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

[D_Davis]

Here is what I meant to say (sometimes it takes a while):

I don't mind world building when it is seamlessly integrated into the narrative, when the world is illustrated through the characters eyes and through their actions, reactions, and the drama surrounding the situations. And when it is used to push the narrative forward.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

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).

I wasn't trying to ridicule you. You said you liked D&D type stories, and you said that writers shouldn't create their own worlds and universes but stick with the large number that have already been established. But myths and legends don't come with created worlds and universes, they offer past versions (or perceptions) of our own. I think it was a reasonable assumption that you were talking about gaming worlds, where many different writers make use of the same settings and backgrounds.

But since that isn't what you meant, maybe you will tell me which worlds you had in mind?

 

[D_Davis]

I wasn't trying to ridicule you. You said you liked D&D type stories, and you said that writers shouldn't create their own worlds and universes but stick with the large number that have already been established. But myths and legends don't come with created worlds and universes, they offer past versions (or perceptions) of our own. I think it was a reasonable assumption that you were talking about gaming worlds, where many different writers make use of the same settings and backgrounds.

Let's see if I can do this any better....

D&D-like stories in the sense of a heroic quest, not because of the setting. Just using this as an example, not to say that I only read Forgotten Realms books or something. I prefer to reference D&D as opposed to Tolkien, because I am not a big fan of Tolkien, but I do respect him for helping to create many popular fantasy conventions.

It comes down to this: I prefer short novels that get to the point of the narrative, and present their themes with brevity. I often feel that, with fantasy, and especially with new fantasy, the world building gets in the way of this because publishers and modern readers want voluminous tomes and massive series. And who can blame them? They want more bang for the buck.

If the world is built, illustrated, and shown through the actions, reactions, and dramatic tension of the characters, fine, but when the narrative suffers, or the building does not push the plot forward, I dislike it.

A story needs to be as long as it needs to be to convey the plot and themes, but in my eyes world building often gets in the way of this and offers little more than padding.

The best example of this I can think of right now is The Dark Tower. The first 3 books were pretty good (still too long, but good). They built a new world (although one that conjures on our own myths and legends) but they did so in context with the narrative. However, in book 4, King writes a 400 page flash back in which he tries to flesh out the world and the characters. This did not work for me.

It stopped the narrative dead in its tracks (ha!). He had already done an incredible job of building the characters through immediate drama and situations, and had already shown us their world through their eyes. The flash back did nothing to push the narrative along or make Roland a better character. I have one version of this book that I actually ripped the flash back out of.

I think the best world building in a fantasy series I have encountered is in Moorcock's Elric saga. The books are short and they focus on character and the dramatic situations, but they also establish a wonderful and unique world. However, much of what we are shown about the world is shown to push the narrative forward, it's not just superfluous padding.

I am waiting for the pendulum to swing back to a more balanced middle. My stance is reactionary, yes, and a bit extreme, I'll admit.

When world-building is integrated into the narrative, it stops becoming world-building, and it simple becomes part of the story.

 

[D_Davis]

Here is another good example, using Tolkien.

The Hobbit is a good book, and a good story. After reading it, I felt as if I had a good idea of what Middle Earth was like. Most of this was shown (not told) through the characters and their adventure. It didn't feel like world building because most of it was done with a sense of immediacy.

The Silmarillion...not so much. It's like 400 pages of infodump - of pure world building. This is the extreme, and is an example of exactly what I do not like to read in fantasy. Nothing I learned of Middle Earth in this book enhanced my future experiences with The Hobbit.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I actually agree with all that, and I think you've stated it very well.

But none of it explains what you said about sticking with established worlds, and I'm still curious to know exactly what you meant. If I seem to be obsessing on that one point, it's because I don't understand it.

edit -- And also because it's the part of what you said that seems to address the subject of the thread, and what we all think are the essential requirements of fantasy.

 

[Clansman]

I must say that the quest-type fantasy is precisely the kind that I won't read anymore, if that is all there is to the story. Sometimes a quest makes sense as a sub-plot, but for it to be THE plot has been done over so many times that there just isn't anything new.

Give me magic that is complex and that costs something. Give me a complex plot that unwinds at a steady pace. Give me real characters with flaws and attributes and who grow throughout the story. Give me "bad guys" that are complex (who tuck their kids into bed, if you know what I mean). NO straw men that the hero can knock down with ease. Give me language that is beautiful and lyrical, and description that world builds AND moves the story along.

