Fantasy literary conventions

[Thrud]

This thread is for a discssion that originally began on the Dresden Files thread, and began derailing it a little, so we started up a new thread to continue the discussion.

Edit- Oops, the original thread, was called 'where's the love of jim butcher - A Turn Coat thread' who is the author of the Dresden Files, and Turn Coat is the name of the latest book in the series, so if you didn't know that then I apologize.

Another Edit - If you want to chime in on a different Fantasy literary convention, please feel free. The thread started with a Dresden Files related discussion but is open to going anywhere that the general topic of Fantasy Literary Conventions can take us.

[Joran]

This thread is for a discssion that originally began on the Dresden Files thread, and began derailing it a little, so we started up a new thread to continue the discussion.

I wasn't in the Dresden Files thread, so maybe you can elaborate the OP a little more.

My favorite fantasy literary convention is "Empire is evil, Kingdom is good". Almost every Empire I've seen has your typical helmet-wearing, stormtrooper-ish elite guard who like to kick puppies and shoot civilians.

Kingdoms are a little more mixed, but most of the time you have your dashing commoner who gets in the good graces of the benevolent ruling family.

[Thrud]

Wait. Character development - which may be necessary - is not the same thing as a constant power boost. Character development can consist both out of an increase of abilities as well as a decrease. There is no obligation for any direction, the only obligation of character development is that characters should constantly grow more interesting. I haven't a problem with Harry growing more confident and talented with his skills - the problem I have are the redigation of weaknesses which appeared in the plot and which were
actually quite good story telling - for the definition of a character weaknesses are at least as important as strengths and perhaps more important. The Sash arc is therefore doubly problematic for me, because I felt that the end of it actually made the character of Harry less interesting in himself and created an impression of invulnerability, when even something as dangerous as Sash has no deeper impact on it (and can be beaten by the power of friendship...).

O.K. so to continue, is it really possible, though, to have character development without any sort of power boost? And isn't overcoming flaws pretty much the definition of character development? It is not like the negation of weaknesses is happening for no reason whatsoever for Harry. Lasciel (or the part of her that was in him) gave him a fair amount of power too, so in a way losing her actually weakened him. He no longer has access to Hellfire, or the other little useful mental tricks she could do for him.

So yes, he does lose some abilities and gain other ones, but I feel that there must necessarily be a boost in power for a wizard as they gain skills. I don't think anything else really makes sense.

(As an aside here at the beginning, as you a native english speaker? If not we may make assumptions that don't necessarily hold true across a language barrier. For instance, you refer to Lasciel as Sash a lot, whereas she is usually abreviated Lash. Is this a language difference here, or simply a difference in abbreviations? Might make sense to know right up front. I am a native english speaker, with a miserable talent for learning other languages. I have lived in Spain, Africa, and France, and yet I still have no more than a few words in any of those languages. And I spent a lot of time in Austria and Germany, and have very little German either. However, I do like to think I have a few more insights into other cultures than the average american does.)

[Thrud]

I wasn't in the Dresden Files thread, so maybe you can elaborate the OP a little more.

O.K. sorry about that, I wanted to get the thread started whilst I took a little more time getting a post up and running.


My favorite fantasy literary convention is "Empire is evil, Kingdom is good". Almost every Empire I've seen has your typical helmet-wearing, stormtrooper-ish elite guard who like to kick puppies and shoot civilians.

Kingdoms are a little more mixed, but most of the time you have your dashing commoner who gets in the good graces of the benevolent ruling family.

Now then, that is one that I hadn't thought about before, but in a way it makes a bit of sense, from a historical perspective. Empires exist by taking over soverign states and forcing them to conform to ideals that are not their own. So naturally there will be those discontented who will want to separate themselves from the Empire. So in a way the 'Evil Empire' is one of the easiest to support 'big bad enemy'.

[Telonius]

O.K. so to continue, is it really possible, though, to have character development without any sort of power boost? And isn't overcoming flaws pretty much the definition of character development?

Depends on how small you define "power boost." Would, "Character stops acting quite so stupidly as he did before," count?

There are also some very good examples where character's loss of power, or development of flaws, is the crux of the development. (Exhibit A: the entire Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader storyline in Episodes 1-3). Character Development is a chronicle of change. Change can be for the better, or for the worse. In tragedies, it's usually for the worse.

[snoopy13a]

O.K. so to continue, is it really possible, though, to have character development without any sort of power boost? And isn't overcoming flaws pretty much the definition of character development?

Overcoming flaws is a form of character development. However, gaining flaws is another form. Other forms are the creation, development or loss of relationships.

A warrior may not become a greater warrior from a raw fighting perspective over the course of a novel but he/she may fall in love, develop a more unselfish attitude, obtain a greater understanding of the world, etc.

[Thrud]

O.K. to fill in those of you who weren't in the original thread, Satyr was a little displeased with the fact that there is essentially a 'power creep' in the Dresden files, part of which is that the character has lost several flaws that he 'acquired' in a couple of other books. (He burned his left hand into, essentially, a claw, then discovered that it is slowly but inexorably healing due to the innate abilities of a wizard - they will eventually heal perfectly from virtually any injury. Not necessarily any faster, they aren't like wolverine, they just will heal eventually. He also had an echo of a fallen angel inside of his mind, who eventually destroyed herself to save him.) And all of this happens whilst the character does continue to grow in power and skill.

So Satyr doesn't like the 'power creep' whereas I think it is necessary, especially bearing in mind that this is now an 11 book series that spans 5 or 6 years of time, possibly a little more. (there is usually 6 months to a year between each of the books) And during much of that time the Red Court of the Vampires has been at war with the White Council of Wizards. So, I tend to feel that if there weren't a 'power creep' then that wouldn't be truthful character development.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.

:smallbiggrin:

[MeklorIlavator]

Actually, I think it's supposed to happen over 10 years, as the latest book mentions Storm Front happened over 10 years ago or something. A long time for someone directly involved in a war to stagnate.

