Rate the concept for my fantasy book

[Executor]

I've been toying around with a concept for a fantasy story for the last couple months. It's set in a realistic fantasy world much like Europe of the 11-12th century AD. There isn't a lot of magic, but the magic there is is immeasurably powerful, though very subtle. So, critique this concept.

In the kingdom of Arkaen, set upon a peninsula in the north of the continent of Eara, the High King holds the land together. Literally. In a time before time, the land was rent with chaos. Earthquakes, storms, forest fires, all raged without check. So the Patriachs, the most ancient of priests, bound the land together with a system of Oaths. An Oath is the powerful promise a man can make, and it binds him to the man he has sworn to with powerful magic. There is never a small penalty for breaking an oath. The High King holds all oaths. Without him and his heirs, the entire kingdom of Arkaen will fall once again to the cataclysms that shook it in prehistoric times. But the kingdom is weakening, for several years of war, strife and bad harvests have weakened Arkaen, made the Lords that govern the land unrestful, and treacherous. Many of the Lords plan to usurpt the High King and carve up Arkaen into little kingdoms of their own. In the middle of all this is Gareth, a young knight making his way through the world. Gareth's father, Gaheris, was one of the increasingly-few Lords loyal to High King Palleas, and he knew that soon the Traitor-Lords would have him killed, and try to kill his family. With this knowledge, Gaheris sent his youngest son, Gareth, away to escape this fate and keep their bloodline intact, for Gareth elder brothers would not leave their father. Gareth travels through Arkaen, trying to win a place in a Lord's retinue. At first, he finds a place in the mercenaries that surround Duke Lamorak. This is short-lived, however. Lamorak's young wife committed adultery, and in his rage the Duke ordered the man who had been with his wife to be killed, in his sleep, by Gareth's own hand. He then locks his wife, Lady Maria, in a cell in his castle's dungeon, with her baby and no food or water. Gareth stands guard outside Maria's cell for several days, listening to the heart-breaking sounds of the infant crying and the mother soothing. Finally he has had enough. Mustering up his courage, he unsheathes his sword, kills the other guard, opens the door, grabs Maria by the upper arm and makes with the Daring Escape(tm). He manages to avoid Lamorak's men, his former comrades, and make it to into country. Now a group, they realise that Lamorak will never rest until both are dead. So they leave the child at abbey where Maria knows the Abbot, and the infant boy will be safe. And so begins a great crosscountry chase as Gareth braves Lamorak's rage and his murderous sell-swords, leading a woman across Arkaen while simultaenously trying to carve himself a place in this kingdom while civil war explodes around him.

So, how does the concept sound? Does it interest you so far? Would you read this book? What changes should be made?

[DomaDoma]

That sounds incredibly cool thus far - but could you clarify the Oath part a bit more?

[Executor]

Basically, in ancient times the Patriachs, priests and magi and such, combined their powers to create a system of magic oaths which bound and stabilized the kingdom. Surpressed the destructive elements with their powerful magic, and that system keeps the disasters that could tear Arkaen apart in check. The Oaths are like ropes, holding down some mighty beast, a bear or elephant, which is the natural forces of destruction. The High King of Arkaen is the point where all ropes are knotted to bound the beast. If you cut that knot, then the bindings come undone and the animal goes beserk. That's how it would be if the High King was slain and a usurper placed on his throne, for special rites have to be done by the current Patriachs to make the King the new knot to bind Arkaen together, and they will not do it to any unrightful ruler.

Similarly, cutting any of the ropes could set the beast loose as well. So the Patriachs put many powerful curses on the Oaths that come into effect when a man becomes an Oathbreaker. The severity of his Oathbreaking determines how badly he is punished. Punishments can range from bankruptcy to near-instantaneous death, and the inability to pass on to the High Realm (one of the names for Heaven in this world). They wonder the area where their oath was broken, forever bound to that patch of earth and unable to attain any peace or happiness. When an Oath is broken, there is always some natural disaster. A firestorm, an earthquake, as a thousand-years worth of Acts of God are released for a brief moment when an Oath is broken.

