Most modern fantasy novels...

Malkavian

are narrow.

No, this isn't about them being crap.Sturgeon's law, so that would be a dumb complaint.

No my main complaint is how so many of them have a narrow worldview of their genre.

It feels like the only real source they draw on is Tolkien and maybe some Dungeons & Dragons novels. This really limits the scope of the crazy and wonderful things fantasy can do.

Michael Moorcock, who has been hailed as one of the movers and shakers of fantasy novels and is still writing today despite his lack of fame to Drizzt-worshipping little shits, stated that a rather dedicated writer needs to read, and not just things he thinks are relevant. He states that writers need to look at the things they like and go further back to see where those people got their ideas. Take the house you like, turn it to bricks, and turn those bricks into dust, and with that dust you create something beautiful.

There's also the reading stuff that isn't fantasy part. This doesn't mean reads book you would hate, but you can't tell me there are no mystery, romance, or just plain ol' drama novels you wouldn't normally look at. Read some Faulkner or Louis L'Amour for some ridiculous manliness. Read Jane Austen for social duels. Read some James Fenimore Cooper for badass noble savages. Read some Sherman Alexie to get a 'noble savage's' perspective on being a 'noble savage'. Remember that the inspiration for fantasy comes from extrapolation of the real. 

I'm surprised how many people in particular haven't read mythology or considered it for their writing. Mythology helped created post-Tolkien fantasy and its influence over comics should be ridiculously obvious by now. What's more is that reading myths should at least impart a subconscious understanding of gods and why they were formed which a lot of writers seem to miss. 

MadassAlex

I think you touch on one of the most important holes in the perspective of many fantasy writers, if only by proxy. Most of them aren't familiar with medieval European history (most fantasy is going to be this, so it's not really worth debating whether fantasy writers should or should not use the general setting concept). This is a pretty freaking huge hole right there, because a good understanding of related history allows a writer to follow the correct patterns of a time period or use anachronism much more intelligently, or otherwise justify anachronism technologically, socially, politically and economically.

The latter was a pretty big part of The Lord of the Rings. It resembled a post-Roman Europe with extra technological advancement justified by some of the more fantastic elements, such as the Elves and the Numenorians. One interesting element of the films is how they chose to portray this. For instance, the Gondorians uniquely had plate armour in a time period otherwise dominated by maille. Furthermore, Aragorn has a longsword -- interesting, concerning that all other swords barring Glamdring are of the single-handed variety. This is well justified if one considers that the production and use of such weapons were innovations shared by the Numenorians and Elves. In turn, this would imply that the Rangers of Eriador (being descendants of Numenor, if less royal than Aragorn) also had such weapons and fighting styles.

The movie never points this out and the book never even mentions such things, but taking that composite interpretation and making it logical was an easy process. So the film used its medium to point out something by implication as an Easter Egg for those just nerdy enough to get it.

So there's one example of technological divergance from history in a setting that's otherwise very historically informed.

I'd also note that historical fantasy is perhaps one of the more difficult genres to write. I've begun reading A Song of Ice and Fire recently, and I have to alter things in my head to make it more consistent with what I know of real history. Mind you, Martin started writing it in the 90s before certain historical materials were widely known or available, but he does get things wrong, especially when it comes to combat. For instance, I personally interpreted his use of "longsword" to mean late medieval two-handed swords of light weight, but then he goes and uses the term "bastard sword" and "half and a half" to refer to a specific sword and then I have to block it out and interpret everything as actual longswords because that would be more correct and practical, and it appeases me.

I should probably shut up and just write a medieval martial arts adventure.

Malkavian

History concerns me less since I think ideally when you're creating a fantasy world reality should break way for what makes for a fantasy story but I think a lot writers want to recreate that era in which case it would be a good idea.

Of course I think more writers should toss world building aside since they're just writing a heroic fantasy novel and when Conan is slicing orcs apart I don't care about the senatorial procedures of the evil overlord.

One of the things I like about Simon R. Green is how he treats his elves which are something of a combination of Shakespeare's faeries, classic mythology, and xenofiction. Despite the pappy nature of his writing it shows an intelligence and background of literature that a lot of more 'serious' writers' don't bother with.

