"Generic European Fantasy"

[Ireth]

No world built for any fantasy novel that has been ever written was complete. Never. Not a single one of them.

Agreed. Even Tolkien's universe, masterfully crafted as it is, has huge gaps in the timeline, especially in the ages before the Sun. And that's just one example. I'm sure others can think of more.

 

[Miskatonic]

Well over various threads we've moved from

Using medieval European settings? Shame, shame, shame!

to

Not using authentic medieval European settings? Shame, shame, shame!

Seriously, damned if we do, damned if we don't!

No world built for any fantasy novel that has been ever written was complete. Never. Not a single one of them.

Because whole worlds aren't used. We write slices of worlds. That's what a story is.

I also think that overmuch is being made of D&D influences. And Tolkien influences, for that matter. Perhaps this is an anti-elf, anti-dwarf, anti-wizard argument in disguise. Before fantasy was a genre as such, novels appeared that were set in medieval and Renaissance Europe. Heck, I don't mean only European-based fairy tales, although those, too, have a tradition longer than what we normally characterize as the fantasy genre. Shakespeare wrote A Midsummer Night's Dream in the late 16th C. And it goes back to Beowulf, although that was perhaps a contemporary tale told with fantastic elements.

This idea of writing slices of worlds....So we use some tropes that are common, but unfortunately we don't write accurate historical fiction. So? These are fantasies. So naturally some elements might be based on historical realities but others are not.

I think I'm losing the trail here.

I can definitely get behind the notion of there being too much D&D type fantasy. I've never been interested in that style, even though I'm a child of the 80's that grew up with all that. There may be a lot of medieval European trappings in fantasy stories but saying it's a 1:1 with actual authentic European history and culture is usually inaccurate. It's usually based more on stereotypes/tropes introduced by a previous generation of authors that are assumed to be based on actual European history and culture during the middle ages by the next generation.

Just take the notion of an Inn for example. In fantasy stories and role playing it's the fully furnished building with wood floors, a huge hearth, a counter for patrons to sit at the bar and drink, room for tons of people etc. In reality a lot of inns were more often than not somebody's house where they would rent out a bed (people often shared beds) and maybe get something to eat and drink. Dirt floors, small room, not what we would normally picture. In big cities it might be a bit different but the idealized fantasy Inn is not based on actual history.

If you take Europe as a whole, there is a lot of medieval history that has yet to be dealt with in the fantasy world, especially as you go further east. The middle ages isn't just what happened in Britain or France.

 

[FifthView]

I suppose the confusion I feel arises from the fact that when I read Hobb's Farseer books, I don't feel I'm in Tolkien's world or Lynn Flewelling's Nightrunner world or GRRM's ASOIAF world or Raymond Feist's Magician world or....

Yes, there are inns of a certain type, swords and daggers, horses everywhere, and queens, and....too many things to list. So, which will you remove, and what have you gained by removing one but not the others?

Edit: OH, and there's magic. Horrible trope; everyone uses it! And usually, it's nothing like magic in historical Europe.

 

[FifthView]

If you take Europe as a whole, there is a lot of medieval history that has yet to be dealt with in the fantasy world, especially as you go further east. The middle ages isn't just what happened in Britain or France.

In one recent thread I mentioned an epic fantasy trilogy based on ancient Indian culture, The Archer's Heart by Astrid Amara. I thoroughly enjoyed it. But my enjoyment of fantasies that build off a medieval European model or that include traditional tropes from fantasy literature is not contingent on the existence of or dearth of fantasy novels set in non-traditional settings. This is just me personally.

 

[Peat]

Not using authentic medieval European settings? Shame, shame, shame!

Who actually said that? Because I didn't see anyone say that.

Pointing out that talking about medieval European fantasy is inaccurate is not saying people should use authentic medieval European settings.


As for D&D influences - frankly, it would be surprising if it wasn't hugely influential. 250,000 copies of the game were sold prior to 1980; in summer 1980 they're selling 12,000 copies a month; they sold a million copies in 1989 alone. Very, very few fantasy books have touched that sort of numbers and we're talking a game that pre-dates the majority of authors trucking around today. Quite a lot of authors have known gaming histories too (Feist, Erikson, Kerr, to pick three off of the top of my head). For me, D&D collected together a group of fantasy tropes and turned them into a set packager, and a bunch of authors produced works very heavily influenced by them. Other fantasy authors copied from those authors and from there, its all snowballed. And I see it in more than elves, dwarves and wizards; there's a slant on religion that is very D&D-esque. Monsters too.

