Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Medieval jungles are just fine then, heh heh. I like low-tech, medieval castle or jungle doesn't matter. If there are guns, there better be cowboys or pirates, or I'm not reading it.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
What are your aesthetic or concept preferences for novels?
- Thread starter Netardapope
- Start date
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
No guns, but there do happen to be pirates.
The technology level is a bit mixed. It's about on the level of Ancient Rome overall, but certain cultures and areas have better medicine and some pretty cool alternative technologies (as stated before, biopunk)
Just...Knights, castles, armor, sieges, kings, swords...not fond of any of it...
Settings based on England tend to irk me as well. I want, if not something quite otherworldly, either the tropics or within the Arctic Circle, ideally! Or some kind of futuristic society. Or a flying city. Or an underwater city. Just don't do Europe.
Last edited:
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
Flying cities are my favorite, lol. I have a flight obsession, so...dragons, winged people, flying/floating creatures of every kind.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Well my current book is in the frozen north, clan setting, but moving into a migration to the tropics to avoid genocide through books 2 & 3, heh heh.
But I would tend to say it depends on all those points. Everything you mention is extremely generic. A siege, all you need is a walled city, or heck, sieging a flying city... castles are just forts, and are all over the world, Rome had fortresses, and sieged Masada for instance. A knight is just heavy cavalry, really.
If I have a problem with a setting, it's most likely how it's written rather than the setting itself. For instance, there was a sci-fantasy book with a vampire in the woods on an alien planet with magic... can't recall the series, which has all the potential in the world for me to hate the setting, but I enjoyed it. No idea what I'd think now, but it was fun back then.
The more I've aged, the less tolerance I have for garish hair, mutants, bell & whistle magic systems, pretty much anything including the word punk (unless it's The Clash or Sex Pistols), and anything where a wizard wields a wand.
Really, I want The Name of the Rose where the magic and devil are real, heh heh, but I don't care whether the culture is euro or not.
But I would tend to say it depends on all those points. Everything you mention is extremely generic. A siege, all you need is a walled city, or heck, sieging a flying city... castles are just forts, and are all over the world, Rome had fortresses, and sieged Masada for instance. A knight is just heavy cavalry, really.
If I have a problem with a setting, it's most likely how it's written rather than the setting itself. For instance, there was a sci-fantasy book with a vampire in the woods on an alien planet with magic... can't recall the series, which has all the potential in the world for me to hate the setting, but I enjoyed it. No idea what I'd think now, but it was fun back then.
The more I've aged, the less tolerance I have for garish hair, mutants, bell & whistle magic systems, pretty much anything including the word punk (unless it's The Clash or Sex Pistols), and anything where a wizard wields a wand.
Really, I want The Name of the Rose where the magic and devil are real, heh heh, but I don't care whether the culture is euro or not.
Last edited:
Malik
Auror
This is actually a fascinating angle, though. With a flood of writers trying to emulate GRRM, your audience doesn't know if you're going to whack a character they love. The stakes are back up. Every danger scene counts if you do it right.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Senseless killing? GRRM? Nah, not at all. The killings make perfect sense in GRRM.
EDIT: What is seen far more often is senseless survival, characters making it through things they should never survive, the only "sense" being they need to survive for the story to go on, LOL.
EDIT: What is seen far more often is senseless survival, characters making it through things they should never survive, the only "sense" being they need to survive for the story to go on, LOL.
Last edited:
Malik
Auror
I may have a scene in a future book where a badass hero character gets snuffed when a tree falls on his house or a kiln explodes as he's picking up a custom-made goblet or something. Just, completely out of nowhere.
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
It can be a good thing. I hate when i have the sense there's a force field of some kind around the core cast, protecting them from harm while secondary characters die all around. What I want from a book is to honestly believe that anyone could die. I don't like to have that sense of safety surrounding the main characters just because they're the main characters.
But, when it comes to killing, more is not necessarily better, nor is killing your main characters something you necessarily should do. I prefer quality over quantity. Make me care about them, then kill them. Make the deaths count.
Not just that, make me care about them so much that it doesn't take a death to hurt me. A life-altering injury or a failed goal or a devastating loss in a character's life can be very painful, and you can make me scared of those things occurring if I care about the character.
It's my opinion that you have to be a bit sparing with the deaths to make them have the proper impact. If you kill 75% of the people I like, eventually i'll become numb to it and stop caring.
