: Classic fantasy races lazy or boring? In my fantasy world there are other other sentient races besides humans. Some of them are "original", or at least not as common in mainstream stories. On

Also keep in mind that just because you call something an "X" doesn't mean it has to fit in with a person's traditional views of what an "X" is, and that you can also have a mix of traditional and unique interpretations of these races.

For instance, in the Warcraft universe, elves, orcs, dragons, and dwarves fit into the stereotypes, more or less, of what I think people normally picture when they think of these races. However, the trolls are more or less just skinny orcs with Jamaican accents in Warcraft.

On the other hand, in Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe, the dwarves and trolls are a little more stereotypical, but the elves represent "pretty evil", for lack of a better term, sort of how vampires are sometimes portrayed, and the dragons are little more than lap dogs that occasionally explode.

Bottom line: do what you want!

---

(0)

In my opinion it depends very much on what your story is trying to achieve.

The established fantasy races exist in hundreds, even thousands of other books. Are readers bored of that and itching for something new? Maybe, but on the other hand there's obviously still a market for it. If you come up with something new (in itself quite difficult), will readers be more interested because it's different? Maybe, but on the other hand, familiarity can be useful - everyone knows what an elf is, so there's no need for page after page of explanation: you just say a character is an elf and can then get on with the story.

If your story is about a group of adventurers, including some humans plus an elf ranger and a dwarf miner (who are always arguing), fighting against unruly orcs and goblins to defeat an evil wizard... that does sound like it risks being lazy and boring, but it's not just the use of established races that makes it so!

On the other hand, if your story is about a human befriending a Xxaargle while struggling against the Yzgerath and Sqyrtlings, it may not be lazy to invent those new races, but there's a risk of the explanations of what they all are being boring.

In either case, while I love a good fantasy story myself, and Lord of the Rings is still one of my favourites - I think there are very important questions to ask about what the roles, stereotypes, and preconceptions that "races" in stories represent. All Orcs are savage, brutish, violent, and inherently evil; all Elves are arrogant, aloof, but inherently good; but why shouldn't an Orc be able to do good in the world, if he wants to? What is it about an Elf that justifies her actions as good, just because she is an Elf? Why should all Xxaargles be the same, when humans are so diverse? Importantly: what are the real-world equivalents of those stereotypes, and is that something we as authors want to perpetuate? Lazy use of fantasy races (established or otherwise) carries a risk of providing deeply unsatisfactory answers to those questions. Sensible use of fantasy races adheres to established convention and provides readers with information that would otherwise require lengthy and boring exposition to convey.

My advice (for whatever that is worth) would be to take a step back and decide what your story is really about. If it's about the uniqueness of the world and its inhabitants, it could be a candidate for making up your own races if you can find something genuinely interesting about them. If it's about the characters and what they do, using established races may be a satisfactory way to ground the reader in a setting they immediately understand. In either case, be aware of the risks involved with lumping entire groups of sentient beings into stereotyped buckets restricting their behaviour. Laziness in considering any of those factors risks negative consequences... so whatever you do don't be lazy; but adhering to convention is not necessarily lazy, as long as it's a deliberate choice.

---

(0)

My favorite series use novel creatures - but describe them with the traits that make them ... Elf like, ... Ewok like, ... Witch like,... Without using those labels.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"The Hajarla had a wisdom in their eyes, and while not human, their intelligence at least matched that of man. But their abilities went further, as they could speak to one another in ways unknown to man. Just through physical contact of their ohmic organs, they could convey electrical impulses and communicate without any audible sound."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I vote for creating new creatures (I am older, FWIW). But when they are introduced highlight the features that we already know. Wisdom, earthiness, simplicity, whatever it is.

I am now going to up vote Mark because his answer is more thorough, more satisfying, and similar in concept to this. I just wanted to explicitly communicate the idea of new creatures, with recognizable hallmarks. This gives you freedom to add new character traits to them.

---

(0)

Personally, I would always counsel erring on the side of originality. There are plenty of other books people can read about elves in.

I would give two exceptions to this advice, however. 1) If your characters are so obviously and so exactly the standard conception of elves, that every reader will just wonder why you didn't go ahead and call them "elves." 2) If you want people to start from the standard conception of elves just so that you can subvert or alter their expectations in some way.

It's worth noting here that there are two main conceptions of elves. The older conception comes out of folklore and is more or less everyone's intellectual property. The other conception was invented by Tolkien as a composite of the idea of elves and fairies, as combined with his own innovations. Especially if you are writing Tolkien elves, I would go ahead and make something new instead. There is relatively little that has been written about Tolkien elves that hasn't been hopelessly derivative.

