Fantasy Book Club discussion

Hello there! Here's what's on my mind these days. It's been said that Fantasy is the purest form of storytelling. Maybe that's because it isn't hindered by convention, controversy, or modern politics and the storyteller is free to let their imagination roam. But let's face it, the genre has conventions of it's own and there are things we all expect in good fantasy. I was wondering what elements you all expect from the fantasy you read, what draws you into a story, and it takes to keep you reading.

Part 1: Literary Elements

Character - They are the basis of any story, and without them there would be nothing to write about, but what do you expect out of them? Do you want personal growth in the protagonists, or are interchangeable swordsmen and wizards enough to get the job done? Are there any character archetypes you're tired of seeing? Or maybe some we don't see enough of?

Pacing - Personally I think Tolkien's story speed was painfully slow. He spent too much time on pointless description and not enough on action and character. On the other hand, George R.R. Martin (whose pen name is shamelessly close to Tolkien's) has astounding pacing. In every chapter we see his characters grow and fall a little more in love with them, even the evil or cliche ones. At the same time, something exciting happens in every chapter, but it never feels forced. Thoughts?

Conflict - I haven't read lots of fantasy fiction to date (NOT YET! I'm working on it every day!), but I'm a little tired of the old Sauron, Shai'tan, Evil Emperor enemy. Aren't you? Again, I like Martin's villains. They're just human: ambitious, greedy and self serving. While his heroes are equally human: caring, honorable and self sacrificing. Rather than an abstract evil vs. good guys we have human struggle. What kind of conflicts have you enjoyed, in what books? Is there something you want more or less of?

Part 2: Fantasy Elements

World Building - In any story you have to create a setting, but in fantasy you need to start from total scratch. However, the majority of fantasy since Tolkien, from Narnia to The WoT, seems to be set in a magical medieval world. It's Arthurian, plain and simple. How do you feel about that? Would you like more of it, or less? Maybe a historically accurate world on with wizards/dragons/non-humans/etc? Or what largely unexplored fantasy world would you like to see more of?

Magic - It's almost always there, and really the basis for fantasy. Who has done magic the best? Tolkien's Gandalf? Harry Potter? Merlin? Are there any magical themes you'd like to see explored?

Other Races - Here it is. I freaking hate Elves and Dwarves. And Unicorns. And Centaurs. I admit, dragons (except those in Eragon) are still mind blastingly awesome. Jordan's ogier were kinda cool. Are you tired of the old stand bys too? Or should there be deeper thought put into them? And what about seeing something like vampires or other supernatural creatures in a fantasy world?

Anyway, there's my brain splattered on a comments thread. If you have any thoughts or ideas or complaints about this genre we all love, please spew them around. I'd be into anything you guys have to say. Thanks for reading!

What a very thought provoking comment. I have noticed that a lot of fantasy seems to follow Tolkien's format as if he had established the "laws" of the fantasy fiction realm (i.e., Elves are always beautiful and good, Dwarves selfish and short, etc.

My book was once critiqued early in its' infancy that everytime a main character got into a "jam" that I resorted too much to magic to get them out. (Kind of like Mr. Scott being able to beam the landing party up on the old Star Trek series whenever there was trouble) thus I dumped all the magic, elves and dwarves from my book and only dealt with humans both good and bad even though represent the main characters of the Bible (God, Lucifer, the Warrior angels and the fallen angels) and put them into a medieval realm. (Again the medieval stuff!). There is something intrinsically romantic about the renaissance/medieval period. The gowns, the chivalry - it probably all stems back to those wonderful Errol Flynn movies we loved as kids. If you did it in a contemporary setting, it loses some of its romance because men and women are so homogeneous now. Back then, men were men and women were women but current novels written in that time period are even putting women on a par with men (i.e., the Arwen character is the movie version of Lord of the Rings) brandishing a sword and daring the Ringwraiths to try and get Frodo away from her).

I suppose if you were to make up a world that wasn't contemporary or medieval-ish it would end up being Sci-Fi instead of fantasy?

