High Fantasy: Why always so generic?

[Raapys]

Bah, the early Heroes of Might and Magic games are awesome. Superbly atmospheric graphics and music, and very addicting just-one-more-turn gameplay.

 

[Ahzaruuk]

I find Elmore's art kitschy and hideous. Always did, still do. Don't see why people keep looking back to them with such nostal--oh, that's right. Nostalgia. My god, look at those faces. The eyes are soulless. The people dress like idiots. Jesus buggering Christ, their expressions are frozen into this strange grimace, as if they are perpetually constipated.

Wholeheartedly agreed. I've seen a lot of better furry art in my life. Which is telling.

Silverbobcat and ShawnYe?

I'm almost tempted to throw Bagheera and Heather Bruton in there.

 

[Saxon1974]

I find Elmore's art kitschy and hideous. Always did, still do. Don't see why people keep looking back to them with such nostal--oh, that's right. Nostalgia. My god, look at those faces. The eyes are soulless. The people dress like idiots. Jesus buggering Christ, their expressions are frozen into this strange grimace, as if they are perpetually constipated.

Wholeheartedly agreed. I've seen a lot of better furry art in my life. Which is telling.

What am I missing here?

Twoflower's rose-tinted glasses?

Wholeheartedly disagree, I think his art is fantastic. I do agree the things they wear are a bit unrealistic but other than that I think he is the best at what he does. But then again, art like music is an opinion right?

 

[BigWeather]

I think there is a place for women in chainmail bikinis and bare-chested men in loincloths (both equally sexist and unrealistic when viewed by critical eyes). It's campy.

In the 80s this was done quite well. Over-the-top camp, grand kill Foozle quests. It was like Bruce Dickinson said about how he approaches concerts: he has to blow himself up and become super-sized, larger than life, to fill the stadium. It's a world of exaggerated larger-than-life takes on high fantasy.

In any medium there comes a point where a new wave comes and wants to make things gritty and bring them back to reality, to "show the way it really is". And I'm not against this. One of my favorite parts of the new Lord of the Rings films is that the adventurers all carried their gear in their backpacks, including all of their cooking utensils.

But at some point I think it can take itself too seriously and try to be too legitimate (or even, different for different's sake) and it's healthy to bring back some of the roots, and let there be room for the campy stuff.

 

[DraQ]

I find Elmore's art kitschy and hideous. Always did, still do. Don't see why people keep looking back to them with such nostal--oh, that's right. Nostalgia. My god, look at those faces. The eyes are soulless. The people dress like idiots. Jesus buggering Christ, their expressions are frozen into this strange grimace, as if they are perpetually constipated.

Wholeheartedly agreed. I've seen a lot of better furry art in my life. Which is telling.

Silverbobcat and ShawnYe?

I'm almost tempted to throw Bagheera and Heather Bruton in there.

Aww... Must you hijack my bilaterally scathing, if somewhat half-assed post and try to coax me into discussion regarding indisputably brighter side of furry art, thus derailing this thread and risking the ire of fellow codexers?

 

[MetalCraze]

Bah, the early Heroes of Might and Magic games are awesome. Superbly atmospheric graphics and music, and very addicting just-one-more-turn gameplay.

ah yes. I was replaying HoM&M3 month or so ago. it's cliche'ed, it's high-fantasy, it has non-existent story-line.
but it's very addictive. don't know why.
and art looks very good. as always.

 

[slipgate_angel]

I can kind of understand how you feel JarlFrank, in fact my brother would really appriciate this article. He LOVES medievil fantasy, and he just hates all of the fantasy games turning neo fantasy...I mean come on, do we really need a mechanicle robot blended in with dragons?

Well anyway, I think most fantasy games out there now a days have lost that progression of your character, the underdog. Another thing that's kind of missing is actuall EPIC battles, which Bethesda would like to think Oblivion has gotton. In Oblivion, you start out in a dungeon, and you immediatley get hurled into a honor guards battle between the blades and the enemy. There should have been moments where your character could shine, and that the players would see how he can sprakle in a sticky situation...but no, your just on the side lines watching the action unferl.

