| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 09:57:25
Is FR fiction better when it's solidly grounded in reality, or does that miss the whole point of the exercise? I've been mulling over this question in my mind for some time, and as an author I thought it would be interesting to fish about for some other opinions.
To what extent should we use the human experience as a foundation for the fiction we write? Real people aren't unswervingly heroic or brimming with unalloyed evil like they are in many fantasy novels. Do such characters therefore fail to resonate with readers? And what about the details, those little peripheral inconveniences every author worries about? Should I fret whether glass would be too expensive for a peasant's windows, or whether my protagonist can read? Should we apply the rules of human history to those of the Forgotten Realms world?
I recall reading recently that a few fans felt FR villains were not villainous enough, and I wondered whether that was because their creators were trying to create someone more rounded, more real.
The question came up again as I was reading people's answers to Kameron Franklin's survey regarding a Draconic word for lightening. Some contributors suggested borrowing from human languages to come up with a word. Others felt this would be a mistake, and recommended sticking to pure imagination. Still others tried to apply rules like "one syllable or two" or make use of exclusively pre-existing sound groups. (For the record, my feeling is that what makes real-world languages fascinating is their diversity. Some words are borrowed directly from other languages. Others are primarily phonetic, sounding like the thing they describe -- "onomatopoeia," for you purists. Still others are invented on the spot, and popularized because they seem intuitively right. Each of these approaches is valid and historically represented, and thus attempting to apply rigid rules to language construction strikes me as very artificial.)
But I digress. My own opinion seems to be crystallizing around the idea that great fantasy treads a middle ground. I think there does need to be a healthy dose of reality in order to ensure that the real people reading the work can relate to the story and its characters. I also think that an accurate portrayal of the prosaic and ordinary helps elevate the fantasy elements themselves and make them seem more... well, fantastic. So you might say I like my Forgotten Realms with one lump of reality.
But what about everybody else? |
| 21 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Faraer |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 19:50:01
Given that not all genre fantasy is actually just one or the other...
I very much agree that Realms fiction is and should be sword and sorcery -- in particular its aspects of picaresque adventure, outrageous deeds, an energetic and bold or wry rather than an elevated tone, without overmuch introspection. (There's far too little good sword and sorcery as opposed to epic fantasy around, and I wish publishers would take risks on publishing more, and not just Baen's military fantasy.)
But I regret that editors at TSR and WotC have so rigidly insisted on light fast-adventure books 320 pages long. Given the sales of Wheel of Time et al., I don't see how letting Ed write the more involved, complex, stately Guy Kay-ish novels he wants would be an outrageous financial risk. The expectations for fast-adventure are there because that's been the policy in the past, not because it's the only style that fits the Realms. The decline in new sourcebook lore will increase readers' appetite for depth and description in the novels -- and the Realms are greatly influenced by Tolkien's sculptural worldbuilding, far more so than Gygax's original D&D which otherwise is based on a lot of the same sources.
Conan is an interesting case to cite. One of Conan's essential attributes is his Cimmerian melancholy (which he appeases with fits of violence), always in the background driving the character, but subtle enough that many readers have missed it. Did Howard do it that way because Farnsworth Wright wanted it so, or because he'd written out that Saturnian vein in the Kull stories? Not that Conan's introversion is of the modern self-doubt self-help type.
(Yup, I love Greek drama, though it makes me pine for the mystery rituals it's descended from. Same with Homer and what Greek religion may have been like before...) |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 19:42:51
Thanks for your thoughts, Thomas.
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M. Reid
To someone who's never written a full-length novel before, 90k words may seem like a lot, but as an author, I can tell you that you run out of words fast.
Ain't it the truth. I always make promises to myself about word count that I never keep. And sticking to the word limit for my contribution to Realms of the Dragons II was the most difficult thing I've ever had to accomplish as an author. |
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 17:12:03
Here's another facet for your consideration, Zyx (and everyone else): The style of the fiction you're reading (and to an extent the page/word count) dictates the level of realism you're going to get.
FR fiction has often been called Swords & Sorcery fiction, and from that label, you should be able to infer that the story will be high adventure, lots of magic, etc. etc. Most people crack open an FR novel expecting to see lots of daring do, exciting fight scenes, horrible monsters, and lots of spell slinging. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't also get some of the realism the characters experience along the way (such as saddle sores), but they are going to be minimized, and they are going to be carefully selected for what they can add to the mood and setting.