Marlayne Giron
author of another one of those medieval fantasy/fictions: The Victor
www.thevictorbook.com

Though it's often considered blasphemy, I agree with what you say about Tolkien's writing, but then no one is going to edit a professor of literature. On the one hand I love the world of MIddle Earth; on the other, twenty pages of orc dialogue simply becomes tedious. I've always enjoyed the Hobbit much more.

As to magic, the lack of it in Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series adds a lot of depth to the writing. When it is introduce, it's more often talked about as legend. Fantastic creatures give way to humans in struggle, which allows me to relate to the characters all the more.

I'm a fan of Terry Brooks and his Shannara series. Brooks' strength as a writer comes from his ability to write believable characters. As a long time fan I can say without doubt that his first book in the series was taken directly from Tolkien, though from there he's managed to evolve the world into his own. I also enjoy how he treats the characters of Elves or Dwarves, humanizing them so they read more as a difference in ethnicity than of race.

Barb Hendee and J. C. Hendee did in fact write a series of vampire books based in a medieval setting starting with Dhampir (The Noble Dead). A good idea, but I didn't care for the series myself, stopping after the first book. Still, they do pretty well, so check them out if you're looking for something different. This different idea in a genre where most every thing's been done repeatedly doubtless had much to do with the books being published. I'll definitely give them credit for that.

Matt wrote: "Hello there! Here's what's on my mind these days. It's been said that Fantasy is the purest form of storytelling. Maybe that's because it isn't hindered by convention, controversy, or modern politi..."

When I first started writing, I had no idea about story-construction or literary theory in mind. I had a character and a thought to put on paper. I wrote my first sentence and said, "Now what?" I knew what I didn't like: endless description that i didn't like to read, and cliches, and anything else that was being done again for the umpteenth time. So I wrote my books with only a few general principles to guide me.
1) If you've seen it done before, don't do it again.
2) The author should be invisible. I didn't want to write what I hated to read, or spend a lot of effort visualizing it.
My interest was in the character I found in my head, what he was doing and why he was doing it. It didn't matter how I saw the world, what matters is how he sees it. So my 'descriptions' are actually his perceptions. So practically everything in the story is an action of some kind, nothing static if I could possibly avoid it. Evil was the result of the villain's actions, not the goal of them.

My plotting is pretty much accidental, as is my world-building. I get ideas in my head, from time to time, about what happens next and where he goes, but I didn't plan it out that way. To this day I have no idea where thatway trails came from, or why they collected monsters the way they did. It just seemed reasonable that the shorter the shortcut, the higher the price to be paid for using it.

I only recently used elves and trolls and whatnot for anything. I was doing a short story and needed some characters that I didn't have to spend too much time detailing. So I have elves, homicidal maniacs whose young are hated even by their parents. Trolls who speak in Elizabethan English. Yes I know, pretty standard reversals for comic effect, but the reason for this, that's where the story came in, and the woman the story was about. It's called 'Off the Map', a story about a woman dragged onto the set of Interdimensional Survivor, and these are her teammates. I just recently wrote a story as part of my latest novel, describing how he accidentally created dragons.

Magic is not something I'm interested in much, except for the way it affects my hero's life. He was a Bard, essentially, and the gods have attached magic to his every sung word. How would that affect him? How would he deal with it?

That's what matters, to me.

Elements of Fiction Writing: Plot by Ansen Dibell. This is a series, and all the books (with the glaring exceptions of voice and dialogue) are worth reading. Plot is one of the better. The author uses one of the Star Wars movies at one point to illustrate some great skills, and you'll be amazed at what was written there and specifically why.

Give it a look. I think you'd find it a valuable asset, Marc. It helped me considerably.

M.

Michael wrote: "Elements of Fiction Writing: Plot by Ansen Dibell. This is a series, and all the books (with the glaring exceptions of voice and dialogue) are worth reading. Plot is one of the better. The author u..."

