Is there a name for this paradox of wanting?

[Valka D'Ur]

Writing a fantasy novel isn't really something you can "want" to do.

Sure you can. The question is how much do you want to write a good one?

Consider how many SF/Fantasy novels come in trilogies these days. In my opinion, the only ones that have been consistently good are the Dragonlance novels. Other series have done adequately well, and then there are those planned as a trilogy (or other multi-book numbered series) just because "that's what sells."

Too much writing these days has become focused on "what sells" -- not about "what's good."

For example, how many people here in OT have read any of the Kevin J. Anderson/Brian Herbert Dune novels? A member of my Dune forum has nicknamed them "Dumb Novels" because the quality of the stories is so terrible.

Now I can imagine some folks here thinking, "but Kevin J. Anderson is a prolific author -- he's written scads of Star Wars books, X-Files books, comic stuff, other series, and the new Dune stuff -- and they sell."

Well, I concede they sell. But to somebody who grew up on the kind of science fiction that assumed that the reader didn't need to have everything dumbed down (as in basic science), these books are an insult. There are so many things wrong with these books, from the bad to nonexistent science, the lack of consistency and continuity with the previous novels in the series (ie. those written by Frank Herbert), repetitive exposition (as though the reader were incapable of turning back a few pages to refresh his/her memory of any forgotten detail), and the overall juvenile "gosh-wow" poor quality of the writing in general.

So it happened that one day Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert sat down and decided to write science fiction novels. They wrote quite a few, in a really short amount of time. But their books are a very far cry from the masterful SF literature that is characteristic of Frank Herbert's Dune novels. Frank Herbert took many years to write his series, and during that time he did an immense amount of research, and questioning in which direction he wanted to take his characters. He never assumed that any mistakes he made would be overlooked by the reader because the reader was basically stupid. He respected his readers.

So we have three people who decided to write SF novels. Frank Herbert wrote his well. Kevin J. Anderson/Brian Herbert did not. It behooves every author to realize and accept his/her own strengths and weaknesses and not try to pretend to what he/she is not.

Erik Mesoy, it is possible that you really can say you want to write a fantasy novel. But can you write a good one? It's worth the effort to find out, so don't give up. It might simply be that you haven't found the right ideas to grab your imagination yet. And that part is crucial -- the story has to make you, the author, wonder "what's going to happen next." Because if you don't care, why should the reader care?

Or maybe fantasy itself isn't your forte. Maybe it's science fiction. Maybe it's horror, crime, or some combination-genre such as historical fantasy. As you continue to write and practice your craft, you'll eventually find the story that grabs your imagination and demands to be written.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Lots of derailment and general agreement seems to be the order of the day.

This is the ultimate paradox WRT Enlightenment.

In Enlightenment, all desires cease. However, if we destroy all desires, will not the desire to achieve Enlightenment still be left, and deny it to us?

While Ziggy's suggestion was funny, I think I shall take my advice here and refer to this as the enlightenment paradox.

 

[Kyriakos]

Erik Mesoy, it is possible that you really can say you want to write a fantasy novel. But can you write a good one? It's worth the effort to find out, so don't give up. It might simply be that you haven't found the right ideas to grab your imagination yet. And that part is crucial -- the story has to make you, the author, wonder "what's going to happen next." Because if you don't care, why should the reader care?

I agree
If the author is not deeply involved in the story, then it is generally impossible for the reader to be, unless the reader is also a struggling author who is looking around for methods to write something. However if you are not inside the story when writing, it will be obvious to anyone who is just out to read something interesting, and has already read a couple of books he liked.
One of the turning points in one's writing is indeed finding his own way of developing work he personally is fond of, while at the same time realising that this work has an effect to people he shows it to.
All literature takes a new form for each invididual reader of it, since the reader reconstructs it using his own intelligence. However the piece has to be alive, for if there was no life there to begin with (due to not so well crafted progressions and sentences- it is in the beginning quite hard to just write as you feel) the reader will pick it up, and not value it that much.
However a secret that writers in their early work do not yet know is that you do not have to change yourself so as to write something interesting. You merely have to allow your own personality to be expressed, but in order to do that it is required that you are sincere in your decision to examine it, and present your views in writing form.
However i doubt that even one writer has started by not trying to imitate/reflect upon an idol of his. But in reality that idol already contains part of the young writer, since it was created by him, with elements of his own abilities/thoughts being projected on the other author

 

[Azash]

Isn't this the old paradox with the man who is told to drink poison to win a million dollars, but if he does it for the million dollars he dies?

 

[Mise]

Isn't this the old paradox with the man who is told to drink poison to win a million dollars, but if he does it for the million dollars he dies?

Why the hell else would he do it?

 

[Azash]

That's why it's a paradox. If you want to die, you get cash, if you want cash you die.

 

[Mise]

That's why it's a paradox. If you want to die, you get cash, if you want cash you die.

What are you talking about? It's win win!

 

[Rambuchan]

Nice thread here, with some profound comments. I guess that was an unintended consequence?

Anyway, one word I use to describe work that results from the process of simply expressing oneself and having something to say is: "Authenticity".

An authentic work of art stands out a mile. It also has a tendency to write/paint/sculpt itself. When writing works that I have received the most acclaim and success with, I have had this sense of simply being a vehicle for the story to write itself. What this really means is that you are making way for that distant, higher part of oneself, the part that has something to say or something to express. I also don't have to think about it too much. It just happens. In fact, thinking about it or the goal clouds and derails the process and allows the lesser (you might say unenlightened) self to obstruct the magic.

There is also, unsurprisingly, a sense of rapture here. When in this process, time and space loses its banality and everything seems to ripple with a supercharge of inspiration. This is all the motivation one needs. Best to strike while the iron is hot.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Nice thread here, with some profound comments. I guess that was an unintended consequence?

You win the thread.

(For those who don't get it: Making a thread with the intent to garner profound comments will result in... fill in the rest of the blank.)