# Monster Role vs Environment: The issue of convenience vs pointlessness



## Zero Angel (Jan 19, 2013)

Hi guys,

One theme that seems to be reoccurring in our forums is the idea of do we have things happen in our stories because that is what we wanted to happen or does our story develop a life of its own.

Obviously, most people use some combination of this. I personally have some highlights and goals for each story, and then let the characters and setting decide how to get there.

Anyway, in fantasy specifically (and other speculative fiction probably), there is this problem of having new creatures (be they monsters or races) show up when convenient versus you put forth the effort in making the creatures only to have them have no purpose in your story. 

E.g. I created a plant monster that feeds on undead. It is attracted to undead magick signatures and has undead paralyzing properties that can be utilized by living people that harvest the plant specifically for these purposes. Although this is an interesting plant (I think) and it's nice in that it fleshes out the world a little bit, specifically the alchemy system, I can't see it showing up in any of my novels ANYTIME soon (maybe a short story, but that's not more than a paragraph right now and is about 20 deep in my to-do list). 

On the other hand, creating creatures and monsters specifically to satisfy some role in a story (maybe villain, helper, possessing something the characters need, etc), even if retconned, has the possibility to be Deus ex Machina-y and cause people to lose faith in the world. 

I pretty firmly fall on the create as much of the world as feasible so that you have whatever creature you want whenever you need it, but I'm interested in how people go about the other way. Looking for some good conversation. 

What side do you fall on? How do you avoid creating creatures that will never see the light of your story, or what do you do with them after? How do you avoid continuity errors if you make and dispose of creatures when you need them? What other pitfalls or ideas come up with these writing philosophies?


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 19, 2013)

My "monster" are all flesh-and-blood, explainable by science no matter how fantastic it appears to be. As such, all play a part in the ecosystem. I also link them with the people they lived around so even if the creature itself didn't show, the reader will still get passing mention of them.

For example, I envisioned a large, extremely territorial herbivore Yaamaut (Direceratop titanis) that will attack at any animal above certain size that dared to enter its territory. It has thick dense armors covering the head, limbs, and dorsal area, impossible to breach with swords/spears/arrows and offers a pretty darn good defense against firearms munition. In-setting, Yaamaut serves as a 'divine beast' for the people and it's a part of the ecosystem that provide food for the superpredator Fatarex (also serve as population control, since Yaamaut always fight back against predator) and keep a species poisonous and prolific cactus at bay. In-story where it doesn't appear, Yaamaut's ferocity became something of a descriptive phrase (e.g.: "She's fiercer than a Yaamaut.") for some characters.

I actually keep a tight tab on my creatures and also had a chart of how they link to one another in their respective ecosystem. Furthermore, I also keep a chart listing how the characters react to each creature when they encounter one/heard mention of one based on their cultural upbringing and history (e.g.: one character might regard a creature with caution and curiosity while the other don't waste time putting a saddle and a rein on it).


----------



## Devor (Jan 19, 2013)

In the pre-writing phase, I try to think about the Ecology as a whole (Ecology is one of five that I go through), and I fill in details as they would relate to my story.  Sometimes it doesn't take much.  Sometimes old notes carry over easily.  But I like to mess up the setting a lot, so sometimes there's a chart.

If there's a chart, there's probably a placeholder, like "Bear-like Carnivore" or "Super Spider Predator," so that I can understand the role this creature plays in the setting without wasting time on details I may or may not need.  When I understand its role in the story, pieces of the placeholder will start to get filled in.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 19, 2013)

In most of my settings, I mention between zero and two extant unintelligent species that don't exist on Earth. (Presumably, they have evolutionary relatives, but I tend not to go into detail on that.) I can have as many as five extant intelligent nonhuman species (or even more in a sci-fi setting with FTL), but those are a lot easier to integrate into the story, since they have personalities and motivations beyond "Get food! Eat food!"


----------



## Saigonnus (Jan 19, 2013)

Depends for me... I had a concept idea that was centered around a lone city in a valley surrounded on all sides by "natural" geological barriers and a vast forest. It is home to a remnant of a culture that was enslaved and mostly eradicated 500 years before and "defenses" put in place by the captors including plants and animals that act as a deterrent from leaving the safety of the valley even after they left the area (and were later destroyed themselves). 

I think if you suggest the creatures were created for the purpose they have like in the above example, then it's fine to have them in the story. If not, then use something else that perhaps would work better in the environment the characters are in. I tend to create creatures to fit the environment and if I can't come up with anything, I use a placeholder. 

As for carrying the story forward, I believe that anything you add should affect the story in some way; whether being a direct threat to the MCs, lapdog for the antagonist or simply something populating an area the MCs have to go through. Even adding background/depth to the story is a possible reason for their inclusion, but I don't think I would go into terrible detail about it if that is the only reason for it being there.


----------



## Amber (Jan 21, 2013)

With monsters I am very careful. I love creating my own world with my own ecosystems (I am a biologist after all) but I tend to use it for different livestock then horses or something other to eat then potatoes. Monsters fall into clichÃ©s very rapidly. An enormous spider or a bear but then bigger and scarier. It is extremely hard to come up with a truly new horror. And then you have the problem. If you did indeed invent a true new horror, then it will affect all your characters. They will have heard about it, believe it or not, tell stories or dream about it. To only make them pop up that one time your MC is in the forest by him/herself is just not helping the deapth of the story. 

