Another point that's occurred to me is that while a lot of the time people will stick to one genre of book, it tends not to apply to films. And fantasy films are rather thin on the ground and so many of them are rather apalling (I'm looking at you SciFi channel) and the same goes for television. Science Fiction isn't quite so bad with film and television but there's an awful lot of stuff I wouldn't touch with a bargepole (which channel was that earlier?). Quick point. I wouldn't say that it doesn't matter but rather it doesn't matter as much, huge glaring plot holes are as bad as a lack of anything to say.
I think when Art said "with fantasy everything comes easy", he meant that fantasy lets the author get away with drastically oversimplifying problems, especially large-scale problems. How many fantasy stories involve a world plunged into dark times when Evil reigns, but all the hero has to do is restore the Gem of Galanath to the Crown of Raliana and suddenly all problems are solved, peace and happiness spread throughout the land, and Everything Is Fine again? That sort of thing happens in Lord of the Rings: all of Middle Earth can be saved from the Dark Lord by the destruction of a ring. This sort of thing is too easy. In the real world, there is no one source of evil, and no one artifact that controls whether evil wins or loses. You can't solve all the problems with one simple act like tossing a ring into a volcano or reattaching the unicorn's horn or killing an evil wizard or something. Fantasy, too often, allows us to imagine that all problems stem from one simple cause, and that is not a valid model of reality. In reality, you can toss the ring into the volcano and still have thousands of other problems to solve. Life doesn't magically become wonderful just because you win a lottery or write a bestseller or elect a new President. Serious writers are aware of this. Sure, there are some serious writers working in the fantasy genre; I do not mean to paint it all with the same brush. But fantasy makes that kind of simplistic thinking easy, and as such, most serious writers don't work in it, and most serious critics don't value it highly.
For us writing fantasy, I think Minstrel has made an excellent point. Science Fiction should be about the human condition in a strange environment. Fantasy is the same, how would being able to cast magic missile at the darkness change us? How would the possibility of being eaten by a grue be any different from a car accident? These sorts of questions I think are what fantasy and Science Fiction are all about, what would we become if subjected to these environments?
Aye. Most folk who sit through a play by Euripides can't help but cover their eyes when the old deus ex machina is deployed. To many moderns that antique convention is laughably unsophisticated. Fantsasy unapologetically retains that convention. Yet, prompted by another member talking of Chesterton the other day, I re-read his introduction to David Copperfield and in it he bemoans that Dickens genuinely thinks emigration to Australia (in Copperfield and elsewhere) will heal all wounds and soothe all troubles. Emigration is for Dickens a deus ex machina. And then, you know, you think about how Dickens writes and you ask the question what would Dickens be writing if he was writing today. And, I don't think it a stretch to say that he might choose fantasy. And, I don't think anybody would contend that Dickens is a more sophisticated writer than say McEwan. And, I don't think McEwan would ever entertain wrtitng fantasy. But I do think, all in, much as I like McEwan, that he is half the writer Dickens is.
Well, different strokes for different folks I guess. Personally I can't stomach fantasy, especially when it is of the sword and sorcery variety. In fact, I'm not a fan of the current trends in fiction with all the teenage vampire love stories and dragons and knights named Bane or Zor who grimace a lot and swing their swords in a crimson arc and whatnot, lol. Bumped into another thread where people were talking about some series (Why are girlie vampire stories always told in series?) called Vampire Academy. Does that mean there is suppose to be an actual academy for vampires? Oh brother. My favorite genres are horror and science fiction but they have to be mature. I don't get into mindless slasher and gore porn. The best stories are the ones that spend a considerable amount of time going into the characters' feelings about things, exploring the human condition. The horror element simply makes for a great backdrop. It's better to go for a macabre atmosphere with the prose than it is to have a kill scene in every chapter. Best thing I've read recently was a novella by Karl Edward Wagner in The Giant Book of Horror anthology called The River of Night's Dreaming. That tale oozed atmosphere from every pore.
