What is your ideal concept of fantasy?

[WarlikeMenelaos]

I prefer 'mythology' over all this Middle Age nonsense with Knights in shining armour, dragons everywhere (although I love dragons, just not in this context) some young boy seeking to claim throne with aging wizard as companion. Some odd ancient magical artefact that either saves everyone or is an instrument of evil.

I used to write stuff like that but then read 'The Aeneid' then 'The Iliad' which has really brought me into the whole Greek mythology thing. My writing is now heavily influenced by that, before my characters used to be so two dimensional but now they have tonnes of history, actual character traits (flaws and all) The story is epic and one day I really hope to finish it. I must admit that I don't read much from modern fantasy authors and prefer to read the classics. I'm hoping to read the Odyssey next and then probably read about Jason and the Argonauts, there's just plenty of material out there.

This might sound strange but I also enjoy reading history just because it's more interesting than some fantasy stories out there today. Sumerian tales (who can say anything bad about the Epic of Gilgamesh?), Egyptian tales (gotta love Egypt, love their stories)

I've gone on a bit so I'm gonna stop now. Anybody know of any books that fit my tastes? Always on the lookout for more reading material.

[I, Brian]

I can completely relate to that, WarlikeManalaos - and welcome to the chronicles network.

[nixie]

I'm not drawn to one type of fantasy over another. Even when a book is badly written I can find something in it to keep me reading to the end.

[fungi from Yuggoth]

Warlike Menelaos, you might like to try some of the African mythologies/epics. Try the famous Ethiopian mythology tale the Kebra Nagast (Book of Kings) or the Malian Epic of Sundiata, both of which are available in English translation. There's also a whole bunch of great Sudanese folklore/legendry, some of which ties into ancient Egyptian mythology (the Emprie of Kush/Sudan was closely related to the Empire of Egypt in ancient times). Unfortunately I haven't read much of that so I can't really recommend specific works.

[fungi from Yuggoth]

In response to the thread, I find that my ideal concept of fantasy is something which takes me on a fantastic journey, something which enlivens me and thrills me with its strangeness, its freshness of storytelling, its imagination of setting... in short, something that is original. I don't even consider most of the pulpy trash that passes for modern 'fantasy' actual fantasy, simply because the worlds in which these so-called tales take place in are so similar to each other that they are, in their own way, a real place with real conventions and steadfast rules. It's a sad state of affairs when writers are forced to comply with certain fans' expectations of the genre for fear of accidentally labeling an orc a troll or portraying an elf as anything other than a noble forest dwelling person of pure and ancient lineage.

Sure, there are some fine and worthy modern fantasy authors, but on the whole there is still a subconscious Tolkienization of most works. That's why I have gradually been reading more of the pre-Tolkien fantasies, the works of Eddison, Dunsany, Hope Hodgson... even the pulp shorts of the Weird Tales era have more vitality than many of the authors of today. For me, these guys portray the ideal fantasy period. Their writing may be clunky in places, their worlds and settings far-out, their ideals may be a little *ahem* unenlightened, but they weren't afraid of being as original and fantastic as possible.

And that for me represents ideal fantasy!

[Stormflame]

Fantasy to me...hmmm....

When I think of fantasy, as so often I do, my mind is taken to the land of Mordor or the the village of the Shire. The lotr's best describes my pic of fantasy. So often I had dove into the art work of Luis Royo, whose mythical perception of that 'not so real' era is best found there. I appreciate the notion of one barbarian hordes, the princess who dabbles in witchery, the queen who sleeps with a demon, and the aged knight who picks up his sword once more and challenges a great evil that threatens his homeland. These are the scenes that make me think of fantasy...

[Michael]

I like to see mythical backgrounds that are different from Western, although Western is cool too when it's done well. I also like the idea of creating new mythologies. For "The Defiler's Rule" (although I've changed the title), I created a completely fictional people with similar cultural ideas. Soem of the culture varies from clan to clan, but they are supposed to be all recognizably "Hunjan." Then I also created a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses for the Hunjan people. The pantheon has similarities to other myths but I also tried to vary it as much as possible.

[evanescentdream]

The ideal concept of fantasy? Not an easy question to answer.

The reason I say this is because there is no singular form of fantasy in literature today. There are those that are strictly Tolkienesque fiction, and there are those that play with the border of alternative genres.

But fantasy, I think (or at least epic fantasy), requires three main elements to be classified as such:

1. There must be a being, human or otherwise, who in the very beginnings has good intentions. Focused on benefiting his fellows, this being acquires power ("power" is the general term for a number of things: command over an army, a succesful political career, great strength, or even the Lord of the Rings motif "magic"), which is used initially to further his goals. Eventually the ego and desires of the being lead to his undoing, and his power give him an assumed title of ruler or God.

2. There must be a quest or journey, impossible to accomplish, that gradually ends in the defeat of the being. The journey may be either long or short, and on this journey a great band may travel together or a lone individual may tread the path. Nevertheless, the difficulty of the quest tests the heart of the heroes and leads to several plot complications vital to the destination, for good or ill.

3. Finally there must be a hero or heroes that undertake the perilous trek. Usually this person is common and ordinary or perhaps seemingly weak and useless. But the heart and valor of this hero is eventually revealed and he is accepted by his peers, and he resolves the main conflict by defeating the great being.

[robert_red]

As I read through the posts on this topic I noticed how many people were saying that the Middle Ages as a setting is getting tired and old. In my opinion, this is untrue. What is getting tired and old is the use of so many common plot devices involving the middle ages. If an author were to base a story in the Middle Ages but have a completely original plot, I highly doubt that we would think it tired and unoriginal. It is not the setting itself that gets old, in my opinion, but the overused, cliched plots.

