What you want to see in Sci-Fi and Fantasy more?

[Lessien]

I'm pretty tired of authors who are afraid of, or incapable of, addressing the dark side of human nature.

'Antiheroes' who never do anything particularly wrong. 'Assassins' who never kill except in self-defense, 'thieves' who never steal anything but the book's one shiny McGuffin, 'evil overlords' who are no worse than Alexander or Constantine.

Generic bad-guy trappings; black spiky armor and drooling minions; 'temptresses' in low-cut dresses whose only weapon is a vocabulary out of a 1950's 'racy novel'. Black castles, heads on pikes, perpetual cloud cover.

These say nothing of the real human struggle between good and evil, which is played out in every person's heart every day. If a character is meant to be redeemed, there has to be something he's redeemed from.

Oh, and please no more of the Disney Escape Clause, where while the hero and villain are fighting, the hero tries not to kill the villain, and then the villain immediately dies due to accident or stupidity. It's cheap.

To me, an author who uses those is either too lazy to come up with something better, or too afraid of offending the lil' old lady who might be reading it.

What book did you find all those in?

Not all of them are used in the same novel, except for maybe the Inheritance trilogy. Of course, we'll have to give Paolini the benefit of the doubt, because so far in his books we haven't seen
"theives" who don't steal
"temptresses"
black castles
Disney Escape Clause
All of the others can be found in the Inheritance trilogy in one form or another.

 

[Doubtless]

Personally, I don't remember any "drooling minions" or "black spiky armor" in Inheritance either.

Back on topic, though...

I tend to favor books like Robert Jordan's The Wheel of Time, Tolkien's works of course, and a few others. These all include (though I've only started TWoT, and then stopped to write my book), world-building, strange races, a form of magic, strange but awesome languages, etc. The thing I hate about The Wheel of Time, is that there is supposed to be the Wheel of Time (duh), and it has seven spokes, each of which is a different age. The Wheel turns, and each age comes around over and over after the other six have passed, but it takes so long for each age to pass, that nobody remembers that the past is the future, and that the ages are being repeated, with slight variations every revolution. This is stupid, because that limits the consequences of individuals' decisions, just like a defined prophecy would.

 

[Lessien]

Urgals=Drooling minions
Durza's armour=Although not "black spiky armour" in the literal sense, it's typical bad guy armour. Dark, evil-looking....Few bad guys have literally black armour with spikes, but I think what that means is "armour that looks eeevuuuul and is thus worn by eeeevuuuuul characters."

I've never read the Wheel of Time books, and I've heard mixed reviews of them. The main thing I've heard, though, is the rumor that the series is never going to end.

 

[NeoScribe]

I can't really say anything without repeating what everybody else has alreay said. It seems to me that maybe authors should just let the fantasy part of Fantasy be let loose. Its not like being Western, where the setting and plot focus on the, well, west.

Fantasy can be done in that old Middle Ages setting but it can also be done anywhere else. And some people can use their imaginations to think up something other than long ears and lots birthdays.

Take the Broken Sky series (yes they're a 13 year olds books). I don't know what makes it so different but it is just a fantastic storyline that could compete with any adult Tolkien or Lewis wannabe. Give me Ryushi and Celica over Eragon and Arya any day.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

What book did you find all those in?

Not all in one book, o'course. But I recently encountered quite a number of them in the Nightfall books by Mickey Zucker Reichart. The protagonist is supposed to be this very dark, very morally ambiguous antihero, but he mostly comes off as a gothy teenager with inexplicable Batman superpowers. I was disappointed.

Oh, and those books contained another thing that I've seen way too much of: the Token Tragic Abused Past. If a character was abused as a child, I expect him to behave as adult survivors of child abuse actually do; there are many different ways people can be changed by a past like that, but all Nightfall does is break for a paragraph or two every couple dozen pages to muse on how much his mother used to beat him. Frankly, I think that cheapens real people's experiences.

What I'd like to see more of? Characters who have their own motivations rather than the author's motivations or a cardboard mockup of motivations. Worlds where traditions and cultural quirks actually have effects, rather than being window dressing. Basically, I want to see more intellectual honesty and less formula-following. I guess that would be nice to see in any genre.

