Blending the Familiar and the Strange
by brandonsanderson on Jun.09, 2009, under Brandon Sanderson
Most stories are a blending of a familiar element and an unfamiliar element. One important element of a successful story, in my armchair estimation, is the ability to do this the right way.
When we, as readers, pick up a new book off of the shelf, we generally are looking for something new, yet old, at the same time. The ratio of new versus old varies drastically depending on the person and the genre. (Romance readers, in general, seem to be looking for a lot of the familiar while SF readers, in general, strike me as seeking far more of the original.)
In a way, this is why we have genres in the first place. It gives us a place where, in bookstores and libraries, we can lump similar kinds of books. That way, readers can seek out the ‘familiar’ aspect first. We know we like fantasy. We are looking for a good fantasy. We want a great fantasy that gives us the same feelings as the fantasy books we’ve read before, but one that is original at the same time.
As a writer, that can be a tall order to fulfill.
I’ve thought a lot about this concept. How much original do I, as a reader, want with my fantasy novels? How much familiar? It used to bother me when I pick up a fantasy book and there’s gunpowder. I felt that just wasn’t something fantasy should have. (I’ve since changed my mind.) As a writer, how much can I stray from what people expect ‘Fantasy’ to be and still maintain my readership? Do I even let this direct me? (So far, I’ve just written what I’ve wanted and hoped that the readership will come.)
As I’ve grown older, my thirst for the original has increased, and my tolerance for too much familiar has diminished. I’m not the only one. Eragon is an excellent example. Many established fantasy readers like myself didn’t care for the book, as it felt like too much of a re-tread of the same stories we’d already read. And yet younger readers, to whom that type of story was still fresh, loved it.
Still, there is something in me that thirsts for the old classic feel of fantasy. The Name of the Wind didn’t have anything earth-shatteringly original in it. Neither did the Harry Potter books. And yet, I loved these books with a passion—because of their excellent, classic fantasy ideas mixed with enough originality to make them shine. (Really, if you haven’t read Name of the Wind, you should check it out.)
So where is this balance for you? Which authors do you think are walking this line the best, blending what you’ve seen with what you haven’t seen into books you love?
(And for further reading on the familiar/strange idea, check out Terry Rossio’s essay about the “Strange attractor” in writing screenplays. A slightly different take on the same idea.)
Also, just a quick shameless plug—Warbreaker, my standalone epic fantasy novel, came out today. Huzzah! Find it at your favorite Borders bookstore, where they’ve kindly placed the book at the front of every store.
Related posts:
- Guns and Words I can still remember the first fantasy novel I read that used gunpowder. It was one of the Robin McKinley books, the Blue Sword or The Hero and the Crown. I’ve mentioned before in one of these posts just how wrong that felt to me. And then, the fact that...
- Our next guest… Thank you again to Brandon Sanderson. It’s been a great two weeks of conversation. Our next guest is China Mieville. China, whose work is often described as “weird fiction,” is the writer of Perdido Street Station and YA novel Un Lun Dun. His new novel, The City and the City,...
- The Fantasy Series I’m in the middle of an experiment. My newest book, Warbreaker, is a stand-alone epic fantasy, much as my first book Elantris was. Obviously, I’m not the only one to release stand-alones in this genre. There’s a grand tradition of it, and some of my personal favorite books are stand-alones. ...
June 9th, 2009 on 2:41 pm
Who walks this line? I think L.E. Modesitt, Jr’s books do a great job of it. In his world of Recluce, it’s clearly fantasy, with magic (order/chaos), but it doesn’t necessarily fit the stereotypical kender, gully dwarves and gnomes archetypes. In fact, near as I can tell, there aren’t any inhuman characters.
To reference yesterday’s blog, I don’t care if there are elves, dwarves and dragons. What I do care about is that they be approached carefully. The approach should be new, fresh, and innovative. You, for instance, took the zombie archetype and twisted it into the Elantrians. R.A. Salvatore took the elf archetype and twisted it into the drow (I’m not sure if he created the dark elves or if they already existed and he just used them.. regardless, it was a new experience at the time).
