Sorry, I don't belive most fantasies have anything to do with the human experience. That's the problem. The real world works, whether we understand all complexities or not. A fantasy world does not work because it does not exist, by definition.
This is going to sound counterintuitive, perhaps, but I actually think the people with the most chances at writing good fantasy are older people. Whereas even a teenager potentially has a story to tell or feelings to express, most young people are not well enough equipped to create a fundamentally interesting and satisfactorily nuanced world. Look at Tolkien or George Rr Martin.
Eh I don't know. I'm not sure as to why young writers mostly write fantasy but they certainly should. That's not all they should write of course. I myself LOVE fantasy but most fantasy I like is set on Earth or maybe something else that is refreshing (I've never been to much into Lord of The Rings or DnD like Fantasy). Though I think any fantasy story regardless of setting can have a lot to do with the human experience and tell relatable stories. Anyway Even though I love all that fantasy stuff. I also LOVE crime fiction of all kinds, mysteries, autobiorgraphies, classics and all kinds of thing that have no connection to fantasy. You should certainly write fantasy but if you're a young writer reading this, don't be afraid to dabble into all genre types. I find if you write a little bit of everything from time to time and read all kinds of things you'll improve yourself as a writer no matter what you want to write. So yeah. If you only strictly do fantasy then I think you'd benefit TONS from branching out and have a much bigger canvas to work with.
You could have a point. I sense that so many young writers (many on this forum) who want to write fantasy are inspired by other fantasy stories that they've either read or seen on screen. They see teenaged vampire/werewolf/zombie stories, and now they want to write teenaged vampire/werewolf/zombie stories. They see a TV show with young characters who have 'special powers' and now they want to write a story with teenagers who have special powers. The 'great' fantasy writers of the past (and present) seem to create their stories independently of other fantasy stories, and independently of what other writers are/were doing at the time. Tolkien was inspired by Nordic sagas and quest stories, but he didn't copy them directly, and it took him over 30 years to write The Lord of the Rings. Lots of people are copying him now, though (especially since the LOTR movies came out and drew interest from a non-reading generation)–even to the extent of insisting on having the same elements in every story ...wizards, elves, dwarves, orcs. Heaven knows where Mervyn Peake, the author of Ghormenghast got his ideas. I don't think George R R Martin is copying anybody else. JK Rowling wrote for children, but her stories came from her own head—then lots of young people started copying her! Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland was certainly unique. The list goes on. More or less all of these people who wrote truly unique fantasies were well into adulthood before they did so. Their stories are original, not 'fannish.'
Plus only sticking to writing or reading one thing would drive me to madness. Sometimes its just good to sit down and read something totally REAL (no superheroes, vampires, aliens, monsters etc) maybe just a story about a guy who had his first heartbreak or a normal coming of age story or a war story written by someone who was actually in war. And I say this as fan of all genres. It just helps to absorb it all and also you'll find the more types of things you read the less your love for say your current favorite genre will diminish, because you'll be able to step away from it and enjoy some other great works at a different end of the spectrum. So yeah. Keep yourself busy with it all.
But is the setting which is actually shown to the reader that much more complex? Sure our world might have had Harry Truman, Doris Day, Red China, Johnnie Ray, South Pacific, Walter Winchell, Joe DiMaggio (and everything else listed in We Didn't Start the Fire). But any given book isn't going to involve most of those things, it'll just use what's needed for the story and probably make up a bunch of things too. In a fantasy world, the author might only invent what's needed to tell the story and make things work consistently, but if it's written well, there will be a similar amount of details of the world shown as any other story. I think it's possible to give the impression that all the complexities of a full world are out there in your fantasy world - even though you haven't invented them. Does it make much of a difference to a story whether the setting beyond the scope of the story really has a bunch of complexities you can't see?
Well Peake was only ~30 when he wrote the first Ghormenghast novel (I was sure to look this up before I made my initial post), which is still older than a lot of would be fantasy writers here, but still young in the grand scheme of things. Then again, Peake was actually a genius. He probably walked into a castle once and them automatically came up with everything.
Yeah I can agree with that. A lot of what I wrote as a teenager was rather Tolkien derived. Other derivative things like Dungeons and Dragons and Fighting Fantasy reinforced my impression that this was what fantasy was supposed to look like. Now I'm in my late 30s I'm trying to write fantasy which I consider to be a lot more unusual.
