What are your aesthetic or concept preferences for novels?

[Demesnedenoir]

Fantasy adventures, yeah, those are just a lot of fun. Indiana's first few flicks were awesome, I recall getting pre-opening tickets to Temple of Doom when I was... young... awesome stuff. Back in my youth, Piers Anthony had a bunch of just plain fun novels. Good stuff.

OMG Deme you are on a roll today.

I love prophesy stories for the same reason I love mysteries or treasure hunt stories... the clues!! Oh my gosh, nothing makes me more excited than being given a few clues and trying to figure out what they mean. I love when a prophecy is abstract, and then by the end, it means something totally different then what I originally thought, or a new twist in wordplay changes the direction entirely.

Honestly, those are my favorite stories. Favorite. Hands down.

Which brings me to another of my favorite examples of 'fantasy'... Indiana Jones types stories!

I love goofy fantasy adventures like Indiana Jones, or The Mummy, or Lara Croft...

 

[Heliotrope]

Yeah, Piers Anthony is awesome. I sort of miss that style. The fun, didn't take itself too seriously style. A style when you could still have sacrificial virgins being rescued by muscle bound adventurers without it being politically incorrect.

 

[Chessie]

I volunteer to be rescued by Harrison Ford any day. Carry on. *whistles*

 

[Demesnedenoir]

More back to the original intent of this thread... I was just perusing Netflix and certain things just make me say "no" and I suspect they would carry over to novels. If the summary involves:

Vampires, werewolves, super heroes, or zombies... or worse, more than one of the above, I'm pretty much done. I just can't even get into Walking Dead, and it's good... I just can't do these anymore, burnt out.

 

[skip.knox]

My preferences are more ... I dunno ... generic, I guess. Give me a hero who is in some way interesting. A supporting cast that moves me--makes me laugh or cry or wring my hands. I'm less interested in villains per se; just set before the hero obstacles that are interesting to me and challenging for the hero ("hero" here is independent of gender, race, religion, etc.). I didn't sign up for the antagonist's story, I signed up for the protagonist's story. But the opposition has to be worthy of the hero and of the plot and theme.

Give me a setting that contributes to my love of being swept away. This is why I don't care for "literary" novels. Real life bores me. Take me elsewhere, elsewhen. And if the writing itself is beautiful, that's just pure, delicious icing.

Almost any sort of literature can do these things. Tolstoy does this. Joseph Conrad does this. But when a fantasy author can hit all the bases, that's just plain magical, and that's not a pun. Le Guin. Tolkien. Moorcock. Bradbury (and consider, for a moment, the role of villains in Bradbury's works).

When everything clicks, great fantasy literature resonates more deeply with me than does any other form of literature.

 

[Chessie]

My preferences are more ... I dunno ... generic, I guess. Give me a hero who is in some way interesting. A supporting cast that moves me--makes me laugh or cry or wring my hands. I'm less interested in villains per se; just set before the hero obstacles that are interesting to me and challenging for the hero ("hero" here is independent of gender, race, religion, etc.). I didn't sign up for the antagonist's story, I signed up for the protagonist's story. But the opposition has to be worthy of the hero and of the plot and theme.

Give me a setting that contributes to my love of being swept away. This is why I don't care for "literary" novels. Real life bores me. Take me elsewhere, elsewhen. And if the writing itself is beautiful, that's just pure, delicious icing.

Almost any sort of literature can do these things. Tolstoy does this. Joseph Conrad does this. But when a fantasy author can hit all the bases, that's just plain magical, and that's not a pun. Le Guin. Tolkien. Moorcock. Bradbury (and consider, for a moment, the role of villains in Bradbury's works).

When everything clicks, great fantasy literature resonates more deeply with me than does any other form of literature.

+1 My husband and I were talking about Dostoyevsky and Hugo last night. We agreed that their novels are absolute masterpieces...but nothing strokes the fires within our hearts like fantasy (for me) and post-apocalyptic (for him). Literary fiction has its place in the fiction world. Some of the best books I've read have been literary. Except for the Scarlet Letter but that's another discussion entirely. I do find some literary works interesting but I rather read genre fiction for the simple fact that I read to be entertained. Given a choice between a literary classic and a fantasy...guess what I'm choosing.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I believe this may be relevant to the topic of discussion (though maybe not the actual original topic): Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Path of a Hero

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I believe this may be relevant to the topic of discussion (though maybe not the actual original topic): Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Path of a Hero

Heeheehee...

 

[Caged Maiden]

This is fun...

I LOVE "every person" characters and I hate superman characters.

I'm neutral about talking animals.

