The trouble with fantasy...

[IronParrot]

... is that it's so hard to pick out anything truly original nowadays.

It seems to me that the fascination with the Middle Ages has been bled utterly to death. Most of the fantasy on shelves today may have a few original ideas scattered here and there, I grant, but they are generally a rehash of the same thing. They can all be traced back to a number of key influences, and it wouldn't be such a big problem if these weren't the same key influences over and over and over.

Arthurian legend is a biggie. Kings, mystical swords, platemail, Merlin-esque wizardry, castles, a very English monarchy, quests for holy grails and the like - it's been done. Again. And again. There are also influences like Beowulf, the Greek and Norse mythologies, even the Brothers Grimm... my point is, it's one thing to allude to similarities, but rehashing it all is completely different.

I also blame Tolkien, in a way. See, Tolkien did it right: he took those ancient mythical influences and created an entire world, and upon it he built a unified story. His world was a mix-and-match of old England and really old England, and brought mythical concepts of Elves, Dwarves and the like back into the limelight.

But now you have all these writers who try to create their own worlds, and hardly add anything significant to them. Even more dangerous is when they get sucked into exploring every facet of that world, and aim for vastness at the expense of story and focus. Episodic series fiction proliferates in overwhelming abundance. They create silly names that make no sense due to their lack of a systematic linguistic framework or understanding, something that Tolkien had but few others possess.

So much fantasy literature today is just a theme and variations on swords and sorcery. Doesn't "fantasy" imply "originality"? In terms of being original, "world creation" does not go far enough.

I don't consider myself a fantasy fan by any standard. I don't like the genre. However, most of my favourite books belong to it. Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass are prime examples of creativity in escapism. Baum's Oz books painted on a traditional background of kingdoms and magic, but he used a diverse palette of characters and settings that went far beyond the trappings of the fantasy genre's roots. The Princess Bride took the traditional archetypes and made fun of them ruthlessly and charmingly, which is perhaps why I enjoyed it so much. My favourite contemporary fantasy world in literature is by far that of Harry Potter, with its ministerial bureaucracies and modern re-imagining of old magical ideas.

Outside of literature, Star Wars is a perfect example of what I'm talking about here, in terms of originality in fantasy. It takes the traditional themes and ideas of everything from Tolkien to Japanese samurai legends, and places them in a completely different setting that had never been explored before in the context of these themes. It basically took settings and elements from the interplanetary worlds of Buck Rogers and Star Trek and the like, typically reserved for science fiction, and replaced sci-fi with mythical fantasy. It's no wonder it was such a success - and, like Tolkien, spawned so many lame clones (the Star Wars "literature" being the prime example, ironically).

There are other works that, while not among my favourite novels, are at least indicators of where fantasy should ideally be headed. C.S. Lewis' Narnia is a decent example, and it's perhaps no coincidence that the stronger books of the series (Wardrobe, Caspian and Dawn Treader, in my opinion) don't fall too far into the trappings I mentioned earlier, while The Horse and His Boy does. Cooper's The Dark is Rising turns Arthurian legend on its head, and is admirable for that.

Redwall is a good example as well, though in terms of animal personification, I vastly prefer Horwood's Duncton Chronicles, a mole's-eye-view of England that was a universe of its own, full of creative takes on religion and politics in its own right.

All of these works I've mentioned have a number of key things in common - namely, they're not Tolkien/Arthur/Grimm/Beowulf ripoffs, nor do they rely too heavily on outlandish names, nor do they put a lot of emphasis on world creation while forgetting to make that world original and interesting. Literature should not be a game of Dungeons & Dragons.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Why do I have the distinct feeling that this was spawned by reading my posts?

[IronParrot]

No, this is something I've meant to say for a long, long time. Perhaps before I ever came to Entmoot.

[Wayfarer]

It's not just fantasy.

In the information age, we have the ability to proliferate fiction on a scale completely unheard of even 50 years ago. I consider myself an exceptional reader- I've gone through as many as three novels a day for weeks at a time. And yet, for every book I managed to read, several more were published in that same period of time.

