• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Do you have to be a fantasy reader to be a fantasy writer?

solas

Scribe
If you don't have favorites within the genre that you've read a lot of, why on earth would would you want to write fantasy?
Because I love to write and I love to be creative....what better genre is there to test, to have fun, to explore, to cross the boundaries of your creativity than fantasy?! I am reading Wonderbook The Illustrated Guide to Creating Imaginative Fiction...I highly recommend it...sure I am still in the beginning of the book and have yet to read that reading fantasy is a great source of inspiration! But with that said, I am sure it will pop up tonight when I return to reading it:D but there are so many sources to crack open your imagination other than reading fantasy books. I am not saying reading them is not good but I do not think it gives an author who reads fantasy an edge over another author who does not.
 
If two people look at the same situation, they're going to think of similar ideas based on a shared set of experiences, and come to similar conclusions.

I'm not sure how relevant this point is, but this is blatantly false. Individuals are unique both in the experiences they've lived through and the way they think. Only the parts of the human psyche that are the result of evolutionary biology are shared by (most) of us.

One person with more experience may have a broader set of ideas that come to mind, but the triggers remain the same. Those same triggers are at play in your writing. The triggers that are giving you ideas about how a book should progress are at play for a reader.

Not sure what you mean by "triggers". If it's a new term you've just introduced I'd like some clarification. If you've already given a definition of "triggers" then I'd appreciate it if you could point me to the appropriate post.

I'll assume triggers are the starting point of the creative process.

If you understand that process, you can do two things:

1 - Change the triggers that you're using to generate ideas, and suddenly you've got a slew of new ideas to incorporate.

2 - Use the original triggers to manipulate the reader's original expectations.

If you're using this creative process effectively, you will be able to surprise your readers. And that's one of the biggest things that a reader is looking for in a book.

Yes, the unexpected can be very satisfying for the reader, provided the suspension of disbelief isn't damaged. That being said, you don't really explain why those who use an external source of inspiration aren't able to use this system (as effectively).

If all you're doing is taking an idea and twisting it around, then you're not being creative. You're working with the original trigger, and therefore with the same set of ideas that would occur to your readers. If that's all you're doing, then you're still at "My trolls have bigger fangs."

Clearly I disagree.

What? That's a very narrow-minded definition of creativity you're using here. Does this mean you do not count parody and satire as creative expression? Because the very essence of a parody is the comical enlargement of a situation. You take an idea and then you twist it around to make it larger-than-life.

I couldn't disagree more. Maybe you've misunderstood what I mean by twisting an idea around. Twisting an idea around means making changes small and large, using other sources of inspiration to rework the initial inspiration into something of your own. It's definitely a creative process as you're associating ideas and building something new and personal.

A large part of being creative is practice and experience. It's about pushing yourself, not about listening to me bark about triggers. If you see a troll and you're flooded with ideas, you might think you're being creative when you're not. You might have a hard time seeing the triggers, seeing that the wide range of ideas you're seeing has a common source, or even realizing that there wholly different ideas that you can use.

So basically you're stating that because one source inspires me, my imagination will now be influenced by that source only? I agree to a point. I remember - back when I was just starting as a worldbuilder - reading a book or watching a movie and then building my own world and later discovering it was very similar to the one in that inspired me. But that only happened when I started a new project and as soon as something else inspired me I'd start making some changes here and there. Most projects take a while and so there are multiple things that inspire me. I think reading that book is very valuable to me, especially in the long run. It's like carrying a satchel filled with ideas and concepts from all the stories you've ever read. You're influenced by all of them and that means you're influenced by a mishmash of ideas and concepts. Creativity is drawing from those experiences and using those experiences to make something new.

But the thing is, as an author you're not called upon to be creative just once. You're called upon to do it repeatedly throughout your book. Once you open a story with "mage enters cavern," the idea's out of the bag. The readers have your triggers. If your creativity stops there, they will be able to pick up on where your book is going.