[A Rainy Knight]

It sounds very good, although from that description it seems as though you wouldn't need the Oaths and stuff to make it into a good adventure. Just the part about Gareth trying to lead the woman to safety seems like it could stand by itself. What I mean is, the Oaths seem to relate very little to the actual story and conflict.

[DomaDoma]

Ah, well, there's one point with that: whatever the usurper's claim to the throne, surely accepting his rule is preferable to an eternal run of natural disasters?

Of course, a usurper isn't exactly what you'd call faithful, and that's bound to have some effect on the Oaths. Might do something with that.

I'm really loving this setting, though.

[Executor]

It sounds very good, although from that description it seems as though you wouldn't need the Oaths and stuff to make it into a good adventure. Just the part about Gareth trying to lead the woman to safety seems like it could stand by itself. What I mean is, the Oaths seem to relate very little to the actual story and conflict.

The Oaths form the umbrella story within which we find the tale of Gareth and the woman. Lord Lamorak is also one of the more powerful of the King's usurpers, whereas his nemesis, Gareth, is a loyal Kingsman. Civil War, disasters, the entire kingdom is going to hell because of this guy. Gareth gets all mixed up with it by running off with Lamorak's wife.

And thank you, I try to put work into my world-building.

[A Rainy Knight]

Ah, adding to the stakes of the conflict. Gotcha.

I think that the setting works very well. I've always been a sucker for cross-country flights from powerful forces. Just be sure that you make your characters interesting, as well-developed characters are, in my opinion, at least as important as the plot and setting.

[Executor]

Yes. I like big sagas with world-threateningly high-stesk, like Lord of the Rings, and I also like smaller, more personal fantasies like In the Eye of Heaven. So I decided to fuse the two into this story.

And no, to set aside one cliche at this point, Gareth will not become King of anything, nor lord, nor baron, nor duke.

I'm still in indecision as to whether Gareth and his Lady should remain mere friends or end up in romance. Being as i'm not exceptionally good at romance and it seems cliche in this circumstance, it'll probably be the former.

[Vella_Malachite]

That sounds really, really cool...I hope you go somewhere with that, as it sounds like it would really take off if you ever published it!

It's much better than mine, anyway...

[Dervag]

That's how it would be if the High King was slain and a usurper placed on his throne, for special rites have to be done by the current Patriachs to make the King the new knot to bind Arkaen together, and they will not do it to any unrightful ruler.I assume that the Patriarchs don't care what happens to the country in that case?


Similarly, cutting any of the ropes could set the beast loose as well. So the Patriachs put many powerful curses on the Oaths that come into effect when a man becomes an Oathbreaker. The severity of his Oathbreaking determines how badly he is punished. Punishments can range from bankruptcy to near-instantaneous death, and the inability to pass on to the High Realm (one of the names for Heaven in this world).In the punishment supernaturally imposed, or legal?


A firestorm, an earthquake, as a thousand-years worth of Acts of God are released for a brief moment when an Oath is broken.Is it just me, or did the old Patriarchs not put very much thought into this system when they designed it? Simple bad luck could kill off the High King's line, let alone betrayal; and after a few centuries the combined weight of disasters would be enough to destroy civilization as they know it.


The Oaths form the umbrella story within which we find the tale of Gareth and the woman. Lord Lamorak is also one of the more powerful of the King's usurpers, whereas his nemesis, Gareth, is a loyal Kingsman. Civil War, disasters, the entire kingdom is going to hell because of this guy. Gareth gets all mixed up with it by running off with Lamorak's wife.

And thank you, I try to put work into my world-building.If you want my real advice, don't make too big a point of explaining the way Oaths and Oathbreaking work at the beginning. A few references to "Oaths" in the first chapter; a look at the consequences of Oathbreaking in the second; that sort of thing. Remember that your viewpoint characters live in a world where the nature of Oaths has remained for a thousand years, so long that most people might not even know how the Oaths began unless the story is common knowledge. And whether it's forgotten legend or common knowledge, it's not as if people will talk about it every day. They'll take it for granted just as we take computers for granted, and a story set in a 'modern' world for a premodern audience shouldn't include a huge introduction on how computers work. It would alienate the audience to hear about how servers and Internet routers work when they want to get into the action.

