[Lost Snail]

I'm divided, on the one hand I find fantasy a little to fantastical... it's the prior mentioned fatal flaw... once you bring magic into it, it tends to undermime things. e.g.
We have our intrepid swordsmen, the hero, whose steps are constantly being guided by the mysterious wizard. Hold on... you mean to tell me that a man is basically being asked to save the world by someone far more qualified than himself; we have a being who can conjure fireballs, fly, turn invisible, summon creatures from the nine hells and the fate of the world rests not with him, but with an man/woman who's good in a brawl?

On the other hand it's one of my 'guilty' pleasures- while the vast majority of it is rehashed nonsense, is not the same true of every genre?

And on the previous point that orcs/goblins/dragons/elves/hobbits/talking couches etc are not clever enemies capable of 'reason,' well that's just nonsense, the whole point is that they are far more powerful, and in some cases far more intelligent, then any mundane creatures. Do not fall into the Lord of the Rings stereotype that all 'monsters' are mindless, souless little beasties that fall over when a hobbit throws a stone at them.

Gandalf is really the only way to stay cool when you get older. When/if I hit seventy, I'm going to grow a long beard (really long), get some robes and a staff, and wonder around smoking a pipe and muttering to myslef about 'the Whispers..'.

But when you mention that sci-fi has no generic creatures that span the genre, well I'm not to sure, they may go by different names, but are not the wise, long-lived, pointy-eared Vulcans quite clearly elves? Are not the war-like, ugly, savage, but strangely honorable Klingons Orcs? Are not the Borg clearly representative of the international Chinese commmunist conspiracy? (Ok, scrap that one).

Sci-Fi seems more flexible, as the 'guidelines' weren't laid out by one author (Tolkein). But the ideas are the same. Give gnomes fur and call them Ewoks, give yetis laser bows and call them Wookies. Give Gandalf a lightsabre and call him a jedi knight.

p.s. ignore the rating

oh man, being a huge fan of both LOTR and Star Wars, that is the best damn image I could ever have in my head. Gandalf with a lightsabre.....

Some good points you made.

[Maud]

Originally Posted by lostsnailAnd on the previous point that orcs/goblins/dragons/elves/hobbits/talking couches etc are not clever enemies capable of 'reason,' well that's just nonsense...Do not fall into the Lord of the Rings stereotype that all 'monsters' are mindless, souless little beasties that fall over when a hobbit throws a stone at them.

[COLOR=Red

When I said they weren't clever I meant that Tolkien yes his ideas were orginal, but those that came after him were not. ( Read the essay.) I am not arguing on how smart the creatures are. [/color]

But when you mention that sci-fi has no generic creatures that span the genre, well I'm not to sure, they may go by different names, but are not the wise, long-lived, pointy-eared Vulcans quite clearly elves? Are not the war-like, ugly, savage, but strangely honorable Klingons Orcs?

I think you may be on to something but in my opinion each race repersents one emotion. Basically impling if they work togther they can be whole, and be one singular being. Here are some examples-
Kingons- Anger, Frustration Honor
Vulcans- logic, method, reason
Humans- curiosty, peace, harmony
Ferngei - greed
Borg - conmormity
And if you ask me the Borg are more of a rip off of the Buggers in Ender's Game

For some reason its saying my message is to short...

[Arnklit]

yeah well, that's because it doesn't count what is in a quote.

[Maud]

no no Im pretty sure its the international communist conspiracy to steal my bodily fluids, I dont see how it fits in yet...but I will.

damn those communists.

[Syrah]

I like fantasy and sci fi. I agree that they have to be of a certain quality, but I'm not sure I agree on what that specifically is. Hell, I don't know specifically it is. Perhaps it bases more on spiritual beliefs I have and whatever. I know so much science that everything doesn't have to be explained to me. I probably read more quantum physics that anything else.

[Ravane]

You're correct. I did a search for unicorn and got 57,600 results on google books.

[Syrah]

I was looking and quite a bit weren't actual books with unicorns in it, but were books from a company with unicorn in the title. Perhaps there aren't as many as you thought. I know there is a lot, though.

