Three writing tips you shoudn't listen to

[Cith]

We must read different authors then! I don't think it's fair to say that high fantasy writers are "well known" for lacking understanding---certainly no more than authors writing in any other genre. Perhaps there are examples of weak writing from fantasy that are particularly memorable to you. But I don't necessarily think they're more common or prominent.

They were when I was active in the community 7 or so years ago, and I would argue these authors are very much more prominent. People writing in an urban setting know, pretty much, how things work. They may get a few details wrong here or there, but they live in this sort of setting so they know generally what goes on. People writing in historical settings have to reconstruct that setting from scratch. What soap did people use? Did they drink water? If not, was it ale or soup? How much did armor and weapons weigh? Given your statement I have to question how widely you read in the genre, or if you're insensitive to these sorts of errors (which are sometimes easy to overlook.) I do admit the genre has been getting better in recent times, I don't have to tell you what it was like when David Eddings was dominating fantasy in the late 80s, early 90s. He writes entertaining tales yes, but the suspension of disbelief required caused much mockery and finger-pointing.

I'd think that a little too petty. Telling authors to invent different foods just because stew is a staple food is nonconformist behaviour for the sake of it.

A bit of a history lesson is required. While stew was eaten fairly often in medieval times, it was rarely eaten by travellers. Having to lug huge pots around with you isn't exactly efficient behaviour (not to mention stews are a little high maintenance,) and yes I'm looking at Lord of the Rings here... as well as countless other fantasy novels. What would they have eaten? Berries, bread, dried meat, that kind of thing. Yes, Rothfuss may have served his stew in an inn, but the cliche is ingrained. A lot of fantasy authors who didn't know what they were writing had stew everywhere. Hence Scalzi's reaction and the bad rap stew gets in, for example, "the tough guide to fantasy land" http://www.amazon.com/The-Tough-Guide-F ... 0142407224

[Mad Harlequin]

I don't have to tell you what it was like when David Eddings was dominating fantasy in the late 80s, early 90s. He writes entertaining tales yes, but the suspension of disbelief required caused much mockery and finger-pointing.

I'm afraid he's entirely new to me. This is the first I've heard of him. Must I be concerned about the supposed creative sins of someone writing twenty years ago whose impact has not lasted?

and yes I'm looking at Lord of the Rings here... as well as countless other fantasy novels. What would they have eaten? Berries, bread, dried meat, that kind of thing.

Which is exactly what the heroes of Middle-Earth eat while they travel. They might cook up a rabbit or some fish on the road, but large meals are reserved for rest periods at safe havens. Hell, lembas, or cram, as Gimli calls it, is specifically mentioned as a nourishing food created for long journeys.

[Cith]

I'm afraid he's entirely new to me. This is the first I've heard of him. Must I be concerned about the supposed creative sins of someone writing twenty years ago whose impact has not lasted?

He was dominant 20 years or so ago, his books are still sold today. He was one of the big names in fantasy. I don't think you're wide-read enough in the genre to make the comments you do, that's all. I think you've read a few of the big name, modern fantasy novels and thought 'not bad'. I have a different take on the genre because I'm a dungeons and dragons geek who's been devouring fantasy novels since the 80s. If you pick up a Paolini novel, you'd probably think 'it's written badly, is riddled with cliches and takes liberally from Tolkien and Star Wars.' You'd probably miss it ripped the magic system from LeGuin wholesale. Flaws of the genre are more apparent to me.

Which is exactly what the heroes of Middle-Earth eat while they travel. They might cook up a rabbit or some fish on the road, but large meals are reserved for rest periods at safe havens. Hell, lembas, or cram, as Gimli calls it, is specifically mentioned as a nourishing food created for long journeys.

Book 4, chapter 4, "Of herbs and stewed rabbit."

[Mad Harlequin]

If you pick up a Paolini novel, you'd probably think 'it's written badly, is riddled with cliches and takes liberally from Tolkien and Star Wars.' You'd probably miss it ripped the magic system from LeGuin wholesale. Flaws of the genre are more apparent to me.

