Are You Writing Serious Fantasy?

[Anna Licumo]

I think the most interesting type of villian is one you can agree with. For instance, Magneto in X-Men. He saw how some humans could not deal with other "races" and this shaped how he thought the Mutants should deal with things. You can understand his motives, even in some dark corner of your mind agree with them. Another example might be Karl Marx. If you've had the chance to read some of his writings, you start to almost agree with the guy....

That's why I can get sick and tired of the "Dark Lord" stchik. Granted, Tolkien did it, but he did a very nice job and at the time it was rather new. Or at least the phrase was. Now a Dark Lord, rising or falling, is popping up like dandelions in summer. Sometimes the aspect can even ruin a story for me. It really depends on how they write it.
For instance, telling a time when they are *under* an evil warlord is interesting, just because it's not that common. Or when the author starts off with describing the evil things he has done, rather than just mention he is an Evil Dark Lord of Doom.
To me it makes him (or her) more *real* and interesting.

Just my two cents. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[NazgulNumberTen]

i dell deeply into the villians of my works. sometimes i treat them as i would the hero.
oh, and i love your sig, my nazzy-mom used to sig it to me when i was a baby in barad-dur.

[Eol]

The type of villains I like are the ones who are not obviously villians. Good and evil are simply based on point of view.

I cannot think immediatly of an example of this, but I have only seen it a few times. Everyone has their priorities and reasonings. So technically speaking, everyone is a villian and a hero at one time or another, depending on your view.

If I had to choose a villian I liked, that would be the sheriff of nottingham in the kevin cosner's Robin Hood, prince of thieves. that is a fun movie!

Book wise,I would say the mists of avalon as everyone brings their own good or evil. They are their own worse enemy, sorry for the song referance.

[bombur]

I think Robin Hood is a great example of the nature of villainry in general.

Most of us who have red it spend most of us thinking Rickhard the lionhart to be a great king and prince John to be the villain. It may come as a shock to study history and learn that Rickie-boy was brutal, flippant, irresponcible, dishonest in negotiations... and as statesmen and kings go he was worthless. Prince John took over after him and he was the responcible of the two brothers. He spent decades restoring the state funds Rickie squandered on the holy land and making up with the countless enemies Rickie had made. Rickhard the lionhart did not even look like Sean Connery. He was short and fat. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

I am one to vote for magneto too. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Moreso as in similar situation most of us would have little scruples of taking human life while he has plenty.


Janne Harju

(BTW: who the ****, *****, ****** gave any of you the right to pinpoint Karl Marx as villain... are all people in this site from US?) [img]smilies/mad.gif[/img]

[Nar]

Bombur, welcome to the thread! Have a mug of ale on me: |_|) Yep, King John had the thankless task of mopping up after a profligate -- everyone likes a big expansionist spender, loot for all! No one ever likes the next guy who has to balance the books.

Magneto's a good example of an all too convincing villain, Anna, it's hard to resist his arguments, and his ... magnetism ... must ... resist ... I have to agree with Bombur, villains must be fictional, though I take your point about uncannily convincing arguments: how they work in practice is always the test-- but how can you know beforehand?

Eol: yes, I liked the Sheriff of Nottingham, in both story and all resulting movies: he's always fun. Furthermore, unless you jump up a level and say that the government of Nottinham (and ulimately Greater London) was so abusive it had to be resisted, can you really fault the sheriff for doing his job? Perhaps he was a bit too enthusiastic about be-handing hapless peasant poachers. Starving yeomen should be allowed to hunt game without losing body parts!

As I said on the other thread, LMP, although I certainly agree that orcs were not nice, particularly to captives, and that they preferred to remain so, I like Tolkien's generous characterization of them: he made the orcs understandable in their frusterations. An impersonal, purely hateful Ur-villain is awesome and stirring, but in a story, those generously detailed, all too 'human' villains can be as good or even better -- and better for your soul as a reader, by challenging your humanity.

[Edit, somehow I missed this first time round] NN10-- your nazzy mom, awww. [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I bet she was really dark and deadly!

[ September 07, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Lila Bramble]

For me, villanis are simply this:

Someone whose views are totally different than our heroes, and in most cases, everyone else.

Because of the differences between the 'villain's' thinking and everyone else's, they usally get frustrated and frustration usually leads to anger, creating them to act 'bad.' Because they think differently, and they're in a state of anger, they might want everyone to follow thie rthinking, and want to be leaer of a nation for people to see things like him.

All in all, that's a pretty relastic way to make someone a villain.

[Anna Licumo]

(BTW: who the ****, *****, ****** gave any of you the right to pinpoint Karl Marx as villain... are all people in this site from US?)

