# A matter of being sensitive, or just conflicting genre expectations?



## Mistresselysia (Oct 2, 2011)

I have been writing fantasy for years, and have been a member of various writing communities over the years, ranging from game modding to fanfiction to novel writing. However, since taking my writing a little more seriously over the last couple of years (since I decided to actually write a proper novel with a real intention of getting it published, rather than just mucking about), I joined a 'serious' *puts on serious face* online writing group who took their critiquing very seriously *looks even more serious*, and I was quite shocked at how roughly they treated the members who wrote fantasy (and yes, this includes me).

Basically, according to them, fantasy writers are all overwriting-aholics with a severe adjective habit. We describe too much, emote too much, tell too much and gorge ourselves on melodrama. We don't so much look at the world with rose-tinted glasses as purple ones, and we need to be told this at all and every opportunity. And if you disagree, well, that's because you're a filthy fantasy writer and you don't know any better! Damn you and your wizards...

In response, I wrote a blog about how, if I took their advice, I felt I wouldn't be writing what my audience wanted - that is, lovely fantasy, full of things fantasy writers expect. And that, in trying to fulfill their expectations of what 'good writing' is, I ran the risk of potentially writing myself out of my chosen market. A lot of the fantasy writers came out of the woodwork to support my view - that as a genre, fantasy has its own set of writing rules that were slightly different from, say, literary fiction or crime thrillers - and it was interesting to realise just how many people who were offering critique on fantasy pieces had never picked up a fantasy novel, ever (not even LotR, which I thought you had to read to qualify as a functioning human being!).

So, to put this rambling post to bed - has anyone else ever faced this? If so, how did you deal with it? Do you agree that there are genre conventions within fantasy that do sometimes fly in the face of what other people may consider 'good writing'? Or is that just me making up excuses so I can indulge in my description habit?

(Btw - this is why I sought out a dedicated fantasy writing forum in the end - I got fed up of being told to basically not write fantasy... so thank you for existing!!)


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Oct 2, 2011)

Fantasy does have it's own play book. 
Things happen in Sci-FI and Fantasy that just can't happen in other types of works. 
Huckelberry Finn would not have fared so well had he had the ablity to teleport, rather than say, raft the river... 

Some may disagree but I found that people who are not into this type of work tend to judge it way too harshly.


----------



## Vix (Oct 2, 2011)

I haven't had that bad of an experience (*shudders*) but I can imagine how intimidating that would be. 

I agree 100% that fantasy writing falls into a somewhat different rule-set than other fiction. As for being too descriptive...I don't see how that is NOT possible in fantasy writing. You are describing a world that is not something a reader can easily place/see (most of the time). It's a completely different environment, with different customs, people, creatures, etc. If you aren't too descriptive, then how in the world will the reader see what you are trying to convey? 

Granted, I think sometimes someone can be TOO descriptive. There is always that line waiting to be crossed. But I do believe fantasy needs to have bit more focused into description than regular fiction. Take my friend for example, he is an astounding writer, and paints one of the most vivid worlds/characters I have scene. But sometimes he gets too wordy with it, and when he should have stopped at the first 3 lines of description, he continued on to add 6 more which can make it tiresome to keep reading. Like, "Yeah, I get it. She has bright red hair, no need for the three paragraphs after describing how fiery it is!" 

I have no clue if that made sense, but it's just my two cents.


----------



## sashamerideth (Oct 2, 2011)

Infodumping is the bane of the fantasy and science fiction writer. We have more leeway for exposition but too many abuse it.


