Traditional Fantasy Races- Pros & Cons

This is a debate I've had many times with many people, ramping up to start a couple of new projects and I'm back on it again. In my first book (out soon!), I used traditional fantasy races- specifically Elves and Hobgoblins. I feel like that book gets away with it but that's not always the case, and I know people here have some strong opinions (and strong opinions probably contrary to my own... I'm curious where we agree and where we disagree).

The biggest "Pro" I think is that it can serve as a useful shorthand, and a lot of times the substitutions feel like blatant substitutions.

To me the biggest "Con" of using a traditional fantasy race is that it can be looked at as lazy. That's not always the case, obviously, but it's a definite risk.

(this pre-posted, was not ready....)

I've found that people have different attitudes depending on the race as well. Some races, people don't care if you use them. With some they really don't like it when anyone but the original source uses them.

edited 12th Oct '15 9:30:11 AM by Madcapunlimited

Another point against the use of the "traditional" races is lack of variety: it can become a little boring to encounter the same fantasy races over and over again, and somewhat refreshing—and thus somewhat engaging—to encounter those that are new or seldom-used.

Absolutely, painfully lazy, and totally baffling when they show up in non-visual mediums like novels. At least in videogames and tabletop RP Gs, you have to accept the fact that your audience might not be comfortable stepping outside their comfort zone, or might struggle to get into the head-space of a race that they're not familiar with. Plus there's the fact that artists (especially for videogames) are expensive, so investors are rarely going to take a risk on a design that might put customers off, however original it may be.

But in a novel, where you don't have to pay artists, you can bring readers right into the headspace of your new race, and you can bank on the fact that if they're reading your work, they actively WANT to be taken out of their comfort zone, why in Christ's name would you ever need to fall back on elves and dwarves and fucking orcs?

edited 12th Oct '15 10:51:04 AM by Tungsten74

Well, that's kind of just a negative way of saying it's a shorthand isn't it? Shorthand is bad because it doesn't give you as much detail, but it's good because it gives you enough relevant information and then lets you move on. Sometimes you need shorthand, sometimes you don't. When I say "shorthand" I mean more than just that- metaphor, symbol etc, it's a condensed message to the reader. That message isn't always automatically one of laziness. "Space elves" is okay to use if you're doing some kind of science fantasy in space- because I think the reader kind of gets that there is enough OTHER juggling going on that they don't need that mixed in the miss.

I mean- I used elves and hobgoblins in my first book, I don't feel like it was lazy (no complaints from the publisher either). Then again- my book isn't "medieval" fantasy, and I'm now wondering if that was the "difference that makes the difference" as they say.

And btw- specific races do matter I think. We have the "our orcs are different" because nobody really gave a crap about them before the 90s... so they're basically about 30 years fresher than dwarves & elves as long as you do SOMETHING with them. Elves are kind of done to death (although becoming probably more acceptable as villains these days)

Also- nobody gives a crap if you use gnomes, ogres, goblins and the other "b-team" traditional races. If you write "modern fairy fantasy" readers pretty much expect a pixie at some point- so it's not a 100% black and white thing.

Speaking of pros and cons, I admit I have mixed feelings about the portrayal of the elves in The Witcher and Dragon Age. While it is a nice change of pace to make the elves something other than an entire race of ancient and haughty know-it-alls, making them an entire race of Butt Monkeys isn't a good idea either.

Sounds like "pro" on inclusion, "con" on execution.

And I don't see people say "oh, it's dumb that there are elves and orcs in Bethesda's Elder Scrolls games." Additionally- relative to someone like Tolkien, Blizzard hasn't been around so long that they get some kind of grandfathering pass— they get their pass for being one of the major forces in redefining orcs in the late 90s/early 00s.

So that also supports the argument that it's not IF you use them, it's WHAT you do with them. I think the big thing with them right now is to do the Rod Serling thing with Elves & Dwarves— (i.e. talk about social issues of race by using these well worn tropes and stereotypes as substitutes to help discuss and examine things that are too awkward for the rest of us to discuss).

