The Challenge of Fantasy Writing

[Nateskate]

There are challenges to writing. And you can read about them in virtually any writers magazine or forum. However, Fantasy and Sci Fi have troubles that are unique.

I'm not an expert, so I'd really like help on this one from you Fantasy experts. But in writing, I've found so many pitfalls that you would not find in other Genres.

Here's a short list of problems, especially if your fantasy is unique and does not rely on common themes.

1) If you are creating a world with new concepts, you have to provide definitions without gumming up the entire story. If you don't already have a framework (Previous story that explained these terms) you are forced to become a "teacher". I once got into a conversation with a person from another culture who came to America. They had never seen or heard of a Hot Dog, and you have to explain what it is. You can give them color, shape, texture and a comparative taste, but sometimes your explanation doesn't sink in until they've taken a bite. The same is true with "Ice Cream". Try explaining chocolate to someone that has never tasted chocolate before.

The problem is that you can't take anything for granted. And yet, you walk this tightrope, because the more you define, the more you bog down the flow of your own story.

2) You have to take that definition and coin a phrase or give a concept a name. Lets say you have a world of Blogs. Their are good blogs and bad blogs. Well, you can only say, "The virtuous blogs" and "The dastardly blogs" so many times before you are sick of hearing the phrase. So, you come up with names like Virlogs and Wickogs.

So, if you use a phrase repeatedly, it must be given a proper name, which means (if you did not anticipate that) you'll have to go back and rewrite parts of the story.

3) You MUST keep a notebook with "names" and "definitions". You may have a concept when you start out, but you will find the need to add more names, terms and definitions than you can keep track of. Otherwise, you will be spending hours trying to recall if Laketown was actually Laketon, and whether you put it in chapter four or five, and have to re-read two chapters to find it. In fact, you may forget that you already had a "Laketown", and create a second Laketown, one in the south and one in the north. And you must remember, "WHO CAME FROM WHERE". In chapter one, that may be fresh memory. But the story may take longer than the weekend vacation you planned, and six months later, you are trying to jog your memory.

4) You must have a rough map. Otherwise, when you refer back to Laketown in chapter twelve, you remember whether it was east, west, north or south of Bluesville. And write down each new town and its proximity.

Feel free to add or comment.

[victoriastrauss]

Nate, any of the issues you've listed apply equally to historical fiction, and all of them are aspects of the larger problem of conveying an unfamiliar context to the reader while simultaneously telling an engrossing story.

Obviously, the less explaining, the better. Much can be made clear through context and never explained at all, and not everything needs to be explained at the outset. Nor does the reader need to know everything the author knows; part the challenge of writing fantasy is deciding not just what explanations you need but which you can skip. Whatever explaining/teaching is done, I believe strongly that it should be organically integrated into the narrative--my heart sinks when I pick up a fantasy novel and see that there's a huge glossary at the back, where the basic concepts are laid out like a cheat sheet.

In general I try to avoid special names and phrases. The way I look at it is that fantasy is literature in translation, and in translating you use the closest applicable English terms. Thus a rabbit is a rabbit, not a weeble, unless there's a really compelling reason to make it otherwise. A pet peeve of mine is books about, say, Russia, that have all the characters speaking ordinary English but saying "Da" and "Nyet". Similarly, I dislike fantasy that's gratuitously larded with foreign terms in an effort to make it exotic.

Another thing I try to do, to cut down on confusion, is not to give names to characters and places unless I must. This avoids bombarding the reader with funny names--especially important if you have a complicated setting and a large cast of characters.

I do keep a style sheet, to which I add names, terms, and definitions as I create them, and I draw rough maps to keep me oriented. I do most of the basic world building in advance, but specific settings I usually develop in detail only as I come to them in the course of writing.

- Victoria

[CACTUSWENDY]

WOW...:Jaw: ........I'm just a crime writer.....i had no idea your world of creativity was so involved. Me and my pea brain could never keep that much information in line. (Loved Harry Potter......but sure lots of 'extra info' that was needed)
My hat is off to you and your kind.....~~~~~~Wendy~~~~~

:Sun: ....................:Sun:

[katdad]

In writing mysteries, the challenges are similar. One thing about writing ANY fiction that's based in our modern world is that you don't have to fill in the world history and culture. Those are huge challenges for fantasy and SF.

But in my ongoing series of private detective novels (based in modern Houston, Austin, and surrounding areas), I keep a series of spreadsheets and memos to myself that contain the facts of the novels' world view. My books are meant to be realistic and therefore this is mandatory.

In other words, I keep extensive bios for the principal characters, and I use a Houston street map to ensure that the travel times and movements are legitimate.

But fantasy does indeed have other significant requirements, as you so eloquently described. And all that backstory needed to fill in the gaps, so that the "world" of the novel is fleshed out, can be quite complex.

Frankly, this is one reason why I don't read fantasy. As much as I love Roger Zelazny, I gave up after maybe 3 novels in his Amber series. I got tired of keeping all the siblings straight. And that wasn't an extremely complex set of books.

You are totally correct on the need to establish backstory in fantasy. And it's something I simply don't wish to burden myself with, reading or writing.

But that's my personal preference.

[azbikergirl]

In general I try to avoid special names and phrases.
To an extent, I agree. I don't populate my fantasy world with Janes and Bobs and Joes. I prefer short uncommon names that the reader won't have trouble pronouncing: Brodas, Rogan, Warrick, Daia, etc. Sometimes I take a regular name (Denise) and "fantasize" it (J'Nese).

I agree that it's not always necessary to explain stuff to the reader. If it's integrated well enough, she'll make sense of it as she goes.

[MacAllister]

Sometimes I take a regular name (Denise) and "fantasize" it (J'Nese).


Ahhh...see, that's a throw-the-book trigger for me, when I'm reading. I have just enough linguistic background that there better be a darn good reason to start dropping gratuitous apostrophes, or it sets my teeth on edge.

[SRHowen]

That’s one that gets me. Names of things. In historical or even in writing about a culture most people know little about. I have had beta readers that didn’t know what a trash midden was, or what a breech clout was, or what parafleches are--and these are not made up things, or made up names. Add in first person and it is a balancing act that can drive you bonkers.

In third person you can put a few tags here and there to explain what is what--he kept his pemican in a small decorated parafleche, a small raw hide bag. But I hate those in reading and to me they are glaring author voice. If you are going to put the explanation in there then just call it a small raw hide bag. In first person, unless the person is not a member of the group you are speaking of--they would not think of a parafleche as a small hide bag. This applies to fantasy as well. To be true to your characters you have to use the terms they would use.

Time to get creative, and this also brings more life to the writing.

He kept the pemican in a small decorated parafleche. His wife had made it last fall from a cast off peace of rawhide. She’d worked many hours on the intricate bead work . . . beads she found in the dirt after the other women were done with their daily gatherings. His fingers tightened on the bag--if only they had accepted her, she might not have been bathing alone when the bear came.

By putting details into context the reader can go ahhh, ok, a parafleche is a rawhide bag used to store things. Then leave it--don’t spoon it to the readers again and again. Respect their intelligence to remember what the "thing" is.