There's a lot of fantasies that have big old dirty D&D fingerprints all over them.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I suppose I'm the only one who's completely tired of the classic tropes. What we mean when we say 'generic European fantasy' or 'Tolkien/D&D-esque" fantasy doesn't often have much to do with either, admittedly, but it can't be denied that there's a set of ubiquitous tropes in fantasy that are so prevalent many people don't comprehend the idea that fantasy can exist outside their parameters.

I can't be completely free of hypocrisy when saying this, since i am unashamedly obsessed with dragons--but I have a distaste for reusing the same ideas over and over, whether simply reusing or trying to put a 'new spin' on it. I can't argue with the fact that people enjoy the classic fantasy tropes, reading and writing about them, but they aren't all there is--they are not what fantasy is.

By the definition many people here profess, i'm not even a real fantasy writer. But my works sure don't belong anywhere else, so...

 

[Masronyx]

Strongly feeling that this was in response to what I said earlier, haha.

What i meant by "generic European" wasn't that Eurpoean-based fantasy is always generic. I'm just tired of seeing Middle Ages stasis type stuff with elves and dwarves and magic swords and bearded wizards and quests and MacGuffins and evil lords and prophecies and farm boys and--sigh, all of it. A story can be done well and entertain me while still including every one of these things. (maybe not the prophecy; that i can barely forgive. You're a hero because It Is Your Destiny. Not because you chose to be a hero.) Thing is, these things have been done and subverted and re-subverted over and over again and it's a very narrow slot to squeeze yourself into because fantasy allows you to do literally anything.

That's not to say that making a story look non-European will fix it. I have read and heard of plenty of equally generic "Asian-flavored" and "Romanesque" fantasy that drives me equally bonkers. There is so much willy-nilly mixing of Japanese and Chinese cultures, so much misusing of foreign words to make the text more exotic. Name people Ping, reference kimonos and rice balls and chopsticks and bamboo and We'll Bring Honor To Us All...it's that easy, right? Non-European based fantasy is trendy in YA right now, but still the settings and cultures seem so painfully generic. I recently read (well, attempted, I quit) a book that was supposedly based on the Roman Empire. I'd heard so much praise for the world-building, but...where? Where was it? The names were Roman-sounding. There was an emperor. That's it.

Now, i'm a huge history buff. What i want is a fantasy based on Vietnamese history. (I'm reading about it in history and there is some truly awesome stuff in there.) A fantasy infused with Appalachian history and heritage. Inuit mythology is awesome and why isn't anyone doing it?? Why isn't there Ice Age era fantasy? Pre-Columbian American fantasy? I will admit that i find French and English history really, really, REALLY boring. All those kings! All those wars! Kill me now! But what about vikings? What about the black death? and all those people that AREN'T French or English? They have stories worth telling too.

I'm obsessed with alternate history. Recs would be appreciated.

Anyway--my posts were about fantasy in general being generally confined to a small range of inspirations. When something is done and overdone constantly, it starts to be generic. I realize now that it isn't accurate to say 'European' to mean that, since european history itself is so diverse, but...I think Tolkien set a precedent that continues to define fantasy. A very narrow and (at least to me) boring precedent. It's just so frustrating that people don't step outside of it when they have literally infinite freedom. There are so many books i wish someone would write.

Well, if you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself...right?

This. The "generic" fantasy stuff that made me freeze on my works for so long. I'd reject a potential story because it had those elements.
Not necessarily a bad thing if you're into that, but no. Not me.
If anything it made me rethink my ideas and broaden my horizons in my interests and what I read. I am a reenactor in the American Revolutionary war period, mainly a white woman who's been assimilated into a Native American tribe from the Great Lakes region. But I also try to interpret today's social norms and not so norms and try to assimilate that into my writings. I try to focus more on the characters and how they function in any society who's generations' old norms are changing in the blink of an eye while staying focused on the conflict the characters must face.

