fantasy cliches - Page 6 - Writers Forum

geminye · 11-23-2007, 01:22 PM

First off, i think in respect to the author of this thread, we are mainly referring to "High" Fantasy. Fantasy is a breakdown of fiction. From general fiction, it goes to fantasy and sci-fi, then each of those break down.
If you talk about wizards, dragons and the like, this is high fantasy. Lets stop all the quibble about what is or is not fantasy and move on...

Rabid Euphoria · 11-23-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WriterDude

You're read the two "main trilogies" (Chronicles and Legends, I assume?) and decided you hate it all?

Nice one. You do realize the timeline in Dragonlance spans nine thousand years and that the two "main trilogies" are only a small part in the series? They aren't really that important, or even good. They were the first DL books ever, so of course they aren't that great. Try reading Dragons of Summer Flame instead. It's just one book, but is at least as important and the two trilogies. Or read the Kingpriest trilogy. It isn't even written by Weis & Hickman, but is one of the most important trilogies there are. Or War of Souls, although I hated it. Fifth Age Trilogy (by Jean Rabe) is also well worth a read, and so far that's just some of the important ones.

Only reading two trilogies is like reading the first two chapters of Lord Of The Rings and decide you hate the whole trilogy.

No offense, of course.

BTW if you want comedy in fantasy, you might want to try Discworld. I don't like it much myself, but it's certainly funny.

I agree with Mike C on this one. That's like saying 'oh, you read Cujo and hated it? Salem's Lot to, eh? Well a thousand pages of an authors work is nothing to testament enough to their talents so you should try reading another five thousand pages!!'

Whether the series takes place over nine thousand years has nothing to do with good or bad. He read six books or stories, I know shit all about Dragonlance nor do I care to. Do you realize how weird your post sounds? You've only read TWO TRILOGIES (2x3=6) you've no idea about any of it...I know I wouldn't have read two whole trilogies if I hadn't like the first book I read of them. It's like reading through all 3500 pages of The Dark Tower and saying 'it was all crap, what a horrible read'.

On topic; Worst small cliche about fantasy is weird names, imo. I can't take a character seriouly when their name sounds like an ingredient.

The Worst Cliche, prevailant in so many fantasy works is REGULAR JOE SCHMOE IS:

a) Has special powers they don't know about (HARRY POTTER, THE SEEKER)
b) Is thrust into a massive struggle (LORD OF THE RINGS)
c) Pulled into a fantasy world (NARNIA)

Or many other such things. It's as if so many fantasy works are cookie cut, constructed and released. We'll take a 'normal boy and pull him into a fantasy world in turmoil in which he discovers he's a descendant of a long line of kings and it's his destiny to vanquish the brewing evil' Hey, besides the 'long line of kings' that sounds like Army of Darkness. AWESOME.

Perhaps its just my personal taste, I've never liked fantasy. When I was a young kid I hated Wizard of Oz and the Never-ending Story and many other things like it. I like fantasy and unreal things that occur in our own reality, those are most effective. That's why I love Stephen King so much, he can have a woman get pulled into a painting and not pull groans of 'that's freaking stupid' out of his audience (well, perhaps not all) because he sets his characters in real situations with real dilemmas we can all relate to. I can't relate to a Hobbit because I'm not sort with hairy feet nor is my house built inside a hill (though I do see them on a take on the Irish). My idea of fantasy is the dark tower. A fantasy world in which 'magic' and 'wizards' and 'knights' exist without being hokey or cliche and his fantasy world - Mid World - mirrors our own as to it's patrons.

It's sad for me to pay to see a movie and have to sit through trailers for 'The Seeker' and 'Harry Potter' and 'The Golden Compass'. Well, I guess they're better than that 'Step Up 2' trailer I've seen now half a dozen times at the movies...

lin · 11-23-2007, 08:17 PM

I thought High Fantasy was like, Cheech and Chong.

Jinjiro · 11-24-2007, 11:47 PM

Can I bring my opinion to the table here, with regards to 'what is fantasy?' and 'what are it's cliches'.