----------



## Mistresselysia (Oct 2, 2011)

It is definitely easy to fall into the 'why use one word when you can use 10' trap, and I know I am guilty of this when I get going sometimes. However, I've read beautiful fantasy prose and then witnessed as it has been savaged by the dogs of literary austerity, and could have wept; never has the phrase 'you just don't get it, man!' been so apt! What has annoyed me (and prompted this post here, amongst like-minded folk) is that I went on a paranoid bender recently, paring back my prose to almost nothing after being subjected to one of these savagings, only to allow a fantasy fan to read it and tell me that 'it's not very 'fantasy', is it? It definitely lacks description'. It made me realise that rather than honing my craft within my chosen genres, I was writing to please people who a) knew nothing about the genre and b) didn't particularly like it... and what is the point of that?! I even had one chap use me as an example of someone who can write but 'choses' not to by writing fantasy... I didn't know whether to be perversely flattered or just punch the guy. Why is it that fantasy is so, so maligned? It really is the only genre that agents seem to be actively be prejudiced against, despite its enduring popularity with readers. Is it all just a case of literary snobbery?


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 2, 2011)

It sounds like you simply found the wrong group. Writing groups work best when the people involved have similar expectations. I would not, for instance, join a writing group filled with John Grisham fans because my writing isn't similar to that. They wouldn't be able to critique my work and I wouldn't be able to critique theirs. If the whole group doesn't care for fantasy and you write fantasy, it's time to look for a different group.


----------



## Mistresselysia (Oct 2, 2011)

It's a real shame, and one I suspect is true, Shadoe - there are a lot of fantasy writers there (I would say at least a third of members count fantasy as their primary genre with a further third dabbling, and the Fantasy group is the largest group there), but the loudest voices are not. It's funny you should say about not feeling able to critique out of your genre; I feel quite strongly about this, but every time I brought this up - that unless you know the genre and its conventions, you shouldn't really critique work within that genre - I was shouted down by these vocal few that good writing is good writing no matter what, and that I was just making excuses (not just for me, but for other fantasy writers, too. I got fed up with every single fantasy piece being ripped apart with no regard for the genre conventions and expectations at all - just a blanket, once size fits all approach). I suppose I just wondered if that really was the case, or maybe I did have a point after all!

Thank you, everyone, for your replies. I suppose I was a little nervous about sharing work (once bitten, twice shy and all that!), but it does my heart good to be in good fantasy company once again. At least I won't have to worry that my writing has to satisfy the Literary Austerity Brigade at all costs now!


----------



## grahamguitarman (Oct 2, 2011)

Unfortunately this happens in almost every field of Art, I'm a painter & sculptor too, and the 'serious' art world looks down on anything fantasy from a great height.  In fact I can't get anyone in the art establishment to take me seriously even when I'm painting non fantasy subjects.  For three years I painted nothing but 'acceptable subjects' for what - to be told my work is too realistic and that I should paint more loosely (ie like a monkey with a 3" brush).  This is sort of like the artists version of being austere - but with the paintbrush.  Trouble is a load of knowledge / talent is being lost because no-one is willing to preserve the old ways of painting!

As a fantasy writer I try to keep exposition down where I can, but Fantasy is all about  description, or more to the point about describing great leaps of imagination.  Just as I've decided to tell the art establishment to go where the sun doesn't shine, I'm inclined to be the same way with those who don't understand Fantasy writing.  

At the end of the day art (including writing) is about self expression - not about bending yourself to someone elses rules about what art should be.  Anyone who tries to constrain art is to me the antithesis of art, and should not be trying to present themselves as creative gatekeepers purely because of their lack of artistic soul!


----------



## Mistresselysia (Oct 2, 2011)

grahamguitarman said:


> Unfortunately this happens in almost every field of Art, I'm a painter & sculptor too, and the 'serious' art world looks down on anything fantasy from a great height.  In fact I can't get anyone in the art establishment to take me seriously even when I'm painting non fantasy subjects.  For three years I painted nothing but 'acceptable subjects' for what - to be told my work is too realistic and that I should paint more loosely (ie like a monkey with a 3" brush).  This is sort of like the artists version of being austere - but with the paintbrush.  Trouble is a load of knowledge / talent is being lost because no-one is willing to preserve the old ways of painting!
> 
> As a fantasy writer I try to keep exposition down where I can, but Fantasy is all about  description, or more to the point about describing great leaps of imagination.  Just as I've decided to tell the art establishment to go where the sun doesn't shine, I'm inclined to be the same way with those who don't understand Fantasy writing.
> 
> At the end of the day art (including writing) is about self expression - not about bending yourself to someone elses rules about what art should be.  Anyone who tries to constrain art is to me the antithesis of art, and should not be trying to present themselves as creative gatekeepers purely because of their lack of artistic soul!