[Jorkens]

Now then, that is one that I hadn't thought about before, but in a way it makes a bit of sense, from a historical perspective. Empires exist by taking over soverign states and forcing them to conform to ideals that are not their own. So naturally there will be those discontented who will want to separate themselves from the Empire. So in a way the 'Evil Empire' is one of the easiest to support 'big bad enemy'.
Although the ideals by which a kingdom is run tend to be the ideals of the king and his mates, which tend to involve taxing the peasantry to within an inch of their worthless lives and having a big party and hence don't tend to be precisely the ideals of everyone living in the kingdom...

[Thrud]

Although the ideals by which a kingdom is run tend to be the ideals of the king and his mates, which tend to involve taxing the peasantry to within an inch of their worthless lives and having a big party and hence don't tend to be precisely the ideals of everyone living in the kingdom...

Yeah, but you can argue that they were raised in that state, and if they don't live in the information age they would have no idea that anything different was even possible.

Of course, if we are talking Sci-Fi here, and it is an information age, any ruthless kingdom would have such a lock on information that they might as well not have any access to outside information anyway.

The point being that when you force people to change what they have thought was the right way to do things, even if the way you show them is better (whatever that might mean) then there will be those who are discontented with the change.

Just look at the 3rd ed vs 4th ed debates.

:smallbiggrin:

(Please note that previous statement should in no way be construed as either for or against 4th ed. It was merely a comment that people tend to have differing opinions about change. I really don't want to get THOSE debates started up again.)

[Satyr]

What annoyed me in the Dresden Files was that the protagonist did not only grew in power, he also collected the scars and negative consequences for his actions - which were then taken aback again.
Developing both good and bad events for a character is a necessary tool of storytelling to create a multi-facetted plot, because generally speaking, weaknesses are more interesting than strengths. A weakness usually includes a plot hook of how to deal with this drawback. Flawless characters are not interesting.
The backpaddling on the issues of these weaknesses was a bad idea, because it made the character less interesting. And in a completely character-focused story, like the Dresden files, it is generally a bad idea to take interesting stuff away from the character, no matter if the interesting stuff is good or bad. Minimizing the flaws of a character is just the more common version of this, and probably the worse one - again, flawless characters are not interesting.

Now, there are also great stories where the protagonists do not grow in power, knowledge or character, even when it takes place in several volumes. The Locke Lamora novels or The First Law trilogy are two quite new (and I think quite good) fantasy stories that use exactly this non-development as a major issue of the plot.

[MeklorIlavator]

I don't know. So far, the only thing that's really been taken back with out consequence is his hand, and that's only in the long term. All the other ones have either been a trade-off(sure, he lost Lash, but by that point she was becoming more of an ally, and in any case he also lost Hellfire and all the things she gave), or...I can't really think of any other real drawbacks that he's lost. Plus there seem to be other consequences with the disappearance of Lash.

And it's less that there are multiple volumes, and more that they occur over multiple years. Oh, and that the magic system favors canniness/experience over power, so obviously as you gain more experience, you gain more power.

[Thrud]

Yep, I still tend to agree with Meklor's rather succinct analysis.


Now, there are also great stories where the protagonists do not grow in power, knowledge or character, even when it takes place in several volumes. The Locke Lamora novels or The First Law trilogy are two quite new (and I think quite good) fantasy stories that use exactly this non-development as a major issue of the plot.

Now to look at one of the other series you have mentioned, Lies of Locke Lamora is an excellent series (well, the 2 that are out so far) But is it necessarily fair to compare the power creep concept to that particular series? Harry is a Wizard, Locke is a thief. Locke moves on to bigger and badder attempts at theft, just as Harry has moved on to greater and greater uses of magic. The differences don't seem to be as large with Locke because he isn't a Wizard, and let's face it small changes in power to a wizard are larger absolute changes in power.

It also isn't all that fair to compare a duology to a series of 11 when comparing power creep. I would say that in the dresden files the power creep isn't even noticeable until at least book 6 or 7, possibly several books after that. And at that point the power creep is just Harry deciding that he has been rather stupid to rely on what he has always relied on when he is now in a state of pretty much constant battle, so he really starts to buckle down to fixing his problems.

The other series you mentioned I have not yet read (I have book 1 in my stack 'o books) and will hopefully be more able to comment on it in a while.

[Satyr]

I don't know. So far, the only thing that's really been taken back with out consequence is his hand, and that's only in the long term. All the other ones have either been a trade-off(sure, he lost Lash, but by that point she was becoming more of an ally, and in any case he also lost Hellfire and all the things she gave), or...I can't really think of any other real drawbacks that he's lost. Plus there seem to be other consequences with the disappearance of Lash.

I have only yesterday started to read the new book and saw the part with the chronic migraine. I have to admit that this somewhat undermines my critique. Yes, I probably erred in this regard.



Now to look at one of the other series you have mentioned, Lies of Locke Lamora is an excellent series (well, the 2 that are out so far) But is it necessarily fair to compare the power creep concept to that particular series? Harry is a Wizard, Locke is a thief. Locke moves on to bigger and badder attempts at theft, just as Harry has moved on to greater and greater uses of magic. The differences don't seem to be as large with Locke because he isn't a Wizard, and let's face it small changes in power to a wizard are larger absolute changes in power.

Actually no. The plot-motivating conspiracy of Red Seas... is actually less wide-spanning than in the first book of the Lamore trilogy. The plan of the first book's antagonist was grotesquely more vile than the plans of the tyrant in the second book; the direct opposition was tougher (especially the bondsmage), the stakes were higher except for the money). The major difference is that the protagonists grew less powerful in comparison- they lost their known territory, had to live with severe injuries and depression and lost their closest friends and allies; the threat level of the second book scales down to the more limited abilities of the main characters.