I read the first book, noted all of the ripping off you described, hated it, and subsequently have not read any more of Mr. Paolini's work. Perhaps I appear wet behind the ears in your eyes, but I assure you I am just as aware of these flaws. I will not, however, demonize an entire genre based on the missteps of novices.

Book 4, chapter 4, "Of herbs and stewed rabbit."

So what? I think hobbits, being known gourmands and generally excellent cooks, have every right to prepare stew in the middle of a damned forest if they have the necessary tools. You're free to disagree with me, of course, and that's where I'll leave this thread alone. I feel I've said enough.

[Cith]

I will not, however, demonize an entire genre based on the missteps of novices.

Are David Eddings, Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan novices then? What about the Dragonlance, and Forgotten Realms series? Are they unimportant and inconsequential books whose impacts have not lasted? Terry Brooks?

Why do I get the feeling you're judging the entire genre on people like Martin and Erikson alone.

So what? I think hobbits, being known gourmands and generally excellent cooks, have every right to prepare stew in the middle of a damned forest if they have the necessary tools. You're free to disagree with me, of course, and that's where I'll leave this thread alone. I feel I've said enough.

Despite lugging all that extra equipment around on the off-chance they 'might' get to use it, Sam noted how deficient the stew would be - not enough ingredients. So why wouldn't he cook, for example, a roast? He has all the ingredients for that, and is much more traditional (and sensible) traveller's food. Why a stew? It made no sense given the limitations of ingredients, and it definitely made no sense lugging all that extra equipment around. It could, however, be excused given Sam's extra ordinary devotion to Frodo. Although it would steal draw a snort of derision from people who know better.

Some of the fantasy authors who followed him, however, do not get off so lightly.

[Mad Harlequin]

Are David Eddings, Terry Goodkind and Robert Jordan novices then? What about the Dragonlance, and Forgotten Realms series? Are they unimportant and inconsequential books whose impacts have not lasted? Terry Brooks?

Why do I get the feeling you're judging the entire genre on people like Martin and Erikson alone?

I assure you I am not. And this is truly where I'm ending my contributions to the thread, at least for now. Please do me a courtesy and do not presume to know what my thoughts are when I have not expressed them. Thank you.

[planktheory]

I did read through all the Harry Potter series, and I did enjoy them. I had it in my head that I was talking about the magic system, as most of it had to be invented to fit the needs of the character. Not that she was adamant against having to do research, but ... I'll try not to hand out more fodder for being nit-picked.

[Taleweaver]

Speaking of Lembas, by the way: it's probably the best example of a writer just making up a piece of equipment so that he doesn't have to worry about his heroes starving on the way through a land that he has previously described as barren as poisonous: Magical bread of which you only need to take a bite to live through an entire day, which never spoils, is light to carry around, AND it even tastes good. If Lembas were a girl, her name would be Mary Sue.

Tolkien as fantasy writer definitely Did The Research (he wanted to write an epic akin to the old Norse sagas, and he thoroughly studied them, and with his knowledge of real-life languages, he invented fictional ones), and taking into account that he experienced cameraderie between soldiers during World War 1, his depiction of Frodo's and Sam's journey through Mordor may even be an example of a guy Writing What He Knows. But he never stopped there, and he let his creativity take him beyond that. That's why we value him so much as a creator of an immersive, beautiful fantasy world.

[Mad Harlequin]

Speaking of Lembas, by the way: it's probably the best example of a writer just making up a piece of equipment so that he doesn't have to worry about his heroes starving on the way through a land that he has previously described as barren and poisonous: Magical bread of which you only need to take a bite to live through an entire day, which never spoils, is light to carry around, AND it even tastes good.

I suddenly feel redeemed. Thanks for this. That being said, I really don't think it matters if the characters have a pan or two for rabbit stew---especially since at that point, Frodo and Sam, with Gollum guiding them, are running out of food. Furthermore, after sending Gollum off to hunt for them, Sam is reminded that the food hobbits eat is far different from what Gollum is used to eating---raw fish and occasionally a bit of goblin. So Tolkien's not being lazy and saying, "Well, I'll just have them eat stew." He's highlighting just how different Gollum is, which is quite sad since he used to be a hobbit himself.

