Of course, as soon as I finished cringing at myself, I edited the worst parts out. Still, it raised two issues for me that I was hoping I could get other people's opinions on.
1) Although there is nothing new under the sun, is having something obviously derivative from D&D a strike against a story? Even if there have been major changes to the derivative element that (hopefully) present it in a new and fresh way?
2) How should a story with this sort of element address the issue of racism? Or is there a consensus that drow-like creatures in fantasy do not have racist connotations? Does it depend on how the secondary world is created and the amount of ambiguity allowed re: good vs. evil?
You don't have to change a lot to freshen it up.
You don't have to change a lot to freshen it up.
Edited to add--probably not the answer you were looking for.
As for racism, if you are going to have races you are going to have racism. It is usually a prime theme in fantasy. If you mean are you going to have black people mad at you for making the black elves evil, then perhaps in some cases. I don't think they should make all the dark races evil and all the light ones good. (I don't believe that the black hat, white hat thing translates to skin, or any other genetic property. I like all of my characters to have free will.)
(In my own work in progress I have black humans and white humans who hate each other and have to work together.)
(I once wrote a story about a boy wizard and it didn't sell, then I took Voldemort out of it and it sold on the next sub. Just kidding I just liked the structure of your post Skadder, I had to try one.)
*****
MartinV, if you think that about The Lord of the Rings, I have to wonder just what book you read...
According to Tolkien Dark Elf is a status, an Elf that has not see the light of the trees. Other writers have Dark Elves as outcasts.
2. The use of racism (when not historical) is a literary technique to denote evil or to make social commentary. If the story has only Drow or the non-drow are no more than furniture, you may not need to use it. Or you could spin their attitudes about non-drow to be like pets. If you kick a dog you get bit. When a dog is sick you put it down. If you don't like dogs you get a cat.
Now I don't know how you present it, and you might be talking to people who pray to Tolkein, but I assume how you are presenting it because of the first lines of your post. How does this sound to you? "I have a unique idea, I'm going to write a fantasy story, but it's going to be different from all other fantasy stories (like the ones you all are writing/reading) I'm going to actually write a good story." Now perhaps that's not what you meant but that's how I read it.
[This message has been edited by Pyre Dynasty (edited November 07, 2009).]
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited November 07, 2009).]
To compare LotR vs ASOIAF is like comparing, um, Great Expectations with Romeo and Juliet. They're totally different, rying to do totally different things, and both do what they need to do very well.
D&D's drow were introduced specifcally at a time when D&D was trying to get away from its highly Tolkeinian roots. I don't believe they were "based" on the Svartalfar of Norse myth, largely because the svartalfar of Norse myth are almost completely unmentioned - there are only three or four references in the Eddas and no descriptions or significance to their presence whatsoever. So any use of black-skinned, white-haired, "evil" elves is going to come across as D&D lift.
As for the "racism" thing - I think (or hope) that most of us have grown out of the childish characterisatoins of early fantasy where races are given universal characteristics (again, much of this is lifted from Tolkein, but Tolkein was writing myth, where the races play mythical roles, not those of real individuals). It's perfectly permissible to portray a fantasy world where a race is widely believed to be "evil", but it's a whole different matter to write off an entire race AS "evil". If ou are going to do that you really would be better off justifying it, and being prepared for editors, readers and reviewers to find it unpalatable.
quote:
You don't have to change a lot to freshen it up.
Agreed.
As for the issue of racism, some people look for racial issues in everything. I don't think there's enough to gain from editing for them. Many people, however, won't see racial connotations comparable to our world's experiences unless an author deliberately put them in a story.
Have you seen Hellboy II: The Golden Army? How many viewers do you think said to themselves, "Wow, how odd. Some of the bad guys are white? And the good guys are darker? Wow... and Hellboy's red. He must represent Native Americans or something." Yeah, right.
Don't worry about addressing racism unless it's an issue in your fantasy's societies. Good test readers will tell you if you unintentionally cross a real-world racial line.
[This message has been edited by aspirit (edited November 07, 2009).]
