Cliches.....are they really all that bad?

[Thor_Doomhammer]

In the fantasy genre, there are tons of cliches. There are countless books out there that seem to use the generics of fantasy. For example, some cliches that come to mind are:

-A world set in medieval times
-The world has not advanced in technology for as long as anyone can remember, and shows no signs of advancing any time soon
-The world has elves, dragons, orcs, gnomes, trolls, dwarves, as well as humans.....or a selection from these
-The world has a power that everyone calls "magic"
-Users of "magic" are few and far between and it is not exactly clear how one uses magic.....or for that matter why so few people are able to use magic.
-Everyone uses swords, axes, bows and arrows, etc. (although this may be due to the lack of technological development)
-There is always some Dark Lord threatening the entire land, for various reasons that are not always made clear(although sometimes they are)

And so on.

But the question is...in our own writing, are these things to avoid, or things to follow?

After all, people have been successful for years and years and years using these basics molds and then incorporating their own ideas into it. Apparently people like reading these types of stories.

But at the same time, could we be reaching a point where there are so many of these stories that people are bored with them? Do we need to come up with entirely new ideas?

[Commonmind]

I think every Fantasy story conforms to one, if not all of the cliches associated with the Fantasy archetype. It's my opinion that these cliches are the staple of the genre, and when I want to read a fantasy novel I want that archetypal fantasy theme to be present in some way shape or form. Robert Jordan, Terry Goodkind and G.R.R. Martin's stories lack the presence of gnomes, elves, dwarves and other whimsical races, but they are still fantasy in many other respects.

As far as people becoming bored with these cliches, I don't think that's the case currently, and I believe the popularity of the genre right now is evidence of that.

[Ursa major]

All genres are based on clichés to some extent, even (particularly?) those that claim to be in the literary tradition (a rather mixed-bag genre if ever there was one).

Just be pleased you're not stuck with Boy meets Girl, Girl dumps Boy....

[Sapheron]

Originally Posted by Thor_Doomhammer

Do we need to come up with entirely new ideas?

We'd be unimaginably arrogant to think this was possible. Out there, somewhere, it's been thought of, written down, told or acted out before.

As for the main question. No, cliches aren't necessarily bad. Comedy, especially, can make good use of them. As long as they aren't 'too cliched' they're fine elsewhere as well. For example, it's fine to have a big powerful bad guy/gal. However, it isn't really fine to send a vertically challenged guy on a quest from his sleepy homeland to destroy the dark lord's magic thingymajiggy.

[Jarshen]

Ok Thor, without actually disagreeing with you, part of me says your idea of cliches are the fantasy genre, almost by definition.

A Medieval world because it is our view of a golden age,
the individual is a potent force;
pre industrialisation,
pre mass communication,
pre the ability to blast each other to death (without magic, plague, famine etc hey this is fantasy).
We can fantasise about someone making a difference in the past, makes us feel better. (Some might say also unempowers us to do anything ourselves now.)

It is a time when we can envisage wise and great political leaders, or at least the chance for the above to achieve such or become such.

It is far enough away for us to construct myths about how good, noble, terrible, cruel we are on a moral scale. We can create stories about ourselves.

As I say this is a Golden Age perception, where the past allows us to imagine evreyone being involved in a community activity and artisan trades, it reflects as much on today as it does on the past. Hence, in my opinion the politics of Martin and the intrigues of Erikson are de rigeur at the moment, they reflect our confusion.

Beyond that mate, I reckon these are the rules for fantasy, and they are there to contain and fire your imagination, and there to be broken.

Add and subtract as you see fit.



Fantasy genre

Large landscapes and Journeys.
Generally adolescents/young people are heroes moving into positions of power, suffering, difference.
Quest, or mystery, or apocalypse to undertake and achieve, solve or prevent. Preferably all three.
Stock in type peoples tribes, riders, nomads, raiders, knights, and medieval-ish cities, trade and religious houses. Fixed society coming to an end.
Magic or at least fantastical option, may include beasts, objects even races.
War, battle, weapons and hero craft, strength of intellect backed up by right use of arms.
Something or one to be overcome, a notion of wrongness to fight against.

All very topical, actually IMHO.

[pyan]

This came up as a panel at FantasyCon - "Are Fantasy Tropes dead"
The general opinion seems to have been that you can get away with using them, but it's better to try to put a new slant on them if you can....try to avoid their use if you can't think of an original variation.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Hi, Jansen. I think that our ideal world is more the Renaissance than the so-called Middle Ages, or, actually a jumble of the two periods. During the real dark ages, when Europe was invaded by one barbaric people after another, there were no cities as we know them, apart from the important ones like Rome, and a few others) Around A.D. 500-700, the average town comprises few houses, often made of wood, and large fields in between. There are no "castles" as one would see later. Extended families live in fortified farms.
New architecture appear in 1000-1200, especially applied to churches and monasteries, and rare private houses. And then the cities are rebuilt...
And the first plague, the wars...
Noble women wear pretty pointy hats during the fourteenth century, but inside the towns, not in the country...

