Are the undead overused?

[LOCOFOOL]

So I’m doing research for my story and I come across an article that has a list of the 10 most “overused things in fantasy writing”. I figure I might as well take a look to see if any of my ideas are considered overused. I figured it would be the usual use of elves, orcs, dwarves “dark lords” all that. I was surprised to find that the undead were on that list.

In my story I wanted to give the villains an army they could control and use to instill fear into people, something with little to no intelligence or free will already. Undead was the PERFECT choice!

I want my story to be something that’s creative and fresh. Hearing that it may be considered overused and uncreative made me question using them.

Personally I don’t think undead are overused. Do you think they’re overused? If so, is it in a bad way?

[ThinkerX]

I have been seeing a *lot* of (urban) zombie books in the stores lately.

Not to mention the continuing surge in (urban) vampire books.

[shangrila]

It depends on your definition of undead. Vampires are, technically, part of this group, so if they were included then it's certainly overused at the moment. Zombies as well, in a way, but then I think they've been kind of cliched ever since the first "of the Dead" movie.

If you're worried about it, automatons could be a good replacement. Whether they're something like stone golems, homunculi or some kind of robot, they would all be intimidating to fight against.

[Feo Takahari]

The basic concept of something that's dead but refuses to stay down is too variable to be overused. Granted, vampires are a little overdone at the moment, but there are plenty of less well-known undead like rusalki. (Or you could create your own variety.)

[LOCOFOOL]

I did mean skeletons and zombies in more of a swords and shields fantasy era. ThinkerX, you’re right, urban zombies are pretty much everywhere now.

Shangrilla, those are great alternatives, I’ve been concerning using something else myself and came up with a few other replacements for something no free will, easily controlled, and intimidating.

[LOCOFOOL]

The basic concept of something that's dead but refuses to stay down is too variable to be overused.

I thought this too. Creating my own undead would be a fun challenge for sure!

[shangrila]

Glad I could help. Also, if you do decide you want to do zombies and skeletons, maybe you could have them as Frankenstien type monster. Bits of flesh and skeletons mushed together to create something vaguely human looking or, hell, something worse.

[JCFarnham]

The undead have even been raising themselves in Science fiction stories I've read this year. Maybe that says something.

Never the less, it is wrong to say you shouldn't or can't use an undead army. You probably should in fact. You need to do something definitive and unique with them however. If they exist simply because they're mindless? Well I can think of plenty other mindless things you could use (Shangrila had it right). The old advice is: If you can switch out an element of your book for something else and it makes no difference to the plot whatsoever, then you need to have a rethink.

I take that this way: If you want an undead army you need to make it the only army that could possibly make sense in context. Otherwise, why aren't they homunculi, or golem, or whatever?

Maybe they're cliche, maybe they're not quite, but the simple fact is, if you ground them well, then no one is going to care much. There's a reason zombie media is so damn popular

[It's a Squirrel...Moose?]

The problem with undead as i see is not the undead per-say, but the often bizarre and contradictory rules that govern them - that and every single necromancer in every bit of fantasy might as be the same character.

Actually, yes... i would say that the undead are overused. It seems that people take a gander at DnD and immediately decide that all necromancers are tall men with shaven heads wearing dark robes (with a classy inline of purple) with a wight in a spiked helm wielding a comically glowing sword standing behind him. The story is nearly always precisely the same - the evil, evil necromancer unleashes a vast horde of the undead - he starts to win the war, then a guy with a robe finds an equally evil book in some castle and defeats the undead horde by speaking the obvious words of unbinding - often with the aid of a immensely cute and strong-of-will teenage, street wise and wise-cracking female thief with a bust the size of Lake Victoria.

Or, a paladin swears to defeat the evil host and instead becomes the general of it after foolishly unleashing a weapon to defeat them (Arthas being the perhaps the best... and actually the only really good, example of this).

The undead are nearly always shown to the same - i.e. mindless. Of course, tropes have appeared to make the undead intelligent, often in the case of Liches. But i'm fairly certain every single type of undead has been done to death (pun intended) - and now I visibly curse whenever I find them in novels.

But... I do play vampire counts in warhammer - so I suppose I can't complain too much.

[Steerpike]

I wouldn't concern myself too much with thoughts of what has been overused or underused. Just write a great story. If you do that, you can have as many undead as you want in it. If your story is no good, no one is going to read it and say "on a positive note: no undead!"