I dislike D&D-type settings and characters. If I get the slightest whiff of a "class" or "alignment"...I'm outie. (I did however write a paladin...but "paladin" is a thing from nursery rhymes in my world, and he's both a soldier and a religious fanatic, so...he wants to be a paladin). I promise, it's more interesting than it sounds right now

I also love religious antagonists. I use both organized religion and cultists as antagonists, and of the two, I think the religious leader of the organized religion is the stronger. Of course, those two things are set in different worlds/ novels, so I have time to rewrite the cultists with more flair. HA.

I hate mention of eye and hair colors so much I rarely mention them at all and it makes me sigh whenever I read them in books. And I could group skin colors into that category, too. I purposefully never mention skin colors, other than saying that a shadow fell over someone's face, or that they were hard to see in the darkened alley. Mostly, because I want a reader to be able to picture whatever they like when they read. My characters could be any skin tone, with a huge range of feature colors, because I tend to describe tone and texture, and leave out color unless it's critical to the story (which is rare). I don't find it distracting if it's a brief mention in a story, but if it's outlandish, it's an immediate immersion-breaker for me. And I have a purple-black mohawk right now...

I don't like humanoid races, especially if they feel like hobbits, argonians, or orcs. I do write a few elves, but I think a more true description would be dryads. I write werewolves and dragons, but don't have a ton of other magical creatures. Pixies, which are carrion-eating pests found in only the wildest places, and once, risen corpses (including dragons). I guess that leads into my next thing...

I don't write monsters because most of my stories take place in towns. I like Historical urban stories. Not modern, but somewhere between the Renaissance and Steampunk. Yeah, that's my thing. So...I hate historical inaccuracy with a passion, and so most of the misinformation in "medieval" settings really makes me put books down. I choose to write a later period because I think they offer more of what I'm looking for. More personal independence for the characters, more opportunity to write about concepts and issues that are pertinent today, and I can use all my weird knowledge to deepen my work and character experiences.

Speaking of nerdy knowledge, I also like to read about things I didn't know. Those moments last with me for ever, I guess. I also like to write them into my books. Good fun.

I'm a sucker for love stories, so every book I write has a love story accompanying the adventure. I don't mind reading stories that don't include romance, but it's my preference. However, I expect a sort of realistic progression. If I have to sit through endless pining, and a couple stolen kisses is supposed to satisfy my need for resolution, there had better be an awful lot of deep moments and emotional gratification attached to the relationship. Not that I expect stories to turn erotic...but I do feel like a balance needs to be reached. I also appreciate romance that unfolds slowly and focuses on friend-love in the end, or letting go, or setting a bird free and having it return. I mean, those are all splendid concepts that can be magical and emotional..and there's no sex. But whatever it all ends up as, I need to have that expectation along the way. A turn for the erotic when you're reading what feels like a light-hearted adventure rife with sexual tension...well, it doesn't feel right, I suppose.

I avoid stories about saving the world, and prefer stories about the human condition.

I enjoy both quick reads and books that are beautifully written and complex.

I don't tend to write weapons or fighting, but when I do, I have swords, bows, guns, magic, war horses, randomly grabbed objects...I like it all equally, I suppose. Whatever's right for a scene. And I agree, swords get boring, but that's mostly because most fights I've read were done in books that had D&D themes, and it all felt sort of choreographed and impractical--swinging 20-pound swords around and lopping heads off monsters. In my favorite books, there is little actual fighting, and no one's great with any weapon. In most of the books I write, it's pretty much the same. Some fist fights, a little bit of sword play or the drawing of a pistol...and maybe a werewolf tearing someone up. HA! I much prefer arguing to fighting, anyways. I'm a sword-fighter, so I guess I avoid it a little because I worry I might overdo it if I'm not careful.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

This is fun...

I LOVE "every person" characters and I hate superman characters.

I'm neutral about talking animals.

I dislike D&D-type settings and characters. If I get the slightest whiff of a "class" or "alignment"...I'm outie. (I did however write a paladin...but "paladin" is a thing from nursery rhymes in my world, and he's both a soldier and a religious fanatic, so...he wants to be a paladin). I promise, it's more interesting than it sounds right now

I also love religious antagonists. I use both organized religion and cultists as antagonists, and of the two, I think the religious leader of the organized religion is the stronger. Of course, those two things are set in different worlds/ novels, so I have time to rewrite the cultists with more flair. HA.

I hate mention of eye and hair colors so much I rarely mention them at all and it makes me sigh whenever I read them in books. And I could group skin colors into that category, too. I purposefully never mention skin colors, other than saying that a shadow fell over someone's face, or that they were hard to see in the darkened alley. Mostly, because I want a reader to be able to picture whatever they like when they read. My characters could be any skin tone, with a huge range of feature colors, because I tend to describe tone and texture, and leave out color unless it's critical to the story (which is rare). I don't find it distracting if it's a brief mention in a story, but if it's outlandish, it's an immediate immersion-breaker for me. And I have a purple-black mohawk right now...

