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

You have a duty to your genre.

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I think maybe questions about having a "responsibility" in your work is more of an issue for people who are at the top of the industry and have gained a lot from their work in the genre, and who are actually in a position to have an impact on the industry with their work moving forward. At least then it makes sense to ask the question. For example, if I was heading up Wizards of the Coast, makers of D&D and MTG, it might be fair to ask, "Is our work holding back the genre? Can we find ways to push it farther within what we're doing?" I don't mean to imply an answer, just that the question is fair to ask at that point.

For most of us, though, it seems like a lot to push some sort of social responsibility onto people who are still trying to get a handle on what they're even doing.

That said, even just a different angle can make a world of difference. For example, "Pushing the genre is a good way to develop work that stands out from the slush pile..."
 
Sorry, but I'm going to respectfully diasagree.

Now, it's always, IMHO, a good thing to push the boundaries and push your skills, but I don't think anyone must do anything but write an honest story.

Sometimes that story may expand horizons. Sometimes that story may tread on familiar ground. All that matters is that it's the author's story and that they tell it in a truthful manner.

Sometimes the simplest stories that are told well and tread over familiar ground are the most powerful and touch the most people.

Everything has been done before, but everyone already brings something unique to the table and that's their voice. Their personal views of the world based on their personal experience colours a story and is what makes that story unique to them.

Not every chef needs to be a gourmet chef. Not every meal needs to be a gourmet meal. Sometime all I want is a sloppy Big Mac, not steak and frites.
Yeah!
 
I've heard a lot of people mentioning "voice" as their thing to bring to the table. I agree! You don't have to change the way your genre works to change the genre! The simple use of first person in Patrick Rothfuss sets "The Name of the Wind" apart!
 
Sanderson, proper magic systems? Hell, just further ripoffs of house ruled RPG games, LOL. Don't get me wrong, Sanderson is fine, but the idea these people brought us these three things is amusing.
I guess what I'm saying is that these people brought their own take on these things, and that's how they changed the genre.
 
Almost everyone has a desire for something new and a desire for something old--both simultaneously.

Personally, I think of this as a part of the human condition. We want both, old and new.

But how these are divided and defined and accomplished may be very particular for any given individual.

I do suspect that putting the whole burden on genre (however defined) may be where the OP goes astray. Newness can be achieved in other ways than bending or bursting genre.
 

Chessie2

Staff
Article Team
Human condition indeed.
It's got to be a little bit new or we'll get bored, but it can't be too different or we'll get uncomfortable.
Which is why it confuses me when writers get anxious about something being cliche. It strikes me that many writers don't really know the difference between a trope and a cliche. Tropes are a necessary means of communication with readers--it's how they understand our ideas. Cliches are lazy.

Trope: orphan hero who goes from nothing to saving the world.
Cliche: orphan hero who saves the world by using a sword & being a Mary Sue.

Totally okay to use a sword, but an individual spin on the orphan trope would be:

-orphan hero who uses a sword AND wields magic that is unusual
-orphan hero who is a werewolf
-orphan hero who is a vampire
-orphan hero who lives in a medieval setting who uses magic, a sword, AND does xyz

When writers want to bust genre and bring something new to the table, they are usually lacking in understanding how powerful genre and tropes really are. Use them to your advantage. No one can write a story the way you can, so already it is unique. Genre provides boundaries that give your story a purpose, that give it structure. Bend at your own risk.
 

Corwynn

Troubadour
Much like the late C.S. Lewis, I write the sorts of stories I would like to have read when I was younger (and still would). If I can accomplish this by stepping outside of established genre conventions, I will. If I wish to tread familiar ground to do so, I will. I agree that a certain amount of originality is the obligation of the author, but it is really no more than is necessary to avoid plagiarism.

Some people want great art that will challenge and stimulate them. Others just want a nice piece of kitsch to brighten up the living room. One can and should be free to cater to either taste, but your own should come first and foremost.
 

Laurence

Inkling
I think the current genres likely cover everything and most stories likely cross at least three genres.

That being said, the idea that if you’re writing fantasy you should stick to existing tropes is pretty questionable.

For me, the whole beauty of fantasy is that you can invent new environments, objects, cultures and creatures, so why wouldn’t you?

I’m not looking to do anything gimmicky for the sake of a trending book, but if I can create my own large destructive monster rather than a dragon then I will definitely do so. I prefer writing a creature that the reader has to picture in their own head rather than imagining, say, Smaug.

Opportunities for creativity should be taken in my opinion and that’s what will help the genre.