I can think of five or six reasons for people to look down on fantasy. Not that these reasons are good or even true, but they are what people seem to believe. Also, people who stigmatize fantasy can have multiple reasons for it, not just the one. 1. People think of "fantasy" as being exclusively set in a pseudo-medieval Europe, with knights and dragons and witches and fair maidens in need of rescue, and some kid on a Quest to Save the World by finding the Magical Dogtag of Doom. In other words, they think of fantasy as being wishful thinking and idealism at best, written by people who have no idea how history really worked. At worst, they think of fantasy as being a terribly derivatory genre, one that started and ended with Tolkien and his clones. 2. People think of fantasy as "Disney" fantasy -- happy endings, flashy magic. Like candy or soda pop, they don't mind people trying it occasionally, but they think it's poor to enjoy it very often. This has less to do with the conception of fantasy as "unoriginal" and more to do with the idea that you wouldn't look to fantasy for realistic characters, black-and-gray morality, nonmagical invented worlds, or for anything thought provoking. 3. People think fantasy, like other genre fiction (as opposed to mainstream or literary fiction), is for the unwashed plebes. For readers who insist on stupid things like plot and character development, and who don't see that a story about the jungle wanting to eat you for 80 pages (Heart of Darkness), an arrogant smartass complaining for 140 pages (Catcher in the Rye), or a boy who randomly loses his pet horse (The Red Pony) is much better reading than some nasty horrid story about characters struggling to do what is right in a crazy world. (The Rah-Kirah Trilogy, Best Served Cold, Song of Ice and Fire, The Night Angel Trilogy, "The Dresden Files," The Name of the Wind, The Left Hand of Darkness) This belief is reinforced by the way writing classes are frequently taught in universities. In order to improve a newbie writer's abilities, the professors will generally ask them to write mainstream fiction. This is not because mainstream is better. This is because it is easier to isolate problems in mainstream fiction, to boil down the writer's errors to ones concerning detail, or pacing, or foreshadowing. If you were to write mystery, or romance, or SF & F, then those problems would be harder to separate out from badly conceived worlds, poorly explained clues, or terrible development of interpersonal relationships. But remember, not all professors have this explained to them. They go into acadamia, and all around them are voices telling them to have students write mainstream or literary fiction. So they assume that this is because mainstream fiction is better, even though there is nothing inherently better about romance or mainstream or mystery or spec-fic. 4. Many people don't read fiction for fun. Heck, many don't read fiction at all. They watch television, they play video games, but they don't read. And they don't really understand why somesone else would read something as boring as a book. So what exposes these folks to fantasy? The media, that's who. These folks watch the evening news, where they see that thousands of people -- some of them adults, the horror and black shame of it all! -- waiting in line at midnight because some book about some kid wizard got made into a movie. Plainly, the people in line must be screwy in the head. Why else would you miss sleep for a movie you could see the next day, more easily and with less wait time? Or these people hear about the Twilight craze, and think that since the ads are aimed at 14-year-old girls, no one but 14-year-old girls must read those books. Or they greet people on Halloween and encounter a teenage girl dressed in cloak, maille coif, shield, hand-sewn pants and two layers of robes, who says she's Boromir. And now the poor innocent non-reader thinks that LotR fans are crazy cross-dressers. So they get the idea that fantasy readers are immature geeks who like the nuttiest things. It's not fair, but I can see how it happens. 5. They're non-readers who had to put up with a fantasy reader in the family. It's like #4, but exaggerated. The non-reader catches the younger siblings looking up topless pictures of the Twilight movie actors on Google. The non-reader has to listen to hours of debate over whether Dresden is going to die. And not only is this irritating, but again, the non-reader doesn't understand why people would choose to read. So they are irritated and bewildered, which doesn't make for a terribly positive outlook on the situation. 6. The former reader of fantasy, who got tired of soul-bonds and talking horses and who stopped reading as they got to high school. Note that some of these folks do like and admire fantasy, even though they don't read it anymore, but the ones who didn't get to the good stuff tend to look at the entire genre as though all of it is stuff like Mists of Avalon and "Pern" and Eragon. I'm not singling those books out because they're bad, mind you; I'm using them as examples of books that appeal to younger readers, who then grow up, re-read the books and go "Hey, wait one bloody minute! This stuff is simple. What happened to the world I loved?" Or, worse, they go back and think, "Good grief, is that what I thought a strong heroine should be? Ugh!"
