# The Language of Fantasy



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

Personally, if it is done well, I don't need to see a fantasy book written in Shakespearean or contemporary language.  But, if it is done poorly, I would rather the speech and narration reflect the comparable time period's choice of dialect and language.  

I understand that Tolkien set a precedent for fantasy that is hard to break out of, but I wonder why a fantasy world's language could not be written as though it were from Early America or from some other country instead of pseudo-medieval England.  

So, the question is: Should the narration and dialog (particularly the dialog) of a fantasy novel ALWAYS read like someone from the period between the 1600-1800's England wrote it?  Or does the use of more or less contemporary language throw people?  Can anyone give examples either way?  I'm interested.    

I am not talking about using inappropriate slang, etc. like "'sup dude," or anything like that.  I will put aside a book for inappropriate slang coming into a Fantasy.  But I'll discuss that too, I guess: what's appropriate and what's not.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

Actually, I think seeing a fantasy written with expressions like "sup, dude", or entirely in contemporary language, would be interesting.  Fantasy is a world we create... who's to say that world didn't evolve those expressions?  And for fantasy with something other than old English, try Stephen King's Dark Tower books.  The language of the fantasy world is... robust, depending on who's speaking, and what "mode" they're speaking in.  Formal sound like old European English.  Casual sounds contemporary, but somewhat formal for modern speech.  And there are any number of dialects.  He keeps it mostly consistent within characters, though.

That's the only complaint I have, when the language is inconsistent.  If you create the setting and people use a more archaic tone, or even give your characters accents or dialects that are based in, or reminiscent of, a specific place, then be consistent in that dialect.  "Dad" didn't exist as a term for father in medieval Europe.  "Father", or depending on the area, "Da" or even "Pap", but not "Dad".  "Kid" doesn't feel right as a reference to a child or young person in that setting.  "Buddy" feels totally off when referring to a friend.  The same goes for expressions like "take a look at this", or "check this out", or "stick with it".  Or even some of our contemporary swear words.  If someone uses language or dialect to create a feeling or a setting, I just want them to "stick with it".  

And to answer your original question, I think the reason that medieval-sounding English is often chosen for the fantasy worlds is because that's the time period and region in which you were likely to find knights on horseback, peasants, swordsmen, kings, and folks claiming to be wizards.  That's what people think of when they think swords and sorcery.

All that being said... I would love to see someone break out of that mold, and I'm actually working on a project now that sort of does.  Swords and sorcery and six guns, basically.  If it turns out well, I might publish it... if it doesn't, it goes in the trunk.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2011)

I buy speculative fiction for the world building.  I find lapsing into a dialect borrowed from another time or place rather than putting time in to create something unique to the story lazy and trite.

*shrug*

Write me dialogue that makes me want to buy a ticket to wherever your characters are.


----------



## Alain Gomez (Nov 12, 2010)

I think the reason why so many choose that sort of language is go hand in hand with the weapons so often favored in fantasy: swords.  There's a very thin grey line the author has to tread.  What would happen if you made a contemporary fantasy or even a futuristic fantasy with dialog to match?  Then you would head into science fiction territory.

Ok, so you don't want to write science fiction, you want fantasy! Your options are to make a new dialect entirely or mimic the speech patterns of the past.  New dialects are tough.

With this in mind, any one of the languages of the past are up for grabs.  But considering that a lot of the plot elements in fantasy are drawn from western European culture, it's no surprise as to the choice most authors make.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

_Are _there modern fantasy writers using such language?

I'm not doubting, just saying I've not noticed a trend here, but maybe I'm out of the loop or have missed something. Most of the fantasy I've read over the last several years has been written in a straight-forward, modern approach that has not fallen back on modern slang. Steven Erikson comes to mind.

Now over the years I've noted plenty of older, passed writers who had done such. Bob Howard did quite frequently, for example.


----------



## Randirogue (Apr 25, 2011)

I think Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel's series (two series now) counts as a contemporary example of what I, at any rate, would qualify (to a good degree) as that type of "fantasy language."

Kushiel's Dart Excerpt

She is my favorite contemporary author, I think. With that as my favorite contemporary book. And I didn't read a lot of specifically "fantasy" novels before reading this. Now, she's one of the author's whose books I can't pass up. Even when it's not my favorite, her books don't disappoint me.

But that's just my opinion. Sorry for gushing, and thus, straying from topic.

To be on topic, using that excerpt as an example, would you agree that the language falls under the paradigm of what you were describing?


----------



## Ben White (Feb 11, 2011)

GRRM seems to have gotten the balance right with Game of Thrones.  Tamora Pierce with the Beka Cooper books also, the dialogue is a joy to read--lots of slang and unusual grammar but the meaning is always clear.  Although I'm not sure if I'd call it 'fantasy', the language in Watership Down is also excellent, it's amazing how quickly you pick up all the special little rabbit words, which of course leads to the fantastic bit near the end where the author throws an untranslated sentence at you and it's totally understandable and completely awesome.

