Fantasy books in general - what is an essential requirement/common theme

[dekket]

In people's opinion, what makes Fantasy books enjoyable to them. Also what do people think is an essential requirement, and what do they all seem to have in common.

I enjoy Fantasy books that have a well created world/universe in which they are set.
I also enjoy interesting systems of magic.
I dislike when the level of technology becomes too high (think the later Shannara books, with flying ships and "laser" type weaponry).

I believe that Fantasy books in general seem to have, or perhaps require:

1. Magic of some description
2. A setting that is quite different to the normal Earth that we, the readers, live upon.
3. Some sort of "Elder race" be it Elves, or Faerie, or Dragons, or Paravians, or Valheru, or Demons, or Magefolk, or something along those lines. This "Elder Race" will have peaked long ago, and generally be in decline when the story is set. They will be smarter or wiser or more powerful in some way, than the main characters of the story. However, due to some reason, they do not step in and just fix whatever the problem of these main character is.

Do people agree/disagree with these?
What else does Fantasy (in general) tend to have as a common theme?

4. ???

 

[Montero]

I enjoy Fantasy books that have a well created world/universe in which they are set.
I also enjoy interesting systems of magic.

Totally agree with the above, plus good characterisations, preferably with the minor characters properly fleshed out and not just there as monster fodder.

Some of this I think is about expectations - whether or not you expect fantasty to be set in a Medieval type world. I enjoy that but do also like books with fantasy elements in a modern setting, for example Diane Duane's series set in modern times, with the premise that all species have mages - and the main character of three (two?) of the books is a cat mage and it is written from her point of view, or again Diane Duane "Stealing the Elf King's Roses" or Charles de Lint using shaman magic and Cornish legends and always intertwining with the modern world. Simon R Green is another one who does a nice job of mixing SF and fantasy elements - I do like The Man with the Golden Torc - basically a take on Bond with the main character having both advanced technology and magic - and having to fight dragons, elves, humans, hellhounds - and the battle with the elves mounted on dragons is on the motorway from a sportscar.

Keeping with Medieval set fantasy then:

I don't consider elder races to be essential. It is fun to have other creatures in there to give the world a bit of difference, but to me not essential.

Highly desirable is avoiding plots that only work because the hero can go "kazoom" and with one bound be free - I think magic should be hard work.

Other than that, and it is not an essential element of fantasy books, but I think highly desirable is getting the world historically consistent - I've done a lot of re-enactment and living history and I find it really annoying when someone does a clumsy job with the background detail e.g. world with blacksmiths as only source of worked metal having sprung matresses. (Can't remember which fantasy that was but a character turned over in bed and the springs in the matress creaked. If the frame of the bed, or the webbing or whatever had creaked that wouldn't have been a problem.) Mind you, I now have the picture in my head of a blacksmith carefully handcrafting two hundred fiddly springs.

What makes fantasy, fantasy? - magic.

 

[j d worthington]

What makes fantasy, fantasy? - magic.

Not... necessarily. A book can not only be fantasy, but be a great fantasy, without "magic" in its accepted sense -- that is, "The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural, the practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature, or the charms, spells, and rituals so used." (I'm condensing the definition of the American Heritage Dictionary here.) This is generally what people refer to when they say "magic" (unless they are talking about stage illusionists), and includes the various rituals in numerous religions or faiths that invoke or seek to propitiate supernatural entities, etc. But I would say such is not at all necessary for a book or story to be excellent fantasy. Certainly much of Ray Bradbury's work would fail in these criteria, yet Ray himself has stated many, many times that he's a fantaisiste, not an sf writer. Harlan Ellison ditto. Several of Shirley Jackson's tales (notably "The Demon Lover") don't have such, yet are superb examples of fantasy. A fair amount of Michael Moorcock's work also fits here (think of Blood, for instance, or Mother London). Not to mention James Branch Cabell's witty ironic fantasies. Or a fair amount of Lord Dunsany, for that matter. The list is well-nigh endless....

But what these do have in common is (generally speaking) some sort of violation of the "natural order"; something "supernatural" or indicating the story takes place in a universe where some form of supernatural forces are a part of the nature of that universe. Of course, that broadens the term "Fantasy" an enormous amount, but I'm very much inclined to think that is not a bad thing....

