Too Much Thinking?

[C Hollis]

This has been a great conversation, and I tend to agree with quite a few points here. When it comes to my current works, I want the foundation molded from reality and the finished product accented with fantastical elements. Which seems to be the current fantasy genre norm, ala Martin.

One comment from Philip really grabbed my attention.

Again this depends on what audience you’re trying to reach.

This is so true.

When I go to the theater to see an action film, I expect to see hard-hitting punches to the face without even a flinch. Watching a muscle-bound behemoth move with the alacrity of a spider monkey doesn’t phase me. Seeing one these guys pick up an 80 pound gun and rattle off an endless stream of bullets for five minutes straight is expected. All of that is part of the genre.

Many people hate action films for the same reasons many people love them. I think the same holds true for, what I will call classic fantasy.

Gigantic beasts that would clear the vegetation of an entire region in an hour.
Sword fights that go on for hours.
Staring into the face of a volcano.
Running a horse all day.
Hiking to the top of a mountain without stopping for hydration.
Chocolate rivers.
Snow in the desert.
Waterfalls that flow up.
Hopping off a horse in full plate. (doing anything in full plate for that matter)

People hate the fantasy genre for those things (and others), but most classic fantasy fans don’t even think twice about them. Some want that escapism.

However, as has been eloquently pointed out; some fantasy readers hate that type of fantasy.

George R.R. Martin writes fantasy fiction with a realistic foundation, because appealing to a much broader audience is what he has been trying to do for several decades. And if your goal is to reach out beyond the traditional fantasy fandom, then I believe you aren’t wasting your time on research. Your target audience requires this of you.

Do your homework. If you don't, someone who does will bust your work open like a pinata and all your slacking will tumble out onto the floor, and they will lose faith in you as a storyteller. Because you are lazy.

There is a certain “feeling” to classic fantasy, an almost giddiness. A fascination with the over-the-top imagery that fills your gut with butterflies. Excitement fills your entire being when the hero, dressed in full plate, leaps from the horse and gets into a gymnastics-filled hour long battle with the evil one-eyed villain.

In classic fantasy, I don’t think it’s lazy when you forego reality. Allow your heroine to gallop a horse all day long through lava fields with nary a hair out of place. Your target audience will swallow this up and beg for more.

It is all about the target audience.

 

[glutton]

Hopping off a horse in full plate. (doing anything in full plate for that matter)

...you do know that people in plate armor can still be pretty agile *realistically*, right? Plate being nigh impossible to move in is a myth.

how difficult it is to actually swing a claymore

I imagine it would get slightly easier if you train doing so day in and day out, no..?

This is coming close to expecting 'modern couch potato' levels of fitness for presumably athletically well-trained characters.

 

[C Hollis]

...you do know that people in plate armor can still be pretty agile *realistically*, right? Plate being nigh impossible to move in is a myth.

My point being doing things as though they are in their birthday suit. I was in no way insinuating "nigh impossible to move". There is a significant impact to maneuverability when compared to other armors, which is often disregarded in fantasy writing. I have worn full plate, and believe me, there are some things you just don't want to do with an extra 80lbs of weight. In the time I wore it, there was little I couldn't do (I was athletic at the time, btw.), but there was much that just wasn't worth the energy required.

Oft-times in fantasy works you will see a farm boy stroll out of a livery wearing full plate and wielding a great sword (claymores averaged just over 5 pounds, but could weigh in the high teens depending on length) like he had been trained his entire life. That is where realism takes a nosedive. Athletic or couch potato, those things take some getting used to.

 

[Philip Overby]

For me, I didn't fall in love with Martin's attention to realism, although that is one good point of his writing. It was always the characters for me. And it's almost always the same for anything I read. However, one thing I enjoy is the Warhammer aesthetic. Perhaps this ties into my interest in pro wrestling. I like over-the-top "spectacles" so to speak. Warhammer to me is a spectacle of insane fantasy action. I get that pro wrestling is a form of entertainment. I don't go "That's so fake!" Being that I had a background in it, I know that it's not fake. It hurts. You can look at my X-rays to prove that.

For me it's about memorable characters. The same way Hulk Hogan was a memorable character for me as a child, the same goes for Tyrion Lannister now. They stand out in my mind and interest me. I don't so much concern myself with if what they're doing is realistic. They evoke emotion from me as characters. So I allow myself to enjoy what I'm reading without worrying about the world so much. Sure, if Tyrion was scooping up Gregor Clegane and dumping him on his head, I may go, "Huh?" but that wouldn't change me from liking Tyrion as a character.

