-
I really like warewolves, well, I suppose in this context it would be a half wolf, I always have. I've never written a half wolf story, but the longer I've been on this site, the more and more stories I see about vaimpires/warewolves (which are too similar for my comfort). But, the way they're written about is not the way I picture them. So, I was wondering, should I use a new halfling creature (half lepord, half tiger, half snake)? If you think so, what should I use? Or, should I just use my definition of a half wolf?
-
Werewolves, halflings, changelings, wizards, warlocks, immortals, and so on... are overused... and not used enough. It all depends on how they're written, really. Take the legends, and beat the snot out of them until they're yours with just a taste of the truth in to make it believable.
The market may be saturated with the genre, but there's always room for another nicely crafted, well written story. -
I've read very good were stories and very bad ones. I've read one about a family of weredeer, it was pretty damn good if not a little comical. A were-snake...unless its an anaconda that would be interesting.
Don't worry about what others have written, write them the way you picture them. Thats kinda the good thing about fantasy and fiction...it's fiction. Do whatever the heck you want with it.
I suggest using Barbara's snot removal idea until your're happy with it. -
I've heard (possibly on here) that publishers won't look at your story if it even mentions overused things like dragons and elves and vampires and werewolves and so on. I think some casual readers would be the same...
For that reason, I think I would use a new type of creature (especially if my version weren't the typical, overused version of it) but on the other hand, if it's different enough but still has those typically main, werewolf type characteristics (which people would recognise straight away) then I'd probably still call it a werewolf.
There's an old, good vampire series by Christopher Pike where the main character is classed as a vampire but she doesn't drink blood and she's not effected by sunlight and crosses and other holy things and the like (she doesn't sleep in a coffin or anything) and I think a stake through the heart would kill her simply because it would kill anyone else. So she's not your typical vampire. The reason she is one though, I would say, is that she's immortal and super strong (and I think she became a vampire in the typical way vampires do). That's about all I can remember of it (read it a long time ago) but that's the kind of thing I meant with my above paragraph.
On the other hand, there's always new stories about vampires and werewolves coming out. Think of all the movies that have been made recently.
-
Well, he's not so much a warewolf as a half wolf... I should fix that.
-
-
Were is an old term for adult male human. In folklore or fantasy writing, 'were' is often used with an animal name to indicate a type of shapeshifter. If he's half wolf, but can change to human, then it would be a werewolf. If he's half wolf, sort of centaur like(but wolf instead of horse), then....
no idea on that.
-
-
Mm, if he's a half wolf then he's definitely not a werewolf unless, as Barbara says, he shapeshifts because that is the defining characteristic of werewolves. I think it would be confusing if you were to call him a werewolf when he didn't do those things (there was a lot of explaining in Christopher Pike's book about just what his vampire could and couldn't do).
I'd stick to just calling him a half-wolf or something of the sort to make it easier. -
To answer the question about whether it should be a different were animal, and not a wolf, I would say write whatever your comfortable with. It would be cool to have a different were creature, but I think that 'werewolf' and 'were anything else' are two different types of characters, because werewolfs are definately the most common. So if you want your character to be in the 'shapeshifter' category, go with another animal. If you want him to have the same connotations/give the audience the same feelings a as a werewolf would, then go with a wolf.
Whether or not you use half wolf is up to you and up to your character. Is he the type of person to call himself half wolf or werewolf? Because the two do sound very different even if they're the same. I once read something where the main character was obviously a vampire, but hated to call themself that because that was just the kind of person they were.
As for publishers not publishing anything with over-used creatures, I really don't think thats true of all publishers.
Just look at Stephenie Meyer, and the Twilight series is being made into a film! So I don't think they mind what the characters are, as long as they are original in their own way, and as long as the storyline is original.
Sorry for the ridiculously long post and any spelling or grammer mistakes (im not gunna check through, sorry).
Goodluck with your story!
Pip -
No, werewolves aren't over used. As far as I'm concerned there can never be a shortage of werewolves, vampires, zombies, aliens etc, as long as they aren't a blatant rip-off of something that came before. In that way I suppose I am agreeing with Barbara’s comments.
