Why use D&D races in our stories?

[Steerpike]

I don't agree that having non-humans species puts humans in a box. I don't have a problem with non-human species having certain traits that define the species. What you actually find in such worlds is that humans still run the entire gamut in terms of character traits. I don't see any reason not to have non-human species, if you want them. Or any reason to include them if you don't want them. It all comes down to how you create your world. Either approach is valid, and either lends itself to telling complex, well thought-out stories.

 

[Feo Takahari]

@Devor: I've read your essay on the role of magic in fantasy, and to a point, I agree with it. But I think fantasy is best served as the logical extension of the alternate-history genre, with questions like "What if there existed a power source that could ignore entropy?" rather than "What if Germany had won WWII?"

I don't have the guts to write an alternate history in which the cultists in Jonestown were massacred as part of a U.S. government cover-up, so instead I'm writing a fantasy in which a Jonestown-esque cult was massacred as part of a cover-up by a nonexistent government. I don't have the guts to write an alternate history in which two otherwise likeable protagonists have no compunctions about killing "savages," so instead I'm planning a story in which two otherwise likeable protagonists have no compunctions about killing (what they think are) nonhumans.

In a more repressive time, even historical fiction sufficed to play the role of fantasy--when Arthur Miller couldn't discuss Communist witch-hunts, he used The Crucible to discuss Puritan witch-hunts. We can now plainly discuss things that actually happened (at least, we can on the Internet), but stories about things that didn't happen are restricted by, at the bare minimum, good taste. Fantasy is a way of softening the edges of a distasteful story or premise.

 

[Devor]

@Devor: I've read your essay on the role of magic in fantasy, and to a point, I agree with it. But I think fantasy is best served as the logical extension of the alternate-history genre, with questions like "What if there existed a power source that could ignore entropy?" rather than "What if Germany had won WWII?"

That's a nice use of fantasy, and thank you for bringing up the article. Fantasy can definitely help an author to address questions that are otherwise too sensitive to touch upon, and I might consider talking about that sometime in an article. I think fantasy can go beyond that, though - not every story needs pre-planned themes and real-world allegorical elements to make an impact, although there's many great works which do.

Fantasy stories can tell an impossible journey and help to push characters into otherwise unbelievable situations. I could write a fantasy story in which a six year old is the guardian of a power the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. Those story elements would never combine in real life, nor do they reflect any real world event that I'm aware of. Yet if that situation occurs at a well-timed position in the right story, it could be very compelling.

Even within the context of historical fiction, you still need to ask what each particular fantasy element is doing for your story - that's mostly the question I was trying to address.

 

[TWErvin2]

Just as a point of reference, author Dennis L. McKiernan wrote and had published his Iron Tower Trilogy and the Silver Call Doulogy.

Nothing could more closely resemble Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, etc. Even so, it was a popular series for a while, garnering a number of fans and helpedd to launch McKiernan's writing career.

The point being that while familar settings and races and creatures may turn some readers off, there is potentially a large number of readers who don't mind, and actually seek out similar stories. Why do people go to the same restaurant? Why are there plenty of restaurants with similar menu items? Why do many fantasy novels have elves--long-lived, pointed-eared, somewhat reclusive peoples? Why do some have orcs, or orcs in all but name? It's what readers--at least what some readers--desire on the shelf.

 

[James Chandler]

I don't have the guts to write an alternate history in which the cultists in Jonestown were massacred as part of a U.S. government cover-up

That's because it is not "alternate" history... it's just history. ;-)

 

[James Chandler]

Just as a point of reference, author Dennis L. McKiernan wrote and had published his Iron Tower Trilogy and the Silver Call Doulogy.

Nothing could more closely resemble Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, etc. Even so, it was a popular series for a while, garnering a number of fans and helpedd to launch McKiernan's writing career.

The point being that while familar settings and races and creatures may turn some readers off, there is potentially a large number of readers who don't mind, and actually seek out similar stories. Why do people go to the same restaurant? Why are there plenty of restaurants with similar menu items? Why do many fantasy novels have elves--long-lived, pointed-eared, somewhat reclusive peoples? Why do some have orcs, or orcs in all but name? It's what readers--at least what some readers--desire on the shelf.

