The Challenge of Fantasy Writing

[victoriastrauss]

Originally Posted by Mistook

I'm in the midst of re-writing the early chapters of my WIP, and in this process, three minor characters, two of whom didn't even have names, really came into their own.

Yes. Characters that you thought would be throwaways, who insist on becoming living, breathing people with important roles to play. I love it when this happens--it's one of those little gifts that writing sometimes gives.

- Victoria

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by victoriastrauss

Yes. Characters that you thought would be throwaways, who insist on becoming living, breathing people with important roles to play. I love it when this happens--it's one of those little gifts that writing sometimes gives.

- Victoria

You are so right. It makes me want to come to work in the morning.

I created a sympathetic character for the purpose of killing them off, but when I gave him a girlfriend with a child, he was TOOO sympathetic, and I just couldn't kill him. So I gave him a partner and and killed this character off.

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by sassandgroove

Personnally, I think a grand fantasy sounds better than one simple protagonist. My story had more than it could handle, and when I went through eliminating this and that character and giving some scenes to exisitng characters, it made the story tighter, as I said. But I still have four main characters in one world who interact with two mains from another world. (Apparently I have a grand fantasy too.) I guess what I mean is that some characters are good, too many is bad. I'll stop before I start babbling.

I'm glad there are other grand fantasies out there. It sounds like you are on the right track.

I'd never recommend anyone trying to do what I have done. It doesn't make any sense to make things more complicated than they need to be. However, many fantasies are complicated anyway.

Have you ever seen something so convoluted that you'd think, "Hey, that could never work!" Then you are shocked to see that it not only worked, it was a case of accidental genius.

Well, I'm not a genius, so if I do anything like that, it is accidental or a work of divine inspiration. At anyrate, having multiple story lines like a LOTR would have, is difficult to pull off, but gratifying. Frankly, a bit of divine inspiration is quite welcome, and hoped for, because I'm still muddling through this mess.

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

Suzette Hayden Elgin created a language. It's not a series of books that appeals to me so I've not spent much time on it. I know she created a grammar text and a dictionary--she's a linguist.

C. J. Cherryh spends a great deal of thought and attention on world building, and it shows. She's thought deeply about languages and cultures, and has the right kind of back ground academically to create languages successfully. She's the only writer I've seen that I felt approached Tolkien.

Klingon has been pretty fully fleshed out as a language, again, by a linguist.

On of my pet peeves of late have been heroic / mythic fantasies based on Celtic myth. Now, I like Celtic myths. Really. A lot, in fact, but I can't bear reading books that Get It Wrong. For instance, books that use Celtic words for character names, without checking carefully, like the person who named a female lead "Napkin" in Welsh.

I also have been traumatized by people mixing various Celtic languages and mythologies together since they're "all the same."

They aren't.

I've diligently avoided things Celtic in fantasy for a while now because I suspect I'm unfairly harsh.

World building and taking detailed character notes are not something associated with genre fiction alone; Dickens, for instance, was obsessive about character detail and back story, and made copious notes.

It's the equivalent of a medical professional watching E.R. You have actors trying to sound like doctors. There's a difference. Most of us writers will never be masters of topics we hope to address. At worst we try to wing it from what we've heard on t.v. At best we research the subject before hand, but in the same way a H.S student does a report, not a grad assistant.

One of the reasons I didn't attempt Medieval terms in my story, which is one of my favorite times for placing a fantasy, is because I realized I don't have the terms down. The funny thing is the person who is editing book one of my story has a Ph.D in Medieval lit. She'd have flayed me alive if I tried to sound all Medieval.

In general, I like my stories pre-gunpowder.

[Torin]

Originally Posted by azbikergirl

There are some free name generators out there that use a pre-defined set of rules with which to generate names that are consistent within a story. I've found a couple of rules that I like, and so I combined them to create my own.

In Torin's society, the children's names are made from bits of the parents' names. Torin's parents are Bartorial and Invanu, and his siblings are Barin, Barvan, Vanial, Vantor, Orian, Arnu and Inval. Each has a syllable or two from each parent. I like playing with names.

[fallenangelwriter]

the children's names are shorter than their parents.... idf that conitnues, eventually you'll be down to one-letter names that are passed, intact, from parent to child.