But it isn't about whether or not the creatures are original... it is how well the story is written.. and how original they use it. Kind of like the movie Cursed. I think it was a different take using werewolves. Or Buffy the Vampire Slayer ... or Angel.... different takes on vampires. Everything has potential for unique ideas. Its whether or not they actually come up with any.

you're quite right Syrah. i've read plenty of books with fantastical creatures common in all of them, like elves, orcs, jazz like that. Only few seemed to do something original with them. 'Orcs' by Stan Nicholls is awesome, they're the good guys!!! (at least to the reader).

[Maud]

Ok I have a guily confession...I am reading a fantasy novel. I bought it buy mistake (long story) but I find I am liking. Its called "American Gods" and I am liking it beause its actually orginal. I think that I have found that diamond among the rough that I hear about in the sea of fantasy novels. Its not great by any streatch but its good, and because I didnt expect it I am in shock. I am not really conceding to anything since I never said that every book was bad, just that fantasy has a natural disadvantage. But anyway its good.

POE,
MuadDib

[solidsnakebite]

I don't dislike fantasy. I'm sure as hell not in love with it either. But you got to think of it as a hooker. Its never really good looking. It uses up time. You get a short burst of enjoyment- and then you regret it for the rest of your life. Just like fantasy novels. I would rather play Final Fantasy than read fantasy.

hahahahahah maybe not the 'regretting it for the rest of your life' part, but nice analogy.

[Laughing Man]

Simple spence dont hide behind dillusions..lol..very good..im surprised I havnt read this before...I hate fantasy also..lets make a club.

[little.gypsy]

What is magic but technology we cannot explain? People used to believe that the sun was pulled across the sky by a flying carriage. Now we know it has to do with gravity, and all that scientific hoohah I don't want to get into. If you brought someone from two hundred years ago they'd take one look at an i-pod and go, 'Holy crap. The world is ending! Evil is afoot!', because 'magic' is the only way they could explain it. I think this is where some religions and myths come from. But maybe they wouldn't use the word 'crap'.

"Fantasy books are on general less creative and less wholesome."

I believe Muad said that. I wouldn't bet my life on it and I'm too lazy to look, but anyways...
How can you possibly say (good) fantasy writers are less creative?! They take a blank canvas, paint a whole new world including layout, shape, people, culture, abilities, even little stuff like food and drink, and then use this wonderful new world to create a story with (hopefully) believable, if fantastical (was that an oxymoron?), people/creatures.

Which brings me to another point. "But see you didnt come up with the idea of dragons. Fantasy is a borrowed genre." (I think that was also Muad.) Just because you didn't come up with it doesn't mean you shouldn't use it. For example, I didn't come up with the idea for a simple wooden chair, yet I've written about chairs plenty of times. Who's to say that the idea of dragons didn't spawn from dinosaurs?

"I dont like fantasy because it doesnt attempt to be real." -Dunno who that was. It's not supposed to be real! It's FANTASY. I could write about a coven of vampires who shoot sparks out their @$$es and you couldn't do or say anything about it because I can just call it fantasy. But on the other hand those miraculous situations do get a bit old. I like to have some sort of practicality when it comes to the situations, but not neccasarily people or creatures. I like reading about totally different, made up, crazy cultures.

Okay, someone mentioned vampires. I have to say this. I hate it when people write very bad fiction about vampires. (Yeah, because there's so much non-fiction. Stupid wording. -.-.) In an example, how many times have you heard; "She was walking in a dark alley (why?! Do normal people walk in dark alleys in the middle of the night?) when she heard a noise. She turns and sees it. She screams. She's too late! THe fangs puncture her neck. Blood gushes etc. etc."

And why do they always have to be tough and all dark, sexy, dangerous? I want to read a story about a fat cuddly vampire who enjoys reading and playing golf. Now that's original.

Speaking on the subject of romances and unoriginality, how many times has the old story been repeated? Boy meets girl. Boy and girl have passionate sex. Boy makes girl angry. Girl ignores/dumps boy. Boy eventually convinces her to take him back. With the occasional variance. But that's how it basically is in real life too.

I read fantasy to get away from the real world. I'd rather read about someone's made up tragedies than the ones I can see on the news. Ignorance is bliss.

