NEW Fantasy Ideas?

[Old Man]

I hate to pimp D&D stuff but the old Dark Sun setting was an excellent twist on the usual fantasy world. Elves without trees... stone age tech... an unimaginably harsh environment with creatures to match... water more valuable than gold... all wizards are hated by everyone...

[CorpCommander]

Witchfire

 

I've been running the Iron Kingdoms world using the Witchfire Trilogy of modules. Its really be a lot of fun and perfect for Hero. Currently the D20 folks are struggling with changes in 3.5 to weapons and so forth. 3.5 has drastically delayed an already delayed Campaign Guide. Its too bad. Its a lovely world.

 

90% of the population in the adventure area consists of humans. There are some dwarves and they are well liked enough. There are damn few Elves - they are considered "tricksy", as Golum would put it. Their God is dying and they all have their mithril in a bind.

 

The Gods are interesting and fun. I've dropped the entire alignment aspect of the game in favor of a Law/Chaos division which I find more appealing. My favorite Goddess in the game is Cyriss. She is a goddess of mechanical things. Being that this is steampunk fantasy it makes a great twist.

 

We are just now finishing up the first book and everyone has had fun. I don't doubt I can convince them to play along for part 2.

 

Currently the one dwarven character has steampowered armor on... DEF 12. OMG. He's in for a wee surprise soon though. Gorax have very sharp claws!

[logomancer]

Why Tolkein-ish?

 

Originally posted by keithcurtis

 

What makes the "Tolkeinish system" standard?

 

Keith "be creative" Curtis [/b]

 

You're totally right that the vast majority of fantasy fiction isn't necessarily "Tolkein-ish," but why then, is Tolkein-ish the standard?

 

It came first.

 

And YES real mythology came first, but The Hobbit/LOTR stand at the head of the modern fantasy fiction era, I think.

 

D&D is practically an adaptation of the Lord of the Rings and Tolkein's worlds (although yes, with differences). And, probably because of the LOTR movies, everyone's got Tolkein on the brain because its the "last" great fantasy epic they've seen come to life in movies...that's pretty natural that when people think "fantasy" they fall back immediately to what they last saw/read, etc.

[cutsleeve]

well i personally get bored with the D&D/Tolienesque settings I took my normal D&D game and retooled it back to the old legends and mythologies that pertained to things like elves, dwarves, trolls. My world was full of legends of their own like that you should always be wary of mirrors because they had a magic of their own and a dangerous one. forests are not peacefull places they are deathtraps for those who dont keep a torch lit. the night is haunted by vile creatures and the dead.

 

the most striking differance is that Elf is the human name for those who come from Arcadia the world apart. This imcludes the sylvain who are like normal D&D elves, dwarves, gnomes, trolls, nymphs, satyr, pixies, spites, ect.

Goblins and Hobgoblins are Elves and a few of the other Goblinoid and classically evil races are one of the various arcadian races who enjoy acting maliciously and murderously tword those they see as beneath them. This causes the lower Elves to be goblinized which makes them ugly and vile looking Sylvain however can goblinize but may not for some reason the Goblin King who is sylvain is extremely beautiful which is not uncommon for sylvain goblins.

Orcs are pigs who got lost and entered by some means into arcadia and over time began to walk upright on their hind legs and became more human like but with an voracious apatite. they will eat anything and often raid human lands with goblins killing and devouring their victims. They are slothenly and barbaric in the extreme.

There are also other Arcadian Animals which occassionally walk outside of arcadia such as rabbits, foxs, cats, dogs, wolves, badgers, weasles, rats, and many others.

Arcadians do not cast spells and are instead magical in their exsistance their magic requires no words gestures or materials because they are things of imagination what they imagine becomes real. Arcadians also have varying susceptability to iron Sylvain being the most vulnerable to it dwarves Being the least.

Humans have magic also but they learned it through trial and effort while dabbling in forces they shouldnt have touched to begin with.

