That said, it is ironic in the extreme that I find my WIP is a fantasy novel, and has turned into a trilogy.
I have been scratching my head from the very start as to how my story seems to demand a size such that I could have no hope of getting it published in one volume.
So here's my question, what stylistic differences do you feel exist between SF and Fantasy that fantasies are typically so much wordier? I have some ideas of my own, but I want to get the learned board's response before I venture any of them (as they will most likely get slashed apart, I figure I'll let someone else get bloode first. ).
First, fantasy stories naturally lend themselves to a focus on mileu, while SF stories lend themselves to idea or event orientations.
Mileu stories usually seem to require more description. Hence more doorstopper tomes in fantasy.
Second, fantasy lives and breathes in the giant shadow of Tolkein. The protracted description he used in LotR (which was appropriate for that story) has (unfortunately) been adopted as a standard of the genre. There is some unarticulated notion that that's just how fantasy writers write, and to the extent that all fantasy writers are knowingly or unknowingly influenced by Tolkein, they do. Unfortunately. Because, unlike the LotR, most stories aren't made better for it.
[This message has been edited by J (edited December 20, 2004).]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~imcfadyen/notthenet/fantasy.htm
Rendezvous With Rama AND Ringworld are great multivolume epics about going there and back again.
So it would be stereotypical to say science fiction is often about space ships shooting beams at aliens.
All fiction is fantasy, in that it didn't happen. The line between fantasy and science fiction are so blurred, I don't see a need to segregated them.
And since modern fantasy came into existance as a result of Lord of the Rings, it is certainly the case that it is heavily imitated even where the style doesn't fit the story being told and often when the imitator has only the faintest grasp of what is being imitated.
Fantasy concentrates far more on the character interaction and there trials and much less on the physics of the world in which it is set.
So Sci-Fi tends to be event and setting driven.
Fantasy tends to be character driven.
Then again there are exceptions to every generalization.
OSC's Ender's Game is a Science Fiction story, but the science (at least in the first book is pretty much magic), in the subsequent books Xenocide and Children he deals more with the science (FTL travel and such) but still crafts novels that are very character driven. But the tone of the first book is more of a fantasy novel and the tone of 2 and 3 are closer to Science Fiction.
Well I've rambled enough, time for someone else to step in and build on or tear down what I've typed.
"Almost all fantasy and much - perhaps most- science fiction uses the Event story structure."
<Xenocide and Children he deals more with the science (FTL travel and such)>
Actaully, I don't remember any true FTL, that is actauly moving between points A and B FTL.
I know they popped outside the universe and then back in at another point, instantaneously. It was all accomplished with
thier computer genie, Jane. Kind of magical".
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited December 20, 2004).]
I guess that's why he gave himself an out, by saying 'almost'. Stuff like, LOTR, Runelords, Amber are all event driven. But I guess saying all fantasy is event driven may be stereotypical.
I played a ps2 game recently that poked fun at old RPG's as well as the 'quest' model of fantasy. The Bard's Tale, which has for a hero a bard, but not the lovable hero like most games/stories. The Bard is self centered, with a handfull of other less than desirable aspects. On more than one occasion he would ask the question most readers would like to know..."why can't I just go rescue the princess directly?" Of course the "What's in it for me?" question came up as well. I'm not saying anyone should waste their time playing games...but this one had me rolling with laughter.
Ok, back to the main topic. I have read some good fantasies that lacked the true "quest" model. Yes, there was a goal, and it involved some travel, but lacked the long traditional quest. Using failure to replace the scavenger hunt.
Why does a fantasy have to be so big it spans 3 volumes? Is each and every quest necessary? I think half the problem is that some side quests lack any real purpose. They may seem like it, but I sometimes wonder how someone can know they need the great artifact of unbelievablity to conquer the great evil about to take over the world. I would think the thief who finds himself/herself the target of the rest of the thieves guild would be more interesting. No noble quest...just someone trying to survive another day. If we start with characters, and look at things through the eyes of those characters...would the "grand noble quest" be a real option?
Of course I like stories about characters over those based on a world or setting.
How, I loved Bard's tale. I remember I used up alot of graph paper on that one. I don't have that kind of time anymore...
This the first, it quencheth the thirst...
Go for it, I'd like to read it.
I've had a seed idea along those lines about a branch of matchmatics in which it was not polar, as in positive and negative, but chromodynamic. Of course there indeed may be such a branch, but I'm no mathmatician. Of course the idea never went beyond that.
Then there's sometimes used sci-fi idea where instead of two genders, there are three.
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited December 21, 2004).]
Fantasy writers have a tendency of adding dramatic knowledge to their characters that I can't stand. Robert Jordon is a prime example. Where the POV character identifies the history, race, customs, weaponry, dress, prejudices, and languages and even what martial art stances or movement the person makes in a normal scene such as a barn or a tavern. Most sci fi I have read (except for some star trek stuff) stears clear of this all encomapssing lectures on all the charcters minor and major. But there again Jordon is very well published and I am a nobody.
Example "Janus sat in his chair watching Baldur bring the ale. Baldur moved in the Crimathian Panther Step, the high quick walk of the Crimithian assassins. Janus could tell by the stance and the high Markarian hair piece that Baldur was a Tolbol warrior of the third class, who had fought alongside Meers the Farsighted in the Akkadian Advance of Nargul. It was..."
Frank Herbert did some of this in the Dune series but his charcter's actions were tied to reasons why they were thinking this way. In many of the fantasy books this stuff appears page after page with no reason but to provide commentary. That is one reason why I feel sci fi readers get turned off by popular fantasy.
Ok let my crucifixation begin.
[This message has been edited by Kickle (edited December 21, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Kickle (edited December 21, 2004).]
quote:Of course, this itself is a binary distinction. If this is what the story is about, the binaries will obviously win. You could add a group of people who don't care; that's three things, and then the trinaries win.
I wonder if there's a story in a bunch of people who are adamant that everything in the world is binary in nature, vs. those who describe everything as a trinity.
So now you have two ways to write the story.
The inward outwart thing is interesting. I've been reading a book about brain hemispheres that says the right brain is more interested in fantasy. But I don't quite see how the left brain could be interested in sci fi. I don't know, maybe I'm just too dismissive of sci fi. I know it isn't all as bad as STNG.
Was Star Wars fantasy or sci fi? I mean, it had laser beams and clones, but it also had some... magic? And a princess. And a pre-technological culture that could beat storm troopers.
Or is that there are three kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people, those who think there are three kinds of people, and others.
Or maybe there are four kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people, those who think there are three kinds of people, those who think there are four kinds of people, and the rest.
Perhaps there are five kinds of people in the world...
Still, not all writers are like this. Feist doesn't seem to use so much space, and Lloyd Alexander is able to convey amazingly good fantasy in very slim volumes. I'm just trying to figure out how it works. I'm pretty much stuck with my WIP being a trilogy or a duology at minimum, but I don't want to make a habit of it.
[This message has been edited by Ergoface (edited December 22, 2004).]
Robert Jordan wrote 3 pretty enjoyable books (the first three WoT novels) and then began milking it for every dollar he could wring out of it. I am not sure whether he is greedy or has genuinely become lost in his bloated convoluted epic.
I still read Jordan for the same reason that people stay in a bad marriage, the foolish belief that things will get better.
What was the opening to Star Wars again? Something like a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?
[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited December 22, 2004).]