When you do go out into the world, most of the quests don't feel epic at all, or seem like your contrabuting towards making a better tommorow. When you finally get into the main story arc, the battles are just downright pathetic. The highest you can fight is two or three demonic critters, and that's without fighting with allies stronger than you. I stopped playing when I had to go fetch some books for an argonian bitch, but I might play it again just to see how it ends.

The point I was trying to make was that Oblivion, from what I've played, didn't have you tackeling waves of goblins, or demonic wizards who could summon spirits that could evicerate you if it weren't for your determination to overcome that obstacle...heck, if I could say one more thing, Oblivion didn't even bother to show you WHY you needed to save your kingdom.The motivation sucked, because the towns and people were all just bland, and uninspired, I would have just let that place burn, and pack my bags to leave for Morrowind.

Nice article JarlFrank, and I hope my rant didn't make me sound like a moron. :D

 

[Azrael the cat]

maybe something in this

The OP might actually have some truth in this. My first reaction to the topic was 'The Lord of the Rings STILL rocks, no matter how many novels, games and movies rip it off'. I guess Tolkein et al are forgiven because at the time LoTR WASN'T generic - his elves and orcs etc are very different to the elves and orcs of the european folklore he plucked them from.

But there is still something majestic about LoTR even for many who encounter it AFTER seeing all the ripoffs (personally I can't remember what I encountered first: D&D, Warcraft 2, or LoTR. I read the hobbit about 6 or 7, but then immediately tried to read LoTR - from the 2nd book mind you, without reading Fellowship - and was too young to really follow it, giving up a third of the way in. Went back to it several years later and loved it, of course, but by then I had started playing RPGs, so I may have encountered Tolkeinesque games before reading LoTR). I think what also stands out about LoTR is that the writing is (mostly) better than 99% of fantasy fiction - if you're going to compete in the polluted mainstream you need to be brilliant to get far enough head to be interesting. If someone is writing in a very original / underused setting, then the setting itself might be interesting enough to overcome bad or mediocre writing. I guess the lesson is if you're genuinely brilliant, whether as writer or game designer, then you can do high fantasy and still be enthralling - whereas most merely 'good' writers/designers should stick to more original settings.

Of course that doesn't explain the attraction of early RPG games (crpg and PnP) - they weren't exactly literary masterpieces, nor did they usually have any kind of interesting interactive plot/environment. I think there are two factors at work, one of which IS quite close to nostalgia:
- they WERE more personal - very rarely would they involve 'saving the world'. Usually they were about getting rich, getting the item of uberness, and maybe along the way taking out some threat to the region.
- there is also an age issue here. Not in terms of 'you're young so your taste sucks'. But in terms of your psychological makeup being different then, such that you related to different kinds of story. Most of us as kids are pretty powerless. The world is simple - there are things we are allowed do, things we aren't, and we don't really have any say that. We're taught that things are 'good' or 'just plain wrong', and we haven't yet learnt that these concepts have a subjective element, or that we might have some say in how they are defined. But - up until far later into our teens than most kids would like to admit - it is still common to be scared of what's outside the window, the shape in the dark, or even for that matter things like spiders and snakes. Hence 'hero-goes-off-to-become-powerful, or hero-fights-the-evil-baddie' make sense to us. They share our view of the world, and give a feeling of power we lack in our everyday lives.
- when we get older, that changes. Now WE are the one's who have to go outside to check what the noise was, WE are the ones that have to get rid of the spider that our kids (not that I have those yet) are scared of. More the point - we HAVE power over our lives, and we are often uncertain with what we should do with it. We can decide our source of income, our accomodation, our family - that's incomprehensible power to a child, but to us it's more scary that we might make a bad decision about work, family, marriage etc. And things aren't black and white for us anymore - we know that the family down the street has different moral values to us, and we know that when we call things good or bad, this says as much about our CHOICES as it does about any objective morality. What we can relate to now is responsibility. Does our hero help the partly noble - partly corrupt paladins, or the well-intentioned elven terrorists? Do we kill the baddie for justice, or try to get him to repent? Should ANYONE have the amulet of uberness, or should we lock it away to prevent a power imbalance?

