clichés within ficticious works of fantasy

Started by Toefur, Mon 18/08/2003 15:41:40

Previous topic - Next topic

Toefur

I would like to know everyones ideas of overused ideas, concepts, characters, storylines, etc. that one may find in any work of fantasy (novels, movies, etc. not that theres really anything other than novels or movies, but have at it).

I know theres lots but I can't remember anything at the moment. I'm after really obvious or cheesey stuff, too. Whether it be certain lame plots involving wizards, or the fact that the main protagonist is always an unexperienced young man thrust headfirst into a thick and dangerous fantasy world...

cheesey.
overused.
overdone.
lame.

got any?

Evil

Star Wars Spinoffs. Some are good but there are too many... Same goes for mad scientists... And as for characters, I hate crappy job, low lifes. Its all been done before. :)

Ali

On the enemy front, fantasy/sci-fi villains are all too often:

English,
Intelligent,
Ironically polite,
Theatrical/artistic,
Well read,
Of indeterminate Sexuality,
Wearing black.

I mean, I'm English, polite and wearing all black, but I'm quite nice. George Bush isn't any of those things and he's the most dangerous man on the planet. Let's see some villains who are stupid and brutal, like in real life.

Heroes are always:

American.

The more heroic the character, the more American the accent. Check out the (no longer from Baghdad) Sinbad the Sailor.

Hobbes

#3
All I can say is: Read Tigana from Guy Gaviel Kay. Or, even better, read The Lions of Al-Rassan. It shows you how archetypes *should* be handled. He paints the most vivid worlds I've ever read. Many, many miles better than that disgusting Robert Jordan.

Ok.. Overdone Stuff.

In no particular order.

1. Wizard: "Whee! I'm a wizard! Here goes Fireball # 2030! Tiring? Me? No, sirree! Mwahaha!"

2. Author: "Hmm... Let's whip up a fantasy world populated by men, Elves, Dwarves oh... and Orcs too! Orcs are cool! They're my friends!"

3. Hero: "I'm really smart. I am, really. Look, I manage to overcome the most stupefying odds! It comes with the job... read here: H-E-R-U. Errr. Something like that!"

4. Author: "Huh? You mean it doesn't neccessarily have to be a trilogy?"

5. Evil bad guy: "I'm EVIL! MWAHAHAHA... Get me? I'm EVIL!!! Why? How? What do you mean? I just AM!!! MWAHAHAHAA!!! etc. etc. etc."

6. Author: "Motivation of Bad Dark Bad Guys? What do you mean? It's in the name, right?"

7. Secret Society: "We didn't ask for it either... we seem to be in every novel..."

etc.

AGA

Now you die! Why do you call Robert Jordan disgusting?!

Hobbes

Er.

Because he's so.... imaginative in coming up with the same plot over and over again.

I'll admit, the first one was really good. But after that?

Huh.

Kinda like reading Feist. First books: Good. After that: Repetive stuff.

It almost seems as if these so-called "best-seller" authors are afraid if trying something new. Read Faery Tale by Feist, for example. It's (I think) the only novel where he tries something different. It's prolly one of his best books.

Did he ever do that again? Nope. Prolly didn't make enough money.

Barcik

Good vs. Evil! Evil threatening to ruin the world!

However, a cliched setting is not all bad.

One week ago I finished reading Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game". The setting: There is a war between the human beings and the alien 'buggers', all threatening to destroy each other. Anything original there? Not really. And with all that the author develops a very wise and interesting novel, putting the war to the side of the amazing character development.
Currently Working On: Monkey Island 1.5

Trapezoid

Hmmm. Are there any non-ficticious works of fantasy???

Darth Mandarb

I was talking to my brother about this very thing the other day.  We were discussing how Feist constantly has the heros backed into a corner and just when it seems like they're about to be over-run the reinforcements show up and save the day.  He does this over and over again.

The only thing is, I love it!  I never get bored of it happening.  I loved the Riftwar Saga all the way through the Serpent War Saga.  That's truely (in my humble opinion) some great reading.

Jordan's the Wheel of Time is still on the top of my favorites list though I must admit that last few have been extremely disappointing.

What's the saying?  "It's all been done before"?

Somebody once told me that every piece of fiction is based (loosely) off the Bible.  (I'm not calling the Bible fiction!!)

The Wheel of Time (The Eye of the World through The Shadow Rising) are sooooo similar to the Lord of the Rings.

I find that everything has been overdone.  But then again, if something works, and you enjoy it, why not continue with it?  Although, when I come across something new and original I love it!  But I don't necessarily mind the over-done stuff.

cheers,
dm

Barcik

I am with Darth here. Yes, it's totally cliche. Yet if it's done well, I like it.
Currently Working On: Monkey Island 1.5

Ali

Quote from: Trapezoid on Mon 18/08/2003 20:53:12
Hmmm. Are there any non-ficticious works of fantasy???

