clichés within ficticious works of fantasy

[Trapezoid]

"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"...

No, because "fictitious" and "fantasy" aren't negatives, they're just adjectives. It's more like saying "a tiny atom".

[Las Naranjas]

tautology being the appropriate term.

[Trapezoid]

Redundant tautology!

Ok, enough, back to the topic.

[MrColossal]

http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

this could help

91. I will not ignore the messenger that stumbles in exhausted and obviously agitated until my personal grooming or current entertainment is finished. It might actually be important.

99. Any data file of crucial importance will be padded to 1.45Mb in size.

hehe

oh to be an evil overlord

[remixor]

Up until I was in junior high or so, I was really into fantasy/sci-fi books.  Eventually I got tired of the exact same thing again and again.  I haven't read one in years now (except for re-reading LOTR, so sue me), because it feels like fantasy authors don't really need to come up with very original concepts, despite the fact that it would seem to me that the whole POINT of writing fantasy is to do brand new things.  Unfortunately, most fantasy/sci-fi authors just change the names of the different races and put a slightly different spin on things, then write about 39052 books per month rehashing the same stuff they established in their first novel.  I don't mean to say the genres are worthless or anything, and I don't mean this to be offensive even though it may sound that way, but it seems like it would take less skill to write a "good" fantasy novel than a "good" realistic fiction novel (and, yes, "good" is a subjective term, oh well), since the fantasy author can rely on just inventing random new technologies or magics or races or whatever, which I could honestly do on a pad of paper in a matter of minutes.  On the other hand, the realistic fiction author has to come up with truly compelling stories or characters or whatever; since the books take place in our world, we will not be impressed by the author spending forty pages describing the mystical intertangled world wide web--we're already familiar with that, so the author music impress us with actual substansive situations.
Now, I don't mean to say that fantasy/sci-fi authors can't provide aspects of great literature, but I do believe (based on a hell of a lot of experience reading MANY genres of literature) that it is much easier to get away with writing a fairly hollow piece of fantasy than of standard fiction by relying on tried-and-true cliches not ONLY in plot and so forth (which is a problem that also plagues ANY genre of fiction), but in aspects of environment, technology, travel systems, species, etc.--all things that can fill page upon page upon page (hence these 930209-page fantasy "epics") without really saying much at all.

A good example of a good idea that could have been dumb is Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Gray".  It's about a guy who inadvertently transfers his soul over to a very lifelike portrait of himself painted by his artist friend.  As a result, he does not age or suffer the physical effects of corruption; instead, the painting takes on these characterists (and ends up really old gross and nasty as a result).  Without taking into account setting or anything, a fantasy author would have written the book with the strange properties of the picture as the core along with the physical powers it grants Dorian (and for anyone who's seen the retarded film adaptation of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", it probably seems like this would be the case).  Wilde could have done that, but he doesn't; in fact, the picture is not mentioned nearly as much as one would expect.  The novel is basically a psychological study of Dorian as he sinks into moral corruption without accountability, and the results on his psyche.  There are a thousand more books I could bring up, but this is an example of the type of thing I realized I was never getting out of fantasy novels.

Now, as simply a form of entertainment, it's hard to criticize any medium over another; after all, if it entertains, who cares?  From that point of view, I don't mean to suggest anyone's reading habits are somehow invalid.  This whole unnecessarily long post was just my own personal and very general take on the artistic "value" (another obviously subjective judgment) of certain genres.

Again, please, nobody take offense to my opinions about fantasy books, assuming anybody even bothered to read this crap.  Just my two cents, of course.

[Captain Mostly]

I read the picture of Dorian Grey just recently, and I can happily say it probably wasn't worth it. Sure, it's nice to know the story (it's definatly a good story) but the way Oscar Wild writes is excruciating! None of the characters are at all sympathetic, and they all speak in exactly the same way!!! ARRRG!!!!

Interestingly, I only really read it to warm myself up for Will Self's recent re-working of the story, and the parallels between Wild and Self are un-missable. They BOTH are un-able to write dialogue in a way that isn't EXACTLY the same way as they speak (I'm only guessing about the way Wild spoke, but you definatly get the impression he spoke like that. And will Self DEFINATLY talks the way he writes). They both manage to often lose the interesting and exciting part of the story under a quagmire of irritating and dull meandering. I won't go on.

But whilst I'm on Will Self, does "Great Apes" count as Fantasy? Or do we only include goblin fantasy etc?

Oh oh oh, STARDUST by Niel Gaimen is definatly fantasy, and that's bill (althogh it DOES have a strong element of go-someplace-to-get-something and seriese-of-unconnected-dangerous-events to it...)

[Trapezoid]

Actually, fantasy is a wider genre than ya think... The wizards 'n' swords variety is full of cliches, of course, but look at some of the highest rated fantasy films:
http://www.imdb.com/Charts/Votes/fantasy

Toy Story, Being John Malkovich, Spirited Away, Brazil.... There are plenty of "fantasy" stories which are so far away from those cliches that you can forget that they're "fantasy".

[Captain Mostly]

It's tricky, since you have to distinguish between fantasy as the dictionary would define it, and Fantasy as in the genre people asociate with the word. If only people would bother to make new words when they make new genres, as it gets pretty darn confusing when you have to take into account the popularly accepted meaning of a word as seperate but equally widly used as it's REAL meaning!!