And to second what Victoria said if a rabbit is a rabbit then it’s a rabbit. Only make up words for things that have no comparison in the language you are writing in. And then use a simple term, easily remembered and use context to explain what you mean.

Shawn

[Terra_Aeterna]

I agree that less is more with explanations of a lot of fantasy/sf stuff. Over-explaining leads to info-dumps, and perhaps we should trust our readers to be able to imagine some of the details for themselves.

[SRHowen]

Oh and katdad--if you haven't driven in Austin lately--it is a nightmare. They are putting in a mess of those criss cross over and under each other roads--the autobahn, with drivers who haven't got a clue and traffic that either zooms bumper to bumper or you sit and breath exhaust for hours while they clear away the wreckage with those pylons for the new roads looming as near as the concrete dividers.

Bad bad bad.

Shawn

[Richard]

When it comes to names, if I can't pronounce it, I generally don't remember it that well. One of my biggest annoyance is when fantasy authors insist on giving absolutely everything flowery names - so the hero rides his Horsow across the Vale of A'parachi to destroy the Plutarch of Kalberion with the Promise of Dawn, casting Ruani spells against the Krok'thaw and the evil Nebelguun - every last syllable thrown in just so the reader doesn't forget that they're reading a book set in a fantasy world and not, say, Belgium.

...and then the quest stops while everyone sits down to eat a sandwich, etymology be damned, because even the most etymoligically ambitious fantasy author somehow never seems to bother trying to come up with a new word for a slice of meat between two pieces of bread. If only that would go just that one step further and just call a spade a spade, a rose a rose and an elf, well, you get the idea.

[reph]

Ahhh...see, that's a throw-the-book trigger for me, when I'm reading. I have just enough linguistic background that there better be a darn good reason to start dropping gratuitous apostrophes, or it sets my teeth on edge.

Mac, I'm with you on the apostrophes.

R'eph

[HConn]

Keep in mind, though, that exotic fictional settings are one of the major allures of reading fantasy. Your readers *want* to find out more about your setting. It's one of the reasons readers buy fantasy novels rather than cozies or Connecticut Divorce novels.

As long as it's cool. Your setting has to be cool to keep people's attention.

H'Conn

[brinkett]

When it comes to names, if I can't pronounce it, I generally don't remember it that well.

Same here. I have a hard enough time remembering large casts of characters with english sounding names. My brain refuses to register exotic sounding ones. Just pretends they aren't there. If I have to keep flipping back to figure out who so-and-so is because every time I see the name, it's unfamiliar, I stop reading the book.

[Nateskate]

There is a tremendous balancing act in fantasy. Obviously it can be done. Tolkien created several languages. You didn't need to know them to understand the story, but it is rather interesting to learn what Elrond means. That "El" means both "star" and "ellf"...etc.

But that is more than the average reader wants to know. Actually, the idea of a fantasy, especially set in another world, or even an unknown age, is the idea that you are there, and not in L.A. So, you can't have Sly pulling out a pistol on Hollywood and Vine and waxing the Dragon's backside.

Obviously, this is another part of the balancing act. You are always in between "Too much and Too little" on virtually everything. The names, the places, the events.

Describing too little leaves people scratching their heads. Describing to much leaves them bored and overwhelmed, because the story becomes daunting.

Without Beta Readers, I'd be lost, because sometimes you get too close to your own story, and need someone to tell you where there's too much or too little.

But if you look at it as a historical piece. Once upon a time Plato and Aristotle were weird sounding names. If you can tollerate a good mythology, which most can, it shouldn't be too hard to muddle through a decent fantasy.

But again, some fantasy stories are more complex than they need to be. I'm hoping to avoid these pitfalls, and if they exist in my story, I'm hoping I get a really insightful editor.

By the way. Is there a spell check on the new board? If so, where?

[Richard]

Keep in mind, though, that exotic fictional settings are one of the major allures of reading fantasy. Your readers *want* to find out more about your setting.

To be honest, I review one hell of a lot of fantasy books as part of my day job, and I'm often left with the impression that the author wants to write about it more than anyone could ever conceivably want to read about it. Obviously, there are exceptions - but what often catches my attention is when I'm reading something that is quite blatantly Tolkein rip-off drivel that thinks it can stay unnoticed by filling itself with...and I mean no disrespect to fantasy authors here, as done well, it's a genre I like very much...dyslexic drivel that seems to have been named by randomly bashing keys. Fantasy is a genre, but too many writers think of it as a setting.

In general, the ones that work for me are the ones where the author's started out with a particularly good concept, rather than trying to clog up Middle Earth with apostrophes, double-barrelled names and ancient wizards who can chart the fundemental nature of all reality, but haven't yet mastered the use of contractions.

[Richard]

But if you look at it as a historical piece. Once upon a time Plato and Aristotle were weird sounding names.

Plato was a nickname.

The kids I feel sorry for are the ones with names like 'Deathsmasher' or 'Starkiller'. Talk about having limited career options...

[azbikergirl]

I have no problem with fantasy authors using words I don't know -- as long as they are either defined in the story or found in a dictionary. Increasing my vocab is a nifty perk. Now, I tried to slip in a very old word for moustache (knevel) which is not in any dictionary except maybe OED. My beta readers got frustrated, even though the context was there for them to make the connection. In the end, I ditched the word. It's not about wow-ing the reader with fancy words. It's about telling the story.

I don't use apostrophes in names as a general rule, but putting two consonants together that don't normally go together (J & N) seems to beg for one. ;)

[katdad]

>>Time to get creative, and this also brings more life to the writing.<<

Your description of the parafleche fabrication is superb. A great way to describe things to the readers without boring them.

[Andrew Jameson]

There is a tremendous balancing act in fantasy. Obviously it can be done. Tolkien created several languages. You didn't need to know them to understand the story, but it is rather interesting to learn what Elrond means. That "El" means both "star" and "ellf"...etc.

But that is more than the average reader wants to know. Tolkien created several languages, yes, but he was also an academic with an extensive background in ancient words and languages. If anyone were capable of creating a plausible-sounding language, it'd be him.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a contingent of writers who think constructing a language for a fantasy novel would be really cool (because Tolkien did it!), and they tend to make a hash of things -- because honestly, English is hard enough, and making up a language filled with words and syntax and foreign concepts, out of whole cloth, is too big a task.

[katdad]

Oh and katdad--if you haven't driven in Austin lately
Not for a while, but it's increasingly urbanized, that I know. This summer I intend to come up to Austin for a weekend and scout things out a bit, so I can accurize my new novel.

Some of the Austin locales will only be described nostalgically, as they are long gone: The Armadillo World Headquarters, the Uranium Savages, and some other fond memories.

The present items will be "The Drag", Moon Towers, the re-opened UT Tower, a couple of restaurants, Zilker Park, Barton Springs, the Driskill hotel, Sixth Street, and other places.

My protagonist went to UT and became close pals with a Russian emigre, Gregor Yevshenko. Dr. Gregor Yevshenko's now professor of comparative anatomy at UT, and has a big old house over near Red River where he, his wife, and teenage daughter live.

