|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Ask The Expert > Breaking new ground in S&S | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Jordan Lapp
ppaL nadroJ
      
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2574
| Posted 4/1/2008 4:37 PM (GMT -4) |   | | I believe that short fiction is too tight a market to publish the same kind of story over and over.
I mean, "barbarian fights monster"? We've all read that story before. Why do we have to read it again?
The constant repeat of story tropes is part of the reason that S&S has a bad name in the literary community. I mean, we have some great authors--surely they can come up with some original material? I can be done even in very well trod ground (note Mike Turner's werewolf story in EDF).
What do you guys think?
Jordan Lapp Managing Editor
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Swashbuckler
One-man sword-and-sorcery machine
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 1252
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:00 PM (GMT -4) | | I certainly think a dose of originality is a good thing, and the better writers aim for that. That originality might come in the form of a different take on characterization, or in an injection of humor, or a dose of literary insight toward the human condition. Setting and world-building probably is the most fertile mine for originality.
I'm not claiming any great degree of success here, but I do strive to avoid writing the same piece repeatedly. Mostly, I use character in my attempts to achieve that. I try to make my characters vivid enough, and complete enough, that they drive the story. So, for instance, a story in which Calthus finds himself hunted by a giant boogie-thing would turn out vastly different from a story that starts with the same setting and the same monster, but with Spider John or one of the Faceless Sons as a protagonist. (Indeed, it's a standard exercise for me to take a completed story and then imagine how it might shape up with a different protagonist -- now and then I find the new angle worth pursuing, and the new story ends up so incredibly different from the first I doubt anynone but me would see the connection.)
I think another way to make the traditional monster tale more than just a monster tale is to put the emphasis on the reasons for the monster encounter in the first place. Is the protagonist's own personality driving him toward a foolish encounter? Or is she caught up in circumstances beyond her control? Does she learn anything important from the encounter? IS the monster just a big scary thing, or does it derive from something more solid, more illustrative of something Deep and Important? Symbolism counts, I think. And maybe the monster isn't really so monstrous -- maybe the "monster" is the king or the mindset or the circumstances that placed Heroic Guy or Gal within reach of that Dread Thing to begin with.
I think there is lots of room to play with all kinds of ideas within heroic fantasy. I think a number of stories I've seen in slush or crit groups over the years fall flat because they DON'T play with ideas or focus on what leads to the monster encounter. And I also think many a reader coming to heroic fantasy for the first time, or who only rarely reads such a story, misses out the merits of a good story because he or she just dismisses it as "another monster tale."
I'd recommend the "Swords Against Darkness" anthologies edited by Andrew J. Offutt back in the 1970's as pretty good example of how much variety of theme, etc., can be achieved in a book full of monster tales.
Steve Goble
Visit my blog, Swords Against Boredom, for news on published fiction and upcoming stories. | | Back to Top | | |
|
MichaelEhart
Sage
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 2324
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:01 PM (GMT -4) | | I am not certain that the story must break new ground, but it most certainly must have some sort of freshness to it--- forex the (title escapes me) wiki history take on assasinating Hitler story that everyone is raving about. A creaky, ancient trope that was given a face lift and a slap on the butt becomes one of the most talked about stories so far this year.
Click here to buy my book!
The Servant of the Manthycore from DEP
Illustrated by Rachel Marks, with an introduction by Michael Moorcock
Read me in 2008!
"Without Napier" Every Day Fiction, TBA
"Night of Shadows, Night of Knives" Magic and Mechanica, Ricasso Press, Spring 2008
"To Destroy All Flesh" Return of the Sword, Flashing Swords Press, Spring 2008
"Only His Name" Every Day Fiction, March 30
"An Exorcism Straight, Hold the Elvis" They Are Not What They Seem, Janrae Frank, ed., TBA
"The First Trial of Jermaish the King" Flashing Swords #10, May 2008
Still in print!
"The Stars by Law Forbidden" Unparalleled Journeys II, Journey Books, 2007
"Six Zombies Doing That Mick Jagger Strut" Damned in Dixie, Tenoka Press, 2007
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:15 PM (GMT -4) | |
Jordan Lapp said...nathan, Now you're getting all sensitive. Don't worry about if you've offended me or not. I don't get offended unless someone gets personal. I never said that genre needs to apologize for being genre, nor does it have to do any transcending. All I'm saying is that there's room in S&S for originality. I mean, how rigid is the definition? From what I've heard, it's just that the protagonist should be an every day person and that magic should be either bad or poorly understood, and that it should have a fantasy setting. I mean, that's a WIDE OPEN definition. Why the heck are we still seeing Howard knockoffs? I mean, he covered that ground an he did it >very< well. I don't mind reading another barbarian piece, but put a new spin on it at least. I read for "sense of wonder", and that's tough to trigger if it's the same old schlock.
