Typical, old characters vs. new, unseen and unknown in the fantasy, sci-fy genres.

[Ramirez]

Immanuel Kant... didn't he invent Elves?

Yes, in fact. Along with Descartes, Hume, Voltaire, and Locke, he helped forge the way for fantasy's integration into the philosophies on the enlightenment.

No, I'm just kidding of course. But some research into enlightenment philosophy or a quick browse through wikipedia should inform you as to who Immanuel Kant was.

 

[Hoodwink]

Ooh I'd love to.

But I Kant.

 

[allanbard]

I think attention to personality rather than role creates original, interesting characters. Stock characters are never "stock" because of their personalities; they are stock because their personality has been subsumed as secondary to a conventional role in a story. Merely creating new roles and titles for characters, without attention to personality, just creates new type of stock characters; however, taking an old trope and infusing that character with a unique personality will create a unique character.

I also think there is not only no dichotomy between doing something new and creating with reference to what has been done before. Ultimately the measure of what makes good art good isn't its degree of uniqueness but rather its degree of truth. You can say the most unique thing in the world, but if it doesn't ring true, it is meaningless as art. And most of the great human truths have been touched upon in some way in fiction; making great, unique fiction consists in critically re-examining and synthesizing what has come before. While I agree that it is lazy and uncreative to write the same thing that has been done before without reflection, only a fool thinks he is so unique that he needs no reference to the past or common human experiences. That is like an infant trying to raise itself without parents.

Particularity AND universality are both essential aspects of solid characters.

And while there is a lot of cliche literature out there, both fantasy and mainstream, just because that is what most people will want to read, I think that there is also a very healthy bit of "unique" literature both past and present. I don't think a lack of uniqueness is exactly a pressing problem, in fantastic or realistic literature. "Genre fantasy" had a little decline post-LOTR and Star Wars into cliches, but I think GRRM, um, skewered that with some Valyerian steel . But the fantasy and wierd fiction that came before was strikingly unique (Peake, Lovecraft, etc), as has been much of the fantasy to come afterwards (Mieville, Valente). And with literary fiction, while you will always have cliche crap like Water for Elephants selling big time along side second rate, cookie cutter "literary" novels, there is a long history of incredibly unique fiction ranging from the great Russian novelists to Woolf to Faulkner and Updike and more modern writers like Toni Morrisson, Michael Chabon, Jennifer Egan, and Tea Obrecht.

I just don't think in the big scheme of things, there is such a lack of unique characters out there that this is a problem that needs a new solution.

You are right, there are unique books with typical characters, and vice versa... But my point is that the most important is the plot, good writing skills and wisdom in a story... And when all that is combined with unique characters then the author reached perfection? Thanks for the good comment!

 

[allanbard]

I think of stories like cake. You can't create new cake, it's already been made. What you can do is add different ingredients from different places to have a somewhat unique cake. Everything has been done before, but not always together. It's the same with music: every note has been played, but not in the same sequence, tempo, and time signature. It's okay to use 'stock' chords in music, and many 'artists' are financially successful with stock, but musicians strive to find something that they've never heard before, and I'm willing to bet more than a few people here consider the art of storytelling moreso than a profittable venture.

Let me disagree with you.... Creating characters is something different from creating music, or cooking a cake... A writer is not limited with ingragients like flour, water, sugar, chocolate, notes, etc... And in fantasy/sci-fy genre one could achieve a lot as the possibilities are limitless. I guess weightless korks, glowing ball, fish-keepers, Brown faces and rock pieces are characters no one else have ever heard before?

 

[Ramirez]

Ooh I'd love to.

But I Kant.

Oh ok, haha. I thought you were being sarcastic with the original post, but it's often hard to tell. Some of my friends who go to state school don't even know the difference between Plato and Aristotle.

 

[Kaeru]

Oh ok, haha. I thought you were being sarcastic with the original post, but it's often hard to tell. Some of my friends who go to state school don't even know the difference between Plato and Aristotle.

