Evolution of fictional concepts (mythological and otherwise)

[kopout]

split off from lord garth's elf discussion this is for the heated debate about what is an elf and how word meanings change over time.

[Jorkens]

The other question that I'd stick in on a related note is - why bother doing "Our Elves Are Different"? Or rather, what's the attraction of working with the modern fantasy elf archetype as something to use bits of and subvert other bits of, rather than either coming up with something wholly original that isn't tied to an existing concept, or going back to the original myths to work out something that has some sort of psychological resonance and taps into more universal archetypes?

To be honest, the halfway house of working with an idea that's already out there but which is a bit further from the 'collective unconscious' that manifests in myths and legends seems rather unappealing to me - unless you're doing it for deliberate comedy value, of course.

[Eldan]

The problem is, if you do it the other way round, you end up with slender, dexterous, forest-living magical humanoid archers called by some nonsensical fantasy name, just because the author didn't wanna name his things elf. And I've seen that quite a few times now. It's even worse with Tolkien's orcs.

Also, I honestly think that it's just a little boring if elves are the same... if people always try to make their elves similar, there's the danger of either ending up with stereotypes and cliches, especially in side-characters (i.e. do we really need more snobby high-elf mages with no other personality traits?), or just making the entire thing so predictable that it's not interesting anymore.

Of course elves should be recognizable as elves, but some variation is necessary. Same with dwarves, which would really need it. (I need to write up this dwarf empire I've been working on for some time now.)

[Rutskarn]

The other question that I'd stick in on a related note is - why bother doing "Our Elves Are Different"? Or rather, what's the attraction of working with the modern fantasy elf archetype as something to use bits of and subvert other bits of, rather than either coming up with something wholly original that isn't tied to an existing concept, or going back to the original myths to work out something that has some sort of psychological resonance and taps into more universal archetypes?

To be honest, the halfway house of working with an idea that's already out there but which is a bit further from the 'collective unconscious' that manifests in myths and legends seems rather unappealing to me - unless you're doing it for deliberate comedy value, of course.

Well, to address this first point, often appreciation of a work can stem from the gradual evolution of a concept. More significantly, the reinvention of said concept.

Pompous-movie-reviewer grade BS aside, it can be interesting to see a concept looked at from a different point of view. It can even serve to comment on other work--the prideful, racist, thoroughly unpleasant elves of Dragonlance serve as a knowing caricature of the conventional elf archetype. I mean, elves from 90% of fantasy generica are almost as racist and prideful, but these characteristics are blithely ignored within the setting. These qualities are excused, just because they're elves--of course they can act like they're better than everyone else. No non-evil characters hate (or even criticize) these characters.

I mean, look at the 2nd Edition The Complete Elf sourcebook. In addition to being laden with truly disgusting amounts of pro-elf blathery, it has several concepts that are frankly disturbing. For example: the elves actually have a holiday where they hunt down and murder any orc they can find. That includes women, children, and other non-combatants.

Okay, there are different interpretations of the orcs as a race, but come on. A holiday based around orc genocide. A holiday.

Dragonlance, in taking this sort of xenophobic arrogance and treating it for what it is, is more compelling for the deconstruction.

[Jorkens]

But it seems like there you're essentially writing a fantasy book as a comment on bad fantasy books. Which can be good - I guess it's part of what makes Watchmen interesting - except that you're kind of limiting its relevance to bad fantasy books, rather than trying to do something which is compelling or interesting in some universal way. Or even something which does both - the elves in Terry Pratchett's Lords and Ladies seem like both a comment on previous sorts of elf and a return to mythical sources.

Also, to my mind Watchmen is more intrinsically interesting because the superhero is a much more universal archetype than Tolkeinish elves, and hence rather more interesting to deconstruct.

[Rutskarn]

While that's a fair point, I wouldn't say that it's sole purpose is to mock other fictions. Rather, it's to question the status quo of fantasy--which can be important, if the genre has to move on.

Creating an entirely new "world" can, of course, accomplish the same objective, but in a different way. Both, arguably, are occasionally necessary.