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by Torin

In Torin's society, the children's names are made from bits of the parents' names. Torin's parents are Bartorial and Invanu, and his siblings are Barin, Barvan, Vanial, Vantor, Orian, Arnu and Inval. Each has a syllable or two from each parent. I like playing with names.

I think names are one of the most fun parts of writing. Fantasy lends itself more to creating a language. I think this is a topic worthy of a book. "The study of names in fantasy."

I have no plan to write it, so have at it. But you could look at Tolkien's names alone and have a book, since he made up entire languages. One farmer wrote him and asked him if he minded him using names of characters from his books. Such as naming the old bovine Galadrial.

He was tickled that someone wanted to use the names, BUT, he felt it inappropriate using "Frodo/Galadrial/Gandalf" as names of animals, but rather, in creating languages, he went through the root words, and what would have been the likely names for cows and such in Elvish (Sindahrin)...etc. And he gave the guy a boatload of names to choose from.

But you saw this in Rohan, where a common part of people's names were a derivative of the Rohirum word for "Horse", so people's names were "Horse lover", and "Horse Lord" I think it was the "eo" sound, EOwyn, EOmir, ThEOdin.

[Diviner]

I'm so glad you revived this thread. Much has been added since I last looked at it. I want to add some considerations about some of the issues that have been raised.

About names: In my world, whole hosts of cultures have swept through, leaving the folks there with a huge mixture of names. After 200 years under the rule of a consolidated royal family, customs have settled down, but the variety of names reflects the variety of historic influx, even among the nobility. I grant that not every writer creates a world like this, but there may well be a good reason for an eclectic choice of names. Some of the comments here have implied that a lack of consistency is the product of ignorance--and it may well be--but it is also sometimes a conscious choice.

About Myth: Until I read this thread, I had no idea that some people are purists about combining myths and heroic legends. I have to plead guilty to doing that in my epic. It seems to me that the essence of creativity is not the authentic retelling of an old story but the manufacturing of a new one or the conscious reinterpretation of some myth, maybe giving it a twist, like The Mists of Avalon, which I am guilty of liking. Not all or us are scholars. More important, not all scholars agree.

Fantasy is fiction, not history or scholarship. When I am writing historical fiction, I have to invent even important stuff because the experts disagree about what happened. This really frustrates me, because I have to rely on my own sensitivity and inner logic, which I don't quite trust. (We all have our problems.) In fantasy, I can choose my own truth, make my own logic, even when I borrow bits to tell my story.

I am not saying that fantasy should not be logical. There is no satisfaction to a story that is inconsistent or lacks inner logic. I am just wondering why it needs to be pure.


About the cast of thousands: My story is picaresque, so of course there are throwaway characters. Since my story is also an epic, I fully intend for some of them to reappear in later stories. For artistic integrity, I try very hard not to have too many cameo apperances, but sometimes my imagination fails me--it just isn't logical that the character would reappear in the main characters' lives. I probably spend more time that makes sense trying to figure out ways to see some of them more than once.

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by Diviner

I'm so glad you revived this thread. Much has been added since I last looked at it. I want to add some considerations about some of the issues that have been raised.

About names: In my world, whole hosts of cultures have swept through, leaving the folks there with a huge mixture of names. After 200 years under the rule of a consolidated royal family, customs have settled down, but the variety of names reflects the variety of historic influx, even among the nobility. I grant that not every writer creates a world like this, but there may well be a good reason for an eclectic choice of names. Some of the comments here have implied that a lack of consistency is the product of ignorance--and it may well be--but it is also sometimes a conscious choice.

About Myth: Until I read this thread, I had no idea that some people are purists about combining myths and heroic legends. I have to plead guilty to doing that in my epic. It seems to me that the essence of creativity is not the authentic retelling of an old story but the manufacturing of a new one or the conscious reinterpretation of some myth, maybe giving it a twist, like The Mists of Avalon, which I am guilty of liking. Not all or us are scholars. More important, not all scholars agree.

Fantasy is fiction, not history or scholarship. When I am writing historical fiction, I have to invent even important stuff because the experts disagree about what happened. This really frustrates me, because I have to rely on my own sensitivity and inner logic, which I don't quite trust. (We all have our problems.) In fantasy, I can choose my own truth, make my own logic, even when I borrow bits to tell my story.

I am not saying that fantasy should not be logical. There is no satisfaction to a story that is inconsistent or lacks inner logic. I am just wondering why it needs to be pure.


