75 questions for fantasy writers

[Taidaishar]

I think I agree with Hawked now. The original list was not meant to be helpful IMO. The only thing I would change is that I don't think that "sometimes (very rarely, though) a story just calls for a genre cliche". I think, to word it differently and give it a slightly different spin, that a genre cliche will not make or break a book. IMO, a cliche will amplify your writing ability. If you're a poor writer, a cliche will just make you look that much worse. If you're a good writer, you can take a cliche and use it in a way that will ADD to your story.

The new list is probably a good idea. A little less snark and bile and a little more information and wisdom.

BTW, one of my pet peeves is the "major conflict that could be avoided by just sharing information" angle. It's very annoying.

 

[Mathius]

I agree with you that the person who wrote that list originally was not out to be helpful. But a list LIKE this could be very helpful to new and experienced writers alike. And you are right in that sometimes (very rarely, though) the story just calls for a genre cliche. They should still be avoided if at all possible, though. Especially since there were things on my quickly revised 60 item list that imply, simply, poor writing (such as having a character whose purpose is to explain the plot or having conflict that could easily be resolved by the characters sharing information). Perhaps we should make a new list altogether?

I think I'm being misunderstood after that last message, particularly after I read the follow up post by Taidaishar.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should ever write a book with the intent to use a genre cliche as you put it. I'm saying a good writer writes well. A good story teller tells a good story. If the story he wants to tell has to do with a farm hand becoming a god, so be it. If it comes out good, it's good. I'm not suggesting anyone should go out and purposely decide to write a story about that because it's a good idea for a story.

People should write stories because they have an idea in their head that they think would make a good story. They shouldn't be concerned about whether its been done before or try to adhere to a formula, whether it's a formula of what TO do, or what NOT to do.

If you want to see an example of someone who writes to a formula, go read a series from David Eddings. The first series he wrote (starring Belgarion) was very entertaining. The second one was fairly good as well, but he deliberately followed a set formula, and the characters in his book even made mention of repeating events they'd done before. But I ran with it. Then he started a new series (Sparkhawk), and it was semi-entertaining because the characters were different. But then you got to the end and saw the same formula again. I never finished his second series from that set of characters. I can't read the same banter over and over again, the same events, etc. If you read his "Riven Codex" book, which is a sortof bible he wrote dedicated to his first series, he even makes mention of his intent to write based on a formula. It completely fails. He wrote a stand alone novel and another set of books, again based on the same formula, and while I read the stand alone, I never got passed the first book of his Elder Gods series, because I saw the same things happening again to new characters.

I hope I explained myself better. I'm just saying I don't think the original list's author had any intention to use that list to help people, nor do I think it was "satire." I think it was just a general rant with an agenda complaining about the similarities between a lot of Fantasy authors. While his "cliche's" have a foundation in truth, I think the sales results and reader reviews prove that this is not necessarily all bad.

Write the story you have in your head and your heart and if it's good, people will read it.

Mathius

 

[hawkedup]

I'm not suggesting that anyone should ever write a book with the intent to use a genre cliche as you put it. I'm saying a good writer writes well. A good story teller tells a good story. If the story he wants to tell has to do with a farm hand becoming a god, so be it. If it comes out good, it's good. I'm not suggesting anyone should go out and purposely decide to write a story about that because it's a good idea for a story.

This is a completely fair statement and I don't disagree on any particular point except this: The odds of someone writing a story that has been overused in the fantasy genre recently that turns out to not only be good but is better than what came before (it would have to be otherwise nobody would read it or take it seriously) are, to say the least, slim. I think it is better to offer the friendly advice of avoiding these cliches to writers, especially beginning writers. It's no different than telling a detective novel writer to NOT make the detective/narrator the killer in a murder mystery because it is so cliche, it is boring. Now, what you said can also apply to this scenario--someone COULD write a detective novel and completely surprise the audience, but it's not likely.

People should write stories because they have an idea in their head that they think would make a good story. They shouldn't be concerned about whether its been done before or try to adhere to a formula, whether it's a formula of what TO do, or what NOT to do.

