Captain Tagon
First Post
RangerWickett said:
Well, I don't really have anything lined up to read currently, and the work schedule means I have a lot of free afternoons but no energy to go do anything so...
artisnottheworld (at) gmail (dot) com
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
What appeals to you in a fantasy novel?
- Thread starter RangerWickett
- Start date
Well, I don't really have anything lined up to read currently, and the work schedule means I have a lot of free afternoons but no energy to go do anything so...
artisnottheworld (at) gmail (dot) com
sniffles
First Post
Wombat pretty much covered the same territory I enjoy, although I range out into humor sometimes as well, such as Terry Pratchett, because he also explores moral issues but with a lighter tone.
I know some specific things I hate to see in any novel I read, and they seem to be common flaws in fantasy literature (though of course 'flaws' is a subjective label). They go against what my creative writing instructor told me: "Show, don't tell". Things like paragraphs of description of the character's appearance and/or attire. That's "telling". Does anyone really know what color Aragorn's eyes are? I don't recall any mention of it, but most readers had a pretty good image of him in their heads before it was supplanted by the image of Viggo Mortensen.
Also, constantly referring to the characters by their D&D character classes is extremely irritating (although if you're writing in a humorous self-referential style then it might not be so bad). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with writing game-based fiction, but make it fiction first and game-related second.
Have you tried finding a writer's group? They can be beneficial. Or see if you could get a scholarship to the Clarion Writer's Workshop. That's helped a lot of people get their feet in the door as far as getting their work published.
I know some specific things I hate to see in any novel I read, and they seem to be common flaws in fantasy literature (though of course 'flaws' is a subjective label). They go against what my creative writing instructor told me: "Show, don't tell". Things like paragraphs of description of the character's appearance and/or attire. That's "telling". Does anyone really know what color Aragorn's eyes are? I don't recall any mention of it, but most readers had a pretty good image of him in their heads before it was supplanted by the image of Viggo Mortensen.
Also, constantly referring to the characters by their D&D character classes is extremely irritating (although if you're writing in a humorous self-referential style then it might not be so bad). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with writing game-based fiction, but make it fiction first and game-related second.
Have you tried finding a writer's group? They can be beneficial. Or see if you could get a scholarship to the Clarion Writer's Workshop. That's helped a lot of people get their feet in the door as far as getting their work published.
Vonlok The Bold
First Post
I like Tolkein because of all the fantasy books I've read he has the greatest style. It is entirely his own, and has a sense of story telling that just really gets me into the story itself. Not only that he writes well in an academic sense. Contrary to that is Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series. I liked the first books because of the world he created, but even in the very first book, he had awful run-on sentences that served no point in furthering the story.
I loved George RR Martin because he is unique. I loved the complexity of his characters. I like stories where political intrigue play a major part, so he had that going for it as well. Martin does use certain devices too much in his novels, but over all his style and writing is a cut above the standard fantasy writer.
I like John Marco's subject matter, but most of his stuff seems cliche, and predictable with little depth of character.
In general I like stories about the kinds of PC's I would play. If it is too much about wizards or has too much magic it doesn't interest me. I do like limited magic, but where problem solving or the methods of the bad guys getting away has to do with brain power and problem solving more than a cool spell.
I also like novels that have an adventuring party. It can break up the monotony of a solo protagonist, and gives some interesting dynamics. However, Dragon Lance characters were pretty one-dimensional, and some of the stuff seemed forced.
It is hard to find books about groups, because it is hard to write, and have each of the protagonists have distinct and complex characters. The Three Musketeers wasn't a fantasy novel but it did a good job of this.
I like suspense and action.
I like low magic more than high magic, political intrigue, and group oriented stories, but I will throw them all out the window for a story written with a great style that is different from the ordinary fantasy novel.
Brokedown Palace is a story like this. It has a style similar that have Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, but it is a fantasy novel. I love that book. It's great. It has style, and that style trumps any subject matter that might normally not appeal to me.
But in all honesty my tastes are pretty varied, and I love what I consider good fantasy novels, I can't stomach most of the fantasy novels written. My tastes also might represent a minority of fantasy readers than the average fantasy novel fan.
I loved George RR Martin because he is unique. I loved the complexity of his characters. I like stories where political intrigue play a major part, so he had that going for it as well. Martin does use certain devices too much in his novels, but over all his style and writing is a cut above the standard fantasy writer.
I like John Marco's subject matter, but most of his stuff seems cliche, and predictable with little depth of character.
In general I like stories about the kinds of PC's I would play. If it is too much about wizards or has too much magic it doesn't interest me. I do like limited magic, but where problem solving or the methods of the bad guys getting away has to do with brain power and problem solving more than a cool spell.
I also like novels that have an adventuring party. It can break up the monotony of a solo protagonist, and gives some interesting dynamics. However, Dragon Lance characters were pretty one-dimensional, and some of the stuff seemed forced.
It is hard to find books about groups, because it is hard to write, and have each of the protagonists have distinct and complex characters. The Three Musketeers wasn't a fantasy novel but it did a good job of this.