I have read quite a few books that used a lot of D&D elements or Tolkien elements, and had a lot of fun, including McKiernan. But, I don't know how much of a future those types of stories really have. A lot of the newer books being published are getting away from the old tropes and looking for originality. Sanderson and Rothfuss are good examples.

 

[shangrila]

Just as a point of reference, author Dennis L. McKiernan wrote and had published his Iron Tower Trilogy and the Silver Call Doulogy.

Nothing could more closely resemble Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, etc. Even so, it was a popular series for a while, garnering a number of fans and helpedd to launch McKiernan's writing career.

That's because he wrote it as a sequel to Lord of the Rings but they couldn't get Tolkien's estate to sign off on it so he just tweaked it until it was original.

 

[TWErvin2]

I have read quite a few books that used a lot of D&D elements or Tolkien elements, and had a lot of fun, including McKiernan. But, I don't know how much of a future those types of stories really have. A lot of the newer books being published are getting away from the old tropes and looking for originality. Sanderson and Rothfuss are good examples.

Yes, there are many books and authors going different directions. I was simply pointing out that there have been and still may be audiences for such 'retreads', so to speak. How many 'vampire' novels, especially for YA have come out
and been successful? Quite a few beyond Twilight. While it's hard to jump on the bandwagon quickly and successfully, there are some long-standing/established bits of content in fantasy that have recurred time and time again.

That's because he wrote it as a sequel to Lord of the Rings but they couldn't get Tolkien's estate to sign off on it so he just tweaked it until it was original.

The link I pointed to stated as such in the 2nd paragraph. It's not a secret, and McKiernan was very open about how it paralled Tolkien's works when the books came out. I listed the example to make a point.

 

[Steerpike]

I have read quite a few books that used a lot of D&D elements or Tolkien elements, and had a lot of fun, including McKiernan. But, I don't know how much of a future those types of stories really have. A lot of the newer books being published are getting away from the old tropes and looking for originality. Sanderson and Rothfuss are good examples.

And, eventually, it will probably swing the other way, where the readers want the Tolkien-style works again because there aren't many on the shelves. All it will take is for one big hit to come along in that style. The idea that those stories don't have a future isn't supported by the evidence, in my view. The fact that a lot of newer books being published are moving in a different direction doesn't tell you anything in and of itself, you still have to know how those traditional fantasies are doing, and I think they continue to do well enough. As Devor noted, they are on the shelf because of reader demand.

 

[Dreamhand]

See? And now I have no desire whatsoever to read Dennis L. McKiernan (for the same reason I regret wasting my time with The Sword of Shanara, another blatant Tolkien rip-off). With the metric butt-ton of fabulous fantasy fiction out there, we all have to prioritize our reading list... so I'll take TWErvin2's advice and spend my precious reading time with Rothfuss, Gaiman, Pratchett, Butcher, or Kay, thanks.

(btw, THIS is why I love being a part of the Mythic Scribes community. What a fabulous discussion!)

Some confirmations...

Yes, we ALL draw from other authors in our own writing. Our love of the genre and our desire to engage with it as writers is defined by the authors, artists, game designers, screenwriters and all the many media creators that have contributed to the fantasy canon.

And yes, there are archetypal creatures and conventions that inherently embody "the fantasy story". Magic, creatures, mythic gods, and races (though I REALLY like Chilari's challenge that fantasy tales don't NEED anything but humans. So true) are the backbone of a fantasy story.

And YES every writer is always totally free to write what they want, as they want, for whomever they want. Every creative pursuit is "legitimate" and (in my opinion) a worthy achievement.​

So maybe I'm being an effete douchebag (which is occurring with alarming frequency these days) but there IS a difference between Firefly Fan Fiction and Patrick Rothfuss's "Wise Man's Fear" (please god, can we at least agree upon THAT?). And IF we agree that there is a difference, then maybe we need to define what that difference is. Not that one is "better" than the other, but that they are written and consumed in different ways for different reasons.

And IF that's the case, then understanding what those reasons are is vital to a writer who is seriously pursuing their craft. Ultimately, I think we have to ask ourselves:

Who is our optimal reader? Who is the person sitting across the desk that we picture reading our story and liking it? (Yeah, yeah... "we're writing for as many people as we can reach". Whatever... there's always someone in our secret heart of hearts that we're writing to).

and

How do we want our work received? Do we want, "Hey, that was a cute little fantasy thing you did" or do we want "Holy crap you changed my life!!"? Or maybe something in between.

