What appeals to you in a fantasy novel?

[RangerWickett]

I'm in an odd position when it comes to fantasy fiction. I grew up reading genre series novels -- things like Star Trek, D&D novels, the occasional Robots in Time series. Then in college I got a degree in Creative Writing, and was exposed to a lot of literary writing. Even though my advisor Jim Grimsley writes some fantasy, he discouraged me from 'D&D writing.'

In the past four years I've read maybe a dozen sci-fi and fantasy novels that aren't from series like D&D, or Star Trek, or other media tie-ins. I loved Octavia Butler, enjoyed Neal Stephenson and William Gibson, am alright China Mieville, was entertained by the Prydain Chronicles, appreciative of the sci-fi of Larry Niven, and I'm getting to like the nice characterizations of . . . I forget the name, but it's the person who wrote Otherland.

Anyway, I'm writing my own fantasy novel, and . . . really, it's undeniable: it's a D&D novel. It's a self-referential D&D novel -- the characters know what they do is a little odd, they're aware of cliches like people never dying if they fall over waterfalls, and they talk more like characters in a Joss Whedon show than anything R.A. Salvatore would write -- but it's still heavily grounded in the "group of adventurers fight monsters" style. Whenever I do get into the 'speculative' side of storytelling (i.e., whenever I present some strange aspect of the world or society), I don't really explain how it works, just how it affects the characters.

Is that a problem? I read the first 100 pages of Song of Ice & Fire and just didn't get into it. The politics and conspiracies felt dry, and the focus was not on the kids enough. I got eager to see some action.

What do people like in their sci-fi and fantasy? I imagine a conversation here would be a little biased, but do people like D&D novel-style fiction? Or do you think it's trite (which it tends to be)? Do you prefer more intellectual fantasy, or action-oriented? What else do you enjoy or look forward to?

 

[Wombat]

My favourite fantasy authors deal heavily with moral issues and human triumphs and tragedies. Ursula LeGuin (Earthsea), Guy Gavriel Kay (Lions of al-Rassan, etc.), T.H. White (The Once & Future King), J.R.R. Tolkein (Lord of the Rings, etc.), Bernard Cornwell, (Warlord Trilogy), Charles de Lint (practically everything!) -- these authors have touched my heart. Yes, there may be thumping great battles in these books, but ultimately the book is about something other than simply swords and sorcery. These are books that tackle something larger, such as themes of true loyalties, the nature of the self, and the dividing lines between good and evil. Sure, Moorcock is a great, light summer read, as is ER Burroughs or Lieber, but they are more like eye-peanuts for me, something to read through at a skim and not really worry about implications.

So I'm probably outta the mainstream this way.

 

[takyris]

Hey RW,

Depends on what you consider a problem. If you're writing what you want to be reading and reading what you want to be writing, you're in good shape. The problems begin when you read Star Trek and Dragonlance novels and then wonder why your writing isn't more like Tolkien or Martin. What you read always affects what you write. That's part of the reason that I don't read much when I'm working on a novel, or I stick to one sort of thing -- I don't want to change my style halfway through the novel when I decide that I'd really rather be writing a murder mystery than a swashbuckling action story.

The problem you do have is that the subgenre to which you naturally gravitate is one that is not terribly easy to get into and doesn't encourage originality. I'm not knocking the genre -- it's not my favorite thing these days, but I'll still read any Peter David I run across. It's just that most media tie-in things are done by established folks or big name folks, so if you wanted to write Star Trek or Dragonlance books, it's going to be tough to get in. Not impossible, but at least as tough as selling an original novel, and with more strings attached.

And if you want to write original (not tie-in) fiction that reads like tie-in fiction, you've got an uphill battle, since most original fiction markets don't like to publish stuff that reads like tie-in fiction. That's not a "never" by any stretch -- good enough stuff always sells eventually, somewhere -- but as I said, it's an uphill battle.

Your best bet, as I see it, would be one of the following:

1) See how much a rewrite will hide the tie-in-ness of your novel, so that you can sell it to a normal fantasy publisher (Tor, Daw, Baen, Roc). Might work, might not, might make you end up with something you hate.

2) Try WotC's original fiction open submissions period -- I think you did before, but it seems that they'll be doing that on a regular basis, and they're likely to be less averse to fiction like the kind you're writing than other places would be.

