fantasy cliches - Writers Forum

Rambling Sage · 11-12-2007, 06:50 PM

hey everyone-

i am writing an original fantasy story and to do that i need to stay away from cliches.

so i was just wondering what you guys consider the worst fantasy cliches so i can avoid them and create an original work.

thank you

Ilasir Maroa · 11-12-2007, 07:32 PM

Try searching for the ten pillars of fantasy thread, here in this section. Of course, you should also probably come up with an exact definition of what you consider cliche.

Last, are you writing "an original fantasy work, or are you planning to write an original fantasy work? Could you give at least a brief summary of what you have if it is the former.

Rambling Sage · 11-12-2007, 08:08 PM

ive written a few parts but it really is still in the planning mode--the basic idea behind it is this: pretty much every fantasy has the wise guy, wizard, or whatever who helps the hero on his or her quest. instead of focusing on the hero influenced by the wizard, i intend to focus on the wizard and how he gained his knowledge, the adventures he was in, etc.

boongee · 11-12-2007, 08:28 PM

That already sounds cliche to me. Is there such thing as fantasy without wizards, dragons or elves?

JHB · 11-12-2007, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boongee

That already sounds cliche to me. Is there such thing as fantasy without wizards, dragons or elves?

Fantasy can be anything you want it to be.

Ilasir Maroa · 11-12-2007, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boongee

That already sounds cliche to me. Is there such thing as fantasy without wizards, dragons or elves?

Well, of course, there is. I mean after all, it's not like those are the defining characteristics of the genre...

But seriously, there tends to be magic in fantasy if not always elves and dragons. Most fantasy draws from the smae historical sources, which pretty much include all folklore ever created, which pretty much includes dragons and elves. On the other hand... there are many wonderful fantasy novels without dragons and elves, and the real fun is when you bring in some technology...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Fantasy is a genre that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot,

Of course, there are many subgenres, but fantasy is the genre of magic, so I think it's somewhat silly to say fantasy shouldn't have magic. Then it wouldn't be fantasy!

ClancyBoy · 11-13-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boongee

That already sounds cliche to me. Is there such thing as fantasy without wizards, dragons or elves?

Watership down?

As soon as you dispense with wizards and magical swords most people would put your writing in a different genre. The only thing that makes Lovecraft horror and not fantasy is his lack of wizards.

WriterDude · 11-13-2007, 03:37 AM

Fantasy can be a lot of things, but to me, a few things are almost critical for "real" fantasy:

* A medieval world with swords & sorcery. This has to be fictional world, and can't be based on the real one. If you have elves and wizards in London, I don't count it as fantasy. Or at least, I count it as "fake" fantasy. It can still be fun, but I wouldn't even pick up the book and read the summary on the back.

* Non-human characters: There can be humans (name a single fantasy novel without one?), but non-human characters has to be important as well. Note that this does not automatically mean elves, dwarves and goblins. Have ants as a race, or dragons. Maybe lizards, or flies. It doesn't matter, but they should be more or less equal to the other races, yet with their own strength and weaknesses. The average fantasy dwarf is short, chubby and slow, but very strong and great at melee combat. Elves are tall, handsome and great archers, but arrogant and annoying. I hate elves. Except drow, they kick ass. Except Drizz't, as he wasn't a "proper" drow. More like a regular elf with dark skin. A nice dark elf? That just contradict itself, like an evil kender or a dancing dwarf.

* Magic is important. But that said, why do we always use fireballs, lightning bolts, healing spells and all that crap over and over? Magic is fundamental to fantasy, but there's nothing wrong with inventing new forms of magic. You could even use the Force based on Star Wars, if you change it enough to make it "yours". Don't use the old Force Jump, Force Push and that with different names, but invent your own. This is your world, after all. Your imagination is the only limit.

* And most important, it can't contradict itself! It seems obvious when you hear it like this, but far too often I find characters that suddenly do things they shouldn't be able to do, a wizard suddenly remembering a spell to get him, her or his friends out of a sticky situation (like in the Dragonlance: Taladas Trilogy. Everyone was trapped in a tower with no way out when enemies charged in. Then all of a sudden, the wizard simply used a feather spell on themselves, so they just jumped out of the windows and glided down to groundlevel. She never used that spell before, and hardly used it later. It felt like the author wrote himself into a corner and didn't bother rewrite the previous parts).

