Does fantasy have to innovate the genre?

[Peregrin Toker]

I recall reading in a book about the fantasy genre that the difference between mere swords-and-sorcery "pulp" fiction and Fantasy was each entry into the Fantasy genre must contribute something new to the genre, be it ideas, a certain mood or atmosphere, or something else.

According to that book, everything which just copied previous fantasy instead of exploring new ideas was not "true" fantasy and merely "swords-and-sorcery". (in fact, it implied that uninspired sword-and-sorcery fiction was an insult to the real fantasy genre)

Your opinions on this??

Personally, I believe it's a bit of an exaggeration - of course, good fantasy has to be more than rehashings of old clichés, but something shouldn't be excluded just because it's too similar to previous works.

Or should it?

[Ligier]

According to that book, everything which just copied previous fantasy instead of exploring new ideas was not "true" fantasy and merely "swords-and-sorcery". (in fact, it implied that uninspired sword-and-sorcery fiction was an insult to the real fantasy genre)

Did this book mention any examples of this "one, true fantasy" genre? (Besides LoTR, I mean.)

Anyway, sounds like this article was written by an editor and/or author disgusted with pulp fantasy books being lumped in with their favourite titles at your local Chapters/Indigo/Barnes & Nobles/what-have-you.

Personally, I disagree with the book's statement. They're just nitpicking over sub-genres. An old tale told through with an innovative, new twist is fine, to me. (i.e. LoTR told thorugh the "eyes" of Frodo's trusty, sentient pouch, or something.)

(Maybe not as long winded. )

[Vendetta]

In the current climate, yes.

I've made this argument here before.

The entirety of commercially successful fantasy these days is rewriting Tolkien, using all his ideas (and doing it ass-backwards as well), and they all seem to think that you HAVE to write a stupidly long epic for it to be any good..

Even the one modern series I have enjoyed, A Song of Ice and Fire, even though it's far more based in concepts from real history, is still based on this one model, of a 'new world' with no relation to ours.

Possibly the best fantasy story I've read recently has been Coraline, a children's book, which is a fantasy story with a modern world setting, with recognisable people and fantastic events.

Fantasy shouldn't have to follow Tolkien's model, but 99% of it does. This needs to change.

[Stormbringer]

Even if you're just rehashing Tolkien it's Fantasy. Crappy fantasy but fantasy none the less.


I do think that re-hash fantasy, most of which is Tolkien inspired, is an insult to fantasy. It's the crap that's done so much to ruin the genre's name. The kind of shit-ass author that make a career of borrowing other ideas with out inovation or individualization piss me off. In no other genre, except Sci-Fi do you see such intellectaul inbreeding and laziness. It's why it's frustrating to be a fan of good fantasy, too many lazy hacks.

[SirNitram]

Even if you're just rehashing Tolkien it's Fantasy. Crappy fantasy but fantasy none the less.


I do think that re-hash fantasy, most of which is Tolkien inspired, is an insult to fantasy. It's the crap that's done so much to ruin the genre's name. The kind of shit-ass author that make a career of borrowing other ideas with out inovation or individualization piss me off. In no other genre, except Sci-Fi do you see such intellectaul inbreeding and laziness. It's why it's frustrating to be a fan of good fantasy, too many lazy hacks.

You've never cracked open 'romance' novels(Romance?! If I knew softcore like that was in the books in my local library, I would have been there more often!), mystery novels, political novels... Trust me, lazy hacks get by just fine there as well.

[Stormbringer]

You've never cracked open 'romance' novels(Romance?! If I knew softcore like that was in the books in my local library, I would have been there more often!), mystery novels, political novels... Trust me, lazy hacks get by just fine there as well.

Soft Core porno novels don't count as literature.


But in no genre do you see the top authors preying off a single predecessor like that. Even the thriller or mystery genre aren't as bad as modern fantasy.

[SirNitram]

You've never cracked open 'romance' novels(Romance?! If I knew softcore like that was in the books in my local library, I would have been there more often!), mystery novels, political novels... Trust me, lazy hacks get by just fine there as well.

Soft Core porno novels don't count as literature.

If you can get it from my library, it's literature. Even if the bodice comes off on page 2.

But in no genre do you see the top authors preying off a single predecessor like that. Even the thriller or mystery genre aren't as bad as modern fantasy.

That's more because those genres are older; the established plots were basically set down during the Greek period; it's all rewrites, just it's spread out enough that no one cares. Sci-fi and Fantasy seem to be relatively modern, oddly enough, in their current forms.

[Stormbringer]

If you can get it from my library, it's literature. Even if the bodice comes off on page 2.

Bah, it's soft core porn, not literature.

That's more because those genres are older; the established plots were basically set down during the Greek period; it's all rewrites, just it's spread out enough that no one cares. Sci-fi and Fantasy seem to be relatively modern, oddly enough, in their current forms.