I must say that I do not keep track of everything my mind came up with. I noticed that the moment I start writing things down my mind stops developing it so I need to be really sure that it is finished in all depth before trusting my creation to paper. And I am a good example of a writer who gets led by her characters and the story. I usually come up with the world an the main characters and their story unfolds itself. How successful I am at that seems disputable


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 21, 2013)

Wanara009 said:


> My "monster" are all flesh-and-blood, explainable by science no matter how fantastic it appears to be. As such, all play a part in the ecosystem. I also link them with the people they lived around so even if the creature itself didn't show, the reader will still get passing mention of them.
> 
> For example, I envisioned a large, extremely territorial herbivore Yaamaut (Direceratop titanis) that will attack at any animal above certain size that dared to enter its territory. It has thick dense armors covering the head, limbs, and dorsal area, impossible to breach with swords/spears/arrows and offers a pretty darn good defense against firearms munition. In-setting, Yaamaut serves as a 'divine beast' for the people and it's a part of the ecosystem that provide food for the superpredator Fatarex (also serve as population control, since Yaamaut always fight back against predator) and keep a species poisonous and prolific cactus at bay. In-story where it doesn't appear, Yaamaut's ferocity became something of a descriptive phrase (e.g.: "She's fiercer than a Yaamaut.") for some characters.
> 
> I actually keep a tight tab on my creatures and also had a chart of how they link to one another in their respective ecosystem. Furthermore, I also keep a chart listing how the characters react to each creature when they encounter one/heard mention of one based on their cultural upbringing and history (e.g.: one character might regard a creature with caution and curiosity while the other don't waste time putting a saddle and a rein on it).


Sounds like you have a pretty great grasp on the ecology of your world. Do you ever find yourself making a creature up to fit a role or do you think that having such a thorough ecology lends it naturally to creating what you need?



Devor said:


> In the pre-writing phase, I try to think about the Ecology as a whole (Ecology is one of five that I go through), and I fill in details as they would relate to my story.  Sometimes it doesn't take much.  Sometimes old notes carry over easily.  But I like to mess up the setting a lot, so sometimes there's a chart.
> 
> If there's a chart, there's probably a placeholder, like "Bear-like Carnivore" or "Super Spider Predator," so that I can understand the role this creature plays in the setting without wasting time on details I may or may not need.  When I understand its role in the story, pieces of the placeholder will start to get filled in.



That's interesting. Do you feel your placeholder creatures have the kind of depth that you want from them? What are the other four after ecology in your pre-writing?



Feo Takahari said:


> In most of my settings, I mention between zero and two extant unintelligent species that don't exist on Earth. (Presumably, they have evolutionary relatives, but I tend not to go into detail on that.) I can have as many as five extant intelligent nonhuman species (or even more in a sci-fi setting with FTL), but those are a lot easier to integrate into the story, since they have personalities and motivations beyond "Get food! Eat food!"


You only mention 0-2, but do you have more? And by "have as many", does that mean you have a limit to how many alternative species you have or do you mean something else?



Saigonnus said:


> Depends for me... I had a concept idea that was centered around a lone city in a valley surrounded on all sides by "natural" geological barriers and a vast forest. It is home to a remnant of a culture that was enslaved and mostly eradicated 500 years before and "defenses" put in place by the captors including plants and animals that act as a deterrent from leaving the safety of the valley even after they left the area (and were later destroyed themselves).


Did you do anything with your concept idea story-wise or haven't found the right story for it yet?



Amber said:


> With monsters I am very careful. I love creating my own world with my own ecosystems (I am a biologist after all) but I tend to use it for different livestock then horses or something other to eat then potatoes. Monsters fall into clichÃ©s very rapidly. An enormous spider or a bear but then bigger and scarier. It is extremely hard to come up with a truly new horror. And then you have the problem. If you did indeed invent a true new horror, then it will affect all your characters. They will have heard about it, believe it or not, tell stories or dream about it. To only make them pop up that one time your MC is in the forest by him/herself is just not helping the deapth of the story.
> 
> I must say that I do not keep track of everything my mind came up with. I noticed that the moment I start writing things down my mind stops developing it so I need to be really sure that it is finished in all depth before trusting my creation to paper. And I am a good example of a writer who gets led by her characters and the story. I usually come up with the world an the main characters and their story unfolds itself. How successful I am at that seems disputable


What sort of livestock and vegetables do you come up with? Exotic variants of horses and potatoes or something else entirely? Are there fantastical elements?


----------



## Feo Takahari (Jan 21, 2013)

To be clearer, I tend to go for "gimmick" settings--"It's just like the real world, but with crystals that speed up or slow down time!" "It's just like the real world, but everyone's born with magic related to the body, mind, or soul!" "It's just like the real world, but people who go insane develop supernatural powers!" I don't have monsters out of nowhere, because every monster that shows up is somehow related to the gimmick. It sounds like you're going for more of a D&D feel, where monsters can appear for no other reason than that hey, why not have a monster that does this?


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 21, 2013)

@ Zero Angel
No, there were never any problem. Animals in my story usually occupy roles as something to admire, adversary, domesticated cattle/mount/pet, and/or source of material. Rarely anything else. If I need a specific role like say... 'Guardian of a Treasure', I'm not going to make it a single immortal creature (if I had to do that, my world has golems and robots). Instead, I take a creature that is known to be territorial (like the Yaamaut), set the setting in its natural habitat, and have the protagonist face them to get to the treasure... or perhaps the treasure is _inside/on_ the creature (e.g.: a stone inside their gland with curative properties, horns/tusk that can be used to make tools/weapon/decoration/etc and worth a lot of gold)

Animals also change their behaviour when they are exposed to human. For example, the cat fish in Ganges river now actively prefers human meat after thousand of years of eating the corpses dumped there. My world is the same as well so I have everything need to find an animal that fulfill a certain role related to human (anything from docile pet to predator that hunt human out of spite).


----------



## Amber (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> What sort of livestock and vegetables do you come up with? Exotic variants of horses and potatoes or something else entirely? Are there fantastical elements?



I can give an example. Nothing of this has been translated yet so it is hard for me to just "Englishify" all my creations so fast.
In one of my long stories the main cattle consists of heti's. They are three legged creatures with a profound but slow intelligence. When standing still their legs work like a stool, when walking they form an almost straight line. They are about 1,5 meters tall and very round looking creatures. That is because the grasses and shrubs they eat are very hard to digest so they have an immense set of stomachs and intestines. Their skin can be made into a soft leather but their milk is not drinkable. The herds can be up to thirty or so heti's with one leasing matriarch. She is usually the one with the quickest wits. They communicate trough sound. The sound they make is a little like a baritone. They can make this sound by filling op a small sack of air underneath their chin and pressing the air out through their nose. They can be used as pulling animals although they can not stay away from their herd to long, it makes them sad and depressed and unwilling to do anything.