Other than that, you are free to do whatever you please. That said, there is a few notes I would make on what I do not want to see more of.

* Don't save the world / princess / village /whatever again. I'm sick of it. I'm not saying the world should end, princess die or something, but there's nothing wrong with a story that doesn't involve one guy saving the world. In Forgotten Realms, we have an entire trilogy where that Drizz't guy is born an live in his home city in the Underdark. The entire first book is about his life there and ends with him leaving. The second book is about him walking around in said Underdark, not knowing what to do until he finally decide to leave. Book three? He finally leaves to the surface. That's about it. That's all the story is about, and it's a damn good trilogy. Dragonlance: Saving Solace? The sheriff has been killed. A new sheriff is chosen, and he has to solve the murder. Excellent story, doesn't involve anything worse than solving a murder. Dragonlance: Conundrum? A bunch of gnomes build a submarine and decide to explore the ocean. That's about it, and it's an excellent story. Saving the world / princess / whateva! is soooo old. If there's one cliché you should avoid, this is it.

* Wizard? ZZzz..... Why have just one? Why not have an entire party of wizards? Think about Harry Potter, for instance. While not fantasy, it takes place in a world where everyone are wizards. Star Wars? There are the occasional Jedi (or "SW Wizard") in the original movies, but they don't really do anyhing. Luke doesn't even turn into a true jedi until the last movie, and the story focus just as much on Han, Leia, the droids and Chewie as on Luke, even if he is the "main" character. Even Darth Vader has a big part in the trilogy, and he's the villain. Whlie not real wizards, you get the idea. A wizard is fun and all, but why should they depend on him? Just please don't turn Gandalf on us and have him save the party over and over to avoid killing everyone. Imagine if Gandalf wasn't around when the Balrog appeared. That's what I'm talking about. Either that, or Gandalf alone wasn't enough to stop it. And what if Gandalf had died, but the Balrog survived?

* Why does the main character have to be a peasant who turns into a hero? Can't he be a hero right from the start? Or even better, why should he or she be a hero in the first place?

* And of course, the main character is not a Chosen One. No, no, no, no, no!!!!

ClancyBoy · 11-13-2007, 04:04 AM

Interesting. So Harry Potter isn't fantasy?

Lord of the Rings doesn't seem to be fantasy either. (Not medieval)
Also magic spells play only a tiny tiny role in LOTR.

dwellerofthedeep · 11-13-2007, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambling Sage

i am writing an original fantasy story and to do that i need to stay away from cliches.

Then Check out Limyaael's Rants. They cover almost any fantasy Cliche I can think of and most I can't. The best thing about Limyaael though, is that he knows how to fix most of the problems as well.

WriterDude · 11-13-2007, 10:54 AM

No, I don't think Harry Potter is "true" fantasy. It takes place in a modern world with modern problems and modern technology. A large part of the first movie didn't even evolve around magic at all, and although Rowling shamelessly rips off every single mythology she know, a monster doesn't make it fantasy.

Lord of the Rings on the other hand is fantasy all the way. There's the medieval world (swords? horses? magic?), the usual orcs, elves, dwarves, trolls etc, and even a hero to save the world. If it hadn't been one of the first true fantasy novels, it would be ripping off every cliché there is and even made a few on it's own.

It's dull, boring, waaaay to long and stupid, but it's still fantasy. There's even a made-up world. (well... heavily customized world, at least).

Ilasir Maroa · 11-13-2007, 04:46 PM

LOTR is fantasy, and is based on medieval times... though it's slightly ironic that you say all the "usual" since a lot of that became the usual in LOTR.

HP is definitely fantasy, some may categorize it as Urban fantasy, or modern day fantasy. There are many such books, including "The Dragon Quartet" Tech is also aloud. There's steam in Velgarth, and even guns in "Shaman's Crossing" one of the more original fantasy books I've read in awhile.

WriterDude · 11-13-2007, 04:59 PM

Sure, I said "the usual orcs, elves etc" in LotR, but if you read the next sentence as well, I said would have ripped of pretty much every cliché there is if it hadn't been the first "proper" fantasy. (Conan is fantasy as well, and if I'm not too mistaken, he was first mentioned in 1932).