He's been receiving telephone threats and that's why his old college roommate, Mitch King, comes up from Houston to stay a few days.

I've got quite a bit of current event Austin locales to check out, photograph, and get into my book.

[tjwriter]

I am currently working on my first fantasy novel, and I am going to try to keep it as simple as possible.

My names aren't Sara or John, but I try to keep syllable count low it they are really funky or phonetic if they are long. It helps at least to me.

Also, I am going with the premise that if it is something commonly found in fantasy, it needs little-to-no explaining, and things I have named differently can be discovered in context in 5 seconds. My goal at least.

I haven't discovered anything yet that needs extensive explanation, but then I am not very far along either and the story is starting to decide things itself. I will tackle them as I come along.

[katdad]

Tolkien created several languages, yes, but he was also an academic with an extensive background in ancient words and languages. If anyone were capable of creating a plausible-sounding language, it'd be him.
Or he.

The only other writer whom I know to have created a "language" is Anthony Burgess in "Clockwork Orange". As you know, Little Alex speaks a mix of English, Russian, Gypsy argot, and patchwork slang.

It's a stunning accomplishment, and as you correctly state, very difficult.

When these wannabe writers attempt to create this sort of complex artifice, it normally falls flat.

[Medievalist]

Suzette Hayden Elgin created a language. It's not a series of books that appeals to me so I've not spent much time on it. I know she created a grammar text and a dictionary--she's a linguist.

C. J. Cherryh spends a great deal of thought and attention on world building, and it shows. She's thought deeply about languages and cultures, and has the right kind of back ground academically to create languages successfully. She's the only writer I've seen that I felt approached Tolkien.

Klingon has been pretty fully fleshed out as a language, again, by a linguist.

On of my pet peeves of late have been heroic / mythic fantasies based on Celtic myth. Now, I like Celtic myths. Really. A lot, in fact, but I can't bear reading books that Get It Wrong. For instance, books that use Celtic words for character names, without checking carefully, like the person who named a female lead "Napkin" in Welsh.

I also have been traumatized by people mixing various Celtic languages and mythologies together since they're "all the same."

They aren't.

I've diligently avoided things Celtic in fantasy for a while now because I suspect I'm unfairly harsh.

World building and taking detailed character notes are not something associated with genre fiction alone; Dickens, for instance, was obsessive about character detail and back story, and made copious notes.

[mistri]

I just can't read Celtic myth fantasy because it bores me. Can't really tell you why, but it seems to be universal regardless of author. I don't like urban fantasy much either - perhaps because I prefer other world fantasy to our world fantasy.

When I *attempt* to write fantasy myself I try to keep names short and memorable, and the worldbuilding on the right side of developed, as opposed to overdeveloped.

What I think many writers find difficult (including myself) is knowing how much readers can work out from context, and how much has to be explained (subtly, of course). Think of the Steven Erikson books, where the reader is dropped right in the middle of the story, expected to pick up everything as they go. I personally found his work difficult to follow at times, but I appreciate that he doesn't condescend to the reader. I tend to over-explain, when the reader probably doesn't need to know whatever I've told them anyway.

[Kate Nepveu]

Y'all might be interested in this panel on exposition (http://noreascon4.blogs.com/live/2004/09/panel_report_as.html) from last year's Worldcon.

[victoriastrauss]

One of my biggest annoyance is when fantasy authors insist on giving absolutely everything flowery names - so the hero rides his Horsow across the Vale of A'parachi to destroy the Plutarch of Kalberion with the Promise of Dawn, casting Ruani spells against the Krok'thaw and the evil Nebelguun - every last syllable thrown in just so the reader doesn't forget that they're reading a book set in a fantasy world and not, say, Belgium.
Agreed. A peeve related to this is fantasy authors who don't bother with etymologic consistency, but just give their characters and locations any old exotic sounding names. I recently read a novel in which most of the names were Japanese-y, with a few Celtic-y and Romance language-y ones thrown in at random. It bugged me out of all proportion, because it just seemed so lazy. I have no interest in inventing languages, but I do go to quite a bit of trouble to develop consistent naming systems. I'm guilty of using exotic names (though I steer way clear of gratuitous apos'trophes and wanton hyphen-ation) but I try to make them as consistent as something you'd find in, say, a Russian novel in translation.

I OD'd on Arthurian literature as a teenager, and since then have pretty much avoided Celtic fantasy entirely.

- Victoria

[WVWriterGirl]

The only trap I found myself falling into with writing fantasy is the "Because It's My World, That's Why" trap. Someone would ask me why something was a particular way in the book, and if I didn't have a good explanation for it, I would just say, "My world, that's why. I say so." After hearing myself say this too many times, I took a good hard look at the book and tried to come up with logical explanations for all the slightly strange things that happened. I got most of them; they may not appear in this book, but definately will in the next. It's just another pitfall you have to watch out for in writing fantasy, because even though, yes, it is your world, you still have to pretty much adhere to the general laws of physics. You know, up and down, gravity still works, and so forth and so forth.

Just my 2cents.

WVWG

[Diviner]

"In general I try to avoid special names and phrases. The way I look at it is that fantasy is literature in translation, and in translating you use the closest applicable English terms. ... I dislike fantasy that's gratuitously larded with foreign terms in an effort to make it exotic."

- Victoria[/QUOTE]



I write both historical fiction and fantasy. I try to sprinkle in enough exotic langauge, such as characters saying "aye" and "nay" and "ye" and sometimes "thy," as well as words like "league" and "el" (a fabric measure). I do this for two reasons, 1, because more modern words are often wrong for the period, and, 2, some readers actually expect and appreciate period or exotic language. For instance, I would not say a character was incandescent with happiness, because it is just wrong. They could glow or sparkle, flash or gleam, but not send off that steady, bright light we associate with electricity.

I have been told that readers of historicals expect a little enlightening but not too much. If I were to explain what a midden is, that would be insulting. All a character has to do is to throw their trash on it, and it becomes obvious.

The great thing about beta readers is thay can alert me to areas that might cause a problem, but the creative solution (such as the parafleche example) is the one I must choose, not the dumbing down of my writing.

By the way, why is the bag rawhide rather than tanned leather? Rawhide is so stiff. I can't quite see it being beaded.

[katiemac]

Fantasy is the one odd-ball. There are so many different kinds of it (traditional, dark, etc.) that there are so many different kinds of fans with their own individual expectations. Some want the Tolkien elves. Some want the token dragon. Others don't want anything to with that side of the genre, but prefer divulging into more modern sets.

It's a very difficult genre to master, I expect. But I'm trying.

[Nateskate]

In another thread, I compared "Broad Tastes" vs "Narrow Tastes".

The cooking metaphor applies here as well, in that you are preparing a verbal meal. The more you appeal to broad tastes, the larger the audience that will like it. However, there are narrow audiences that prefer something completely out of the loop of the normal. In other words, they like a high degree of difficulty.

To me it's like people who dump a gallon of hot sauce on their eggs. They like it, but it would gag me. I don't want my lips bleeding.

