Fantasy Cliches

[Leuco]

What sort of things do you find tiresome in the fantasy genre? In other words, what do you consider cliched? Is there something that would absolutely drive you away? Is there something (a monster, a setting, an archetype) that may be considered over done that you still enjoy reading? Feel free to share your thoughts on the topic or merely second an opinion.

I'm sorry if this seems like a "cliched" topic, but I figured it would make for some good conversation.

Thanks for responding!

 

[Nevermore]

I actually just read an interesting article on epic fantasy and cliches. The way in which epics are written can seem to overuse description and cliches more than character development, and relies more on beautiful world building. This doesn't always a bad thing in fantasy epics, as long as the writer keeps it moderately balanced. Examples include the Inheritance series or Lord of the Rings, the the latter is a considerably different league than the former.

 

[ascanius]

I actually just read an interesting article on epic fantasy and cliches. The way in which epics are written can seem to overuse description and cliches more than character development, and relies more on beautiful world building. This doesn't always a bad thing in fantasy epics, as long as the writer keeps it moderately balanced. Examples include the Inheritance series or Lord of the Rings, the the latter is a considerably different league than the former.

Whoa wait a minute. The Lord of the Rings is in no way cliche seeing that it was the starting point on which almost every fantasy cliche is based/derived. The inheritance series on the other hand..I think ruthless plagiarized would be better. George Lucus should look into royalties or something, maybe even Robert Jordan and everyone else he took content from. That book is the definition of cliche and cliches that were very poorly done. In my opinion that book is what people should not do. No offense to anyone who liked the books.

As to cliche's I have no problem with them on certain conditions. One the book as a whole must be well written but this is a requirement for everything I read. Second the cliche's must be well founded within the story of the book meaning they have to have a purpose, no dragons for the sake of dragons. And lastly the the cliches have to have some amount of uniqueness about them that sets them apart. In a lot of ways though I have no problem with cliche's if the book is well written because I don't think of the dragons I have read in other books but let them become something part of whatever it is I am reading. On the other hand books where the auther tries to copy those cliches, or those that strive to capture that same essence. I think this is where the true cliche is born when the author doesn't bother trying to create, or put their creation or into their work but depend on anothers creation.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

How about just a single book? Instead of one of....how ever many it can be milked for?

Maybe I'm getting too old (although I don't think so), but if anything drives me away from the fantasy books faster than anything is that I can't find a fantasy book, or even a trilogy now. Some series book 5, 8, 10....why? Are writers limited to one book or set of books now? While I can understand the desire to write more than one book in a world that took years to create, honestly, how many dozen book series do we need or want? I think 'cycle' has become the new fantasy cliche. When the writing stops being about good story telling and becomes about how many books you can squeeze out of it, I'll go find something else to read.

 

[Steerpike]

How about just a single book? Instead of one of....how ever many it can be milked for?

I avoid picking up an ongoing series in most cases, preferring to wait until it is complete. I think a lot of what you see now are books that are self-contained, but follow the same characters in the same world. I'll read those. It is the difference between Butcher's Dresden files, where each books stands on its own (or, for a non-Fantasy example, Michael Connelly's Harry Bosch books), versus something like The Wheel of Time. In the case of the former, I'm happy to buy the book and read it. In the case of trilogies or longer series like Wheel of Time, I prefer to wait.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

How about just a single book? Instead of one of....how ever many it can be milked for?

Maybe I'm getting too old (although I don't think so), but if anything drives me away from the fantasy books faster than anything is that I can't find a fantasy book, or even a trilogy now. Some series book 5, 8, 10....why? Are writers limited to one book or set of books now? While I can understand the desire to write more than one book in a world that took years to create, honestly, how many dozen book series do we need or want? I think 'cycle' has become the new fantasy cliche. When the writing stops being about good story telling and becomes about how many books you can squeeze out of it, I'll go find something else to read.

I'll guarantee you, the novel I'm working on is the first in a trilogy, and it will absolutely under no circumstances run longer than 3 books. ;-)

 

[Sparkie]

How about just a single book? Instead of one of....how ever many it can be milked for?

Personally, I think the long, drawn out series are killing the genre.

Before I state my reasons for writing the above statement, I'd like to point out that a trilogy is not a bad thing unto itself. There are some stories that take a lot of words to tell. There's nothing wrong with that.