Here's a loose example from The Ruby Guardian, which I just recently turned over to my editor. There is a scene on board a ship with a seasick character in his cabin. Having only 90,000 words with which to work, I don't have time to describe every last detail of that room--how it smells with a sick person in it, whether it's hot and fetid or not, what the timber walls look like, how the furniture is arranged, how small and cramped it is, and so forth--I need one or two salient points to set the scene and then I need to move on with the story. So I settle on two involving a lantern. The first point is that another character who comes into the cabin can barely make out the sick figure initially, because the light from the lantern is dimmed way down. If you've ever been nauseous, particularly from a headache, you probably wanted the lights turned off, because bright light shining in your eyes only makes it worse. Later in the moment, as the ship shifts position in the water, the standing character nearly bumps his head on the lantern, which is hanging from a hook in the center of the ceiling. With those two quick references, I've established that the room is cramped and dark. There is certainly a lot more I could describe--how the bedsheets are rumpled and damp, how the sick character has two days' worth of beard on his chin, how his armor is messily discarded in the corner next to the overflowing chamber pot--but I don't have the room to fit all that in, nor do I really want to. It should be enough to mention a couple of features and not stop the flow of the action.
In an epic piece of fiction such as Jordan's Wheel of Time or Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, the author has the word count (at least ten times as much as an FR novel!) to devote a lot more verbage to those little tidbits of detail. And that makes those stories different kinds of fantasy from an FR novel.
I have a good buddy who was once complaining about a character in a particular Swords & Sorcery manuscript he was reviewing. The character, a barbarian, was spending a lot of time in introspection during the course of the story, questioning his motives, his value and worth in society, and the strength of a relationship with a friend, among other things. My buddy found a lot of faults with this particular portrayal--in the end, he just didn't percieve it as done very well--but the most poignant thing he said to me was, "Conan would never do that." He was expecting a certain kind of tale from an S&S book, and he wasn't getting it.
So it all depends on the kind of fiction you're reading. To someone who's never written a full-length novel before, 90k words may seem like a lot, but as an author, I can tell you that you run out of words fast.
Thomas
|
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 15:56:29
quote:
I think my stance on this subject is pretty much the same for similar subjects: The story should decide the lumps.
Good call. |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 23 Jun 2004 : 06:58:48
Quite definately. Let me show how well I listen to Tethtoril and borrow an example from a non-Realms source. 
In David Eddings' Garion books, the countries of the West have certain characteristics. One country has the best navy. Another the best light cavalry. Another has heavy cavalry, another archers, another pikemen . . . .
The point is that in a normal world, such stratified militaries couldn't exist. Of course, it works in this world because the countries are supposed to work together to combat the forces of Darkness.
Okay, enough with that. I'll try to keep things in the Realms for the rest of the post. Or at least, not in any other published worlds. 
As to how many lumps I want, I often want three.  I don't always get it, but that's what I like. Some will deliver. Others have stories good enough for me to look beyond a lack. I'd mention some, but I'm not going to break a promise in the very next paragraph.
Of course, I'm sure most people here have read my only web-published story, so you all have some idea of my commitment to realism. (Though actually, it used to have more fudging in it than I have now.) When I create a world, I go into many details. For instance, for "the real Jack Archer story" one of the first things I considered was time. How long is the day? The year? Do the inhabitants use cumbersome things like a seven-week, twelve-month calendar, or do they use the "enlightened" French attempt (post-Revolution) to make everything go by tens?
Fantasy, by its very nature, needs fudging. The Real World doesn't have elves, magic, dragons, and wizards. That's the whole point. And you really have to stretch ordinary things as well. If the hero were a normal person, (s)he wouldn't be a hero at all. (S)He would be in a tavern with the rest of the village, listening to a bard tell them all about the people who are heros. |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 15:50:58
quote:
A story can be highly realistic in one regard and not at all realistic in the other. And a given reader may place a high value on one sort of realism while not caring about the other.
Aha! As usual, Richard, you've put your finger on it exactly. This is what I'm interested in. Someone earlier made the remark that characters with too many human idiosynchrasies might be considered flat; characters who are, by contrast, over-the-top might be analogous to actors on a stage, where the gestures and elocutions are deliberately exaggerated. In a similar vein, it was also mentioned that nobody wants to read about saddle sores.