It's not a one-and-done conception process. If you've got a scene with your main characters talking about the plot. Why is your version of this scene going to be any more interesting than the thousands of other authors writing almost the exact same scene? You've got to manipulate the triggers. You've got to rely on your creativity to write.

I'm sure something new (or something old!) would inspire me soon enough. I'd think of an old book I read, I'd read something new or watch a good movie and bam! And I'm not saying I can't be creative without proper inspiration first - I don't believe in a muse. But when you're thinking of new plot devices and such, you'll be influenced by the wealth of stories stored in that great library we call the unconsciousness. The bigger the library, the wealthier your stories will be. And if you haven't read any Fantasy, then you'll draw from all the other stories you've read, lived and heard of. You'll always be influenced by stories you know and making a conscious effort to avoid external inspiration won't change that. All those things you'll come up with will still be the result of one external source or the other.
 
Last edited:

solas

Scribe
Thanks to ALL who have responded to this thread!! This is a very thought provoking group!! And although I may disagree, I respect everyone's opinion! :balanced:
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what you're saying. So I'm going to try to restate what you're saying and hopefully the pseudo mathematics doesn't confuse things.

Okay, let's give it a shot.

I was an econ major and took Calc III, so the math shouldn't be a problem.


Let's take two authors Author-1 and Author-2

Let I(1)...I(n) = all influences from reading.

Let Z(1)...Z(n) = all ideas

Let X(1)... X(n) = all paths taken given Z(n) idea or ideas.

Let Author-1 be the influenced author.

So if Author-1 has influences I(1), I(2), I(3) and has idea Z(1), they will more likely to take the well trodden paths X(1), X(2), X(3), and the reader will more likely see this coming because they've experienced the same influences and will draw the same conclusion.

But Author-2 has no influences from reading, so when he has idea Z(1), they will more likely take different paths X(4), X(5), X(6), and this will more likely surprise the reader.

Is this what you're saying?

No.

Author 1 has story elements x, y and z in front of him. These story elements trigger idea set A{1....n}, where A represents the author's experiences seeing those elements in other works.

Author 2 has those same story elements in front of her, x, y, and z. These story elements trigger idea set B{1....m}, based on her experience with seeing those elements in other works.

Let n > m. Author 1 has read more books.

However, Author 2 is unhappy with idea set B. She recognizes that it's too small. Consequently, she explores story elements t, u, v and w to trigger idea set C{1.....p}.

Where idea sets B + C > A.

Meanwhile, Author 1 is satisfied with idea set A and uses it.

However, readers also have access to idea set D{1......d}. Such that:

D might be < or > than A, but D < B + C.

I doubt that worked for you, but I tried.


((edit))

This example is actually unfinished, which was obvious to me on reread but I've got three kids in the room with me, and got distracted at the end there.

The reason I said "No" is this:

Author 1 = larger initial idea set, but that idea set more likely to be seen the reader.

Author 2 = smaller initial idea set, finds supplemental ideas that might be unexpected by the reader.

This doesn't preclude the possibility that Author 2, over time, acquires a larger initial idea set. It just means that, working with a smaller initial set, they were forced to learn how to find supplemental ideas in a way that Author 1 was not.

Author 1 does not acquire said skill.
 
Last edited:

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
I had come to an understanding. Now I'm once again thoroughly confused.

Thanks for introducing calculus to the conversation. ;)
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Not sure what you mean by "triggers".

. . . .

I'll assume triggers are the starting point of the creative process.

. . . .

Maybe you've misunderstood what I mean by twisting an idea around. Twisting an idea around means making changes small and large, using other sources of inspiration to rework the initial inspiration into something of your own. It's definitely a creative process as you're associating ideas and building something new and personal.

A trigger, in this context, is a concept which causes you to think of other related concepts.