In the other thread I also mentioned having an anti-social cook for a sister in law. What do I mean "Anti-social", she doesn't mind imposing her latest experiment on you. She doesn't care that you may gag, but she demands that you try it. And she gets offended if you have to know what those little black things are.

Honestly, if you are going to experiment, you could experiment with tried and true things like chicken or beef, and a different way to make beef stew, instead of some kind of toad testicles over seaweed.

Well fantasy lit is somewhat like that. You have broad taste and avant-garde. In general, my tastes lean toward the conventional. For that reason, I like to give a feel that this actually could be your world with a twist.

[katdad]

The only trap I found myself falling into with writing fantasy is the "Because It's My World, That's Why" trap. (etc)
This drives me nuts, too. We see it all the time in cheapie SF or fantasy TV movies. The writer (or director or whomever) assumes that because it's "fantasy" then any attempt to preserve consistency or logic is not needed.

In another forum I reviewed a screenplay that led me into a hot debate with the author.

He'd excerpted portions of Authurian legend (a subject close to my heart) and simply changed things to suit his own story line. We got into it big time about Excalibur. He renamed it "Excaliber" and used that altered name to imply "caliber" as in gun bore size equaling large, and that the "ex-" prefix meant large, e.g., "Big gun". In fact, Excalibur translates in old English & Norse roots to be "cuts good".

Then the writer continued with the idea that Arthur drew Excalibur from a stone. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! (Sorry, I had to vent. That egregious and ignorant error gets my blood boiling whenever I see it promulgated.)

It was T.E. White in his novel "Once and Future King" who shortcut legend (to the detriment of a great story) by having a young Arthur draw Excalibur from a stone.

The sword from the stone was indeed in the original Arthurian legends but it was drawn out to show who would be King of all Britain, and it was not Excalibur.

In "fact", Merlin rowed Arthur to the middle of the lake, and a maidenly arm & hand appeared, holding the sword Excalibur and its equally magical scabbard.** Arthur could never be defeated in righteous battle so long as he carried Excalibur, and something overlooked by many re-tellers, so long as he wore the scabbard he could not be wounded.

** Or, as it was so eloquently phrased in Monty Python & Holy Grail, "A watery tart tossed a sword at you."

Upon his death, Arthur had his step-brother throw Excalibur back into the lake. Twice the brother hid the sword and lied, but finally he did throw it, and the arm and hand grasped it, returned it to the waves.

I have no problem with writers cobbling together a pastiche of existing mythic structure, but I feel it's incumbent upon these borrowers to respect the integrity of these original stories.

[katdad]

you still have to pretty much adhere to the general laws of physics.
Let me add that we're forced by our internal psychological makeups to adhere to the continuance of Jungian Archetypes in our writing -- that's the way we're hardwired.

When you have a great writer like Tolkein, he readily succumbed to this internal drive and coupled it with his great skill, and created true modern myth.

But when a wannabe tries to force impossible character behavior or situations down our throats, much of it may be traced, I think, to ignoring those essential Archetypal shadow figures.

[Richard]

I have no problem with writers cobbling together a pastiche of existing mythic structure, but I feel it's incumbent upon these borrowers to respect the integrity of these original stories.

I agree. I did Classics, so the sight of a slightly reworked myth usually annoys the hell out of me. Write your own version, fine, but don't try and tell me that...say...the Bacchae were evil vampires. I spent most of Gladiator growling with annoyance at the screen, much to the delight of those around.

[SRHowen]

Ugh. I read a Prehistoric Fiction, by Sue someone--I can't even remember the last name at the moment--but she had a line something like the thunder sounde dlike a speeding locamotive. Now tell me--how does a character born in the Ice Age know what a speeding train sounds like?

My trouble it that with my Prehistoric fiction/fantasy, I have a modern day character living in 34 BC--so can his foot feel like a safe got droped on it? Or do I need to just say a boulder? I went with boulder, since a modern person would maybe think that as well. But it's a challenge.

I like this quick reply thing--way cool can post my thoughts on each post as I get them.

Shawn

[Lenora Rose]

** Or, as it was so eloquently phrased in Monty Python & Holy Grail, "A watery tart tossed a sword at you."


Actually, I think it was "lobbed" a sword.

I have more coherent thoughts than this about the subject - but I'll have to save them for later, alas. I am theoretically supposed to be working.

[azbikergirl]

A peeve related to this is fantasy authors who don't bother with etymologic consistency, but just give their characters and locations any old exotic sounding names. I recently read a novel in which most of the names were Japanese-y, with a few Celtic-y and Romance language-y ones thrown in at random.

There are some free name generators out there that use a pre-defined set of rules with which to generate names that are consistent within a story. I've found a couple of rules that I like, and so I combined them to create my own.

http://spitfire.ausys.se/johan/names/default.htm
He has also created a Windows desktop version and a PDA version of the name gen software. Very handy.

[victoriastrauss]

This name generator is even better--not quite free, but the donation is minimal:

http://ebon.pyorre.net/ (http://http://ebon.pyorre.net/)

What's great about it is that you don't have to use its modules, but can create your own. I've used it and it works extremely well.

- Victoria

[katdad]

I spent most of Gladiator growling with annoyance at the screen, much to the delight of those around.

Let's start a new thread on this -- why we sometimes yell at the TV or movie screen.

I do this with firearms errors, and computer errors as well. And in some made-for-TV movie, we were treated to a nice view of the horizon's "Houston mountains". (Houston's flat as a board).

[katdad]

Actually, I think it was "lobbed" a sword.

We were both incorrect. Here's the actual rant:

===========

Listen. Strange women, lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government.

Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.

==========

[Medievalist]

He'd excerpted portions of Authurian legend (a subject close to my heart) and simply changed things to suit his own story line. We got into it big time about Excalibur. He renamed it "Excaliber" and used that altered name to imply "caliber" as in gun bore size equaling large, and that the "ex-" prefix meant large, e.g., "Big gun". In fact, Excalibur translates in old English & Norse roots to be "cuts good".

Folk etymology of this sort, especially when it's ahistorical, does tend to stop me in my tracks--but you know, your etymology isn't accurate either. There's no Old English or Norse anything in Excalibur; what it is, is a Welsh word for a very famous sword, Welsh Caletuwlch, borrowed possibly from, but certainly cognate with, Irish Caladbolg, borrowed into Latin as Caliburnus, and, probably because of scribal confusion with Latin chalybs, "steel" arriving in Middle English Excalibur. This has been fairly well established since the eighteen hundreds, but you needn't take my word for it; see the Excalibur entry in the American Heritage Dictionary here (http://www.bartleby.com/61/11/E0261100.html).

Then the writer continued with the idea that Arthur drew Excalibur from a stone. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! (Sorry, I had to vent. That egregious and ignorant error gets my blood boiling whenever I see it promulgated.)


This sort of messing about wouldn't really bother me; if you read the earliest texts in Welsh, all the way through to the Old and Middle French texts of the Vulgate, then the Middle English texts, it's pretty much all been messed with, right through Mark Twain and Thomas Berger, and they weren't even the first to have sex-changes, cross-dressing, and parody.