One thing about Martin's realism that truly stands out is that no one is safe. Sometimes when you read novels, there is never any expectation that the hero is going to die, because hey, he's the hero. Martin totally chucks this idea out the window. That's one reason his books are so talked about is because he does what Shakespeare did: if you have to die to make the best story, you have to die. If Romeo and Juliet ended with them happily ever after, I'd dare say it wouldn't be recognized the same way as it is now. That's the kind of realism that I think attracts people to Martin. Not so much his attention to getting all the regional foods right or showing people urinating.

 

[glutton]

I was in no way insinuating "nigh impossible to move".

Well, 'doing anything in full plate' was listed with other things that are far more unbelievable...

a farm boy stroll out of a livery wearing full plate and wielding a great sword (claymores averaged just over 5 pounds, but could weigh in the high teens depending on length) like he had been trained his entire life.

Fair enough which is why I don't tend to write farm boy heroes XD

 

[glutton]

Sure, if Tyrion was scooping up Gregor Clegane and dumping him on his head

Why are you looking at me... what are you looking at

 

[Svrtnsse]

I guess this is good example of when what is commonly perceived as realistic doesn't actually match up with reality.

I remember hearing and reading about how heavy plate armor is and how hard it would be to move in full plate. It's not really been something I've questioned. It made sense to me. It's made of steel so it must be really heavy and clumsy.
Then on mythbusters (or something equivalent) pops up and mentions that a full set of plate armor weighs less than the kit an average marine in a modern day army drags around.
According to the wikipedia article on plate armor:

A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15-20 kg(33-44 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body.

Now, this isn't meant as a lecture on plate armor. It's meant as an example of when what's realistic and what we think is realistic don't match up.
Some people here will already know about this (Malik, glutton and probably others), while some people (me) will find it new and interesting.

 

[Malik]

It's meant as an example of when what's realistic and what we think is realistic don't match up.

I'm building my whole series on this.

 

[Scribble]

...you do know that people in plate armor can still be pretty agile *realistically*, right? Plate being nigh impossible to move in is a myth.



I imagine it would get slightly easier if you train doing so day in and day out, no..?

This is coming close to expecting 'modern couch potato' levels of fitness for presumably athletically well-trained characters.

Since the invention of the television remote? Very good point. In the days when 80% of everyone's day was tied up in the production of food, minus the tractors and machines, people were physically stronger.

I train at the gym for 1 hour 6 days a week (after sitting on my butt in front of a computer every day for 8 hours) and I don't consider myself anywhere near the strength level of a full time peasant, let alone a knight training every day with horses, armor, and heavy weapons!

I took a fitness test recently and scored in the top 85% of Canadians. You might think that is a good thing, but when I look at myself, I think it rather says that we are all in very bad shape if I am in the top 85%!!

 

[GeekDavid]

Some time ago, my father was watching The Return of the King when I walked into his room, curious to know what he would think about the characters and the story.

He did not catch the movie from the start (it was the final seventy minutes or so) and, even though I know that my dad is not an admirer of the Fantasy genre, I was quite surprised by what he said:

"Look at the size of those elephants! Can you imagine how much food one of those would need in a single day? That world does not have enough plants to feed those things, this is stupid..."

I had to admit that he was right: Not only would the Mûmakil soon starve to death in a world like Middle-earth, but their sheer size alone makes them a biological impossibility.

They would simply collapse under their own weight like a whale in the sand, and the same goes for Godzilla and other similar creatures.

Later in the movie, my father commented:

"Look at Frodo and Sam, in that rock, surrounded by the flowing lava... The heat alone would finish them! Come on, the volcanic gases would have killed them already... This is too unrealistic."

Once again, he was right: In the real world, the volcanologists wear protective suits and gas masks when they face similar scenarios, because without protection they would be dead within a matter of minutes.

My dad pointed out even more unrealistic things that I cannot recall now while watching The Return of the King, but the point here is...

Do we stop and think such things while watching these movies, or do we simply enjoy the story and the adventures??

I'll be honest with you, last night I read in a book where a person applied a tourniquet without mentioning a windlass of any sort.

Did I notice it? Obviously. Did I stop reading the story? No. It's an interesting enough story that it still holds my interest.

I think this is not a black-or-white issue where even one error of that sort is going to catapult your reader out of the story and cause them, in turn, to catapult your book across the room. Rather, it's a matter of how good your storytelling is and how often you make such errors. One or two aren't going to be a problem, but half a dozen or a dozen probably will be.