Several Fantasy novels describe luxury (for the nobles) that is typical of the Renaissance, but, while doing so, they introduce medieval technology in the setting.



Edit: my browser jumped away from the Chronicles. It has been doing this all the evening. I lost the end of my post (you are kucky).

Well, what I wanted to say is that this cliched setting is not only cliché; it is also a myth of the modern western world about its origin.

[Culhwch]

Originally Posted by Commonmind

I think every Fantasy story conforms to one, if not all of the cliches associated with the Fantasy archetype. It's my opinion that these cliches are the staple of the genre, and when I want to read a fantasy novel I want that archetypal fantasy theme to be present in some way shape or form.

I think there's an important difference between archetypes and cliches, though. Archetypes are the grand themes you can build upon. Cliches can all too quickly descend into farce, whether intentionally or not...

[Teresa Edgerton]

Originally Posted by Jarshen

Part of me says your idea of cliches are the fantasy genre, almost by definition.

I think a lot of fantasy readers would agree with you. And yet many of the finest fantasy novels I've read over the last forty years include none of those fantasy staples except for the inclusion of a magic or fantastical element.

Not that I'm against using any or all of these elements; but they certainly don't define fantasy for me.

And Giovanna, women wore henins (the pointed hats) in the 1400's, which is probably what you meant.

[Giovanna Clairval]

Originally Posted by Teresa Edgerton

And Giovanna, women wore henins (the pointed hats) in the 1400's, which is probably what you meant.

In France, yes, but not in Italy (I was being Italocentric, sorry, because I was talking about the Italian Rinascimento). The fashion of the cappelli a cono came to Florence around AD 1300 (fourteenth century), but we are already in the Renaissance around 1400 (no hennins---what an interesting word--, but intricately braided hair and flat caps), which is normal, given that the R. started there.

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree with you that the "medieval" setting of most fantasy novels has very little to do with what the real medieval period was like, but it goes far beyond a luxurious lifestyle for the nobles. A lot of it is just ... wrong.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Culhwch

I think there's an important difference between archetypes and cliches, though. Archetypes are the grand themes you can build upon. Cliches can all too quickly descend into farce, whether intentionally or not...

And therein lies the point -- thanks Culhwch. A confusion of terms often causes confusion in communication as well; archetypes or archetypal elements retain their power because they resonate with us emotionally, associatively, culturally; cliches have become so overused that they've lost the power to effect any response other than mirth and satire (or boredom). This is because archetypes are templates which can tend to be somewhat malleable and elusive, allowing them to have a wide range from work to work; cliches are stereotyped, repetitive, and stultified imaginatively. For example, the "haunted" castle of the Gothic novel is still very much with us in the most effective modern terror tales, but skillfully adapted to be a modern apartment or office building, a dormitory, a school... or even the architecture of someone's mind -- or the empty voids of cosmic space (the greatest haunted castle of them all....).

And, as Teresa says, fantasy is by no means limited to these "staples" -- I think of the works of James Branch Cabell, Charles Beaumont, Harlan Ellison, H. P. Lovecraft, Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore, Nick Mamatas, Clark Ashton Smith, A. Merritt, Henry S. Whitehead, a fair amount of Robert E. Howard (who also wrote fantasies set in the American Southwest), Charles G. Finney's The Circus of Dr. Lao... and that's just for starters. Personally, I'd like to see people recover that awareness of the broadness of the genre, rather than just this one narrow aspect of it which has become so well known since the Tolkien boom....

[Commonmind]

I was merely stating that certain cliches associated with the fantasy archetype are what I, as a reader, prefer to experience and that those elements have become what I view as the fantasy archetype. As I said, this is a statement of opinion, not a representation of the true archetype of the genre.

[the_faery_queen]

i don't think most books are aiming to set it in a medieval setting. i think they're aiming for a fantasy setting, which tends to have elements of medieval ness about it, with castles and swords and so on, but it has a lot of other things as well that aren't particularly medieval. *shrug*

and i agree that most of those things aren't cliches. a cliche to me is, poor peasant boy turning out to be a chosen one and really the heir to teh throne
and able to magically use a sword, or weild power, and know exactly how to rule, and be smarter than everyone else, despite being a farmboy with no real education or ability to use sword before the moment someone gives him one.
or something
and cliches are fine, as long as you do them well.
i think if they're too extreme, such as the magic ability to weild a sword, or the boy being the rightful heir, then it's awful. but others, chosen one, marrying the princess, they're ok if you do them well.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Commonmind

I was merely stating that certain cliches associated with the fantasy archetype are what I, as a reader, prefer to experience and that those elements have become what I view as the fantasy archetype. As I said, this is a statement of opinion, not a representation of the true archetype of the genre.

No offense meant; this tendency to confuse terms is something I'm seeing more and more of and (aside from, as I said, it often causing a confusion in communication), being a bit of a stick-in-the-mud pedant, I in turn have a tendency to carp about it....