There's so much out there that it's inconceivable that even a fraction of it could be truly new and exciting. We're constantly inundated by endless iterations of unoriginal themes. Fantasy, Scifi, Suspense, Drama, every genre has become overdone, to the point where the struggle of the writers is to find something that's not already cliche. Most often, they fail.

[IronParrot]

Ooh, don't get me started on sci-fi. Ugh, whatever happened to it?

And I'm not claiming that fantasy is alone in terms of having a high percentage of material not worth reading. I'm just criticizing fantasy specifically because it has gradually become formulaically synonymous with knights, kings, sorcery, magic artifacts, Elves, Dwarves, and silly names. That, to me, is a genre-specific problem.

[sun-star]

Originally posted by IronParrot
I'm just criticizing fantasy specifically because it has gradually become formulaically synonymous with knights, kings, sorcery, magic artifacts, Elves, Dwarves, and silly names. That, to me, is a genre-specific problem.

And that's why fantasy has such a terrible reputation. The reason people laugh at Tolkien is not because they necessarily find it funny, but because when it's the fiftieth book about Elves you've seen in ten minutes walking round a bookshop, it doesn't stand out as different. I can't tell most of the fantasy books being published today apart - they all have those lurid colours with pictures of castles and dragons on the front and a list of unpronounceable names on the back. Perhaps if there was a way of controlling the numbers published, it would be easier to distinguish quality. But they must sell...

By the way, this is not a criticism (rant?) about anything I've read on Entmoot. Just fantasy in general

[Aralyn]

uh huh sure, we know what you mean

I agree IP. It's so hard to find a good fantsay or (i will say it) sci-fi book. Now that I've read Tolkien a billion times I can recognize used and worn out plots. You know?

[Elbereth Gilthoniel]

I'm not talking as someone who read so much ( I'm not 16 yet), and I'm not tierd of fantazy but the thing that I like in those books are not the world itself (good world really helps ut it is not all) but the charachters that in the book.

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by Elbereth Gilthoniel
I'm not talking as someone who read so much ( I'm not 16 yet), and I'm not tierd of fantazy but the thing that I like in those books are not the world itself (good world really helps ut it is not all) but the charachters that in the book.

I'm not 16 (presumably) yet either! I'm not tired of fantasy either, having barely read many of those really 'popular' books.
The characters need to be interesting, but I think the world needs to be done exceptionally - original, deep etc. For plausibility and interest.

[johnnyrod]

It's true that there are shelves of utter crap in the book shops these days, I prefer SF lately and I know what you mean, there's no story, just a load of geeky pseudo-scientific garbage. The Trekkies didn't like that when I put it to them... but it's true. Even some of the better fantasy books still cling onto things like Tolkein's east/west split.

[markedel]

That's why I only stick to a few authors. I like to find writers who's writing style I enjoy and go from there.

The again I'm a devoted Harry Turtledove fan and he writes incredibly long, commericalized series. I suppose that's no matter then slogging through the wheel of time.

[Raistlin]

this is in reply about sci-fi and how it's alike. me and a few friends have came upon a strange hypothesis; sci-fi follows the times and the problems of that time period and puts it in to the worst possible scenario. for example the core we're all afriad the wolrd ending and in the movie it does, in the fifties xmen was popular and that is based the nuclear scare and mutation. if you look the sci-fi books release date and think you can see the connection.

[Anglorfin]

Originally posted by johnnyrod
It's true that there are shelves of utter crap in the book shops these days, I prefer SF lately and I know what you mean, there's no story, just a load of geeky pseudo-scientific garbage. The Trekkies didn't like that when I put it to them... but it's true. Even some of the better fantasy books still cling onto things like Tolkein's east/west split.

I consider myself to be a mild trekkie, and I'd have to say that I disagree with you. At least in the television series and especially TNG (my favorite) the appeal is not in the action or supposed technology or technical jargon. All of that is a mask. It is a set created to explore the possibilities and outcomes of many moral and social issues. I can say this because I have never endeavored to learn Klingon or anything like that. The appeal is in the situations of the actors, which especially in TNG I consider to be excellent.