If I say "wizard," and you think "staff," that's not being creative. You didn't create the concept of a staff as it applies to the wizard, it was "triggered" in your head by past experiences with the concept.

If you take the idea of a staff, and you play with it, you're probably not being creative because you're manipulating an idea that was given to you. You're making it smaller, or longer, or giving it an extra feature, or transforming it into a "sword" that does the same thing plus a little more. That is, ideas that many people will readily derive from the idea of a "staff."

But I say probably because even "staff" has some implied triggers which can be changed. Magic focus. Weapon. Power. Old. I can change these, and I can find a set of ideas that are very different. I can change "old" to "young." "Weapon" to "tool." "Power" to "nonchalance." And "Magic Focus"? Like the power goes from wizard to staff to the world? Let's drop that.

Now I'm working with very different ideas than those typically implied by the word "staff." I don't even need to go beyond the very first thing that comes to mind now to demonstrate the difference, as my first thought is an iPad with a stylus. Converting that into a fantasy, I give my wizard what looks like a piece of magic chalk and a flat stone with a fancy description, who sits and draws and casts fireballs that appear amid his enemies without his even looking up.

In this example I changed the triggers and unlocked new ideas, giving me a tremendous amount of choice in creating the wizard I wanted to create.


What? That's a very narrow-minded definition of creativity you're using here. Does this mean you do not count parody and satire as creative expression? Because the very essence of a parody is the comical enlargement of a situation. You take an idea and then you twist it around to make it larger-than-life.

Parody and Satire work on this very same principle. By presenting a normal concept alongside a different set of triggers, it appears new and surprising to the audience.


I'm sure something new (or something old!) would inspire me soon enough.

Wouldn't it be cool to control when and what will inspire you?
 
If I say "wizard," and you think "staff," that's not being creative. You didn't create the concept of a staff as it applies to the wizard, it was "triggered" in your head by past experiences with the concept.

If you take the idea of a staff, and you play with it, you're probably not being creative because you're manipulating an idea that was given to you. You're making it smaller, or longer, or giving it an extra feature, or transforming it into a "sword" that does the same thing plus a little more. That is, ideas that many people will readily derive from the idea of a "staff."

But I say probably because even "staff" has some implied triggers which can be changed. Magic focus. Weapon. Power. Old. I can change these, and I can find a set of ideas that are very different. I can change "old" to "young." "Weapon" to "tool." "Power" to "nonchalance." And "Magic Focus"? Like the power goes from wizard to staff to the world? Let's drop that.

Now I'm working with very different ideas than those typically implied by the word "staff." I don't even need to go beyond the very first thing that comes to mind now to demonstrate the difference, as my first thought is an iPad with a stylus. Converting that into a fantasy, I give my wizard what looks like a piece of magic chalk and a flat stone with a fancy description, who sits and draws and casts fireballs that appear amid his enemies without his even looking up.

Part of my problem with all this talk about creativity is that your examples don't seem very . . . I want to say that they don't seem very creative, but that's not the right word. They don't seem very vibrant.

A spellcaster who makes constructs out of her own blood? That's probably not creative--there's a lot of fictional precedent for a character like that--but it's cool and feels clever.

A spellcaster who makes someone's subjective experience of time speed up or slow down? I'm pretty sure TV Tropes has a page for that, but it's cool and feels clever.

But a spellcaster who draws on a piece of stone to create magic fireballs? That doesn't feel functionally different from a spellcaster who shoots fireballs from a staff.

To put it bluntly, none of the examples you've given so far in this thread have made me feel that I could create better stories by doing whatever you're doing than I could by just doing what I'm doing.
 
Last edited:

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
This brings up an interesting point: being creative vs. being clever.

If you come up with a clever idea based on something else, then people may say, "Oh, I loved _____, so I want to check out this newer/different version of it." That's why people ask for recommendations based on things they already like. That's why sub-genres exist, to make it easier for readers to find things similar to the things they like. That's (unfortunately) the pitch method probably used in Hollywood when remakes are made so often. So I think there are pros and cons of taking ideas and slightly spinning them.