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
I may have a scene in a future book where a badass hero character gets snuffed when a tree falls on his house or a kiln explodes as he's picking up a custom-made goblet or something. Just, completely out of nowhere.
I would go with a gruesome illness or something.
psychotick
Auror
Hi,
For me I love traditional epic fantasy and Tolkein. I loathe grimdark. It's no more realistic than epic fantasy and much less nice. Not all people are evil bastards who'll happily kill you for a nickle. I'm not, so why would I want to read about a world full of arseholes?!
As for so called literary fiction, for the most part I dislike it. Depending on what makes it literary of course. Love Catch 22 - but it's literary for the insight into war and the human struggle against the military bureaucracy more than anything else. Any book where the writer spends too much effort telling me what an expert he is with a turn of phrase annoys me. Often the very best prose is prose that's good enough to get out of the way so I can enjoy the story.
As to what I really love in a story is a complex plot, characters I can root for and enjoy, a world build that fascinates, and maybe something that makes me think. I really love plot twists, where everything you thought you knew, you suddenly realise you don't.
Cheers, Greg.
For me I love traditional epic fantasy and Tolkein. I loathe grimdark. It's no more realistic than epic fantasy and much less nice. Not all people are evil bastards who'll happily kill you for a nickle. I'm not, so why would I want to read about a world full of arseholes?!
As for so called literary fiction, for the most part I dislike it. Depending on what makes it literary of course. Love Catch 22 - but it's literary for the insight into war and the human struggle against the military bureaucracy more than anything else. Any book where the writer spends too much effort telling me what an expert he is with a turn of phrase annoys me. Often the very best prose is prose that's good enough to get out of the way so I can enjoy the story.
As to what I really love in a story is a complex plot, characters I can root for and enjoy, a world build that fascinates, and maybe something that makes me think. I really love plot twists, where everything you thought you knew, you suddenly realise you don't.
Cheers, Greg.
C
Chessie
Guest
Whoa well...you would absolutely hate my stories then.
To be fair, Tamriel-esque settings have been around since pre-Tolkien ie. medieval style fantasy. Tolkien wasn't the first, Dungeons and Dragons wasn't necessarily original, and I'm sure the creators of Tamriel played the OG pen and paper games.What turns me on in fantasy stories? My secret obsessions are magic and romance. I don't know why...but a love story full of magic and monsters and plenty of emotion makes me weak at the knees. And dragons. Boy, oh boy do I love dragons. It sucks that nowadays, there really aren't many fantasy books that I like with dragons in them. I also love any stories steeped in mythology, no matter what the culture. I read a really awesome short ages ago based on this Hawaiian myth and it was so, so good. I'd have to say mythology is probably my favorite.
EDIT: After reading some of the other responses, I'd like to say that I'm all for medieval style fantasy to continue on as it is. In the fantasy genre, that shizz existed long ago, and there have been other types of fantasy as well, not just medieval. I don't understand why it gets put down here so often "oh, it's just lame medieval fantasy iccck gag me" and other modern fantasy gets sprung as being so great.
Well, everyone likes their own thing. I, for one, love medieval fantasy because I grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons with my dad and it's something we bonded over. I don't read YA, I don't like urban fantasy or ripped abs and werewolf stories...but you know what? There are others out there who love that sort of stuff and I don't want them to feel the lesser for reading and loving it, you know? Sometimes it seems that just because medieval fantasy is old and Tolkien has been done right/wrong/sideways I get the vibe around these parts that therefore, it shouldn't exist. J/s
Last edited by a moderator:
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
Whoa well...you would absolutely hate my stories then.
What turns me on in fantasy stories? My secret obsessions are magic and romance. I don't know why...but a love story full of magic and monsters and plenty of emotion makes me weak at the knees. And dragons. Boy, oh boy do I love dragons. It sucks that nowadays, there really aren't many fantasy books that I like with dragons in them. I also love any stories steeped in mythology, no matter what the culture. I read a really awesome short ages ago based on this Hawaiian myth and it was so, so good. I'd have to say mythology is probably my favorite.
Where are all the GOOD dragon books?!
