# The death of fantasy?



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 16, 2011)

Is fantasy dead?

Not the genre, obviously. That seems to be doing rather well judging by what I see on the shelves of my local bookshop. No, that seems healthy enough, though it could do with cutting down on the cigs and getting out in the fresh air a bit more. What concerns me (slightly – not enough to get me out of my chair and making placards) is how the concept has mutated in recent years. 

There was a time, within living memory, when fantasy meant just that – a flight of fancy, happily ignoring natural laws and (in some cases) common sense. Then a shift occurred. It was no longer acceptable to have two suns in an imaginary world's sky without explaining in bone-crumbling boring depth how the two suns interacted with each other and what effect the proximity of two stars has on flora, fauna, tiny pieces of plastic which have been kept in a drawer because they obviously belong to something but no-one can figure out what so let's keep them just in case, etc. 

Some unwritten rule seems to have been instituted which frowns on simply taking readers on a ride. They have to be told why the ride is taking place, the make and model of the vehicle they're travelling in, all the while being lectured on the composition of the tarmac beneath the wheels.

This isn't a rant against detail (not that I'm capable of ranting these days – incoherent grumbling is the best I can hope for). Detail is good if relevant. Rather, it's a rail against realism. It's fantasy! Why does it need to be realistic? Do readers really care as long as they're entertained for a few hours, or am I just whistling in the dark?


----------



## Amanita (Mar 16, 2011)

I've actually written something like that in another thread. Hope it's okay to quote myself.
The post was about magic obeying the laws of physics and unnatural locations. 

If someone has the power to lift heavy objects with his magic but is as tired afterwards as if he'd carried it the normal way, where is the magic in that? And there are plenty of similar situations. 
Usually, some sort of external power source comes into play, but looking at it from the physical point of view, this still doesn't explain why all this energy is actually there. 



> In my opinion, magic doesn't have a place in physics, at least not in physics as we understand it at the moment and therefore, at least I can't really think of a proper way to do this without meeting dead ends at some point. That's why I've given up trying by now and view magic as a sort of third concept next to mass and energy (and the second magic system a fourth one) and put it under its own rules.
> 
> But to return to the original question. I don't know if your familiar with Michael Ende's "Neverending Story" but this is a good example for all kinds of fantastic locations. It has a desert of multi-coloured sand, a forst of giant flowers, a silver city swimming on a lake of tears and many other things and I was really intrigued by that. (I didn't really like they way the plot progressed, however. )
> Tastes surely vary but I'd like to see a few more stories that show the authors' imagination and rather than their thorough research about medieval European history even though there's nothing wrong with that of course. If I'm looking for something like that, I usually prefer books set in actual history instead of Fantasy versions thereof.



In general I think I prefer a good mixture of both. If there are "unrealistic” things they should make sense in the context of the story. If, for example, a character has an arrow sticking in his heart but is still able to ride for three days alive, I want a reason that's plausible in the fantasy world in question. If it's just happening like that, I'm not happy. The same goes for things that aren't so obviously wrong of course.

I absolutely agree that imagination should be valued more again. It seems to have been replaced with research for many people, at least in forums on fantasy-writing.  I don't think this is nearly as extreme in the books actually published, let's take the Harry Potter-example once again. Magic that can do (almost) everything with hardly any logical rules behind it and a society of which we don't even know where the food comes from. And no one seems to mind very much.
I have to admit however, that I don't really tend to read the books praised as "greatly realistic” such as "A Song of Fire and Ice”. If I want to read a detailed account of a medieval/pre-industrial civil war I prefer a historical fiction book where the people concerned are actually our own ancestors and the book might offer something to think about real history. 
If I read a fantasy book I want the characters to have problems that are different from our own world. Not only that, but they should be there.
Tastes  definitely vary however and I don't want to tell anyone what they're supposed to write or not.