grahamguitarman - I know this feeling well! I am also an artist, and I've lost count the amount of times I have been told to 'draw something proper' or 'why don't you paint a nice landscape?'. Because I don't like to paint landscapes - I like to draw fantasy characters. It's even been suggested that I should draw people's kids and pets... yes, I could easily do that for a few bucks. Problem is, I don't want to. I want to draw dragons and elves and demons. It's just so disheartening, isn't it? It's like you're being looked down upon for having an imagination and knowing how to access it...

Problem is, the establishment is becoming more and more hostile towards anything fantasy. I looked at the agent list for fantasy writers earlier this year, and it is depressingly slim. I'm even going to go as far as changing the name of my novel from Dragonsoul to something that doesn't mention dragons at all, because I am positive that the mere mention of dragons is enough to get a rejection out of some agents before they've even read a word of the actual ms. I do wonder if this trend continues, more fantasy will become available via outlets such as the Kindle - after all, fantasy is still a hugely popular genre for readers, it just seems that the establishment's quite frankly poor attitude towards the genre is what makes life difficult. You'd think this wouldn't be the case - after all, there must be lots of money to be made from the fantasy genre - so I can only guess that it is simple snobbery and nothing else.


----------



## mythique890 (Oct 2, 2011)

In all likelihood, it's literary snobbery.  I've never understood that, because I fee like it takes a heck of a lot more brain power and skill to craft a fantasy novel than it does to make up a crappy, spartan, non-linear literary story with no ending.  But of course, I'm biased in the other direction.  I've never had any patience for what passes as literature these days.  

You know, as a litmus test, you should bring in an obscure passage by a great like Tolkien or C.S. Lewis and have them critique that.  If they rip it to shreds, you've unmasked them for the literary snobs they are.  

Maybe you and the other fantasy writers should break off and form your own group.


----------



## grahamguitarman (Oct 2, 2011)

mythique890 said:


> Maybe you and the other fantasy writers should break off and form your own group.



Or come and join us


----------



## Kelise (Oct 2, 2011)

There's insults to be found for each genre - not that we should make them. A friend of mine writes thrillers and crime and gets looked down on because those books can be considered as cheap and easy - meant for reading on an airplane.

Chick/lit fiction can be branded as those who are over dramatic and their plot lines are a step away from being on soap opera shows.

You could argue back that fantasy and science fiction usually involves a high level of geography, politics, religious debate... 

But like I said - we shouldn't further the insults. Let's be above them, pity them for not loving this genre, and move on to somewhere else  I'm just saying - all genres can be insulted, and have been.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 4, 2011)

I'd disagree that there is a different rule set for genres.  Different audiences, yes.  I don't critique stories in genres I don't read because I don't feel like I can judge it correctly.

Flowery prose that distracts the reader by forcing them to pay attention to the words and not the story, that belongs in poetry, not writing. Assuming that anyone who enjoys fantasy enjoys a several paragraph description of an elf's clothing might want to ask a few readers first. (I don't enjoy it)  The tools used to write any story are pretty much the same.  All of them have a plot, conflict, scenes, characters, and the main difference is the way they are used. Should you be allowed to indulge in excessive description and writing that drags slowly because of it?  No.  You still need to write well no matter what your story contains.

To enjoy fantasy you have to be willing to be able to believe in the possibility of magic.  Those who can't, won't. Of course, The people here will be quite happy to believe in dragons, magic, elves, and most other strange things not found in this reality, so that shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 4, 2011)

I think that fantasy authors tend to overdo description, but not by much. As Vix said, you're describing a completely different world; you do need to give descriptions of things because they're _supposed_ to look different and be unfamiliar.