And, I tried to write a mythology based story, but i got bored 30 minutes into researching and now it's a zombie story. Mythology based is fun to read but writing it isn't for me, apparently.
glutton
Inkling
I prefer settings with relatively low magic so physical fighters won't be too overshadowed by magic users and for at least one of the main characters to be a kick-ass female melee fighter who isn't just a 'token female warrior' but legit one of the toughest and most impressive warriors in the story (or if she is inexperienced so that wouldn't make sense, at least one of the most impressive in her peer group). I also like for said female badass to be depicted in an over-the-top manner to some degree eg. able to trade punches evenly with a huge guy on the low end of the scale, up to being able to beat up kaiju sized monsters with just a nonmagical melee weapon on the high end XD)
C
Chessie
Guest
Seriously? What if it's just that we LIKE reading and writing that type of fantasy? So we're not creative because that's what we prefer? :/
I've read all kinds of fantasy but I do have my preferences. It kind of stings a little to see other writers call medieval fantasy boring, uninspiring, and generic. I don't like GOT but I respect that my friends love it and at least it gets them reading books.
All I know is that I work hard, really, really hard to infuse my stories with good characterization, structure, emotion, and the elements of fantasy that I love and have inspired me to write. I do write about elves. I write all human worlds, too. I use mythology in my stories. Heavily so. I care about my target audience and what they want. So I guess if that makes me boring, uninspiring and creative to write stories set in medieval Russia using their mythology...so be it. *shrug*
Last edited by a moderator:
valiant12
Sage
I love nono bots and bio punk. My first attempt at writing a novel has a lot of bio punk and all kind of nano base technology. It’s not yet finished , but someday I will finish it.
All of these are very fun. Swords are overused though. Halberds are really used in fiction, yet very cool and effective weapons. Crossbows are really underused. My favourite original character uses a crossbow as her main weapon.
I can't understand how you can dislike kings. Kings, emperors, queens, princess. chiefs, bosses, leaders, presidents, prime ministers, dictators, high priests, captains, mayors, lords that just words for people on top of the social hierarchy. Innless the story is about complete anarchy, it will have a person who is on top of the hierarchy ( or a group of people).
I don't like walking\travelling on foot. (In books, movies and video games, I like walking in real life). Walking speed really limits the scope of the story, and walking is the most cliché and boring form of travailing. I just one to see a heroes failing his quest, not arriving on time to stop the main villain, because he didn’t take proper care of his horse which resulted in the horse dyeing, which resulted in longer travelling time. I also dislike slower than light space travel.
If a story have a lot of interesting and\or fast forms of transpoertation thats a huge plus for me.
And I like worlds in which there a lot of people with purple hair.
All of these are very fun. Swords are overused though. Halberds are really used in fiction, yet very cool and effective weapons. Crossbows are really underused. My favourite original character uses a crossbow as her main weapon.
I can't understand how you can dislike kings. Kings, emperors, queens, princess. chiefs, bosses, leaders, presidents, prime ministers, dictators, high priests, captains, mayors, lords that just words for people on top of the social hierarchy. Innless the story is about complete anarchy, it will have a person who is on top of the hierarchy ( or a group of people).
I don't like walking\travelling on foot. (In books, movies and video games, I like walking in real life). Walking speed really limits the scope of the story, and walking is the most cliché and boring form of travailing. I just one to see a heroes failing his quest, not arriving on time to stop the main villain, because he didn’t take proper care of his horse which resulted in the horse dyeing, which resulted in longer travelling time. I also dislike slower than light space travel.
If a story have a lot of interesting and\or fast forms of transpoertation thats a huge plus for me.
And I like worlds in which there a lot of people with purple hair.
- Thread starter
- #36
Netardapope
Sage
That's my favorite part of low-magic settings, it allows the melee battles to take precedence over magic battles. I just find that flinging swords and trading blows is more fun than watching lazers come out of people's fingers. Of course, I still love magic...I guess that's why I mixed swordfighting and magic in my book.
Sent from my SM-J700M using Tapatalk
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
Halberds and crossbows are specific to certain periods and combat styles and don't really lend themselves well to the typical fantasy tale, which is about an individual or small group. The halberd is awesome for certain things, and at the peak of plate armor became a dueling weapon, as armor was so good the shield became expendable. But, as a personal side arm... not so much. It is comparable to why people will pack a Glock instead of a Barrett .50 cal. The Barrett and halberd only make sense in certain conditions, they are more suited to war than personal defense, and they're awkward to pack around everywhere you go. The sword is popular to pack around in fantasy for the same reason it was popular in reality, it was one hell of a weapon that combined offensive and defensive abilities into a fairly light and compact space.