Tolkien as fantasy writer definitely Did The Research (he wanted to write an epic akin to the old Norse sagas, and he thoroughly studied them, and with his knowledge of real-life languages, he invented fictional ones)

Yep! Tolkien was a philologist. The name Gandalf, along with the names of the dwarves in The Hobbit, comes from the Völuspá of the Elder Edda. Tolkien came to regret using these names because it forced him to come up with a reason why Old Norse names should be used in Third Age Middle-earth. But he later solved that problem by figuring out that Old Norse is essentially a translation of the language of Dale.

[Applegate]

Why do I get the feeling you're judging the entire genre on people like Martin and Erikson alone.

Hang on, Erikson as in, Steven Erikson? Malazan Book of the Fallen? What missteps did he make? (Other than the verbosity of some characters boring me to death?)

[Cith]

The idea that Sam would haul extra, weighty equipment all the way to Mordor on the off-chance he could prepare a spot of incomplete stew is leaning slightly on the ridiculous side. Most people, in such a scenario, would skewer the rabbits and roast it. No need to haul pots (you'd only need a couple of sticks,) and no need to lament about 'no vegetables.' It has nothing to do with them needing to prepare a meal because they have no food, nor does it have anything to do with the differences in diet between Gollum and the hobbits. It's about practicality on an exhausting, and harsh trek. It was rare for people in this period to prepare stew on the road, and most likely never done if there were only 2 people with no pack animal. The equipment would weigh you down, you know. But like I said before, it can be excused due to Sam's extra-ordinary devotion to Frodo. He definitely didn't use stew everywhere like some of the people following in his footsteps, and Tolkien is one of the milder examples of this misstep. Given his fame it'd be one of the more famous ones, though.

Martin uses food much better than Tolkien does, btw.

@Tales: The lembas thing was ridiculous, it wasn't a good example of creativity. It was a cop out.

Hang on, Erikson as in, Steven Erikson? Malazan Book of the Fallen? What missteps did he make? (Other than the verbosity of some characters boring me to death?)

I was using Erikson as one of the better examples of the genre (for people who like that sort of thing.)

[Mad Harlequin]

The idea that Sam would haul extra, weighty equipment all the way to Mordor on the off-chance he could prepare a spot of incomplete stew is leaning slightly on the ridiculous side. Most people, in such a scenario, would skewer the rabbits and roast it. No need to haul pots (you'd only need a couple of sticks,) and no need to lament about 'no vegetables.' It has nothing to do with them needing to prepare a meal because they have no food, nor does it have anything to do with the differences in diet between Gollum and the hobbits.

As far as I can tell, he has one pan. Not a Crock Pot or anything of the sort. But whatever. I honestly don't give a rat's behind about why he should or should not have them. I'd much rather focus on the importance of things like comparing and contrasting Frodo and Sam and Gollum. (I don't care what anyone says. It is important.)

@Tales: The lembas thing was ridiculous, it wasn't a good example of creativity. It was a cop out.

That's your opinion.

[Cith]

As far as I can tell, he has one pan. Not a Crock Pot or anything of the sort. But whatever. I honestly don't give a rat's behind about why he should or should not have them. I'd much rather focus on the importance of things like comparing and contrasting Frodo and Sam and Gollum. (I don't care what anyone says. It is important.)

He has more than one. Also if you don't think it's important, then don't leap into an argument about it. The original point of this thread was to do your research because if you don't, then people will pick up on it. I think this is a pretty graphic illustration of how even small issues, the ones you may not think matter, can easily be picked up on.

That's your opinion.

No, you're right. A convenient piece of magic which answers many of the tough challenges the party will face is incredibly creative. It's not at all bordering on deus ex machina.

[Mad Harlequin]

He has more than one. Also if you don't think it's important, then don't leap into an argument about it. The original point of this thread was to do your research because if you don't, then people will pick up on it. I think this is a pretty graphic illustration of how even small issues, the ones you may not think matter, can easily be picked up on.

