# Worst Fantasy World Cliches



## Black Dragon (Feb 6, 2019)

As we know, fantasy worlds are often remarkably similar.  There are certain cliches that come up over and over again.  Which of these cliches is the worst, and what makes it so bad?


----------



## Gray-Hand (Feb 6, 2019)

Character who are evil for the sake of being evil.

It never rings true.   No one is all evil all the time.  Even the worst people in history never committed evil acts just to be evil, they did so for a reason, even if that reason was completely misguided.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Feb 6, 2019)

"Planet of the hats"--where a whole race or nation or planet is based on one thing to an extreme.

Just lifting already existing cultures and throwing them into a fantasy/sci-fi setting without altering them in any way.

Making humans a "special" race and/or the centre of the universe.

Making elves and dwarves especially into one dimensional cutouts.

Insisting that a world is one way when it is clearly not.

Saving the world becoming so common place that it's not even commented on.

Never addressing why the evil empire/organization/whatever wants to take over the world, or what they're planning on doing with the world after that.

Masquerade stories that don't hold up or make any sense.

I'll probably think of many, many more.

Speaking of worldbuilding, I found these Mythcreants articles very helpful:
The Seven Storytelling Sins of Worldbuilders
The Seven Worldbuilding Sins of Storytellers
Five Common Worldbuilding Mistakes in New Manuscripts
Five Worldbuilding Mistakes Even Enthusiasts Make
Six Consequences of High Magic
Implications of Replicator Technology
Five Questions to Ask About Your Villain’s Master Plan


----------



## Gray-Hand (Feb 6, 2019)

Cities, kingdoms and worlds that don’t appear to have an economy.

If there is a big city with a big wall and a big palace, then it didn’t get built without either paying a lot of skilled workers or slaves.  And they needed food to eat, which means nearby agriculture and a lot of fresh water.  And a lot of that food would have to be pretty close by since refrigeration probably isn’t a thing in most fantasy worlds.

If a kingdom has a big professional army, then it also needs a lot of farmers growing a lot of extra food to keep that army going. And craftsmen to keep its equipment functioning.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 6, 2019)

Bad writing.

That's the sum of it. Every cliche has been done well, even planets of hats (Flatland, e.g., whose story is literally two-dimensional). No idea is a bad idea of itself, though it certainly can be presented that way. And anyway, an idea isn't a story. When we talk about cliches we're talking about ideas, not stories.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 6, 2019)

Stagnation.  A lot of fantasy settings don't really seem to change or grow much over the course of thousands of years.

Plus, a lot of fantasy writers seem to think that if they attach a big number to something, that makes it more interesting.  Like, something that's 10,000 years old is automatically more important and interesting than something that's 10 years old even if nothing of serious note happened in those 10,000 years.  They get too wrapped-up in scope that they forget depth.

Also, an over-reliance on war to flesh-out or add conflict to the story.  
And often the wars would have no real depth to them.  Like, the evil empire just felt like invading some smaller countries because that's what they do or these two countries decided to fight each other for an incredibly arbitrary reason.  No economics, no build-up, no long-term goals for the countries, no attempts at negotiation or conflict resolution before the war gets going, no infighting within the countries, no geopolitical repercussions or cultural shifts before, during or even after the war.  
Wars just kind of spring-up out of nowhere, last for years (or even decades or centuries) and then they just end with a clear winner and loser.

So, I guess to summarize: the "breadth > depth" mentality is the worst.


----------



## Orc Knight (Feb 7, 2019)

In my view, quite a bit. But really, so, yonder hero saved the world (got his prize and maybe a new arm). What's next? What happens a decade down the line, or five? Just cause the big guy in the pitch black armor with the Evil runes in it is gone doesn't mean the smaller ones aren't. Unless they are because it's that kind of story. The Happily Ever After, while I am fine with it, how often does it go on? That sort of thing. True, not many people seem keen on figuring out what's next. Stories over, move on.

Granted I go out of my way to find stories and series that subvert, invert or just play with as much of the fantasy cliches as possible. Though possibly my biggest annoyance is the all evil races like orcs and goblins. True, some of them can be quite amusing, but not if they're just fodder for the hero. That is something I've often stated and is kind of the entire idea of my name since I joined.


----------



## Ban (Feb 8, 2019)

Nonsensical geography. Mountains shouldn't emerge from thin air, lakes need a source of water, rivers don't split nearly as often as they do in fantasy, and does anyone even bother to check how wind and ocean currents work? 

Not quite a cliché, but it might as well be given how prevalent it is.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 8, 2019)

I wonder, is there such a thing as a good fantasy cliche? Or a good cliche of any sort?


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 8, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> I wonder, is there such a thing as a good fantasy cliche? Or a good cliche of any sort?


Yeah, when it’s used well.
See Star Wars: nothing but cliches but man, does it work.


----------



## Malik (Feb 8, 2019)

I'm probably going to start a fire with this, but my most hated fantasy cliché--the one that really makes me want to punch another writer in the crotch--is the pervasive misogyny in the genre, and the idiotic concept that patriarchy is somehow humanity's resting state. Bonus punches for writing rape scenes as some kind of half-assed titillation.







*You had it coming, pal.*​
I was just reading the first book of a series by an author who I love and have loved for decades, and no joke, every single female character in the book ends up getting raped.

Just, stop, already.

Ditto with the cliché of a woman warrior / knight / leader "finding her strength" by overcoming some kind of abusive past and then fighting her way through a patriarchal system. I understand its analogue to modern society but holy shit, enough already. It's _lazy writing_. It's tired, it's tone-deaf, it's dismissive, and worst of all, it's absolutely moronic from a worldbuilding perspective. In a world made of monsters, you can't afford to marginalize half your population and expect your civilization to survive. Think of how much further ahead we'd be right now if we had actually listened to women all this time and given them equity.

On top of that, once I wrote a gender-equal society into my books and created women who were badasses--soldiers, mercenaries, knights, military commanders--for no other reason than they decided they wanted to grow up to be badasses and it never crossed anyone's mind to stop them, it created some fascinating character dynamics. It's also really fun writing scenes where you make the reader fear for a woman's safety and it's not because someone's going to rape her--_yawn_--again. Granted, it's a lot more work, but it results in much deeper character development.

This trope needs to die. The cliché needs to find its rightful place in the dustbin of history.


----------



## Ban (Feb 8, 2019)

Malik said:


> The cliché needs to find its rightful place in the dustbin of history.



As long as the dustbin of history still gives historical fiction the room to describe the past accurately (ish), I'd agree to a maiming of the trope. Although I personally see no reason to fully ban anything besides my own name


----------



## TheKillerBs (Feb 8, 2019)

Malik said:


> it's absolutely moronic from a worldbuilding perspective. In a world made of monsters, you can't afford to marginalize half your population and expect your civilization to survive.


I'd like to say "preach, brother" but I don't agree with this little bit. The idea that a misogynist society couldn't arise in places of extreme danger doesn't hold up with me. There's no evidence for it and in fact, some of the most inhospitable places in the real world are also home to some of the most misogynist cultures. I do not wish to stir up the nest further by giving concrete examples.

I will say, however, that the misogyny is stupid and incongruent in the way it is presented. It seems mostly tacked on for the sake of edge or "because that's the way things were historically", which seems short-sighted and also, they are completely ****ing wrong about how it worked historically. I can totally see how a dangerous world would organically give rise to a misogynist society. I have never seen one that made me believe that's what happened.


----------



## WooHooMan (Feb 8, 2019)

Malik said:


> I'm probably going to start a fire with this, but my most hated fantasy cliché--the one that really makes me want to punch another writer in the crotch--is the pervasive misogyny in the genre, and the idiotic concept that patriarchy is somehow humanity's resting state.



I hate to be "that guy" but I'm going to be "that guy"...
Patriarchal societies are so insanely common through history, through every culture (especially compared to matriarchies which are historically borderline nonexistent or egalitarian societies which are insanely rare) that it's almost safe to say that it _is_ the default state of human society.
I mean, yeah, "fantasy", you can make-up reasons why it wouldn't be the case but then you have to factor in the biological/psychological basis behind male-dominated societies and that's a whole other mess.



Malik said:


> Ditto with the cliché of a woman warrior / knight / leader "finding her strength" by overcoming some kind of abusive past and then fighting her way through a patriarchal system.  I understand its analogue to modern society but holy shit, enough already. It's _lazy writing_. It's tired, it's tone-deaf, it's dismissive



I'd like to add "lazy real-world parallels" as a "worst fantasy world cliches".
That ties into what KillerBs and Ban said.



Malik said:


> it's absolutely moronic from a worldbuilding perspective. In a world made of monsters, you can't afford to marginalize half your population and expect your civilization to survive. Think of how much further ahead we'd be right now if we had actually listened to women all this time and given them equity.



I don't know about that.  Most animal species, especially animals that need to concern themselves with resources like predators whose food supply is dependent on the existence of another species, tend to be as protective of their females as their children while the males do all the hunting and territory-gaining and all that good stuff.
The animal species that most common show egalitarian social behavior tends to be animals that reproduce quickly and have abundant resources.  Humans don't really fit that bill.  In fact, the closer humans get to fitting that bill, the more egalitarian they seem to get.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 8, 2019)

I don't think there is a worst cliche... A good story well written... Use all the cliches you want. 

Now personally, I'm not into sex scenes, consensual, rape, or otherwise. But I'm not really sure sex can be called cliche.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 8, 2019)

That's a fun one, because it's one that bugs me, and it's one I always worry about when someone looks at my world map. I actually have all the plate tectonics figured out, BUT I also have what I call Planular tectonics. This additional force has created mountains in ways unnatural to basic tectonic. So, if someone asks, I always say... If something doesn't look like it could be, that's a clue. But, I'm not going to tell folks about the truth, because it's all part of the world's story.