[Ceska]

I've been toying around with a concept for a fantasy story for the last couple months. It's set in a realistic fantasy world much like Europe of the 11-12th century AD.
What exactly do you mean with "Europe"? The term is entirely too alien for the time.

So let's look into the various regions and which would be closest to what you want to use as a concept.

1.) British Isles. Certainly not. You have a Norman Invasion and a steady mixing of a Angle-Saxon and a Norman culture to one distinctively English. You also have Saxon (this time no Angles, the few remaining lords were mostly Saxons anyway) nobility fighting with the invaders. That doesn't work at all with your story.

2.) The East Roman Empire. The external threat of Muslims, completely with the loss of old territories and the battle of Manzikert leading to a new order in Anatolia doesn't work with what you want to do. Yes, you have intrigue and even Patriarchs at that time, but the situation is entirely dependant on an external threat you do not want to cover.

3.) Eastern Europe. Too hard to find anything valuable on it. The Balkans is a mess, the Hungarians try to strengthen their rule over a land they just migrated into, there's still threats of pagans in the baltic area, Poland is just to be created and there's a Empire of Kiev on the brink of collapse and civil war, completely with different new migrating tribes waiting for it.

4.) Iberia and Southern Italy. I know it doesn't belong together, but it's pretty much the same in that Catholics just got into the territory again and now fight disunited Muslims with a superior technology and culture disunited themselves.

5.) Scandinavia. Not advanced enough for your needs.

There stays one area, that of the Holy Roman Empire and of France, to your disposal. Both have Kings with loosening grip over their territories, both have their vassals in constant upheavals, both have traitors. I'd recommend on reading up on that area in this timespan. There's one important thing to consider though, that's the influence of the Crusades on Western Europe as a way to let off steam. You could use that since it means there's too many nobles now fighting for land and maybe even religious trouble within the realm.


So, how does the concept sound? Does it interest you so far? Would you read this book? What changes should be made?
It sounds very interesting, especially if you can write the character of Gareth in a convincing way. I'd read up on behaviour of lower nobility in the HRE and France (there should be enough for France in particular in that time frame) before you start fleshing him out.

[LCR]

To be honest, all this sounds a bit generic. Somehow, it's always a kingdom in peril and a young hero. Maybe that's a problem with fantasy in general, but I am kind of tired of these stories. Why don't you attempt to write something less "big"? Start with short stories depicting the daily life of, say, peasants. Maybe you can get an interesting story out of your scenario without being too stereotypical.

[WNxHasoroth]

To avoid the cliche somewhat, separate the book into two parts. The first part involves Gareth springing the "Damsel in Distress" (played by Lady Maria). However, instead of him escorting her son and herself to a monastery, have him die (preferably in a cold way impersonal way such as an arrow through the throat) and make his last words something like "Run."

After that, the real young hero in a chaotic kingdom story starts anew with Lady Maria's son training with the monks etc.

Nothing is more heart wrenching than building up an audience's liking for a character and then killing him and then saying "Story starts...now!"

[Fri]

@ WxNHasoroth
that's actually cool, but it might be something completely different than executor's planned story.

Overall concept isn't bad, but I guess you need something to keep it away from being cliche fantasy book. Well, as long as you can get the characters interesting.

My first thought was, did the usurpers want to throw the world into chaos once more? Didn't they know about the oath and stuff?

But dervag's idea actually made sense. The oath had become legends and stuff, so the patriarchs think that it's only a trick to make the high king hold all the power for himself. It'd be interesting to see if they succeeded in killing the high king, and they realized that they'd thrown the world into chaos.