I have no problem with writers cobbling together a pastiche of existing mythic structure, but I feel it's incumbent upon these borrowers to respect the integrity of these original stories.

But that begs the question--what is the original story? The one where Gawain is a rapist and fratricide? The one where Arthur is a prisoner in a stone enclosure? Scholars spent a very long time trying to "recreate the original myth," and produced some truly terrible texts, both in terms of scholarship and story.

Maybe I should quit reading modern Arthurian stuff for a while too . . . I think I take it all too seriously. http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/emoteLecture.gif

[katdad]

>>you're etymology isn't accurate<<

Or, "your" etymology, actually. And yes, I did mess up the language origin. After I posted I looked it up again. You're (your?) correct on that.

And yes I realize that Arthurian myth is very muddled, but we usually hie to Mallory for our general source reference.

And I do really feel cheated when the Lady of the Lake -- excuse me, the Watery Tart -- is shut out of the game.

[Medievalist]

>>you're etymology isn't accurate<<

Or, "your" etymology, actually. And yes, I did mess up the language origin. After I posted I looked it up again. You're (your?) correct on that.

Thanks; I've gone back and fixed "your."

yes I realize that Arthurian myth is very muddled, but we usually hie to Mallory for our general source reference.

Actually, unless you're using the Eugene Vinaver Oxford Malory Works, what you're using is Caxton, not Malory. The Winchester Ms., found in 1923 (I think) in Winchester Boys School is the ms. Caxton used for his printed edition, which is the edition that most people think is Malory, but is fact is Malory edited by Caxton, whose editorial decisions seem to have had a lot to do with how much spare type and available lead he had.

Malory cobbled together bits from what he could get while in jail, writing linking passages to bridge sections. He's cribbed entire sections from the earlier Alliterative Morte, in alliterative verse, running the lines together as if they were prose. I'm not knocking Malory, certainly not Katdad, but Malory is not even the tip of the iceberg in terms of English medieval Arthurian lit, never mind the earlier versions the English poets were inspired by.

That said, I have overtly and irrationally hostile reactions to Mists of Avalon. I loathe it, and urge people to read Mary Stewart's quartet instead. It's much better really, and umm . . . it'll make your hair shiny and more manageable!

And I do really feel cheated when the Lady of the Lake -- excuse me, the Watery Tart -- is shut out of the game.

Hey, she's just another moistened bint. I wanna know what happened to the other eight . . .

[Nateskate]

Even the rabbit chases here are informative. I'm enjoying your discussion Katdad and Medievalist.

I hope the rest of the onlookers realize what a blessing Absolutewrite is. Writers learn more on these threads than the best Writer's Mags out there. Now I lament getting a writer's magazine subscription for Christmas. All of their articles are already old news.

[Nateskate]

If you look at LOTR, some might say the entire beginning is an Info Dump. "About Hobbits".

Some people skip this part of the book. Others can't imagine why they'd want to.

However, I'd say that more Sci Fi/Fantasy are prone to info dumps by their very nature. One of my own wrestling matches came because I had to decide when and where to introduce the rules of the game. I tried a variety of ways, and I'm still not completely sure how the entire book series will look when it is done. (Lord Willing)

Another issue with fantasy stories is the tendency to need a lot of throwaway characters. I consider a character that is simply introduced to push the story along, but whose character is not recurrent, a throwaway character.

The idea is to have a balance between dialogue and narrative. In order to switch from Narrative to Dialogue, sometimes the use of a foil is a convenient way.

[sassandgroove]

Another issue with fantasy stories is the tendency to need a lot of throwaway characters. I consider a character that is simply introduced to push the story along, but whose character is not recurrent, a throwaway character.



Not that I am an expert, I am only working on my first novel. One day I looked around and found myself surrounded with throwaways. I went back and changed a lot of them to one or two of the same recurring characters. It made the story tighter and more believable. I know, as a reader, even if they only show up three times, I like recognizing someone that third time. I also found by consolidating the throwaways into one, I could eliminate some scenes or paragraphs, because I didn't need to introduce them.

[victoriastrauss]

Another issue with fantasy stories is the tendency to need a lot of throwaway characters. I consider a character that is simply introduced to push the story along, but whose character is not recurrent, a throwaway character.
I don't think this is unique to fantasy--it's more a characteristic of any action-focused story that takes the protagonists through a lot of different settings and situations. A lot of mystery novels also have large numbers of throwaway characters. And I've read fantasies that have very small casts of characters.

- Victoria

[Nateskate]

Not that I am an expert, I am only working on my first novel. One day I looked around and found myself surrounded with throwaways. I went back and changed a lot of them to one or two of the same recurring characters. It made the story tighter and more believable. I know, as a reader, even if they only show up three times, I like recognizing someone that third time. I also found by consolidating the throwaways into one, I could eliminate some scenes or paragraphs, because I didn't need to introduce them.

I'm not an expert either. Your idea seems good to me. One of the pitfalls I've fallen into is that I didn't write one story. It encompasses three full kingdoms and is in reality a series. The story came about unconventionally, and that is part of the reason the story ballooned. At first I wasn't serious about writing for publishing. I revived a few dormant stories I had, and did so for a private audience of about fifty-sixty readers. And as a game I wrote 12 of their "fake characters" into the story. When I was done, I had the entire sketch of this grand fantasy. They said, "Publish it" and when I began to take it seriously, and fleshed it out, it was a great story.

So I already had narrative and dialogue written. And doing the re-writes I decided to make much of the narrative into dialogue to balance it. Everything about this story was unconventional. If I had planned to write a story, I wouldn't have invested nearly the amount of energy, time or brain power as I have in this. I'd simply make up a simple story with one protagonist.

So, I'm back-tracking after the fact.

[sassandgroove]

Personnally, I think a grand fantasy sounds better than one simple protagonist. My story had more than it could handle, and when I went through eliminating this and that character and giving some scenes to exisitng characters, it made the story tighter, as I said. But I still have four main characters in one world who interact with two mains from another world. (Apparently I have a grand fantasy too.) I guess what I mean is that some characters are good, too many is bad. I'll stop before I start babbling.

[Mistook]

I'm in the midst of re-writing the early chapters of my WIP, and in this process, three minor characters, two of whom didn't even have names, really came into their own.

The most minor was in the first draft simply mentioned as "Kenny's girlfriend" and she was sitting next to him on a couch. That was it for her. In the re-write, I named her Laverne, and she proceeded to steal the show in three consectutive scenes.

Another character, who originally was simply "Dave's brother", became "Mark" in the re-write and really developed a personality, especially in his confrontation with Laverne.

In several chapters I have the need for the police to show up and say a few lines, and I've consolodated all those anonymous cops into the same pair, "Rush & Wallers."

[SRHowen]

In one of mine, I had a character vanish into the background only to become more important and powerful to the story as they appeared in the dreams and visions of the main character and became his motivation to do many things.