It is up to you if you think it is just an exotic variance of something or something else entirely. My main character is a survivor, knowing a lot about the wild that surrounds her, so that gives me plenty of chances to name a root she can eat or a helpful plant she finds. I personally don't believe that much in making up a few creatures. I (try to) rename all of it or nothing. Although I am less critical at this for short stories. 

Oh, and my worlds don't have horses.



> My world is the same as well so I have everything need to find an animal that fulfill a certain role related to human (anything from docile pet to predator that hunt human out of spite)


Animals and spite are hard for me to unify. It is like saying a dog hates you, dogs can not hate. They can be fearful, or think you are easy prey. Like elephants that kill humans, they are just trying to beat us at killing them. But this is a very different discussion so I just wanted to mention it. I always find that one very intelligent beast in a whole book very annoying. Cause they are only made intelligent so they can 'hate' humans or love killing children or whatever, very one-dimensional. Do you see what I mean?


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

Wanara009 said:


> @ Zero Angel
> No, there were never any problem. Animals in my story usually occupy roles as something to admire, adversary, domesticated cattle/mount/pet, and/or source of material. Rarely anything else. If I need a specific role like say... 'Guardian of a Treasure', I'm not going to make it a single immortal creature (if I had to do that, my world has golems and robots). Instead, I take a creature that is known to be territorial (like the Yaamaut), set the setting in its natural habitat, and have the protagonist face them to get to the treasure... or perhaps the treasure is _inside/on_ the creature (e.g.: a stone inside their gland with curative properties, horns/tusk that can be used to make tools/weapon/decoration/etc and worth a lot of gold)
> 
> Animals also change their behaviour when they are exposed to human. For example, the cat fish in Ganges river now actively prefers human meat after thousand of years of eating the corpses dumped there. My world is the same as well so I have everything need to find an animal that fulfill a certain role related to human (anything from docile pet to predator that hunt human out of spite).



That's a great way to approach the problem, although it involves some finagling to get the characters in the proper spot. Still, I find that having the ecology basically set up helps me figure out whatever I need whenever I need it. So I tend to have the characters in the spot already and there's usually a monster or creature around that can fit whatever I need it to do. If there isn't, then I haven't worked out the creatures as well as I would like. 



Feo Takahari said:


> To be clearer, I tend to go for "gimmick" settings--"It's just like the real world, but with crystals that speed up or slow down time!" "It's just like the real world, but everyone's born with magic related to the body, mind, or soul!" "It's just like the real world, but people who go insane develop supernatural powers!" I don't have monsters out of nowhere, because every monster that shows up is somehow related to the gimmick. It sounds like you're going for more of a D&D feel, where monsters can appear for no other reason than that hey, why not have a monster that does this?


"Gimmick" worlds doesn't sound like it's doing you any credit. Those worlds can be just as deep or deeper than entire "secondary creation worlds" like what you've correctly assumed I go for. 



Amber said:


> I can give an example. Nothing of this has been translated yet so it is hard for me to just "Englishify" all my creations so fast.
> In one of my long stories the main cattle consists of heti's. They are three legged creatures with a profound but slow intelligence. When standing still their legs work like a stool, when walking they form an almost straight line. They are about 1,5 meters tall and very round looking creatures. That is because the grasses and shrubs they eat are very hard to digest so they have an immense set of stomachs and intestines. Their skin can be made into a soft leather but their milk is not drinkable. The herds can be up to thirty or so heti's with one leasing matriarch. She is usually the one with the quickest wits. They communicate trough sound. The sound they make is a little like a baritone. They can make this sound by filling op a small sack of air underneath their chin and pressing the air out through their nose. They can be used as pulling animals although they can not stay away from their herd to long, it makes them sad and depressed and unwilling to do anything.
> 
> It is up to you if you think it is just an exotic variance of something or something else entirely. My main character is a survivor, knowing a lot about the wild that surrounds her, so that gives me plenty of chances to name a root she can eat or a helpful plant she finds. I personally don't believe that much in making up a few creatures. I (try to) rename all of it or nothing. Although I am less critical at this for short stories.
> ...


Wow. It always amazes me how ESL (English as a second language) people have a better grasp of the English language than English as a first language people. Sounds like you've done a great job English-fying that creature. Sounds very cool. What do the hetis taste like?


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 22, 2013)

Amber said:


> Animals and spite are hard for me to unify. It is like saying a dog hates you, dogs can not hate. They can be fearful, or think you are easy prey. Like elephants that kill humans, they are just trying to beat us at killing them. But this is a very different discussion so I just wanted to mention it. I always find that one very intelligent beast in a whole book very annoying. Cause they are only made intelligent so they can 'hate' humans or love killing children or whatever, very one-dimensional. Do you see what I mean?



Well, you can get around this problem by applying the quirk to the whole species, which is exactly my approach on the whole 'hunting human out of spite thing'. 

Animals can show something akin to spite (though not exactly). Bottle nose dolphin for example, kill porpoise seemingly no reason. They don't eat the same food, so there goes the theory of competition. And they're not fighting for territory since dolphin actually stalk and kill porpoises rather than just chasing it away. Hell, they don't even like the same environment (dolphin like warm water while porpoise prefers colder oceans) so porpoise and dolphin rarely meet, yet the latter kills them anyway for whatever reason. I based the 'hunt human out of spite' on this particular behavior.


----------



## Devor (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> That's interesting. Do you feel your placeholder creatures have the kind of depth that you want from them? What are the other four after ecology in your pre-writing?



Well, when I decide where and how I want to use them, I flush them out and fill them in.  So at that point, yeah.  It helps, though, because I can figure out what role the creatures might play, and then move on, giving me enough to work with if I want to.  Half of the placeholders get crossed off, so it helps me come up with a lot of story ideas with much less work.

I go through _Ecology, Culture, Warfare, Government and Magic_ when I think about the worldbuilding of a story.  ("Culture" includes religion, "Magic" includes gods, "Government" includes economics and history, and so on).  Depending on the story, I go through some of them pretty quickly or flush out a lot of detail based on what I'm doing.  In one, I had to pull "Social Structure" separately from Culture because it was getting to be a big deal.