Dragons are stupid beasts only the Wurm are inteligent and despise dragons for being aberant constructions created by evil beings.

 

There was alot more of it but i stopped my D&D campaign and havent converted it over to FH yet. I changed all this because i hated how every single D&D setting was a carbon copy of the one before it and many GM's dont want to take the time to change things a bit or cant think of anything beside tall willowy elves, squat dwarves, and regenerating trolls.

 

Many GM's dont even know the legends which Tolien based his characters and setting on.

[tkdguy]

I'm not sure if Time-Life Books still publishes this series, but if you can get your hands on The Enchanted World series, you'll find a ton of info about legends around the world. These are actual myths and legends, which you can use in your campaign, even if you're playing in the "real" world.

 

There's even an entire book on Arthurian myth in this series, so you can have a campaign in Camelot (Well, you could anyway, but you'll at least have a general timeline of events).

[shinrin]

Harn setting variant

 

I'm working on a FH game set in the world of Harn. The difference here from what is published and from other typical fantasy settings is that the PC's are all humans. The Elves and Dwarves are nothing but legends now. Nobody has seen one in hundreds of years. My version of Harn's timeline has an apocalyptic event known as The Day of Heavenly Fire, and the campaign begins several hundred years after this event. All that remains of civilization are the ruins of the cities and what few paved roads there were. What passes for civilization are the few villages and those who have migrated back into the ruins. Most of the land is inhabited by various barbarian tribes, which is where the PCs are from. The barbarians do not trust the "stone-dwellers" as their legends state that the spirits caused the Day of Heavenly Fire as retribution of the weak stone dweller's sins against them.

 

There are monsters and the only intelligent humanoid race are Gargun (which is Harn's version of Orcs). Magic is taught by spirits to tribal shamans. As I did not want to deal with Gods and Divine Magic, I have decided on a more totemic and animistic style of magic taught through spirit guides, whether those be animal spirits or elemental spirits. Magic items would be few and would be more like fetishes and charms.

[gewing]

Re: My old super-fantasy game

 

sounds like some of my ideas....

 

Mutineers moon was good, I havet been trying to figure out how to bring in "Path of the FUry." though. may have to try.

 

 

Originally posted by Stephen Mann

My "fantasy" world had tall skinny elves, short stout and strong dwarves, despised gnomes and halflings, and medium-height ugly and strong evil orcs.

 

The twist was the elves were descended from light-worlders and dwarves descended from heavy-worlders. They and the humans were passengers and crew on an interstellar ship that mutinied against bridge crew and other officers. The orcs were the humans engineered to use recently-discovered alien battlesuits, and were used as Marines and Security. The gnomes and halflings were short human engineers (necessary for the alien-derived power plant and engine) that tried to sit out the mutiny and so were despised by both sides.

 

Leaving out the details, the survivors were stranded on a nearby habital world and degenerated. The reversion was helped by the core mutineers since they preserved their tech better than the rest. They destroyed the tech bases of the other survivors, and encouraged the adoption of a spurious history that made them gods in subsequent generations.

 

The orcs are descendants of the Marines, and have created a society structured like an army base with childhood resembling boot camp. They know they are The Good Guys, warriors of the Side of Light and Authority, tasked to bring the legions of evil (the mutineer's descendants) to justice. Their legends are the closest to the Truth, but who listens to an orc?

 

This world later had magic introduced, and a stranded team of American superheroes from another dimension. The basic plot came from Mutineer's Moon by David Weber.

[Sociotard]

I've been trying to convert White Wolf's "Engel" game into hero, but I just had to change some of the darker elements. Gritty and dark can be fun, but they took it to the degree the PC's would eventually be hunted down and killed by the very church they served onced they'd pieced together the greater mysteries of the world.

 

Anyway, the game was post-apocalyptic, the "Angelitic Church" controls everything, and enforces its will using the Engel, (German for Angels). Where did they get angels? That's one of those mysteries that get you killed.

