This took me many years to realize for a number of reasons. First, I write fantasy! Well, I don't write that medieval-like crap they call fantasy. I write contemporary fantasy, whre magic is a part of this world, hidden or untapped. But let's face is. When you go to the bookstore and you peruse fantasy, you don't get much of that. You get "The brave knight sets forth on an heroic journey to fetch the magical talisman of blitz from the Evil Mage. He is joined by a thief, a wizard, and a horse that will inevitably die partway into the journey."
Science fiction, on the other hand, is diverse in its plots, methods, and madness. When I pick up a science fiction story I might even learn something. I definitely won't have preconceived notions about what will happen and how it wil end.
I'm just about done (thank God!) with the first of a trilogy by David Eddings: The DIamond Throne. The book was written for little boys. That's all there is to it. There's no depth, no substance, very weak characterization, pathetic and predictable conflict that is highly linear. How do they sell this stuff to adults? (That's the last time I take a book recommendation from this particular friend...grrrrrrr)
I don't care what fantasy *could* be anymore. It isn't that way and what it is I don't like. If I want my strange and unusual, I'm going to head for the scifi shelf.
Since most of the universe we are aware of is completely inhospitable for humans, sci fi tends to make me feel claustrophobic and desolate. Gagetry sci-fi is too close to what I do for a living, so it's either boring (to me), or too scary knowing how close we are to some of it. But, a good story is a good story, regardless of the trappings.
Medieval fantasy is simple, requires little deciphering as far as the physics of the universe goes. I have also tried reading some urban fantasy, namely The Last Hot Time by John M. Ford, and I struggle through those for some reason.
I also like playing medieval fantasy CRPG's much more than modern or SF ones for some reason. I'm probably just in love with the history of medeival Europe. So I'll continue to buy/read books of the sort, fantasy or not. :>
And you could say all the same things about laser guns and green aliens for scifi as I've said for medieval fantasy, but here's the thing: CLiche is mainstream in fantasy. Those scifi cliches you mentioned are laughed at now by serious scifi lovers. If you get claustrophobic in science fiction, then you clearly have not read enough of it to understand the broad depths it can go. It does not even stay in *this* universe! Alternate realities have been a part of science fiction for years and, IMHO, provided an interesting inlet into the Witch World series (which I have only read the first of), which is a blurred fantasy because of that science fiction inlet.
Aliens and laser guns? How about mutations, psychic phenomenon, the exploration of the universe that is far more diverse than any fantasy landscape I've ever seen, colonization, medicine, time travel, cloning, science used in evil ways to hurt manking, science used in ways that is supposed to help manking and hurts them...themes that go to human nature, what might be, what is, mistakes, successes, triumphs, etc. And these just scratch the surface.
OF course, fantasy has great potential too. I've often asked, "In a genre where anything can happen, how come so little does?" But my observations are based on the current state of the genres. Fantasy has little to offer.
My point was that both genres have their stock-cliche, elements. Broad brush painting the entire genre based on it's formulatic representatives is unfair to a lot of good writers and books, both ways.
I'll admit that I haven't seen anything good in a while, but that doesn't stop me from liking the genre. In fact, it is because there hasn't been anything good out in a while that I write in that genre. I'm hoping maybe I can help to change that. 
You know, I don't think people really are sticking all that much to Tolkien. He created a complex world with powerful themes whereas those who attempt to imitate him only end up creating shallow worlds and plots. They're poor imitations. I don't think anybody's come all that close to writing a story like his. At the same time, however, I believe that it's very difficult to come up with a brand new way of writing medieval fantasy. He set a standard with his books that's very hard to break away from. I've been trying for years to think of a different formula and it's not been easy. All I've managed to come up with is an Arabian-like setting rather than a medieval Europe setting, and different races besides the usual Elves, Orcs, and Dwarves, but the story itself seems to still follow a similar formula. It's hard to get away from! I'm going to keep trying, though.
One thing I decided to try when I was a teenager to make my world different was to set it on another planet instead of a fantasy kingdom. Yes, this introduces elements of scifi but so what? If, like me, it's the magic that you like it can happen on another planet as easily as a made up world.
Sticking to the other-world, though, it might be interesting to write about a totally divergent culture. Instead of a feudalish system with peasants and lords, why not a clan? or a tribe? I think it would be really neat to do some research on ancient African history and tribal traditions and write something based on that. It's so rich already -- and if you set it in another world and diverge from it a bit you can't be wrong.