Personally, I just know at some point I'm going to put orcs in a book— not because I'm too lazy to come up with something else. I just like orcs and I think it would be fun to use them at some point. I didn't include them in my first book because when I *do* write something that includes orcs, (a) I want to get it right and (b) I'm only going to do it once.

Huh, what do you know, I really do have no problem with being orcs, elves, dwarves, etc in games, but I do facepalm when I see them in literature.

I wonder why.

When I started my current worldbuilding project, I included several traditional fantasy races. As it developed I began taking them out one by one, starting with elves. I found that they could easily be replaced by different human groups. Some races that come from humans (e.g. vampires) were kept for plot purposes, but elves, orcs, and certain dwarves were cut out completely. The remaining dwarves were turned into a human culture. A nation in the Echel Forest has a very elven culture.

I found no need for the traditional races, but I see the value in having something the audience immediately understands. My world worked better with only humans (and Angels, Demons, Undead, and Vampires), but certain ones may require more diversity.

I hate cliches. TF Rs are cliched. That's boring.

If your character's elf-ness is unimportant, then why make them an elf at all? If their elf-ness IS important, then why not put forth the effort to show me what they're like? Why should I care about your elves if they're just copied-and-pasted rip-offs of Tolkien's work or D&D's legacy?

I think it IS lazy to use TF Rs as "shorthands". It's also vaguely insulting to your audience. Even if you DO manage to make a lot of money (because even literal bull poop can be marketed in such a way as to make everyone and their mother want to buy it), that doesn't make your work truly worthy of appreciation.

If I read a story and the word "elf" is dropped in without explanation, I know I'm dealing with a lazy and/or unoriginal writer. I don't have time to waste reading the work of lazy, unoriginal writers. I have stories of my own to write, after all, and THEY are as original as I can make them. If, however, the writer shows (and doesn't TELL) me what makes their elves different, I will give that work a chance. Because I appreciate good fiction, fiction that comes from a genius, from someone who can look at a familiar concept in an unfamiliar way. If Albert Einstein had been a writer of fiction, especially fantasy fiction, I would be addicted to his works; I would claim him as my supreme literary guru because of how sublimely unique his stories would have been.

edited 12th Oct '15 9:17:38 PM by nekomoon14

I disagree, obviously. I don't find that to be a compelling enough reason to stay away from what are essentially writer's tools. Obviously if you just plain don't like these, I can't convince you- but I think most people don't have such rigid opinions. I personally love the traditional races, specifically orcs and goblinoids, I have an affinity towards them the way some people love vampires or zombies... so I don't in any way consider it lazy to write about them because it's writing about what I like, and when all is said and done- there is NO argument that trumps taste/preference. Now, that's just me- and obviously there are subjective elements at play here, but I want to dig a little deeper than that.

I'd point to the above post about vampires. Why use a vampire? Why not create your own kind of undead monster? Is it only because you have something "new" specifically to say about vampires- or could it just be that people like them? Is it because people are familiar with them and you can move forward and tell more than "what this creature is" stories? Why write anything with Vampires if your not Stoker or Rice? Should vampire stories in general stop? Or is there a difference between good vampires and lame vampires?

If somebody refused to watch Angel because vampires were "lazy" (especially in this post-twilight world), I would still try to convince them to watch it. If I could convince them to watch it, even if they didn't come away enjoying it as much as I did, they would at least have to admit the experience was different than Twilight or Anne Rice. I get the feeling I'm going to be a lone voice on the "pro" side so let me just put a few things out there of when you COULD use a traditional race to great effect—

1- to introduce ANOTHER race or subrace. Because if there's a race that even the elves think are ethereal and beautiful, or even the orcs think of as rampaging and destruction- it gives immediate credibility to the new race. Drow have become a bit of a cliche themselves, but when they first came around they were new and different- and they were built up by expanding on a "known" race.

