Five Cliches Fantasy Writers Should Try to Avoid

Posted on July 13th, 2009 in Opportunities by jharmon

Don’t a lot of fantasy novels seem to share a lot of the same plots and ideas?

• Lyn
  July 14th, 2009 at 6:37 am

  What?! No more dwarfs or elves? Dang! lol

• jharmon
  July 14th, 2009 at 7:44 am

  I just want writers to do something unique with them. And if the character(s)’ race has no real impact on the story, why not just make them human? To be cool? Seems silly to me.

• Babyface Jam
  July 14th, 2009 at 9:34 am

  Your right about the trilogy thing. They might as well make it into one big books, so you wouldn’t have to find the rest of them. Good article.

• Spiritswithin
  July 14th, 2009 at 11:55 am

  I do not seem to understand what is so bad about trilogies. Although people go to great lengths to find them, it does not make them bad. And besides, how many people out of ten would be willing to read a big book of 1,000 pages? That just does not seem right to me. It is a very good article, but sometimes, the old way is more appealing; the more possible way. I am writing a series of books- not just a trilogy, but more. Is there a problem with me doing that, because your article sort of denounces it. We do not have much choice- we have to make them into a series of books.

• jharmon
  July 14th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

  Spiritswithin, I’ve written a fantasy trilogy, so yeah, I know a little about them. And I’ve read plenty of them. I’m not saying trilogies are altogether bad, just that there seems to be a glutt of them. And frankly, most of the writers are doing trilogies because that’s what the publishers and readers seem to want, so I can’t blame them for that.

  But I’m no longer one of those readers. I don’t have the money or time or patience to wade through a bunch of garbage. Even the best of fantasy series have their low points. George R.R. Martin started out fantasticly strong, for example, but each book has been a little weaker than the one before.

  And have you seen how many epic fantasy novels there are that are already 1,000 pages or more? Tons and tons of them. I’m talking trilogies and whole series with books that are from 700 to 1,500 pages. I think it’s asking too much of most readers.

  At least R.A. Salvatore keeps his books fairly short within his trilogies and series. Thought sometimes I think his books are a little too connected.

  And no, there’s not a problem with you writing a trilogy or series. It’s your writing and your life, after all. Good luck with it.

• Spirtswithin
  July 14th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

  Oh, alright then. Thank you, I understand. ^_^ So, one question…what if there is a reason you have to write about 10 books to start a series? Is that a bad thing to do, because some people have a hard time finding the books? Should there not be a plan sequence to them? And is it better to make series books like that short in page count?

• Adam Henry Sears
  July 14th, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  Hi, JH, how are you?
  This is quite an opinionated piece. You have a lot of dos and don’ts here.

  While I agree with the angle of approach—keep it original—I happen to be one of those writers that thinks that even with ’stock characters’ and ’stock settings’ a written work can become ‘original’ in design. Don’t get me wrong; every beginner should avoid stereotypical writing, but every one of them has preferences and dislikes too. The real advice that should be hidden within this piece is to find a twist, create a unique set of characters, and to make the novel as much of a mystery as it is a fantasy.

  With regard to trilogies and sagas, I agree with you: there is not enough meat on the bones of each book for it to stand up by itself. In my opinion you should have included an idea on how to separate each book and make it stand on its own as a novel within itself.

  Let’s take J.K.Rowling for instance. Even though the Potter series is seven books long, each book has it’s own plotline, it’s own set of circumstances, it’s own theme, which gives every reader the opportunity to pick up just one of them and enjoy it purely by itself. The Sword of Truth series is built much in the same way, as is most of Robert Jordan’s The Wheel of Time. Anyway, my point is, even with your don’t that states Don’t make more books of the same quest, you did not include any advice on how to avoid doing so.

  And actually, some quests require more space to complete. As I’m sure you know, some adventures take on lives of their own, and can expand and contract enough to fill even more books, so, telling a writer not to allow such things to happen is like telling them not to let their hair grow. They can’t help it. It just happens. The idea is to provide them with clippers and illustrations so that every new growth can come out looking different and stylish. In my opinion you could have at least pointed out some ways in which these series-addicted writers could manage to create singular works that come together as a whole.

  I liked your approach, and the theme here seems to be geared towards freshness and appeal, or lack of it. However, I just thought that the article could use a little more advice on how. Specifics instructions would have been more appropriate than simply raving about what doesn’t work. I’m a fantasy writer as well, and, I’m studying and learning my craft. I’ve enlisted with writer’s digest, registered with their book club, and have bought many books on fantasy and novel writing. There is probably hundreds of such kinds of books but one of the best is Writing the Breakout Novel by Donald Maass. There are instructions on everything you need to know (or could possibly want to know) about novel construction and the best way to do it. There is more practical and useful information and applications in it than in most writer’s courses. Just a thought!!

  Thanks for sharing your ideas, and for allowing us to share ours. Have a good one!