Ban said:


> Nonsensical geography. Mountains shouldn't emerge from thin air, lakes need a source of water, rivers don't split nearly as often as they do in fantasy, and does anyone even bother to check how wind and ocean currents work?
> 
> Not quite a cliché, but it might as well be given how prevalent it is.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 9, 2019)

WooHooMan said:


> Yeah, when it’s used well.
> See Star Wars: nothing but cliches but man, does it work.



I appreciate the thread, but I'm not sure I believe cliches exist, save as a convenient bit of literary analysis. There's good writing and bad writing. All writing uses cliches--tropes, archetypes, the vocabulary shifts from time to time. Those who do it well are called brilliant, complete with solemn invocations of Campbell etc., while those who do it badly are called hacks. Those who write entire novels without a single trope are called unreadable (Danielewski comes to mind). Well, that's what I call 'em anyway.

I wouldn't say Star Wars does it well (it's a movie anyway, not a novel; different critter). To me, Lucas' writing was pretty ham-handed. I'd cite Tolkien as a better use of cliches and stereotypes. Archetypes. Tropes. Seriously, I'm not seeing how that word helps much, except for when we want to be dismissive.

For fantasy writing, it'd be interesting to hear about specific examples of good uses of cliches. And then to ask why A is a good job while B is a lousy job. I suspect--without evidence, which is the fun sort of suspicion to have--that much of the assessment will come down to whether one liked a particular novel or not. One person's meat is another's kale, as the sage says.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 9, 2019)

I agree with Malik wholeheartedly. A particular beef is the use of rape as an inciting incident or even for main motivation. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's callous. Murder of the family, or slaughter of the village, is an also-ran. Again, mainly because it's so often done as a quick-and-easy motivator. Although, I do issue an Honorable Exception for Conan. We all have our weaknesses.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 9, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> I agree with Malik wholeheartedly. A particular beef is the use of rape as an inciting incident or even for main motivation. It's cheap, it's easy, and it's callous. Murder of the family, or slaughter of the village, is an also-ran. Again, mainly because it's so often done as a quick-and-easy motivator. Although, I do issue an Honorable Exception for Conan. We all have our weaknesses.



I don't think rape or the family killing can be called cliche. They are a sad reality, so if reality is cliche... oh well. As you mentioned, it comes down to well written and what a particular reader likes.

To use movies again because it's easier... The Brave One with Jodie Foster... Rape and family (loved one) killed and one helluva revenge movie. The Outlaw Joes Wales... Family Killed! Shot the man's dog, for God's sake! It doesn't get more cliche, awesome movie.

It's all execution and personal taste. That said, a rape filled book, is not one I'm going to read. I will write attempted rape, and off-camera rape, but not an actual scene. I'm just not going there.


----------



## TheCrystallineEntity (Feb 9, 2019)

Ban said:


> Nonsensical geography. Mountains shouldn't emerge from thin air, lakes need a source of water, rivers don't split nearly as often as they do in fantasy, and does anyone even bother to check how wind and ocean currents work?
> 
> Not quite a cliché, but it might as well be given how prevalent it is.



Don't go to Wyrd, then. The intentionally nonsensical geography would drive you nuts.


----------



## Devor (Feb 9, 2019)

I think my biggest pet peeve is when the hero, or the villain, or another character, has all these powers and resources, like magic or an army, but they end up spending most of the story going unused.


----------



## D. Gray Warrior (Feb 10, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> Character who are evil for the sake of being evil.
> 
> It never rings true.   No one is all evil all the time.  Even the worst people in history never committed evil acts just to be evil, they did so for a reason, even if that reason was completely misguided.



I can see it if it is a god or something and it’s the god of evil or destruction, but for mortals it’s pretty unbelievable. 

A bigger sin to me is having an evil race and every member of that race being evil. One of my stories toyed with the Orcs, and telling thr typical fantays talen from their POV. Of course the humans saw them as monsters needing to be slain, but the Orcs saw the humans as invading their territory in order to expand their kingdom and the Orcs rally behind the Dark Lord as he tells them he can stop the human kingdom and preserve the Orcs’ way of life.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 10, 2019)

I do something similar with orcs, though I've not written anything yet that includes them. When orcs came into Altearth, they copied the system they found, which was the Roman Empire. So, them having an emperor is immediately a rival which means they're at least potentially an enemy. As an empire. This leaves the door open for individual nuance. 

The orcs were different, though, in that they are monotheists. They worship the sun. Polytheism does not get along well with monotheism, and Roman state religion insists you perform the public rites regardless of personal beliefs. And of course this flies directly in the face of the orc faith. So it's loggerheads from the beginning, with room for truces of convenience and even honest attempts at ecumenicalism. I haven't worked through any of this; it so far has sat quietly in the background. Plenty of other stories to tell.


----------



## C. L. Larson (Feb 12, 2019)

I'm not sure if they are cliches but what bothers me is the over doing of the foreign aspects of a world. I speak English not elvish or orcish etc. I don't need half a paragraph of gibberish to get the idea they speak a different language. I also find made up obscenities tiresome.

On the flip side it is also annoying when writers include modern cultural references or dialog that is inconsistent to the rest of the world.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 12, 2019)

Made up obscenties are another “it depends” thing for me. I mean, hell, there are real world sayings in non-American English that I would think a joke if I didn’t know better. Hello, Canada. And in real life, if I hurt myself in front of my kids, I can get creative, heh heh. I have a lot of fun with one character’s sayings when she gets pissed. I for one am iffy with the F-bomb in non Earth settings... To me, it tends to feel too modernunless used judiciously.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 13, 2019)

And thinking on created languages... I don’t want a language lesson in a book, that’s for sure. Non-english should be used like spice, give me a little flavor, then lay off. I think this goes for using real world languages in an english novel as well. A sprinkle of foreign is fine, but pretend it’s ghost pepper in your chili... don’t use enough to burn my eyeballs.


----------



## MrBrightsider (Feb 13, 2019)

I don't know if it's been said yet, but one of the biggest annoyances for me when it comes to fantasy world cliches is the absolute SMALLNESS of the world. Like, I know it's a lot to ask to come up with an entire multi-civilization world complete with religions and anthropology and reasons for why people are they way the are in the story, but that's kind of our _job _as writers. Your northern european society has magic, yeah? When did they master it? How has it affected their culture? Can they use it to produce food? Have they ever gotten into a terrible civil war over it? Did any other culture look at them and say "Ah ha, those might make useful slaves," and maraud them into oblivion? What skills and technology have they _failed _to develop because of a reliance on magic? How has religion shaped this culture? Etc. etc.

When your northern European city knows exactly what your mesoamerican Aztec culture is up to half way around the world, then the world is too small. I know we can fly just about anywhere in 15 hours in a jet these days, but the world is a pretty big place. When I jump into a fantasy world, I'd like to have that sense of scale.


----------



## Darkfantasy (Feb 13, 2019)

I agree with every one else but another I'd like to add is 'the Chosen One' who is often named the "savour" before they've even done anything to earn that title. 
The poor little Orphan who is the rejected child of royalty or power.
Super powerful main character. Sometimes others have the same abilities but the MC's abilities surpass everyone else's. They are the best at everything they do and worshipped by their 'mob' even though they are an arse to people.
Hero's who are completely and utterly selfless ALL the time and never put a foot wrong of think of themselves, even in a life and death situation. 
Having a totally perfect, loyal friend just to kill them off and spur the MC into final action against the villain. No problem with killing off anyone, this method is done because it works. But make that "sacrifice character" important. Make them there throughout the whole story be important, don't just make them important for those few moments.


----------



## Firefly (Feb 13, 2019)

I was this thread a few days ago and am just getting around to posting, but I've been thinking about it in the meantime and this actually took a lot more thinking than I thought it would. I did come up with a few, but most of the cliches people typically complain about really don't bother me that much if the story is good. Maybe I'm just to young to have gotten sick of it yet, but I feel like I could happily read about prophecies and love triangles and elves for the rest of my life as long as they're well written. I'd much rather read a story where a familiar, well-loved concept is deepened and looked at from a new angle than something that is completely alien and original.
The key part of that though is the "deepened and looked at from a new angle" bit. Too often authors just shove tropes into their manuscripts without putting any thought into things, and the result is inevitably two dimensional and full of holes. And since the authors aren't really thinking about those parts of their stories, they inevitably get filled in with  cliches. It's not the  tropes themselves that are the problem, most of the time, it's that they've been lazily written in the exact same way so many times there's no longer any depth, surprise or suspense left in them. 

I also think people have a tendency to label elements we don't like as cliches, even if the trope in question isn't really all that overused or common. Things that bug you tend to stand out more and bother you more when they do.  I have a thing about steampunk, for example. There isn't really anything wrong with  it, but something  about it has always felt obnoxious  to me, which tends to make me extra nitpicky and critical. Same thing with swear words. I could go on forever about how lazy they are and how little sense they make in fantasy, or  all of the many, many, other reasons they bug me, but I'm not sure they can even _be_ a cliche, even if they are ubiquitous. It's just the way a lot of people talk.


----------



## ThinkerX (Feb 13, 2019)

We had a Challenge dedicated to this concept years ago:

https://mythicscribes.com/community/threads/the-jim-butcher-idea-challenge.10016/

We demonstrated via short stories that even the most tired clichés can be salvaged and made into interesting tales.