On the other hand, not many writers are GRRM or Tamora Pierce or Richard Adams.  In general, I prefer it when authors don't try to sound all olde timey because to be honest not many are capable of pulling it off, and there are only so many "what ho!"s a body can stand before it all gets to be a little much.  With fantasy I want what I want from any genre; interesting characters talking about interesting things in an interesting way.  If it's not set on Earth then the characters aren't speaking English anyway, so from my point of view what I'm reading is the world's most perfect translation of whatever language they're actually speaking.  I'd even accept modern slang if the author handled it well.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> I find lapsing into a dialect borrowed from another time or place rather than putting time in to create something unique to the story lazy and trite.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> Write me dialogue that makes me want to buy a ticket to wherever your characters are.


I agree. Archaic language can be done well, but so often isn't.

And, honestly, why bother?

Please, fantasy authors, just focus on your story! Mimicking such dialogue from another age (or imagined age) doesn't add a great deal to your story. In truth, I think it's a little twee!


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Pretty much this, although I think I have a lower tolerance for "ye olde phrases" (as someone referred to them in another thread) than most; I actually get irritated at GRRM for this. It's just so easy to be deeply silly when writing this way, and it's an unusually effective way of yanking me right out of the story. Are you about to kill someone in some sort of grisly, dramatic manner? Than you probably don't want me giggling at the description? Aw.

Watership Down, though I read it as a child, so this comes through the filter of many, many years: freakin' fantastic.

I think the reason I react so poorly to ye olde phrases is that frequently the language takes over the characters - all of a sudden, people speaking in these stiff, noble cadences start to have equally stiff, noble thoughts, actions, etc. They become one note, and lose the richness that I love about fantasy. And one-note anything is boring.

That's not to say it can't be done well, and probably the greats are examples of this, but for my tastes / attention span...the odds are not good, and the goods are usually odd, know what I mean?



Ben White said:


> GRRM seems to have gotten the balance right with Game of Thrones. Tamora Pierce with the Beka Cooper books also, the dialogue is a joy to read--lots of slang and unusual grammar but the meaning is always clear. Although I'm not sure if I'd call it 'fantasy', the language in Watership Down is also excellent, it's amazing how quickly you pick up all the special little rabbit words, which of course leads to the fantastic bit near the end where the author throws an untranslated sentence at you and it's totally understandable and completely awesome.
> 
> On the other hand, not many writers are GRRM or Tamora Pierce or Richard Adams. In general, I prefer it when authors don't try to sound all olde timey because to be honest not many are capable of pulling it off, and there are only so many "what ho!"s a body can stand before it all gets to be a little much. With fantasy I want what I want from any genre; interesting characters talking about interesting things in an interesting way. If it's not set on Earth then the characters aren't speaking English anyway, so from my point of view what I'm reading is the world's most perfect translation of whatever language they're actually speaking. I'd even accept modern slang if the author handled it well.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

It doesn't really bother me much. A "shakespearean" twist to the dialogue, when not taken to the extreme like in "Deadwood" adds enough strangeness to the world without distancing the reader that it can work well. I thought the "Spartacus" series used dialogue in a totally inaccurate, yet fantastic way. It is kind of like names. A fantasy world with characters named from the gospel "feels" wrong, even though that was how the real medieval people were named. But if you go to far with crushed consonants and frequent apostrophes then the audience gets lost. I feel the same way when reading a book with lots of Indian or arabic characters. The long unfamiliar names strain my brain.

This is the skill/art part of creating a fantasy world. You have to know your audience, know their limits, and know how to indicate things are -different- but not overwhelm them with stuff that isn't really relevant. Adding some "thee's",  "thou's", and "my lady's" with a touch of yoda-speak gives a faux medieval flair that is recognizable by modern western readers but isn't incomprehensible. Tossing in some invented words for the truely unique things (or repurposing gaelic, german, or inventing words from scratch)  and adapting a known Earth culture is literary shorthand for the writer and reader. Repurposing a known culture is also helpful because that culture evolved over time and survived a particular environment for a reason, they will have some depth to them and save the writer some time. Having tropical jungle tribes be pale of skin, wearing steel plate armor, worshipping gods of ice, and yet speaking in a Jamaica-inspired patois is just non-sensical, confusing, and would require extensive exposition to maintain the suspension of disbelief.

Don't even get me started on the language of film, fantasy or otherwise. Being aware of these conventions or troupes and knowning when to use or abuse them is the mark of a superior writer, IMHO.


----------



## SJCress (Jun 5, 2011)

I agree with a lot of what's already been said: if it's done right, if it fits, then more power to them. But if they're using bizarre language, and it feels like a crutch (especially if there's a bazillion apostrophes and unpronounceable words), then what does that say about the rest of the story? Probably that it's one I'll be putting down soon. Also, unless it's urban/contemporary fantasy, please leave the slang out. Few things make me drop a story faster than reading an "okay" in a medieval dialogue.

Quite frankly, I don't find "special" language necessary within a fantasy realm. Thinking it over, some of my favorite authors (Jennifer Fallon, Lawrence Watt-Evans, off the top of my head) don't use any. "Thee's" and "Thou's" are OK if they work but the world should be able to speak for itself without needing it literally "speaking for itself." 