Like you’ve said before, all fantasy is is a regular story with magic. Or in the absence of magic, some fantastical element.
I read books because I love stories — the magic, elves, dwarves, whatever is just a bonus. The story is king, but the conventions that you use shouldn’t be worn out cliches, or it can ruin the story.
Just sayin’.
June 9th, 2009 on 2:52 pm
The wife and I were talking about this very issue not long ago. We both feel the same way about Eragon and have thoroughly enjoyed reading your books because there is so much original in it.
Excelsior!
June 9th, 2009 on 3:12 pm
I like Eragon because of the characters. I like old and new stuff. Sometimes I want to see completely new, unorthodox magic systems like Allomancy or Breath, and it’s still fun to see old stuff, like the four Greek elements in Avatar the Last Airbender, or the video game Golden Sun.
June 9th, 2009 on 3:22 pm
mmmm.
I think I would say that Robin Hobb brought something new to the fantasy genre with books like Liveships and the soldier’s son trilogy. Of course, I’m pretty new to that genre myself as a reader so what do I know?
But then, I think people like GRR Martin also writes what I would call ‘classical’ fantasy, I’m thinking about the Ice of Fire series of course but also to the Fevre Dream book, so it’s not tremendously ‘original’ and then also brought something new, (or I think so) between scifi and fantasy with Windhaven.
I think it’s very hard to answer that question in fact. I would also have said that you, brought something new with your magic system based on the metals in the Mistborn books.
I’m sure there’s much more authors, like, maybe Sarah Zettel with her sorcerer’s books (isavalta) and her magic system and world very elaborated and original.
So. Basically, I think I like it when there’s old classic fantasy elements, I just devoured the codex alera books by Jim Butcher even if it’s very classical fantasy, or the Kingdoms of Thorns and Bone by Keyes for the same reason, or even those Margaret Weiss books I’ve forgotten the name of.
So, I do appreciate it when the magic or ideas are original, but I would say that this is useless if the book is not very well constructed, or brings a good climax and provides a good ending. Like for example in Zettel’s case, I just didn’t like the ending of her story, it didn’t satisfied me, even if teh world and magic were amazing and fantastic.
So, originality, in my opinion, is important but maybe not that much, what’s more important is the skill of the writer to make you dream and really ‘believe’ in the story and his ability to make you dream or believe in his/her story.
But of course, I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s just how I feel.
Nadine
June 9th, 2009 on 3:27 pm
I actually have a perfect example of this! Paul S Kemp’s Erevis Cale books. Here we have a guy writing in Forgotten Realms but his characters quickly transcend the setting.
I think, perhaps, that if the characaterization of the people within the world fits then you don’t get so bad a reaction from the anti-steampunk crowd.
Another example that just came to mine, Zelazney’s Amber books. No mistaking the fantasy there but the first book starts with a car crash if I remember right. I need to reread those.
June 9th, 2009 on 4:07 pm
I started reading fantasy four years ago and since then I have read many authors. Rowling was my first and I moved on to Tolkien, Jordan, Feist, Goodkind, Lewis, Paolini, Brooks, Hobb, and many others that I won’t list. Finally I stumbled upon Sanderson because he was finishing the Wheel of Time and I wanted to check him out. I found that I had hit a gold mine. I first read Warbreaker (because it was free) and then I was reading his blog and sifting through forums. I moved on to the Mistborn series and then Elantris, and even read his short story on Tor, Firstborn. I was blown away. I had read LoTR 30 times (literally) by the time I found Sanderson because I had given up on finding anything that I didn’t find boring because it lacked this mixture of originality and familiarity. It was all either horribly unoriginal or it was so new that I couldn’t get past the first chapter.
