I think it's because they read it mostly. Also, very little research is needed, imagination is almost all that's required. And I dare say, a fantasy is easier to write. It tolerates most of the no-nos, telling, infodumps, excessive exposition, poor character development, purple prose, overdescribing etc. For me, most of fantasy genre is written as if the writer loves the sound of his own voice, and that's very prevalent in novice writers. Just my opinion
I think young people are just less willing to hear a message these days, and I think this is a statement that everyone has always been able to say about the youth of their particular time. I think that youth of every generation is intrinsically more suspicious of what they are told than the youth that came before them. I just feel like we've hit a threshold where it's crossed over from how much message to no message as a measure of tolerance. I personally can't imagine writing a story that has nothing to say, no message, as its fundamental shape. As a writer, that subframe of theme is how I see the shape of the story to be written.
[MENTION=18889]Steerpike[/MENTION]: You are right. I tried, LOTR ( managed the first book) The Magus (couldn't get pas the first half) and any number of others which friends gave me, and I just couldn't bear it beyond first few pages. To me they laboured on, it's the best way to describe it. I do love science fiction though, even space operas like Peter Hamilton, and speculative like The Illuminati Trilogy, I like The Witching Hour and classic vampire stories but high fantasy? Zzzzzzzz.... Sorry.
I don't understand this idea that fantasy doesn't take research. At least to write good fantasy. Tolkien's middle earth is remembered, and Elvish is something of an official language, because Tolkien himself knew his proverbial shit. He knew about Nordic and viking cultures, he wrote on Beowulf and translated three Medieval poems. He was also a languages and linguistics professor at Oxford University. It's also clear from his essays and his private letters he knew a lot about these cultures and their values, and was clearly very familiar with the Poetic Eddas and Viking Sagas. That's partly why the Dwarfian runes in the novels look a lot like Nordic runes. And Tolkien was also clearly at least acquainted with Germanic and Irish myth. I'm not going to say Tolkien's magnum opus is a perfect piece of literature but to say it required no, or is based on no research is doing it a disservice.
[MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: You are right, any good fiction writing needs lots of research, but Tolkien is in a very exclusive club. What I meant is, it doesn't require research as desperately as anything based in the real world. Since a 13 year old might not have a clue how real police work, or issues involved in any number of things they want to write about, fantasy is the only genre that allows them to just imagine it, to hell with real-world accuracies. However, even Tolkien, for me, is an overwriter. He bores me in the same way as Stephen King. I respect his achievement and imagination, but I don't rank him as a favourite writer at all.
There's a wide variety of work out there. There is a lot of stuff that isn't written so well - gaming and RPG tie-ins, for example. There a lot of authors now and in the past have done some great work in the genre. Heck, it is probably the oldest genre - think of classics like Beowulf, or the Tempest. Different format, but certainly fantasy. Moving forward as the novel develops, you find quite a lot of it. Think of authors like Angela Carter, who I first encountered in a Women's Studies class in college - a lot of fantasy work, and a lot of social commentary involved (particularly if you like feminist literature). There is plenty of fantasy written in a lean, not heavily descriptive style, much the same as modern works in other genres. I also don't agree with some of the no-nos posted. Telling? If you want to find the greatest degree of telling, look at literary fiction. It's full of it. Not that I think it is a problem; you can't write a very effective story through telling. I find that many people have preconceptions about genres they're not fond of or not familiar with, and you get a sort of broad dismissal of it from them. I've heard things said about fantasy plenty of time. Fantasy readers and others are dismissive of science fiction. A lot of readers of popular fiction dismiss literary fiction as work done by people who can't tell a story, for the enjoyment of a small group of eggheads. Horror gets the same bad treatment, though there is some excellent work in the genre (The Haunting of Hill House qualifies, for example), and it is also one of the oldest genres among humans telling stories. From what I can tell in my reading, it is impossible to characterize any genre in broad terms. There is a lot of really good work out there in fantasy, science fiction, horror, thrillers, mysteries, romance and among literary fiction. There's also bad work in each of these areas, or at least works that I don't like for various reasons. Comes down to a personal preference, ultimately.
I think the amount of real world research that is required is based on how much of reality you are basing your story on. I could write a story about a group of mages on a journey to slay a dragon. But it's not written anywhere that I have to follow tradition depictions of dragons from legend, nor do I have to base the culture of the mages on something from history. Why can't I just imagine something completely new without researching anything? Tolkien decided to used his knowledge of medieval times to enhance his book because that's what he decided to do. Some things in my example story could be tied to reality like the raw materials available during the time period and the composition of the mountain and landscapes. Those are some things I might research but only because I choose to have them in my story. If it was on another world where wood, rock and water didn't exist, then obviously I don't need to research those things. Granted, a story needs to have human elements so we can find familiar things in the story; so it can connect to the reader. Some of these things are intuitive and don't need research. All I'm saying is, the amount of research needed is dependent on how much reality you have in your fantasy. I'm talking about real world research, not world building research.
Nor I. Though I must admit I am a fan of his non-fiction and translations. Aside from The Hobbit actually, but that's a childhood favorite. When I first read LotR I was amazed at how poetic I found the language. Rereading it just last year I can honestly say I was wrong about that.
