Now I mouth off on fantasy novel tropes again

This blog post is a bit of a departure from my most recent postings, most of which have been not-so-shameless attempts to promote my own work that's come out (and is yet to come out) over the past year or so.  This time, I wanted to write a little bit about some of the more common story writting patterns I've seen in reading various books in the fantasy genre over the past few years.  As both a fan of fantasy novels, and a (sometimes) writer of books of the same ilk, this is not about me trashing the whole field or even any book or series in particular.  It's simply me venting my thoughts on some of the concepts or, dare-I-say, cliches that keep popping up in some of the fantasy novels I've read. 

I've written before about some of the more common writing tropes that bother me when I read them, particularly in fantasy novels.  I'll briefly reiterate my frustration with three of the most troublesome, yet commonly-found concepts.  First and foremost, the ubiquitous fantasy plot point, 'The Prophecy'.  Where we learn, usually very early in the story, that one or more of the characters are destined to do some great and/or important thing.  And sure enough, at the end of the story, they wind up doing the very thing they were prophecised to do.  Beyond being almost ridiculously common in fantasy novels, I am oftentimes frustrated at how these seem so often to be in-narrative spoilers built right into the book.  More importantly, it effectively takes the onus off of the characters to actually strive and endeavor to accomplish the things they were fated to do, as well as the impact of the event when it happens, since we've known all along that it was foreordained.

The other two I wanted to mention from the earlier post, are related to one another.  One was the constant inclusion in fantasy stories of the 'Chaotic-Evil Race', a.k.a. orcs, goblins, trollocs, wolfins, gremlins, dark-men, or whatever the fantasy story's standard-issue horde of bipedal baddies are called in their own particular idiom.  They could be small and spindly or huge and hulking.  They'll have varying degrees of intelligence, spanning from primitive and frenzied, to deviously cunning.  Some will even have elaborate languages, weapons and armor, and even social structures.  But one thing they all have in common is that they are all vicious killers of the innocent, and they are all irrideemably evil.  They can't be civilized, reasoned with, or trusted, and whatever this world happens to be called, said world would be better off without them.  The whole point of having the chaotic-evil race of man-creatures is so that the good guys have someone to fight - and kill - in the dozens or even the hundreds or thousands, without any pesky feelings of remorse or doubt that they might have if their combatants were barbaric, misguided, or coerced human warriors.  Human foes, even particularly nasty ones, still have this link to our common humanity; they were children once, many may well have families of their own waiting for them in some far-off land.  Often, the chaotic-evil races will not only not have women and children to feel sorry for, sometimes it's pointed out that they were never even children themselves - they might have been 'born' as a fully-formed adult killing machine with no childhood pathos or familial connections to suggest any sadness at their bloody demise. But since it's inhuman monsters our heroes are slaughtering by the scores, it makes it much easier to know who's the good guys and who's the bad guys.  Speaking of which ...

'Good vs. Evil' is a trope that is hardly limited to the fantasy genre, but there are few genres in all the realms of fiction which are more saturated with the concept of there being two clear, divergent, and morally distinct sides to any point of story conflict.  There's always an evil arch-villain, bent on destroying/ruling the world, and the outnumbered, outgunned, outmatched group of scrappy, often scruffy, but ultimately good heroes who are tasked with stopping them.  I haven't mentioned any specific fantasy franchises in regards to any of these tropes yet, but I want to single out one here, specificly for skillfully subverting this particular trope:  The Song of Ice and Fire Series (known to most people specifically by the name of its first book: 'Game of Thrones').  In this series, there are very few people who are what one could call out-and-out evil.  Even the most irredeemable, assholic antagonists in the story have something to say for their defense, if not some positive, redeeming qualities of their own.  Conversely, all of the innumerable 'protagonists' of the series sport their own character flaws, wherin one can't really define them unequivically as 'good'.  Indeed, I think most fans of the series can find themselves relating in some small way to Stark and Lannister alike.  Turns out, showing characters in shades of gray doesn't diminish the readability of a fantasy series after all. 