Shawn

[victoriastrauss]

I'm in the midst of re-writing the early chapters of my WIP, and in this process, three minor characters, two of whom didn't even have names, really came into their own.
Yes. Characters that you thought would be throwaways, who insist on becoming living, breathing people with important roles to play. I love it when this happens--it's one of those little gifts that writing sometimes gives.

- Victoria

[Nateskate]

Yes. Characters that you thought would be throwaways, who insist on becoming living, breathing people with important roles to play. I love it when this happens--it's one of those little gifts that writing sometimes gives.

- Victoria

You are so right. It makes me want to come to work in the morning.

I created a sympathetic character for the purpose of killing them off, but when I gave him a girlfriend with a child, he was TOOO sympathetic, and I just couldn't kill him. So I gave him a partner and and killed this character off.

[Nateskate]

Personnally, I think a grand fantasy sounds better than one simple protagonist. My story had more than it could handle, and when I went through eliminating this and that character and giving some scenes to exisitng characters, it made the story tighter, as I said. But I still have four main characters in one world who interact with two mains from another world. (Apparently I have a grand fantasy too.) I guess what I mean is that some characters are good, too many is bad. I'll stop before I start babbling.

I'm glad there are other grand fantasies out there. It sounds like you are on the right track.

I'd never recommend anyone trying to do what I have done. It doesn't make any sense to make things more complicated than they need to be. However, many fantasies are complicated anyway.

Have you ever seen something so convoluted that you'd think, "Hey, that could never work!" Then you are shocked to see that it not only worked, it was a case of accidental genius.

Well, I'm not a genius, so if I do anything like that, it is accidental or a work of divine inspiration. At anyrate, having multiple story lines like a LOTR would have, is difficult to pull off, but gratifying. Frankly, a bit of divine inspiration is quite welcome, and hoped for, because I'm still muddling through this mess.

[Nateskate]

Suzette Hayden Elgin created a language. It's not a series of books that appeals to me so I've not spent much time on it. I know she created a grammar text and a dictionary--she's a linguist.

C. J. Cherryh spends a great deal of thought and attention on world building, and it shows. She's thought deeply about languages and cultures, and has the right kind of back ground academically to create languages successfully. She's the only writer I've seen that I felt approached Tolkien.

Klingon has been pretty fully fleshed out as a language, again, by a linguist.

On of my pet peeves of late have been heroic / mythic fantasies based on Celtic myth. Now, I like Celtic myths. Really. A lot, in fact, but I can't bear reading books that Get It Wrong. For instance, books that use Celtic words for character names, without checking carefully, like the person who named a female lead "Napkin" in Welsh.

I also have been traumatized by people mixing various Celtic languages and mythologies together since they're "all the same."

They aren't.

I've diligently avoided things Celtic in fantasy for a while now because I suspect I'm unfairly harsh.

World building and taking detailed character notes are not something associated with genre fiction alone; Dickens, for instance, was obsessive about character detail and back story, and made copious notes.

It's the equivalent of a medical professional watching E.R. You have actors trying to sound like doctors. There's a difference. Most of us writers will never be masters of topics we hope to address. At worst we try to wing it from what we've heard on t.v. At best we research the subject before hand, but in the same way a H.S student does a report, not a grad assistant.

One of the reasons I didn't attempt Medieval terms in my story, which is one of my favorite times for placing a fantasy, is because I realized I don't have the terms down. The funny thing is the person who is editing book one of my story has a Ph.D in Medieval lit. She'd have flayed me alive if I tried to sound all Medieval.

In general, I like my stories pre-gunpowder.

[Torin]

There are some free name generators out there that use a pre-defined set of rules with which to generate names that are consistent within a story. I've found a couple of rules that I like, and so I combined them to create my own.


In Torin's society, the children's names are made from bits of the parents' names. Torin's parents are Bartorial and Invanu, and his siblings are Barin, Barvan, Vanial, Vantor, Orian, Arnu and Inval. Each has a syllable or two from each parent. I like playing with names. :)

[fallenangelwriter]

the children's names are shorter than their parents.... idf that conitnues, eventually you'll be down to one-letter names that are passed, intact, from parent to child.

[Nateskate]

In Torin's society, the children's names are made from bits of the parents' names. Torin's parents are Bartorial and Invanu, and his siblings are Barin, Barvan, Vanial, Vantor, Orian, Arnu and Inval. Each has a syllable or two from each parent. I like playing with names. :)

I think names are one of the most fun parts of writing. Fantasy lends itself more to creating a language. I think this is a topic worthy of a book. "The study of names in fantasy."

I have no plan to write it, so have at it. But you could look at Tolkien's names alone and have a book, since he made up entire languages. One farmer wrote him and asked him if he minded him using names of characters from his books. Such as naming the old bovine Galadrial.

He was tickled that someone wanted to use the names, BUT, he felt it inappropriate using "Frodo/Galadrial/Gandalf" as names of animals, but rather, in creating languages, he went through the root words, and what would have been the likely names for cows and such in Elvish (Sindahrin)...etc. And he gave the guy a boatload of names to choose from.

But you saw this in Rohan, where a common part of people's names were a derivative of the Rohirum word for "Horse", so people's names were "Horse lover", and "Horse Lord" I think it was the "eo" sound, EOwyn, EOmir, ThEOdin.

[Diviner]

I'm so glad you revived this thread. Much has been added since I last looked at it. I want to add some considerations about some of the issues that have been raised.

About names: In my world, whole hosts of cultures have swept through, leaving the folks there with a huge mixture of names. After 200 years under the rule of a consolidated royal family, customs have settled down, but the variety of names reflects the variety of historic influx, even among the nobility. I grant that not every writer creates a world like this, but there may well be a good reason for an eclectic choice of names. Some of the comments here have implied that a lack of consistency is the product of ignorance--and it may well be--but it is also sometimes a conscious choice.

About Myth: Until I read this thread, I had no idea that some people are purists about combining myths and heroic legends. I have to plead guilty to doing that in my epic. It seems to me that the essence of creativity is not the authentic retelling of an old story but the manufacturing of a new one or the conscious reinterpretation of some myth, maybe giving it a twist, like The Mists of Avalon, which I am guilty of liking. Not all or us are scholars. More important, not all scholars agree.

Fantasy is fiction, not history or scholarship. When I am writing historical fiction, I have to invent even important stuff because the experts disagree about what happened. This really frustrates me, because I have to rely on my own sensitivity and inner logic, which I don't quite trust. (We all have our problems.) In fantasy, I can choose my own truth, make my own logic, even when I borrow bits to tell my story.

I am not saying that fantasy should not be logical. There is no satisfaction to a story that is inconsistent or lacks inner logic. I am just wondering why it needs to be pure.


About the cast of thousands: My story is picaresque, so of course there are throwaway characters. Since my story is also an epic, I fully intend for some of them to reappear in later stories. For artistic integrity, I try very hard not to have too many cameo apperances, but sometimes my imagination fails me--it just isn't logical that the character would reappear in the main characters' lives. I probably spend more time that makes sense trying to figure out ways to see some of them more than once.

[Nateskate]

I'm so glad you revived this thread. Much has been added since I last looked at it. I want to add some considerations about some of the issues that have been raised.