Personally, I like good speculative fiction, whether it is fantasy or scifi. However, I generally find that really good fantasy does more for me than really good scifi, which is why I'm striving to write really good fantasy.
--Mel
I seem to be in the minority at home in either science fiction or fantasy, enraptured equally by either Illium or Runelords, Parable of the Sower or Elantris, Alvin or Ender...
I hate comfort zones. I want something fresh and new every day. I prefer something that disturbs my sense of right and wrong. I want a story that challenges my identity as a human.
For instance, Eon, Eternity, and Legacy, by Greg Bear. Though he's purported to be hard sci-fi, there are some fantastic magic going on.
Or even the Rendezvous With Rama series, at the end who do we learn is responsible for sending massive cylinders into our solor system? God.
Of course, apart from fiction, when the mysteries of quantum mechanics are looked at, and how they may be responsible for the mechanisms that cause free will, conciousness, and the barrier between life and non-life, there are some amazing goosebump-causing mysteries left to ponder.
How does an atom go through two slits at once? Magic, for all I know...
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited August 12, 2005).]
I love fantasy because it can bring me in contact with strange worlds and cultures. Fantasy fiction is largely what made me want to study archaeology (working on my degree right now). I hope my fantasy never reads like a tiresome mideval cliche. I try to work in ideas, cultures, and technology from ancient people to give my world the exciting flair I look for in fantasy books.
Oh, and for whomever was looking for a Russian fantasy book...OSC has a lovely one, called Enchantment. It was the first book of his I ever read.
But I am sick of all that medieval stuff, I wish there was more fantasy set in more remote and stranger regions of the world.
Shendülféa:
quote:
All I've managed to come up with is an Arabian-like setting rather than a medieval Europe setting, and different races besides the usual Elves, Orcs, and Dwarves, but the story itself seems to still follow a similar formula. It's hard to get away from! I'm going to keep trying, though.
I’m trying the same thing as well , but I know quite a bit about Arabian mythology so it wasn’t that hard to come up with parallel creatures and beings.
I'll admit that Beth summed up my feelings beautifully when she said:
quote:
I think she's saying that "current mainstream fantasy is overwhelmed by crappy cliches, while current mainstream SF is exploring new and interesting ground," which is a very different hypothesis.
Thus I do not hate fantasy nor do I reject the genre entirely. I think I am done with the medievalish stuff, but I won't swear to it.
I have simply noticed that scifi, with the confines of what could be but probably isn't, seems to have done a better job of exploring time, space, and humanity than fantasy, with no confines whatsoever.
Oh yeah, a wrench. I've noticed that there seem to be quite a few preconceived notions about what constitutes scifi.
quote:
I’d rather cherish the unknown for it’s bizarreness, as is the case for fantasy, than tackle the unknown in order to change it.
This, to me, does not seem like a fair summary of what scifi is or what it is trying to od. Granted, there has been a lot of scifi written with the intent to explore what might be and has, through circuitous means, brought about change, but I have not found most scifi to be this way. I have read much scifi that, as you say, tackles the unkonown for the sake of bizarreness. I have read much scifi that is nothing more than a question of...What if? I have read scifi that is an exploration of the human condition.
Oh yeah, the wrench...What is scifi? What is fantasy? We've had this conversation before and I don't want clinical definitions about magic vs technology and the overlap between the genres. I think we all pretty well have a handle on all of that, including the gray areas. But obviously there are preconceived notions about both genres. At their heart, something about scifi makes certain people shy away from it (both in writing and reading) and the same is true for fantasy. For those on both sides of this, what is the heart of your favoed genre? What is the heart of the other one?
quote:
This, to me, does not seem like a fair summary of what scifi is or what it is trying to od
Yeah, I guess your right, I was being pretty whimsical.
Like Spaceman has said, I think that the line drawn between scifi and fantasy is quite nebulous, and many novels cross over to the other side.
quote:
Oh yeah, the wrench...What is scifi? What is fantasy? […] At their heart, something about scifi makes certain people shy away from it (both in writing and reading) and the same is true for fantasy. For those on both sides of this, what is the heart of your favoed genre? What is the heart of the other one?
Perhaps fantasy is a tendency towards the unbelievable, blind faith for the supernatural (the serious kind at least).
By the way, has anyone here read Abarat, by Clive Barker? I think that’s an excellent example of original fantasy.
I'm fascinated by the direction you're going, basing fantasies on Arab myths and settings. Very cool.