I am planning on writing a book based in a world that is semi-medieval but with a completely different government and economy. My goal for the book is to have an original plot, magic system, government etc. So far it is like no other book I've read. Unfortunately, there may be several downsides to this. For instance, the magic system is original but quite abstract. Also, the religious beliefs in the book would be difficult for those who are not open to new or abstract ideas to grasp. See, the thing that is difficult about writing original fantasy is that those readers who are not open to such a difference will not be able to understand entirely new concepts.

[Rosemary]

I must admit to being a little tired of medieval settings, such as that used by George R.R. Martins' parts of his books.

I wish you luck with your book robert_red, although I think you may be surprised at how many of us are more than happy to read and understand new concepts.

[ice.monkey]

Having read the whole of this thread I think the publishing industry is missing a point about "original" fantasy.

I've been working on a fantasy project for some years now and am constantly surprised at the number of people I meet that used to be into fantasy but no longer are. And the common reason they no longer read fantasy is because it became 'samey' to them. They unfortunately never found fantasy beyond the constant rewrites of lotr and if they did, they unfortunately encountered something they didn't like.

So I've come to the conclusion that the publishing industry eventually turns people away from the genre as a result of being obsessed with their 'standard' of what people want. And there's no doubt that people want it but once they've had enough of it many 'move on' as a result of not finding anything new to fuel their imaginations.

It's bizarre as the fantasy available in children's books is vast and eclectic.

Aesop's Fables
Chronicles of Narnia
Wind in the Willows
Alice in Wonderland
Peter Pan
Harry Potter
the classic Fairy Tales
The Hobbit
Rupert the Bear

To name just a few that came to me right this instant.

So why are we forced to read a narrower range of fantasy as we grow older? Does the majority really want to read the same type? I don't think so. I think that as we grow older we encounter the main-stream Tolkienesque / Medieval fantasy and fall in love with it. But as children we fell in love with any form of fantasy. So surely it'd be true that we'd love more variety.

The Publisher's keep telling us that the main-stream fantasy is what people want because the majority of people they survey have fallen in love with it and are in their honeymoon period with it. So the Publishers keep shoving the same kind of fantasy at them but don't realise that after a while these same individuals actually do want something different but as there's not much (traditionally) choice they move away from the genre. And the Publishers survey and catch the next wave falling in love with main-stream fantasy but miss those who've 'moved on' and so believe that all we want is more of the same. So it's self-fulfilling. What they never find out is that they also turn people away from fantasy by being obsessed with the main-stream.

But because they're making enough money by shoving out the same niche fantasy they'll just keep doing it.

As to what I like in fantasy. Originality. But it's got to tell a good story with good characters. Character and story is more important than setting.

[Manarion]

I have to say, in my opinion, both extremist sides are out of it. No offense...

First off, the sort of fantasy that Sony turned Final Fantasy into (The Al Bhed's machina in the X series coming to mind) doesn't sit all that well with me.

Neither, for that matter, does the cliched classic D&D, LotR type anymore. That, too, has grown stale and oppressive. Always the same.

As far as originality goes, something along the lines of Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series-great toss, own and read all seven volumes-is a wondrous refreshment from the knight-on-noble-steed variety.

Even that side has a drawback, though...the real world.

A true fantasy, I think, would have a little bit of everything. Original creatures/races, original world, classic magic...just no futuristic technology. Bleh. Leave that to Sci-Fi.

[Connavar]

I want a good yarn with interesting character, the world might be realistic or totaly fantastic it doesnt matter. Very low on magic. A story where there isnt much difference from the villains and the heroes except their acts in another word i want gray characters. A simply yarn in fantasy, no extremly complex political fantasy that seem to dominate the genre these . Very few of those i can like.

No cliche white and black story where the heroes are so shiny and the villains so ugly and monstrous.


If you have ever read DG you know what im describing

My ideal hero in fantasy is Shannow/Druss/Rek like. Very humane,makes mistakes. Anti-hero really. Only their actions that do some good make them different from the villain.

I dislike the idea of the shining knight in white armour.

[andrew.v.spencer]

That's tough.

I love the new worlds/lands well defined and grounded in a believable history. To work for me they have to project a notion of awe and mystery. Gormenghast and LOTR are archetypes of how this can be done well. In some repsects the stars of these books are Middle Earth and Gormenghast Castle.

On top of this one should add the conflicted interesting major players on a very well defined character arc. The classic here is, I think, Thomas Covenant. Though Mervyn Peake's, Steerpike is an excellent bad guy. I think Erikson, Mieville and Martin also score well here. Here we should include naming conventions, for me nobody beats or will ever beat Tolkien, the very names of people and places are evocative.

A central clear story and plot attracts me. LOTR has that in spades, the stakes are high, the task is clear. Stephen King's Dark Tower also has a very good central theme, save the tower, save the worlds. A little ambiguity is fine, but the hook has to be there. This is where I lose a little sympathy with Erikson and Martin. The former because it is too ambiguous as to what is going on and why, and the latter because he seems to have forgotten or changed what his central theme was. I think Gemmell scores very well on plot drive and focus.

Dialogue is very important. I like the simple truism's of Gemmell's characters, I enjoy the humour and language in Erikson and Martin. This is where Tolkien and Donaldson often fall down.

I prefer relatively simple sentence structures that build to complexity, my favourite for this is Cormac McCarthy, not strictly a speculative fiction writer, though The Road and Blood Meridien are sci fi and a dark allegorical fantasy.

So a believeable elegantly named world, a rousing clear plot, troubled characters with a clear believable and internally consistent character arc and complexity from simplicity.