(Also, the "dwarves with Scottish accents" cliche drives me nuts but I think that's a personal preference )


----------



## ashel (May 29, 2011)

Hmm. I was thinking about this some more (as I am wont to do), and I think I might just be super sensitive to dialogue, good and bad. I recently picked up Octavia Butler's _Kindred_, and I put it down again after, like, 10 pages, because I found the dialogue so, so bad. I know this is an important book, I know there are other reasons to read it, but...they're not real people if they don't speak anything like real people. Just completely ruins it for me.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

jason10mm said:


> Don't even get me started on the language of film, fantasy or otherwise. Being aware of these conventions or troupes and knowning when to use or abuse them is the mark of a superior writer, IMHO.


When I read this part, I immediately thought of Kevin Costner for some reason... LOL, Robin Hood anyone?

In all seriousness, the things I write, fantasy or otherwise, are always in a particular setting, and I like the setting to decide the mode of speech more than anything. A western gets old west lingo, etc. Don't get me wrong, I was serious above when I said I'd be interested in reading a high fantasy story written in all contemporary language, slang included. But for me, it would likely be an experiment.

But it can be carried to extremes. I don't go with flowery, archaic speech. Mostly, it's just a sense in my mind of British-accented English, with a slightly more formal tone than we use in modern times. I enjoy putting a bit of variety in there as well... due to the nature of my first novel, there are characters speaking colloquial American English, and characters speaking, for want of a better word, "Fantasyish" (making up words can be fun, see?  ), or that slightly British-sounding, slightly uptight and formal mode.

But I actually take pride in my dialog, I feel it's one of my strengths as a writer. I believe that each of my characters has a personal "voice", and is an individual. I think dialog, totally aside from accent, goes a long way toward creating that character's personality. Not everyone might agree with my assessment of my skills, but I'm a writer, I'm allowed a conceit now and again! 

And as far as names... except for a few notable exceptions, I decided when I started writing to do my best NOT to make up names. I've got dozens of languages from Earth to choose from, all with their own unique names and pronunciations... why not make use of them? I've used names like Joachim, Cassidy, Dunham, Gideon, Lysander... if you want to play with spellings, sure, but there are so many interesting names and words in existence already, I don't feel the need to make too many up from whole cloth.


----------



## Jeff Rivera (Jun 22, 2011)

I think language in fantasy goes hand in hand with world building - it can be done well, but it can also be overdone and make it almost painful to read. 

Sometimes I do enjoy a more archaic language. Tolkien for example put an amazing amount of depth and detail, even going as far to create his own language. And I think in that instance it worked to his advantage. In general I do prefer a contemporary and easier to follow fantasy story.


----------



## Tess St John (Feb 1, 2011)

This is interesting. I haven't read enough fantasy to know, but what I've read does tend to lend to this language. I never thought about it before.


----------



## jayreddy publisher (Jun 13, 2011)

Tolkien set a precedent for dialect that has been hard, if not impossible, for many authors to break out of. The use of midevil language mixed with a Roman hierarchy system has seemed to dominate most fantasy, especially epic fantasy. While I can still enjoy a book that uses such dialect in the dialogue, it would be nice for someone to break the mold and set a new tone for future fantasy novels.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2011)

gatehouseauthor said:


> That's the only complaint I have, when the language is inconsistent. If you create the setting and people use a more archaic tone, or even give your characters accents or dialects that are based in, or reminiscent of, a specific place, then be consistent in that dialect.


But some inconsistency is critical. Unless your characters are all the same age, social class, ethnicity, religion, and gender, they're going to talk differently. They even have to be the same species, which in fantasy is far from certain.

My orcs speak very, very differently than my humans . . . even the humans they speak with every day. Why wouldn't they? So too, my human slaves and peasants talk differently from the aristocrats.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2011)

Ben White said:


> In general, I prefer it when authors don't try to sound all olde timey because to be honest not many are capable of pulling it off, and there are only so many "what ho!"s a body can stand before it all gets to be a little much. With fantasy I want what I want from any genre; interesting characters talking about interesting things in an interesting way. If it's not set on Earth then the characters aren't speaking English anyway, so from my point of view what I'm reading is the world's most perfect translation of whatever language they're actually speaking. I'd even accept modern slang if the author handled it well.


I feel the same way . . . in principle. In practice, I dislike certain words like "okay" slipping into fantasy, because that strikes me as author laziness rather than adapting the setting's speech to the story.


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

Sumatra said:


> But some inconsistency is critical. Unless your characters are all the same age, social class, ethnicity, religion, and gender, they're going to talk differently. They even have to be the same species, which in fantasy is far from certain.
> 
> My orcs speak very, very differently than my humans . . . even the humans they speak with every day. Why wouldn't they? So too, my human slaves and peasants talk differently from the aristocrats.