But I do! I do want to read about saddle sores, because then I'm in a real-world frame of mind that makes my awe at the sight of the dragon that much more pronounced. So when I read something that doesn't jive with the real world it brings the story to a screeching halt for me. I sink into a kind of grumpy "it doesn't work like that" mode that makes it harder for me to suspend my disbelief on the fun stuff.
I would use deliberate FR examples just to appease Tethtoril, but that wouldn't be very nice.
It is most certainly a matter of taste. That's why this discussion is interesting. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 14:01:05
It may be worth noting that in fantasy fiction, there's more than one kind of realism. There's realistic characterization, which involves presenting three-dimensional characters with credible human failings, foibles, and mannerisms. Then there's the realistic presentation of external phenomena. This involves dealing with economics, geography, climate, farming, warfare, whatever as these things operate in the real world, except where the fantasy elements of the setting alter them. Then you need to make it clear that the fantasy elements transform them in a logical and internally consistent manner.
A story can be highly realistic in one regard and not at all realistic in the other. And a given reader may place a high value on one sort of realism while not caring about the other. |
| Tethtoril |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 11:53:44
*nudge*
Aye ... fantasy and lumps what a combination. Let's add a third requirement here - the Realms. Please try and keep discussions to Realms fantasy and lumps earned here.  |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 09:25:59
Just a quick note on the subject of Draconic: it is not entirely true that Draconic makes no use of existing human languages. It makes use of Latin and/or English with "arcaniss," the Draconic word for magic. And while I think your reasoning was entirely solid, Sarta, I merely wished to point out that languages are not stagnant things; they grow and change over the centuries, often incorporating new words and even replacing old ones.
Case in point: the French have many words which are no longer used commonly, such as "fin de semaine" and "magaziner". These have been replaced, in Paris and Montreal at least, by "le weekend" and "le shopping". (I could start a whole new thread about how the rural French feel about this, but I'll spare you all.) Now, I'm not arguing that dragons would stoop to borrow human words, just that attempting to over-rationalize language construction is likely to land you somewhere a little too contrived to be realistic.
Faraer: it sounds to me like you would be a fan of Sophocles and Aeschylus. I admit a certain attraction to the profoundly (and deliberately) unrealistic portrayal of incredibly gritty emotional themes. You have to be immensely clever to pull it off, though. That's why the device of the Chorus was so cool. And I will admit to attempting something like this in my latest novel, which uses a veneer of epic action-adventure to hide an allegory about the nature of justice and tyranny. |
| James P. Davis |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 06:01:40
I think my stance on this subject is pretty much the same for similar subjects: The story should decide the lumps.
If you've got a good story, the level of realism needed to tell it will determine itself. I've read both one lump and two lump stories (and some no lump stories) that I've absolutely loved. In my own writing I take the setting or world as a given for the most part. I display what it is and what its about on its own terms and focus more reality on the characters who live in it. That is, depending on the story...Sometimes the cardboard cut-out hero or villain is very much a realistic character, sometimes they're too over the top. At other times the setting or world itself is a character of sorts and needs more explanation and personality.
Its all a matter of taste in the end though, you either like it or you don't, for whatever reason. |
| Sarta |
Posted - 22 Jun 2004 : 05:17:08
I find fiction to be better when it is internally consistent with its reality. With the FR (and all shared world stuff really) it should also strive to be consistent with the world it is set in and the works that have come before it.
In terms of the human condition and resonance with human readers. I think this is largely because low fantasy has hit a phase where it is not as popular with new readers. Instead, high fantasy and fantasy that treads the middle ground is more popular. New readers aren't interested in whether or not a hero has to worry about saddle sores or has doubts or qualms. They want villains painted in broad strokes that twist their mustache as they lurk down into their basement torture chambers. They want to play high fantasy heroes and are angry that characters such as the Chosen of Mystra exist and could possibly take the spotlight from them.
With regard to the language example you gave, the reason I answered the way I did is that I was looking at a large list of words that already existed for Draconic. I noticed that they were not based on any real world examples and decided that it would be best to not introduce one to that mix, something that would not be consistent with what we currently have.