It's high time someone created fantasies populated by characters who don't look, act, or speak like JRRT's. Time to innovate, else fantasy will stagnate. (Some, obviously, say it has already.)
Vatyma --
I like your email account name. Do you speak Arabic?
Actually, my favorite reading is the classics, anyway, and I have way too many of them to read for me to waste my time on most modern writing-- fantasy or sci-fi. (Although HP is a guilty pleasure I thoroughly enjoy! 
) Sorry to say it, but there it is. And no, I'm not trying to be a snob-- just honest. 
BTW, pretty much anything I write is fairy-tale type stuff. I come here because you guys are great writers, and I know I have a lot to learn from you, whether or not I read the same genre.
~LL
I actually like Tolkien and Herbert for the same reasons. Regardless of the millieu, I enjoy complex plots that portray multi-faceted characters. I like reading about the effect of politics and/or religion on the society. If the author can throw in a few twists that haven't already been done to death, then I'm hooked.
I DON'T like science fiction that gets consumed by the science. It becomes too dry for me. I don't care for fantasy stories where evil villains are REALLY REALLY evil, just because they love their evilness and the heros and heroines are good because they are noble. Bleah.
Neither of these are the result of genre; they are a result of questionable writing skills. It just happens that there are a lot of mediocre writers who get published.
Which gives me hope that some day I might get good enough to rise above them.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited August 13, 2005).]
I would like to point out, however, that I have often heard people (fans, writers, critics, etc) refer to something they call "lowest-common-denominator" fantasy when they discuss what they like and don't like, but I don't recall hearing anything about a similar term for science fiction.
That doesn't mean science fiction doesn't have "lowest-common-denominator" kinds of stories, it just means that there's probably some other kind of term for that kind of science fiction. And it may also mean that such science fiction doesn't appeal to enough readers for it to be published very often, where such fantasy may do well enough.
So that's what they calling the stuff coming out of Hollywood. I thought there was a different word for it.
I'll admit that I really haven't read entirely too many books--maybe about thirty or forty books which weren't class required--so maybe in a few years I'll be tired of the European-type setting for fantasy stories.
Have you read the Game of Thrones series, Doc Brown? That series, with its inherent violence, incest, and other seedy story elements tore apart my comfort zones, and I'm starting to sympathize a little with Jaime Lannister, who commits and has committed incest.
But maybe I'm just ignorant and stuff like that happens all the time in mainstream fantasy but I just have yet to read it.
I do know that I shall never read science fiction books which make me feel like an idiot for being unable to visualize and understand the scienctific parts.
Maybe someone could refer me to some good light sci-fi novels and some good non-medieval Europe cliche/stupid fantasy and I'll let you know how I enjoy those.
If you have seen it, does your opinion differ from mine?
quote:
I like your email account name. Do you speak Arabic?
As a matter of fact, yes
You could not only bring something fresh to the genre but, through letting them learn of the myths, also give readers a better understanding of the culture, the people, and their history.
Or you could just tell a ripping good yarn, and leave off exploring what your themes might have been to Lit profs for torturing their students to distraction in the future.
[This message has been edited by Warbric (edited August 13, 2005).]
My husband has read the book and says it fills in some details that the movie missed/didn't have time for. (He thought it was a good movie too, but let's face it, the screen can't capture everything in a book.)
I keep meaning to put that on my reading list.
cklabyrinth: When I read what you said about not having read many books outside of class requirements...it struck a chord. I seem to recall that the first few classic fantasy books I read weren't bad. Every new generation has to experience those tired old cliches a time or two before they become tired and old. I guess I've just read enough of it now. (BTW, I hated Martin's series. My husband LOVES it for most of the reasons I hate it, but that's for another topic, I think. I won't deny that he has more depth and character than most....I just wish I liked some of them.)
The same can be said for a lot of genres. I got into romance for a while when I was in high school. (BTW, for the lurking high schoolers around here, I would NOT recommend reading about steamy sex in books....it's unrealistic in such a way that it can pose a problem when it's time for the real thing.) Anyway, those too were almost all the same. Like fantasy, though, I read a lot of them before I got fed up.
I've also read some mystery/suspense. There is more varity there than with romance, but those familiar plots get old after a while too. There are only so many ways you can cleverly disguise clues before I'm going to start noticing them.
