Quality in Fantasy?

[Zahir]

I'm clicking on my Soapbox icon here so be warned!

Right now I'm working on my own epic fantasy and the analytical part of what passes for my brain has been focussing on fantasy in general. Specifically, what makes for the very highest quaity in same?

First--doesn't any good story have pretty much the same basic requirements? Good writing simply is good writing. The active voice, minimal use of adverbs and pronouns, a sense of rhythm--these seem universal. So too is avoiding stereotypes, surprising the reader while remaining logical (very tricky but oh-so-rewarding) and letting the characters "live" (an artsy way to describe it but then this is art, right?).

Yet fantasy has its own specific requirements as well. Or does, imo.

One is that fantasy has a kind of elevated reality, and that needs to find expression in the language used. Ursula K. LeGuin wrote a wonderful essay (now out of print, alas) in Language of the Night in which she uses Katherine Kurtz' Deryni series as an example of what not to do. The books feel very contemporary, despite the nuance of detail applied to the medeviel setting.

This isn't a call to "forsoothize" language, though. And honestly, methinks she misses the mark when criticizing Roger Zelazny for the "hippness" of his prose--which seems an effective counterpoint and stylistic device imo.

Second is that good fantasy requires a reason for the fantastic elements. Just tossing in dragons for fun (and they are) doesn't really cut it. Instead, the Elves or Giants or whatever pretty much need to serve some kind of metaphorical purpose. Lord Foul the Despiser certainly comes across as self hatred rendered incarnate. The dragons of Earthsea are like every dangerous truth made flesh, just as Tolkien's hobbits pretty much live the idea of simple, homey virtues.

Again, please don't imagine this is a call for allegory. For one thing, allegory cannot help but have a limited shelf-life. Metaphor, on the hand, touches universal truths--especially when taking rather dreamlike or mythical forms. Joseph Campbell was right, imo, when he called Mythology the society's Dreams and Dreams the individual's Mythology.

Finally, though, so much epic fantasy is out in the intellectual marketplace right now we pretty much are going to demand something beyond the simple Quest-For-A-Special-Trinket. Rightly, too. There are far too many quasi-Celtic kingdoms with races of fading elves, for example. And it takes some genuine originality to render an antogonist without simply running Sauron through the intellectual version of a xerox machine.

So--that's where I'm coming from, anyway. What do you think?

[Worm of Despite]

There need not be black and white--we can afford shades of gray, aye!? And not every fantasy needs to revolve around “kingdoms” or “princes” and “knights” and “epic battles” and “political intrigue”, and “he who is of lordly caliber and fair of face and bright of eyes”.

Why not have something like inner-city turmoil--small conflicts. Why dodge the reality of what goes on down in those streets and those dark, sullen alleyways? Why concentrate on outmoded systems of kings and queens and the “royal 10%” when there is a “common 90%” that ALWAYS seems to be overlooked by fantasy authors and yet is present in every corner of the real world! Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what truly divides the fantasy genre from what the professors and scholars consider “great classics of modern literature”, right?

So, why not see the “small people”? They’re more interesting in the long run, aren’t they? Instead of seeing a “white knight riding through”, I’d rather see a rogue battling with choices between his own personal feelings and his loyalty to a guild of thieves; CONSCIENCE; Huckleberry Finn... Like Thomas Becket...

To learn things about ourselves and about others along the way by READING... Isn’t that the essence of the “great literature”?! How do I learn anything--how is reading any good for my soul--if we simply see “he who walks in his grand helm, wearing iron mail, and speaks bold words loudly from deep within his chest”? I, for one, do not want to see cardboard characters that are simply empty embodiments of our society’s accepted virtues and morals. I want to see REAL PEOPLE--REAL MEN AND WOMEN who make REAL choices. The fantasy becomes meaningless otherwise. Fantasy is simply a good way to indirectly show us realities, is it not? The same goes for science fiction. That is why many stray from it, I believe. Those two genres are the only ones that truly deal with today’s problems, it seems. Notice how people shy away from Covenant, when it is most likely the most realistic of all the fantasy series. That is not a coincidence.

As for anything concerning allegories mixed with fantasy, I think it was Tolkien who put it best when he said, “I think many confuse ‘applicability’ with ‘allegory’; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

In other words: timelessness.

PS. *Looks up at his towering post* I hope I wasn't too long-winded... Hope SOME of what I said was true. All I know is that there are two different kinds of fantasies: the kind my stereotypically-product-of-her-mass-media-cheerleader-friend reads (Salvatore) and the kind that us (weird) people read (Covenant).

[[Syl]]

The first thing to ask yourself is are you telling a story or making a point? Most fantasy authors out there are telling stories (as are most best sellers). Good ones, granted, but still stories. If you don't have a point to make, an axe to grind, something to say, it's not going to be quality in the way that Hemingway (Donaldson) is.

