What the Fantasy Genre Needs.

[KGeo777]

I don't remember much about it--I didn't hate it--I felt Ewan McGregor was more of an Obi Wan in the movie.
I think they could have shot some of the giants with costumes given how they used motion capture for them. I don't know they gained much from it.

 

[BAYLOR]

I don't remember much about it--I didn't hate it--I felt Ewan McGregor was more of an Obi Wan in the movie.
I think they could have shot some of the giants with costumes given how they used motion capture for them. I don't know they gained much from it.

The audiences did give this one a chance. It's a very good fantasy film.

 

[Eternity_TARO]

I know this reply is out of the blue, but I thought I'd answer the OP question.

I feel the fantasy Genre needs worlds that have consistent and logical socio-economic-political physics that makes sense.

Here is an example. You have a world with magic, and yet these worlds are often stuck in a medieval level of technology and this makes no sense whatsoever.

If a society has magic and the means to create magical items, why wouldn't they create an entire industry and economy that is magic based? Take something as simple as farming tools. If you can create a magic shovel that shovels 100x the amount of dirt then you could sell these shovels and not only be rich, but you could transform the agricultural or mining economy. And this extends to so much more.

But often times, in fantasy books, the true impact of magic is glossed over and it would be nice to see worlds in which this is not the case. The ability to do magic and or create magic items would REVOLUTIONIZE a world but instead, quite often these fantastical worlds are stuck in the dark ages and that makes no logical sense.

 

[Justin Swanton]

It might be an idea to look at YouTube first-time viewing reactions to Lord of the Rings, by people who were babies or toddlers when the trilogy first came out. People who weren't particularly interested in fantasy were blown away by it: "Best trilogy of all time", "I'm a believer", "Why haven't I ever seen this?" "I didn't know they could make movies like this", etc., etc. Considered as a single book LOTR is the third best selling fictional work of all time (after Don Quixote and A Tale of Two Cities).

What fantasy needs is what Tolkien put into it. Problem is that Tolkien is like Michaelangelo. He created an artistic genre and took it to such a level of perfection that subsequent artists/writers could not improve on it, only make inferior imitations of it or find something else to do.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

I feel like superhero films have stolen Sword & Sorcery's thunder a bit- that's where we go to see a lone hero battling monsters nowadays. I would love, love, LOVE to see a well-made adaptation of Fritz Lieber's "Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser" stories. They mix classic S&S tropes with a tongue-in-cheek attitude that I think could easily be made to appeal to modern audiences.

 

[Vince W]

If only that would happen.

 

[BAYLOR]

I feel like superhero films have stolen Sword & Sorcery's thunder a bit- that's where we go to see a lone hero battling monsters nowadays. I would love, love, LOVE to see a well-made adaptation of Fritz Lieber's "Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser" stories. They mix classic S&S tropes with a tongue-in-cheek attitude that I think could easily be made to appeal to modern audiences.

That would male a terrific series !

 

[hitmouse]

It might be an idea to look at YouTube first-time viewing reactions to Lord of the Rings, by people who were babies or toddlers when the trilogy first came out. People who weren't particularly interested in fantasy were blown away by it: "Best trilogy of all time", "I'm a believer", "Why haven't I ever seen this?" "I didn't know they could make movies like this", etc., etc. Considered as a single book LOTR is the third best selling fictional work of all time (after Don Quixote and A Tale of Two Cities).

What fantasy needs is what Tolkien put into it. Problem is that Tolkien is like Michaelangelo. He created an artistic genre and took it to such a level of perfection that subsequent artists/writers could not improve on it, only make inferior imitations of it or find something else to do.

With respect, that is rubbish. Your contention only works if you take fantasy to exclusively descend from Tolkein. There are 1000s of these, most, but by no means all, of which have limited literary merit.

My point is that fantasy includes so much more than this. Tolkein will always be a cornerstone, but he is by no means perfect, and there is much that is great in fantasy that has little relationship to, or derivation from, JRRT.

 

[Justin Swanton]

With respect, that is rubbish. Your contention only works if you take fantasy to exclusively descend from Tolkein. There are 1000s of these, most, but by no means all, of which have limited literary merit.

My point is that fantasy includes so much more than this. Tolkein will always be a cornerstone, but he is by no means perfect, and there is much that is great in fantasy that has little relationship to, or derivation from, JRRT.

Sure, fantasy in sense of fantastical magic stories has been around forever. Tolkien didn't invent dwarves, elves, wizards or dragons. What he did do was synthesize mythological figures into a vast and coherent world which had all the richness and realism* of a novel for adults. I don't think it had been done before, and IMHO that is what we understand by the 'fantasy genre'. Nobody before or since him has come close.

*in the sense of depth and consistency of worldbuilding as well as psychological realism. Not scientific realism of course. Just thought I'd cover all the bases by pointing that out.

 

[BcRedneck]

It needs more sex violence and for Gorge RR Martin to finish his God Damn book.
Sorry but it needed to be said.

 

[Vladd67]

After the tv series finished I doubt the majority of people out there care if he finishes it or not. How many 'fans' have even looked at the books and have just moved on to the next series the media has decided is the new must watch tv?

 

[Toby Frost]

My point is that fantasy includes so much more than this. Tolkein will always be a cornerstone, but he is by no means perfect, and there is much that is great in fantasy that has little relationship to, or derivation from, JRRT.

I think we need people writing as well as Tolkien, if not better, but not seeking to imitate him. We had a run of writers in the 80s who imitated him without not writing anywhere near as well, and in the long run that didn't do fantasy that much good. Tolkien is very good at being Tolkien, which makes it really hard to say whether he's objectively "good" or "bad" to someone who thinks otherwise.