I agree that languages in the real world often are onomatopoeic and/or borrow words from other languages. However, with draconic there were no such words listed, so I assumed that this meant that dragons didn't go for onomatopoeic words and being that draconic was one of the first langauges it would not have words based on other ones. I also assumed that common sounds were used due to the physical structure of a dragons mouth and that these were the sounds they found easier to make.
So, my effort was one of attempting to "play it safe" and be as consistent with what is currently out there. This doesn't mean that it is necessarily the correct choice, but it explains my reasoning.
Personally, I feel that one can write great fantasy that is low, high, or of the middle ground. However, it may very well be true that new readers are less comfortable with low fantasy and not appreciate gritty stories where the heroes are fighting just to stay fed. It is also true that occasionally a writer will find a way to depict a high fantasy adventure from a low fantasy perspective (the Black Company series by Glen Cook for example). Attempting this may prove even more successful than merely treading the middle ground.
Sarta |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 22:57:10
So, I think that what we're talking about here is execution. The execution of fantastic ideals is what the believability of those ideals is predicated upon.
I think that we as readers will accept any concept we're thrown as long as it is believable that:
1: such a thing/place/world could exist
and
2: that the characters react to the fantastic in ways that are similar to our own. In other words...no one just accepts that things out of the norm are okay, etc.
Example: (we'll use Toril, just so everyone's on the same page)It would be unacceptable for Jaynar, the 12th level Rogue to just up and fly over the ocean. Even though he knows many wizards who could do it, and with the proper equipment he himself would have no trouble, it is not believable that suddenly, Jaynar can fly. Flight is acceptable. The spontaneous ability to fly with no explanation as to why is not.
That's how I feel anyway..... |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 22:37:33
Wow....I am so very glad to be here. It fills the heart to know that we all have so much to say on this subject...
Oh, and don't ANYONE tell Alaundo that Wooly Rupert and I have agreed on something...it might give the poor old sage a heart attack.
|
| Ignorance Personified |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 21:31:32
Two lumps, if it do ya fine.
quote:
It also makes me wonder about a lot of WoTC characters who have been labeled as "boring", chiefly because they are too indecisive and display a lot in the way of human weakness. Too much realism, it would seem, can be a bad thing.
I do not believe that the amount of realism (as a whole) injected into the works causes readers to lose interest, rather it is the particular aspects (and the amount of each particular aspect) that are placed into the character(s). For example, most people do not like to associate with people who are constantly indecisive(causes them to waste to much time while they could be enjoying themselves) and coming across them randomly often leads to anger(picture a busy intersection where one individual is holding up traffic because they cannot decide to turn right or left---leading to colorful metaphors, blaring horns and in the US a strange gesture of a lone upright middle finger). Similarily, I (and assumingly most readers) do not like to read about characters that constantly ponder the ramifications of their actions and especially how they could have done things better in the past. For example, the frustrating (even for me as a HUGE RAS fan) relationship of Drizzt and Cattie-Brie that has still not been concluded even after several novel.
Now it should go without saying that some degree of caution (as an example of any emotional/realistic characteristic) should be expressed by characters, if Arilyn would have immeditaly jumped into bed with Danilo than their "relationship" would not be so interesting to read about. Fear is another example: As trully fearless characters are seldom entertaining, even the gods in the Avatar Series fear things such as Lord Ao(who in turn fears whatever that is supposed to be at the end of Waterdeep), their destruction, or the loss of worshippers. Similarly, cowards are also unappealing and it is up to the author to strike the necessary balance for each character(that is why the good ones make the big bucks...or at least they should).
It seems that characters with an overabundance of a particular characteristic cannot serve many purposes within fantasy---limited to comic relief roles predomantely (cowardly halflings and eccentric gnomes for example) used for short term amusement and the sometimes to progress the story by killing off the character(often to enhance the "stature" of the villian in the mind of the reader).
Now comes the affirmation, dissention, or proof of irrelevance(see ignore)... |
| Mumadar Ibn Huzal |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 21:30:32
Wow... as a non-native english speaker I do need the dictionary in this thread... as I'm sure some of the native english speakers will do as well .
First of all, two lumps of realism please, and stirr it well... I might need a tad more...
I'll not use all these fancy words and such, just state what my preference is - and that's just it, a preference or an opinion if you want.
