# Originality, Tropes, Stereotypes, Avante Garde - Stop Obsessing



## Steerpike (May 21, 2012)

It is a common phenomenon on writing sites - writers asking "is this original?" or "should I do this?" or "am I changing things up enough here?" And there is a certain value in asking about, and discussing such things, but only if you keep them in the proper perspective and at the proper distance (I'm thinking along the lines of the 10-foot pole ubiquitous in old D&D Campaigns).

As a writer of Fantasy fiction, I submit that first and foremost your job is to engage and entertain the reader. That can be done with any type of story imaginable, from the most traditional of fantasies to something teetering on the cutting edge. There is, however, one instance in which you are very likely not to do it, and that's when you're telling a story you are not passionate about yourself.

To me, when it comes to questions like those above, the only real question the writer needs to ask is this: "Am I passionate about this story?" If the answer to that question is yes, then write it and the advice of others to the contrary be damned.

Writing to the fads is not a great idea - unless you are passionate about a story that happens to fall in with the current fad. Let's face it, what is new and avante garde now is going to be stale and copied to death in a few years. If you don't think so, just look at the glut of urban fantasy and see how much there is that is fresh today. When it first hit the scene it was fresh and new and writers copied the hell out of it.

So today gritty, dirty fantasy is all the rage. That's great - I love Martin, Abercrombie, Erikson, and others who earn their livings writing that literature. Already, we're seeing more and more of these types of works being published. That's no surprise - publishers want to buy what is selling. 

So if you have a great idea for a traditional fantasy, with traditional fantasy races and traditional fantasy views on good and evil, should you throw it away and start writing the next bloody, violent, morally-relative masterpiece? Not just "no," but "hell no." If you are writing a traditional fantasy, I assume it is for one reason alone - you love that story. It speaks to you and inflames your passion. It better, if you're going to spend the next god-knows-how-long writing 120,000 words and then revising it, and then pulling your hair out, and then revising it some more. If the story doesn't speak to you, then you are just asking for hours upon hours of personal torment to produce something that no reader is going to care about either.

We're going to see a glut of gritty fantasy, no doubt. But as that trend continues, the next person to come along with a tremendous work of traditional fantasy is going to hit it out of the park. Why? Because there a readers who like it. In fact, there are a hell of a lot of them. It's no coincidence that so many of the most popular and enduring works, books and movies that still hold sway over the imaginations (and pocket books) of the public today adopt so many of what are considered standard or traditional tropes, and furthermore strike a firm balance between good and evil. Take a look at Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Star Wars, Harry Potter, Eragon, Twilight, and so on. No matter what you think of any of these works individually (I like some of them and not others), they represent bona fide cultural phenomena. People are drawn to that traditional delineation of good and evil. It's a pleasant escape from the real world to a world where you know who to root for and why. It's no accident these themes have endured for as long as human beings have been telling stories.

That doesn't mean that if you are writing the next Joe Abercrombie-style book you should stop in favor of traditional fantasy. You absolutely should not. The point here is that you go with what stirs your own soul, because if you don't you have no chance of achieving that effect with the reader. I only use traditional fantasy as an example above because in all the talk of originality and tropes and stereotypes there is so much hand-wringing among writers about whether they are writing something too traditional. There's no such thing. 

Again, talking about these things is valuable. But keep the proper perspective on it. If the story that speaks to you is entirely traditional, then write that. If it is entirely non-traditional, then write that. If it is in between...well, you get the picture.

Above all, stop obsessing and over-thinking and just write!

(I now turn the soapbox over to anyone who wants to respond).


----------



## JCFarnham (May 21, 2012)

I agree with you - completely and utterly. 

What you just spoke about during your time with the soap box () is certainly the very core of the matter. As with the rest of the craft, how we achieve the above differs greatly. 

Just to play in to this theory here's an example: I'm a lover of the avant-garde and there's no point in lying. Sit me in front of the next Morrison or Mieville or who ever and I'm more than happy. I don't however write avant garde material. This isn't because I'm scared to, rather, because I don't have any experience in writing it or the skills to cope. 

So I'm going to posit this: Perhaps the reason a number of new authors write on-trend material is becuase they, like me, don't quite yet feel comfortable with what they _want_ to write? The outliers of genre fiction are rare so there isn't as much to read in the literature and therefore there's a lot less to study. The easiest thing to do in this situation is to write a whole bunch of mainstream stuff that you love, and *can* find relavent things to study.

If a truly "out-there" story kernal strikes me, you better believe I will write it and learn as I go. 'Cause that's how it should be. Just like you said.