 

[Addison]

I wouldn't say we over research. If we do then we're procrastinating the story writing. Most research is mostly done to make sure we stay consistent through the story and we get facts right. If you're writing a story in medieval europe you don't want a character to mention Marie Antoinette. We research to discover and understand the fundamentals of the setting/era of the time or world we've chosen.

 

[Malik]

it's a matter of how good your storytelling is and how often you make such errors. One or two aren't going to be a problem, but half a dozen or a dozen probably will be.

This right here.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I've always thought the details which share commonality between a fantasy world & the real world should be as accurate as possible. In my opinion, this can aid in plausibility and make the reader's suspension of disbelief easier to achieve and maintain regarding fantastical aspects of the story. Those details which are unique to fantasy I prefer to leave up to the imagination.

My approach to research is the same as my approach to character background stories. I know far more about why my characters are who they are than the reader will ever see. Although that knowledge isn't directly referred to in the prose, the feel seeps in, making the characters feel more real and well-rounded (at least I hope it does).

That being said, I generally want a working knowledge of a topic. I may not need to be an expert (unless that particular element is crucially important to my story) but I need to know enough to sound credible. I need to make sure I don't throw readers for a loop by showcasing my ignorance on a topic.

There are certain details I'm not too concerned with however....like travel distances, how certain animals eat, etc. I'm not likely to discuss the intricacies of travel to the point where I'm keeping track of time. It's only big events within that travel time that I'm going to show. Further, people that read fantasy are going to be more accepting of fantastical beast. After all, the dragon is a staple of the genre. There are many physical impossibilities with the classic dragon. People that don't enjoy fantasy may scoff at similar ideas but the people who will buy your story are not likely to pay that detail much mind.

The point is to get key details correct. If you're going to include them in the story, know what you're talking about. Make a conscious choice to include information or ignore the details. A lot of details people might think are important, may not add much to the story. If they don't add anything, I'll skip them. I want to write about what's interesting.

The exception to this are items that add texture. If your scene is developing within a feast, for example, you be amiss not to mention the food & drink, and maybe the entertainment. After all, these are the central activities within the event. As far as the other details, I'd describe just enough (with powerful, concrete descriptors) for the reader to build the remaining description of setting.

 

[Philip Overby]

I think what my major concern is, after reading a lot of comments about the focus on research, is that while I think a lot of people have commented on how research has strengthened their stories, I'm afraid there are a lot of people out there that focus on research before they even start writing anything. This can become of more interest to them than the actual story. I personally applaud well researched stories. I do find the knowledge shines through in most cases. What I notice, however, is that there are many people who become so consumed in getting every detail right, that their story doesn't get written.

I'd like to offer something that may help people in this situation.

I'm writing my novel at the moment. I've had some fight scenes, some things have exploded, etc. I didn't so much focus on the physics of these things as I've been writing them. I'm just writing as it naturally flows out of me. I'm not stopping to research what happens when someone gets trampled or the physics of a tree exploding. I'm just writing it. When I get finished with my first draft, I'm going to find these things and root them out. I'll try to make these things as believable (not necessarily realistic) as possible. That way the research doesn't get in the way of telling the story I want to tell, and instead enhances what I've already written. Being that I'm writing in a secondary world (my own world) I can do this. If you're writing in our own world, you may have to research more beforehand.

For now if I want a man in full plate male hanging off the neck of an imp while molten lava dumps on their heads, that's what I'm going to do. If it's completely asinine and makes no sense within my world, I'll take it out when I edit. This allows me to work on the story first and foremost and worry with the details later.

 

[GeekDavid]

For now if I want a man in full plate male hanging off the neck of an imp while molten lava dumps on their heads, that's what I'm going to do. If it's completely asinine and makes no sense within my world, I'll take it out when I edit. This allows me to work on the story first and foremost and worry with the details later.

Story comes first. Always.

You can have a marvelously researched treatise on the use of plate mail in the middle ages, and if there's no story you've written something only history nerds will find enjoyable.

But a good story will carry people to another world or another time, and they'll forgive the occasional slip up in the details.

 

[Addison]

"All the world's a stage, and all of us the players." -Shakespeare.

In that thinking, in a theater production there's a part called the fourth wall. In the building and stage itself the fourth wall is the space separating the audience from the stage. They aren't up on the stage participating but they're close enough to feel, hear and experience everything the actors have to give. A fun play, and a better story, is when that fourth wall is voluntarily broken.

In "The Proposal" the fourth wall is broken in the first scene when the audience is directly addressed by the character. In "Putnam County Spelling Bee" the fourth wall is repeatedly broken which immerses the audience more fully in the play which earns the audience a great experience.