[EllysW]

I think the concept has promise. Perhaps I'm slow today, but I'm a bit fuzzy on the relationship between the Oaths as social fabric and their role in holding together the physical world itself. It sounds good; it would make good back-cover copy on a book. But as I'm trying to parse out whether the kingdom is faring badly because people are forgoing their Oaths, or whether the Oathbreaking followed after a few bad years, I'm uncertain how it works. And how can rebellious Lords break the Oaths and betray the king if they're subject to the Patriarchs' curses upon so doing? It seems hard to successfully stage a coup d'etat in this system.

I think this is important because it's a distinctive feature of your world, and also because it has the potential to drive both setting and action in interesting ways. Presumably you would clarify this more in writing about it (although I agree with Dervag's point about making it subtle, not going into lengthy exposition that characters living in that world wouldn't need).

Lastly, probably a very minor point: If Lady Maria and her baby are locked up without water, Gareth is unlikely to be listening to their sad plight for "several" days. Maybe two. Even then she will probably be in rough shape for the Daring Escape. I've read too many books where such matters are forgotten.

[StupidFatHobbit]

One minor point I'd like to make - using one name that's straight out of a very well-known classic story, eh, you could probably get away with that. Using a whole slew of 'em is a bad, bad idea. Gareth, Gaheris, Lamorak, how many others? When I read a story and it turns into a "spot the next recycled Arthurian name" exercise, that diverts my attention from the plot and characters.

Please don't do it.

[Dervag]

To avoid the cliche somewhat, separate the book into two parts. The first part involves Gareth springing the "Damsel in Distress" (played by Lady Maria). However, instead of him escorting her son and herself to a monastery, have him die (preferably in a cold way impersonal way such as an arrow through the throat) and make his last words something like "Run."I think you're trying too hard.

And how does he say something with an arrow through his throat?


Nothing is more heart wrenching than building up an audience's liking for a character and then killing him and then saying "Story starts...now!"It's really hard to do that well. If it isn't done well, it alienates the audience; for a first novel that's a serious risk to run.

Cliches are cliche for a reason: it's easy to write a story that people will like using the cliches. As long as there's enough original content around the skeleton of the cliche, that won't matter. Even today, people still read stories that can be summarized as "youth goes on quest, grows up, and makes a place for themself." It doesn't matter that everything from classical European fairy tales to the original Star Wars trilogy can be interpreted in those terms.

Ultimately, most stories can be reduced to a combination of 'cliches' if you try hard enough. That doesn't prove much, because the cliches are themselves defined as traits shared by many stories across a long period of time. It's no surprise that almost all stories contain a set of elements common to almost all stories.


But dervag's idea actually made sense. The oath had become legends and stuff, so the patriarchs think that it's only a trick to make the high king hold all the power for himself. It'd be interesting to see if they succeeded in killing the high king, and they realized that they'd thrown the world into chaos.Unless I'm much mistaken the patriarchs back the 'true king', while the usurpers are drawn from the ranks of the nobility. In which case it's the nobles who dismiss the Oaths as a legend.

The catch is that if Oaths were broken very often it would be blindingly obvious what happens when someone breaks one, and nearly as obvious what happens if someone breaks all of them. So either:

a)Oathbreaking is rare enough that the usurpers do not believe in the correlation between natural disasters and Oathbreaking.
b)Oathbreaking is not so rare, but the usurpers don't care because they'd rather pick up the pieces of a shattered civilization than serve in an intact one (hard to imagine) or
c)Oathbreaking is not so rare, but the usurpers are convinced that the Patriarchs will take steps to rebind the unbound Oaths for the sake of preventing the end of civilization as they know it.

In case (c), it's entirely possible that the usurpers are right, and that the Patriarchs really will reluctantly start rebinding the Oaths for the sake of preserving the system of the world.

[electromagnetic]

I like it, although I think to avoid being too cliche (being slightly cliche is good, as a cliche is something that works so it's not wrong to use it: HP/SW (http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/geekend/images/61074_harrypotterstarwars.jpg)) you really need to focus on the main character. People enjoy characters being unfairly punished; after they've safely put the child in the Abbey, have him find out his father was just murdered. Granted it's cliche, but what will be better, getting your story published or not getting it published but having no cliches in it?