 

[Doubtless]

I guess I'm actually quite the "high expectations" sort, when it comes to fantasy. I can't stand books that I don't see potential in in the first few seconds I look at the cover.

The average bookstore customer spends about ten seconds (I think) looking at the front and back of a book. If you can't catch them in that time, you've lost the game. For me, it basically has to be as good as gold. I don't really read non-epic fantasies.

 

[Lessien]

If by 'epic' you mean 'An epic battle between good and evil that's been building for thousands of years and is now going to be resolved in this book,' then I don't always read epic fantasy. Some fantasy that isn't epic is just as good. For example:

Till We Have Faces by C.S. Lewis
Ella Enchanted by Gail Carson Levine
A Series of Unfortunate Events by Lemony Snicket

But it's a matter of taste. Then again, some of my favorite books are epic fantasy:

Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien
The Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis
The Two Princesses of Bamarre by Gail Carson Levine (yes, I admit I liked that book)

 

[Doubtless]

If by 'epic' you mean 'An epic battle between good and evil that's been building for thousands of years and is now going to be resolved in this book,' then I don't always read epic fantasy.

"Ooooohhhh...excellent use of sarcasm! "



lol. I'm not usually one for Sci-Fi, and I don't know about you, but you should try reading Matthew Stover's Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith. I'm not a real big SW fan, I liked the movies, but the book was the best character driven book I've ever read! Seriously! It's got so much thought put into it, and even if you know the plot, you don't know what will happen, because Stover brings out the characters, rather than the plot. You should check it out, I think you'd like it.

 

[Lessien]

I think I will.

I would also like to see more villains who have read (or whose authors have read) the Evil Overlord List.

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

 

[Doubtless]

Haha! That's quite the list.

 

[TeslaZ]

God and the alien nation combined. Be interesting.

 

[Lessien]

Haha! That's quite the list.

Yeah. Most of them are pretty funny, but it'd be nice to see a villain who isn't stupid and whose guards are actually of average intellegence.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

In fantasy: how about 'strong female characters' who are actually strong? A lot of writers seem to think the way to write a strong woman is to make her bossy and self-involved, have her bite off more than she can chew, and make her get rescued by a man.

I don't recall ever seeing a fantasy story where a woman chose duty over love. I get so tired of seeing an author set up a female protagonist as all hardcore and self-sufficient, then have her do a 180 as soon as she encounters some emotional stress.

Oh wait, I just remembered one good one. The Paksenarrion books. She was genuinely strong, acted like a real soldier, and fought her own battles. I'd like to see more of that.

 

[Doubtless]

I'm against that kind of stuff. God made women to be man's help-meet, not his overlord/protector. Women can be strong, without being another Xenon Warrior-Princess. Robert Jordan's books were annoying because they had a lot of feminism in them (odd for a guy to write like that) with women being in control of towns, and calling men too stupid and ignorant to come to their own decisions. It sucked. Throughout history, Men have always been the warriors and fighters. Occasionally, some Joan of Ark came along and kicked butt, but it's pretty sad when your main character is lead by a masculine woman. When I think of warrior women, I think of sickeningly bulky women with unshaved legs.

Anyways, sorry to rant. Recovering chauvinist, and all. Nearly got kicked off of Saleucami's old site for chauvanism and a few other things, and did get kicked off Middle Earth Talk for trying to convert people. I have problems controlling my debateer side.

Yeah, uber-evil-overlords are getting old, especially when they act stupid. I watch movies and point out the faults in the bad guy's plans, and know that I could have done better. I think I'd be a good criminal! jk.

 

[Lessien]

I'm against that kind of stuff. God made women to be man's help-meet, not his overlord/protector. Women can be strong, without being another Xenon Warrior-Princess. Robert Jordan's books were annoying because they had a lot of feminism in them (odd for a guy to write like that) with women being in control of towns, and calling men too stupid and ignorant to come to their own decisions. It sucked. Throughout history, Men have always been the warriors and fighters. Occasionally, some Joan of Ark came along and kicked butt, but it's pretty sad when your main character is lead by a masculine woman. When I think of warrior women, I think of sickeningly bulky women with unshaved legs.

