Here's the problem I have with your question. It seems to me that you are looking for the rules, the norms, the trends of fantasy. If that's what you're looking for, all you need do is read the classics (MacDonald, Tolkien, Lewis) and copy all of their ideas. Probably 90% of all the fantasy I see on the bookstore shelves does exactly that. It seems people believe that in order to be fantasy a book must have elves and dwarves and use fairy tale magic (often involving the classical elements of water, fire, air, and earth). Sure you can get thousands of story lines out of that, but eventually they all start sounding the same.

On the other hand, you could try writing truly unique fantasy, such as OSC's Magic Street or Charles de Lint's Someplace to be Flying. The bonus about these two stories in particular is that they don't require some other fantasy world with its own magic system; they exist in modern America.

So what is fantasy? Does it require elves and centaurs or even the fairies of Magic Street or the bird creatures of Someplace to be Flying? I don't think so. I think the draw of fantasy is that it asks the question "What if the laws of reality could be broken?" If you truly want to write fantasy, find out within yourself what it is that you most wish could be made possible. Do you wish that stars were actually powerful intelligent beings? Madeleine L'Engle did, and that idea helped her to write A Wrinkle in Time. What is it you wish? If you can answer that question, you can write fantasy, whether you know any rules of fantasy or not.

For short stories, the "Year's Best Fantasy" edited by David Hartwell chronicles the different trends pretty well, and showcases various styles, as well as very good authors (I don't care much for Datlow's and Windling's "The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror" which reflects, rather too much, narrow tastes on the genre, but you may like it). Within the anthologies, you'll have the magazines the stories came from, if you want to look for further fiction.

Novels...Depends on what you are looking for. Guy Gavriel Kay is good at historical fantasies, McKillip very good at fairytales, Georges Martin awesome at epic, complex fantasies.

FYI, this year's recipient of the World Fantasy Award was

Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell, which also got the Hugo.

Theres nothing wrong with elves. Don't copy Tolkien's elves and don't use the ones from your favorite game. Don't call them elves either.

Same with Dwarves, Orcs, Halflings and Goblins.

Ogres, Trolls, anything from childrens books like unicorns are fine, please make them your own. I don't want to read about eyes as big as saucers on the troll under the bridge.

Take care when creating your setting. Create enough culture to have a rich surrounding. Know enough history to know that your heroes stand out.

quote:

---

The big rule is that Magic must have a price.

---

According to OSC.

I tend to disagree with him here, but I won't go on further, as its not the point.

As for fantasy, just do what you like to do.

Fantasy doesn't need elves, etc (as said above).

It is like saying that sci-fic tends to copy HG Wells or Jules Verne etc. Only sci-fic has no juggernauts the way fantasy does with Tolkien etc.

Sci-fic has two problems. First, we are often told that for a story to be real sci-fic, technology must be an essential plot element. In other words, if you remove the tech, the plot don't work. However, this 'essential' element becomes obviously hokey, dated, naive, quaint or preposterous in the light of subsequent technological advances. Sci-fic stories inevitably lose relevence over time. Old stories become 'museum' pieces. Most sci-fic has in-built obsolesence.

Of course some might say, 'yes but the characters are so cool,' or, 'but it is an excellent story even without the technology stuff.'

This leads to the second problem with sci-fic, that if the story was excellent and works WITHOUT the technology, by definition it is not REAL sci-fic.

danged if ya do... danged if ya don't.

Fantasy remains relevent over time because it does not rely on such superficial and mutable elements. That is why something written in the 1930s or the 1890s or the 1500s can still be considered a benchmark today.

Some authors start out that way, but as they become more comfortable, they branch out and get much more creative. Take Terry Brooks for instance. His first Shannara novels were very closely related to Tolkein. But the Jerle Shannara series is something quite different entirely.