So long as the 'running from the evil empire' cliche is in the background then it shouldn't hinder the story. Just make sure that you make it original, that the characters all pop in their own way and aren't just Generic Hero #1 and Generic Maiden #3 etc.

[Dervag]

Again, punishing characters has to be done carefully or it becomes unbelievable. Also, seeing as how the child in question is a baby who was just walled up along with his mother in an oubliette by his father, I'm not sure finding out his father was killed would qualify as punishment, since the baby lacks either the sentience or the motive to consider this as a form of bad news.

As a general rule, any misfortune that befalls a character should either be a product of luck (the catapult rock hits the ship in just the wrong place, snapping the mast and allowing the enemy to overhaul and board) that the character can reverse by their own efforts (by fighting off the boarders or escaping when captured by them), or the product of some logical combination of story events (noble A, who has been protecting our heroes as part of a plan against noble B, is killed as a byproduct of the infighting among the conspirators after they knock off the High King).

[WNxHasoroth]

Explain the trying to hard comment please :smallsmile:

Admitted thats a fairly good point about the arrow in the throat while saying "Go" but I posted that at 4am slightly drunk :P

[electromagnetic]

Again, punishing characters has to be done carefully or it becomes unbelievable. Also, seeing as how the child in question is a baby who was just walled up along with his mother in an oubliette by his father, I'm not sure finding out his father was killed would qualify as punishment, since the baby lacks either the sentience or the motive to consider this as a form of bad news.

Actually I was suggesting the death of the protagonists father. He just made sure that the child was safe and in his ignorance forgot about his own family, it's a growth of character moment.

[Fri]

nobles[/i] who dismiss the Oaths as a legend.


whoops. my mistake :D

anyway, had you plotted the story yet? or just the concept? Have you figured out keypoints in your plot or things like that?

[Eita]

Seems pretty promising. I assume everyone here In The Playground shall receive a free e-copy?:smallbiggrin:

[Dorizzit]

I was disappointed. The world you have made is original and has some cool themes, but the books falls short with a story that is almost entirely a cliche.

[dehro]

since most of what we can come up with is a cliché in one way or another, especially if you stay focused on one literary genre, I suggest you try to find a plotline and a feel that is appealing to you and ignore the fact that it could mirror things that already have been seen...
that's for later, when you polish things off..or for when you realise that you are too openly replicating one or two settings you like.

I also suggest that you ignore those comments of the people that tell you how to change things and what you should do... in favour of those that only tell you what you should change..and why.
that way the writing, the setting and the plotline will still be yours.

throw ideas at us and we will try to rule out what we feel wouldn't work..but don't ask us what we would do...because..that's "we"...

[Dragonrider]

I think that if you can make the characters believable, that sounds really cool - of course, I'm biased, as Gareth is my little brother's name. :smallbiggrin:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

The world background is interesting, and original, as is the particular nature of magic. However, the story seems uninteresting (of course, simply written out in a paragraph, most stories are very dull, it is the course of the novel that makes them interesting) in that it is very common. Of course, all stories are quite common unless they're well-told, so this is always a weakness in concept one must solve in execution.
The only true grievance I have is that the need for the High King on a very literal level to maintain order and the main character being the Loyal Knight archetype give the work a very authoritarian tone I don't think I'd take too well to, allegorically. Of course, this is merely because it clashes with my own rather anarchic feelings, on one level. However, on another, it's a bit of an ideological strawman argument; by adding a magical need for a certain authority, you illegitimize that authority's true usefulness and remove what moral conflict would have been present. Dostoevsky had the same problem in Crime and Punishment, of course; Rodya's crime was made wrong automatically by the fact he killed an innocent in the process, thus denying the question of whether murdering a non-innocent to save innocents was acceptable. In making the authority magically required, you give a similar function for the existance of a federated authority or "High King," and essentially make it come down to Good Guys and Bad Guys, a fight I was tired of by the time I was out of second grade. Even in fantasy worlds, there are almost never good guys and bad guys. There are people with different views of the world and who want power for different reasons. Deciding which reason is right and arguing for it through the text is the thematic centre of many fantasy books. For example, in Tolkein, the argument is very successful; Sauran represents brutal tyranny and a selfish quest for power, while Aragorn represents a man who does not want power, and thus will excell at it when he takes it. Throughout the text, the point is made that those who do not desire political power are those most fit to wield it, as are those who stand in to complete their duty even when it goes against their desires, while they stand in contrast to power mad leaders who make their desires the duties of all below them. No side is really given the Laws of the Universe backing their view, as the Good Guys are in yours. Strong writing, not cheating, proves the philosophical point. If the seeming philosophical conflict is simply a background for the story you're telling, I apologize for rambling. However, that is a much, much larger problem I have with your book, should it be the case.