Originally posted by Raistlin
this is in reply about sci-fi and how it's alike. me and a few friends have came upon a strange hypothesis; sci-fi follows the times and the problems of that time period and puts it in to the worst possible scenario. for example the core we're all afriad the wolrd ending and in the movie it does, in the fifties xmen was popular and that is based the nuclear scare and mutation. if you look the sci-fi books release date and think you can see the connection.

I agree. One book that comes to mind for me is "Shardik" by Richard Adams. I consider it a good fantasy novel. Not specifically by Iron Parrot's standards, but by yours, Raistlin. It is a story shaped out of a somewhat fantasy world, with shamanism and cultural ritual. I'd say that it is more of an exploration of society and cultural custom. The fantasy aspect is very subtle, but I think that is what makes it interesting. Like many great fantasy and sci-fi nowadays, the actual world only serves as a fragile shell to what is really there. In which case books of these genres are becoming more and more philosophical in regard to themes, and IMO that is the direction that the good fantasy and sci-fi novels are taking.

[galadriel]

Originally posted by Anglorfin
[B]The appeal is in the situations of the actors, which especially in TNG I consider to be excellent.

I agree with that whole-heartedly... watching Data learn the meaning of humanity, or Worf struggle with his Klingon ties, was always more interesting than watching space battles or listening to technobabble being shouted across the bridge.

Your comments on bad fantasy/sci-fi reminded me of an especially good example: Frank Herbert's Dune. (Not sure if it counts as fantasy or sci-fi; it can arguably fit into either category). I'm reading the first book right now and am impressed. Herbert takes elements of Islam and ancient Rome and Asimov-esque "Space Guilds" and puts them together in a configuration that actually makes sense. More importantly, the worldbuilding only supports characterization and plot rather than overshadowing it.

I just hope that the later books don't disappoint me, as can be said for so many series.

[Anglorfin]

That is another series that I promised myself I'd read one day. My dad used to have all the books but I think they were so old they fell apart.

[elf queen]

I agree but I still love it!!!

[Estel13]

Originally posted by IronParrot
Ooh, don't get me started on sci-fi. Ugh, whatever happened to it?

And I'm not claiming that fantasy is alone in terms of having a high percentage of material not worth reading. I'm just criticizing fantasy specifically because it has gradually become formulaically synonymous with knights, kings, sorcery, magic artifacts, Elves, Dwarves, and silly names. That, to me, is a genre-specific problem.

No, please, what's wrong with sci-fi?
However, I do agree with you on the fact that both Harry Potter and Redwall are very well written. Most of what I read is either Science Fiction or Fantasy. But, yeah, the silly/odd names get me sometimes too.
And galadriel, maybe if you tried to understand the so-called "technobabble", you'd enjoy it more.

[Anglorfin]

The thing with sci-fi is that if it gets too caught up in the techno-babble then it is no good unless there is a REALLY good story behind it and it catpures your attention long enough for you to grasp and understand the techno-babbley stuff while watching it and enjoying it. Sadly a lot of sci-fi is now just feeble attempts at this great art.

[galadriel]

Originally posted by Estel13
And galadriel, maybe if you tried to understand the so-called "technobabble", you'd enjoy it more.

Oh, but I *do* enjoy technobabble. Half of the fun of watching Star Trek is dissecting the pseudo-science and discussing it with nerdy friends.

Ultimately, however, technobabble needs to contribute to the plot itself, or the show gets boring even to us sci-fi fans. Sure, holodecks are cool, but they're not merely cool because of the cool lingo and special effects. They're fun because interesting things happen in them that affect plot and character in unexpected ways. *That's* what makes good science fiction.

[Anglorfin]

Originally posted by galadriel
Oh, but I *do* enjoy technobabble. Half of the fun of watching Star Trek is dissecting the pseudo-science and discussing it with nerdy friends.

Ultimately, however, technobabble needs to contribute to the plot itself, or the show gets boring even to us sci-fi fans. Sure, holodecks are cool, but they're not merely cool because of the cool lingo and special effects. They're fun because interesting things happen in them that affect plot and character in unexpected ways. *That's* what makes good science fiction.

Agreed