I've heard a lot of very compelling arguments so far (you guys really are awesome) about the nature of the Fantasy archetype and what we can and cannot and should and should not do as writers. My contention remains: Using elements (like orcs, mithril, hobbits, etc) that have a strong association with a SPECIFIC piece of media will skew how your work is received (by THIS reader, anyway) into the Fan Fic category.

I respect Steerpike and Devor's valid contention that if it's on the shelves then readers must want them. I personally don't consider that a validation of the practice. The public wants a lot of things and as writers we always walk the line between artistic integrity and a paycheck. With that in mind, the argument/observation I'm offering isn't intended to help an author be profitable, but rather urge writers to tell stories that express a unique vision (THEIR unique vision) and add to the canon rather than rehash ground that's already been covered.

Again... a very personal perspective that I offer for consideration and immediate dismissal if it doesn't resonate (and I promise, I won't rant if I offer comments on your stories... but I may include a link to this thread ).

 

[Steerpike]

It's not just that the readers want them Dreamhand, a lot of writers like to write it. Surely you aren't suggesting we only respect artistic integrity when it goes in the direction you want?

Take McKiernan, for example. He's a good writer. Some of his Mithgar books have been quite good, and some haven't been so good, but he writes them because he absolutely loves telling those stories and he loves the world and the characters. I was on an email list he was on for a number of years, and in additional to being an all-around nice guy I can tell you that his artistic passion, as a writer, is firmly grounded in that very traditional Tolkien-style world of his. You can tell from how he talks about it and how he responds to fans about it.

So what's wrong with that, and why should you be the arbiter of whether it is valid or invalid?

 

[Ankari]

So what's wrong with that, and why should you be the arbiter of whether it is valid or invalid?

He has the right, but only in regards to himself.

I am of the crowd that doesn't care what elements a writer uses, as long as the story is good. All of the great writers, even Sanderson*, use established races and tweak them to make them unique. Erickson uses ogres and giants. Even Robert Jordan uses Trollocs which can be identified as orcs as they fit the same parameters**. I am fine with it all, just make the experience unique.


*Sanderson uses the koloss i his books. They are twisted versions of humans just like orcs are twisted versions of elves. They are violent and warlike that serve a dark power, just like orcs. The are of lesser intelligence just like orcs. The only difference I see is that they are blue skinned while orcs are thought of as green or green/gray.

**See above footnote.

 

[ScipioSmith]

If you're describing your fantasy race/culture like that, you're doing it wrong. By showing the reader, rather than telling them, what a culture is like - any culture, be it the main human culture or the new species of purple-skinned humanoids with horns - you can introduce that culture without needing to pause the plot of create filler. The way members of the race interact with other characters, the history between your main character's race and the new one - things you'd have to establish anyway whether you were using goblins or elves or the purple-skinned Rehovi - are what build the picture of the culture. Starting with exposition is doing it wrong and will harm the story. Showing the reader the culture is the way to do it.

But sometimes you can do that by using an established race.

In the chapter I'm currently working on, the heroes visit the provincial capital which they find swarming with refugees fleeing the rebellion. Most of the are human, but the crowd includes an Orc blacksmith and a minotaur shepherd.

And at once, this says something about the Empire: that it is a multicultural society, and that its expansionism does not equal human supremacism. Later, Gideon points to the treatment of the Orcs and the mintaurs as proof that the Empire is 'a society free from prejudice'. Later on, we get some of the history and culture of these peoples, but for now the shorthand lets me get a point across and do some worldbuilding without having to stop the action (a main character is currently being hailed as an emissary of God, and lauded by the desparate people) to do it.

Also, whoever made the point about Bloodguard. I haven't read Donaldson, so if I saw that name I would think it was an obvious and slightly cheesy name for an order of badass warriors, setting up for a slightly cheesy book, but I'd still find it perfectly serviceable. I mean dude, Bloodguard, it's cool in the same way that the Space Marines are cool, because it's so in your face about it.