I wouldn't mind a fantasy based on the history of native Americans and white contact. It's not so much the concept but the execution.
What about flintlock fantasy? I'm reading a book by Django Wexler. He's based his on the Napoleon campaigns of the early 19th century. Richard Sharpe for the fantasy lovers.

 

[Peat]

*scratches ear* I'm probably going to say this wrong but there we go. Gotta try.

There's a huge amount of ground between saying "I find the criticisms of fantasy tropes to be misguided" and "I think everyone should stick to the same type of fantasy that Tolkien, Jordan and Martin did" forever. And you appear to be saying you're hearing the latter but I don't think anyone's saying it. Although frankly I think there's a lot of people in this thread answering criticisms that no one actually made.

Similarly, there's a huge amount of ground between "I am a-okay with more conventional fantasy and find the criticism of to be misguided" and "I only ever want that and think there's nothing wrong with there being nothing but that." I will back the former strongly; I absolutely would not back the latter. My stance would be "I am a-okay with more conventional fantasy and find the criticism of it to be misguided but equally think there's a lot of opportunities for non-conventional fantasy that would be awesome".

And I do think the criticism is misguided. Its certainly as cliche as the things it criticises and a lot of it boils down to "This isn't my taste why are people not adhering to my taste". To which the answer will always be "Because that's not their taste".

However, lets get objective. Take farmboys. Song of Ice and Fire is farmboy free. Ditto Discworld and Harry Potter. If the three current 800 lb gorillas in the room don't have it, is it actually a cliche of the genre? I guess the fact everyone thinks it is means it is and there's a lot of influential works featuring it, but the genre's moved on. Incidentally, no remotely Tolkien-esque elves either. I think there's an incredible width and breadth to the genre, even allowing for the clustering of the majority in one narrow corner. Redwall and The Dresden Files, exist in the same genre. The Dancers at the End of Time vs Camber of Culdi. Etc.etc.

As for the idea that many can't comprehend the idea the fantasy can exist outside their parameters - I can only speak for myself, but hogwash and piffle.

Can I suggest that you take a step back, have a think, then decide what you want to be the conversation to be about.

If you want it to be about the fact you dislike a lot of the current tropes, then people will continue to talk about how the current tropes are good.

If you want it to be about the potential left untapped in the genre, or why people like them, or new ways to twist them, the conversation will likely be different.

 

[FifthView]

For me, D&D collected together a group of fantasy tropes and turned them into a set packager, and a bunch of authors produced works very heavily influenced by them.

Hard to have it both ways. If D&D collected those tropes, those tropes predate D&D.

I've just been looking through a pdf file of Brazenhead the Great, by Maurice Hewlett, a novel set in 15th C. Europe, published in 1911, many parts of which could fit in some fantasy novels written nowadays–if the language were updated to a modern idiom and writing style. There's an ambush in an alleyway, swords, a cloak used as a shield, and the MC losing the fight and being hauled off to the "donjon." There's a tavern scene we'd recognize,

There were three capuchins sipping old ale; there were, upon the knees of these worthies, three damsels of mechanical smiles and very shrill laughter; there was an old cheese-wife called Joyeuse; there were two apprentices who ought to have known better, and one chantry-priest who did not. In the midst was a very tall man masked, and leaning upon a naked sword, who, the moment he saw the newcomers, fixed his piercing eyes (one saw them like smouldering beacons through the holes) upon Meg Mallow and never took them off her for a single instant....

<snip>

Never was so humble an entry of so splendid a person. Captain Brazenhead, after a few moments of effort which started the sweat in every gland, gave over and leaned against the wall. Before the enquiring serving-maid he was speechless: it was Meg Mallow who ordered sheep's trotters in vinegar, black bread and beer; and it was she who ate most of this rare provand when it came.​

The tall man continues to stare at her. A group of soldiers arrive, bursting through the door. Well the tall man is their leader; but he barks an order and they leave, along with everyone else but Captain Brazenhead, the tall man, and the woman. The tall man strides forward and orders the woman to follow him, which she does, leaving Brazenhead alone in the tavern.

All of this predating D&D.

I've found no elves or dwarves or wizards, but those things can be found in other examples of literature predating D&D.