Smaug, in Fantasy, anything is possible, if done correctly and built with a solid foundation. I say you can have elves, dwarves, and any other races you want, if they are done in a refreshing manner. Set rules for magic, consequence or not, your choice, but stick with your rules, do not break them. The only other advice I can offer, is make your story rich with a sense of history, but not a history lesson. Make your setting seem real, and your characters even more so. That is what draws a reader to your story, in my opinion. I think it is the same for all fiction.

I'm tired of reading writers who think some or all of the following:
-that fantasy means another world that looks a lot like our world but that allows for magic
-that fantasy means the civilizations of that world have to live in a time period where everyone is a farmer or a merchant (or something else from the middle ages)
-that fantasy can be "spiced up" with a cool magic sword, a broken crown, or some other reference to being the best fighter in the world or a long-lost king
-that fantasy magic should be elemental, meanwhile completely ignoring the consequences to the world as a whole if everything is based on four or five elements (thus creating a structurally unsound world)
-that fantasy worlds should include special creatures either from folk lore or mythology
-essentially that fantasy should be based off of a dungeons and dragons game (dragons, forgot to mention that point) that you put together and think makes a good story

It's true that there's a lot of good fantasy out there. Many people have made some incredibly unique fantasy. But when I walk through the fantasy section of a store and see book after book with a beautiful fey and a man with a sword on the cover and a title along the lines of "The Broken Crown of Melisant" I'm a bit hesitant to dive right into those books. Perhaps I'm misjudging them. I haven't actually read them all.

I think a still worse problem isn't the books on the shelves (because publishers are fairly good at discriminating what to print) but the books that people like us send to the publishers and then find are rejected. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to who say that they are writing a fantasy book, and then when they describe it to me it does all of the things I listed above. I used to be guilty of all those things myself.

It's true that both Tolkien and Lewis were heavily influenced by MacDonald. One of them is quoted as saying, "I consider George MacDonald to be my master." MacDonald was unique for his time. He created a completely new world where the folk creatures he grew up hearing about (ie gnomes) actually did live. Tolkien expanded on the idea. His world was based off of two things: his desire for British folk lore and his love of language. But he *transformed* the creatures that he borrowed. He made a world that was completely unique. Lewis created an entirely different world from Tolkien (besides the fact that both worlds were more middle ages than modern... which of course was due to the fact that both of them had lived through a world war and were devastated by the effects of technology). Lewis's world was based on his faith and his desire for there to be *more* somewhere out there. (His space trilogy is built on the same principles.) I guess the point is that, yes, you can borrow an idea if you really like it, but find a way to make it your own based on your personal desires.

If you want to impress me with your fantasy story, try doing one of these:
-keep the story in our modern world
-make your main character unique without making that character "the last of the _" or "the only one with special quality _" (and avoid Mary Sue-isms)
-if you must have magic, make it really really different from anything I've seen before (and also compatible with the world you put it in)

So, here's my two cents.

First off, just so you know, I'm a very picky reader. I've gotten to the point where I don't give books much of a chance anymore: I'll put them down the moment they turn me off.

I think many of the problems people have with fantasy have little to do with over-used tricks. I think most of it has to do with relying on those tricks as a way of bypassing strong characters and plot. Salvatore's Icewind Dale trilogy is an annoying Tolkien knock-off, yet I not only read it, I enjoyed it, all because of his presentation and characters.

I have no problem with a story that contains any of the devices/creatures/races mentioned in this thread as long as the story and characters are sound and presented in a style that doesn't detract from the story. And I will love you forever if I'm inspired by the time I've finished reading your book.

The best fantasy I've read so far is Jonathon Strange and Mr. Norrell. It was so wonderful it made me despair when I looked at my own stories.

Smaug: If you want to write fantasy, I would definitely become familiar with the "classics", but I would also recommend reading mythology, fairy tales, and as many folk tales as you can manage. All fantasy is based on the stories of our ancestors, one way or another and pretty soon it all sounds like variations on one story anyway. Zelazny's use of myths and magic was one of the things I loved about The Nine Princes of Amber (if I can get over my boredom with Corwin and his family I might try reading The Guns of Avalon again).