That said, there's lots of ways to work descriptions into the prose without stopping for a Big Block of Descriptive Text. Characters can notice or touch their clothes. You don't need to describe the color of someone's hair frequently; once or twice is fine, and readers will have their own images of the characters _anyway_. I read all seven (there were only seven, at the time) books of the Wheel of Time thinking that Egwene was blonde. Turns out, she has _dark brown_ hair, and I'd missed that early on even though Jordan mentioned it several times.

Physical description can be a crutch for authors who don't know how to show their characters' personalities properly. Always talking about how fiery a woman's hair is can be a cheap surrogate for trying to show her fiery personality. It's something to be wary of, I guess.

Re snobbery, I _still_ don't understand what "proper literature" is supposed to be, except that most of what I've read that the mainstream calls "literature" I call "boring." English departments the world over have decreed that a certain kind of modernistic, ennui-laden character-driven storytelling is "literature." Well, that's great, but every time I read one of these "great literature" pieces, I'm bored to tears. _Yes_, I understand the references. _Yes_, I appreciate the characters' internal struggles. _Yes_, I wish your book's pages would inflict papercuts instead of your words on me. Bleh. (To be fair, there have been a few such books that I found enjoyable, e.g. _Catch-22_.) The lit-snobs would probably hate a series like Bujold's "Sharing Knife" books, because it's fantasy (romantic fantasy, at that!), even though I learned more about human nature from those four books than I have from anything they ever tried to teach in English courses.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 4, 2011)

One thing to also remember about writing, Tolkien wrote in a world where tv either didn't exist, or was very new.  People at that time had a more limited understanding of what things looked like, based more on their previous reading or experience.  Most of use have no problem creating a mental image of an elf, dwarf, dragon, or most common fantasy creatures.  A pirate would bring up some form of mental picture, probably with a parrot, eye patch, and wooden leg or hook hand.  Readers today have a very great store of visual ideas of how things look.  They have this because the tv has given them a great amount of reference to use.

Some things have to be described because they lack that common reference.  Unless your elf is different from the tall graceful tolkien elves, you only have to point out the differences from what would be most common.  A dwarf taller than a human would really cease to be a dwarf though...so common sense should apply as well.  Sometimes we get very enamored with our creations, which is good for us.  The reader usually will not be as interested in the ecology of your fantasy world from bug to dragon.  Provide what is needed to make the images work, since if you toss in to much, the picture you have in mind probably won't be what they see, if they see it at all.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 4, 2011)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> Some things have to be described because they lack that common reference.



Fair enough, though I'm thinking of (e.g.) Robert Jordan's habit of describing every dress, horse, and fancy room that the characters walk into, even in the later chapters of the book, where, dude, we GET it, character X is wearing a fancy dress. It's just that we can assume that character is wearing a fancy dress, because she's ALWAYS wearing fancy dresses, because she's a goddamn princess. Halfway through the book you don't need to describe it at all, just say "her dress" and get on with it.

Every so often, or if the description is somehow meaningful to the story, or if it's for contrast from something else -- e.g. if we've just spent five chapters hanging out with dirt farmers, then the next chapter's description of an elegant throne room is probably reasonable. Or if a character who normally wears fancy dresses wears something especially fantastic, e.g. the aforementioned princess preparing for her coronation as queen, it's fine.

Relying on common knowledge (what does an elf look like?) is tricky because you don't want to annoy people who know what a damn elf looks like, but you also have to accommodate those readers who have (somehow, even in this post-LOTR-movie-trilogy age) never heard of elves before. There's still ways to do it subtly. And you really only need to do it once or twice anyway. Yes, the elf has an aquiline nose and pointy ears and silver hair and a permanent expression of distaste. Fine, say it ONCE, and then get on with the storytelling!


