# What makes a fantasy story interesting?



## Kellth (Jun 4, 2014)

Title. But what makes a fantasy story (swords, dragons, humans, orcs, dwarfs) and all that interesting? I'm currently reading the World Of Warcraft novel: Rise Of The Horde and I'm finding that this is a very good novel.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 4, 2014)

I'll draw a line between _engaging_ and _interesting_. _Engaging _is what a story is if you took away all the dragons and swords and all you had were people. _Interesting_, I think, comes from ideas: magic systems, alternate realities, the breeding habits of dragons, the industriousness and ingenuity of dwarves, the natural affinity of the elves, etc... IF it plays along with what is _engaging _about the story. Otherwise, it is fluff.

If there is no story-point to knowing the long and sordid history of the Mage-Dukes of Whuffington and the evil ends their ambitions wrought... it will read like most high school history texts, dull and apparently unconnected to the reader's experience.

If we take Tolkien`s LOTR, he put all these appendices at the back of the 3rd book that get into all the exposition that would have been atrociously boring within the story. It is interesting, but _not_ engaging.

A challenge for people who dream up these wonderful magic systems or sci-fi technologies is to find a way to tell people about it without being boring! You may have thought about all the strengths and weaknesses of your magic system, and you should make clear the _salient_ points about it to the reader, but not add things for the sake of adding things. 

I like to quote Vonnegut`s 4th rule of writing:



> 4. Every sentence must do one of two things – reveal character or advance the action.
> 
> Every sentence. Not just chapter or scene or whatever. I’ll go one further and say every letter must advance or reveal. OK, not really.



If the sentence is doing neither, then it risks being a pointless or boring sentence.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 4, 2014)

There is no real answer to this question because all readers are different and find different things interesting. The best you can do as a writer is write what you find interesting and try to attract those readers to your work who are also interested in the same things.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 4, 2014)

Vonnegut's 4th rule is nonsense, in my view. How many great books can you name that don't follow this? A lot.

As for the OP's question, I think it comes down largely to interesting characters with interesting problems to deal with.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 4, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Vonnegut's 4th rule is nonsense, in my view. How many great books can you name that don't follow this? A lot.



I'd like to challenge that, but will accept the quibble that no books are perfect.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 4, 2014)

Scribble said:


> I'd like to challenge that, but will accept the quibble that no books are perfect.



How many books are there that actually follow this? I'd think they are firmly in the minority. Is there a single fantasy example that could be said to adhere faithfully to this rule?

In any event, I think it is a misguided way to approach books as an overarching art form. Certainly, you can write a book in that manner if you wish. But there is no reason an author should feel compelled to limit her writing to that style.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jun 4, 2014)

Pretty much everything by Shakespeare or Dickens would fail the Vonnegut rule. I think Dashiel Hammett would as well.

I don't think fantasy is unique about what draws readers in. If you're writing a realistic story about an isolated tribe, and your readers are not themselves members of that tribe, some will be drawn in by the tribe's traditions and practices, enthralled by a life different from their own. Others will focus on individuals of the tribe, interested in their personalities and the things they learn over the course of the story. And of course, some are only interested if your tribeswomen go topless, or if there's a bloody war with another tribe that you describe in way too much detail. Whether that tribe lives in central Africa or Middle-Earth is immaterial.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 4, 2014)

I think the vast majority of books would fail it. I'm not even convinced all of Vonnegut's books would pass


----------



## Scribble (Jun 4, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> How many books are there that actually follow this? I'd think they are firmly in the minority. Is there a single fantasy example that could be said to adhere faithfully to this rule?
> 
> In any event, I think it is a misguided way to approach books as an overarching art form. Certainly, you can write a book in that manner if you wish. But there is no reason an author should feel compelled to limit her writing to that style.



Maybe we are taking two different ideas from what he is saying because even reading the first few paragraphs of Twilight, though not regarded as a well-written series, does in fact adhere to this. 

It isn't great, but it is free from fluff - that's what I was talking about.