On paper I have a way of making notes that looks more like a chart with placeholders that I fill in when I need to.  In a longer story, I use OneNote.  But the idea is to visualize a lot of ideas and possibilities before having to do a lot of work that will influence me when I decide whether they're the right ones for the story or not.  It also helps me keep things loose because ideas change over time.  I do similar things with timelines.

For instance, I need a mercenary warrior who uses magic during combat to become a dangerous mid-way antagonist.  So I list "Mercenary with Magic."  I know nothing about the mercenaries or about the magic system.  Later, I decide that one of the bad guy governments was hundreds of years ago a mercenary group that was "promoted" to Lord, so to speak.  Now I have something to play with, like making the old mercenary group see the new one as a threat, giving me an opening to play the bad-guys-betray each other card if I want to.  I don't know yet if I do or not.  I won't decide until it's appropriate for the other decisions I have to make to keep things moving forward.


----------



## Amber (Jan 22, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Wow. It always amazes me how ESL (English as a second language) people have a better grasp of the English language than English as a first language people. Sounds like you've done a great job English-fying that creature. Sounds very cool. What do the hetis taste like?



Never thought of that... And hard to describe without using meat everyone knows. I am thinking of something a bit sweetish but wild. A mix maybe between wild rabbit and a nice read steak. But I am just making this up whilst typing so open for suggestion 

And thank you  We hear the (relatively) well thought trough English on tv a lot but do not speak it that much. So for the native speakers I think a lot of the 'sloppiness' during speaking gets incorporated into the writing language. Some of my friends actually prefer writing in English because Dutch is hard  And they have a hard time making the distinction between what they say when talking and the rules they have to follow when writing.



Wanara009 said:


> Animals can show something akin to spite (though not exactly). Bottle nose dolphin for example, kill porpoise seemingly no reason. They don't eat the same food, so there goes the theory of competition. And they're not fighting for territory since dolphin actually stalk and kill porpoises rather than just chasing it away. Hell, they don't even like the same environment (dolphin like warm water while porpoise prefers colder oceans) so porpoise and dolphin rarely meet, yet the latter kills them anyway for whatever reason. I based the 'hunt human out of spite' on this particular behavior.



That we do not yet understand the behavior doesn't mean they kill for the sake of killing. Maybe they are practicing, maybe they confuse porpoises with deformed young of some kind, or maybe the porpoises give of some sort of smell or signal that drives them nuts. Or maybe it is something entirely different. 

If animals would hate or carry spite around, why are not more people slaughtered by wildlife? If we look at the damage we still do on a regular basis, cars should be hit by dear on a daily basis just out of revenge. Children should be eaten by bears and attacked by foxes or kidnapped by vultures. If animals where truly angry/spiteful/hateful, humans could not have made it this far because we would have been driven to extinction by a constant attack of the wildlife we so carelessly treat.


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 22, 2013)

@Ambers
Alright, perhaps using the word 'spite' isn't the best. However, there are action taken by animals that can be mistaken as this. Most animal don't exhibit them probably because they are wired to ensure survival first and they would've learn to treat us like apex predators. First rule when facing an apex predator: never mess with them (unless you're a wolverine or honey badger). Animals in that never met human before don't fear us, you know? Because they didn't have the experience of dealing with us. Perhaps hunting human down whenever they meet us is one of those responses predators learn, perhaps to eliminate competition.

For example: Crows. They can remember your face and attack whenever they see people who harass them in the past. It is a defensive behavior, but it's something that can bee seen by characters in-story as spite or grudges, especially in setting when zoology or behavioral study haven't exist yet. Mongoose also seem to exhibit dolphin-like behavior with snake (attacking and killing them but prefer to avoid eating it, perhaps clearing out competition). Wolverines also actively stalk and attack larger predators like bears or wolves even though there must be an easier prey items (can be argued it's to clear out the competition).

Thank you though. I shall take note of your opinion and see if I couldn't restructure the ecology a bit.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 22, 2013)

I think George Lucas said it the best: "When you create a world, part of what you do is whimsy and part of what you do is for plot movement and a part you do for your own interests and psychological excentricites."



Zero Angel said:


> On the other hand, creating creatures and monsters specifically to satisfy some role in a story (maybe villain, helper, possessing something the characters need, etc), even if retconned, has the possibility to be Deus ex Machina-y and cause people to lose faith in the world.



It's not a deus ex machina if it was established and forshadowed ahead of time.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 22, 2013)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> It's not a deus ex machina if it was established and forshadowed ahead of time.


I think your intention is correct. If done well, we can incorporate a creature to specifically fill a specific role, but it is prey to being too convenient depending on how it is done. There is a very strong possibility that the encounter or creature will feel forced or unnatural to the reader that likes to think about the world (In fact, this is true for everything we might want to incorporate if we are doing it to match up to what we want to happen in the story--although for this thread we are keeping it a little more specific). To help prevent deus ex machina, we can establish the creature early or foreshadow it or whatever, but if it exists merely to serve the author's will, it can still be considered deus ex machina.

Heck, even if deus ex machina is not only foreshadowed, but logical, then it can still be deus ex machina. For instance, in the original Greek tragedies, the audience expected gods and goddesses to interfere, but this is the literal beginning of deus ex machina and what has been criticized. Anytime the audience has cause to say, "that's kinda' cheating" can be considered deus ex machina. 

I'm willing to agree to this being an argument of semantics though if you have a specific definition of deus ex machina in your head that you hold inviolate. In that case, change everything I said above from "deus ex machina" to "the author imposing his will unnaturally on the story."


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 22, 2013)

I'm with Anders on this one. And besides, even if it _is_ cheating, there's nothing says you can't do it. I say, it's alright to cheat as long as the audience doesn't notice. For example, I often frame my stories in such a way as to skip or get out of writing things I know I don't do well, like romance.