I don't mean consistent across all characters. When I say consistent, I mean individually. Every character should have his or her own voice. But that voice should remain consistent throughout for that character. As I said in my earlier post, I worked very hard to give each of my characters a consistent but unique voice, whether it was through choice of language for dialog, body language, reactions to certain events, etc. My contemporary characters speak in modern American English, my other-world characters speak in varying dialects of English reminiscent of medieval England, Scotland, Ireland... basically, western Europe. Some of my other works approach the language differently, but each character has a unique voice and mode of speech. It's vital to the realism of the dialog.

Now, I don't use archaic forms of speech... the "what ho's" and the "thees" and "thous"... just as a general rule. I don't shoot for flowery. I shoot for realistic.

I agree also with Ben White... words like "okay" instead of "all right", or "dad" and "mom", or "cool", or even modern profanity, can pull me out of the story if the don't fit with what came before.


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

Sumatra said:


> But some inconsistency is critical. Unless your characters are all the same age, social class, ethnicity, religion, and gender, they're going to talk differently. They even have to be the same species, which in fantasy is far from certain.
> 
> My orcs speak very, very differently than my humans . . . even the humans they speak with every day. Why wouldn't they? So too, my human slaves and peasants talk differently from the aristocrats.


Totally agree. And I like to account for the shape of different races' mouths in how they're language is constructed. For instance, I have a race called kinto-shah, who are anthro-mouse people. They're faces are not capable of producing certain linguistic sounds of speech, so they naturally have an accent and mutate words around.

I also agree with what someone said above about how really we are reading a translation of alien language anyway, so there's no point in King Jamesing it back to the renaissance.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

You have a mouse race that is NOT called the "squeakers?" You fail at fantasy world building 

It is tough to use english to approximate sounds. You get lizard men with lots of "sssssssh" sounds and bee-people with the inevitable "bzzzzzzzz bzzzzz" words. Unless it is in very limited doses or EXTREMELY plot relevant or well done, just go with some sort of translated speech using <brackets> or italics. I think the reason a lot of fantasy is superficially (and at times, to the core) similar to Tolkein is that the setting isn't what is important, the characters are. Readers like to sorta know what they are getting and authors like to be liberated from exhaustive world building. Though it does allow the occasional history major or troupe-buster to really stand out. Abercrombie is a good example, he sets up a lot of deliberate tired fantasy troupes and beats the crap out of them. Martin takes a very specific historical time period and injects a lot of it into his world. Rarely is a feudal society so well represented in fiction, usually the chain from lowly peasant to king is about 2 steps, Martin has about 10!


----------



## mesmered (Feb 2, 2011)

oliewankanobe said:


> Well, there's the gauntlet thrown down!!!! Nothing ventured, nothing gained, I'll give it a go. My quote is from the protaginist Adelina in The Stumpwork Robe. The world is the world of Eirie... "a world that is intriguingly opposite to our own and yet terrifyingly familiar."
> 
> _'It was fortunate you were there, Liam. One wonders whether you actually left us yesterday.'
> 'i did. But I returned.' He offered nothing to Adelina to explain his comings and goings and she hated not knowing. Still, he was Faeran - they made an art form of secrecy.
> ...


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Ben White said:


> GRRM seems to have gotten the balance right with Game of Thrones. Tamora Pierce with the Beka Cooper books also, the dialogue is a joy to read--lots of slang and unusual grammar but the meaning is always clear. Although I'm not sure if I'd call it 'fantasy', the language in Watership Down is also excellent, it's amazing how quickly you pick up all the special little rabbit words, which of course leads to the fantastic bit near the end where the author throws an untranslated sentence at you and it's totally understandable and completely awesome.
> 
> On the other hand, not many writers are GRRM or Tamora Pierce or Richard Adams. In general, I prefer it when authors don't try to sound all olde timey because to be honest not many are capable of pulling it off, and there are only so many "what ho!"s a body can stand before it all gets to be a little much. With fantasy I want what I want from any genre; interesting characters talking about interesting things in an interesting way. If it's not set on Earth then the characters aren't speaking English anyway, so from my point of view what I'm reading is the world's most perfect translation of whatever language they're actually speaking. I'd even accept modern slang if the author handled it well.


'What ho' is an English expression, not medieval. *shrug*

Modern sang would jerk me right out of a medieval-type fantasy and I think that would be a pretty common reaction. I tend to use slightly formal but normal English. And Watership Down is certainly a fantasy of a certain subgenre.

Incidentally, I disagree with jason10mm's comment that worldbuilding is unimportant.


----------



## jason10mm (Apr 7, 2009)

JRTomlin said:


> Incidentally, I disagree with jason10mm's comment that worldbuilding is unimportant.


Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it is unimportant, just that world building is secondary to a GOOD STORY. Things in the world must service the story and it is the characters that really matter, not the setting, otherwise all you are doing is making a RPG sourcebook  So there are many "cheats" that a cunning author can use to convey his world to the reader that will save him time and keep the reader involved. I've read VERY few books where there is a 100% unique and novel world that utilizes no measures to pander to the reader. These books tend to have lengthy segments of explanation for why bread is called _murhank_ and is actually made from the ground shells of the _dok'no'thai_ beetles and is reserved for the _shgn'thio_ priesthood during the epogee of the lunar cycle of the 4th moon _hran'negaa_ in the ritual of _cho'krnahi_. Sure, this stuff is interesting to a point, but it is overwhelming and more importantly, distracting from a story of a young prince seeking to reclaim his throne from his evil uncle.