[badger3k]

Couple ideas

 

Tried to dig up some older stuff, but its buried, so I'll give some specifics from memory. Neither campaign got off the ground, mainly because I never finished fleshing out the ideas.

 

World one starts out as sci-fi - the universe is being destroyed (for whatever reason). Since star travel is done through gateways (artifical black holes), the desperate try to escape through a black hole. Surprise - they survive in another universe, where they seem to be hovering over a wall. The wall is a world, as big as who knows - its at least galaxy sized. The second thing they see is a starship sized dragon bearing down on them. Ship goes boom. Another repeats performance, but escapes and tells others. Picture a Douglas Adam's moment - Star Dragon sees one ship, blasts it, then gets bowled over by hundreds more. Ends up looking like a cartoon character.

 

Anyway, the survivors land and discover a civilization of dragons. The high tech civilization of many races survives peacefully, then trouble starts. History later records it as a vicious attack by the dragons, but who knows the truth. Many died on both sides. Tech fails in some areas, reducing it to medieval. Magic arises, tought by the elves (descendants of dragons who tried to shift forms to meet the humans/etc). Different elven types exist (forest, desert, etc). Given the almost infinite size of the world, some areas may still have tech, some may never have heard of the newcomers. A further thought has the gods being some of the original survivors who gained power (the stars overhead are numerous white holes from a large number of universes, so there is a lot of magic going around).

 

Never got further, though I've used elements elsewhere, expecially the dragon/elf connection (all elves had fine scales, some were throwbacks with wings/etc) - not in every world, just a couple.

 

Number 2 is similar in that the world is huge - maybe its a whole plane - a vast cavern system connected in many ways. Caverns are huge (hundreds of square miles, maybe thousands), with crystals in the ceilings (again, could be 10', could be 100 miles up) that duplicate suns/moon/stars. Elemental nodes provided weather influence (cold/ice for a wintry climate, fire/heat for a desert, etc). Different civilizations develop in each cavern, with the main highway being a large inter-cavern water system. Thus one cavern was a norse-oriented culture, one desert nomads, one medieval Europe, etc.

 

The bad guys there were a race of beings that used biological base for magic/tech. Just some odd ideas from 20+ years ago.

[Vondy]

My game is set in earths distant future, after the next ice age. In my game, before the ice age, mankind had to deal with a series of catastrophes that ranged from increasing climatic disasters, plague, and nuclear war (oh no!). One of the last vestiges of civilization built a complex deep under the earth where the brain scans and genetic materials of several thousand people were stored, along with the requisite materials they would need to build anew. The computer that ran the facility became mad over the eon or so that passed, and when it began churning people out again it "expelled them from eden" as it were.

 

The reawakened found themselves in an awakened world where many primordial forces and beings were more manifest than they are today. They were forced to build a new civilization from the ground up - and found themselves having to adapt to the presence of "demons" and various monsterous mokeries of men that are essentially "mutant" strains of humanity from the fallout and whatnot.

 

The game is set ten or fifteen generations after the awakening and mankind has established a new culture that is somewhat technophobic (and vaguely remincent of ancient sumeria in terms of technology and architecture, with a number of social conventions taken from sparta - such as the fact that all able bodied males serve in the military until they are 30, at which point they become citizens who have a voice in their city's assembly). Each city is supported by an agricultural buffer that lies betweein it and the wilds.

 

The priesthood controls the dissemination and application of scientific knowlege (so there are some cool developments that are definately not normative to fantasy - despite the low tech environs). Magic is based on the practical kabbalah and tends to have subtle (but powerful) effects. There is also a "cult of dreamers" who have some mild "prophetic" abilities.

 

One oddity in the setting is this: due to the mutates the wilds between individual city states are dangerous (and there are sinkholes of darkness where the laws of space time are warped and sheidim (sort of like demons) can be found. Instead of building roads and sending heavy patrols with merchant caravans, the priesthood allowed the development of zeppelins. They have skyways instead of highways for the most part (though those who cannot afford airship rides often travel on the ground anyways).