Look at it this way. You and I are talking in real life. We're just met, for the first time, on a train. I tell you a quick story about my friend Luke. Luke just had cancer. The doctors told him he had a 1/10 chance of surviving, but against all odds, Luke lived. Or maybe I'm having a bad day, then Luke died. Because Luke isn't real! But you will never know that. Now, imagine I tell you a story about my friend Luke who lives in an imaginary world who is dying of the magical disease Wumplfarts. You're probably going to laugh at me and or tell me to **** off. The notion is ridiculous and, more so, it's impossible to emphasize with a character who by definition cannot and could never be real. This applies to all characters in 100% fictional settings. That means Wheel of Time. Wheel of Time setting is 100% fictional. Harry Potter setting is not 100% fictional, because the story supposes that wizards and magic reside here in our very own Earth. Most science fiction settings are not 100% fictional, because they presuppose the same Universe as Earth. Really, it sort of comes down to a spectrum, where the further removed the setting is from the real world, the less we can connect to the characters in that setting. However, there are a LARGE number of fantasy novels that fall at the bottom of the spectrum, completely 100% removed from reality. It's not evenly distributed. There are of course caveats. Some fantasy worlds get by on the strength of their descriptions...like Gormenghast or Lord of the Rings, but like as I was saying to Jannert, these were were older authors, not young adults. The other exception is to create a world that is not interested in seeming real. Perfect example is the Last Unicorn. Peter S. Beagle is not interested in exploring the world so much as he is the characters and themes. The world is more of a dreamlike vessel. Lord Dunsany does that as well, though I think his focus is more on enjoying the beauty of the dream. That can work. It can work very well, actually. In fact, I think the strength in fantasy lies in accepting it. Unfortunately, so many young people don't just want to create their own fantasy world. They actually want it to be habitable. It has to have "consistent rules" and seem "realistic." It's a cheap substitute life, as far as I'm concerned. Sorry. NOT INTERESTED.
I wouldn't be quite that harsh, because young people are young people, and they are making the transition from being children to being adults, and some of that often entails daydreaming about what they love. I used to fantasize about the characters I saw in Walt Disney movies when I was a child, and actually made up stories about the likes of Snow White, etc, when I was a middle-school child, to tell to my younger sister. However, I outgrew that before I started high school. When I was a teenager, I (along with a friend) used to 'write' stories featuring The Beatles! Then I outgrew that as well. I think teenagers and young adults need their space to have fun. However, you've summed it up pretty well. It IS a cheap, substitute life, and will probably get old fast. I find it difficult to take these stories seriously, although young writers can certainly develop writing skills using these tropes as starting points. But any adult fantasy needs to be original, have a lot more meat and have less wishful thinking attached to it, if it's going to grab my attention. I'm an old fart, after all. I am not a huge fan of fantasy, actually. But I have a few fantasy authors I really enjoy reading, to this day. I will read anything and everything by Joe Abercrombie, because I think he's lots of fun, and often turns fantasy on its head. And I loved, and still love, LOTR.
I agree 100% with everything you've said. And I've been there. My first story ideas (I think) were all fantasy. This was when I was a teenager. Some of them I still like, but I would only ever consider writing them at a much older game.
@123456789 Well I'm not sure how much I agree with that. Also despite your dislike of EPIC EPIC fantasy you'd probably do best to trademark the name Wumplfarts as soon as possible. (Like seriously) I think its a little crazy to assume someone can't relate to and or empathize with someone from a more fantastical setting, like I already said I have a hard time reading epic fantasy but I do like comics. Of course I stand by what I said about making sure read it ALL. I'm actually a lot Spider-Man In terms of fictional characters from any setting ......he'd be within the top 5 of people I relate to and yeah I know everybody says Spider-Man is the ultimate hero one can relate to but I disagree with that, I think it all depends who you are. Sure I know he CAN'T exist as to say someone as you described who is dying of the big C named Luke. But Spider-Man/Peter Parker’s Uncle was the only positive adult male role model in his life and his father wasn't around. His uncle took him to ball games, taught him about right and wrong, supported him in the hard times that teens all go through. Just his aunt and uncle. My mom is around for me (I love her to death) but my uncle really did raise me. He played games with me, taught about reading and why It was important, made me feel like I was destined to do great things, held me when I cried and taught me how to be a happy person. Spider-Man's uncle was killed when he was in highschool and it really opened his eyes to how much of a selfish person he was becoming and made him want to do good. My uncle was killed back when I was in highschool and I was angrier back then but when he died I realized I wasn't very proud of how I'd behaved during my teen years. I had some bad outbursts of anger when under pressure. But as much as I miss my uncle....so damn much, his death has made me into the man I currently him. Sure I don't swing from buildings or save people or fight criminals. But I know the pain Spider-Man feels. That pain of waking up and realizing that the one person you need for advice is gone...... Hell I even use jokes and quips when sad or upset XD Sure he can't exist but I know the feeling of wanting to do right after for everyone you can after you've lost someone extremely close to you heart and I know the feeling of finally growing up into your own. And I mean that in a sense when you realize that there are much worse things that can and will actually happen to you then having to school (or, will now work for both me and Spidey) everyday. It might be hard for some folk to relate fantasy and that's perfectly understandable. But I really do feel like that character and very easy for me to feel what motivates him cause its the same thing that motivates me.