----------



## Steerpike (May 21, 2012)

Those are good points, JC, and I think there is a lot of validity to what you are saying. I think we all start in areas that are comfortable and familiar. I do think that sometimes we may enjoy reading a certain style of work even though we aren't interested in writing them. I like traditional fantasy, in addition to the more gritty fare, and avante garde writers like Mieville. I don't really write traditional fantasy though. Even though I really like well-written stories in that area, when I sit down to write my own stories those just aren't the ones that come to me. 

I think one of the best things a writer can do is be widely-read in terms of all the well-written literature out there, and in my view it is important that this include work outside of the genre. 

But yes, when something strikes you, you have to run with it, in my view. Stopping your momentum to question this and that aspect of the story is self-defeating. If nothing else, you can examine those issues when you are done


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 21, 2012)

I love tropes. I have an off-topic book that I wrote specifically because I loved the tropes in that genre so freaking much.

You just have to learn not to care and tell the story you think is awesome. If a jaded hipster tells you "your book is SO UNORIGINAL," well, them's the breaks.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 21, 2012)

I can't think of a non-confrontational way to phrase this, but I feel like it needs to be said--I think the appetite for stories in which heroes with European-derived features casually slaughter villains with African-derived features speaks to something deeply wrong with our culture. Grittiness is fantasy's teenage stage, but the genre is approaching maturation, and I'd rather not see it descend to childhood again.


----------



## Devor (May 21, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> I think the appetite for stories in which heroes with European-derived features casually slaughter villains with African-derived features speaks to something deeply wrong with our culture. Grittiness is fantasy's teenage stage, but the genre is approaching maturation, and I'd rather not see it descend to childhood again.



Which book does _that_ come from?


----------



## Steerpike (May 21, 2012)

Feo Takahari said:


> I can't think of a non-confrontational way to phrase this, but I feel like it needs to be said--I think the appetite for stories in which heroes with European-derived features casually slaughter villains with African-derived features speaks to something deeply wrong with our culture. Grittiness is fantasy's teenage stage, but the genre is approaching maturation, and I'd rather not see it descend to childhood again.



I'll respond in a way that probably is confrontational. The fixation on racism and the knee-jerk reaction (and seeming need) to cast everything one reads in terms of real-world racism is moronic at best. If you can't read orcs without seeing racism, and can't read elves without seeing a corresponding racism, you have something seriously wrong going on in your own mind.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 21, 2012)

Yeah, I don't see the racist angle. I'm sure someone's used it that way, but if you see it everywhere you look, that's your baggage man. It's not my problem.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 21, 2012)

Then let's drop racism from the equation. I'm still not entirely comfortable with fiction (fantasy, sci-fi, thrillers, etc.) in which the orcs/aliens/mercenaries/whatever are casually slaughtered by the heroes. I'm not a pacifist, but I'm nonviolent enough that I can't in good faith say "to each their own" when "their own" is about a black-and-white worldview, and when I think a black-and-white worldview is one of the things that causes so much trouble in the real world. (Granted, "kill the evil outsiders" is a much, _much_ older framework than anything specifically to do with orcs or elves, and granted, I put up with a lot of fiction that uses it, since it's just so common, but I don't want to encourage the idea any more than it's already used.)


----------



## Dark Huntress (May 21, 2012)

I actually agree with you. Course that's easier said than done in most cases but I share your opinion. I have never figured out why those two simple words, 'just write' can cause such emotional upheaval. Those two little words can cause normally rational adults to break down in tears. Sometimes even a naked piece of paper can cause the same reaction.

But, stressful as it may be for me, I am doing exactly what you are advocating...I am just writing.


----------



## Penpilot (May 21, 2012)

When I was trying to write my first epic fantasy book. I kept trying to think of things that haven't been done; quest story, done; love story, done; ordinary person discovers they're special, done; dark overload wants take over the world, done... well you get the idea. For years I didn't write a lick. Eventually, I gave in just a little to being unoriginal and got myself going, and still ended up writing a mess because I kept fighting every traditional and sometimes logical direction the story wanted to take.

My second book I just said to myself frak it with originality. This is the story I want to tell. Started with standard character types and a standard plot. But as wrote it, I found it grew into its own thing. Each character is an archtype, but they grew into more. Same with the story. It has a simple plot at it's heart, but the standard directions started to morph into surprising twists for me, but in hindsight the twists were the only real logical directions for the characters and story to go for the story I wanted to tell. I started off writing something along the lines of an urban fantasy version of A Knight's Tale. I ended up with A Knight's Tale meets The Big Chill, which I'm really happy about.