Excuse me, I should have made things clearer. I meant to say that in reading his sociologist's Conflict theory you start to agree with him. However, his view on anti-Capitalism didn't turn out so well, in this world.... I wasn't trying to infer him as a villian, my apologies.

oh, and i love your sig, my nazzy-mom used to sig it to me when i was a baby in barad-dur.

Thanks. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I actually got the song from a dream... 'Twas a strange dream, involving a Nazgul singing a captured Chibi-Frodo to sleep....

[The Barrow-Wight]

Topic seems to have strayed a long way from its origins and recent posts are of a tone I don't like to see around here. Let's get back to the original topic...

[Eol]

Thank you Barrow wight. Well let us tie this back to Tolkien. Discussing Villians and the concepts that were thought of, how do the villian that existed in Middle earth compare to what your preception of a villian?

Tolkien's villians in comparison to my views do not fit well. Well anything of Saruman and Sauron and Morgoth is evil. Well even using the term evil to discribe the adversary contradicts my views in fantasy writing. However at the same time, in the Silmarillion the advsaries are view much different, more like the greek and roman gods who were definenatly good or evil at any give time. Morgoth is the exception.

[bombur]

Sorry about my part in the subjctdrift. I’m fan of uncle Karl and had to comment. I was smiling while writing though...

Nature of villainry IS part of writing fantasy and especially writing fantasy following the footsteps of Tolkien.

You can make interresting and great stories of basically good charachters whose means, motives, goals and interpretations of society are so different that they end up in conflict. Magneto and X-men are perhaps a story of this order. I love such stories.

But for writing epic fantasy saga one needs a villain so far beyond any redemption that he is someone who eats ones second cousins cooked in vinegar for dinner, enjoys bedtime torture sessions instead of warm milk and announces ones precence by making the walls cry blood. It is tremendously difficult to create such charachter believably. Fantasy is made of black and white because reality is shades of grey.

Methods of trying to create such Evils vary. Howard does not explain why his sorcerers are evil, they just are (and hence thin charachters). Tolkien made it somehow by making it all part of a mystic cosmic order, where the evils are higher beings, trying to acchieve exellence in their own way. For them mastery of darkness is the goal while to others it is mastery of goodness.

In a yet unplayed roleplaying saga, that will perhaps one day be published instead, I made it all into a natural balance thing between personified natural forces of life-death/bounty-desolation/continuance-end of history.

In the world we have plenty of historical charachters with few scruples and lots of bloodthirst. They just do not suffice for the needs of epic fantasy. They may be evil... at least from some pespective... they just are not The Evil. Once one realises this, one sets to create such deserving and demanding fellows more imaginatively... I for one would be interrested to hear how and if others have solved this problem of Evil, and also to hear perceptions of how it has been solved by authors of epic saga before.

Perhaps my provoking post failed to move the discussion towards this. Sorry.


Janne Harju

[Thinhyandoiel]

Fantasy is made of black and white because reality is shades of grey.

Not true in all cases, but true in most, ne? I believe that in fantasy, you should have the differing levels of villians.

Tolkien has his villians as essences of pure EVIL, made to make your skin crawl when they enter the room. (Or make the walls bleed [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]) You have Morgoth, Sauron, Saruman, Nazgul, Ungoliant, Orcs, Trolls, Dragons, etc. I think it's interesting that there aren't that many sinister, evil, Dark Lord type Men running around Middle-Earth. Do the Nazgul count though? Yes, they were once men, and yes, they are now evil, but they're slaves and not doing anything except for Sauron. I love these sorts of villians, they're so interesting to the story. I like to have that shade of gray in there, because then it makes the fantasy closer to reality.

[bombur]

I did not mean that fantasy must be all black and white. It cant of cource. In Tolkien we have Saruman and Boromir and Denethor, who have mostly just fallen under Saurons influence. There are orcs and trolls and such... who knows if they were nice people, if they had not been TOOLS of the dark wills for thousands of years... how long would it take for those people to recover, if there was chance. There are those willingly turned to the dark, no matter how far along the road they are, easterlings, black Numenoreans, pirates of Umbar, the mouth of sauron. A teenage easterling recruit hardly qualifies as Evil, mouth of Sauron might. Most of theese are not evil in the sence I meant.

There are the pure tools like Nazgul, complete slaves of dark will.

Then there are the big bad ones... the Evils those voluntarily executing their own dark wills. Ranging from smaller of the true Evils, like Smaug, to greater, like Morgoth.

In fantasy there is always degrees as well as in real life. But fantasy (epic fantasy... not Moorcock etc. gothic fantasy of cource) diffrentiates from any even vaguely realistic stories in one thing. There always has to be the purest darkest black and clearest brightest white somewhere. I think this total Evil is exteremely challenging charachter and consept to crate. Thats what I meant.

Janne Harju

[Saxony Tarn]

my my, so much happens when i go down to the cellar... good thing i never return empty-handed!