----------



## Cheezyb10 (Jan 23, 2013)

To me a monster means a mindless freakshow that likes to hurt people and/or things. So I don't really give a lot of thought into monsters ruining the story or having much personality.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 23, 2013)

Cheezyb10 said:


> To me a monster means a mindless freakshow that likes to hurt people and/or things. So I don't really give a lot of thought into monsters ruining the story or having much personality.


Please insert "creature" anytime you might have seen the word "monster". Does this help in participating with the thread or are there further issues with semantics?

Although, if you like, you can still use your monster definition. Do you have random mindless freakshows that fit a particular role in your story as you need them or do you plan out the mindless freakshow monsters ahead of time?


----------



## Amber (Jan 23, 2013)

I do not like mindless monsters. They are almost never original or interesting. Most of the time the only reason they are in a story is to give something to do to the MC's and I thin a truly terrifying monster should be an integral part of your whole world, not some distraction on the journey of the MC's. 

@Wanara, always nice to have a civilized discussion on the internet  We also had big discussions on this (and closely related) topic(s) during my courses here on the University, complicated issue.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jan 23, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I think your intention is correct. If done well, we can incorporate a creature to specifically fill a specific role, but it is prey to being too convenient depending on how it is done. There is a very strong possibility that the encounter or creature will feel forced or unnatural to the reader that likes to think about the world (In fact, this is true for everything we might want to incorporate if we are doing it to match up to what we want to happen in the story--although for this thread we are keeping it a little more specific). To help prevent deus ex machina, we can establish the creature early or foreshadow it or whatever, but if it exists merely to serve the author's will, it can still be considered deus ex machina.



I think you're probably overthinking it. Basically_ all _literary devices "exists merely to serve the author's will." Works of fiction are not random things, nor do I believe they should be.



> Heck, even if deus ex machina is not only foreshadowed, but logical, then it can still be deus ex machina. For instance, in the original Greek tragedies, the audience expected gods and goddesses to interfere, but this is the literal beginning of deus ex machina and what has been criticized. Anytime the audience has cause to say, "that's kinda' cheating" can be considered deus ex machina.
> 
> I'm willing to agree to this being an argument of semantics though if you have a specific definition of deus ex machina in your head that you hold inviolate. In that case, change everything I said above from "deus ex machina" to "the author imposing his will unnaturally on the story."



Well, keep in mind that the original deus ex machina was invented at least 2500 years ago. Times have changed a bit since then.

_Technically,_ if you are very strict about it, I guess you could define a deus ex machina as "a conflict being resolved by any means the protagonist has no influence over". Only, I think most people today rather treat it a contextual thing: Most readers probably consider blind luck to be an acceptable way to solve a problem at least once in a while, provided it doesn't seem too implausible and you've already established the possibility ahead of time.


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 23, 2013)

Amber said:


> I do not like mindless monsters. They are almost never original or interesting. Most of the time the only reason they are in a story is to give something to do to the MC's and I thin a truly terrifying monster should be an integral part of your whole world, not some distraction on the journey of the MC's.



Um, why? No, really, why? I can't see any particularly compelling reason why a cool beastie can't _just_ be a cool beastie. Random encounters happen. Sometimes the dice roll is simply not in your favor. If my band of companions encounter a giant cobra while trekking across the desert, I see no reason why I should spend any more than a sentence or two to explain what it is, much less its role in the local folklore. Sometimes you just want a monster attack to shake things up.


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 24, 2013)

Cheezyb10 said:


> To me a monster means a mindless freakshow that likes to hurt people and/or things. So I don't really give a lot of thought into monsters ruining the story or having much personality.



Put yourself in the proverbial shoe of the 'monster'. When the Hero not around, what is it doing? Does it sit in the land of impossible dreams, gathering dust until the protagonist stepped on his cue button somewhere in the ground? Or does it play 52 pickups with its fellow monsters for three millennium (from the creation of the world to the point where  the hero get around to it)?



Mindfire said:


> Um, why? No, really, why? I can't see any particularly compelling reason why a cool beastie can't _just_ be a cool beastie. Random encounters happen. Sometimes the dice roll is simply not in your favor. If my band of companions encounter a giant cobra while trekking across the desert, I see no reason why I should spend any more than a sentence or two to explain what it is, much less its role in the local folklore. Sometimes you just want a monster attack to shake things up.



That work in role playing game. When telling a story, you need a rhyme and reason. You can't just say... throw a giant frog monster in a desert environment because that wouldn't make sense unless you mention something that explain its presence there (i.e.: the frog has tough armoured skin/encased in gummy case of slime and your reader will automatically assume that it prevents the amphibian from drying out). You can always spare a few sentences to explain the presence of a creature and what the local culture regarded them as.


----------



## Steerpike (Jan 24, 2013)

If something looks bizarre on its face, a brief explanation of things is helpful to the reader. Barring that, there's no reason to get into the ecology or raison d'etre of animals unless it has some impact on the story. If the characters are in a forest and see a strange, furry rodent, your reader doesn't have to know that it descended from a population thousands of years ago and received its coloring due to a genetic bottleneck effect when the population was almost wiped out by disease. When it comes to world-building, you're going to know far more about your world than the reader. Don't over-burden them with things they don't need or want to know.


----------



## Wanara009 (Jan 24, 2013)

@ Steerspike

Thank you for the tip. One of my bad habit is to over-explains animals, a remnant of my days in the Speculative Evolution crowds


----------



## Saigonnus (Jan 24, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Did you do anything with your concept idea story-wise or haven't found the right story for it yet?



I haven't really done anything with itbeyond basic world-building, since I have to manage my time fairly well to get everything done and often it doesn't lend itself to getting any writing done. I haven't even been on MS as much lately due to the time constraints I have in my everyday life. 

I have been worldbuilding on the project, getting the world a little fleshed out as far as geography, flora and fauna (since they act as deterrant/defense mechanisms) social dynamics and all the other goodies to give me some place to start from. I DO have an idea on what I want to do for the story, just haven't even wrote a single page yet of the story. 

The runes the people use for magic were taught to them by their ancient captors and incorporated in the runes themselves are smaller runes that act to remove their sense of curiosity and drive to do anything more than accept life as it is; whatever your station happens to be and removing the desire to leave the city. 