Now, there is a secondary sense of the word, one which is not often intended these days, which is: "A mysterious quality of enchantment". That, I would say, is about the only requirement when it comes to fantasy, and what makes it a good or a bad fantasy is how well (or convincingly, generally in the "suspension of disbelief" sense) that element is handled....

 

[Montero]

Now, there is a secondary sense of the word, one which is not often intended these days, which is: "A mysterious quality of enchantment". That, I would say, is about the only requirement when it comes to fantasy, and what makes it a good or a bad fantasy is how well (or convincingly, generally in the "suspension of disbelief" sense) that element is handled....

Fair enough, can agree with that. (And I thought I had just broadened the definition of fantasy a lot compared to dekket. )

Incidentally, was getting tempted to was start a thread, to avoid diverting this one, on "mainstream books with fantasy elements" to cover things like Chocolat by Joanne Harris as there is an element of fantasy in there about how the main character, and her late mother was, influenced by the wind. Several other of Joanne Harri's books seem to have that in too. Blackberry Wine is another one with the protections that the old man puts on his allotment. That sort of thing is right in with your fantasy element, j.d.

 

[chopper]

Highly desirable is avoiding plots that only work because the hero can go "kazoom" and with one bound be free - I think magic should be hard work.

damn right. the wheel of time was getting boring partly because everybody had magic. bigger! better! more! hmmm.

Fair enough, can agree with that. (And I thought I had just broadened the definition of fantasy a lot compared to dekket. )

Incidentally, was getting tempted to was start a thread, to avoid diverting this one, on "mainstream books with fantasy elements" to cover things like Chocolat by Joanne Harris as there is an element of fantasy in there about how the main character, and her late mother was, influenced by the wind. Several other of Joanne Harri's books seem to have that in too. Blackberry Wine is another one with the protections that the old man puts on his allotment. That sort of thing is right in with your fantasy element, j.d.

[venting]
but that's not fantasy, that's "literary fiction"! the high-brow elite don't stoop to write mere fantasy!
[/sarcasm]

s

 

[chrispenycate]

I don't think any of the specified elements are necessary. I've read good urban fantasy, adding some "supernatural" element to the present, sometimes involving magic and/or elder races (pleasant or otherwise), fantasy set in certain recognisable historical periods, as precedent as regards races and magic, (although it could be argued that an accurate depiction of some other historical period is arguably almost another world) and I could cite examples ranging from hunter-gatherer culture to Edwardian Britain (any more recent than that and I lump it in with "urban" I've even read futuristic fantasy – not unconvincing science fiction, but fantasy set in the near future.

There is a tendency in fantasy for there to have been a "golden age" sometime in the past, with relics and rediscoveries rather than progress toward something new, and better, but this certainly can't be used as a definition of the genre.
I suspect that, more than anything else, it is how the story is written that defines it; that you could write exactly the same story and make it come out as a thriller, a fantasy novel, a horror story, science fiction … no, perhaps not a detective story. I've seen Shakespeare themes recycled in each of these, but never a comparison on a single theme – Hm, an interesting challenge there…

 

[Rane Longfox]

What makes something fantasy? An element of the fantastic. There's nothing else that's required. For example, try and find other similarities between A Song of Ice and Fire and Neverwhere...

What you seem to be listing, dekket, is cliches that most fantasy seems to contain.

 

[zedlav]

A cheesy cover, lots of cliches and wish fulfillment, be it intellectual, martial or sexual prowess that either/or the author and reader's lack during business hours. THe rest if optional.

Seriously though, I agree with those who already said that only the fantastic is really required. Or, to expand, a world which functions differently from ours and does that in a way that cannot be explained from within the framework of the reader's understanding is shown, implied or described. Or, to reduce, a packaged daydream.

Something like that.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Fantasy has few restrictions -- that's what makes it fantasy. I agree with those who say that a story only requires an element of the supernatural or otherworldly, the wondrous or numinous for it to be fantasy. In my opinion (and I'm sure I've said this before) fantasy deals with the landscapes of the subconscious mind, so that however improbable the characters, events, or setting, the whole should make some kind of sense on an emotional or psychological level.

Other than that, it's liberty hall.

Now, personal preferences when it comes to fantasy -- that's another matter. But if we confuse those with the requirements of the genre, the genre grows more and more confined, and the end result can only be stagnation.

Right now, too many people have far too narrow an idea of what fantasy is and can be, and that troubles me.

