An Exploration in Fantasy -- Part Five: The Source

Imagine you're a kid. Your father is a landowner and a knight. Your older brother is obviously being groomed as the heir, which is normal and natural. He is, actually, a knight in his own right. You, however, are not being trained as a second, a backup, which would also be normal and natural. You're being trained to take care of horses and muck stalls and do the upkeep on your brother's gear, but that's about it. Sure, you'll get to be a squire, but you can tell there's some... difference; you're just not sure what it is. Clearly, your father loves you, and it's not a matter of favoritism; your brother is held just as accountable for wrongs as you are. But there is something... something that sets you apart. Or is that just wishful thinking?

This tournament comes up, and your brother is going to take part. He's even one of the favored knights. But something happens. The morning of the tournament, there's a problem with your brother's sword. He's livid. Stomping around. He demands that you find him a new one. And that's where everything changes...

* * *

Raise your hand if you know where this is going.

From what I can tell, the Arthurian Legend is at the root of modern fantasy. All of the elements are there. Let's look at it along with the initial list.

1. Arthur is not an adult. His age varies from child to teen, but it's clear that he's not an adult.

2. Arthur is an orphan. Soon after being taken from his parents by Merlin, they are killed.

3. Arthur is the child of the king, the first High King of Britain, even if short-lived.

4. Arthur is the child of prophecy, the one destined to draw the sword from the stone and become the True High King that will unite the land.

5. Arthur is mentored by Merlin, the Wizard.

6. "What is your quest?" "The Quest for the Holy Grail!"

7. Arthur's great descent is the affair between Lancelot and Guinevere.

8. Arthur has all of the Knights of the Round Table, many of whom have special skills and talents.

9. The "dark lord" Arthur has to face is his half-sister, Morgan, a sorceress and mother of his child.

10. And, of course, there is no technology.

Not only is fantasy filled with King Arthur stories... Wait, let me list just the ones that I've read, which is nowhere near comprehensive:
1. Le Morte d'Arthur (technically not fantasy, because it's a classic but, if it had been written today, it would be fantasy)
2. The Acts of King Arthur and His Noble Knights (also, technically, not fantasy because it was written by Steinbeck, but if it had been written by anyone else...)
3. The Once and Future King
4. The Pendragon Cycle (possibly the best Arthur series I've ever read)
5. Camulod Chronicles (possibly the second best Arthur series I've ever read and it's done completely from a historical fiction perspective, so it's only fantasy because it's about Arthur)

There may be more, but that's what I know I've read right off the top of my head, and those are just the ones that are actually about Arthur. There's probably no good way of counting up the number of books that make reference to Arthur or Merlin (The House on the Corner for one) or show some kind of direct influence from the Arthurian Mythos (even Lewis' Space Trilogy, and the resemblance of the Sword of Gryffindor to the Sword in the Stone can't be denied). It's possible that the Legend of Arthur is the most pervasive literary influence in Western culture (but it would probably take more study than I've put into it to determine that for certain).

And, yes, even Tolkien has a relationship to Arthur. There's The Fall of Arthur (a poem that Tolkien didn't consider finished so was published posthumously) and his re-telling of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. And probably more but not more that's been published. That I know of.

Even with Tolkien's interest in Arthur, not much of the Arthurian Model finds its way into The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings, as has already been discussed. I think Beowulf was a much greater influence on both works than Arthur ever was.

None of which is to say that Tolkien doesn't deserve the title Father of Modern Fantasy. Certainly, he's the one that "created" the genre, and he gave a lot of window dressing to it. The idea of fantastic races in fantasy comes directly from his influence; however, they're not required. Adding elves and leprechauns is like... well, it's like spicing your food. Some people sprinkle on the elf, some shake on some goblins, some keep it plain.

All of which is to say that, even though we can thank Tolkien for ushering in the age of fantasy literature, it's to Arthur that we owe the stories. One little orphan boy who pulled a sword from a stone.

The Asimov Genre

The discussion this week is genre: What do you read? and What do you write?

I'd like to say that I read a lot of genres. I have, at least, tried a lot of genres. Some of them under duress. For instance, in one of my high school classes, we were required to choose books from several different genres to read for some assignment or other. We had to choose something like five different genres. Of course, science fiction and fantasy were lumped together, just the way they are at the book store, so I wasn't able to squeeze two of books out of that. I don't remember what all I read for that assignment other than that I read my one and only Harlequin romance book. What can I say? They were short, and they were easy to get at since my grandmother circulated them with a bunch of my other female relatives (mostly great-aunts). Let's just say I was unimpressed.

I also picked up my first Western for that assignment, a Louis L'Amour book. My grandfather had a whole shelf of L'Amour paperbacks. I liked it enough that I read several more of them, which, really, was the intent of the assignment, to introduce us to books we wouldn't normally read. I still try to do that, pick up books that I wouldn't normally read (which is like the whole Oscar thing my wife and I do with movies). I think it's good for you.