Hackneyed, formulaic, clichéd or plodding books in any genre are just tree murderers. A waste of paper.

Edit: off-topic rant deleted

Smaug, unlike the others, I suggest you might try to begin with a tabula rasa.

Form your world fresh as it springs from your imagination, don't go wading through the hack, slash and zap books. Lie down with pigs get up dirty IMO.

Make the world and story internally consistent, ie let it have integrity (from integritas which mean entire ie: give it rules. They don't necessarily have to define every aspect of the world but they should at least offer basic guidance or gesture toward the whole). Love your story, that way you will take the reader with you as a companion rather than a student.

(I did plot out two fantasy novels awhile ago, neither much like each other...and, far as I can tell, nobody has done anything like them, either...

I write that, but we all try and change the little aspects a little because it's all cliche.

I probably should post something ON topic to make up for posting OFF topic.

I still think it's possible to be original in the fantasy genre, the same that it's possible to be original in anything else. There are no new ideas, or very few, it is true. But there are lots of ideas that haven't been combined creatively yet. And there are some tropes that have definitely been overused, but who am I to say someone can't find a way to make them fresh and new again? That person might have to overcome my bias against what I feel is a tired idea, so there is a price, but once they've got me hooked I'll enjoy the ride.

Its a pretty good fantasy based on celtic lore. Its not an ancient sword and socercy type of novel though as the main character entres into the otherworld* and has to discover it all on his own which makes for a pretty interesting way to do the info dumps because the MC has to learn it too.

**(fairy land is a common name to those not overly familiar with the subtleties of celtic lore, this books makes a person want to know more)

edit for spelling

The same applies in writing--if you believe you can't do anything new, then you likely won't. If you believe you must copy things that have already been done, then that's what you'll write. Just keep working at new ideas, and if you do write something that's already been done, so what. Just make sure you write it the best it can be written. That sells books too, even with old and tired ideas. New ideas come along all the time, so just be ready to grab hold and enjoy the ride when you fin one.

Here are the two versions of that:

first one

In 1899, the head of the United States Patent Office, Charles Duell,
was credited with arguing to close the Patent Office because
"everything that could have been invented, has been invented."

second one

Although we find the statement patently absurd, it sure does pop up
everywhere. But it appears to be yet another legend.

The story that's most often told is that in 1899 the head of the U.S.
Patent Office sent his resignation to President McKinley urging the
closing of the office because "everything that could be invented has
been invented." It's been told and retold so often that even President
Reagan used it in a speech.

The "quote" is often attributed to Charles H. Duell, who was
Commissioner of Patents in 1899. However, according to The Great Idea Finder, Duell was far from pessimistic about the future of new inventions and patents. He even encouraged Congress to improve the patent system.

The Skeptical Inquirer agrees, adding information on another Patent Office commissioner whose statements may have been taken out of context. In a 1843 letter to Congress, Henry L. Ellsworth emphasized the rapid growth in the number of patents and stated that he expected patent activity to increase. Somehow, his statements may have been misconstrued.

I do not agree that science fiction is a junk genre simply because the science in it can become obsolete. Well-written science fiction transcends technical advances. I read a novel by Assimov recently (can't remember the name) in which he has a afterward that apologizes for the fact that since he wrote the book the scientific theories he used in it were completely debunked but wasn't it a good idea and a good story anyway? I found myself saying yes, it was a clever idea and a good story.

A lot of old science fiction that has debunked science in it is bad not only for the debunked science, but also because there wasn't anything else there.I know. I've read a lot of it because I happen to like it as an historical study.

I also happen to dsiagree with the people who say that it's not science fiction if you can remove the science/technology from it and still have a story. So you could have set it in the old west? Big deal. I happen to like the space millieu better than the western one. A lot of people will disagree with me on this one, but I truly believe that science fiction, too, can be about who we are and where we're going even more so than the technology.