I don't like humanoid races, especially if they feel like hobbits, argonians, or orcs. I do write a few elves, but I think a more true description would be dryads. I write werewolves and dragons, but don't have a ton of other magical creatures. Pixies, which are carrion-eating pests found in only the wildest places, and once, risen corpses (including dragons). I guess that leads into my next thing...

I don't write monsters because most of my stories take place in towns. I like Historical urban stories. Not modern, but somewhere between the Renaissance and Steampunk. Yeah, that's my thing. So...I hate historical inaccuracy with a passion, and so most of the misinformation in "medieval" settings really makes me put books down. I choose to write a later period because I think they offer more of what I'm looking for. More personal independence for the characters, more opportunity to write about concepts and issues that are pertinent today, and I can use all my weird knowledge to deepen my work and character experiences.

Speaking of nerdy knowledge, I also like to read about things I didn't know. Those moments last with me for ever, I guess. I also like to write them into my books. Good fun.

I'm a sucker for love stories, so every book I write has a love story accompanying the adventure. I don't mind reading stories that don't include romance, but it's my preference. However, I expect a sort of realistic progression. If I have to sit through endless pining, and a couple stolen kisses is supposed to satisfy my need for resolution, there had better be an awful lot of deep moments and emotional gratification attached to the relationship. Not that I expect stories to turn erotic...but I do feel like a balance needs to be reached. I also appreciate romance that unfolds slowly and focuses on friend-love in the end, or letting go, or setting a bird free and having it return. I mean, those are all splendid concepts that can be magical and emotional..and there's no sex. But whatever it all ends up as, I need to have that expectation along the way. A turn for the erotic when you're reading what feels like a light-hearted adventure rife with sexual tension...well, it doesn't feel right, I suppose.

I avoid stories about saving the world, and prefer stories about the human condition.

I enjoy both quick reads and books that are beautifully written and complex.

I don't tend to write weapons or fighting, but when I do, I have swords, bows, guns, magic, war horses, randomly grabbed objects...I like it all equally, I suppose. Whatever's right for a scene. And I agree, swords get boring, but that's mostly because most fights I've read were done in books that had D&D themes, and it all felt sort of choreographed and impractical--swinging 20-pound swords around and lopping heads off monsters. In my favorite books, there is little actual fighting, and no one's great with any weapon. In most of the books I write, it's pretty much the same. Some fist fights, a little bit of sword play or the drawing of a pistol...and maybe a werewolf tearing someone up. HA! I much prefer arguing to fighting, anyways. I'm a sword-fighter, so I guess I avoid it a little because I worry I might overdo it if I'm not careful.

We have quite a bit in common.

Your Mohawk sounds amazing. Ive been dyeing my hair for over a year...its blue right now. I keep having the urge to do crazier and crazier things with it. I kind of want to do it jet black with flame blue highlights, but I feel like it would look like dishwater after a couple weeks of showers, lol...

Your thing on skin/hair/eye colors: I like to have a clear image of what characters look like, and I like to describe my own. However, I've chosen not to describe my MC's in my current WIP other than than my heroine is short with long, dark hair and my hero has messy hair and a scruffy beard. My readers can imagine them however they want. I like it best that way.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

As a reader, I am agnostic on character descriptions, so to speak. They can be as detailed or as vague as necessary, particularly with the MC. However, if there are multiple POV characters and they come into contact, it would seem odd that the POV doesn't notice hair, or skin color if it's different. If a POV doesn't note a mohawk, or worse, a purple-black mohawk in a room full of blonds, something is wrong with that. If everybody in a room or culture is blue-skinned and black haired... a POV probably isn't going to note that about every person in the room.

So, I think it's a note not only what matters, but what makes since for the POV to notice. A character such Sherlock Holmes as a POV probably is likely to notice a lot of details about everybody, so...

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

As a reader, I am agnostic on character descriptions, so to speak. They can be as detailed or as vague as necessary, particularly with the MC. However, if there are multiple POV characters and they come into contact, it would seem odd that the POV doesn't notice hair, or skin color if it's different. If a POV doesn't note a mohawk, or worse, a purple-black mohawk in a room full of blonds, something is wrong with that. If everybody in a room or culture is blue-skinned and black haired... a POV probably isn't going to note that about every person in the room.

So, I think it's a note not only what matters, but what makes since for the POV to notice. A character such Sherlock Holmes as a POV probably is likely to notice a lot of details about everybody, so...