You're right about this. But if someone went out and wrote an exact copy of Crime and Punishment

If you want to see an example of someone who writes to a formula, go read a series from David Eddings. The first series he wrote (starring Belgarion) was very entertaining. The second one was fairly good as well, but he deliberately followed a set formula, and the characters in his book even made mention of repeating events they'd done before. But I ran with it. Then he started a new series (Sparkhawk), and it was semi-entertaining because the characters were different. But then you got to the end and saw the same formula again. I never finished his second series from that set of characters. I can't read the same banter over and over again, the same events, etc. If you read his "Riven Codex" book, which is a sortof bible he wrote dedicated to his first series, he even makes mention of his intent to write based on a formula. It completely fails. He wrote a stand alone novel and another set of books, again based on the same formula, and while I read the stand alone, I never got passed the first book of his Elder Gods series, because I saw the same things happening again to new characters.

This is sort of exactly what I'm trying to say by telling (new) writers to avoid some of the things that are on that list and other genre cliches. It becomes a formula, except that it isn't even the author's formula. It's someone else's formula. If you come up with a story for a small farm boy who grows up and learns he will obtain/already has great power who faces a black and evil figure who also happens to be his father...

I hope I explained myself better. I'm just saying I don't think the original list's author had any intention to use that list to help people, nor do I think it was "satire." I think it was just a general rant with an agenda complaining about the similarities between a lot of Fantasy authors. While his "cliche's" have a foundation in truth, I think the sales results and reader reviews prove that this is not necessarily all bad.

I agree that the original list was not meant to be helpful. What items would you put on the new list, if any?

 

[Mathius]

I agree that the original list was not meant to be helpful. What items would you put on the new list, if any?

I think the point I'm trying to get across is I don't agree with lists. Putting restrictions on content is not allowing someone the freedom to write their story. I know these things are cliche's because they're used over and over again, but I argue that they're used over and over again because they're good stories and they are what people want to relate to.

People relate to a story about a farmhand, because a farmhand has more challenges to overcome when pitted against the ultimate evil than the ultimate magician Merlin, who just manipulated things at will.

And even Merlin started out as a simple child. So there's a farmhand story there as well.

You see what I'm getting at? These stories are used like this because they work, because they make sense. I'm not even making a point anymore, I'm just repeating myself.

Everyone started somewhere. Even the badass evil guy started out as the kid people made fun of or the powerless orphan that was abandoned by his parents.

You can tell that story that relates to someone overcoming adversity, or you can tell the story of the guy whose already all powerful and defeats his enemies at will. What's more interesting?

To get back to your question, I wouldn't make a list. I don't believe in restricting creativity, or being bold enough to say YOU SHOULDN'T DO THIS. Because I don't think there is anything wrong with the things on this list. Particularly if you're only using 1 or 2 elements instead of using none of them as the original author suggested.

If I had to put anything on a list, I would say 4 pop into my head because they're MY preferences and not necessarily something someone else would relate to:

1. Using cliche's are one thing, but don't repeat YOUR story.
2. Fantasy novels are about escaping the real world, so don't include modern day, real life elements
3. If you DO include modern day or real life elements, be consistent, do your research, and don't leave plot holes.
4. Even a fantasy novel should have elements of realism. Just because you're writing a fantasy novel doesn't mean it has to be geared towards 12 year olds. Don't be afraid to include violence, and other adult elements, and don't oversimplify things. There are also extremes in the other direction.

Mathius

 

[Taidaishar]

I think the point I'm trying to get across is I don't agree with lists. Putting restrictions on content is not allowing someone the freedom to write their story. I know these things are cliche's because they're used over and over again, but I argue that they're used over and over again because they're good stories and they are what people want to relate to.

People relate to a story about a farmhand, because a farmhand has more challenges to overcome when pitted against the ultimate evil than the ultimate magician Merlin, who just manipulated things at will.

And even Merlin started out as a simple child. So there's a farmhand story there as well.