And "Linear Mundanes, Quadratic Wizards" is a blithe of roleplaying games. It is a serious design mistake (if both mundane and supernatural characters are intended to play a balanced role; in a game like Ars Magica, this obviously doesn't matter), not an excuse, not a justification. But more important, it has no significance for discussing different stories in very different perspectives. The important question is the relation of power between the protagonist(s) and their environment, not the means this power is created.


The other series you mentioned I have not yet read (I have book 1 in my stack 'o books) and will hopefully be more able to comment on it in a while.

I can really recommend The First Law, but I have to admit that this may be a result of my personal preferences (it is well written as well). The characters are multidimensional and both surprisngly congenial and hateable, what I found very impressive. But for people who like to identify with the protagonists of a novel, there are probably better trilogies out there.

[Rutskarn]

Alright, so, is this thread a discussion of fantasy literary conventions in general, or just the specific ones addressed in the previous thread?

In other words, should I drop a few of my rant-bombs or should I move on and let you guys have your conversation?

[Satyr]

Rant if you want, but I will rant right back if I disagree.
I for one look forward to all kinds of literature debate as long as the topics are debated on a slightly higher level than "I like it, therefore it's good".

[thorgrim29]

note: I have yet to read small favors and turn coat

I think that while it's true that Harry recovers from pretty much everything, and his power rises exponentially, that's more or less what the other wizards and the bad guys do too, so I have little objection to it. I wouldn't make sense for Harry (repeatedly mentioned as the most potentially strong wizard in his generation, and apparently born to kill Chtulhu or something like that) to stagnate in strength. As he gets older and fights more, he becomes more adept at what he does, gets better focus. Constantly pushing yourself to your limits (and a bit beyond) does that. Even then, he is by no means all powerful, Ramirez is better at killing stuff then he is, and his apprentice is better at illusions then he is. On top of that, what is so compelling (to me at least) about Harry is that each book brings it's share of emotional scars, as his white knight reflexes get him in over his head on and on. Besides, the man hasn't had sex in what, 6 years? In spite of inhumanly beautiful Fae and Vampires, plus the occasional worshipful 20 year old brickhouse throwing themselves at his feet. You gotta respect that kind of devotion and honor.

Harry is a fundamentally good man, being forced do do more and more evil things as he goes on, barely hanging on to his sanity as his nominal allies spend as much time trying to kill him as helping him. So, yes, he is getting stronger and stronger, to the point of facing down what is fundamentally a god and then making an undead t-rex a little while later (most awesome chase scene in history). On the other end, he's lost I don't know how many friends he lost along the way, people (among others) try to kill every other week, and he still can't get hot water. Frankly, that he's not killed himself or turned into a self-loathing ball of angst is a wonder.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Go forth Rutskarn, and I shall join you. I haven't read any Dresden Files so I have no real input there (within context).

Anyway, one fantasy convention that has always irritated me is the tendency to rip off Tolkien. As far as I'm concerned, Tolkien's world works brilliantly within Tolkien's work, but the shameless copying and pasting of it really lowers fantasy's esteem in terms of scholarly literature, since most of his imitators don't justify them like Tolkien did, and these staples devolve in the public conciousness like so many other things have. Tolkien himself was said to have deeply regretted this, especially when it comes to his races which have pretty much been flat-out nicked. And of course, these archetypes colour fantasy literature before people even read a book; it's like judging a book by its genre. What makes this worse is that it can be geniuinely difficult to find a good fantasy book amongst the tons of derivative crap.

Edit: Yes I am aware I have used some of them in Midget on a Horse, but it's deliberate :P.

[chiasaur11]

Agreed on the Rutskarn rant bit.

Recently I've really grown to appreciate your rants.

Be a shame to miss a golden opportunity for one.

[Jorkens]

O.K. so to continue, is it really possible, though, to have character development without any sort of power boost? And isn't overcoming flaws pretty much the definition of character development?
"Power boost" is a rather blunt way of describing someone overcoming their flaws, though - I mean, when Lizzie Bennet admits that maybe she was a little quick to judge Mr Darcy she doesn't suddenly go to a power level over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND, cool though that would arguably be. And as other people have pointed out, overcoming flaws isn't the only form of character development.

But I think the main thing is that to me, power creep begins where character development leaves off. If a character gets more powerful or does cooler stuff because they've learnt to better themself or got more ambitious based on their successes so far or got more stuff to work with, it's not really power creep. I'd say that that kicks in when they start doing cooler stuff just because the author felt the need to include something new and more impressive for them to do just to provide some new gee whizz factor for the latest book / film / whatever.

[Jorkens]

Anyway, one fantasy convention that has always irritated me is the tendency to rip off Tolkien. As far as I'm concerned, Tolkien's world works brilliantly within Tolkien's work, but the shameless copying and pasting of it really lowers fantasy's esteem in terms of scholarly literature, since most of his imitators don't justify them like Tolkien did, and these staples devolve in the public conciousness like so many other things have. Tolkien himself was said to have deeply regretted this, especially when it comes to his races which have pretty much been flat-out nicked.
The world / races thing is a bit annoying, but nowhere near as bad as the way that some fantasy authors seem to have got most of their ideas about how people talk, think and act from Tolkein... which again is fine when it's JRRT writing it because he can actually pull it off, but doesn't work so well for most mere mortals.

[warty goblin]

"Power boost" is a rather blunt way of describing someone overcoming their flaws, though - I mean, when Lizzie Bennet admits that maybe she was a little quick to judge Mr Darcy she doesn't suddenly go to a power level over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND, cool though that would arguably be. And as other people have pointed out, overcoming flaws isn't the only form of character development.

But I think the main thing is that to me, power creep begins where character development leaves off. If a character gets more powerful or does cooler stuff because they've learnt to better themself or got more ambitious based on their successes so far or got more stuff to work with, it's not really power creep. I'd say that that kicks in when they start doing cooler stuff just because the author felt the need to include something new and more impressive for them to do just to provide some new gee whizz factor for the latest book / film / whatever.