3) Get into WotC writing tie-in fiction and back-burner this novel for when you've got enough pull to say "Hey, actually, if we've got a lull, I've got this novel I'd like to do." This might mean compromises (setting it in Eberron, for example), but it is more likely to work than a "Hey, I know you already have all the worlds you want, but here's another" when trying to sell to WotC's tie-in department.

Caveat: All that said, there's a big difference between writing gaming fantasy and writing lazy fantasy. I haven't seen your fiction, so I have no way to know what kind you're writing. Gaming fantasy is fine. Lots of fight scenes, monsters that are familiar to the reader, no worries about people harping on your mythology because you're using something established... very fun.

Lazy fantasy is bad no matter what you want to call it, and lazy fantasy doesn't care about genre. Stepsisters who mock the attractive young girl who talks to unicorns and does rainbow magic for no sensible reason are stupid, not "a convention of the Cinderella fantasy genre". Adventurers who adventure for no particular reason while calling attention to that fact in a humorous way could very well be gaming fantasy, but... it sounds a bit more like lazy fantasy, just from your description. Calling attention to a problem in dialogue doesn't solve that problem -- and my D&D games give the adventurers solid reasons for having to go into the Cave of 9th-to-12th-Level Peril, so it wouldn't be "a convention of the genre" that I'd swallow. The kind of fiction you're describing, if not lazy fiction, sounds like "in-joke" fiction... and again, that can do well in the tie-in market (see Peter David, who zings the very shows and comics he loves mercilessly) but requires you to really know what you're talking about -- and be in the right market. And it usually only works in an official tie-in. If you're trying to write something that isn't in the Dragonlance part of the bookstore that makes fun of Dragonlance... that's gonna be a tough sell in the normal fantasy market, and an impossibility in the media tie-in market until you've established that you can write normal Dragonlance books well enough to sell those.

So... uphill battle, either way.

None of which means "stop writing" or even "Change what you're doing." It simply means that you should be aware of the choices you're making and examine whether you really and truly can't write anything different from that, or whether you could get your geek-jones by writing a fictitious story hour and write something more likely to sell on the side.

 

[Warrior Poet]

Had a huge, intricate, involved post. Now it's lost to the void, forever. I can't recreate it just now. Really ticked off. Sorry.

Warrior Poet

P.S. Compose elsewhere, then cut-paste so you don't get logged out mid post. It can work for you, too!

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I like sword and sorcery and humor fantasy.

I respect what Tolkien achieved with The Lord of the Rings (and actually enjoyed The Hobbit), but I've yet to read another High/Epic Fantasy that I could even manage that much good feeling toward.

On the other hand, not only do I respect and enjoy immensely Robert E. Howard, I've enjoyed most of his contemporaries, heirs and imitators, as well.

"Gaming fantasy" is often High Fantasy told with a Sword and Sorcery vibe, which puts it a step above actual High Fantasy in my book, but leagues below the barely-surviving real thing.

As for humor fantasy, I like most anything in that genre. Terry Pratchett, of course, standing far above the rest.

 

[Captain Tagon]

I too like humour fantasy. Great stuff that uses fantastic situations and humor as satire for the modern world.

That said I despise Swords and Sorcery, but really really enjoy High Fantasy.

I like the sweeping epics between good and evil where right and wrong are personified and the story becomes something of a morality play. Something heart wrenching at stirring at the same time.

 

[Andre]

Not sure if this helps with your question, but the number one thing I remember in books I enjoy are the characters. Interesting, likeable characters are always good. Interesting, hate-able villains are even better. Anti-heroes are very hard to pull off, as they often end up as simply obnoxious. When done right, can be very memorable.

A great example of humorous characters done well are the first several books in the Myth Adventures series. A good example of the characters done badly are the last two books in the same series (Myth-ion Improbable, Something M.Y.T.H., Inc).

Another point: avoid too much "travelogue" in the book. Yeah, Tolkien and a few others like Donaldson have pulled this off. But the vast majority of authors who try this end up boring me to death. If you can't suck me into your world in the first 100 pages, you're not going to at all. Evocative locations = good. Tour guide travelouge = bad.