Think of the "Simarillion". A dense, exposition heavy tome of almost 100% world-building. Great resource and fantastic intellectual challenge? You bet. Great novel? Hardly, it is totally crushing to 95% of readers, even most LOTR fans. If you want me as a reader then your job as an author is to build this layered, complex, LIVING world and then distill it down to a point where I can enter it and not get mind blasted. Erikson and the Malazan series is a good example. He just dumps you into this HUGE world with 500,000 years of history in active use, a totally obtuse magic system, and like 3 ongoing continent wide wars and doesn't even bother to give the reader the bone of a naive character who gets everything explained to them. Steve loses a LOT of readers with his first book, but the ones who stick it out, because they care for the characters and the story, will be rewarded. Or consider David Edding's Belgariad series and the follow-up one. They are really more of a travellers diary as they go to a new country with each book and the plot gets banged around quite a bit in the process. Still, he made it work to a point.

Anyway, we are getting more in the weeds than the OP perhaps intended. If everyone in your fantasy world speaks like a ren fair staffer, it is fine with me. And yeah, I LIKE scottish dwarves


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

jason10mm said:


> Anyway, we are getting more in the weeds than the OP perhaps intended. If everyone in your fantasy world speaks like a ren fair staffer, it is fine with me. And yeah, I LIKE scottish dwarves


Nope, everyone's been doing fine. Thank you so much for the feedback. I'm loving to watch the goings on so far. The debate is right on track to me.


----------



## Adam Kisiel (Jun 20, 2011)

Of course it does not have to. Look for "the witcher" by A. Sapkowski


----------



## WrongTale (Feb 16, 2011)

Adam Kisiel said:


> Of course it does not have to. Look for "the witcher" by A. Sapkowski


What about it? Can you elaborate? 
I've only read his books in Russian, and am not willing to spend money on English translations


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

I'm cool with most anything if done well. Bad dialogue is bad dialogue. Modern slang probably will be a problem if it's done cheesily or if a few years have passed since the book came out, in which case the language will have changed and the book will seem dated.

In general, I prefer modern-neutral dialogue. I mean, it's a fantasy world, right? If you were really in that world, they wouldn't be speaking English. (Well, on the Stargate TV show everyone in the universe speaks English, but anyway...) So it's really just a translation to our language. So modern vocabulary and style makes sense.

If the fantasy setting is heavily based on the real world, though, I would expect a slightly more archaic style. Just not too much.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Bleekness said:


> GRRM uses the F-word in his work, which I find jarring. Sure, his series is a mash of the medieval and fantasy, but when he first used the f-word in there, I drew back, wondering if I should continue. I did, and I like his work, but I still don't like the usage... it's a fantasy world, how would they know of it? Couldn't he have come up with something better?


I guess my answer to that would be the same as the previous poster. Maybe "they wouldn't know of it" as the f-word, but they'd certainly have an equivalent. Medieval people did have expressions for fornication, defecation, venereal disease, and other such things that they used at specific times to express anger, insults or frustration.

There are exceptions, of course: some individuals here and there choose to speak differently, for various reasons. But GoT isn't a story about a few individuals. It's a story with a _humungous_ cast of characters, spanning continents and generations! A cast of characters who wage war and commit murder on a grand scale.


----------



## Todd Young (May 2, 2011)

Fantasy seems to be a dying art. I don't read l look of it, but from what I've seen, it continues to be a mindless rehash of Lord of the Rings. The whole idea of it leaves me cold. I don't see what fantasy writers can't come up with something better. I mean, how hard is it to create a new world that doesn't represent a certain period in Earth's history.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

About as hard as it is to come up with yet another mindless thriller in a generic city with the same old every-man (or woman) lead character, the typical love interest and the crazy villain with a gun? Oh yeah, and maybe a golden retriever, if your name is Koontz?

It's fair enough to say some popular fantasy is somewhat like Tolkien in that it's based upon a pseudo-Medieval Europe, but there's tons of different sub-genres of fantasy out there and has been for at least the last couple of decades. Dark fantasy? Urban fantasy? Oh, but you don't read much of the genre, so you wouldn't know.


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

Ty Johnston said:


> About as hard as it is to come up with yet another mindless thriller in a generic city with the same old every-man (or woman) lead character, the typical love interest and the crazy villain with a gun? Oh yeah, and maybe a golden retriever, if your name is Koontz?
> 
> It's fair enough to say some popular fantasy is somewhat like Tolkien in that it's based upon a pseudo-Medieval Europe, but there's tons of different sub-genres of fantasy out there and has been for at least the last couple of decades. Dark fantasy? Urban fantasy? Oh, but you don't read much of the genre, so you wouldn't know.


Hey, let's not be rude, alright. He said he has not had good experiences with fantasy. Let us not do anything to help him feel that way. I agree with most of this except the tone of that last part. I don't want this topic to get closed, okay?