----------



## Jabrosky (May 21, 2012)

I've definitely come to be a staunch advocate of "write the story you want". In fact, I think fantasy as a genre would seem far less derivative if authors wrote what they genuinely wanted to write rather than simply what they thought was currently profitable or popular. Some people may be in love with certain fantasy cliches, but I would be surprised if most people, writers as well as readers, wouldn't appreciate at least a few twists on the old tropes.

I could never write a completely stereotypical fantasy story. I might use a few plot or character cliches, but at the very least my settings and creatures are usually very different from what you see in stereotypical fantasy stories.


----------



## Christopher Wright (May 21, 2012)

OK Feo, that makes a lot more sense. Though, in the classic sense of Tolkien (I know you hate Tolkien, but bear with me) orcs aren't actually a race per se-- they are ELVES that were experimented on, tortured, and driven insane by Morgoth. They have since become a race of sorts, but thematically they are the husks of elves whose minds were destroyed and forever carry the imprint of MOrgoth, which I guess Sauron inherited because plot.

As far as a story idea goes, there is at least a rationale and a structure and a history as to why "all orcs are bad." You don't have to like it, but it goes beyond "hey, we need a race to play the heavies."


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 21, 2012)

I'm being blatantly unfair when I say I hate Tolkien, since I've never made it past the first few chapters of LOTR, and since I actually liked _The Hobbit_. I hate _Lone Wolf_, _Dragonlance_, etc., and those are considered Tolkien-inspired, so I tend to blame Tolkien for them, but I understand he disagreed with some of the ideas later writers wholeheartedly embraced. (In particular, I've read that he at least considered the possibility of redemption for the orcs, although it doesn't occur in LOTR.)

To tie this back into the original topic, this doesn't necessarily mean "don't write what you want," just "think about what you're writing." If you're going to write a story in which one group is the clear antagonists, feel free to--just give a bit more thought to why they're the antagonists. (_Winds of the Forelands_, a mixed effort in many ways, succeeded on this count, with a charismatic evil leader who hijacked legitimate grievances about racial prejudice.)


----------



## Philip Overby (May 22, 2012)

Addressing the OP, I think people find themselves entirely too caught up in how similar their story may be to someone else's.  Everyone has their own unique vision of what they want to write.  I've always like gritty fantasy over epic fantasy, but that doesn't mean I want to only write gritty fantasy.  I like a fair share of comedy in my writing, so I try not to take myself too seriously.  

Like others have said, write your story the way you want to write it.  I find more and more that I feel like characters are my main strength and I have more difficulty with following my path to completion.  Sometimes my characters may exhibit traits that are similar to other characters, but they're in my own unique voice.  As long as you are writing something in your own way with blatantly copying something, then don't worry much if something is too similar.


----------



## The Dark One (May 22, 2012)

I have always had a love/hate relationship with Tolkien. I've read LOTR 60 times (seriously) and always love it to bits, but there are things which irritate me about it, not least the fact that most things good are white and most things bad are black.

If I was black, or a dwarf, or a balrog...I'd have real problems with that book.


----------



## Steerpike (May 22, 2012)

The Dark One said:


> I have always had a love/hate relationship with Tolkien. I've read LOTR 60 times (seriously) and always love it to bits, but there are things which irritate me about it, not least the fact that most things good are white and most things bad are black.
> 
> If I was black, or a dwarf, or a balrog...I'd have real problems with that book.



That's an overly simplistic view and when such simplistic views are presented I can't help but think it is because people see what they want to see. You can find at least some discussion of Tolkien and race here (both with evidence that tends to support the contention and evidence that tends against it): Racism in Tolkien's Works - Tolkien Gateway


----------



## Ireth (May 22, 2012)

The Dark One said:


> I have always had a love/hate relationship with Tolkien. I've read LOTR 60 times (seriously) and always love it to bits, but there are things which irritate me about it, not least the fact that most things good are white and most things bad are black.
> 
> If I was black, or a dwarf, or a balrog...I'd have real problems with that book.



Light = Good/Dark = Evil has been around as a trope since probably the beginning of history. As for racist implications, I'm sure Tolkien had his reasons. Arda is supposed to be an alternate-history form of ancient Europe, where the predominant race was Caucasian -- there simply weren't many (if any) blacks, Asians or Aborigines around. The Middle-Eastern equivalent people are found in the realm of Harad. There is a letter of Tolkien's which explains the reason behind the orcs' specific features further, but I'm not sure where to find it.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 22, 2012)

^^ I believe that you believe what you're saying, and that you are honest about why you believe it. Please believe that those you're arguing with are equally honest.


