What makes a fantasy story interesting?

[Mythopoet]

I think approaching it differently because it is fantasy is a mistake, personally.

I don't think so. The fact is that most readers chose to read particular genres (rather than reading anything they come across that seems interesting) because of the specific tropes associated with those genres. This is why genre fiction sells so much better than general fiction, in general. This is why genre exists. Because readers like certain things and they like to be able to easily find the stories that have the sorts of things they like.

Writing an interesting fantasy is very different from writing an interesting romance or an interesting mystery. Fantasy readers read fantasy for a reason. They like the conventions and tropes that are associated with fantasy. A wise author who chooses to write in a certain genre and who wants to market to readers of that genre will study the fundamentals and necessities of that genre, the tropes and conventions that make readers love it, and the expectations that readers tend to have for that genre.

Understanding your audience and developing your craft to appeal to them is a fundamental part of storytelling.

 

[Steerpike]

A wise author who chooses to write in a certain genre and who wants to market to readers of that genre will study the fundamentals and necessities of that genre, the tropes and conventions that make readers love it, and the expectations that readers tend to have for that genre.

Problem is, if you look at the genre, it's all over the board. I don't think you'll find much of anything that is necessary. No tropes or conventions that inevitably pop up. So if you can look at a genre and see, empirically, that this isn't the case, what are you left with? Personally, I care about the things I stated above. Someone can have the most awesome concept I've heard of, but if the writing isn't any good and/or the characters aren't any good, I'm not likely to read it. I'd rather read a very well done story about a family living in a farm house in Iowa than a poorly-executed story with an epic fantasy plot.

 

[Mythopoet]

Problem is, if you look at the genre, it's all over the board. I don't think you'll find much of anything that is necessary. No tropes or conventions that inevitably pop up. So if you can look at a genre and see, empirically, that this isn't the case, what are you left with?

If you look at the romance genre (note: not books that have romance in them, but actual romance novels), for instance, a happy ending where the main love interests end up together, is pretty universally considered to be necessary. Readers of romance want and expect it.

In Science Fiction, it is pretty universally considered that the story should not contradict with scientific knowledge as it is understood at the time of writing. If it does, it is pretty universally scoffed at and panned and called "fantasy".

Likewise, fantasy readers expect some type of fantastical elements when reading a fantasy book. There's a whole vast spectrum to how the fantastical can be interpreted and explored that leaves fantasy writers with an almost infinite space to work in. But I would suggest that the most basic aspect of fantasy that is necessary is that there must be some type of "otherness" that distinguishes it from the real world.

I would call these "necessary" aspects of these genres, in as much as if your work doesn't conform to these expectations, it will generally not be considered to truly represent the genre.

Someone can have the most awesome concept I've heard of, but if the writing isn't any good and/or the characters aren't any good, I'm not likely to read it. I'd rather read a very well done story about a family living in a farm house in Iowa than a poorly-executed story with an epic fantasy plot.

Well, poorly-executed is in the eye of the beholder. There are myriad examples of books I can't stand, books that according to my standards are very poorly written and told, that are massively successful because they hit the genre conventions that readers want.

I would suggest that most genre readers are not like you. Most readers of genre want certain things from their reading experience and value those things above "writing quality" most of the time. Again, this is why genres exist to categorize fiction. Because most readers want to read about some things and not others. I don't want to read romance novels. I don't want to read thrillers. I want to read fantasy.

 

[Svrtnsse]

@Steerpike: I get the feeling that you're focusing more on the word story, than on the word fantasy in the question. I'm not saying you're in any way wrong about what makes a story good/interesting, just that you may be focusing on a different part of the question.

Let's say an author writes two stories that are essentially the same as far as characters, plot and writing goes and where the only real difference is that one takes place in a fantasy setting and the other not. What would make the fantasy versions more interesting than the mundane version?
Now this is a thought experiment so let's assume that it's possible to have two such stories and that we as fantasy readers would find the fantasy version more enjoyable.

 

[Steerpike]

Likewise, fantasy readers expect some type of fantastical elements when reading a fantasy book. There's a whole vast spectrum to how the fantastical can be interpreted and explored that leaves fantasy writers with an almost infinite space to work in. But I would suggest that the most basic aspect of fantasy that is necessary is that there must be some type of "otherness" that distinguishes it from the real world.

True, but I don't consider merely having a fantastic element a trope. And I think it can be as simple as being in a world that is not the real one, even if there is no magic (and there are fantasy novels that have no magic whatsoever in them). I do think you need some aspect of the fantastic, but as you said it can be incredibly broad. To me, tropes and conventions are more specific things, and I don't think you need to follow them (although I don't mind if you do; I'm all up for a good, traditional fantasy story with all the trimmings).

I would suggest that most genre readers are not like you. Most readers of genre want certain things from their reading experience and value those things above "writing quality" most of the time. Again, this is why genres exist to categorize fiction. Because most readers want to read about some things and not others. I don't want to read romance novels. I don't want to read thrillers. I want to read fantasy.

That may be true, I don't know. I do read thrillers, and romance, and mysteries, and literary fiction, and westerns, and SF, and horror. I don't really care. I want to read a good story. I want something that interests me. Beyond that I'm open to just about anything.

 

[Steerpike]

Let's say an author writes two stories that are essentially the same as far as characters, plot and writing goes and where the only real difference is that one takes place in a fantasy setting and the other not. What would make the fantasy versions more interesting than the mundane version? Now this is a thought experiment so let's assume that it's possible to have two such stories and that we as fantasy readers would find the fantasy version more enjoyable.

I don't know. All other things being equal, would the fantasy version be more enjoyable? I'm not sure it would. In the hypothetical you're proposing, the fantasy elements have no impact on characters or plot (since the fantasy version and the mundane version are essentially the same) so I don't know that one would necessarily be more enjoyable. As I noted, above, there are very good fantasy stories without a drop of magic or fantastic creatures or any of that stuff...would they have been better if they included it? I don't think they would have.

Maybe it helps to further define fantasy down into subgenres. "Fantasy" is such a broad term, and encompasses so many different types of stories.

 

[Mythopoet]

I don't know. All other things being equal, would the fantasy version be more enjoyable? I'm not sure it would. In the hypothetical you're proposing, the fantasy elements have no impact on characters or plot (since the fantasy version and the mundane version are essentially the same) so I don't know that one would necessarily be more enjoyable. As I noted, above, there are very good fantasy stories without a drop of magic or fantastic creatures or any of that stuff...would they have been better if they included it? I don't think they would have.

Maybe it helps to further define fantasy down into subgenres. "Fantasy" is such a broad term, and encompasses so many different types of stories.

For a reader like me, who prefers the fantasy genre over any other, the fantasy version would be far more enjoyable than any other version. It is the fantasy aspects that I crave.

 

[Steerpike]

For a reader like me, who prefers the fantasy genre over any other, the fantasy version would be far more enjoyable than any other version. It is the fantasy aspects that I crave.

I like fantasy stories. But I don't think Gormenghast, which is a fantasy, would have been improved by adding magic or creatures. It would have mucked it up.

That said, however, one project I've been outlining recently is very much a traditional fantasy, where the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad. There's honor, nobility, courage, and loyalty, rather than characters of varying shades of gray where each one is a bigger bastard than the last. Not that I mind the whole "grimdark" movement. Some of my favorite authors write in that fashion. But I rather think the genre is becoming saturated with such stories, many of which seem to adopt grimdark merely for the sake of doing so. I'd like to throw some traditional tales back into the mix.

 

[Terry Greer]

Because its so broad a brush I often think fantasy is a pretty useless definition on its own.

It's become a sort of shorthand for any story with one or more of the following elements:

alternate world
magic
strange creatures
strange cultures
non scientifically plausible events

While I think this isn't one of clearest definitions it is one that is more or less assumed I'd say.
e.g.:

A time travel story could therefore have starnage creatures and cultures and non scientifically plausable events.
GOT would have most of those elements.
Harry Potter would have magic, strange creatures and strange cultures

and so on.

 

[Mythopoet]

I like fantasy stories. But I don't think Gormenghast, which is a fantasy, would have been improved by adding magic or creatures. It would have mucked it up.

Fantasy does not equal "magic or creatures". As I said above, I think the fundamental aspect of fantasy is "otherness" which transports the reader to a different reality. And as I said above, there are an infinite number of ways that aspect of "otherness" can be interpreted and explored. But I do think that to count as fantasy, there has to be some kind of "otherness" that makes the world within the work different from our world.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Fantasy does not equal "magic or creatures". As I said above, I think the fundamental aspect of fantasy is "otherness" which transports the reader to a different reality. And as I said above, there are an infinite number of ways that aspect of "otherness" can be interpreted and explored. But I do think that to count as fantasy, there has to be some kind of "otherness" that makes the world within the work different from our world.

What's a big deal to me is the escapism. The sense of it being a different world and knowing it can't be real, but feeling like it sort of is anyway.

 

[Steerpike]

As I said above, I think the fundamental aspect of fantasy is "otherness" which transports the reader to a different reality. And as I said above, there are an infinite number of ways that aspect of "otherness" can be interpreted and explored. But I do think that to count as fantasy, there has to be some kind of "otherness" that makes the world within the work different from our world.

I think this is true, but that's basically the definition of fantasy, isn't it? If it doesn't have that otherworld aspect to it, is it fantasy anymore? So to me that applies to all fantasy stories, but the OP's question is what makes a fantasy story interesting. All fantasy stories, whether interesting or not, will have this otherworld aspect in some form or another. So what makes the interesting ones good and others dull? To me, that's down to writing and characters (and maybe I'll throw in story-telling, to the extent we want to distinguish that from writing).

 

[Mythopoet]

What's a big deal to me is the escapism. The sense of it being a different world and knowing it can't be real, but feeling like it sort of is anyway.

I think that's a great way to describe fantasy.

 

[Mythopoet]

All fantasy stories, whether interesting or not, will have this otherworld aspect in some form or another. So what makes the interesting ones good and others dull? To me, that's down to writing and characters (and maybe I'll throw in story-telling, to the extent we want to distinguish that from writing).

That's a non-answer in as much as it tells the person asking absolutely nothing practically useful. What exactly constitutes "interesting writing"? What types of characters are "interesting characters"? How do you make your writing and your characters interesting?

 

[Steerpike]

That's a non-answer in as much as it tells the person asking absolutely nothing practically useful. What exactly constitutes "interesting writing"? What types of characters are "interesting characters"? How do you make your writing and your characters interesting?

That's all going to vary according to the reader. But it's no more a non-answer than simply defining the genre, is it? I could say an interesting horror story has horror elements in it, but that doesn't get us anywhere. If we assume all fantasy stories by definition include the fantastic, then what separates out the good ones from the bad ones? That's going to vary from individual reader to individual reader, so I can only comment on what separates them for me, and it's the elements I stated above. Within those confines, I have a wide range of variation that I'm willing to accept, so there's no single answer, even for me.

That's a problem inherent in trying to quantify this sort of thing. It just can't be done if you're trying to talk about readers as some sort of monolithic group. The best we can do, I think, is talk about what we and like-minded readers view as important.

 

[Mythopoet]

I agree. Which is why rather than trying to give a vague and useless answer like "characters" I emphasized how "interesting" is going to vary from reader to reader and the writer should just focus on what they themselves find interesting.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree. Which is why rather than trying to give a vague and useless answer like "characters" I emphasized how "interesting" is going to vary from reader to reader and the writer should just focus on what they themselves find interesting.

Yeah, I think this is the way to go. If you write what you find interesting, it's going to show in the writing and result in a better story. And chances are there are enough like-minded readers out there that you'll find an audience.

 

[Steerpike]

I'll add, as follow up to my last thought, that beginning writers spend way too much time asking questions like "can I do X," or "is this idea OK," or "is this overused," and so on. All counter-productive to the above.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'll add, as follow up to my last thought, that beginning writers spend way too much time asking questions like "can I do X," or "is this idea OK," or "is this overused," and so on. All counter-productive to the above.

I agree with this, but it doesn't help that there is a vocal culture out there which aggressively discourages the usage of certain tropes no matter the author's intentions.

For instance, I once saw a tumblr blog declare that any story about a European male explorer falling in love with an indigenous non-European woman, a la Pocahontas, was inherently problematic due to the higher rates of sexual assault that affect Native American women today. For what it's worth, I believe such a connection is ridiculous, but I can see how socially conscious writers might want help in navigating the minefield.

 

[Steerpike]

For instance, I once saw a tumblr blog declare that any story about a European male explorer falling in love with an indigenous non-European woman, a la Pocahontas, was inherently problematic due to the higher rates of sexual assault that affect Native American women today. For what it's worth, I believe such a connection is ridiculous, but I can see how socially conscious writers might want help in navigating the minefield.

True. But no matter what you do there will be someone to complain about it, so who are you going to listen to? If the goal is to produce something that no one is going to have a problem with, then you're also likely to produce something that no one is going to want to read.*

The Pocahontas example is a bit ridiculous, and if anyone who ever wrote such a story took it to heart they may well have been convinced not to write it.

*Assuming you're tackling these sorts of issues. You can produce something that steers well clear of the issues to begin with, I suppose.