Some Tips for Creating Well-Rounded Villains

Yesterday I talked about characters in general. Today, I'm going to expand on what makes a villain work.
By the way, for anyone who didn't read the last post (I don't know why you didn't; you should!), the characters, Kinlar and Keldrin, that I reference, are from an old story that I wrote about six years ago.


So, what makes a good villain?


1. Motivation. No one does anything for nothing. Keldrin joined the sorcerer, and the only reason he did so was because he was ... evil. 
There was very little motivation. He would most likely have done it whether Kinlar had been around or not. There should always, always be some reason villains do what they do.


2. A range of human emotions. Keldrin had jealousy, fear, and hatred. He had no emotions besides these; no remorse, uncertainty, or longing.


3. He (or she) must believe that what he is doing is right for either himself or everyone. Either your villain must believe that he is above the law and can do whatever he wants; or else he thinks that what he is doing is best for everyone. 
And I don't mean in that annoying, patronizing way that authors will do where they sort of do the sarcastic aside: 
'Of course he was doing it for the greater benefit! Greg was firmly convinced that poisoning all the dogs would be best for everyone. Why couldn't anyone see that?'
I mean where he firmly believes that whatever it is, he is in the right. 
He has to have reasons (of course the wrong reasons) that he's thought out and convictions that he holds to.


4. He must believe that the ends justify the means, but he shouldn't necessarily like the means. I don't know about you, but I'm tired of villains who get kicks out of evil. I'm not saying that they should dislike being cruel, but it really is boring when villains seem to forget their goal and instead focus on being nasty for no reason.


5. He should have at least one moment of almost choosing right over wrong. Perhaps I should say that he has to have an inner struggle. Especially if he sees the protagonist doing the right thing despite the trouble it causes him. He should wonder, at least for a little while, what it is that motivates the hero. He should maybe remember back when he himself wasn't evil. Then, the next time the chance presents itself, he should struggle against doing the right thing.
Now, the way he goes will depend on your villain. If you intend to redeem him by the end, then perhaps he should choose the right thing ... just this once. Not necessarily, but possibly. Even if it's not a positive act, such as helping a beggar; maybe it's just not doing something wrong. Maybe he decides not to poison the king, or he lets one of his enemies go free.
If he's going to be evil to the end, then he will probably end up choosing evil over good, sending him on a further downward spiral that will result in his destruction at the end. Or he might choose the right thing, but when the consequences are negative he quickly goes back to the security of his evil.


6. They should be at least of average intelligence. One thing that gets my goat is how overtly stupid villains usually are. 
How in the world (that they plan to utterly dominate) did they ever get in the position they're in if everything they do is obviously calculated to overthrow their own regime? Never mind the hero destroying them; they should have destroyed themselves long ago. Cackling evilly and revealing your evil plans will never get you to the place you want to be. Here's an example of a typical villain's List of Things to Do: 1. Conquer the world. 2. Destroy the good guys. 3. Enjoy it.
Conquer the world. Yep, that's a pretty broad category. They don't even have an idea of how they're going to do that. I guess they just figure that being fearsome and treating their own henchmen bad will cause everything to fall into place.
Your villain should have a set and definite plan for how he's going to get what he wants, and it should either be a plan that would probably work out if the hero didn't throw a wrench into it, or it should be the 'perfect crime' sort of scenario, where everything should have worked, but, because of the very nature of evil, no matter how perfect it is it's doomed to failure.



So, I hope this was helpful and entertaining! If there's anything I missed, please let me know in the comments box :)

Don't Tell Me He's Smart!

Recently I re-read the first long fantasy I ever wrote, The War for Erasthinia. It was probably around twenty thousand words. I was ... fifteen, I think.
One thing I noticed about it was my main character. Throughout the entire book we're being told that he's really smart. He's put in charge of the army at the age of seventeen, the king listens to him, etc, etc. He's also incredibly humble and brave and the best sword-fighter ever (except for his uncle who taught him how to sword fight, of course).
But, despite all the telling of how smart he is, what I actually showed was that he was pretty stupid. He did quite a few things that make you wonder how he even made it to the age of seventeen, much less became the commander of the whole bloomin' army.
So I was wondering, why is that? How come you can say something in a story until you're blue in the face, yet be contradicting yourself all along?
I think it's because I wasn't really interested in the character; I was just interested in the story. Kinlar had to become the commander, and to do so he had to be so smart, skilled, brave, and just generally amazing, that everyone else who might have been qualified were passed over in favor of him.
But then I made him act stupid in order for him to be captured. Of course, I didn't realize he was being stupid; I wasn't even paying attention! All that mattered was that The Plot went the way I wanted it to. The characters weren't part of the plot; they were just along for the ride.

I can't say that I've learned to master character completely over the years, but I have learned a few things.

1. Show, show, show! We've all heard this a million times, but showing really is better than telling; and most especially (I would say) when it comes to characters.
It can be difficult to understand what showing means; to me, I have to really take the time, because whenever I just think about showing instead of laying everything out for the reader I have a hard time imagining how to do it. I have to actually be writing.
I often catch myself describing something that I should be showing through a character's actions, and then I'll either change it or leave myself a note and come back to it later.