This is very, very true.

The thing is a character should be more than a set of abilities. For example if I tell you Xelnort the wizard can throw fire from his eyebrows, you know nothing about who Xelnort actually is. If in Escape from the Darkness of ShadowMere: Book 3 of the Errerrignonian Cycle Epic Xelnort learns how to incinerate people with toenail clippings it still tells you nothing about who he really is.

That isn't character development, it's allocating XP in an RPG. In a game it is fun, but in a book it isn't. At worst it's boring as listening to an earthworm give a lecture in economics, or something like this:

"And then at 253rd, er I mean on entrance to the 253rd House of Arcane Knowledge, Xelnort learned the way of the acid blast sneeze."
At best it contains the depth of character of a sort of halfway readable if you really like the source material fanfic:

"Holy crap!" Xelnort exclaimed, staring at the ancient tome. "This volume contains the secret of the acid blast sneeze. Fortunately I just obtained 253rd leve... er I mean I just entered the 253rd House of Arcane Knowledge, and so can learn this potent new spell."

Now here's a more interesting take on the character. Xelnort grew up the son of a shopkeeper in a mid size city, the middle of three children. Xelnort's mother died giving birth to his younger brother when Xelnort was three, after that he was raised by Helga, a somewhat stern but caring nanny. His older sister married a merchant in a different city and left the home when he was eight, and Xelnort missed her deeply.

From an early age Xelnort was adept with his hands, and because of this he was apprenticed to a blacksmith at the age of nine. Within only a week however, Xelnort became too weak to feed the fires and work the bellows. He complained of a spinning head, disorientation, and a foul taste in the back of his mouth. This was most puzzling because he had always been an energetic child, and not particularly prone to illness. The local herb man gave Xelnort a series of potions, but to no effect. A week after that Xelnort lost all desire to eat. Finally after three weeks, the herb man took him in for close observation. Within a day Xelnort was walking again, and within three was almost completely recovered, so the herb man sent him back to the blacksmith, only for the same sickness to overtake him again.


The herb man then guessed that Xelnort had some apptitude for magic, from his apparent allergy to iron, and so took him in as apprentice. The next few years of his life were spent learning to read, write, draw, sketch, and all the other myriad requirements of a wizard's education. The herb man did his best, but lacked any touch of magic himself, and so could not truly demonstrate the art of magic to his pupil. Finally, when Xelnort was fifteen, he took his leave of his old master, ostentatiously to travel to a university to better learn magic.

In fact Xelnort was tired of magecraft and spellwork, having long ago found his passion in cataloging and analyzing the mystical properties of plants. Travel and exploration, he felt, were key to gathering the information and samples he needed. The university offered little information that he could not find out himself, and next to no instruction in how to discover new truths.

Now, at the age of twenty-three, Xelnort has fallen into a familiar routine. Every spring and summer he journeys across the land, gathering new samples. In the fall he returns to the city where his older sister lives, and spends the winter cataloging the summer's work. There's little to no money in botanical research, so he hires himself out to the wealthy for minor spell work, or else sells processed plants to other wizards for use in their spells. This has taught him a smattering of odd cantrips, although he has no great aptitude for spellwork or desire to learn more.

Xelnort is a quiet sort of man, with a somewhat hesitant smile, and a gentle demenor. He is most happy scribbling notes to himself in a nearly illegible shorthand, or else wandering the forests and fields in search of some plant the locals use as a folk remedy. He has few friends in the city, although he is a frequent guest of his sister's, and delights in making her children laugh with his spells and stories of his wanderings. Sometime in the next few years he is considering giving up wandering for good, since he's not as young as he was, and sleeping under rainclouds is no longer as glamorous as it used to be. He supposes this means settling down and finding a wife, although at his age, and with his lack of wealth this is likely to be difficult, so for the time being he simply keeps doing what he is doing. He could work as an assitant to some more powerful wizard somewhere, but his botanical work has recieved little attention among magic users, and most of that has been condesending. He has grown increasingly bitter about this over the last few years, something he makes little effort to hide from his collegues, which makes him even more unpopular. Still, for all that he is happy enough, and sees no reason to change his life for the near future.

Then, just before leaving for the summer of his twenty-fourth year, a man brings him a mysterious plant... [PLOT STARTS HERE]

That took me about oh, forty minutes to write up, and I think there are some real developmental possibilities here, none of which would look like power creep to me. Xelnort could find the girl of his dreams and trade in his trowel for a ledger in a merchant's house, putting his keen mind to work choosing inports and exports, all while missing his summers in the field. Or he could swallow his pride and work as an assistant for some other wizard, or any number of things that are not directly tied to an increase in his abilities to kill loads of people and enslave the world.

[Thrud]

*Too much stuff to quote*


And this is quite true. As a beginning character in a story we don't really want someone who is already a god, and your post has created someone with flaws, ambition to be good at something that most people don't care about, and a reason to not use his magical powers. These are all good starting flaws, and without a doubt as the story develops he will begin to actually use his gifts, thus becoming more powerful. Otherwise we have a book all about a guy who goes out and catalogues flowers and herbs, which is not riveting reading (though necessary in some fields of research). Thus the character will become more powerful in absolute terms.

I don't feel that this is an unnecessary power creep. I think this is just character development for the simple reason that the person we are talking about here has magical abilities. Those are a part of him, and as he grows more skilled it just doesn't make sense for them not to grow in power.

This was pretty much the crux of my argument. I feel that it is necessary in a multiple novel arc to have the character grow in all directions, even if they themselves don't see it as growth.

BTW, just because this thread was started for a Dresden files discussion doesn't mean it has to stay on the original topic, in case there is anyone else out there who wants to chime in with something. I think I'll edit that onto my original post too.

