 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Sci-Fi and Fantasy General Discussions: 'Non-traveling' Fantasy?
'Non-traveling' Fantasy?
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
Canex SUPREME wrote in the David Eddings topic:
"I also think that Eddings uses traveling way too much...I mean all of his stories have his characters traveling all over the world, trying to get back magic artifacts that could save the world or be used against something that could ruin it."
I think he (or she?) has made a very good point here, as this is true not only for Eddings, but actually for most Fantasy writers. The only example of a Fantasy novel that doesn't incorporate traveling I can think of right now is David Gemmell's 'Legend'. While I don't mind it being so, I think it might be interesting to have more 'non-traveling' fantasy. What do you think, and do you know any other examples?
Not a book, but "Dragonslayer" involved little travel. Excaliber didn't either. At least neither involved lots of it. Of course, those are movies so maybe its not a totally fair comparision (they may travel less than usual for the sake of filming). I honestly can't think of a Fantasy novel I've read recently that doesn't involve lots of traveling.
Still, I think this is generally true because most modern Fantasy is a twist on the classic epic journey (i.e The Aenid, The Oddessey, etc.) There usually is some kind of heroic quest involved. Part of the rut Fantasy is in perhaps? I'm not too sure Eddings uses it any more than most modern authors, but I haven't read Eddings in a while so its not too fresh in my mind.
Horror (Dark Fantasy) on the otherhand usually involves little or no travel (although there is often a trip to where the evil is at the beginning of the story). Claustrophic atmosphere lends to the terror I suppose.
Science Fiction covers the range doesn't it? Some stories have lots of travel, others are very confined.
Posted By:  Iznardi Feb 22, 2001 - 10:19 am |       | I think the reason most FANTASY novels involve travel is because the theme of FANTASY is usually the QUEST.
By contrast, FANTASY/HORROR novels are usually set in a single locale, although a journey may be involved at some level [Dracula, Gormenghast, Pet Semetary, etc].
However, Sherri Tepper's "Grass," which could be called FANTASY rather than SCIENCE FICTION, all takes place in three planetary communities all within a few miles of each other.
iz
| Posted By: Gablety Mar 31, 2001 - 08:28 am | | I thought that most "travelling" fantasy were imitations of LOTR. If all you're reading is that stuff, I don't blame you for saying that all fantasy is formulaic or something. (Of course, you aren't reading even a corner of Fantasy of that stuff is all you're reading!)
I don't understand how Grass is SF or fantasy. there was only the teensiest bit of magic or technology in it, and the rest was all just people. If I wanted that, i'd read the latest best-seller or something.
The Mirror of Her Dreams by Steven R. Donaldson, was definitely not "travelling" fantasy. it's set in a world where to travel, you simnply look in a mirror. But then he gets caught up in disgusting non-fantasy things like sex and scandal and other junk. He only uses those funny mirrors a few times instead of making a whole book about them like I wanted, and by the end of the book he doesn't even solve the conflict! Yuck. And it's set in that same sort of medievel with 1800s techno world of travelling fantasy, so those weary by both Tolkien and Atwood will not find him refreshing.
I loved Beauty by Sherri S. Tepper, and if by 'travelling" fantasy, you mean those David Eddings/ LOTR type stuff where it's all in a sort of medieval setting with 1800's or better technology, and it's all of these charachtars just slogging through, it's not. but all through the book, Beauty is searching: for her mother, for Fairyland, for revenge, for her father, for her lover, and ultimately for herself, which she finds in the very last sentence. It's a really beautiful book. But in that searching, quite a lot of travel takes place, including time travel! (And she's a part of lots of fairytales Tepper weaves in, like Sleeping Beauty and Snow White). Even though she travels, I wouldn't call it "travelling" fantasy, and I'd like more of it!
Dune was really weird. There's quite a lot of travelling there, but nowhere near most castles and things, even the estates and starships castles are turned into in SF. Is that travelling to you? Are you weary by "travelling fantasy" or that fake 1800's world?
| Posted By: RedBen Jul 29, 2001 - 11:04 am | | Just a quick note on Gemmell's 'Legend' - there was an element of travelling in that one, as Rek and his companions reached Dros Delnoch. But Gemmell is such a pacey author (my favourite Fantasy author by a street) that travelling aspects are littered with happenings and do not encompass the whole book.
| Posted By: Aslan Jul 29, 2001 - 03:51 pm | | Most fantasy involves one or more characters traveling for symbolic reasons. It can get tiring, but at least it has a purpose. Unfortunately, many authors don't understand the purpose.. they just imitate what they've read before (LOTR most often).
Fantasy and the Quest are metaphors for the inner journey. Traveling from one experience to another symbolizes the path of life, much like Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher". Theoretically, the protagonist grows from these experiences. They also often return to their place of origin at the end - maybe realizing that no matter how much you dislike it, you are your home, and more like your parents than you had originally wished.
But that metaphor is often overdone or poorly done. It seems like 90% of new fantasy is about a quest or an epic war. I'd like to see a resurgence of anthropological fantasy or something entirely new.
We can always hope. And if anybody has any recommendations of non-horror, non-war, non-quest fantasy, post it! I'd like to see it.
Thanks!
Wonderful points Aslan makes , like the metaphor of the purpose of the actual journey and the return to the place of origin where one may find what home is and how much a part of one's ancestors one may be .