2. Know your characters strengths and weaknesses. In The War for Erasthinia, Kinlar didn't have any weaknesses whatsoever in my own mind. He was pretty much perfect.
When he got angry, it was at the man who betrayed his soldiers; he was so humble that all the adulation heaped on him did nothing to affect him; he was such an amazing sword fighter that even after being in prison for a month or more he was able to defeat a guy who had the sorcerer's magic sword fighting power in him. He had absolutely no flaws whatsoever.
And so he ended up being super boring. He needed a balance of both good and bad; if he was brave, he needed to be hot headed. If he was smart, and everyone was always telling him so, he needed to become over-confident and make a stupid mistake. If he was kind to his men, he needed to be too lenient to someone who deserved a heavy hand to keep him in line.
Every strength must be balanced by a weakness. Which brings me to my next point.

3. Know your villain's strengths and weaknesses, too. In my novel, Kinlar only had one enemy (besides the sorcerer). Everyone just loved his socks off except for this one guy, Keldrin. Keldrin was bad, through and through. I made sure to let everyone reading the novel know that he was a no account, nasty, selfish, jealous dude.
Throughout the book, he sneers at Kinlar, threatens him, ignores him, and then goes off and betrays him. He has absolutely no remorse; no moments when he wavers between right and wrong; and no qualms about bringing his whole country down to the ground, even if he gets very little or nothing out of it. Not only that, but he stinks at just about everything. He's no good at sword fighting, he's not very smart, he's a coward who stays as far away from the fighting as possible, and he's only tolerably good at archery (despite having trained under the same tutors as the prince).
And guess what? His being so obvious made him just as boring as Kinlar.
The things that make a villain really work are,

• 1) Motivation. 
• 2) A range of human emotions. 
• 3) He (or she) must believe that what he is doing is right for either himself or everyone. 
• 4) He must believe that the ends justify the means, but he shouldn't necessarily like the means. 
• 5) He should have at least one moment of almost choosing right over wrong. 
• 6) He should be at least of average intelligence.

In my next post, we'll look at these points in detail.

4. Make your plot and characters work together. If something is a convenient coincidence, it probably shouldn't be there. Coincidences are evidence of characters serving the plot. In my current novel, the main character and the villain meet for the first time in a seemingly random way; but in reality, the villain had set it up on purpose.
If something happens, it should be something in character for the characters, and it should be something that makes sense plotwise.
In The War for Erasthinia, Kinlar somehow escapes from the sorcerer's island on one of the sorcerer's ships. The explanation given is very weak; but I needed him to escape at that time, because the story was more important than the story making sense.

5. Your story will be much better if you just tell it. There are plenty of Christian books that I've read that I'd never read again.
There are other Christian books that I've liked enough to read again, but have skipped large portions in the re-read.
The first group are just sermons disguised as story; the second group is comprised of books where the author has a good story and good characters, but once in a while lets the message overwhelm them.
I once read a series of books where each one was called A Journey in ... where it was basically a theology book with a bit of story to give it more interest. The theology was good, and these weren't exactly supposed to be novels. The characters had conversations and debates on whatever the theme of that book was, and at the end came to a conclusion; and that was fine (though definitely not 'read again' material).
But it seems like a lot of books that claim to be exciting novels are really about the same as that series; the story comes second to the agenda, the characters are not developed, and both plot and characters serve the ultimate purpose of bringing us to whatever point the author wants to make.
People don't like being lectured. They like reading a good story where the message isn't in their face. So just tell the story. Your readers will thank you.

6. Don't be obvious.
I'm not telling you to be obscure. That's just as bad. But don't throw the villain's nastiness or the hero's awesomeness in our faces. Let us figure it out from the story.
In cowboy movies, everyone knows immediately who the bad guy is because the music turns sinister, we see a close up shot of a nasty smile and cold eyes, and he starts making trouble the second he's on screen. We know the hero because there's a beautiful girl who smiles at him, and he's handsome, and right away he starts being amazing.
Not every hero/heroine should be the epitome of beauty, and the villain shouldn't right off the bat repulse everyone except for the other equally evil (but less important) bad guys who work for him.
Also, if someone dislikes your main character, that shouldn't automatically put him/her on the bad guy's side. Maybe he has a legitimate reason for not liking your amazing, perfect hero; or maybe he's been lied to. There are a lot of possibilities, so why just stick with the boring one?

7. Don't flaunt your idea's uniqueness. If there's one thing that annoys me, it's this: in the middle of a book, typically fantasy, the author will either break in with narration or have one of the characters say something about how different this book is. Something like, "Now fairies are often regarded as cute little pixies with wings; but in reality, they are far more dangerous than the tales would have us believe."
For me, that destroys the credibility of a book. That's just as bad as any other kind of telling. Why do they feel the need to jerk us out of the story, just to point out that fairies aren't really like we think they are? How about you show us that? And don't show it by having a character yell,
"Wow! I always thought that fairies were cute little pixies with wings! Apparently they're far more dangerous than the tales would have us believe! RUN!"
Show it by being subtle. Or maybe don't call them fairies, since the word has so many connotations that you might not want to have attached to your totally unique dangerous beings.
Nothing will drive me further away from a book than being told that it's breaking the mold and that (by implication) all the books where fairies are cute little pixies with wings are boring and not worth my time. Maybe they are, but I don't need to be hit over the head with the author's opinion on that.
The best stories are those that are focused, unassuming, and self-confident enough to trust the reader to figure things out. If your story is unique, then we'll be happy to acknowledge that. But if you tell us it is, then we might just put the book down and go read something better.
Plus, it just makes you look desperate. "My story is amazing! I have ideas in here that no one's ever thought of before! I'm really thinking out of the box on this one! Please read it! It's so unique!"
Now, of course, if it's a comedy then that might be different. In the 'Ella Enchanted' movie, there are some genuinely funny references to well known fairy tales that are sort of turned on their heads.
But don't do it if you're trying to be serious.

