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

allanbard

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2010
Messages
4
Usually, the presence of wizards with sharp hats, fire-breathing dragons, princesses, powerful kings, vampires, elves, dwarfs, little green men, etc is a certain evidence we read a fantasy/sci-fy story or watch a movie of the same genres. There are amazing books and pictures with all these characters, yet what makes them amazing is mostly the good plot and thoughts. Thoughts we could use in any period (past, present or future) of our history.
Yet, though these typical characters bring additional „colour” to the story, I guess they are too ordinary already? Almost as ordinary as the creatures and characters we see everyday: dogs, cats, horses, skillfull people in the army, cold-hearted politicians and other men in power, etc. Almost every book in fantasy/sci-fy genres describe these typical beings, that’s why I think we authors should strive to create new creatures and characters which nobody have ever seen or heard of. I guess any reader or writer would agree with that? New, unseen beings would seem much more interesting than the classical and would intrigue the readers much better? Beings like weightless korks (flying creatures with eliptical shape, some sort of intelligent worms, with no eyes but able to perfectly orientate by the revertebrated sound and to change their colour fast and so perfectly that people and other predators could hardly see them even flying on different backgrounds); fish-keepers (big, extremely evil and cunning fish that could fulfill perfectly well their tasks, namely to guard the sunken treasures and prescious objects); rock pieces (one of the most ancient rational beings that could wield the Magic, long time ago they had been of flesh and blood and lived in almost all the ancient seas and oceans, but after they were killed by the evil human races the long years in the ground made them creatures of stone); Brown faces (the most evil human race, in the remote past all of them had fair skin but their sinister intentions and deeds bit by bit made their bodies and faces as brown and cracked as the bark of a mulberry tree… yet, the most scary thing was not their sinister and ugly faces but their extremely evil thoughts and strivings to own and conquer everything and everybody, which probably was the reason that they took part in all the wars and battles in antiquity); glowing, living balls (tender, kind-hearted and noble creatures living in the waters of the ancient lakes, rivers and seas, as intelligent as humans, though their language was very peculiar, only mermaids could understand their squeaks, besides they could change shape fast and swim at lightning speed when they had to escape the predators or move to better water areas); night fruit (big, green balls that could grow and appear on every tree or other plant, only if an ancient wizard lived near... these fruit were formed by Magic, so they contained almost everything a human body needed, their only disadvantage was that they had to be picked only in the night, otherwise they melted and became rotten and bad for health); Mountaineers (in antiquity there were not only noble animals but noble human races too, the Mountaineers were the most noble among them, only they could become and train wizards as they knew what they had to do to wield the Magic because they could understand the real nature of this most perfect state of matter, every single thought, deed, act of theirs formed a part of the incredible Magic, so they could do and make anything we could imagine, their magnificent civilization was so advanced that in some ways we wouldn’t reach their level of skills and knowledge even after thousands of years...).
I guess new creatures, characters like these could bring new excitement, thrills, or even plots and wisdom in the genre?
 
Please use paragraphs. You seem to have some interesting comments, but I got bogged down in the morass of words and quit reading.
 
I find it pretty obvious that we should strive to make original characters. Only an idiot would write about the same stock characters. Nobody wants to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi. Progression is at the core of art, and is essential, although a lot of readers and writers are still set in their ways. You can start an insane argument on a forum like this by proposing the notion of using magic in sci-fi. I don't think it even matters. People like this are the kind of writers who have 'epic trilogies' about a hero who goes on journeys with his dwarf and elf friends to battle the dark lord and his hordes of orcs. But they'll try to convince you that it's different. It really isn't. It's just an excuse for them to write without having to ever actually think about it, and in turn they just steal ideas from what they've read.

The writer must become enlightened. They must strive to enlighten the reader. Immanuel Kant wrote that: "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another." (What Is Enlightenment? 1784)

The artist must become enlightened. If not, they will merely repeat what has already been created. The true writer will be able to create a world of his own, unlike anything ever created before, courageous and bold, fearless when seen by the eyes of society. The foolish writer will copy what they have already read, trembling and fearful when seen by the eyes of society.
 
Pretty much agree. I don't have a problem with old stock looking characters as long as something new and fresh is done. Everything has been done to some extent or another so doing something 100% original is unrealistic but it is absolutely the writer's responsibility to come up with fresh takes and interesting characters who have depth and complexity. That's the real core anyway. Believable characters in an interesting circumstance are vital.
 
Ramirez, brother, someday I want to meet up at a bar and have a deep conversation with you.

Lucanus hits it on the head for me. Believable characters in interesting situations. Depth is the key. Every genre has its stock characters -- the drunken lecher, the racist cop, the slutty girlfriend, kindly wizard. My personal technique is to take the typical and get inside their heads to where they live.

So, go ahead and let your imagination flow, but don't let the creative process get in the way of the story. After all, even a night fruit-addicted fish-keeper is still just a guy (or gal) with a problem that needs solving.
 
Only an idiot would write about the same stock characters.
I write stock characters.