I like my fantasy to have a decent amount of realism in it. Common things like gravity, magnetism and such. But also things like political relationships. In the case of the Forgotten Realms there is also feudalism - and why wouldn't it work the same way as id did in our world.
Things like that give a basis, something to build upon without having to worry about the effects. I don't care how magical effects interact with the physical world in relation to Newton's laws or Einstein's relativity theory. But just having something simple as gravity similar to our own about gives a good reference point on which one can extrapolate using one's imagination.
When it comes to heroes and the like... In order for heroes and villains to stand out, exaggeration is necessary. It is like artists on a stage. There is a large dose of make-up applied on their faces to make some of the details stand out - one doesn't really notice it perse from the audience's persective, but if the make-up weren't there one would miss it.
With characters in stories it is similar - although there is a tendency to accentuate too much. Villains and heroes do get a comic-book character - not very deep and well rounded, but easily recognizable and consumable...
Well, fast-food does get boring really soon, and a good chef does more for a meal. So should a writer if the audience cares for such. There are fans of the Realms who prefer these quick snack-type characters, but I would hazard a guess that they are a minority. IMO what draws people to the Realms is the level of detail. And using that detail in the right porportions can make for a very good dinner ...ehm I mean story.
For me the Sembia series was a good apporximation of that. One could associate with the characters, their recurring appearance helped round them and made for a nice bouquet. Unlike some of the other novels. For me a prime example of non-Realms fiction are the books of George R. R. Martin. Good guys have bad sides and bad guys have good sides - they appear 'human', yet are part of a believable fantasy setting (granted, somewhat low in magic)
In my games I try to make use of a variety of ingredients, to make an appetizing setting for the players. Something to be enjoyed at one's leisure.
WHo knows, I might make a good chef some day... |
| Kameron M. Franklin |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 21:24:32
One of the comments I got in my college writing workshop on a fantasy piece I brought in was that there needed to be further development of the mechanics of the magic used in the story. It wasn't that they wanted some sort of exposition on the "physics" of how magic worked; they wanted to see the character's reaction to and handling of the magical effects. To do so, I had to draw upon real world events that I thought might create the same sensations. To that extent, I feel fantasy fiction should be grounded in reality. The writer should be able to give the reader a sense of what the characters are experiencing regardless of how fantastical the source of that experience. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 20:11:20
The method of mythopoeic art is to make a myth, a play of archetypes that touch deeper than what is profanely human or mundane, and tell the truth about the cosmos -- of which we as people are part.
The method of mimetic literature is to create a facsimile of the surface of the world. With that, you can work with emotional and social and rational truths. But in great part the whole elaborate edifice of realist fiction is an authenticating strategy that causes the modern, rationalist people who read it to invest in the mythic chord progression that is what stories are about.
The edifice of a detailed secondary word like the Realms is partly a symbolic structure like an extra keyboard allowing the author to skip exposition and evoke states of mind that have been prepared in advance by other writing in that world. Its purpose is also as authenticating strategy, a surface of sense and familiarity that makes palatable the irrational mythic bones.
The device of mimetic literature often becomes its own god, and the familiarity of genre fantasy too -- a comforting blanket of safe dangers, a thought space to work through ideas about the world without the pressing ogre of immediate reference and relevance. This isn't wholly bad, but much of that writing isn't fantasy, it's adventure fiction or romance or whatever just set in an explicitly fictional world.
Fictional human characters are dual: they're symbols that represent part of the whole psyche, which is alchemically the same as saying a whole cosmos; and -- in modern fiction -- they're self-contained psychological entities. I find the first method far more profound and powerful than the second -- characters from the Mahabharata or the Silmarillion I would say are of far greater depth and emotional resonance than most authors' thin fake human beings. The idea of readers 'identifying with' a single protagonist or set of protagonists through imagined congruence with their own lives both attracts and disgusts me; it's a powerful technique but one that's been lately turned to putrefied, small-minded doctrine:quote:
At "notes meetings" like this one, networks begin to put their stamp on a show, analyzing everything from the characters' morals to their hair styles. Executives try to clarify motivations and future plot points: "What are the stakes? What is the character's arc?" They also ask, "Will there be a love story, a combative mating dance?" Most executives believe that television shows – unlike movies, which people actively seek out – are watched passively by a tired and fickle audience; and so stories should move quickly and clearly, and characters' problems should engender immediate sympathy. "The secret is to have a character who is very relatable, whom you root for," Jamie Tarses says. "And the rest is how you dress it up."