I like suspense and action.
I like low magic more than high magic, political intrigue, and group oriented stories, but I will throw them all out the window for a story written with a great style that is different from the ordinary fantasy novel.
Brokedown Palace is a story like this. It has a style similar that have Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree, but it is a fantasy novel. I love that book. It's great. It has style, and that style trumps any subject matter that might normally not appeal to me.
But in all honesty my tastes are pretty varied, and I love what I consider good fantasy novels, I can't stomach most of the fantasy novels written. My tastes also might represent a minority of fantasy readers than the average fantasy novel fan.
Viking Bastard
Adventurer
I'm not sure what I liked. I've probably read well over a hundred fantasy books by now,
most of them in my early teens, many of whom I've been entertained by but only a
handful that I've actually liked.
Tolkien, Prachett, Martin, Howard, Gaiman, Lewis, Rowling. These I liked.
The rest? Meh.
Today I hardly read any fantasy at all. I've pretty much given up. Overall I'm just
much more picky when it comes to books. A bad movie robs me of couple of hours,
a bad book takes much more. I want to be grabbed by books. I want something that
I've not seen before. A new idea. The idea can be theme, plot, characters, writing
style, twist or concept or whatever. Just give me a new experience of some kind.
Else I get bored.
The only "soft" reading I do nowadays are the detective/thriller stories and such.
Somehow, I'm more forgiving when it comes to them. Just as I can watch CSI and the
countless UK detective series forever, it seems.
most of them in my early teens, many of whom I've been entertained by but only a
handful that I've actually liked.
Tolkien, Prachett, Martin, Howard, Gaiman, Lewis, Rowling. These I liked.
The rest? Meh.
Today I hardly read any fantasy at all. I've pretty much given up. Overall I'm just
much more picky when it comes to books. A bad movie robs me of couple of hours,
a bad book takes much more. I want to be grabbed by books. I want something that
I've not seen before. A new idea. The idea can be theme, plot, characters, writing
style, twist or concept or whatever. Just give me a new experience of some kind.
Else I get bored.
The only "soft" reading I do nowadays are the detective/thriller stories and such.
Somehow, I'm more forgiving when it comes to them. Just as I can watch CSI and the
countless UK detective series forever, it seems.
Chain Lightning
First Post
sniffles said:I know some specific things I hate to see in any novel I read, and they seem to be common flaws in fantasy literature (though of course 'flaws' is a subjective label). They go against what my creative writing instructor told me: "Show, don't tell". Things like paragraphs of description of the character's appearance and/or attire. That's "telling". Does anyone really know what color Aragorn's eyes are? I don't recall any mention of it, but most readers had a pretty good image of him in their heads before it was supplanted by the image of Viggo Mortensen.
I agree. I dislike authors that over-describe things. However, I also dislike those that don't describe enough. Like Glen Cook. I think I was like third into the book before I found out on of the magic-user brothers was black. You gotta at least give some basic info. Without that, the reader can't paint the visuals in his/her mind.
Speaking of visuals. Let me mention a minor annoyance of mine. Some authors show their weakness at artistic design. Of course they're weak in this area, they've concentrated on writing not art design. But it shows up and ruins my experience from time to time.
This basically happens when the author is describing what someone is wearing. Because the author has no artistic sense, sometimes he or she will describe a really silly looking outfit. And since I'm an artist, I always have a direct translation of what is described and I'm sitting there going, " oh geez...that's weird ..."
Example: some awesome cool warrior walks in the room and he is described like this: "....was wearing green hose. Around his waist was a worn leather belt with a leaf design on it. Each leaf was painted red. His brocaded shirt was purple with green flying swans over the chest. As he pulled back the hood on his yellow cloak, his long hair fell upon his shoulders. Bob noticed a large eagle feather tied at the end of a long braid that was tucked behind his left ear. The color of the feather matched the beads that were tied around his right ankle."
When I read stuff like this I totally get taken out of the moment and can no longer take the character seriously. Please oh please....if you're an author....don't do this. Have a friend draw you a quick sketch or something. Design it first on scratch piece of paper. Even if you're not an artist, please plan it first. Sweet jeebus, if I had a nickle for every time I ran into a description like this......
Its fine if the character is suppose to be a fool, but c'mon....not on a serious character.
Other than that, I agree with Takyris. Plus I tend to not like "inside joke" type writing. When I usually read it, it makes me feel like I've walked into some gaming store (that I'm not a regular of) and I'm forced to stand in the corner and listen to the inside jokes of all the players of the D&D session going on in the store.
However, if you're kinda doing the "Galaxy Quest" style story with D&D, then that's cool.
Thanee
First Post
RangerWickett said:
I like believable characters with feasible motivations. A good mix between drama, romance, action, etc, since all of those are interesting to me. I like, if things are not overdone.
Admittedly, I have only read one D&D novel, and that one was godawful. The only reason, why I did not put it down was, that it was informative, because it covered the events of an adventure-campaign I'm using.
I have read a few shadowrun novels, however, which I found (mostly) very entertaining.