With thanks to the Barrow-Wight's timely rising from his grave, i'll restrain my own knee-jerk reaction to Bombur's, um, shall we say, bar-brawl-inciting entrance. (i WILL however, hop up on this keg to say, actually, good Mr. Dwarf, there are many folks on this board not from America, or Canada for that matter, which just goes to show that Tolkien, and many other good authors, has a global audience, and now my soapbox will transmute back to the brew-keg that it was...)

But you know, Bombur's got me thinking -- WHERE IS IT CARVED IN STONE that the government in a good 90% of the Fantasy works out there MUST BE some form of Monarchy or Aristocracy? Assuming that at the "barely got society formed, who has time to bother with politics" end of the scale is held down with flints by the Clan of the Cave Bear and its cubs, what other forms of government have been dealt with? By us? By authors we like? And how successfully?

(Tolkien's benchmark of a convincing case for monarchy -- would you as a reader swear fealty to Elessar I by the end of the book?)

But must Classic Fantasy ALWAYS have Kings? Can it be pulled off without them? Or -- perhaps in some late regret for having overthrown by peaceful means or violent most of the Kings in the Northern Hemisphere, does the market demand kings with their fantasy?

(Naaramare, whose story i know is set in the present day & thus under the aegis of the current Canadian gov'mint, is exempt from this one but may fire away if she likes!)

|_|) <-- Skoal!

s.t.
bartender for the dead!

[NazgulNumberTen]

of course not. i have used councils tribunals, senates and the like. i do feel that it is important to limit yourself in government, after all, how convincing does
"Oakenmoon, president of elves"
sound.
oh, and...
all names copyright nn10 2002.

[Eol]

The society I overlook are the ellan who are fashioned more after the roman legal system, if you were to call it that. They have laws and court and head ruler( king or queen or emperor), but they are merely an overseer. The court is made up of the dukes and duchess of the ruling provinces who have the say in national government. There are assasinations, wars and dirty tricks in order to have rule over the region. Interregnum has become more of a political story more then anything else except for the occational scrimish or battle. It is still very much fantasy.

[bombur]

Once more I apologise for my seemingly bar brawl-like entrance... I am often a provoking person. My provoking comments should be taken with a grain of salt and sometimes I just assume too much on people naturally doing so... I also may be a bit touchy for uncle Karl nowadays... Also going to show that all kinds of people are into Tolkien.

What comes to the type of regimes in fantasy, in this I think we are a bit too keen on following on Tokiens footsteps. Monarchy is at the level of technology involved in fantasy the most... I do not know the geopolitics term in english... It is the most able to centralize governance = most able to govern large area. Even roman senate ruled the provinces as military dictatorships. Monarchy is able to create bureaucracy by the system of personal vows of allegiance. It is the most adwanced form of governance before the invention of modern bureacracy in nineteenth century or so (code de Napoleon, I'd say)

I think in this issue history is a deeper well for fantasy to draw from, then Tolkien. There is of cource the Roman type "republic" and greek "democracy." Taking theese in use however require knowledge as they are quite different from what those terms have come to mean.

But also there are historical models often overlooked. The fantasy campaign/saga I have been preparing is set in sort of stumped up Europe-like continent somewhat akin to warhammer RPG's old world. On a central location is an "empire" whiches governance is somewhat gobetween of monarchy and clericalism. Perhaps best historical compartison would be French monarchy at the time of cardinal Richelieu or imperium at the times of charlemagne the great. Exept for the church holding much power this is closest to the classic Fantasy monarchy.

Five other "bases of power" are fashioned differently and I think it is examples such as theese that fantasy should seek from history.

1) Britain circa 200 AD - 500 AD (pre-Arthurian period) = multiple indipendent feudal kings (and their feudal earls, dukes, barons etc.) competing eachother who elect a warlord amongs themselves at times of common need. This is just one degree less centralised then monarchy as one king has not been able to demand permanent loyality of other kings.

2) Italy of renaiccance = indipendent citystates, not needing ANY joint governance as each is strong enough not to be conquerred by external enemies and their ambitions are directed against eachother and not against external conquests. Governance of each sitystate varies from roman republic to military dictatorship to rule of trade baron guild to rule of nobility council. The diffenence of governance is also a fact in making the previous degree of co-operation impossible. One should also remember the all too common mistake in the fantasy rpg's... There are no courts of law in the fantasy period, especially none like modern courts. Judgement is passed by the one who rules or his/her/their servant(s).

3) Tribal governance as per migrations periot tribes (Langobars, Huns, Goths, Vandals, etc. etc.) = without any official system the groups of men are subservient to one absolute tribal leader (the strongest). Only case by case co-operation exists between tribal chiefs. Such form of governance can only last if it is expansionist and strong in manpower.