I'm reading the first few pages on Amazon now, and I must the author seems to be describing the way I write, at least as far as the 'creating plots' element goes. Since everything I do is relevant to the way some character is acting, there is no wasted verbiage, which to me is what most descriptive prose is. Controlling the plot is a far more pressing issue, sometimes. It's on my wish list, that's for sure. Thanks for the tip. BTW, I have quite a few short stories as well as novels available in lots of different places. I hope you'll check them out and tell me what you think. I should add my new short stories to my profile, I guess.

Speaking as an author myself, I find that characters trump just about everything else. I say just about because if you have an incredibly crappy plot or your rhetoric just sucks, then not even the deepest characters can save your story.

Also, an incredibly wonderful little tutorial I found: http://thenaturefreak.deviantart.com/...

It is by no means professional, but it really touches on a lot of the subjects you guys have already gone over and I found it really helpful when I was suffering from Writer's block during NaNoWriMo this year.

Good fantasy should have the same elements as another other genre, only with added fantastical bits :D

By which I mean good characterisation, subtle info delivery, good pace, intriguing plot, solid writing.

And I agree that characters trump everything.

For me, good fantasy begins with the author's tone. If the author knows how to let the characters speak for themselves and not intrude on the story, that's a good start. Then of course we need a strongly drawn character to tell the story if it's first person, or to be seen doing interesting things. A good story is important. I want to believe in the characters and their motivations. I want to see a world that is internally consistent, but a bit different from the one I live in, if it's a fantasy story. And above all I want to see the language used properly, because misuse of words or inappropriate language level (e.g. lovers who speak in paragraphs and it sounds like lawyers arguing a court case) is just so distracting. I want to get into the story, feel like I'm watching from the sidelines as the hero overcomes obstacles, threats and challenges, finds the necessary resources, outgrows hangups and finally defeats her demons and gets the guy, or the gold, or her family's good name back, or whatever.

I agree with all the above and would like to add one thing: the abilty to write the inevitable combat sequences successfully. I hate the barbarian style that focuses on sword strokes and blood. I like the styles that evoke the skill of combat and create excitement and wonder.

In my opinion this style is best demonstated by Guy Kay.

While I do love post-Tolkien fantasy an over-reliance of the staples as mentioned above has caused me to slightly fall out of love with fantasy of late, as painful as it is to say. It is this desire to find fantasy that, if it doe not inverts the status quo, at least presents an alternative point of view. This is what prompted me to read Markus Heitz' The Dwarfves ' and 'The War of the Dwarves' and Stan Nicholls 'Orcs'

The only problem with them is that while they shift perspective, they don't necessarily invent anything particularly new. While The Sword of Truth by and large attempts to introduce it's own bestiary (Gars, Heart Hounds Screelings etc.) and seems to feature exclusively humans, I can't help feeling that something's missing.

I suppose, as with every genre it is difficult to completely run away from character type or featured elements, but reimaginings need to be consistent in and of themselves.

One book that I've bookmarked to read is 'Body Surfing' by Dale Peck, t seems to introduce a new fantasy creature the Mogran, and I'm curious.

It's why I lean more and more toward the Kay and Marillier historical fantasy genre. ;D I've seen all of the other stuff before even if I've never seen it.

The only time I ever used elves or dwarves was for a short story where the focus was on something else entirely, so I dragged them in as quick placeholders. To make them at least interesting I completely inverted the stereotypes. The elves were homicidal, so psychopathic as children even their parents couldn't stand them. Of course this served the purposes of the story, but it was fun to do. As I said above, I don't do things I've seen before, and I've read Tolkien and Moon, so you won't get those things from me. What you will get from me is strong characters, good dialog, an occasional touch of magic, new monsters, and a plot that unfolds as I write it. I usually had no idea what was coming until I got there.

I find it interesting that this discussion on general fantasy has confined itself to Tolkien, Martin, Brooks, etc. When the big names in fantasy I should think would be Jonathan Swift, Homer, Robert Louis Stevenson, Herman Melville, Orwell, King, etc.

For there are many types of fantasy. Horror/fantasy with everything from Edgar Allen Poe to Stephen King. SciFi/Fantasy, romance fantasy, (can you say Stephenie Meyer?)and the list goes on.

Really, when you think about it any fiction story is a form of fantasy.