I was inspired enough to write two stories.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 14, 2019)

I agree with Firefly, but let me say a word in defense of all the "too often" authors.

Writing is hard. Writing well is even harder. Most folks who start stories never finish them, so the tired cliche stories we read are already in a successful minority. Doesn't make it any more bearable to read; just adding a bit of perspective here.

Also, there's a tone--I recognize it because I strike the same note myself, often--that the "too often" authors are just being lazy. Maybe they are, although lazy doesn't usually get all the way to published. Sometimes, sure. But I'm more inclined to think that they are not very good writers, or are newbies making newbie mistakes, or that maybe they don't even recognize they've used a cliche. With writing there are way more ways to do it wrong than there are to do it right.

All that said, I'll still pounce on a manuscript and point out the mistakes. I'll still call on an author to do better. But I do so recognizing how wretchedly difficult it is to do it at all, and how much harder to do it better.


----------



## Firefly (Feb 14, 2019)

skip.knox said:


> I agree with Firefly, but let me say a word in defense of all the "too often" authors.
> 
> Writing is hard. Writing well is even harder. Most folks who start stories never finish them, so the tired cliche stories we read are already in a successful minority. Doesn't make it any more bearable to read; just adding a bit of perspective here.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry if I sounded condescending, I struggle with this a lot in my own work, and I think that some of my own self-frustration may be showing through here. Finishing a book is herculean task and I in no way mean to denigrate the efforts of anyone who has done so. (After all, I still haven't managed that myself, so anyone who has is already ahead of me .) When I say "lazy writing" I'm more talking about things that haven't been thought out well--which _can_ be due to laziness but is more likely to be because of ignorance, or even just sheer overwhelm at the enormous number of things you need to worry about in order to write a novel.
I think maybe that's why I (and other new writers) have such a hard time with this. We're so focused on the basic mechanics and simply  getting out words that we don't have much brainpower left over. 
I'm not sure that's the whole of it though. There's costs and benefits to putting a lot of thought into something. It usually makes the story better, but it takes time and energy that is sometimes better spent elsewhere. If the element you're getting hung up on isn't important to you or your target audience, I think sometimes it's okay to just let it be what it it is and move on.


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 14, 2019)

FTR, I didn't detect any sort of condescension in your post. I should have been clearer that when I said "there is a tone" I was speaking much more broadly.


----------



## Ross (Feb 19, 2019)

The most cliché … It's got to be the Forbidden Forest - there's one in every fantasy book more or less. It's so overdone ... but still so mysterious and enticing!


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 28, 2019)

Malik said:


> I'm probably going to start a fire with this, but my most hated fantasy cliché--the one that really makes me want to punch another writer in the crotch--is the pervasive misogyny in the genre, and the idiotic concept that patriarchy is somehow humanity's resting state. Bonus punches for writing rape scenes as some kind of half-assed titillation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is so real. People don't bat an eye at 18,000 pound dragons flying, people shapeshifting into monsters, magic, twenty-pound swords, armor that would actually get you killed faster rather than slower, worlds covered in huge predators that apparently subsist on questing parties venturing into their Doom Forest because there are no herbivores anywhere...but a society that isn't misogynistic is just too damn hard to imagine, is it? 

"Realism!" they will moan. Mmmm. Where are your unshaven armpits and rotting teeth? 

"But that's gross and no one wants to read about that--" EX-F*CKING-ACTLY!!! 

I do not give one single shit if misogyny is realistic, even. This is fantasy. You can do literally whatever you want. Like I said. Dragons. Shape-shifting. Sentient tapioca pudding. ANYTHING GOES. But you don't even  have the excuse of "realism" half the time, because history has a very wide variety of societies in it, and not all of them are as misogynistic as others. i've found in my own research of various cultures that actually, misogyny isn't as universal as we think it is, and we think it's so universal because european cultures are actually...well..._worse _than many, many others. example: Ancient Egypt and Assyria had far, far better divorce laws than colonial America. 

oh yeah and i was reading this tablet that was I think assyrian laws?? Something in the mesopotamian river valley area. and there was something in it about how a dude could get his lips cut off if he kissed a woman without permission. So, realism, ya kno?


----------



## Ban (Feb 28, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> oh yeah and i was reading this tablet that was I think assyrian laws?? Something in the mesopotamian river valley area. and there was something in it about how a dude could get his lips cut off if he kissed a woman without permission. So, realism, ya kno?



Seeing as the Assyrians were known for their almost comically brutal rule, I'm going to say that's a yes.
Here's a lovely text written by the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal the 2nd



> “I built a pillar over his city gate and I flayed all the chiefs who had revolted, and I covered the pillar with their skin. Some I walled up within the pillar, some I impaled upon the pillar on stakes, and others I bound to stakes round about the pillar…And I cut the limbs of the officers, of the royal officers who had rebelled…Many captives from among them I burned with fire, and many I took as living captives. From some I cut off their noses, their ears, their fingers, of many I put out the eyes. I made one pillar of the living and another of heads, and I bound their heads to tree trunks round the city. Their young men and maidens I burned in the fire.”


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 28, 2019)

Ban said:


> Seeing as the Assyrians were known for their almost comically brutal rule, I'm going to say that's a yes.
> Here's a lovely text written by the Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal the 2nd



Oh yea, I remember reading this exact text studying in ancient history. The Assyrians were...overeager with the mutilation thing.


----------



## pmmg (Feb 28, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I do not give one single shit if misogyny is realistic, even. This is fantasy. You can do literally whatever you want. Like I said. Dragons. Shape-shifting. Sentient tapioca pudding. ANYTHING GOES. But you don't even have the excuse of "realism" half the time, because history has a very wide variety of societies in it, and not all of them are as misogynistic as others. i've found in my own research of various cultures that actually, misogyny isn't as universal as we think it is, and we think it's so universal because european cultures are actually...well..._worse _than many, many others. example: Ancient Egypt and Assyria had far, far better divorce laws than colonial America.



Oh Gosh... I am sorry DOTA but I find I cannot agree with this sentiment. While it is entirely fine for yourself (or others) to decide this is not your cup of tea, I find the argument that as there are dragons flying about, therefore everything should not meet some standard of realism to be a non-sequitur, because many times we are asking the question 'given a world in which there would be dragons flying about, how might that change everything?' And then we apply what seems most realistic given that different quality. I see no reason to expect men and women would change roles because of the introduction of one additional big creature in the world, and so I think it more logically follows that not much in the way of gender roles and attitudes would change. You can have those changes if you like, but there is no logic which says one must.

I further take issue with the notion that a society with a wider proportion of males in important roles (typically those of combatants and lordship) equates to some type of defacto misogyny. Any society can organize itself in one way or another, and such organization need not be the result of hatred of others, it can just seem like the most effective way to organize. Further, to call such organization misogyny is to discount the role the women did play as partners in these societies. The roles they played were equally important and necessary for the survival of the peoples and cultures. They were not idle standers by waiting for some wheel of justice to come make it right. They were brave, and made sacrifices, and carried their weight just like everyone else did. The fact many were not King does not mean they were less needed. I reject the term misogyny as a blanket statement to cast over the whole of western culture because we found other places that may have acted differently. While I am sure there were many who did not enjoy the prevailing attitudes of their days, all societies are diverse and dynamic and come to their shape by so many different factors that none of them can be said to be most true or even universal. These things shaped organically over time by peoples and people doing what needed to be done in their given circumstance.

Ultimately, I just disagree with any argument that says we should discount what seems like what would realistically be given the things we must bring into the story as givens. Dragons may exist in a world where apples are blue and pumpkins are purple, but their inclusion does not mean everything should change colors. If we bring in no realism at all, the story will be too hard to ground. Maybe that's the point of some, I don't know...but I think we expect readers to bring something into the story first before we show it to be different.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Feb 28, 2019)

pmmg said:


> Oh Gosh... I am sorry DOTA but I find I cannot agree with this sentiment. While it is entirely fine for yourself (or others) to decide this is not your cup of tea, I find the argument that as there are dragons flying about, therefore everything should not meet some standard of realism to be a non-sequitur, because many times we are asking the question 'given a world in which there would be dragons flying about, how might that change everything?' And then we apply what seems most realistic given that different quality. I see no reason to expect men and women would change roles because of the introduction of one additional big creature in the world, and so I think it more logically follows that not much in the way of gender roles and attitudes would change. You can have those changes if you like, but there is no logic which says one must.
> 
> I further take issue with the notion that a society with a wider proportion of males in important roles (typically those of combatants and lordship) equates to some type of defacto misogyny. Any society can organize itself in one way or another, and such organization need not be the result of hatred of others, it can just seem like the most effective way to organize. Further, to call such organization misogyny is to discount the role the women did play as partners in these societies. The roles they played were equally important and necessary for the survival of the peoples and cultures. They were not idle standers by waiting for some wheel of justice to come make it right. They were brave, and made sacrifices, and carried their weight just like everyone else did. The fact many were not King does not mean they were less needed. I reject the term misogyny as a blanket statement to cast over the whole of western culture because we found other places that may have acted differently. While I am sure there were many who did not enjoy the prevailing attitudes of their days, all societies are diverse and dynamic and come to their shape by so many different factors that none of them can be said to be most true or even universal. These things shaped organically over time by peoples and people doing what needed to be done in their given circumstance.
> 
> Ultimately, I just disagree with any argument that says we should discount what seems like what would realistically be given the things we must bring into the story as givens. Dragons may exist in a world where apples are blue and pumpkins are purple, but their inclusion does not mean everything should change colors. If we bring in no realism at all, the story will be too hard to ground. Maybe that's the point of some, I don't know...but I think we expect readers to bring something into the story first before we show it to be different.