 

It also has some divergent social assumptions. In general a group of women (who outnumber men 3-1) will form a "house," often around an economic activity or social funtion they perform. On average these houses will have 9-12 women, who will have 3-4 husbands (some houses are much larger, rivaling a guild in some ways). As members age, younger members are added (generally by committee). When children reach the age of majority they go to find a house of their own to live in. It is expected that siblings of opposite sexes will find different houses.

 

There are other oddities as well

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by keithcurtis

While I agree with your right to have whatever preferences toward the game you would like to play (and would be willing to die to defend them;) ), I'm not sure if "alternative" is the right name for what your describing.

 

They are called alternative fantasy in the fantasy writing business. Try SFWA, that is the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers Association. They call these alternative fantasy. You can also try any other fantasy writing instructor, you would like to read.

 

What makes the "Tolkeinish system" standard? The vast overwhelming bulk of world fantasy narrative does not follow this model. There are countless fantasy scenarios that have nothing to do with Tolkein.

 

• 1. #1 Fantasy bestseller of all time in the U.S.
  2.The most critiqued fantasy author in literary criticism.
  3.The best known name in the fantasy genre.

 

Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, Narnia, Oz, Elric, Thomas Covenant, or the Chronicles of Prydain just to name a few. I think that all fantasy is by its very definition "alternative". It's the essence of fantasy.

 

"Whatever else they dream up next month" is just as valid as whatever anyone dreamed up fifty or a hundred or a thousand years ago. Fantasy is the literature of the imagination.

 

And I find them interesting, and have read them all, but they are not the standard. You could include the Amber Chronicles in there if you want, as well. But these are still, unearthlike dimensions, with a mythologies foreign to human culture, generally.

 

When marketing people (like me) set the standard, sales are the standard. With sales people vote with their dollars.

 

Literary critics set the standard with their critical works on Tolkien, outnumbering all other fantasy criticism. I think based on the vote of literary critics, people voting with their dollars, and the only blockbuster fantasy movie in history, the standard is clear.

 

Try research into "best practices." I think once you study this method of business and literary analysis, you'll agree Tolkien is king as well. I won't bore you with endless quotes from literary critics.

 

Final notes: Narnia is children's literature, Oz is children's literature, I don't know if you like playing with the maturity of a child, but I don't. You forgot another goodie, and Nebula award-winner - The EarthSea Tales; but those are predominantly adolescent stories.

[Vondy]

Actually, the term "fantasy" prior to the advent of the modern trade paperback, was a general reference that included all manner of fictional settings with fantastic elements. Tarzan, The Princess of Mars Series, Kull, Conan, Cormac Mac Art, Solomon Kane, and a wide variety of exotically placed horror (lovecraft for instance) and swords & sorcery tales (howard, moorcock, etc) were termed, and are, fantasy. The anita blake series, for instance, is far more a modern urban fantasy than it is a horror story. It wasn't until the fifties and sixties that "fantasy" was broken up into genre niche's for marketing purposes.

 

I think Tolkien is an impressive writer, and has defined "fantasy" for many who love it (especially gamers who are almost invariably introduced to the hobby by way of tolkein clone games), but he is hardly its progenitor, nor is he "the" definitive author of the genre. There were many who preceded him (such as howard and moorcock), and most wrote a divergent form of fantasy from him. Those who emmulate him today do so for a number of reasons which may range from a lack of innovation and imagination, to an astute sense that the consumer will buy what has proven popular before.

 

Tolkein is the definitive author of one form of "fantasy," but fantasy is not as narrow as some would wish to define it, and it has many definitive authors. Tolkien is certainly in its hall of fame, but so is Howard, Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and even Ray Bradbury (the martial chronicles are hardly SF).

 

To say "for me Tolkein defines the genre" is one thing. To say he does so to the exclusion of his peers is quite another.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by D-Man

I think Tolkien is an impressive writer, and has defined "fantasy" for many who love it (especially gamers who are almost invariably introduced to the hobby by way of tolkein clone games), but he is hardly its progenitor, nor is he "the" definitive author of the genre. There were many who preceded him (such as howard and moorcock), and most wrote a divergent form of fantasy from him.