Well, I hope that you enjoyed this! Now go write a unique story where Hansel and Gretel aren't the shivering, scared children that we've always heard about, but are instead fearsome warriors ...

Debunking the Myth of 'Anything Goes' in Fantasy

Possibly the most annoying thing I've heard from people defending certain fantasy movies is the argument that, since it's fantasy, who cares if it's realistic? After all, the whole thing is fake anyways. In other words, a character can defy the laws of gravity, but it's OK because, hey, it's fantasy!
That's just ridiculous. If, in the movie, the laws of gravity are present and intact, then no one should be able to violate them, no matter how amazing he or she happens to be. But how do we know that the laws of gravity apply in the movie? Well, do the characters fall down when they die? The law of gravity is therefore intact; and anything contradicting it, without a better excuse than the awesomeness of the character, has no business being in the movie.

This certainly goes in our novels as well as in our movies. We can't establish a rule (implicitly or explicitly) and then break it willy-nilly. If we do it once, then our readers might forgive it as an oversight. Twice, and they begin to wonder what's going on. Multiple times, and they start to nod their heads in boredom. What's the point of a story that breaks its own rules just for the sake of excitement or convenience?

I think that the people who make the argument of 'anything goes' are those who don't get fantasy. They'll watch/read it once in a while just for entertainment, but they don't understand people who really like it. So when people like myself complain about Thorin and Co. in The Desolation of Smaug being chased around by a dragon that breathes fire and can fly, and this same dragon being unable to even singe their beards, they just don't get that a story must stay true to its own rules or else it becomes laughable. Or maybe it's because the viewing public has been so dumbed down that a stupid chase scene that stretches the movie out way beyond what it should have been is more interesting than what should have happened: a tense, witty scene in the dark with Smaug and invisible Bilbo. Because who wants dialogue when we can have a dragon covered in molten gold just for the fun of it?
That's the way we'll get people to regard fantasy as a legitimate form of literature or film.

The Fall

I wrote this a while back, and thought ya'll might enjoy a look at the Fall in my world of Heszeret-Alacta and the beginning of the races of men and dwarves.
Tell me what you think!

And after these things Enderel took of the mountain stone and carved out of it giantish men and giantish women, and breathed life into them. And he set some of them in Enderellia, to tend the gardens and fields there. And the rest he commanded to multiply and bear children on earth. He set also a stairway by which they might come unto Enderellia and rest there at times from their labor upon the earth.

And it came to pass that the giants multiplied, and were increased in riches and in pride. And they spake unto their brethren in Enderellia of all that was in their wicked hearts to do, even to assail the Great City and to cast Enderel from his throne. And at a set time they approached the City, but it was fast shut and they could not enter. And as they beset the gates to force their way, a wind came up from the east and the west and tare asunder the cloud, dividing that part on which the City stood from that on which the giants stood.

And they cursed Enderel and were greatly angered that their devices had thus been thwarted; and while they were so doing, a great storm came up, and lightning struck around them and they were thrown out of Enderellia to the ground.

And many of them repented of their wickedness, and pled with Enderel that they might return to the City, but he forbade them.

And the giants in whose heart was still rebellion came to the stair and climbed. But, lo, five hundred steps were rent from the midst of the stair, and they could go no higher. Therefore the giants departed, and sought out dark arts of magic to repair the stair that they might again assail the Great City.

And from thenceforth the children whom the giantish women bore unto their husbands were small in stature, and none surpassed the height of seven feet, although formerly the least among them was of twelve feet.

And there was great mourning among the giants who repented, for the broken stair, and for the wrath of Enderel.

And the giants were no longer as brothers, but were divided into clans, each clan warring against the other. And they were scattered over the face of the land; and there was no more peace.

Book Giveaway!

A fellow Christian fantasy author, Brian, is giving away a hardcover trilogy by Stephen Lawhead!



To enter is simple:


1. Start inviting people through Facebook, Twitter, Myspace, etc...
2. Repost this blog post to your own blog
3. Follow it yourself!

God bless!

Brian's blog-- http://jointhestarcrafters.blogspot.com/

Interview-Lee Duigon

Today I'm interviewing an actual, published author! Lee Duigon is the author of a series of Christian fantasy books. While I haven't read his books, I would love to; they sound very good :)

So, without further delay, the interview :)

How long have you been writing?

My friends and I were telling each other made-up monster stories by the time I was 10. I wrote my first novel (in composition notebooks) when I was 13 or 14. So let’s say 50 years, at least.

What was your first (written) story about?

Back in grade school, we were assigned to write stories in class. This would be second or third grade. The teacher would tell us what to write about and how to write it. The earliest one I can remember was “The Adventures of a Dime.” I rebelled against writing what the teacher wanted me to write, so in my store, a stray cat swallowed George the Dime; and he would’ve been stuck down there, only he met a character named Mr. Vomit who was on his way out and offered George a lift. I got into a tremendous amount of trouble for that! But to my amazement, my mother sided with me. Not an elegant story, I admit: but at least it showed a little flash of creativity.