I’m not talking about the roles of men and women and society or women being generals or fighters necessarily (though that’s part of how Malik goes about portraying an equal society) I’m talking about women not having any rights. and how every female character has to get raped, because realism. It’s not entirely or even mostly an organization thing.

I don’t consider a society where women aren’t warriors to necessarily be misogynistic. The high proportion of male leaders in European history isn’t why I’m calling it misogynistic. The misogyny is in the fact that women didnt have the ability to make important choices about their lives, escape abusive situations, or be really anything other than property. That’s why I brought up divorce...it’s not so much about career options as the ability to say no to your husband’s advances, or escape from him if he’s harming you. In colonial America a woman who escaped her husband could be charged with theft... of herself. It was a hell of a lot worse than women not being able to go and be a knight or something.

Am I saying you *can’t* have a patriarchal society in a fantasy? No. I’m saying that there’s no reason why you *must.* At all. You can decide to do anything. You might as well ask yourself *why* your society must be misogynistic as *why not.*

Anyway, I read Malik’s comment as mostly being about rape, so...here are my thoughts on that. Rape is common in real life. A whole quarter of women have been or will be raped or sexually assaulted, and those numbers are probably extremely low due to how those things aren’t often reported. But you’re not obligated to follow the laws of freaking physics in a fantasy, so there’s no reason why it’s “necessary” for “realism” to include rape.

Again. Am I saying you can’t write about your female characters getting raped? No. I can’t creep through your window and take your computer.

What I AM saying is that authors duck out of criticism for writing rapey stories by saying “Well, it’s just realism! It has to be in there!” And it doesn’t. It just doesn’t. A romance novel has to include romance. A fantasy novel does not have to include rape. To clarify what I’m getting at: If an author’s fantasy novel includes rape, it’s not because “they had to because realism,” it’s because ***they wanted to include it.***

Personally, I find it really disturbing when people consider misogyny to be such an inherent quality of the world that it requires very discrete reasons to write a story that doesn’t include it. More reasons than you need to disregard a basic law of physics. There’s no inherent physical law that says one in six women must be raped. The statistic is that way because *we as a society allow it to be.* I don’t consider a misogynistic society and rape scenes to be the default setting of fantasy.

As for the story being too hard to ground without realism...If my readers can’t relate to a story without misogyny, they’re not my intended audience. That’s all.


----------



## Ban (Mar 1, 2019)

So to summarise, and correct me if I'm wrong DragonOfTheAerie , you believe that it is fine for the institutions and social sphered of a fictional society to be tilted to one gender, race or whatever binary division if the world justifies it, but you don't think it's fine for the individual mindset of people subject to that society to be wholly dominated by it?

To give an example, a fantasy society might be modeled after roman times where women wouldn't be able to hold public office, but that doesn't mean that Aggripina or Julia just sit on the sidelines and let themselves be entirely marginalized. Society might be against them, but they'll still go out and say it as they see it.


Edit: Before the roman nerds come in , yes there were a handful of powerful women in roman politics, but they were by far the exception to the rule.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 1, 2019)

Ban said:


> So to summarise, and correct me if I'm wrong DragonOfTheAerie , you believe that it is fine for the institutions and social sphered of a fictional society to be tilted to one gender, race or whatever binary division if the world justifies it, but you don't think it's fine for the individual mindset of people subject to that society to be wholly dominated by it?
> 
> To give an example, a fantasy society might be modeled after roman times where women wouldn't be able to hold public office, but that doesn't mean that Aggripina or Julia just sit on the sidelines and let themselves be entirely marginalized. Society might be against them, but they'll still go out and say it as they see it.
> 
> ...



That’s complicated because I feel that a lack of women in positions of power is likely to result from women being oppressed and also to cause women to be oppressed. So I don’t know if realistically it could work. And of course, no one mindset is *going* to wholly dominate a society. We’ve had women speaking out for themselves and their rights for...forever. 

BUT, my message was in response to the idea that a misogynistic society is just one where women are limited in what jobs they can hold. There’s a *lot* more to it. That is, misogyny isn’t just “women can’t become knights.” 

And again, I’m not saying it’s wrong to create such a world (though, damn, I could definitely deal with fewer rape scenes and nothing will convince me otherwise). I’m saying that you don’t have to justify it if you want to do different; that is, a misogynistic world is not the default setting of all hypothetical fantasy worlds. 

And it would be *really really really nice* if people would stop treating it like “realism” means worlds have to be misogynistic, but gravity doesn’t have to work. 

And would like, even maybe write a few worlds that weren’t misogynistic. Because dealing with creepy men isn’t some kind of exciting challenge for us. It’s just life. :/


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 1, 2019)

Demesnedenoir said:


> That's a fun one, because it's one that bugs me, and it's one I always worry about when someone looks at my world map. I actually have all the plate tectonics figured out, BUT I also have what I call Planular tectonics. This additional force has created mountains in ways unnatural to basic tectonic. So, if someone asks, I always say... If something doesn't look like it could be, that's a clue. But, I'm not going to tell folks about the truth, because it's all part of the world's story.



Also, in some fantasy worlds, such as Tolkien's, the world was purposely shaped by powerful beings (e.g. Melkor/Morgoth and other Valar). So when things look unusual, in terms of geology, I'm OK with it if there is a reason for it.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 1, 2019)

D. Gray Warrior said:


> I can see it if it is a god or something and it’s the god of evil or destruction, but for mortals it’s pretty unbelievable.



I can tolerate it for non-human races, if it is explained. For example, orcs are elves who were corrupted by Melkor. There's a reason they're "evil" as a race. If you have a race of humans, it is problematic absent some very good explanation for it.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 1, 2019)

I'm of the views expressed above that nothing commonly consider a "cliche" is bad, _per se_. They're bad because of the way an author handles them in a story.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 1, 2019)

Steerpike said:


> I can tolerate it for non-human races, if it is explained. For example, orcs are elves who were corrupted by Melkor. There's a reason they're "evil" as a race. If you have a race of humans, it is problematic absent some very good explanation for it.



Also, to add to this (if you don't mind getting too much into Tolkien lore), when Iluvatar creates Men he gives them a _new _gift (according to _The Silmarillion_). The new gift is essentially freewill. The elves didn't have it (not that they couldn't make choices, but they were created with a specific nature). This further bolsters the argument as to why orcs are evil, because they're from elves and also lack that special gift mankind was given. Melkor couldn't give it to them, because by then he was forbidden from that kind of creation, which as I understand it is why he had to use elves in the first place. So you really have a lot of lore to back up why orcs are the way they are, and when an author does that I'm willing to go along.


----------



## pmmg (Mar 1, 2019)

Well, Mr. Malik has carefully crafted his sentences in way that avoids being all inclusive, and picks on those who are writing in a very narrowly defined way. I would disagree with him too in that I think he has mischaracterized patriarchy and the inclusion of rape scenes as solely for the purposes of titillation, but I find its his point of trying to end a trope that rings most unworthy to me. Many good and well intentioned writers deal with the issues he would like to see less of and these issues belong in their stories. In fact, many stories would be worse for not having them.

You have revised your remarks to remove the statements about western culture, but I still feel you are trying to talk past the sale and hold on to the inference that the default setting, which is one based on European culture, is by default misogynistic. Western Culture is not the result of misogyny. That word is misplaced. When an author looks at well-established historical human organization, and decides to use them as a model because they seem most likely, and thereby most 'Realistic', that is not misogyny. Nor is a scene of rape when a rape scene would most realistically follow. Rape is a likely outcome to a female character in dangerous situations in a world where someone is trying to handle things in a realistic way. While I would never say "all", I will say almost non-existent are the writers who think, "wow, I really hate women, how can I write more rape scenes?" Misogyny is about hatred of women. Hatred is a misplaced word for these choices.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Am I saying you *can’t* have a patriarchal society in a fantasy? No. I’m saying that there’s no reason why you *must.* At all. You can decide to do anything. You might as well ask yourself *why* your society must be misogynistic as *why not.*



I would take some issue with this statement. 1) I would not use the word Patriarchal. This word also feels misplaced. As if the choices were Patriarchy or not patriarchy, when the exercise was neither. It was simply to pick what would seem most likely, and the same is true for misogyny here again. The society is not by goal misogynistic. Hatred of women would not be the foundation of it. (or perhaps it could be, but that ought to be part of the point of the story -See handmaidens tale).

And 2) I do think there is reason. Cause when one looks out at the historical ways societies organize themselves, they tend to be hierarchical. This seems a tried and true structure that has repeated over and over again. Hierarchies depend on competence, not gender. When they become incompetent, they fall. Genders play into this model because people of different genders tend to have different gifts to offer, and those gifts have historically caused more males to place higher on the hierarchical scale. This is not by accident, it’s a trend that would likely play out again and again. I assert it is the most likely outcome, and thereby the one that needs the least explanation. So, when something is not the most likely outcome, it needs a set of reasons to set it up. If the reasons are present, I'll buy it. If they don’t make sense, I won’t. (or maybe I will, sometimes I just let it ride).

I could set out to write other visions of societies, or other visions of how female characters interact in it. I could have less rape scenes, or avoid them altogether, if I like. But the argument of realistic is sufficient to include these scenes, and more so if the story is calling for it. It is our choice to write stories that do not call for it. But when our choices become unrealistic, the story will suffer. So I cannot advocate for it.

That we do not prefer these depictions is perfectly fine, but stories must stand on their own. I would not choose to hurt my own craft to artificially avoid harsh scenes. I would not want others to do so either. There is room for all types.

Anyway...not likely to persuade anyone, and I've no wish to dwell, so...