But there are very few books which I did not read to the end once I started on them. LOTR is one of them. That's all that matters to me. If you don't like that, well, that's your problem.
Yes, the black evil guy is something I don't like either. I just took a look at the cast of The Last Airbender. I loved the cartoon series, also because the good guys have darker skin than teh bad guy. It was a refreshing change. And then I look at the movie cast and I see all good guys are pur white and the bad guy has a dark skin. So much for refreshing.
If you dislike stereotypical evil characters in movies, how about counting up how many villains have upper-class British accents, when, usually, they're not upper-class Brits? (Think "The Lion King.")
Historically, Tolkien wrote from the position of a North European. Historically, these peoples were threatened by peoples from the south and the east. And, historically, these peoples who did the threatening were of somewhat darker skin coloration than those who were threatened. So I don't find it surprising that Tolkien, and those he influenced, write from this perspective.
I guess part of my concern with this comes from a recognition of how firmly entrenched all the symbolism of good & evil is (not just in me, in our culture at large). It's everywhere in the English language: she sees things in black & white; it'll be a black mark on his record; it was a dark day for all of us. Black/dark/evil vs. white/light/good is an established dichotomy, especially the color symbolism that goes with it. I suppose I'll just have to ask myself it working against the symbols is worth it or not, in terms of how important this is to the story I'm telling.
Thanks for all the feedback, ya'll - this is helping me a lot.
quote:
Obviously I'm not stupid enough to tell LOTR fans what I think about it in those exact same words. And I can see there are lot of LOTR fans right here on this forum and that I have just given you a reason to hate me. Fine, I'm not ashamed to say my opinion out loud.
The trouble isn't in your stating your opinion. The trouble is, you didn't state an opinion. You said, in declaritive imperative language that LOTR has undeveloped characters no plot and an undeveloped setting. These things are subjective in nature but you spoke of them objectively (and as tchern mentions even if they were objective the setting part in particular is a bit much. Middle-Earth is widely considered the most deeply developed fantasy setting in history, and not just by "fanboys" or whatever.)
The other problem is statements like that it "sickens" you to hear people talk about how much they like LOTR. Thats not an opinion. Thats vitriol. You say you've given people a reason to "hate" you. Well, I don't hate anyone, but it sounds an awful lot like you hate or look down on people who enjoy the works of Tolkien simply because they aren't to your taste.
Kitti, getting back to your actual topic. I have seen a lot of submission guidlines that say they don't want stories that appear to be taken from D&D campaigns...putting aside the fact I think thats a bit narrowminded and maybe even a little bigoted, I think its mostly talking about plot. Still sad though, I'd actually like to write some dungeon-exploration stories with like a D&D or Diablo-esque type atomosphere but anyway...I think its safe to say black-skinned silver haired elf-types will be immediately associated with D&D drow.
That being said I think there is a mythical basis...I remember one of the books I used to get at the library as a kid on mythical creatures mentioned drow. They were presented as a dark elven/fairy/unseelie type race that lived in darkness but weren't necessarily dark skinned that I remember.
As far as the dark/light black/white issue its pretty simple. Humans are visual creatures, physically. In the dark we can't see...we're nearly crippled. It creates actual danger due to not being able to see and also introduces a powerful fear of the unknown since you don't know whats even right in front of you. For the same reason nighttime/darkness has been the time for criminals to act and for things you want concealed to be done. Its no big surprise we associate darkness (and via that black) with evil, fear etc and light, which allows us to see, percieve know and feel secure with good, inspiration, understanding etc.
I also feel that inverting that tendency...having the good guys wear black or be dark skinned or whatever...has basically become a cliche as well since its been done and done and done in order to "escape" the cliche of black=evil white=good. However, I don't have a problem with cliches so I find either symbolism to be perfectly fine if it works for what your doing (of course personally I often tend to portray blue=good red=evil but thats just me...)
quote:
I have seen a lot of submission guidlines that say they don't want stories that appear to be taken from D&D campaigns...putting aside the fact I think thats a bit narrowminded and maybe even a little bigoted, I think its mostly talking about plot.