No you didn't say that--I am using your thought to get a little meta-post, wrapping in the role of reviews and what exactly it is we're calling for.
For example often when the discussion of this nature starts there are some default positions people reboot to begin the discussion. I often find I'm not arguing/discussing genres and their trophes so much as bad writing.
Also I think there is a difference between innovation and groundbreaking and original as goals. For example a reviewer praising innovation is one thing, but bemoaning a lack of groundbreaking originality in a clear genre story is something else--for example.
To the flip side of tropes being lumped into = bad writing is IMO Gobble's examples of his own writing where good writing = original. What he described in his post is solid, good advice and smart insight. But mainly it's just the strong use of the Element of Fiction "Character"--its not groundbreaking or trophe busting to write a strong character. Its just good writing--if you see what I mean.
Also, perhaps most important I tend to try and look at these things from a reader point. Romance novel after romance novel, western novel after western novel, mystery novel after mystery novel can be eagerly consumed by people spending money to get your work and for the most part the idea of "groundbreaking" = good in any sort of exclusive way never occurs to them.
I think we maybe coming from slightly left of center positions on this. I'm at the root not saying groundbreaking is bad--only that it is unneccessary for a story to be so to be "good" and that if your command of the Elements of Fiction (7 right? I'll check) then your story doesn't even need to be fresh to be "good" or, more importantly, lol, commerically viable.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jordan Lapp
ppaL nadroJ
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2574
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:28 PM (GMT -4) | |
nathan said...
What he described in his post is solid, good advice and smart insight. But mainly it's just the strong use of the Element of Fiction "Character"--its not groundbreaking or trophe busting to write a strong character. Its just good writing--if you see what I mean. Nathan,
Well I mentioned Character, but I could just as easily have said "World building". Truly original worlds are also awesome, but hard to manage in the restrictive word counts in short fiction, nevertheless for good examples of great world building, check out most of the stories in Clarkesworld.
One of the problems with S&S is that often stories are simply a slight variation of Plot with nothing new in the other Elements. Why not try for something new in EVERY element?
Jordan Lapp Managing Editor
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:44 PM (GMT -4) | | Depends on far on the continuum of new you mean by new. If your goal is to write within a genre or subgenre then write within a subgenre if you're tired of that genre then write something else. (I don't mean that as mandate, just as a ?)
Genres by their nature have limitations. Limitations don't = bad but they do = boundary. If change too much its not *that* anymore.
For S&S and for Horror there are only so many "core" plots. You can be innovative within those plots--and should try. But if when you're done what you wrote was a psychological suspense thriller then why bother to call it a horror novel? For instance only.
Drawing a strong character is always but always a good idea. Trying to cram a character that is trophe busting may make for good reading--but it may not be *that genre* reading anymore.
You can not take the plot for vanity of the bonfires and populate it in a low fantasy world with tribal warriors and call it S&S. It might be an awesome book it might transend genres--but it is no longer a strong story within that genre. Why try to make it that genre?
Also archtypes can be innovative but if you break them you're writing something else. Elric is sometimes hailed as an anti-Conan. True. Sort of. There Moorcock was *innovative* but not, once you scratch the surface, trophe breaking original. Why not? Because Elric no matter how he got where he is, is at his base a man of violent action. Now Ghandi in the same stories? That's original. It also, I argue wouldn't be S&S.
Let me be clear. My position is only that good writing doesn't have be "new" to be good. Genres, like Joseph Campell's Hero With A 1000 Faces stick with us.
I think a fan of S&S genre look at a "violent man of action" vs. monster format the same way a mystery fan looks at a "shrewd protag discovers corpse" format.
That is it isn't trite, tired, cliche, old hat or anything other than why they picked up a book with the genre stamped on the spine in the first place.
Which doesn't mean you can't like or want to read other stories. Only that genre stories strive to be good within their chosen genre and should be judged on that criteria rather than others.
If that makes sense.
VIEW IMAGE
"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:47 PM (GMT -4) | |
Lyn said...
Okay, just to clarify, then... What are the 'standard' tropes for Sword & Sorcery? According to someone at Wiki, "literary tropes may refer to characters (e.g. the noble savage), plot (the clever prison break), or setting (the haunted castle)." Jordan mentioned a plot trope - barbarian fights monster - what are some others? Lyn you should cruise down to M Eharts author thread and click on "A Place For Me To Blather" as we've been chasing this one for weeks.