You see what I'm getting at? These stories are used like this because they work, because they make sense. I'm not even making a point anymore, I'm just repeating myself.

Everyone started somewhere. Even the badass evil guy started out as the kid people made fun of or the powerless orphan that was abandoned by his parents.

You can tell that story that relates to someone overcoming adversity, or you can tell the story of the guy whose already all powerful and defeats his enemies at will. What's more interesting?

To get back to your question, I wouldn't make a list. I don't believe in restricting creativity, or being bold enough to say YOU SHOULDN'T DO THIS. Because I don't think there is anything wrong with the things on this list. Particularly if you're only using 1 or 2 elements instead of using none of them as the original author suggested.

If I had to put anything on a list, I would say 4 pop into my head because they're MY preferences and not necessarily something someone else would relate to:

1. Using cliche's are one thing, but don't repeat YOUR story.
2. Fantasy novels are about escaping the real world, so don't include modern day, real life elements
3. If you DO include modern day or real life elements, be consistent, do your research, and don't leave plot holes.
4. Even a fantasy novel should have elements of realism. Just because you're writing a fantasy novel doesn't mean it has to be geared towards 12 year olds. Don't be afraid to include violence, and other adult elements, and don't oversimplify things. There are also extremes in the other direction.

Mathius

I'm really diggin' everything you're throwin' down Mathius. I agree with just about everything you said.

 

[hawkedup]

Honestly, I think we’re just arguing different extremes of the same side of the argument. What you say, Mathius, does make sense and I really do understand what you’re saying, but it can only make sense to a more experience, self-aware, good writer. In other words, the people that don’t need a helping hand anyway.

My idea for a list is geared more toward beginning writers or writers who have fallen into the bad habit of RELYING on clichés. That’s it right there—that’s where we differ. A list of clichés to avoid might not be very helpful to someone who knows how to properly use different writing tools, but what about the people who don’t?

I’ve known many a writer who had great potential but who could not grow and evolve as a writer because they had stuck themselves into a tiny little box that they felt comfortable in and refused to come out. Unfortunately, many of this type are self-conscious writers who hide behind clichés because they are afraid to step out on their own, but that is neither here nor there.

I’m a Creative Writing major, and if you had to sit through the amount of stories I have to on a weekly basis that sound exactly like the last one, using the same clichés over, and over, and over while thinking, “Man, this would be a whole lot less like having my eyes drilled out with a screw driver if these people would avoid a few simple items…” Well, you can imagine.

A story about an underdog is one thing, but another story about an orphaned farmhand who happens to be the chosen one… Count me out.

 

[Mer_Blackwood]

I can't say I have much use for lists like this. They have a large tendency to start out with genuinely overused elements and then rapidly to add basic plot-form after basic plot-form to the List of the Forbidden, until they've gutted the genre and painted the writer into a tiny corner.

And then someone who can write will come along and use the alleged unusable cliche in a new and interesting way, and prove the lists shortsighted.

 

[speechless]

I think this list has good points for a beginning writer, but at the same time it's a bit silly. Sometimes cliches work, depending on how you use them. I just watched a TV show the other day (I know it's not a book, but just hear me out) in which pretty much every character was cliche. There was the football jock who secretly wanted to be a singer, there was the neurotic girl who obsessed over being the best singer she could be, there was the teacher who believed in them, etc. However, the show was amazing. It was witty, it was moving, it was just...good.

So I think it all depends on the unique elements an author adds to their story. I mean, let's face it: even if you come up with an amazing idea, it's probably been done before. You just have to make it your own.

 

[hawkedup]

Well, how about, character no-no's?