Besides that: The idea that someone can write a good story with his or her gift of imagination is extremely unpopular today. The popular approach rather seems to be that everyone can write well if he or she just does enough research, practices enough, knows enough other books, reads through enough writing-advice collected by others...
As with many issues in this world I don't have a firm opinion on this myself. I don't believe that someone can write a very good book without knowing anything at all but I also don't really believe that factual knowledge is enough to write a really compelling story and I don't think every writer needs to be an expert on countless subjects that don't interest him or her and have little to do with the story.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 16, 2011)

Amanita said:


> In general I think I prefer a good mixture of both. If there are "unrealistic” things they should make sense in the context of the story. If, for example, a character has an arrow sticking in his heart but is still able to ride for three days alive, I want a reason that's plausible in the fantasy world in question. If it's just happening like that, I'm not happy. The same goes for things that aren't so obviously wrong of course.


That's reasonable. I'm not advocating straying outside the internal logic of a story. Plausability will always play a part in the wilful suspension of disbelief. The problem I have with 'realism' is that it always relates to what would be realistic in our world. It's a fantasy. Who cares?



Amanita said:


> I absolutely agree that imagination should be valued more again. It seems to have been replaced with research for many people, at least in forums on fantasy-writing.


There's something worth putting in a sig.



Amanita said:


> I don't believe that someone can write a very good book without knowing anything at all but I also don't really believe that factual knowledge is enough to write a really compelling story and I don't think every writer needs to be an expert on countless subjects that don't interest him or her and have little to do with the story.


This is something I've always believed. I've read too many books by authors who think copious amounts of research automatically translates into storytelling ability. Research has its place, but it's not the be-all and end-all. Far from it.


----------



## Donny Bruso (Mar 16, 2011)

I think you have a point, Dusk. A lot of authors out there, myself included(sometimes), tend to describe everything in sight, because we want the reader to see it in their head the same way the scene appears in our own. It's kind of like we don't want to rely on the readers' imaginations to get it right, because well, let's face it: People are generally foolish and stupid. One of the first things I remember hearing about writing was along the lines of 'don't assume your reader is an idiot' i.e. explaining words a la Lemony Snickett in adult fiction.

Yet somehow in our great quest for 'realistic fantasy' where the story is so real it jumps out of the page and attacks the reader head on, that's exactly what we've ended up doing. We don't allow them to use their imagination because everything is there, all they have to do is create the picture in their head, which probably isn't much work for most people, really.

I actually started noticing this yesterday as I started ravaging my way through _The Black Company_, and I noticed something. Cook doesn't really describe any of his main characters. Sure, he tells you that One-Eye is black and old, that Goblin is Fat, and maybe a few other generalities, but never the level of detail that is so common in other works.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 16, 2011)

Donny Bruso said:


> I think you have a point, Dusk. A lot of authors out there, myself included(sometimes), tend to describe everything in sight, because we want the reader to see it in their head the same way the scene appears in our own.


There's nothing wrong with detailing a world from a character's point of view. My main objection is when things get detailed which don't need to be (or are explained in relation to how things would happen in _our_ world. I've never met anyone who binned a book because it was too enigmatic in regard to the setting that's been created. Rather the opposite, in fact). 



Donny Bruso said:


> We don't allow them to use their imagination because everything is there, all they have to do is create the picture in their head, which probably isn't much work for most people, really.


That's my greatest woe. Everything has to be explained and dissected in modern fiction (I quite like 'unexplained' as long as it isn't used as a cop-out: it was all a dream etc...) Such things make me wonder, and that's no bad thing.



Donny Bruso said:


> Cook doesn't really describe any of his main characters. Sure, he tells you that One-Eye is black and old, that Goblin is Fat, and maybe a few other generalities, but never the level of detail that is so common in other works.


The same as one of my favourite authors, Terry Pratchett. He describes a scene (be it a pub or a pastoral setting), but he allows the reader to construct the details in his/her head. Imagination is allowed to take the place of cold, unfeeling research. And surely that's the point of fantasy literature generally? If it doesn't engage the imagination then what purpose does it serve?