Now, if she spent an hour at a tourist spot and had an impromptu talk with someone about vampire legends that could be considered back-story albeit dreadfully obvious telegraphing, it would be within the rule, because it leads to something. If they talked for paragraphs about mummies that do not feature in the story but serve to make the world appear "rich", that is something to cut, in my opinion. The mummies may be interesting in a sense, but in the context of the story, they become fluff... and then that thing that was interesting becomes _boring_ in fact... does that make sense?

Anyhow, that is my _opinion_.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jun 4, 2014)

As a reader, good characters are what makes a story interesting & engaging. Complex characters that I can understand, if not condone...characters with flaws...story arcs that gradually change the character's makeup. That is what I find most interesting & engaging. It makes me want to read more because I must know what happens to them.   

If I can experience your world through great characters, I will likely enjoy that setting and it's events as well.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 4, 2014)

Scribble said:


> Maybe we are taking two different ideas from what he is saying because even reading the first few paragraphs of Twilight, though not regarded as a well-written series, does in fact adhere to this.



If you take what he is saying at face value, it isn't sufficient for the first few paragraphs to adhere to it. Every sentence in the entire book has to adhere to it. Do you think there are many books where every single sentence in the entire work adheres to this?


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 4, 2014)

Folks all make good observations here, but I'm not sure they speak directly to the original question. The comments are all about what makes a story interesting. Any story. The question was: what makes a _fantasy_ story interesting. 

The easy answer is: the fantastical. That's what sets good fantasy apart from other good tales. Moreover, the fantastic element has to be something that is impossible in the real world. It can't be merely exotic. Tarzan is adventure, but Conan is fantasy.

The fantasy story succeeds *as fantasy* insofar is it transports the reader into that fantasy.

That's the cake. The icing might be that the fantasy serves as a commentary on the real world. Or that it lets us see people react to extraordinary situations. Or that it re-tells a familiar trope in a new way. 

Underneath all of that, of course, are the basic story-telling elements folks have already brought up here. First it must be a good story, before it can be a good fantasy story.


----------



## Terry Greer (Jun 6, 2014)

Vonnegut's 4th rule is something to aim at and is 'broadly true' - but I think he meant it as a guide to avoid self-indulgence. I've always found it's easy to get sidetracked and add exposition etc - and more times than not we get away with it because we find that bit of explanation interesting. 

BUT

I think the main thing to remember is that the majority of readers want the story to progress or to find out more about the characters as a priority - everything else is secondary (unless they're into the world's mechanics - and they're a small minority) any delay in giving them this info makes them impatient.
There's a big risk that if that interesting bit goes on too long it stops being interesting and just breaks up the story. How long is too long? I'm bug**red if I know. All I know is that I know I've gone over it a fair few times when explaining stuff I thought cool - only to find out that people (who don't think it cool) tend to stop reading at those points and don't start again.

If you need to add exposition I think the best way is to put it into the context of what a character believes, likes/dislikes etc. or how it messes up/helps his plans - that way you're doing both at the same time. 


It is however worth saying that it's also a recognized aspect of scriptwriting, there every scene has to advance the plot/story/character in some way.


----------



## Terry Greer (Jun 6, 2014)

skip.knox said:


> Folks all make good observations here, but I'm not sure they speak directly to the original question. The comments are all about what makes a story interesting. Any story. The question was: what makes a _fantasy_ story interesting.
> 
> The easy answer is: the fantastical.



Defining what is meant by the fantastical is however very hard - some people put Time Travel in the fantasy realm. Unless the science fiction is hard SF its often best to think of it as science fantasy (I'm sympathetic to this as there's no way on earth that films such as Fantastic voyage or Star wars can be considered straight SF in the same vein as 2001).

Personally what makes fantasy interesting to me is an original premise properly explored. (Which you could argue is the same for any story in any genre).
One of the best books I've read was James Clavell's 'Shogun'.
It's not fantasy or SF, but it reads like a first contact novel between earth and a strange exotic alien culture. Which is exactkly what it is really. Except earth = 17th century englishman and exotic alien culture = Japanese (then almost unknown outside Japan).


----------



## technopony13 (Jun 6, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> There is no real answer to this question because all readers are different and find different things interesting. The best you can do as a writer is write what you find interesting and try to attract those readers to your work who are also interested in the same things.



I have to agree with Mythopoet, there is no real answer to it. What I would do is aim for a certain group of people. eg; girls, boys, adults, teens, children, elderly.


