To start this conversation, I will propose a spectrum. On one end, you have things like “the Vampyre” by John Polidori, which is “accurate” to folklore. And on the other, you have something like Tolkien, which is completely off-the-wall with no pretentious of being stuff people “actually believed.”
Advantages of the folklore side of the spectrum:
A) People are already familiar with the speculative elements. There can be a killer “oh, god, I know what that is” moment. (Especially pertinent for horror.)
B) Characters can react to your speculative elements without straining suspension of disbelief. Something like “let’s avoid the graveyard because of the ghouls” makes sense if your story is set in ancient times, because people really did believe in ghouls back then.
Disadvantages of the folklore side of the spectrum:
A) If you can read folklore, so can other writers. You will have more competition. You will have to write significantly better stories than your competition to get published.
B) It can feel stale or overdone if done poorly.
C) Editors have higher standards for things they "see often" (their words)
Advantages of the imaginative side of the spectrum:
A) Less competition.
B) It’s often fresher.
C) the “weird fiction” genre is booming
Disadvantages:
A) You need to spend more valuable time explaining your speculative elements
B) it can feel less connected to reality
I am inclined slightly towards writing the imaginative side of the spectrum. As a reader, I prefer the folkloric side.
Bookmarks