You do need a sweet plot and characters but I’d assume that’s a given.
 

TheKillerBs

Maester
For me, the whole beauty of fantasy is that you can invent new environments, objects, cultures and creatures, so why wouldn’t you?

I’m not looking to do anything gimmicky for the sake of a trending book, but if I can create my own large destructive monster rather than a dragon then I will definitely do so. I prefer writing a creature that the reader has to picture in their own head rather than imagining, say, Smaug.

Opportunities for creativity should be taken in my opinion and that’s what will help the genre.
I have a problem with the attitude that just because you can do it that means you should. What would you gain from designing a large, destructive monster instead of using an existing one? Is it just the sake of "creativity"? If so, that seems like a waste of time and page space. To me, creating a new monster (or other story element) should be done for the sake of the story, because the new monster brings something to the story than just to be different.
 
I have a problem with the attitude that just because you can do it that means you should. What would you gain from designing a large, destructive monster instead of using an existing one? Is it just the sake of "creativity"? If so, that seems like a waste of time and page space. To me, creating a new monster (or other story element) should be done for the sake of the story, because the new monster brings something to the story than just to be different.
Yeah, Exactly. In fantasy, you can write new things, but you can put twists on old things, too. They often have the same effect.
 

Malik

Auror
Martin brought us realism.

No, he didn't. He brought us a painstakingly detailed world that clings to its own internal logic. There is a massive difference.

What are you bringing to the table?

Actual realism.

My goal was to do for knights in armor what Tom Clancy did for the nuclear submarine. During the time I was learning to write, I also spent well over a decade learning to do a lot of the things in my fantasy world myself, albeit it sometimes at risk to life and limb: swordsmanship, martial arts, stunts on horseback, blacksmithing, traveling to Europe to pace off castles and ruins, building a conlang and teaching myself to speak and write it, and so on.

Later in life I joined the military and ended up in a quiet, weird corner of Special Operations that, among other things, trained with foreign militaries, including militaries in developing nations. This gave me access to a whole world of arcane knowledge: austere medicine, human tracking, how to stage a camel caravan. I've had the good fortune to live with people whose worlds were made by hand and lit only by fire, and stand shoulder to shoulder with soldiers who still believe in magic.

I took all this, and undertook to write experientially about the fantasy world I've built instead of just explaining it. The result is a reading experience that I'm told crosses the line from suspension of disbelief into plausible deniability. Reviewers use words like "authentic" and "believable," and I have readers who have contacted me to ask if it's all real.
 

Malik

Auror
I've heard a lot of people mentioning "voice" as their thing to bring to the table. I agree! You don't have to change the way your genre works to change the genre! The simple use of first person in Patrick Rothfuss sets "The Name of the Wind" apart!

The Name of the Wind is written in framed narrative, which is omniscient third person with encapsulations in first. Frankenstein is the granddaddy of framed narrative, if you would like more reading in that particular voice.
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
And Name of the Wind sucked... just saying. Name of the Rose... much better... More power to Rothfuss having success and people loving his stuff, but I just can't read it. I went out and bought a paperback copy just so I could throw the thing without breaking my ipad... okay, just kidding.

The Name of the Wind is written in framed narrative, which is omniscient third person with encapsulations in first. Frankenstein is the granddaddy of framed narrative, if you would like more reading in that particular voice.
 

Malik

Auror
I loved The Name of the Wind. I haven't ruled out doing the final book of this first series in framed narrative just to shake things up.

The-Simpsons-3x12-I-Married-Marge.jpg
 

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
Too funny, I can't make it past page 150-200 area and I've tried on several occasions just to see if I can find what people like. It has nothing to do with the framed narrative so much... I think he writes better in 1st than 3rd, frankly. His 3rd is pedestrian at best. The story and characters just don't interest me one blip. In fact, they go to the negative interest for me, to the point I just don't like them, and don't care.

But that's the beauty of varied tastes. I mean I'm sure there're some nutcases out there who don't like the Name of the Rose, who can dislike William of Baskerville? I mean, come on...

I loved The Name of the Wind. I haven't ruled out doing the final book of this first series in framed narrative just to shake things up.

The-Simpsons-3x12-I-Married-Marge.jpg
 

Hallen

Scribe
Genre is just a label. It's a label used to categorize, usually in very general terms, what your story is from a marketing standpoint. "Urban Fantasy" didn't exist when I was first reading fantasy. Neither did Steam Punk. Those labels came into being once enough authors had success with stories of that type.

Write your story using the elements that you want.
 
Top