My POV characters will probably describe other characters. But I doubt they will describe each other. They are brother and sister, they've known each other forever, I doubt they would think it's important to note their sibling's eye color.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

True, which goes to when it makes sense. My POV's see each other for the first time, so, they note things. It makes sense.

My POV characters will probably describe other characters. But I doubt they will describe each other. They are brother and sister, they've known each other forever, I doubt they would think it's important to note their sibling's eye color.

 

[spectre]

I like any plot with a complex society. I also like adventures and while dwarves and such do give me pause, I don't despise those stories. Loved the Giver and found LOTR a bit stretched out. Love Jordan but it takes some willpower to read. I hate the schtick repetitions, I don:t like to be told what I know unless in a quick dramatiic rehash.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

 

[S.T. Ockenner]

I like books to have bearded characters, representation of minorities, lots of magic, an epic feel, and non-human main characters.

 

[S.T. Ockenner]

broadsword (arming sword),

Broadsword and arming sword aren't the same thing. A broadsword is a basket hilted sword.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

My one quibble with nonhuman characters (and it doesn’t mean I won’t like them) is that no matter what a writer does they’re still written from a human perspective and therefore more human than not, no matter the quirks. It’s unavoidable. There is no way to not humanize when the writer is human. In this sense, that’s why I hesitate to write from the perspective of a character of a race so inhuman that it’s impossible to write it correctly. In my books the Edan are a sort of alien/elf being, and while I COULD write from their POV, I think it would humanize them too much. i enjoy books from nonhuman POV, but at the same time, it’s just a reskin. Now, when I was younger I was more apt to really get into the nonhuman story.

I like books to have bearded characters, representation of minorities, lots of magic, an epic feel, and non-human main characters.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Again, this is going to depend on who is defining it. There is no hard definition for these things.

I would also add that in general, saying arming sword will confuse a lot of people. The term is becoming more common, but the average reader would probably still blink and not know tif he reference. In fact, if reading a fantasy book and I come across the term broadsword I’m not going to assume a basket hilt. If it’s a sword collector using the term, then I am more likely to think that way, LOL.

Broadsword and arming sword aren't the same thing. A broadsword is a basket hilted sword.

 

[S.T. Ockenner]

My one quibble with nonhuman characters (and it doesn’t mean I won’t like them) is that no matter what a writer does they’re still written from a human perspective and therefore more human than not, no matter the quirks. It’s unavoidable. There is no way to not humanize when the writer is human. In this sense, that’s why I hesitate to write from the perspective of a character of a race so inhuman that it’s impossible to write it correctly. In my books the Edan are a sort of alien/elf being, and while I COULD write from their POV, I think it would humanize them too much. i enjoy books from nonhuman POV, but at the same time, it’s just a reskin. Now, when I was younger I was more apt to really get into the nonhuman story.

Well, no.
1. You could write their psychology as different then a human's
2. Having functioning similar to a human's does not make them human. Nonhuman simply means that their species is not human. It has nothing to do with how "human" they are as a character. I find that most humans tend to equate any characteristics of a person to something human-centric, which I find egotistical on our part. Being a person does not make one "humanized".

 

[Demesnedenoir]

We will have to agree to disagree, and it’s a quibble. But, a human cannot write outside of a human psychology as far as i’m concerned, but we’d run into definitions here as well. No matter how hard a human might imagine life from a feline point of view, we cannot. I loved Tad Williams’ Tailchaser’s Song, but... it’s a human imagining the POV of a cat. It isn’t egotistical. it’s more egotistical to think we CAN think as nonhumans. I love that in nature movies. These narrators have no idea what the hell a lion is thinking. Of course humanoids have a wide latitude, which is why I write from the POV of various peoples, and they are “humanized” to one degree or another, but if I want a people to remain foreign and alien, I stay out of their head. In truth, it’s possible to argue that not only can you not write from a nonhuman’s perspective, but you are unable to write from any other human’s perspective. The moment you assign a motivation to any living being, you are interpreting through your own human perspective as influenced by your culture and personal experience. Even writing from the POV of some cultures on Earth... heck, some of those are more alien than a helluva lot of nonhuman cultures in books.

Serial killers are more alien than most aliens. Why did that guy kill that woman? The normal human brain might come up with all kinds of motivations. Heck, we’re pretty much hard wired to do so, but when asked the killer might say something like “her shoes turned me on”. Whoa! I (literally) can’t imagine being turned on by a pair of shoes, let alone that motivating murder.

Well, no.
1. You could write their psychology as different then a human's
2. Having functioning similar to a human's does not make them human. Nonhuman simply means that their species is not human. It has nothing to do with how "human" they are as a character. I find that most humans tend to equate any characteristics of a person to something human-centric, which I find egotistical on our part. Being a person does not make one "humanized".