 

[j d worthington]

Of course, even with such a broad definition of fantasy, you end up with ones that don't quite fit, yet are most definitely fantasy -- even classics of the genre: Mervyn Peake's Titus books, Hope Mirrlees' Lud-in-the-Mist, David Lindsay, Jorge Luis Borges, the Barlow-Lovecraft collaboration "The Night Ocean" (a superb tale, by the way), etc., etc., etc.

As for the technology... a lot of the classics of fantasy blended quite sophisticated technologies with the supernatural or magic: nearly all of A. Merritt's do; quite a bit of Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt (as well as Pratt's The Blue Star or a fair number of pieces by de Camp himself); C. L. Moore; Henry Kuttner; Andre Norton's Witch World series; Bradley's Darkover books; Moorcock (again).... And, of course, a great number of these work quite well.

Nor is any period required. The Blue Star, for instance, takes place in an alternate reality version of a relatively recent (18th century) Austria. Nearly all of Ellison's work is present-day. Ditto for Charles Beaumont, Rod Serling, and Richard Matheson. Joanna Russ' The Adventures of Alyx spans a medieval to a highly-developed technological civilization (not to mention numerous realities), while as for her The Zanzibar Cat....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Granted that you have to stretch the boundaries a bit to let in Titus (a stretch I'm always happy to make), but how could Lud-in-the-Mist (with it's fairies) or Lindsay's Voyage to Arcturus (with it's magical/mystical translation into another body on another planet) not fit even a fairly narrow definition of fantasy?

 

[Montero]

is cliches that most fantasy seems to contain.

Well, since cliches in fantasy has been mentioned I just have to be the first to say "The Tough Guide to Fantasyland" by Dianna Wynne Jones (and then wander off to work out where I put it when I unpacked after moving house, books are still not alphabetical.....)

If you haven't heard of it, well its a "Tough Guide" for travellers in Fantasyland with such useful warnings as beware of people with red hair and green eyes, they are bound to have magical powers. Really, really, brilliant.

 

[littlemissattitude]

I believe that Fantasy books in general seem to have, or perhaps require:

1. Magic of some description
2. A setting that is quite different to the normal Earth that we, the readers, live upon.
3. Some sort of "Elder race" be it Elves, or Faerie, or Dragons, or Paravians, or Valheru, or Demons, or Magefolk, or something along those lines. This "Elder Race" will have peaked long ago, and generally be in decline when the story is set. They will be smarter or wiser or more powerful in some way, than the main characters of the story. However, due to some reason, they do not step in and just fix whatever the problem of these main character is.

Do people agree/disagree with these?

I'd say none of the above are essential. Or maybe the story I'm playing with right now and consider to be fantasy isn't really, because it doesn't have any of those in it. No magic (except perhaps in Arthur C. Clarke's definition that any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic, and I'm not even sure my story has that). Takes place on the Earth we know, mostly in the present day, or close enough for goverment work. No "elder race" in the way you describe it. Although there are some immortals, they aren't necessarily "smarter or wiser or more powerful". They're just really long-lived.

 

[j d worthington]

Granted that you have to stretch the boundaries a bit to let in Titus (a stretch I'm always happy to make), but how could Lud-in-the-Mist (with it's fairies) or Lindsay's Voyage to Arcturus (with it's magical/mystical translation into another body on another planet) not fit even a fairly narrow definition of fantasy?

Ummm, yes, my post wasnt very clear, was it? All right... I was speaking of the Titus/Gormenghast novels, but also (and here is where I failed to make a reasonable transition) thinking of how Mirrlees' novel doesn't particularly fit with the usual perceptions of fantasy that most people have, whereas Voyage to Arcturus is alternately considered fantasy or science fiction, depending on who you talk to (I put it in the fantasy camp, myself....)

(As for being slightly incoherent... put it down to running a rather nasty fever today, which has somewhat scrambled my brains periodically....)

 

[Clansman]

If we wanted to discuss cliches, we forgot the farmboy with the magic sword, and the inherent ability to be trained as an expert with it in a matter of weeks or months...

Fantasy for me is pure imagination. I mean, this is a genre that goes back thousands of years, and the so-called "serious" dramatic novelists who do not consider fantasy as proper literature are proven wrong all the time. Who would say that the Iliad, the Odyssey, Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Spencer's Faerie Queene, Paradise Lost, a fair bit of Shakespeare, Jonathan Swift's Gulliver's Travels... need I go on? Fantasy has already proven itself as serious literature, and it is pure imagination and good writing that makes it so.