For writing you build the set, the costumes, props and audition the characters behind stage. When the curtain goes up-the book is opened-the story may start behind the fourth wall. But the characters, who they are and what they're doing, pulls the audience onto the stage. They don't realize the play was a play, that they're in a seat, until that curtain comes down in their face. With writing there is a fourth wall, only instead of an invisible wall it's ink and paper (or pixels depending on your publishing method) and your story pulls the reader in so they forget it's a story in their hands. It's all the details working together that pull the reader through that wall.

 

[Scribble]

There seems to be two ways in which the fourth wall can be broken. In one way, the characters themselves let the readers in on what is happening in their minds. In another way, if you employ a narrator you can create a veil between the reader and the characters. You must accept that it is through the narrator you are hearing the story, but the narrator represents a filter. We aren't omniscient, we are captive to the narrator to understand reality.

I'm on a kick to read all the classics I somehow missed over the years, currently reading The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky, a book notable for breaking the fourth wall.

In the story, the narrator lets the reader know that he is a writer. What is (logically) odd is that the narrator knows all manner of things that he could not know. So, you are left to wonder at times about what license the narrator has taken in interpreting people and events in the story, and then at other times I am completely absorbed in the story, taking the words at face value. It is a strange experience, but I am gripped by the story on different levels, and so it works for me. It feeds a sense that we never really can be sure of anyone or anything, which is a theme in the novel, a lot of things come into doubt. I think that was a brilliant choice for this work. It is like Dostoevsky is infecting me with the doubt the characters feel.

In another work with a narrator, I might wonder at the omniscience of the narrator if they are declared to be human and part of that world. If they claimed to know things none could know, I would wonder at their motivation, or reason for the claims. If it did not serve the overall story in some way (meta to the inner story) I would probably feel like it was a failed POV, or some kind of quaint, "let me tell you a story of the old days" kind of approach. In that case, what purpose does the narrator serve? None, it just gets in the way.

I would be wary of trying such a practice in my own writing - at this point. I would not say don't do it, but I would say be wary of it. If you are going to do it, it should be a clear decision (like any writing decision).

 

[Penpilot]

A complete suit of plate armour made from well-tempered steel would weigh around 15-20 kg(33-44 pounds).[2] The wearer remained highly agile and could jump, run and otherwise move freely as the weight of the armor was spread evenly throughout the body.

This got me thinking. I play hockey and the equipment I wear weights around 25lbs, more when I train with a 15lb weight belt, and the goalie's equipment can weigh 60lbs. If someone wants a rough modern analogue of trained athletes moving around encumbered by weight distributed over their bodies, watch some youtube clips of NHL goalies moving and flopping.

This allows me to work on the story first and foremost and worry with the details later.

I find that the better your story telling is, the more likely nobody will notice mistakes/inaccuracies/plot holes. If people are focused on the story, it's harder for them to notice the mistakes. In bad stories people are not focused on the story, so their focus has more freedom to find those accuracy problems more easily.

For example Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was pointed out to me that Indiana Jones is superfluous to the story. Had he refused the mission, the Nazis would’ve found the Ark on their own, brought it to the island, opened it and died the same horrible death.

Nothing changes with the introduction of Indiana Jones to the story. The story’s protagonist is completely unnecessary.

I didn't notice this issue at all, and even after it's pointed out, I don't care because the story is well told regardless of the big flaw.

 

[Svrtnsse]

For example Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was pointed out to me that Indiana Jones is superfluous to the story. Had he refused the mission, the Nazis would’ve found the Ark on their own, brought it to the island, opened it and died the same horrible death.

Nothing changes with the introduction of Indiana Jones to the story. The story’s protagonist is completely unnecessary.

I didn't notice this issue at all, and even after it's pointed out, I don't care because the story is well told regardless of the big flaw.

Oh dear...
I never thought of that. :/

 

[Devor]

I think there's two kinds of research:

1) Wait, I want to write fantasy, and I just realized I know nothing about the middle ages, weapons, horses or lifestyle except for some loose ends I picked up elsewhere. I need to educate myself before I risk making a fool of myself.

2) I have a scene that requires a few details about a blacksmith's shop. How can I make it look right?

The second one should be easy to fix. The first is obviously problematic - it's that same neverending morass of "Am I ready?" that dogs new writers every step of the way.

What would help, I think, is a well-done "so-you-want-to-write-fantasy?" guide to research, instead of all the random books that have too much detail about too many specific things. I haven't seen if one exists.