The wrong kind of details: the components of wonder (aka lmp's rant)

[littlemanpoet]

Tolkien, in On Faerie Stories, said that a sense of wonder is essential to a good fairytale.

My little addition to that is: The wrong kinds of details in fantasy books kill the wonder. There. I've said it as clearly as I know how.

Tolkien did it right. C.S. Lewis did it right (though he may have done other things less well). George MacDonald did it right. Guy Gavriel Kay got it right in the Fionavar Tapestry series. Stephen R. Lawhead got it right in his Albion and Arthur series. Sheri S. Tepper got it right in Beauty. Robert E. Howard did it right. Pullman got it right in His Dark Materials. I'd even go so far as to say J.K. Rowling did it right in her Harry Potter series.

Dennis McKiernan messed up in Once Upon a Winter's Night. He includes details that killed the wonder for me, maybe for any reader. Aside from the fact that the plot structure is sadly mishandled, there are brothels in fairyland. Little fairies play at sex as if it's just a romping game. Eh. His dragon stops using the language of myth and starts talking like a human counsellor, a major failure of consistency and not the only one.

Katherine Kerr left something to be desired in the Deverry series. Granted, I've barely started but I know what bugs me: mere political intrigue. I can read any historical fiction (or real history) about an exiled bastard son who wants his father's throne, or the discovery that a king is the one who's infertile rather than his banished wife. And the magic leaves something to be desired. I'm left still desiring wonder, because I don't get my desire for it satisfied by Kerr's magic. Nevyn is an herbmaster and he has his dweomer. But he doesn't seem like a wizard to me, rather a mere herbmaster. The reader is allowed to just take the magic for granted. It's just a fact of life, nothing special. And her half-elves. They're not special either. Tolkien's Elrond Halfelven must choose his destiny, as must all his descendants (Arwen for example). There's something of nobility and destiny about that, which gives us the wonder. Kerr's half-elves, and a lot of other writers' half breeds, just seem to be products of their genetics and environment and little more. Where's the wonder in that? How is that different from every day life? Okay, maybe I'm too early in her book, but still.

The reason I started writing my own fantasy (I'm not saying it's great but I know what I want) is that I got sick and tired of the wonderless stuff being foisted on the hungry fantasy reading public.

As you can tell, this is akin to Kalessin's rant, and apologies to Kalessin for mimicking his clever title, but I want to do something different without demanding that you read that entire thread (which wouldn't be a bad idea if you're interested in this kind of thing).

I'm talking about high fantasy, not urban fantasy. The rules are different for urban fantasy because the setting is our world and the normal rules we're all used to are suspended in interesting ways such that the magic is the exception rather than the rule, and therein lies its wonder.

Back to high fantasy. The authors I (imho) gave high marks to above included details that did not spoil the wonder. They did include plenty of details, though. Just the right kind of details.

Here's the question: What specific details are the right kind? What are the wrong kind of details? How much does it depend on the context of the story? How do you think the authors I've named so far handled this? What other authors are there to bring into the discussion?

As I said above, Beauty works despite the fact that Tepper mixes history and magic and science fiction in one boiling kettle of a story. There are all kinds of details that other writers don't get away with, but she does because she handles them well. McKiernan seems to be working with a 17th or 18th century French milieu, which isn't bad in itself but somehow there's enough of the kind of wonder-killing details in that milieu that ruins his story. Pullman, on the other hand, uses a 19th century Victorian English milieu and carries it off brilliantly. Why did one work and not the other? The ogre's in the details. What details? I eagerly await your responses.

Paul the brooding bard, aka littlemanpoet.

[ August 03, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: littlemanpoet ]