[JBI]

We see a lot in fantasy the whole "farmboy/small village" approach on the protaganist. Examples include The Wheel of Time, the original Shannara series, The Lord of the Rings, and the Belgariad. When we analyse the begining, we wonder why this works.

Somethings I have noticed while reading is the pacing at the beginning of a fantasy epic. At the beginning, we are new to the world. By having an ignorant protaganist who hasn't seen much of the world either, we have a more paced out beginning, and we have an easier time learning about the world. This is shown in various books such as The Fellowship of the Ring, when the hobbits don't know anything about the world, and they are learning as they go. They are startled by the sites, and tend to ask questions. This helps on explaining to the reader on what is going on, and what the world is like. We also see this in The Eye of the World, and how the boys are excited about being in new places. We learn the customs of various lands like Shienar and Andor by their ignorance.

On the other hand, I have found while flipping through books such as The Gardens of the Moon by Steven Erikson, that when we are thrown into the center of action, and have no idea what is what and who is who, we sometimes get confused. This approach sometimes scares readers or confuses them, and makes them put down the book.

So to sum it up, the simple protaganist (not necessarily a farm boy, it can be a person who doesn't know anything about his identity such as Corwin from the Amber cronicles, or someone who just doesn't know anything about the big picture on things) seems to make it easier for the reader to grasp the book. I'm not saying that all books should begin simply, or that only these ones are great books, I'm just saying that it sometimes is very useful to have the "ignorant protaganist" cliche' to soften up the pacing at the begining of a book.

Post thoughts and opinions.

[Sidmyster]

Im at the very start of writing a story (its my first attempt at writing anything :P)

Anyway i plan on using what you call "the farm boy approach" and i admit it can be overplayed and is used a lot in fantasy writing.

Firstly- My reasons for doing this are that
a) Its my first attempt at writing anything and i see this approach as being the easiest way. It may sound boring the way i put it but im not planning to write an epic story, just somethign easy to get me into writing
b) I think it will help me develop my tale and give it more life. When the characters see something in the book and ask questions about it then i will be made to ask myself that question and then answer it. So in a way its kind of insperation.

Also im not going to overplay this approach and ive got a few ideas on how to make my character(s) 'naive' and 'unswise' to the ways of the world without making them the typical frodo and sam type.

By the way which type of story do you before?

one where you are given lots of info and background about the world and customs etc or the eriskon type of story.

[JBI]

I'm strugling through Gardens of the moon. Some throw you into action books work, and some "farmboy" books don't. Personaly my preferance is for neither. The Amber books are a good example of something in between that works. They start in a state of ignorance, but fairly quickly stuff seems to happen. Zelazny was a master at spinning out the plot in an informative way, while making it interesting to read. The whole way he introduced the Royal house of Amber was brilliant. It depends really on the kind of story you are trying to write. My point really was just that sometimes (especially books where the "world" is a major focus) it is sometimes important to begin with the ignorant approach.

[Brys]

I disagree - I think it is very difficult to use the farmboy approach well anymore, and in most of the books which use it, it doesn't achieve what it intends (gradual exposition of the world through the eyes of the protagonist). Instead, there are numerous infodumps and a hideously unrealistic central character most of the time - this might be partly because those books which have a farm boy approach also tend to take a Gandalf approach - there is an old wise character advising the protagonist who tends to give large infodumps and random times, for no particular reason.

I prefer Erikson's more challenging, more confusing style - placing you in the middle of the story and forcing you to try and pick it up as you go along. It allows for a much more detailed world and a more interesting selection of characters, while doing away with the whole quest plot. The point of Erikson though is that he's trying to get across how complex the world is - like our own, it can't be explained simply to you in a couple of pages dialogue, and everyone living in that world is a product of it.

With Zelazny and Amber it did work, but he didn't really use the ignorance approach for very long - Corwin's memory returned very quickly and only a few basics were explained to him - the vast majority of characters just expected him to know all about the world and didn't do infodumps. Corwin also pretended to know and didn't ask stupid questions.

