"Generic European Fantasy"

[Devouring Wolf]

You could say the same thing about Manga and Anime having too many "Asian" samurai stories that glorify the Edo Period. Might as well say that Sci-Fi has too many aliens, spaceships and too much advanced technology.

My point is precisely that generic-ism isn't solely a problem effecting European fantasy so people should equating the two. Setting a story in a vaguely Edo period Japan or a vaguely futuristic world without any deeper thought put into it is equally inexcusable and yet when's the last time you heard someone say "I'm tired of all these generic Asian fantasy settings."

I'm not hating the conventions of the genre, I personally like classic fantasy, I'm annoyed by how lazy some of the world building is. This is sort of like the world building equivalent to the romantic subplot. Romantic subplots get shoehorned into stories that don't need them all the time because the author sees that a lot of best selling books have romantic subplots so then they try to add one in without understanding exactly why is worked so well for those best selling books.

Its like people go "oh I'm going to write a fantasy book and all the really popular ones take place in medieval European settings so I'm going to do that" without understanding why those stories are set there (this can certainly happen to non-European fantasy too). Setting is more than simply a place where the story happens. There's a reason LOTR takes place in middle earth. There's a reason GRRM's books have the settings they do.

I love a good romantic subplot and I don't mind a fantasy set in vaguely medieval English county side so long as the writer has a reason for putting it there besides "that's what everyone else does". I don't demand books have in depth world building, but any author worth their salt knows how to use their story's setting as a benefit to their story.

Also I apologize in advance if this post comes off rude or nonsensical. I haven't slept in two days.

 

[Peat]

Idle thought that in no way should be taken as contradiction of my agreement with the rest of that post -

It is possible that if I lived in Japan, I would hear that a lot. Or in China, wonder why its always wuxia. Or whatever else is popular in other countries.

This is, insofar as I'm aware, a group predominantly from the Anglosphere talking about fiction predominantly from the Anglosphere. That the majority of them reach back to our shared cultural past is perhaps unsurprising, maybe even inevitable. Are we the only language group that constantly goes back to the same well unthinkingly? Or is this a common failing?

In any case, world building that comes off as lazy is rarely welcome, whatever the reason or culture.

 

[Miskatonic]

In any case, world building that comes off as lazy is rarely welcome, whatever the reason or culture.

Precisely. Defaulting to a pseudo medieval Europe because you have no real interest in world building beyond the basics has to do more with the author than the subject matter.

 

[Miskatonic]

My point is precisely that generic-ism isn't solely a problem effecting European fantasy so people should equating the two. Setting a story in a vaguely Edo period Japan or a vaguely futuristic world without any deeper thought put into it is equally inexcusable and yet when's the last time you heard someone say "I'm tired of all these generic Asian fantasy settings."

I'm not hating the conventions of the genre, I personally like classic fantasy, I'm annoyed by how lazy some of the world building is. This is sort of like the world building equivalent to the romantic subplot. Romantic subplots get shoehorned into stories that don't need them all the time because the author sees that a lot of best selling books have romantic subplots so then they try to add one in without understanding exactly why is worked so well for those best selling books.

Its like people go "oh I'm going to write a fantasy book and all the really popular ones take place in medieval European settings so I'm going to do that" without understanding why those stories are set there (this can certainly happen to non-European fantasy too). Setting is more than simply a place where the story happens. There's a reason LOTR takes place in middle earth. There's a reason GRRM's books have the settings they do.

I love a good romantic subplot and I don't mind a fantasy set in vaguely medieval English county side so long as the writer has a reason for putting it there besides "that's what everyone else does". I don't demand books have in depth world building, but any author worth their salt knows how to use their story's setting as a benefit to their story.

Also I apologize in advance if this post comes off rude or nonsensical. I haven't slept in two days.

A lot of what passes as "medieval European" in fantasy stories is not really based on history, just a lot of cliches. If it's got a castle, knights, an Inn or two and some dragons it gets associated with medieval England or something like that.

 

[Chessie]

In any case, world building that comes off as lazy is rarely welcome, whatever the reason or culture.

Wow. So, so true. Although can it be masked by an amazing story? I've read fantasy books that were light on the world building but had strong stories and they still sucked me in. Also, not all world building details come through in the story. There are things we need to sacrifice for the sake of character and plot.

 

[Steerpike]

Wow. So, so true. Although can it be masked by an amazing story? I've read fantasy books that were light on the world building but had strong stories and they still sucked me in. Also, not all world building details come through in the story. There are things we need to sacrifice for the sake of character and plot.

There are great fantasy stories where there is sparse, or minimal world-building. I feel like I can tell the difference between an author who intentionally leaves the details of the world vague, having thought through and provided only the important elements, and an author who was just too lazy to think about it.

 

[FifthView]

There are great fantasy stories where there is sparse, or minimal world-building. I feel like I can tell the difference between an author who intentionally leaves the details of the world vague, having thought through and provided only the important elements, and an author who was just too lazy to think about it.

I think I'd rather read a tale that's set in an obviously generic world than those stories in which the author throws out many odd references to aspects of the world without exploring them or making them relevant to the story in some way.

Sometimes I run into that. Characters, in their thoughts or through dialogue, mention a hundred extraneous details of the world, but none of those details will matter.

I suppose I'm more annoyed by the bait-and-switch feel of that kind of perfunctory "world building." Whereas, if the story's obviously set in a somewhat generic medieval world, I can accept more as a given and focus on the story in front of me.