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Jordan Lapp
ppaL nadroJ
Date Joined Sep 2006
Total Posts : 2574
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:47 PM (GMT -4) | |
RHFay said...My personal viewpoint - I think comments about "a new twist on genre tropes" are becoming old news. Doesn't it just become yet another type of "standard"? At this point, a return to "standard genre tropes" might be a refreshing change from all the twists out there. Maybe I just haven't read enough to become jaded in my views toward "standard genre tropes".
I wrote a little pithy remark about this that I've since deleted.
Please clarify what you mean? If something is new, it cannot be standard....
Jordan Lapp Managing Editor
| | Back to Top | | |
|
erazmus
Master
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 4491
| Posted 4/1/2008 5:51 PM (GMT -4) | | Firstly, originality is highly over rated. Louis L'Amour had several hundred books out, all of them highly enjoyable, all of them more-or-less successful, all of them with almost the exact same plot, pace and setting. But he was a master storyteller, and every one of his stories was effective and entertaining reading. The same could be said for any number of currently working authors. Its usually not as extreme but they end up telling the same basic story over and over, and if they tell it well enough they get little complaint from their readers, who obviously enjoy that story. A lot.
There is nothing I enjoy more than curling up with a well told "Barbarian fights Monster" tale. It doesn't have to surprise me or have some new twist, I've read enough that its likely there are no "twists" I haven't seen. So long as the writer know his buisness and does a good job with the telling, I'm satisfied.
But S&S isn't just Barbarian Fights Monster. Its also "sneak-thief gets caught up in greater events but comes out okay" and "Man with a destiny gets one step closer and learns something". Plus the not to be forgotten "heroic buddies fall into a world of shit but manage to fight/trick their way out of it". Not to mention the occasional "Young/inexperienced mage finds that magic has its price".
It doesn't end there, heck it has barely started there. "Librarian helps city guard foil plot against City government by evil wizard". "Desperate Nobel underestimates Street urchin and gets killed" is a favorite of mine. As is "Experienced Warrior helps an old friend out of a serious jam" and "Village Elder sacrifices her life to teach her people the error of their ways". Not to mention "Rag-tag team of adventurers accidnetally pick a fight with the wrong people".
Never mind that all of those plots/themes have been "done to death". There is no bottom to the well of entertainment; people come and draw on it and if they are entertained, they are pleased. The perception that one must offer something that is New! Exciting! Bold! Vibrant! is so much laundry detergent. (I still use Ivory flakes and twenty mule team borax, by the way.) A story doesn't have to be original to an expert in the field, just well done and fresh to the average reader.
One of the problems short fiction venues are having is that they can't attract enough "average" readers, they only get read by experts, and there just aren't enough of them to go around. I love it when someone send me a stunningly original take on S&S to consider for F-S, but it doesn't happen often and I don't think we could fill the magazine with such tales if we got ten times as many. Thankfully what we need, and is probably better in the long run for most of what we offer, is well written, well told tales that center right around what we think of as S&S. A well paced, tightly written story that grips the reader and drags him along through an adventure, never letting go even after its done isn't exactly common stuff. Its a little much to ask all that (and we do!) and want a completely original take as well. Though if you have one, great! Chances are though, that Howard or Smith or Kuttner or Lieber or John Jakes or Sprague DeCamp or Jack Vance or Andrew Offutt or Robert Asprin or _someone_ has worked on it before, and chances are someone will again. Don't let that stop you writing a well-crafted tale.
I'd say more, but I'm late to work.
Mike
Michael D. Turner
"Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books
www.baen.com
"Dutchman Rescue"in Continuum SF #6
www.continuumsciencefiction.com/orders.htm
"An Incident at Black Tongue Tavern" in _Bash Down the Door and Slice Open the Badguy_ from Fantasist Enterprises:
www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php
"Stains" in Tales of the Talisman 3-1 www.zianet.com/hadrosaur/index.html
"Morning Coffee" in Every Day Fiction
www.everydayfiction.com/morning-coffee-by-michael-d-turner/
"The Jewel Below" in Flashing Swords
flashingswords.sfreader.com/issues/issue8/vol2-iss8-05.htm
"Happy Landings" in Every Day Fiction
www.everydayfiction.com/happy-landings-by-michael-d-turner/
"Teller of Tales" in Every day Fiction
www.everydayfiction.com/teller-of-tales-by-michael-d-turner/
Read "Silver Shells" In Every Day Fiction
www.everydayfiction.com/silver-shells-by-michael-d-turner/ | | Back to Top | | |
|
Hamstersbane
Acolyte
Date Joined Feb 2007
Total Posts : 390
| Posted 4/1/2008 6:02 PM (GMT -4) | | I guess this debate kind of scratches one of my pet peeves...I don't get the constant drumbeat of "doesn't add anything new to the genre."
I'm not saying every fantasy out there should be Tolkein revisited, or every S&S should be Conan repainted. But as Nathan said, genre has its limitations. There are ways to be original and still stay within the boundaries of the genre. Look at Tad Williams and Robert Jordan. Excellent writers with top-notch works that, in my opinion, really don't stretch the boundaries much. Williams' trillogy is a bit unique for fantasy in that he downplays the magic considerably, and Jordan's take on magic is not something I can recall coming across before. But they're still fantasy, with elves and monsters and all manner of evil.
In the interest of disclosure, I will say this pushes my buttons because most of the reviews I've gotten for "That Ain't a Mosey" bring up this very point -- "doesn't add anything to the (zombie) genre." It's about the only negative anyone's ever found, but then I wasn't trying to break new ground aside from maybe the setting. I had another horror story rejected recently with the same note (on that one, I actually disagree with the editor, but that's the way it goes).
I understand Jordan's point, but I wonder if people may be going overboard with it.
Jeff Parish
Jennings Grove, an online horror serial novel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
nathan
Sage
Date Joined Mar 2006
Total Posts : 2111
| Posted 4/1/2008 6:11 PM (GMT -4) | |
Hamstersbane said...
"doesn't add anything to the (zombie) genre."  Man I gotta tell you. No matter how many times your wife, risen from the dead, cracks your skull and eats your family's brains it's gonna feel new when she gets to you.
Found this quote that seemed to fit our discussion and zombie stories about the making of Grindhouse by QT: Tarantino remembers, "I realized I couldn't do a straight slasher film, because with the exception of women-in-prison films, there is no other genre quite as rigid. And if you break that up, you aren't really doing it anymore. It's inorganic, [end]
It just reinforces the point that genre = boundaries but boundaries aren't always bad. If you want to break boundaries (and why that would be bad I don't know) then maybe what you want isn't really that genre anymore.
I will not send EDF any straight genre (or linear for that matter  ) stories because just because Jordan may not pick the same stories to read as I would doesn't mean an editor isn't king of his slush pile.
VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
|
RHFay
Sage
Date Joined Nov 2007
Total Posts : 1695
| Posted 4/1/2008 6:25 PM (GMT -4) | |
Jordan Lapp said...
RHFay said...My personal viewpoint - I think comments about "a new twist on genre tropes" are becoming old news. Doesn't it just become yet another type of "standard"? At this point, a return to "standard genre tropes" might be a refreshing change from all the twists out there. Maybe I just haven't read enough to become jaded in my views toward "standard genre tropes".
I wrote a little pithy remark about this that I've since deleted.
Please clarify what you mean? If something is new, it cannot be standard....
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the current mantra, the current "standard", if you will, seems to have become "new twist on an old trope". It gets to the point that I just crave a return to the basics. Sort of what Nathan said.
"I'm going to do what the warriors of old did. I'm going to recite poetry!"
Richard H. Fay - Azure Lion Productions
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel Ausema
Acolyte
Date Joined May 2007
Total Posts : 298
| Posted 4/1/2008 6:31 PM (GMT -4) | | I love innovation for its own sake...so I suppose keep that in mind with the rest of this. It's certainly possible to tell an excellent story that when summarized seems to be the same old story as a thousand others. I'd think it must be doing something noteworthy within that, though. I'd say that the reaction that a particular story does nothing new is usually more complex than that--it's rather that the reader finished a story, and while there may have been nothing that stands out as poorly written or told, they're left with a feeling that it just wasn't memorable. If it's doing something exciting or interesting with character or setting or plot or storytelling or whatever, then even if it seems that it isn't doing anything especially new, then I'm guessing most readers won't be left thinking, "It doesn't do anything new."
So I guess, if I finish a story about a petty thief or two in a dirty city and think, "Meh, I would have been better off reading an original Lankhmar story," then I might say it's because the story wasn't innovative. But if I read another story with a thief and that city is stunningly realized or the character is presented in a way that makes her come alive or the caper is pulled off (or fails) in such a spectacular way, then the question of innovation likely won't even be there, only that it was an impressive story.
Long-winded way of saying "doesn't do anything new for the genre" usually reveals that, for that reader at least, the story fails at some other level.
(But then I have to end encouraging all writers to look for innovative plots, characters, and (especially, in my tastes) settings...simply because that's what I like  )
Twigs and Brambles (my writing blog) | | Back to Top | | |
| | |