Among the other tropes I wanted to mention was the 'Chip-in-the-Water Hero' scenario.  This is something of an offshoot of the classic 'Hero's Journey' trope, wherein a young person is swept up in events and taken from an ordinary life into a story of danger, desperation, adventure, glory and all that good story stuff.  In and of its own, the hero's journey is a perfectly good (if a tad worn) trope to start off an epic adventure story.  But here's where it is in danger of digressing into a chip-in-the-water hero story:  when the young, wet-behind-the-ears would-be hero, spends the entire course of the adventure, getting swept up in events without actually influencing them.  Often, this happens when the 'Old Mentor' (who will invariably die at some point in the story), or the 'Motley Crew of Do-Gooders' team do most of the heavy lifting, adventure-wise, while the story's 'hero' spends most of his (or her) time as simply a slack-jawed, pie-eyed witness to events as they unfold.  Granted, at some point, they're supposed to be crucial to the course of events in the story (particularly if The Prophecy said so!), but if it's just some big moment at the very end, particularly if the 'big moment' could have happened with any other particular character in the hero's place, then was it really that much of a hero's journey?

Sometimes though, in that big moment, the hero (or 'Chosen One', as they might be called) might be face-to-face with the big bad guy at the climax of the story, and defeat them with some hidden, deep-down special power inside him (or her, but whatever) that he didn't know existed until that very moment, and used that power to overwhelm the shocked, disbelieving supervillain to win the day.  This is a prime example of the 'Magic Our Way Out of This!' trope, where a seemingly insurmountable problem is overcome by convenient magical, supernatural, or otherwise fantastical means, with minimal explaination or even previous mention of the existence of such means.  The non-fantasy, contemporary (or sci-fi) adventure equivalent to this would be something akin to the hero defeating the villain at the end of the story because he shot them.  It's probably for the best that the bad guy's dead, but really, it was the wonderful handgun that saved the day.  You just pulled the trigger - something almost anybody could've done in your place.  The hero should be the hero because he (or she ... whatever!) did what nobody else in the story could've done in his place. 

There are a few other time-honored fantasy tropes that annoy me as well, like 'Proper Noun Mad Libs', 'Real World Equivalency', and the 'Plot Development Treadmill', but I think those pretty much speak for themselves.  I also get irked when novels go on and on, poetically describing a summer glade, and then only use character dialogue for clunky exposition, but that's just this grumpy old man grousing to hear himself speak, I think.

To be sure, these thoughts about the preceding subjects are entirely of my own opinion, and I hope I haven't offended anyone who disagrees with my take on them.  But, heck, if it motivates you to post a comment with your own thoughts on the subject (0 comments yet recieved in 3 1/2 years of doing this blog!), then it was at least worth it to spark a discussion on the matter.  We all have different opinions, and just because these things stick in my literary craw, doesn't mean it has to be that way for everybody.  Maybe some positive, constructive discussion would make me see things differently?

7 Overused Fantasy Novel Conceits

A few months back, I read a very good blog about fantasy novels. It captured my interest because it was a description of seven concepts that the writer felt had become overused to the point of becoming cliches in the genre. I thought it was a very good essay, and I agreed with each of the writer's points. Unfortunatly, I've changed computers since then, and I'm unable to cite them for their work here, as I can't remember where I read it. If by chance, the writer happens upon this blog, let me know, and I will gladly reference your excellent description. In the meantime, I felt like paraphrasing it, or at least my own interpretation of it.

* Endless Sequels - There's nothing wrong with taking more than one book to tell a single story. It might take 3 or 5 or 10 or more books to create a grand canvas to describe the events of a fantasy world. The problem arises when sequels are produced for the sake of having sequels. It is wearisome when a fantasy series becomes episodic, where nothing really changes for the characters or the world from book to book. Even if things do constantly change, there isn't always a flow to it, like the story is just aimlessly meandering from one plot point to another. Naturally this gripe is strictly a matter of taste, but I feel like a fantasy series really ought to have a natural cycle to it, which means that eventually, it must end.

* Historical Equivalency - Basically, this is when there are clear and decisive parallels between fantasy elements and real life ones, such as the elves clearly representing the Greeks or the Such-and-Such Empire being analagous to the Soviet Union. It's not just races and cultures either, such as if magic draws a clear parallel to, say industrialism, or if an artifact is a clear representation of a nuclear weapon. This is not to say that fantasy story elements cannot have any kind of relevance or relation to our own world. How we paint the picture in our minds is based on our own understanding of our worlds. There is simply a danger of making the comparisons too overt, and its bluntness can dull the intended effect. The trick here is to be a little subtle when dealing with real-life analogy.

