What Are THE 3 Most Imprtant Ingredients in a Fantasy Saga?

[Mazrim]

I didn't want to make this question into a poll because they are too limited. I want some opinions though on what makes any saga a good one. What would make it perfect. Try to keep the opinions organized into the 3 most important so it can be easier to read.

1. I would have to say the flow of the story has to make sense. If it doesn't flow, then it's harder to believe or imagine.

2. Good quality backround is also very important. A good saga has a really good history to draw back on, (Lewis Therin), and a really bright future, (Rand).

3. Characters you grow to love or hate. When Thom died, (supposedly), in tWofT I can honestly say I was pretty sad. That's just an example. How many of us would weep ourselves to sleep if Mat died.


Taim Out!!! :cool:

[Nae'Blis Sedai]

1. The characters. In any good story, what drives the plot is the character's character, and thus their decisions. Without characters there can be no plot, and should the plot be decided by the author, then it will cease to be flavourful.

2. the World. It is in the world where the characters interact, and the world sets the parameters for plausible plotline. If the characters drve the plot, then the world is the guardrails that keep the plot on track. Jordan gets top marks here.

3. The plot. The plot is dependant on 1 and 2 to survive, and if the plot tries to go by itself it will soon crash.

As for your questions, I didn't actually think Thom was dead... hwe could have run or something.... and about Mat, I probably wouldn't ccaremuch except to question how the story will progress without his character.... the last time I was truly sad about a character dying was when Thorin Oakenshield died in the Hobbit, and I was 7-8.

[Gawyn Trakand]

1. History.
2. Characters.
3. The World.


Its as simple as that.

[Minx]

1. Likeable and living characters (not in the dead/alive/undead sense).

2. Depth (history, culture, whatever... but it has to be naturally inserted into the plot, can't be forced).

3. Consistency.

(high quality prose goes without saying, I guess!)

[Anomander Rake]

1.Characters which look and behave like real people not like voodoo dolls.;)
2.Well described and living world with rich history, a lot of cultures and places.

3.Plot that just makes you read long nto the night until you reach the end of the book.

[Dackad_Ranthorn]

1. Characters
2. The World (History, cultures, etc.)
3. The plot

[Lebanese Dragon]

1. Background (history, so that later on one will understand why something happened)
2. Character Development (making the character seem alive, and not some unrealistic fantasy character.)
3. Good Plot (must have plot, and by plot i mean the story must have a good, non contradictory, flow, which is intriguing, not farfetched, and follows the "Rise Climax Fall" system. It may differ, but in all earnesty if it strays to much, then the story won't be that good, in my opinion.. However, on the Fall section, I dont' want the story to have a complete resolution, or else it would be, how should I say too perfect, and thus unrealistic, and unbelievable.)


Well, this is actually a good "THREAD", finally. Wander what Aan will have to say on this matter.

[gruselag]

Hmm, tough question. I can think of important ingredients, but then I can also think of novels I've liked that didn't have those ingredients in them.

Well anyway...

1. Plot.

2. Believeability.

3. Characters.

[CorlisVanderson]

you guys suck...here's the real truth on the matter:

1) blood
2) sex
3) occasional animal cruelty

[Gawyn Trakand]

we weren't asking for the history of your sex life.

[Drauka]

For me its:
1. Real-iblity when describing things - Battle Tactics and such.

Example: In a particular book I've read a cavalry charge through the woods which WON vs. a group of pikemen (Who were trained in that forest) and had 2x as many soldiers. I stopped reading it - Not real - That’s virtually impossible I believe.

2. Char's - There has to be char's that are believable - Powerful - Not perfect

Example: Moridin, Asmodean, Ender, and Wolfstar. They are all awesome, All have there own twisted philosophies, which are indeed believable and cool.

3. Originality - The world, plot and all has to be original or i dont read it.

Example: I dont read books based heavily on Elves or Dwarves. I prefer Sara Douglas’s approach she remade the elf, which I like. And David Farland - Who's books in my eyes are not spectacular writing, but its so original and detailed that i cant help but losing myself in the series.

If a book doesn’t have these components it goes into my bathroom so i can save money on toilet paper, I’m half way done with the sword of shanarnia series if you know what I mean.

[Shadow Hunter]

I’m half way done with the sword of shanarnia series if you know what I mean.
Lol, thats the truth.