I don't mean to spark a debate if you don't want one, but I disagree with the assumption that God made women to be a man's "helpmeet" and nothing more. If God made women to be just housewives or whatever, then why would He give us talents, just like men? He made me a writer, and I think that's because He wants me to be a novelist/journalist for Him, not because he wants me to be nothing more than my husband's "helpmeet."

And I honestly don't see anything wrong with a man wanting to change the stereotype of women. A woman can lead a town just as well as a man can. Women can be strong without being masculine.

While your picture of warrior women is one of "sickeningly bulky women with unshaved legs," that might be a bit stereotypical, don't you think? Even though that's how you picture warrior women, not all picture female warriors that way. Think of Eowyn from LOTR. She wasn't sickeningly bulky with unshaved legs. (Well, we don't know about the last part, but that's a bit off topic...)

As far as feminism goes, I'd like to see authors portray women as equal to men. Yeah, we're different, but that doesn't mean we're not as good as men. I'd like to see romance where the woman who was portrayed as strong up to the point where she meets the hero STAYS strong instead of becoming wimpy. For example, if she would ordinarily beat the crap out of a goblin that attacked her before she fell in love with the male lead, I'd like it if she would still beat the crap out of an attacking goblin instead of going "Oh, Billy! SAVE ME!" (Unless, of course, she was being sarcastic before kicking the goblin's butt.) I'd also like strong women (and weak women, too) to NOT be portrayed as sex objects.

Yeah, uber-evil-overlords are getting old, especially when they act stupid. I watch movies and point out the faults in the bad guy's plans, and know that I could have done better. I think I'd be a good criminal! jk.

Oh yeah. I'm so sick of evil overlords who stay in their castles all day being corrupt and wearing black. I always joke that everyone in my immediate family would make good benevolent dictators.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

So, Doubtless, I suppose your peeve with female characters would be the author even attempting to write them as strong or independent, rather than trying to and failing? Do you prefer female characters to be reserved as a sort of reward for the conquering hero?

I personally find such characters extremely dull. I'd rather read a book with no women in it at all than one where a couple-three interchangeable dollies are handed out like fruit baskets to the winners. Makes me think less of a male character if he'd settle for a girl like that.

 

[Doubtless]

I never said all that. I agree with you fully, Lessien, that women do have talents and should use them for God. You're gifted at writing, and you should write, and I'll never say otherwise. What I was saying is that it sickens me when the woman is more powerful/intelligent (or at least portrayed that way) than the men of the story. That's exactly what Robert Jordan did in The Wheel of Time, and it sucked. Of course, I guess now I know how women feel.

Anyways, though, I don't agree with you in the leading part. I don't believe women were made to lead, which is half the reason I think Hillary Clinton should take the $100 mil. she's going to raise for campaigning for president '08, and pour it into the African Well Fund, then go back home to Bill (btw, :offtopic: if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, does that make Bill Clinton first lady? ). I'm not saying that women should resign themselves to thralldom, but as Ephesians 5:22-24 says:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

That doesn't mean that women should give up dreams of writing or anything, just that they shouldn't be leaders, and that in everything they do, they should be under their husbands and under God.

Yes, Eowyn is one of the few women-warriors that I didn't view as masculine, rather as one who wishes she was masculine. It is said that Tolkien based her off the Norse Valkyries (though the legibility of that statement is questionable). However, as you can see, her actions were portrayed as an attempt to change who she was, and she later found that she could have no peace on a battlefield, but with Faramir.

Anyways, I gotta go. We're going to a fabric store that's like 45 minutes away.

But, btw, MrStaggerLee, no, I don't agree with the reserving of women as rewards for the conquering hero, but as the crutch of the war. They say that behind every man is a good woman, not in front. The hero needs someone to comfort him, and help him through. Someone he can rely on to help him rise above, not the enemy, but himself. I crafted a saying in my book that goes like this:

To rise above the enemy, one must rise, first, above the greatest enemy of all mankind: oneself.

~ Wilhelm Stroven

 

[Lessien]

I never said all that. I agree with you fully, Lessien, that women do have talents and should use them for God. You're gifted at writing, and you should write, and I'll never say otherwise. What I was saying is that it sickens me when the woman is more powerful/intelligent (or at least portrayed that way) than the men of the story. That's exactly what Robert Jordan did in The Wheel of Time, and it sucked. Of course, I guess now I know how women feel.