[Dervag]

Dostoevsky had the same problem in Crime and Punishment, of course; Rodya's crime was made wrong automatically by the fact he killed an innocent in the process, thus denying the question of whether murdering a non-innocent to save innocents was acceptable.Of course, while that was the question Raskolnikov wanted to address, it wasn't necessarily the real question. The real issue was that in the real world you can't control events by killing the non-innocent for the sake of innocents while never accidentally killing innocents. And that society will not react to you the way you want it to because it consists of other people just as real as you who have their own goals and intentions. And that one person's rationalist model of how something Ought To Happen isn't going to fit the way that other minds, or even their own mind and body, react to events. In the words of Mike Tyson, "everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face."

Raskolnikov was the archetypal intellectual revolutionary of the nineteenth century. He believed in his own ability to order society, or at least some small part of it. He tended to look down on the 'ordinary' non-intellectuals around him. And, being a rationalist, he believed that he could create rational plans to commit acts, be they criminal or noncriminal, and have everything go according to the plan.

And then society punched him in the face, so to speak. He found that killing someone triggered emotional reactions in him that impeded his ability to act rationally, that other people might do things he didn't expect like stumble on the murder and 'force' him to kill the witness, and that other intelligent people (the detective Porfiry) will oppose him and seek to punish him for his actions.


In making the authority magically required, you give a similar function for the existance of a federated authority or "High King," and essentially make it come down to Good Guys and Bad Guys, a fight I was tired of by the time I was out of second grade.Well, the High King doesn't have to be a good person for this novel to work. I can imagine a universe where the Oaths work exactly as planned, but where the High King is not a particularly nice or good person and where some of the conspirators have perfectly understandable reasons for seeking his overthrow.

[The Extinguisher]

I actually like this. It's not a new and radical idea that will "shake the foundations of the fantasy genre for years to come" but it seems interesting and fun. I like the world-building aspect to it best. I've always enjoyed good world-building.

Anyway, since this is being discussed in this thread, I was thinking if someone could critique my idea for a fantasy-esque story as well. I want to see what people think.

My idea is bacially the future of the fantasy, "swords and sorcery" style worlds. It's set in a era that is the rough equivalent to our late 20th century, although slightly less advanced in some eras. Notably weaponry and space travel. Anyways...

Roughly one hundred years ago, there was a rebellion of sorts. The lands of Dolin used to be under the loose control of demons. They kept the world in check and the hatred between the various inhabitants from errupting in war. Most people were happy with that. However, one powerful demon named Zex, litterally a god fallen from divinity, wasn't. Gentlely and subtly, he pushed the lands Angels, Humans and Elves to put aside thier differences and ally together. The battles were swift and devestating. The three allies brought with them a empire, and the losers, the demons and the psionic 'monsters', we're left in the dust. The demons were forced to the edges of society and the psions were exiled to the underground caverns, which were completly sealed.
In the present day, demons and demon-born are hated and discriminated against, due to unoffical policy of the empire. People will often hide there heritage to get ahead in life, and upon discovery, the demons suddenly vanish in the night, leaving only a bloody mess in thier homes. The only safe haven is the island of Sem, which is completly hidden and is known only by those who live there.
In the human capital of Rain, a demon-born named Kain is run out of house and home after his heritage is revealed during a university class. Not wanting to live on the street in constant fear for his life, he decides to leave Rain in favor of Dust, a desert city on another island, where his sister lives. On the way, he meets a few other people, Amy a full demon and a necromancer named Enin, both a part of the criminal life Kain gets involved in while trapped in Solaria, the celestial capital between Rain and the island of Catalyst (the island where Dust is located)
Dust reveals several important things, including the full circumstances behind the war, which has thus far been taught to be the demon's oppressiveness. Kain and everyone else who discovers this decide something must be done about it. They find the one entrance to the underground that was never sealed of, because it was never used. They ventere into the darkness and strike a deal with the creatures, who asssemble thier forces and attack Solaria and the rest of the island of Celes. This gives Kain and co. from tracking the now moving Zex, while themselves being followed by the Angelborn, a order of paladins who focus in elminating all demons.