----------



## Mistresselysia (Oct 4, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Fair enough, though I'm thinking of (e.g.) Robert Jordan's habit of describing every dress, horse, and fancy room that the characters walk into, even in the later chapters of the book, where, dude, we GET it, character X is wearing a fancy dress. It's just that we can assume that character is wearing a fancy dress, because she's ALWAYS wearing fancy dresses, because she's a goddamn princess. Halfway through the book you don't need to describe it at all, just say "her dress" and get on with it.
> 
> Every so often, or if the description is somehow meaningful to the story, or if it's for contrast from something else -- e.g. if we've just spent five chapters hanging out with dirt farmers, then the next chapter's description of an elegant throne room is probably reasonable. Or if a character who normally wears fancy dresses wears something especially fantastic, e.g. the aforementioned princess preparing for her coronation as queen, it's fine.
> 
> Relying on common knowledge (what does an elf look like?) is tricky because you don't want to annoy people who know what a damn elf looks like, but you also have to accommodate those readers who have (somehow, even in this post-LOTR-movie-trilogy age) never heard of elves before. There's still ways to do it subtly. And you really only need to do it once or twice anyway. Yes, the elf has an aquiline nose and pointy ears and silver hair and a permanent expression of distaste. Fine, say it ONCE, and then get on with the storytelling!


I pretty much agree with everything you've said here - which should give you a clue as to how picky non-fantasy people can be (or at least the ones I have met!). For example, I described the moment an archaeologist found the entrance to a tomb as "His heart thudding hard in his chest, he ran a trembling hand through a thatch of well grown beard" - okay. far from perfect,, but the suggested critique read 'He ran his hand through his beard and his heart boomed in his chest'. I kid you not. And the woman's additional comment was 'this is how I would write it - but then I always have been more interested in the more literary side of writing'. I'll never forget it, because all I could think was 'since when did more literary writing sound like one of my 12 year olds had written it. I mean - _boomed_? Are you sure?!'.

The thing is, there is a balance to be struck. I am sure a really talented writer could write a fantasy story by the way of Hemmingway (not that I particularly like Hemmingway...), but one thing fantasy has (and why I think I like it) is heart, which is often absent from the more austere works out there. Sometimes, a little bit more is, well, more. 

I suppose the point it simply 'the world would be a very boring place if we all liked the same thing'. But trying to get that across to some people is like trying to demolish Stonehenge with a piece of sponge cake...


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 4, 2011)

Mistresselysia said:


> And the woman's additional comment was 'this is how I would write it - but then I always have been more interested in the more literary side of writing'. I'll never forget it, because all I could think was 'since when did more literary writing sound like one of my 12 year olds had written it. I mean - _boomed_? Are you sure?!'.



Maybe she meant that she preferred to describe things as simply as possible, although in this case the suggestion she gave was pretty boring. "More literary"? What does that even mean? Yeesh.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 4, 2011)

> "More literary"? What does that even mean?



Boring?  

I'm willing to give on description if it is kept to something...reasonable.  A paragraph to describe someones outfit, in which nothing in the story will have anything at all to do with the style, color, or whatever else the author thought was important, is too much.  If somewhere in the scene the character is going to trip over her dress because it's a full length gown, then noting it is not only acceptable, would give indication the dress might become a problem.  Which leads to a point.  If you disperse a lot of irrelevant (as in the story would be just fine without it) description, wouldn't the reader tend to ignore important details you might want them to recognize?

From my comments I guess it could be thought of that I dislike descriptions, but it is more the indulgent descriptions for the sake of describing something.  You can't please everyone, but for me, I'd rather leave the reader a bit wanting, than a bit bored.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 4, 2011)

I know exactly what you mean. If the details can be removed without changing the story, then they aren't _necessary_. However that doesn't mean that nothing is lost if they're removed; atmosphere is important to storytelling. But it's not that hard to slip in descriptives here and there that give you atmosphere, without having a big ol' block of text.

Example:



> Arvis slipped into the room, shutting the door quietly behind him. All eyes were on the king, standing on the dais and waving his golden scepter as he spoke. Arvis crept nervously along behind the back row of lords, watching their silk cloaks for any movement, freezing still whenever one of the nobles coughed or shifted his weight. He thanked the gods for the plush velvet carpet that absorbed his footfalls.