If a woman is portrayed as more powerful and intellegent than ALL the men in a story, then I agree, that's not good. In my opinion, that's like the reverse of having a man be portrayed as more powerful and intellegent than ALL the women in a story. But the reality is that there are women in the real world who are stronger and more intellegent than some men. Now, does that mean that all women are better than men? No, it just means that there are some very smart, very strong women out there--just like there are some very smart and strong men out there. It's not wrong to portray women as strong, as long as her traits are realistic. What I mean by that is that female characters can suffer from heroic hero syndrome just like male characters can, and it's important to keep that from happening with any character.

Anyways, though, I don't agree with you in the leading part. I don't believe women were made to lead, which is half the reason I think Hillary Clinton should take the $100 mil. she's going to raise for campaigning for president '08, and pour it into the African Well Fund, then go back home to Bill (btw, :offtopic: if Hillary Clinton gets elected president, does that make Bill Clinton first lady? ). I'm not saying that women should resign themselves to thralldom, but as Ephesians 5:22-24 says:

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

That doesn't mean that women should give up dreams of writing or anything, just that they shouldn't be leaders, and that in everything they do, they should be under their husbands and under God.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible example. If she had been a man, she would still be a bad choice for President. However, I believe that if God gives you leadership skills and you happen to be female, you should use them to the best of your ability in whatever direction He leads you. Society shouldn't hinder that.

One example of a female leader: Joan of Arc. She was female and God called her to lead anyway. Now, if God didn't want women to lead, why would he give Joan the ability and desire to lead? Wouldn't he have given her more "feminine" talents?

Harriet Tubman is another example of a great female leader. If God had wanted her to be a man's "helpmeet," He wouldn't have given her the ability and desire to lead.

Yes, Eowyn is one of the few women-warriors that I didn't view as masculine, rather as one who wishes she was masculine. It is said that Tolkien based her off the Norse Valkyries (though the legibility of that statement is questionable). However, as you can see, her actions were portrayed as an attempt to change who she was, and she later found that she could have no peace on a battlefield, but with Faramir.

That was Eowyn's choice. She was happy with Faramir, but bear in mind that Eowyn is NOT the end-all and be-all as far as female warrior characters go. Not all women would be happy with a husband. Some would, it's true, but not all. I was happy with Eowyn's choice in the sense that she ended up with a hot guy who understood her, but I wouldn't have been happy if she had suddenly become wimpy. Why? Because her personality would have changed big time so that Tolkien could make an anti-feminist point, and that would have been L-A-M-E.

But, btw, MrStaggerLee, no, I don't agree with the reserving of women as rewards for the conquering hero, but as the crutch of the war. They say that behind every man is a good woman, not in front. The hero needs someone to comfort him, and help him through. Someone he can rely on to help him rise above, not the enemy, but himself.

~ Eric M. Boellner

I think "They" are wrong in this case. If they had said "Beside every great man is a great woman," I think they would have been correct. My parents are a good example of this. My mom does submit to my dad, but that doesn't mean her opinion is never heard. Oh, she has an opinion and my dad hears it. With major decisions, they pray for wisdom and discuss it with each other. My mom comforts my dad and helps him through hard times, but he does the same for her. See, the wife can submit to her husband, and they can still be equals. My dad didn't demand that my mom give up on all her dreams when she married him. He didn't demand that all she do is help him rise above hard times, getting nothing in return. Instead, they help each other, and treat each other as equals. The result? They've been happily married for eighteen years.

 

[MrStaggerLee]

Please forgive me if this seems too personal, Doubtless, but I get the impression your opinion on this topic has as much to do with your age as with scripture. I suggest that after observing the world in the way a writer must, trying to understand people in order to write them convincingly, you may find that the idea of female leadership isn't quite so cut-and-dried.

I've worked for female bosses, known female soldiers, female politicians, businesswomen, female editors and publishers, and found that their female perspective often makes them better leaders. They tend to understand their subordinates better and take more time to reach clarity on an issue before driving forward. I think God gave women a gift of leadership equal to men's, and I'm not the least bit reluctant to follow a woman's orders if she's my boss.