When did you start writing Christian fantasy? What inspired you to do so?

“Bell Mountain” was my first Christian fantasy. It came along as a response to one of the officers of the Chalcedon Foundation saying, “What we really need is novels.” That remark got back to me, and I wondered if I could write the kind of novel Chalcedon needed. I should add that my editor, Susan Burns, who knew about my earlier books, made sure that remark got back to me.

Do you remember how you first got the idea for Bell Mountain?

In “Bell Mountain,” the boy, Jack, dreams he can hear the mountain singing. Well, I had that dream first! And quickly on its heels followed the image of a bell standing on the summit of a mountain, in the snow. That was all I needed to start writing the story—a radical departure from my usual procedure of thoroughly doping out a novel before I began to write it.

Who are the main characters in Bell Mountain?

In the land of Obann—once a kingdom, once a powerful and wealthy empire, now a medieval oligarchy—live my two protagonists, Jack and Ellayne, a poor boy and a rich girl. These two children believe God has commanded them to climb Bell Mountain and ring the bell on the summit. Their quest is based on a powerful dream Jack had, and some scriptural teachings by an old man who never intended for Jack to take them literally.
    Obst is an elderly hermit in Lintum Forest, who believes God will end the world once the bell is rung. His first impulse is to stop the children, but he winds up being their guide and helper.
    Lord Reesh, the First Prester of the Temple, heads the institutional church in Obann. A thoroughgoing humanist with a gift for making the ends justify the means, Lord Reesh tries to ensure that the bell on Bell Mountain—if it really does exist—is not touched except on his orders. Reesh will take over as the dominant villain in the sequels.
    So Reesh sends his assassin and secret agent, Martis, to follow the children up Bell Mountain, find out whether there really is a bell up there, and stop Jack and Ellayne from ringing it, either by killing them or capturing them and bringing them back to Reesh as prisoners.
    Wytt—a little, hairy, manlike creature no bigger than a squirrel—appoints himself the children’s guardian on their travels. He is one of the “hairy ones” mentioned in the scriptures as inheriting the shapeless ruins that once were the great cities of Obann.
    Helki the Rod, the wild and highly eccentric woodsman, will play a much-expanded role in the sequels.

How much development have you done for your world, such as maps, cultures, different religions, etc.?

I do have a map—it gives me pleasure to begin a fantasy with a map—and I did start with a kind of vision of what kind of book I wanted to write. But in contrast to my usual procedure, I “discovered” the world of Obann as I wrote about it. This is funny—some reviewers have praised my description of the various peoples and cultures of my fantasy world, as if I’d spent years inventing them. Not so! This world’s history, geography, and natural history reveals itself to me as it unfolds. To me it seems to have an independent existence. Some of the details, as they emerged, surprised me. I know that seems a strange thing for a writer to say, but I can’t think of any better way to say it.

What is your main theme in these books? Do you have a certain point that you try to make throughout the whole series?

It took me quite some time to realize what my theme was. At first, one of my intentions in these stories was to “re-normalize religion.” You know, in almost every piece of fiction we read or watch (movies, TV), the characters in it live in a complete absence of religious belief and practice. No such world as that has ever existed, in real life; I pray it never will. I wanted to write a fantasy tale—I’ve always loved fantasy, but had never had one of my fantasies published—based on something like this: “What if God—our God, the God of the Bible, Jehovah—created a world other than this one that we live in? A world for other people who would live following a completely different arc of history from our own?” This world would have the same God as we have, but it would be very different from ours in all sorts of interesting ways. In my “Bell Mountain” books, I have set out to explore this world and tell its story.
   It was only after the first three novels were published that I understood I had a theme common to all the books that are and will be in this series. They are about people who have lost God reconnecting with Him—learning how to speak to Him, learning how to hear His voice, learning how to seek Him with all their hearts. It is, of course, the power of God that calls them to Him. So I believe I can say my books are about redemption.

What role, if any, does feminism play in your books?

One of the truly wonderful things about writing fantasy is that you can leave all those “isms” behind, as if they didn’t exist. So I am happy to say feminism plays no role whatsoever in my books—although I do enjoy writing about strong and interesting female characters. After all, I want girls and women to enjoy reading them as much as boys and men.

How supportive is your family of your writing?

My wife, Pat, has always believed in me as a writer, and never wavered—not even during those long years when I was cranking out story after story, book after book, and getting nothing but rejections. As for the rest of my family... well, just try impressing anybody who knew you while you were in diapers.

Have you ever met a famous author, or one that you admire (whether famous or not)?

I met Arthur C. Clark once, at a science fiction convention (just to shake hands with), and Isaac Asimov even more briefly. I never met T.E.D. Klein in the flesh, but we corresponded back and forth for several years and talked together on the phone sometimes. Maybe you haven’t heard of him, but he was a truly gifted and original horror writer—had a New York Times best-seller once, “The Ceremonies.” As editor of the old Twilight Zone Magazine, he published one of my best short stories, “The Last Voyage of Sinbad.” Mr. Klein was always very encouraging to me, never failing to offer helpful suggestions. Unfortunately for readers, his own output was always a trickle when we would have loved a steady stream. As true an artist as he was, I learned that he much preferred editing to writing; and I think he prefers his privacy to his editing. God bless you, Ted, wherever you are.

How many books will there end up being in your series?