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 1, 2019)

pmmg said:


> Many good and well intentioned writers deal with the issues he would like to see less of and these issues belong in their stories. In fact, many stories would be worse for not having them.



The problem is less often that such scenes are included at all, but rather how they're handled by the offer. For example, such a scene may be used simply as a vehicle for character growth or motivation for a male protagonist. I can see how people would be put off by that, or consider it a cheap plot device that doesn't treat the subject matter with the gravity it deserves.


----------



## pmmg (Mar 1, 2019)

Steerpike said:


> The problem is less often that such scenes are included at all, but rather how they're handled by the offer. For example, such a scene may be used simply as a vehicle for character growth or motivation for a male protagonist. I can see how people would be put off by that, or consider it a cheap plot device that doesn't treat the subject matter with the gravity it deserves.



Well, I can too. Mileage may vary. But we cannot hold as a requirement people handle them well before they get to write them, how else to gain experience? Those that do so poorly will win fewer readers.


----------



## Crcata (Mar 1, 2019)

Elves loving trees like hippies hahaha.  Worsttt.  Reminds me of that old RPG Fable hahaha.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2019)

pmmg said:


> Well, Mr. Malik has carefully crafted his sentences in way that avoids being all inclusive, and picks on those who are writing in a very narrowly defined way. I would disagree with him too in that I think he has mischaracterized patriarchy and the inclusion of rape scenes as solely for the purposes of titillation, but I find its his point of trying to end a trope that rings most unworthy to me. Many good and well intentioned writers deal with the issues he would like to see less of and these issues belong in their stories. In fact, many stories would be worse for not having them.
> 
> You have revised your remarks to remove the statements about western culture, but I still feel you are trying to talk past the sale and hold on to the inference that the default setting, which is one based on European culture, is by default misogynistic. Western Culture is not the result of misogyny. That word is misplaced. When an author looks at well-established historical human organization, and decides to use them as a model because they seem most likely, and thereby most 'Realistic', that is not misogyny. Nor is a scene of rape when a rape scene would most realistically follow. Rape is a likely outcome to a female character in dangerous situations in a world where someone is trying to handle things in a realistic way. While I would never say "all", I will say almost non-existent are the writers who think, "wow, I really hate women, how can I write more rape scenes?" Misogyny is about hatred of women. Hatred is a misplaced word for these choices.
> 
> ...



There’s a lot I could say here, but I mainly want to talk about the rape scenes: “Rape is a likely outcome to a female character in dangerous situations in a world where someone is trying to handle things in a realistic way.” 

Herein is my point: “realism” is suddenly not a concern when it comes to dysentery, armor, hairy armpits, dragons being able to fly, and wizards. But when it comes to women getting assaulted, violated and brutalized, it is suddenly important. 

Why? 

If you truly believe that stories suffer without “realism,” then I expect some complaining about the lack of diarrhea from drinking bad water in a large number of fantasy novels. Why don’t authors devote a couple pages to the hero getting the runs every once in a while? After all, the argument or realism is sufficient to include these scenes...

...or maybe people *don’t like* to read extremely detailed accounts of your hero’s gastrointestinal distress because it’s *disgusting.* 

In fantasy, “realism” bends depending on what the author *WANTS* to include. This is true of all fiction, actually, but in fantasy you have godlike power to disregard what is “realistic.” 

If you’re referencing our world, well, we don’t have dragons, and we don’t have wizards. But they’re in the fantasy book, because the author had the power to decide to put them there or not. Because they’re writing the book. Even though these things don’t exist irl. So no. Realism is the solitary reason to include exactly nothing in a fantasy novel. The author chose everything they decided to put in the book. If there’s a rape scene, it’s because the author decided to write one. That’s it. That last bit is true of literally every genre, actually. 

And to be honest, we women don’t really know why fantasy authors are making that decision over and over and over, ad nauseum, with an incredible amount of frequency, to write about characters being raped, because rape is so abhorrent that you’d think people wouldn’t write about it just for funzies. You’d think people would be disgusted enough by it that they would maybe NOT want to have every single female character in their story raped. Why would you do that, when you could NOT do that? It’s like, why would you write about your character having explosive diarrhea, when you could just not? Why would you hit yourself in the toe with a hammer, when you could decide not to do that? That’s how it seems to us. 

Your female readers are about as eager to read rape scenes included purely for “realism” as they are explosive diarrhea scenes included purely for realism. But like, even less eager. It’s just too damn close to home, it’s disgusting, it’s abhorrent in a way that beheadings and murders and mutilations never will be because we don’t all know multiple people who have been mutilated by the dark lord’s minions. it’s not something we want in our brain space. I simply fail to understand how it can be dealt with so flippantly that the justification to include it is as small as “well, it just makes sense here.” It seems like it should be so much heavier of a decision. But that’s me being female, having a mom and a little sister. 

To put it even more bluntly: women who complain about rape in books don’t understand how on earth the authors can stomach writing about it in the way that they do, with the frequency that they do. 

And yet. Under certain circumstances, my argument would be a hell of a lot different. In a different world. Of course there are ways to handle rape in a fantasy setting. Of course rape sometimes needs to be written about. It’s something a lot of people have experienced, and so obviously there is ample room for it in literature. I’ve written things myself about characters with horrific traumas. So why am I heaping condemnation? Because I have yet to read a book that actually handles rape in a respectful manner. I have read so many damn novels with sexual assault and rape—of men and women both, actually—that I regret being literate. Many of them failed to acknowledge that it was rape at all, almost all literally ignored the trauma that practically one hundred percent of survivors experience, and many of them were totally irrelevant to the plot. Rape is more often than not used to make things seem more shocking or to make the story a bit darker. That’s it. It’s horribly tone deaf and disrespectful, but no one cares. That’s why I don’t trust authors with rape. 

If authors didn’t include sexual assault for no reason at all in their stories? If they didn’t use it as a cheap plot device? If they actually bothered to address how sexual assault affects people’s lives? If they gave their characters any dignity whatsoever? If they actually showed a minute mote of respect for rape survivors instead of exploiting their pain to shock audiences and make their story “grittier,” or worse, to get off? If I’d read a *single* book that wasn’t totally horrible in the way it handled everything? I would be less harsh. But those if’s haven’t happened. And sexual violence in fantasy is just *so* common that I don’t feel super eager to defend anybody’s right to write more of it. We could honestly do without it for a little bit. I know I could. 

So I guess what I earnestly implore you to do is to consider the fact that the topic of rape is far, far, far less abstract to many, many people than it is to you. If you leave the house at all, you’ve met a survivor. It’s almost guaranteed. And it’s real, devastating stuff. It’s hard to pick a subject that has more horrible relevance to more people. It’s so, so far from being some kind of aesthetic decision or plot device or Realism Shot or whatever. Like, really really far from being anywhere close. Talk to women. Read about abuse and trauma. Get to a point of empathy with their experiences. It’ll start to make sense why these discussions are so upsetting to people.


----------



## valiant12 (Mar 2, 2019)

A loser from our world gets transported/reincarnated in a magical/fantasy world where they are the coolest most badass person.
Usually this cliché is accompanied with other "lovely" tropes like lazy world building, the chosen one protagonist and bland main characters.
I once read a story with a similar premise which also had a bland damsel in distress.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Mar 2, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> IThe misogyny is in the fact that women didnt have the ability to make important choices about their lives, escape abusive situations, or be really anything other than property. That’s why I brought up divorce...it’s not so much about career options as the ability to say no to your husband’s advances, or escape from him if he’s harming you. In colonial America a woman who escaped her husband could be charged with theft... of herself. It was a hell of a lot worse than women not being able to go and be a knight or something.



Okay. Two things here. First, women were, for the overwhelming part of history, not considered property at all by anyone. There's a good reason for that. Guys don't tend to like to think of their mothers, sisters, or daughters as someone's property, which is why I'd like to see a source for the claim that a runaway Colonial wife could be charged with theft of herself. From what I know, it would be Victorian women and it would be the theft of the items (including clothing) on her person, and _not_ herself. Coverture was really bloody stupid and it got progressively worse as it got closer to the 19th century.

Second, on divorce. While it's true that not being able to escape from a toxic situation is bad, the prohibition of divorce was actually more a good thing for women. In a society of serial monogamy where women are disadvantaged economically, being an older woman sucks because her husband will most likely divorce her for a younger wife and leave her in poverty or at least, with a much lower standard of living than she used to enjoy.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2019)

TheKillerBs said:


> Okay. Two things here. First, women were, for the overwhelming part of history, not considered property at all by anyone. There's a good reason for that. Guys don't tend to like to think of their mothers, sisters, or daughters as someone's property, which is why I'd like to see a source for the claim that a runaway Colonial wife could be charged with theft of herself. From what I know, it would be Victorian women and it would be the theft of the items (including clothing) on her person, and _not_ herself. Coverture was really bloody stupid and it got progressively worse as it got closer to the 19th century.
> 
> Second, on divorce. While it's true that not being able to escape from a toxic situation is bad, the prohibition of divorce was actually more a good thing for women. In a society of serial monogamy where women are disadvantaged economically, being an older woman sucks because her husband will most likely divorce her for a younger wife and leave her in poverty or at least, with a much lower standard of living than she used to enjoy.



The first thing was from a book I have. I might have misremembered. Idk man. 

The second thing, well...I’m not even sure what your point is because the only reason divorce would be bad in that circumstance is, as you say, because women are disadvantaged economically. I’m not denying that a lot of women would have starved without their husbands to support them. That’s not exactly a good thing though.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2019)

valiant12 said:


> A loser from our world gets transported/reincarnated in a magical/fantasy world where they are the coolest most badass person.
> Usually this cliché is accompanied with other "lovely" tropes like lazy world building, the chosen one protagonist and bland main characters.
> I once read a story with a similar premise which also had a bland damsel in distress.