But without realizing it perhaps, this thread is focusing on "Tolkienquese Fantasy." While at the same time lamenting the Tolkien traditions as tired. Which to me is like saying, "I love chocolate, I just wish there was less chocolate in it, and that it tasted more like vanilla."

I don't have a problem with using the same elements in a story. You actually can't get around that. To try would be like attempting to write a song using all original notes. Even Tolkien borrowed heavily from Morris. So it isn't so much whether there are elves and dwarves, vampires and werewolves, or aliens, it is how well you use these old, tired tropes to achieve the "holy grail trifecta of writing"--to make a reader laugh, cry and think, all in the same book.

Rowlings used every tired cliche she could find. An orphaned boy destined to defeat an evil dark lord. That should have been the kiss of death. People should have pointed to her books and rolled their eyes. Instead, there is now a theme park in Florida. Why? Because she used those old elements and themes to write a damn good story.

So, I don't think people so much hate to read the same type of story, they just hate to read bad stories. And usually books that are knock-offs of other writers (or in some cases the same writers trying to re-capture the success of the first book in sequels,) result in bad writing.

So, to answer the original post...

"I was wondering what elements you all expect from the fantasy you read, what draws you into a story, and it takes to keep you reading."

Good characters whom I like and feel for, a good plot that poses questions I want answers too, a simple setting that doesn't require note taking or a glossary in the back of the book,and a writing style that is clear and doesn't interfere with the story.

For me, it has to be believable. Could this really happen sort of thing. If it is too "out there" I lose interest.

Michael wrote: "I find it interesting that this discussion on general fantasy has confined itself to Tolkien, Martin, Brooks, etc. When the big names in fantasy I should think would be Jonathan Swift, Homer, Rober..."

Thanks for this. You're so right, IMO.

Victoria wrote: "It's why I lean more and more toward the Kay and Marillier historical fantasy genre. ;D I've seen all of the other stuff before even if I've never seen it."

I agree, I like novels that tend toward historical fantasy, especially Marillier. Have you read
Kate Elliott's Crown of Stars series? The culture in this series is based on the middle ages but with slight changes (The medieval church is headed by women instead of men). Sometimes I think authors get too ridiculous trying to create a world that is different from other fantasy books. Ultimately, it is well developed and interesting characters that draw me into a book. I guess that is a common requirement for most of us.

I really like the story to not be too far out there, like Pam said. But mainly the characters have to be well developed and believable. I can tolerate different terms and such if the story is rich enough to generate the interest to find out what they mean. Carol Berg uses different terms in the Flesh and Spirit/Breath and Bone duo, but the story is so compelling and layered that it's worth looking them up and learning them. And there aren't so many that it becomes burdensome.

Robin Hobb is one of my favorite fantasy writers and her stories have just enough magic to make them interesting. The characters are what drives her stories.

I just put aside a fantasy novel without finishing it because the characters were so two dimensional that I didn't really care what happened to them.

Michael wrote: "I find it interesting that this discussion on general fantasy has confined itself to Tolkien, Martin, Brooks, etc. When the big names in fantasy I should think would be Jonathan Swift, Homer, Rober..."


This guy knows what he's about. His books are awesome.

This is a great topic for a thread, very insightful. What makes good fantasy fiction?

1. Any fantasy book, or book in general, must have impeccable character development and just a darn good storyline. If I can't get into the book or the story is just not going in a good direction, I will likely not finish it, or I will finish the book and not pick up another from that author. I am STILL mad at Melanie Rawn for Sunrunner's Fire. I haven't finished that one.

2. Pacing. Moderate to fast pace, please. I respect Jordan's attention to detail, but there were definitely some slow spots in the WoT. However, he does a good job of balancing overall.

3. Conflict. I have no preference, really. I do like multidimensional characters, so I tend to gravitate toward characters that are not clearly good or clearly evil. No one being is perfect; please reflect in the literature. However, a good "devil" pounding is nice to read once in a while (LOTR, etc.).