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I read a lot of Fantasy and in some ways I agree with Todd. There is a lot of it set in a version of 11th century England. Now that's not to say it's all bad - Katherine Kurtz' _Deryni_ novels are fantastic as are George Martin's _A Song of Ice and Fire_ novels. But it does seem to a default for many authors where there often isn't much added to it to really count as world building.

There are a myriad sub-genres of fantasy that have nothing to do with historical settings, but I can see where someone who isn't a fantasy fan would tend to see it as a big pile of exactly the same book re-written.

Oh, and play nice, Ty.


----------



## Ty Johnston (Jun 19, 2009)

For what it's worth, I'll apologize to other forum members.

We each have our own favorite and sometimes disliked genres. I don't have a problem with someone not liking fantasy. I personally don't care much for romance.  But I don't go around slamming romance or romance writers, and my feeling was that's what Todd was doing to fantasy.

Again, my apologies.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Todd Young said:


> Fantasy seems to be a dying art. I don't read l look of it, but from what I've seen, it continues to be a mindless rehash of Lord of the Rings. The whole idea of it leaves me cold. I don't see what fantasy writers can't come up with something better. I mean, how hard is it to create a new world that doesn't represent a certain period in Earth's history.


Taking this on in a way that's a bit less confrontational --- and remembering that the lines between different fantasy sub-genres are not always clear --- I refer to the fantasy books following the example of LoTR to be "epic fantasy".

I'm a little curious on what "period in Earth's history" LoTR represents, it certainly doesn't strike me as similar to "10th-century England" at all --- or even all that similar to medieval Europe. (The politics, religion and economy are all far simpler, and I can't help thinking that Middle Earth must be a pretty boring place at any time when a scene from LoTR is _not_ in progress.)

But in any case, the thing I dread most about what I call "epic fantasy" is the practice of centering the plot on a single, monolithic Dark Lord who wishes to destroy everything. The Dark Lord's motivations often go unexplained. And despite the fact that the Dark Lord directly threatens the survival of everybody in the world, everybody (except the hero and his immediate companions) tends to be completely useless in the overall struggle. I tire of this convention far, far easier than I do of medieval Europe.



Todd Young said:


> I mean, how hard is it to create a new world that doesn't represent a certain period in Earth's history.


It's not hard at all. But neither is charging a machine-gun nest. But like charging a machine-gun nest, it is _risky._

I'd like to call attention to another, critical difference between fantasy adventure and thrillers: world-building. When you write a thriller, you set it in, say, "Chicago". The author has no need to build the setting. The reader knows where Chicago is, and even if you set the story in say, 1920 or 1950, the setting is not exactly high-maintenance. The reader's patience is a precious resource, and the thriller author has the luxury of spending it wherever he likes. He can spend some of it on exposition for pure plot: the hero's past, foreshadowing of the villain's weakness, curiosity about the dark secret of the love interest, or subtle clues for a complex mystery. And ALL of these choices are more cost-effective than world-building is for the fantasy author, because the reader of thrillers is likely to consider them "fun". The thriller author has the luxury of choosing whether to spend some of it on "fleshing out" the world of Chicago through real-world research of Chicago --- it may not be necessary, but it will probably be welcomed, especially by readers who love Chicago (or live there.)

The fantasy author has to be FAR more discrening on what to spend the reader's patience on. Could he invent a whole new culture of magical giant millipedes, with the architecture of 3rd-century Wales but an imperial bureaucracy modelled after the Sulla kingdom of ancient Korea, on a world that is astronomically different from earth because it has six moons and a five-hour day? Sure, but _then the author is taxing the reader's patience by asking them to learn something from scratch stuff that they do not recognize,_ so the payoff had better be _colossal_ or he's sure to lose the reader.

This party explains the popularity of "urban fantasy", which is a brand of fantasy that frees the author from the chore of world-building (and the reader from learning about a new setting): "It's England --- with fairies!" "It's Chicago --- with vampires!" "It's Spring Break on the Viriginia Shore --- with mermaids!"

In the end, we fantasy writers are trying to do the same thing you're trying to do.


----------



## James Bagshawe (Jun 29, 2011)

Personally I think flowery descriptive language in fantasy is a burden that weighs a book down. Tolkein was almost more of a poet than a novelist, and it shows in LOTR. His flowery approach made for a very epic feel but what you lose is the day to day reality of life in Middle Earth. There is nothing in his trilogy about that.

When I read other high fantasy books I find they try too hard to keep their heads in the clouds, when very often, a slice of reality makes for a better book. I would urge those who haven't already read his stuff to try Joe Abercrombie. I stumbled across his book while I was waiting for a train and I'm so pleased I did. A very keen pace and a very wry writing style.

In the end, everyone will have a view and should stick to the kind of stuff they prefer. I've found my fantasy niche.


----------



## Plotspider (Mar 15, 2011)

LoTR represents a prequel to actual Earth.  I have not read everything of Tolkien's largely because he spends a lot of reader patience exactly as you have said, talking about moss and etc.  But I think that Middle Earth actually got sort of 'phased out' and real Earth sort of replaces it in the fiction.  Not sure, as I have not spent my reader patience to really study LoTR to the extent I desire to study it.  