* European Medieval Times - In a related note, it seems quite common for fantasy worlds to closely resemble Medieval Bavaria, Rome or England or such. Even when they don't look like Europe in the Dark Ages, they tend to take on another Earth era's charactaristics, like Arabia or China or Japan. Again, I think this has much to do with having these pre-conceived civilizations, with their cultures and architecture as a template, allows for a basis with which to set up a foundation for a narrative. Starting completely from scratch in creating a fantasy world is a daunting prospect, but if it's vivid and truly unique, I think it can be worth the effort.

* Monarchies - Almost every fantasy civilization, good or bad, seems to be a monarchy of some sort. Furthermore, just about every story seems to require at least one prince or princess as a primary character. Perhaps this naturally comes from the fantasy novel's inherent European origins. I'm not suggesting that they should all be democratic republics, but mixing it up in regards to governmental systems can really spark some life into a story. There are oligarchies and military dictatorships as well, and even monarchies can be the dominant governing structure in a fantasy world, but there is so often a sense of politics or structural hiarchy that makes a society run in some of these stories, it can be difficult to figure out how a kingdom really operates. Also, this might be my parocheal American ideals talking, but making a character a prince or a princess doesn't elevate them in my eyes.

* The Chaotic Evil Race - The last three I particularly agree with. The first one is that there always seems to be a non-human race, commonly orcs or goblins (or the equivalent), who posess a degree of intelligence, but are bestial, vicious, and irredeemably evil. This allows our good guys to be able to fight and kill them in large numbers without ever suffering the guilt of taking a life. We have no qualms about the valiant heroes after they slaughter 50 murderous orcs at the castle gates, rather than if they were 50 human conscript soldiers sent on their mission by the evil lord. War and death can be a very messy, soul-testing ordeal for characters, even if their cause is right and their intentions pure. It's much more convienent to keep from seeing their enemy as inhuman monsters than to deal with the consequences of taking another mortal life. Honestly, there's lots of character development to be mined there, but it so rarely is utilized.

* Good vs. Evil - It is a concept that is familiar to even the youngest child, and is understandable to all, but in reality, it is almost never the case that there is a side of truly good and of truly evil. My take is that no character who is unabashedly evil is ever realistic. Real characters can do evil, but they will always convince themselves that they are actually doing good, be it self-serving good or for "the greater good" of society. I always wonder why villains want to rule the world? What purpose does it serve to be in charge of everything? Defeat your enemies certainly, acquire treasure and dominate your surroundings to be sure, but the practical act of controlling everyone and everything would simply be an endless, tedious, buerocratic nightmare. As for the good guys, they were always fine with the status quo before, but they always seem to play a reactive game against their adversaries. The heros are always responding to the actions of the villains, and never seem to be the cause of the events that move the world forward into conflict. Besides which, good guys could never really be without sin themselves. Duality is a part of human nature. There's always a little good in the worst of us, and a little evil in the best. But most everyone is somewhere in the middle.

* The Prophecy - One of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite movies is: "Nothing is written." It's a philisophical concept that is not often taken to heart in fantasy stories. Contextually, it means that there is no preset destiny, and that events are all linked in a long chain as altered by the characters and the constantly evolving situation. Yet so many fantasy stories seem to be based almost entirely on some sort of Prophecy. This Character WILL Do This, And After Much Struggle and Danger, This WILL Happen. To me, this is at best, the narrative equivalent to a spoiler. If the hero is destined to succeed all along, then why should I bother reading how he or she gets there? Is it, in that case, any more than seven books filled with busywork? Moreover, it is a spiritual concept that fate is the master of free will, and one that I think a lot of people would have trouble with if they were forced to consider it. When life, real life, is pre-scripted, what really is the point of living it? We would be just going through the motions until whatever was destined to happens happens. Obviously, in fiction stories, our defaut assumption is that the hero prevails and that good will inevidably triumph over evil. Whether we're comfortable with anything short of this is really up to the personal tastes of the reader. But the outcome is already decided before it even begins, then the journey itself loses it's meaning. When I pick up a book, I'm reading it for more than just the last chapter, and I want all of those pages between the cover to count for something.

Obviously, I resort to hyperbole at times here, saying things like "all novels" and "always" or "never". When I do, I speak for the general standard of the genre, at least from my own modest perspective. Indeed, most fantasy novels I've read will avoid some if not many of these conceits I've listed (I humbly believe that my own novel avoids them all), and I've avoided referencing anything by name, because it is of course, all a matter of personal opinoin and taste. I don't know if you would agree with all or any of these that I've listed, or if you think there are other things about the fantasy genre to add that ought to be avoided. If you do, I hope you'll let me know!