Now, some types of swords are over overrepresented in fantasy, see the broadsword (arming sword), the greatsword, and the longsword, although not every writer understands these well either... the arming sword would be the best to pack around, but once the armor comes off, in cities, lighter swords, such as rapiers and smallswords would dominate, depending on period and setting of course.
The crossbow, again, isn't well suited to the typical fantasy tale. Great weapon of war, and for hunting, you bet! And while a light crossbow has a decent rate of fire, anything really capable of punching bolts through heavily armored critters or men is going to be slow and more suited to warfare. Of course, neither bow and crossbow are really suited to city-scapes. I've owned both, and even with a modern crossbow, I'm sticking to the simplicity and relative speed of the longbow.
Good old spears could use more scene time in fantasy. Awesome weapons.
Now, in a realistic D&D style monster filled fantasy setting, the pole-arms really should be better represented in group combat. If in a small group fighting a fifteen foot 2 ton troll, a reach weapon to keep that troll at point is a good idea, LOL.
Now, some types of swords are over overrepresented in fantasy, see the broadsword (arming sword), the greatsword, and the longsword, although not every writer understands these well either... the arming sword would be the best to pack around, but once the armor comes off, in cities, lighter swords, such as rapiers and smallswords would dominate, depending on period and setting of course.
The crossbow, again, isn't well suited to the typical fantasy tale. Great weapon of war, and for hunting, you bet! And while a light crossbow has a decent rate of fire, anything really capable of punching bolts through heavily armored critters or men is going to be slow and more suited to warfare. Of course, neither bow and crossbow are really suited to city-scapes. I've owned both, and even with a modern crossbow, I'm sticking to the simplicity and relative speed of the longbow.
Good old spears could use more scene time in fantasy. Awesome weapons.
Now, in a realistic D&D style monster filled fantasy setting, the pole-arms really should be better represented in group combat. If in a small group fighting a fifteen foot 2 ton troll, a reach weapon to keep that troll at point is a good idea, LOL.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
I'm with Chesterama, part way.
Not liking a sub-genre hardly means that someone can't think of fantasy as something else. People like what they like, and on this Earth we have limited time. I just don't care about anything outside my tastes. Why in God's name would I read werewolf stories if I think they're stupid? Cyberpunk? Spoon meet gag reflex. Wizarding school? Large-spoon meet gag reflex. I love that other people get into these things, but ah, hell no, not me.
It's funny to see someone disparaging castles and knights while complaining about people not "open" to other things.
On the other, I disagree with Chesterama on it stinging... people being bored by medieval settings is as natural as my being bored to frigging tears by Harry Potter and its ilk. Or, I think the Wheel of Time was a wheel of drudgery. Twilight and paranormal romance? Oh dear God, shoot me now, spoons shoved under my fingernails. Should that sting people who love those? Nope. That's just my taste, LOL.
Not liking a sub-genre hardly means that someone can't think of fantasy as something else. People like what they like, and on this Earth we have limited time. I just don't care about anything outside my tastes. Why in God's name would I read werewolf stories if I think they're stupid? Cyberpunk? Spoon meet gag reflex. Wizarding school? Large-spoon meet gag reflex. I love that other people get into these things, but ah, hell no, not me.
It's funny to see someone disparaging castles and knights while complaining about people not "open" to other things.
On the other, I disagree with Chesterama on it stinging... people being bored by medieval settings is as natural as my being bored to frigging tears by Harry Potter and its ilk. Or, I think the Wheel of Time was a wheel of drudgery. Twilight and paranormal romance? Oh dear God, shoot me now, spoons shoved under my fingernails. Should that sting people who love those? Nope. That's just my taste, LOL.
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
No...it's not that that kind of fantasy isn't or can't be interesting. I'm referring to how many people don't seem to think of fantasy as anything else. They think that fantasy is always medieval with elves and wizards. There's nothing wrong with that, just I really appreciate variety and out-of-the-box thinking.
I never said that medieval type stories are boring or uncreative...they just might seem boring to me, lol. And that's okay because I don't have to read them.
Last edited:
DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
What I mean by disliking kings is I don't like stories that either focus on them as characters, or focus on large scale conflicts such as those between countries. I prefer my stories to be about average people who somewhat blend into the larger scheme of things. I like my conflicts to be personal, not country-sized.
Not saying a king can't have personal conflicts...I just would rather read about those on bottom than those on top.
