Poll: Fantasy Stereotypes I try to avoid
- Thread starter TheIronRuler
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is going off topic.Zeithri said:
But to quench your thirst for knowledge, I'd say that I don't even know the genre of "Final Fantasy" games. But I do know that the title is "Final Fantasy" because it was supposed to be the last game to ever be developed by the developer due to financial difficulties.
Ever heard of the game Talislanta? It's available free now:TheIronRuler said:
http://talislanta.com/?page_id=5
Basically it was a fantasy roleplaying game ala Dungeons and Dragons that used to be advertised with the slogan, "No Elves..." - it had a VERY different "vibe" going on. No elves, no orcs, odd cultures seemingly pulled from the author's imagination at his whimsy...
See this 'Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends". THAT is FABTASY with actually interesting and UNIQUE cultures and history!The Gnome King said:
http://pc.ign.com/objects/746/746556.html
That does seem cool.TheIronRuler said:
Problem with being too... different... in your fantasy is that people *expect* their elves and orcs. Bethesda was criticized for making TES 3 too "weird" (but Oblivion was too 'normal' whatever that meant...)
Even with Dungeons & Dragons Online they took a very unique setting - Eberron - with creatures ranging from Warforged (sentient golem-like creatures) to Kalashtar (psionic-spiritual scions of the realm of madness/dreams) ... and then they made the game revolve around elves, humans, etc., - standard fantasy fodder.
And people STILL cried that they wished they had used The Forgotten Realms instead; about as "standard" a fantasy world as you could possibly create. I like it; I use it... but let's not call Ed Greenwood's creation "original" by any STRETCH of the imagination.
Nothing beats dragons. Seriously, I can't count how many times heroes kill evil dragons in any story, from literature to movies.
And no I'm not sympathizing with Eragon because the book bored me to death and the movie just rehashed The Lord of the Rings.
And no I'm not sympathizing with Eragon because the book bored me to death and the movie just rehashed The Lord of the Rings.
I choose orc elves and humans because of toliken, witcher, norse mythology, warhammer, warhammer 40k, elderscrolls etc etc etc. so many games and books have the same basic outline of elves being old and wise and long living, dwarfs being short and good with metal and stone and humans being the younger race and being more of a jack of all trades.TheIronRuler said:
i dont think there is anything wrong with it being overused cause its a good sterotype.
jam is for scones, i barely touch butter an nutella is number 1
You know, I think the worst stereotype in fantasy (and coincidentally the one that always used to haunt my own writing attempts) is the concept of prophecy- the hero being the only one who can save the world, destined from birth to be greater than everyone else.TheIronRuler said:
Interestingly, I find when people try aggressively hard to avoid the cliche, its actually as bad, if not worse.
My other favourite stereotype is the party. You know, the collecting of random companions across the world until you've covered all your made-up ethnicities and personality types XD
Personally, I like jam on my toast. Everyone in my family (except me) makes jam. I also like mascarpone cheese on toast, which my husband thinks is both disgusting and weird.
Well, fantasy is really odd, because for a genre so potentially *free* it does seem to fall into cliche-ville over and over again.
And tbh I blame Tolkein; because he basically kickstarted modern fantasy with such panache and skill that he still gets unconsciously copied and plagiarised to hell. Chunky dwarfs (spelt dwarves..), noble elves, orcs in toto...
For me any use of 'Orc' is a fail. It's like writing a sci-fi saga and including Klingons.
Now I don't think that use of these archetypes is necessarily always a BAD thing, but they're often used in a lazy by-the-book way (here's looking at you David Eddings) with no concept of the subtext.
I think the only way to handle such tropes is to go further back to older sources. For example to use archetypical 'magic rings' successfully there needs to be some acknowledgement by the author of sub-text going back through LOTR, Das Rheingold, the Nibelunglied and all the way back to Old Norse sagas.
Ultimately, I think one of the only ways to break the mold and create truly original fantasy is to either draw from unusual mythological traditions, or to subvert the tropes. But to do that successfully is hard. JRR was so brilliant at this obviously because he was an academic who dug all that old shit. And, not to overly diss any aspiring writers posting here, but often fantasy authors, especially amateur ones don't have time to be original or look below the surface of what they reference.