 

Tolkein preceded Moorecock by at least 25 years and perhaps 30. The Hobbit came out in 1935 and the Elric stuff didn't come out until the late 60's. The whole Elric and the Eternal Champion stuff is way over hyped, IMHO. Howard and Lieber and Lovecraft were contemporary but you could hardly call their work into comparison the the genius of Tolkein's. There is just so much that Tolkein invented - they never came close. I am a very big fan of Lieber's and I have all of his stuff. Its good but he never went off an invented languages or detailed his cultures as delicately as Tolkein did.

 

**EDIT**

Oh, and on Lovecraft - pages long rambling sentences don't make great literature. I find the description of Azathoth in "Unknown Kadath" to be amusing, but also proof he was no genius.

[Vondy]

Tolkeins great detail is certainly a hallmark of his work, and does define a specific form of fantasy literature, but it hardly defines all fantasy literature, or the genre as a whole. The fact that people like Tolkein, or consider him the best craftsman within the genre, does not mean he defines the genre to the exclusion of other craftsmen.

 

I am content to disagree on whether he is the best fantasy author out there. His detail and richness is wonderful, but his sense of pacing left much to be desired, and there are scenes in his books that are extraneous.

 

And your shot at lovecraft is a bit low when one considers Tolkeins own propensity for exposition in lieu of storytelling (ones man treasure is another man's trash). I like Tolkein as much as the next guy (actually I don't - I find his "literature" extremely dry and hard to read), but his niche, while archetypal of fantasy role playing games, is not archetypal of fantasy as a literary genre.

 

Howard may have been among his contemporaries and moorcock may have come later - Edgar Rice Burroughs was the first, quintessential fantasy author - and always will be.

 

And to be frank, while Tolkein exceeded many in raw prose and detailed description, he did not understand pacing and plot the way Howard did, or demonstrate the raw originality and daynamism of Burroughs (tolkein created one world based on extant myths and presented them in a unique fashion).

 

Tolkein is to Howard as Chandler is to Spillaine. Chandler is the better craftsman, but Spillaine punches you in the gut and makes you read him. I've never felt compelled to read Tolkein (there's nothing remotely visceral about his work), but I have felt compelled to read Howard. I have no problem putting tolkein down and forgetting about him for a few days (and I admire tolkein as a world builder), but Howard and Burrough's keep me up at night.

 

This is one case where I can honestly say I enjoy the movie better than the book. The movies (so far), especially the two towers, are better paced than the books. As you see - the claim that tolkein is the "best" is purely subjective. Its a matter of personal taste. You say Lovecraft's prose proves he wasn't a genius, but you might be shocked to hear me say the same about Tolkein: the two towers is one of the most horribly paced and excrutiatingly expository books I've ever read.

 

Tolkein did define something (and did a remarkable job in the process), but it wasn't fantasy as a whole. Its a subgenre that is emmulated so often and so much that its become a bane to creative thought.

[Vondy]

Re: Why Tolkein-ish?

 

Originally posted by logomancer

You're totally right that the vast majority of fantasy fiction isn't necessarily "Tolkein-ish," but why then, is Tolkein-ish the standard?

 

It came first.

 

 

Three words:

 

Edgar Rice Burroughs

 

Tolkein wasn't the first - he was simply the first to define a particular style of fantasy, which became much more the standard for fantasy role playing than it did fantasy literature.

[Vondy]

Originally posted by Galadorn

Try research into "best practices." I think once you study this method of business and literary analysis, you'll agree Tolkien is king as well. I won't bore you with endless quotes from literary critics.

[/b]

 

Thank you - as with movie critics, I find literary critics boorish, tiresome and frequently snooty.

 

Mickey Spillaine is the most lambasted (by critics) detective author of all time, but he's sold more books, and had more movies and television series made out of his books, than any other detective writer in history (including Doyle).