Meaningless the journey is if one aims merely at returning home to wallow in the satisfaction of the feat , as Simone De Beauvoir in "Pyrros and Kineas" has the mentor of Pyrros tell him that if he aims at traveling all over the known world only to conquer it , and then return to his home country only to enjoy the mere feeling of triumph and the glory of being the overlord of the whole known world , then , this powerful king had better not start such a quest at all .
As every artist so does every author tend to express only what lies in the author's consciousness . Perhaps what certain Fantasy authors or authors of traveling need is merely to get out of where they live at present , so they express this need of move with a traveling wish . Which could be escapism .
| Posted By: Aslan Aug 31, 2001 - 09:48 am | | LightBrigade, I'm so with you on art and fiction. Maybe even, art comes more from the artist's/author's subconscious? Some of the best art out there has a dreamlike quality. The stuff with the best depth is less intellectual and more "from the gut". As long as an artist is writing for fun and/or from the heart, it's art. When you look at a lot of the stuff out there today, it's formulaic. Why? Because people are writing to sell, not selling to write.
Whether it's escapism or not... ??? Maybe that depends on the author. On the other hand, if all fiction were limited to tiny, static locations, maybe we'd claim that authors were escapists trying to isolate themselves from the world. Since art comes from the Self, it's very individual, and I think the reasons for traveling or non-traveling or anything in a book are just as personal and unique.
Which (if I'm not full of hooey) leaves only one question: if you're writing traveling fantasy, why do you do it?
all very interesting points, yet i have one question. is not the purpose of fantasy to be GRAND. if so is it not required for one to do something(traveling, battling, discovering) extraordinary in order to widen the scope of the novel and make it more grandios.
after all fantasy is an escape to somewhere ultra realistic where teh impossible happens. straying from that means u r no longer in the realm of fantasy but reality.
I think the awe inspiring emotion of having hundreds of warriors all fighting for one "good" cause gives us all that great chill up the spine. but fantasy tends to be geared more towards such acts of heroism and grand battle scenes.
However i find myself longing for "typical" hero. not someone who is empowered by some natural talent, or has a good nature, but a trully 'typical' hero. someone who wants absolutly nothing to do with whatever is going on, and is only interested in going after his/her personal benefit, that is more typical of a humanoid character to me. or even a character who understands the need for good and evil to exist in a fragile balance. after all one can't have one without the other. but i have not read that many books in my short life so i can't claim to insult all those fantasy books.
As I would have a character act, you can't live on principles alone, so if some authors write books for readers instead of themselves, that is understandable as they are making money allowing to further showcase their writting.
Fantasy is a big bucket. It does not have to be "grand" or filled with large battles, etc. The most popular kinds of fantasy tend to be Sword & Sorcery (Medieval settings and lots of magic and battles--preferably magic battles) and High Fantasy (huge wars between good and evil--Tolkien being the premiere example). I have a feeling those are what you are primarily considering, but there are other kinds too.
Horror is often Dark Fantasy, where magical elements are combined with horror elements (definitely not including Horror based on religious doctrines--if the devil plays a role, its not Dark Fantasy ) Much of Stephen King's work is Dark Fantasy.
Contemporary Fantasy is in our world and in our time. There is some kind of magic involved, and it may be subtle or great. The Butcher's Wife is Contemporary Fantasy. Unbreakable is another example.
Magical Realism sort of takes place in our world and our time, but generally takes a "what if" approach by assuming some magical element is real and examines the effect it would have on the world.
Light Fantasy is usually more comedic in nature (for instance, Pratchett's work is often humorous), but Fairy Tales are often considered Light Fantasy too.
very interesting point. i guess u were right in assuming that LOTR was stuck in my mind, as well as the few other books of similar battles. i guess those massive battles are the ones which alwasy stick with me. personal preference i guess. I guess that in the presence of such books as the chronicles and Dark elf trilogy i find myself longing for more, but it would be unwise to disregard the small episodes. which often make the difference. well this is certainly mmost educational.
| Posted By: Eleica Dec 13, 2001 - 11:53 pm | | Tamora Pierce seems good for setting her stories in one place, at least at some points in her work. But leaving King Jonathan's palace or Winding Circle Temple is still important for some parts of the story.
This really makes me wonder how a story set in one place, with no travel directly involved in the plot or with the main characters, would be recieved. I guess it depends on the plot, too.
However, journeys are "excuses" too. Something can happen when you're away from home; it's easier that way. Maybe your only problem at the Palace is avoiding Person X's wrath. If Person X is truly evil, they can take shots at you when you're on the road because they can hire/command people/creatures/whatever to do things to you, impede your progress, discourage you, hurt you, maim you, kill you (boy, I AM positive this evening!). Or something new, something you wouldn't encounter in the Typical Setting (Aka palace, temple, small town, etc). Journeys are excuses, even if they are required to fetch an artifact, save someone, slay someone, do something helpful to the plot. That doesn't mean journeys are bad, but I wonder. Sometimes I get sick of journeys. Why seek action elsewhere when you can create it in your own hometown?
| Posted By: seoman Jan 15, 2002 - 03:43 am | | Archangel Foster! read ANY (except Artemis Fowl) fantasy book and you'll see that its not only eddings that writes about traveling and stuff!
| Posted By: gottgen Dec 09, 2003 - 10:44 pm | | China Meiville's "Perdido Street Station" is all set in one giant city...kind of a mix of Victorian London, Paris and Italy all roled into one.
His second novel, "The Scar" might or might not count...all the action takes place in a city, but it's a MOVING city made of ships lashed together on the ocean. Does that count?
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