Peter Parker lives in NYC. His setting is real. That's why you can emphasize with him. It's the other things that are unbelievable.
Point taken. So I can't really speak for how people relate to the more epic fantasy stuff, as I never have yet, but I don't find it unbelievable that they do. I'm sure there are people on the forum or all over the world that could give good examples of relating to stuff like that. I ain't one of them though. Though..... I do think it has a little more to do with character then the actual setting though setting is also a part of it but similar life experiences to your own and or just universal things (like worrying about their children, losing someone you love, heartbreak) is what will make the character empathetic and relatable. I think it has more to do with that then strictly setting. Now of course all the things I listed can be in any setting but as I said earlier its very important to read things that are strictly REAL but also.....its pretty damn fun to throw in some crazy stuff sometimes Fantasy is FUN. Yes I do find things in it that I can relate to the human experience and I've even cried while reading them. I'm a firm believer every genre can bring out those emotions in you if the writer can tug at you correctly. The best fantasy's are the one that ring most true to real life of course. But making magical systems, coming up with cool powers, strange settings or impossible things is just an icing on the cake. It’s a fun thing to do and stuff being simply a pleasure to do is a pretty damn good motivator. I can't fly. Might as well write about someone who can once in awhile, am I right? I never so much outgrew fantasy I simply expanded what I read and it’s GREAT to do that but we all still wish we could do impossible things. Or at least I’d hope you all still love to dream up wild concepts or still imagine what you’d do with superpowers. Its just good to dream and work that impossible part of your thinking just as is expanding your writing and reading beyond that of you strictly devour. Might not be thought provoking in the normal sense or anything like human experience, but the actual 'fantasy' part of fantasy stories is just AWESOME to explore and envision and sometimes you need that. It would be very sad to lose it. The more imaginative side of our imaginations.
It's not just fantasy that making a splash in recent years but since the Fifty Shades boom is it just me or is there alot more eroctic and eroctic fantasy fiction on the shelves these days or has it always been there and now that the covers are no longer sporting half naked men and women it's more widely acceptable?
But most fiction never tries to claim to be real. Once I know it's fiction, then I know it's not real and the characters don't exist. At that point the setting only makes a little difference to whether I can empathise with a character or not. If it's a created world, it's possible to suspend disbelief. Maybe it's in some sort of parallel universe, maybe even theoretically reachable from our world, except no one's found the wardrobe. Even if the connection hasn't been specified by the author I can imagine it existing somewhere in the multiverse. Obviously I don't really believe that it exists but for me it requires no more disbelief suspension than Spider-Man or Harry Potter. If it's impossible to empathise with a character who by definition cannot and could never be real, then I can do the impossible. When I'm reading a well written fantasy I can often feel the character's hopes and frustrations. I've caught myself getting angry at a mean character. I had to temporarily put Trudi Canavan's Black Magician trilogy down during the second book because I got to upset at the bullying the main character was experiencing! Maybe my brain works oddly.
Fiction in general is a shadow of the real world. You would be very hard-pressed to find a work of literary fiction that fully explores the qualities and conflicts of even a single nation, or an author who fully understands them himself. I'm not even sure you could.
But... most fantasy settings are not 100% fictional. People are not 100% fictional. Grass is not 100% fictional. Trees are not 100% fictional. Swords are not 100% fictional. Air is not 100% fictional. That may sound pedantic, but I say it with an entirely straight face. Even a stereotypical medieval fantasy makes use of a fair number of things that exist in real life. The story itself is 100% fictional, because it never happened, but unless the setting completely junks the laws of biology and physics it will share many elements with reality. The deviations simply stand out more. "it's impossible to emphasize with a character who by definition cannot and could never be real" Perhaps true on technicality if you use the right definition of "empathy", but such an argument ignores the human capacity for emotion. Emotion is not rational. It does not always require something to exist, or fiction in general would fall entirely flat. Most of the characters in literary fiction could never truly exist either. They aren't real people. They're illusions that hopefully capture some of their qualities.
