I figured I would post this here, though this particular problem plauges all forms of story telling. I've noticed that lately there seemes to be more and more Cliche characters popping up all over the place. Seems that todays protagonists tend to fall into one of three catagories.
1. The brash, angry hero who has a problem with authority and is a prodigy in his chosen field regardless of any training or lack thereoff. He alwasy seems to win despite lack of forethought and rational judgment and never EVER learns from his mistakes.
2. The dark brooding hero who is also a prodigy of his chosen field (probably because the only thing he does to occupy his time is brood and train). He never speaks more than one sentance at a time and beats his enemies because he's badder than all of them combined.
3. The fated hero, who for some unknow reason is bequethed by a god/genetic experiment/uber powerfull alien race/whatever with some kind of super weapon of powerful ability that makes him unstopable. He usually doesn't want his powers and sees them as a horrible responsibility that he just can't avoid.
I know this is a bit of a rant here (sorry for that) but it seems like fantasy and sci fi are kind of in a rut. Most of the new books and characters that are out there revolve around the same themes. Some uber powerful guy who is just that much better than anyone and everyone who stands against him.
I don't have a problem with powerful and competant characters, they can be a lot of fun, but I would much rather the story be about a person who is powerful, that just about oggling at some guys awesome abilities. V for Vendetta being a example in my oppinion, sure V is powerful, but the story is less about V's abilities and more about the philosophy he is trying to show people.
Sure, we all like to hear stories about extrodanary people who are larger than life, but it's been take to extreemes. It's as if story telling is suffering from hero inflation, anymore stories about characters who can't crack the world with their nostils aren't worth hearing about. I think that is a shame. I can enjoy a story about a character who is deep and three dimensional who maybe has to struggle for his victories and maybe even fails on occasion.
I don't like this for the same reasons I don't like GM PC showboating. Anyone can give a character all the best abilities and specials in the book, that's easy. What's hard is making a character who draws you in and makes you love them or hate them, or who feels so real you think that you could meet him on the street, or who says something that makes you really makes you think.
Sorry for the long rant-like post. As always, I'm one man with one oppinion and I could be totalally off base here. Let me know what you all think.
I should say that a big reason that I'm not a bigger reader than I am is largly because of this. I run into a lot of books that just make me laugh out loud and throw the book across the room because they are just so goofy-over-the-top with cheesy supercharacters. I will say I have found quite a few that aren't however. I'll have to let you raid some of my books so you can see what I mean. What I wouldn't give for books with more mediocre characters who make human decisions over ubercompetant ones, who suffer high bodycounts because they're human rather than effortlessly slogging through the badguys like someone was just throwing bodyparts at him, casting neverending cascades of black-fire-bale-lightning in huge swaths that burst enemies like pimples without even raising a sweat.
I think that's one thing I do love about roleplaying. It is by necessity play balanced to keep characters comparable to their environment. You can get glory, but you gotta' earn it with blood and brains and white-knuckled luck. Books are nowhere like that. Characters can hew effortlessly through foes and only face challenges (often paper-thin pseudo-challenges) when the author feels like it and often shrugs them off with a simple flourish. It's just irritating. At least in roleplay you earn your hero stories y'know.
I think that's one thing that really bothers me about anime--though more the old 80's to early 90's stuff (the modern stuff tends to be much more reasonable). I have no desire to see the most powerful goodguy on earth teleport around laser-swording or mass energy blasting his enemies to dust with unstoppable powers. Not only does it wither any dramatic tention or empathy I have for the good guy, it makes me hate him. I want him to fail, and end up cheering for the badguys even though I know they are all doomed to die at the hands of some stupid cheesy punk retard with awesome supergalactic powers.
Yarg.
I think that is why I intersperce my fantasy reading with real travel journals - or real adventures - food poisoning, dysentary, altitude sickness, getting swindeled, getting lost, are part of the fun.
I think it is also part of the appeal of Terry Borooks original series. I reread them recently and its interesting his writing improves dramatically - though the stories themselves are (now that I am older and better read) pretty poor. However his protagonists while they have skills are more swept up in big events than epically powerful in themselves - though as you say they (for some goofy reason) are uniquely qualified - to save the world.
It one of the things I like about LotR - though I don't wanto start another rant thread on all things Tolkien. The Hobbits (IMO) are the protagonists - they happen to have the ring, but are corruptible, fallible, even stupid sometimes, but persevere to to the right thing - the same with the kids in Narnia, and to a degree Harry Potter (though he is exceptionally powerful in his craft for his age) - I think that is the appeal.
My suggestion is that if we want better fantasy literature, with richer characters, as opposed to cliches is to write it.
Who else's job is it if not those who want it.
Having tried (and failed to date) it is difficult.
Good luck.
Hey I'll write it if you'll buy it.
|
I think, as with most things, there is a lot of crud out there. The task is to sort the wheat from the chaff. Not always easy. There is a series of books, the Thraxas series, where the hero is a middle-aged, over-weight divorcee PI in a "typical" fantasy city with little more than his wits to get by on. They make a nice change.
All of the cliches can work OK if the writing is good. Maybe lots of it boils down to poor writing?