I was thinking perhaps of a child being born and the child's single mom dies in childbirth and their father died just a couple months before their birth in a quarry accident, so there are no relatives in the picture. During their first moments of life an aged monk performs the "rite of birth" (working title) where the "protective" runes are placed over the infant. During the process of drawing them on the child's sternum, the smaller ones that act as the first stage of their "prison" get skewed so don't function. The monk who placed them doesn't say anything for fear of being cast out of the church and as the child grows they become more and more curious on why things are the way they are. They become so "troublesome" to the foster foster family and send him off to stay with the monks who vow to "straighten him out". At a chantry, they spend much of their time in the library and accidentally finds a tunnel beneath the building that leads to a chamber constructed by the captors of the people 500 years before. In the chamber he discovers objects and writings on parchment from before their imprisonment and begins the quest to discover the truth about his people. This will lead him of course to explore the forest, which has "defenses" in place in the form of plants and animals. There is also 2 clans of "the people" in the trees, those like him that got their runes messed up (only a handful of occurrences have taken place) and the "watchers" (working title) who are charged with patrolling the forest and keep their own kind unknowingly captive (They willing bent knee to their captors and were eventually allowed to take over the defenses). To propogate their special species, they kidnap people from the city as breeding vessels so they are always fairly numerous.


----------



## Amber (Jan 25, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Um, why? No, really, why? I can't see any particularly compelling reason why a cool beastie can't _just_ be a cool beastie. Random encounters happen. Sometimes the dice roll is simply not in your favor. If my band of companions encounter a giant cobra while trekking across the desert, I see no reason why I should spend any more than a sentence or two to explain what it is, much less its role in the local folklore. Sometimes you just want a monster attack to shake things up.



I do not say that you have to explain the full history of that monster in that moment of your story. And offcourse random things do happen. But random encounters with monsters that never ever get mentioned in any other part of the story just annoy me. That indicates to me that the writer didn't know what to do at that point in his story and for the sake of action invented a monster to let something happen.
Apart from that I always have a hard time believing in mindless monsters. Areas that are inhabited by a pure evil creature which the hero's will casually slay is not very original or exciting to me. Like a random bear encounter in a forest somewhere. Off course this can happen, but the animal will never attack you without good reason. You either came to close or it has young it wants to protect. Monsters that sniff out humans and are desperate to kill each and every one of the traveling group are just not very believable to  me for some reason.

I don't know if I explained it very well but its hard to describe why I feel this way in this regard... Maybe it is just the general feel of the story. It will feel more thought trough to me if there are no mindless slaughtering things in a dark forest/cave/swamp that serve no other purpose that to force some sort of action scene.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 25, 2013)

Amber said:


> Apart from that I always have a hard time believing in mindless monsters. Areas that are inhabited by a pure evil creature which the hero's will casually slay is not very original or exciting to me. Like a random bear encounter in a forest somewhere. Off course this can happen, but the animal will never attack you without good reason. You either came to close or it has young it wants to protect. Monsters that sniff out humans and are desperate to kill each and every one of the traveling group are just not very believable to  me for some reason.



I'm a little more forgiving I think. I am OK with assuming that there is an explanation the reader/characters are not privy to, and in a fantasy I am also OK with "real evil"–or however you want to think about it–existing in the world. In my books I do have certain unique monsters that do not have a species that can be classified as "evil", although they generally have motivations. The one mostly mindless unique baddy–which is based off the Tarasque–is a mindless terror because it is dominated by its mother–which is a melding of Leviathan and Cthulu and set in the logic/history of my world.


----------



## Saigonnus (Jan 25, 2013)

I am of the opinion that using undeads and mindless creatures are a bit of a sell-out really in comparison with a well thought out critter that perhaps could fit the role better. I mean sure, most villains want a service creature that doesn't ask questions, but in the scheme of things it's more believable to me that a villain would rather have a creature that didn't stop to wait for new orders every time they couldn't accomplish their "mission" for whatever reason to one with enough intelligence to carry on with the mission in a different way without having to be told. 

"The skeletons are coming!" She shrieked, following Connor into the darkened cave, the clicking and clacking of their bony pursuers close behind. 

The rough hewn tunnel opens into a cavern lit by iridecent lichen adorning most of the rough surfaces. A tumultuous stream winds its way through the chamber, a spray of water and mist heavy in the air. 

"Quick, we'll have to jump for it!" Addie shouts over the roar of the water as she launches herself full speed through the air to land on the opposite side eight feet distance from where she was. Connor follows suit and they stop to catch their breath and watch the skeletons milling on the waters edge, even jostling each other enough to send two or three of them into the turbulent flow.   

They head toward the only other opening downstream, passing a battered stone bridge that arcs over the water with a rueful shake to their heads.

"At least we are safe." Connor replies casually, looking back at the skeletons still milling around on the bank.


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jan 26, 2013)

In all of my stories, the Fantasy monsters that I have imagined always have a relatively minor role in the worlds and the development of the story.

My first Fantasy series features the _Kareltyans_, a species of 60-feet tall demon-like monsters that spit a fiery, incendiary liquid. They were the first inhabitants and legitimate owners of their world, until said world was taken over by Mages that simply decided to live and settle there.

The Kareltyans have a limited intelligence and a simple social structure, they are not exactly mindless... However, the Mage that came up with the idea to use them as pets/troops simply controls them mentally and they cannot resist that.

The same series features snake-like dragons that are magical in nature, and in my Joan of England story I have a variety of other, smaller monsters that have minor roles in the story as well...

I believe that the monsters are an important ingredient in Fantasy literature (must of us love our imaginary monsters, really!) but it's equally important to avoid creating too many monsters, unless the story is, well... More about monsters, and less about characters and magic and the other Fantasy things.

I do not limit my imagination when I imagine monsters, even though many of them have never been part of any story. I would suggest that we are free to imagine all the monsters that we want, and that way we will eventually come up with the perfect kind of monster to use in our stories =)

If you have created a monster that is not part of your story, and you do not want to use it yet, you can make drawings of it and write a list of what powers the monster has and what is the background story... Who knows, maybe this monster will have a place in your stories later!!