On the contrary the modern detective novel is at the oldest 100 years old. Yet that genre shows more range and is by far more diverse than Fantasy or Sci-fi. It's just the genre is inbreed and the authors lazy. It's possible to create individual and distinctive novels, it's just no one makes the effort.

[The Prime Necromancer]

In the current climate, yes.

I've made this argument here before.

The entirety of commercially successful fantasy these days is rewriting Tolkien, using all his ideas (and doing it ass-backwards as well), and they all seem to think that you HAVE to write a stupidly long epic for it to be any good..

Even the one modern series I have enjoyed, A Song of Ice and Fire, even though it's far more based in concepts from real history, is still based on this one model, of a 'new world' with no relation to ours.

Possibly the best fantasy story I've read recently has been Coraline, a children's book, which is a fantasy story with a modern world setting, with recognisable people and fantastic events.

Fantasy shouldn't have to follow Tolkien's model, but 99% of it does. This needs to change.

I really have to disagree, somewhat.

I don't think that creating your own world is "rewriting Tolkein". Fantasy (and Sci-fi which is really just a subset of fantasy) is pretty much the only genre of fiction where you can create your own world. You're acting like everyone who takes the time to do this, even if their imagined universe does not contain elves or orcs or any of that is ripping off Tolkein. In that case, Star Wars is a ripoff of Tolkein, despite the fact that they have little in common, other than a common mythic "hero's journey" structure.

I'm not saying that putting fantastic elements in a modern day is not something that shouldn't be done (I'm a big fan of Buffy and Angel), or is not sometimes a refreshing change, but don't equate the people who take time to use their imaginations to create their own *unique* worlds with people like Terry Brooks.

[InnerBrat]

Actually I don't much care.

At least not nearly as much as I care about the difference between True Science Fiction (TM) and skiffy. I read fantasy for a different reason, and don't necessarily need much more than swords and sorcery

[Eleas]

I recall reading in a book about the fantasy genre that the difference between mere swords-and-sorcery "pulp" fiction and Fantasy was each entry into the Fantasy genre must contribute something new to the genre, be it ideas, a certain mood or atmosphere, or something else.

Doubtful at best. Look at The Hamster Wheel of Time. Not an original idea in the series, yet people still call it Fantasy. And the etymology does stem from common people's conceptions, despite what crusty old professors have to say about it. In other words, the normal definition of Fantasy does not have to be anything else than derivative of Tolkien, more's the pity.

According to that book, everything which just copied previous fantasy instead of exploring new ideas was not "true" fantasy and merely "swords-and-sorcery". (in fact, it implied that uninspired sword-and-sorcery fiction was an insult to the real fantasy genre)

It may be an insult, but I am insulted in turn by the spurious logic this book appears to present. It seems to give "fantasy" and "sword-n-sorcery" to its own definition, then claim these are universal. They are not.

Your opinions on this??

Personally, I believe it's a bit of an exaggeration - of course, good fantasy has to be more than rehashings of old clichés, but something shouldn't be excluded just because it's too similar to previous works.

Or should it?

Innovation doesn't really matter because the best fantasy comes from rehashing of old material. Look at Robert E. Howard's Conan series (which are fucking awesome, by the way) - he basically "stole" everything he used from ancient history. The difference between him and cretins like Robert Jordan is that Howard was a master of stealing well. You could read through half the series and never notice any obvious ripoff.

There are two steps to writing good fantasy or good sword-n'-sorcery, to my mind:
1. Create a world that feels new and exciting, instead of merely derivative.
2. Present a compelling story set in this world.

...and there you have it.

[Eleas]

Anyway, sounds like this article was written by an editor and/or author disgusted with pulp fantasy books being lumped in with their favourite titles at your local Chapters/Indigo/Barnes & Nobles/what-have-you.

...which is really stupid, IMHO. The pulp era gave us Howard and Lovecraft and Asimov. I defy anyone to read "Red Nails" and dismiss it as derivative. It's a bloody masterpiece.

[Peregrin Toker]

Did this book mention any examples of this "one, true fantasy" genre? (Besides LoTR, I mean.)

Well, I recall it stating that the "one, true fantasy genre" then was divided into "high fantasy", "low fantasy" and fantasy/scifi crossovers and described them.

The difference between him and cretins like Robert Jordan is that Howard was a master of stealing well. You could read through half the series and never notice any obvious ripoff.

I think that it actually helped Howard that he was one of the first fantasy writers. (I don't recall anyone writing fantasy before Howard, other than Lord Dunsany, H.P. Lovecraft and maybe Hans Christian Andersen)

1. Create a world that feels new and exciting, instead of merely derivative.

But how do you create a world that feels "new" without somehow exploring new territory??

[Trogdor]

I think that contributing something new is neccesary, but not as much so as some would think. Simple LotR clones are bad, but I don't see anything wrong with the old swords-and-sorcery so long as something unique, a magic system, a fighting style, a culture, etc. is thrown in. This way the fantasy genre is slowly built upon and the story is saved from being predictable. I also don't see anything wrong with creating an orginal world, so long as it's a good one. I loved the Terry books and never thought them to be ripoff of the LotR world. I also didn't think the Wheel of Time world was a ripoff, I just didn't like it.