4) Scandinavian / (irish?) system circa 200 AD - 1000AD = Local chiefs / nobles ruling their clans / lands in all issues including justice much the same as in previous but recognising the authority of a "thing". Annual or semiannual gathering/meeting of the chiefs (and commoners).

5) Finnish / (American indian?) system circa 0 - 1000 AD (somewhat based on assumption.) = Tribes led/ruled issue by issue either by a hero or an elders council and all organised into few nations by recognising authority of "käräjät", a tribal nations gathering, where each tribe is represented and justice is served by the gatherings elder council.

My two cents worth ended up being about meter long -sigh- Thats another thing that happens to me as often as me ending up provoking someone.

Janne Harju

[Saxony Tarn]

Ah, Bombur, so you're from Finland! (Quick, LMP, where's Niphredil Baggins when we need her...)

quite an erudite treatise, that, almost worthy of starting its own thread (like the one about the lack of tech. advancement in ME -- c'mon, ya think Gondor should have movable type and gunpowder by now...) and i think i'm just going to set this keg down next to you. Tap away!

And a few more patrons should have the chance to get their observations on the table before i knock the dust off the draft of Ace of Cups and start outlining the twisted ideas behind the Bundesreich (100% free of Nazi influence, believe it or not) and its functional aristocracy on a technologically advanced planet.

|_|) <-- Now THERE's a 'fantasy' society for ya! B)

s.t.

[Lila Bramble]

((Just like to put in I'm from Mexico, not from Canada or the US!))

Well, in my opinion, if there is complete evil, there better be a darn well good reason for them to be pure evil. Either they were a great pure good that transformed evil (and a pure good that transforms to an evil they must be PURE evil, at least my religion says so) or they've been transformed from just a regular smoe driven by something VERY distrubting to pure evil, but its very difficult to explain who something bcame pure evil. After all, spirits are what gives the body life (blood is not life, plants are alive, but do they have blood? its the essence of the spirit. But that's just my own belifes) and the spirit must've been previosuly corrupted, but again, how?

These are Dark Lords. Dark Lords often have no origin: no family, no past, no childhood, nothing. All you have to write is: "The Dark Lord who strived on nothing but the will to conquer and corrupt the souls of other." And according to my belifes, it is impossible to live without a spirit, so soemthimng must've happened to the 'dark lord' to stir they're spirit to do such corrupt.

Or, as also in my belifes, it could've been one of the Greater Evil Spirit's mingions consuming a new body, entering it and spreading his evil and wrong intent from his previous generation of terror. (I think that there are a select few spirits that were not allowd back into the Haven (otherwords heaven) that re-incarinate continously and create the evergoing evil people)

So to make a simple and fresh 'bad guy', I made a sort of stuck-up and spoiled teenager who also happened to posses strong magic inherited from his ancestors, and abused his power to take control of the grea kingdoms and leading the world to fear, even though they did not even realise his young age. And this boy grew to a 'king' and as he grew more powerful with a growing reign, he became greedy and more abusive. There, a realstic villan!

Also, my writing tahcer read one page of my novel and said "You must be a fan of tolkien." Is that bad or good?

[Eol]

Well as to whether it is a good or bad thing, it depends on the context. Is it writen like tolkien, or does it have tolkienesk stuff in it( orcs, eves and Man, wizards)...that is all I can say about that.

carry on!

[Nar]

Excellent question, ST, and excellent responses, Bombur, NN10, Lila and Eol (on Tolkien-- I say it's a good thing!)

The ethics of fantasy are deeply committed to freedom and fulfillment of duties to onesself and others -- that's why it's always a dictatorial tyrant being battled-- Sauron or Morgoth or their ilk-- this makes the 'one true king' theme seem VERY strange if you think about it too long. The irony is, we'd probably all hate a real monarchy-- no one in real life is all wise and good-- or if they are they probably have huge personal failings like umpteen illicit lovers or something.

I think it's the idea of rules and codes of order and bureaucracy (polling stations manned by volunteer little old ladies) --all that modern debris seems inimical to fantasy. Too detailed, too annoying, no 'sense of wonder' as LMP might say (or quote-- where does that phrase come from?)

Then, there's something archetypal about a one-leader structure of government, whether it's a king or chieftan-- one leader matches the feeling of your conscious soul ruling over unconcious impulses and appetites. In the middle ages, the people and country were explicitly equated with the the body and the king with the soul or mind.

I like all these historical forms you're proposing, Bombur, Eol and NN10. It would be good to see more expansion of fantasy themes away from this 'one true king' thing. I'd like to see someone find a way to see the values of liberty, equality, fraternity rigorously worked in a fantasy with a true sense of wonder. Any good examples that you know of?