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 16, 2011)

While I don't mind the mixing of science and fantasy, I do think that at the very least, magic should be more magical than the laws of gravity are. I like magical that is ambiguous and seemingly lawless. I like worldbuilding where an infodump isn't how we learn about a war. I think people mistake the desire to add realism as a desire to tell us everything to ensure we understand that it is realistic. We say "nono, it IS realistic, let me explain" and it reads more like science fiction than fantasy. And I think there is a place for all the planning it takes to make it that realistic, that you could explain. But I think we forget sometimes that we don't need to. That we can have dragons with airbags of helium that let them both fly and breathe fire without taking a few pages out of the story to explain how they are used.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 16, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> I think we forget sometimes that we don't need to. That we can have dragons with airbags of helium that let them both fly and breathe fire without taking a few pages out of the story to explain how they are used.


Amen to that.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 16, 2011)

Fantasy isn't dead.  Just the people that are mostly writing "real" fantasy (whatever that may be) are not as good as the people writing "realistic" fantasy.  At least at the moment.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 20, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> While I don't mind the mixing of science and fantasy, I do think that at the very least, magic should be more magical than the laws of gravity are.



Good luck with that—since we still can't explain gravity. It has proven remarkably inconvenient to current scientific thought.… 



> I think people mistake the desire to add realism as a desire to tell us everything to ensure we understand that it is realistic. … And I think there is a place for all the planning it takes to make it that realistic, that you could explain. But I think we forget sometimes that we don't need to. That we can have dragons with airbags of helium that let them both fly and breathe fire without taking a few pages out of the story to explain how they are used.



In spite of what might seem to be my opinion as expressed elsewhere, I agree: you don't _have_ to explain everything (much less describe everything… which, if you think about it, isn't possible), and there are certainly authors who get so consumed in the details that the reader can't see their forest for all the trees they keep putting in the way (or chopping down, to get the wood pulp necessary to print everything they're writing…). You don't need to "know everything"; more importantly, you don't need to put everything you know into writing. 

Conversely, I believe you _ought_ to "know" what you _are_ using—whether or not you include all the details, or even any of them. And details often aid in making the implausible plausible: take… well, gravity, for instance. It doesn't automatically disappear merely because there is magic in your world… whereas making changes in (or eliminating) gravity will have profound effects on everything else that happens. Picture a world where things don't fall when you drop them, where water doesn't flow downhill—doesn't flow at all, in fact.… Less drastically, picture a setting where characters can travel to the world's moons—and then give the moons realistic lower-gravity effects: you can lift more, jump higher, fall great distances without injury. Could be all kinds of fun. Alternately, you could decide that different gravities are inconvenient, and that all celestial bodies have the same surface gravity—making gravity itself "magical." (Well, more magical.…) "Local" changes are possible… imagine an arrow imbued with a gravity-negating spell: it would fly in a straight line, rather than an arc, significantly extending its range and making it _much_ easier to aim (as anyone who's ever tried to learn to use a bow could tell you). Which is really cool… though you'd also need a closed quiver to prevent it from floating off on you until it's used. (Easy solution: either the spell is cast immediately before the arrow is fired—but then the user needs the time, resources, etc., whatever those may be, to cast it on the fly, right?—or there's a command word or similar trigger. Maybe the bowstring imparts the magic as part of the firing process.) And how strong is the spell? Is it only strong enough to negate the effects of gravity on the arrow—in which case, the arrow performs its normal function when it gets stuck into a target—or is it strong enough to partially or fully negate the effects of gravity on the target, too? There are very few things that would be as incapacitating as suddenly discovering that you can no longer walk… since your first step would send you drifting helplessly above ground, with nothing you can reach to push off of to get you anywhere you wanted to be. Even suddenly cutting someone's gravity in half would make walking difficult, running or fighting impossible without practice—and who's going to practice running and fighting with an arrow stuck in him? 