These are all remarkable stories made from imagination and cultural legends. There are hundreds, nay thousands more, that are not limited to a medieval or dark ages setting and that do not concern themselves with some of the things Dekket listed.


All of the above being said, I don't think that dekket has identified cliches necessarily, but a lot of the themes of modern fantasy. A cliche is only a cliche if it doesn't work, like a joke that isn't funny. For instance, the idea of a golden age is a classic of fantasy literature going back to Homer, and is relevant because of European history's view of the fall of the Roman Empire. This Golden Age idea is present in Martin (Vallyria (sp?)), in Tad Williams, in Robert Jordan, in Janny Wurts, in Erikson (though in his it is very different from anything I have seen). However, in the examples I cite, the are major differences in how the golden ages are done. Some are human, some are alien, some are "elder" races or supernatural races.

THIS having been said, it is getting harder and harder to do elves and dwarves. I still love 'em though!

I have to agree on the technology bit. I don't like tech in my fantasy, but I haven't read the "hybrids" mentioned above, so I shall reserve judgment.

Excellent characterization is essential, and as Montero mentioned, this has to include secondary characters as being more than monster fodder. We all got tired of the guys in red shirts on Star Trek, after all. Soon as someone (except Scotty) showed up with a red shirt, you knew he was dead!

 

[D_Davis]

I don't read a lot of fantasy, but I know what I like and don't like.

I like solid quest stories, deeply rooted in the hero's journey.

I guess you could say I like D&D-style fantasy.

What I don't like is political/king's court fantasy.

I don't really care about the system of magic, or the world building.

I think magic should just work, because its, well, magical. I've never understood the desire to make magic seem believable, or plausible. Strip away the mystique and the mystery, and you strip away magic's power to amaze.

I also think that epic world building is pretty useless now. We already have a series of pre-established worlds, myths, and universes that should be used as settings for any kind of fantasy.

Skip the world building, and get to the plot.

I also refuse to read anything more than a trilogy, and even this is pushing it.

I just want a good party of heroes on a good and entertaining quest.

 

[chrispenycate]

If the author (not necessarily the reader) does not know the possibilities and limitation of his magic system, what's to stop his magic worker from waving his arms about and making everything right, story finished, lets go and have a beer?

Similarly, any action has to take place in a space. If this space is not consistent, the story will jerk every time it passes through an inconsistency. This can itself be used as a narrative technique, but even there each separate environment must hold together.
Which doesn't mean that the author has to ram the scaffold poles and painted flats into our attention, merely that they must be there, and solid enough to hold up the heroes as the trudge towards destiny, or whatever. Can you think of even one quest you've enjoyed where you wouldn't be able to describe a bit of the scenery or some of the characters? The world building, the rules, have to be in there; they merely don't require centre stage.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I also think that epic world building is pretty useless now. We already have a series of pre-established worlds, myths, and universes that should be used as settings for any kind of fantasy.

If you simply mean that you, personally, prefer reading stories set in pre-packaged gaming worlds, that's fine.

But if you really mean that "should" in the sentence above as applying to what everyone else ought to be reading and writing, that, to me, is an appalling thought.

It would stifle creativity, encourage clichéd writing, and it would give the people who have already created those worlds the power to decide who gets published and who doesn't.

 

[D_Davis]

If you simply mean that you, personally, prefer reading stories set in pre-packaged gaming worlds, that's fine.

But if you really mean that "should" in the sentence above as applying to what everyone else ought to be reading and writing, that, to me, is an appalling thought.

It would stifle creativity, encourage clichéd writing, and it would give the people who have already created those worlds the power to decide who gets published and who doesn't.

I mean that I dislike world building, especially when it gets in the way of concise story telling, and also when there is a deep pool of established myths and legends for authors to pull from (beyond "pre-packaged gaming" worlds. I don't need the ridicule, thank you).

It seems to me that world building is used for padding, it's used to turn a good, short novel into a multi-volume work of gargantuan length.

I don't like that. I never remember worlds - I remember characters, actions, and dramatic tension. Just personal preference.

 

[D_Davis]

If the author (not necessarily the reader) does not know the possibilities and limitation of his magic system, what's to stop his magic worker from waving his arms about and making everything right, story finished, lets go and have a beer?

I have no problem with knowing the limitations, or if the author knows the system: like a magician who knows how to do his tricks.

What I dislike is when magic is explained in such a way that it becomes unmagical.