[BRC]

The benefit of using Tolkienesque fantasy (Elves, Dwarves, Orcs, Ect), is that it's got some solid concepts that you can work from, things that the reader is assumed to know and understand. It saves an author alot of work that would be otherwise spent in building things from the ground up. It's simply a starting point, and one that you can do alot of good with. Let's take elves, long-lived, nature loving, somewhat haughty (Varies), skilled archers. So, if you want a long-lived character who is a skilled archer, you can just make him an elf and everybody knows what that means. What Tolkienesque fantasy archtypes do, is allow a writer, and a reader to focus on the story rather than the setting. Which can either be a practical expediance, or the sign of a lazy writer.


For an example of why a Tolkienesque archtype is useful. Let's say I am writing a fantasy story, and I need a culture to fulfill a role. Lets say, a culture that believes it's duty is to defend certain ruins throughout the world, and it trains guardians to defend these ruins. Now, If I really wanted to focus on the setting, I would describe this guardian-culture (Lets call them Gurdans), perhaps through exposition. I would have a veteran solider tell stories of their skill with both bows and blades. The reader would learn about this culture, until when I mentioned Gurdans, they would know what I'm talking about...

But let's say I'm trying to write a faster-paced story, and the Gurdans are supposed to be common knowledge. I don't want to waste time with lots of exposition. I don't want to distract my readers by having them struggle to remember about the Gurdans. So, I just say "Elves believe it is their ancient duty to defend these ruins". Boom, the reader knows what I'm talking about, and has some ideas of what to expect.


The problem is that people tend to gravitate towards these Archytypes right away, rather than developing their own unique cultures. When an Author does develop their own race/culture thats not obviously an Orc/elf/dwarf/whatever knockoff, it's considered unusual.

[Tensu]

Keep in mind Tolkin's greatest regret was that he did what Jorkens and I are saying not to do. Mostly with hobgoblins, but with orcs too.

the "what about originality?" is an argument I've heard before. but if your goal was to be original, you wouldn't be using elves and such in the first place.

as for the familiar argument, elves aren't familiar if they're different in every other book.

as for the "you're just giving them a different name" argument, no, you're not. a wolf and fox are similar, yet different. in the same way, if you'll excuse my lack of a better, less MMO related example, a Tauren and a minotaur are similar, but they are still different. what's more, the more time passes, the more different the two become.

as for the "myths evolve" argument, yes, they do. but it is one thing to add on to a myth and another to re-write it completely. we do not retcon mythology.

[BRC]

The problem with these archtypes, is not that they are bad archtypes, not in the least. The problem is that they have permeated the Fantasy Genre so much that it's difficult to imagine a fantasy universe without them. Once you've gotten the hero wielding a magic sword against the forces of evil, people will start looking under the mountains for dwarves, and checking the forests for elves. If they arn't present, you've set yourself apart from the Heroic Fantasy genre. Though there are many fine examples of fantasy without these Tolkienesque archtypes (I've recently started re-reading the most excellant Abohorsen trilogy, which dosn't have a bearded midget or pointy ear in sight) they are considered seperate from the norm.

[Satyr]

Most mythology was transferred for centuries via oral history, which basically means that they were changed every generation or so, because without a written ficiation onf the contents, they are pretty much up to as many arbitrary changes as the narrators intend. Up to the point of a written fixiation, there is no such thing as a "core myth", because they a) change all the time and b) have blatant regional differences due to different cultural traditions, other myths which are included or excluded, and so on. Mythology, as we know it today, does not change anymore, because it is basically dead. If if would be still an alive tradition, it would still adapt and change.
In the case of a written transition, this is slightly different, as the basic text literally doesn't change anymore, but prior to this fixation, there is nothing resembling a generalised or pure form of any narrative - and the written fixation is usually only one interpretation of the older tales by one specific author, which is also some kind of a change, especially when the written form replaces the oral traditions completely.

[Oslecamo]

Like dragons and other mythical beings, the elfs are whatever the author want them to be.

Even if concepts change during time, at the same time there will be diferent people who have diferent views of the same concept.

