Cracked Article on Fantasy Character Stereotypes. Valid points or....

[Hainted]

Cracked did an article on Fantasy Stereotypes and how they should be changed. I'll post the link 5 Fantasy Characters That Need to Be Rebooted | Cracked.com

Do you feel they make some valid points, or is it all just bluster? I for one would love to see a story about their elf reboot. Is it good to shake up the ideas or does it make your writing easier to just say "ELVES" and just let people play LOTR in their heads?

 

[Malik]

Definitely shake up the ideas.

Also, this: Elves | Cracked.com

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Can you reboot these staples and have success? Certainly... I'm actually intrigued about the idea where goblins are nothing more than bad elves, physically indistinguishable from the goodies.

However, If you would enjoy reading the story you're writing (if it is being written well), you must assume there are others, like you, who would enjoy that type of story. Everyone likes a splash of originality...or at least the appearance of originality where things feel fresh. But, that doesn't mean you can't tell a great story using old, accepted content.

For my preference,l I think new twists on old ideas are great, as well as the appearance of new & fantastically creative content. That doesn't mean I wouldn't read something in a more standard fantasy setting, with a standard plot. In the end, if I care about the characters, I'll care about whatever surrounds them.

As a writer, your job is to make me care....that's all.

 

[Philip Overby]

I personally feel Andrzej Sapkowski does a good job with elves and dwarfs. He doesn't reinvent the wheel with them, but they're still engaging because they're just interesting characters that happen to be elves and dwarfs. I think the problem comes when writers characterize a whole race instead of doing so with each individual character. If there is a dwarf who is generally cheerful and is a recovering alcoholic it may stand out slightly from the typical grumpy, drink-loving dwarf. But those are still only surface qualities. I believe characters need to be a bit deeper. Maybe the dwarf is cheerful to hide the scars from a past life of violence, in which he accidentally killed a fellow dwarf in a drunken rage? That's a little bit better.

So for me, it's more about individual characters standing out instead of saying "in my world elves are blue and short" in order to differentiate them from Tolkien.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Everyone likes a splash of originality...or at least the appearance of originality where things feel fresh.

I think this is key. I'd even go as far as to say that a lot of people prefer the appearance of originality above the actual thing. Things that are new and original can require some time and effort to get used to, which may be a bit daunting or off-putting. Reading something that seems fresh but which is still grounded in comfortable archetypes would be a lot easier.

The above is based on my experiences as a DJ. A lot of people aren't too keen on new cutting edge music, but they like new chart hits that they've had a chance to hear and get used to.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

A twice pooped turd? The guy has a few choice phrases. While I sort of agree with the thrust to an extent, I think there's a lot to be said for sticking to the establishe tropes as well. After all it's established because it worked,and people often like the familiar.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I read the first page of the article and I get the point he's trying to make. I even agree with it to an extent; just like we (can) portray a vast array of different humans so should we be able to portray other species with the same variety.

I feel a bit like a grumpy old fart saying this, but after reading the first page I was mainly just annoyed and wanted to disagree with him on pure principle. It's like he's having a rant and his main purpose is to come up with fun phrases to ridicule established tropes.
It ruins the article for me, but then again I already agree with the basic premise so maybe it's not written for me.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I feel a bit like a grumpy old fart saying this, but after reading the first page I was mainly just annoyed and wanted to disagree with him on pure principle. It's like he's having a rant and his main purpose is to come up with fun phrases to ridicule established tropes.
It ruins the article for me, but then again I already agree with the basic premise so maybe it's not written for me.

Consider the source. His main purpose IS to rant and come up with fun phrases to ridicule established tropes.

 

[skip.knox]

Agree with others: the article is just showing off, being snide. Ho-hum. The premise is worth exploring, however. I'll try my hand at it.

Elves
These should be easy to reboot because there are so many varieties, ranging from tiny little mischief-makers to eerie, dangerous Sidhe to the Tolkienesque variety. I agree the last form has been done over-much. It's worth wondering if nixies and faeries and the like are kin to elves or are something else entirely. With such variety, elves could be like dogs, with many different breeds, perhaps with specialties. At any rate I see little need for a reboot here. Also, the article talks about creating individual characters that run against type. That's fine, but it's not the same thing as re-inventing the race itself.

Dwarves
Dwarves, otoh, are tough to reboot. They are the only creatures I now of that have a geographical limitation. Dwarves live underground. You can have them be above ground, but mining is part of dwarving. They're inseperable. The beards and other stereotypes are more disposable. My main reboot is to do away with kingdoms. Dwarves always seem to have kingdoms, so I modeled mine after Swiss cantons, making self-government a central principle. Reboots can be about more than skin color you know.

Goblins
These have plenty of potential. Not only have goblins appeared in many different physical manifestations, there's nothing like the depth of literature on them as there is for elves and dwarves. My own goblins are a swarm species that do not have speech. I didn't set out to write them this way, it just developed. But I can get away with it for goblins because there are fewer expectations regarding them. I could also see going the opposite direction, making goblins loners, isolated family units that leech off human society.

On which topic, I can see room for secondary species that are not oriented primarily toward humans. For example, kobolds harass dwarves but not humans. Or, pixies play pranks on elves only. Add some depth in other directions.

Bestial Hordes
Who says they have to be irrelevant? Any story can benefit from a good horde. This entry in the article itself feels irrelevant, so I'm not going to bother with it.

Humans
This one has potential. Humans as the secondary race in a world dominated by elves. Humans as the only ones who cannot work magic. Humans as the persecuted, hunted survivors in a world dominated by ogres and trolls. Humans as the clumsy, blundering and ultimately dangerous race in a world carefully curated by dwarves. And so on.