[MENTION=18889]Steerpike[/MENTION]: I think after ten or twenty books that were recommended enthusiastically, and you couldn't get into and they gave you the same 'feeling' it's easy to become reluctant. I am sure everything you say is true, it stands to reason after all, but I am yet to be persuaded by the fantasy genre. Thank you for recommendations, I might get Angela Carter's short stories, see if I like them Old stuff I wasn't counting in contemporary fantasy genre. Original myths and legends are my favourite stories of all. But they speak a more ancient language than we are capable of creating today, I think. They are ancient and wise and masterpieces in their own right. I agree about literary fiction, and there, too, are exceptions. One of my favourite books of all time, Jane Eyre, or even The Count of Monte Cristo, not a dull moment in sight. [MENTION=2124]Lemex[/MENTION]: The books we like as kids, eh But that's the beauty of it, they mark a period in our lives. When I was a kid I was absolutely mad about comic-books. Now I try to read them and I cringe. But I still adore comic-book based tv shows, like The Arrow or Heroes. What can you do
Bad writing of any kind is easy to be good at, and you can use stock characters and weak plots in any genre.
[MENTION=36773]michaelj[/MENTION]: I am just honestly stating my opinion, with no intention to offend. I hope I'm allowed to have an opinion, even if it's not entirely enthusiastic or positive
Sorry, I don't see any indication of that. I, myself, am not wild about the fantasy genre. Nothing personal, it just isn't my thing. And that's part of why I asked the question in the first place.
[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] Angela Carter's book of short stories entitled The Blood Chamber, is quite good. That said, she's a very descriptive, often flowery writer. If you don't like that, you may well not care for her work. She's good at it, and it works for her stories, in my view
[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]l You're basically saying all Fantasy Writers are narcissists who don't know how to write. So, you're free to post your opinion but don't be an a-hole doing so.
So i don't know much about the real world? I chose to write fantasy not because it was easy but because it was the hardest. Many writers can write fantasy but not many can write good fantasy. Fantasy isn't all just fairies and pixie dust, there are quite a few morbid and disturbing fantasy worlds as well. Fantasy has much more opportunities to create a darker shade or a lighter shade, whether the creator wants three-headed vampires or cute and furry little monsters. In the end, it's their choice. Fantasy reminds me of a big globe, where you have the choice to put one side on the sunny side or on the dark side: both creating evasive impacts on the enviorment of the world due to the work of the writer. I think Fantasy is easily misunderstood for these reasons, not cause other writers are clueless but due to the fact they don't fully understand. Some of us fantasy writers look at the world diffrently then most, so it's extremely hard to relate to the author. That's why the term "escapism" is thrown around a lot. Nobody understands the mind entirely, so some people just assume the creator is asinine and silly. Many people thought Tolkien was crazy when he wrote LOTR, mostly because he fought in World War 1 and had some mild forms of stress disorders. Tolkien went through some traumitizing things when he served with his close friends, in which one of them died in the duration of the conflict. (This reflects Boromir). So when him and his closest friend got home, they realized that life will never be the same because of all they've been through. While Germans are no where near the same spectrum of Urkai and Balrogs, it's a a symbol of the same motives and nature. Balrogs were corrupted Maiar which represents the German soldiers who were told to kill and prosecute the Jews along with religous similarities to Satan and his minions. The relationship between Frodo and Sam strongly reflects Tolkien and his close friend after World War 1 perfectly. They were no longer scared of anything after all that they've been through. Of course the enemies of LOTR are somewhat scarier, it was a great sense of relation and imaginational imagery. Along with the context of Shelob and the ravaging of Mirkwood relating to Tolkien's hatred of Spiders and how he feared them. It's the little things that Tolkien experinced that he made very huge in detail was what made him such a fascinating figure. He is greatly admired because of how he wrote his stories and what he said in his literal messages behind the backstory in the world that he created.
I think you're being over-sensitive. I'm a fan of fantasy, and I write it, among other things. I just took [MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION]'s comments to indicate that she hasn't read much in the genre. She said "for me" and "just my opinion." It makes the most sense to consider her comments as limited to the works she has encountered.
So you judge an entire genre based off a few books? That's good to know. That's just like saying Sc-fi has a horrible sense of reality because it has aliens in it.
No, that's what you are saying, please don't put words in my mouth in order to be rude to me. And no personal attacks, please. It's immature and shows a person's inability to participate in a discussion. [MENTION=30638]Fullmetal Xeno[/MENTION]: please read above ^. I do not come to this forum to indulge in puerile antagonism. I voiced my opinion, I stand by every word I said (but I don't stand behind your imagined subtext). If you can't live with it, don't take it out on me. I will report you if you become offensive, I've seen enough of that lately on the forum.
Couldn't agree with this more. I think its a tad ignorant to say that fantasy is an easy genre or that its the easiest genre to get away with poor writing. All writing, no matter what genre, has its difficulties and, though I obviously have my favorites, all genres should be respected. Of course there are bad writers and good writers and great writers in every genre, but remember a lot of that comes down to personal taste. Yes, I'm a fan of fantasy and enjoy writing it. However, I hate the style of traditional epic fantasy and don't read much as a result. But the fantasy genre, just like others, offers a wide variety of material. That being said, in relation to the original question I feel that popular fiction goes through cycles, with different genres gaining popularity at different times. Is there a specific cause? I'm not sure. I definitely feel like the success of Harry Potter brought a lot of attention back to the genre in general though, not just YA fantasy. I also feel like fantasy does allow an escape from reality, more so than some other genres and that is part of the appeal.
Well, fantasy does not require life experience or technical knowledge, things less likely for younger people to have. Therefore, fantasy might be an easier option. Also, fantasy provides adolescents an opportunity for escapism. Is it possible your notice of this increase results not so much from more new writers interested in fantasy as it does in a general increase in new young writers? That trend would certainly make sense, considering recent technological advances.