That's why it's called fiction. We don't honestly believe/have proof that there's a guy in red and blue spandex web-swinging his way all over New York City, just like we honestly don't believe there's a magical world within the UK that's accessible via a train or a wardrobe. If I read a historical fiction where the characters wined and dined with Thomas Jefferson in his home, I would know it's fictional. None of it's real, even if the setting itself could be real. Fiction helps us understand a bit about the real world, and ourselves, through the characters. If done well, it can be enriching and thought-provoking. Clearly people enjoy this sort of thing as fiction had been around since man learned to write on rock. Could we empathize with the character? To some degree, yes. I don't know what it's like to fight a giant lizard-man, but I can empathize with the struggle he faces with both himself and his role as the superhero everyone relies on to save the day. A good character/story will play with our emotions, take us on a rollercoaster ride where we find ourselves loving some and praying for the deaths of others. If Voldemort had attacked Umbridge at some point in Harry Potter, I would be lying in your face if I said I wouldn't root for him. Making your audience empathize with your characters is kind of important for a writer. We have to be able to convince our audience that while what they're reading isn't real, these characters are worth caring about, they *feel* like they could be real. The setting *feels* alive.
I think the big difference between fantasy and other kinds of fiction is that fantasy can be anything the author wants it to be—and doesn't require research. A fantasy writer can—and probably does—make use of the real world, of course. But the fantasy writer can pick and choose details at random. Grass may exist, but in rainbow colours. Humans may exist, but they can breathe underwater. As long as the world the fantasy author creates makes sense within itself, these authors can do anything they want. A sci-fi writer needs to pay some attention to science and what might be possible in the real world. A historical fiction writer needs to do research about the period of history they set their story in. Or a modern mystery set in Glasgow will require knowledge of present-day Glasgow. All of these kinds of fiction involve research. Fantasy is the one kind of fiction that doesn't. Of course all fiction involves making up parts of the story. Characters, locations, conventions, settings ...they can all be made up. But they will be based on what is, what was, or what may be 'out there.' Fantasy is the one genre where the writer has more or less complete freedom to create outwith the world as we know it. It bothers me that some fantasy writers don't want to do this, and instead just want to copy what others have already done, and follow 'rules' that other fantasy writers have set up. That seems to waste the potential of the genre.
Human experiences are essentially all the same, across cultures, countries, religeons, socio-economics, and magical castles in floaty-burger-land with wizards and unicorns and fairy pigs. Characters love, hate, desire, fear, need, learn, lose, gain, try, fail, and all the fucking rest. The setting is completely irrelevant. It only dictates how characters experience the same things that we all experience. Fantasy, sci-fi, nonfiction. They all tell of the same experiences. Just in different ways.
You could say that about a lot of writing genres. Young people lack the life experience of an older person. Hell, it's why all the tv shows about medicine and law are just about sex and quirky relationships. You have a bunch of 25 year olds in hollywood writing about what they know. For that reason alone fantasy makes perfect sense. Its not like an older person can tell them that they dont know what they are talking about. I'm going to let you in a secret. Despite the fact that Venice and London are real, you have no idea what it was like to live there in 1600. You dont know what the sounds and smells were like. You dont know what it was like to have a plague wipe out half the people you know or have half of your children die before 18. And if you think you do because you walked down some cobblestone streets, you're kidding yourself. But none of this stops you from reading Shakespeare. And you relate to Shakespeare not because you identify with life in the Renaissance but because he writes about universal human experiences. Despite being based on real events, unless you are a military veteran, you can't really empathize with Private Ryan, the Charge of the Light Brigade, or All Quiet on the Western Front. These stories let you into their world and give you a glimpse but you are only projecting what you perceive from what they show. Your empathy is based largely on your ability to imagine it or based on the effects they project in the theatre or the description in the writing. But you still can't empathize walking into near certain death unless you've done it. The artist takes you part of the way there and you imagine the rest. Harry Potter is about dealing with the death of loved ones, that our character is the sum of our choices and actions rather than what we inherit, and its about the willingness to sacrifice for those you love. It's setting is merely the means to deliver the story in an interesting manner. If you take the magic out of Potter and move him to 1960's Tulsa, Oklahoma you essentially have The Outsiders. I think its possible to empathize with these human experiences. Or at least I can. tl;dr: the reader empathizes with universal human experiences that transcend the setting
People can emphasize with Peter Parker because he is a character with human feelings, issues and problems. Setting has exactly nothing to do with it--and is irrelevant. You can have sentient rocks, of planet Rock, have human feelings, issues and problems and people would relate to them just the same. Genre and setting has nothing to do with ones ability to write a complex story with complex characters. Settings across all genres are just a backdrop for the actual complexity of a story: character interactions, feelings and growth. It doesn't matter if the story takes place on a castle made of marshmallows or on a moon-sized battle station or Los Angeles. A story can be as "grown up" or complex as the author wants it to be--regardless of genre and setting. I get the feeling that you and others here haven't delved very deep into fantasy and its many sub-genres--based on all the many blanket statements and assumptions some of you have made. I will concede the fact that, as a child, I did love stories with elves and dragons and whatnot--simple, straightforward stuff. And now, as an adult, I prefer a much more complex and adult oriented epic fantasy. But the same could be said for any genre; every genre has books geared towards kids, and then others geared towards adults.