I think when we think of fantasy, the clue is in the name. Fantasy is anything that we conceive as 'fantastic', ie anything we perceive to be far-flung from the world around us.

In the case of most fantasy, this obviously stretches to other worlds, magic, beasts taken from myth, lore and our imaginations and fears.

We create extraordinary worlds based on our own history, stereotypes, emotions, cultures and perceptions, and we invent storylines that closely shadow our morals, parables and sense of adventure. Our secret desires to be important and special surely pave the way for these colourful and exciting characters that inhabit fantasy worlds, and their amazing feats are vicarious indulgement of the highest order.

But does fantasy have to be set in the world of swords and sorcery? I very much think not. The 'Dark Materials' trilogy by Philip Pullman, I would class as fantasy, and that certainly doesn't take place in a medieval world.

I think the key word to use as a stereotype for a medieval fantasy world is 'feudal'. There's always a KINGdom, Lords, Barons and armies, marching to war, much like our own past. In that respect we find both a comfortingly safe convention in which to set our stories, but unfortunately in doing so, many cliches are born (protagonist son of a long lost king, whatever).

What we can define as 'fantasy' obviously differs from person to person, but I think it's such a broad word, that really sits side by side with fiction. I would classify fantasy as anything set in a world that breaks the rules and conventions of our own. I think the influx of Lord of the Rings/Conan-esque books has really created a mindset that fantasy 'must' be set in this world of swords, kings, dragons, elves and castles.

Fantasy is forged in the core of our imagination, so it was never unlikely that formulaic and cliche patterns would emerge, since lots of us think the same way! For me, the fine line that distinguishes between accepted convention and irritating cliche lies in a balance of character and plot archetypes.

For example, you can avoid cliche by shifting the balance of 'accepted' fantasy convention and new ideas.

Take a commonly accepted paradigm for a fantasy plot, such as 'old evil arises to conquer unprepared kingdom, where an unexpected hero saves the day'. Now, add your common-as-much character types, like your aging, mysterious wizard, and your farm-boy hero, and you've got some SERIOUS cliche going on.

But make the characters interesting, complex and different and your plot ceases being cliche and becomes a secure, conventional vessel for exploring intriguing characters, their actions and HOW they approach this convention that we as readers know so well.

So in my honest opinion, fantasy cliches occur mostly due to using too many conventions in one place. I even think the 'boy discovers royal lineage' could avoid being cliche if used with the right plot, supporting characters and setting. It's about delivery, and having the imagination and effort to create something new from an accepted set of generic conventions.

Kane · 11-25-2007, 01:20 AM

Good points... I think the thing with fantasy is that, though it really can be set in any time period or world, so long as it embodies fantastical elements, is that there are really not many world-types to choose from. For instance, if you decide to set your story in a far off world, sometime in the future, though your story may have fantastical elements, it will be labeled science fiction. If you set your story in a post-apocalyptic world, you're still in a common sub-genre of fiction. If your story is set in this world, at present time, yet contains fantastical elements, it's urban fantasy...

No matter where you set your story, it's already been done. So, the best place to set your story is in the world that you would most like to be the creator of. What kinds of adventures do you want your characters to have? What types of dangers are present in your world? What types of creatures? Governments?

Just because your fantasy involves swords, sorcery, or dragons, does not mean it has to be a feudal setting. There were many different stages of civilization in the real world to use as inspiration... City States, Empires, Villages, Conquering Hordes, etc. We've seen it all, and I've read very good examples of all of those and more.

I used to worry about being unoriginal or using cliches, until I realized that just about no matter what I write, it will bear similarities to other works. It is in my telling of the story, my perspective, that I will find uniqueness. And, suddenly, I am less concerned with the setting of my story, and more concerned with the telling of it.

Jinjiro · 11-25-2007, 01:28 AM

Exactly. I read Wind of Honour recently, a book set in a world that combined the cultural similarities to feudal Japan, mixed with the swords and sorcery elements we know so well. There's innovation on at least the character and setting, all we have to do is twist conventions a little and it's easy to avoid cliche.