• Brandon Kumm
  July 14th, 2009 at 4:22 pm

  Nice article that says something I’ve been thinking for awhile, but let’s be honest with ourselves. These “stock” situations and characters exist for a reason. The “Dark Lord” antagonist has been around for literally thousands of years. There’s a reason for it. People like to personify evil. It’s best if they can do that all in one package (Satan or Sauron come to mind). Same thing with “little guy as hero” protagonist. Also been around as long as the “Dark Lord” bad guy. People like to think that inside of “everyman” is the capability to be magnificent. I agree that the elves and dwarves thingy is overused. I agree that the trilogy (or longer) concept is overdone. Although, I must note that Tolkien wanted his trilogy to be one book and the publisher refused. It required significant rewriting on the part of Tolkien.
  As for the “evil monster”, sure maybe there needs to be more sympathy for the devil, but if you’ve done your job as a writer correctly, the reader is not supposed to identify with “evil” (unless that’s what you intended), so….
  We write, ultimately, not for ourselves, but for those who want to read our writings. I know that kind of thinking is anathema to many writers, but unless you’re sitting in a basement writing only to yourself then you’re ultimately writing for others. People like that kind of thing or it wouldn’t sell.
  On the other hand, if you can come up with something new and different I strongly applaud you.
  Just my opinions. Take them for what they’re worth. Just remember what opinions are like! LOL>>>

• Birdie
  July 19th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

  Any chance you found The Inheritance Cycle (aka the Eragon books) more than a little cliche. Don’t get me wrong, i love them, but they’ve hit on every single point you mentioned here.

• jharmon
  July 19th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  Natasha, I’ve read the first two books. I’ll probably get around to the third one eventually, but I’m in no rush.
  I found the second book more entertaining, and less cliche, than the first book. But I’ve never cared much for Eragon as a character. I’ve felt more drawn to his cousin, Roran. My feeling has been that Roran has had much more adversity to overcome, thus being a more likable character. Eragon has always struck me as having things just a bit too easy for him. Sure, Eragon has had his adversaries and tribulations, but there’s never any doubt he’s going to survive it/them. With Roran, on the other hand, you never know.

• Nikita K
  August 14th, 2009 at 6:30 am

  Some of the stuff you have said is true. Adam Henry Sears’ inclusion of J.K. Rowling in his comment is one point I definitely agree with. I don’t really mind triologies, but I do agree that they seem pretty weak sometimes. And for budding writers, some of them feel that if they are writing a fantasy, they are compelled to write a trilogy. I say leave trilogies to films!

• Jessinnia
  March 28th, 2010 at 9:38 am

  Good article overall. I mean, I disagree on three points (some strongly, some moderately) and agree on two points, but that’s not how I’m judging it. Okay, part of it yes. The things I agree on are very strong agreements and I’m glad someone said them. The things I disagree with are still good points for fantasy writers to consider, whether they avoid using them or not.

  I agreed with the farm boy and the dark lord thing.

  Actually, I don’t have a problem with farm boy (since a lot of this type of fantasy deals with farming as a major money-maker and it makes sense in that context). I have a problem with farm boy being The Chosen One. It seems so random, honestly. It’s like, if anyone could be The Chosen One, why this kid who has no obvious skills besides farming? I could see it more if the farm boy did have skills and wanted a chance to be The Chosen One (like if The Chosen One was run like a contest). Then writers could show his attempts at winning the Chosen One contest and at least that would be different.

  Okay, now for the dark lord. Very cliche. I understand how it makes sense. Someone magically/politically powerful is abusing their power, so who’s going to stop them? But this is too unrealistic (even for a fantasy). How exactly does one person get all this power to begin with? Even better, if it’s political how do they keep control of the people they rule over and if it’s magic how do they not overuse and drain it? The few fantasy novels using this idea haven’t explained it well (or at all) and I felt like I was missing something.

  But I have to disagree on the trilogy. It’s an unwritten requirement that every fantasy novel must be in a trilogy, but there are a few that break that. Still, trilogy seems to be where it’s at/going. I like this idea, to be honest. It means you as a reader knows there will be an ending and have something to look forward to (or you could finish the third novel and feel let down, but that’s another story). And it means that the writer doesn’t have to be limited to one world. I’m more of an urban fantasy reader, and the biggest problem is that some writers drag their series out too long. What could be easily said in a trilogy is dragged out for an indefinite amount of books and sometimes I feel like they’ve lost their original point. But with a trilogy, the writer can end it and move on to another writing project.

  While I’m thinking about it, how do you feel about fantasy novel series that are 1,000 plus pages each book?

• jharmon
  March 30th, 2010 at 3:31 pm

  Jessinnia, I’m currently reading Steven Erikson’s Malazan series, so I guess I have to say I like the 1,000-page book series. But I really don’t. Erikson seems to make it work, but I still have to take breaks between his books to read other material.

  By preference would be that instead of a series of 10 or so books, each book quite long, I’d rather see a series of trilogies. Have three trilogies, so 9 books. But have each trilogy tie up whatever is happening within the trilogy. In a way, Erikson has kind of done this since his books vary in their location and characters, but he skips around so much so that a character you read about in book 1 might not show up again until book 5 (just as an example, not being literal).

  Basically, if the author can pull off keeping the reader’s attention, more power to him or her. But generally speaking, it’s not my thing. I usually don’t want to read such, and I generally don’t want to write such.

• Asdff
  February 11th, 2011 at 7:31 pm

  I\’d just like to point out that Lord of the Rings is NOT a trilogy. It is actually one novel published in three volumes.