[Gargy]

The farmboy beginning with the arrival of the gandalf/aragorn character just turns me off reading the book. Its just been used too many times, and as Brys mentions it tends to make the main character unrealistic. Possibly the worst example is in the sword of truth series, where the simple farmboy suddenly becomes the worlds best swordsman, archer, general, speaker, statesman, magician etc without ever actually taking the time to learn anything.

[Physics Knight]

The farmboy approach would not turn me off if it is done well, but I have never see it done well, except for Tolkein. If the farmboy were to remain somewhat of a farmboy, then that is okay, with room for character development. But I am turned off by farmboys who suddenly become amazing warriors and mages and such with hardly any training to show for it. In fact I am disgusted by this lack of a respect some authors show for hard work and sweat.

Maybe that is why Tolkein's farmboy approach works while others fail. Frodo obviously does show change and growth, but he doesn't become some stupid powerful warrior. Pippin and Merry do get stronger, but they aren't invincible gods. Frodo saves the world because he is a simiple hobbit, and not that he is some missing heir. Tolkein seemed the realize that character development is more than picking up cool skills and nifty artefacts and learning new spells.

The farmboy thing is a variant of the outsider literary device used not just in fantasy. Often the outsider is an effective manner of introducing a world and can be more preceptive than the people caught up in their world. The outsider is a tried and true method in novels. That said, it seems alot of fantasy authors take outsider=farmboy-missing-heir.

A thoughtful exploration of this archtype I would welcome (i.e. I would not reject a book simply due to a farmboy in it), but all books but Tolkein with farmboys I have read turn me off. In those books they use the farmboys as not a device but because they are unimaginative and poor writers.

If someone wants an outsider with amazing warrior skills, why have they not tried, say, the Borne Identity approach. Perhaps a powerful warrior/mage with amnesia so that they have the skills without boring training montages but the world is still discovered with the protagonist. Why not have a merchant, or someone with a merchant parent, who is always traveling and so the main land could be new to them, but at least they are not a farmboy for goodness sake.

By the way, are there any farmgirl books? It seems this arch-type applies only to boys. Not that there are not books where girls save the world (i.e. Tamroa Pierce) but in books sterotyped enough to have the farmboy/Dark One, it is always a boy.

[JBI]

If someone wants an outsider with amazing warrior skills, why have they not tried, say, the Borne Identity approach. Perhaps a powerful warrior/mage with amnesia so that they have the skills without boring training montages but the world is still discovered with the protagonist. Why not have a merchant, or someone with a merchant parent, who is always traveling and so the main land could be new to them, but at least they are not a farmboy for goodness sake.


Ever read Zelazny's amber series?

[Werthead]

Tolkien did not use the 'classic' ignorant farmboy of uncertain parentage who saves the world approach, though. Frodo knows Gandalf before the book opens. Although he doesn't know many of the details, he has heard of Sauron and the Ring, and met elves. He is more prepared for the world outside than, say, Garion was in The Belgariad (for me, the quintessential use of the cliche).

An interesting take on this was in Magician and The Dragonbone Chair. In both books the 'callow youth' was actually in a position of relative importance in that he lived in the castles of major nobles, knew them (if from afair) and was familiar with the major players before the conflict of the books breaks out. In both cases they are treated somewhat more realistically than in others (Feist gives Tomas his great sword skills through 'downloading' the memories of an ancient warrior simply because there was no way he could realistically have him learn the sword and become a great warrior even in the nine years the Riftwar rages for; Simon is pretty inept at dealing with his adventure for quite some time, IIRC). This also allowed the major drawbacks of the farmboy cliche - such as realistically the fact that they would not be able to read and would not be able to deal well with the sudden rise from quasi-serfdom to a position of authority in a matter of months, maybe a couple of years - to be neatly averted.

[Physics Knight]

Ever read Zelazny's amber series?

I'm afraid I have not even heard of it! Is it any good?

[Werthead]

The Amber Series is generally held to be, alongside Lord of the Rings, Dying Earth, Gormenghast, Conan, Book of the New Sun, Moorcock and probably a few others, one of the major foundations of modern fantasy. I have not read it yet, but am planning to do so :) .