4. World building. I would recommend to Matt to read a bit of Jim Butcher's Dresden Files. His books are set in modern day Chicago with all the nuances thereof--traffic, technology, Lake Michigan, Wrigley Field, etc. Urban fantasy, is the genre. I don't mind the medieval plots at all, either. Great escapism. Another series not mentioned yet is actually Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. It is fantasy but more historical fiction with a bit of fantasy/time travel thrown in. Great for anyone that likes decent romance and American history.

5. Magic. I personally think that Sanderson blows just about everyone out of the water with his creative magical systems. Check out Mistborn and Elantris, and you won't be disappointed.

6. Other races. I personally like elves. Sorry, but Legolas still gets my going, a la Orlando Bloom. :) I think that each author brings different characterization to the race of elves--no one interpretation is right. I actually suggest the Riyria Revelations as a different take on elves, although those of us reading the series have not seen a full blooded elf just yet, the "half breed" elves are more or less horribly persecuted and cow to just about everyone. Not your Tolkien elf. I also don't like vamps, but that's my personal opinion. I do think that Butcher's description and characterizations of faerie is quite the twist on what we learned from Walt Disney. Very cool.

I am new to reading and new to discussing literature, so bear with me as I fumble through this... (I have read several YA Harry Potterish books and only a handful of adult fantasy.)

I agree with your list Kathy - and if it were my list, I would add Nature somewhere near the top.

One of my favorite aspects of fantasy is nature. I really enjoy reading as the characters travel through different terrain, encounter wildlife (real or imagined), ride horses, deal with weather and day/night, etc. There's an honest, simple quality to the facets of life that involving cooking over a campfire, mending torn clothing, hunting for food, setting up shelter, etc.

Maybe I was a pioneer woman in another life! LOL.

Side note: I am reading Edding's Belgariad now and am not getting that nature aspect as much as I did in Robin Hobb's Farseer. (Of course Hobb's is in first person, other is not.. maybe that is a factor). Eddings acknowledges that aspect but kind skips past it, spending must of the time with dialogue and action.

Well, I'll have to disagree that fantasy must be Tolkienesque or that fantasy must have elves, dwarves and orcs.

I need characterization, tone, writing. No amount of action scenes or elves will replace that, nor even plotting or characters. For me, writing is still about one's manipulation of words-- or silence; one of the best writers I have read in recent years, Junot Díaz, writes with a deceptively "simple" style (when, in fact, he has said he edits a page something like fifty times). He doesn't use very complicated language, but he crafts sentences.

Characters - Yes to growth. No, I probably won't like an archetype. An ages-old hero archetype is one thing, a fantasy archetype another. That's too narrow for me.

Pacing - As long as it's not slow as Tolkien, it's introspective, and it's not padded with scenery descriptions or poor internal monologues, slow is generally fine with me.

Conflict - Really dislike black vs. white, good vs. evil, evil usurpers, etc. How about puppet governments? Let's see some of that.

World-building - Anything, as long as it's imaginative, if it's unrealistic, or if it's realistic, I prefer the environment explored in depth.

Magic - Well, I've always thought wizards and wands are kind of limp. Spells and incantations too. I've always liked Rawn's magic systems because they're so natural and creative.

It's amazing that in a genre that's supposed to revolve around imagination, the staples are mostly clones or borrowing from other works. Love historical fantasy, but that's not all.

new_user wrote: "Well, I'll have to disagree that fantasy must be Tolkienesque or that fantasy must have elves, dwarves and orcs.

I need characterization, tone, writing. No amount of action scenes or elves will re..."

You've just described all of my work, and lots of other peoples' here.

This is a little off topic, but I didn't see one for it & it is an element that bugs me tremendously. Twice recently, I've run into books that have used 'orc' in place of 'ogre'. I had thought that orcs were Tolkien's creatures only. Can other authors use them? It causes me pain. I hate to see Tolkien get ripped off. Am I just ultra sensitive to this?

Jim wrote: "This is a little off topic, but I didn't see one for it & it is an element that bugs me tremendously. Twice recently, I've run into books that have used 'orc' in place of 'ogre'. I had thought th..."

I think that cat's been out of the bag a long time. I've been seeing orcs used as evil characters for +20 years. Personally, I would like to see grues...