1) Characters that don't share information that would be useful for no reason.
2) Characters that act illogically or against their established character for the purpose of progressing a plot line.
3) Characters that get lucky:
- Character rescued at the last minute from a hopeless situation in a way so unlikely that it wasn't even mentioned in the book before it happened (including but not limited to introducing a new character that everyone but the reader has heard of).
- Information gained simply because the character slipped and fell and happened to land awkwardly and was nursed back to health by the healer woman who just happened to be walking in the woods at that time and who also happens to be the Queen of the magical elves who also happens to be the drummer for Courtney Love's band Hole.
- Bad guys with bad aim--how many sniper shots can miss Jack on 24 anyway?
4) Fake character deaths/Resurrections.
5) Mystical pregnancies (I don't care how good you are at making cliches work, this one is always lame)

 

[Mathius]

Well, how about, character no-no's?

1) Characters that don't share information that would be useful for no reason.
2) Characters that act illogically or against their established character for the purpose of progressing a plot line.
3) Characters that get lucky:
- Character rescued at the last minute from a hopeless situation in a way so unlikely that it wasn't even mentioned in the book before it happened (including but not limited to introducing a new character that everyone but the reader has heard of).
- Information gained simply because the character slipped and fell and happened to land awkwardly and was nursed back to health by the healer woman who just happened to be walking in the woods at that time and who also happens to be the Queen of the magical elves who also happens to be the drummer for Courtney Love's band Hole.
- Bad guys with bad aim--how many sniper shots can miss Jack on 24 anyway?
4) Fake character deaths/Resurrections.
5) Mystical pregnancies (I don't care how good you are at making cliches work, this one is always lame)

These are just products of bad writing, and I can't think of too many of the good fantasy writers that are guilty of these (outside of getting lucky, which is another product of overcoming adversity), but feel free to correct me if you can think of some.

Another thing you're overlooking, is the fact that a large majority of these "cliches" you're complaining about existed long before any of these "fantasy genre" authors became famous. Take a look at a pretty old book called the Bible.

Everything is based on something else. Every story has been told. Tolkien is considered by most to be the pioneer of great fantasy, but much of his works are based on mythology and old poems.

Mathius

 

[hawkedup]

I think you're confusing something that has been done before with something that is now cliche.

Cliche: 1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse. 2. a trite or hackneyed plot, character development. 3. anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse.

Nothing in that definition would ever make me say, "It's okay to use cliches." Cliches are bad.

I guess what you're arguing is whether or not certain things are cliche.

Would you list a few things you would consider to be cliche so I can understand where you are coming from and why you feel the need to say what you are saying? Your points are all valid, but I can't quite figure out how they apply to a majority of (fantasy) writers who really should stay away from many of those things on that list.

For instance, why does the underdog have to be a farmhand? Are there not a hundred-thousand other occupations he/she could have and still be an underdog? Why a farmhand?

 

[Mathius]

I think you're confusing something that has been done before with something that is now cliche.

Cliche: 1. a trite, stereotyped expression; a sentence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea, that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse. 2. a trite or hackneyed plot, character development. 3. anything that has become trite or commonplace through overuse.

Nothing in that definition would ever make me say, "It's okay to use cliches." Cliches are bad.

I guess what you're arguing is whether or not certain things are cliche.

Would you list a few things you would consider to be cliche so I can understand where you are coming from and why you feel the need to say what you are saying? Your points are all valid, but I can't quite figure out how they apply to a majority of (fantasy) writers who really should stay away from many of those things on that list.

For instance, why does the underdog have to be a farmhand? Are there not a hundred-thousand other occupations he/she could have and still be an underdog? Why a farmhand?

You're clearly taking my words far too literally. The farmhand was a generalization. I could have chosen an orphan, a green soldier, or a young priest. Heck, any young person down on their luck or inexperienced.

I honestly think you're the one who is making such an issue about the word "cliche". All the things on that list are not cliches.

Mathius

 

[dayriser]

I wanna join the fray...

I am new to to this forum and this seemed like one of the more lively active threads...

