I can get away with things!It's fun too - my latest (The Avalon Trilogy) has been a marathon and I'm glad it's finished, although I'll miss the char..."
Yes, I hate to say goodbye, but I always know it's the right thing for the story.
Pauline wrote: "K.A. wrote: "I always miss my characters. It's pretty much torture when I have to kill one of them off..."It's torture for us readers, too:-) Which raises an interesting question - how and why do..."
It feels right, if sad.
It isn't a situation I've ever had to face. As my stuff is intended to be funny, killing the characters would be inappropriate.
The very worst kill-off I have encountered was in the expanded universe of Star Wars: (view spoiler)
Kernos wrote: "The very worst kill-off I have encountered was in the expanded universe of Star Wars: [spoilers removed]"The death did not seem necessary to me either. I didn't feel any ripple affect because of it. After reading that book, I didn't continue withe story arch. Not because of the death, just because of interest was not grabbed.
Hi,New to Goodreads and I’m a little late to the thread. Lot of great discussion to catch up on. I’ve been writing ‘Fantasy’ for over a decade. I stress Fantasy, because I grapple with the question, “When is Fantasy not Fantasy and something else?” Though I categorize my stories as Fantasy, you’re not going to come across any Elf’s, Dwarf’s, Orc’s, etc… Fantasy is my first love. From the moment I read Weis & Hickman Dragonlance books I was hooked.
There has been some discussion on originality in Fantasy writing. I make a conscience effort to develop my worlds, cultures, races, and environments to something unique. I like to ‘twist’ the rules of magic, giving my own (hopefully unique) spin on the balance of nature with magic in the equation. I don’t write in straight line plots (i.e. this is where I am, this is what I need to do, and here are the little obstacles in the way). Typically my themes are not as simple as good versus evil or love conquers all.
I don’t find Fantasy difficult to write. For me it flows naturally. Even if I want to write something else, my stories and characters are drawn to some elements of Fantasy. Since I began writing, I’ve broadened the genre of books I read. I read Romance, Young Adult, Thrillers, and Action Adventure among others. This, I believe, helps me make my characters more multi-dimensional and spark ideas not prevalent in Fantasy.
Another question presented was character naming. If there is one thing in Fantasy that I absolutely do not like is trying to read unpronounceable names and places. I write what I like and therefore, I don’t name people, places, fauna, and creatures with something reader needs to learn another language to pronounce. I find it distracting. The challenge is a happy medium. Yes, we want names to be sticky and that, I think, is really difficult.
Planner or pantser? This is an awesome question. I plan a story with a plot outline, typically detailing at great length the first ten chapters. I find that when I actually sit down and write, the story deviates into another, unplanned direction. Hopefully is all for the better.
Pantser? Maybe I'm in the wrong generation, but...where I grew up, a "pantser" was someone who snuck up behind other people, grabbed their underwear, and yanked it up. Another meaning here, perhaps??? I'm getting an odd impression of Jeffery!(inset smilie here)
K.A. wrote: "Pantser? Maybe I'm in the wrong generation, but...where I grew up, a "pantser" was someone who snuck up behind other people, grabbed their underwear, and yanked it up. Another meaning here, perhaps..."LOL. Wouldn't be the first time people thought me odd. Pantser - referring to Thomas' entry at about message 120. The term meaning 'writing by the seat of your pants'.
K.A. wrote: "Pantser? Maybe I'm in the wrong generation, but...where I grew up, a "pantser" was someone who snuck up behind other people, grabbed their underwear, and yanked it up. Another meaning here, perhaps..."Pantsers write by the seat of their pants, as opposed to Plotters, who create outlines and have lots of notes.
K.A. wrote: "Pantser? Maybe I'm in the wrong generation, but...where I grew up, a "pantser" was someone who snuck up behind other people, grabbed their underwear, and yanked it up. Another meaning here, perhaps..."Very different meaning :-) A pantser is an author who writes, as it were, by the seat of his/her pants - that is, sits down with a blank sheet of paper or blank Word document and just writes. The outcome may as much of a surprise to the author as to the reader. Stephen King is the famous pantser, who just wings it.
A planner, by contrast, is someone who plans the entire book in advance, possibly in spreadsheets and flowcharts.
I guess most writers are somewhere in between (like Jeffery) - a bit of planning, especially at the start, and then see where that takes you.
I'm not a writer, but as a reader, I don't think I could tell the difference in the finished book. I guess it's whatever works.
Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Prime (other topics)Leviathan Wakes (other topics)
The Golden Bough (other topics)
Distress (other topics)
Mission of Gravity (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
L. Frank Baum (other topics)James George Frazer (other topics)
Andrew Lang (other topics)
George R.R. Martin (other topics)
Mark Twain (other topics)
More...
Anyway, I came here to agree with Stephanie that the genre should try harder to address issues of family, in a genuine intergenerational sense. [Pauline raises ASOIAF, but that almost proves the point. The Starks are a healthy family, but with one generation of adults and one of children, with the grandparents killed off before the books start, (view spoiler)[and the parents killed off before the children grow up (hide spoiler)]. The Lannisters are one generation of siblings, with a single, very distant parent and some obnoxious small children, (view spoiler)[ and the single parent, and the uncle who tries to replace him, are both killed off halfway through the series (hide spoiler)]. The Targaryens are a pair of siblings with their parents already killed off. The Greyjoys have one distant parent, (view spoiler)[ who is killed off halfway through the series (hide spoiler)]. The Tullies are siblings with small children, and one distant parent, (view spoiler)[who is killed off less than halfway through the series (hide spoiler)]. In all, consider all the pages of this epic series, and then consider how many pages are directly concerned with parent-child relationships? Remarkably few. Even direct sibling-relationships are sparse. the general plan seems to be to spread family members out so that they operate as individuals and not as families.]
I think the best counterexample is robin hobb. The Farseer trilogy is about the hero's relationships with various parental figures; the tawny man trilogy is about the hero's relationships with various child figures. Liveship Traders is largely about the problems of a family of women.
But you're right, there's quite a teenage-boy sensibility to a lot of fantasy: family is there to send you out into the world, maybe to return to in the end, or if you're unlucky to motivate you by being killed off. The actual amount of direct preoccupation with family matters is surprisingly small given the importance of family in the lives of real people.
---
While I'm here, I'll also disagree about the importance of cliche. It's not that hard to create new races, or to develop new societies, and it's not that hard to relate to them - because we relate bit-by-bit, not society-by-society. We find the bits we understand, and extrapolate from there. There will always be bits we understand, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is constructed from archetypes - correlation is not causation.
I'd also note that it's weird for people to say we can't break away from elves, orcs, dwarves and dragons, given that elves, orcs, dwarves and dragons are all creations (in their modern sense) of Tolkien. Yet Tolkien was popular, so it's not as though people couldn't 'get' elves.