There is a bit on the etymology of "orc" here http://wapedia.mobi/en/Orc

I am way to lazy to go to the actual works cited, but I think it's pretty clear that Tolkien did not make up the word he just reimagined the creature. There are some great thoughts on fantasy elements including the subject of orcs on the tv tropes site http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php...
But, you can easily lose the better part of the day if you start clicking on links there.

Thank you, Jeff. Apparently Tolkien drew it from "Beowulf", so it certainly is old. Isn't that the oldest story in English literature? Well, I'm glad I asked.

For me characters are the most important element of anything that I read (SF, F, or other). From fully realized characters, with flaws intact, can come conflict which will drive the plot. I want to be able to love or hate the character... and have my feelings change about them as the story progresses and the characters change and evolve. I threw one book across the room because the main character, having experienced a major life-changing event at the end of the previous book, was still being portrayed as the whiny farm boy with nary a thought to what that event meant to him.

Authors that I feel create such believable characters are Janny Wurts, Guy Kay, R. M. Meluch, C. J. Cherryh, and a few others.

The second most important thing for me is the quality and style of the prose. In my, ahem, younger days I had no problem reading lighter fiction (and sometimes will still read such if the characters are worth it). Frankly, I wasn't finding much that wasn't. :) But today I need something a bit more challenging. Authors such as Janny Wurts and Guy Kay and the wonderfully lyrical Patricia McKillip deliver this for me. But prose is nothing without the characters.

As far as elements are concerned, world building is important. As I freely admit that I read to escape, it is important to me to feel, see, even possibly smell the world that I am visiting. If the author spends the time necessary to create the prose that can deliver such sensory input then I'm happy. I still love reading Tolkien for that very reason. I felt each place. From the serenity of Rivendell to the dank, threatening darkness of Khazad-dum, to the horror that was Mordor. On the other hand sometimes the world described can be so unremittingly grim that there's no way I really want to visit, but the author drags me there anyway. What value a world if there is no joy, no laughter, no glimmer of happiness.

I don't mind elves and orcs/goblins (or whatever terms are being used to describe what are essentially the same creatures), etc. It depends on whether the author is doing something new or just revisiting the same themes that have been done before.

Kathy, I've just started reading Jim Butcher. I'm reading Fool Moon now. He does take a few different turns on the standard approach to the things that go bump in the night.

Matt, yes, dragons are cool. Whether they are winged or not. Fire drakes, ice drakes or other. But I have a soft spot for gryphons.

As far as magic goes, I suspect that this is an integral part of what defines Fantasy as a separate genre. Science Fiction needs to be plausible. Horror can have magic but must be scary. For me the magic system has to be believable (unless you're Stephen King then it might just "stoop for the gross out"). For example, within the esoterica of our own world the number three is often held to have significance. C. J. Cherryh used this to fine advantage in her Fortress series that begins with Fortress in the Eye of Time. To paraphrase, once is accident, twice is coincidence, three times is magic. To seal a window against incursion the movement must be performed three times. That resonated with me. The magic system was believable because it was rooted in knowledge that I already possessed. That made it believable.

I wonder if it is these kinds of connections, not just with the magic system, that results in one person loving a particular book/author while another is left cold. Just in this thread some people expressed a dislike of lengthy descriptions while others embrace them as almost necessary. Why? What is it that we are looking for when we read? Is the one item I didn't address above, pacing, the most important element of all? Is it that some of us want to be moved along quickly while others prefer a more lengthy exposure to the author's creation? Or is it something entirely different and perhaps not identifiable?

"The magic system was believable because it was rooted in knowledge that I already possessed. That made it believable."

I agree, Jeff. The more a fantasy is rooted in reality (in any aspect), the more I can immerse myself. Ideally, I only have to suspend disbelief for the magic.

new_user wrote: "The more a fantasy is rooted in reality (in any aspect), the ..."

