Fantasy Novels: A Dead-end Genre?
 

I would imagine that a good number of you would be interested in Fantasy, probably as much as or more than I used to be up until about four years ago.

Fantasy, as far as it's gone in America and Europe, appears to be completely drab and clichéd at this point. Every year, more and more fantasy novels come out to fulfill the rapidly growing demand, and every year it gets less and less original. However, this is not the focus of my complaint.

I would argue that it's been entirely unoriginal for the past two decades, at least. Tolkien was an innovator, as were a few others, such as Bradbury. But the vast majority of authors who delve into fantasy—especially those who write nothing else—are highly unoriginal. I don't want to get anybody too angry, but I would contend that this list includes the likes of Robert Jordan, Terry Pratchett, David Eddings, and other highly popular fantasy authors.

Their plots are usually completely cliché, and if they aren't so at the beginning of their writing career, they certainly are by the end of it. Their characters are generally two-dimensional, boring, and trite. Their very writing styles are usually horribly repetitive. In other words, once you've read one book, or series, you don't need to read any more—it's just the same experience over again.

Aside from these, the vast majority of these authors create works with no literary value. The outcome is predetermined, the foreshadowing blatant, the meaning meaningless.

It seems that the majority have stepped on one of two bandwagons—Tolkien and Arthurian. The one has massive quests to save the world, ending in the triumph of good, and the other just retells the same tired old events over again in a new way. In other words, we have long, drawn-out episodes Power Rangers on the one hand, and fan-fiction on the other.

Admittedly, some of them have interesting takes on it: A. A. Attanasio produced an interesting blend of religions and sciences in his series about King Arthur. Others can be very amusing, and have redeeming merit in that. Other than these, however, the vast majority just aren't worth reading.

I don't know. It's my own opinion on a popular subject, so I thought I'd throw it out there. I realize I'm new, so this might not be the best reputation building device, but it is, at least, an honest, thought-out opinion.

Oh, of course it is. I can't bring myself to touch most fantasy these days.

I'd actually read something about this awhile ago, and part of the problem comes from the fact that most authors can't be bothered to come up with new settings. They generally take 14th century Western Europe, change the names, give some people pointy ears and call it a new world. It's a much bigger problem in RPG settings than novels, of course.

Cliched characters are another problem altogether.

I got to the part where you said Terry Pratchett was unoriginal and cliche, and then I was like, okay, that's me out.

Honestly your entire polemic up there reads like one long bitch that people write books with dragons in them where the good guys win in the end. Personally, I happen to like reading books with dragons in them where the good guys win in the end.

I don't ask you to agree with me, I ask you to prove me wrong.

It's probably somewhat defensible to argue that almost every genre, with the possible exception of non-fiction (although love and war and such are so done these days), is a dead-end. That's because literature is based off a finite number of archetypes. I find enjoyment in plot twists and mysteries that are slowly, properly unfolded (that is, you don't know the answer, but you can guess, and you're probably wrong, up until a few dozen pages before the puzzle is solved, and you go "HOLY S#$* THAT'S IT!" and kill a nearby hobo in excitement). Archetypes though, finite. Good wins, evil wins, neutral wins.

Are we at the point where to be non-cliche and original, the heroes have to fall into quicksand 200 miles out from their starting point and die a horrible, seething death?

By the by, I don't really like fantasy novels much. Lord of the Rings is good, and I got a kick out of the first few Redwall books (squirrels with spears, haha, that guy was hammered when he wrote), but I've fallen in love with sci-fi. But as I mention that, isn't sci-fi a dead-end genre? I mean, in most books the good guys triumph in the end. That, or some anti-hero kind of triumphs in the end, but not really because he didn't care about what happened and he isn't really all that good anyway.

I guess what I might be getting at is, judging the genre based on the common endings of books is kind of weak. It's the journey that matters, etc etc. Now, if the journey blows, then you have a case. Until then, I think I'll stick to the version of Lord of the Rings where Aragorn doesn't get executed for saying 'Who's your daddy?' at entirely inappropriate moments, for the purposes of remaining original (and hilarious). I know, you said (indirectly?) LOTR was good, but I don't like fantasy and haven't read much beyond LOTR.

Well if you want to be technical, you didn't actually ask that at all.

See? It's just not in there.

I mean even if I was going to give a shit about proving you wrong, you have to sort of, you know, tell me that I'm supposed to be proving you wrong.