It isn't a matter necessarily of better or worse, just a change in what we could relate to back then, and what we relate to now.

 

[Gragt]

Now that's some hawt chainmail bikini!

While I admit I have a soft spot from some old fantasy clichés, be it as book, movie or game, I'd prefer going over old stuff that has been made years ago rather than have a new one made nowadays in that optic.

While the general consensus here is that NWN2 OC sucked, I must say I liked it even with its flaws. I liked it because it gave me a feeling of those old fantasy stories I read, it had its shares of clichés but it build nicely on some of them. And for once, at least, you get to make your character and give him some personality instead of just meeting him at the start.

And what about The Temple of Elemental Evil? The game got quite a lot of critics for not feeling epic and the lack of party banter and other character interactions. Then again it felt old-school enough for me, with the party of heroes exploring a small dungeon and then stumbling into the big one. Most people were expecting a new Baldur's Gate 2 and that's not what ToEE was about.

Anyway while I'm all for nostalgia, some of that genre wouldn't be the same if it was made now. Can you image a movie like Conan the Barbarian made now and still retain the charm and beauty of the original?

I love the scene of the Atlantean tomb where Conan slowly advances in awe, the room only lit by his small torch, the dead warriors standing guard in the shadows as they did for centuries, until he reaches the dead king and stops. Then with some kind of respect he takes the sword from the skeleton's hand.

If it was done now, Conan would take a few step across the tomb, find the king and after a quick glance take the sword, look at it and say a one-liner then go out to kill the dogs.

Edit: (Dear $DEITY, remind me to never post again when I lack sleep)

 

[Nutcracker]

Re: maybe something in this

The OP might actually have some truth in this. My first reaction to the topic was 'The Lord of the Rings STILL rocks, no matter how many novels, games and movies rip it off'. I guess Tolkein et al are forgiven because at the time LoTR WASN'T generic - his elves and orcs etc are very different to the elves and orcs of the european folklore he plucked them from.

But there is still something majestic about LoTR even for many who encounter it AFTER seeing all the ripoffs (personally I can't remember what I encountered first: D&D, Warcraft 2, or LoTR. I read the hobbit about 6 or 7, but then immediately tried to read LoTR - from the 2nd book mind you, without reading Fellowship - and was too young to really follow it, giving up a third of the way in. Went back to it several years later and loved it, of course, but by then I had started playing RPGs, so I may have encountered Tolkeinesque games before reading LoTR). I think what also stands out about LoTR is that the writing is (mostly) better than 99% of fantasy fiction - if you're going to compete in the polluted mainstream you need to be brilliant to get far enough head to be interesting. If someone is writing in a very original / underused setting, then the setting itself might be interesting enough to overcome bad or mediocre writing. I guess the lesson is if you're genuinely brilliant, whether as writer or game designer, then you can do high fantasy and still be enthralling - whereas most merely 'good' writers/designers should stick to more original settings.