On the other hand, the "uncorrupted" creative process seems to think more along the lines of what the writer wants. Sure, readers want to be surprised, but at the same time, that's not all they want. I brought up some of these issues in my last main page article about fantasy being too safe. Perhaps changing the way we create fantasy may make more creative fiction. But I think a strength of that may be to consume multiple kinds of sources as I mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

I'll give one example of a "pure" creative approach. When I was a child, I created pictures of the planets with faces and muscles. There was this idea that the planets all had a big wrestling match with each other and the winner got to be leader of the galaxy. That was all I came up with. However, I basically did the Reese's Cups trick: mixed two things I loved. Instead of peanut butter and chocolate, it was astronomy and wrestling. So even though I had never read anything, I'd created a fantasy setting. Sure, my idea was pure to me, but I was still being influenced somehow by things that existed.

If I was to redo this idea today, I may take elements of something like Ultimate M.U.S.C.L.E, WWE, astronomical physics and mesh them altogether. A lowly scientist from Earth has to wrestle creatures throughout the galaxy using scientific methods instead of brute strength. Every planet may have different rules, different techniques, etc. In order for the scientist to gain the respect he wants throughout the galaxy for his methods, and to prove brute strenght isn't the only way, he must win the tournament. OK, so this may not make much sense either, but here I'm using my knowledge of fiction to come up with something that I perceive to be interesting and possible to follow as a story. When I was a kid, I didn't care about a story, I just wanted to create something. Which goes back to the "creative gun" vs. the "functional gun."

I don't believe the creative process can be whittled down to "this works" and "this doesn't work." There may be more effective ways for some people to write, but ultimately the idea is present a story people want to read. Whichever process gets you to that point is the best one for you.

I feel like what Devor's suggesting is tinkering with different choices instead of the obvious, preconceived ones. Instead of walking into a cave, the wizard crawls. Or instead of crawling into the cave, the wizard falls. Or instead of falling into the cave, the wizard rides a jet ski, whatever. It's basically the "What if...?" approach worded differently.

What if instead of the wizard walking into the cave, he dives?

What if instead of the the troll being a monster, it's a doctor?

What if instead of the wizard having a staff, he has a spell-burping machine jammed into his brain jack?


Maybe that's not what he's suggesting, but I don't see much difference in it.
 
Last edited:
If you take the idea of a staff, and you play with it, you're probably not being creative because you're manipulating an idea that was given to you. You're making it smaller, or longer, or giving it an extra feature, or transforming it into a "sword" that does the same thing plus a little more. That is, ideas that many people will readily derive from the idea of a "staff.

I find this talk of triggers unnecessary. It's seems like you're trying to create two types of creativity; true creativity and lesser creativity. Your entire hypothesis revolves around these concepts and the fact that true creativity is exclusive to those who try to negate outside influences. The fact is it's just not true. Basically you're implying that those who use external inspiration are stuck with lesser creativity (minor changes to the inspiration). But that's just not true at all. It's perfectly possible to borrow a concept from a movie and then go wild with it in any direction. Besides, as I'll state in response to a second quote, there is no such thing as "control over your inspiration". It's impossible not to use external inspiration. And then, it's quite obvious that those who seek to enrich their pool of inspiration are at an advantage.

Wouldn't it be cool to control when and what will inspire you?

You don't control that at all. As I said, you'll always find inspiration in something. Could be a fantasy book, a thriller you read or that movie you've watched. Maybe it's your boss or perhaps the old man on the subway. Unless you purposefully avoid every stimulation (impossible!) you'll always be inspired by random elements. You've no control over what inspires you. The brainstorm examples you've posted are influenced by the pool of inspiring events stored in your subconsciousness. You do not get to pick which one will inspire you.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
But a spellcaster who draws on a piece of stone to create magic fireballs? That doesn't feel functionally different from a spellcaster who shoots fireballs from a staff.

