Typical VS Archtypacal

[Blodwedd]

Hey everyone. I was wondering if you mind writing something too typical. Personally, I think it's bad because there are so many fantasy novels doing the same thing and its really repetitive. I, as a writer, would like to write something special which brings me to my question: Do you think having female magicians male swordsmen as protagonists is too typical? Im just about to start putting words on paper and that's the only thing i haven't decided about.

Normally, its a no brainer just for the reasons above: I want to be original. But, I thought to spice things up i"ll make a male character from this world reborn in fantasy world, becoming a female magician. What do you think?

BTW if you know stories that use this plot let me know.

 

[thecoldembrace]

Well as his kind of initiation to becoming her Chosen, Elminster from Forgotten Realms is turned into a woman by his goddess Mystra as he is learning magic. There is another story as well, but I am drawing blank at the moment.

 

[TheCatholicCrow]

I would personally say that the most important thing would be to tell the story that you want to tell. If you want to draw off of the older archetypes, go for it. If you want to experiment and try something new, go for it.

I'm not a fan of when artists try to be "new" or shocking specifically for the sake of being different. If we're all trying to be different from the old archetypes by inverting gender expectations (or whatever) then we'll all just end up creating a new archetype. If you want to change something in your story because you feel like that helps you with your specific story, go for it.

I just know far too many people who think that adding vulgarity or gratuitous sex & violence somehow subverts "tradition". Like I said, if every book being written right now is aiming at inversion and subversion, there's no harm in subverting subversion.

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to." - Jim Jarmusch

Rather than worrying about reusing old tropes and archetypes, find a story (characters, a plot, & setting) which you are passionate about and let the words build one upon the other until you feel that it is done.

Personally, I have vowed to never use dragons or dwarves. I find these do not appeal to me (and since dwarfism is a medical condition I feel horrible when they are included- particularly to provide comic relief). Find the "overused" tropes which do not appeal to you and eliminate them from your writing - not because they are overused though, simply because they do not appeal to you.

 

[Blodwedd]

Thanks, i think that's what i needed to hear, I'll take it to heart.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'll chime in with TCC. It doesn't much matter what the actually story is as long as you put some of your passion into it. If you're telling a story that rings true to you, about characters you care for, it won't matter if the idea is cliche or overused.

 

[Russ]

As I mentioned in another post earlier today...it really depends on what your goals are.

If you want to get published traditionally, sometimes being derivative can be an advantage, not a drawback.

From an "art" perspective, you really only need to be true to yourself. Create what you have a desire to create.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

When it comes to questions like this I'm always of the Lionel Hutz school of thought.

There's derivative and derivative.

The first kind of derivative is the bad kind. It's boring and doesn't bring anything new to the game. It's like the difference between Eragon and Rand al'Thor. At a certain level of generality these guys are the same guy. Farm boy, chosen one, amazing powers yadda yadda yadda. But for me Eragon was boring. He was just so bland that I just never liked him. In fact I had no passion for him at all. Rand on the other hand I connected with. He had some quirks and I hated watching his slow descent into madness, his triumph, and I nearly cried (I never cry in a book) when he
SPOILERS


made up with his dad after trying to kill him.

END SPOILERS

The second type of derivative takes the familiar and smashes it with something else and makes something newish. Take the Rand example. He took the hero's journey but there was something fresh, or at least, fresh enough to make him interesting to me.

To have a derivative work isn't bad per se. There does however need to be an x factor that makes the template more than a copy but something just different enough to be awesome.

 

[Penpilot]

Generally speaking ideas aren't original. What you do with those ideas, how you as an author spin and play with them, is where originality/freshness comes in.

 

[Nimue]

Subverting archetypes won't make something original on its own. But if your sword-fighters are men and your heroes are farmboys with mysterious lineages just because you think they should be, then it's time to examine your creative process. I absolutely agree that even the most common archetypes can be done extremely well--but going against them can lead you down unexpected roads. If you suspect you're falling into this rut, I'd recommend experimenting with at least one character or plot idea to try to break out of the straight and narrow.