The more light-hearted approach, which is often used there (as opposed to a monster like SoIaF), is well-suited for a quick read, but in the end, I enjoy reading a book with such intricate layers of detail as the SoIaF series better.
Stan Nicholls' Quicksilver Trilogy is a pretty light fantasy reading and fairly action-packed, which I did enjoy reading (and still do, Quicksilver Twilight is due out in octobre). It cannot compete with novels like the Lord of the Rings or the Song of Ice and Fire, but it's nonetheless enjoyable reading.
Bye
Thanee
theburningman
First Post
RangerWickett said:
I read all of the original Forgotten Realms novels when they came out (The Moonshae Trilogy, The Icewind Dale Trilogy, Azure Bonds, etc.) and the original Dragonlance trilogy. I pretty much stopped reading DnD fiction cold after forcing myself through the Godswar trilogy of the Forgotten Realms. After that I became a little prejudiced against gamer fiction. I still had a soft spot for those first FR novels, though, so a few weeks ago I picked up The Thousand Orcs. It convinced me that my prejudice was justified. Not that it was really bad, mind you, but it wasn't really good, and I don't have time for reading books that aren't good.
Still, if you want to write DnD style fiction, go for it. But don't use it as an excuse to write crap. Put just as much effort into it as you would the Great American Novel.
Thornir Alekeg
Albatross!
What I have found is that the books I found most memorable and engaging all have great characters. The characters have depth and emotion. You end up loving the heroes and hating the villains. You hold your breath when you think something bad is about to happen. Heck, I've had books where I became so attached to the characters that I stopped reading the book right before something awful happened to them. I just could not bear to read it happening. After a couple of weeks, I would pick it up again, agonizing with the character's pain. That is what I want from a book more than anything. If I don't care about the characters, I won't care about the book.
Pants
First Post
I like lots of stuff, though I usually prefer complex characters in dangerous situations. I like having characters that intrigue me, characters to hate, and characters to like. I hate, hate characters that are nothing more than collections of traits (*coughRobertJordanStevenEriksoncough*) with very little actual depth.
R. Scott Bakker, George RR Martin, and Robin Hobb do excellent jobs with their characters, even if I find many of them to be reprehensible creatures.
Snappy dialogue is good, though serviceable dialogue is okay, especially since most fantasy authors have clunky dialogue, or modern-stylized dialogue mixed with psuedo-medieval prosey garbage (if you're gonna do one, stick with that one, don't mix styles unless you have a really good reason to).
Overly descriptive is bad (Robert Jordan), I don't need to know the exact details on every piece of fabric on a dress or the taste of tea reiterated every time a character takes a sip. Underly descriptive is bad too (Glen Cook, Erikson... to some extent). Someone mentioned not having any idea what a character looked like in Glen Cook's series and I totally agree. I want to have an idea of what a character looks like.
Erikson does description very well, though he's sometimes a little too sparse on the details. I like how he drops short descriptions into passages without clunking them all together in one big ham-fisted description. On the other hand, sometimes he leaves things too sparse. Some characters he never really describes fully, and I remember wondering what a T'lan Imass looked like all through Gardens and up into Memories of Ice.
Info dumps suck. Go R. Scott Bakker and Steven Erikson!
The book must have a map. We're in a different world here, it helps to know where things are or at least I want to have a vague outline of the world.
Overall, I really have no preference over 'sword and sorcery' or 'high fantasy,' though I tend to prefer fantasy books that 'do' something new or put new spins on old cliches, like China Mieville, Erikson, Martin, or Bakker.
R. Scott Bakker, George RR Martin, and Robin Hobb do excellent jobs with their characters, even if I find many of them to be reprehensible creatures.
Snappy dialogue is good, though serviceable dialogue is okay, especially since most fantasy authors have clunky dialogue, or modern-stylized dialogue mixed with psuedo-medieval prosey garbage (if you're gonna do one, stick with that one, don't mix styles unless you have a really good reason to).
Overly descriptive is bad (Robert Jordan), I don't need to know the exact details on every piece of fabric on a dress or the taste of tea reiterated every time a character takes a sip. Underly descriptive is bad too (Glen Cook, Erikson... to some extent). Someone mentioned not having any idea what a character looked like in Glen Cook's series and I totally agree. I want to have an idea of what a character looks like.
Erikson does description very well, though he's sometimes a little too sparse on the details. I like how he drops short descriptions into passages without clunking them all together in one big ham-fisted description. On the other hand, sometimes he leaves things too sparse. Some characters he never really describes fully, and I remember wondering what a T'lan Imass looked like all through Gardens and up into Memories of Ice.
Info dumps suck. Go R. Scott Bakker and Steven Erikson!
The book must have a map. We're in a different world here, it helps to know where things are or at least I want to have a vague outline of the world.
Overall, I really have no preference over 'sword and sorcery' or 'high fantasy,' though I tend to prefer fantasy books that 'do' something new or put new spins on old cliches, like China Mieville, Erikson, Martin, or Bakker.
Similar Threads
