# The Quest or the Battle?



## kaneda (Dec 1, 2005)

In fantasy which do you prefer.  The quest (e.g. Frodo and Sam) or the battle (aragorn). 

Personally I prefer the quests, I tend to skim over the battle scenes! but then that is because most of the time the magic is happening on the quest!  My friend (who prefers the battles) thinks it could be the male-female dynamic working there. 

So whats the opinions of the chronicles networks! what do you personally prefer and do you think it is gender related!


----------



## Teir (Dec 1, 2005)

Would i sound like a total fence-sitter if i said that i like quests that include battle?  - At this point I'm thinking about a lot of Edding's works.

Then again most quests have a battle element in them so how can they really be separated? That is, a battle will usually occur because of the quest, or the quest begins because of a battle which is occuring or may soon occur......
In my opinion the best situation is a tasteful mixture of the two.


----------



## YOSSARIAN (Dec 1, 2005)

I like reading about the strategy leading up to battle, i.e formations,techniques, equipment. I don't care for the actual fighting of the battles.  But all things considered, I prefer the quest.


----------



## Thunderchild (Dec 2, 2005)

definatly the battle becuase mostly cuz of the build up and come down - especially if it a good writer, on the other hand in sci - fi I prefer the more questlike side


----------



## cornelius (Dec 3, 2005)

well,this is a hard one. I think I 'm gonna go with the battle, ( build up and ( nicely said) come down) . can't resist a good rumble... The best is both. At least, that's what I try in my book. Note that , in LOTR, the battle is also a quest ( Be KING, Save HUMANITY!, ...) and that the quest contains some action as wel ( SHe Lob).


----------



## nixie (Dec 3, 2005)

The battle for me the quest is good but a decent battle brings the whole story to life


----------



## GOLLUM (Dec 3, 2005)

It really depends a bit upon who is writing the Quest and the Battle but genereally speaking I prefer the Battle to the Questr as I'm a fan of military fantasy.

I prefer my fantasy books to be without the forumlaic quest element as when you've read as extensively as I have it can become a little ho-hum....

The Battle however can still and often does sit quite comfortably within a more orginal plot line.


----------



## Culhwch (Dec 4, 2005)

Battles. But I'm a guy, so.... It's a vicarious thing, I think. All the action, none of the pain.


----------



## Foxbat (Dec 4, 2005)

The Quest. As Gollum says, it can be a bit formulaic but this is usually the area of the story where most of the character development takes place. I find this  the most interesting aspect.


----------



## Allanon (Dec 4, 2005)

definatley the battle because of the build up and tactics.


----------



## GOLLUM (Dec 4, 2005)

Foxbat said:
			
		

> The Quest. As Gollum says, it can be a bit formulaic but this is usually the area of the story where most of the character development takes place. I find this the most interesting aspect.


Agreed but thankfully there's enough quality fantasy about which develops characters without the need for the standard Quest device as per Tolkien.


----------



## Sibeling (Dec 13, 2005)

I guess I prefer Quest, it seems more adventurous than just fighting.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Dec 13, 2005)

I like quests better, because you can get tensions in the group (Boromir in LOTR), searching for a magical artefact (Silmarils, Beren) is exciting, and lastly you can define characters better; there are only 10 or so characters in the quest, in a big battle there are like tens of thousands warriors fighting, and you only get to know a few characters.


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 13, 2005)

Quest definitely.  I read the build up, skip the battle and read the wind down...hate battle scenes, they are completely (IMO) unnecessary to the rest of the story and seem to always get long drawn out descriptions that to me are complete claptrap because a. I've never been in a battle so couldn't say if it sounded plausible (they don't but that's just my opinion) b. hate violence of any sort and c. don't feel the need to experience violence vicariously (there's plenty of real violence IRL and I read to get away from that crud).

That's the sugar-coated version


----------



## Marky Lazer (Dec 13, 2005)

dwndrgn said:
			
		

> a. I've never been in a battle so couldn't say if it sounded plausible (they don't but that's just my opinion)


Hpw often have you been on an adventurous quest?