I've not suggested that D&D has had no influence, but only that I think its influence has been overstated. Writers may have borrowed some things, from D&D and from the sources D&D used and from other writers who were influenced by these things, but then added to these tropes their own elements, their own original creations. Most novels are not simply unwashed versions of D&D campaigns. Although, some of those do exist.

 

[Steerpike]

There is plenty of fantasy without any magic or supernatural elements. Yes, those things are a mainstay of the genre, but you certainly don't need them to write fantasy.

 

[Steerpike]

D&D was heavily influenced by fantasy that predated it. That's where the whole idea of Vancian magic came from. See Appendix N of the 1E DMG for a small sampling of influences.

 

[Peat]

Well of course D&D's tropes predate D&D. Just like Odin predates Gandalf and the sacred and unpredictable priest-mage-king of Indo-European religion predates Odin. We don't talk about modern wizards being influenced by Odin/the Indo-European deity that influenced him though, we talk about them being influenced by Gandalf, because he's the version of the story that is casting the shadow. He's the thing they're copying.

Likewise, D&D's tropes mostly started elsewhere, but D&D's statement of them casts the shadow. D&D is what people are copying. A hell of a lot more people know about Vancian magic than ever read Vance. Adventurers in taverns pre-date D&D but some of them being elves and dwarves is a D&D'ism. And, of course, these kitchen sink pastiches of roughly-medieval North-Western Europe... well, maybe those were common before hand, but if so, I've missed them.

Also, some are mostly D&D started. Like Wizards commonly being very powerful good guys. Paladins.

If anyone wants to come up with a single envisioning of fantasy that's been more influential, by all means name it.

 

[Steerpike]

Given that D&D takes inspiration from the works of dozens of authors at the core of modern fantasy and puts them all in one place, of course it is going to be a single repository for a lot of such material. That's an arbitrary dividing line in terms of influence on the genre as a whole. A lot more of D&D than you probably imagine came straight out of the fantasy books that preceded it, including weird curses, magic items, creatures, and the like. D&D-style Paladins came from Poul Anderson's works, as did some of the basis for D&D alignment system (which grew out of other source material as well).

Further, the genre is substantially larger than the D&D-type fantasy in the marketplace. A lot of fantasy draws very little, if anything, from D&D.

 

[Peat]

Well yes. I just said how much I'm impressed with the width and breadth of the genre.

But this is a thread about Generic European Fantasy. We were talking about what has influenced that, not the genre as a whole.

Do you think a lot of Generic European Fantasy draws very little, if anything, from D&D? That would be the question actually at hand here. Fair enough if you do but its not something I would agree with.


And you probably imagine my knowledge and information wrong, particularly given I've already said their tropes mostly started elsewhere.

The fact that I disagree about the relevance of a book's influences when judging the influence of the book does not mean I am ignorant of the influences.

It means I place a greater emphasis on being seen as the definitive version of something. If this is just going to be people saying "But D&D was inspired by something else, so it can't be that influential" over and over, I'll bow out now on agree to disagree grounds.

I'll admit I don't know everything about fantasy fiction preceding the 70s (or indeed fantasy fiction full stop) but I have tried to dig away as best I can at what has influenced modern fantasy. If though, there is a fantasy trope that only existed in a few sources that D&D have hugely expanded on though then yes, I'll give a lot of credit to D&D. Like the Paladin.

 

[FifthView]

If anyone wants to come up with a single envisioning of fantasy that's been more influential, by all means name it.

The thing is, people were reading historical adventure (novels like Brazenhead the Great) and historical romance set in medieval and renaissance Europe long, long before D&D appeared.

People were already well aware of the legend of King Arthur, Merlin, Excalibur and the Grail. Le Morte d'Arthur, for example, was published in 1485; but naturally, many variations appeared before that in folklore and after that in literature before D&D appeared. I know I was aware of King Arthur long before I ever played D&D in the 80's. I was aware of Merlin before I'd ever encountered the name Gandalf. (But then, I was aware of Dr. Strange before Gandalf, as well.)

Similarly, tales of Robin Hood.

