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.

 

[Karlin]

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.

Here's a curious one. In teh Bible, who is Samson's mother?

 

[Mad Swede]

Here's a curious one. In teh Bible, who is Samson's mother?

Ah, now she's not named in the Bible, she is only described as Manoah's wife.

However, whilst serving in the Lebanon with UNIFIL I did hear that her name was Zlelponith (I think that's the correct spelling but I'm not sure). If I remember correctly (and this is many years ago now) the source for this was said to be Babylonian Rabbis. I don't have a writtemn reference for that, but maybe Karlin does?

 

[pmmg]

Why is that curious? He must have had a mother, and she must have had a name. The stories of the Bible are not really writing about 'characters' as much as trying to capture the real lives of historical people. If some appearance of someone does not offer their name, it should not be surprising if it might be known from other sources.

I think more interesting are characters like, the Joker. Who for so long was never named, and now has several names. Who is he really?

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

Here's a curious one. In teh Bible, who is Samson's mother?

I only know a few bible stories from sunday school. And even then it's been a hot minute. So I'd consider that a trick question. but I don't believe she had a name. I'd have to read those stories in the bible again (Not the sunday school version of that story in the bible) to answer that one.

Why is that curious? He must have had a mother, and she must have had a name. The stories of the Bible are not really writing about 'characters' as much as trying to capture the real lives of historical people. If some appearance of someone does not offer their name, it should not be surprising if it might be known from other sources.

I think more interesting are characters like, the Joker. Who for so long was never named, and now has several names. Who is he really?

If I recall there were a ton of unnamed characters in the Bible, the ones that were named were like Samson, Mosas etc those were easy to remember although I've forgotten quite a few. (I used to know the two brothers and their story but I forgot their names)

In regards to the Joker, I assume you mean batman because I don't recall a 'THE Joker' in the bible. I forget when they started giving him (And the other batman villains) names but when they did they kinda became more interesting. If you did mean the bible, I'm kinda curious what stories you mean.

 

[pmmg]

I dont think there is a Joker in the bible... Of course, I mean Batman.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

I dont think there is a Joker in the bible... Of course, I mean Batman.

I had to ask to be sure, there are so many stories in the bible I don't know lol
I know the main ones you learn in Sunday School and...that's about it. (Maybe I should fix that at some point)

 

[pmmg]

Well...It's not like there is a quiz at the end...

Go learn your Bible.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I had to ask to be sure, there are so many stories in the bible I don't know lol
I know the main ones you learn in Sunday School and...that's about it. (Maybe I should fix that at some point)

I've read the thing twice. Cover to cover. Only threw it at the wall once, which is pretty good for me.

We have a lot of angels and demons chucking around behind the scenes, and a few in the foreground. I wasn't raised in any religion. Weird for the United States, where we have knee-jerk assumptions that are social poisons descended directly from our Calvinist origins. So, being me, I think the entire angel/demon history, evolution, and dynamics. The Bible isn't the source for any of this. Fortunately, while the Edits of Nicaea removed most of the good stuff from what would become the Books of the Bible, they didn't do a great job of erasure. The Church has left behind documents strewn across the world. How they keep secrets is beyond me. And so we have the Apocrypha. We have compiled dictionaries of all the angels, fallen and otherwise, and demons - I'm still figuring this one out. The Ars Goetia. Solamon.

What I tend to use them for is names.

 

[pmmg]

The Bible, the word, the divinity, has endured a lot more than your throwing it at the wall, and yet, it persists... and I would argue prevails. The message of the Bible is a simple one. You are loved. Even if you have done bad things. Even if you throw things at walls.

Reading the Bible, and rejecting its message is nothing new. The Bible itself is full of those who reject its message, even to the point of nailing up the Savior to the cross to kill him (which, surprise, did not last).

In a polite audience, I would suggest, that it is not cool to talk about how you despised the thing enough to have such a reaction. Surely, you would not appreciate if I had done such things to those things you hold value in, and continued to find it important that everyone knew.

Rejecting and not knowing, however, are different things. One should know, even if they reject. Its only kind of the foundational work of so much of the culture and the world.