HP fantasy? Perhaps, but I think he's more horror. We are talking Howard Phillips, right? Lovecraft? Of course, where's the difference between fantasy, dark fantasy, modern (or urban) fantasy, modern dark fantasy and horror?

Harry Potter falls into the urban fantasy setting, but I don't classify that as "real" or "true" fantasy. D&D, Dragonlance, Lord of the Rings and all that is true fantasy, the old-school fantasy. All this urban-, gothic-, dark- and whaeva-fantasy are new genres that appeared much later. Conan on the other hand is a puzzle. On one hand, you have the old, medieval world, wizards, monsters and all, but you don't have elves, dwarves and all that. Not even goblins or orcs. Does this qualify as true, old-school fantasy? I think it does. If he were in fact invented around 1932, he's older than even Lord of the Rings, though I'm not sure about The Hobbit. Either way, Lovecraft had published stories in the Cthulhu mythos ten years earlier than Conan, so back then there wasn't even a fantasy genre. How then can you put him as fantasy now? I'd say he's horror. And if Lovecraft is fantasy, what about Dracula and Frankenstein? Horror or fantasy? And either way, who did really invented fantasy in the first place?

Faustling · 11-13-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WriterDude

No, I don't think Harry Potter is "true" fantasy. It takes place in a modern world with modern problems and modern technology. A large part of the first movie didn't even evolve around magic at all, and although Rowling shamelessly rips off every single mythology she know, a monster doesn't make it fantasy.

So Rowling rips of mythologies...

Quote:

Originally Posted by WriterDude

Lord of the Rings on the other hand is fantasy all the way. There's the medieval world (swords? horses? magic?), the usual orcs, elves, dwarves, trolls etc, and even a hero to save the world. If it hadn't been one of the first true fantasy novels, it would be ripping off every cliché there is and even made a few on it's own. It's dull, boring, waaaay to long and stupid, but it's still fantasy. There's even a made-up world. (well... heavily customized world, at least).

...while Tolkien creates true fantasy?

If you're not catching my drift Tolkien drew heavy as hell from mythology as well. Perhaps more subtle then Rowling (after all, he's creating a new world, she's creating an explanation to said mythologies). What's the difference?

And what do medieval worlds have to do with fantasy? Sure, a lot of fantasy uses that setting or something similar, but I hardly think it's critical for the definition of fantasy. I've read books I would consider fantasy with fictional worlds based on everything from Vikings to medieval Japan (I'm aware I said medieval Japan but that's hardly the same as medieval Europe).

Ilasir Maroa · 11-13-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WriterDude

Sure, I said "the usual orcs, elves etc" in LotR, but if you read the next sentence as well, I said would have ripped of pretty much every cliché there is if it hadn't been the first "proper" fantasy. (Conan is fantasy as well, and if I'm not too mistaken, he was first mentioned in 1932).

HP fantasy? Perhaps, but I think he's more horror. We are talking Howard Phillips, right? Lovecraft? Of course, where's the difference between fantasy, dark fantasy, modern (or urban) fantasy, modern dark fantasy and horror?

Harry Potter falls into the urban fantasy setting, but I don't classify that as "real" or "true" fantasy. D&D, Dragonlance, Lord of the Rings and all that is true fantasy, the old-school fantasy. All this urban-, gothic-, dark- and whaeva-fantasy are new genres that appeared much later. Conan on the other hand is a puzzle. On one hand, you have the old, medieval world, wizards, monsters and all, but you don't have elves, dwarves and all that. Not even goblins or orcs. Does this qualify as true, old-school fantasy? I think it does. If he were in fact invented around 1932, he's older than even Lord of the Rings, though I'm not sure about The Hobbit. Either way, Lovecraft had published stories in the Cthulhu mythos ten years earlier than Conan, so back then there wasn't even a fantasy genre. How then can you put him as fantasy now? I'd say he's horror. And if Lovecraft is fantasy, what about Dracula and Frankenstein? Horror or fantasy? And either way, who did really invented fantasy in the first place?

Lol, sorry to deflate your rant, but many people refer to "Harry Potter" as "HP" and while I realized there might be a misunderstanding, I was hoping to save keystrokes in the short run.