1. Consistency. Doesn't have to be believable, thats why its fantasy. But it has to follow the rules that it makes at the start. Not make up new rules to save someone because the writer blocked himself in.

2. Characters should be people. Not superman/invinciple.

3. I like a good background, not too indepth as that would be another story. But say, in WOT with the book of Jaim Farstriders travels, or Martins the Doom of Valaria. Doesn't explain much, but gives the series depth. A sence that the world didn't just exist on the first page of book one.


Thorin Oakenshield died in the Hobbit
Yeah, that was sad.

[Astaroth]

why does everyone hate the Shannara series so much?.......I didn't think it was that bad......I've certainly read alot worse...the Darksword novels for one.

[Nae'Blis Sedai]

Because Shannara is so unoriginal... its effectively LoTR witten by Terry Brooks... and he cannot at all compare to Tolkien... (even though I did find his Landover fun...)

As for the Darksword trilogy... I read it... and found little redeeming value in it. Not so much that I put the book down... (since I bought the trilogy in a boxed set, second hand, for ~$10Cdn, and I had nothing else to read)... but I wouldn't read any of the Dragonlance now...

[SoulOfFire_HeartOfStone]

1. The characters
2. The flow of the plot
3. The detail

[Drauka]

Landover was nice.

[Shadow Hunter]

why does everyone hate the Shannara series so much?.......
i liked them.
It wasn't so much it was LOTR but because the series, and the 4 books before were pretty much all the same. But still liked em.

[Minx]

I really liked the Sword of Shannara, as well as the books about the scions of Shannara. Loved the characters, the cool magic, the use of dramatic irony, separation, all of that (and let's not forget the history, it was nice without being amazingly original--but still nice).

Of course, when I started on Brooks I'd already begun to dislike Tolkien's storyteller-style, so that might be it.

--Pro

[ThrakhathZero]

Hmm, I thought at least one person would have put this on their list somewhere, but meh, more for me :D

1) Dogma. What I mean by this is that the central theme should be of greater importance than it's characters. The Classic "Good" versus "Evil." I think WoT misses a lot of this, it has the Evil down pat, but the good guys seem to mostly be different shades of gray.

The worse you make your "Evil" in a story (especially fantasy), the better you can make your good guys look, and the more "epic" feel you put into a story. Though, "Epic" isn't quite the right word, since plenty good stories can happen on a smaller scale. But my point is that it's the antagonizum betwixt the Hero and the rest of the world that propels a good story

2) The Characters. Interesting and engrossing characters are what draw a reader into the book, it's what we indentify with. I'd put them at number one, except, if there isn't a point or goal for our characters, an Evil to fight, then they lose any draw they had for lack of a purpose.

3) The Created World. By this I mean both elements of history/depth (no true fantasy can happen in a shallow world that's just THERE) and a strong element of a consistant universe with it's own rules. It was already mentioned here, but it's important for an author to set rules down and stick to them. It doesn't matter what they are really, so long as they remain true.

I almost put "World" at number 2, but I think Histories and Rules can be . . . fudged or faked, and still make a good story if it has strong characters.

[HeartoftheDark]

It's difficult anymore to find a fantasy that is truly and wholly original. Everybody uses something as a jumping-off-point. And that something is usually some other sci-fi/fantasy book/story. Some tweeking here and there, and...Viola! Yopur very own "original" fantasy story.:D

For me:

1)Characters that I can relate to. Supermen or peons. If I don't feel connected to them-if I don't give a f*ck and a flying doughnut what happens to them-it's not worth my time.

2)Depth...of character, of world, of plot. I've seen great actors giving superb performances in movies that totally sucked a$$. (Because the plot was superficial. Or charater development was too uneven. Or the special effects were too heavy/elaborate or too lame/weak.) You get the idea. It should all have substance and balance out.

3)Enduring. I have to find it engaging every time I reread it. I first read the Icewind Dale trilogy in middle-school (some 10-odd years ago) and enjoyed it. I recently reread it and found it flat and unimaginative. In other words, I outgrew it. This is what I really mean by enduring. It has to be something that I never outgrow.

(And, coming in at a really close 4th place-so close I feel I need to mention it-is that it has to make me think. At least on some level. If it isn't engaging my intellect on some level/in some way, then I'll quickly lose interest.)