----------



## Zero Angel (Jan 26, 2013)

Sheilawisz said:


> In all of my stories, the Fantasy monsters that I have imagined always have a relatively minor role in the worlds and the development of the story.
> 
> My first Fantasy series features the _Kareltyans_, a species of 60-feet tall demon-like monsters that spit a fiery, incendiary liquid. They were the first inhabitants and legitimate owners of their world, until said world was taken over by Mages that simply decided to live and settle there.
> 
> ...



Great advice, Sheilawisz. I'm curious what went into the name Kareltyans--I assume the "tyans" part is an alteration of "titans" since that is sort of the role that you have them play in your world?


----------



## Sheilawisz (Jan 26, 2013)

Oh, not really... They were called Kareltyans by the Mages that discovered them, because they had given the name _Kareltya_ to the region of the world where these monsters lived.

I enjoy making drawings of monsters on paper and pencil, that way you can easily erase any part that you don't like and keep drawing until you have a nice design.

I remember your drawings, by the way... great artwork!!


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 26, 2013)

Amber said:


> I do not say that you have to explain the full history of that monster in that moment of your story. And offcourse random things do happen. But random encounters with monsters that never ever get mentioned in any other part of the story just annoy me. That indicates to me that the writer didn't know what to do at that point in his story and for the sake of action invented a monster to let something happen.



Well to give some perspective, the giant snake I mention is called a duneviper and it's indigenous to the Mavari Desert region. No one quite knows where it came from, but it's speculated that it might be descended from the Thervan Dragons who conquered humanity in millennia past (it's not). They're a fairly rare species with a long lifespan and they can and will eat pretty much anything that moves. The only animal known to successfully prey on them is the rahorak, a giant hawk powerful enough to pick up freaking _cows_ and fly away with them. And the name duneviper? That comes from the fact that they're so big, when they're hidden under the sand they appear to be _actual dunes_. When the duneviper attacks, it's not just there to be there, it shows that the Mavari Desert is a hostile, forbidding wasteland and that people who live in it need to be tough and resourceful. It also underscores the reason that Mavarian culture is so family-focused. When you're in the middle of the desert with hardly anybody to count on, that family bond is going to be extremely important. There is rhyme and reason behind the monster's existence and it's attack, but does all that need to be spelled out when it first appears? I don't think so. I trust the reader to put the pieces together on their own.



Amber said:


> Apart from that I always have a hard time believing in mindless monsters. Areas that are inhabited by a pure evil creature which the hero's will casually slay is not very original or exciting to me. Like a random bear encounter in a forest somewhere. Off course this can happen, but the animal will never attack you without good reason. You either came to close or it has young it wants to protect.



Or maybe it was hungry and thought you'd make a good snack?  And when we're talking about animals, I don't think that terms like "good reason" are necessarily applicable, unless your animals have extremely high intelligence (which some of mine do). Animals do things on instinct. Sometimes to protect offspring or territory, sometimes get food. Whether that's good or bad depends on which end of the fangs you're on. In that sense, an animal could be considered "mindless".  



Amber said:


> Monsters that sniff out humans and are desperate to kill each and every one of the traveling group are just not very believable to  me for some reason.



Well there's the Crocodile in Peter Pan. But it was only after Hook. Animals that pathologically hunt down all humans would be harder to justify, but not impossible. Mind control or behavioral conditioning could provide answers.



Amber said:


> I don't know if I explained it very well but its hard to describe why I feel this way in this regard... Maybe it is just the general feel of the story. It will feel more thought trough to me if there are no mindless slaughtering things in a dark forest/cave/swamp that serve no other purpose that to force some sort of action scene.



Well, yes and no. I'll let you in on a little secret. You _can_ throw things in just for an action scene. You just have to conceal your true purpose from the reader. Example: plot's dragging a bit and you decide you need some action. But you can't just plop in a Giant Space Flea From Nowhere because your audience will see right through you and recognize the cheat. So you look around in your setting and see what you can use. Where are your heroes? What sort of environment are they traveling through? What lives there that might want to take a bite out of them? Are they encroaching on the territory of a dangerous beastie? Did they accidentally come between a mother monster and it's baby? Flesh out the setting and your random encounter will appear more organic. The reader never has to know the scene started out just because you wanted some action. As long as you develop it some, it'll appear to be (and perhaps actually be) a bit more than that.


----------



## WyrdMystic (Jan 26, 2013)

I'd love to see a scene where travellers in the deep dark wood, sitting round a campfire and a monstrous werewolf jumps out and says, "Hi there! How ya doin'? I'm a little lost, could you point me North? Ooo...is that bacon? Can I have some? Please? Please? Please?"

Anyhooo....I don't see the problem with random encounters, they don't even need to serve the story directly (the interactions of the characters can serve the story while the scene plays out), just be realistic to the setting (like the duneviper in the desert - if it showed up in a jungle or the middle of the ocean I'd have a problem). It all depends on your world and the hazards there. If you were alive however many million years ago and walked through the forest chances are you'd be eaten by something, even today people are snapped up by crocodiles, bitten by snakes and spiders etc - on the side of the human, they were just walking along, on the side of the animal they were hungry and/or threatened in some way.

Where a story can fall down for me is more to do with the escape - if that isn't believable then it would jar me, like Anne E Person turns out to be a Giant Space Flea From Nowhere Whisperer or something.


----------



## SuperRonnie (Jan 27, 2013)

I believe that the more developed your world is - even just in your personal notes - the more realistic it seems. J.K. Rowling had tons of characters and creatures that she developed that never made it into her published works. But that's okay, because it put her, the author, into a deeper mindset of 'this world is real, it has a life of its own beyond the story,' and readers pick up on that.
As for me, I have two separate notes compilations for each story. One that's sort of a 'get it out of my head, throw it up on paper,' sort of thing that I can refer back to when I'm looking for a new character, creature, ect, and another that I actually keep at the bottom of my writing document. The second one is where I keep notes of creatures, potions, characters, languages and so forth that I've actually used, and a reference point of where to find them. This way, I don't confuse what has actually made it into the main body of work.