Fantasy, by nature, tends towards self indulgence and regressive thinking. If we say something happens by magic in real life, we're pretty much saying we don't know/care enough to find out why it really happens. Magic in most modern fantasy is revenge fantasy fullfilment or our desire to express the ineloquent or ineffable parts of ourselves. Evil is that which we don't understand or that which is not us. It must be destroyed, subdued, or converted. Something/someone beautiful must be saved because we haven't learned to let go. A hero or liked character may die so we can believe we can let go and because we're too weak to see him live.

I'm not saying this is always the case, but I think this kind of thing dominates the fantasy market. Sometimes a message is thrown in as an afterthought.

Don't be too quick to dismiss allegory. Some allegory has lasted 2000 years or more.

To be completely cliched, write what's in your heart. Don't let anybody but yourself tell you what to write or how. After it's done, listen to the advice of respected friends, mentors, editors, etc. on how to refine it. Create what you love; love what you create.

[Sevothtarte]

To be completely cliched, write what's in your heart. Don't let anybody but yourself tell you what to write or how.

Isn't this telling him how to write?

[[Syl]]

well, yeah, but somehow i don't think anybody would understand me if i wrote a response that just said "..."

it's an ass cover, basically... like imho... or "I'm not a doctor, but..."

[Worm of Despite]

Yep, write from the heart, and the hand will follow...or the keyboard...or whatever you use. Hey, that might be my best argument so far! Anyway, I have always held dear many of the things you said, Syl. But I'm just not an allegory man, myself. 2000 years is not long enough a shelf life for my material, heh heh. I just think, in the long run, a timeless book is more potent.

[Sevothtarte]

HOW TO WRITE GOOD

1 Avoid alliteration. Always.

2 Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.

3 Avoid cliches like the plague. (They're old hat.)

4 Employ the vernacular.

5 Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.

6 Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are unnecessary.

7 It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.

8 Contractions aren't necessary

9 Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.

10 One should never generalize.

11 Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."

12 Comparisons are as bad as cliches.

13 Don't be redundant; don't use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.

14 Profanity sucks.

15 Be more or less specific.

16 Understatement is always best.

17 Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.

18 One-word sentences? Eliminate.

19 Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.

20 The passive voice is to be avoided.

21 Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.

22 Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.

23 Who needs rhetorical questions?

[duchess of malfi]

Just follow your heart. I can tell which authors love their creations, and their characters, and those are the ones I most enjoy reading. Even if something does have some of the "fantasy" cliches, it doesn't matter, as along as it is well written, and given a lot of love and thought and care by the author.
Let's see. Lately I've been really into Martin. He loves his characters (a lot of the plot is character driven), he isn't afraid to let them do bad things if they're a good guy, or good things if they're a bad guy. He shows the world from a huge variety of people -- from grieving widows/mothers to knights to truly honorable men to dreamy little girls, to the peasants whose lives are destroyed when the nobles play their game of thrones. It brings a lot of levels to his work. But most of all, he is passionately in love with Westeros and its people, and that really comes through. He CARES about what happens, so the reader does, too.
Don't know if any of this is helpful or not, I am certainly no author, though I am a literature abuser.

[Zahir]

I just wanted to mention something else. Virginia Woolfe made the point in some essay that the hallmark of a great writer is that they are "invisible." By this she meant that you don't see the author when reading their works, but simply their stories and whatever truths lie therein.

For example, one of the great frustrations of all Shakespearean scholars is that the Bard of Avon is so very invisible. Discerning his pov from his plays is very tricky, indeed, because you find nearly any set of ideas given a full and proper weight. War is glorious. It is also loathesome. Women must be nice and subservient, but are also wiser and sometimes stronger than men. Kings deserve awe, yet remain petty human beings will all the frailties our species is prone to.

Yet it cannot be denied that Shakespeare--like virtually all great artists--certainly wrote about issues and ideas. My own pov is that he fundamentally respected the truth to make itself known, and doubted his own understanding of it.

(Its really interesting to read what others think, btw).

[Bannor]

Sevothtarte, your list is excellent, but I'm wondering about the heading: "HOW TO WRITE GOOD." Was that to grab our attention?

[Loredoctor]

PS. *Looks up at his towering post* I hope I wasn't too long-winded... Hope SOME of what I said was true. All I know is that there are two different kinds of fantasies: the kind my stereotypically-product-of-her-mass-media-cheerleader-friend reads (Salvatore) and the kind that us (weird) people read (Covenant).

That was an excellent read, LF. I agree with everything you say. I'm sick to death of heroic fantasy and just want to read about real people - this gives fantasy the right context and secures the 'fantastic'.

[Roland of Gilead]

A lot of excellent points. Zahir, your essay was very well-written. I can only hope your epic fantasy shows as much quality, and that some publisher has the brains to give you a shot.

Sevotharte, your good writing list cracked me up. I'm passing that one along to my e-mail buddies to start their New Year's right with some humor.