You don't need to explain _how_ a magic ring allows someone to fly; you might want to be able to describe how flying by ring feels, what is involved in maneuvering, how it differs from flying by carpet or by dragonback: aerodynamics (and weather conditions!) are going to be more important in the second than the first, and will certainly govern the third—assuming the dragon uses wings, at least. (Oh, and helium doesn't burn; I think you might have intended hydrogen. Though that has its own problems. Quite a few, in fact… and if you don't intend to explore them, you shouldn't appeal to a specific real-world element to "explain" what's happening: that would result in your details damaging, rather than aiding, your story.) You don't need to explain, or even mention, any of these… but it will make your world that much more palpable if you can.

You don't need to have "day"light come from the sun, either—but if your light doesn't have _some_ source, it's going to be really difficult to justify the existence of darkness _any_where. If nothing you're doing involves darkness, fine: no explanations necessary. 

There's nothing wrong with "realistic" fantasy. There's nothing wrong with fantastic fantasy either—so long as the fantastic content doesn't override the familiar to the extent the reader can't picture being a part of the setting you're presenting. "Don't apologize; don't explain" is a dictum often given to fiction writers (most frequently in reference to writing extra-textual material such as introductions or postludes)… and is good as far as it goes. And how far it goes is exactly to the point where the absence of an explanation will do more damage than its presence. 

And no, I don't think fantasy is dead. One example: Gene Wolfe's _New Sun_ books are unquestionably science fantasy—but the "science" has, as in Clarke's famous phrase, "become indistinguishable from magic"… and even though you can _tell_ it's a "scientific" setting from the physical descriptions he provides, he doesn't explain a damn thing. Weird stuff happens—"weird," even compared to most "magical" worlds; generally, you can't even tell if the weird stuff is because of the "science" or in spite of it. Another example: my primary fantasy world is flat. If anybody asks me why, I tell them "because that's the way it is" (or, depending on my mood, "because that's what I wanted"). If they really want to know how gravity works on a flat world, I can tell them—precisely—how it works on _this_ flat world—and point out that other flat worlds may work differently. In this world, in that sense, gravity is completely "fantastic"… even though I _can_ explain it in detail. And I am more than willing to take my readers on a ride. The more so because the _real_ reason I made the world flat in the first place was because I wanted it to be possible to sail off the edge.…


----------



## Donny Bruso (Mar 21, 2011)

Ravana said:


> Which is really cool… though you'd also need a closed quiver to prevent it from floating off on you until it's used.


 
Not necessarily. Negating gravity doesn't add lift to the item, it would simply make it neutrally buoyant. They might come out if you jumped down out of a tree or a high wall, but not on their own.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 23, 2011)

Donny Bruso said:


> Not necessarily. Negating gravity doesn't add lift to the item, it would simply make it neutrally buoyant. They might come out if you jumped down out of a tree or a high wall, but not on their own.


 
Except that very few people glide when they walk… and that little upward momentum in your step is all it would take.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 31, 2011)

Phil the Drill said:


> Fantasy isn't dead.  Just the people that are mostly writing "real" fantasy (whatever that may be) are not as good as the people writing "realistic" fantasy.  At least at the moment.


Really? Was Tolkien writing 'realistic' fantasy? Apart from the fact that he only created Middle-earth as a setting for the languages he created, I don't think he gave two figs about 'realism'. Detailed plots matter. Detailed characters matter. Describing in minute detail the weft and weave of a certain style of dress doesn't. Admittedly Tolkien backtracked in his manuscript when he realised the new moon wouldn't be rising when he said was, but by and large he let character and story lead the way. Which is how it should be in fantasy stories.