----------



## Amanita (Jun 7, 2014)

One important point in my opinion is the interaction between the characters and the fantastical elements. I think this applies to any fantasy story not dependent on target audience but the exact execution does. Human emotions and thoughts meeting the fantastical and trying to deal with it in some way. The difficulty about this is making it fantastical but still relatable. One of the biggest genre-specific challenges in fantasy I think. 
I don't really think that technical issues like the meaningulness of every sentence really do it, usually, readers simply skip sentences discussing something they're not interested in at the moment. If the story is engaging, they might come back to read it, if not, they won't. 
Adding a personal thing: I don't generally dislike stories with Elves and Orcs in it but if the Elves and Orcs aren't characters but the author expects us to know everything relevant about them by calling them Elves and Orcs, it's lazy and annoying. 
I also think there are two (probably more) types of fantasy. One depends on the action and the character getting into difficult situations all the time, the other is slower-paced with more reflection and deeper character inside and there are probably various mixes between the two and they depend on different things to make them interesting.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 7, 2014)

Amanita said:


> One important point in my opinion is the interaction between the characters and the fantastical elements.



I like this line. 
I think that this is one of the reasons I'm so drawn to urban fantasy at the moment. It mixes a familiar world with a fantastical one and it fascinates me to see how the writer handles that. I'm also interested in seeing how the fantastical elements of a fantasy world interferes with the everyday life of average people. I'm not sure how much of that comes through in most stories, but here and there you get a glimpse of it and I tend to find that pretty cool.


----------



## Chessie (Jun 7, 2014)

What makes a fantasy story interesting? The same things that make any other story a good read. Tension, character development, and setting are the most important to me as a reader. Lots of magic and fantastical elements too, which is why I love this genre.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior (Jun 10, 2014)

It has to have an interesting setting and characters and plot. It needs to be written well.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

skip.knox said:


> Folks all make good observations here, but I'm not sure they speak directly to the original question. The comments are all about what makes a story interesting. Any story. The question was: what makes a _fantasy_ story interesting.



For me, what makes a good fantasy story interesting is the same as what makes any story interesting. I think approaching it differently because it is fantasy is a mistake, personally. Interesting and engaging characters, quality writing, a problem to overcome and me caring about whether they overcome it.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I think approaching it differently because it is fantasy is a mistake, personally.



I don't think so. The fact is that most readers chose to read particular genres (rather than reading anything they come across that seems interesting) because of the specific tropes associated with those genres. This is why genre fiction sells so much better than general fiction, in general. This is why genre exists. Because readers like certain things and they like to be able to easily find the stories that have the sorts of things they like. 

Writing an interesting fantasy is very different from writing an interesting romance or an interesting mystery. Fantasy readers read fantasy for a reason. They like the conventions and tropes that are associated with fantasy. A wise author who chooses to write in a certain genre and who wants to market to readers of that genre will study the fundamentals and necessities of that genre, the tropes and conventions that make readers love it, and the expectations that readers tend to have for that genre. 

Understanding your audience and developing your craft to appeal to them is a fundamental part of storytelling.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> A wise author who chooses to write in a certain genre and who wants to market to readers of that genre will study the fundamentals and necessities of that genre, the tropes and conventions that make readers love it, and the expectations that readers tend to have for that genre.



Problem is, if you look at the genre, it's all over the board. I don't think you'll find much of anything that is necessary. No tropes or conventions that inevitably pop up. So if you can look at a genre and see, empirically, that this isn't the case, what are you left with? Personally, I care about the things I stated above. Someone can have the most awesome concept I've heard of, but if the writing isn't any good and/or the characters aren't any good, I'm not likely to read it. I'd rather read a very well done story about a family living in a farm house in Iowa than a poorly-executed story with an epic fantasy plot.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> Problem is, if you look at the genre, it's all over the board. I don't think you'll find much of anything that is necessary. No tropes or conventions that inevitably pop up. So if you can look at a genre and see, empirically, that this isn't the case, what are you left with?



If you look at the romance genre (note: not books that have romance in them, but actual romance novels), for instance, a happy ending where the main love interests end up together, is pretty universally considered to be necessary. Readers of romance want and expect it. 