I love threads like this that go for so long and stay right on the original topic instead of evolving into an entirely new discussion... Anyway, it seems to me that the original list was intended to be a little 'tongue in cheek' and satirical... Any of us who read sci-fi / fantasy will likely agree that we would allow one or two of these elements if the balance of the book were original in some way that kept us engaged... I think the list points out a very valid flaw in MANY fantasy books and series out there now... I can think of several that I have read in the last decade that violate about 60 to 70 percent of the no-no's on that list... They have become nothing more than formula series that mimic older (and usually better) stories... When so many of these 'tools' are used in a book, it becomes completely and utterly predictable... Ironically, some of these tools were used to fantastic effect in their first appearance precisely because they made a story unpredictable... The first time any of us ever read about a farmhand with a mysterious parentage who turned out to be a god or an heir to a throne, we were wowed by it and thought what a fantastically original idea it was... Now those same vehicles for suprise are so overdone that they are the opposite of surprising... In fact, I think I will write a book about a farmhand who is well-known in his hometown, everyone knows his folks, and he turns out to be a... a... a... FARMHAND... Now that would be shocking and original...

As to the length of books or planning for them to be a part of a series, again the point was missed... When I find a good series, I am thrilled to know that I still have a dozen books to get through, or that there are dozens of offshoot series to get into later... The problem is that some series could be shortened easily to one lengthy novel and actually be pretty good... I think it has more to do with the commercial aspect of getting as many books released as quickly as possible... Not to mention that a series of books at $7.95 tends to make more money for publishers than a single $8.99 novel... Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time is a good example... His prequel and 11 books could have easily been consolidated down to about 3 really extroardinary books... I fought through page after boring page about Nynaeve twirling her braid in response to some male probably a hundred times in the series... If it wasn't that, it was his incessant need to describe EVERY SINGLE facial tick of an Aes Sedai... We get it already R. J. !.. Aes Sedai think men are lesser humans, Nynaeve has a bad temper!.. Everyone likes smacking Mat with the power!... Let's move on already... And I challenge anyone to find a single chapter in the entire series that doesn't describe someone's clothing... Good lord!, by the 6th book, I had a pretty solid picture of how all the nationalities tend to clothe themselves... I don't need a single additional occurence of the word 'livery' in the remaining half-dozen books... All that said, it would have been my favorite series of all time if it had been shorter...

B

 

[Mathius]

I am new to to this forum and this seemed like one of the more lively active threads...

I love threads like this that go for so long and stay right on the original topic instead of evolving into an entirely new discussion... Anyway, it seems to me that the original list was intended to be a little 'tongue in cheek' and satirical... Any of us who read sci-fi / fantasy will likely agree that we would allow one or two of these elements if the balance of the book were original in some way that kept us engaged... I think the list points out a very valid flaw in MANY fantasy books and series out there now... I can think of several that I have read in the last decade that violate about 60 to 70 percent of the no-no's on that list... They have become nothing more than formula series that mimic older (and usually better) stories... When so many of these 'tools' are used in a book, it becomes completely and utterly predictable... Ironically, some of these tools were used to fantastic effect in their first appearance precisely because they made a story unpredictable... The first time any of us ever read about a farmhand with a mysterious parentage who turned out to be a god or an heir to a throne, we were wowed by it and thought what a fantastically original idea it was...

I don't know, I don't see a lot of the things on that list as flaws for one thing. Also, if I go down that list, it seems to be more of an attack on the major players like Tolkien and Jordan than anything else, because there is a great number of books out there that don't use the majority of these points, but maybe use one or two of them.

I just started hanging out with this chick and she told me her and her mother used to be "into fantasy" books, but it was just a phase. She said there isn't enough books out there, that she read through the good ones and was over it. But I've been reading fantasy novels since I was first introduced to Tolkien in 7th grade and I am now quickly approaching 30. Yeah, I re-read some books, but always, without fail I'll come across another unknown series that will catch my interest. Right now I'm reading the Fasala Trilogy by Hilari Bell and I just picked the first two books up randomly at Half Price Books $1 bin. In another $1 buy I was introduced to Lawrence Watts "The Misenchanted Sword", which was both a unique and interesting read.

Now those same vehicles for suprise are so overdone that they are the opposite of surprising... In fact, I think I will write a book about a farmhand who is well-known in his hometown, everyone knows his folks, and he turns out to be a... a... a... FARMHAND... Now that would be shocking and original...