About the cast of thousands: My story is picaresque, so of course there are throwaway characters. Since my story is also an epic, I fully intend for some of them to reappear in later stories. For artistic integrity, I try very hard not to have too many cameo apperances, but sometimes my imagination fails me--it just isn't logical that the character would reappear in the main characters' lives. I probably spend more time that makes sense trying to figure out ways to see some of them more than once.

There are always rules, but the ends will justify the means if people are satisfied with the story.

Tolkien purists cringe at the idea of someone actually extending the legacy, as in, "There are no more Tolkiens". Well, it's a respect issue to a point, but it would be so easy to add on another age or more. Yet, few would touch it, worried of the allegation of "Fan-fick"

I've gone about creating an entirely new world, but wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply create another age of Arda, something tween the world as it was then, and as it's shaped now.

[pdr]

I've gone about creating an entirely new world, but wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply create another age of Arda, something tween the world as it was then, and as it's shaped now.

Yes, but to some readers a writer who takes myths and pinches bits of one and then another, mixing them up to make a story, or who follows in the footsteps of the groundbreaking, original first writer and uses their characters or world, is not a 'real' writer. 'Real' writers creates original fiction, those that follow are merely hacks without originality who copy. Thus Tolkein is the great original. Those who follow using his world and characters are 'hacks'.

Many of my last class of graduates held this view and didn't read fantasy because they thought most of it was not fiction, i.e. not original. I made them read some and they spoke highly of C.J. Cherryh and Patricia McKillip as being 'original' and therefore true fiction writers. I won't repeat what they said about the others.

Stick to creating, Nateskate. You'll get more readers!

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by pdr

I've gone about creating an entirely new world, but wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply create another age of Arda, something tween the world as it was then, and as it's shaped now.

Yes, but to some readers a writer who takes myths and pinches bits of one and then another, mixing them up to make a story, or who follows in the footsteps of the groundbreaking, original first writer and uses their characters or world, is not a 'real' writer. 'Real' writers creates original fiction, those that follow are merely hacks without originality who copy. Thus Tolkein is the great original. Those who follow using his world and characters are 'hacks'.

Many of my last class of graduates held this view and didn't read fantasy because they thought most of it was not fiction, i.e. not original. I made them read some and they spoke highly of C.J. Cherryh and Patricia McKillip as being 'original' and therefore true fiction writers. I won't repeat what they said about the others.

Stick to creating, Nateskate. You'll get more readers!

I've got my own standards, but I also realize there are "market standards", primarily what will sell, and there are "peer standards", what will get you respect in the world of writers.

I'm constantly making music analogies. Everyone rips everyone else off. Those who create from scratch have still borrowed something somewhere along the line. Market standards are every pop band who tries to be the next Rolling Stones, or the next U2. You here it. Peer Standards are much higher. There are guitarists who are so proficient most of the world just won't get them. They play for their peers, people who understand music enough to get them.

People who create entirely new concepts may not be marketable, and may be resigned to cult status, because the industry rewards cloning. So, you end up with "Britney" types, or "Ricky Martin" types, or "Boy Band" types. They sell until people get sick to the point of puking.

The "NTS" or "Next Tolkien Syndrome" is really a misnomer. It would take a really creative mind to actually write a book worthy of being mentioned in the same breath, because anything less would absolutely stink like dead fish.

The question isn't whether it could be done, it can, or should be done, that's a matter of opinion. The question is the cost to the writer, because I believe the argument that you are stealing and not being creative, is overstated. It's a type of "Peer Pressure".

In my mind, the secret to actually doing that, is to not take his story, but use it as a platform to create something completely different. You don't have Elves, or even Dwarves, perhaps not even hobbits. If you believe in a "transitional" progression of life in the world of Arda to today, at best you might refer to Aragorn and Gandalf in backstory, as a secret revelation to Gandalf, a secret conversation between Gandalf and Aragorn, perhaps someone leaks a message from the west.

I've already got a brilliant idea, but it will probably never see the light of day, because I can make it completely unrelated, and again, that is more because of the combinations of Peer and Market pressures, rather than artistic integrity. What conversation did Gandalf have with Illuvatar before he came back at the turn of the tide? (Wouldn't you like to know?)

