Modern Good Reads discussion

There's a line in "Three Amigos" where a Bandito says to his flunkie, after a string of pinatas is revealed for his birthday party, "Would you say I have a plethora of pinatas?"

I laugh at it every time.

In the world of UF, we seem to have tons of books filled with every monster imaginable: witches, warlocks, wizards, vamps, weres, fairies, and all the dark fantasy creatures you can shake a stick at.

Do readers really want a book filled with every monster conceivable? Is it too much? Overkill?

Would you say I have a plethora of monsters?

Speak up readers, would you prefer one or two types of supernatural creatures, or do you want the whole gamut with supporting cast?

I actually like a fully fleshed world. The more monsters, the better. I am not as fond of books that only focus on one type of supernatural creature and say things like "That ____ is not real."

If you are going to have vampires, why not werewolves? If you are going to have elves, why not dwarves.

Now, there is a limit. It falls along fantasy types. Elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. should be together. Don't throw a stray werewolf in there unless you can back it up. I've seen instances where it works, but on average it's just cheesy.

I see people under do monsters more often than not. It just needs to be focused on a few and it is fine.

I find most urban fantasy suffers from too many similar factions though. And often they are too repetitive.

I think it depends on the story and the background reason for having so many types of characters in the story. In example the Kate Daniels series works for me & I like all the kinds of creatures in it. Her explanation for how the world got that way is believeable (well in a fantasy sort of way...lol) Overall though I prefer a book about a specific group of creatures.

Terry Pratchett is a good example of what you are aiming for Travis :)

Awesome Three Amigos reference!

Alisa wrote: "I think it depends on the story and the background reason for having so many types of characters in the story. In example the Kate Daniels series works for me & I like all the kinds of creatures i..."

I have read a gazillion different explanations for how different races of creatures/monsters came to be. Everything from evolution to aliens to versions of creation and all things in-between.

The explanations are fascinating when done properly.

But I do question the need to bring in a large cast of monsters right out the gate in a novel. I think it might be more readily accepted if it took several novels to build that world a piece at a time.

Charlaine Harris is a good example of that. She built her world over the course of many novels. It took easily 4-5 books before we had a clear view of all the supernaturals slipping between the cracks of normal society.

I just started re-watching the Harry Potter movies last night. I love that there are so many creatures! Especially because it's such a long series. When I was reading the books, I knew I could look forward to each creature's individual lore playing into the proceedings at one point or another. Though in a single book, that is not part of a series, I could see more than two or three types of monster becoming a bit much.

I don't mind there being several types of monsters or supernaturals in a world when it makes sense. When the author takes the time to build a world where the existence of such creatures feels appropriate and logical.

What I don't like are when authors throw everything in just because they think that's what's selling today or because they "might" want to use something later. It all comes down to style. Some authors handle this sort of idea with style while others just come off like clumsy imitators.

Brian wrote: "I don't mind there being several types of monsters or supernaturals in a world when it makes sense. When the author takes the time to build a world where the existence of such creatures feels appro..."

Style has a lot to do with it. And subtlety. Even the legendary Jim Butcher has 4-5 info dumps in order to acclimatize the reader to his intricate world with all these various supernatural people/things going on.

I suspect Jim's editors probably slim his material down to the point that some subtlety is lost. Takes time to work in world building step by step. If editors don't want to give you that time in exchange for maintaining pacing, then you end up with an infodump scene to bring the readers up to speed.

The author who I respect most for bringing me into his worlds full of infinitely weird and horrific creatures/events is Dean Koontz. The man is a master at subtle world building. You never even feel it. Virtually no infodumps whatsoever. All of a sudden you find yourself deeply immersed in his strange macabre world, no clue how he brought you there.

I myself enjoy a plethora of monsters. I find it fascinating to read the descriptions authors come up with in their heads, and I enjoy trying to picture them myself. I find it makes the fantasy world more attainable for me. :)