I’m thinking seven (there are five written), but who knows? I have a whole world to explore. If I write about it for the rest of my life, I still won’t be able to write everything there is to tell.

It's difficult to portray Christianity in a fantasy setting without making it sound stiff or 'preachy'; can you give us any tips on how you do it?

You’re right—it’s very difficult. Or at least it seems it should be. My habit is to read 5 chapters of the Bible every day, so as to steep myself in it, and to pray, asking the Lord to give me the story He wants me to tell.
   Taking a cue from C.S. Lewis’ “Chronicles of Narnia,” I don’t try to portray Christianity per se. After all, I’m not writing about our world, but a completely different one. Its history is different. The people in my fantasy world have not yet met their Savior. He has not yet been revealed to them—except in a few prophecies that they are a long way from understanding.
    Instead, I have tried to infuse my fantasy world with a Biblical spirit—hopefully, prayerfully, with the Spirit of God. I am happy to say that a number of readers have told me that in this I have succeeded. One reader has said she finds it very hard to believe that the “scriptures” quoted in my novels are not actually hidden somewhere in the Bible, where’s she’s overlooked them. Comments like that tell me I’m on the right track.

Who is your favorite author?

I have a lot of favorites. C.S. Lewis excels in refreshing for me the image of Jesus Christ, and reminding me how much I love Him. I turn to Agatha Christie for insights into character; to Edgar Rice Burroughs as the master when it comes to juggling a complicated plot and keeping up the pace of the action; to Walter R. Brooks (“Freddy the Pig”) for gentle and unexpected humor; to Sir Walter Scott for confirmation that good really can triumph over evil, even in this fallen world; to J.R.R. Tolkien for simply igniting my imagination; and to other writers for other things. But the one book I read from every day, without fail, is the Bible. It’s the one book that can never get stale—positive proof it’s not an ordinary book! There’s always something new to discover, some fresh insight, in the Bible.

Thank you so much, Mr. Duigon. This has been a very enjoyable and informative interview :) God bless!

For more about Mr. Duigon, you can visit his blog/website at leeduigon.com

You can find his Amazon page here and an archive of his articles here and by searching his name here.

I hope you all enjoyed this as much as I did. I think interviews are a lot of fun. Now, go and check out his books!

Realistic Fantasy?

Wow, it's been well over a month since I last posted. My only excuse is that I had two or three ideas for posts in the last month but when I started to write them, I realized that they would take a lot longer and be much more involved and complex than I first thought. I may still write them, but it will definitely take time and probably they would be in a series of posts.
So today I'm going to be talking about an aspect of fantasy that really bugs me. It is the idea that fantasy has to be 'realistic'. That is, that because governments in our world are almost always corrupt, and that good monarchies always go bad after a generation or two, and so on and etcetera. Apparently, according to somebody in a review that I read, Tolkien didn't understand economic issues and that it's painfully obvious in his writings. Well, not really. What's painfully obvious is that Tolkien knew how to write a tale that stirred the imagination and was full of beauty, courage, hope and just plain ol' good adventure. So what if the people of Minas Tirith, if this was 'our world', would have looked at Aragorn with skepticism and not welcomed him with open arms? Who cares if, in real life, Faramir would have been corrupted by the Ring? The beauty of fantasy, to me, is that it tells a tale with elements of reality in it but with more beauty than could be put into a more 'realistic' story.
I don't want to write stories where my protagonist is 'medieval' or 'Celtic', in the sense that he's dirty, barbaric, lives in a drafty castle, takes mistresses, wears no shirt half the time, and has long, unkempt hair. If I want my protagonist to live in a beautiful palace where each of his children has their own bedroom, the pillars are made of ivory, there are warm fires and glass windows in every room, the peasants are well taken care of, and his hair is nicely kept, then why can't I? If I want to write about the other, then I can write historical fiction.
I write fantasy because in it there is a way to have a different 'reality'. Not an escape, but an adventure. I like swords and kings and queens and noblemen and journeys and magic and heroism and the wicked getting their due. Lately, I've felt rather constrained by this idea of 'realistic fantasy' that I seem to see everywhere. But I realized that Tolkien and Lewis most likely would never have become so popular and their fantasies so beloved if they had stuck to what would be 'realistic'. There's no joy in about ninety-five percent of the fantasy stories written today. There's very little beauty, because fantasy has become so 'gritty and real' as a rule. And I'm not even against a little bit of 'gritty realism' showing through once in a while. But when that's all we judge fantasy by, and when that's all we write, I think we've gone from fantasy to alternate reality.
That's why I'm not interested in The Wheel of Time series, or the Game of Thrones series. That's why I dislike the Auralia Thread series (you may have a rant on those books some day).
Now, you may be thinking, "Aw, you're just a sissy. You like pink unicorns and fairies and Prince Charmings . That's what you think fantasy is. We like the gritty, hard, dark stuff."
Which brings me to another point: I'm not against dark, as long as there's light. In the Auralia Thread series, I didn't get a sense of prevailing light in a huge amount of it. And obviously there were things that were supposed to be hopeful and bright, but it was the amount of... I don't know. There was something wrong with those books. But what I mean by fantasy is Narnia and Lord of the Rings. Good overcoming evil, beauty overcoming ugliness. If you want a beautiful princess, then write one (so long as she isn't a Mary Sue :D ). If you want a handsome knight, or a moderately comfortable castle, or peasants that love and respect their king (who also loves his people), then write them. Tolkien and Lewis did it (of course, far more skilfully than we could ever hope to do, but still...), and they infused a light and a hope into their stories. Which of course was mostly due to their Christian (or Christian influenced) views.
So, since I am a Christian, and I believe in hope and valor and beauty, then I am going to write those things in. And maybe my heroes won't be as 'morally conflicted' as some people might like (thought they won't be perfect, of course). And maybe my princess will have long, beautiful, shining hair. And maybe the castle won't be drafty. And maybe, just maybe, the story will be good.
One thing that has always captivated me in The Return of the King, and that has influenced my idea of soldiers and knights in my own fantasy tales, is Prince Imrahil and his tall men with grey eyes and silver armor, bearing a banner that flutters in the wind.
So, what are your thoughts on 'realistic fantasy'? Do you feel constrained in your pursuit of it by all the little things that everyone says you have to do? Do you think that your story will be hampered by your ignorance of medieval serfdom or your sketchy knowledge of the freedoms afforded women in the 12th century? Research is good, and people (myself included) appreciate it when you don't write motorcycle horses (i.e., horses that can run for miles and hardly tire, and require very little care), but some things you can invent or change to your own specifications (providing, of course, that you aren't overstepping bounds of Biblical morality). Well, this is getting long, so I'll end it here. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!