I suspect that films catagorised fantasy are less selected on the basis of their Fantasy connections, and more for their being a bit wacky.

It's pretty obvious that this thread is about Fantasy clichés though, and with a view to that, I'd ask:

Can anybody here (seeing as this is a reasonably creative society in theory) come up with a Fantasy premice/story that DOESN'T feel clichéd?

The problem is that any story told in that Fantasy setting imediatly starts to feel clichéd, and in fact, whenever I read one where they're trying to break with convention, I react baddly and toss the book aside out of the train window. Also, if the story centers on characters and literary type issues (y'know what I mean, broken homes, depression, head lice etc) people expecting a fantasy novel will be let down, and people who would read that sort of thing wouldn't even pick it up, because of the setting... I'd like to know how anyone would suggest the Fantasy genre is able to progress without losing it's audience, or feeling clichéd...

[Hobbes]

To reply to what Gonzo said earlier on stuff being "based on Tolkien", I beg to differ. Not that I am a Tolkien-freak (his long-windedness is particularly bothering to me... as is his lack of characterbuilding), but I feel I must point out the following:

Lots of authors claim to write "high fantasy". When, in fact what they write is akin to the lightest fiction around (we call them Bouquet-books here in Holland). The only thing is, they simply duplicate the setting of man, elves and dwarves, give 'em weird-sounding names and call it "high fantasy".

High Fantasy is a trend started by Tolkien, I believe. It means a thoroughly thought-out setting, blending existing myth and legends into an original piece of work. It also builds on grand themes such as "sacrifice" and heroes, not unalike the popular medieval works of Beowulf.

It seems to me that popular fantasy author (insert Feist and Jordan here) have no concept of such a setting. Feist openly admits to using his D&D playground to write his novels in! True, Midkemia is a fun world, but it clearly shows it somewhat sloppy "architecture".

Now, as a counter to these so-called "good" writers, I would once again like to name Guy Gavriel Kay. And even, to a lesser degree, Robin Hobb. Kay in particular showed the world what High Fantasy truly means when he wrote The Fionavar Tapestry back in the '80ies. Those three books still inspire me a great deal. His wonderful prose and carefully constructed characters, worlds and plots have moved me on many occasions.

Robin Hobb, too, dares to be creative. Her Liveship-trilogy shows that she is willing to go into the unknown as by the end of the second book, I really had *no* idea how it was going to continue. And then by the end of the third, she proved all my theories about the ending completely *wrong*.

That's what fantasy writing should be about. Exploring psychological and sociological themes in an alien setting. Kay gives a very profound insight into the human psyche, and I even dare to call his writing literature. There. It *is* really that good.

And Jordan and Feist and all the others who are the so-called bestsellers? No thank you.

[remixor]

Actually, fantasy is a wider genre than ya think... The wizards 'n' swords variety is full of cliches, of course, but look at some of the highest rated fantasy films:
http://www.imdb.com/Charts/Votes/fantasy

Toy Story, Being John Malkovich, Spirited Away, Brazil.... There are plenty of "fantasy" stories which are so far away from those cliches that you can forget that they're "fantasy".

I never intended to criticize fantasy films; two of those movies (Being John Malkovich and Brazil) are among my all-time favorites, and Terry Gilliam is among my favorite directors.  I enjoyed Spirited Away and Toy Story for their visual aspects mainly, although both were complete films.

[Trapezoid]

My point was that the "fantasy" genre is actually a lot wider than Tolkien-style stories. I guess this thread concerns THAT brand of fantasy, then, right? In that case, yes, of course there are cliches, because that brand is based off of what people associate with fantasy. Namely, wizards, elves, heroes, and all that stuff. That style of fantasy world environment is a cliche itself.

[Las Naranjas]

On Dorian Gray, I think it's interesting to note the similarities with American Psycho, if only because the themes are somewhat similar.


But on "it could have been a dumb idea", think about the plots of most great literature.
The Old Man And The Sea - An old man goes fishing. After a long time he catches a huge fish but sharks eat it before he gets back. He goes to sleep
Pride and Prejudice - Rich and handsome man meets high spirited girl. Initially there is mutual dislike based on perceived arrogance. Girl finds out something about man's past that changes perception. They fall in love.

The former sounds banal and the latter is the plot of almost every romance novel ever written, but both a intensley admired.
The idea, or the plot, has almost nothing at all on the quality or success of the finished product. Often the more acclaimed the book, the more banal the idea or plot.

[Barcik]

I thought about it and I agree with Trapezoid. All fantasy seems cliche to us, because all that we regard as fantasy is elves & orcs & magic & good & evil etc.

However, works such Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita", Carrol's "Alice in Wonderland" and Herbert's "Dune". All these works can be classified as fantasy, according to its definition, but it's hard to do so because it is not the 'fantasy' we know.

[Captain Mostly]

Y'know, I remember thinking about wether American Psyco was based around Dorien Gray when I was reading it, but then I forgot about it untill organes just reminded me. He's so clever!

[Las Naranjas]

The important thing is that there's an ATM that says "Feed me a stray kitten"

[Captain Mostly]

Yeah, but that happens in so many fantasy novels. It's prolly just coincidence.