Last, an element of mystery can keep a reader interested. Dune is a classic in part because the reader never really knew what was going on, especially in the first half of the book. Be careful, though. Handled badly, this can really turn off your audience. The Butlerian Jihad books and the ?? Suns series by Kevin Anderson tried and failed to make this work, IMO. Of course, those books suffered from lousy characters, so they already had serious problems.

 

[Swoop109]

That said I despise Swords and Sorcery, but really really enjoy High Fantasy.

I like the sweeping epics between good and evil where right and wrong are personified and the story becomes something of a morality play. Something heart wrenching at stirring at the same time.

Now please understand, I have no problem with HF when it is done well. The LotR series was done right the first time and I'm getting tired of writers who do nothing but re-write it into a 10 volume series.
Putting a face on both good and evil is also not a problem. But it needs to be developed into more then just "I'm good because I'm a paladin and he's not". I need my morality plays to be complex and thought provoking. I like my evil to be defeated by characters who might have to become even worse then what they are trying to destroy.
What if the only way to stop the horrible uber lich king is to slaughter a dozen unborn babies? Or the only way to prevent the rising of Orcus is to sacrifice a virgin from a unique bloodline by torturing her in a manor that will last for a full moon cycle?
Thats the kind of material I would like to see in today's fantasy. Choices that need to made that could cause the heros to become despised and hated more then the villians they are fighting against.

 

[Gronin]

I read just about any kind of fantasy (or SciFi for that matter) out there but I must admit that I prefer a story that has a fair bit of action. That being said though, I suppose the most important thing is interesting characters and the interplay between those characters.

A good example of great characters are the books of David Eddings, who does such masterful job of keeping you interested in his characters and their relationships with one another that you don't even realize that the plot moves forward rather slowly. (The Belgariad/Mallorean in particular...he gets much better with the action/story in the Sparhawk stuff).

Currently my two favourite authors are Mike Stackpole (who by the way has a newsletter for aspiring writers) and David Gemmell. Regarding Stackpole, I never really got into the Battletech novels but his Dragoncrown War series is fantastic - the characters, the plot....wow. Lots of action, intrigue and politics, and again great characters with some real depth to them. As far as David Gemmell is concerned he is the only author for which I will buy every book he writes, absolutely, without a doubt don't even need to know what the book is about - he has never disappointed me. I must admit some of his characters are bigger than life (which I don't usually like) but somehow he pulls of it off. If you haven't read any of his stuff I heartily recommend them. My two favs are Legend and Morningstar (which is a very good example of how to make the anti-hero work).

As far as gaming fiction goes I admit to having read and enjoyed the Dragonlance stuff (Weiss/Hichman only) and the Salvatore stuff (more so early on) and enjoyed them but for whatever reason they never make my highly recommended list. On the other hand I have enjoyed virtually every shadowrun novel I have read (although that may be more a function of just absolutely loving the world - FASA sure could develop a world with flavour - rules were sometimes iffy but flavour they had.)

Dunno if any of this stream of consciousness answers your questions but hey its late......
My advice to you (which is the same advice I just gave to my wife - also an aspiring author - is write for yourself, write what you like to see, what you like to read because that is what you are likely to be best at. Do not write just to get a novel published....write because you have a story to tell and tell it in the best way you can whatever format that might be.

Best of luck to you and I hope to someday be able to recommend your work when someone asks a similar question.

 

[Captain Tagon]

Now please understand, I have no problem with HF when it is done well. The LotR series was done right the first time and I'm getting tired of writers who do nothing but re-write it into a 10 volume series.
Putting a face on both good and evil is also not a problem. But it needs to be developed into more then just "I'm good because I'm a paladin and he's not". I need my morality plays to be complex and thought provoking. I like my evil to be defeated by characters who might have to become even worse then what they are trying to destroy.
What if the only way to stop the horrible uber lich king is to slaughter a dozen unborn babies? Or the only way to prevent the rising of Orcus is to sacrifice a virgin from a unique bloodline by torturing her in a manor that will last for a full moon cycle?
Thats the kind of material I would like to see in today's fantasy. Choices that need to made that could cause the heros to become despised and hated more then the villians they are fighting against.

That's cool for you, not for me. These days I tend to look at fiction of all types more and more as not so much telling a story, but making a real, tangible point. And my life is serious enough that if that point is "life sucks, sometimes the good guys have to do the job of the bad guys to get anything done and there is no hope for an actual good solution", then I've got better things to do with my time.