That's my two parts of a dollar.;)

[cables]

1. Begining
2. Middle
3. End


Minx,

I started on Brooks aswell! Elfstones of Shanara! I bought it when I was 10 or so. Then I didn't pick it up till years later. Read it a loved it. I've been hooked on fantasy ever scince.

[potatoman]

1.Kung Fu
2.Elvis impersonators
3.Cheese (not French)

I thank you.

[Hound-Of-H311]

u need a sweet sword

i just started re-reading the series again waiting for book 11 :P im upto The Dragon Reborn now, it what pumps me up is the fight scenes when its either just rand one on one someone or he fights heaps ! when he effortlessly kills someone it isn't exciting.

Near the end of book 2 is the best so far after re-reading it when he fights the seanchan blademaster, also when hes in the stone and fights his reflections !

Its also cool when Aiel fight aswell ! Perrin frees the Aiel and it beats all the whitecloaks unarmed ! heh its what really gets me into WoT, the action and fighting, when i got deeper into the series and rand puts together the Ashamen i couldn't put the books down ! its great when they go and capture all the Red's :D
Dumani's Well got me pumped aswell hehe

im gonna go read now :P cyas around !
(sorry about all the spelling mistakes, and never posting hehe)

[potatoman]

but it would have better with a cheese-related plot, though?

[ThrakhathZero]

Originally posted by potatoman
but it would have better with a cheese-related plot, though?

So long as it isn't Swiss Cheese. What with all the plot holes . . . . :D

[potatoman]

only I do Cheese jokes, pal.:sour:

[Deathwatch Guard]

Other than the elements that are necessary to any story (i.e. plot, characterization, etc.), I think these three are necessary:

1. Realism

2. Creativity

3. Fantasy elements

Fantasy elements being such things as magic, swords, battle, etc. The important thing is that it all has to have a realistic yet creative spin to it.

[Lewkowski]

1. Good plot. This is whats necessary.

2. The Author not afraid to kill of charchter, death brings along a lot of emotion, if no one dies there is no sense of danger with the charachters.

3. Realism.

[Duram_Laddel_Cham1]

why 3? o_O why not 4 points.
i hate the 2nd undividable number.

[Deathwatch Guard]

Stop thinking so much in integers.

[Lebanese Dragon]

i hate the 2nd undividable number.


I didn't know there was a first undividable interger! :) :P j/k

[Blood & Ashes]

1. World (Kingdoms, Cultures, Languages)

2. Background (History)

3. Emotion (Highy underrated, although mentioned in this thread)

I think the best at doing these was by far Tolkien. He had about 5,ooo years of rich history, a world anybody woud dream of living in, and plenty o death (I know this sounds cruel) among the protaginists).

[ShadowT]

Story
Characters
Coolness factor

[TobuRyu]

1. plot
2. character
3. tie-ins /allusions/ references to to real history /philosophy /religion. (this is assuming it isnt set in the real world)

and shanara in the beginning was cool, but the last trilogy was sort of lame... but the running with demons trilogy was quite good.
as is farlands runelord series.

[tomiathon]

in an epic series, Plot/Theme/Story very closely followed by Setting/World/History, with Characters 3rd

in a non-epic fantasy, characters are more important, maybe 1st

[TheFirstDragon]

1. Believable characters. I dont mean that they have to be non- magical, because what would fantasy be without magic. I'm talking about characters who act like what their back story says they are. An unschooled farmer shouldnt be able to talk to a nobleman about politics. it just doesnt make sense.

2. Magic that makes sense. Im not a fan of magic that the character just can read out of some massive tome and be able to do crazy magic. There has to be reasoning behind the magic.

3. Plot. kinda speaks for itself

[Sanctume_at_wor]

Lets pick Tolkien's trilogy.

It's character that drives me intrested.
Followed by the world.
Then the Plot least of the tree.

A good story can be part of the plot, but a good epic will leave an open ending for more adventures.

Take StarWars ANH to RotJ.

It's character, then world, then plot.

[Zaiyac Drayon]

Does no one think originality is important? Probably not because everything is stolen from Tolkien anyways :P

[Bloody Aiel]

Hmmm, no one mentions magic, which is the defining quality for a fantasy book.

Which kind do people like more? More like Tolkein, where the magic is mysterious, and the reader doesn't know how it works? Or more like Jordan, where the reader gets an ever increasing view of exactly how the magic works?