Of course that doesn't explain the attraction of early RPG games (crpg and PnP) - they weren't exactly literary masterpieces, nor did they usually have any kind of interesting interactive plot/environment. I think there are two factors at work, one of which IS quite close to nostalgia:
- they WERE more personal - very rarely would they involve 'saving the world'. Usually they were about getting rich, getting the item of uberness, and maybe along the way taking out some threat to the region.
- there is also an age issue here. Not in terms of 'you're young so your taste sucks'. But in terms of your psychological makeup being different then, such that you related to different kinds of story. Most of us as kids are pretty powerless. The world is simple - there are things we are allowed do, things we aren't, and we don't really have any say that. We're taught that things are 'good' or 'just plain wrong', and we haven't yet learnt that these concepts have a subjective element, or that we might have some say in how they are defined. But - up until far later into our teens than most kids would like to admit - it is still common to be scared of what's outside the window, the shape in the dark, or even for that matter things like spiders and snakes. Hence 'hero-goes-off-to-become-powerful, or hero-fights-the-evil-baddie' make sense to us. They share our view of the world, and give a feeling of power we lack in our everyday lives.
- when we get older, that changes. Now WE are the one's who have to go outside to check what the noise was, WE are the ones that have to get rid of the spider that our kids (not that I have those yet) are scared of. More the point - we HAVE power over our lives, and we are often uncertain with what we should do with it. We can decide our source of income, our accomodation, our family - that's incomprehensible power to a child, but to us it's more scary that we might make a bad decision about work, family, marriage etc. And things aren't black and white for us anymore - we know that the family down the street has different moral values to us, and we know that when we call things good or bad, this says as much about our CHOICES as it does about any objective morality. What we can relate to now is responsibility. Does our hero help the partly noble - partly corrupt paladins, or the well-intentioned elven terrorists? Do we kill the baddie for justice, or try to get him to repent? Should ANYONE have the amulet of uberness, or should we lock it away to prevent a power imbalance?

It isn't a matter necessarily of better or worse, just a change in what we could relate to back then, and what we relate to now.

Superb post.

 

[psycojester]

Now I'm going to get off at some more fantasy paintings, while I'm waiting for the next epic RPG where I have to gather my small party of adventuring elven chicks in chainmail bikinis and a sturdy male dwarven warrior with a huge beard to go out and stop the hideously evil wizard Knat'tz'baxx from finding the ancient artifact called Heart of Stone and using it to enslave the world with necromancy, while at the same time rescuing the king's beautiful daughter which that evil wizard has kidnapped and is fondling in his free time. Yes, that would be an RPG that will finally be able to catch the spirit of high fantasy again. Clichéd as hell, but still cool.

No. Just no. I'd rather burn this. What was your point again? What you just described is the very definition of generic. It couldn't get any more generic if it were butter on toast.[/quote]

I'm with Lesifoere on this one, this is the kind of crap that really really makes me ashamed to be a nerd, i can't stand all the chain-mail bikini, lets go slay lord generic evil shite. It just turns me off fantasy, i really can't stand fantasy worlds that exist so that some random mouth breather can have his fantasy sand-box and save the princess. Give me something like Perdido Street Station and authors who actually think about how all the pieces fit together and just let the hackneyed high fantasy cliche's die a long deserved death.

 

[Section8]

There's a couple of issues at hand here:

Quality/Unique Art Direction is sorely lacking in modern games, and it's not just high fantasy. I mean, how many sci-fi games have we seen recently where characters are decked out in sculpted body-suit looking armour and full face helmets with bright, glowing visors? Halo, Hellgate London, Timeshift, Dead Space, Mass Effect, Haze, Crysis, FEAR, Earthrise, fucking etc, etc.

Also, kitsch and camp has to be done very carefully. And it's very subjective. Since pretty much everyone but a select few adventure game developers can't even get straight humour right, then it's little wonder any attempts at irony are epic fail. Not that the shameless imitations of second and third hand sources are trying to be kitsch.

There's also the role our youthful brains played toward nostalgia. Azrael summed it up pretty well, so just read his post.

 

[JarlFrank]

I've got a request for clarification: is it the story or the setting that you are complaining about? Because I'd prefer some autocreated fantasy world with an interesting story than an OMGKEWL world with mature themes but an anaemic story (assuming it's the type of RPG with an important story).

I'm complaining about both, but with more emphasis on complaints about uninspired settings. I love good stories, but I'm also the kind of guy who enjoys just exploring a nicely crafted world with interesting locations and a great backstory. I loved Morrowind's lore, even though the story itself was pretty meh.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Azrael said it well.