The Shire is the best I can think of: noone makes trouble, no need for much of a government, but it all depends on borders secured by others and a society monolithically hobbitlike. And it's not a theme in the story until it's taken away; we don't really see the story of the restoration of the sherrifs to their proper position except in summary. What about an epic fantasy where the plot turns on a quest to overthrow the evil inspectors-general who forced all the brewers to pasturize their ale? The Quest of the Well-Malted Mug!

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Eol]

Mentioning the shire made me think of a small little cottage with a lit hearth, warm food and family. Though I suppose that was the aim of the professor himself...

I would love to see people develop government beyond just coping out with the King. Of course this comes with the understanding that government is not evil and it does affect our lives one hundred percent! Even though in most of Tolkien's books were never really fully see the economics and political strife between households, that can be filled with other's thoughts.

It would be an interesting challenege for someone to develope society and culture with TOlkien's intention in mind, beyond what had been formally written. Personally I would find that very intreguing...too bad that will not be see in the RPGs where a great deal of the fanfiction is created.

Nar: your handle name rocks, and so did your post!

[Lila Bramble]

In a lot of past fantasy novels, it was a knight that had to slay the dragon and save the princess.

In my current work, I have used some of these old type characteristics by featuring a princess, but the princess is an Elf, a more talented and stonger group of evolved humans. The man is a knight, yet a holy knight (paladin) that is struggling to survive in the world that was being corrupted slowly by a society that was forcing people on how to live.

There are dragons too, though they are not an overall important thing in the work, our knight does slay one, and gains a group of followers that have faith in him to defeat their harsh and controlling leader.

What do you think of using soem teh old type methods in our modern-day writings of seriosu fantasy?

[bombur]

Interresting thoughts from everyone.

Nar arose interresting question...

I'd have to say, I do not think it is possible to make Liberte, Equalite, Fraternite appear in fantasy. Also the big 3 of the finn 60's communists: Peace, Friendship, Solidarity are impossible. Nor the more international versions like Power to the people demand can be used. Why?

It is really perhaps anwser to this that makes my philosophical nature obvious.

Demand for political liberties emphasised in todays democracy (liberty, equality, power to the poeple) were linked to the rise of bourgoise, class that was as educated and capable as nobility but lacked their political power. This soon widened into demand of economically equal status (equality, brotherhood, solidarity, socialism) by class for whom daily bread and not political equality was matter of survival, the proletariat.

All in all, we cannot put such demands into the mouth of fantasy street agitator, unless we also fill our Gondor with shirt "manufactures" - pre-form of factories, artsanly sweatshops.

And if we do this, then we give up the black and white quality of fantasy and move into the real world of shades of grey, where good and evil are not so prevalent motive, but rather dialectic conflicts in which various INTERPRETATIONS, consepts of society and its good are at odds.

My recipe for fantasy is this:

Never get into societys conflicts save the odd slave revolt in the footsteps of Spartacus (And I do NOT mean the latest movie), if you do that, you go into the shades of grey area. Half of your readers will be inclined to emphatise with the other side the other half the other. Your writing will come to reflect this anticipation.

Instead make the villain purely evil whether by overwhelming lust to dominate or by some mystic theme. If he eats babies for breakfast, then defeating him is matter of survival for everyone and there is no room for interpretation and you can write black and white fantasy stuff.

And if you want to create a "utopia" society to be threatened by the Big Evil One, then do it along the guidelines of anarchistic tribal society or "noble savage" consept.

Thats what I think.


Janne Harju

[Eol]

What is wrong with factories in Gondor? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]


Fantasy can sacrifice the black and white and still be fantasy. Who would want to desire to live in a world where change will never happen and indoor plumbing and other inventions would never fully come to pass?

Progression is inevtiable in any society, if it is developed. YOu mentioned random slave revolts, you already admit that factories will shortly follow. The concept of make jobs quicker, more effiecent has been concieved. Why till the land yourself when you can force someone else to do it for you....Slave riots are in essence the same as the demand of labour equality with the Industrial evoluation.

Eol

[bombur]

ahhh Eol, but fantasy need not have progress simply because it is not history, but a story.

Take Tolkien, I suppose between the first and third age humans might have learned to make plate mails and form kingdoms (not a small historical step). There is perhaps some progress. But for a story one only needs a sliced period of time. One year is plenty. It is always a bonus to have history for the story. For most practical pyrpoces century of is suffices, millenia for an epic saga.

But stories need not have future. They end at "were home." If they tell the tale of medieval like period, there will not be factories.


Janne Harju

[Eol]

Every story has a past and a future,whether you want acknowledge it, is up to you.