And tbh I blame Tolkein; because he basically kickstarted modern fantasy with such panache and skill that he still gets unconsciously copied and plagiarised to hell. Chunky dwarfs (spelt dwarves..), noble elves, orcs in toto...
For me any use of 'Orc' is a fail. It's like writing a sci-fi saga and including Klingons.
Now I don't think that use of these archetypes is necessarily always a BAD thing, but they're often used in a lazy by-the-book way (here's looking at you David Eddings) with no concept of the subtext.
I think the only way to handle such tropes is to go further back to older sources. For example to use archetypical 'magic rings' successfully there needs to be some acknowledgement by the author of sub-text going back through LOTR, Das Rheingold, the Nibelunglied and all the way back to Old Norse sagas.
Ultimately, I think one of the only ways to break the mold and create truly original fantasy is to either draw from unusual mythological traditions, or to subvert the tropes. But to do that successfully is hard. JRR was so brilliant at this obviously because he was an academic who dug all that old shit. And, not to overly diss any aspiring writers posting here, but often fantasy authors, especially amateur ones don't have time to be original or look below the surface of what they reference.
The party is nice, but better is to have a character go with your prtagonist till he is not needed anymore. I'm not talking about him sacrificing himself so that you could defeat the evil dragon magician dick lich emporer duke king secret society behemoth.Wutaiflea said:
At some point he reaches closure with your help, and he turns to his own path, but in the process he'd enriched your experience of the story .
My choice was "Orcs, Elves, and greedy Humans," even though I don't fully agree with all of the established points. Partly because the fantasy stereotype has always dwelled in the hero section. Between Eragon, Dungeons and Dragons, Lord of the Rings, and a great many manuscripts from aspiring writers almost always dwells in the same well of conceptual material. It was that, or dragons, honestly. The most common things I see, almost in order, are: "Elves, legendary hero group, legendary sword/ring/handgun/whatever, dragons, scary mountain pass, wizards."TheIronRuler said:
As far as other stereotypes, it's hard to point things out because it's loose concepts that are recycled. Elves are almost always characterized by being tall, pale, beautiful beyond humanity, often blond, and have significantly higher access to magical power than humans (if humans have it at all). Orcs and/or goblins: Either huge or squat, layered muscle, stupid, almost always army-for-hire yet only works for the same villain. Usually a mythic or magical sword in the mix somewhere, either acquired and is the "one true weakness" for villain-du-jour, or the quest is to recover the sword to vanquish the blight. Things like that.
Probably recycled, given how long the Escapist's been around. Though I haven't seen it yet.
Butter, or grape jelly. Depends on my mood.
You've insulted me.. now I must avenge the honor of my family name !EvilPicnic said:
Nope, I still don't care.
Good point, he used the norse myth to even name the realm he wrote about "middle earth" was from norse mythology, becasue it was between heaven (with thor) and hell, therefore it was the MIDDLE earth . But where can you find good mythology these days?
Even the golem is played out, and that's Jews making up a story so that they won't get lynched.
So you fuck up the system, and try to make the best of it. Like I said, have a city of deform little people calling themselves dwarves, THAT is original.
Tropes and recurring themes exist for a reason. People are more familiar with the myths being used, so it's easier to communicate the story. Like the OP said, you never write a new story, so the trick is in creating a unique story-telling style instead, like using different gameplay mechanics for the same game. I won't be the same game because it's played differently, but it has the same base storyline, and that's the point.
Now, according to Richard Rorty, you can create new stories (but mainly new ways to conceive the "real" world) by creating new metaphors (giving existing words another meaning), and therefore changing the very language being used to tell the story, and with it the world in wich the story is being told (if you really want to understand it you'd have to read him).
And it's interesting to note that, as seen in his other works, Tolkien made up entire languages, and yet told the same old myths. However, I'd say "The Silmarillion" is very closed to achieving what Rorty talks about, as it tried to describe a world that couldn't be grasped with the language at hand, and just out of need created the metaphors to do it. I'd say this is why that book is pretty dense and hard to understand.
Another close example would've been if Mel Gibson had gotten away with a no-subtitles "The Passion of the Christ", by using a dead language (new meaning to old words) to tell a known story.
Now, according to Richard Rorty, you can create new stories (but mainly new ways to conceive the "real" world) by creating new metaphors (giving existing words another meaning), and therefore changing the very language being used to tell the story, and with it the world in wich the story is being told (if you really want to understand it you'd have to read him).