There is also the novelty factor. Simply put, familiarity breeds contempt. When I first played D&D, being able to take on roles in those fantasy worlds I was reading about as a teen...wow. So fun. But the 100th time it doesn't hold the same excitement, even if the hundredth iteration of that same basic premise is 10 times more polished than the 1st.

 

[Annonchinil]

I am not sure about all this original vs. unoriginal arguments but to me the best setting capture a certain feel that games like Oblivion have failed to achieve. If a game can capture the feel of LotR I would certainly not fault it for being generic. I also disagree that what makes LotR better than other Fantasy is the writing. I don't know many fantasy books where the heroes are not powerfull warriors or become powerfull warriors, or are as unlikely as hobbits, or where in a sense the main hero fails and at the end in a way magic leaves the world. I mean in the movies the battle for Minas Tirith was EPIC! But when I read the book it seemed like they failed to capture just how hopeless it was, how there was desertion and that to few soldiers remained to properly defend it for long. I don't read many fantasy books but the few I do fail to capture what made LotR so special and instead just focus on stopping the powerfull wizard in his dark tower or have uber dual scimtar warriors.

Also this whole there is no marality or good and evil thing needs to stop. Not because the world is sunshine and lolipops and the dark pointy forest on the other side but because its in its nature is wrong. I can view mass genocide and old men raping little kids as wrong and disgusting, just because the purpotrators hold different opinions on these matters does not mean that the act is both good and bad nor does the fact that people believe in different things mean that I do not feel that way. The nature of morality is deeply personal and accepting people of different beliefs is itself a moral decision and just because you do so does not mean yours does not exist. You are just vieweing things from a realpolitik standpoint and you can't apply it to something so different unless you are thinking of it from in impersonal point of view.

Any idiot can state that people hold different opinions, it dosen't make him clever but the challenge for a great story is to make people believe and feel the things it wants the reader to, not do the opposite. If you write a story that has no morality/values or states nothing about them then you might as well include no loss, sacrifice, suffering, isolation, happyness, all these things when viewed by different people are different, it does not mean that in reality none of them exist or because the book favours one viewpoint it is somehow childish.

The whole point about kids is also retarded, there are many emo faggots in any school and yet it was the adults who made Titanic the monster it became.

 

[Lesifoere]

People need to read better fantasy. I can fairly quickly name a number of titles that don't revolve around D&D rip-offs, saving the world, and all that old, stupid shit. I can even name some where the ending isn't all magical happiness rainbow wheeee.

Tolkien's writing is hardly his strong point. The prose drags on needlessly, the characters aren't terribly complex, and if a manuscript written in his style were submitted today, it'd probably fly straight to the rejection bin. Also, Aragorn is an arrogant fuck.

 

[sheek]

Elite, parlor-room fantasy? No thanks

I like my fantasy and sci-fi pulpy, that's how it's meant to be.

Unlike many here I'm not a fan of Conan or Warhammer or Dragonlance books, but taking yourself too seriously is the worst thing you can do. A good example of the kind of tone / style is Glen Cook, he gets it just right, he's got the grittiness and plot complexity but doesn't make a big deal out of it or lose himself in neo-post-Marxist psychoanalytic mediations, he knows what his fans want, a good story and memorable characters. Writing novels is a craft, you've got a job you get it done - and hopefully get better the more you do it.

 

[Lesifoere]

Funny thing, I found Glen Cook absolutely boring, his characters unengaging, his prose meh, the plot blah. Hookay then.

 

[sheek]

Strange, that's exactly how I feel the same about China Mieville.

 

[Naked Ninja]

People need to read better fantasy. I can fairly quickly name a number of titles that don't revolve around D&D rip-offs, saving the world, and all that old, stupid shit.

I've read both and can enjoy both. I guess I'm just awesome like that.

