How Epic Fantasy Writes So Many Characters at Once

[A. E. Lowan]

This is an excellent discussion on how Epic Fantasy gives us certain challenges and advantages with a traditionally large cast. Personally, I think I've already inflicted this on our readers. Maybe slowing down? lol

 

[Mad Swede]

Hmm. Might I challenge the idea of a traditionally large cast?

The Lord of the Rings doesn't have a large cast at all, in fact if I recall there are only 130 or so named characters in those books. I read somewhere that the total number of named characters across all Tolkiens books (The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion etc) comes out at about 800 or so. That compares to G R R Martins A Song of Ice and Fire, which has something like 3300 named characters so far.

I'm not sure why we think epic fantasy should have a lot of named characters. I'm not even sure that this is necessary in order to make a fantasy story epic. Sometimes I think we stare ourselves blind at what other authors have done, and come to the conclusion that we need a large cast to make a story epic when perhaps what we need is a decent story arc with good characterisation. But maybe I'm wrong?

 

[Karlin]

1. I don't know what "traditional" means in this context. Bible? Iliad? Is Tolkien the measure of all things?
2. Write as many characters as you need for the story. I don't see the point in discussing it much.

 

[pmmg]

Meh. I have tons of named characters. As an experiment, i went back and added names to many unnamed ones cause of a thread from Finch. I am not sure if it really added. But, i do find that once named the chance of a reappearance goes up. So does the likelihood of bad things.

 

[Prince of Spires]

In my opinion, the actual cast of Lord of the Rings that actually matters is more something between 4 and 20. It's the names people who read the books once or twice remember and can give back. The rest is just part of the setting.

In Lord of the Rings, you've got the 4 hobbits, who are the main viewpoint characters of the story more or less. Which is how you get to 4. The fellowship is 9. Then you have Elrond, Galadriel, and after that it falls off very quickly. No one cares about Rúmil or Erestor. Yes they are named characters, but they're part of the setting. They don't do anything other than exist. They're the extra's of the play who dance across the stage in the back just to make it look busy. So the actual cast of Lord of the Rings isn't even 130.

Now, Lord of the Rings isn't the measure of all things. But it is a great example of how to do it well. Yes, sometimes you have a huge cast and they're all important. But often times, 20 actual characters is enough. And even in epic fantasy, it's better to have 5 great, well developed characters who each have their own plot arc, than to have 130 names that do nothing but show up.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

1. I don't know what "traditional" means in this context. Bible? Iliad? Is Tolkien the measure of all things?
2. Write as many characters as you need for the story. I don't see the point in discussing it much.

I think a good story needs a balance of Named / Unnamed characters. But even that much is up to the story/author.
I try not to name characters unless I plan for them to return / become relevant later in the story.
Giving 1000's of characters names (notably ones that only appear once) feels like a bit too much world building for me. But another writer might go 'yeah that is my JAM' and go for it.

Unnamed characters for me are hard to include though, they're often very minor. And I mean like, that random store clerk that asks protag about their day minor. If my brain focuses on them and they develop more presence in the story, I make them a named character.