Anyways, I would say that this is the vital part of getting readers and you, Brandon Sanderson, are a God send. You mix originality, complexity of plot lines, character depth, and familiarity (mainly the fact that it includes magic) perfectly for a person that has read too much fantasy. My friends and I will sometimes sit around and discuss how you come up with your plot twists (usually a complete sense of hoplessness that is masterfully corrected), characters, and systems of magic. You have become the standard for me in what makes a good fantasy novel and I’ve got to say all have fallen short in comparison so far.
June 9th, 2009 on 4:26 pm
I like books on both sides of the spectrum. Nothing too derivative or too edgy on the extremes of the spectrum, but strangely, nothing exactly in the middle either. If a book tries to balance right down the line, it tends to annoy me–pick a side, either be traditional or new. The best books, the ones I love, are either mostly traditional with a fresh spin or groundbreakingly new with a firm root in tradition.
June 9th, 2009 on 4:56 pm
Personally, I think that Susannah Clarke’s Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell owes much of its success to the successful blend of the familiar with the new.
June 9th, 2009 on 6:39 pm
For me this is a pretty easy one. I think Robert Jordan did a fantastic job, and you do as well. In the beginning of the story I enjoy a strong sense of familiarity, but as the story grows more originality. Wheel Of Time is a great example of this, as is Mistborn.
Where I tend to worry most is when the familiarity either continues to long or the story just gets lost in their attempt to be original and becomes something other than fantasy (See Sword of Truth…. Started off with a great familiar blend, but never developed a strong sense of originality and after peaking with Faith of Fallen kind of fell off and became too preachy).
Just my two bits.
June 9th, 2009 on 7:26 pm
I still don’t really consider myself a fantasy reader. I think that the very problem is that mix of familiar and innovation. I cut my teeth on classics and historical fiction. I like the world to be realish, and the characters to be more dynamic. That having been said, I loved Mistborn. It opened with that scene that was set on a plantation with slaves - the familiar setting from pre-civil-war America, but with some fascinating changes. That’s a good example of a balance between familiar and new.
In the other thread, several posters talked about using other traditions to make your fantasy. That also has the familiar vs. new issue. For example, Neil Gaiman draws from West African tradition in Anansi Boys, but tempers it with a ton of American culture to make it more familiar to his audience. And in EON: Dragoneye Reborn by Alison Goodman, the East Asian tradition is tempered by a main character with western sensibilities. If it was totally Asian in culture and values, western readers wouldn’t have enough of the familiar on which to cling.
It’s easier to stick with a western culture. For instance the children’s book The Moorchild by Eloise Jarvis McGraw draws from the Scotch tradition - the Moorfolk - for its fantasy elements.
June 9th, 2009 on 10:29 pm
Robin Hobb was definitely a moldbreaker for me when I first read ASSASSIN: APPRENTICE. I found myself praising her intimate narrative voice and, to my mind, a reflective approach to fantasy heroes. After her, I began to identify some fantasy novels as “written like historical fiction” in an attempt to introduce fantasy as a genre to other readers.
George RR Martin similarly struck a mature tone with his GAME OF THRONES, but, his choice to use multiple viewpoints and weave a vast canvas proved to be a strong alternative to Hobb’s choice to use first person pov.
Jacqueline Carey blew me away with her approach to the modern fantasy. I disliked alternative history tales until I read KUSHIEL’S DART. Carey drew me in with her approach to prose; the sensual, wise voice in her writing was more distinctive and compelling than I had been seeing.
I really enjoyed going back to the flashier style of swashbuckling fantasy with Scott Lynch’s THE LIES OF LOCKE LAMORA. It felt like a jolt of playfulness.
Patrick Rothfuss’s NAME OF THE WIND, however, reminded me of the wisdom that only comes from a life hard lived. He woven in moments to his viewpoint on life that reminded me of why I loved Robin Hobb, but there appears to be something more epic unfolding in his tale, so I greatly look forward to his coming works.