However, that being said, I don't really see epic fantasy as being preferable these days.  Instead, I'm seeing a lot of political fantasy, post modern fantasy, etc. becoming the norm.  Patrick Rothfuss, who is gaining popularity like a rock falling off a cliff gains momentum, is not really writing epic fantasy, though his book is spanning his entire world and though he is throwing in every other fantasy trope imaginable.  Instead, he gets you connected to one character's story, and then everything happens around or to him.  Technically, it would be considered low fantasy or world-building fantasy, except that it is called the "King Killer Chronicles," which implies something.  I have been a fan occasionally of the Dark Lord stuff, but that does get kind of tedious, unless you know the standard metaphors writers employ with such a character (Greed for power, revenge, etc.).

You are absolutely right though in the fact that it is more difficult on fantasy writers to both world-build and create interesting characters and an entangling plot that pulls the reader in all that the same time.  Mundane writers (writers of this time and/or place) do not have quite as much juggling to do.  We tend to have more choices, and the language and diction we use to describe the world tends to be one of the most difficult.


----------



## Scott Reeves (May 27, 2011)

Nothing will make me put down a book faster than encountering modern slang in a fantasy set in a medieval-type fantasy world, or in a science fiction story set in the far future. To me it's almost an unforgivable sin, even worse than the writer using "they're" when "their" is called for. I don't want stilted, grandiose speech or descriptions, but I want the writing to be as "untainted" by modern day English as possible, without sounding like it was actually written hundreds of years ago, if that makes any sense.

One reason I detest the "The Clone Wars" cartoon is that the speech and mannerisms of the characters are too laced with modern-day slang. It's television, I know, but it's still written by writers. It's aimed at young people too, but that's really no excuse. I remember an interview I read once a long time ago (can't remember the source, so this is hearsay) where Glen A. Larson deliberately used words like "felgercarb" and "centon" in the original _Battlestar Galactica_ because he knew that his characters, not being from Earth, wouldn't use Earth slang. I've always thought that was a great attitude.


----------



## Krista D. Ball (Mar 8, 2011)

Scott Reeves said:


> Nothing will make me put down a book faster than encountering modern slang in a fantasy set in a medieval-type fantasy world, or in a science fiction story set in the far future. To me it's almost an unforgivable sin, even worse than the writer using "they're" when "their" is called for. I don't want stilted, grandiose speech or descriptions, but I want the writing to be as "untainted" by modern day English as possible, without sounding like it was actually written hundreds of years ago, if that makes any sense.
> 
> One reason I detest the "The Clone Wars" cartoon is that the speech and mannerisms of the characters are too laced with modern-day slang. It's television, I know, but it's still written by writers. It's aimed at young people too, but that's really no excuse. I remember an interview I read once a long time ago (can't remember the source, so this is hearsay) where Glen A. Larson deliberately used words like "felgercarb" and "centon" in the original _Battlestar Galactica_ because he knew that his characters, not being from Earth, wouldn't use Earth slang. I've always thought that was a great attitude.


I recommend you never read anything written by me


----------



## Simon Habegger (Apr 19, 2011)

This is an interesting discussion.  I think that bringing Tolkien in is particularly relevant because his books have two characteristics that I think are linked -- the heroic narrative, formal tone of the writing, and a lack of humour.  In my opinion, these go together -- it's very, very hard to be funny while writing in a contrived, semi-archaic manner.  Humor is generally rooted pretty strongly in current slang, idioms, and ways of thinking, and though perhaps I'm being unfair, most people who write epic fantasy aren't even that interested in trying to be funny.  There are exceptions to this -- Jack Vance is one -- but jokes in a faux-ancient voice are generally not that hilarious.  I think that choosing to write like Tolkien has the effect of distancing the author from his characters, and making them less human.  The interest of The Lord of the Rings doesn't like in character development or dialogue -- and I think it's interesting to compare this with The Hobbit, which is decidedly less epic, and has genuine moments of humour.

Simon Habegger


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2011)

Scott Reeves said:


> I remember an interview I read once a long time ago (can't remember the source, so this is hearsay) where Glen A. Larson deliberately used words like "felgercarb" and "centon" in the original _Battlestar Galactica_ because he knew that his characters, not being from Earth, wouldn't use Earth slang. I've always thought that was a great attitude.


I can see finding new, distinctive uses for words in specific settings, such as referring to a day's travel through a dry wasteland "drinking the wind". Or reference to execution by hanging as "dancing on air." That can actually make the reading experience more immersive.

"Centon" does that for me. Using it can help make me feel like I'm somewhere outside a planet's atmosphere. It stands to reason that "day", "month" and "year" are based on the movements of astronomical bodies as seen from the surface of Earth. Even the "second" is roughly comparable to a human heartbeat, which makes it less accessible for aliens.

"Felgercarb" . . . not so much.