 

Tolkein's long term sales are superior, he is more loved by critics, and his books have become a movie trilogy (howards books also became one of the best fantasy movies ever made (the first one, not the second one)). He is also emmulated by many. Its too bad in a way - marketing stifles creativity and innovation.

 

When a marketing type puts out a tolkein clone they've put out a book I have little interest in. I'll pick up Burroughs, Howard, or Lovecraft before I'll pick up a Tolkein clone. I may be a minority consumer, but I know what I like.

[badger3k]

Originally posted by D-Man

Tolkeins great detail is certainly a hallmark of his work, and does define a specific form of fantasy literature, but it hardly defines all fantasy literature, or the genre as a whole. The fact that people like Tolkein, or consider him the best craftsman within the genre, does not mean he defines the genre to the exclusion of other craftsmen.

 

{rest deleted for brevity}

 

I erased the post I was going to make, then read the posts since I started writing. You said what I was going to.

 

Tolkien is a great creator, not an great author. I recently re-read the Lord of the Rings - well, I started it. By the Return of the King I gave up and skimmed whole sections. Boring. I am supposed to care for these people? I couldn't care less that the world was saved. By then end I had lost interest.

 

Re the Lovecraft writing style. Try reading the Silmarillion sometimes. Lovecraft was good at setting a mood (IMO), Tolkien could make a scene, but mood? More like Mud.

 

For whatever reason, IIRC, Tolkien had sort of a Renaissance during the 70s, especially with college kids. Who tended to be play wargames, and be a market for some new sort of fantasy game? Making a game that relied heavily on Tolkien (even borrowing Moorcocks alignments, somewhat, it still was geared more in line with Tolkien than anything else) was probably a no-brainer. Whether it was a marketing plan, or just an attempt to incorporate what was popular at the time (which I believe), the end result was D&D - which became the standard for most games since. If Conan was all the rage, we might have a "Howard"-standard of gaming.

 

However...

 

Tolkien may have had a large contribution to the fantsy genre (and gaming in particular) from the formation of the adventuring party - most of his contemporaries IIRC tended to have one hero, with sidekicks if needed (like Doc Savage). Tolkiens characters tended more towards equality (roughly speaking, in terms of being used in the story), a trait that a role playing game would try to encourage (and which computer gaming tends to get rid of, despite its best attempts not to). A conan-style game would be one with a gm and one or two players probably.

[tkdguy]

Personally I enjoyed The Silmarillion. It made me look at the world in a whole new way. If Spillane's work hits you in the gut, this one kicked me in the head.

 

That being said, I don't think Tolkien is the only viable source of good fantasy. Like other people have said on this thread, authors like Burroughs, Howard, and Moorcock have their own invaluable contributions to the genre.

 

I've read lots of fantasy novels both good and bad, but even on the bad ones I can find ideas I can work with. My point: If it gets your creative juices flowing, then it wasn't a waste of time.

[CorpCommander]

Originally posted by D-Man

And your shot at lovecraft is a bit low when one considers Tolkeins own propensity for exposition in lieu of storytelling (ones man treasure is another man's trash).

 

Oh please, Lovecraft takes the concept of overworking description from a small point of critisism and turned it into a career. He was far more interested in his world than in his writing and his attempts at getting every contemporary he could to write in it (Lieber and Howard both wrote Mythos stories) shows that. In fact the Lieber story is by far more readable and enjoyable than anything Lovecraft ever wrote.

 

Tolkein is to Howard as Chandler is to Spillaine.

 

Pah. Tolkein is to Howard as Shakespear is to Clive Cussler.

 

You can't compare the two - one wrote mythology and the other wrote action/adventure. Howard is a fantastic writer but his books serve a far different purpose than Tolkeins. The reason why you read a Tolkein book is because it is crafted, purposefully. The reason you read a Howard book is because it has action, adventure and gets right to the storyline. Trains and motorcycles are both modes of transportation but why you ride on one is not the same reason why you ride on the other. Neither mode excludes the other's purpose, either.