 

[afewhours]

People need to read better fantasy. I can fairly quickly name a number of titles that don't revolve around D&D rip-offs, saving the world, and all that old, stupid shit.

So can I, but throwing the classic fantasy archplot out of the window isn't necessarily a progression. Everything is old, stupid shit these days. How many novels have been written that revolve around "ironic" personal epiphanies? Transplanting the tropes of drama into a fantasy setting may be a gimmick that sparks temporary interest, but you run the risk of downplaying, or even ignoring, the strengths of both genres. You wouldn't be writing fantasy, you'd be writing muddled drama within a fantasy setting.

You throw up 'saving the world' as a problem for the genre. It's no more a problem for the genre as gunfights are for Hong Kong blood operas. An overwhelming external threat is a basic trope of high fantasy. The skill of a writer stems not from the ability to resent archetypes and throw them out the window in a fit of ego, but the ability to recognise archetypes and implement them in engaging and skilful ways.

Establishing a convincing, monolithic threat requires a great deal of craft. If so many writers fail at the task, I wouldn't use that as a stick to beat the genre with. Instead, we should recognise just how much skill and inspiration is required to create those remarkable antagonists that make us grind our teeth in anger; and those plucky underdogs that make us cheer for them every step of the way.

I can even name some where the ending isn't all magical happiness rainbow wheeee.

Like Lord of the Rings? Frodo is utterly alienated from his peers in The Shire, and ends up departing for the Undying Lands... this works as an ending not because it's clever or different, but because it's a logical, satisfying conclusion of the main story. Frodo is an everyman - a peaceful civilian not brought up with warfare or trained in magic - he is plunged headlong into an epic, harrowing journey which he has little psychic defences for. When he returns to the Shire, he finds himself scarred and removed from the life he left behind, but still without the taste for heroic endeavour that Aragorn has... so Frodo did the one thing he could and removed himself from the world.

While I'm on the topic of isolation, I should bring up Bilbo's similar desire for the mountains. I really liked how Tolkien handled this. If memory serves, Tolkien had based the Misty Mountains on the mountains of Wales - particularly Snowdonia. I lived for several years in Wales, and I can fully identify with Bilbo. The mountains have a stark, powerful qualty that draws you in with the relentless pull of gravity.

Tolkien's writing is hardly his strong point. The prose drags on needlessly.

It was from a different time. A hypnotic, measured prose was desired as people read differently. The novel was supposed to convey an immersive, enraptured state of mind upon the reader, not an intense caffeine kick. Have you tried reading Moby Dick at all? I'd say Tolkien's prose works the same way Melville's works. There was nothing economical about Moby Dick, it went off on tangents, extensive meditations... crimes that *any* modern editor would have ripped to pieces. However, it worked due to the sheer amount of detail and interest Melville poured into the story. His rambling was interesting, and at times, captivating. I felt the same way about Tolkien's prose and the detail he infused into Middle Earth.

Besides. If a writing style is clearly of its time, that's not necessarily a bad thing. If I could quote Baudelaire: “Nearly all our originality comes from the stamp that time impresses upon our sensibility.”

if a manuscript written in his style were submitted today, it'd probably fly straight to the rejection bin.

[pedantry] If anyone submitted a manuscript, it would go straight into the rejection bin. Most publishers demand typescripts these days. :wink: [/pedantry]

As I stated: times change. Holding that against the achievements of yesteryear is a little harsh.

Also, Aragorn is an arrogant fuck.

Agreed, but Tolkien had the hobbits to act as his sympathetic protagonists. A few "noble heroes" such as Aragorn were necessary for his epic battles, but the old fella was sharp enough to also include characters the average shmuck could identify with.

Honest genre fiction is a major cause of mine. I started off writing taut short stories that I imagined to be clever... then I progressed to genre fiction.

Writing novels is a craft, you've got a job you get it done - and hopefully get better the more you do it.