But in some cases, at least for me, that knowledge may not be rooted in what most people believe to be reality. I would guess for most people their knowledge of magic systems have been gleaned from entertainment outlets (please correct me if any of you gathered it otherwise). I spent a large part of my life investigating religions. As a child there was no formal religious training as my father did not believe in organized religion. So at age twelve for a period of two weeks I was an atheist. Then I realized that I could not make that statement as I couldn't prove it anymore than I could prove the other side. In the following thirty odd years I looked into Christianity/Judaism/Islam, Krishna Consciousness, Buddhism, Zen, Wicca, ceremonial magic, naturism, and others. So when an author uses information that I learned from those sources (some times what an author used would trigger a new direction of investigation) it makes the magic real for me within the context of the story... so long as there isn't a deus ex machina aspect to it.

Well now, some religions have a lot of magical elements in them -- in Christianity they're called miracles. Janny Wurts bases the magic she uses in the WLOS series in science - sound, light, the energy in crystals, etc., and I think that's one reason it works so well for me. It is woven into the fabric of the world she creates and thus becomes an integral part of the whole. As in 'violate the laws of nature at your peril'. There is a balance that has to be maintained, and thus the magician or sorcerer has to ask permission of the part to be used before proceeding.

Ah, thanks for clarifying, Jeff. I'm usually lenient with magic if the rest is sound, but I'm likely to be indifferent to it if it has some basis in religion. If one is looking for that, however, that type is common enough in fantasy. Me, crystals, herbs, chants, I'm likely to fall asleep.

Wow, this seems like a very good question, and I see lots of people have already made some pretty good comments. I think I'll just start by saying that the series that introduced me to fantasy was David Eddings Belgariad and Mallorean Cronics (set of five books each) and I guess I tend to always compare whatever I'm reading to those books.

So, what makes a good fantasy for me?

Characters - I think what I like the most is the general troop plot. Overdone? perhaps. But if done correctly can always be very fun. What we look for the most is not to have an entire deal of characters who we can't remember the names of. We might enjoy a book or a plot more if we can identify each of the characters, and then watch as they interact with each other. Laugh when the streetwise thief does something clever and manages to get the group out of trouble (usually trouble he himself/her herself has gotten them in.), or when the hunter and the wizard argue whether they should camp the night or continue riding or the state of the roads, or over the rations, or the clothing, or where the heck did they leave important document, bickering like housewives with each other.

It's also important to define the characteristics of the population. If there's a war going on, the townspeople will be suspicious. No matter how you look at it.

For me the most important thing is to get to know the characters, characters that have flaws, and get angry and trip in the middle of the road and get in a bad mood after two months of gruel for breakfast. I love seeing them interact, slowly at first, then with more confidence later on. The setting down around the campsite and those comments that you don't even need a said X to know who was talking.

What I like about fantasy is what a wide range of characters you can have. And so many extraordinary situations that happen to them. Those situations defines them, and we learn to love them.

I can put up with a bit of description, just as long as it is written to move the plot forward and not just to fill up space. You can describe a forest in two lines, it's not really necessary to use more UNLESS something about that forest is VERY special. And even so, each of the leaves of each tree do NOT have to be perfectly visible in my head, just a general idea is nice.

We've hashed this out and seen so many points of view here. That I think demonstrates that the idea of coming up with something like a "list of rules" about what makes good fantasy is folly. It will depend on each writer and each reader. I love a plot driven book and tend to write that way...but I have occasional run across a totally character driven book that sucks me in. By the same token in my own writing I have at least one character that tends to live a life of his own and if I try to force the character into an action or attitude that isn't "natural" it just doesn't work.

Fantasy is fantasy from J.R.R.Tolkien and C.S.Lewis to Philip Pullman and Mike Carey fantasy comes in all flavors, colors, shapes, and sizes and I think we all love it that way.

I think I agree with you, Kailly, except for the troop bit. I tend to dislike those because an author doesn't have time to explore all those characters in depth so they will all be superficially characterized. That's not really satisfactory to me.

Or they get used to fill stereotype slots. The Phule books by Robert Asprin were pretty bad that way.

I agree, Sarah! :)

Sarah wrote: "I agree with many of the sentiments posted here. I would add a bit more (forgive me if this has been talked about before).