I don't. I think it's significantly about setting and character. Any story that involves an elf, a dwarf and a cleric, or has people blithely talking about "alignment", or that starts in a generic tavern (usually written by someone who has no idea of the functioning of a real historical inn/tavern/wineshop/whatever) is likely to get tossed aside by an editor - and these stories DO exist, and DO get submitted to magazines. Thankfully, we very very rarely see them, and those we do see usually subvert the tropes in some significant and/or interesting way.
quote:
I don't. I think it's significantly about setting and character. Any story that involves an elf, a dwarf and a cleric, or has people blithely talking about "alignment", or that starts in a generic tavern (usually written by someone who has no idea of the functioning of a real historical inn/tavern/wineshop/whatever) is likely to get tossed aside by an editor
Yeah that too...but a lot of what I've seen seems to indicate that the problem is that this then leads to a plot about killing monsters in a dungeon for treasure rather than a more "interesting" complex plot line. Just about any high-fantasy esque setting could be dismissed as D&D like in itself, likewise any use of dwarves elves etc (despite their strong presence in folklore and mytholog.) So like I said it seems in what I see to mostly be a fear of having a linnear adventure-module like plot. But I could definitely be wrong.
Of course I think also depending on the editor you may wind up getting dismissed as "D&D esque" if you do anything resembling any of these factors even with a very different twist cause people are so darn afraid of cliches. Funny especially to me since I find a lot of the "subversions" of many cliches to now be just as cliche themselves...but often times still a lot of fun.
quote:
Obviously I'm not stupid enough to tell LOTR fans what I think about it in those exact same words. And I can see there are lot of LOTR fans right here on this forum and that I have just given you a reason to hate me. Fine, I'm not ashamed to say my opinion out loud.
But there are very few books which I did not read to the end once I started on them. LOTR is one of them. That's all that matters to me. If you don't like that, well, that's your problem.
You are absolutely entitled to like or dislike any book, including LOTR. Just as other people are entitled to find things in that book that evidently you don't. I enjoy LOTR, but will freely admit that there are parts that I think could have been done better. Just because it is so iconic in our culture and often credited as the beginning of modern fantasy, I would recommend you try to read all the way through it at least once.
I would be interested to know how far you got before you stopped reading, though. The beginning is slow, no question. And there are a few places where things slow down even once the story does get started. But there is definitely a plot--an almost classic example of the hero's journey, in fact. And in places two or three separate simultaneous plots.
I'll agree that some of the characters are thin. Legolas is not an individual elf as much as a representative of all elves. Same for Gimli and the dwarves. And Merry and Pippin are almost interchangeable. But then remember, this is more a modern myth than anything else. Tolkein brought the ancient Northern European lore forward in a way that resonates with a lot of people. It's worth studying just for that, even if it is never your favorite story.
But the one thing you absolutely cannot realistically criticize is the depth of the setting. Middle Earth has thousands of years of history, which Tolkein knew in detail. He even invented languages for the elves, dwarves, and Rohirrim. How many of us invent languages for our stories? Even just a few words?
In fact, one of the reasons the story seems to start slowly and to slow down at other times is that Tolkein couldn't resist showing us places and people that have little to do with the story. The (I think) three chapters with Tom Bombadil are fun, but they really don't advance the plot. Few of us would have the luxury to take that kind of detour from the story today.
If you think the setting was shallow, I have to wonder if you ever got out of the Shire or past Bree.
I don't think you have to think about it as working against the symbols. Or even working with them in this regard. The color thing doesn't apply to everything. Think of olives, the difference between green olives and black olives is flavor, and I like the Black ones. (Although I'm pretty sure they are the same olives at differing levels of ripeness. Also I think there are some white olives, but they're a little rare.) No one, though, says "this is like a black olive," meaning "this is a bad thing." It's just pointless. And there's the little black dress idea that doesn't have symbolistic connotations. (At least not heavy ones, and definitely not the kind we're talking about.) I absolutely love the black and white tile design, and when I look at it I don't think good vs evil. (Same with red and green together, when I see it I think Christmas, even though red and green is another valid good-evil dichotomy. I think that one has to do with trees and fire. Which to take this on an even further tangent I always watch Star Wars around Christmas for this reason.)