QFT

 

[sheek]

Anybody here read The Worm Of Ouboros? Predates Tolkien. ER Eddison I think the guy was called. 1920s.

Now his prose is really something else.

Lord Dunsany and Mervyn Peake are two other pre-Tolkien fantasy authors, Clark Ashton Smith arguably. All these authors have very different styles and are nothing like what is associated with 'generic fantasy' and worth reading.

 

[afewhours]

Mervyn Peake

Titus Groan and Gormenghast are fucking awesome. Steerpike is a great example of an established archetype (ie. the malcontent) providing the base for a fantastic character. Everything about those two novels rocked - the prose; the politics; the humour; the narrative. 'tis a pity Titus Alone just wasn't as good. I kinda lost interest when the story moved outside Gormenghast and Steerpike wasn't involved.

Steerpike is possibly my favourite fictional character of all time.

 

[Hazelnut]

I'm quite a fan of Tolkien, I find the world and history he created fascinating in it's detail. It started when I read the Hobbit so I could understand what on earth was going on in the Melbourne House text adventure of the same name that my parents were playing and I wanted to play. It was pretty much my first foray into fantasy and I followed it by the Lord of the Rings which was hard going at that age, but my curiosity about Middle Earth kept me going.

I don't think he was the best author/writer, his strengths are in the creation of Middle Earth, races, languages, history etc rather than his prose. Maybe it is just part of the times it was written, like Moby Dick as you say afewhours, but that's never been my view. I tried to read Moby Dick once, but after 2-3 pages I was bored and confused - so I decided to leave it until another time, which has not yet come..

 

[afewhours]

Apparently, someone told me once, liking Tolkien has something to do with being English. Or something. I've no idea, some Tolkien fans are bizarre.

Agreed. The whole chanting stuff in Elvish over his grave is rather... eccentric to say the least. I suppose it's better than doing heroin, or something. As for the English thing... well I don't know, because of the aforementioned mountains thing, I tend to associate him with Wales, myself. But Wales is only next door, so, close enough.

Can you at least give me the benefit of the doubt with regards to my intelligence and reading maturity? I'm not rushing pell-mell to worship at the altar of Mieville or Vandermeer just because I think they're different; I find their settings cool, their writing evocative, and their characters people I can care about.

I don't know anything of your intelligence and reading maturity; I wouldn't presume to know anything... but if I were to, I'd presume by your posts you're better read than I am. I've read embarrassingly little for a wannabe hack. I was just reacting to your statement that:

People need to read better fantasy. I can fairly quickly name a number of titles that don't revolve around D&D rip-offs, saving the world, and all that old, stupid shit. I can even name some where the ending isn't all magical happiness rainbow wheeee.

I may be misinterpreting your words, but I took this statement at face value: equating better fantasy with inverting basic tropes. I have no doubt your personal views are far more complex than this, but as a blanket statement, it was easy fuel for a general polemic.

Or because I resent archetypes and am throwing a fit of reader-ego.

I was refering to writers, not readers. I think it is easy for an inexperienced writer to try and reinvent the wheel without learning to ride a bike. I say this, because I did it myself. It's easy to decide you're going to be edgy and original and throw all the cliches out the window, but once you've got so far, you look back and find you've repeated all the old cliches by accident as you're writing without a grasp of the form.

In fact, I doubt very much there's an author alive who can do that sufficiently well for me to pick up the book with a blurb reading anything along that line, or along the line of "...an ancient evil is rising... will ____ defeat it?" or "a dark emperor must be defeated to restore..." Call it disillusionment. See something done shitty long enough, and surprise, surprise, one's no longer inclined to give it another try.

Sounds like a few marketing departments should sack their copywriters, though I suppose if something is complete shite, they don't have much to work with.

Personaly, when I read the blurb on the back of books, my brain just rearranges everything into graph form, which is irritating, because it completely fucks my sense of immersion. Regardless of the setting, or the blurb, I just subdivide everything into external conflicts or internal conflicts. Eg.