Nobody wants to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi.
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.
 
Last edited:
Ramirez does it for the art. Hitting the best seller lotto isn't on his radar. He and I have had this conversation before. ;)
 
Ramirez does it for the art. Hitting the best seller lotto isn't on his radar. He and I have had this conversation before. ;)

You are correct.


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.

You can't take money with you to the afterlife. However, you can make awesome work that will live on and influence others. So by all means strive to make cash if that's what matters to you. In the meantime, the true artists will be striving to change the world.
 
However, you can make awesome work that will live on and influence others.
Right. And you can do that by writing stories people enjoy.

Stories like Star Wars, Twilight, Harry Potter, the Wheel of Time, Batman, and Conan. All of which use stock characters.

Claiming that "Nobody wants to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi" is stupid. What you mean is 'I don't want to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi.'
 
I doubt Hero of a Thousand Faces is on his bookshelf. If it is, it is as a what not to do.
 
I doubt Hero of a Thousand Faces is on his bookshelf. If it is, it is as a what not to do.
I actually dislike Hero of a Thousand Faces. :)

That is, the concept of monomyth isn't one I embrace. It's right up there with 'there's only one plot.' Finding similarities between the myth and folklore of different cultures and periods is fine. Claiming that there's one story that all cultures simply create variations isn't.

It was written in 1949, however, and I understand how significant it was for the time.
 
Last edited:
I certainly disagree with certain aspects but the breakdowns of the hero types and general archetypal stories I see as useful.
 
There was a time when those 'stock characters' were not. They were new. Batman and Conan were new when they were first introduced.

But really, stock or not, their success or failure (however you define it) depends on how well it's written. The worst plot in the world with the most stocky characters ever can become a great story if it's well written. ... or a great comedy.

I don't think one plot, but there is a limited number of plots that make sense.

Oh, and watch your use of "stupid"--we don't flame here.

B5
 
Has anyone said "Welcome" to allanbard yet? Our OP? That is his first post up there. I'd like to take the chance to say it first. WELCOME to SFFWorld! Great to have you with us, this is actually turning into a good thread despite it's slightly harsh beginnings.

I'm with hippokrene. A good story, no matter how original it is, can be inspirational. I do want to be original, but even I know that everything has been done one way or another before and, therefore, true originality is impossible. The best you can do is to take elements that have not been paired together too often before and put them together and maybe find a different way of telling a story and making it good.

So I use stock characters and I take lessons from other writers on what worked and what didn't. I write a good story and try to make it unique in some way. I don't shy from the tropes, not if that's what the story calls for. Because, for me, it's all about writing a story that takes my readers' hearts, grips them hard and then proceeds to twist and pull. If a stock character or trope will let me do that then I say thank God, I don't have to think too hard about that one and I can put my brain power to better use on a different issue which really does need it.
 
Right. And you can do that by writing stories people enjoy.

Stories like Star Wars, Twilight, Harry Potter, the Wheel of Time, Batman, and Conan. All of which use stock characters.

Claiming that "Nobody wants to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi" is stupid. What you mean is 'I don't want to read this kind of fantasy and sci-fi.'

Most people don't know what they want.

Immanuel Kant wrote: "It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult."

Most people will enjoy any type of food as long as it is placed on the platter directly in front of them at a time when they are hungry. This means that the general public should not be in control of what the artist creates, but instead the artist should make the general public aware that tenderloin is a favorable alternative to ground beef. They can enjoy both, but with time a great majority will prefer tenderloin. And what next? Lobster? It is up to the artist to decide this, to take risks, and to think with their own mind. The masses will take what is fed to them, but if all they know is canned tuna then they will fully enjoy canned tuna. When presented with fresh tuna, they will be given a choice.

At one time Star Wars, Batman, and Conan were all tenderloin. Society has absorbed them and they are now ground beef. It is up to the artist to provide a new choice.
 
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 :D. 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.
 
There aren't that many original plots. Shakespeare

stole every one of his plots, which is why I don't rake Chris Paolini over the coals for borrowing plot points from Star Wars. His work is simply derivative and boring.

What makes Shakespeare's plays memorable is their characters and their innovative (for the time) use of the English language.

What applies to plots also applies to stock fantasy and sci-fi motifs. Dwarves, elves, and wizards weren't new when Tolkien used them. He merely gave a huge boost to a marginal literary genre by using them in a memorable epic fantasy.

Betty Cross
 
I don't want to get my writerly pretensions all over this nice clean thread, but if you're creating a character from the ground up, you should never have to worry about "stock." If you consider where your character came from, how her background would influence her personality, how his current situation would shape his choices, then you're going to end up with something that feels real and organic.

Just as one can with real people, a reader can sense inauthenticity in a character. Got a wise old mage in your story? Great. Where did his wisdom come from? How does the fact that he is more powerful than most people affect his judgement and his friendships? Make sure you ask yourself questions like these and your answers should translate into a believable, non-stock character.
 
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.
 

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.
Back
Top