Molly Ringle

(A quick sidenote before we continue: Tropes are not a bad thing. You’re thinking of clichés. Those are to be avoided. Tropes, however, are storytelling conventions. As TV Tropes puts it, “tropes are tools that the creator of a work of art uses to express their ideas to the audience. It's pretty much impossible to create a story without tropes.”)

Today I was browsing the site for examples of the tropes in my own books, and found a good basic one on The Fair Folk.

As usual, TV Tropes knows what's up! Their entry is spot-on for what I have learned in reading about the fae, and is more or less what I show in the Eidolonia books (Lava Red Feather Blue, and the upcoming Ballad for Jasmine Town), as well as The Goblins of Bellwater, which isn't set in Eidolonia but has a similar system.

Excerpt from TV Tropes:

"The fairies of old weren't cute little bewinged pixies who fluttered happily around humans. ...Often, they would interact with humans with no thought to the consequences of their actions, or they would be tricksters that deliberately delighted in the utter mess they made of mortal lives.... At worst, they're like serial killers with magic.

"...There actually were plenty of myths and folklore about fairies who helped humans, though they were still believed to be dangerous if angered— but then again, the belief that supernatural beings are helpful to humans that show them kindness and angry if neglected is ubiquitous in many traditional religions and folk beliefs, including Greek Mythology."

I, too, have noticed the remarkable similarity to the Greek gods, in the diverse personalities, powers, and whims of the fae. No wonder I was drawn to write about both.

Guess I should advertise my own book on my own blog, a little? 😀

So yes, Lava Red Feather Blue is available as of yesterday! The above graphic is from the wonderful KinzieThings blog, who ran a fabulous review of the book.

What is the book? Well: "Sleeping Beauty, but make it gay!"

Prince Larkin, born July 27, 1773; put into enchanted sleep December 22, 1799…accidentally awakened March 18, 2020.

It’s a quest, it’s a queer love story, it’s an adventure among fae and witches, and best of all, it’s an escape from your own country.

Order now wherever books are sold! But be a noblebright hero and order through an independent bookseller for best karma: https://www.indiebound.org/buy-local/9781771681988

Reviewers are saying:
“One of the most enjoyable reads of 2020 for me!”
“Merrick and Larkin found their way into my heart immediately.”
“This book was something that I desperately needed in my life.”
“Freaking adorable.”

Whew. That's definitely enough talking about myself for one post. I better go geek out about some fandom thing. Meanwhile, here is a hedgehog in a tiny kayak, as a way of thanking you for reading this far:

Magic systems in fantasy! They are not all alike, as you know, but here's one of the ways to categorize them: a spectrum between "soft" and "hard" magic. Hard magic systems have defined rules on how they work, and the reader is told what they are—e.g., the four element types of bending in Avatar: the Last Airbender have certain basic limits, which is why the characters are astounded when, say, Toph invents metalbending. Soft magic is more mystical and indefinable—e.g., we don't really know HOW Gandalf does all the magic he does, or even what his limits might be; we just accept that he's a wizard and such things are unknowable to the likes of us.

I tend toward soft magic, though moderately so, in my fantasy books, because I feel like the more you give precise, quasi-scientific explanations for magic, the more it's likely to bug people who actually know science. (Also the closer it comes to being science fiction instead of fantasy.) That said, I do put limits and costs in my magic systems: the fae in The Goblins of Bellwater (and Lava Red Feather Blue), though very soft-magic in terms of having large and undefined amounts of power, must nevertheless adhere to deals they make, because that's just the rule.

I also tend toward preferring soft magic in reading, because I don't REALLY feel I need pages of detailed explanation about which material and which rule loophole and which move is the way to solve things; I'm good with a briefer and more mystical explanation. However, many readers do love the details. Neither side is wrong! It's a matter of preference—and it's also on the shoulders of us writers to be consistent within a given story, whatever slot on the spectrum we're picking.