To put it bluntly, none of the examples you've given so far in this thread have made me feel that I could create better stories by doing whatever you're doing than I could by just doing what I'm doing.

1 - I've highlighted the word functionally. I wasn't going for functionally different. I was going for having a different impact on the reader. I wanted to invoke images of youth instead of power.

2 - Having a fireball appear next to you, by a guy who didn't even need to look up, instead of being thrown at you, is friggin' terrifying.

3 - I didn't create a wizard. I created a staff.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
You've no control over what inspires you. The brainstorm examples you've posted are influenced by the pool of inspiring events stored in your subconsciousness. You do not get to pick which one will inspire you.

I had a great deal of control over what inspired me.

Taking the staff example above, I said:

Magic Focus -> drop it
Old -> Young
Power -> Nonchalance
Weapon -> Tool

Now let me make it:

Magic Focus -> Instead of wizard-staff-world, let's have it shoot from the staff into the sky before anything happens.
Old -> Vibrance
Power -> Mystery
Weapon -> I want wholly different ideas, so I'm going to say Toy, at least for sake of brainstorming.

The first few things that I'm thinking of aren't the shape of the object but the munitions being shot into the sky. My first thought at step one was lightning. It goes up, into the sky, and comes down on a target. Pretty much any magic could. But vibrance and mystery changed that. Something obscure and colorful goes into the sky, and after some delay, something unexpected happens.

Maybe the staff is beaming instructions for the wizard's spell to something like a satellite in the sky, and the satellite sends the spell back down to earth. So nobody can tell what spell the wizard cast until it hurls down upon everyone.

Now I have a new trigger. Satellite. I could tinker with the concepts buried in that word, but at this point I don't want to. It doesn't seem necessary, as there's already plenty of different ideas to work with, so I'm just going to stare at it and list the ideas that come to me.

Satellite. Flying Monster. Flying ball of space magic. Flying. Flying city, where a big group of wizards read the instructions and send a joint spell hurling down at the earth.

That makes this staff and the wizard carrying it a spotter, like they use in special ops. And oh wow did that open up ideas about what the character would look or behave like. But we're only doing the staff.

Toy. I'll spare everyone the first thoughts. But my son likes to pick up the cardboard in a paper towl roll and swing it and look into it and shout into it. I like that as a starting point for this. Make it a little bigger, give it a carving at the end where it spits out the instructions, like a dragon or whatever's appropriate to the setting. But what feeds into it. Remembering that we now have special ops as a trigger, I'm going to put it at the top of a backpack.

So the final staff looks like the following:

The wizard speaks his spell into a little thing in his hand. It connects with his backpack. A vibrant purple beam of light shoots up into the sky. The wizards in cloud city read the spell and collectively send it hurling back down against its target.

But that doesn't represent any kind of control over the creative process? That doesn't give me a wide range of choice for the kind of device I'm creating?

If you don't think so, try it.

((edit))

Going back to the point, about unlocking ideas to give me more choice, I now have two ideas for a staff that work well together. The iPad+stylus would make a great input device for this staff, instead of having the character speak into something obscure in his hand.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I feel like what Devor's suggesting is tinkering with different choices instead of the obvious, preconceived ones. Instead of walking into a cave, the wizard crawls. Or instead of crawling into the cave, the wizard falls. Or instead of falling into the cave, the wizard rides a jet ski, whatever. It's basically the "What if...?" approach worded differently.

What if instead of the wizard walking into the cave, he dives?

What if instead of the the troll being a monster, it's a doctor?

What if instead of the wizard having a staff, he has a spell-burping machine jammed into his brain jack?


Maybe that's not what he's suggesting, but I don't see much difference in it.