[warty goblin]

And this is quite true. As a beginning character in a story we don't really want someone who is already a god, and your post has created someone with flaws, ambition to be good at something that most people don't care about, and a reason to not use his magical powers. These are all good starting flaws, and without a doubt as the story develops he will begin to actually use his gifts, thus becoming more powerful. Otherwise we have a book all about a guy who goes out and catalogues flowers and herbs, which is not riveting reading (though necessary in some fields of research). Thus the character will become more powerful in absolute terms.

Not neccessarily. The thing is, the way I've created the character, he has no interest in learning spells to melt faces or desire to use his power to support rebellion and attempt to overthrow the kingdom. All of the character progressions I outlined would really not do anything to increase his power in any normal definition of the term, except possibly if he got a better job and so had some actual money. Even that however is less power creep than simply a change of station.


I don't feel that this is an unnecessary power creep. I think this is just character development for the simple reason that the person we are talking about here has magical abilities. Those are a part of him, and as he grows more skilled it just doesn't make sense for them not to grow in power.
Again, not neccessary. It strikes me as something of a fallicy to assume that just because somebody has the capability to do magic, it is neccessary that the advancement of magic completely define the character. It certainly can do so, and that is by no means an illegitimate choice, but it is a choice, not an inevitability.


This was pretty much the crux of my argument. I feel that it is necessary in a multiple novel arc to have the character grow in all directions, even if they themselves don't see it as growth. Overall I agree with you that character growth is neccessary over a series, but I disagree that this requires the character acquiring more power.

Look at most of the cast of the original Dragonlance for a good example of this. Sure Raistlin was a power grabbing SOB, but most of the rest of the main characters really weren't. I can't say that I think Tasslehoff for one ended the first two trilogies more powerful than he was in the first book. He'd certainly grown as a character, but he wasn't a vastly better warrior, or rule a kingdom or anything of that nature.


This boils down to, I think, something rather fundamental in the way we percieve fantasy, and is one of the conventions of the genre that honestly annoys the snot out of me. The convention being that fantasy needs to be about epic heroes, or at the very least people doing epic things. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good epic plot as much as the next guy, but really, the genre is capable of so much more than this.

Why aren't there stories about people simply living in all these wonderful fantasy worlds people dream up? Why does the story always have to be how the heroes saved the world from evil sorcerers or demons or the undead?

Again, I have nothing against such stories as a whole (although there are naturally particular examples to which I object), but surely that's not all one can do with a world containing pretty much anything one can imagine.

[Yulian]

This boils down to, I think, something rather fundamental in the way we percieve fantasy, and is one of the conventions of the genre that honestly annoys the snot out of me. The convention being that fantasy needs to be about epic heroes, or at the very least people doing epic things. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good epic plot as much as the next guy, but really, the genre is capable of so much more than this.

Why aren't there stories about people simply living in all these wonderful fantasy worlds people dream up? Why does the story always have to be how the heroes saved the world from evil sorcerers or demons or the undead?



You know, that would be great. See, the thing is, you very often do not see "power creep" in a lot of sci-fi stories. Nobody in Larry Niven's Known Space tends to gain greater power as time goes on. They get smarter, more experienced, and more skilled, but there's no need to amp up natural abilities again and again.

Why couldn't we have protagonists that just do the same thing in a fantasy world? In Lord of the Rings, the ur-example, most of the characters gained no "power", they just got more experienced.

You get this problem in comics as well, and don't get me started on anime with long story arcs. (it's over 9,000!!!).

You even get less power creep in certain areas where fantasy and sci-fi overlap, like some space opera. Go back and read some old Flash Gordon strips. No extra powers there.

Frankly, the more I think about it, the more it seems like a crutch to help support unimaginative writing.

- Yulian

[Thrud]

Not neccessarily. The thing is, the way I've created the character, he has no interest in learning spells to melt faces or desire to use his power to support rebellion and attempt to overthrow the kingdom. All of the character progressions I outlined would really not do anything to increase his power in any normal definition of the term, except possibly if he got a better job and so had some actual money. Even that however is less power creep than simply a change of station.

I never said he had more ability to melt faces, just that he was a more powerful wizard. Just because that power doesn't mean that he is better at killing people doesn't mean that he is not more powerful. Interestingly enough (to tie this back to the Dresden Files) in all the books Dresden has yet to learn a new combat power above and beyond the ones he started with. He has refined them, but hasn't actually acquired a new one. And that is after 11 books. However he is a much better Wizard now.


Again, not neccessary. It strikes me as something of a fallicy to assume that just because somebody has the capability to do magic, it is neccessary that the advancement of magic completely define the character. It certainly can do so, and that is by no means an illegitimate choice, but it is a choice, not an inevitability.

Except that when something is a defining characteristic of a character, not increasing it doesn't make much sense. More below -


Overall I agree with you that character growth is neccessary over a series, but I disagree that this requires the character acquiring more power.

Look at most of the cast of the original Dragonlance for a good example of this. Sure Raistlin was a power grabbing SOB, but most of the rest of the main characters really weren't. I can't say that I think Tasslehoff for one ended the first two trilogies more powerful than he was in the first book. He'd certainly grown as a character, but he wasn't a vastly better warrior, or rule a kingdom or anything of that nature.

But that isn't really a fair comparison, because Tass wasn't a wizard or a warrior. He was a classic 1st/2nd ed thief. So by the end of the series, it wouldn't make much sense for him to be a better warrior. I do believe, however, that he was a much better thief.


This boils down to, I think, something rather fundamental in the way we percieve fantasy, and is one of the conventions of the genre that honestly annoys the snot out of me. The convention being that fantasy needs to be about epic heroes, or at the very least people doing epic things. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good epic plot as much as the next guy, but really, the genre is capable of so much more than this.