About names: In my world, whole hosts of cultures have swept through, leaving the folks there with a huge mixture of names. After 200 years under the rule of a consolidated royal family, customs have settled down, but the variety of names reflects the variety of historic influx, even among the nobility. I grant that not every writer creates a world like this, but there may well be a good reason for an eclectic choice of names. Some of the comments here have implied that a lack of consistency is the product of ignorance--and it may well be--but it is also sometimes a conscious choice.

About Myth: Until I read this thread, I had no idea that some people are purists about combining myths and heroic legends. I have to plead guilty to doing that in my epic. It seems to me that the essence of creativity is not the authentic retelling of an old story but the manufacturing of a new one or the conscious reinterpretation of some myth, maybe giving it a twist, like The Mists of Avalon, which I am guilty of liking. Not all or us are scholars. More important, not all scholars agree.

Fantasy is fiction, not history or scholarship. When I am writing historical fiction, I have to invent even important stuff because the experts disagree about what happened. This really frustrates me, because I have to rely on my own sensitivity and inner logic, which I don't quite trust. (We all have our problems.) In fantasy, I can choose my own truth, make my own logic, even when I borrow bits to tell my story.

I am not saying that fantasy should not be logical. There is no satisfaction to a story that is inconsistent or lacks inner logic. I am just wondering why it needs to be pure.


About the cast of thousands: My story is picaresque, so of course there are throwaway characters. Since my story is also an epic, I fully intend for some of them to reappear in later stories. For artistic integrity, I try very hard not to have too many cameo apperances, but sometimes my imagination fails me--it just isn't logical that the character would reappear in the main characters' lives. I probably spend more time that makes sense trying to figure out ways to see some of them more than once.

There are always rules, but the ends will justify the means if people are satisfied with the story.

Tolkien purists cringe at the idea of someone actually extending the legacy, as in, "There are no more Tolkiens". Well, it's a respect issue to a point, but it would be so easy to add on another age or more. Yet, few would touch it, worried of the allegation of "Fan-fick"

I've gone about creating an entirely new world, but wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply create another age of Arda, something tween the world as it was then, and as it's shaped now.

[pdr]

I've gone about creating an entirely new world, but wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply create another age of Arda, something tween the world as it was then, and as it's shaped now.

Yes, but to some readers a writer who takes myths and pinches bits of one and then another, mixing them up to make a story, or who follows in the footsteps of the groundbreaking, original first writer and uses their characters or world, is not a 'real' writer. 'Real' writers creates original fiction, those that follow are merely hacks without originality who copy. Thus Tolkein is the great original. Those who follow using his world and characters are 'hacks'.

Many of my last class of graduates held this view and didn't read fantasy because they thought most of it was not fiction, i.e. not original. I made them read some and they spoke highly of C.J. Cherryh and Patricia McKillip as being 'original' and therefore true fiction writers. I won't repeat what they said about the others.

Stick to creating, Nateskate. You'll get more readers!

[Nateskate]

I've gone about creating an entirely new world, but wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply create another age of Arda, something tween the world as it was then, and as it's shaped now.

Yes, but to some readers a writer who takes myths and pinches bits of one and then another, mixing them up to make a story, or who follows in the footsteps of the groundbreaking, original first writer and uses their characters or world, is not a 'real' writer. 'Real' writers creates original fiction, those that follow are merely hacks without originality who copy. Thus Tolkein is the great original. Those who follow using his world and characters are 'hacks'.

Many of my last class of graduates held this view and didn't read fantasy because they thought most of it was not fiction, i.e. not original. I made them read some and they spoke highly of C.J. Cherryh and Patricia McKillip as being 'original' and therefore true fiction writers. I won't repeat what they said about the others.

Stick to creating, Nateskate. You'll get more readers!

I've got my own standards, but I also realize there are "market standards", primarily what will sell, and there are "peer standards", what will get you respect in the world of writers.

I'm constantly making music analogies. Everyone rips everyone else off. Those who create from scratch have still borrowed something somewhere along the line. Market standards are every pop band who tries to be the next Rolling Stones, or the next U2. You here it. Peer Standards are much higher. There are guitarists who are so proficient most of the world just won't get them. They play for their peers, people who understand music enough to get them.

People who create entirely new concepts may not be marketable, and may be resigned to cult status, because the industry rewards cloning. So, you end up with "Britney" types, or "Ricky Martin" types, or "Boy Band" types. They sell until people get sick to the point of puking.

The "NTS" or "Next Tolkien Syndrome" is really a misnomer. It would take a really creative mind to actually write a book worthy of being mentioned in the same breath, because anything less would absolutely stink like dead fish.

The question isn't whether it could be done, it can, or should be done, that's a matter of opinion. The question is the cost to the writer, because I believe the argument that you are stealing and not being creative, is overstated. It's a type of "Peer Pressure".

In my mind, the secret to actually doing that, is to not take his story, but use it as a platform to create something completely different. You don't have Elves, or even Dwarves, perhaps not even hobbits. If you believe in a "transitional" progression of life in the world of Arda to today, at best you might refer to Aragorn and Gandalf in backstory, as a secret revelation to Gandalf, a secret conversation between Gandalf and Aragorn, perhaps someone leaks a message from the west.

I've already got a brilliant idea, but it will probably never see the light of day, because I can make it completely unrelated, and again, that is more because of the combinations of Peer and Market pressures, rather than artistic integrity. What conversation did Gandalf have with Illuvatar before he came back at the turn of the tide? (Wouldn't you like to know?)

What secret conversation did Gandalf have with Aragorn about what he saw in the dark places, while he was passing through Shadow, an evil yet unknown to the world, one that would emerge in his children's childrens generation. How he pleaded with Illuvatar to allow him to stay to confront it, but was told his work was finished, and it was now someone else's responcibility. You lay a foundation that brings you to the "Lost age of Arda"

As for sticking to "Creating", it's a message I heard well, and as of now, I have a monster creation, with all new beings, explanations of the forming of races, new terms and concepts. "No dragons" exist in my universe, although they are referred to as mere legend, but you don't need dragons for fire. There are no Dwarves or Elves. The explanation of the forming of the super races is a story within the story. But the outcome is less noble than Elves, in that it produced an ugly arrogance, and disdain for the common breed.

I spent a great amount of time trying to capture the essense of evil without redemption, but in a race from another realm. And I wanted them to appear absolutely so evil, they hate each other, and all that holds them together is they hate their enemy more. What did I get? Comic relief, which was a surprise. In their bickering and undermining of each other, unfortunately, they became somewhat sympathetic figures, because they lived in a universe where strength was all that mattered, because everyone is a victim or victimizer, or I should say they are always both, except those who are most powerful. There is no such thing as respect in their ranks, only feigned respect.

I never intended for the story to be funny, except in some of the romantic bantering, which I like. For a Dark Fantasy, I have a feeling some of the fan favorites will unfortunately be the most evil beings. One is portrayed as a somewhat ADHD kid who is so self-absorbed in feeling sorry for himself at one point, he continually gets lost. He can't focus and complain at the same time, but his nature is such that he can't stop himself from complaining. Even I started feeling bad for him, knowing his tyrannical superiors were going to let him have it. Yet, when you see this same creature with his underlings, he is just as much of a tyrant.