[Nar]

Oh, thank you, Eol! I think a three-letter handle shows a certain ... discernment, don't you? [img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img] I liked your last post, it was quite poetic. I think a well-written story will often seem to have a future... unless it ends with the end of the universe, I suppose. I heard a talk by an author who told us he was on page 700 of his last novel when someone pointed out that the story had actually ended 100 pages earlier. [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] He assured us, though, that he HAD to write those extra 100 pages or he would have messed up the part where the story DID end. Very comforting, I'm sure ... I'm on page 32. 568 pages to go, then an extra 100, wonderful! Maybe if JRRT had had someone to shake him and tell him, 'The Silmarillion actually ended with Feanor's rebellion, you crazy kid! From then on, it's all postscript and epitaph!' Then we would have had our Silmarillion much earlier! Just as well.

Bombur, you are a very fun poster. Zesty arguments you put up! I totally disagree about the need for a great dark lord and a story with strong and straightforward sides, but I have to agree that that is traditional ... it's just wrong, that's all. Or rather, it's wrong to limit fantasy to a formula-- the defining characteristic of fantasy isn't a surface element of the story, it's the effect it has on the reader.

You don't want to be redoing LotR, explore other emotional landscapes. That doesn't mean you shouldn't use the good old elements-- Lila, don't worry about using dragons and knights, and even ... one true kings, if absolutely necessary [img]smilies/tongue.gif[/img] These have been the good old elements since before Tolkien was born! I think that the type of catharsis-- release into new understanding of ... something: yourself or existence, and release of emotion -- need not and should not be always the same effect as in LotR.

[ September 14, 2002: Message edited by: Nar ]

[Eol]

Thank you Nar! I would have to agree with you that Bom offers some interesting arguements that seems to give us a good discussion.

[bombur]

But eol and nar...

Of course every moment has past, present and future.

Now has future. But it is clouded from us. We can assume "progress"... or degeneration... or the end of the world by nuclear catastrophe... or just end by god flushing the cosmic toilet.

One NEEDS NOT have much development in fantasy. One can end the story (in wide meaning of the word... "we're home" was the end of the LOTR epilogue.) in the "now" of the story. Absolutely no need exists to fill the historical gap between the end, "now" of the story and the "now" of the real world.

Author can write the story to the words: "were home" and flush the cosmic toilet of the universe of the story.

I believe strongly in stories that have definate ends... ambiguous preferably... but the kind that make sequels impossible.

I PREFER fantasy that is set in pre-industrial period, stays there and has definate good and evil. That hardly qualifies me as Tolkien copycat/plagiator. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

BTW: what comes to my story... which is still a roleplaying saga about to be refined to a story one day, I dirched the orcs (and the dragons, dwarves and TOLKIENISTIC eleves, classic wizards and eh... what is there else that ne would expect in fantasy... errrm....) For example there are many variations in consept of Evil. I am sorry that we only explored the surface of the subject. I for one believe that there needs to be the Total Evil, but prefer as story element that it is not usually seen and its servants cannot be recognised outright. This consept might be called "Veiled Big Evil That Lurks In Shadows."


Janne Harju

[Eol]

How one structures a story is the choice of the writer. The option of absolute evil is an option, but is not needed.

Yes, some stories need endings, while others are designed to not have definate endings. Short stories, depending on the author, with have definate endings, some won't.

The way a story may end reflects underlying feeling the previous words. What do you want to achieve? DO you want to leave the reader to reflect on the ending or "happily ever after" and that is it.

I like to write what I know, and right now, there are never definate endings. I also like to write what people can identify with. Relgious belief can define absolute evil in a world of gray.

[bombur]

"I like to write what I know, and right now, there are never definate endings. I also like to write what people can identify with. Relgious belief can define absolute evil in a world of gray."

Well, does that definition include me?
[img]smilies/eek.gif[/img] [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

After all I sometimes speak like a militant atheist. I have no problems attacking peoples religion, if it seems to inspire them to attitudes and deeds I disapprove of (like claiming to be JUSTIFIED to define absolute evil in THIS world).

I have no problems giving credit to some religious people for their deeds either, but that remedies nothing in the eyes of many people who base their idea of good and evil on religion.


Janne Harju

[Eol]

No offense, but this has nothing to do with you personally.

As to religion, that should be saved for another thread that is more approariate to discussion.

All I wish to state is that fantasy writing can be very narrow minded or very open in style. It can be the fairy tale or it could be something more thought provoking. It can be redundant or it can be something new. It relys purely on the preference of the author.

Tolkien chose to take up a more epic style. I chose to do something with a more historical feel, something that could have happened, but never did.

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Eol ]

[bombur]

Personalising the perception of religion, I merely indicated that I do not neccesarily concur or even approve of that idea.

What comes to fantasy, I most certainly do not think that there were some ways fantasy should or should not be written. It is matter of taste. Ihave mine you have yours. Neither should condemn the others view. But how on earth could people become better cooks if not by arguing the merits of applepies versus the merits of starwberrypies?