Golden scepter, silk cloaks, plush velvet carpet, but all the details are slipped into what's happening.

I'm okay with a block of descriptive text the first time we meet an important character, but if it's essentially just a list, then that's still boring.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Oct 4, 2011)

Re: description. 

I fell in love with descriptions when I read the Earths Children series. 

I had been taught to keep it short and sweet. After reading the above series I now feel that in doing so sometimes you can do a disservice to the reader. 

Jean can go on for whole chapters about the costumes of her diffrent cultures. For example: The River People.

So while yes sometimes one can go over the top, if you do it right I don't see it as an issue. 

Ann Rice is also prone to long descriptions. In her Vampire Chronicals she went into great detail describing Claudia.  And Louis.


----------



## Mistresselysia (Oct 5, 2011)

My yardstick is 'it has to earn its keep'. If it is in some way moving the story along, either in terms of plot or characterisation (and tentatively in setting, although that can be a grey area fraught with danger), then it's all good for me. If, however, it just becomes a list of characteristics or a whole page of how the leaves look for simply no other reason than the writer wants to describe leaves, then that's too much. You want to immerse your reader in your world, not drown them.


----------



## Johnny Cosmo (Oct 5, 2011)

> Fair enough, though I'm thinking of (e.g.) Robert Jordan's habit of describing every dress, horse, and fancy room that the characters walk into, even in the later chapters of the book, where, dude, we GET it, character X is wearing a fancy dress. It's just that we can assume that character is wearing a fancy dress, because she's ALWAYS wearing fancy dresses, because she's a goddamn princess. Halfway through the book you don't need to describe it at all, just say "her dress" and get on with it.





> Flowery prose that distracts the reader by forcing them to pay attention to the words and not the story, that belongs in poetry, not writing. Assuming that anyone who enjoys fantasy enjoys a several paragraph description of an elf's clothing might want to ask a few readers first.



I think I agree with Benjamin Clayborne and Lord Darkstorm. I prefer short, neat descriptions. If there is a point to long descriptions, okay, but I certainly don't want to hear it twice.



> For example, I described the moment an archaeologist found the entrance to a tomb as "His heart thudding hard in his chest, he ran a trembling hand through a thatch of well grown beard" - okay. far from perfect,, but the suggested critique read 'He ran his hand through his beard and his heart boomed in his chest'. I kid you not. And the woman's additional comment was 'this is how I would write it - but then I always have been more interested in the more literary side of writing'.



I guess her point was to condense it to its simplest form, whilst retaining its meaning... except that it doesn't really say the same thing to me. There are other points to sentences, other than the actions they describe, and you are dead right to call out such a weird alteration (esp. 'booming'). Her changes suck out the atmosphere, the subtle character hints, and yes, it sounds more like a list.

It seems like a struggling critique made by someone desperate to make significant changes.


----------



## DameiThiessen (Oct 9, 2011)

Fantasy is a much broader genre than many people seem to think because High Fantasy is what first comes to mind, and then LotR in turn. You don't have to write about an epic quest, a band of heroes and an evil overlord to write fantasy. In my opinion all you need for fantasy is magic, or some other-worldly principal like that, to make a clear distinction that this is not written in your everyday life.

It can be challenging to come into a High Fantasy readership and convince them that your book about a man that meets a ghost is fantasy. But don't let the definition of High Fantasy limit your breadth of vision when you are writing fantasy in general.


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 9, 2011)

The Blue Lotus said:


> I fell in love with descriptions when I read the Earths Children series.
> 
> I had been taught to keep it short and sweet. After reading the above series I now feel that in doing so sometimes you can do a disservice to the reader.
> 
> ...


Ann Rice... She's one of those authors I often skip entire pages because they just go on and on and on. I do that with Clive Cussler, the King of the Info Dump.

