Real World Mythology

My Asphodel series is an epic fantasy retelling of the Trojan War myth. Although I used the Iliad as a guide, it's a completely different take on the war using current fantasy archetypes instead of the original characters. The thing for me about using the real-world mythology as a hardcore basis for the story is that every writer should make the material their own. You can find numerous examples of the Arthurian legend, for example-- like The Once and Future King or The Mists of Avalon or the Mary Stewart series and every one of them has a different point of view. So if you use real-world mythology, you have to be certain that it's your own narrative voice in order for it to work.

My take as a reader who enjoys a little mythology all up in her SF/F: don't present it as if it's new, because your well-read readers will think, uhh, why is she pretending she invented a trickster coyote? Also don't give all the background information on it. Let The mythological figures be revealed a little bit at a time, the same as any other character. If he's going to be elusive and mysterious, leave little clues about him. If he's all up in your plot wreaking havoc, then show him doing so. readers who know who you are writing about will nod their heads knowingly and readers who don't will enjoy a fully-fleshed out character based on a really old archetype.

There are approximately a zillion fantasy novels with Coyote in them if you seek further inspiration.

Personally, being someone very familiar with certain forms of mythology (greek, norse, aurthurian), if I picked up a book that didn't follow it to some degree, and instead deciding to take it in whole new direction, I'd be pretty unhappy. At least if it was done in some illogical way that at least doesn't preserve the integrity of the "characters" . That said, if you were writing about any kind of "real world" mythology, I think you would need to supply certain amount of detail and background knowledge so that people who are familiar are appeased, and those who aren't familiar get enough information. Its a fine line that is hard to define.

I actually always wanted to write a goofy story set in an American high school with all that great teen angst one would find on television using the Greek gods as the characters. I mean... all the cliche clicks are already there, lol.... its a dumb idea, but I thought it would be fun.

Oh, and Mscelina, have you ever read Dan Simmons' Illium and Olympos? There's an interesting take on the Trojan War, lol.

Really interesting thread! I'd love to hear more

My WIP is Magical Realism and parallels parts of the Prometheus myth. But I want that part as allegory and almost completely in the background.

My favorite works that sound more like yours only include enough of the mythology as one would for any character, so that it stands on its own in the work. The rest of the myth (if there is any) is like a secret puzzle for those who know more, or that interested readers can research. Of course, I love puzzles dropped into fiction any time, so I may just be odd that way

SarahMacManus said:

If you were reading a fantasy/magic realism tale based on real-world mythology that you weren't that familar with, how much detail on the original myth would you want provided?

Click to expand...

Forget the author/reader relationship in the first instance; focus on the characters' concerns. Only include the mythic history if that's critical to a characters' decision-making.

If you want to write acknowledgements/bibliography etc... do it as an afterword.

Actually, the trappings and glow of mythology are often a big reason people read books. Successful fantasy books revel in the settings and hierarchies: would Harry Potter or LOTR or GWTW have worked without the loving descriptions of Hogwards, the Shire etc, and South?

It's probably and extremely bad idea to restrict these concerns to mere plot devices.

Forget the author/reader relationship

Click to expand...

Whoa!

Team 2012 said:

would Harry Potter or LOTR or GWTW have worked without the loving descriptions of Hogwards, the Shire etc, and South?

Click to expand...

"Loving descriptions" are cheap in fantasy and for the most part, worthless, except when they set mood or inform action.

Most amateur fantasy writing opens with interminable tracts of loving descriptions, portending nothing; some fantasy writing never breaks free from the mire of its loving descriptions. And some of it, regrettably, gets published, delivering endless setting in which nothing much happens and leading amateur writers to think that's both normal and good.

My suggestion: reread Tolkien. The Shire doesn't see a ton of loving descriptions. We're not treated to a mythic history of the Shire; the mythic origin of hobbits is parked in an academic prologue that nowadays would be an appendix. We don't get a loving description of the Buckleberry ferry -- the hobbits are too busy being chased. The history of Isildur's Bane is revealed gradually through dialogue as major characters take decisions on it -- but only revealed when it's important. We never learn the socioeconomics of Lothlorien. Tolkien draws widely from the language and ideas of Celtic, Germanic and Norse myths but never bogs down apologising for doing so.

Command of setting, relevant imagery, vivid characters, gripping action and capable voice will create a strong relationship between reader and story; but get those things wrong and no amount of prosaic putty and world modelling will keep the reader glued to your tale.

The real problem is this: amateur fantasy writers love to invent setting, but few also know to create story. So they build dolls-houses in painstaking detail, populate them with cardboard cut-out dollies, lovingly decorated, and forget to animate the dollies and bring them into significant conflict. Instead, they treat us to a Home Beautiful catalogue of all the rooms they've built and what Dolly can do in there.

Ruv Draba said:

The real problem is this: amateur fantasy writers love to invent setting, but few also know to create story. So they build dolls-houses in painstaking detail, populate them with cardboard cut-out dollies, lovingly decorated, and forget to animate the dollies and bring them into significant conflict. Instead, they treat us to a Home Beautiful catalogue of all the rooms they've built and what Dolly can do in there.

Click to expand...

What a fantastic metaphor...lol.

I'd only include background that's directly relevant to the story. As a reader I much prefer picking up hints and putting the mythology together myself rather than being hit over the head with it. Other people may feel differently.

SarahMacManus said:

The mythology is outside of it's natural place, that's why it's magic realism rather than fantasy or historical.

Click to expand...

Magical realism in its usual form never bothers explaining itself. A recent example is the 2008 Nebula-nominated Superpowers by David J. Schwartz. Moreover, perhaps because it's realism, the mythic elements never seem to help the characters resolve anything.