[Minx]

Like Erikson, which is a mix of both, and a delicious one at that :) Seriously, Jordan isn't anywhere near as detailed as Weis and Hickman, for example. Kerr is also like that. Jordan leaves more room for theorising :)


I hafta admit I like Feist's way of doing things though. Like Cook's--very practical, imaginative--but also somewhat organised. Uhm.

[Dackad_Ranthorn]

Originally posted by Bloody Aiel

Which kind do people like more? More like Tolkein, where the magic is mysterious, and the reader doesn't know how it works? Or more like Jordan, where the reader gets an ever increasing view of exactly how the magic works?
Both are cool, depending upon how it is handled, however I like the more 'mysterious' magic system better as presented in Tolkien, Martin, Hobb (well... somewhat). However, the flipside to this is that if magic is not clearly defined (as in Martin's books), the characters can potenially end up doing anything with magic and still stay within the rules... because there are no rules. Thankfully, I haven't really seen this happen in any book.

[Spawnie]

it happens in every single Sword of Truth book.

[Blood & Ashes]

...And Harry Potter.

[Dackad_Ranthorn]

Originally posted by Hellspawn King
it happens in every single Sword of Truth book.
Thankfully, I seem to have blocked those books out of my memory.

[Zaiyac Drayon]

Originally posted by Blood & Ashes
...And Harry Potter.

:haha:

[Blood & Ashes]

What's that supposed to mean?

[Zaiyac Drayon]

Its funny cause I never realized just HOW wide the parameters of Harry Potter's magic was until you said that..

And Harry Potter magic makes no sense. I dont get how one wizard can be more powerful than another when all you have to do is say 2 words and auto-kill them...

[Blood & Ashes]

I guess it's how powerful the spell is. I dont know, J.K. Rowling doesn't write 1000 pages on how it works like RJ does.:o

[awheelgirl]

methinks jk rowlings may be a bit interested in the relationships and grand adventure part of the actual magic which is kind of the gimmick that makes it interesting. beware also that she is attempting to write to an audience of the same age group as harry and the potters

as to the question at hand:

1. life in the hometown sucks.
2. the hero heads off into the great beyond for the great adventure.
3. home still sucks, but the hero likes it. (after all, home is where the heart is.)

the rotk (as great as it was) will have been dealt a great injustice if the retaking of the shire is cut out of the extended version, which i hear it has.

[Blood & Ashes]

the rotk (as great as it was) will have been dealt a great injustice if the retaking of the shire is cut out of the extended version, which i hear it has.

It will not be in the extnded version because Peter Jackson id not like that part of the story. I agree with him, because the Ring has already been destroyed, and supposedly all evil with it. So why do they have to fepress the audience more afyer such a good thing has jut happened. (That's just a theory, I don't know if that's actually the case.

I've already made my opinion but here's some more:

Magic (deinition of fantasy)

No hope (tot srong enough, enemy too powerful)

Interesting love story

[awheelgirl]

i disagree with it being insignigicant. the story is almost as much one of the coming of age of the hobbits as the ring. the ring of power may almost be anologous (however that's spelt) to power and the potential for that power to be used for good or evil. destroying the ring did not destroy evil, only it's potential to harness power for evil intentions. the hobbits grew from creatures dependent upon others for their survival to a people capable of being masters of their own fate.
as to subjecting viewers. anyone into the trilogy enough to sit thru 4 hours of film would likely enjoy the addition.

[Nae'Blis Sedai]

The reasoning for Jackson leaving out the Scouring, I believe was that it is rather anti-climatic. As for the rumour that he didn't like that part of the book, I do not believe it is true; he paid homage to it in Frodo's viewing in the fountain of Lothlorien. It is far more likely to my mind that, regardless of how effective it was in the book, it is not a scene that transfers between media very well, so he cut it.

[Blood & Ashes]

I think the hobbits showed their courage throughout the trilogy. This is especially true withSam and how he protected Frodo (which, I may dd, was not portrayed enough in the film). Also, the rest of the story shows how much the hobbits grew up. Even Pippin (maybe even especially so) showed how much he matured at Minas Tirith. When Frodo looked into Galadriel's mirror, he saw what would have happened if the ring ws not destroyed. I think that if the Scourging of the Dhire was put into the movie, it would have taken away fromthe power of the Ring that Jackson had spent 9+ hours trying to explain.

[Blood & Ashes]

These are the tybes of debates I like.