The Eager Peasantry

The Eager Peasantry

In a whole lot of fantasy, you will see a prince or a nobleman saying a few words, and rallying all the peasants and merchants under his banner in a few minutes. These commoners will leave behind crops, families, homes, and livelihoods and march off to death, but, for what? These are people who often live in small villages, far away from the grand palaces and castles, and live quiet, honest lives. If a nobleman suddenly popped up from nowhere and said,
"Hey, everyone, the throne has been usurped by an evil sorcerer, and the king is in the dungeons. Let's go free him and restore the crown to the rightful man!"
Do you think they would all drop their plows, grab a pitchfork, and go? I don't think that's realistic. Here's an example from Red Sea Rising of a very different sort of peasantry. Berwyn is the son of a nobleman, Korenthel is a former servant of Berwyn's father, and Marthos is the villain.

///Berwyn soon learned that the work on a farm was extremely hard; his muscles ached at first, unused to the labor, but after a while he became accustomed to it.
However, it was even more difficult to get anyone to pledge their support to an army that had less than fifty men, few weapons, and a leader that was only sixteen years old.
Berwyn and Korenthel tried to persuade the farmers and villagers of Marthos' treachery, but they only said,
"He won't worry us. We are small and hidden, and are no threat to him."
Berwyn quickly became frustrated.
"If these people were truly subjects of their rightful king, they would rise in arms at once. We would have to restrain them from attacking the palace, instead of pushing them to think about joining us."
"Sir," said Korenthel. "That may be, but they're simple men: farmers, bakers. They see us, six men on the run from Marthos ourselves. Yes, we tell them we have a few others elsewhere, but they don't see them. And fifteen or twenty is not a most inspiring number, is it?"
"But we will never have more, if they only look at our small number now, and say it is hopeless even to try!"
"We must persuade them. They are loyal to the king, as far as that goes. It would take threats from Marthos to turn them against us, but they are not soldiers, they do not think in terms of bravery, or courage. They measure a man by how large his farm is, or how fair he is in his dealings."
"You seem to know a great deal about them," said Berwyn.
"You forget, sir, that I've lived and worked with them for years. I almost consider myself a farmer."
Berwyn sighed.
"Then what are we going to do? If we cannot convince them, then we might as well give up the endeavor."
"Nay, sir! Have you nothing of your father in you? I told you that it might take a long time before we are ready to challenge Marthos, but great things take time and work. We cannot expect farming men to drop their plows, leave their families, and go to their deaths all in a moment, simply because we told them they should, can we?"
"No," said Berwyn. "I suppose not."\\\

The people of this village are not so ready to listen! And I think this is much more realistic, as well. Berwyn, as a nobleman, really does expect them to drop everything. He knows the king, he knows the prince, and his own father was murdered, so it is easy for him to feel the importance of it; but the farmers probably know very little about the royal family or Marthos, and perhaps do not even believe Berwyn or Korenthel. They are, above all, very practical; why should they die for some nobleman whom they don't even know?
So, does anyone have any other ideas of how to write common people so that they don't seem like automatons that will just do whatever the 'good guys' say?