My thesis for this argument is this quote: "People remember big things." - Neil Gaiman

I agree with that statement, and I'm sure every major publishing house does as well. A lengthly series of books spells 'revenue' to just about everyone involved in the publishing business. The effect this has on publishers, retailers, and fans is warping the idea of what a fantasy story should be. There's a growing expectation for all fantasy to be 'epic.' I really feel that this leads to very good shorter fantasy being overlooked.

Now, I'm not saying that publishers are so idiotic as to ignore shorter works of fantasy. But if an editor\executive is forced to choose between a stand-alone novel and a book with the potential to become a money-making eight volume series, which one do you think he\she will take?

Just because something is big doesn't mean it's good. A story should not be drawn out if can be concise. I feel that, if the community of fantasy authors is not careful, the stand-alone fantasy novel could go the way of the dinosaurs.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

I'll waste a few dollars on a stand alone fantasy book, mainly because even if I don't like it, it wasn't that much. If I did like it, I can remember the author and the next time I'm browsing and see the author, I might check out their next book.

Seeing an series on a shelf, I instantly move on. Why would I bother picking up book one of a series that will mean I have an investment far greater than that single book is..in both time and money.

Who will buy the stand alone book? ME!

 

[Shadoe]

How about just a single book? Instead of one of....how ever many it can be milked for?

It's not just fantasy, it's the whole publishing industry. Or movies. Or tv shows. If they find something that works, they do it over and over and over, until it stops making money. Publishers invest a lot of money in a new writer. If that investment can pay off for several books, instead of just one, then they're getting a bargain. As with everyone else, it's all about the Benjamins.

 

[Amanita]

For me, it depends. I like to spend much time in one world, if I like it. Therefore I do like series but they shouldn't get too long. Two or three books are fine, four or five may be as well, depending on the author. More is too much, especially, if I have to start with something new. Many series get much worse in later books as well, I don't know why that is. Many authors don't really seem to remember what they've written before or still understand their own word, if the seris is getting too long.

Concerning cliches: I find it hard to think of something that I absolutely can't stand in any instance it turns up. All the traditional cliches can work if they're used well and don't feel like cliches. In some other books I just go "here comes cliche one and two and three" while reading without being able to get into the story at all.
Something which very rarely works for me is the "evil race" such as Orcs. In LotR it sort of does work to convey the message (I believe) Tolkien wanted to get across even though the parts involving battles against Orcs often really bore me in the books.

I believe the best fantasy books have a good mix of original ideas which make the book unique and cliches which help the reader to "feel at home".
Many cliches disliked on various forums such as heros who are the last member of group X or the secret child of Y, or a hero who rise from poverty are used that much because they simple work if used well. At least to me, it's still interesting to find out who the character's father is or follow him on his journey.
Therefore I don't think cliches, at least such story line-cliches aren't really a problem to be avoided, which doesn't mean that there aren't other ways to tell a good story.
More problematic are cliches typical for specific works which leave little room for new interpretation. Elves and Dwarves who don't like each other just because aren't very interesting, this kind of thing works much, much better with human societies who have historical reasons to dislike each other and there are other things like this I can't think of at the moment.
For me, there's a difference between using archetypical elements of story-telling and copying the ideas of other, more popular authors without understanding why those have written their stories they way they have.

 

[Telcontar]

Damn straight! That bugs the hell outta me these days, too. It's one of the reasons I wrote my first book as a stand alone - no series, no prequel, no nothing except the one, single, book.

I understand that authors have big ideas that need more than one book to expound on. I do too. I do have a 'planned series' in mind, and hopefully someday I'll write it. I also hope that when it comes out it won't be billed as the 'first in the _____ series'. People should be able to read it and never know that there was more. Then, if they feel like it, they can look around for more.

I don't automatically discount series, but I do want to be sure that the book I'm reading has a full and complete story arc within itself, without presenting a bigger and more important arc explicitly before the end of the first book.

 

[danr62]

I'm going to be the voice of dissent here and say that I love series. I often specifically look for books that start a series because I want to get immersed in the world and I I want to really get to know the characters.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

How about just a single book? Instead of one of....how ever many it can be milked for?