MartinV you shouldn't be ashamed of your opinion, and I don't hate you for hating LOTR. (But to be fair I got the sense from your post that you hated me for liking it.) I was just trying to help your rhetoric a little. I thought this was necessary because you pissed me off saying you had an idea to write a good fantasy story, which by saying that you implied that all other fantasy stories were crap. (Again, I doubt you meant that but your words said that. We have to understand that our words will not always be taken the way we mean them and try to be as clear as possible.) You see, I don't get pissed off easily and if you get me in that state it probably means you are doing something you don't know you are doing. (People who try to piss me off fail.)
Personally I think LOTR's story is much better than it's writing. (Much like the Star Wars movies.) I think the fact that it took Tolkein his whole life to write four books shows what he cared about in that regard. I am also curious about what the dealbreaker was for you, just for my own education on readers.
1--George Lucas tried to play against that with his white-armored storm troopers (and I wrote an article long ago on how I thought his use of color was to indicate open-ness to The Force--that lighter colors meant less openness and darker colors meant more open-ness, so Darth Vader in black was wide open to The Force).
2--a linguist has pointed out that the languages in LOTR range from "light" to "dark" in that the lightest language is High Elvish and can only be understood under the brightest sunlight because so many of the sounds are "liquid" and easily mixed up--you have to face the speaker to understand clearly what is being said, and in that the darkest language is dark because it can be understood when heard in the complete absence of light because of the harsh, guttural sounds it uses.
Those who are "of the light" are the ones who choose to live and speak in the light, and those who are "of the dark" are those who choose to live and speak in the dark, and color of skin has nothing to do with it.
Fandom has a way of making people unwilling to discuss the focus of their adoration. The overzealous fan of a particular work of literature has some identical properties than a religious fanatic. Example: I'm sure you've all heard of Twilight by now.
Merely mentioning that I did not find the book they drool over interesting has made some people intentionally hate me. And they have successfully spread their hate to other people around me. The outcome: I was marginalized for having an opinion and speaking it out loud. At first I was shocked by this. Then I became angry. And now the mere thought of these people sickens me.
I now see that I've written what I've written in an impulse. An old wound coming to life, so to speak. I write with emotion, I cannot help myself. That is why I post so little to forums such as this although I read most of it.
If someone here was offended by my words then all I can say is it was not meant to offend anyone. But I will not that say I'm sorry. Saying that would be saying I regret what I've written and I do not regret it.
My disapproval of LOTR books is very likely mostly based on my experience with fans and a portion of it by reading the book itself. I read the first book, stopped reading the second one halfway and tried reading the third one a few years later. I did however liked the Hobbit, but that was because it gave me the sense of a fairytale instead of a sense of fantasy. Silmarilion I've read whole but found it disappointing. Again, because of all the praise I heard about it.
The movie LOTR did not appeal to me. Until I watched DVD version which had a lot of cut scenes and it had the documentary about filming itself. After seeing that, I began to enjoy the movie. As long as I don't have to watch them whole in one seating.
[This message has been edited by MartinV (edited November 09, 2009).]
Nevertheless. Liking LOTR shouldn't be a prerequisite for membership in any group, except perhaps the Mythopoeic Society.
Peter Jackson took several liberties with the plot, especially of the second book, THE TWO TOWERS, some of which make that movie very difficult for me to watch. What you're seeing in those movies isn't really what Tolkein wrote.
I would still suggest forgetting about the idiots who can't discuss the merits of a book rationally and trying to read through the LOTR to see why people feel so strongly about it. Try to find a take away lesson about what resonates with people.
THE HOBBIT is written very differently than the LOTR.
I agree with you about the SILMARILLION.
Vestigial doesn't automatically equate to worthless.
I can see the validity of MartinV's point though. Fanboys will be fanboys. I had trouble getting through LOTR the first time around too. Since I've covered most of the ancillary works created in that world, and personally love the Silmarillion (less for the writing than the epic story it tells).
To each their own.