 

[Chessie]

Right. Because it's about story above all else. But with fantasy/sci-fi our worlds are characters. The genre is known for its world building vs setting. When I write historical romance, I literally just pick a date in history and a place (or maybe make one up), make sure the historical details are correct, and just start to work on developing the story. It takes me minutes. With my fantasy stories, I've written them all set in a world that took me a year to create. So while story is very important, I also think that in this genre readers expect to be thrust into a different world. It's honestly the one thing that bugs me about any fantasy set in London. For the love of everything holy, nooooooooooooooo!

 

[Steerpike]

I suppose I'm more annoyed by the bait-and-switch feel of that kind of perfunctory "world building." Whereas, if the story's obviously set in a somewhat generic medieval world, I can accept more as a given and focus on the story in front of me.

Use of extraneous, irrelevant details clutter a manuscript and detract from what is going on, so I clearly cannot focus on the story in front of you...

However, use of lush detail also supports a certain writing style, and a certain level of immersion for those who like to be lost in their fantasy world in addition to just following the characters through their stories, so I clearly cannot focus on the story in front of me...

Ha ha! Ha! Ha! -- *falls over dead*

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Use of extraneous, irrelevant details clutter a manuscript and detract from what is going on, so I clearly cannot focus on the story in front of you...

However, use of lush detail also supports a certain writing style, and a certain level of immersion for those who like to be lost in their fantasy world in addition to just following the characters through their stories, so I clearly cannot focus on the story in front of me...

Ha ha! Ha! Ha! -- *falls over dead*

You're an awesome human being.

 

[FifthView]

Right. Because it's about story above all else. But with fantasy/sci-fi our worlds are characters. The genre is known for its world building vs setting. When I write historical romance, I literally just pick a date in history and a place (or maybe make one up), make sure the historical details are correct, and just start to work on developing the story. It takes me minutes. With my fantasy stories, I've written them all set in a world that took me a year to create. So while story is very important, I also think that in this genre readers expect to be thrust into a different world. It's honestly the one thing that bugs me about any fantasy set in London. For the love of everything holy, nooooooooooooooo!

Sometimes the "different world" feeling doesn't require a great divergence, although I'm curious about what level of divergence, and what type of divergence, people seek. I'd guess the answer to that curiosity would be "it varies from person to person."

I'm happy with little divergence if the type of divergence is something that interests me. I think. I'll have to ruminate on this, because I do have a history of liking traditional European-ish settings but if I put works I've enjoyed side-by-side I still feel as if the worlds are different.

 

[Gurkhal]

I agree that worlds based on medieval Europe can be very different from each other depending on how the author views it, what themes and mood that runs throught it. For example GRRM's Westeros is very different from David Edding's medieval world in the Elenium, despite both of them being based on medieval Europe. As such I feel that medieval Europe, or to be more precise medieval England and possibly France, still has lots of stories to offer as a setting for the fantasy genre.

 

[Miskatonic]

Sometimes the "different world" feeling doesn't require a great divergence, although I'm curious about what level of divergence, and what type of divergence, people seek. I'd guess the answer to that curiosity would be "it varies from person to person."

I'm happy with little divergence if the type of divergence is something that interests me. I think. I'll have to ruminate on this, because I do have a history of liking traditional European-ish settings but if I put works I've enjoyed side-by-side I still feel as if the worlds are different.

In the series I'm working on I need the familiarity of our world in order to create a large contrast when the unknown and strange is introduced. Geographically and culturally the "human" world is like ours, though it's not meant to be an alternate version of Earth. Then there is one landmass that's been hidden via magical means that eventually becomes accessible and becomes the focal point of the second half of the story. That's where all the unusual species of animals and different races of humanoids are introduced, along with the weird names of cities, etc.. However, that being said, there are some traces of the "human" world in it because at one time the world was basically one giant landmass.

 

[WooHooMan]

It is possible that if I lived in Japan, I would hear that a lot. Or in China, wonder why its always wuxia. Or whatever else is popular in other countries.

That would be the case if the only source of inspiration a writer had was their own culture. But Japanese fantasy (as far as I can tell) has a lot of European-style settings. I suspect this is mostly thanks to the popularity of Dungeons and Dragons in Japan during the 80's.
It's more common to see a Japanese writer do a Western setting than a Westerner doing an Asian setting.
I think with the popularity of anime in the nerd subculture, Japanese (and to some extent, Chinese) settings are becoming more and more common.

Also, I'm getting sick of these kinds of threads. Somebody inquires about whether a convention is justified then you get 6 pages of posts mostly saying "cliches are bad except when they're not so ignore them unless you don't want to".
I think I've been on this forum too long.

 

[Peat]

Thank you for the info.

And yes, I'd regard Chinese/Japanese settings as not original.

 

[skip.knox]

@WooHooMan says "Also, I'm getting sick of these kinds of threads."

Common questions get common answers. It's why FAQs were invented. This community gets a steady stream of new writers, so it's going to get a steady stream of the same questions. But the dialog is not wasted motion.

The same reply to the same question is never the same. The question gets worded a little differently, the replies vary somewhat. Most importantly, the person asking the question is coming to it from their own point in their development as an author, so the answers resonant differently for each individual.

Maybe it's because I'm a teacher and I've been getting the same questions, and giving the same answers, for thirty-plus years now, that I don't begrudge the repetition. Yes, I do get burned out a bit. When I teach, I have to reply; at least here I can just ignore the thread!