 

[AE35Unit]

A decent author?

 

[AE35Unit]

It might be an idea to look at YouTube first-time viewing reactions to Lord of the Rings, by people who were babies or toddlers when the trilogy first came out. People who weren't particularly interested in fantasy were blown away by it: "Best trilogy of all time", "I'm a believer", "Why haven't I ever seen this?" "I didn't know they could make movies like this", etc., etc. Considered as a single book LOTR is the third best selling fictional work of all time (after Don Quixote and A Tale of Two Cities).

What fantasy needs is what Tolkien put into it. Problem is that Tolkien is like Michaelangelo. He created an artistic genre and took it to such a level of perfection that subsequent artists/writers could not improve on it, only make inferior imitations of it or find something else to do.

I agree!

 

[The Big Peat]

I think we need people writing as well as Tolkien, if not better, but not seeking to imitate him. We had a run of writers in the 80s who imitated him without not writing anywhere near as well, and in the long run that didn't do fantasy that much good. Tolkien is very good at being Tolkien, which makes it really hard to say whether he's objectively "good" or "bad" to someone who thinks otherwise.

The Brooks/Eddings/Feist/Jordan/Williams etc.etc. set usually held up as imitators have all sold millions of books, introduced large numbers of people to the genre, been recreated in TV and video game, and generally done a ton to establish Fantasy as a commercially viable genre that boost its authors upwards. I'm not sure what about that "didn't do fantasy that much good".

 

[Mon0Zer0]

If a society has magic and the means to create magical items, why wouldn't they create an entire industry and economy that is magic based? Take something as simple as farming tools. If you can create a magic shovel that shovels 100x the amount of dirt then you could sell these shovels and not only be rich, but you could transform the agricultural or mining economy. And this extends to so much more.

The counter to maybe lies at the feet of magicians and their lack of imagination. I always thought of mages / wizards as the equivalent of academics or theologians or philosophers - in their ivory towers directing all their brainpower to the abstract rather than the practical. How many dragons dance on the end of a wand?

 

[BAYLOR]

The counter to maybe lies at the feet of magicians and their lack of imagination. I always thought of mages / wizards as the equivalent of academics or theologians or philosophers - in their ivory towers directing all their brainpower to the abstract rather than the practical. How many dragons dance on the end of a wand?

The Dragon Lord by David Drake had an interesting take on the nature of dragons.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Y'know, comparing Tolkien to George Martin I pick up one big difference between the two. LOTR's central theme is the struggle between good and evil. The characters are fundamentally good or bad. In a couple of cases a good individual like Saruman and Boromir becomes bad, and a bad individual like Gollum shows a flash of goodness. But by and large the great majority of characters have already chosen their fundamental dispositions. The Hobbits, Elves, Dwarves, Rohirrim and the men of Gondor are basically good; the orcs, trolls and uruk-hai are evil (and necessarily so as they cannot repent).

More importantly, the societies of Middle Earth reflect the disposition of their inhabitants: the Shire, Rivendell, Lothlorien, Rohan, Lonely Mountain, Dale and Gondor are realms that uphold and defend the goodness of those who dwell in them. Moria, Mirkwood and Mordor are societies all built on evil. There's no cynicism in LOTR.

In GoT it's different: there are very few uncompromisingly good characters. Virtually everyone is complex, doing good and bad things in a way that makes it impossible to determine which side they're fundamentally on. The few good individuals don't drive the storyline - they're either victims or survivors. None of the kingdoms are especially "good". Their rulers and constitutions uphold a social stability, sometime with brutal force, but there aren't any ideals behind it. People who have ideals either die or become/are evil. GoT is all about cynical power, in which some might wish for a better world but have to stoop to the realities of the times.

I think GoT better reflects contemporary society, that may have good people but does not really stand for anything other than the security of those in power. It's "pragmatic." Problem is that pragmaticism goes with compromise, and compromise dilutes ideals and principles into nothingness. Eventually something has to fill the void.

What I noticed about those first-time reactors to LOTR is that they identified with its lack of cynicism. I don't think people are ambivalent - they choose between good or evil (there's no third choice) and then live out the consequences of their choice (though they can - up to a point - change their minds). LOTR reflects that.

 

[The Big Peat]

Tbh, I don't really think the fantasy genre needs anything. We are at a high point in terms of attention. The level of choice in terms of new releases has never been higher, particularly if you include self-publishing. It's reached the point where no one person can keep up with everything being released, nevermind the huge backlist the genre has (which would probably defeat any attempt to be fully versed with in a lifetime at this point). Could certain ideas and types of story be given more prominence? Sure, but virtually everything is there somewhere. It only needs something if you're fixated on one particular thing.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

Tbh, I don't really think the fantasy genre needs anything. We are at a high point in terms of attention. The level of choice in terms of new releases has never been higher, particularly if you include self-publishing. It's reached the point where no one person can keep up with everything being released, nevermind the huge backlist the genre has (which would probably defeat any attempt to be fully versed with in a lifetime at this point). Could certain ideas and types of story be given more prominence? Sure, but virtually everything is there somewhere. It only needs something if you're fixated on one particular thing.

Both fantasy and SF seem in rude health to me. (At conventions, I sometimes hear dire mutterings about the impending death of SF as I sit there with my bulging rucksack full of excellent newly-published SF novels.) And the increase in attention via high-profile films and TV series over the last couple of decades can hardly be hurting book sales. Sub-genres rise and fall in popularity, so I guess a better question would be "what would it take to bring my favourite subgenre back to prominence?"