Hey I'll write it if you'll buy it.
Sounds fair - how about this - I'll read it and if I think it is worth it I'll buy two one for me one for a friend.
You bring up a good point. I hate to use another movie refference on a book forum, but it's the only example I have in my head right now. Neo in the matrix is kind of the fate character, uber powerful by no virtue of his own. However, if all you do during the movie is oggle at neo's chalenge rating, then you've sort of missed the majority of what the movie has to offer, that is to say a rich setting that makes some interesting philosophical points.
See and I thought you were going to mention Rand al'Thor from the Wheel of Time. Usually he's your guy for illustrating that point, a super powerful character that throws around the rear-beating but that isn't the kind of cliche character you're talking about.
Now granted I've long harbored a grudge against the Wheel of Time for just that reason--but at your request am actually reading it and have high hopes that it will change my opinion.
all of the wheel of time people are fated characters
that doesnt make them bad books... junst long-winded
|
|
Slightly off the main topic, but....
I really couldn't get on with the Wheel of Time, even the first (supposedly one of the better) books. That is pretty padded (some very similar encounters with baddies) but what bothered me the most wasn't the main characters, who were delineated OK, but the "support" crowd - the farmers and so on they met along the way. All the same. Every single one an identical cardboard cut-out: kindly rustics (usually with wagon) and feisty women.
People complain about Tolkien and his writing: he was the epitome of brevity, pace and characterisation compared with Jordan. Simply can't understand his reputation: couldn't even finish the first book.
Slightly off the main topic, but....
I really couldn't get on with the Wheel of Time, even the first (supposedly one of the better) books. That is pretty padded (some very similar encounters with baddies) but what bothered me the most wasn't the main characters, who were delineated OK, but the "support" crowd - the farmers and so on they met along the way. All the same. Every single one an identical cardboard cut-out: kindly rustics (usually with wagon) and feisty women.
People complain about Tolkien and his writing: he was the epitome of brevity, pace and characterisation compared with Jordan. Simply can't understand his reputation: couldn't even finish the first book.
ooh ooh! dont forget the nobles, all stick-up-*** prigs who charge around on horses and who he has to send off somewhere else
ooh ooh! dont forget the nobles, all stick-up-*** prigs who charge around on horses and who he has to send off somewhere elseSlightly off the main topic, but....
I really couldn't get on with the Wheel of Time, even the first (supposedly one of the better) books. That is pretty padded (some very similar encounters with baddies) but what bothered me the most wasn't the main characters, who were delineated OK, but the "support" crowd - the farmers and so on they met along the way. All the same. Every single one an identical cardboard cut-out: kindly rustics (usually with wagon) and feisty women.
People complain about Tolkien and his writing: he was the epitome of brevity, pace and characterisation compared with Jordan. Simply can't understand his reputation: couldn't even finish the first book.
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! Don't forget his portrayal of women as manipulative, scheming witches that can be conveniently classified by color into categories of 'man hating feminist nazis that are secretly in league with Satan', 'super whores', or 'frigid manipulators'. Do you know a girl that's stubborn? It's only because she's secretly in love with you or one of your friends! Even if she isn't, don't worry. Since they're all just about identical as people, you can just pick up another. If you're the main character, you get upwards of four or five women wanting to sleep with you at any given time! After all, how can we identify with the main character unless you beat us over the head telling us how great he is?!
Addendum: Why stop at ONE main character?! Why not THREE reluctant hero archetypes to go with this entire host of second and third string characters! I'm the fantasy literature equivalent of Charles Dickens, but without the charm! Wheeee!!
I'm sorry. Robert Jordan does that to me.
|
No reason to apologise. I remember thinking midway or so through the first book that, hey, there's a lot of white picket fences and helpful peasants at well-maintained farms here... And while I have no problem with using utilitarian descriptive names for geographical features rather than long-winded "exotic" appelations, he could surely have come up with something better than the "Mountains of Dhoom"?? That extra "h" makes all the difference - that does not sound like Mount Doom at all!
My personal pet peeve - all those warriors who guard the female arcanists are, besides all being exiled princes or some such thing, all "tough as old tree roots" or "as mountain roots" or some other root. That phrase gets really old after you read it seventeen times. While on the subject of stereotypical characterisation - wasn't it the green wizards who kept harems of bodyguards? That is almost (but not quite) as clever as the Dragonlance colour-coded wizards ("look at me - I'm evil!").
Better stop now... But, yeah, he does that to me too.
|
|
My personal pet peeve - all those warriors who guard the female arcanists are, besides all being exiled princes or some such thing, all "tough as old tree roots" or "as mountain roots" or some other root. That phrase gets really old after you read it seventeen times.
Maybe just shorten it to "man-roots" for convenience.
Try picking up something by Bernard Cornwall- he did the "sharps " novels
I am reading his trilogy about an english archer during the hundred years war searching for the grail
is he tough? yeah- he's an archer - has been since his youth
is he brooding? nope- he loses a woman in like every book- but doesn't seem to mind too much
foolish? heck no
fated? yeah- but all heroes are.