Of course, now you've told me, to which I shall respond that I really just don't give a shit about proving you wrong.

What am I supposed to prove wrong, anyway? That people write books about dragons where the heroes win in the end? Well, I guess you're right, people write books with dragons in them where the heroes win in the end. There, you win.

You, sir, don't seem to understand the concept of debate. Still, no matter. My point is not that fantasy sucks but rather, compared to the rest of fictional writing out there, fantasy has been rather underplayed. It could easily be utilized for so much more than it has, but it has been by and large ignored.

If you like it for what it is, then I'm happy for you. I, myself, need a little more than that. Neither of us is right or wrong, we just have different tastes.

And I'm not actually going to do it, but I'd just like you to know that it would be ridiculously easy to flame you with just cause based on what you just said.

Azisien: True enough, but it just seems that fantasy has gotten the short end of the originality stick. Science fiction has its great, worthwhile authors, as does mystery, and other popular genres; but fantasy really only seems to have Tolkien and Bradbury.

I'm pretty sure that the concept of debate isn't that one person gets to declare opinions and then dictate to everybody else how they are allowed to respond and requiring that the burden of proof be borne by everybody who disagrees with him.

But I'm just silly like that.

I mean as soon as you want to have a conversation about literature, we can do that, although I have to say that it'll probably involve me cursing a little bit from time to time. I mean hey what can I say, I just likes me some curse words.

But if you're going to dictate terms and conditions at me and then expect me to give a shit, well, guess what, I'm not going to give a shit.

I mean if you want to play by debate-society rules, well, sorry, but you've still yet to make a case that I can even rebut. Cliche characters? No literary value? Were you planning to back any of that up at any point, or were you just so goshdarn sure that yours was a Truth Self-Evident in the eyes of man and God alike? Prove you wrong? Yeah I'll get right on that, just as soon as you give me any reason to believe you might be right. Sorry, but offhanded cracks about Pratchett that make me question whether you've ever actually read a Terry Pratchett book just aren't going to cut it.

EDIT: Upon reflection I'm going to go ahead and do, if not a total 180, then at least a 30, or maybe even a 45, and say that I'm probably being a bit more snippy than is strictly necessary. I mean my first post could have been scaled back a bit if for no other reason than you're new here so you don't really have any context for how I happen to put things, and at least some of what I objected to in your subsequent posts was in reaction to the tone of my original statements. So, there you go.

Really what I'm getting at is I'm not disagreeing with your argument so much as I'm not sure what exactly it is you're arguing, especially given as one of the few examples you've given of shoddy writing and unoriginality happens to be an author I'd hold up as an example of exactly the kind of depth and originality you might not necessarily be finding elsewhere.

I was trying to conjure up something I had thought about the peculiar nature of fantasy literature settings, logic and resonance and how it both it demanded more leaps of the imagination for the authors and how it caused the readers to hold it, originality-wise, to a higher standard.

Then, I had some trouble with it and actually read the first post fully for some inspiration (before that I had just wanted to basically dump on the topic and run, now I'll just run). Well, altough this topic has to do wityh originality, it has to do with plot and character originality, which has nothing to do with genre.

I mean, maybe fantasy has been stagnating in that department more so than others. Lets assume it's true; it can't be a dead end. All genres are equal were the character and plot possibilities are concerned. If fantasy has been badly served, it will change, and it can happen to any genre.

Hmm.
I agree that much of fantasy seems to be getting a little stale, but I don't think this because of such large elements as you suggest. There's nothing wrong with using a traditional fantasy world, cliched up the bazonga, but you should do something interesting with it. What lets most books down is shallow characters ("Oh look, the hero is a feisty-tomboy-princess, and the second main character is a hard-hearted mercenary who doesn't care about anyone but himself but will be redeemed by the end!"), or just bad plots. Not the setting, or the overall story (Heroes go on quest to kill big dragon!), but the little things. You could make an interesting story, just by twisting it a little; turns out the heroes are evil, the dragon's never done anything wrong, and they're just after its treasure. Maybe there is no dragon, and it's all a hoax set up by the hunters to extort money from a nearby village!
The point is, it's not the setting that makes a book, or even the characters.
It's what you do with them.

And I do agree on one point with the guy above; have you even READ a Terry Pratchett? If so, which?