Nowadays this is stronger than ever thanks to the existence of

For example while in 4e D&D we have woodsy elves who only live half a dozen centuries in Wow we get elfs who thirst for blood and power. And then we have Harry Potter where they are little green house servants. Ect ect. All at the same time. What of them is correct? All! Because elfs are a fantasy concept. It's suposed to be something that the author made up.

Just like magic changes from fantasy seting to fantasy seting, elfs and other mythical creatures also change.

[hamishspence]

"the more things change, the more they stay the same" certain archetypes tend to hold, even if the style and presentation may change. the "terrible woodlands race who steal people away to their dark world- cruel, capricious, dangerous" tends to recur again and again in fantasy.

[Tensu]

BRC: This is a problem if you ask me. Fantasy means fantastic. feeling limited the elves and dwarves is not fantastic.

Satyr: But you find few examples of someone going back and saying "No, that's not true at all! A Doppleganger isn't an eerie distorted mirror imagine foreshadowing your death, it's a shapeshifter!" the worst you'll get is two or three contradictions with one character, nothing to the extent calling a flying eye a dragon or saying ghouls are a type of undead.

Oslecamo: That is all kinds of incorrect. These concepts are important to the history of literature and a part of the identity of a culture, or at least they used to be. You can't go around saying dragons are purple rabbits anymore than I can go around saying Sherlock Holmes was the cheese Wombat king. Mythology and legends, while less so than most stories, do have limits to which they can be twisted, and I demand people observe those limits.

@ Hamishspence: And that has what to do with what, exactly?

[Satyr]

But you find few examples of someone going back and saying "No, that's not true at all! A Doppleganger isn't an eerie distorted mirror imagine foreshadowing your death, it's a shapeshifter!" the worst you'll get is two or three contradictions with one character, nothing to the extent calling a flying eye a dragon or saying ghouls are a type of undead.

And so what? Besides, etymological speaking, a Doppelgänger is nothing but a very similar person. Like identical twins. Not really that spectacular.

[Tensu]

And so what?

and so lines are crossed at a certain point an elf stops being an elf and becomes something else.

Besides, etymological speaking, a Doppelgänger is nothing but a very similar person. Like identical twins. Not really that spectacular.

that's not what everything I've ever read has said.

here's the wikipedia article

[BRC]

BRC: This is a problem if you ask me. Fantasy means fantastic. feeling limited the elves and dwarves is not fantastic.

That's exactly what I'm saying, these archetypes are homogonizing the genre. For comparison, let's look at Science Fiction. Enders Game (Not quite to sci-fi what tolkien is to fantasy, but it's still pretty important), had the Buggers.

Spoiler

Show

An insectlike hive-mind race that attacked mercilessly because they were not aware they were killing individual People. They thought Humans were hive-minds like them, with each human as a drong. So they were slaughtering hundreds of people, but thinking they were doing the equivalent of punching somebody in the face. It's a good concept for a race.

Now, imagine if the Buggers, or somthing similar, showed up in Sci-fi stories as often as Dwarves and Elves show up in fantasy stories. Now, Bug-race hive-minds do show up in Sci-fi, but often enough to become linked to the genre the way the tolkien archetypes have. And because of that, Sci-Fi is, or is at least considered to be, a much more varied and versatile genre than Fantasy. While Sci-Fi spreads from deeply philisophical stories like I Robot, to adrenaline-rushing heroic action stories like Star Wars, and everything in between. Meanwhile Fantasy is, in the public mind at least, all about some guy with some magic sword hacking his way through the forces of darkness and blah blah blah.

[hamishspence]

it has to do with the fact that elves as "The Fair Folk" are far from their only Old Incarnation- they can be dark and creepy, and Tolkien Elves, or any other "reinvention" does not automatically destroy the old concept.

[Eldan]

that's not what everything I've ever read has said.

here's the wikipedia article

You have to consider that Doppelgänger as a word is still used often enough in germany to refer to someone who looks alike to someone else. If you ask someone in germany, austria or switzerland what Doppelgänger means, they will tell you it means double, and they will never have heard of any myths about it.