 

I totally agree with you on the "Tolkein Clone" issue. There is a lot of crap fantasy out there. I am just now reading "The Dying Earth" for the first time and absolutely love it. It is more action oriented than crafted prose but even so the author (Jack Vance) does play with language somewhat in it. For something written in 1950 it reads wonderfully in 2003.

[Chuk]

Originally posted by CorpCommander

Pah. Tolkein is to Howard as Shakespear is to Clive Cussler.

 

I'd agree with that. But who's had more books on the bestseller list recently? They're both good ad different things, as you mention later.

[Storn]

My love for fantasy comes down to one thing:

 

Magic works in a setting and culture(s) that isn't modern 21st century.

 

It is these Flights of Fantsy that fires my imagination for gaming, for my art... than any other genre fiction.

 

In some author's books, magic is almost unseen (Game of Thrones)... in some others, magic is rare, but is seen (Spiders of the Purple Mage, Conan, Fafhrd & Grey Mouser) and dealt with by the protagonist, in others, magic runs rampant (Elric, Black Company)...

 

...some authors are about adventure and the sense of awe (ERB)... some are about gritty Dark Ages dealing with Dark, Fell things.

 

Some authors are wordsmiths of the highest order. Others can spin a damn good yarn... and like in any writing catagory, there are those who just plain suck and are derivative.

 

But you cannot seperate magic out of fantasy... that is the thread (IMO) that runs thru the whole genre... any more than you can seperate crime out of a crime novel. Now, there are a variety of crimes, doesn't have to be a murder... and there is a variety of takes on what Magic means in their corresponding settings.

 

But creation is a hard thing to do... to those who complain about how bad Fantasy Genre writing is... rise to the challenge... go write something good.

 

I can't write worth a damn... but I have some ability with images. And despite what the Fantasy Hero Cover thread has made me feel, I feel very proactive about my tiny-weeny (minuscule!) corner of what Fantasy is, means and says. I don't pretend to be a genius like the greats... but I do work hard and try hard....

 

... and I feel that way about a lot of fantasy writers... there are those who are working their butts off trying to bring you a tale that is worth reading.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by D-Man

Actually, the term "fantasy" prior to the advent of the modern trade paperback, was a general reference that included all manner of fictional settings with fantastic elements.

 

Prior to the modern era, thank you case closed. Btw, we are in the modern era, not living in the twenties.

 

Tolkein is the definitive author of one form of "fantasy," but fantasy is not as narrow as some would wish to define it, and it has many definitive authors. Tolkien is certainly in its hall of fame, but so is Howard, Moorcock, Edgar Rice Burroughs, and even Ray Bradbury (the martial chronicles are hardly SF).

 

Being that hes the top-selling fantasy writer of ANY genre, seems Tolkein defines fantasy, period.

 

To say "for me Tolkein defines the genre" is one thing. To say he does so to the exclusion of his peers is quite another.

 

The writing critics haven't written about other fantasy writers, except as commentary on the genre. You forget again, that Tolkien, by far, has the most literary criticism available for any fantasy authory - independent of sub-genre.

 

In fact, check the listing of literary criticism in books in print, and tell me how many literary criticisms are written for any other fantasy author. I'll give you a hint, the literary criticisms for Tolkein, about a dozen, outnumber all other literary criticisms for all other fantasy authors. Hmmmmmmm.

 

And to reiterate, he's the best-selling fantasy author of all time. So, with the above information and in a real way, Tolkien does define the genre - for literary critics and readers alike.

 

But, of course you will read what you like, I never said anyone had to hold Tolkein in greatest esteem. But, the numbers go with Tolkien - The Father of Modern Fantasy.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by CorpCommander

Tolkein preceded Moorecock by at least 25 years and perhaps 30. The Hobbit came out in 1935 and the Elric stuff didn't come out until the late 60's. The whole Elric and the Eternal Champion stuff is way over hyped, IMHO.