[img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

Janne Harju

[bombur]

What comes to the historical feeling/alternate history, I somehow prefer the "alternate world" approach. Like what could have been if the laws of nature would have taken a different turn. Like for example world may basically deep below the surface function by the rules of symphatic magic, whereas a metaphorical action may actually change real things. Something along the lines that a deed of self sacrifice may save the world even if it is realistically futile. This kind of things are also part of my preferance of black and white fantasy to shades of grey.

This perhaps also explains my desire to keep the story separate from history. As I desire the laws of nature to take a different twist in the world of the story and also simultaneously believe in the laws of the social dynamics and historical dialectics in this one... this leaves me only one option... that the historical timeline of my story has no connection to that of the real world.

This may also have something to do with a yet unexplored question of WHY of the fantasy.

Janne Harju

[littlemanpoet]

My my my. It has gotten lively here, not to mention substantive. Which is great.

Lila: By all means, I concur with Nar, use the archetypes of fantasy. King, dragon, knight, it'll be fresh if you tell the story in a way that is both true to your vision and true to fantasy.

True to fantasy? Well, now, that is a matter of debate, which Eol and bombur have been doing quite handily. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

bombur: Regarding the idealisms of liberty, etc., I must disagree. It would not be the kind of fantasy that I personally would write, but I'm convinced that it could be done, and done well in such a way that is true to fantasy.

True to fantasy? Hmmmmm... what does that mean?

Urban fantasy pretty much explodes your hypothesis, actually. Naaramare is writing such a story. It has all the modern paraphernalia, hospitals even, and magic and Elves. Very convincing because it's well written and by the way quite self-referential, which is odd for fantasy. Certainly, Tolkien would never have written it, but that does not make it any less fantasy. I don't think there's a dark lord in it, but it does have its evil power-mongers. So I'd say it's true to fantasy.

True to fantasy.... Hmmmm... what does that mean? [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

To be continued.

[littlemanpoet]

Wasn't it Samwise Gamgee in whose mouth Tolkien puts the following words?

Something like, "The big stories never end, do they? We're in the same story as Beren and Luthien. It's just that our part will come to an end and someone else will carry on." Not an exact quote, but it sort of puts the lie to (or at least contradicts) bombur's point.

As to the whole black and white thing: Characters in a book should be like people; we may call them "black" or "white" - none of them really are.

... for a story one only needs a sliced period of time. One year is plenty. It is always a bonus to have history for the story.

Tolkien's semblance of history is part of what makes LotR seem so real.

the type of catharsis-- release into new understanding of ... something: yourself or existence, and release of emotion

Nar: This is what Owen Barfield called "evolution of consciousness". I wish more people had heard of him and read his works by now. He was influential upon Tolkien and Lewis. I've said all this before, but since you brought up the effect on the reader, it fit.

I believe strongly in stories that have definate ends... ambiguous preferably... but the kind that make sequels impossible.

Sequels are always possible, if you're good at it. Creating loose ends for the sequel where there didn't seem to be any is far easier than tying up all the loose ones in the prequel.

On one particular point I do agree with bombur: the need for an evil that goes deeper than mere villain. Especially if the fantasy story is a serious one. Even in not so well written fantasy, there tends to be a yet more subtle, perhaps more pervasive, hidden but potent evil, than mere villain. This is as it should be if one is gong to be true to fantasy.

True to fantasy - hmmmmmm..... what does that mean?

Eol: What fantasy stories can you point to that show that a "most evil" opponent (I will not say absolute, for that goes beyond what I think ultimately real) is not necessary?

I don't think you meant to say, Eol, that fairy tales cannot be thought provoking.

I must disagree with everyone who says that how fantasy is written is all a matter of taste. Surely there must be some standards that define it as over against other genres of literature, otherwise why bother calling it fantasy? Tolkien, for example, had a clear definition of fantasy, which Nar happens to think is too narrow, but then Nar herself also has a (somewhat) clear definition of fantasy, an arguably good one. I tend to take Tolkien's definition as my own. To paraphrase, he says in "On Faerie Stories", that fantasy is that one type of story that, like no other, has to do with the happy ending, or if not the happy ending, then the eucatastrophe, which is that sudden reversal against all the odds and all the evidence that lifts the heart and gives one hope that Life and Good will ultimately defeat Death and Evil. This works as a broad definition because it delineates fantasy from tragedy, using Tolkien's example.

Goes this, bombur, help discuss the WHY of fantasy? What being true to fantasy is all about?

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[Eol]

Fantasy has many definitions. One of them is where you have something in the story that talks, that usually would not ( animals, trees, inanimate objects, the fantstical).

I don't think you meant to say, Eol, that fairy tales cannot be thought provoking.

I did not mean to say they are not thought provoking, though not done well can be quite boring.

Eol: What fantasy stories can you point to that show that a "most evil" opponent (I will not say absolute, for that goes beyond what I think ultimately real) is not necessary?