[Tensu]

BRC: I'm not sure if you're for or against me here, but in case it's against, I feel that editing mythical archtypes sticks us in a weird purgatory where everything will always either be tethered to the original in some way, or be so completely out there that it makes people like me go extra berserk. either way, it bad for the fantasy genre as a whole. I think that we should just let sleeping mythologies lie and work to make our own worlds. it's easier than it sounds.

hamishspence: but most of those renderings are... well, wrong.

Eldan: I doubt that. besides, if wikipedia is to be trusted, doppleganger means "double goer", seems like a weird way to refer to a mundane look-alike.

[Eldan]

Well, I'm from Switzerland, Satyr up there's from Germany, I guess he's german as well... I can asure you, while I have never heard any myths about it, the word is used in day-to-day conversation as look-alike, and that quite often. I don't even know any other word for look-alike, to be honest.

[Jorkens]

"the more things change, the more they stay the same" certain archetypes tend to hold, even if the style and presentation may change. the "terrible woodlands race who steal people away to their dark world- cruel, capricious, dangerous" tends to recur again and again in fantasy.

Agreed, the basic idea taps into both a sort of unconscious awareness of various incarnations of the elf / fairy in myths, folktales, ballads, older literature and so on and the basic instinct to be nervous about the forests and/or the aristocracy that to a large extent lies behind the myths.

What I don't really get is the idea of writing elves in a way that avoids a lot of that sort of resonance but also cuts down your ability to create a world to your own specifications, and leaves things feeling a bit second hand. I mean, sure it's a bit different to have elves be a bit savage or urbanized or prefer oak cudgels to bows, but not as different (or interesting, to my mind) as coming up with a race that isn't just a standard fantasy race with some of its features subverted and some of them turned up to eleven.

[Lord_Gareth]

See Tensu, the problem as I see it is that you fall into a camp known as purist - you love the original concepts, and there's nothing wrong with that. What you have to keep in mind, though, is that modern concepts are formed of blended myths with new additions - hell, Tolkein's elves combined the Aos Sidhe, picsties, nordic alfs (who were lesser gods, natch) and just a dash of Mary Sue.

D&D's doppelgangers, on the other hand, are partially based on chinese legends, partially based on hindu legends (where they got the word), and partially their own thing. Even Garth Nix's Abhorsen trilogy has classic elements in it (silver - the metal of purity - harms the dead. Running water is impassable to them).

There is a middle road between total originality (which is, frankly, impossible) and utter purism, and that means changing concepts, yeah. It's not murder - it's our inheritance. We have the stories and we have the legends, and it's our turn to contribute to them.

[Trog]

Most mythology was transferred for centuries via oral history, which basically means that they were changed every generation or so, because without a written ficiation onf the contents, they are pretty much up to as many arbitrary changes as the narrators intend. Up to the point of a written fixiation, there is no such thing as a "core myth", because they a) change all the time and b) have blatant regional differences due to different cultural traditions, other myths which are included or excluded, and so on. Mythology, as we know it today, does not change anymore, because it is basically dead. If if would be still an alive tradition, it would still adapt and change.
In the case of a written transition, this is slightly different, as the basic text literally doesn't change anymore, but prior to this fixation, there is nothing resembling a generalised or pure form of any narrative - and the written fixation is usually only one interpretation of the older tales by one specific author, which is also some kind of a change, especially when the written form replaces the oral traditions completely.

This.

Although I disagree that mythology is dead. I think you can look at modern day grey aliens types as the goblins of the 21st century, basically.

Also, just because it's sort of on topic, Raymond E. Feist's novel Faerie Tale is a good look optional (and basically more Grimm's Faerie Talesesque) view of the fey.

[averagejoe]

Well, I'm from Switzerland, Satyr up there's from Germany, I guess he's german as well... I can asure you, while I have never heard any myths about it, the word is used in day-to-day conversation as look-alike, and that quite often. I don't even know any other word for look-alike, to be honest.

It is acceptable to use doppelganger in such a way in English, I believe, though it is not very common.