The strange thing about science fiction is that I've been reading it longer than any other genre, have read more of it than any other genre, and still have not grown tired ot it. Oh, there are some specific plotlines that I don't want to see again. There are some authors I don't want to read again. (Ursula K. LeGuin...how the heck did she win any awards? I can't stand the way she writes!) But I keep finding stuff to engage me there if I look hard enough.
That's just my personal experience, though. If someone has some creative recommendations for me out of the fantasy genre that don't involve white European-style adventures through a fantasy landscape I'd love to hear about it. Actually, I'm sick of the epic hero's journey in general. I'm not sure you could interst me in it by setting it in the Arabian Desert instead. Maybe.
quote:
I'm not sure you could interst me in it by setting it in the Arabian Desert instead. Maybe.
One of my next novel endeavors was to figure out how to set World in a geogrphic similar to Egypt on the Nile Delta, and draw on both the Egyptian and Japanese cultures. Strange mix, but I think it will be and interesting experience. If nothing else I'll learn a lot.
I'm writing an story at the moment that's got elements of both genres; I suppose that's where the term, "speculative fiction" could be applied, but I'd much rather prefer, "far-fetched exotic tale....
I tried reading Martin's GAME OF THRONES and the nastiness put me off. I find that if I don't have characters I can care about, the story had better have something else going for it and that something else had better be pretty amazing, or I won't keep reading.
When Martin killed off the only character I liked in the first book by having him do something stupid, I shrugged and stopped reading. (I have enjoyed a lot of his other stuff--he does science fiction well, too--but not GAME OF THRONES.)
Lian Hearn's fantasy trilogy starting with ACROSS THE NIGHTINGALE FLOOR is very well done fantasy, in my opinion.
I have been enjoying C J Cherryh's DEFENDER series (or whatever it's called) a lot. I like her science fiction much more than I do her fantasy.
I started reading Karen Traviss' CITY OF PEARL because someone here recommended it, and I am anxiously awaiting the third book in that series. So I second that recommendation. (And I'd like to talk with those who have read the second book about whether or not they think someone is actually dead.)
I think that the heart of the debate lies in understanding what SF and Fantasy are, what makes them different from each other. Fantasy is, and always has been, about the fantastic. SF is a relatively recent off-shoot, and it is defined largely by the use of science to persuade us that the fantastic elements of the story are actually possible.
In a post-enlightenment age, the boundries between the two genres have lapsed and become irrelevant to the vast majority of readers. So we start to see popular SF, also known as Sci-Fi, which is just the usual fantasy fare dressed up with lasers and spaceships (or technobabble explanations of how the fantastic element in the story is a "real" possibility). We also see a lot of urban Fantasy, which suggests that certain kinds of magic really might exist in our own world. And not all the readers of these books need to suspend their disbelief in such things.
That said, I believe that the more "cliche" kinds of stories will always be with us in quantity. Another way to look at them is "formulaic". Those stories are easy to make and market, and have a predictable return on investment for the publishers (not so much for the writers, though occasionally a writer does get rich that way). A lot of the established markets for written SF are actively committed to innovative new ideas and concepts, which is natural. Fantasy doesn't have that (sometimes dubious) advantage.
And of course, SF has undergone a sort of mitosis several times, so that now you have a range of "hardness" in terms of how plausible the story is in terms of actual science (and how directly that science affects the plot and characters). Most SF is nowhere near the values of "hardness" required to convince experts in the affected fields to think, "something like that could really happen." Whereas a significant and growing percentage of the reading public is likely to believe that magical events in certain urban fantasy stories are possible.
Myself? As I've said before, I don't particularly regard genre as being a meaningful indicator of a work's value. It's something we have to deal with as a reality of the publishing industry, and I'm more comfortable writing stories that I can believe are plausible in this universe. That means that I can explain how the world as it is now (or was at some known point in the past) gave rise to every milieu I've created for my own stories, including the Fantasy settings (which actually slightly outnumber my harder SF settings).
I don't make the same demand of worlds created by other authors, though. As long as the milieu makes some kind of sense, I'm okay reading. I've read a lot of really good Fantasy and a lot of really good SF. And I've had fun reading some pretty silly stuff too.
SF was a necessary reaction of Fantasy against the Enlightenment. With the death of that movement, SF and Fantasy have begun to come back together, with a greater diversity and creativity in payment for what was lost. I don't think that it's really possible to meaningfully distinguish them anymore except by reference to particular individuals.
