How to write a best-selling fantasy novel

[Krug]

Not too far off the mark..

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~imcfadyen/notthenet/fantasy.htm

 

[KenM]

JRRT must have read that. That page has alot of the points on why I don't like JRRT's style. I love the movies, just not the books. I'm not trying to hijack.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Very Campbellian.

Terry Brooks came to mind before JRRT, though -- isn't a significant portion of the fantasy written since JRRT just a repackaging?

 

[ssampier]

good stuff. The only thing I'd add is the hero never particularly wants to go on this quest, only that his destiny/prophecy/Sage declares it.

What would happen if we made the villian reluctant, a yeoman, a loser. The hero could then be the over-confident one...

(((makes me realize that George R.R. Martin breaks many of these rules, especially with fantasy sex)))

 

[Merlion]

Honestly, I find this vaguely insulting, especially the sterotype bits. They seem to be assuming that because someone puts something in a story (such as evil ugly creatures) it means they believe it, or some morally questionble version of it. like when it essentially says or seems to be saying that the evil beings in fantasy novels are primarily physically unpleasant by our standards because those writting them feel anyone who doesnt fit our ideals of beauty is automatically evil.

Its also incorrect since in Tolkien's work (which is what this seems to be mocking) the head bad guys were originally beautiful. Both Melkor-Morgoth and Sauron were among the most beautiful beings in existence to begin with, and retained the ability to be so till late in their careers.

And the Orcs and Trolls were as they were because they were intentional mockeries of the other species.

 

[mmu1]

Eh. It hits the mark, because there are a lot of hack writers out there, but it actually has little that's relevant to Tolkien - the few things that apply only do because many other writers happened to copy them and make then into cliches.

 

[replicant2]

Not too far off the mark..

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~imcfadyen/notthenet/fantasy.htm

On the contrary, I found a lot of this "essay" (a sarcastic, nasty dig at Tolkien, let's be honest) way off the mark.

Let's start with section 8, "Skip the hard parts." So Tolkien doesn't spend pages of exposition describing battles, and that's "skipping the hard part?" Tolkien spent YEARS creating entire languages, a rich history, a pantheon of gods, a myth of creation, all BEFORE he began the story. That's skipping the "hard parts?" Wow.

My guess is that a WWI veteran with first-hand experience in the trenches at the battle of the Somme could have written some very realistic battle scenes, had he chosen to. LOTR has far more going on it than just strings of battles, however. That's one of the reasons why its great.

And the section on "bad expendables" -- that's borderline offensive. More or less accuses Tolkien of racism and prejudice ("unacceptable by middle class Caucasian standards"). In fact, some of Tolkien's most evil creations were strikingly beautiful (see Melkor in the Silmarillion, predecessor to Sauron). And am I misreading the theme where all the races must unite to defeat evil?

I also take great exception with point 1: Make your main character a loser because "most of the people who read your book will be unconfident males." Not only is that an insult to the reader, but by extension Frodo (and Sam, the story's other main character and hero) are "losers ... aimless, shy, cowardly, guilty, ill, lazy, rural." Two normal, quiet people who somehow find the courage to leave hearth and home, journey to strange lands and confront the greatest evil their world has ever known, are losers? Why, because their courage vacillates, even breaks at times? Because they want to abandon the quest and flee back to Hobbiton? Because they fear death?

I guess the writer's definition of brave is different than mine. Perhaps he/she would have just strode right up to the gates of Moria and punched Sauron in the nose. Too bad we all can't be that "tough." Me, I find heroic those stories of ordinary people finding the courage to do extraordinary things. Those are real heroes.

 

[Merlion]

~points to replicant~

what he said.

I am really getting rather tired of these sorts of things. This is the same kind of junk all the movie and literary critics buy in to that constantly bad mouth anything fantasy/sci fi/horror and belittle those who enjoy it.

Its offensive, and tiresome.

 

[KenM]

On the contrary, I found a lot of this "essay" (a sarcastic, nasty dig at Tolkien, let's be honest) way off the mark.

Let's start with section 8, "Skip the hard parts." So Tolkien doesn't spend pages of exposition describing battles, and that's "skipping the hard part?" Tolkien spent YEARS creating entire languages, a rich history, a pantheon of gods, a myth of creation, all BEFORE he began the story. That's skipping the "hard parts?" Wow.

My guess is that a WWI veteran with first-hand experience in the trenches at the battle of the Somme could have written some very realistic battle scenes, had he chosen to. LOTR has far more going on it than just strings of battles, however. That's one of the reasons why its great.

Sorry for the hijack, but i feel I need to comment on this. I don't think the other things JRRT did that you mentioned were not hard. But IMO, JRRT skipping the battles is one of the weak points points of LOTR. JRRT's story deals with a war, and the battles needed to be described just as much as the other parts of the story. JRRT does not do this, he skips over major battles and plot points by not describing the battles. End of hijack.

 

[Dark Jezter]

The amusing thing about this list is that much of it applies to anime as well: A high number of anime series feature loser heroes, motley bunches of companions, wise but useless "mentor" characters, etc.

Anyways, that was an amusing list. Made me smile, it did.