The church, the early church, was not involved in trying to destroy the works they did not find worthy. Many of those works survive precisely because it was Christian monks and scribes who continued to copy and preserve them. The church did not actively encourage, an often suppressed, the reading of non-canonical books, and at times there were those who looked to destroy them, but there was never a diabolical wide-spread effort to seek out and destroy all disapproved books. That is a myth.

I think Naru gets a pass. It is kind of a trick question. Sampson's mother is not named. I am just not sure why this matters.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

The Bible, the word, the divinity, has endured a lot more than your throwing it at the wall, and yet, it persists... and I would argue prevails. The message of the Bible is a simple one. You are loved. Even if you have done bad things. Even if you throw things at walls.

This is why I've decided to just be myself until the time comes. Sure I can behave a certain way to try to earn points or whatever, but I'd rather be honest with myself. I'm 90% sure god fully understands me and my hobbies lol at least more than my parents do at any rate. But that's off topic so I'll leave it at that.

Reading the Bible, and rejecting its message is nothing new. The Bible itself is full of those who reject its message, even to the point of nailing up the Savior to the cross to kill him (which, surprise, did not last).

In a polite audience, I would suggest, that it is not cool to talk about how you despised the thing enough to have such a reaction. Surely, you would not appreciate if I had done such things to those things you hold value in, and continued to find it important that everyone knew.

Rejecting and not knowing, however, are different things. One should know, even if they reject. Its only kind of the foundational work of so much of the culture and the world.

If I ever do decide to read the bible in full, I'll certainly let ya'll know what I think.

I think Naru gets a pass. It is kind of a trick question. Sampson's mother is not named. I am just not sure why this matters.

We are discussing Named and unnamed characters in fiction and their importance to the story. I think the message of the question was that even unnamed characters can be important. Like Samson's mother. Though it's been a minute since I had the story told to me so I don't recall her role (besides being his mother I mean) Either way, both unnamed and named characters are equally important, so message recieved.

 

[Karlin]

Ah, now she's not named in the Bible, she is only described as Manoah's wife.

However, whilst serving in the Lebanon with UNIFIL I did hear that her name was Zlelponith (I think that's the correct spelling but I'm not sure). If I remember correctly (and this is many years ago now) the source for this was said to be Babylonian Rabbis. I don't have a writtemn reference for that, but maybe Karlin does?

She's only referred to as Manoah's wife, which is curious since she is a more important character than he is.

The source is the Babylonian Talmud, which is more than a 1,000 years after the reported events. Bava Batra 91A

Rav Ḥanan bar Rava continues: The mother of David was named Natzvat bat Ada’el. The mother of Samson was named Tzelelponit, and his sister was called Nashyan. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference as to what their names were? The Gemara answers: It is important with regard to an answer for heretics who inquire into the names of these women, which are not stated in the Bible. One can reply that there is a tradition handed down concerning their names.

Also see: Manoah's wife - Wikipedia

It also occures to me that potiphars wife (who tried seducing Joseph) is also not named, though she plays a critical role in teh story.

Potiphar's wife - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pmmg]

We are discussing Named and unnamed characters in fiction and their importance to the story. I think the message of the question was that even unnamed characters can be important. Like Samson's mother. Though it's been a minute since I had the story told to me so I don't recall her role (besides being his mother I mean) Either way, both unnamed and named characters are equally important, so message received.

I would suggest, that if a character plays a major role, and such information would be known, its best to give them a name. Why Sampson's mother's name was left out would likely not fly with me in fiction or storytelling, but the Bible is kind of a historical work, I am not sure it gets the same measure. Her name is apparently known/thought to be Hazelelponit. The writer of that story of the Bible probably should have included it.

/Bible

Watching the video (they have finally given me sound at work ), I found it quite on target with nuggets to consider. As with all those video's, its hard to be all inclusive of all the many ways things can work and why, but I appreciate his insights. As I compare it back to my own story, I feel I kind of slipped into the manner described in GOT, though I was probably unaware of it. He mentions a characters, Mellisand, from a series I have not read. And I am like DOH!...I have a Mellsonde in my story. People will think I borrowed it