I think it's like what Christine is saying. The best fantasy, to me, beats the best SF. But the best fantasy is so rare, and although I can enjoy mediocre SF, mediocre fantasy bores me to death.
I think it's partly because of the different goals. SF shows us what life might be like if physical reality were a little different. Fantasy shows us what life might be like if supernatural reality were a little different, and that's a grander sweep. SF shakes up the way I work or live; fantasy shakes up who I am, who God is, what reality is.
It's easier to shake up external reality and do it well, than to remake everything.
Small-scope fantasy can work (fairy tales). But even that, I think, shakes up my very nature.
I rarely try fantasy these days, unless we should call Twilight Zone stuff "fantasy," which I don't. And, I swear, if I read one more story about a swordsman learning his craft, or the political fortunes of a medeival royal family ... ack!
Just my two cents' worth. Or lack, thereof.
Inkwell
------------------
"The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp."
-Anonymous
[This message has been edited by Inkwell (edited August 14, 2005).]
But that could be a track to follow. All You Zombies, where a character has an incestuous relationship with himself / herself, pushed my comfort zone. So did None Lives, which had characters with perfect sex partners: opposite sex clones of themselves. Then there was Cat's Cradle, which didn't have incest, but had ordinary humans who practiced a whole new form of sexual intercourse.
Frankly, these are weak examples. The best speculative fiction stories explore the meaning of our existence. Bicentennial Man is an example, so are Contact and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (b.k.a. Blade Runner).
Fantasy can do those things, but generally doesn't. Even the best fantasy (like LOTR) just gives a fantastic setting for a character to do daring deeds and make difficult moreal choices.
The problem of this generation in all media is afraid of pushing forward and trying something new. I see the same movies coming out of Hollywood everyday and the same books coming out everywhere everyday.
Writers need to look at the roots of fantasy and sci-fi to see what they must do. Millions of die-hard Tolkien fans have probably never read my favorite sci-fi book of all time, Frankenstein.
To defeat the cliches of both generes, it is necessary to look at the basic principles of both. With sci-fi, you pose a question and back it with logic, while with fantasy, you pose a question and back with unrealistic logic and realistic logic. The problem is that these days most people think that all the good questions have been posed and we should just take the safe bet on the best used questions. This is why Frankenstein, Fahrenheit 451, 1984, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Dragon Riders of Pern, and Harry Potter are good books. It is not because they are old or in Potter's case just easy to read, but because their authors dared to challenge the cliches of their times with incredible books. We must risk being condemned as naive for trying something different in order to push forward the world of writing ahead.
Now I did mention Harry Potter, but for good reason. These books are good because Rowling took a chance on creating a book that would fail because it would be scorn by the hardcore fantasy fans and ignored by the casual reading public or succeed because it brought magic away from Dungeuns and Dragons and Tolkien and to a level of understanding for everyone. I do however hate the child wizard books that have spawned from it.
In terms of plauability, I think a pure fantasy world with magic would have some elements of technology, or at least something that to us looked like technology. Can you imagine someone with the power to change matter into energy through the power of their mind, not be able to travel long distances? Of course, if you limit the magic to less potent spells, you are really falling into a quest type story by default.
Life's a bitch. Of course I could name at least twenty fantasy books that didn't rely on good old medieval knights and wizards, and despite the fact I love fantasy the last book I ever bought with elves in it was by Feist. I cringe when I see another dark elf story on the shelves.
Her posted comment goes on to describe a reader who approached her at a book signing to complain that the gutter on the printed page was too narrow for his tastes, so he would never buy one of her titles again.
I'm going to write my own stories and just try to do the very best work I'm capable of. Readers' tastes are so wide and varied that my audience is already out there somewhere, and probably always will be, right alongside all the critics who will pan it not only for being genre but the wrong one to boot.
I tend to think of science fiction and fantasy as a brother and a sister. They're very different, but they're still family. In literature, there have been many periods and styles of writing. Each movement had a period of intense popularity, where everybody wrote that way. Books during those periods were read around the fire and passed along from friend to friend. But they didn't achieve scholarly acclaim until much later. While these styles were popular, they were considered as mere fluff by the scholars.
It wasn't until years later that these new styles were embraced. Think of romanticism, victorianism, modernism, and post-modernism. Post-modernism is what gets talked about now in college classes. It's what's "new" to them. They love it, they read it, they write it. They breathe it. It's so fresh and new.