[Crayz9000]

I sat down to read some of L.E. Modesitt's novels a few days ago (I'd picked them up at the local library bookstore, you know, couldn't refuse the price...) and was fairly impressed. He made his own world, and while the books pretty much revolve around the old chaos/order idea, it's really his characters that move the story along.

And for that matter, his novels even have bits of sci-fi in them: the people on this fantasy world are remnants of a warring space-age human civilization from another universe.

[dworkin]

Good fantasy isn't about adding new ideas but telling a damn good yarn. It should be well paced and filled with interesting people doing interesting things. And you (the reader) should be made to care about the main characters and not be made to wish them stuck in a blender set to fast. Finally, a story should have a beginning, a middle and (this is important) an end.

[Eleas]

But how do you create a world that feels "new" without somehow exploring new territory??

By making it a three dimensional world, you are per definition exploring uncharted territory. If its history, its wars and its characteristics are handled in a solid fashion, the world will stand on its own. You can't not make something like that and have it be derivative.

[Peregrin Toker]

But how do you create a world that feels "new" without somehow exploring new territory??

By making it a three dimensional world, you are per definition exploring uncharted territory. If its history, its wars and its characteristics are handled in a solid fashion, the world will stand on its own. You can't not make something like that and have it be derivative.

In other words - you just need a detailed and believable world, and an entertaining story set in it?

BTW, I've thought about writing a fantasy story where the narrator is an enchanted sword forged by a group of demigods known as "The High Ones"...

[Eleas]

By making it a three dimensional world, you are per definition exploring uncharted territory. If its history, its wars and its characteristics are handled in a solid fashion, the world will stand on its own. You can't not make something like that and have it be derivative.

In other words - you just need a detailed and believable world, and an entertaining story set in it?

Yeah, basically, I guess. Much like any other story, really.

BTW, I've thought about writing a fantasy story where the narrator is an enchanted sword forged by a group of demigods known as "The High Ones"...

I think you should, really. It's a good concept.

[LadyTevar]

In other words - you just need a detailed and believable world, and an entertaining story set in it?

BTW, I've thought about writing a fantasy story where the narrator is an enchanted sword forged by a group of demigods known as "The High Ones"...

Start it out, it sounds interesting. As long as it's a "Damn Good Yarn" (Thanks, dworkin), I'll read it.

[Peregrin Toker]

Hehe, I've already started writing.

[Drooling Iguana]

BTW, I've thought about writing a fantasy story where the narrator is an enchanted sword forged by a group of demigods known as "The High Ones"...

"High" as in powerful, or "high" as in on drugs?

[Peregrin Toker]

BTW, I've thought about writing a fantasy story where the narrator is an enchanted sword forged by a group of demigods known as "The High Ones"...

"High" as in powerful, or "high" as in on drugs?

I'm leaving that to the reader.

[Patrick Degan]

I don't think you can find good fantasy from any of the genre hacks cranking out formula material for which large swatches of the Georgia countryside are being deforested in order to fill the SF/F shelves at Barnes & Noble. The better bet is to look at general fiction literature.

I recently finished reading two W.P. Kinsella novels, The Iowa Baseball Conederacy and Shoeless Joe (which was turned into the 1989 movie Field Of Dreams). Kinsella essentially created situations where his protagonists experience subtle but powerful magick which goes unnoticed by the lumpen masses of the everyday world but which only happens when the time and place are right for the magick to work. In essence, both books were the same sort of subtle speculative fantasy which was the staple of writers like Rod Serling, Charles Beaumont, Ray Bradbury and Harlan Ellison; taking an otherwise ordinary situation and injecting one totally off-kilter element which affects everyone and everything from that point forward.

Forget about genre fantasy, which is just the same six books rewritten several fucking thousand times over. If you want an original or at least imaginative book, try hunting through the fiction and literature stacks for something different.

[Patrick Degan]

The difference between him and cretins like Robert Jordan is that Howard was a master of stealing well. You could read through half the series and never notice any obvious ripoff.

Actually, you can now, just as it's possible to glean the sources from which Tolkien drew from. The diference is that both Howard and Tolkien learned how to write the old-fashioned way, and neither of them were saddled with established formulas before taking up their pens.

I think that it actually helped Howard that he was one of the first fantasy writers. (I don't recall anyone writing fantasy before Howard, other than Lord Dunsany, H.P. Lovecraft and maybe Hans Christian Andersen)

Forgetting Edgar Rice Burroughs and Arthur Conan Doyle, perhaps? It also depends how you define "fantasy"; literary scholars would definitely also include works by Edgar Allen Poe, Washington Irving, Mark Twain, Lord Byron, Mary Wollestonecraft Shelley, J. Sheridan LeFanu, Bram Stoker, Oscar Wilde, and Dante Aligheri in that category.