But the Realms tends closer to the mimetic side. On one level, Ed's practice of treating the Realms as if it's real is a conceit, a deliberate strategy to make it seem concrete and so best facilitate the story. But -- in order to best serve in this regard or for other reasons -- the conceit is real. Like the phantasmic architects of the Middle Ages, the artists of memory, the Realms is its own purpose, an imaginary, phantasmic place that can be seen and visited and changed and known, its own artistic object and reward. In this place, those details take on great importance because they support the credibility of the whole fairy-tale. Inconsistent sociology, or naming, or continuity can bring the reader out and end the spell. But these are not rules of human history, even when they resemble them.
Art is short, and it's not physically real. Those facts define what it has to do: to compensate it must be more real than life, and yes, its villains should, all things being equal, be more villainous than life. Since we got rationalism in the renaissance Western culture has had a shame, an embarrassment at this kind of dream-truth. That embarrassment is useless. I think much of the success of Bob Salvatore's Drizzt character is that he's at once a traditional hero and a modern psychological person, even an antihero, the one couched in the other. But some people just need the hero.
It would not be the Realms' method to make a draconic word for lightning out of Earth languages, just as Earth-analogue cultures aren't used, drawing the reader into connecting with the book as if it was Earthly history -- the wrong kind of familiarity. The Realms does use a large dose of real life to ground the fantastic and magical -- Shadowdale for Myth Drannor -- but that real life is also a phantasm, tinged with invented words and cultural forms.
Man, that needs redrafting. No time. |
| Erin Tettensor |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 18:53:17
quote:
Originally posted by Arion Elenim
I don't think many would argue that LOTR is the finest work of fantasy ever written. That in mind, if one examines its structure...we have the hobbits, a simple people without a great deal of magic about them, but who are thrust into the wide world without any sort of introduction to it all. Their wide-eyed wonder at elves, trolls and ring-wraiths is meant to mimic our own...
It's interesting you mention LOTR, because I would argue that it is one of the least "realistic" fantasy books I've ever read. To my sensibilities, it reads like Homer. With the arguable exception of Frodo, the characters have little real depth, and they don't resonate emotionally. Consequently, they come off sounding like something out of Beowulf.
But reading these replies, which are all in agreement, I am even more interested in the criticism of earlier threads that FR villains are not evil enough. It also makes me wonder about a lot of WoTC characters who have been labeled as "boring", chiefly because they are too indecisive and display a lot in the way of human weakness. Too much realism, it would seem, can be a bad thing. |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 18:23:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Agreed. I can suspend my disbelief enough to read a tale of magic and elves and dragons, but it all must still be presented in a believable manner.
Exactly. My favorite piece of fantasy writing right now is grounded in many realistic themes, but still is a fantasy story. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 18:00:16
Agreed. I can suspend my disbelief enough to read a tale of magic and elves and dragons, but it all must still be presented in a believable manner. |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 21 Jun 2004 : 17:13:14
I had a theatre teacher once who explained fiction very simply to me.
It MUST be realistic...but not in the sense that we know today...
In his example (FORGIVE ME, ALAUNDO!!) he said that the success of Star Wars was not in its explosions and panoply of aliens...it was in the realistic way that the characters reacted to such strange things.....this I think holds true for ANY fiction at all...
I don't think many would argue that LOTR is the finest work of fantasy ever written. That in mind, if one examines its structure...we have the hobbits, a simple people without a great deal of magic about them, but who are thrust into the wide world without any sort of introduction to it all. Their wide-eyed wonder at elves, trolls and ring-wraiths is meant to mimic our own...
In other words, they react to things with a realistic vent, one of wonder...realizing that orcs and goblins and wizards are not everyday things. This makes the work infinitely accessible...this is the key thing which MANY authors (who shall remain nameless here...I don't want to start THAT thread up again...) miss.
For me, that element of reality is a neccessity. With it, I will buy absolutely anything that a writer throws at me...without it...meh. It's hard for me to get involved...
I'll take two lumps, I guess...but I need to feel connected...that's why I don't dig Star Trek, I guess...
(Returns to his elven state, wondering what the words Star Trek and Star Wars could mean...and why he was possessed to mention such strange tomes.....) |
|
|