In Science Fiction, it is pretty universally considered that the story should not contradict with scientific knowledge as it is understood at the time of writing. If it does, it is pretty universally scoffed at and panned and called "fantasy". 

Likewise, fantasy readers expect some type of fantastical elements when reading a fantasy book. There's a whole vast spectrum to how the fantastical can be interpreted and explored that leaves fantasy writers with an almost infinite space to work in. But I would suggest that the most basic aspect of fantasy that is necessary is that there must be some type of "otherness" that distinguishes it from the real world. 

I would call these "necessary" aspects of these genres, in as much as if your work doesn't conform to these expectations, it will generally not be considered to truly represent the genre. 



Steerpike said:


> Someone can have the most awesome concept I've heard of, but if the writing isn't any good and/or the characters aren't any good, I'm not likely to read it. I'd rather read a very well done story about a family living in a farm house in Iowa than a poorly-executed story with an epic fantasy plot.



Well, poorly-executed is in the eye of the beholder. There are myriad examples of books I can't stand, books that according to my standards are very poorly written and told, that are massively successful because they hit the genre conventions that readers want. 

I would suggest that most genre readers are not like you. Most readers of genre want certain things from their reading experience and value those things above "writing quality" most of the time. Again, this is why genres exist to categorize fiction. Because most readers want to read about some things and not others. I don't want to read romance novels. I don't want to read thrillers. I want to read fantasy.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 10, 2014)

@Steerpike: I get the feeling that you're focusing more on the word _story_, than on the word _fantasy _in the question. I'm not saying you're in any way wrong about what makes a story good/interesting, just that you may be focusing on a different part of the question.

Let's say an author writes two stories that are essentially the same as far as characters, plot and writing goes and where the only real difference is that one takes place in a fantasy setting and the other not. What would make the fantasy versions more interesting than the mundane version?
Now this is a thought experiment so let's assume that it's possible to have two such stories and that we as fantasy readers would find the fantasy version more enjoyable.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Likewise, fantasy readers expect some type of fantastical elements when reading a fantasy book. There's a whole vast spectrum to how the fantastical can be interpreted and explored that leaves fantasy writers with an almost infinite space to work in. But I would suggest that the most basic aspect of fantasy that is necessary is that there must be some type of "otherness" that distinguishes it from the real world.



True, but I don't consider merely having a fantastic element a trope. And I think it can be as simple as being in a world that is not the real one, even if there is no magic (and there are fantasy novels that have no magic whatsoever in them). I do think you need some aspect of the fantastic, but as you said it can be incredibly broad. To me, tropes and conventions are more specific things, and I don't think you need to follow them (although I don't mind if you do; I'm all up for a good, traditional fantasy story with all the trimmings).



Mythopoet said:


> I would suggest that most genre readers are not like you. Most readers of genre want certain things from their reading experience and value those things above "writing quality" most of the time. Again, this is why genres exist to categorize fiction. Because most readers want to read about some things and not others. I don't want to read romance novels. I don't want to read thrillers. I want to read fantasy.



That may be true, I don't know. I do read thrillers, and romance, and mysteries, and literary fiction, and westerns, and SF, and horror. I don't really care. I want to read a good story. I want something that interests me. Beyond that I'm open to just about anything.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Svrtnsse said:


> Let's say an author writes two stories that are essentially the same as far as characters, plot and writing goes and where the only real difference is that one takes place in a fantasy setting and the other not. What would make the fantasy versions more interesting than the mundane version? Now this is a thought experiment so let's assume that it's possible to have two such stories and that we as fantasy readers would find the fantasy version more enjoyable.



I don't know. All other things being equal, would the fantasy version be more enjoyable? I'm not sure it would. In the hypothetical you're proposing, the fantasy elements have no impact on characters or plot (since the fantasy version and the mundane version are essentially the same) so I don't know that one would necessarily be more enjoyable. As I noted, above, there are very good fantasy stories without a drop of magic or fantastic creatures or any of that stuff...would they have been better if they included it? I don't think they would have. 

