Am I the only person in this forum....

The statistic is reversed in the US, I think; 25% of the country did not read a book in the past year.

Dan Brown is genre fiction - thriller. Though, yes, my definition of literary fiction was deficient. I'm just going to define it negatively: literary fiction is fiction that is not genre fiction.

You're not getting this - I'm not trying to knock fantasy writers. I don't think it's easier to write a good fantasy novel than a good literary novel. What I'm saying is that, in the United States, as a share of published novels, there are probably more good literary novels than there are fantasy novels, because, again at least in the United States, it is harder to get a literary novel published than a fantasy novel. That doesn't mean that any given literary novel is "better" than any given fantasy novel.

 

So having epic battles with large armies in fantasy is a bad thing? Because my fantasy novel has some pretty large conflicts. Although there's no epic farm heroes, goalless dark lords or anything, more of an open world filled with Global meltdown. Mine has many distinct countries, with some of them containing different governments not typically used in Fantasy. But yes, my main focus is the Charcters themselves, the ones who have fought for many years, hoping for end to the nonstop war. As they hold off the darkness around, they help each other when in need- and always look out for each other. My main charcter has to deal with a possibility of not making it out, and to die before the War ends. He also afraid that if he dies, the Allies will crumble after a certain period of time.

But anything goes. My fantasy world is pretty vast, im asumming bigger then Middle Earth. The population is also much higher, so the battles are tremendously overwhelming, but still carrying the side effects that comes to it. And my world actually develops in society over time, unlike most fantasy novels that just use swords and maces for all eternity. My fantasy project doesn't even use typical fantasy creatures at all, im still not even done adding new creatures yet. But yes, my characters won't be wooden heads. They will actually have a life on the side along with countless bloodshed.

 

I don't want to get into an argument about whose world is bigger, but just saying Lord of the Rings doesn't even come CLOSE to encompassing the history of middle earth. LOTR takes place in the third age and it's not like he just said that leaving the first and second history blanked. Those ages have just as much history as the third age, they just don't have their own novels.

Tolkien created entire creatures and mapped out their evolution who didn't make it in Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. He spent his entire life creating the world of middle earth. If you dip your hand in the history of middle earth and grab what you can, you get yourself a trilogy.

Now you may be right and could have created a world more fleshed out and lush than Middle Earth, I just wanted you to know what you are up against when you're making those claims.

 

You are fourteen. I simply don't believe that it's possible that you could have out-Tolkiened Tolkien.

 

That's my point.

Size is not everything.

 

@Fullmetal Xeno: No one can compare to Tolkien. Well, probably not for a while. He's like the godfather of fantasy! And as Stranger withnoName said, size isn't everything. Big doesn't mean better. SOmetimes, for me, the most profound and brilliant stories were those that just focused on simple, mundane things (such as the fantasy anime I spoke about earlier).

Anyhow, I'm not saying epic battles are bad, I'm just saying that in the stereotypically bad fantasy, epic battles seem to be the only thing that only matters. I really do like epic battles. But I like them more if I care about what's going on, rather than just having a bloodfest.

And actually, I guess you do hint at something I forgot to bring up - tereotypically bad fatnasy tends ot have really poorly constructed worlds in the sense that everything always stays medieval for the last 5000 years and the same kingdoms remain with the same families scheming to kill each other or something.

Even the great Tolkien didn't have that. Times changed. Different peoples moved in and out, kingdoms rose and fell, people forgot about things and adapted to changing situations, and so forth.

I also try to include that sort of thing with my fantasy projects too, so don't think I don't do it. In the project I spoke about above, the main character, the Prince, is basically the tail end of a propserous era for his empire, during its industrial revolution, and in terms of the historical perspective, he's about a century or two before its collapse. There are many different factions not only around the world but inside his own country working for their own ends, and there are economic, political, and social historical trends (from the very beginning of my world's history to ones that will appear centuries or millennium later) that interconnect with his world and influence him, directly or indirectly, in big ways and small. But I chose to focus more on his daily life in a sense, and seeing the big things from his small perspective. But that's just my example. Other stories from that world may have different focuses. Not all stories have to focus on big battles is what I'm saying. It's not a requirement in fantasy. If you have them, great. Use them well, and don't use them cheaply. But I don't think they are a prerequisite for a good fantasy anymore than Anne Frank needs D-Day to make that story interesting.

But I don't think I can say I did it better than Tolkien. Even if he didn't invent fantasy per se, he has definitely set the highest standards for it, and it's unfortunately that some tend to associate fantasy with Tolkien or D&D rip-offs, because while there are a lot of those, not all fantasy is like that - or even have the same pseudo-medieval european settings.

 

You're missing my point too, if literature is defined as I define it, then it will definitely be more difficult to write and publish because it is of a higer standard than a basic novel designed for light entertainment. But literature can be fantasy, or science fiction, or mytery or whatever. Those things are just polt devices and settings. The crux of what makes literature literaure is the quality of the writing. Literature also tends to be character-based whereas general fiction and other genres are more plot-based.

ETA: The reason literaure is harder to publish is because it doesn't sell as well, even books that win a major prize aren't going to fly off the shelves as quickly as the latest Dan Brown. From the publisher's point of view the need for someone to have published in a literary journal would have less to do with the experience of the author and more to do with them already having a name somewhere, so their book will sell more, because in the end it's all about money to them.