All of that said, I spent most of my high school career reading fantasy with some sci-fi mixed in. In fact, I spent a lot of that time reading Piers Anthony who often blended sci-fi and fantasy. Does he have enough books, yet, to be his own genre? How many does that take? I'm pretty sure Asimov has been awarded genre status. He has, right? So I read a lot of Anthony and Asimov genres.

I also read a lot of classics. Did and do. Periodically reading a classic is something I try to keep doing. Sometimes, those even fall into the sci-fi/fantasy category, so, like, doubleplusgood. And I spent some time reading thrillers, especially Clancy. And non-fiction. And historical fiction. And fiction that's historical because that's when it was written, but I don't think that counts as historical fiction.

So a lot of genres.

But I do tend to gravitate toward fantasy, and it's always what I want when I'm feeling the need to give my brain a rest.

And that might be why, so far, anyway, I've tended toward fantasy in my own writing. Or, at least, the fantastic.
The House on the Corner is fantasy in a Narnia-esque kind of way. Or in a contemporary sort of way reminiscent of The Dresden Files. There are a lot of similar structural elements there that I find interesting since I didn't read any Dresden stuff until after I wrote House.
Shadow Spinner, though, is fantasy in a completely different way. I'd say it leans toward the paranormal except I don't really see it that way. To me, it's fantasy.
And "The Tea Kettle" is full of all kinds of fantastic elements, but I'm not sure it quite qualifies as fantasy.
(You should click the link and go read that one; it's FREE!)
At some point, there will be The Destiny Murders. I'm not sure what that is, yet. Well, it's a murder mystery, but... well... there's more to it than that.
Most of the stories floating in my head or living in my notes folder on my computer are fantasy of some type or another or, at least, have fantasy of some sort in them.
Or they're sci-fi.
Most but not all. Hopefully, though, even though they might be "merely" fantasy; they will be a whole lot more.

How Diverse Are You?

I first really got into science fiction and fantasy when I was in middle school. A friend of mine gave me a copy of Split Infinity by Piers Anthony for my birthday, and I just went from there. [I had stayed away from fantasy before that because, any time I got any book with magic in it (other than the Narnia books),  my dad would throw it away. Perhaps because it was a birthday present, no one took it from me. Or, maybe, it was because I didn't advertise it. Anyway, this isn't about what I was "allowed" to read when I was a kid.] Thinking back on it, now, basically everything I read was... well, it was "white." In fact, the only sci-fi/fantasy books I can think of that I read back then with a non-white lead was Bio of a Space Tyrant by Piers Anthony (because I spent years reading everything that Anthony wrote).

Not that it's really a sci-fi/fantasy problem; it's just a book problem. Or, at least, an American book problem. Or, maybe, a Western book problem. And there's plenty written about the lack of diversity in literature, so I'm not really going to get into that. It's a huge problem with no easy answer, except, hopefully, now that publishing has more options, we can hope that a more diverse body of writers begins to develop.

That said, the whole question of diversity, this being the day after MLK Day, made me think about diversity in my own work. I mean, I'm a white dude which, when it comes to books, is about the least diverse you can get. Okay, not "about the least;" it is the least. Going back to Piers Anthony: the guy's written something like 150 novels but only a handful have significant non-white characters (at least up to the point that I stopped reading him) and, actually, that's probably pretty good.

Honestly, before this topic came up in one of our IWM discussions, I hadn't given much thought to how diverse I am in my writing, but, after thinking about it, I'm not displeased.

Tib, in Shadow Spinner, is bi-racial.

His father is, well, you should just read "The Evil That Men Do" to find that out. I wouldn't want to throw out any spoilers. Not that I tried to write him "racially;" I wrote him as a kid struggling with the kinds of things that kids struggle with, and his issues are not race issues; their being different issues, which, I suppose, most kids feel that they are at some point or another. Basically, I didn't make the race thing an issue; it's just something that is. It was just... natural.

However, when I wrote "Christmas on the Corner," there was more premeditation about racial ideas. Not that I was trying to be racially diverse; I just thought back to my own childhood and growing up in the South and decided that I wanted Sam's best friend to be black. Having black friends was normal to me when I was a kid... right up until almost middle school when I wanted to bring one of my friends, who happened to be black, to church with me, and my mother wouldn't let me. [It wasn't, I don't think, because of any prejudice of her own that she wouldn't let me, because she had never said or done anything about me having black friends (in fact, the only friends she ever protested where the other "smart kids" I was friends with, because they were "weird"). She was worried how people would react at our all-white church.] Since House is set in the South, I wanted to be able to explore race issues, so Sam's best friend is black.

All of that said, I don't recommend throwing in diversity for the sake of diversity; that smacks of trying to hard. If I had been thinking, "I need to be racially diverse, here," I probably would have messed it all up, but, as it is, I think it all comes off pretty natural. It has to be something that's there without "being there." It has to be there without calling attention to itself. Probably, the best way to accomplish that in writing is to be more diverse as a person. That sounds like a pretty good goal to me.