Fantasy is an escapist medium. It has never tried to be particularly realistic, there is non fiction for that, so I don't think it is necessarily fair to ask it to be something that it has never been.


Why aren't there stories about people simply living in all these wonderful fantasy worlds people dream up? Why does the story always have to be how the heroes saved the world from evil sorcerers or demons or the undead?

In fact, there may be stories like this out there. I would guarantee that few people have read them, however, because this is not what people look for in their escapist light reading. If you try to break a genre then you tend to be left by the wayside as no one reads your book. And honestly even in stories where people are just living their lives (general fiction type stories) there is something else going on. If there is a romance, then this is a book that wouldn't be found in the fantasy genre, it would be in with the romances. If there is no real conflict, then it is not really a book worth reading. If there is conflict then by no means does the book have to be 'epic'. I for one wouldn't consider the Dresden Files epic in any sense of the word. Dresden is a small fish in a very large pond, though he is growing. That doesn't stop him from getting stomped on pretty regularly (if you will pardon my mixed metaphors)[/quote]


Again, I have nothing against such stories as a whole (although there are naturally particular examples to which I object), but surely that's not all one can do with a world containing pretty much anything one can imagine.

I believe there may be stories like that out there, but they are in other genres, or never made it because no one actually wants to read stories like that.

[Fiery Diamond]

I have to agree with warty here. I liked the description, analysis, and assessment. To be perfectly honest, warty, I'd be willing to read Xelnort's story, especially if his powers did not become "stronger" or "more impressive."

However, I have to disagree with Yulian on the assessment of power creep as a crutch for unimaginative writing. The truth is, some people like power creep, as long as it is accompanied by character development of another kind as well. I, for one, am rather fond of stories in anime and manga where things start off low-key (or relatively so) and end up at near-godly levels. I think it's cool. It becomes boring, however, if that's the only change in the characters.

I do enjoy reading stories that have nothing to with increases in power with the character development, but I generally like non-fantasy stories of that type more than fantasy stories of that type, simply because I like the idea of people getting stronger, or at least more skilled, in a fantasy setting.

Edit: @poster above me:

No, it can make perfect sense for his magical abilities to not increase. Now, if he never uses them, that's pretty boring, but I can see him having a set of a couple dozen basic utilitarian spells that he can use from the very beginning of the story and never learn any new ones and still be very interesting.

You are correct that fantasy is an escapist medium, but that brings me to another question: why the heck are there depressing fantasy stories then? You claim that practically nobody would care to read a book about non-epic/ordinary people in a fantasy setting involved in a plot that isn't some grand world-affecting-type thing, but I think there are more people who would be willing to read that then people who would be willing to read depressing stories as escapism. Hmm.....

Additionally, you are very, very wrong that there are "few" stories of "that type." There are multitudes. What makes a story fantasy has nothing to do with plot, it has to do with possibilities - basically, if physical impossibilities or highly-improbabilities exist, it is a fantasy. You are skewing things toward your own tastes, especially by saying "no one" wants to read those kinds of stories. I do, as does warty. And thousands of other people.

Additional edit: @poster above me
In other words, "No. You are wrong. You sound arrogant by speaking in absolutes when you are wrong."

[Closet_Skeleton]

You even get less power creep in certain areas where fantasy and sci-fi overlap, like some space opera.

But not in Lensmen, the archetypal space opera.

[Eldan]

See, as someone who has spent several days out in the rain trying to collect and dry plants, I can totally understand this guy. So, for gods sake, give him the "Dry Newspaper" spell.

And honestly, I would read a book about categorizing fantasy plants, but as a biologist, I might be an exception :smalltongue:

[horngeek]

In most fantasy, if there is a princess, she will be kidnapped at one point.

You all know I'm right.

[warty goblin]

I never said he had more ability to melt faces, just that he was a more powerful wizard. Just because that power doesn't mean that he is better at killing people doesn't mean that he is not more powerful. Interestingly enough (to tie this back to the Dresden Files) in all the books Dresden has yet to learn a new combat power above and beyond the ones he started with. He has refined them, but hasn't actually acquired a new one. And that is after 11 books. However he is a much better Wizard now.

Fair enough, power =/= combat ability.


Except that when something is a defining characteristic of a character, not increasing it doesn't make much sense. More below -
Since when is the capability to do magic required to be a defining characteristic of a character? I must have missed that memo. There are a lot of skills and abilities that people have and could develop more, but choose not to because doing so does not interest them or allow them to accomplish things that do, and I fail to see why magic is required to be different.

The way I constructed Xelnort, increasing his magical abilities wouldn't be character advancement in any meaningful way- it simply doesn't interest him. It would in fact be the worst sort of power creep, since it would be increasing the character's power only for the sake of increasing their power, not because of anything inherent to the character.



But that isn't really a fair comparison, because Tass wasn't a wizard or a warrior. He was a classic 1st/2nd ed thief. So by the end of the series, it wouldn't make much sense for him to be a better warrior. I do believe, however, that he was a much better thief.
Not particularly. At the beginning of Chronicles he removed pretty much everything not nailed down...at the end of Legends he removed pretty much everything not nailed down.


Fantasy is an escapist medium. It has never tried to be particularly realistic, there is non fiction for that, so I don't think it is necessarily fair to ask it to be something that it has never been.
Sci-fi is filled with escapist stuff as well and in a lot of cases isn't particularly concerned with realism, but that hasn't stopped it turning out character pieces at both novel and short story length. My point isn't that one is better than the other, it's that there is room for both, and not doing both is a failing of the genre.