And it's interesting to note that, as seen in his other works, Tolkien made up entire languages, and yet told the same old myths. However, I'd say "The Silmarillion" is very closed to achieving what Rorty talks about, as it tried to describe a world that couldn't be grasped with the language at hand, and just out of need created the metaphors to do it. I'd say this is why that book is pretty dense and hard to understand.
Another close example would've been if Mel Gibson had gotten away with a no-subtitles "The Passion of the Christ", by using a dead language (new meaning to old words) to tell a known story.
Discworld is good at working with these stereotypes.
The main Wizard in the series is useless at magic (he has 1 spell that scares all other spells out of his head) and a coward to boot.
The greatest hero on the Discworld is a toothless, semi-senile psychopath who misses the good old days of cliche heroes and villains.
The difference between Gods and Demons is the same as that between terrorists and freedom fighters.
Magic has very little use, Wizards never really notice non-wizards and attacking other wizards with magic is useless due to the amount of magical protection they have; instead they kill each other with conventional weapons.
The reasons writers use the cliched fantasy archetypes is because it saves a lot of time establishing what a creature is to the reader and there's always a chance when establishing a new race that this happens:
The Pilexes were a slight creature, around 5ft tall with hair down to their knees. Normally they hide amongst the foliage and rarely interact with humans, but lately there have been troubling accounts of skirmishes between the two. Human patrols claim to have encountered roaming bands of Pilexi warriors, armoured in leathers and fine, tough spider silks and wielding an array of elegent swords and bows. There are even claims of Pilexi commanding the forest itself in these attacks.
The reader just goes, oh, so they're elves then.
The main Wizard in the series is useless at magic (he has 1 spell that scares all other spells out of his head) and a coward to boot.
The greatest hero on the Discworld is a toothless, semi-senile psychopath who misses the good old days of cliche heroes and villains.
The difference between Gods and Demons is the same as that between terrorists and freedom fighters.
Magic has very little use, Wizards never really notice non-wizards and attacking other wizards with magic is useless due to the amount of magical protection they have; instead they kill each other with conventional weapons.
The reasons writers use the cliched fantasy archetypes is because it saves a lot of time establishing what a creature is to the reader and there's always a chance when establishing a new race that this happens:
The Pilexes were a slight creature, around 5ft tall with hair down to their knees. Normally they hide amongst the foliage and rarely interact with humans, but lately there have been troubling accounts of skirmishes between the two. Human patrols claim to have encountered roaming bands of Pilexi warriors, armoured in leathers and fine, tough spider silks and wielding an array of elegent swords and bows. There are even claims of Pilexi commanding the forest itself in these attacks.
The reader just goes, oh, so they're elves then.
There's another big cliche that's missing: The THING!
You know, the ring/sword/gem/potion/flower/armor/spell/staff/forge/...THING. It's the ONLY item that will let our hero/party/whiny teen destroy the ultimate evil wizard/dragon/spell/king/ancient god and let his family/town/country/world live happily ever after...
Until the sequel.
You know, the ring/sword/gem/potion/flower/armor/spell/staff/forge/...THING. It's the ONLY item that will let our hero/party/whiny teen destroy the ultimate evil wizard/dragon/spell/king/ancient god and let his family/town/country/world live happily ever after...
Until the sequel.
The "Humans are dicks" stereotype.
Present in all forms of fiction that feature multiple sentient races.
I get that we can be assholessometimes most of the times, but I'd like to think that in an entire country, there would be some decent humans outside of the protagonists.
Present in all forms of fiction that feature multiple sentient races.
I get that we can be assholes
A named doom? Hm, how about Sauron, how´s that for a name?Grouchy Imp said:
To be clear on the Fantasy thing, I voted all of the above, simply for a fact that THESE elements MAKE UP fantasy, so excluding any of it will not make people recognize it as a fantasy story...
But to be fair, Orcs, Elves, Dwarfs and co, Magic and or "medival" setting, make the most appearance.
Hey, how about a fantasy story, which is set not in a fictional 11th century, but in a fictional 21st...I mean, common! Elven snipers, Orcs wielding RPGs and MGs, Dwarfen shock troopers...that would be AWESOME.
If it has been done, and it is any good, please point me in the direction, thanks.