jonathanmoeller ([info]jonathanmoeller) wrote,
@ 2007-01-17 23:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
worldweave
You know, I'm really quite thoroughly sick of fantasy world-building. When I finally get around to writing the next novel, it's going to be set right here in 21st century Earth. It may be a failure of imagination on my part, but I have a hard time envisioning a world even stranger than ours.

-JM

Advertisement

(Post a new comment)


[info]jaderabbit5
2007-01-18 05:19 pm UTC (link)
I agree. I mean, I don't write or anything, but I consider myself fairly imaginative. People are weird and strange enough as it is, it seems like odd fantasy settings just make people seem more 'normal' and predictable. Hmm, maybe that is why I like fantasy.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]jonathanmoeller
2007-01-19 03:14 am UTC (link)
That's an interesting point. Of course, different writers have their versions of normality. China Mieville writes capitalist dystopias, so he can play up his socialist views, whereas Middle-earth is a very Catholic place.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jaderabbit5
2007-01-19 04:09 pm UTC (link)
Nice contrast in worlds. To apply my idea, in China Mieville worlds, the main character inevitably hates the government and is willing to do just about anything to hurt it, and his friends will too. At least that is how it seemed to me. So the characters, because of the odd setting, were almost required to follow one path.

In Middle Earth, you have a variety of people types. But it still seems like the characters "play their part" with no deviation. Like a perfect D&D game where everyone plays their class/alignment and never does anything out of character. The obvious exception would be the hobbits, except that the LOTR series and The Hobbit are both about the hobbits being different; so in their own way they are playing their parts a well.

It doesn't always work that way (obviously). However, I think less predictable people in an unpredictable environment is probably too much for most readers to take.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jonathanmoeller
2007-01-20 04:23 am UTC (link)
Of course, I suspect the D+D and Tolkien comparison is actually reversed, since Tolkien came first. He wanted to create, in essence, an Old English Christian epic (Beowulf with God), and he did so, albeit with modern overtones. (There's nothing like Denethor, Saruman, or The Ring in ancient literature).

D+D and everyone else copied that part of Tolkien, but it's a bit like plucking a rose and putting it with daisies. The "playing the part" thing doesn't work quite as well out of its original context.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jaderabbit5
2007-01-20 07:20 pm UTC (link)
I think I was trying to use D&D as an example of how Tolkien is solidly based on archtypes. However, it is likely that his writing created and popularized the archtypes, thus they weren't types before he wrote them up. Hm. I think I tread in fuzzy gray area where logic no longer rules. I'll back away slowly now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

[info]jonathanmoeller
2007-01-20 09:21 pm UTC (link)
We can step back and watch the chicken and the egg whirl about each other forever.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…