 The problem I've found when reading much modern fantasy fiction is that the authors would be better suited to writing non-fiction - they have little imagination and seem to think burying the reader in research will compensate for this fact.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 31, 2011)

At Dusk I Reign said:


> Really? Was Tolkien writing 'realistic' fantasy? Apart from the fact that he only created Middle-earth as a setting for the languages he created, I don't think he gave two figs about 'realism'. Detailed plots matter. Detailed characters matter. Describing in minute detail the weft and weave of a certain style of dress doesn't. Admittedly Tolkien backtracked in his manuscript when he realised the new moon wouldn't be rising when he said was, but by and large he let character and story lead the way. Which is how it should be in fantasy stories.
> 
> The problem I've found when reading much modern fantasy fiction is that the authors would be better suited to writing non-fiction - they have little imagination and seem to think burying the reader in research will compensate for this fact.


 
Not sure where I mentioned Tolkien...but I'll mention him now.

I said that most people who are writing fantasy as most mainstream fantasy fans see it (dragons, quest, Tolkien-rip-offs) are writing stuff that isn't interesting.  

Tolkien was good.  Those who emulate him, mostly aren't very good.  Just my opinion.

Writers who draw from history such as George R.R. Martin (of which the War of Roses was inspiration for his series) seem to be writing better, more interesting stories now than those who wade through the same old tired stories about dragons and quests and all that jazz.

I read stuff that I find interesting regardless.  I don't only read fantasy.  But I would say the majority of fantasy that is being written now isn't anything I want to pay money for.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 31, 2011)

Phil the Drill said:


> Not sure where I mentioned Tolkien...


You didn't. I just thought, as the grandfather of a rather sprawling genre, he was worth a mention.



Phil the Drill said:


> Tolkien was good.  Those who emulate him, mostly aren't very good.  Just my opinion.


No argument there. But then again, those who emulate another are seldom worthy of mention. One thing Tolkien cursed the genre with (albeit unknowingly) was a reliance on trilogies and macguffins.



Phil the Drill said:


> Writers who draw from history such as George R.R. Martin (of which the War of Roses was inspiration for his series) seem to be writing better, more interesting stories now than those who wade through the same old tired stories about dragons and quests and all that jazz.


Hmm, that depends on how much history you've read, I suppose. It rather misses the point, though. Tired stories are tired stories no matter the genre. I'm not arguing about the benefit or otherwise of cliches. I simply think battering the reader about the head with the amount of research one has done is ultimately counter-productive and to the detriment of the tale being told.


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 31, 2011)

Don't get me wrong.  I hate stories where something like this happens:

"Claxion went into the bedroom.  A wind rustled the feathers of his down jacket, caressing his skin.  The down jacket was from the old Houses of Don-Cleery, the aged Empire that had fallen into history.  A red down jacket, from the Lyric Bird of Slywall.  He used to own a white down jacket, but the swans of Nethercall had become instinct because of the poachers from the Outer Lands.  Down jackets were common then...etc etc."

I care more about characters than I do the design or style of clothes someone is wearing.  Just my preference.  Research can help a story immensely, if done in moderation.  I think overdoing anything can make even a story that is exciting become a tread-mill of boredom.  

I like stories with lots of action.  Now if I read a story that was just action, action, action, explosion, dragonfire, death, decay, doom hammer, mage flash, devil summoning, destruction, rain of acid...then I may go "Wow!" for the first couple of times.  But then when it happens over and over and over, then I become sad.  I like chocolate pudding, but I don't want it for 3 meals a day.  

I guess my point is that so many authors write the same types of stories ad nauseum that it feels like the authors who are gaining inspiration from outside the genre (i.e.  not fantasy or SF) are writing better stuff.  

Again, just my opinion.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 31, 2011)

Phil the Drill said:


> I guess my point is that so many authors write the same types of stories ad nauseum that it feels like the authors who are gaining inspiration from outside the genre (i.e.  not fantasy or SF) are writing better stuff.


I  won't disagree entirely with that - inspiration should always be drawn from as many sources as possible. We may, however, be operating on different wavelengths. Probably my fault, I've never been good at putting what's in my head down on the page. Another reason I'll never be a bestseller.



Phil the Drill said:


> Again, just my opinion.


It'd be a pretty poor forum if we didn't have any of those, or if they were all the same.


----------