----------



## David Alastair Hayden (Mar 19, 2011)

Todd Young said:


> Fantasy seems to be a dying art. I don't read l look of it, but from what I've seen, it continues to be a mindless rehash of Lord of the Rings. The whole idea of it leaves me cold. I don't see what fantasy writers can't come up with something better. I mean, how hard is it to create a new world that doesn't represent a certain period in Earth's history.


I read fantasy books all the time but rarely read LotR rehashes. There are some out there, and they are some of the most popular series. But there's a lot more than that. You probably just haven't given it a deep enough look. I've written seven books of fantasy and none of them resemble Tolkien's fine works at all.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

Plotspider said:


> Personally, if it is done well, I don't need to see a fantasy book written in Shakespearean or contemporary language. But, if it is done poorly, I would rather the speech and narration reflect the comparable time period's choice of dialect and language.
> 
> I understand that Tolkien set a precedent for fantasy that is hard to break out of, but I wonder why a fantasy world's language could not be written as though it were from Early America or from some other country instead of pseudo-medieval England.
> 
> ...


There's an inherent limitation in that you're writing in English. My fantasy epic is inspired by the mythology from a lot of different cultures, including Native American and African. But I don't try to make my characters speak like Native Americans or Africans. I try to keep their expressions and slang in keeping with what they would do in their culture.


----------



## Colin Taber (Apr 4, 2011)

I just want the communication to be clear, that means keeping away from stilting prose that stumbles along stubbing its toe on every ''thou'' and ''thee'' it happens upon. While I don't want to see a fantasy character say "Okay" I am happy enough if he or she says "Yes" or "Alright" The use should be clear and subtle. Using contemporary slang is as bad as using parochial language that also loses a reader.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

I don't mind the language being written either way, but I do tend to think it's better when it's modern (if not too slang-y), because it feels more invisible that way.  I like to assume they're speaking their own language and it's being translated into standard English competently, basically.  

I really like it when Shakespearean/King James English is written correctly, but this happens so rarely that I almost always wind up getting really annoyed when I see it.  My two cents on the subject: Write it only if you can write it grammatically!


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Harry Turtledove's _Ruled Britannia_ is set 10 years after the Spanish Armada conquered England and threw Elizabeth in the Tower. I love this book and while it is written in contemporary English, the characters use an Elizabethan dialect: _" 'Steeh, Master Jenkins, I did not. Is mine own time a worthless thing, that I should spend it freely for the sake of your broken promise?" "Broken it was not, for I promised the robe today and here it is."_ There are points where it's laid on a little thick, but overall it does work.

I think if one is going to use an historical dialect, one should work to get it right. Tossing in the random 'thee', 'thou' or 'prithee' is just annoying.


----------



## James Bagshawe (Jun 29, 2011)

Geoffrey said:


> I think if one is going to use an historical dialect, one should work to get it right. Tossing in the random 'thee', 'thou' or 'prithee' is just annoying.


"From there it's just a small step to 'Hey Nonny Nonny' and then I shall have to call the police."

Cookie to whoever gets the reference first...


----------



## gatehouseauthor (Apr 22, 2011)

munificent said:


> "From there it's just a small step to 'Hey Nonny Nonny' and then I shall have to call the police."
> 
> Cookie to whoever gets the reference first...


Chocolate chip or oatmeal raisin?

I'm going to have to say Black Adder....


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

Todd Young said:


> Fantasy seems to be a dying art. I don't read l look of it, but from what I've seen, it continues to be a mindless rehash of Lord of the Rings. The whole idea of it leaves me cold. I don't see what fantasy writers can't come up with something better. I mean, how hard is it to create a new world that doesn't represent a certain period in Earth's history.


Try Brandon Sanderson, if you're sick of repetitiveness in epic fantasy. (I don't blame you -- I get sick of incessant Lord of the Rings clones, too.) His Mistborn trilogy is definitely not based on medieval (J. R. R. Tolkein) or Rennaisance (Robert Jordan) Earth history. To give you an idea: the basic idea behind the story was that a young child of prophecy went against a Dark Lord . . . and _failed._ One thousand years later, the Dark Lord is still ruling the world, and the main character is a thief who really wants to steal his treasure. Oh, and maybe take him down, too.

It's even cooler than it sounds.  Plus a really, really, really awesome magic system.

Fantasy in general is definitely not dying, but I agree that high fantasy is all too often boring.


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

munificent said:


> "From there it's just a small step to 'Hey Nonny Nonny' and then I shall have to call the police."
> 
> Cookie to whoever gets the reference first...


Ooh! Ooh! Isn't that Shakespeare? _Much Ado About Nothing?_

I hope I get a cookie . . .


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

Language should always fit the setting. The larger question is whether fantasy needs to be set in a pseudo-medieval England at all. And I say no. Great fantasy can be set in any era or country.


----------



## WrongTale (Feb 16, 2011)

munificent said:


> "From there it's just a small step to 'Hey Nonny Nonny' and then I shall have to call the police."
> 
> Cookie to whoever gets the reference first...


 I'm alright without a cookie, I'm too fat anyway.

Sir Edmund, however, completely forgot that there was no police at the time when the events are supposed to take place


----------