Ruv Draba said:

My suggestion: reread Tolkien. The Shire doesn't see a ton of loving descriptions. We're not treated to a mythic history of the Shire; the mythic origin of hobbits is parked in an academic prologue that nowadays would be an appendix. We don't get a loving description of the Buckleberry ferry -- the hobbits are too busy being chased. The history of Isildur's Bane is revealed gradually through dialogue as major characters take decisions on it -- but only revealed when it's important. We never learn the socioeconomics of Lothlorien. Tolkien draws widely from the language and ideas of Celtic, Germanic and Norse myths but never bogs down apologising for doing so.

Click to expand...

I think you should reread Tolkien as well. He might not spend much time on human structures, but he goes overboard on lavish descriptions of random bits of wilderness. That is, after all, part of his theme: the victory of the natural over the manmade.

Granted, he was much better about certain types of infodumping than certain modern fantasy authors I'll refrain from naming...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SarahMacManus
The mythology is outside of it's natural place, that's why it's magic realism rather than fantasy or historical.

Magical realism in its usual form never bothers explaining itself. A recent example is the 2008 Nebula-nominated Superpowers by David J. Schwartz. Moreover, perhaps because it's realism, the mythic elements never seem to help the characters resolve anything.

Click to expand...

(Now on my reading list - thank you, Ruv!)

If the mythology is the magic, yes - don't overexplain (as Marquez said was the hardest part of his writing for him). The myths could jump out in all their glory without even a name change if you like!

Ah, so many fun ways to do it in MR, but the least-MR way would involve explaining things for the reader

SPMiller said:

I think you should reread Tolkien as well. He might not spend much time on human structures, but he goes overboard on lavish descriptions of random bits of wilderness. That is, after all, part of his theme: the victory of the natural over the manmade.

Click to expand...

The victory of British pastoralism over military industrialism more like.

Since there's some difference of opinion on this, here's a random excerpt so we can see what Tolkien's actually doing and how he does it:

Suddenly Frodo himself felt sleep overwhelming him. His head swam. There now seemed hardly a sound in the air. The flies had stopped buzzing. Only a gentle noise on the edge of hearing, a soft fluttering as of a song half-whispered, seemed to stir in the boughs above. he lifted his eyes and saw leaning over him a huge willow-tree, old and hoary. Enormous it looked, its sprawling branches going up like reaching arms with many long-fingered hands, its knotted and twisted trunk gaping in wide fissures that creaked faintly as the boughs moved. The leaves fluttering against the bright sky dazzled him, and he topped over, lying where he fell upon the grass.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of description here and I believe that it's doing two things: 1) setting mood (the scene is just prior to meeting Tom Bombadil, and the aged willow motif presages that meeting); 2) setting up action. The willow is malign and in the subsequent passage almost kills several of Frodo's band.

I think this shows that making description relevant to action and mood doesn't mean that you must write less of it (Tolkien is indeed a prolix describer -- and has set the stamp on epic fantasists ever since); it also shows that setting descriptions fit better in the story if they're relevant and not simply lovingly detailed.

Tolkien's novel is wordy principally because he moves his characters around a lot, but at least whenever he does something happens. We can argue about whether all the somethings are equally interesting and integral to the plot (Bombadil is largely irrelevant, for example) but what we can't argue is that Tolkien's descriptions are flapping loose from the drama. Lord of the Rings had competent and devoted editing, which is more than can be said for many modern fantasy epics.

Self-editorial discipline is almost unknown among amateur fantasists, and patchy even among the pros. Evidence of editorial discipline is not so much the length of the books (fantasy readers love door-stops and so be it) but integration and parsimony in the text, and impact in the drama.

Tolkien is a convenient example because LotR is the best-selling fantasy novel ever written (est. 150M copies sold, although the Potter series has sold an estimated 400M). It also set a benchmark for setting research and mythic integrity that few other speculative fiction novels have ever met. Tolkien himself was exceedingly well-read -- none of which means that one has to like his novels, but it does give us some insight into what makes for rich and well-constructed fantasy.

Literarily, fantasy writing is all over the place and the literary experience of fantasy readers is even patchier. Many only read from the bestseller shelves. Many don't read outside the fantasy/SF/horror/romance genres. Many don't read stories older than they are. Best-selling fantasy authors themselves often have narrow reading-lists these days, which can make modelling from best-sellers a bad way to learn good (i.e. effective, impactful, engaging) writing. The argument that "Rowling/Jordan did it" ignores the fact that best-sellers often succeed despite weak setting research, poor story design, limp structure and sloppy expression (pretty images and sympathetic characters are often enough nowadays, if coupled with a strong marketing campaign). On the other hand, solid research, strong structure, good design and taut expression has never hurt sales -- especially in the longer term as Tolkien's estate can attest.

From an entertainment perspective Tolkien is optional. From the perspective of developing strong fantasy storycraft I'd say he's mandatory reading, along with Dunsany, Homer, and Hindu myth.

Well, we should keep in mind that Tolkien didn't exactly consider his work to be "fantasy" as we know it but rather modern mythcraft. His work was also much less removed from the source myths. In that sense, his fiction is more pertinent to this thread than, say, his imitators, who are legion.

The argument that "Rowling/Jordan did it" ignores the fact that best-sellers often succeed despite weak setting research, poor story design, limp structure and sloppy expression (pretty images and sympathetic characters are often enough nowadays, if coupled with a strong marketing campaign).

Click to expand...

Best-sellers succeed because they tell a good story, one that engages the reader from the beginning to the end.

Wow really? I find there's such a surfeit of different and original material that it's hard to decide between them.

I'm with Celina. Fantasy has recovered from its all-time low (as I see it) during 1980-1995.