----------



## ras'matroi (Dec 13, 2005)

I prefere the quest. 
But there should be at least one battle along the way.


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 13, 2005)

Marky Lazer said:
			
		

> Hpw often have you been on an adventurous quest?


Never, but that doesn't mean I can't judge it's reality quotient.  I don't know how a phone works either but if given two explanations, one false and one true, I'd probably be able to spot the false one - because I'm not an idiot (and I'm not saying that you were calling me one either) and I can pretty much grasp the technical aspects of sitting on a horse and swinging a sword, etc. and so forth.  So, when I read about someone slicing open someone's face who is 7 feet away...I know right away that the author didn't take the time to research the battle and I just don't care anyway.


----------



## Marky Lazer (Dec 13, 2005)

Maybe it's a long sword


----------



## dwndrgn (Dec 13, 2005)

Marky Lazer said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a long sword


----------



## A1ien (Dec 13, 2005)

Can I be really different and say I prefer the one-on-one battles that usually turn up at the end of the quest or in the midst of a battle. that is where true skill in writing comes in in my opinion because the author has to make it gripping and also to flow. and i like detailed descriptions of great magics which usually happen in these scenes


----------



## dragula_66 (Jun 21, 2006)

In my opinion both quests and battles are essential to a good story.  there cant be an epic battle without something leading up to it (i.e. the quest), and if the story simply ends when the quest, which usually has only a few characters, ends its somewhat unsatisfactory, meaning the story culminates with minimal characters.  I believe you need both.  lets consider this:

David Gemmell:  quests + great battles = great read.

Raymond Feist: quests + great battles = great read.

Mercedes Lackey: quests + great (and very original) battles = terrific read.

J.R.R. Tolkien: quests + great battles.

Although i will admit that sometimes 1 or the other can be very gripping and sucessful, e.g. the fool, or liveship trilogies by Robin Hobb, where there is simply 'the quest'.

But from what i have read it seems that quests and battles go hand in hand with a good book.  (at least the great writers of fantasy seem to think so, seeing as thats what they do...)

i would really like to hear thoughts on my opinion, as long as it is constructive critisim...


----------



## dustinzgirl (Jun 25, 2006)

Well, you can't really have the battle without the quest, but you can have the quest without the battle. Personally, I like the quest, but the battle makes it all worthwhile. Its when the final climax occurs, its all on the line...especially when the odds are so overwhelming that utter defeat is imminent. That makes the quest worth questing, and the quest makes the battle worth fighting.

PS Marky: Every day is an adventure at my house. You should try it. We have jedi's, barbies, clay wars, food fights, incorigable language (Mom He is so STUPID!) and water wars.


----------



## Sparks the Knave (Jun 29, 2006)

well if you could only have one, the Quest. Mindless battle is fairly uninvolving. 

but the best quests have battles of course IMHO 

battle, or a least conflict if not open battle, is very importan to a readers emotions. the threat of character death is important to stories.


----------



## Nesacat (Jun 29, 2006)

A quest definitely. But I would like intrigue along the way and a battle of wits with the lives of those on the quest at stake; not necessarily a traditional with traditional weapons.


----------



## j d worthington (Jun 29, 2006)

I agree. Some of the best fantasy ever written had some form of quest, often an internal quest, and the "battle", if there was one, was of the character with their own psyche -- and these can be extremely involving and very moving, without any exterior fighting whatsoever, though seldom without coming into conflict with other characters, I might add.

They are both valid, and each serve their purpose in the field, but, as Sparks says, mindless battle is just that -- rather mindless (not to mention pointless). So, if you must have one or the other, the "quest" -- though not necessarily one for a talisman (retrieval or destruction of), or book of knowledge, or anything of the sort -- sometimes it's simply an internal quest, but nonetheless powerful for all that.


----------



## jenna (Jul 3, 2006)

i'm a battle girl through and through


----------