I want new worlds. The idea that Tad Williams would use Midkemia, or that Robert Jordan's world would be used for a series of books by new authors, or that someone would try to build on Tolkien's Middle Earth, to me is appalling. I want new ideas, new imaginations, new worlds.

Otherwise, I could just watch the crap that is on television every night, because it is just more of the same. Big Brother, anyone? I think I'd be the first to be kicked out of the house...

I will say one thing in defence of The Silmarillion, and that is that is was Tolkien's attempt to publish a story that he had worked on for fifty years before he died. He died before it was done, and it was finished by Christopher Tolkien and Guy Gavriel Kay. I believe that it was a brilliant piece of literature, but it was completely and utterly different than LOTR or The Hobbit. Those latter stories took place, for the most part, over a period of months, but one can feel the detail that is behind them, particularly in LOTR. The Silmarillion was a history spanning millenia, and must be read in that context, and by people who like world-building.

If you don't like the creation of mythology, and a historical-type fantasy, you wouldn't ever like The Silmarillion. It is really a book for literature enthusiasts, and is certainly not the light escape that D&D type stories are. This being said, I liked The Silmarillion when I was 14. I similarly liked David Eddings shortly thereafter when I first read Pawn of Prophecy.

I still love The Silmarillion. But David Eddings lost his hold on me over 15 years ago, along with quite a large group of others, because their stories just didn't do anything for me anymore, except make me bored.

EDIT -- I should add that I would read the old quest stuff. Howard's Conan, or Lieber's Fafrd & Grey Mouser, that sort of thing. It was a little fresher, then.

 

[D_Davis]

I actually agree with all that, and I think you've stated it very well.

But none of it explains what you said about sticking with established worlds, and I'm still curious to know exactly what you meant. If I seem to be obsessing on that one point, it's because I don't understand it.

edit -- And also because it's the part of what you said that seems to address the subject of the thread, and what we all think are the essential requirements of fantasy.

Thank you, and thank you for helping me parse through my thoughts.

It became clear to me that I didn't phrase my original arguments properly, and so I needed to make amendments.

 

[j d worthington]

Sorry. I can't agree with the Silmarillion being "400 pp. of infodump". While the mode may be a bit difficult to adjust to, the thing is chock-full of story, often told very succinctly (the tale of Beren and Luthien, to pick a single example, could easily fill the pages of an average-size novel; let alone the story of Turin or the downfall of the Noldor, or....). Add to this the fact that Tolkien is saying an awful lot of things about our perceptions of the world, about the poignancy of being human, and about genuine courage and compassion, nearly all told through the actions of his characters. It is told in a somewhat removed style, to approximate legends and myths that have been passed down through millennia, but that is what makes that book work; it is its strength, not its weakness.

As for worldbuilding... what about the cases where the world is one of the major characters in a work? This is fairly common in both sf and fantasy. Once again, in fantasy I'm thinking particularly of Peake's Gormenghast books, the first two of which are rather good-sized books themselves, and spend quite a bit of time making you familiar with the world they're set in, because that world is itself the overshadowing influence on the lives of all who live in it. Such characters couldn't emerge from a world any less complex, convoluted, confining, or less capable of distorting the human spirit.

Then there are the fantasy novels where you have the exploration of the world itself, such as the Odyssey. Granted, there is generally an ostensible goal the person or group is traveling toward, but the point in these novels (or stories) is the journey, not the destination. Nor are they any less worthy of attention, nor less likely to be enjoyable.

What I find makes the difference on this element is how much the world is a conscious construct, in the sense of deliberately cobbled together to allow for novels (or series) that are lengthier than they need be, rather than those that emerge from within, where the world-building is inherent in the story to be told, in fact absolutely necessary for such a story to feel genuine. These emerge from the writer's deepest emotional experiences and thoughts, rather than the shallower, surface one of storytelling or simply exploring a theme. Both have their place, but I must admit that I find the former much more satisfying in the long run, and more likely to have multiple layers that allow me to revisit the work and find more enjoyment with each return....

 

[D_Davis]

Sorry. I can't agree with the Silmarillion being "400 pp. of infodump".

Well, I'm sure I was exaggerating a little bit...

For dramatic effect.

 

[j d worthington]

Well, I'm sure I was exaggerating a little bit...

For dramatic effect.