 

[Devor]

I've heard a lot of very compelling arguments so far (you guys really are awesome) about the nature of the Fantasy archetype and what we can and cannot and should and should not do as writers. My contention remains: Using elements (like orcs, mithril, hobbits, etc) that have a strong association with a SPECIFIC piece of media will skew how your work is received (by THIS reader, anyway) into the Fan Fic category.

I respect Steerpike and Devor's valid contention that if it's on the shelves then readers must want them. I personally don't consider that a validation of the practice. The public wants a lot of things and as writers we always walk the line between artistic integrity and a paycheck. With that in mind, the argument/observation I'm offering isn't intended to help an author be profitable, but rather urge writers to tell stories that express a unique vision (THEIR unique vision) and add to the canon rather than rehash ground that's already been covered.

Again... a very personal perspective that I offer for consideration and immediate dismissal if it doesn't resonate (and I promise, I won't rant if I offer comments on your stories... but I may include a link to this thread ).

Three quick things, and then I will probably be done. Great discussion, I just don't have a lot more to say.

1) First, I didn't recheck every post, but I think it was TWErvin2's point that such books still have a large readership. It's a great point, I just don't want to take the credit.

2) There's definitely degrees to what we're talking about - I don't think anyone is encouraging people to write about Hobbits, for instance. But referring to orcs specifically, I kind of think the concept is just too obvious to call it stealing. Tolkein did it first, but he was also the first to really use the whole concept of fantasy races. Within that concept, "Hrmm, a ferocious evil and ugly creature" is one of the first clear possibilities, and the amount of work people have put into orcs show that they have endless amounts of potential. That's why I keep saying, It's better to just use orcs than to recreate the same concept and call them Pigmellian Swem. There are plenty of people who would use the concept, or something close to it, regardless of Tolkein. So let's give credit where credit is due.

I think that shows in Tolkein's own actions. He trademarked hobbits, not orcs.

3) I'm not currently using these elements in my main work in progress, so you won't have any need to lecture any time soon - such as when I put in for the podcast. But I used these elements in a project I've pushed aside and may someday find a use for, for all the reasons I've already given about wanting a very busy fantasy world for that project. I still don't know how it could be possible to fit an incredibly complex fantasy world into a novel without using them.

 

[Dreamhand]

Steerpath...

And YES every writer is always totally free to write what they want, as they want, for whomever they want. Every creative pursuit is "legitimate" and (in my opinion) a worthy achievement.

Again... a very personal perspective that I offer for consideration and immediate dismissal if it doesn't resonate

Let me be very clear, bud... These are MY opinions. I don't expect anyone to adhere to them, follow them, or adopt them. As this is a community board, I wanted to put MY opinion out there to foster some discussion in the hopes of A) learning some new perspectives on the writing craft from my fellow MythicScribers, and B) see if there are any kindred spirits.

If there's a better way for me to conduct myself in the discussion, please let me know. I honestly don't want to offend anyone.

Ankari... absolutely. Sanderson/Jordan created a composite race, tailored to the story he was telling. And named them something other than "orcs". Brilliant! Awesome! While I was unable to get through the first book of the Wheel of Time series, I have enormous respect for both authors and agree with how the CREATED something unique to their story.

Devor... I agree, it has been an awesome discussion. I also agree that it's about run it's course...with me politely agreeing to disagree with my sincere best wishes to all. I need to consider my stance on this topic and also my articulation of it. I still feel passionately about it, but with so many of my MythicScribes chums coming down on the other side of the argument, I'm thinking some reassessment may be in order.

 

[Devor]

Devor... I agree, it has been an awesome discussion. I also agree that it's about run it's course...with me politely agreeing to disagree with my sincere best wishes to all. I need to consider my stance on this topic and also my articulation of it. I still feel passionately about it, but with so many of my MythicScribes chums coming down on the other side of the argument, I'm thinking some reassessment may be in order.

I didn't have a problem with your articulation, or even with your opinion. Maybe I should put it this way - even if they are reminiscent of Tolkein, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with that. Maybe it's one more thing about which you need to get the reader to "suspend disbelief," but I don't think that's always so terribly hard to do with a good story. And there's some benefit to using them in certain stories which might outweigh that minor difficulty.

Tolkein, after all, wasn't a story about orcs - it was a story about hobbits, living the peaceful life, being thrust into an epic world-changing journey. Orcs are such an insignificant piece of that. You aren't taking away Tolkein's thunder by using them. I'm much more annoyed by many, many books out there which closely mimic that story than I am by original stories which happen to use orcs. That's the truth of it.

