Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories

Vanilla 1.1.8 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
    • CommentAuthorkaikaikat
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2010
     

    There’s a small debate that I’ve been observing for a small space of time now, and I’m curious for input from this community regarding the matter.

    For fantasy authors, we are frequently told not to call a rabbit a smeerp. That is, don’t think of an exotic name for an object that doesn’t need it.

    However, I was observing a discussion on the Anti-Shurturgal livejournal yesterday, in which a poster raised the point that if you’re going to bring a new spin on a traditional race (his/her example was the much-maligned elven race), then why call them elves at all? Why not call them something new that fits with their new design?

    If you saw a pointy-eared immortal (with any flavor of variation you like) called an entirely new name when the chances are it was at least based off of the archetypal elf figure, would it bother you? Or would it make the entire thing seem more original?

    I’d love to hear your thoughts. I’ve had to deal with this issue many times, and maybe others out there have as well. What do you think?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSpanman
    • CommentTimeMar 25th 2010
     

    I don’t think I would mind that at all (since elves are woefully, woefully overdone), just as long as the race isn’t called the Faelderrin’n or some other ridiculous name. Humans, dwarfs, and elves are all simple and easy names to remember and associate with their respective races. Whatever name you come up with to rename your race should be equally simple, or at least easily memorable. However, there’s a limit to how many races/species you can retool and rename within one work, because chances are the reader is going to lost track of all the new names after a while (it’s happened to me too many times. I tend to be absentminded).

    But I don’t write fantasy, so you probably shouldn’t listen to what I say.

    •  
      CommentAuthorDiamonte
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2010
     

    Using a name that already exists mean that people will approach your own creatures with a certain image/connotation. If you are all right with them having these pre-conceived ideas so you do not have to explain what your creatures are, then use an already existing name.

    If your creatures conflict with traditional ideas concerning an already existing name, then use a different one.

    For example, Twilight Vampires. We all expect vampires to drink blood, burn in the sun, be afraid of crosses, killed by stakes/garlic, etc. Sometimes there are variations on this, but they do not entirely conflict with what we expect – it’s just a new twist. TwiVamps, however, would have been more accurate if they were called something else entirely, since they completely violate our expectations of what vampires are/are not.

    • CommentAuthorkaikaikat
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2010
     

    Connotations can be enormously useful. Though I suppose the risk of relying on connotation of an existing name is that you may have to work a little harder to get the reader to accept your ‘adjustments,’ whatever those happen to be. The benefit of using a new name is that the reader also comes fresh and accept the creature as you define it. But, stray too far into familiar territory, and the new name will seem entirely unnecessary. (This is why I listen to the input of other people. I’ll just argue with myself back and forth until the cows come home.)

    I think Meyer is a pretty good example of cheating with connotation. People apply all the mystique that lies behind the name to her… creatures. They get to break all the rules and act decidedly un-vampirelike, but they get all the benefits of their name. I think you’re quite right that it adds to their otherwise lacking appeal. Dirty trick, Meyer.

    •  
      CommentAuthorJabrosky
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2010 edited
     

    For fantasy authors, we are frequently told not to call a rabbit a smeerp. That is, don’t think of an exotic name for an object that doesn’t need it.

    It depends on both the fantasy setting and the “normal” name of the animal. For instance, wouldn’t it seem weird for, say, a Zulu-type people to refer to a Tyrannosaurus rex by its Latin name (or the shorthand “T. Rex”)? That would make them sound like modern biologists.

    • CommentAuthorkaikaikat
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2010
     

    Well, a T. Rex is an objective animal. It existed in one unique form that we’re all familiar with, and it has only one acceptable interpretation. You can call it something else, but it will always be a T. Rex. Fantasy creatures are generally far more subjective. They evolve and change throughout history and culture, not to mention the re-imagining that an individual author is going to give it. This subjectivity, really, is what is at the heart of this discussion. For example. I originally had a race of mostly magical creatures, and I simply called them witches. Then, I thought that name didn’t work, and I renamed them as diamphira. It was a big change, and altered the prima facie image of what these creatures are. A T. Rex and the King of Thunder Lizards both lead back to one animal.

    (Goodness, I hope I managed to get my point across in the thick of all that rambling.)

    When are we using a derivation with a twist (and should thus keep the name), and when have we created something entirely new (and give it a new name)? We obviously don’t want to give a new name to a rabbit if it is very clearly a rabbit. But what if these elves are not quite so very elvish? Elves with a twist? Or a new race entirely? Is it derivative to use elves for the thousandth time, though they may be different from the archetype? Is it cheating to give them a new name when they are obviously based on elves?

    •  
      CommentAuthorPuppet
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2010
     

    As the posters above have already said, when you use “elves” for example, people are going to be expecting certain traits and characteristics. Pointed ears, usually live in the woods, agile, magic, longbows, etc.

    When are we using a derivation with a twist (and should thus keep the name), and when have we created something entirely new (and give it a new name)? We obviously don’t want to give a new name to a rabbit if it is very clearly a rabbit. But what if these elves are not quite so very elvish? Elves with a twist? Or a new race entirely? Is it derivative to use elves for the thousandth time, though they may be different from the archetype? Is it cheating to give them a new name when they are obviously based on elves?

    There are several variations to the elves, actually. Probably the most well known would be the Drow, elves who live underground, they have most of the characteristics of “elves”, pointed ears and such, but their culture is different and they are usually considered “The Bad Guys™.” The Drow (or the Dark Elves as they are also known as), is one good example of a variation of Elves that people easily accept. It’s just like in real life, we’re all human, but we call ourselves Asian, or American, or African, or British, etc. So no, I don’t mind that much if you give them a new name while keeping some of the characteristics.

  1.  

    It’s just like in real life, we’re all human, but we call ourselves Asian, or American, or African, or British, etc. So no, I don’t mind that much if you give them a new name while keeping some of the characteristics.

    In that case, I immediately rename Australians ‘The Race of Awesome” whilst keeping all of our characteristics except for disgusting bodily functions.

    •  
      CommentAuthorTakuGifian
    • CommentTimeMar 26th 2010
     

    I like what The Elder Scrolls did to Elves, they weren’t too powerful or immortal or anything (in fact, the Vvardenfell “dark” elves were, to a vast majority, second-class citizens and slaves in Morrowind). Sure, they were created by the gods, but they are not inherently superior to humans or even the sub-humans(cat-men, lizard-men and orcs). Of course, that was to make the playable characters all balanced and fair, but the way they fit it into the lore and worldbuilding is really interesting.

  2.  

    I like Paul Stewart’s approach in The Edge Chronicles, which goes the other way and calls the metaphorical smeerp a rabbit.

  3.  

    LOL