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

These are not rules of fantasy

I think Mythopoet hit it right on the head. It doesn't have to be necessarily logical, but it has to be consistent. If your world is a world where anything can happen regardless of what is going on, then what is stopping you from just writing in a magical dragon at the moment your character needs it? The struggle of a character is dependent on the world's actual limitations, which is vital to the story.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
I agree with the other posters that in-world consistency is the critical key when writing fantasy.

But since I have a penchant for the game of devil's advocate, let me suggest that readers in today's generation will assume realism and accuracy (or their perceptions thereof*) as the default state for any setting, so anything deviating from it will put them off unless they understand it's inherent to your setting. If you have all your arrows getting stuck in human bodies instead of passing through them, a savvy reader will call BS on it unless you've established that your arrows don't work like their real-world equivalents. If you actually didn't intend that difference to exist, you might as revise instead of retorting that "anything can happen in fantasy".

* To be sure, this isn't infallible. I was actually surprised to learn that arrows typically will pass through victims instead of always getting stuck in them, so if anything the realistic scenario might appear "unrealistic" to most readers.
 

glutton

Inkling
If you have all your arrows getting stuck in human bodies instead of passing through them, a savvy reader will call BS on it unless you've established that your arrows don't work like their real-world equivalents.

Or alternately, the characters getting arrows stuck in them are the same ones getting hit with direct axe blows to the chest etc. and shrugging them off lol.
 

goldhawk

Troubadour
I agree with the other posters that in-world consistency is the critical key when writing fantasy.

But since I have a penchant for the game of devil's advocate, let me suggest that readers in today's generation will assume realism and accuracy (or their perceptions thereof*) as the default state for any setting, so anything deviating from it will put them off unless they understand it's inherent to your setting. If you have all your arrows getting stuck in human bodies instead of passing through them, a savvy reader will call BS on it unless you've established that your arrows don't work like their real-world equivalents. If you actually didn't intend that difference to exist, you might as revise instead of retorting that "anything can happen in fantasy".

* To be sure, this isn't infallible. I was actually surprised to learn that arrows typically will pass through victims instead of always getting stuck in them, so if anything the realistic scenario might appear "unrealistic" to most readers.

A lot would depend on the draw weight. And the arrowhead. A board head is design to maximize cutting damage and wouldn't penetrate as deeply as an armour-piercing head.

And the Mongols used to wear loose-fitting silk shirts because arrows won't cut the silk. The silk is pushed into the wound by the arrow and makes removing the arrow easier. I don't think they would take this precaution if arrows always passed through.

Or alternately, the characters getting arrows stuck in them are the same ones getting hit with direct axe blows to the chest etc. and shrugging them off lol.

There have been duels where one participant's heart was pierced but he kept fighting until he killed his opponent. Then he collapsed and died.
 

glutton

Inkling
There have been duels where one participant's heart was pierced but he kept fighting until he killed his opponent. Then he collapsed and died.

Yep I know, I've also read of a guy who got stabbed in the heart and ran several blocks after and a woman who got her throat slashed repeatedly and lived. Talking more about characters who pull off similar 'feats' consistently along with things like chopping plate armored knights vertically in half and deflecting multiple crossbow bolts with a sword swing etc. though. That would suggest something about the unwritten rules/style of the setting XD
 
Hi,

Actually that's one of the things I hate. Villains who just won't die but keep coming back like the energiser bunny. I think it started with Moriarty, but it just keeps getting reused everywhere. I mean how many never ending enemies does the Doctor have? The darleks, the Master, Davros. I mean I can sort of forgive the darleks since they're a race. But the others? Come on - kill them already!

Cheers, Greg.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
Hi,
I mean how many never ending enemies does the Doctor have? The darleks, the Master, Davros. I mean I can sort of forgive the darleks since they're a race. But the others? Come on - kill them already!

Well, here's the thing. The Doctor can regenerate. He dies and then comes back too. He's pretty much immortal, so why not have villains that are his equal, like the Master. The Master is a timelord, too, and the Doctors evil opposite, so it seems fair that he's also immortal.

This also speaks to the style of the show. The show is about a singular character that is constantly evolving into something different. So, the Doctor has a rogue's gallery of villains that constantly evolve too. Sometimes those changes are small, sometimes they're huge.

It's also an example of what story telling is. Giving the audience the same thing but with a different spin. For example, give me Romeo and Juliet but set it in the '50s and have the two families be gangs. You get Westside Story. Give me Jaws but set it in space. You get Alien.

Doctor Who is a prime example of a show that doesn't worry about the rules. Honestly if you think about the core concept of the show, time travel, it really doesn't make sense because of the butterfly effect. For the most part the show works because they have great characters having fun--stress FUN---adventures full of whimsy and cool stuff. That's what show promises and that's what the audience shows up for.

Which brings me to this point. When you write a story, you make promises to the audience about what type of story you're delivering, serious, light, fanciful, etc. If you're up front with the audience about the story world, and what's possible and what's not--for example fully armored knights being able to do back flips with a back shot full of arrows--then as long as it matches up with the promises made to the audience and remains internally consistent, you should be fine.

Obviously some will reject the story because they can't buy into certain things, but those that do accept those things will enjoy the story for what it is.
 
One of the rules of writing: heroes cannot have good luck but villains can. :)

Goldhawk's point isn't so much about "unkillability"; a lot of stories (especially ongoing shows) bend probability to keep both heroes and villains alive because they're great characters.

It's about bits of luck that make it easier to win--for everything short of surviving. If a hero has a lucky moment, it reduces the tension and the amount of the victory he has to earn the hard way; a lucky villain increases the tension. All things being equal, you can see which makes a better story.

It's a great rule.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Doctor Who is a prime example of a show that doesn't worry about the rules.

I would say that Dr. Who follows the "rules" of a superhero series, which tend to be consistent within a given story arc, but that consistency often falls apart when you look at it through the long view across multiple arcs. Buffy is another example, as even Whedon admits the characters' strength levels are inconsistent.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
I would say that Dr. Who follows the "rules" of a superhero series, which tend to be consistent within a given story arc, but that consistency often falls apart when you look at it through the long view across multiple arcs. Buffy is another example, as even Whedon admits the characters' strength levels are inconsistent.

Some of what I was talking about was Deux Ex Machina.
 
I think that surreal worlds are fun to read about so long as they are consistent, explanations only become important as we age.
 
I think that surreal worlds are fun to read about so long as they are consistent, explanations only become important as we age.

I dunno. I read some book once where the setting was totally dreamlike, in a way I was more accustomed to from kids' books than something clearly intended for grownups. I was totally on board with a good 90% of it. But the kid sidekick was named Pepsi, and that was just too random for me. (Also, he was the ghost of the fetus the main character aborted, but that's an entirely different can of worms.)
 
Top