By now you’ve pegged me for a devout epic fantasy reader! Hahah. I’m also looking forward to the next Ricardo Pinto, because his debut THE CHOSEN had such vivid moments of detail which made me think of the old classical approach to fantasy. John Conolly’s darkly written BOOK OF LOST THINGS is one of my favorite reads for reawakening a bit of my childhood from the vantage point of adulthood - so I’m eager to see his next fantasy, too.
If a writer is not only diverting me with fantastical ideas but speaking to me about a life well lived, I find myself embracing them much more swiftly. There’s a certain number of writers I feel are simply trying their best to entertain, without bringing some depth to their works. That’s a dividing line for me.
June 9th, 2009 on 10:51 pm
Brent, great call out for Book of Lost Things. I loved that book. His twisted faerie tale was sweet, scary, imaginative and funny. I’m excited to read his new novel coming in the fall.
June 10th, 2009 on 12:16 am
At this point in time, the question I ask is: are there any original ideas left? You see it in Hollywood (how many of the recent movies are reimagings, remakes, or sequels?), and in all aspects of life.
I yearn for something original. The trick is, we as consumers have certain expectations that must be met in order for us to enjoy something. I applaud an author for trying something completely new, but I’m not sure what’s left to create. We’re stuck with working under the parameters of the genre and the paths that have been laid down by those before us.
In terms of drawing the line though…I’m okay with any and all liberties taken with any genre, as long as it’s written well and something I can enjoy.
At the end of the day though, I want something original. I say kill the elves and let God sort them out. Mr. Sanderson, feel free to turn the genre upside down if you want. Don’t be worried about our preconceptions of what “fantasy” is. If the quality is there, the readers will be as well. Besides, what’s a little controversy amoung friends?
June 10th, 2009 on 3:15 pm
A friend and I keep coming back to a question that maybe some of you can help us with. Every fantasy book seems to have a…texture to it. This texture seems to be what seperates the great and amazing from the just okay or good read. Feist is an author that I feel shows this really well. His series have all the correct things: some originality, new and interesting characters, epic quests, and overall good writing. But SOMETHING is missing. His stories don’t have this amazing, blow my socks off feel. I feel like I can sometimes guess what his next line is going to be. He lacks some type of almost indiscernable depth that authors like Jordan and Sanderson certainly contain.
So my question is what is the difference? What makes up this texture in a book?
June 10th, 2009 on 4:55 pm
Of blending the strange and familiar, I think you hit it on the head with your comment of regarding ‘Eragon’.
Younger people, in general, would like it more because in some extent, it is familiar. At the same time, younger readers probably have not read enough to feel that ‘Eragon’ was a re-tread of the same old story.
As we get older, the times we fall back to the overly-familiar is usually when we want something simple. Besides that, I think that those that read fiction (and more so perhaps with the sci-fi/fantasy readers) like to discover new things, meet strange people and even stranger places, and to even be forced to think out of the box a bit.
Personally, I think that one of the reasons people have enjoyed the stories you have written, is that you have tried (and in my opinion, succeeded in spades) to change up the stories a bit.
I remember picking up ‘Elantris’ because it sounded different, and flying through it because it was fresh.
I couldn’t wait to read the ‘Mistborn’ books. I always like an attempt of a story where the ‘bad guys’ won. At first I wasn’t sure about the way the magic system worked, but…you made it work. Since, it is one of the best and most completed trilogies I have read in quite some time.
‘Warbreaker’ is much the same way. Great characters in a fairly fresh realm with unique rules.
M
June 10th, 2009 on 7:35 pm
I find George RR Martins Song of Ice and Fire series blends the old with new fantastically. It’s in a medieval setting, with dragons, knights, and maids, which are fantasy cliques no doubt. But the way he builds his stories is completely new to me. The political intrigues, the dragon prophesies, the faraway lands he only eludes to. And then he kills off characters like no author I’ve ever read. He does it all with a mastery I’ve never experienced.
Authors like Sanderson and Jordan are masters at this as well, but I didn’t feel to the need to elaborate, as what’s been said already I feel is sufficient.