So that's it. About the first half, and is a fair enough explanation. What do you think.

[hanzo66]

I also have a concept for a fantasy-themed story. It's more of a satire of the RPG genre (a bit more of the Video Game style) with certain things played straight. It's really a work in progress, so this is really just a synopsis. I haven't completely worked out the name for the main character.



The story takes place about fifteen years AFTER the basic Fantasy plotline, where a group of heroes united to defeat a great evil. The group has since disbanded, with the Great Hero Kreilyn having disappeared during the years.

Cut to current time, where one of the heroes, a lowly Bard-type character (I noted that this is an RPG-type story) who served as a buttmonkey/servant to Kreilyn as well as playing a minor role is the only member of the original group that hasn't made a name for himself after the story, whereas most of the other members either became significant in their respective communities, have gained fame by themselves capitalizing on their Hero status or just generally having done something with their lives afterwards, The Bard (whose name may probably end up as unrevealed in the story), now in his late 20's/early 30's ended up receiving no accolades whatsoever as well as limited money and has since eked out a living as a tavern-singer, having been forgotten/abandoned by most of his former friends.

The Bard however ends up learning through the tavern he lives in a plot that could threaten the world. Hoping that this time he could perhaps gain some fame, he decides to visit some of his old partners and convince them to aid him on one last quest...



It's really what I've got down so far. A work in progress for a game I'm thinking up.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Well, the High King doesn't have to be a good person for this novel to work. I can imagine a universe where the Oaths work exactly as planned, but where the High King is not a particularly nice or good person and where some of the conspirators have perfectly understandable reasons for seeking his overthrow.

Indeed; the fact that he must be sided with anyway is precisely the problem. Whether or not the High King is even a remotely decent human being, he must be backed by the heroic characters, which is the authoritarian message I disagree with that has the winnin gside forced as such into the storyline. It's the message that bad kings are good because you need to have a king, even if he's not good. Which it doesn't stress with arguments, but with the magical rules governing the universe.

As for Dostoevsky, I'm well aware what the novel really proves. I'm simply pointing out if fails as the moralizing tale most people think it is, in that the theoretical moral question can never be addressed. Instead of becoming a novel theorizing upon what is moral, it becomes one theorizing upon what is practical, which is just sort of silly.

[Executor]

Oh no, the High King is none to nice a person. That is where the moral and pyschological aspects of the story come up. You see, the High King isn't quite as insane as Idi Amin, but is definetely more insane than King George III. He's hedonistic, a little cruel, empty-headed and a bit of a megalomaniac. The kingdom is basically run by his brother and his captain of the guard. Now, if he wasn't neccesary for the kingdom to continue to exist, Gareth would turn against him in an instant.

[dehro]

I feel different concepts by different authors should be commented upon in different threads...invading the present one is not very nice towards who has opened it.
why don't you each open a different thread, so that we might not mix things up?
anyway, Dervag wins the thread for having found an intelligent way to use a quote of Tyson.

[hanzo66]

Yeah, I just got caught up on example...

[The Extinguisher]

I feel different concepts by different authors should be commented upon in different threads...invading the present one is not very nice towards who has opened it.
why don't you each open a different thread, so that we might not mix things up?
anyway, Dervag wins the thread for having found an intelligent way to use a quote of Tyson.