There is precious little good scifi out there. I'll giv eyou that much. But that doesn't keep me from loving it and trying to write it. My current novel is scifi. Yeah, in a few years the scientific basis I chose for it may become obsolete, but then again the scientific basis is a small part and if the reader can suspend disbelief there then I still have this entire mystyer/character/action story going on.

As to fantasy sub-genres...aside from the author, who I thought was an idiot for saying so, who doesn't think HP is fantasy?

HP is fantasy for me.

This book doesn't just encompass things like races and characters and the battle of good and evil but small day to day things (like stew) that are often either omnipresent or completely ignored (like insects and economy). I laughed so hard reading it, I ended up reading half the book out loud to my husband as he'd have to know what I was laughing about.

Yeah, so here's my opinion on the whole medieval-ness of fantasy books (that involve magic.) I personally think it's because in our modern world there is not magic to be found, and I don't mean magic, like Hallmark 'magic' (i.e. child birth, ...and other stuff, whatever.)
I mean magic like, wizard magic. I think a wizard in 1998 NYC would be out of place and akward, but I only think that probably because I haven't seen it done, and would have a hard time writing it and making it un-stupid.

I think its easier to look back on a time that we don't know as well as our own and apply different rules to it. The same way that sci fi usually takes place in the FUTURE. (yeah i know... not all of them.)

quote:

---

A science fiction story is a story with a human problem, and a human solution, that would not have happened at all without its scientific content.

---

I think it was Ben Bova that reiterated the idea that Sci-fic in which technology is not integral to the plot is not sci-fic. It is not my definition, but the definition precludes the sort of mitigating 'yes buts...' that are being raised here.

Either the definition is right or it is wrong.
Where is the scientific rigour?

BTW It is unconvincing to state that tolkienesque fantasy is primarily written for boys AND fail to mention that the same is true of sci-fic. If that is not true then WHO is the target market? Scientists? Brian Aldiss said that Science fiction is written for scientists about as much as ghost stories are written for ghosts?

This thread now links to this one started by Spaceman.

Below is a definition of sci-fic by John W. Campbell, Jr. found in the inroduction of Analog 6 1966

quote:

---

The major distinction between fantasy and science fiction is, simply, that science fiction uses one, or a very, very few new postulates, and develops the rigidly consistent logical consequences of these limited postulates. Fantasy makes its rules as it goes along...The basic nature of fantasy is "The only rule is, make up a new rule any time you need one!" The basic rule of science fiction is "Set up a basic proposition--then develop its consistent, logical consequences."

---

I know none of us would agree with this... out loud.

Is this sentiment discredited in the minds of most writers or do some elements of this attitude persist? Don't most writers and readers of fiction accord, in their attitudes, some sort of "hierarchy of respectability" to various genres?

PS Has anyone read Mission of Gravity by Hal Clement?

It is not, hwoever, true of well done fantasy. Well done fantasy does create rules and sticks to them. I don't see this in the majority of cases, especially, for some reason, in television. Actually, I suppose it makes sense. They run out of plots basd on the restrictive rules they set up, have no imagination, and so bend, break, or ignore the things they set up previously.

I like how Card does it in his "Thousand Ideas" sessions. For fantasy, he asks "What is the price of magic?" The answer to this question can often create a fascinating plot with real problems for the world and character.

I used that question as the emotional basis of the novel I just sold, come to think of it.

I have to say that I agree with the spirit of everything you have said.

The purpose of my comments, really, is to challenge the idea of a hierarchy of respectability of subgenres within speculative fiction

I tend to get this line of thinking from alot of serious "hard sci-fi" writers and readers. I think that both Fantasy and Sci-fi use postulates fairly equally. Like both Christine and hoptoad said, this may be true of bad fantasy. I will submit it must then be true of bad sci-fi as well.

Like Aldiss said, science fiction is written for scientists about as much as ghost stories are written for ghosts.