But it isn't, is it? As fantasy and science fiction readers, we know about something that really is fresh and new. Sure, it's been around for many years, but it's never achieved real scholarly acclaim. Well, I shouldn't say never. I think we're in the end of the catch-up period for those who dictate the literary canon. We already have professors who occassionally teach a science fiction class. We have short stories which professors eagerly proclaim to be fantasy stories (but usually are postmodernist stories with one fantastic element) and teach them with enthusiasm. I predict that in the next 50 years, as more sci-fi and fantasy fans become professors, that science fiction and fantasy will emerge from its reputation (by non-fans, of course) as popular, indulgent fluff to take its proper place within the literary canon. When that happens, the "good" stories will rise above the bad. The stories that you find derivitive now, will hopefully, fall into the dark abyss that claimed the penny novels of old.
We talk in literature classes now about how the novel is a dead institution. Not all believe it, but it is a common theme. We've done all there is to the novel, and now we must write metafiction and other weird stories that play with the genre and with writing itself. We must be artsy and the novel that simply tells a story is yesterday's news.
But they're wrong, aren't they? They'll see. But to have sci-fi and fantasy accepted into the literary canon is not necessarily an all good thing, is it? Despite my optimism above, they don't always pick the best books of the era, do they? Can you imagine any canonical list of the best sci-fi/fantasy authors that didn't include Orson Scott Card? And when it is accepted, does that mean innovation in the genre is dead? Do they begin teaching it in classrooms, neatly defining it, restraining it with their definitions? Do they turn it into dry reading, spoiling it with too much discussion?
Right now, fantasy and science fiction have already begun moving into the literary canon. They at once occupy the space at the edge and also outside of the canon. They have incredible room to breathe and flex and do anything we can imagine as authors. We're not constrained by the literary vogue and what a bunch of stuffy professors deem is "literature." We're out here on the edge, doing whatever we want all the time. And sure, we have some hack writers. But in allowing them, we also allow new writers--people with fresh ideas and amazing talent.
It is a very exciting time to be a writer and reader of sci-fi and fantasy. There is no need for a war between the two. There is good science fiction. There is good fantasy. And there's a whole lot more bad of both.
Personally, I probably read more science fiction than fantasy. But I write fantasy. And to me, it is about a good story. The fantasy setting allows me the freedom to tell whatever stories I want. I have no constraints except the drive and desire to ask myself "What else?" over and over again, to escape the cliches of the genre. Just because there are bad writers out there who make a few bucks off the cliches doesn't mean that the good writers have put away their pens. I would propose that if you are tired of either fantasy or science fiction that you simply aren't reading the right books. Find friends whose recommendations you can actually trust.
-Siena
[This message has been edited by Siena (edited August 15, 2005).]
So I write only to please myself. If one other person likes my writing, then that is twice as many people as before that like my writing. If you don't like your own writing though, then it is pretty hard to multiply the other people that like your story by the zero that you contribute. (I am no mathematician, just an aspiring physicist, so don't take those words as mathematical and keep at literal.)
[This message has been edited by Mystic (edited August 15, 2005).]
quote:
Now I did mention Harry Potter, but for good reason. These books are good because Rowling took a chance on creating a book that would fail because it would be scorn by the hardcore fantasy fans and ignored by the casual reading public or succeed because it brought magic away from Dungeuns and Dragons and Tolkien and to a level of understanding for everyone. I do however hate the child wizard books that have spawned from it.
Now, see, I have to disagree with this. There were tons of child wizard/witch books before Harry Potter. I should know, because I devoured those stories when I was a kid. Rowlings merely popularized a type of story that already existed. Granted, they were in the YA/children's section...but then so is Harry Potter.
Unfortunately, I don't remember any titles. But I definitely remember reading them.
--Mel
quote:
I will never write a story to please another person because that is how most people get in the rut of writing cliches. They fear the disapproval...
But it is possible to write to your audience without fearing their disapproval. I know that for any story in my head there is a natural audience. So I strive to present my story on paper in a readable and enjoyable way. I'm trying to connect to that audience. That's the whole point of having my work critiqued. If it is just for me, then I always know what I'm trying to say so it doesn't matter if anyone else does too.
--Mel
Everyone has comfort zones. I went out with a friend Saturday night and found out that several years ago he thought of writing a novel. He had detailed notes on his world and an introduction written. I asked him why he never actually wrote it and he had two reasons. First, he found out how much work it was to write a novel. Understandable. But also, eh found out that many of the "original" elements he had put in his work had been done before.