I'd say that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, and Greek mythology (and Roman mythology) in general were far more influential than D&D. My first experience of various monsters in Greek mythology came before I had ever opened a D&D monster manual and found the versions there, and I imagine this is true for many people. Those tales never stopped being influential and have affected the fantasy genre to this day. (Interventionist gods and goddesses, as helpers/guides or antagonists? Monsters? Hero trials? The Hero's Journey?)

Robert E. Howard's Conan stories were being read long before D&D appeared. D&D owes a lot to Howard and other early writers of sword & sorcery.

Magazines like Weird Tales, first appearing in 1923, were influential—

[1948]​

—and published tales of Conan and Lovecraft tales.

And of course, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis were influential. If we are adding to D&D's influence those writers influenced by D&D, then we could add to Beowulf's influence the fact that Tolkien knew it intimately. [It was used by a handful of others as well, pre-D&D, but I'd imagine not widely known.]

Add in centuries of folklore, fairy tales, and general knowledge of European history.

So. Writers discovering D&D when it was released didn't simply begin their entry to the fantasy genre with D&D. Many would have already been influenced by these other sources. Even after D&D's appearance, these other sources didn't simply vanish; anyone first experiencing fantasy through D&D play could pick up a novel that had been greatly influenced by something other than D&D.

I do believe D&D has been greatly influential—in gaming. Ability stats, health/hit points, leveling up, inventory space, dungeon crawls...So much of what we experience in modern video games exists because of D&D's influence.

But to say that D&D has had more influence on fantasy literature than anything else, we'd need to a) isolate what, in particular, D&D added to the genre, or how it shaped the genre, and b) look at the fantasy being written to see to what degree those changes have affected the current market. I.e., its reach, its level of influence.

 

[Steerpike]

I'll admit I don't know everything about fantasy fiction preceding the 70s (or indeed fantasy fiction full stop) but I have tried to dig away as best I can at what has influenced modern fantasy. If though, there is a fantasy trope that only existed in a few sources that D&D have hugely expanded on though then yes, I'll give a lot of credit to D&D. Like the Paladin.

No doubt those things exist. It's not always easy to pinpoint them. And of course statements that X or Y constitute such things are rarely falsifiable, so it becomes people batting around opinions. One thing that I think leads to the over-emphasis on D&D today, though it was certainly important, is that people look at those older SF/F authors and tend to think of them as obscure because many/most of them simply aren't well known today. But at the time, they were the mainstays in the genre. It wasn't just Gygax and Arneson being influenced by these works, it was everyone coming up in the genre, including future SF/F authors. So while the landscape would look different in some of the genre without D&D (particularly with respect to fantasy works that are directly influenced by the game), it's tough to say exactly how much different or in what ways.

In any event, most of the time when I see this come up people are only vaguely aware of how these elements existed before D&D. It's sort of like encountering people who think Warhammer style, artwork, and other elements were copied from WoW rather than the other way around.

 

[Peat]

No doubt those things exist. It's not always easy to pinpoint them. And of course statements that X or Y constitute such things are rarely falsifiable, so it becomes people batting around opinions. One thing that I think leads to the over-emphasis on D&D today, though it was certainly important, is that people look at those older SF/F authors and tend to think of them as obscure because many/most of them simply aren't well known today. But at the time, they were the mainstays in the genre. It wasn't just Gygax and Arneson being influenced by these works, it was everyone coming up in the genre, including future SF/F authors. So while the landscape would look different in some of the genre without D&D (particularly with respect to fantasy works that are directly influenced by the game), it's tough to say exactly how much different or in what ways.

In any event, most of the time when I see this come up people are only vaguely aware of how these elements existed before D&D. It's sort of like encountering people who think Warhammer style, artwork, and other elements were copied from WoW rather than the other way around.

See, I've barely seen anyone else talk about D&D's influence on fantasy fiction. Lot of talk about Tolkien, someone shouts "Hey what about Howard or Moorcock", somebody goes back to Dunsany, nobody mentions Anderson or Leiber, and this is roughly the conversation. Obviously I've not been party to the same conversations to you.

Fair point that all those guys in the 80s/early 90s did know who those people are. Would we have the same mish-mash of fantasy that D&D had though? Who else was mashing Swords & Sorcery pulp together with LotR High Fantasy at that time? I feel like Eddings was sort of independently coming to the same place but would we have followed him, or followed Brooks' LotR revival? When talking Generic European Fantasy, I feel like we're talking this exact mish-mash. Would we have so many groups of characters that eerily resembled an Adventure Party? Would Wizards be simultaneously so benevolent (well, capable of being) and powerful?