June 11th, 2009 on 12:38 am
I’ve gotta say I think a writer trying to cater to what they think people will like is bound to fail. I as a reader want someone writing awesome, origianal, stories like you do Brandon. Not something that is going to cater to what I have liked in the past that or to what I might like in the future. don’t think about me. Just write!
June 11th, 2009 on 6:51 am
I’ll be honest. I read fantasy because I feel like the “real” modern world is, at best, kind of bland and, at worst, really messed up. So I really do crave fantasy with a strong element of the foreign and the whimsical. Tolkien, Jordan, Hobb, the late Eddings, and all the other authors mentioned above offer me that joy to some degree.
That said, I do enjoy some contemporary or “urban” fantasy, because the fantastic, when properly juxtaposed against the dull background of our own world, can be rendered all the more potent. Among urban fantasy authors I’ve read, I feel Jim Butcher does the best job of striking that balance. Neil Gaiman, in Neverwhere, in American Gods, and in his myriad short stories, also shows a keen sensitivity to that which is mysterious or “other” in our own world.
June 11th, 2009 on 2:34 pm
I agree with other commenters that your work blends a _lot_ of originality with the familiar. In fact, one of the coolest things about your books is that the “familiar” part … doesn’t always have to mean familiar in fantasy. It’s like your books are a mesh of original magic … and politics, or social intrigue.
IE. Like the Mistborn trilogy took some inspiration from “Ocean’s Eleven” (not a fantasy movie, but kind of a fantasy that it would ever happen
June 11th, 2009 on 6:58 pm
I read LOTR years and years ago and loved it (I still do and reread it every five years or so). Because they knew I enjoyed it so much, various people tried to get me to read Brooks, Donaldson, and others, but I’d always give up after a few chapters partly because it all seemed so Tolkien-derivative and partly because I didn’t care about the characters. I’ve only just begun reading fantasy again (I was reintroduced through the first Mistborn book, which is now one of my favorite books), and have rediscovered the genre. The familiar things I like to see are quality writing, good characterization, and skillful handling of the fantasy elements (whether familiar or not). The originality I appreciate is seeing various authors’ approaches to the same old human problems. An author could write about a character going on a quest to kill a dragon (one of the oldest and most familiar stories in western literature) and, if the things I mentioned are handled well, I will enjoy reading it.
June 11th, 2009 on 8:17 pm
What I enjoy most about Science Fiction and Fantasy is that everything familiar can be looked at through the eyes of a stranger.
Because there is no “real world” to reference, the author is free to explore objects, ideas, religions, and governments in a way that strips away prejudice and insult.
I’ve come to realize that this is one of my favorite parts of the genre. For example, aspects of socialism can be used, without ever labeling it that, and the positives and negatives can be explored without prejudice by the reader.
Good fantasy enables, or rather forces, the reader to abandon labels and consider things on their merits. In this way, even those things that are familiar are strange, and by digging a little deeper we can associate those things that seem most strange with what is familiar.
June 16th, 2009 on 3:14 pm
I like this topic. i personally look for something new or new ideas when looking for a fantasy novel to read. I primarily read fantasy, yet find it hard to find books that i will really enjoy, because of the fact that so many people use the tried and true and the expected. how many wanna-be j.r.r. tolkeins can there possibly be?
i’d have to say that “the name of the wind” was one that had some tried and true aspects but still had a lot of originality and was so good. your books, of course, are excellent, as well as: china mieville, scott lynch, robin hobb’s farseer books, the songs of ice and fire books, tad williams, lois mcmaster bujold, clive barker, octavia butler and i could go on. they all are similiar in that they draw u into new worlds that are incredibly well thought out and well written. i always finish any of the above wondering how these worlds were even thought up and marveling at the intricacies and details that go into each book.
as others said above, when i pick up a new novel, i want to be awed and amazed. don’t think about what you think people want you to write. write what you want to write and i’ll read it.