The war on Saddam?

I hope I don't upset anyone here, but a few thinkers are arguing that there is such a thing as non-fictitous fantasy.

I know it's not quite what you meant, but here's an interesting article called 'welcome to the desert of the real' by Slavoj Zizek. He shows the way the US dealt with an attack upon it's fantasy world - not by acknowledging the truth, but by abandoning it.

http://www.venus.co.uk/weed/current/zizek.htm

Sorry if I went off topic a little there ... Ahem ... fantasy cliches: Heroine with low cut and figure hugging armour which offers little defence and is probably quite chilly to wear.

Trapezoid

#11
"Fantasy" by definition is something ficticious. I was just saying that the phrase "ficticious works of fantasy" is redundant.

QuoteHeroine with low cut and figure hugging armour which offers little defence and is probably quite chilly to wear.

I think there's about 50 of those in Neole's art thread. :D

DragonRose

The Orphan Who Saves the World and Revenges His Parents

We have David Eddings' Garion, R. A. Salvatore's Elbryan and Pony, J. K. Rowling's Harry Potter, Mercedes Lackey's Tarma... oh, I KNOW there's more, but I can't think of any right now.  

Just once I'd like to see the mysterious orphan be told that his parents were killed by evil people, and instead of grabbing the nearest sword and running off into a duel arcane, just think to himself "Well, ain't that a kick in the pants."
Sssshhhh!!! No sex please, we're British!!- Pumaman

Captain Mostly

I think it's interesting that I have complete patience with hidious clichés in fantasy literature, but can't read even half of a pot-boiler derivative sci-fi novel.

I just treat Fantasy as mills-and-boon for nerds (and I include myself in the nerd-grouping. I AM on a computing degree course...) and it makes for an easy choice for what to take on long train journeys.

This is something I think that Terry Pratchett (spelled wrong sorry) isn't given enough credit for. I know lots of people say his books are stupid, his voice as an auther is irritating and so on, and while I don't agree, I can see their point. But every singe Diskworld book is full of excellent and well balanced satires and attacks on Fantasy cliché (obviously, considerably more overtly in the earlyer books). I can't get enough of the Diskworld books, and I don't care who knows it. They ain't works of literary genious, but then I read too many of those!

As for clichés, how about "WE MUST GO TO A DANGEROUS FAR AWAY PLACE AS A GROUP TO COLLECT AN ITEM! AND IN DOING SO WE WILL FACE UN-CONNECTED YET DANGEROUS EVENT AFTER UN-CONNECTED YET DANGEROUS EVENT!!!"

That one dates back to the ancient greeks and beyond!

Gonzo

Thoughts on clichés and whether they make fiction worthless or not:

'The Lord Of The Rings' story pretty much opened everything up for people to write fantasy fiction of that type, and (correct me if I am wrong) Tolkien was the original author who devised a basic 'world' which has been semi-copied by fantasy writers ever since. That is, the elves/orcs/dwarves racial mix, and a medieval setting with magic and wizards thrown in. Each author puts some sort of their own spin on that, but the big influence is totally undeniable I think. So you could say the Tolkienesque world has become the root of most fantasy cliché. Though not all - Ali's theory on villains doesn't ring true, because Sauron isn't really 'ironically polite', the Uruk-Hai leader isn't 'of indeterminate sexuality' and Saruman isn't 'wearing black' :).

Anyway, back to the point, I don't think a fantasy novelist should necessarily be criticised if their novel's basic premise bears similarity to Tolkien's LOTR. Even if their storyline itself is close in parts, that doesn't make their work redundant. There's plenty of other elements that can make a fantasy novel a worthwhile read, be it sharp dialogue, or especially strong characters, or a really great vivid descriptive style.

I think this 'clichéd can still be good' argument applies to most entertainment pretty well. For example, I thought 'Pirates Of The Carribean' was a great piece of cinema, even if it faithfully involved just about every pirate story cliché. A big part of it being great was Johnny Depp giving a typically great performance. Another case in point, the 'Indiana Jones' trilogy tried to mimic old adventure serials and ended up even copying itself in parts, but that didn't detract from it at all, partly because on the levels of cinematography, dialogue, acting, musical score etc. it was brilliant. But also partly because whilst being heavily 'clichéd' it had its own very strong identity. That's actually possible, seems to me: to be original whilst being clichéd. Sounds totally stupid, and it's hard to articulate these things, but I think there's truth in it.