 

Right on, brother! Overhyped, indeed. I guess if you like immoral anti-heros, Elric might be appealing. But Elric is a good story, in my book, for several reasons:

• 
  1. It shows how a proud, arrogant, obnoxious, and vengeful person can mess everything up.
  2. It tells an interesting story, with some interesting magic, monsters and mythology.
  3. It's completely different from the run of the mill fantasy out there.
  4. But. then again, this can all be said of the Amber Chronicles as well.
  5. I give Elric ** two stars, and probably won't read it again.
  

 

Howard and Lieber and Lovecraft were contemporary but you could hardly call their work into comparison the the genius of Tolkein's. There is just so much that Tolkein invented - they never came close. I am a very big fan of Lieber's and I have all of his stuff. Its good but he never went off an invented languages or detailed his cultures as delicately as Tolkein did.

 

Right on, brother. I do think Tolkien is a bit long-winded, but for a Oxford Professor of his time, that is to be expected.

 

Oh, and on Lovecraft - pages long rambling sentences don't make great literature. I find the description of Azathoth in "Unknown Kadath" to be amusing, but also proof he was no genius.

 

Well, I think Tolkien is a bit long-winded. And Tolkein's writing craft left alot to be desired, but people still read him in droves, even so.

 

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion. But score many for the father of modern fantasy.

[Galadorn]

Originally posted by Storn

My love for fantasy comes down to one thing:

 

Magic works in a setting and culture(s) that isn't modern 21st century.

 

I think it works best in the mythic age (Ancient to Medieval Period). But I wouldn't say it only works in a historical setting.

 

In some author's books, magic is almost unseen (Game of Thrones)... in some others, magic is rare, but is seen (Spiders of the Purple Mage, Conan, Fafhrd & Grey Mouser) and dealt with by the protagonist, in others, magic runs rampant (Elric, Black Company)...

 

Well, Tolkien mage magic is very scarce. His magic item magic is proliferous, though. Conan is barely fantasy. Magic in his age is weak and impotent. As with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, generally weak, barely noticeable magic - unless the antagonists have it. Kind of Greyhawkish, eh? Everyone's more powerful then youuuuuuu, nanananannanah!

 

But you cannot seperate magic out of fantasy... that is the thread (IMO) that runs thru the whole genre... any more than you can seperate crime out of a crime novel.

 

Truism, truism.

 

But creation is a hard thing to do... to those who complain about how bad Fantasy Genre writing is... rise to the challenge... go write something good.

 

Au contraire, Le Guin reversed the trend in Nebula Award Winners, with her EarthSea Novel - Tehanu (1991, I believe). Very adult fantasy, and very good low fantasy environment - generally.

 

... and I feel that way about a lot of fantasy writers... there are those who are working their butts off trying to bring you a tale that is worth reading.

 

Are fantasy readers like starving artists, waiting for their donors - the writers - to give them their bits of bread? Are fantasy readers settling for less, because we have so little of a selection of writers?

 

I tend to think fantasy went downhill from Tolkien, with Tehanu being an exception. Mostly two-star writing, and lots of one-star - "thank God it dissappears from the bookshelves quickly" - writing.

 

When I look at best-pratices, I ask myself these questions:

 

• 1. Who's the all-time best-seller?
  2. How can I improve on the all-time best-seller author's best writing?
  3. Can I do it better?
  4. Can I add something new?
  5. Can I add something new, that is not just new, but new and of excellent quality?
  6. Can I add an element of real-life intimacy, romance, and rugged reality to the story?

 

I ask these questions of my own writing and of the fantasy I think about reading. Otherwise, I just skip it.

 

There's lots of "new and different" books out there, but what about new, different and great!?!

[Captain Obvious]

Crap. I was hoping to see some cool new campaigns or magic systems or what have you, and here this thread has devolved into a slam-fest, with excellent authors being slammed mercilessly by both sides.

 

Any chance this thread will go back on track?