[BRC]

BRC: I'm not sure if you're for or against me here, but in case it's against, I feel that editing mythical archtypes sticks us in a weird purgatory where everything will always either be tethered to the original in some way, or be so completely out there that it makes people like me go extra berserk. either way, it bad for the fantasy genre as a whole. I think that we should just let sleeping mythologies lie and work to make our own worlds. it's easier than it sounds.

I have no problem with these Archtypes, what I don't like is the degree to which they, and the things associated with them, have permeated the genre. I love Tolkienesque heroic fantasy, but I wish the fantasy genre could get beyond that. I wish a story could feature a seafaring race with pointy ears, and not make people think "Sea-Elves". Everything is inspired by somthing else, the problem is that most fantasy writers take their inspiration either from tolkien directly, or from writers who took their inspiration from Tolkien, hence why the genre is homogonized. I wouldn't mind the occasional Bow-shooting elf or hardy blacksmith dwarf anymore than I mind the occasional insectlike hive-mind in Science Fiction, but I would like more authors to at least try to create unique cultures rather than assuming they will use elves and dwarves.

[Lord_Gareth]

I have no problem with these Archtypes, what I don't like is the degree to which they, and the things associated with them, have permeated the genre. I love Tolkienesque heroic fantasy, but I wish the fantasy genre could get beyond that. I wish a story could feature a seafaring race with pointy ears, and not make people think "Sea-Elves". Everything is inspired by somthing else, the problem is that most fantasy writers take their inspiration either from tolkien directly, or from writers who took their inspiration from Tolkien, hence why the genre is homogonized. I wouldn't mind the occasional Bow-shooting elf or hardy blacksmith dwarf anymore than I mind the occasional insectlike hive-mind in Science Fiction, but I would like more authors to at least try to create unique cultures rather than assuming they will use elves and dwarves.

See, my co-author and I consciously chose to use elves and dwarves because we're planning a deconstruction of Tolkeinesque fantasy, and elves and dwarves are a part of that. Mind you, we're also including wolf-men, winged bat/cat/human hybrids, and a race of shapeshifters that can't even remember their real forms anymore, but still.

[GoC]

as for the "myths evolve" argument, yes, they do. but it is one thing to add on to a myth and another to re-write it completely. we do not retcon mythology.

Why?
If everyone decides a certain word means something then that word now has a different meaning in writings of the present era. Whenever you look at old myths you have to look at context. When you look at a book written 100 years ago and you hear the word "elves" then you shouldn't think of the same thing you do when you read something written yesterday.

[Telonius]

This.

Although I disagree that mythology is dead. I think you can look at modern day grey aliens types as the goblins of the 21st century, basically.

Mythology is by no means dead. Myth is, at its heart, a creative explanation for why the world is as it is. It's stories about the true (whether or not it turns out to be about the correct). Urban Legends still abound. You know that car that gets about 500 miles to the gallon, but was suppressed by the auto manufacturers? You know, the one that's waiting for someone who is worthy to fight The Man and retrieve it for the benefit of all. It's part of mythology. So are Area 51, the Men in Black, the Second Gunman, Elvis, and the Illuminati.

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
Who leaves Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do! We do!
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do! We do!
Who robs the cave fish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do! We do!

[Dacia Brabant]

Eldan: I doubt that. besides, if wikipedia is to be trusted, doppleganger means "double goer", seems like a weird way to refer to a mundane look-alike.

I forget the technical term for it but the German language is seriously full of things like this, where they take two (or more!) words and combine them to mean something else entirely.

Opening to a random page of my trusty Schöffler-Weis dictionary I got "erzeugen," to beget/procreate/produce, but then there's "erzeugensschlacht" (schlacht essentially meaning battle or combat), which doesn't mean begetting violence or creating war like you might think it would, it means the struggle for self-sufficiency.

And yeah it also lists "Doppelgänger" as a double, a look-alike.


Interesting thread topic though, I may come back to this for a proper reply.

[Xondoure]

In my mind, elves are not nearly as hard to get around as humans. Because we use humans as a base to compare other races, human culture seems to disappear. If you look at it that way, then why is it wrong to change the myth. Even in the real world, different races behave differently in different environments. So as long as the world is unique, the races will naturally behave differently. It is only if the world is second hand that you have a problem.