---

(0)

I'm going to talk about stereotypes and their use in fiction because I feel that this is what this question is about.

Writers use stereotypes to convey lots of meaning in very little words. Let's say you introduce a new character in your book and you describe her as a cheerleader with long, blond hair. Most readers are already going to have tons of ideas about what kind of person she might be: Maybe she's superficial and popular. She always has a boyfriend. She's more into fashion and beauty than into science. And so on.

Reasons for using stereotypes in your story

Maybe you don't have the time or energy to describe your character (or race, in your case) with all the traits that are important for the story. Maybe it would take up too much space in your book. Doing this with major characters is usually considered lazy and bad writing, but it's a great way to introduce unimportant characters (like the flower lady that has exactly one line) and have them have a personality without having to describe it. You can mention two or three things about them and already have them be a real person without having to spend much time on explaining who they are.
Maybe you want to introduce a stereotype and then make the story interesting by breaking it. This is often done with more important characters. First you show the cynical, hardboiled detective, but then he comes home to his wife, reads funny stories to his two daughters and feeds the newly adopted stray kittens. This gives characters depth and makes them more real, more true-to-life.
Stereotypes are unavoidable. People are always going to think of things whatever you say about a person. Mentioning something as mundane as their hair color already can make us assume things about their character. This can be incredibly helpful, as mentioned above, because we can express lots of meaning in just very little words - by making use of all the things that one assumes about a given stereotype. Use this to your advantage.

All of these things apply to other things than characters, of course.

How to decide which stereotypes to use

Back to your question. In your case, try to figure out what you are gaining from using stereotype races. Examples are, as you have pointed out, the reader already being familiar with them. You have to describe less about them. Whatever you describe about them that brakes the stereotype makes them interesting. You can set up reader's expectations.

Then figure out if what you are gaining is actually serving the story - or undermining it. Does it help that the reader has tons of expectations about what your elves are going to be like?

Do the same for the opposite scenario: What are you gaining from making your own races? Does this serve the story more or less? Does your story need these new races or could you just do a spin on existing one for the sake of simplicity?

My personal take on this is that it's always better to start with stereotypes and then break reader's expectation. The stereotypes can be very well hidden, almost invisble, but they make the reader feel safe and like they understand the story. If you decide to not base your races on the ones that have been overused for centuries, look for other clichés to build upon.

Also, I'd go with the distinction of minor/major character, in this case with races: Make minor/less important races mostly follow a stereotype to make them easy to describe, but really flesh out the ones that you're going to be using a lot. Delve deep into their society, history etc. and make them a very distinct species.

Further reading

Here's a nice read on how to successfully use stereotype characters in your story.

This is an article on how to mix up the stereotype races and make them your own. It also tells you a bit about why you might want that.

---

(0)

The answer as to what readers will appreciate will entirely depend on your audience.

Judging by fantasy book sales, plenty of people love reading about familiar elves, goblins, orcs and all that. Let's not even get started on dragons.

However, there will be other readers who will appreciate something a bit fresher and will find great enjoyment if you can create brand new races - the success of China Mieville is perhaps an example of that.

The answer to what YOU should write about can only be found inside yourself. What do YOU want to write about? What do YOU enjoy reading?

If you're not sure, I would recommend giving each of them a go and see how excited you get about them. Stick with the one that inspires you the most - chances are that will result in you inspiring your audiences.

You can write traditional, completely original or even a combination of the two (if you're very skilled) - as long as the characters are compelling, the plot is interesting and the writing is competent, any of these can work - and they will certainly not be the feature that makes or breaks your novel.

---

(0)

I think you can use the traditional ones if you do not stray far from what readers would expect. Don't call them "elves" if they are ogres, or have extra arms.

As you note for yourself, when you encounter "elves" in a new book you want to see what the author has done with them: you have a basic mental model of what an "elf" is, and expect the author to accessorize it with skills, personality traits, etc. But some changes that violate your basic mental model make them NOT elves! Wings, perhaps, or covered in scales like a reptile, or laying eggs to reproduce.

If your species require new skills or physical assets or whatever that do not fit in the canon of 'regular' fantasy, create them for your book. Do not make them ogres or giants or dragons unless you can stick to the reader expectations of ogres, giants or dragons, with minor original "decorations" that do not jerk the reader out of their basic model of the canon.

For example, your ogre can love chocolate and still be an ogre. Your giant can recite poetry. Your dragon may enjoy swimming, and dry herself afterward by breathing fire upon herself.

---

(0)