What secret conversation did Gandalf have with Aragorn about what he saw in the dark places, while he was passing through Shadow, an evil yet unknown to the world, one that would emerge in his children's childrens generation. How he pleaded with Illuvatar to allow him to stay to confront it, but was told his work was finished, and it was now someone else's responcibility. You lay a foundation that brings you to the "Lost age of Arda"

As for sticking to "Creating", it's a message I heard well, and as of now, I have a monster creation, with all new beings, explanations of the forming of races, new terms and concepts. "No dragons" exist in my universe, although they are referred to as mere legend, but you don't need dragons for fire. There are no Dwarves or Elves. The explanation of the forming of the super races is a story within the story. But the outcome is less noble than Elves, in that it produced an ugly arrogance, and disdain for the common breed.

I spent a great amount of time trying to capture the essense of evil without redemption, but in a race from another realm. And I wanted them to appear absolutely so evil, they hate each other, and all that holds them together is they hate their enemy more. What did I get? Comic relief, which was a surprise. In their bickering and undermining of each other, unfortunately, they became somewhat sympathetic figures, because they lived in a universe where strength was all that mattered, because everyone is a victim or victimizer, or I should say they are always both, except those who are most powerful. There is no such thing as respect in their ranks, only feigned respect.

I never intended for the story to be funny, except in some of the romantic bantering, which I like. For a Dark Fantasy, I have a feeling some of the fan favorites will unfortunately be the most evil beings. One is portrayed as a somewhat ADHD kid who is so self-absorbed in feeling sorry for himself at one point, he continually gets lost. He can't focus and complain at the same time, but his nature is such that he can't stop himself from complaining. Even I started feeling bad for him, knowing his tyrannical superiors were going to let him have it. Yet, when you see this same creature with his underlings, he is just as much of a tyrant.

[Torin]

Originally Posted by fallenangelwriter

the children's names are shorter than their parents.... idf that conitnues, eventually you'll be down to one-letter names that are passed, intact, from parent to child.

Not necessarily. Bartorial and Invanu could have chosen Bartanu as a name for one of their children, or Vanutori. And each child has to have at least two syllables in a name, since one comes from each parent, which means they can play with their own children's names when the time comes. It's unique to their culture, in any case. Other societies have other rules. Not unlike Earth, really.

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by Torin

Not necessarily. Bartorial and Invanu could have chosen Bartanu as a name for one of their children, or Vanutori. And each child has to have at least two syllables in a name, since one comes from each parent, which means they can play with their own children's names when the time comes. It's unique to their culture, in any case. Other societies have other rules. Not unlike Earth, really.

It's a real chore to think culturally in a fantasy world, as Tolkien does. The Hobbits are mostly two syllables. Bilbo, Fodo, Merry, Pippen.

The rulers of men tend to have three: Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Theodin.

Obviously, his rules tended to be more philological, having root words...etc. The end product, "If you read the Silmarillion...etc" is that you have so many similar sounding names, that you have to keep going to the Index of definitions.

I like the idea of having "Mock" authenticity, just enough to "Sound Like" it could be real, so you can spend more time on the storyline, whereas Tolkien spent enormous time on the most trivial aspects of his Universe. It wound up, though enjoyable, becoming a snare to him, limiting the amount of books he finished.

[Vomaxx]

I have always thought that JRRT sort of ran out of steam when he was coming up with the names of hobbits who appear only in the genealogies. These include Posco, Ponto, Porto, Mosco, Moro, Belba, Bingo, and Bungo.....

Hobbits from the upper classes usually have longer and more aristocratic names: Peregrin, Meriadoc, Bandobras, Hildibrand, Sigismond...

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by Vomaxx

I have always thought that JRRT sort of ran out of steam when he was coming up with the names of hobbits who appear only in the genealogies. These include Posco, Ponto, Porto, Mosco, Moro, Belba, Bingo, and Bungo.....

Hobbits from the upper classes usually have longer and more aristocratic names: Peregrin, Meriadoc, Bandobras, Hildibrand, Sigismond...

The problem with Tolkien was never running out of steam. He had a multitude of complexities that kept him from publishing more, but he wrote enough material for a library. He and C.S Lewis were friends, and influenced each other greatly. They both were pretty ruthless in picking each other's weaknesses apart. According to Lewis, he was a methodical writer who had two responces to criticism, one, dismissing it entirely, two, taking an entire chapter and ripping it apart, and starting over again. Neither responce is particularly healthy. In other words, it was likely he had a great deal of insecurity, mixed in with a great deal of stubborness. We don't have any clue how many versions he wrote, although we know he wrote several versions of his earliest works.