Idea: person who is extremely special and important in our world gets transported to fantasy world where they are the only one who can’t do magic.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2019)

This whole sexism conversation is confusing tbh, because it seems like everyone is trying to say that the societies/social structures in question are not actually misogynistic, but then saying that rape of female characters makes sense and is realistic given the circumstances.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 2, 2019)

Mysogyny is a word too watered down by modern politics to be useful.


----------



## Devor (Mar 2, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> This whole sexism conversation is confusing tbh, because it seems like everyone is trying to say that the societies/social structures in question are not actually misogynistic, but then saying that rape of female characters makes sense and is realistic given the circumstances.



I think it's as much about defending worldviews than critiquing writing.  I think if you held up examples there would probably be much more agreement.

I've read only a few books which went into rape, but they were crap, and I will readily skip those books.  Aside from my own opinions, I feel that those kinds of scenes are disrespectful to readers who aren't looking to put themselves through those experiences, which they might because it's a little too close to home.

Game of Thrones threatens rape a few times, holding it over Sansa's head for instance, but I don't think it ever actually happens (edit:  I just remembered there are scenes from different POVs, so kind of nevermind) .  Jessica Jones deals heavily with the aftermath of a trauma which also included it, but never featured it.  So I think there's plenty of room to deal with the "realism" of these kinds of issues without needing to traumatize portions of your audience.


----------



## Ban (Mar 2, 2019)

I believe we're coming to a point where everyone's arguing against things that the other people in the discussion aren't arguing in favour of, leading to a muddled conversation with frustration quick to follow.

If people want to continue discussing this topic, I think it's best to open a separate thread (or two, who knows) with a centrally focused question, instead of a number of assertations on the vague topic of rape in fantasy fiction.


----------



## skip.knox (Mar 2, 2019)

I also recommend, strongly, that folks leave _ad hominem_ rhetoric off the keyboard.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 2, 2019)

Ban said:


> I believe we're coming to a point where everyone's arguing against things that the other people in the discussion aren't arguing in favour of, leading to a muddled conversation with frustration quick to follow.
> 
> If people want to continue discussing this topic, I think it's best to open a separate thread (or two, who knows) with a centrally focused question, instead of a number of assertations on the vague topic of rape in fantasy fiction.



That would be quick to turn into a dumpster fire tbh, because it’s such an incredibly sensitive topic that is highly personal to a large number of people, and yet no one has the ability to decide who writes what. 

I particularly have strong opinions at the moment because last year I blundered into a whole nest of books that handled rape in a terrible manner, and I feel like nuking the entire trope after all that.


----------



## Crcata (Mar 2, 2019)

I dont don't think anyone is defending rape as a real world occurrence, thats pretty nonsensical.  Only that writing about it shouldn't be shunned.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 3, 2019)

Crcata said:


> I dont don't think anyone is defending rape as a real world occurrence, thats pretty nonsensical.  Only that writing about it shouldn't be shunned.



I don’t think anyone is claiming anyone is?


----------



## pmmg (Mar 4, 2019)

So, with regard to DOTA's long post above...

It is clearly true that we live in a world where many people have had traumatic things happen to them. It is also clearly true that for many that was in the form of rape it is easy to understand why some may feel that topic hits close to home. People are vastly different from each other, and it would be impossible to say how one may react to a topic over another.

People who have had these types of trauma's in their lives, they do have my sympathy, and those who are sensitive to these subjects, I can relate to them as well.

Dota is saying that she feels too many writers include this, and that the topic is not handled in a way which is sensitive enough to people who have had real world experiences. She is of the feeling that not enough empathy is being shown towards victims of such experiences, she even implores that we should try to get to a point of empathy with people who have had such experiences before we write on topics which could be upsetting. Both Malik and Dota have written that they feel too many authors include this, not because it brings value to the story, but because it is personally titillating to the author, and serves only the purpose to add shock value.

Is that a fair summation?

I can certainly understand why many may feel put off by this topic or by such scenes as they appear in fiction. Malik went on to say he has just read a book where every single female character was raped at some point (might that have been Game of Thrones?), so I would not argue that such depictions are not prevalent, and or even in many cases handled poorly, or even that some authors include them for poor reasons. Clearly, all of those conditions exist.

I would never call anybody wrong for holding such sentiments, and it is entirely okay if they have strong opinions on what they see and what they think it all means. And if DOTA, or Malik, or anyone else, wants less of it in their fiction, hey, more power to them on that. I can totally relate to your concerns, and am totally fine with you and others holding similar views. But I do not think I will ever subscribe to them. I am in a different camp than that. I like the world unfiltered.

I would make the argument that we touch the world through our stories, and stories are the most powerful vehicle to say what we want to say and shape the things around us. And tough subjects are not to be avoided, they are to be dared. And while it is true that 90% of everything is dreck, it’s for the 10% that we cannot have limits.

DOTA is a person with concerns and a beloved member of the site, and she totally cool with me. Someone said ease off on the ad hominem attacks. I don’t see where that has occurred, but sorry if someone felt I had attacked them.

I would also say that generally, I am not one that likes to hate on things, and so a thread about hating on even clichés is not something I go for. I think there is no point in hating on them, they are clichés for a reason, and like everything else, there is good and bad in them. When used well, then they have their place.

I was objecting to the use of misogyny, both in the way Malik introduced it, and the way DOTA expanded upon it. I do not ascribe to the thinking that anything that is not favorable to women is misogyny, and I believe I have said as much. The argument was raised about realism not being sufficient to include scenes that would be unfavorable towards women. I argue, and would continue to do so, that realism is always a sufficient reason. (And I almost never use always).

 DOTA says we are making choices, I think that is...half true. Yes, we are making choices, but our choices are guided by the story itself, and what we believe the likely outcomes of the actions and events surrounding various characters. I am sure everyone here has had the experience of feeling as if the story was writing itself. I use the word likely a lot. It does not mean that other outcomes are impossible, only that the further we get away from likely, the harder it is to sell.

I made the statement: "Rape is a likely outcome to a female character in a dangerous situation in a world where someone is trying to handle things in a realistic way."

DOTA challenges that and asks why:



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Herein is my point: “realism” is suddenly not a concern when it comes to dysentery, armor, hairy armpits, dragons being able to fly, and wizards. But when it comes to women getting assaulted, violated and brutalized, it is suddenly important.
> 
> Why?




 Do you really want a reason? Would it surprise you to know that I do think about things like dysentery and armor and hairy armpits? And I am sure a lot of other authors do as well. My answer to that is, when those become important to the story, I will include them, when they are not, I won’t. I do, however, think that a rape is more likely to be shaping to a character than whether they shaved or not, so it would seem not uncommon to me that it got more attention.

And yes, I will at times dare to take on stories with rapes and bad treatment of women. I will not write them with today's values (if I can escape it), I will write them as it seems it fits the character, and I hope it is convincing, and ultimately, I hope it touches someone. Maybe it won’t. Maybe Malik is right, and I should have chosen instead to be one less person with such a story. But I will prefer to dare.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 4, 2019)

pmmg said:


> So, with regard to DOTA's long post above...
> .


 (shortened for space)

I would like it said that I am very in favor of including dark, disturbing things in books, even though my previous posts might have sounded different. Those things are important. Why? Because it's what helps us survive horrors in the real world. Stories are what tell us that we are not alone in the hell we have been through. We need to read about characters who go through awful things and fight to get better and to heal, because it helps us confront the awfulness of the real world and counter it with empathy, humanity and strength. We process real horrors with the help of fictional ones. One can read the story of someone who has suffered like them, and think to themselves, "They survived. They got through it. And I will too." It's how we cope. It's the only way we can deal with it. We're alone, damaged, and scared, but so is everybody else. 

It is powerful, powerful stuff. 

And why am I so viciously critical of including rape in books? 

Because the vast majority of authors treat it as a decision with no weight, like some kind of grimdark decoration to their world. Some kind of aesthetic decision. Including something *that* abhorrent seems like something that would require a lot of the author, but it's always, "Well, it just makes sense." or "It's realistic." I read over and over again about rape being tossed frivolously around because the author wants their book to be Dark and Gritty. Or they want to show that their evil villain is really legit evil. Or they want something bad to happen to their main character. And they are unwilling to fully face the implications for their characters or deal with what they are actually writing in a way that makes sense. The horror of the rape is used as a tool and the character, their dignity, their trauma, their capacity to heal, or all of the above vanish out of convenience. I read again and again about the trauma relating to sexual assault being totally glossed over and the importance of what happened totally minimized or horribly misrepresented. (Last year I read a book by a fairly popular fantasy author where a character fell in love with the person who assaulted them. ???) . The victim themselves half the time isn't given dignity and full humanity, they are just a dumpster for the grimness of the author's world.

Aside from being tone deaf, many depictions of sexual assault in books actually do damage by blaming the victim or insinuating that they "deserved" it, or doing something like having the victim fall in love with their rapist, or worse. This is even laying aside the male gaze/titillation aspect of it. 

Seriously. Ive read some things that have made me want to throw my brain into a pond. 