Yet knowledge conquers fear. I suppose it's all a matter of preference. This is like arguing about why the color blue is better than the color red. It comes down to who likes what and why. I positively LOVE fantasy. Most of what I read is either vampire, pirate, or fairy, with a few odd mysteries and chick lit books that make me laugh. There's just something about the fantasy genre that makes my eyes go all buggy, catch my breath, and want to be just like the heroin in the book. With her pretty purple eyes, magical/sword/bow and arrow abilities, and cunning to outwit the boys/men who opress her, who wouldn't want to be her? Strong, sexy, and smart. Sounds good to me.

Overall, I think everyone represents a good argument on this subject.

And, anyway, the color blue is so much better than red.

[little.gypsy]

Wow, that's really long. Even for me. *blush*

[S.Coristine]

Just a quick little comment.

I can take or leave fantasy. Mostly, I don't really read it because a lot of it is crap, and when I say crap, I mean the story, the writing, the characters... everything.

There are definitely some exceptions that I have quite enjoyed, but in general, I don't read it.

That being said, I think one aspect that fantasy really has going for it from a writer's perspective is the ability to flew one's creative muscle without boundary. If you can think of it, you can write about it. Now, whether or not you're a fan of what comes out is another story, but just being able to let one's imagination run completely wild allows writing in the fantasy genre to be a worthwhile and possibly very satisfying exercise.

[Coolness]

Yeah Fantasy isn't necessarily being "real" but I think it's still valuable because sometimes it teaches us more about ourselves then stuff that's deemed "real". And sometimes it's easier to understand even if it is unexplainable. If that makes any sense to anyone.

[tommy goround]

Wonderful. I didn't see you play with magical realism or surrealism though. You are writing about HIGH FANTASY wich is a cliche to consider all fantasy to be.

[xtremelady]

I saw this post and read the essay and feel the need to ask if I have labeled my current book wrong? I placed it in the fantasy section but now wonder if I was wrong to do so? I thought Insight/incite more fantasy than anything else. However the major world change is via science. Okay the Angels did give the character this power in the first place and there is a demon in the story. I do like to think the story has an original factor 2 - have I been deluding myself?

Please be honest - I can take it.

Cheers
Claire

[floodwarning]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

Ok I have a guily confession...I am reading a fantasy novel. I bought it buy mistake (long story) but I find I am liking. Its called "American Gods" and I am liking it beause its actually orginal. I think that I have found that diamond among the rough that I hear about in the sea of fantasy novels. Its not great by any streatch but its good, and because I didnt expect it I am in shock. I am not really conceding to anything since I never said that every book was bad, just that fantasy has a natural disadvantage. But anyway its good.

POE,
MuadDib

WHAT THE HECK?

How can you guys being talking about fantasy AND NEVER EVEN MENTION Terry Pratchett!?
I can't BELIEVE how many people have never heard of him! I see Dr. Strangelove is reading American Gods--I'm pretty sure that same author co-authored with Terry Pratchett on his book: Good Omens.

Seriously--don't talk to me about hating fantasy and about them never having original ideas until you've read a Pratchett book. Discworld, people! Come on! Although i admitt that i don't really consider the Discworld series fantasy--but thats what they're labeled. There's a lot of Discworld books, and it is a series but they don't all go one right after the other. There's like four 'mini series' inside the huge series, and a couple books that you can read by themselves. So its really not a huge series, but alot of different stories that happen in the same place--The Discworld.

Go for the Nightwatch mini series first: Guards! Guards!, Men at Arms, Feet of Clay, Jingo, The Fifth Elephant, Night Watch, and finally Thud! (my favorite mini-series) If you want a stand-alone book go for: Going Postal or Monstrous Regiment. I think you'd really like Night Watch.

And actually, Terry Pratchett started writing these series because he wanted to do a parody on all the fantasy out there---now its a big satire on EVERYTHING, but he balances it out very well with emotional depth, yada yada yada

*cough*

My other point might get some angry boos from the audience, but hey, someone has to say it:

Don't you consider Harry Potter original? I know she based alot of stuff on folk lore, etc, but I think she is about the best author I've read who has weaved other stories in around her own. I think it's amazing how about every name and spell and event almost always has another story but still connects to her plotline. And I think she's done a good job on making limits to magic.

But after that I kinda agree, i don't like elves or hobbits. I've never read LotR, and have you heard of that new triology on vampries? Twlight? Blah.

Mostly anything else but Potter makes me gag.