 

I don't see how pointing this out really makes a difference. Does anyone really see fantasy in such a restricted way? I dislike fantasy but I have read work in many of the different subgenres - it just so happens that even after this I still haven't found a novel I like in the genre.

 

Okay, I understand what the problem here is - you are using the word "literary fiction" to denote serious, good fiction whereas I am not. I am referring to the fact that there are publishers who specifically publish what they term literary fiction, just as there are publishers who specifically publish science fiction, mystery, thrillers, etc. The standards for these publishers are not the same as a publisher of fantasy.

 

Actually, quite a number of people do. It's a stereotype, but people do believe in stereotypes.

 

I didn't mean it like that. Of course not. The man created 2 full languages, and i haven't. I never claimed to be better then him, and if you thought so, your horribly misleaded. Im sorry if it came off that way, i need to adjust my words a bit. The difference between me and him go a long way. He's alot better then i am at writing, and contains a vast interest in linguistics. Im mentioning many languages, but not developing them entirely. What he did in his lifetime is much more vauleable then mine. And even if i contained the vast mind-frame of Tolkien , what's the big deal about being 14? Just because im 14 doesn't mean you put me down easily. Im a human too and a writer. I understand you were upset but think over what you just said. Now you give me the impression that all 14 year olds are stupid idiots and go out smoking weed all the time and highly unintelligent. Yes, my generation has been pretty bad with all sorts of terrible things, but i would prefer to get an Education and write Novels then to throw my life away. Im sorry if that response was too far, i apologize, really i just don't want to be treated like trash because im 14l. Is respect for Age hard to come by these days?

 

Im aware of that. I just meant by amount of miles on the map and such. Not too many countries, but plenty of land.

 

Do you realise that in a fantasy story this can be counterproductive?

 

I'm not attacking your generation; I am your generation. My point is that you have simply not been alive long enough to have created something comparable to Tolkien's universe.

 

Just a heads up, you've made a lot of unnecessary assumptions in just one post and doesn't reflect too kindly on your defense of your age. Tolkien spent the greater portion of his 81 years of life molding his created universe. I hate to assume as well but Lightman could have made the reference to your age because there's no way that in whatever short amount of time you've spent writing you could even come close to all the inventions Tolkien came up with.

 

Sorry about that, i didn't mean to come off as better then him. But yes, i was mainly focusing on the characters as you are, which is good. The timeline thing where nothing ever evolves is one of the most common- and probably one of the most easiest cliche's to avoid. But it still happens all the time. All of my battles actually make sure, most of them occurring at the strongest standing Kingdoms or at the Capitals. When you said about the times changing- alot of that happens in my story too. Kingdoms fall, people forget things, cities deserted, people rise to power and fall, storms hit and cause damage to places etc etc.

 

yes i do, but most of the big lands haven't been discovered yet due to amount of exploration at the time- it is very limited.

 

Well, i meant it for the kids in my genration who don't do all that stuff to get respect. My words in that one post where misleading, i agree, but i never intended to compare myself to Tolkien in terms of quality. But he did spend almost all of his life working on those books- and im only 14 so yes you are right. He already stands taller then me. But not everything is impossible. I could think like him when it comes to universes, but it's highly unlikely.

 

But it was how you said it that left me the impression that just because im 14 im not worth a damn. But yes, he had been alive much longer then i have been so far, and LOTR is much better then anything ive made for sure. I just don't want to be treated like an underdog because of my age. Joan of Arc fought wars at the Age of 17, i can definitely attempt to write as good as Tolkien without ripping him off and being original as possible at a start of 14. Anything is possible. But he will result into years of work, since his was beautiful and mine compared to his is... Trash.

 

It's not wrong to have the ambition to surpass Tolkien. Every minute I spend creating my universe I think to myself, my world will crush Middle Earth's. It probably won't when it fills out, and probably never will, but I keep the fire going and keep it intense with Tolkien and Lucas (Star Wars) in mind. Shoot for the stars, settle for the moon.

 

This is how I see it:

My fantasy world is my own. It's not Tolkien's. My job is to make sure my fantasy world isn't cliched-ridden, my characters (be they typical Fantasy races or no) not flat, and the story compelling. If there's going to be a big battle, it'd better be meaningful, not "Okay, let's have a giant bloodfest just for the epic lulz."

I'm not expecting it to be one of the greatest thing ever. I just want it to be a decent story that one could read at the end of the day and be entertained.

 

Agreed, like what Sol Stein said, "we need to know the people in the car before we see the car crash."

 

Yes I think we had a definition problem In terms of standards I will have to take your word for it as I confess I have not looked into the standards of all publishing houses. By my own standards though, your typical fiction book is no better than your typical fantasy book, and (IMHO ) fantasy tends to be better written than general fiction (not literature).

Perhaps the more stringent requirements for a general fiction book have more to do with a greater volume of unsolicted submissions? I don't think it's accurate to assume that a particular genre being easier to publish means the work is of a lower quality.

 

I'd be surprised by that, though I really don't know. The explanation I found is that it's much harder to market a literary novel, and so publishers are less willing to take chances on no-names.

 

Quite probably.

The thing with fantasy is that it doesn't really lend itself to short fiction well, and fantasy readers are unlikely to read a short story. Fantasy is somewhat of an exception in that many writers start with a novel. But just because publishers will publish a no-name writer doesn't mean it's easier to get published either - you're assuming that they will just publish anything. Fantasy writers still have to produce a quality work that will sell, or it won't get published.