WriterDude · 11-25-2007, 04:26 AM

My point with Dragonlance is that there are over 150 books by now and more coming all the time. There are many, many different authors as well and even a second continent that has nothing to do with the first one. He's read six of them and hate every single one of them. It doesn't make sense. It's like hating everything has to do with Star Wars includng books, comic books, games etc just because you saw the first half of Episode 1 and hated it. Or perhaps read a few chapters of The Silmarillion and hate everything Tolkien ever wrote including Lord Of The Rings.

dwellerofthedeep · 11-25-2007, 05:54 AM

Good point Jinjiro (and Kane for that matter)!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

There's innovation on at least the character and setting, all we have to do is twist conventions a little and it's easy to avoid cliche.

I totally agree with this but it's also a definite problem if you don't twist things enough. At least, changing the wrapping but not the actual substance of the story might not be enough. I don't think I found the right words for this. Basically the twist has to be major enough to be noticed.

Jinjiro · 11-25-2007, 10:34 AM

Agreed, that's where the imagination of the author really has to go to work. You can't just mix some fantasy genre conventions with some horror conventions and badda boom, there's a bestseller, you have to really innovate if you want it to be truly different.

In my opinion, the easiest way to diverge from fantasy norms is to have interesting characters. Writing complex and developed characters usually helps you create a different story too, since the story will of course hinge on their actions and decisions.

It is hard to avoid these cliches in all honesty, some are so hard-wired into our brains that it would almost seem like they HAVE to be there.

Ilasir Maroa · 11-25-2007, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WriterDude

My point with Dragonlance is that there are over 150 books by now and more coming all the time. There are many, many different authors as well and even a second continent that has nothing to do with the first one. He's read six of them and hate every single one of them. It doesn't make sense. It's like hating everything has to do with Star Wars includng books, comic books, games etc just because you saw the first half of Episode 1 and hated it. Or perhaps read a few chapters of The Silmarillion and hate everything Tolkien ever wrote including Lord Of The Rings.

Well, having read a lot of Dragonlance, I have to say that it doesn't change much no matter who's doing the writing. So six books is a pretty good indicator. Just like the Simarillion is a good indicator of Tolkien's Middle-earth.

Now Episode One is different, becuase a lot of people I know liked fourfive and six, but couldn't stand one two and three.

Ilasir Maroa · 11-25-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jinjiro

Agreed, that's where the imagination of the author really has to go to work. You can't just mix some fantasy genre conventions with some horror conventions and badda boom, there's a bestseller, you have to really innovate if you want it to be truly different.

In my opinion, the easiest way to diverge from fantasy norms is to have interesting characters. Writing complex and developed characters usually helps you create a different story too, since the story will of course hinge on their actions and decisions.

It is hard to avoid these cliches in all honesty, some are so hard-wired into our brains that it would almost seem like they HAVE to be there.

Well, there's no way to get more cliche than to have cliche characters, so thats a good point.

Jinjiro · 11-25-2007, 11:28 AM

I have to agree with someone's point a few pages back as well, I can't stand fantasy that takes itself too seriously.. for me that's the worst cliche of all.

Good fantasy contains good humour, at least in parts. Characters that are always dark and brooding are no fun at all to read about. A sense of humour and companionship help create empathy for the characters, so without it, I feel like I'm staring at a collage of stereotypes meshed together for no real reason... which always brings the book down a notch or two.

Ilasir Maroa · 11-25-2007, 12:19 PM

or three... though sometimes the humor goes a little far... "Be nice" murmured (insert Eddings charcter-name here) anyone?

Jinjiro · 11-25-2007, 01:08 PM

*giggles*

Yeah, sometimes it CAN come off as more than a little over-done, even corny, but there's a happy medium of humour and seriousness.

Ilasir Maroa · 11-25-2007, 06:05 PM

True... true. And like somebody said earlier, sci-fi suffers from the same disease.