In fact, there may be stories like this out there. I would guarantee that few people have read them, however, because this is not what people look for in their escapist light reading. If you try to break a genre then you tend to be left by the wayside as no one reads your book. And honestly even in stories where people are just living their lives (general fiction type stories) there is something else going on. If there is a romance, then this is a book that wouldn't be found in the fantasy genre, it would be in with the romances. If there is no real conflict, then it is not really a book worth reading. If there is conflict then by no means does the book have to be 'epic'. I for one wouldn't consider the Dresden Files epic in any sense of the word. Dresden is a small fish in a very large pond, though he is growing. That doesn't stop him from getting stomped on pretty regularly (if you will pardon my mixed metaphors)
Yes, there has to be something else going on in a story, conflict, resolution, all that jazz. The difference is that the conflict can come entirely from the interactions of the characters and some fairly mundane external stimulae. World conquering evil should not be required to get characters to develop.



I believe there may be stories like that out there, but they are in other genres, or never made it because no one actually wants to read stories like that.
Do me a favor. Read George RR Martin's A Song for Lya. There's absolutely nothing in that story that couldn't be easily, almost trivially, done as fantasy while keeping the central concept intact. It's also a sad, character driven piece of science fiction that, I believe, won the Hugo, which means somebody read it.

Also, people do want to read character driven stories. This should be fairly obvious given the racks and racks of the stuff I see in the bookstore, and the way most people dismiss fantasy as being 'plot centric.'

[Ophir's Scribe]

This is a fairly interesting thread thus far, and I would like to respond, but responding to everyone's specific postings would take forever and I will spare you that. Here are just a few crumbs of thought.

Good writing exists independently of the conventions and devices an author chooses to employ. Therefore, "power creep" which I have seen in many fantasy works can either be done so well, and with such necessity to the characters and plot that it causes spontaneous happy dances, or it can be so awefully constructed and contrived that it results in violent brain hemorraging for the reader. I have seen it used in ways that make great plot twists, cause unforseen changes in relationship dynamics, and give the characters greater understanding of themselves and thier world. I have also seen used as a trite piece of junk that conveniently gets us over the coming threat and on to the end where we rescue the princess (who, yeah, always gets kidnapped) and save the day. blah. But the simple fact is, if the conventions of the writing stick out enough to bother you, then they are porbably not being done well, and if they bother you enough to be talking about them, then maybe you need to find a more skilled author to fill your escapist landscapes.

As for ganking Tokien, well, that's what happens with the definative works of any genre. You read a good literary romance and someone will mention the Brontes or Jane Austen, a mystery and someone will invariably bring up Arthur Conan Doyle, horror and you have Stephen King. The point is that every genre has great works that define its highest standard and the peramiters by which it is defined. Fantasy stands upon the works of Tolkien, CS Lewis, and Anne McAffery. There will always be those who prey upon the genius of others, but the ability to take an existing idea, make it your own and express and utilize it well will always characterize the best stories. Tolkien himself took existing races and ideas and devoted so much imagination to their development that they became his own. Furthermore, it is his stellar writing, his well developed characters (regardless of race) and plot, and his understanding of human nature, power, and political struggle that make his stories the timeless classics they are, not the sheer originality of races and places.

[Kcalehc]

This boils down to, I think, something rather fundamental in the way we percieve fantasy, and is one of the conventions of the genre that honestly annoys the snot out of me. The convention being that fantasy needs to be about epic heroes, or at the very least people doing epic things. Now don't get me wrong, I like a good epic plot as much as the next guy, but really, the genre is capable of so much more than this.

Why aren't there stories about people simply living in all these wonderful fantasy worlds people dream up? Why does the story always have to be how the heroes saved the world from evil sorcerers or demons or the undead?

Go look in the Romance section, usually nearby or next to the SciFi section; there are books about relatively everyday people living in fantasy worlds and not being epic heroes and such (though some parts of the books do get a little 'adult' so be warned). Not many mind, but there are some - I'd also wager that you'd find a few in other categories too, but don't know for sure.

I only know this because every time my wife and I are at the bookstore she goes to the romance section and I to the scifi, and after 5 minutes I have the books I want, then end up helping her for 30 minutes more go through virtually every book in that section to find ones that she likes.:smallsigh:

Though I do agree about the Fantasy genre in general, theres always a hero, who often has a sword, a villian that uses magic and has a horde of unpleasant minions, a princess that gets captured, a hill top monastery, a magical artefact that can save the day and a complicated plot that the hero can uncover with relative ease. The people making up the background of the world seldom get a chance to even speak - being left to scream, die horribly or be completely unawares of the horrors unfolding around them.

[Ophir's Scribe]

Though I do agree about the Fantasy genre in general, theres always a hero, who often has a sword, a villian that uses magic and has a horde of unpleasant minions, a princess that gets captured, a hill top monastery, a magical artefact that can save the day and a complicated plot that the hero can uncover with relative ease. The people making up the background of the world seldom get a chance to even speak - being left to scream, die horribly or be completely unawares of the horrors unfolding around them.

Are we reading the same genre? Maybe, and I mean this with nothing but objective observation, you need to be a little pickier about which authors you pick up. I say this because I certainly haven't experienced anything so tragically prosaic in my lifelong reading of fantasy. I do pick up a really terribley written piece from time to time, but I usually abandon it before I'm done if it's that aweful. And fantasy is so diverse! It is the genre of limitless possibility. I guess your discription might apply to your average peice of trite 'high fantasy,' and I realize I was the one the one who acknowledged that princesses do get kidnapped an aweful lot in my above post, but there is so much out there I can't agree that it all boils down to such a limited sketch. It is possible that I am just hyper-discerning about what I read, but if your experiences with the books that are out there have been so predictable and two dimensional, why read it at all?

And for the record the only hilltop monastery I have ever come across was in Raymond Feist's A Darkness at Sethanon, which is totally classic and a great read.

[Mr. Scaly]

I have to agree with that...in fact I'd say that fantasy has come a long way from generic classics such as 'princess gets captured by wizard, cue sword wielding hero.' I'm trying to remember the last one of those I read outside of children's fairy tales.