A Rant-On Princesses

Okay, before you read this, know that I am not sympathetic in any way with how most princesses in fantasy are written. There, you've been warned :)
So, there's all these princesses in fantasy who wear pants, can fight better than their brothers, don't care about being ladylike, and ride their horses astride. All the men in the story are against it, of course, but the princess (or noblewoman, or peasant girl) shows them. What this rant is all about is this: in a culture where the women are brought up to be ladylike, to wear dresses, and to ride sidesaddle, there is always, and I repeat, always a rebellious girl who goes against everything she's (apparently) been taught, for no reason at all. And this rebellious girl is the heroine of the story.
If she had truly been taught by her parents that acting ladylike is the right thing to do, then why in heaven's name does she go against all her upbringing and start wearing pants. I can tell you for a fact, as a girl who was raised wearing dresses and skirts, that I've always felt uncomfortable even thinking about wearing pants. It's something that I know I would feel terribly awkward and wrong in. And that's in a society where it's the norm for women to wear pants. Yet these princesses can run around in pants and ride like a man without feeling even the least bit uncomfortable, and her parents let her do it. Of course, they reprimand her, but they would never dare tell her to stop doing it! If they even think about telling her to wear a dress, you get a pouty faced, rebellious girl who stomps off, slams her door, and sulks.
Apparently, people (even Christians, like L. B. Graham) don't realize that they are imposing their idea of what is normal into a story whose society's norm is the exact opposite.
So, do I think that girls have no place in a fantasy story? Absolutely not! But I believe that their role is far different from a man's role. And the fantasy stories that have totally hot, tough, rebellious princesses really turn me off. Maybe it's just the way I was raised, but I see a great deal of beauty in a tale of a man going off to war and fighting courageously, while I see a woman going off to war and fighting courageously very differently: I find it ugly.
Obviously, our society today is accepting of women in the military, doing whatever a man does. Only problem is: they can't! Women are built differently, and their strength is less than a man's in certain ways. I'm not stronger than my brother, who is two years younger than me, and I know it.
Some ideas for women playing a role, yet not being little feminists:
1. Have a woman defend her children and home while her husband is at war (I did something similar to this once, in which a woman whose husband was dead and her son wounded took a frying pan and knocked a soldier over the head with it).
2. Have her be a spy. This is quite easily done. A woman (especially an unmarried one) can go places that a man could not in a time of war. She could ingratiate herself with soldiers (not in an improper way, of course) and learn valuable information.
3. Have her be, simply, a wife. The moral support she gives her husband, even when she herself is afraid, is something invaluable to him. It is a courage all of its own to bear fear and uncertainty alone, while encouraging a husband not to be afraid and to do what is right.
4. Of course, there's always the option (which probably wouldn't be received very well) of showing the rebellious, feministic girl to be just that. She could think she's totally awesome, and in the end, be shown the error of her ways (without exactly stating it, of course). I've thought of doing that before.
I've always loved stories where a brother protects his sister. I don't know; there's just something about that, in today's world where siblings seem to be at enmity with each other most of the time. A brother giving his life for his sister. It's just as sweet as a man giving his life for his true love, and maybe even better. In fact, that's my favorite relationship to write about. But that's off topic *turns post around and heads back to where she detoured*. There.
My parents have always taught my sisters and me to be ladylike, but my dad says, "I'm not raising you to be sissies." What he means by that is to have moral courage, the bravery to stand up against error. I love reading stories of women who were martyred for their faith in Christ. A woman can be just as brave (or even braver, at times) than a man when facing persecution.
A woman does not have to 'prove herself' by acting like a man. The courage she displays can be a much different kind: quieter, more internal. Perhaps only a few people know about it. As Aragorn said, "There may come a time for great deeds without renown."
Not only that, but when women start acting like men, then men stop treating them like women. Gentlemanly conduct is greatly reduced when men and women are barely distinguishable in their actions and dress. And that's a really lamentable thing, if you think about it.
Let's stop acting like embroidery and ladylike behavior and long, modest dresses are contemptible things. Not only is it wrong, but it's just tired and boring by now. We are Christian authors. Let's do what we're always saying we do and 'think outside the box', or, to use a better term: 'think inside the Bible'. We don't have to let society or culture dictate how we portray women.
Note: This is not aimed at anyone in particular, but just to fantasy writers as a whole who do this sort of thing :)
A/N: I had been going to write a post entitled 'The Eager Peasantry', but will save that for my next post. Until then, I'll leave ya'll to guess what it means :D

The World of Heszeret-Alacta

So, I've finally come up with a name for the world I am developing! For the longest time, all I could say was 'my world'. Now it has a name, which of course you saw in the title of this blog post.
As explained a bit in The Legend of Time, Heszeret and Alacta are not two worlds, but two separate dimensions of the same world, which were created after a cataclysmic event.
Heszeret is the only part of the world that I have ever written about, chiefly because I hadn't thought of Alacta :)
Although a fantastic world, magic is not an essential part of Heszeret. For the most part, the inhabitants are human and dwarf, though there are talking animals. All magic in Heszeret is either granted or stolen, and is never something that one is born with.
In Alacta, on the other hand, magic is part of the fabric of the world, and many people/creatures are born with some trait or other of magic. I haven't thought enough on it, but there are definitely more diverse things in Alacta than in Heszeret. As you'll read in The Legend of Time, there is a way to travel between the dimensions. Perhaps more than one way...
Anyways, say a man from Heszeret finds the way to Alacta, and he decides to stay. In the first place, it would be very difficult, because the pull from his own place would be very strong. But, if he marries, the pull would be diminished, since now he would have ties in Alacta. However, whatever children he had would be inevitably drawn back to Heszeret. This is also true vice versa.
If anyone has any questions, I would be eager to hear them. I really want to develop Alacta; it's very young right now, and needs a lot of nurturing :)