I like it when a fantasy series uses the "fantasy" setting to challenge..."

Those are my sentiments exactly. I have always thought that fantasy was the best venue for discussing serious topics in a way where the reader could see them in action without feeling he was being lectured, or his eyes glazing over. When I started writing, it was because of a concept I learned about in a philosophy class. I took it and used it in a place where it could be real.
The Flame in the Bowl: Unbinding the Stone
A Warrior Made

Sarah- Some interesting points. I also like fantasy that challenges the traditional fantasy settings and elements. Jeff VanderMeer's works in Ambergris and China Mieville's New Crobuzon are some of my favorites. I also like David Anthony Durham's Acacia: The War with the Mein and The Other Lands. I think anyone who dismisses fantasy as silly genre work has not taken the time to look at some of the really great work that is being published.

Sarah wrote: "I agree with many of the sentiments posted here. I would add a bit more (forgive me if this has been talked about before).

I like it when a fantasy series uses the "fantasy" setting to challenge..."

Hi, Sarah, and welcome to the FBC. I just can't help myself from promoting my favorite books. Based on everything you wrote, I really think you would enjoy the series being discussed in several thread-groups here -- The Wars of Light and Shadow, by FBC author/member Janny Wurts. She never has a static character. Even her minor characters develop and the major ones evolve hugely. Plus, she addresses many of the Really Big Themes through the lens of the fantasy genre. I bet you'd like her books a lot.

One of the things I don't really like about fantasy (and I guess it can also be applied to other genres) is when one chapter focuses on a set of characters and the next tells you the adventures of the other half of the group that's halfway across the world. It's not that I think that group is less important (except on counted occasions), it's just that I was interested in what was happening in ONE group. To me it breaks the flow, sometimes it even makes me want to stop reading when, if it had continued I wouldn't have imagined of putting the book down.

I know that sometimes it's necessary, and that maybe after reading three paragraphs of the 'new' place, the 'new' situation, once I've adapted, found where I was left the last time the 'scene changed', then I might start enjoying it again. Or maybe not. Maybe I skim read the chapter because what was happening on the other side was much more interesting.

In my second novel A Warrior Made, I had three separate parties that were doing their own things as parts of the story. In each chapter I would tell what was happening to each of them during that chapter's time frame. Towards the end it got to the point that the actions of one group would somehow overlap onto the ctions of another group, until they all came together toards the end and finished the story together.

Kailly - I know what you mean. There have been several books where I'm far more interested in one set of goings-on that another, and often want nothing more than to get back to one set while reading about another.

Sometimes there are so many different sets of characters and points of view that it's even worse, because then you can never even really settle on a favorite, because you don't see any for long enough for it to really sink in.

Kailly, I agree that it is annoying when the action rotates between the groups of characters. HOWEVER, it is nessecary for the reader and the plot. I don't mind it when every couple of chapters we see the other half, but this can't happen EVERY chapter. we lose our place by switching so often. The ones I really like are the ones that switch character sets once or twice in the novel, like you get in longer series.

Heather wrote: "Kailly, I agree that it is annoying when the action rotates between the groups of characters. HOWEVER, it is nessecary for the reader and the plot. I don't mind it when every couple of chapters we ..."

By the second Song of Fire and Ice this got a little tedious, as there are maybe 3 or four characters I care about (and most of them are Direwolves, ha). And each chapter of those books is a different character.

Kailly wrote: "One of the things I don't really like about fantasy (and I guess it can also be applied to other genres) is when one chapter focuses on a set of characters and the next tells you the adventures of ..."

Kailly - I agree, when the shifts appear to be random. If the author is skilled enough to weave the alternate character scenes so that their thrust applies directly to the main conflict, and the angle of interest to the original character's plot is apparent. That helps me find my footing.

My peeve button screams when the 'action' reverses - and the next scene goes back in time to show what the other faction has been doing - books that time loop bug me the most.

In the course of my book, one character will be thinking about something, and in the next section, a related character finds himself wondering why he's thinking about the same thing. Or a major cataclysmic event here in one scene will be detected by characters over there in the next.