Are You Ready?

The great myth out there about indie publishing is of people (mostly women, I think, although I could be wrong about that), not quite dressed, feverishly pounding out a manuscript and immediately uploading it to Amazon. These manuscripts are full of plot holes and are only half-baked, besides, and are unedited messes. "Messes" is a euphemism in this instance. In short, they, the manuscripts and the authors, were not ready for publication.

But what is ready? I've certainly read some (a lot) traditionally published books that I would describe the same way, but someone, somewhere, thought those books were "ready." Which is not to say that I think it's okay to just throw your crap against a Kindle to see if it sticks.

So let's go to the sports box for an analogy. You know, for someone who is not sporty at all, I use an awful lot of sports analogies.

Let's say you want to run a marathon. No, I don't want to run a marathon, but let's say that you do. You fool.
Anyway... so you want to run a marathon. Probably, you are not just going to decide the day before to do that or, even, the week before. You are going to decide months before and, then, you're going to train. Let's call it practice. You're going to practice running.

But you already know how to run? You don't need any practice. Sure... I can run, too, but I can't run a marathon. If I decided to do that (which I won't. ever), I'd practice.

So you spend months doing this running practice and the marathon is coming up, and you're sure you can't win it. In fact, you're not sure you can actually finish it. You think you might be able to, but you're not sure. So, the question is, do you run the marathon? Are you ready?

It's one of those questions with no correct answer. Well, if you know you're not going to get more than five miles in, you probably should choose the "I'm not ready" option. However, if you think you can make 20 miles, you might want to go for it.

The issue with being ready is that you have to be ready in comparison to yourself and what you want to achieve, not ready in comparison to some other runner out there, like Wilson Kipsang (the current holder of the fastest time for running a marathon). Not being able to run a marathon in two hours is not a reason not to do it. However, I would suggest that not being able to go more than five miles might be a reason to wait on entering a marathon.

Publishing and self-publishing are kind of the same way. The question to ask yourself is, "Have I done everything I can do to make this manuscript the best it can be?" Let me say that again with emphasis, "Have I done everything I can do to make this manuscript the best it can be?"

Let me be clear about why I say it that way.
Also, let me be clear that this is one of those things with which a lot of people will disagree.

Unless you are already making money off of your writing, you should never pay for editing or cover art or, well, anything. Money that you spend on getting you book into "better" shape or making it look "more professional" or whatever will almost always be money, basically, flushed down the toilet. Let me put it another way: You have almost no chance of making that money back. Well more than 90% of people out there self-publishing never make any real money from it, and, every year, almost as many small publishers go out of business as go into business. This is not a money-making career move for most people. To make money, you have to do one of two things: stick with it a long time or get incredibly lucky.

So... Don't waste your money on "professional" services. Just don't do it. It's not going to help you sell your first book. [What will help you sell your first book, though, is a second book and, actually, a third book.]

And, see, I'm saying all of this as someone who will be turned off by your misspellings and grammar errors. However, I'm also looking at the very practical side of things: Most people don't care about your misspellings and grammar errors. Most people won't even notice them. So, as much as I would like to say, "Make sure your book is well-edited before you throw it out there," I also know that it doesn't matter to at least 80% of the people out there that are your potential readers. The only important thing is the story.

Also, sometimes, it's the going for it when you can't actually finish that will help you finish the next time, but, if you don't take that first leap, you may never do it. For instance:

When I finished writing The House on the Corner, I didn't have any cover art for the book. I knew I had a good story, but I had no way to make a cover or pay for art. Basically, I had done everything I could do at that time to make my book ready, so I published it. It was only by doing that that I met Rusty and ended up with the awesome cover art that House now has. [I would provide you a pic of the cover, but, for some reason, blogger is not letting me do that, so you'll have to click the link to check it out.] Sometimes, it's joining the race that allows you to go farther than you could have on your own.

None of this is to say that you should just throw your manuscript out there as soon you finish with it. I've talked to too many people that have said things like, "No, I didn't edit it; I just wanted to get out there. I didn't want to waste time on that." There's really no excuse for that kind of behavior. Like I said, do everything you can do before you go forward and publish your book. If you have people that can help you out (like trading services or out of generosity or whatever--anything that's not paying people), take advantage of that, but never, NEVER endanger yourself or your family financially to pay someone to edit your manuscript or make a cover for you. Not unless you happen to just have extra money lying around and you're not actually trying to make writing your livelihood.

Seriously, if you look at some of the stuff out there that's popular (or has been popular), you'll see that the public at large is rather forgiving. I'm not, but they are; and they're the people you want to buy your book. If you can make your readers happy, don't worry about the rest. I mean, if the story's good, even I'll overlook some grammar issues.

So... are you ready?