[Torin]

the children's names are shorter than their parents.... idf that conitnues, eventually you'll be down to one-letter names that are passed, intact, from parent to child.

Not necessarily. Bartorial and Invanu could have chosen Bartanu as a name for one of their children, or Vanutori. And each child has to have at least two syllables in a name, since one comes from each parent, which means they can play with their own children's names when the time comes. It's unique to their culture, in any case. Other societies have other rules. Not unlike Earth, really. :)

[Nateskate]

Not necessarily. Bartorial and Invanu could have chosen Bartanu as a name for one of their children, or Vanutori. And each child has to have at least two syllables in a name, since one comes from each parent, which means they can play with their own children's names when the time comes. It's unique to their culture, in any case. Other societies have other rules. Not unlike Earth, really. :)

It's a real chore to think culturally in a fantasy world, as Tolkien does. The Hobbits are mostly two syllables. Bilbo, Fodo, Merry, Pippen.

The rulers of men tend to have three: Aragorn, Boromir, Faramir, Theodin.

Obviously, his rules tended to be more philological, having root words...etc. The end product, "If you read the Silmarillion...etc" is that you have so many similar sounding names, that you have to keep going to the Index of definitions.

I like the idea of having "Mock" authenticity, just enough to "Sound Like" it could be real, so you can spend more time on the storyline, whereas Tolkien spent enormous time on the most trivial aspects of his Universe. It wound up, though enjoyable, becoming a snare to him, limiting the amount of books he finished.

[Vomaxx]

I have always thought that JRRT sort of ran out of steam when he was coming up with the names of hobbits who appear only in the genealogies. These include Posco, Ponto, Porto, Mosco, Moro, Belba, Bingo, and Bungo.....

Hobbits from the upper classes usually have longer and more aristocratic names: Peregrin, Meriadoc, Bandobras, Hildibrand, Sigismond...

[Nateskate]

I have always thought that JRRT sort of ran out of steam when he was coming up with the names of hobbits who appear only in the genealogies. These include Posco, Ponto, Porto, Mosco, Moro, Belba, Bingo, and Bungo.....

Hobbits from the upper classes usually have longer and more aristocratic names: Peregrin, Meriadoc, Bandobras, Hildibrand, Sigismond...

The problem with Tolkien was never running out of steam. He had a multitude of complexities that kept him from publishing more, but he wrote enough material for a library. He and C.S Lewis were friends, and influenced each other greatly. They both were pretty ruthless in picking each other's weaknesses apart. According to Lewis, he was a methodical writer who had two responces to criticism, one, dismissing it entirely, two, taking an entire chapter and ripping it apart, and starting over again. Neither responce is particularly healthy. In other words, it was likely he had a great deal of insecurity, mixed in with a great deal of stubborness. We don't have any clue how many versions he wrote, although we know he wrote several versions of his earliest works.

Another problem, was that he was insightful, (Eowyn's personality) but also he was quirky in that he had difficulty comprehending what people would like and dislike, and in fact, was quite concerned LOTR would have a small cult following at best, but no one else would get it.

So, as far as steam, I think his problem was more a matter of being a writer who couldn't help but trip himself up. He'd ruminate over the smallest things, and get so bogged down in figuring out everything, like which way the wind is likely to blow on a sunny day in the fall, which will steal precious hours of writing.

As far as names, Hobbits were "Everyman", where as Gondorians were aristocracy, at least in some form. Merry's name is abbreviated, but then again, that goes with the nature of an "everyman culture" If you have a complex name, they'll cut it down to size for you if you don't do so yourself.

[allion]

For an idea of the amount of writing Tolkien produced, see the 12 volumes of The Complete History of Middle-Earth. Copious amounts of rewriting, rewriting, composition, doodles that became sketches, maps, geneaologies, etc. etc. I admire Christopher for trying to organize the paperwork his dad left behind, and for trying to interpret his father's handwriting.

Another book is Ruth Noel's The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. She gives the basics into the linguistic history he used and what the words really mean.

In Middle-Earth, every name carries meaning and weight. And a lot of it goes back to Beowulf and the Elder Edda sagas.

Karen (who loved her Old English class in university)

[Nateskate]

For an idea of the amount of writing Tolkien produced, see the 12 volumes of The Complete History of Middle-Earth. Copious amounts of rewriting, rewriting, composition, doodles that became sketches, maps, geneaologies, etc. etc. I admire Christopher for trying to organize the paperwork his dad left behind, and for trying to interpret his father's handwriting.

Another book is Ruth Noel's The Languages of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. She gives the basics into the linguistic history he used and what the words really mean.

In Middle-Earth, every name carries meaning and weight. And a lot of it goes back to Beowulf and the Elder Edda sagas.

Karen (who loved her Old English class in university)

I think Christopher got a raw deal in terms of fan appreciation. He was a devoted son, and much of his father's works would have never gotten published without him. In fact, he was his second cheerleader, behind C.S.Lewis in getting LOTR published.

What some people don't know is how many re-writes of every single chapter, and every single book, Tolkien did. If he changed something in chapter eighteen, and the rest wasn't consistant, he'd go back and re-write the first seventeen chapters. Again, this was before Microsoft word, when you had to rewrite every single page on a non-electric typewriter.

His letters alone had multiple drafts.

[Garpy]

I'm writing a really non-hardcore scifi/fantasy series. It's sort of Space Opera-meets-ChickLit, a very mainstream (hopefully) scifi dish. One thing that I've found, with regard to names, is that I personally hate fantasy-spacey names like Zack Starthruster, or Qui'-thalth'ignufar. I much prefer names that feel grounded in the contemporary, but perhaps very...very slightly abstracted eg: Jon, Hal. Certainly I think the mass market..ie: those who never touch scifi/fantasy...are more likely to give it a go if on page one, they encounter names they feel familiar with.

Of course, I may just be wasting my time writing a chicklit/space opera for the masses, but, it's an original idea atleast.

[Nateskate]

I'm writing a really non-hardcore scifi/fantasy series. It's sort of Space Opera-meets-ChickLit, a very mainstream (hopefully) scifi dish. One thing that I've found, with regard to names, is that I personally hate fantasy-spacey names like Zack Starthruster, or Qui'-thalth'ignufar. I much prefer names that feel grounded in the contemporary, but perhaps very...very slightly abstracted eg: Jon, Hal. Certainly I think the mass market..ie: those who never touch scifi/fantasy...are more likely to give it a go if on page one, they encounter names they feel familiar with.

Of course, I may just be wasting my time writing a chicklit/space opera for the masses, but, it's an original idea atleast.

You are right in going for names like John for contemporary. I'd think odd names are useful when you want to convey you are not talking about this Universe or this time frame. Lancelot is odd, but it fits the time period. Personally, I think names like "Starthruster" sound campy. But with Fantasy, I think names can also fit a personality, and sometimes imbedding a word into the name can be useful. But overuse is cartoonish.