In her interview in last month’s Locus*, N.K. Jemisin issued one of my favorite calls to action yet:
“The way we write traditional epic fantasy now is making the whole genre look bad. I’ve heard so many people who read my book say, ‘I stopped reading epic fantasy years ago, but I liked this. It doesn’t feel like those epic fantasies.’ I think what they’re saying is that the genre has become so formulaic that it’s almost stagnant. I’m tired of fantasy medieval Europes in general, but what really bugs me are bad medieval Europes. … There’s no reason for medieval Europe-based fantasies to be as boring as they are. It’s time to shake things up.”
If that novel–okay, that series–you’re working on bears more than a passing resemblance to the works of Tolkien/Jordan/Eddings/{other wildly popular epic fantasist}, are you certain what you’re doing isn’t just rehashing a story you loved? For that matter, does that vampire/werewolf/other urban fantasy tale on your hard drive break new ground? Really?
I would not suggest that either urban fantasy or epic fantasy, even epic-fantasy-in-a-setting-that-smells-like Europe, is *dead*–but both of those territories are pretty seriously over-farmed, and if you’re writing for publication, you need to bring something new to the party. If your setting smells like settings we’ve seen a hundred times before, why did you make that choice? Why is it important to the story you’re telling? Would your story be improved by digging deeper into your setting and making it actually serve the tale you’re telling?
Yes, people are still selling the same-old-same-old. And people are still buying it. But I think Jemisin’s right: we can do better. Fantasy and science fiction are uniquely suited to explore characters and ideas that can be handled nowhere else. We have immense freedom in the tools and settings we use. What ideas are you pursuing in your story? How does your setting contribute to what you’re doing? Do your characters truly arise from the world you’ve created for them? Why does any of it matter?
Fantasy may be immensely popular, but it’s still the Rodney Dangerfield of genres. I think that’s because fantasy writers and readers have largely forgotten the power of the possibilities and challenges we grant ourselves when we work in this field. Senseofwonder is why we come to this genre; but it is the question of meaning that makes us stay for the end of the tale.
You mustn’t be afraid to dig a little deeper. That’s where the gold is.
* Yes, I’m behind on my reading. This is a surprise?
I’m half with you and half not. Settings are important and a good setting can do quite a lot for a story … however, I’m minded to say that a good writer can blow you away wherever their story may be set. For me the characters are the vital component – they need to be real people that you care about in some manner, if only out of morbid fascination – and if somebody writes brilliantly about exciting and moving things happening to fresh and intriguing characters… they can tramp about medieval Europe and trip over the skeletons of as many Tolkein/Jordan/Eddings tropes as they like, and it can still captivate.
But yes – if they do all that stuff in a wonderful fresh setting etc – even better!
Mark
Ah, point well taken, Mark! I’ve spent some time as a writer tramping among the bones of those-gone-before, drawing on the same early sources they did. And I do believe you’re right: what’s important is that the work be *fresh*. If we use those things, I suggest, we must use them consciously and for reasons that matter to the story.
I think Nora’s point is also well taken, though: far too many writers reach for what’s been done before without giving too much thought to why. And that does make all the flavors begin to taste the same after a while.