That's silly. Obviously, Plato's that salty, crumbly, non-toxic children's clay, and Aristotle is some sort of car part.

 

[Hoodwink]

Oh ok, haha. I thought you were being sarcastic with the original post, but it's often hard to tell. Some of my friends who go to state school don't even know the difference between Plato and Aristotle.

I must confess, I was. You come across as a (possibly) young, undoubtedly smart guy enjoying a quality and fulfilling education. You're full of yourself and (possibly) with every reason to feel so. But you make broad-brush statements like this:

Only an idiot would write about the same stock characters. Nobody wants to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi.

and then quote Kant, as if to backup the blunt dismissal of lesser mortals with an intellectual payload (ironically, a borrowed one at that). I can't argue Enlgihtenment Philosophy with you, I never received an education worth the noting of it. But who needs school and Kant to recognise when confidence pushes straight through arrogance and straight into rudeness?

For the record, like you, I like the creative approach myself and tend to steer clear of established "stock" because I'm intimidated by the effort, creativity and research skills that must surely go into taking "stock" ideas, making them believable and in some cases beautiful.

So I find creating something new is not only rewarding for the art of it, but a convenience. You'd perhaps argue its harder to be creative than use stock, but for me, its the reverse. Besides, the noble struggle for art never infers any quality beyond the subjective. It's a bit like when you're young and think other people's inability to be appropriately appreciative and comfortable with your personality is a failing in them, before years later, when you realise you are in truth the sum total of other beings experience of you.

One more thing - at my school, they didn't teach the difference between Plato and Aristotle either - they never so much as mentioned them. That's a failing of state education, not the kids who are less fortunate than you. Are you really lording it over the proles because you are gifted not only by nature but circumstance, or are we reading it wrong?

That's silly. Obviously, Plato's that salty, crumbly, non-toxic children's clay, and Aristotle is some sort of car part.

Kaeru, I think I love you.

 

[Ramirez]

You are reading it wrong. I am an enlightened man in the sense that I am highly ambitious, diverse, and confident of my abilities in the sense that I realize I always have more to learn and that I will never reach the plateau that so many artists feel they have reached when they are unwilling to learn anything more. I am a humble person and my goal in life is to help other people. I have been a music teacher since I was 17 and I plan to teach art and literature in the future. After I finish undergraduate school I am going to join the Peace Corp, which has been a long goal of mine. I am a defender of the weak, a champion for those who cannot help themselves, an educator and a helping hand for those who have dealt with the negativity of prejudice and rough backgrounds. I am a follower of the Buddhist faith and I am guided towards the path of goodness and righteousness each day, which teaches me to be accepting, patient, tolerant, and educated.

I am very proud of my school. It is one of the best art schools in the country and I am not here because my parents are paying for it, I am here because I earned scholarships and loaned money from the government. Yet, the biggest reason I'm here is because I realized that it was a possibility, that it was within my grasp because anything I put my mind to can be accomplished.

Everyone on this planet is capable of greatness. So many can't realize this. I hope to influence and inspire all types of people, especially children who need inspiration and need strong, ambitious, and selfless role models as opposed to the materialistic and selfish celebrities that drown the media. When I use my education on a forum such as this, to enlighten all who read it, I am not flaunting it, but instead trying to enlighten those who fail to realize their full potential, for those who fail to realize they can do more than they ever thought they could do.

I pity artists who fail to do anything new and I wish to enlighten them, to show them that one can do so much more. Yet I can empathize with those who do what they love to do but often those don't realize that they can do so much more. One day while meditating, I came up with a quote that remains to be one of my favorites: "If you love the world you will never be lonely." This is how I like to live my life. Yet some love is harsh. Sometimes you have to force people out of the womb. Sometimes you have to get them out of their bubble to give them perspective and show them how things really are. I owe a debt to society and I will repay it by helping and enlightening others. Yet I have to prioritize, and the children and charities I help with are a lot higher on that list than an online forum of writers. I can be gentle and forgiving to the children, but to these writers who fail to do anything original but hold themselves to high regard- they need to get smacked every now and then to realize that the world doesn't revolve around them.