People writing for themselves write whatever they want, and often we want a bit of the familiar, some wish fulfillment that touches our own lives and experiences.
Still, I don't see the correlation. I think you can get this effect either from writing for yourself or others.
I would pull out the following factors as reasons that writers write hopeless cliches:
1. They have not read enough to know what is cliche and what is not. (I think this happens a LOT.)
2. They have a comfort zone and like to write there.
3. They want to sell a novel and think they can sell this because historically, those types of boks have sold.
And let me just echo that Rowling didn't do a single new thing in her books, including sending a wizard to wizarding school. It drives me nuts because so many people think she did and now many of the things she did are essnetially blocked from our writing toolbelt because "JK Rowling did it." The popularization of tired old topics makes them unreproducable.
On Harry Potter, I will say this, "I never stated that Harry Potter was the first child wizard book, I just hate that a hundred books about children and teen wizard only came into WIDESPREAD popularity because of that book and not because of their own merit.
On writing to please others, I meant writing outside your genre (this is where my mind out-thought my hands). People, like myself, have a habit of writing a science fiction and then reading a romance novel and looking at their own story and wondering if their story needs a something from there. However, because that person doesn't write romance, that person will more than likely take a cliche from romance because they don't realize it is one due to lack of experience.
Now to writing for the sake of others...I haven't gotten way to off topic already, so I am just going to start a new thread.
As to children's books about wizards and such... one of my favorite reads as a kid was the Wizard of Oz series by L. Frank Baum. You did a disservice to yourself if you never explored past the first book that was made into a movie. There were several books in that series, and all exciting.
I'd like to know if there were any books about schools of magic before a Wizard of Earthsea, which was the first fantasy book I ever read.
I grew up playing D&D. I read hundreds of fantasy novels and the first 20+ books of the Xanth series. I'm a HUGE fan of the Middle Ages and the Crusades - from a truly historical viewpoint. I enjoy the Arthurian legends. I've read The Hobbit and LOTR at least 4 or 5 times. I love the Harry Potter movies (probably one of the few people in the world that hasn't read any of the books). I recently ended a 7 month addiction to World of Warcraft (which finally "cured" me of Ultima Online). Half of the PC and Xbox games I own are fantasy based. I enjoy playing Fantasy because I have control over the character's development. Sure it's the same "plot" to acquire the 'Pickle of Dragon Slaying' and to save the beautiful Hamster Princess. But it's mostly hours of senseless killing that's less mind-numbing than watching TV (and they have a better story than the many Kung-Fu fighting games).
But I stopped reading fantasy years ago (fairy tales being the exception). The problem with fantasy writing that I saw, like some other posters, is that most fantasy is either a quest for a magical item and/or conquer the evil <insert title/occupation>. I like to be mentally stimulated when I read and Sci-Fi does that for me (especially Hard Sci-Fi like Gregory Benford).
[ All opinions are my own but are covered under a public-use license. ]
#
Plot Coupons
The basic building blocks of the quest-type fantasy plot. The "hero" collects sufficient plot coupons (magic sword, magic book, magic cat) to send off to the author for the ending. Note that "the author" can be substituted for "the Gods" in such a work: "The Gods decreed he would pursue this quest." Right, mate. The author decreed he would pursue this quest until sufficient pages were filled to procure an advance. (Dave Langford)
HALO rocks, HALO 2 - love duel-wielding, stupid plot ending
I may be female, but I'm every bit a gamer as any male gamer out there. But seriously, as for games, my favorite genre is the RPG and just like speculative fiction, that encompasses everything from sci-fi to fantasy to sci-fi/fantasy hybrids, as I like to call them. My favorite tends to be the sci-fi/fantasy hybrids. Why? Because they combine the best elements of both worlds together. You have people using magic, but you also have people using technology. It's an interesting combination and creates often intriguing story lines. One of my favorite games that falls into this category is "Tales of Symphonia." IMO, it had a great complex plot that combined the quest element of fantasy with the politcal intrigue (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) of sci-fi.
I haven't read any books that do this, however. Then again, I don't browse the spec fiction shelves that often (too many bad/mediocre novels for that). Anyone know of any books that combine sci-fi with fantasy?
quote:
Anyone know of any books that combine sci-fi with fantasy?
Marion Zimmer Bradley's "Darkover" series does. As does the prequel book to Anne MacCaffery's "Pern" stories. I seem to recall that C.J. Cherryh has some combination stories as well.