Because if we do that, we get fifty plus threads on "rate this idea" where if we keep them all in the one thread, we safe space and hassle.

[Sneak]

Technically, yes. However, this thread was created specifically to discuss one idea for a book. If you want to make a thread for anyone to post an idea, go right ahead. This isn't the place, however.

Anyway, the book sounds interesting. I would read it. The clichés don't really both me much (most everything is a cliché nowadays, anyway). However, the one thing that does bother me a little is the clichéd names. But really, that's not a big problem.

[Dervag]

Indeed; the fact that he must be sided with anyway is precisely the problem. Whether or not the High King is even a remotely decent human being, he must be backed by the heroic characters, which is the authoritarian message I disagree with that has the winnin gside forced as such into the storyline. It's the message that bad kings are good because you need to have a king, even if he's not good. Which it doesn't stress with arguments, but with the magical rules governing the universe.Maybe the resolution of the story could be to create some way of binding the Oaths to someone other than the king, so that the government can evolve without resulting in the ruin of civilization. How would that be from your perspective?


As for Dostoevsky, I'm well aware what the novel really proves. I'm simply pointing out if fails as the moralizing tale most people think it is,I'm not sure what, or even if, most people think Crime and Punishment is.


Instead of becoming a novel theorizing upon what is moral, it becomes one theorizing upon what is practical, which is just sort of silly.Not in Dostoevsky's Russia it wasn't. He was writing that novel in response to a number of political ideologies that were very real (some of them later evolved into Bolshevik communism). The entire point of the exercise was to illustrate that the world is not as simple as the rationalists would like to construct it, and that ideologies which seek to break all the bonds between human beings must necessarily lead to disintegration. That doesn't mean that authority knows best, only that dissolving everything is not the way to go and that no one person can be relied on to know better than authority.

At least, that's more or less the consensus my college lit class came away with.


Oh no, the High King is none to nice a person. That is where the moral and pyschological aspects of the story come up. You see, the High King isn't quite as insane as Idi Amin, but is definetely more insane than King George III. He's hedonistic, a little cruel, empty-headed and a bit of a megalomaniac. The kingdom is basically run by his brother and his captain of the guard. Now, if he wasn't neccesary for the kingdom to continue to exist, Gareth would turn against him in an instant.Yes, and that's an authoritarian lesson. There is a sense in which we can say Gareth is a very good... German. Now, he lives in a world where it is dangerous if not foolhardy to be anything else, granted, but that's the problem. Which is what motivated me to suggest the idea above- that a nice and unexpected resolution of the novel would be for Gareth or others to find a way to bind the Oaths to someone other than the person of this not-very-nice king.

That would also help to put down the problem of the book being clichéd; this is not the stereotypical ending.

[The Extinguisher]

Yes, but are you saying that a thread has never been made for a specific discussion, then expanded to fit all forms of that discussion.

Besides, if I did make a new thread, wouldn't that break the one thread per subject rule?

[dehro]

Because if we do that, we get fifty plus threads on "rate this idea" where if we keep them all in the one thread, we safe space and hassle.

it would solve the issues of those who rant against the Vs threads though..giving theme some variation :smallbiggrin:


and no, not if the subject of this thread is the concept for a book of the poster, and the subject of the next topic is the concept for a different book by a different poster.

[Runa]

I think it sounds pretty interesting, personally. The setting has real potential, and I always like the combination of "little guys, big problems". I especially like that while Gareth gets tangled up in some big issues, he's not some fancy Chosen One - he's the kind of person (in the words of Joss Whedon when he described Firefly's characters) "that history steps on". I also REALLY appreciate the concept of a man and a woman getting stuck on a adventure of political intrigue and such, without falling in love just because they're a hero and heroine - that's actually quite refreshing. They should still be close friends, after all they're going through, but I actually really, really like the idea of them not automatically getting romantically involved with one another - partly because it would make her seem a bit of a harlot, really, after cheating on her husband AND just giving birth to a child born of an adulterous relationship. :P

-Runa