Maybe I'm getting too old (although I don't think so), but if anything drives me away from the fantasy books faster than anything is that I can't find a fantasy book, or even a trilogy now. Some series book 5, 8, 10....why? Are writers limited to one book or set of books now? While I can understand the desire to write more than one book in a world that took years to create, honestly, how many dozen book series do we need or want? I think 'cycle' has become the new fantasy cliche. When the writing stops being about good story telling and becomes about how many books you can squeeze out of it, I'll go find something else to read.

I can understand not wanting to read a long series. I don't want to read a series with eight to ten books either if it is all following one plot line (there are certainly exceptions). But I have no problem with an author setting ten stand-alone novels, or even four stand-alone trilogies, in a world.

 

[DameiThiessen]

Every single time a bad guy shouts "YOU FOOLS!" I die a little on the inside.

Also, whenever there is an all-powerful mentor that is perfectly capable of defeating that bad guy, but insists on letting the MC with three months of training do it instead.

Other archtypes that bother me are the strong, fearless, beautiful warrior woman that doesn't need anybody else (yet for some reason joins in their band of heroes), the comic-relief dwarf or giant, and the bad guy that wants to take over the world just 'cause.

Oh, and whenever a character loses their parents, but it doesn't serve the plot, it's just an easy cop-out to make the character independent, tragic and/or vengeful. After reading so many stories with that one I've vowed to make sure it doesn't happen without good reason in my stories. xD

 

[Steerpike]

Also, whenever there is an all-powerful mentor that is perfectly capable of defeating that bad guy, but insists on letting the MC with three months of training do it instead.

This is a staple of MMOs. "Hi, I'm a level 50 NPC, and you're a level 5 character, but there are some really troublesome monsters over there I wish you'd go kill for me."

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

But I have no problem with an author setting ten stand-alone novels, or even four stand-alone trilogies, in a world.

Andre Norton, witch world books. She had around thirty or so books all in the same world, but worlds are big, and stories were more personal, most not world ending.

Ah, there's a cliche for you...the world will end. Actually, one of my favorite video games was bard's tail, the console version, which mocked every other cliche element they could. They made fun of the 'chosen one', by having lots of chosen ones. The go here to get item a, so you can go hear to get item b, ect..that one they outright had the bard ask 'why?'

Prophecies reek of cliche, as do mega evils about to destroy the world, and usually there is a prophecy to pull out the reluctant hero...yada yada...

Fresh, is doing things that are different. One of the reasons I find Brandon Sanderson's books a nice change, they have fresh new magic systems that haven't been done over and over. While he did have a world ending event...sort of, the others were less so. Or one series where the only people that could do magic were the entities created by poets that had godlike powers in whatever they were created for, but hated their own existence. The downside of the events didn't end the world, but it did do some serious damage to a couple of nations.

If you want to avoid cliche, start by going with something that doesn't include the word 'epic' in it. Is there something wrong with a story in which the main characters failing will not mean the end of all life on the world? I guess in comparison to a world the life of one character might not mean much...but I've read a lot of good stories where the life of the character meant a great deal to the character. Might not have been epic, but they are good stories.

Maybe the easiest way to avoid cliche, is to change the way you think about what a fantasy story is. That will put anyone on the road to avoiding half the major fantasy cliche's at least. Maybe more.

 

[Nevermore]

I don't mean cliche, so much as a more focus on world building and beauty than character progression.

 

[Erica]

My favorite in-plot cliche (by no means limited to fantasy) is the villain who is about to kill/incapacitate our hero(es) but first must give a monologue about his/her diabolical plot to take over the world. When the hero escapes, he will now know every detail of the villain's plan and so will be able to counter it (bah, foiled again).

 

[Wormtongue]

I don't like two-dimensional characters. Good guys that are too good. Bad guys that are too bad. Boring.

Nuance is interesting.

Good guys (and gals) with serious flaws, that don't always do the right thing (until it really counts of course). Bad guys (and gals) that actually seem rational, understandable, and maybe even in some ways likable.

Sauron was Sauron, but not every bad guy can be Sauron.

EDIT: I also dislike the new trend towards anti-heros. I want to at least like the protagonist.

 

[writeshiek33]

noyhing wrong with ani heroes as long as there is an antagonist good(bad) enough