So sure, reboot. Ctrl-Alt-Del and see what comes up. But save yourself a few minutes and leave the Cracked article to one side. It's just that wiseacre in class interrupting the teacher to show how clever he is.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Consider the source. His main purpose IS to rant and come up with fun phrases to ridicule established tropes.
You're a grumpy old fart.

There, fixed it for you.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

There, fixed it for you.

Hah hah!

And you are not!

 

[Hainted]

Dwarves
Dwarves, otoh, are tough to reboot. They are the only creatures I now of that have a geographical limitation. Dwarves live underground. You can have them be above ground, but mining is part of dwarving. They're inseperable. The beards and other stereotypes are more disposable. My main reboot is to do away with kingdoms. Dwarves always seem to have kingdoms, so I modeled mine after Swiss cantons, making self-government a central principle. Reboots can be about more than skin color you know.

Doesn't necessarily have to be mining. Dwarves were originally the maggots eating through the flesh of Ymir(hence the tunneling and mining), so you could have another Dwarven culture based around an insect like origin. Imagine a Dwarf culture in a tropical savannah region that , like termites, build mounds to live in.

 

[ThinkerX]

I reached most of the authors conclusions most of a decade ago (minus the profanity). I went and made serious changes to the races of my worlds as a result (heck, read some of the tales I've posted on this site) - and yes, they include elves (usually offstage), dwarves (usually integrated into human society), and goblins/hobgoblins (with societies all their own).

However, even some types of 'rebooted' goblins, dwarves, and the like are becoming clichés.

 

[Svrtnsse]

One of the fundamental concepts of the setting for my WIP is to include as many of the traditional fantasy tropes as I can. I've got elves that are tall and beautiful and powerful magic users. I've got dwarves that are short and bearded and live in mountains. I've got hobbits... sorry, anfylk... which are short and jolly and who like smoking the pipe and eating too much. I've got humans who are plain and boring and who do all the cool stuff.
There are dragons and magic, vampires and werewolves.

They're all supposed to be familiar and comfortable. They're meant to seem like just what you expect them to be. That is, until you start to dig a little deeper and find that there are little twists and tweaks that make them different and that you don't really notice at first.
The elven race is growing weaker, and shorter, by each generation. They're outsiders from a different plane of existence and suffer greatly from racial prejudice from the other races - not to mention the elder's distaste for the younger generations weaknesses and the younger's resentment of their elders.
The anfylk come in many different flavors and while the summer and spring fylk fit the hobbit mold, the introvert autumn ane and the ferocious winter fulk certainly don't.
The dwarves are a type of fungus and while most of them do live in mountains the fungi come in airborne and aquatic variants as well.
Humans, well, they're still plain and boring and do most of the cool stuff.


That's how I'm dealing with the rebooting: use elements that seem familiar, but which have their own hidden flavors.

Also, it's set in an alternate world at about the same technological, social and political level as the real world of today.

 

[Ireth]

My main WIP includes Norse alfar (both ljosalfar and svartalfar) and Celtic Fae alongside of humans. It's a lot of fun looking at the similarities and differences between those two sets of myths, especially when it comes to the elf and Fae characters' reactions to each other.

 

[MVV]

The article makes some valid points. However, I'd say the author doesn't really know much about fantasy apart from what's the best known and most mainstream. His most original ideas - for example those about elves - already exist. Even in my WIP which I don't consider that much original, I've got goblins who are chiefly victims of racism, humans who aren't really heroic and mostly oppress all other races, elves who live either in the wilds as hunters/raiders/scavengers or in human cities like second-class citizens (and no, it's not completely my idea), and so on.

So, yeah: if you want to look for the most common tropes and stereotypes, you can definitely find a lot to poke fun at. Yet, a little more effort unveils that there's a lot of more surprising stuff. (Surprising for those who think that elves are only tall, blonde and elegant, that is...).

 

[Guy]

I read the first page of the article and I get the point he's trying to make. I even agree with it to an extent; just like we (can) portray a vast array of different humans so should we be able to portray other species with the same variety.

I feel a bit like a grumpy old fart saying this, but after reading the first page I was mainly just annoyed and wanted to disagree with him on pure principle. It's like he's having a rant and his main purpose is to come up with fun phrases to ridicule established tropes.
It ruins the article for me, but then again I already agree with the basic premise so maybe it's not written for me.

My thoughts exactly. I think these particular balloons were popped long ago, and I think most people in the genre are well aware of it.

 

[Mythopoet]

What ruins the article for me was how inaccurate his descriptions of Tolkien's Elves and Dwarves were (there is nothing Scottish about Tolkien's Dwarves, for example, that trope was invented by people riffing off of Tolkien). I am well aware that this is a comedy article on a comedy site (I read Cracked every day) and hyperbole is an important comedic technique, but I still think he was going too far. He wasn't exaggerating. He was constructing obvious Straw Men to make himself look clever for viciously ripping them apart.

And inadvertently he demonstrates why so many efforts to "shake things up" fail. Because too many writer fail to understand the nature of the trope they are trying to subvert or why it appeals to so many people. Subverting a straw man (a trope that you've built up in your head that doesn't really exist in the fantasy field because you failed to understand the real nature of the existing tropes) usually just leads to stereotypes at the opposite extreme from what you think you're subverting.

 

[SineNomine]

Personally, I'd rather just see less fantasy races used period in fantasy. Racial essentialism gets really old and few people choose to explore multiple cultures within a single race outside of humans. Most of what you can get from having humanoid races you can just as easily get from having different human cultures and they end up feeling like they only exist because people are used to there being elves and dwarves in fantasy.