I must confess, I was. You come across as a (possibly) young, undoubtedly smart guy enjoying a quality and fulfilling education. You're full of yourself and (possibly) with every reason to feel so. But you make broad-brush statements like this:



and then quote Kant, as if to backup the blunt dismissal of lesser mortals with an intellectual payload (ironically, a borrowed one at that). I can't argue Enlgihtenment Philosophy with you, I never received an education worth the noting of it. But who needs school and Kant to recognise when confidence pushes straight through arrogance and straight into rudeness?

For the record, like you, I like the creative approach myself and tend to steer clear of established "stock" because I'm intimidated by the effort, creativity and research skills that must surely go into taking "stock" ideas, making them believable and in some cases beautiful.

So I find creating something new is not only rewarding for the art of it, but a convenience. You'd perhaps argue its harder to be creative than use stock, but for me, its the reverse. Besides, the noble struggle for art never infers any quality beyond the subjective. It's a bit like when you're young and think other people's inability to be appropriately appreciative and comfortable with your personality is a failing in them, before years later, when you realise you are in truth the sum total of other beings experience of you.

One more thing - at my school, they didn't teach the difference between Plato and Aristotle either - they never so much as mentioned them. That's a failing of state education, not the kids who are less fortunate than you. Are you really lording it over the proles because you are gifted not only by nature but circumstance, or are we reading it wrong?


Kaeru, I think I love you.

 

[robotosaur]

[snip for brevity.]

Hoodwink, I would like to bake you cookies. That's all I'll say.

 

[RedMage]

Hoodwink, I would like to bake you cookies. That's all I'll say.

We should have a bake off, Robotosaur. Hoodwink, I'll make you cookies too and you can be our judge, alright?

 

[Kaeru]

We should have a bake off, Robotosaur. Hoodwink, I'll make you cookies too and you can be our judge, alright?

That's it. If you BOTH get to make Hoodwink cookies, I'm breakin' out the strawberry soda cracker pie. You can judge pie and cookies simultaneously, right, Hoodwink?

 

[Hoodwink]

Ah I am very humbled!

My Englishness precludes me from being an effective judge of cookie quality. For a start, we insist that they are biscuits Fortunately, my wife is from the US so I will offer her judgement by proxy.

And I'll share 'em with Ramirez because he made a good defense of his motivation and spoke eloquently about peace. Bring forth the cookies of peace!

 

[Kaeru]

Ah I am very humbled!

My Englishness precludes me from being an effective judge of cookie quality. For a start, we insist that they are biscuits Fortunately, my wife is from the US so I will offer her judgement by proxy.

And I'll share 'em with Ramirez because he made a good defense of his motivation and spoke eloquently about peace. Bring forth the cookies of peace!

..... No peace pie?

 

[Hoodwink]

So long as it's an entirely original peace pie, and you don't include any stock.

Just asked Mrs Hoodwink about cookies and she said something about cookie dough. I think she's talking about an American martial art.

 

[Kaeru]

So long as it's an entirely original peace pie, and you don't include any stock.

Just asked Mrs Hoodwink about cookies and she said something about cookie dough. I think she's talking about an American martial art.

Well.... It's made from scratch, .. But it does contain some of the same tired, overused ingredients that have been used for ages. Strawberries, cream, sugar, eggs.... I must admit in shame that I lacked the creativity to create an entirely original berry, etc.

I understand the whole point behind overused themes in fantasy, but I still have to chuckle at complaints of "man, ANOTHER book with elves in it?!" I could be alone in this, but I've never heard of anyone throwing a book away in utter disgust because a human was in it. I care more about how those characters are used than I care about whether it was Immanuel Kant p) who invented them rather than the author.