-
Re: Robert Jordan - A couple years ago, I read the first two Robert Jordan 'Wheel Of Time' novels, I enjoyed them a lot. I actually meant to pick up more as I was enjoying the story but somehow never got round to it. Anyway, I don't really remember being struck by any overwhelming sense that he'd filled his plot with tired clichéd elements. I have only just remembered I read the books reading this thread, but maybe now I will get book 3...

Barcik

Gonzo, book 3 you can skip. The first 2 are fun, but in the 3rd the whole development stops, much like with other fantasy franchizes. There is pretty much no progress of the plot at all, except making it a bit more 'complex' until book 9.
Currently Working On: Monkey Island 1.5

Darth Mandarb

Gonzo - I would suggest reading book 3 because you have to read book 4 (The Shadow Rising).  It's the best book in the series in my opinion.  It wouldn't make much sense if you don't read book 3.

But after that ... well ... it sort of went downhill.  Jordan does a masterful job with his characters and you want to keep reading 'cause you care about them.  But after book 4 he just starts throwing characters at you like he's rivaling War and Peace and the plot sort of drags on.  Don't get me wrong there's some truely great parts though.

dm

TheYak

As far as fantasy clichés go, I can't name too many movies I've seen in the fantasy genre.  The last 3 were Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, LOTR-The Two Towers & Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell.  

I'll just stick to literature.  I think most points I would make have been made, but I'll echo them.  Why must we always have elves and dwarves, orcs and trolls, wizards and warriors?  If we do feel the need to include them, what stops an author from making them his own?  Why must they always have the same characteristics.  You can read novels by 10 different authors and if they happen to mention elves, you can pretty much assume they'll be very similar in physical and social characteristics.  

I normally prefer to read fantasy that escapes the status quo at least to some extent.  Piers Anthony - uses clichés like mad but uses a fantasy (or sci-fi) world to explore moral and social difficulties.  Harlan Ellison - Writes Sci-Fi but has dabbled in Fantasy.  Not much he's written can be accused of entering a cliché status.  I loved Tolkien's work because his generation of character types was so in-depth and unique (at the time) that you could at least feel that the different species had a right to be part of the story and not just fodder for a thrown-together plot-line.  

Since this is AGS, I  would encourage any that are creating a fantasy-oriented game to try and expand their characters, screw with the plot-lines and devote at least as much time to originality as the art and scripting.  

Nine Toes

#18
Quote from: Trapezoid on Mon 18/08/2003 21:53:17
"Fantasy" by definition is something ficticious. I was just saying that the phrase "ficticious works of fantasy" is redundant.

Actually, wouldn't it be more like a double negative?...  you know, "Don't not lie to Neil", which really says, "Do lie to Neil"... so, "fictitious works of fantasy" would probably really mean "non-fiction"...

...hoo-boy... gotta stop smoking out of a copper pipe...

Anyways, some cliches that I see way too often:
1. The whole main-character has amnesia (or can't remember anything before one point in his life). and has all these strange abilities that he/she can't explain.
2. "The villian killed my father/my family/destroyed my village/etc" scenario.
3. Laser guns, too Flash Gordon-ish.
4. It seems like every story I read, or game I play, the protagonist always has to save the world from something evil... I wish I would come across a story where the main character wouldn't be playing the hero, or would be the villain, or have a more personal agenda. (... bah... this one is starting to sound stupid...)

Somewhere on RPGToolkit forums, one member's signature was one big list of cliches that you often find in common, garden variety RPG's... lemme see if I can track it down...
Watch, I just killed this topic...

Las Naranjas

#19
Perhaps it's largely because the market doesn't want anything new. Mostly's comment about it being Mills and Boon does ring true when it is taken inot consideration that fantasy sells at a comparitive rate, in some places exceeding Romance.
I'm not saying that fantasy cannot be used as a genre for greater things, nor that it can be well developed within those confines, just as Indy was a well made collection of clichés, but publishers must see that the formulaic escapism is going to sell guaranteed, whereas something new is a more risky prospect. It's more or less pop corn literature, or at least that's how it palys out.

The formulaic nature of Fantasy can be bizaare when it is taken into account that of all the genres, Fantasy is the one which should, theoretically, have no bounds whatsoever, unlike say, the close structure of crime novels. The latter too sells enormously, but revels in finding creativity in the very very small boundaries available.
Fantasy has infinite worlds to play in, and whilst they might put it on a different planet, they still seem to fail to escape from the shadow of a man who would have loathed everything they wrote.


---edit---
I'll mention a title my Grandma had [she indulges in fantasy] called "The Rough guide the fantasyland" which did a humourous job of catalouging the greater number of clichés.
"I'm a moron" - LGM
http://sylpher.com/novomestro
Your resident Novocastrian.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk