Problems with fantasy fiction

At this point, I think it'd be interesting if a writer threw verisimilitude completely out the window, and wrote a story in the style of a fairy tale or a myth or an old Arthurian romance, where weird enchanted knights wander the countryside at random for no discernible reason.

I don't think anyone has written a book like that in years.

Somebody ought to, though.

edited 2nd Dec '16 12:55:11 PM by Aldo930

I think that doesn't normally happen because of agency. Someone will ask why are they doing it. like motivation or conflict.

i think you should check out Craft Sequence. its not the medieval type, but magical people give cab rides on beats. they arent sending random civilians on epic quest *shrug*

edited 2nd Dec '16 1:14:36 PM by WolyniaBookSeries

Frodo ultimately failed in that he could not summon the willpower to destroy the Ring, but without his efforts the quest to destroy the Ring could not have succeeded. So did he really fail?

From a 1963 letter:

He goes on to say that Gandalf, Aragorn and others correctly viewed Frodo as blameless. He truly did everything he could and succeeded in the quest. Frodo himself, however, felt differently. In the Scouring of the Shire Frodo takes almost a completely passive role, he fades further and further into the background while his friends all go on to be the most notable and powerful hobbits in the Shire, and eventually he has to leave Middle Earth, because he couldn't live with his failure.

The idea of doing all that we can and falling short, but then succeeding anyway because God acknowledges we have done all we can and lends a hand is a very Christian one, of course.

edited 2nd Dec '16 1:27:15 PM by Bense

If by "you" you mean those enchanted knights I mentioned, one could have it that they don't know why they're doing it. I always found it interesting in Stephen King's The Stand that Flagg didn't really know what he was, where his powers came from, or why he was doing what he did. Played well, I think that can be powerful and interesting (a lot of people, for instance, make decisions for reasons they can't really articulate and largely aren't aware of). The protagonist likely would have agency, but other figures might not. It'd really emphasize the otherworldliness of things.

I suppose really what I'd like to see is just that, a fantasy where the "otherworld" was decidedly "other," distinct from the regular world. I've gotten a mite bored with writers trying to integrate the magic into the mundane.

edited 2nd Dec '16 1:27:12 PM by Robbery

I second unknowing. "Realistic" is going to be relative with fantasy of course, since it has a different reality. So you could have a fantasy with no rhyme or reason deliberately, but I'm not sure you could tell a coherent story that way. Usually the problem is a lack of consistency, not none at all.

On a related note, I found this old thread which raises some of the same ideas. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14092417420A48192000&page=1

You mention fantasy with no rhyme or reason and I think of the Alice books, or perhaps The Phantom Tollbooth (before the finale at least). I don't think that's what you meant, but...

so people can do magical things and have no explanation as to why? they just do it? idk how that can work for an entire book or idk understand the concept. are you looking for something slipstream where high amounts of randomness happens? that things arent definable and broken down

edited 2nd Dec '16 8:44:53 PM by WolyniaBookSeries

Do you mean Alice In Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass? I don't remember much about them, and have not read the other.

I think he means fairy tale logic. Things happen in fairy tales just because, and we take it because, well, it's a fairy tale.

Take, as an example, Pinocchio, in which Pinocchio is a sentient piece of wood before he is even carved into a puppet. Why is this piece of wood sentient? Just because.

Yes, I do mean those books.

I do mean "fairy tale logic." Just as a for-instance, in Books of Magic Neil Gaiman has Tim Hunter and Rose Psychic stumble upon a river of blood during their tour through the Realms of Faerie. Rose offers a number of reasons for the river's existence (most of them metaphorical or symbolic), wrapping up with "or maybe there's a river of blood here because this is Faerie, and things like that happen here."

There's a number of way in which supernatural/magical elements can be presented without any verisimilitude. For example, one can imitate the tone or the style of fairy tales or chivalry romances, in which this 'fairy tale logic' is accepted and even expected. There are for example some italian authors which made this, like Calvino or Laura Mancinelli. Another way is the 'dream-like' logic, in which events are kept together mostly by subconscious association, like a nightmare: a là Lynch. My favorite way, however, is when an author starts with just one unexplained, absurd premise and explores the consequences of it. "When Gregor Samsa woke up one morning from unsettling dreams, he found himself changed in his bed into a monstrous vermin", the best example I can think of.

If you actually set things out that way, then I think it would be fine. Consistency is key.

That's what Magic A Is Magic A is for, is it not? You can construct a world/system that is as nonsensical as you please, as long as you keep it consistently nonsensical. Even the most well-written world can break down the suspense of disbelief if there are too many inconsistencies or Deus ex Machina asspulls.

edited 13th Dec '16 10:50:44 PM by danime91

Yes, but it's not just that. Things such as why (for instance) teleportation spells aren't used to rob banks. If it never comes up, even after introducing bank-robbing with access to such magic, that stretches the suspension of disbelief.

Are you talking about a specific work, where banks are a thing, and magic is a thing, and for some reason that's never explicitly explained magicians ain't robbing banks?

In the Harry Potter world, for instance, while I don't recall if they've said specifically that the vaults at Gringotts are magic proof, it's amply demonstrated that steps can be taken to keep people from apparating somewhere someone else doesn't want them to go (and it's considered an event when Nicholas Flamel's vault is burgled in the first book).

edited 18th Dec '16 12:42:34 PM by Robbery

I don't know why someone who's mastered something as complicated as magic would use it to do such petty stuff when they could do much bigger, much worse stuff, things that would affect all of humanity.

Robbery: No, it was just an example of how a story can have implausible plotting.

Harry Potter covers this, yes. It has examples too though, such as why they don't use veritaserum on all criminal suspects like with Barty Crouch Jr. Rowling said they could seal their own throat to stop this etc. but he was stunned first which prevents that. Therefore it's a big plot hole.

edited 18th Dec '16 2:18:45 PM by Fireblood

Well, what you seem to be asking is why do plot holes and logical fallacies exist in fiction. There's really no short answer for this, as there are lots of reasons. Moreso for fantasy literature in that the usual rules of reality get changed. Frequently, fantasy worlds are only thought out to the extent to which the writer wants to use them. I don't see a truly satisfying answer to thins question emerging.

I wouldn't discount the pettiness of the very powerful. Some very interesting stories have been told about people or creatures with magical powers who are extremely petty, have very limited imaginations, and/or values that are warped, nonsensical, and screwy.

edited 18th Dec '16 9:54:08 PM by Robbery

The One and Future King, T. H. White? Or are you speaking in more modern terms? In which case, Kazuo Ishiguro published The Buried Giant last year, which sort of fits the bill. Weird enchanted knights wander the countryside in a kind of metaphor for the way society forgets about tragedy.

Robbery, I'm not really asking why, so much as pointing them out so we can be aware (and do better ourselves if anyone writes things). It's easy to get into these problems, I know.

@168 - I found this:

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Muggles

Also, according to Wikipedia, Rowling has revealed through Pottermore that the potion can be fooled through Occlumency and is hence not usually accepted in general practice in wizard courts.

Well yes, nothing is full proof. It apparently worked fine on Barty Crouch Jr. though, so in at least some cases that would be effective. Why can't they recreate that scenario? He's unable to use Occlumency apparently, or is too dazed from being stunned (of course this was before it had been introduced in the next book).

I think the idea is that it works best against people who aren't suspecting it being used or simply unprepared to counter it. For example, Umbridge's first attempted use of it on Harry by spiking a proffered cup of tea would have worked if Harry had not suspected it. Likewise, her second attempt would have also worked since Harry was unexpectedly captured, and unprepared to counter it through any method, including Occlumency (since he was naff at it).

If it became usual practice in the Wizarding legal system to use Veritaserum to extract truthful information, you can bet your pants there would be an corresponding reaction to counteract the effects of the potion. People would quickly learn charms to change what a person *thinks* is true, get their hands on antidotes (probably sparking a lucrative black market in the process), there would be a surge of people taking up occlumency, it would become too unreliable too quickly. Because of this, it is rarely used, and because it is rarely used, it is more effective when it is used, since the average wizard doesn't expect it. More powerful and/or paranoid wizards (like Slughorn) who have more incentive to hide things would probably develop more counter measures to it because of the nature of their character and/or the nature of the information they could divulge. After all, it's still a very powerful truth serum. It's just (apparently) easy enough for a prepared wizard to counter it that it casts enough doubt on their testimony to make the potion effectively useless for widespread and common use.

Reminds me of this truth serum called FastPenta in The Vorkosigan Saga. It's pretty much the perfect truth serum and even gives a feeling of euphoria to those its given to, so they want to confess. However, in reaction to its existence, most government operatives are given something that will make them die instantly if exposed to the stuff. So, it's a weird situation where the perfect truth serum exists but its utility is lower than would be expected.