----------



## Amber (Jan 27, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Well, yes and no. I'll let you in on a little secret. You _can_ throw things in just for an action scene. You just have to conceal your true purpose from the reader. Example: plot's dragging a bit and you decide you need some action.



I would just skip to the part too where they get somewhere again (A) I would just skip the journey altogether and zoom in on the evening they arrive at the city gates or where-ever something happens again. 

For the first part, about the giant snake. You actually confirm my point I think. The snake is not a mindless monster you put there for no reason. You actually thought it trough to make it a valuable addition to the story and setting. And even when I am just a good snack, that is still a good reason 

With mindless I didn't mean instinctual - like all animals are - but the mindless evil that some stories have. Like an evil formless darkness that creeps around forests in the night or darkhounds that run around drooling and hunting for their next human. I just don't believe that much in creatures that have the born instinct to only hunt humans. Even if they are creations of dark magic, send into the world to corrupt it, that still is a bit of an easy exit to me. 

But, from where I am standing, you seem to agree with me for the most part, its just a matter of semantics...


----------



## Mindfire (Jan 27, 2013)

Amber said:


> I would just skip to the part too where they get somewhere again (A) I would just skip the journey altogether and zoom in on the evening they arrive at the city gates or where-ever something happens again.
> 
> For the first part, about the giant snake. You actually confirm my point I think. The snake is not a mindless monster you put there for no reason. You actually thought it trough to make it a valuable addition to the story and setting. And even when I am just a good snack, that is still a good reason
> 
> ...



Oh, I get what you mean. I think the standard term for the kind of mindlessness you're talking about is "chaotic evil". And yes as a matter of personal preference I tend to not use villains or creatures that are chaotic evil. I prefer "lawful evil" or "neutral evil" villains. Doing chaotic evil well is difficult because they tend to not really have a motivation. But notice I don't say using chaotic evil is impossible, just difficult. I'm sure there are good examples out there (the Joker is kind of the poster boy for this trope), but they're likely to be somewhat rare.

With that in mind, I think you're selling your darkhounds short. On their own they may not be very convincing, but there's something primal and intimidating about a hunter that is always on your trail, that doesn't need food, water, or sleep, that cannot truly be killed, and will never stop hounding you. This makes for a great recurring narrative device- like the Nazgul. 

But again, there are two caveats: 

First, these implacable hunters should have a clear goal, and must have enough intelligence of their own to carry out these goals without coming back for instructions every five minutes. There's something very unsettling about a "mindless" or "instinctual" predator that has just enough intelligence to set traps and overcome obstacles, like the raptors from Jurassic Park. For bonus points, your hunters could even seem to appear out of nowhere at the worst possible time.

Second, the backstory plays a big part in making it all come together. "Who are they hunting and why?" is the big question. It might be even better if the hounds are coming, not because the _villain_ sent them, but because one of your heroes has done something wrong or violated something sacred. Now his conscience is guilty and he knows the dogs won't stop coming until he atones for his misdeeds. He _deserves_ to be hunted. When the monsters are sent by the forces of evil you can always expect for good to save the day. But if the monsters _are_ good, then there's nothing left to appeal to and running will only delay the inevitable. Or take it one step further: maybe the "monsters" are actually guardian spirits and they only appear to be monsters because the way his guilty conscience perceives their spectral form.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 28, 2022)

Well, OP is long since gone, but I though this a neat question.

I make up plenty of stuff that will never make it into the written word, not just the monsters. For me, I feel it is still important because its part of the world and makes the world more real to me, which I hope makes it more real to how it is written, and eventually to the reader. I dont often have creatures that I create and never show up, and if I do, its only cause a better reason came along.

I find with my own writing, I rarely get on page, what I had exactly in my head. More so, I aim to hit the bullseye, but often only manage to hit the dart board instead, yet, I can still score points 

If I can push aside monsters, and since no one participating in this thread will care anymore if I do, I wish I could fit more of the world building into my stories. But the characters dont care, and so they dont ask about the where or how or why of many things. They dont ask why are the trees purple and not all green? Or why cant we see the stars? No one living on this world would think to ask such questions, because it always been that way. You cant ask about stars if you dont know that there even are such things. I try to fit it in where I can, but I am not like Tolkien. The ruined tower may have a history, no one looking at it has any idea what it would be, or cares.

There are many creatures on the planet, and I suspect they are in many areas of the world the characters will never investigate. But I might have big worms, or mucky swamp creatures, or even demons and princes of hell thought out in my mind, but not all of them make it to the page. Its enough though that I know they are there. Maybe I dont know who it is the Angel contests with, but I know there are some in the dark place that are contesting back.

That swamp creature? Well...if I find my characters in a swamp, he may make the page.


----------



## Prince of Spires (Sep 29, 2022)

The thing with worldbuilding is that you should sneak it in. Now, with not having any stars visible, that would be difficult to manage in a way that makes sense to both the reader and the character. But there are plenty of opportunities to add a line or two to add some worldbuilding seasoning to your writing. You might never get to a swamp, but you could have an image of a swamp creature on a painting, or a swamp creature gargoyle stuck on the side of a building. 

One of the best lines of worldbuilding from Tolkien is a simple one, which does this, and it raises more questions than it answers. It's from the Council of Elrond, and Frodo has just accepted the ring. Elrond remarks on this and says: "and though all the mighty elf-friend of old, Hador, and Hurin, and Turin, and Beren himself were assembled together, your seat would be among them."

Now, we never find out in the Lord of the Rings who these people are or what they've done, and indeed they're never even mentioned again. But that sentence for me completes the world. It shows that the world was always there, and that there is a history, and that there are ancient elves who remember and have lived it. And while Tolkien can be very long winded and complete in some of his worldbuilding, he actually does this sort of things a lot. He doesn't paint a complete picture, he gives an outline which you can fill in in your mind. That is how you introduce swamp creatures, or purple trees, or the history of a tower. 

For instance, have a character shout at another one that "a prince from hell may come get you!" That sentence does so much. It shows there are princes in hell in your world. It creates a unique vocabulary for your world, it can even show a bit of character.


----------