Honestly, it has been a while since I have read a GOOD fantasy story. The first one that I can come to mind is Mists of Avalon. Though I am not possitive that it had an "prominate evil villian".

The story I am writing has no "prominate evil villian". This way, I can show the agenda of each side and why they think their "adversary" is evil.

the need for an evil that goes deeper than mere villain. Especially if the fantasy story is a serious one.

Here is my challenge,IMP. Give examples of fantasy stories that do not have the "evil" element that is not serious but is still good.


Very interesting discussion that has developed. Lets see if we can find a definition of fantasy, and how to stay true to it, if that something we wish to do.

[Saxony Tarn]

Weeeeeall...

somewhere i've got a few WsIP that don't have a Clear & Present Evil side, and when i ignore 'em for two years then pick 'em up & read 'em, even i think they're pretty good...

i'm just going to sit here behind the bar & pour drinks for you four -- you seem to be on a roll!

s.t.

[Nar]

ST: What's a WsIP? I think in your Mad Hatter Denethor, you've got a sense of human foibles. Promise a new review soon.

Eol: T.H. White's Once and Future King comes to mind: anything about Lancelot and Guenivere. The tone is rueful and ironic, not grand, which is a different variety of fantasy. Is it no longer really fantasy, but an elegant, lovely and worthwhile parody of fantasy? That is the question.

Bombur:

This perhaps also explains my desire to keep the story separate from history. As I desire the laws of nature to take a different twist in the world of the story and also simultaneously believe in the laws of the social dynamics and historical dialectics in this one... this leaves me only one option... that the historical timeline of my story has no connection to that of the real world.

This may also have something to do with a yet unexplored question of WHY of the fantasy.

Perhaps the answer to your WHY of fantasy has to do with what you'd hope to find out by changing the laws of nature... something about man's nature? Or something about the world's essential nature, below history and facts, facts, facts? I've always liked the idea of speculative fantasy. As LMP would say, fantasy should have a sense of place, Arda certainly does. It's good if this sense of place is stunning and unique.

LMP... Ah, a challenge! I take up your gauntlet, sir! (I almost wrote guerdon, but my trusty grey-cloaked counselor interposed! That would be Webster's Seventh NC dictionary.) I have to read JRRT's essay carefully again. As you know, I think he was describing a particular and deep-rooted catharsis, but not the only one. I do think fantasy is defined by its effect on the reader, and the interplay of catharsis, theme and archetype generate that effect.

I think my definition of fantasy is broader than that of Tolkien in Tree and Leaf. I don't see fantasy as exclusively seeking eucatastrophe and restoration of wonder and hope; I see that as a huge continent in fantasy but not Gonwandaland; not the only continent on earth. (Favorite bumper sticker: 'Re-unite Gonwandaland!')

'Wonder' is questing, curious, open, linked to newness (I wouldn't say childlike, just newness). I would use 'Awe' to try to enlarge the meaning to something more neutral, maybe hopeful, maybe just toughminded and inquiring, maybe terrible, but always revelatory: a catharsis of the understanding rather than the dictionary's catharsis of the emotions. A release of the understanding which releases emotions. Not only and always good, but as true as we can make it.

If I can sidle crabwise into another genre-- there are two types of mysteries: 1)'Logic investigates, enacts justice against the disruptor; we are all restored' (return of the king!) and 2)'Nothing can help us; we all fall down'. The second type leaves a sense of sorrow and pity-- as long as you feel that the author's writing his/her truth and not for the effect of the dark swoon. Some 'all fall down' artists are just going for the effect, for the swoon-- I purely hate that.

Re: Eucatastrophe --I don't, and can't, if I'm true to my whole understanding, assume that revelations are always in the line of release from despair into hope, if they are rigorously worked out. They could be. I love that kind of story. But I would not say that those truths sung from the stinging edge of the void are not story, or fantasy, and I would not say there are no other truths.

Fantasy is that which strikes deep, that's what I would say. Fantasy is the original story. Fantasy is composed below the surface of the story and therefore induces a catharsis of feeling and of understanding. Fantasy fits some part of the dreaming mind like a key to a lock and unlocks... something else, something that's not mind anymore.

[Saxony Tarn]

Nar -- WsIP = Works In Progress.

BTW -- Glad you're enjoying it. i'll try to post more up there after i've heard what you think of what's up there already, and i'm happy to report that more good lines for the upcoming man-to-King chat have come forward. Don't know when i'll get back to writing in earnest again though as the social calendar always starts to cram itself full right about now through Yuletide...

s.t.

(Denethor adds, who, me? Mad Hatter? I resent that -- I am most certainly not MAD... very well -- rather disgruntled, somewhat paranoid, long past incapable of telling either of my sons how proud I ought to be of them or my departed wife that I miss her, and dancing on the marionette strings of the Dark Side, but not MAD! And neither would I wear such a ridiculous hat!)