I actually said before that What if is a statement which will hold you back. It's hesitant, it's limiting, it's speculative. And by reflecting on a full sentence, you've buried a bunch of triggers into that sentence which are affecting the ideas you're getting. You might wonder, What if the wizard crawled into a troll cave? But you would probably answer, No, that's stupid, the troll would smash him in the head.

I looked at the prompt and thought, "There's not enough motivation or drama implied here. Enters is weak. What's a word that suggests drama? How about crawls. Why do people crawl? What ideas come to mind now? The wizard's wounded, the wizard's sneaking, the wizard's a four year old girl and the troll's her big brother. Do I like those ideas? Yeah sure. But let's try another word and see if we can get more ideas. Dives. Why would a wizard dive...."
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
I don't know, still seems like you're saying "What if...?"

What if the wizard is sneaking? What if he's crawling? What if he's a four year old? It doesn't seem that much different to me.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I don't know, still seems like you're saying "What if...?"

What if the wizard is sneaking? What if he's crawling? What if he's a four year old? It doesn't seem that much different to me.

It's extremely different. Try it and see.

What if the wizard barges into the troll's cave?

What do you get?
 

Philip Overby

Staff
Article Team
Let's see:

What if the wizard barges into the troll cave? What if he's wearing heavy iron armor? What if he doesn't care if anyone hears him? What if he has a hearing problem because of his tooth ache? What if he's an ogre wizard and the troll is a dentist? What if the troll dentist hasn't done work in years? What if he's agreed to pull the ogre wizard's tooth out if he brings him a dragon egg? What if the dragon egg is hatching and the wizard much think quickly to get it to the troll? What if the troll cave is full of teeth golems?

I guess I could keep going.
 

You really didn't need to type all that because you've already given us an example of a brainstorming session. Let me just repeat the answer I gave last time:

You do not have control. You're just putting ideas together, ideas that have an external origin. The reason you put Ipad or satellite or any other concept into the mix is because you know these things. They're stored in your memory. You know what an Ipad is because you've read about them, or you own one or you've seen them on the tele. You're taking that idea and combining it with others that just happen to pop into your mind. You didn't control which ones popped into your mind, they just did. Some by association (sky, satellite) and others perhaps more randomly. (All of this mutatis mutandis for fantasy concepts) How can you control what you come up with during a brainstorm? It's like Freudian psycho-analysis with the ink stains. Your subconsciousness decides what will pop into your mind. Same concept for a brainstorm.

That and you still haven't explained why a well-read person might experience difficulties doing this exercise. It seems logical a well-read person has a more extensive library of concepts for association. So that would give them an advantage.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Let's see:

What if the wizard barges into the troll cave? What if he's wearing heavy iron armor? What if he doesn't care if anyone hears him? What if he's an ogre wizard with a tooth ache and the troll is a dentist? What if the troll dentist hasn't done work in years? What if he's agreed to pull the ogre wizard's tooth out if he brings him a dragon egg? What if the dragon egg is hatching and the wizard much think quickly to get it to the troll? What if the troll cave is full of teeth golems?

I guess I could keep going.

I'm not sure you got anywhere.

Now think:

Why would a wizard barge in . . .

What does that give you? Do that.

Here's what it gave me:

The wizard barges in because he's angry at the troll. They're conspirators, and the troll screwed up. Do I like that idea? Sure.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
You really didn't need to type all that because you've already given us an example of a brainstorming session.

Even thought I quoted you, it wasn't really directed at you. Others were unimpressed by how creative it was so I wanted to go for functionally different instead of the more subtle first session.


You do not have control. You're just putting ideas together, ideas that have an external origin.

I chose which ideas came to me by taking control of the triggers I was focused on. That's control.


That and you still haven't explained why a well-read person might experience difficulties doing this exercise. It seems logical a well-read person has a more extensive library of concepts for association. So that would give them an advantage.

I have. Several times. Go read them and explain why it isn't true, instead of asking to see it again.
 
Top