And in most cases, this shows that rape is no more real or personal to these authors than the black magic or orc beheadings, it's just not something that provokes a visceral reaction in them, it is a device, a tool, a piece of character development. Being *able* to treat it that lightly shows how little they empathize with real world survivors and vulnerable populations in general. I'm highly critical of rape in books because almost nothing I've read shows respect for survivors. And sure, people might disagree with me, but respect, empathy, and understanding is the *only* place to approach certain things that are just this sensitive. I can't *make* someone empathize, but if anyone feels like I'm oppressively trying to force it on them, strangling their creativity, that alone might be a reason for deeper thinking. 

Confession: I have written some really horrible shit. 

I have not written about rape or sexual assault, but I put my last protagonist through an almost literal hell. He was abused as a child, and endured years of literal torture, resulting in severe post-traumatic stress and trust issues upon trust issues. I researched trauma and PTSD for this. (Research research research.) His panic attacks are, in fact, almost entirely self-referential; for that, I wrote what I'd experienced myself. I wanted to be as realistic as possible, and I didn't want to just use his pain to drive the plot, I wanted to do better. What happened to him was horrible, but he was a whole person outside of that, and I showed him being totally broken down and destroyed, and fighting to get better, and experiencing love, and pushing it away, and trying to claw back to it, and trying to process how to receive and show affection. This is not to say that a character who experiences trauma has to be a main character. This is to say: don't reduce the character entirely just to what happened to them. Let them be a character. Research. And understand. Understand most importantly. Don't just exploit them to turn your reader's stomachs. 

Even knowing that the story needed everything I did, I still found writing about all this extremely *hard*. Like, emotionally. Writing about it was upsetting but it was necessary and yet it was the fact that I fully realized him as a character and showed him trying to recover the scraps of his personality he had and trying to return the love that was shown to him even though he had no idea how and generally just honestly depicting his reality was what brought it from necessary to powerful. I might not have done everything right, but I tried.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Because the vast majority of authors treat it as a decision with no weight, like some kind of grimdark decoration to their world. Some kind of aesthetic decision. Including something *that* abhorrent seems like something that would require a lot of the author, but it's always, "Well, it just makes sense." or "It's realistic." I read over and over again about rape being tossed frivolously around because the author wants their book to be Dark and Gritty. Or they want to show that their evil villain is really legit evil. Or they want something bad to happen to their main character. And they are unwilling to fully face the implications for their characters or deal with what they are actually writing in a way that makes sense. The horror of the rape is used as a tool and the character, their dignity, their trauma, their capacity to heal, or all of the above vanish out of convenience. I read again and again about the trauma relating to sexual assault being totally glossed over and the importance of what happened totally minimized or horribly misrepresented. (Last year I read a book by a fairly popular fantasy author where a character fell in love with the person who assaulted them. ???) . The victim themselves half the time isn't given dignity and full humanity, they are just a dumpster for the grimness of the author's world.



Not to push you into a corner but now I'm interested to hear why people in general have this open critique regarding rape but no one says the same about murder? People are murdered left and right in fiction without anyone bashing an eye (and I don't think they should). Murder has been thoroughly ingrained as something that can be used in fiction for no other reason than to darken a story or even for nothing else than rule of cool, so what makes rape a different beast entirely?

I remember in a previous discussion of this sort that someone mentioned that rape was more prevalent, or that more people come in contact with it in their lives which gives it a more 'real' gravitas, but I think that's absolute horseshit. Plenty of people have had murders happen in their community, myself included. Same thing for a matter as dark as suicide, which many people including myself have been in contact with. These things rarely gains the same level of scrutiny as rape when used in fiction and again I don't think they should. But it does make me wonder why many people believe rape needs weight whereas other heavy matters seemingly do not?

Note: Also we've strayed from the original subject quite a bit, but everyone has been cordial about it, so I think it is fine if we keep discussing in a civil manner. These are the types of topics that should be discussed from time to time.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 4, 2019)

Ban said:


> Not to push you into a corner but now I'm interested to hear why people in general have this open critique regarding rape but no one says the same about murder? People are murdered left and right in fiction without anyone bashing an eye (and I don't think they should). Murder has been thoroughly ingrained as something that can be used in fiction for no other reason than to darken a story or even for nothing else than rule of cool, so what makes rape a different beast entirely?
> 
> I remember in a previous discussion of this sort that someone mentioned that rape was more prevalent, or that more people come in contact with it in their lives which gives it a more 'real' gravitas, but I think that's absolute horseshit. Plenty of people have had murders happen in their community, myself included. Same thing for a matter as dark as suicide, which many people including myself have been in contact with. These things rarely gains the same level of scrutiny as rape when used in fiction and again I don't think they should. But it does make me wonder why many people believe rape need weight whereas other heavy matters seemingly do not?



Murder absolutely isn’t as prevalent as rape. With rape, the statistics are something like 18% of women have been victims of an attempted or completed rape. That means almost everyone knows someone. Even these stats are probably low, since so many people don’t report assault.

Almost half of the girls I know well enough to know of something like this have been groped or touched w/o their consent in a sexual manner in an event I’ve been told about. Treating women abominably is normalized enough that we’re surrounded by threatening behavior. I guess the equivalent would be if you had no idea who would decide to murder you because being threatened was just everywhere and no one would care if someone made you feel unsafe.

As for suicide, I mean, I’ve seen people advocate for similar levels of care with this topic. There was a reason 13 Reasons Why was so criticized; it was horrific representation of suicide and mental illness.

And suicide isn’t really a staple of a fantasy novel, either. Like you don’t have fantasy books where multiple characters just off themselves out of nowhere.

I don’t think murder should be taken lightly anyway. If you introduce a characters just to kill them to show your world is dark, that’s bad writing. If you kill a character and don’t show the effect on other characters, that’s bad writing. I’m similarly annoyed with characters in war never experiencing PTSD or any negative mental effects at all.

But I still maintain that rape is far more likely to be immediate and personal for readers.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I guess the equivalent would be if you had no idea who would decide to murder you because being threatened was just everywhere and no one would care if someone made you feel unsafe.
> 
> As for suicide, I mean, I’ve seen people advocate for similar levels of care with this topic. There was a reason 13 Reasons Why was so criticized; it was horrific representation of suicide and mental illness.



But that is reality for plenty of people in plenty of areas of the world, including large swaths of the west, where murder, assault and the daily threat of having your life compromised does exist and is functionally equivalent at the very least to rape and sexual assault. I'd also add that when a person is murdered, not just them, but their entire community suffers.

And I don't agree with you on the matter of suicide there. Sure, few series, movies and other forms of media will outright kill a character simply because, but how often is suicide mentioned in jest? All the time. Equivalents of "Ugh I'll kill myself" are thrown around so willy nilly that no one cares, and again I don't think they should, but it should be mentioned here.

I respect your opinion, but I do think that we should start discussing these matters in these types of conversations as a package deal. I think it's very strange that writers (not you specifically) tend to treat one serious matter with delicateness, while other equally serious matters are not given the same weight. To me it's an all or nothing situation and I'll take all. All things should be acceptable, no matter how little tact is used.

Ban rant done, I hope I properly added what I wanted to say.


----------



## Gray-Hand (Mar 4, 2019)

The murder rate in , say the United States is about 5 in 100,000.
The rate of sexual assault of women is estimated at about about 1 in 5 or higher.
So rape directly affects way more people.  And no murder victim ever needs a trigger warning because they are already dead and can’t read, so the comparison isn’t really valid in any event.

The way killings are portrayed in fantasy writing also creates a great sense of separation between real life events.  In fantasy, and most forms of entertainment, character deaths are usually dignified and awesome, often the conclusion of an exciting and heroic battle.  The killings themselves are often a just and heroic act in themselves when it is a villain that gets killed.  

If popular entertainment portrayed killings as the horrible events they usualy are more often - say for example that fight in Saving Private Ryan that ends with a German soldier slowly driving a knife into the chest of the American, or all of the killings of prisoners in Schindler’s List, then killing would not be thought of as particularly entertaining.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> And no murder victim ever needs a trigger warning because they are already dead and can’t read, so the comparison isn’t really valid in any event.



Now this is just callous and unnecessarily rude. In what reality do you live where the survivors of murder victims don't suffer greatly?


----------



## Gray-Hand (Mar 4, 2019)

Wasn’t saying they don’t suffer.  Please don’t put words in my mouth.


----------



## pmmg (Mar 4, 2019)

Forums occupy an unusual space of trying to be structured conversation. So in respect to the concept of the site, one really ought not drift the thread, and stay on topic. But...Conversations drift and some points are very useful to have said than not, and people are people.

Without giving it a lot of thought, and I would asset as true that the average person seems many more fictional instances of murder than anything else, I think the reason there is a separation in the sentiments is the psychology of how it affects the viewer. I don't think too many people watch a murder in their media and think, damn, that was cool. I want to commit a murder right now. But...sex...  yeah, a good sex scene can make me want it right now. Sex is generally pleasant, murder is general not. So...I think murder gets a pass on instant human psychology that sex scenes, including rape, don't. Both are bad, but they psychologically affect us differently. Anyway.... Time to head home. Night John-Boy.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> Confession: I have written some really horrible shit.



You never fooled me for an instant  A little darkness lives in us all.


----------



## Black Dragon (Mar 4, 2019)

Everyone... 

Please take a breather and let go of the hostility.  We are all friends here.

Then read this section from the Forum Rules:

*Sensitive Topics*

When discussing sensitive issues, all members participating in such a discussion (post originator and respondents) are required to take extra care and treat the topic with the appropriate gravity, making certain they exhibit open-mindedness, understanding, respect, & empathy for their fellow scribes.

