> I read your rant on fantasy novels, Faux Pas,
>and I was amused, but also dismayed that that's
>as much depth that you see in fantasy.

I read the rant too. Pretty funny. Like Sam, I must beg to differ, however. Unlike Sam, I really don't feel the urge to say too much in defense of the genre. Generally speaking, you know what you're getting into when you pick up a prototypical "fantasy" novel. Some of them read just like Faux Pas detailed, but most of them don't. My own fantasy novel has no fantasy races at all--no elves, no dwarves, no orcs or goblins. Just humans and human struggles. There is magic, but that's what makes it fantasy in my opinion--without magic, what you have is either low-tech SF, alternate history, or a historical novel. There are no magic weapons (swords, rings, or otherwise) and no magic talismans.

But for the most part, fans of the genre *like* the things that Faux Pas feels are cliched and boring. They *like* to read about the different take the author has on the various fantasy tropes. That's why they get used over and over again in slightly different form. The true test of a fantasy novelist is to use the old cliches and ideas in fresh and new ways. That's generally what fans of the genre want to see, and that's what the authors give them.

Ok, so I said more than I planned. So shoot me.