Maybe it helps to further define fantasy down into subgenres. "Fantasy" is such a broad term, and encompasses so many different types of stories.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I don't know. All other things being equal, would the fantasy version be more enjoyable? I'm not sure it would. In the hypothetical you're proposing, the fantasy elements have no impact on characters or plot (since the fantasy version and the mundane version are essentially the same) so I don't know that one would necessarily be more enjoyable. As I noted, above, there are very good fantasy stories without a drop of magic or fantastic creatures or any of that stuff...would they have been better if they included it? I don't think they would have.
> 
> Maybe it helps to further define fantasy down into subgenres. "Fantasy" is such a broad term, and encompasses so many different types of stories.



For a reader like me, who prefers the fantasy genre over any other, the fantasy version would be far more enjoyable than any other version. It is the fantasy aspects that I crave.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> For a reader like me, who prefers the fantasy genre over any other, the fantasy version would be far more enjoyable than any other version. It is the fantasy aspects that I crave.



I like fantasy stories. But I don't think _Gormenghast_, which is a fantasy, would have been improved by adding magic or creatures. It would have mucked it up.

That said, however, one project I've been outlining recently is very much a traditional fantasy, where the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. There's honor, nobility, courage, and loyalty, rather than characters of varying shades of gray where each one is a bigger bastard than the last. Not that I mind the whole "grimdark" movement. Some of my favorite authors write in that fashion. But I rather think the genre is becoming saturated with such stories, many of which seem to adopt grimdark merely for the sake of doing so. I'd like to throw some traditional tales back into the mix.


----------



## Terry Greer (Jun 10, 2014)

Because its so broad a brush I often think fantasy is a pretty useless definition on its own.

It's become a sort of shorthand for any story with one or more of the following elements:

alternate world
magic
strange creatures
strange cultures
non scientifically plausible events

While I think this isn't one of clearest definitions it is one that is more or less assumed I'd say.
e.g.:

A time travel story could therefore have starnage creatures and cultures and non scientifically plausable events.
GOT would have most of those elements.
Harry Potter would have magic, strange creatures and strange cultures

and so on.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I like fantasy stories. But I don't think _Gormenghast_, which is a fantasy, would have been improved by adding magic or creatures. It would have mucked it up.



Fantasy does not equal "magic or creatures". As I said above, I think the fundamental aspect of fantasy is "otherness" which transports the reader to a different reality. And as I said above, there are an infinite number of ways that aspect of "otherness" can be interpreted and explored. But I do think that to count as fantasy, there has to be some kind of "otherness" that makes the world within the work different from our world.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> Fantasy does not equal "magic or creatures". As I said above, I think the fundamental aspect of fantasy is "otherness" which transports the reader to a different reality. And as I said above, there are an infinite number of ways that aspect of "otherness" can be interpreted and explored. But I do think that to count as fantasy, there has to be some kind of "otherness" that makes the world within the work different from our world.



What's a big deal to me is the escapism. The sense of it being a different world and knowing it can't be real, but feeling like it sort of is anyway.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> As I said above, I think the fundamental aspect of fantasy is "otherness" which transports the reader to a different reality. And as I said above, there are an infinite number of ways that aspect of "otherness" can be interpreted and explored. But I do think that to count as fantasy, there has to be some kind of "otherness" that makes the world within the work different from our world.



I think this is true, but that's basically the definition of fantasy, isn't it? If it doesn't have that otherworld aspect to it, is it fantasy anymore? So to me that applies to all fantasy stories, but the OP's question is what makes a fantasy story interesting. All fantasy stories, whether interesting or not, will have this otherworld aspect in some form or another. So what makes the interesting ones good and others dull? To me, that's down to writing and characters (and maybe I'll throw in story-telling, to the extent we want to distinguish that from writing).


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

Svrtnsse said:


> What's a big deal to me is the escapism. The sense of it being a different world and knowing it can't be real, but feeling like it sort of is anyway.



I think that's a great way to describe fantasy.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> All fantasy stories, whether interesting or not, will have this otherworld aspect in some form or another. So what makes the interesting ones good and others dull? To me, that's down to writing and characters (and maybe I'll throw in story-telling, to the extent we want to distinguish that from writing).