MadassAlex

Getting things right doesn't necessarily entail getting things detailed, if I'm not unclear. You simply have to ensure that what you express is both correct and relevant to context. I mean, I don't write fight scenes like this:

---

He used Zwerchhau, a horizontal strike from which the point of the sword hung with the hilt raised high, and caught the weak of his adversary's sword on his strong. His own point was unhindered, and found his adversary's cheek.

---

Rather, I'd do this:

---

In one action, his sword parried and found the flesh of his adversary, sweeping from one side. Siegfried thought that the technique probably deserved a name, and then smiled in amusement at himself; probably best to theorise with an unbloodied sword.

---

Both are equally "correct", but the latter spares the terminology and detail in favour of pacing and a little bit of characterisation.

Malkavian

Okay on that front I definitely agree. It's why I think Gibson's work has aged well, because he used vague flowery dialogue for hacking that can still be relevant today. 

On the other hand, I think something should be said of wizards and other magical people who disobey the laws of physics in fights because they're just that badass.

MadassAlex

That's a matter of perspective, in a different manner to "taste". From the wizard's perspective, their powers might seem normal and logical, appearing all-powerful only to an outsider. This is one of the things I like about Full Metal Alchemist -- the power of alchemists is incredible, but also restricted and subservient to context. If a wizard can summon fireballs, that's all well and good, but not particularly interesting reading. But if a wizard's fireball spell is actually a flint spark empowered by spells of growth and time manipulation, then that implies a system that's fun to follow or decipher.

Wicked223

It feels like the only real source they draw on is Tolkien and maybe some Dungeons & Dragons novels. This really limits the scope of the crazy and wonderful things fantasy can do.

i'm really starting to think that complaints like this are sort of exaggerated. 

Sure, the medieval fantasy genre might have been popular at some point, but I haven't noticed that many series that draw on it nowadays.

Malkavian

Oh yeah, but making things interesting falls to the writer, whether or not he can make something interesting and consistent to the rules of story, not on the demands of reality.

Dresden Files does a really good job of explaining the way a wizard can do insane things, as does Mage: The Ascension, though Mage has plenty of other flaws.

^There are stories that don't draw on those popular stories, and those that don't do sometimes get great attention (like say The Way of Shadows) but I don't see it going out of style in fantasy novels. Ignoring lesser-known novels, the Drizzt novels aren't going anywhere any time soon.

Evergreen

...and all this is why Ysabeau Wilce's Flora series is my favorite? 

I dunno. Look it up and see how unique it is (IMO, and in the opinion of most others), maybe you'll agree...

Malkavian

Could you elaborate? I find your statements kind of unspecific.

I've not read the novel you speak of, but if it's as great as you say I doubt it's because it survived on a diet of post-Tolkien pie.

Nightwire

May I present to you Sir Terry Pratchett and his terrific Discworld series?

Malkavian

They're a satire of post-Tolkien fantasy. I'm not going to say they're not dependent on the cliches, but they are to make fun of trends and Pratchett is certainly well-educated in matters of literature which is shown in how deft he is with playing around with them.

Nightwire

True, Discworld is satire, but it can also be straight-up fantasy. As Terry Pratchett grew as a writer, the parody aspect of Discworld became less and less prominent. Of course, the humor is still there, but it just serves as a tool for characterization and world-building. This point is demonstrated very clearly in the recent Watch novels. 

The dry wit is what get me into Discworld, but I stay for the captivating mythology and interesting characters. I hate that some people refuse to recognize Discworld as true fantasy just because it is supposed to be comedy. Pratchett can do drama and suspense very well. 

Another attraction of Discworld is the gradual development of the setting. Pratchett doesn't adhere to the Status Quo. We see his world undergo both big and little changes through 40+ books, all adds up to a fascinating yet convincing setting. It creates a sense of history, just like the real world. You don't see that often in other fantasy works.

... Damn, Nightwire. You are projecting your fanboy-ism again. When will you ever learn?

MadassAlex

It's true, though. Discworld quickly steps out of being a pisstake and becomes its own setting.