That's not saying that all these authors are not good authors. Well, Clive Cussler sucks but has somehow managed to become popular. Description can go over the top. When I do long descriptive paragraphs, it sucks. Jean Auel, though, makes the descriptions interesting and captivating, so I could read those all day. Ann Rice... I didn't care for it, but most of my goth friends ate that stuff up. There's nothing wrong with the long descriptions or even the info dumps - If They're Done Well.


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 9, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> Fair enough, though I'm thinking of (e.g.) Robert Jordan's habit of describing every dress, horse, and fancy room that the characters walk into, even in the later chapters of the book, where, dude, we GET it, character X is wearing a fancy dress. It's just that we can assume that character is wearing a fancy dress, because she's ALWAYS wearing fancy dresses, because she's a goddamn princess. Halfway through the book you don't need to describe it at all, just say "her dress" and get on with it.


And yet, there are some forms of fiction, where describing certain things in excruciating detail is not only the norm, but desirable. In romances, especially historicals, describing the clothing is expected. In spy fiction, describing the mark over several pages is expected. It depends on your audience. If your audience likes the long descriptions, you provide them or the audience feels cheated.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Oct 10, 2011)

Mistresselysia said:


> I joined a 'serious' *puts on serious face* online writing group who took their critiquing very seriously *looks even more serious*, and I was quite shocked at how roughly they treated the members who wrote fantasy (and yes, this includes me).
> 
> Basically, according to them, fantasy writers are all overwriting-aholics with a severe adjective habit. We describe too much, emote too much, tell too much and gorge ourselves on melodrama. We don't so much look at the world with rose-tinted glasses as purple ones, and we need to be told this at all and every opportunity. And if you disagree, well, that's because you're a filthy fantasy writer and you don't know any better! Damn you and your wizards...



Writing, I would suggest, is writing, regardless of genre. I've never considered the fiction I write/inflict to be a class apart from any other kind of storytelling. All fiction is fantasy when you get down to it, it's just that some forms express their truths more palatably than others. The problem with a lot of genre fiction, I feel, is that it has a need to bury mundanity of plot beneath a deluge of facts. Facts aren't what fiction is for. Or rather, assuming a cloak of humility for a moment, it's not what_ I_ read fiction for. 

As someone who has an irrational (though not entirely unwarranted) distaste for the Great Unwashed and whatever conventions they deem to follow, I'm always happy to tip received wisdom on its head and kick it when it's not looking; in this case, however, I have to agree with your online writing group.

Whether spoken by firelight or read by eco-friendly light bulb, stories are most effective when a light touch is employed, when the reader feels as if the words have always existed in their head rather than having been implanted by someone else. Sadly, too many fantasy authors feel a perverse desire to bludgeon their audience. Heavy-handedness destroys the illusion, and if an imagineer can't maintain illusions what purpose do they serve?


----------



## Angharad (Oct 15, 2011)

That's why I was so happy to find this forum!  I haven't shared my work around too much, but I do go to a writers group, and I am the only fantasy writer there.  When I read my work, I often get turned up noses and responses such as, "Well, I don't read that kind of thing, so it's hard to give a critique."


----------



## ascanius (Oct 16, 2011)

My sister doesn't like to read Tolken because he is too descriptive.  What I have trouble understanding is how the hell can one be too descriptive.  I found Harry Potter simple along with many other books that I have read.  I like reading the descriptions, I like the details they are what makes the story different from the countless others out there.  It seems like a lot of people have the notion that less is better.  Why is less better?  If we strip down stories to nothing than the essentials what sets them apart from everything else out there.  Don't worry if you put to much descriptions and no one will read your books, I will at least.  I know it's small help but what the hell.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 16, 2011)

> Why is less better?


Because today the vast majority of our readers watch tv.  What's a pirate look like?  What would you imagine a person working at a chain fast food restaurant look like?  Or maybe someone who works in the medical field?  All should have ready images without me even giving any description.  You version and mine will probably be different, but it really doesn't matter what those detail are if they aren't important to the story.  Tolkien grew up in a world that didn't have a tv in every home...I think back then radios were like tv in a way.  Still, he needed to describe more because his audience didn't come with a ready image of an elf, or a dwarf, and no one would have known what a hobbit was.  