2- to provide commentary on the fantasy genre. Look at the "bearded dwarf woman" concept, that invites some playing around- someone could turn the table and write a book where all the male elves have breasts. Or you could do a story about a cosmopolitan city like in many D&D worlds where one dwarf female has a lot of hang ups about her natural hairiness and being mistaken for male (in contrast to what most authors do with bearded female dwarves and just make them a punchline and dress it up as "confidence" by making them just not care). You don't NEED to reinvent the wheel to tell those stories (the "orc who reads or is a pacifist" is a similar version, though that variation has, I agree, been done to death).

3- Parody, Homage or Tribute. Terry Pratchett made a career of this.

4- to provide commentary on real life. This is the Rod Serling/Twilight Zone argument. Readers will forgive an elf who hates dwarves faster/easier than they will forgive a human who hates the ethnicity of another human. There are some things people are just so insanely passionate about you can't always approach them directly ("why you shouldn't 'Support the Troops'") that you can use people's familiarity with these other races to your advantage.

5- Posthumous- this is a slight cheat, admittedly, but by saying "oh yeah, this other big bad horde is coming and by the way— they killed all of the ogres," it would be an absolute waste of time and resources to overdevelop the ogres in that sense, or to use something else- just like in #1, they are used to set up something else. Or all the elves are dead and you have a character who is half-elf, he'll never know his father etc...

6- Cross-genre. A lot of these races are filled with expectations and stereotypes and by putting them in a different context it can provide for some interesting storytelling. Often you'll see people do it in painfully obvious ways but it's the fusion of the dissimilar that makes it shine. "Elves in space," is the original variation, "orcs in powdered wigs," is another version of it- it makes subtle shifts in the story's tone. I'm still waiting for the troll romantic comedy with the wacky misunderstanding and third act drama. A murder mystery that used or subverted stereotypes about characters of those traditional races allows the reader to focus on the clues without the extended exposition of explaining an entirely new race (also all that exposition about entirely new races may accidentally reveal too much information).

Obviously the qualifier to most of these is that you are either providing a variation, using a single individual or keeping them "off camera" entirely— still, I think writing the entire premise off as ONLY "lazy" is selling it well short of what it could be.

To the original poster, publishing your book, congrats! But it's obviously too late to be asking people's opinions about the setup of your book, and it's too early for me to say as a reader if your book got away with it.

On the pro side: people know what to expect. Some people are happier without vegetarian vampires that sparkle in natural light or without the ridiculousness of Not Using the "Z" Word and Call a Rabbit a "Smeerp".

On the con side: people know what to expect, and they'd rather read it from someone else, if not read something else. And if the elf is pretty and hates dwarves...and you do not put in some promise of subversion or a bigger and more interesting story than the details...then they'll stop reading. By "they" I mean me: I almost didn't watch Avatar The Last Airbender because I've had it up ta here with four elemental spellcasters, and it still bugged me because four elements are a Western thing, but there was more to the series than that trope.

I don't have a problem with traditional fantasy races per se, but I do get sick of the stereotypes and Planet of Hats-esque nature of a lot of portrayals - all Dwarfs are miners and fight with axes, all Orcs are vicious Always Chaotic Evil fighters, Elves hate Dwarfs etc.

I prefer an Our Monsters Are Different approach to the races if they are used.

So while I don't think that having Elves, Dwarfs and Orcs is inherently "lazy", I do find a lot of writers execution of them to be extremely lazy.

I won't avoid a book because it has traditional fantasy races in it, but I'll put it down quickly if I find it nothing more than tired old fantasy cliches.

Unless your name is Terry Pratchett and you're parodying the fuck out of them, of course...

edited 13th Oct '15 11:42:29 AM by Wolf1066

Basically, what everyone's been rehashing: The Five Races aren't inherently lazy, but the way people use them are.