Fantasy is perhaps one of the oldest genres. Very simply it is fairy tales. I like reading a lot of fantasy - my favourites are still Narnia and the Faraway Tree. CS Lewis was not a stupid man and I love his work. Enid Blyton is perhaps one of the most prolific world builders. I love Harry Potter it is a good fairy tale. People look down on it because it is the soap opera of the written world. However some of the greatest works of literature are fantasy, Shakespeare (Midsummer Nights Dream, The Tempest etc) Burns (Tam of Shanter, Holy Willies Prayer), Homer's Odyssey, Marlowe's Dr Faustus, the wonderful Arthurian Legends and Bothy Ballads. Dantes Divine Comedy and I am sure a whole host of others. Makes one wonder if in 1000 years people will be discussing Harry Potter and Across the Nightingale floor in literature classes/ I don't care I love being able to use my imagination - it doesn't test writing skills to come up with fantasy but for me it is the ultimate test of a storyteller. These days I just love Practchett, McCaffrey, Rowlling, Hearne etc
The reason fantasy has gotten a bad reputation of late is because, let's face it, fantasy novels are a dime a dozen. Good fantasy novels are a little harder to come by. There are many different kinds of fantasy. Two of the most popular are "High fantasy" and "Sword and Sorcery". The fantasy genre has been around forever but it seems that it exploded after Lord of the Rings. LOTR appealed to such a broad range of people and everybody wanted to create something similar. This is why people tend to look down on fantasy. It's not because it's an inferior genre. Often, it's actually more difficult to write because of the freedom the genre gives you. You are allowed to break certain laws that apply in the real world. You cannot however break too many of these laws or the reader is disconnected from the story. It is this balance that has been the downfall of so many fantasy novels. The fantasy genre is a very broad spectrum. The problem is when people think fantasy they think Sword and Sorcery, which is only one subgenre of fantasy. Sword and Sorcery novels have sadly become cookie cutter novels. The "you've read one, you've read them all" mentality. This is sad because there is so much potential in the genre. As a result, to succeed in this genre, a novel has to have something that sets itself apart. It can't be just good. Or even great. To make a memorable tale in the fantasy genre, your story has to be exceptional.
Personally, I'm a Science Fiction fan first. My personal dislike of Fantasy comes from its trademark element; Magic. One of my reasons for being drawn to Sci-Fi is detail; I love reading almost fetishistic levels of technical details that go into a device, a spaceship, a robot, etc. no matter how outlandish. The details ground that element into reality for me and makes the story more engaging. Magic/Supernatural stuff, eh. Not so much. It's looser and more pliant to the requirements of the plot. Rules can be ignored/added as necessary. It reduces the drama because they can just Magic there way out of it. I think writing Magic is easier, hence its more popular, making badly written stories with magic more prevalent. Writing good Magic, I think, requires a lengthy set of Rules/Consequences and elaborating all that in a story can be time consuming and boring (But it's why I'm fond of the Russian Night Watch novels). If your magical universe doesn't have Rules/Consequences, it cheapens the final product and can encourage writer laziness.
I've been 8 minutes trying to figure out how to answer this. If you would ask me "Do you like Fantasy Books" I would respond with a firm "No!". And yet as a child I lived for Enid Blythons Fairy Stories such as faraway tree. I have read all the Narnia and Harry Potter books. Ive read The Magician from Feist, the Dark Materials Trilogy, Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit and even read as many as four of the Sword of Truth books. And whats more I liked them all. Its a puzzler! Even after thinking about all of those books I enjoyed I would still say I don't like fantasy books. Its a strange one.
Bingo. Couldn't agree more. Much as I love LOTR (and I really do – it gets read at least once every year), it's responsible for the majority of problems we now see in modern fantasy. It set such a high bar that for a couple of generations, writers simply copy-pasted Tolkien's ideas, just changing the odd setting, element or character here and there. Along comes Rowling and basically does the same thing (snaffles ideas from a bunch of well-known and not so well-known writers, rehashes them, packages them up for teens and makes a million trillion billion), swiftly followed by the 'Mills & Boon with vampires and werewolves' nonsense of the Twilight series. Is it any wonder that modern fantasy is not taken seriously? Go into Waterstone's (or wherever) and check out the fantasy section. Place any novel that features a magical McGuffin (ring, sword, whatever), evil wizard, Euro-medieval setting or a young chap called "Rodan Dregan'o'roth" that doesn't realize that he's actually THE CHOSEN ONE (please stop this) on one side of the shop. Place the single tome you're left with on the other side of the shop. Cry.
Personally don't think LOTR is all that hot dull as ditchwater lol Nor was it the first fantasy story by a long chalk.
LOTR was certainly not the first fantasy story/novel. Of course not. I don't think anyone here is saying that (if they are, I disagree with them). It was the first truly breakout "mainstream" fantasy novel. At least, I'd argue so. It's certainly influenced more fantasy writers over the last 50 years than any other work. It's pretty much the yardstick of fantasy. I can understand why some find it dull, but there's no denying that the vast majority of modern fantasy works follow Tolkien's basic template.
Whilst I recognise his ability and his influence - often feel it is misplaced. CS Lewis, Agatha Christie (wrote some paranormal short stoires) and Enid Blyton were all around the same time as Tolkein and in my opinion built some much more believable worlds and characters. Things like Alice in Wonderland, Water Babies, Five Children and It came before. Lets hope Dr Who and its spin offs will influence some future writers as well.
I encourage everyone in this thread to read both the A Song of Ice and Fire series by George RR Martin and the First Law trilogy by Joe Abercrombie. Gritty medieval fantasy that will punch you in the teeth, kick you in the ribs and then belly-laugh as an axe scoops out your brain-pan. Truly, these series will make you wish more people knew what fantasy should be.