God in Fantasy

Warning: Another long post!
This is a concept I've struggled with for several years. In the beginning of my fantasy writing, my writing of God (or Enderel) was clunky and, to be frank, quite juvenile. I can't say I've grown much in my depiction of God in a fantasy world, but I wanted to share a few thoughts I have had.
One of our main concerns as Christian fantasy authors is that our message be presented clearly so that any unbelievers (we're hoping our books will become New York Times bestsellers) who read our stories will be converted, or at the least convicted. On the other hand, we don't want to be preachy. Two good examples of preachy Christian fantasy are The Binding of the Blade series, and the Blood of Kings trilogy. Both of those series are very unwieldy in their depiction of God (and, in Blood of Kings, of Jesus), and are literally quite painful to get through the preachy parts.
So that's why I've always been afraid to include an actual representation of God in my stories (though I have done it, in Amira for example), because when I myself read over it, it seems badly written and very forced, as though I'm saying, "Well, this is supposed to be Christian fantasy, and I'm a Christian, so I've got to include God, no matter how unconvincing it may sound."
Of course, I'm not thinking that. I truly want to have God, the true one and only God, in my stories. My fears also go beyond that, to making all the good guys 'believers in Enderel', and all the bad guys unbelievers. This is going to sound really corny, because in real life, there are good men who don't believe in God, and bad men who do. Not only that, but there are those who say they believe in the one God, but really believe in a false god. How are we going to explain all this tricky stuff in our books, while trying to remain focused on the actual story we're telling?
Another thing is that many people believe that in a story with God in it, He will give his followers the power to do just about anything, and God becomes little more than a 'god from the machine' or 'Deus ex Machina', in other words, a convenient way of escape for the good guys, which kind of negates the whole purpose for there even being a story.
And how do we convey Jesus death and resurrection, and His atonement? It would have to be different from what happened in our world, but similar, as in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe.
I conclude that Christian fantasy is a lot more complicated than most of us thought it was when we first began writing it. I know I never thought it could be this complex. The theological questions it raises are many and varied. Perhaps we should just throw down our pens and not write it anymore. No one will read it anyways. (Be quiet, Puddleglum! I've got more to say!)
Perhaps there's a way to write it without God being present in a stated way, but still there (the book of Esther comes to mind). But then we put ourselves under suspicion by other Christians for not including God in our books.
One thing that's helped me a lot in my debate over how present God should be (in an experiential way, where the characters know He is there) is a simple argument that I thought of not too long ago.
So many non-Christian fantasy writers are willing to either not include God at all, or include a distortion of Him (His Dark Materials, for one). People will just go right along with this. They can be vocal in their diatribes against God. Why can't we be vocal in our conviction that there is a God, that He is all powerful, just, holy, and yet loving and merciful, and that He can be a central part of our writing?
In 'His Dark Materials', God is simply an angel who claimed that he had created the world (in other words, lied), and in the end he basically begs to be annihilated.
Not many unsaved people are going to be reading our books, most likely (no, I'm not being pessimistic here, it's just a fact), but there will be some. I really, really want to write fantasy where there is a God, but it's not preachy. He drives the story, yes, but He doesn't have to speak with a voice from the sky (even in the Bible, it happened rarely enough). Dreams are a better way to go, but even that can be overused. In the Bible, prophets were basically the only ones to whom God communicated directly.
We need to be creative (and theologically sound) in the way we portray God. How do people know about Him if He doesn't speak audibly most of the time (or at all in the particular story)?  What is the redemptive analogy (click here for an article on this subject) of your world? There may be one true story of the redemption, and then in other cultures there are shadows of that story, which itself is a shadow of the true redemption made by Christ.
It's tricky, I know, and I'm still navigating this myself. How could one aspect of our fantasy have so much depth and so many implications? I think, however, that it's just as important an aspect as character development or world building. And, as Christians, we must strive not only for soundness in theology (even in fantasy!), but also for excellence in the way it's presented. We cannot, we must not, write as though God were merely a sticker on top of a fine painting, a painting which would look much better without the sticker. God must be integral to the story, yet presented without the preachiness which so often makes parts of an otherwise good story cringe-worthy.
Anyone have any thoughts?

NOTE: I don't agree with everything in the article I linked to. I mostly linked it so that ya'll could get an idea of what a redemptive analogy is. Maybe I'll write in-depth about it some time, because I think it's a really good concept, and could be helpful to us as C-F writers.

Arvindia

Arvindia is probably my favorite country I've made up. I don't know why. Maybe I like the name a lot, or, something... anyways, this post will be about the origin of Arvindia and things like that.
Arvindia was discovered when the Erasthinians fled from a sorcerer who had conquered their land. They had been headed for Lecartin when they were blown off course, and they found themselves on a beautiful island. At first they built near the coast, and after a while they made Rollendin (who had been the commander of the Royal Fleet in Erasthinia) king of the new land, which they named Arvindia.
They thought that they were the only ones on the island besides animals, but they soon found out differently. A group of men went out to climb three mountains which stood together about one hundred and fifty miles from the towns, and they never came back. Another party went out to learn what had happened, and they did not come back either. When a third group went out, it was soon discovered what was wrong: the three mountains were infested with goblins. The mountains became known as the Goblingulf Mountains, and the goblins, seeing the Arvindians as invaders, began to attack their towns and villages.
A long war was started, with intervals of peace, for several hundred years, until the time of King Rinlar the Second, when it was ended. At this point, the tale of Red Sea Rising begins.
The Arvindians value advice very highly, and the most powerful nobleman in the kingdom is one whom the king has appointed as his chief counselor. Also, because of their ancestors fleeing from a sorcerer, they tend to view all magic with suspicion, even magic which is not, of itself, evil.
Arvindia imports very little besides gold (which is found only in small quantities in that land), as they are able to grow and produce most of what they need. Their chief exports are several kinds of wine which they are well known for, wheat, and silver.
If anyone has any questions about Arvindia, please ask me!