I find the majority of writers to be lazy when using the five races because they don't worldbuild past the stereotypical "Elf/Dwarf/etc" race, or think outside of the box. And since they don't read mythology and explore other options, they don't have the tools to decide "you know, I don't want the Dwarves to JUST be miners—I'll have them be chthonic earth-worshipers, too, and they hold metal in such high regard because it comes from inside the earth."

And then for my personal opinions: There are hundreds if not thousands of cultures just for our single species, so why is there only one culture and maaaaaaybe a couple of subcultures for each of the other four races? So it's lazy because not only are people sticking to the basic five boxes, they're sticking to the five basic cultures.

edited 18th Oct '15 9:12:34 AM by Sharysa

Personally, in a fantasy story I'm writing, I'm actually doing away with fantastic creatures and limiting them to only around a couple of dragons and undeads.

I don't know, maybe it's because I got so sick of elves and you know.

I read once that the whole concept of race in the fantasy lit sense may have at least partially been Tolkien's fault- he wrote during a time in history when the human races of the African/Asian/Caucasian variety were viewed as more separate than we know them to be now, to the extent that some thought of them as subspecies of human. Race in Tolkien's time also tended to be drawn along cultural lines, as well, which would also help explain why his elven, dwarven, and hobbit 'races' are so culturally monolithic.

As for me? In general, I am more tolerant of reading traditional fantasy races than I am of writing them. I didn't know Tolkien or any characteristics of his strain of fantasy even existed until in 2009 I stumbled across Limyaael ranting about Tolkien ripoffs, which might be why I've never felt the desire to write a race that could be easily identifiable as a variety of any of the major races of Middle-Earth. Of course, that's just a personal reason, and I saw Limyaael's detractions at a young enough age such that I just took her word for it before I fully understood on my own that they were overused and that it's a bad thing.

On top of two original races that fit into the Servant Race and Precursors type, respectively, I still use a good number of Earthen mythological creatures, such as dragons, wyverns, faeries, merfolk, barghests, and vampires. Even though the latter three I listed are (in my experience) not as common as the former three in mid-High Fantasy fiction, I still make sure to give all six unique twists, while still using familiar names for the sake of giving the reader a basic mental image. My setting's dragons have eight limbs, operate as sovereign rulers, and have a eusocial mating structure, but they're still giant flying reptilians at the end of the day. My merfolk control an ocean-spanning economic powerhouse, keep the seas safe for the surface-dwelling commerce, and their women require blood mosquito-style for their reproductive health, but they're still humanoids with fish-tails and gills. And so on.

edited 13th Oct '15 6:25:26 PM by CrystalGlacia

I think Sharysa stated my point better than I did

In my work, I write about "titans", "spirits", "gods", "demons", "witches", "monsters", "revenants", "priests", and "shamans" among other things. I use old concepts to convey fresh (I hope) ideas. I use them to explore the themes of my stories.

I'd never say writers shouldn't use existing concepts. Few things are unprecedented, especially in this day and age. I'm merely suggesting that writers should put forth more effort than most of them seem to be doing at the moment (as far as I know, anyway).

In regard to "vampires", I actually appreciate Meyers' original interpretation of them. She thought outside the box and gave us something nobody else was delivering. Do you know how many books I've read that depicted vampires all the same way (obviously based on Anne Rice's work more often than not)? Too many.

Maybe it's just me but I like the traditional. I find that these creatures are supposed to represent something and when you make them traditional you can express that idea.

The classic fantasy races have become something of a cliché of late. But is it really fair to browbeat someone into changing their artistic vision because you think they should be "more original"? We've grown up with these archetypes, so why can't we write with them any more?

I use fantasy races in my works. Though since my works are humor/parody, I probably have more leeway.

My thoughts on it though are that pretty much all "original" fantasy races tend to fall into certain archetypes anyway and end up being parallels to elves, dwarves, and orcs. At that point, they may as well be elves, dwarves, and orcs.

edited 14th Oct '15 4:37:22 AM by washington213

@lexicon: What are they “supposed” to represent, though? Are you talking about etymology, the actual history of the legends, or are you talking about what Tolkien and some of his contemporaries established? Because when I research “orc”, I get the essential concept of “cannibalism”. Orc apparently comes from Orcus and is related to ogre, which also comes from Orcus; Orcus was a Roman god of the underworld who was later identified as a man-eating monster. What are “orcs” to you?