 

[Jon Sprunk]

I pity artists who fail to do anything new and I wish to enlighten them, to show them that one can do so much more.

I love how you put your put your thoughts together, and I really do mean it when I say I'd love to talk writing over beer and pretzels, but sometimes I get the feeling you can't see the forest through your own trees. Like the quote above.

I don't know of any artist who fails to create original content, or that needs you to enlighten her. Artists of all stripes, no matter where they are in their careers, are creators of originality. Perhaps you don't see that, but I would suggest the failure lies within you.

Like your aversion to "stock" characters, your personal philosophy reflects inexperience, not enlightenment. Every character is stock on some level. Every single idea you've ever had, or I've ever had, is built on the ideas of others. The quest for complete originality is an excellent mental exercise, but ultimately futile.

 

[allanbard]

I write stock characters.


Yeah, that's why Twilight bombed hard. No one wants to read about dark, brooding male love interests who are desperately in love with a girl but know they must never give into temptation and be with her.

And no one is interested in stories of good-hearted farmboys who discover a secret power and go on to overthrow an evil empire. That's why George Lucus is a pauper right now.

Yes, you are right! There are a lot of such typical stories that are best-sellers and block-basters, but it's usually the polt that makes them so good, not the characters? And there are a lot of people now who cannot stand stories about vampires anymore after Twilight? I see such comments all the time...

 

[R.J.]

The way I see it, a story does not need be drenched in originality per se...sometimes just a slight change is enough to create something that feels fresh and new (though it isn't). Case in point: Star Wars. It's a fairy tale/light fantasy, but giving it a different setting/trappings (space ships, lightsabers, what have you) was enough to make it -arguably- the most popular movie in cinema history.
Star Wars is full of stock characters yet it works when it comes together with the setting and costume design etc.

Could say the same thing about certain fantasy novels; I mean, A Song of Ice and Fire isn't original in that it is heavily influenced by British medieval history (Wars of the Roses), but combining it with a fantasy setting makes it work and feel original, don't you think?

 

[hippokrene]

Yes, you are right! There are a lot of such typical stories that are best-sellers and block-basters, but it's usually the polt that makes them so good, not the characters?

The plots are also stock.

Twilight: Boy meets girl. They fall in love. Circumstances keep them apart. They end up together.

Star Wars: A New Hope did not succeed because it had a new and innovative plot that no one had seen before. It succeeded because it told a classic fantasy story in a creative and interesting way.

And there are a lot of people now who cannot stand stories about vampires anymore after Twilight? I see such comments all the time...

Vampires have been around for a long time. Vampire stories do just as well post-Twilight as they did pre-Twilight.

Last weekend, I talked to my mother about the book she was reading. Know what it was about? A vampire story from the vampire's point of view. She thought it was great.

The average reader has no problem with stock characters and stock plots because these things have nothing to do with the actual quality of the work. Original is not a synonym for good, nor is familiar a synonym for bad.

Tying this back into writing: every author is different. What draws you to a story isn't going to be what draws me. The idea of creating new, original works that redefine the genre might make you all aquiver, but it leaves me flat. If I'm going to stay up to 1 am working on a story or skip having dinner with my friends to write for a few hours, it's going to be because I'm writing the stories that interest me with the characters that interest me.

And that would be stock characters, Kant be damned.

 

[Ramirez]

Tying this back into writing: every author is different. What draws you to a story isn't going to be what draws me. The idea of creating new, original works that redefine the genre might make you all aquiver, but it leaves me flat. If I'm going to stay up to 1 am working on a story or skip having dinner with my friends to write for a few hours, it's going to be because I'm writing the stories that interest me with the characters that interest me.

And that would be stock characters, Kant be damned.

I do the same in the sense that I write stories that interest me about characters that interest me. The difference is that original characters interest me and stock characters make me yawn. I'd much rather be doing something new than just spinning in circles. And I hope you learned a valuable lesson from the essay by Immanuel Kant.