Another problem, was that he was insightful, (Eowyn's personality) but also he was quirky in that he had difficulty comprehending what people would like and dislike, and in fact, was quite concerned LOTR would have a small cult following at best, but no one else would get it.

So, as far as steam, I think his problem was more a matter of being a writer who couldn't help but trip himself up. He'd ruminate over the smallest things, and get so bogged down in figuring out everything, like which way the wind is likely to blow on a sunny day in the fall, which will steal precious hours of writing.

As far as names, Hobbits were "Everyman", where as Gondorians were aristocracy, at least in some form. Merry's name is abbreviated, but then again, that goes with the nature of an "everyman culture" If you have a complex name, they'll cut it down to size for you if you don't do so yourself.

[allion]

For an idea of the amount of writing Tolkien produced, see the 12 volumes of The Complete History of Middle-Earth. Copious amounts of rewriting, rewriting, composition, doodles that became sketches, maps, geneaologies, etc. etc. I admire Christopher for trying to organize the paperwork his dad left behind, and for trying to interpret his father's handwriting.

Another book is Ruth Noel's The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. She gives the basics into the linguistic history he used and what the words really mean.

In Middle-Earth, every name carries meaning and weight. And a lot of it goes back to Beowulf and the Elder Edda sagas.

Karen (who loved her Old English class in university)

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by allion

For an idea of the amount of writing Tolkien produced, see the 12 volumes of The Complete History of Middle-Earth. Copious amounts of rewriting, rewriting, composition, doodles that became sketches, maps, geneaologies, etc. etc. I admire Christopher for trying to organize the paperwork his dad left behind, and for trying to interpret his father's handwriting.

Another book is Ruth Noel's The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. She gives the basics into the linguistic history he used and what the words really mean.

In Middle-Earth, every name carries meaning and weight. And a lot of it goes back to Beowulf and the Elder Edda sagas.

Karen (who loved her Old English class in university)

I think Christopher got a raw deal in terms of fan appreciation. He was a devoted son, and much of his father's works would have never gotten published without him. In fact, he was his second cheerleader, behind C.S.Lewis in getting LOTR published.

What some people don't know is how many re-writes of every single chapter, and every single book, Tolkien did. If he changed something in chapter eighteen, and the rest wasn't consistant, he'd go back and re-write the first seventeen chapters. Again, this was before Microsoft word, when you had to rewrite every single page on a non-electric typewriter.

His letters alone had multiple drafts.

[Garpy]

I'm writing a really non-hardcore scifi/fantasy series. It's sort of Space Opera-meets-ChickLit, a very mainstream (hopefully) scifi dish. One thing that I've found, with regard to names, is that I personally hate fantasy-spacey names like Zack Starthruster, or Qui'-thalth'ignufar. I much prefer names that feel grounded in the contemporary, but perhaps very...very slightly abstracted eg: Jon, Hal. Certainly I think the mass market..ie: those who never touch scifi/fantasy...are more likely to give it a go if on page one, they encounter names they feel familiar with.

Of course, I may just be wasting my time writing a chicklit/space opera for the masses, but, it's an original idea atleast.

[Nateskate]

Originally Posted by Garpy

I'm writing a really non-hardcore scifi/fantasy series. It's sort of Space Opera-meets-ChickLit, a very mainstream (hopefully) scifi dish. One thing that I've found, with regard to names, is that I personally hate fantasy-spacey names like Zack Starthruster, or Qui'-thalth'ignufar. I much prefer names that feel grounded in the contemporary, but perhaps very...very slightly abstracted eg: Jon, Hal. Certainly I think the mass market..ie: those who never touch scifi/fantasy...are more likely to give it a go if on page one, they encounter names they feel familiar with.

Of course, I may just be wasting my time writing a chicklit/space opera for the masses, but, it's an original idea atleast.

You are right in going for names like John for contemporary. I'd think odd names are useful when you want to convey you are not talking about this Universe or this time frame. Lancelot is odd, but it fits the time period. Personally, I think names like "Starthruster" sound campy. But with Fantasy, I think names can also fit a personality, and sometimes imbedding a word into the name can be useful. But overuse is cartoonish.