But I don't think there's anything wrong with your opinion - in a way I even agree - I only think there's other elements which should weigh in.

 

[Amanita]

I agree with you, Dreamhand. Just to offer some encouragement.
For me, writing and reading fantasy has nothing to do with simply repeating things created by others. Why should I spend my time writing and reading about the same invented races with the same stock personalities facing the same conflicts in the same political settings?
I can accept that tastes are different of course, but I'd really be glad if the ratio changed a bit and there weren't that many books with either Elves and Orcs or Vampires out there.
Of course, all of these beings can be used in interesting ways, but honestly, most of the time they're not. Elves are more perfect humans and Orcs are cannon fodder that adds a sense of danger and can be killed without bad conscience. In Tolkien's case all of this had a meaning for the story he wanted to tell (or at least I believe it did.) In many derivative works, I don't see such a meaning. It seems to be done because "that's what's done in fantasy" and not because it has anything to do with the author's own story. Might not be true, I don't know, but that's how it often feels to me.

 

[Queshire]

I'm not going to mess with the quotes thing because I'm lazy, but I think the key thing is this;

"Using elements (like orcs, mithril, hobbits, etc) that have a strong association with a SPECIFIC piece of media will skew how your work is received (by THIS reader, anyway) into the Fan Fic category."

Frankly I agree with most of this, though I would use "ripping off" instead of Fan Fic because, as written, it demeans fan fic. (Fan Fic knows that it's using elements from a story and is done solely for fun, it has no pretension of being completely original, or just copying ideas to get in on whatever's the newest cash cow)

But, anyways, the thing is you say elements that have a strong association with a specific piece of media, to put it bluntly, Orcs and Mithril no longer have that strong association with Tolkein. Hobbits still do, but Orcs and Mithril don't.

And once more, I really have to adress all of you Orc nay-sayers to Blizzard style Orcs. These guys aren't mere cannon fodder, or neccesarily evil. Yes, more often then not, they are on the opposite side of whatever war from Humans, but they aren't treated as Always Chaotic Evil. They're treated as honorable warriors with a strong belief that the strongest should rule, kind of like a combonation of the various warrior cultures such as vikings, spartans, and samurai. I have been reminding you guys about these types of Orcs again and again but you completely ignore them. They are a prime example of how Orcs can be used without simply ripping off tolkein, though they have become a stock format as well.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I feel like I take a "middle" position on this issue.

I mean, one the one hand, I like originality. On the other hand, I've seen "original" races species that were botched up. Mindfire recently brought up, in another thread, a series that uses several original species that are basically classic species with different names.


In my own first attempt at a novel, I came up with my own version of a succubus. The reader witnessed the birth of a daughter of Gluttony and Lust. She was shown to have hatched from a chocolate egg oozing with strawberry sauce, and started life as a fairy-like creature in a tiny adult body. She has the horns, batwings and pointy tail because... why not? From there I referred to the creature as a succubus, so the reader knows what this little girl is supposed to do when she grows up.

I have a variety of demons, but all of them have to be shown as they are unique. In my plan, I called them The Distorted Demons. In my story, I named each of them and referred to them as demonlords. That should probably be two words. (If the goblin taught me anything, it's: Don't make your own compound nouns.)


Getting to my point, assuming I have one, I think the classic races, species, creatures, etc. are one-word descriptions. Some invite more variation than others... (Lots of ways a dragon can look or act, but barbarians are always big, strong and loud.) ...but I think a single word that tells much of what the reader needs to know is a powerful tool.

I personally don't care to use orcs, elves and dwarves myself. I prefer to focus my stories around humans and include supernatural beings from both Heaven and Hell. As for what I read, there are no rules. Overuse of orcs, elves and dwarves probably would be a turn-off... but I don't think it's wrong to write them.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think Dreamhand is looking at things through a different lense than Devor. Devor is treating all species that fit the concept "an ugly evil species" as "the same," while Dreamhand is treating all species that fit the concept "species that look and act exactly like Tolkien's orcs" as "the same," and appears to be treating species that only fit the concept "an ugly evil species" as different species with different narrative roles, potentially original in their use.