Writing changes with the intended audience.  When the intended audience already has a vast array of mental pictures to rely on, we don't have to try and override their image with ours, only make sure theirs includes the important details they will need for the story.  I have tv and several hundred fantasy books in my personal reserve of pictures, so I've read lots of descriptions, and the more long winded you are, the harder you will have to work to make the rest of the story good enough to make up for it.


----------



## ascanius (Oct 16, 2011)

I understand what you are saying, well sort of, at least how it pertains to tv.  This is the unedited first parargaph in my story 
Crimson, the sun cast its final spears of light through the frosted ice that glossed the back of his heavy leather jacket, Mazku’s citadel against the life starved cold.  The new come darkness swallowed the forest’s ever steepening mountain foothills. Awesomely high the Lithe poles spoke their secrets to the receptive breeze bearing the wafting snow. Goose down fluffy white snow, adding to days of heavy snow veiling the crunchy hard pack a foot beneath, it slumbered on, undisturbed by the aged poles serenely whispering their lives, soothing the forest to dreams of the night.  
Does this imply that it sould be cut, it servs no purpose to the story what soever aside from adding to the mood.  I know everyone has probably seen something similar, but why should I downplay something I create to apease to an indiaviduals desire for convinient simplicity.  I understand what you are getting at but I can never agree with it, on principle.  What exactly do you mean by long winded by the way?  And on a last note how the heck do you indent?


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 16, 2011)

It's heavy, too heavy, you'd loose me as a reader...now.  Deciphering all those adjectives makes the reading work.  Instead of crafting a elegant background, you've added a few tons of weight to your sentences.  Read it out loud.  The words don't flow, and it even sounds heavy.  

Is it downplaying, or just not finding better nouns to do the same job?  Also, 'awesome' is overused by so many for mundane things.  It's used for just about everything now, and although I think your intended use is correct, you have to take into account current language usage and what has become...cliche, or just lack of communication skills. (Listen to any teenager and you'll normally here the word 'like' a dozen times in a minute.)

You can use that much description, but you will find a smaller and smaller audience to like it.  I guess it comes down to the purpose of your writing.  Are you creating a story for people to remember, or fancy words for people to remember?  If the reader pays attention to the words, they might very well miss the story.




> And on a last note how the heck do you indent?


'[' quote ']' then a '[' /quote ']' minus the ' and spaces, or use the quote button in the toolbar.


----------



## ascanius (Oct 16, 2011)

Well aside from needing editing, I wrote that four years ago for Nanorimo, and understand what you mean by doesnt flow.  My question was quantitative.  Now if that paragraph underwent editing, I can see the problems to which you speak, would it still be too much? 


Lord Darkstorm said:


> Is it downplaying, or just not finding better nouns to do the same job?  Also, 'awesome' is overused by so many for mundane things.  It's used for just about everything now, and although I think your intended use is correct, you have to take into account current language usage and what has become...cliche, or just lack of communication skills. (Listen to any teenager and you'll normally here the word 'like' a dozen times in a minute.)


Your comment on the use of awesome is a good one that I had not thought of, so thank you, I will keep it in mind from now on.  Now how about this?
Mazku sat with frost covering the heavy leather jacket he wore.  The evening sun cast it's final shadows through the Lithe Poles.  He shrugged off the small pinches of falling snow that fell across his cheeks.  In the distance he could hear the aged poles whispered their lives.
Quick question.  It helps to have the character doing something in the description?  If I include Mazku more in the descriptions, how it is affecting him and what not, would it still be too heavy?  in the original paragraph that is.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Oct 16, 2011)

Much better.

Description that is added to the movement of a story adds to it (to a point), but a paragraph of description is like a dead stop.  After a big battle scene, a few sentences showing the destruction (adding in the feelings of the pov character) makes for a good slowing of the pace. Description can effect the pace, but in general, you don't want to use it too frequently to slow things down.


----------