I also think that once you strip out Dragonlance, Feist's Riftwar and Discworld, fantasy does start to look a little different. If you accept Malazan being based off a GURPS campaign by a guy who discovered fantasy through D&D as counting, and Wheel of Time (Jordan did used to DM and I feel like there's quite a few D&D feeling flourishes among the Dune worship), then quite a bit different.

Although I'd add that fantasy seems to be drifting off from that and towards the political/military side of Wheel of Time/Song of Ice and Fire (Martin is a known gamer, but SoIaF doesn't feel that RPG based). I also think pulp's making a bit of a come back with self-publishing.

One day I'll find the time to do more research on this, try and get a cast iron grip on who did what when. But at the end of the day, I look at a bunch of Generic European Fantasy around and ask myself what it most resembles, the answer is D&D. But then the amount of GEF is getting diluted too.

 

[Steerpike]

See, I've barely seen anyone else talk about D&D's influence on fantasy fiction. Lot of talk about Tolkien, someone shouts "Hey what about Howard or Moorcock", somebody goes back to Dunsany, nobody mentions Anderson or Leiber, and this is roughly the conversation. Obviously I've not been party to the same conversations to you.

Most of the people I know irl who read fantasy are also into D&D and other RPGs. I'm sure that's not a majority of fantasy readers as a whole, but is the case among the people I know, so the topic comes up quite a bit.

I've never played GURPS, but I have to think it is easier to address the magic system in the Malazan books using something other than 1e AD&D, which is what I think Erikson, Esslemont, and company were playing before GURPS.

D&D certainly has had a substantial impact. I like D&D-style fantasy well enough (I like to play it, pen and paper or electronic), but I don't find most of it written well enough to hold my interest. I'm not opposed to reading more of it in principle, but I'm glad the genre has a lot more diversity to it.

 

[Deleted member 4265]

You could say the same thing about Manga and Anime having too many "Asian" samurai stories that glorify the Edo Period. Might as well say that Sci-Fi has too many aliens, spaceships and too much advanced technology.

My point is precisely that generic-ism isn't solely a problem effecting European fantasy so people should equating the two. Setting a story in a vaguely Edo period Japan or a vaguely futuristic world without any deeper thought put into it is equally inexcusable and yet when's the last time you heard someone say "I'm tired of all these generic Asian fantasy settings."

I'm not hating the conventions of the genre, I personally like classic fantasy, I'm annoyed by how lazy some of the world building is. This is sort of like the world building equivalent to the romantic subplot. Romantic subplots get shoehorned into stories that don't need them all the time because the author sees that a lot of best selling books have romantic subplots so then they try to add one in without understanding exactly why is worked so well for those best selling books.

Its like people go "oh I'm going to write a fantasy book and all the really popular ones take place in medieval European settings so I'm going to do that" without understanding why those stories are set there (this can certainly happen to non-European fantasy too). Setting is more than simply a place where the story happens. There's a reason LOTR takes place in middle earth. There's a reason GRRM's books have the settings they do.

I love a good romantic subplot and I don't mind a fantasy set in vaguely medieval English county side so long as the writer has a reason for putting it there besides "that's what everyone else does". I don't demand books have in depth world building, but any author worth their salt knows how to use their story's setting as a benefit to their story.

Also I apologize in advance if this post comes off rude or nonsensical. I haven't slept in two days.

 

[Peat]

Idle thought that in no way should be taken as contradiction of my agreement with the rest of that post -

It is possible that if I lived in Japan, I would hear that a lot. Or in China, wonder why its always wuxia. Or whatever else is popular in other countries.

This is, insofar as I'm aware, a group predominantly from the Anglosphere talking about fiction predominantly from the Anglosphere. That the majority of them reach back to our shared cultural past is perhaps unsurprising, maybe even inevitable. Are we the only language group that constantly goes back to the same well unthinkingly? Or is this a common failing?

In any case, world building that comes off as lazy is rarely welcome, whatever the reason or culture.