@dvorak: A creator should ALWAYS make what they want to make, regardless of who will or won’t appreciate it, but this thread is about discussing the use of TF Rs. I’m of the opinion a little originality goes a long way.

@washington213: So tell us, then, what are these “archetypes” and why do you associate them with the words “elves, dwarves, and orcs”? Why should the word “elf” be automatically connected to any concept other than “radiant beauty” (which is the implied etymological root of the word)?

In general, when 'copying' something that's been done a lot, there are these pros and cons:

Con: You're not being innovative, and it risks your story coming across as generic or cliche.

Pro: There really isn't a reason why you need to reinvent the wheel, either. Some ideas are copied a lot for a very good reason.

Elves are typically beautiful and superior. Two flavors of either superior and woodsy (like Na'vi) or superior in magic/tech, and usually smarter (like Vulcans).

Dwarves are Proud Warrior Race Guy. Gruff and stern with alcoholism just for bonus points.

Orcs are bestial savages. These are the ones that most often used by a different name.

History Lesson:

If we look at Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit as the initial codifier of the "traditional" fantasy races—the Elves/Dwarves/Orcs/etc trend only started in 1937. Tolkien's son is still alive and publishing other work.

When you want to talk about who started elves/dwarves/orcs/etc, it is Tolkien. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings came at a time when literacy and mass printing was encouraged, and the people who grew up reading Tolkien had other forms of media to express themselves. You can find orcs and elves in video games, books, films, live theater, art, clothing, key-chains, toys, dishware, and probably other things.

Yet, there is only one author and only one source to draw from, which means Tolkien's interpretation of elves and dwarves and Orcs have over-saturated the market in less than one hundred years. The limited source material means there is less variety. If you want a different elf from Tolkien, you have to go into folklore and mythology.

Compare that to Greek mythology, which is thousands of years old with many more characters and many more iterations of each individual god and goddess. For the most part, it was only encountered with oral tradition, live theater, and religion. It encountered a revival, but only with high art—paintings, translations of Homer, sculptures, and a few films here and there. With modern media like video games and literature, I can only think of a few games or books that actually utilize characters from Greek mythology.

It is more of a cultural osmosis than a trend. Everyone knows who Zeus is, but he's just not encountered as often in the media because Greek mythology was associated with religion in Greece, and discussed among scholars. It was never meant to be accessible to the general public like Tolkien's work.

Just a few thoughts.

edited 17th Oct '15 4:18:39 PM by Leradny

I feel like a few (a minority, but a very loud one) of these responses are overly hostile and judgmental. No, you can't conclude that you're dealing with an unoriginal or lazy writer just because there are elves or orcs or dwarves in their writing. It all depends on how they are used. If they're given enough of the writer's own spin to make them interesting, then it's fine and shouldn't be any more cliché than any dragon or cyclops or what-have-you.

I'd say Tolkien-like races are fine, but Tolkien-like race relations are cliched. Noble elves at odds with boorish dwarves, violent orcs attacking everyone for no reason, people being the generic race that everyone else scoffs at... That kind of deal is definitely a con, as Tolkien had very specific reasons for writing these races as such, even though all of them are built on fairly low-key mythical creatures. This is where suspicions of laziness would be valid, as it's basically just blind copying without noting the underlying theme of the original.

(Namely, that elves are angelic, orcs are demonic, dwarves are semitic rather than Scottish - though the associated stereotypes are strikingly similar - and men are sinful and prone to corruption. It's basically pagan ideas used for pseudo-Christian symbolism.)

In general, if you want to keep the pros and avoid the cons, then keep the names and basic characteristics, but look to the original myths for ideas on how these races actually interact with humans, and continue building from there.