There's nothing epic about that at all, so what are you really building up to? Are you gonna write a story about his day milking cows? I don't see you getting much of an audience. This is the reason people DON'T write books like that. Now if you wrote a book about some major villain that shook the world and your book ultimately ends up with him being some lonely farmer in a field, then you might have something interesting or new.

As to the length of books or planning for them to be a part of a series, again the point was missed... When I find a good series, I am thrilled to know that I still have a dozen books to get through, or that there are dozens of offshoot series to get into later... The problem is that some series could be shortened easily to one lengthy novel and actually be pretty good... I think it has more to do with the commercial aspect of getting as many books released as quickly as possible... Not to mention that a series of books at $7.95 tends to make more money for publishers than a single $8.99 novel... Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time is a good example... His prequel and 11 books could have easily been consolidated down to about 3 really extroardinary books... I fought through page after boring page about Nynaeve twirling her braid in response to some male probably a hundred times in the series... If it wasn't that, it was his incessant need to describe EVERY SINGLE facial tick of an Aes Sedai... We get it already R. J. !.. Aes Sedai think men are lesser humans, Nynaeve has a bad temper!.. Everyone likes smacking Mat with the power!... Let's move on already... And I challenge anyone to find a single chapter in the entire series that doesn't describe someone's clothing... Good lord!, by the 6th book, I had a pretty solid picture of how all the nationalities tend to clothe themselves... I don't need a single additional occurence of the word 'livery' in the remaining half-dozen books... All that said, it would have been my favorite series of all time if it had been shorter...

A lot of people enjoy the fact that he puts so much detail into his work. He's built a whole world, complete with governments, cultures, military setups, etc. and I think he did a really good job. English teachers praise Mark Twain for writing with a lot of "local color" as they say, and yet here is RJ giving you the whole world in a book.

Also, you have to look at the series as a whole. Yeah, maybe you get tired of hearing them talk about how Aes Sedai's are, and Nyneve pulling her braid, etc. but you have to admit after a while it's like an old friend. You don't have a friend in your life that you can predict exactly what their reaction is going to be? Does that mean you don't listen to them, because you know what they're gonna do?

Lastly, as an author, if you're putting out such an immense series you have to make a decision as to whether or not you're going to put it 100% into being a series, or try to attempt and make these books stand on their own. The majority of authors have chosen to put things in their books that recap previous books and don't necessarily interest those of us who have read the whole series. But the idea is to maybe capture the eye of someone reading the book for the first time, who just happens to pick up a single book in the middle of the series in hopes that they'll be hooked and try to find the other books. Yeah, I get annoyed when I have to read 3 chapters or more of recap every time a new WOT book comes out, but it's par for the course as they say. I think everyone who reads a lot has at some point come across a book they got cheap, or from the library that ended up being in the middle of the series. It can really be impossible to read a book like that without a recap.

Mathius

 

[Taidaishar]

Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time is a good example... His prequel and 11 books could have easily been consolidated down to about 3 really extroardinary books...

Did you just randomly come up with that number? I doubt VERY seriously that even if RJ had tried, he (or anyone for that matter) could've gotten the series to 3 books. He would've been struggling and would've had to cut out MAJOR stories to get it down to just 7.

Anyway, I like them all so far. In fact, what I think people dislike the most about the series is that it's taken SOOOOOO long in between each book. People who complain about stretches of book where they feel like nothing went on are probably only complaining because they know, subconsciously, that this is the only book they're going to see for 2 or 3 years. I would wager that most first-time WOT readers, if they had all the books in front of them right now, would not complain one bit about how long the series was. I read all the way through #10 nonstop (because I started on the series late) and I was dying for him to keep dragging it on. I wanted more. I didn't feel like it was too much... not even once... not even a little bit.

Again, I completely agree with Mathius. He speaks wisdom beyond, or maybe equal to, his years.

 

[hawkedup]

Haha! The good old Jordan debate... The things one misses when they are away from the internet message boards for a while.