One, more than one---it still doesn't matter. Not to the degree you believe. (That's just my opinion, by the way.) And I'm still allowed to comment here regardless of my opinions about details of this sort, thank you.

Yes, details do matter. This much we agree upon. Hell, I'm the first to voice concerns about scientific terminology and theories when reading serious science fiction. The point I'm trying to make, however, is that certain details may be considered nonessential depending on the circumstances. To me, the minutiae of cooking don't much matter in a fantasy story taking place in a fictional world like Middle-earth. I might object to something like what you're describing if it's occurring within a real world setting or makes something about a fantasy completely incomprehensible. If the horses of Middle-earth suddenly devolved and sported toes instead of hooves, say, I would be rather confused, because they're decidedly non-magical creatures---although some of them can gallop damn quickly.

That being said, I don't consider Tolkien's characters' consumption of stew on the road and use of bits of cookware a flaw. And I'd honestly much rather read about lembas than foraging for berries. If I want to read about medieval-style diets with one hundred percent accuracy, I'll open a history book. For Tolkien's part, clotted cream goes back quite a ways!

No, you're right. A convenient piece of magic which answers many of the tough challenges the party will face is incredibly creative. It's not at all bordering on deus ex machina.

So we disagree. That's fine, but that still doesn't make your opinion any less of an opinion. (The same is true of my opinions, of course.) It's best to avoid stating an opinion it as if it's a fact.

[Cith]

One, more than one---it still doesn't matter. Not to the degree you believe.

Go hiking for a while with full supplies and you will understand (and I'm not trying to be condescending here.) You take only what is necessary because so very much is necessary. I've heard army grunts say Sam and Frodo should have packed extra socks, and kept them away from water (a fact Tolkien should have been well aware of). Because they need to carry a ton of stuff, because they need to carry it so very far, and because they don't have pack animals, you limit what you bring. If I wanted to be petty I'd question his spice supplies, but they don't really matter. His pots, on the other hand, add significant weight and awkwardness to an already burdened pack while on a massive journey.

The point I'm trying to make, however, is that certain details may be considered nonessential depending on the circumstances. To me, the minutiae of cooking don't much matter in a fantasy story taking place in a fictional world like Middle-earth.

Firstly Middle-Earth isn't really fictional, and by that I mean it is and it isn't. Tolkien meant it to be an alternate/mythological history of Britain (which is why you will always have that lingering question of racism hanging over his work.) It's not like Middle-Earth has completely different rules of physics or common-sense.

Also, as long as things are reasonably logical, and generally accurate I don't have a problem with it. While I won't chuck Tolkien aside because Sam chose to take pots/pans, I HAVE chucked books to the side for either an accumulation of such errors, or a couple of slightly more significant ones. I also have a couple of pet hates, like inaccuracy in the portrayal of medieval weapons and armor, and I'll skip whole passages if they contain glaring errors on these subjects. Inaccuracies of any kind will jerk a person who has knowledge about it out of the story. Writers need to be cognisant of the following fact - it is true that certain details are non-essential, what is non-essential though differs from person to person.

That being said, I don't consider Tolkien's characters' consumption of stew on the road and use of bits of cookware a flaw. And I'd honestly much rather read about lembas than foraging for berries.

A scene about foraging for berries probably wouldn't be necessary. If a scene isn't moving a novel forward then people need to question its inclusion - is it just adding unnecessary bloat or is it worth having. Having a scene about the aftermath, say them huddled around the fire with 2 rotten berries and a dispirited air around the place (just giving an example) might be interesting to read. It would have added another significant hurdle to overcome, and the real creativity would have been writing a logical way for Frodo and Sam to overcome it *shrugs*.

So we disagree. That's fine, but that still doesn't make your opinion any less of an opinion. (The same is true of my opinions, of course.) It's best to avoid stating an opinion it as if it's a fact.

Not just my opinion. It is well established in writing and literary circles that Deus ex machinas are poor writing, and they are not recommended. Ignore this consensus if you wish.