Malkavian

All of those things you say  are completely true. I'm not trying to undermine what Pratchett does. However, being a part of traditional post-Tolkien fantasy (and being a partial influence) doesn't necessarily mean he's guilty of what I'm accusing of many writers.

Pratchett's success comes from both drawing from other influences (like how he treats witches) and how he defies tradition for comedy's sake which eventually led to a more interesting world.

I am not saying 'don't have elves with bows an dwarves who mine'. I'm saying 'understand where these have their roots so you can understand your story better.' which Pratchett does.

MadassAlex

'don't have elves with bows an dwarves who mine'

---

Although this is decent advice all the same.

Nightwire

Indeed. I too think creativity within the fantasy genre is dying out. The world's different cultures are a gold mine of interesting mythology to draw inspiration from. But most writers are too busy imitating Tolkien to realize that.

Malkavian

One of the things I liked about the Night Angel trilogy was the absence of elves, dwarves, etc. and instead an infusion of eastern, middle eastern, and african mythology.

I mean it doesn't do anything most writers shouldn't be doing anyways but it's really fun to read.

MadassAlex

One thing I like to do is keep magical and fantastic elements strictly in the hands of the antagonists, or outside of any mortal grasp. Most people don't notice it in The Lord of the Rings, but with the exception of Gandalf, every protagonist is mundane, fighting against a combination of magic and industrial power. It's a form of Tolkien imitation that's much overlooked, so I can get away with it.

Malkavian

See, I like magic powers much for the same reason I like spider-sense and Bat-preptime but unlike the way a lot of people use magic the latter two are used with more continuity.

MadassAlex

As a matter of taste, I prefer normal men and women who happen to be skilled and courageous, but also clever and resourceful. No prizes for guessing why.

Bob

I knew Alex was into men

Malkavian

What with his interest in piercing objects it's no surprise.

More seriously... my appeal to wizards and thieves comes from a deep-seated respect for those who use minds and cunning to overcome rather than brawn. I can't imagine why I would ever not relate to physical characters...

which isn't to say I don't enjoy plenty of swordmaster characters of course.

MadassAlex

^^ then tell me how to into women

^ It's a common misconception, but swordsmanship (and by extension, all weapons combat) is about a combination of knowledge, wit and practise first and foremost. Brawn is certainly of advantage, but a swordsman who fights linearly with strength will always lose to the one who fights cleverly and with skill.

"Use strength against weakness, and weakness against strength" -- straight out of the mouth of Liechtenauer, medieval swordmaster. The idea is that strength represents commitment, and if one commits less than an adversary, then they have more versatility in the response technique.

Mind you, there'd be no lack of swordsmen who used brute force to hack through lesser people, but the masters and their students were educated men who sought to defend themselves as efficiently as possible. The traditional fantasy image of a wizard poring over his texts is highly applicable to a swordmaster or student of such in real life, at least in Europe. The European martial arts were a highly academic endeavour.

Bob

i cannot for i am merely a gay deer

Malkavian

^^Let me rephrase that then.

I like characters who don't bother with fair fights and instead stick a knife in when they're sleeping or hit them or use telekinesis to snap their necks.

I don't not enjoy characters who engage in fair fights but I think it's more interesting to see how some characters would get around them.

Also most writers characterize swordsman as users of brute force and as an archetype that doesn't really appeal.

Keep in mind I'm not trying to devalue your hobby.

MadassAlex

Oh I know that, however I am under nerd obligation to wax poetic about it at any given opportunity.

Also.

One medieval combat manual describes the correct context and technique for biting a man's balls off. Fair (or even dignified) they ain't.

^^ my folk sing songs which sing of how gay deer into women, are these falsehoods?

Bob

Indeed, these hoods aren't real at all.

Firebert

This is why I'm enjoying the Dark Tower series. It helps that King mixes in other genres with the basic LOTR-esque epic. And there's really no concept of "fair fights".

Malkavian

^^^I can see that. Archetypically though techniques like that fall under the modern rogue, which isn't to say that role can't or shouldn't be broken.

Snow Crash has a good example in the protagonist who spits his opponents face to win and other nasty tricks.

Firebert

Also, I would totally read a story by Alex.