Just a tad, maybe... Ah, the joys of hyperbole....

 

[Karn Maeshalanadae]

Essentially, fantasy only requires something that does not exist in current reality, be it magic-by far my favorite style-or, though I have to beat myself to finally admit this-strange technology mixed with supernature, or anything like that. I think that defines "fantasy" when everybody else's post is boiled down to bare bones.

 

[D_Davis]

Just a tad, maybe... Ah, the joys of hyperbole....

Hyperbolic attack!!!

I kind of agree with some of the things you said. I guess you could say I don't mind world building when it is transparent, and actually a part of the narrative. That is, it is shown to the reader, and not told to the reader.

However, part of me feels like many fantasy authors spend too much time reinventing the wheel or trying to one-up other worlds. Because, at the end of the day, I don't feel like the new worlds really add anything memorable to the stories.

Again, it's more of a personal preference thing.

 

[dekket]

In much of fantasy, the setting is just as much a 'character' as the protagonists. A sense of history, of culture, and the different nations, all are important parts of the story.
Just as the backstory of a character, their looks, race, and personality, are also important.

D Davis, which authors do you think spend to much time "reinventing the wheel" or "trying to one-up other worlds"?

 

[Urlik]

A fair amount of Michael Moorcock's work also fits here (think of Blood, for instance, or Mother London).

my immediate thoughts were the Hawkmoon books where there is some confusion over whether some of the magical items are just advanced technology with mystical descriptions or whether they are really magical (the Jewel in the Skull is one such item).
the setting is classic Sci Fi with a post apocalyptic Earth (Harald WIlson and Arthur Scargil as heroes of ancient legend in Gran Bretania is a give away here), but the story is pure fantasy.

 

[Connavar]

D_Davis has a point.

I have read several epic fantasy where the authors spends way too much time infodumping and making a world that still is a clichè pseudo medevil european you have seen a 1000 times before.

Why not then use more historical and mythical backrounds to model your world from.

Which is why my favorite subgenre in fantasy is historical fantasy. IMHO a historical setting used well is way better than most totaly new worlds.


D_Davis check out Gemmell if you want fantasy stories built on myths and historical periods or people. He is the best at doing that, other writing the best heroic fantasy i have read

 

[mirinda]

I think the things required of Fantasy and sci-fi are number 1 originality. I don't want to read the same story again and again just with different characters, and surrealism. Books that are too normal or too close to what I know just aren't as fun. When you pick fantasy you want to be transported out of the everyday into a world or time of mystery and suspense. You want to be introduced to something you've never seen before but it still needs to be understandable, not so far out there that you lose complete touch with what's going on. There has to be a bit of reality. No amazing oh we were surrounded by 50 armed men and the two of us snapped our fingers and killed them all. That's too easy and boring besides.

 

[The Procrastinator]

I don't think straight originality is required - actually that's pretty hard to find. A good story that revisits an old theme, done in such a way that it gives the reader a new perspective, is still a good story. The fantasy genre rehashes many things over and over, like dragons, elves, heroes, medieval settings, magic, monstrosities, etc etc. Its all grist for the mill and what makes the difference is the skill, imagination and talent of the writer.

(Btw I completely agree, Mirinda, that books that are too normal aren't as fun!)

For me, the only element really required, as others have said, is an element of the fantastic.

 

[dekket]

What do people define as fantastic?

 

[JDP]

Ha, ha, I was going to try and come up with a wise-yet-witty catch-all description of what 'fantasy' means. But you guys have already done it!

I'd agree with those that said Fantasy requires 'a mysterious quality of enchantment' and 'something that does not exist in current reality'. I'd tack an addendum to the latter stating that if the 'something' is technological and the world contemporary/futuristic, then we may in fact be talking of Fantasy's favourite cousin SF.

For me, Fantasy is something that allows me to suspend my disbelief and travel to amazing places with interesting people. A gripping plot may well ensue, who knows.

I'd disagree with those who blame world-building itself for getting in the way of a good book. Bad writing gets in the way of a good book. Excessive depiction of the created world (especially at the expense of plot/characterisation) is just one example of bad writing.

To write in a particular historical/mythological milieu is a very different different art to creating one's own world. There is, I think, plenty of room for both camps under the Fantasy Umbrella (I guess that's part of what makes it such an inspiring genre - the boundaries really are vast!). Either done badly is often tripe, and either done well is well done.