[endoperez]

China Mieville's Perdido Street Station writes about people who aren't heroes in a fantasy-land. They aren't ordinary people, the fantasy is sometimes closer to nigthmare, and it's pretty unique read as well.

Plot summaries don't always tell everything. Gene Wolfe's Knight-Wizard duology is, in a summary, a fairy tale. A boy falls in love with a mysterious beauty, becomes a man and tries to become a knight, does heroic deeds and always keeps his words - it doesn't sound special. But I swear, I almost had to put it down at one point. To read on, I had to make myself believe that things won't turn out too wrong.

Just... it's...

What to do you do when you have given your word, and are ordered to do something else, and doing either will result in something horrible? And you read on, knowing that the main character will choose duty, because that's what a knight does? That's what he will do, because he's a knight.

The books are like taking fantasy conventions, thinking about them, applying some logic, taking them literally, and describing how horrible all those things really are. Like giants. The giants in these books. They aren't huge, reach-the-skies giants. They're just big men, but stockier because they're bigger, "only" three times as high as a human, and they're terrifying. They're worse than dragons in most books.


Any way, more about actual conventions:

Gods. Deities. In "high fantasy", there are often at least a dozen, and they seem pretty stupid and lazy. Some writers describe them as stupid and lazy, to explain why the hero has to do it himself.

The magic sword. I can think of A magic hammer, and I'm sure a berserker somewhere has a magic axe, but there are dozens of magic swords. I wouldn't mind reading about magic spear every now and then...

[Kcalehc]

Are we reading the same genre? Maybe, and I mean this with nothing but objective observation, you need to be a little pickier about which authors you pick up. I say this because I certainly haven't experienced anything so tragically prosaic in my lifelong reading of fantasy. I do pick up a really terribley written piece from time to time, but I usually abandon it before I'm done if it's that aweful. And fantasy is so diverse! It is the genre of limitless possibility. I guess your discription might apply to your average peice of trite 'high fantasy,' and I realize I was the one the one who acknowledged that princesses do get kidnapped an aweful lot in my above post, but there is so much out there I can't agree that it all boils down to such a limited sketch. It is possible that I am just hyper-discerning about what I read, but if your experiences with the books that are out there have been so predictable and two dimensional, why read it at all?

And for the record the only hilltop monastery I have ever come across was in Raymond Feist's A Darkness at Sethanon, which is totally classic and a great read.

"Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɝːbəli/ hye-PER-buh-lee; "HYE-per-bowl" is a common mispronunciation) comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally."

Sorry.

[Ophir's Scribe]

"Hyperbole (pronounced /haɪˈpɝːbəli/ hye-PER-buh-lee; "HYE-per-bowl" is a common mispronunciation) comes from ancient Greek "ὑπερβολή" (meaning excess or exaggeration) and is a figure of speech in which statements are exaggerated. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is rarely meant to be taken literally."

Sorry.

Hyperbole granted. Though it doesn't always translate the best in cyberspace. (been the victim of my own sarcastic nature online enough times to know that from experience).

Oh, and I do agree with endoperez, magic sword was cool with Exclaiber and Green Rider, but it is way over done. I guess 'Magic Pitchfork of Destiny' isn't as dashing, but it would make for some seriously amusing fight scenes.

[Ophir's Scribe]

Gods. Deities. In "high fantasy", there are often at least a dozen, and they seem pretty stupid and lazy. Some writers describe them as stupid and lazy, to explain why the hero has to do it himself.


I really think that it is near impossible to write about "all powerful beings" in any presonified way without making them so mentally weak it is farsical. I mean our itty-bitty mortal minds can't begin to concieve of what it means to be omnicient or omnipotent, so how on earth would we ever be able to write from that perspective.
The only way to write about a personified god is to make them simply immortal. But even then, there are very few books I have read that really try to dig into what it would be like to be immortal. It would change your world view utterly, and the only books I ever thought did the job with any real persuasion are the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series. More and more I am turning to YA Fantasy because it just tends to be better written, more thought less pompous sword waving, though you think it would be reversed. *shrug*

[Mr. Scaly]

On Gods, the simplest way seems to portray them the way classical cultures did with all the short sighted, self interest of humans with omnipotent powers.

[warty goblin]

On Gods, the simplest way seems to portray them the way classical cultures did with all the short sighted, self interest of humans with omnipotent powers.

Close. The classical gods are actually really quite limited in some odd ways. Its implied throughout the Iliad for example that Zeus is capable of changing fate, but when he does Bad Things happen. They are powerful, far more powerful than humans, but neither all powerful or all knowing.

[Mr. Scaly]

Close. The classical gods are actually really quite limited in some odd ways. Its implied throughout the Iliad for example that Zeus is capable of changing fate, but when he does Bad Things happen. They are powerful, far more powerful than humans, but neither all powerful or all knowing.

Alright, I'll buy that. And though it may be cliche, I love their reaction whenever they run into something bigger and more powerful than even them.

[warty goblin]

Alright, I'll buy that. And though it may be cliche, I love their reaction whenever they run into something bigger and more powerful than even them.

Umm, they generally eat their children, or other such wonderful things. And really, the classical gods don't run into things more powerful than them all that often, except each other that is. Now their reactions to each other are fairly hilarious- fight it, trick it or sleep with it, sometimes all at once.

[Mr. Scaly]

Umm, they generally eat their children, or other such wonderful things. And really, the classical gods don't run into things more powerful than them all that often, except each other that is. Now their reactions to each other are fairly hilarious- fight it, trick it or sleep with it, sometimes all at once.

For a moment I was confused by what you were saying but I get it. I'll clarify my point a bit...I don't think that fantasy gods are compared directly to classical Earth deities, but they're inspired by them. They have their own personalities and agendas, control over some portfolio, schemes and enemies and favoured mortals and such and such as opposed to be mysterious divine figures. Fantasy gods are usually physical in other words.

It happens now and then. Father Chaos from Dragonlance springs readily to mind.