But the topic is fiction, and in particular science fiction and fantasy. If you wish to write a world where women's roles are restricted to a sort of "ladies' auxiliary", that's certainly your prerogative as a writer. Personally I would rather see female characters filling more complex and interesting roles. There are plenty of examples of heroes, villains, and characters whose moral stance isn't so clear-cut.

I don't think a writer should force characters into his concept of how people should act; rather, if he wishes to make a moral point, he must write his characters honestly, as people really do act, and use situation and plot to let real human nature illustrate his point. If
he can't make his point without manipulating the characters against their natures, perhaps his point needs to be reconsidered.

 

[Doubtless]

If a woman is portrayed as more powerful and intellegent than ALL the men in a story, then I agree, that's not good. In my opinion, that's like the reverse of having a man be portrayed as more powerful and intellegent than ALL the women in a story. But the reality is that there are women in the real world who are stronger and more intellegent than some men. Now, does that mean that all women are better than men? No, it just means that there are some very smart, very strong women out there--just like there are some very smart and strong men out there. It's not wrong to portray women as strong, as long as her traits are realistic. What I mean by that is that female characters can suffer from heroic hero syndrome just like male characters can, and it's important to keep that from happening with any character.

Oh, trust me; in The Wheel of Time, every woman was better than any man, as far as I've read, anyways. that's half the reason I dropped the book.

Hillary Clinton is a terrible example. If she had been a man, she would still be a bad choice for President. However, I believe that if God gives you leadership skills and you happen to be female, you should use them to the best of your ability in whatever direction He leads you. Society shouldn't hinder that.

One example of a female leader: Joan of Arc. She was female and God called her to lead anyway. Now, if God didn't want women to lead, why would he give Joan the ability and desire to lead? Wouldn't he have given her more "feminine" talents?

Harriet Tubman is another example of a great female leader. If God had wanted her to be a man's "helpmeet," He wouldn't have given her the ability and desire to lead.

Yes, Hillary Clinton was a bad example. I wouldn't have voted for her even were she a man!

I don't know too much about Joan of Ark or Harriet Tubman, so I can't really give an educated response to this. As far as I knew, though, wasn't Joan of Ark more of the humble sort? Did she ever get involved in any battles? My history's only great in the World Wars eras, and the Crusades. I don't remember much about Joan of Ark, just what I played of her on Age of Empires.

That was Eowyn's choice. She was happy with Faramir, but bear in mind that Eowyn is NOT the end-all and be-all as far as female warrior characters go. Not all women would be happy with a husband. Some would, it's true, but not all. I was happy with Eowyn's choice in the sense that she ended up with a hot guy who understood her, but I wouldn't have been happy if she had suddenly become wimpy. Why? Because her personality would have changed big time so that Tolkien could make an anti-feminist point, and that would have been L-A-M-E.

You misunderstand my point. I'm saying that her going to war was a result of her discontent for the life she was given, and a desire to die in battle, rather than do her own duty as the princess of Rohan, while her father and brother were gone.

I'm not saying that women can't be strong without being masculine, I'm just saying that they can't be warrior/leader without losing some femininity.

I think "They" are wrong in this case. If they had said "Beside every great man is a great woman," I think they would have been correct. My parents are a good example of this. My mom does submit to my dad, but that doesn't mean her opinion is never heard. Oh, she has an opinion and my dad hears it. With major decisions, they pray for wisdom and discuss it with each other. My mom comforts my dad and helps him through hard times, but he does the same for her. See, the wife can submit to her husband, and they can still be equals. My dad didn't demand that my mom give up on all her dreams when she married him. He didn't demand that all she do is help him rise above hard times, getting nothing in return. Instead, they help each other, and treat each other as equals. The result? They've been happily married for eighteen years.

My parents are like this too (they're on their seventeenth aniverssary(sp?) ). However (I don't know about yours, so I'll go with the example of my parents) my mom gives advice in decisions, but leaves the actual decision for dad to make, and doesn't interfere in his choices. She also lets him lead in social relations, and such.

I used the saying "Behind every man is a good woman" to emphasize that it's not "In front of..." I didn't mean, either, that women are to be nothing more than a comforter in times of trouble. I had to hurry through my post, because we were leaving, and so I tried to sum it up. I'll post about this and MrStaggerLee's reply when I get back on soon.

~ Wilhelm Stroven