Sensitive issues include, but are not limited to:

Sexual assault (rape, molestation, incest, etc.)
Gender-based discussions
Racial relations
Sexual orientation and self-identity
Religion-based discussions
Physical abuse (child abuse, torture, domestic violence, etc.)
We understand these topics have a place in literature. However, as a family friendly site, and with a diverse membership base, involved parties must exercise caution. As a participant in such a discussion, it is your responsibility to avoid framing questions and answers in an offensive manner. During presentation or debate, ensure your intention is to enlighten, educate, persuade, or learn.

A discussion directly related to writing will be granted more leeway by the moderators. However, we reserve the right to shut down any discussion that becomes weird, suspicious in intent, or provides a disservice to our community. Discussions that veer away from this guideline will be closed and/or deleted. Offenders may be issued infractions.

Above all, exercise good judgment.


----------



## TheKillerBs (Mar 4, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> The first thing was from a book I have. I might have misremembered. Idk man.
> 
> The second thing, well...I’m not even sure what your point is because the only reason divorce would be bad in that circumstance is, as you say, because women are disadvantaged economically. I’m not denying that a lot of women would have starved without their husbands to support them. That’s not exactly a good thing though.


I never said it was a good thing. I said the prohibition on divorce, given a certain historical context, was not (just) an imposition on a woman but also a protection. History is complicated and we tend to spout out either misinterpreted or erroneous or outdated information as historical facts because they've been parrotted at us for so long as if they were. My point? Who says I had one? I'm just this guy.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> Wasn’t saying they don’t suffer.  Please don’t put words in my mouth.



I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your words. The crutch of your argument is that victims of murder won't suffer from reading fiction containing murder as they are already dead. Callousness aside, this necessarily ignores the fact that those victimized by a murder include not only the direct victim, but the surrounding community of that victim.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

Now this topic also seems to be too close to my heart, so I'll take a step back and let it unfold without me. 



Black Dragon said:


> Everyone...
> 
> Please take a breather and let go of the hostility.  We are all friends here.



That should afford Black Dragon a breather as well hopefully


----------



## Gray-Hand (Mar 4, 2019)

Ban said:


> I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of your words. The crutch of your argument is that victims of murder won't suffer from reading fiction containing murder as they are already dead. Callousness aside, this necessarily ignores the fact that those victimized by a murder include not only the direct victim, but the surrounding community of that victim.


I never wrote anything to the contrary.
You were out of line calling me rude and callous.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Mar 4, 2019)

I feel that maybe murder in fiction and rape in fiction are in some ways kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison. 

Violence and character death in general have some variance in how they can be portrayed. For instance, a character dying in battle can be seen as heroic and glorious. Now, is this a good or accurate way to portray death and war? Maybe not. It deserves more thought. 

Rape is somewhat different as a number of your readers will have not only been affected by it but have directly experienced it, and it’s kind of a different *kind* of trauma. Trauma victims are affected by a variety of factors, such as their ability to re-integrate into the community, how well understood and talked about their experiences are, and the overall ability to feel safe again after experiencing a traumatic event. Witnessing violence undoubtedly causes trauma.  Being physically violated and having the sense of your *personhood* invaded and taken away, though I won’t say one is more or less traumatic, isn’t exactly analogous. 

I’m not going to deny that fiction has bundles and bundles of problems with dealing with serious topics. Abuse apologism is a big one. And yes, joking and jesting about suicide is another one. Many people have had a loved one commit suicide or have survived an attempt themselves and such remarks are seen in a different light by those people. I think simply becoming more informed, getting out into the world, and having conversations with people will help a lot.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I feel that maybe murder in fiction and rape in fiction are in some ways kind of an apples-to-oranges comparison.
> 
> Violence and character death in general have some variance in how they can be portrayed. For instance, a character dying in battle can be seen as heroic and glorious. Now, is this a good or accurate way to portray death and war? Maybe not. It deserves more thought.
> 
> ...



I still don't quite agree here, as you are now using violence and character death in a general sense in the same breath as murder. These are indeed related matters, as one is a component of the other, but the distinction is key. Murder involves violence, but violence is not murder. So too rape involves harassment, but harassment does not capture the horror of rape. By comparing the subject of violence as depicted in fiction and existing in reality to the subject of rape, instead of directly comparing murder in all its dimensions to rape, it softens the former to an unrepresentative degree.

But I think this is simply a subject to disagree on, unless we end up talking in circles. I think you made some good points.


----------



## Ban (Mar 4, 2019)

Gray-Hand said:


> I never wrote anything to the contrary.
> You were out of line calling me rude and callous.



I don't believe I was.



Gray-Hand said:


> no murder victim ever needs a trigger warning because they are already dead and can’t read


 Is a brash way of wording a sentence and the way you wrote that sentence came across to me as mocking the gravity of the subject matter. I'll take your word that that was not your intention.


----------



## Futhark (Mar 6, 2019)

I don’t think there are bad cliches, just poorly executed ones.  A writer may think, “well, this worked for them, it will work for me” and the publisher may think “well, we’ve sold this before”.  Cliches and tropes are a writer’s bread and butter, they are the ideas that we twist, subvert, invert or reinvent to tell a story.  The problem, to me at least, is when the story is just a pastiche, a copy, that lacks the finer points that made the original good. 

For example, the Chosen One.  For me this has been done to death.  I never wanted to read another chosen story EVER.  Then I read the Twilight Reign series by Tom Lloyd, and guess what?  It used the chosen trope in a way I have never seen before and I loved it.  So is it a good cliche now, or still a bad one?

As for the serious subjects being raised, I would like to tentatively say that writers who include rape, or gore, murder, torture, or any other gratuitous thriller/shock simply because it worked for others, or to add some notoriety or tittillation to their work, do a great diservice to these subjects, and themselves.

Regarding misogyny, gender inequality, patriarchal vs matriarchal roles and societies, well, those are some deep waters and I didn’t bring my SCUBA gear, heh.  All I would want to add is do the research, beware your bias, and be compassionate of those who have suffered trauma and/or injustice.  Be well.


----------



## Seira (Mar 13, 2019)

One of mine would be Fantasies constantly being set in medieval/Tolkien like world. I just think, 'this is fantasy guys use your own imagination!'. But people get upset if you say that to them because they can't seem to push through that obsession, but if that's what they like then they should write it. 

Villains who are just pure evil. Hero's who are just good and put their life on the line because it's right.

Wizards that resemble Gandalf all the time. 

Made up races that are just copies of elves.

The spunky, kick-arse, good at everything girl and her hunky, handsome, bad guy love interest. or hunky, handsome, perfect guy.


----------



## Malik (Mar 14, 2019)

Seira said:


> Wizards that resemble Gandalf all the time.



One of my MC's meets a wandering wizard named Crius in a coffee shop outside a RenFaire:

_It was one of the Renaissance guys, leaning on a staff. He needed a shower.
Carter eyed Crius up and down clinically, then guessed. “Dave Grohl stars as the moody young Gascon?”

_​


----------



## Insolent Lad (Mar 14, 2019)

Order versus Chaos. It's a cool idea and arises to some degree from the tradition of the Indo-European pantheon (i.e. the gods came to bring order to the primordial chaos), but it's been done quite a lot—and rarely as well as Poul Anderson, Michael Moorcock, and Roger Zelazny originally did it.


----------



## Miles Lacey (Mar 20, 2019)

In light of the Christchurch, New Zealand, terrorist attacks on March 15th that were carried out by an Australian white nationalist there has been a lot of discussion here in New Zealand about what should or shouldn't be allowed to be discussed, especially in regards to race.

In my opinion no subject should be taboo in fiction because many people find it therapeutic to write about such things.   I personally can't stand "writing as therapy" fiction but if it helps the writer come to terms with the trauma in their lives then who am I to judge?

Fiction allows people to express emotions and ideas in ways that non-fiction cannot.  In particular, fantasy has the advantage that it can go places that other genres can't, except for science fiction.  Sadly, too many fantasy writers fail to see this potential.

With few exceptions fantasy worlds consist of heterosexual people whom it is hard to picture as anything but white living in a violent and brutal pseudo-medieval world ruled by a handful of absolute monarchies forever at each other's throats.  The stories mostly revolve around the elite few fighting over who gets to sit on the throne or finding a sacred object to help someone to, or prevent someone from, ruling the land.

To be fair, though, the fantasy fiction available in New Zealand is limited.  The market here is very small.  Perhaps that is why this is why fantasy worlds I've read in fantasy novels are so limited in type.


----------



## S.T. Ockenner (Aug 2, 2020)

TheCrystallineEntity said:


> Making humans a "special" race and/or the centre of the universe.


That's my absolute least favorite trope involving fantasy races. It annoys me SO much that I once tried making a world without humans, but then I decided to just make humans like every other race, albeit still one of the most common ones.


----------



## Saigonnus (Aug 3, 2020)

Dark Lord Thomas Pie said:


> That's my absolute least favorite trope involving fantasy races. It annoys me SO much that I once tried making a world without humans, but then I decided to just make humans like every other race, albeit still one of the most common ones.



Perhaps a world where the other races don't exist. Everyone is Human! One of my more lengthy projects is exactly that. There are different cultures, with different theological beliefs and architectural styles and cuisine. Each culture has a different set of mores and vices, laws and law enforcement, and express differences in opinion about magic. There is enough diversity just in Humans at least in regards to that story that I didn't want to add extraneous things.

One trope I find annoying is when Humans are "always" the good guys against marauding Orcs or raving Goblins or Covens of witches. I actually tried to write a sort of western-age gunpowder fantasy in which the Humans are the aggressors, using their numbers and expansionist policies to displace the other races; mainly Dwarves and Orcs, some of whom are fighting back against the Human Dominance.

I think that the reason aliens don't visit Earth anymore is because WE are the aggressive species.


----------