Underdogs trying to save the world? External conflict.
Residents trying to save their local hospital? External conflict.
Politician trying to maintain power during a recession? External conflict.

Everything kinda starts looking the same when your brain is locked into such a reductive way of thinking. For a while, it really screwed me up - I suppose being young and arrogant just added to my cynicism. Even the most original settings and premises got deconstructed by my sick brain into categories A/B B/A B/B etc. After a while, I just thought, "Fuck it, I need to start enjoying things on their own terms again."

It's left me with a lasting suspicion of anything that seems gimmicky though. I was a little wary of PS:T when I first discovered it. It seemed a bit too self-consciously "out there", like it was trying to make up for some kind of shortfall... but I bought the damn thing anyway and was happily proved wrong.

And I said, or implied, that it has a rainbow-fart unicorns happy ending when?

Let me go back to your post.

I can even name some where the ending isn't all magical happiness rainbow wheeee.

Tolkien's writing is hardly his strong point. The prose drags on needlessly, the characters aren't terribly complex,

You made a point about people needing to read less cliched fantasy, and followed it with a remark about Tolkien's lack of sophistication. Were the two paragraphs directly related? By your response, I'd say no, but seeing as LotR was being discussed, I felt it was appropriate to use it an example. Also I like LotR, and wanted to defend it, so I used the opportunity to match it to the criteria you provided for stuff that isn't cliched fantasy malarky.

Hell, his prose is drier than Dickens'--it takes itself very, very seriously.

I agree, but I don't consider Dickens' prose that dry. Dickens' prose is very wordy and rambling, but it has a lot of verve and colour to it.

That's partly what I find insufferable with his fiction, actually. Outside of maybe The Hobbit and the first few chapters of LOTR, his stories are told in deathly earnest

I come across so much smirking irony these days that I quite like a bit of earnestness... but I'm mostly with you here. The Hobbit and LotR were the only things I could really hack of Tolkien's. I found The Silmarillion to be unreadable - a glorious chronicle of Tolkien's obsession, yes - but still unreadable. Then there's that annoying Tom Bombardil guy. Okay, Bombardil worked as a counter to the scarreeeyy wraiths in LotR, but I don't think I could hack an entire story about him.

So, funnily enough, is mine. Are you under the impression that I'm advocating taut literary fiction that I imagine to be clever?

Not so fast.

Honest genre fiction is a major cause of mine. I started off writing taut short stories that I imagined to be clever... then I progressed to genre fiction.

I was charting my own progression as a writer: I started off trying to write "cutting" short stories with the occasional obnoxious twist. I was trying to be self-deprecating about my former pretention, and stating that I feel my current writing to be a progression.

I was prattling about myself. I'll confess to being egotistical, but not insulting.

Or that "different" genre fiction by default results from "a fit of ego"? Funny how nobody seems to see any middle grounds.

I see plenty of middle ground. I was trying to make a case that generic high/epic fantasy can function as a valid starting ground for more things than it's often given credit for. I want to see new and beautiful stories myself, but I feel the best way to achieve that is to master the existing forms and see which ways you can twist and express them. I feel that making conscious attempts to overthrow existing tropes will usually result in writing cliches by accident.

It wasn't a specific attack on your position: 'tis just that I saw the excuse to join in, and I tend to gush and go off on tangents. Remember, I'm the Codexer that likes cute doggies, and BG, and various other stupid things. :D

EDIT:

Moby Dick once, but after 2-3 pages I was bored and confused - so I decided to leave it until another time, which has not yet come..

I'll forgive anyone that reaction to Moby Dick. I think you have to be in a specific state of mind to enjoy it... like, picking up the book and saying to yourself "Right! I'm in this for the long haul!" and then throwing yourself completely into Melville's world.

I love Melville, but even I'll happily admit he's an obtuse, rambling git. He makes me think of an old sailor on cannabis.