That's a non-answer in as much as it tells the person asking absolutely nothing practically useful. What exactly constitutes "interesting writing"? What types of characters are "interesting characters"? How do you make your writing and your characters interesting?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> That's a non-answer in as much as it tells the person asking absolutely nothing practically useful. What exactly constitutes "interesting writing"? What types of characters are "interesting characters"? How do you make your writing and your characters interesting?



That's all going to vary according to the reader. But it's no more a non-answer than simply defining the genre, is it? I could say an interesting horror story has horror elements in it, but that doesn't get us anywhere. If we assume all fantasy stories by definition include the fantastic, then what separates out the good ones from the bad ones? That's going to vary from individual reader to individual reader, so I can only comment on what separates them for me, and it's the elements I stated above. Within those confines, I have a wide range of variation that I'm willing to accept, so there's no single answer, even for me.

That's a problem inherent in trying to quantify this sort of thing. It just can't be done if you're trying to talk about readers as some sort of monolithic group. The best we can do, I think, is talk about what we and like-minded readers view as important.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 10, 2014)

I agree. Which is why rather than trying to give a vague and useless answer like "characters" I emphasized how "interesting" is going to vary from reader to reader and the writer should just focus on what they themselves find interesting.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> I agree. Which is why rather than trying to give a vague and useless answer like "characters" I emphasized how "interesting" is going to vary from reader to reader and the writer should just focus on what they themselves find interesting.



Yeah, I think this is the way to go. If you write what you find interesting, it's going to show in the writing and result in a better story. And chances are there are enough like-minded readers out there that you'll find an audience.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 10, 2014)

I'll add, as follow up to my last thought, that beginning writers spend _way_ too much time asking questions like "can I do X," or "is this idea OK," or "is this overused," and so on. All counter-productive to the above.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jun 11, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I'll add, as follow up to my last thought, that beginning writers spend _way_ too much time asking questions like "can I do X," or "is this idea OK," or "is this overused," and so on. All counter-productive to the above.


I agree with this, but it doesn't help that there is a vocal culture out there which aggressively discourages the usage of certain tropes no matter the author's intentions.

For instance, I once saw a tumblr blog declare that any story about a European male explorer falling in love with an indigenous non-European woman, a la _Pocahontas_, was inherently problematic due to the higher rates of sexual assault that affect Native American women today. For what it's worth, I believe such a connection is ridiculous, but I can see how socially conscious writers might want help in navigating the minefield.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 11, 2014)

Jabrosky said:


> For instance, I once saw a tumblr blog declare that any story about a European male explorer falling in love with an indigenous non-European woman, a la _Pocahontas_, was inherently problematic due to the higher rates of sexual assault that affect Native American women today. For what it's worth, I believe such a connection is ridiculous, but I can see how socially conscious writers might want help in navigating the minefield.



True. But no matter what you do there will be someone to complain about it, so who are you going to listen to? If the goal is to produce something that no one is going to have a problem with, then you're also likely to produce something that no one is going to want to read.*

The Pocahontas example _is_ a bit ridiculous, and if anyone who ever wrote such a story took it to heart they may well have been convinced not to write it.

*Assuming you're tackling these sorts of issues. You can produce something that steers well clear of the issues to begin with, I suppose.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 11, 2014)

I agree with Steerpike. If I wrote a story about a puppy that goes on a journey to find its mother, someone may criticize it for any number of reasons. What is supposed to be a simple story, turns into all manner of other things. I think this idea of picking everything apart isn't a new thing, it's just easier to do so now. 

If you create what you like, there will most likely be other people that like it. If there are those that don't like it, you're not writing for them anyway. 

For example, a lot of my fantasy is dark and/or silly. I don't expect people who like more serious fantasy will necessarily like what I write. They may or they may not. As writers, we have to put ourselves out there and see the reaction we get. I tend to find quicker paced writing more interesting myself. My tastes are always changing though. What was interesting to me years ago isn't always interesting to me now.


----------



## SBDanes (Jun 18, 2014)

For a fantasy story, I find that the creation of a new world makes it interesting. I'm talking about a well-created world. It had to really draw the reader away from Earth and into this other reality. That is what fantasy is. But in order to do this, the writer needs to have figured out all of the specifics first otherwise it doesn't feel real.


----------