----------



## Ireth (May 22, 2012)

Which one of us are you addressing, Feo?


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 22, 2012)

> If you're going to write a story in which one group is the clear antagonists, feel free to--just give a bit more thought to why they're the antagonists. (Winds of the Forelands, a mixed effort in many ways, succeeded on this count, with a charismatic evil leader who hijacked legitimate grievances about racial prejudice.)



Feo, 

For me, the antagonist is bad simply because he opposes the protagonist's goals.  If I were writing about the American Revolution from the side of the Americans, I'd portray the British as evil.  If my protagonist were a red coat, those colonists rebelling against the crown would be the bad guys.  

It all depends on your point of view.

I'd be curious to hear your opinions on this thought.

Thanks.

Brian


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 22, 2012)

Ireth said:


> Which one of us are you addressing, Feo?



I guess the ^ hasn't really caught on here. (On the last site I frequented, you counted one ^ for every post above yours, so ^^ meant two above.) For simplicity, I'll just use quotes.




BWFoster78 said:


> Feo,
> 
> For me, the antagonist is bad simply because he opposes the protagonist's goals.  If I were writing about the American Revolution from the side of the Americans, I'd portray the British as evil.  If my protagonist were a red coat, those colonists rebelling against the crown would be the bad guys.



I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" and "evil." You wouldn't write their characterization any differently, right?

(This is getting into territory _way_ outside the topic, and while I have strong views on the subject, I don't know anyone else who agrees with them, so if your answer is "yes," I'll drop it.)


----------



## BWFoster78 (May 23, 2012)

> I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" and "evil." You wouldn't write their characterization any differently, right?
> 
> (This is getting into territory way outside the topic, and while I have strong views on the subject, I don't know anyone else who agrees with them, so if your answer is "yes," I'll drop it.)



I'm pretty confused right now.  I've read through your posts, and I'm not sure what your actual objection is.  You seemed to be complaining about the good guys killing the bad guys, but your objection seemed to be not the actual killing but the justification for it.  Am I understanding your point?

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you because I'm not 100% clear on what you're trying to say.

As for if I would write the characterization any differently, of course I would.  The British as seen from the eyes of the American colonist is a completely different creature from the British seen from one of their soldiers, and I tend to have only my protagonists be viewpoint characters.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 23, 2012)

I'll get out of this thread and just discuss things in PMs.

Edit: Actually, on second thought, I'll inquire as to whether I can submit an essay containing my thoughts on the subject. (I seem to be operating off of very different premises than everyone else in this thread, so I might as well outline all of those premises in a single cohesive article.)


----------



## Ghost (May 25, 2012)

I'm turned off by constant references to TV Tropes, hero's journey, and similar things. If you have a story to tell, then tell your story. Clogging up your process with someone else's steps or checking tropes after every idea seems strangling to me.

Some writers haven't dug deeply enough to find the story they need to tell. Whatever makes your heart go pitter patter, with happy thoughts or not so happy ones, that's what makes a story. I see writers aspiring to be like a famous author or struggling to make a certain kind of story. Most likely, what the famous author wrote _meant_ something to him or her.

Of course, it all depends on your goal. If you're writing strictly to entertain, you should be happy when tropes come up in your work—not that you should be actively looking for them as you write. Tropes mean your work shares ideas with what's come before. A tropeless story is more worrisome. What the heck could you be writing about that's relateable? If you're writing for yourself, no one else's opinion matters anyway. You're the only person who needs to be happy with it. If you're writing to move people, write about what moves you. That's the most authentic way to go about it. When you find yourself wondering how others will react to your ideas, whether they'll like them or whether it's been done before, then you might want to question your passion for this particular story and how much it comes from your own perspective. (There are other reasons to write and most people have more than one reason, but I only wanted to touch on those ones here.)

All this talk of writing novels to fit or contrast with other novels, video games, and TV shows/movies out there seems like procrastination mixed with a tiny bit of perfectionism and some silliness. Whatever you do, do it well (or as best as you can). Do it because you love it. Write what no one else could write, not because the ideas are so original but because it's written from your perspective and with your aesthetic. Don't write an post-apocalyptic, alternate history thriller set in Tbilisi with a donkey as the MC because you think no one else is doing it. Write it because that's the story that makes you happiest or most satisfied.

BTW, all the imperatives in my post aren't meant as edicts, they're just how I feel about writing.


----------