-
i hate to say this, but yes. werewolves are overused. it's like the only part of fantasy anyone knows anymore is vampires and werewolves. it has traditionally been a very rich and diverse genre. i'm not saying you shouldn't use werewolves, but make sure you mix it up with stuff that's far less used.
-
To be quite honest, no I don't think they are overused. I think what IS overused is the countless predictable, cliche stories they appear in. Write something different with werewolves in, and you're sorted.
-
I agree with MoonRoseWolf, and I think that there is bound to be loads of opinions in this thread, because people who don't like werewolves, vampires etc. are more inclined to get sick of them! Whereas people who love reading about them (like me) would most probably think that the more there is, the better!
So read what people have said here, but when it really comes down to it: you're not going to be happy with what your writing unless you write what you want. So do just that. -
yes
checking teh amazon horror bestseller list, out of teh top 20, 18 of the books features vampires, and at least 15 feature werewolves.
so yes, they have been done to death, but no, people clearly dont care and will still lap them up. -
vampires are overused. werewolves are a close second. i think we need better zombie books, they don't have any memorable lines.
-
I don't think they're over used, as many of them have said above, you just need to mix it up a bit and make it your own, the same goes for vampires, witches, ect. So long as the storyline is not over used and cliche you can use them.
I read a series with a witch as the main character, she ended up making a 'hit' business with a pixie and a vampire...just an example of what I mean by 'mixed'.
'Wolf
-
Just a thought........
I have inveighed against these creatures before, on the grounds that horror stories don't need silly monsters. Terry Pratchett does a wonderful job with werewolves, vampires, trolls and various other creatures of that ilk. The real problem with the writers about these creatures is the value writers attach to them. There is a sickness in the way they tend to become substitutes for decent storylines, where the guts and gore descriptions are revelled in by would-be purveyors of the genre.
Seriously, there are so many possibilities left unexplored. Pratchett seems to be the master of the comedic market on these inventions, because he has taken the time and trouble to explore the possibilities of comic exploitation, added to the fact he doesn't take himself too seriously.
I reckon that a cross between, say, an alligator and duck-billed platypus, a crocodile and a fruit bat, a chicken and a were-hamster, any of these would be a winner, and there must be countless other impossibilities that would do. Think of the fun you could have tracing their history back to the dawn of time, how they have remained in dark places, known only to the initiates of the cannabis growing fraternity, secrets disclosed to the shamen of the magic mushroom mantra moaners.
As I say, I have no time for those stories which depend on the ultimate evil of the aforesaid mythical inventions. It's my belief that those who write about such things aren't getting out enough, but what do I know.
It's almost painful how so many of these writers are young and earnest. I don't advocate cynicism at an early age, but certainly a reality check on their innate abilities wouldn't come amiss in many cases. I have read quite a few vamwolf/ werepire stories. Some of the writers have really worthwhile talent, (which I would love to see directed in more believable fiction) but far too many have been watching horror films, and very poor horror films at that. The result is that they believe they can write really chilling stuff, not realising that it takes more than the wish to be able to write to accomplish a finished readable story.
If I had the time, I would carry out a critique/clinic with these writers, just to see if they have the facility to be self-critical enough to know their present limitations and their possible future capacities. As it is, I find myself really turned off by the plethora of stories in this genre.
On a really serious note, though, I often take the time to read the homepages of these would be authors of this genre, and at least one was under fourteen. To me, this seems unhealthy. I just hope they get through this phase, but it does disturb me to have that kind of thought niggling away at my mind, wondering what kind of generation we'll have soon. -
-
*Bravo!* Jimmy.
I think it's about time some great wit really took the 'mickey' out of some of the poorly written and not so poorly written vam-were-zom offerings.
I'd really like to find out if werewolves have a flea problem, and when they change back to human state, do the fleas come too? Do zombies yawn? Do vampires change the dirt in their coffins regularly? -
-
In one story I wrote, the 'werewolf' said: “For the record, I don’t shed.”
Dirt in a coffin? Yuck. Never thought of that, really. My vampires sleep in beds complete with silk sheets. (I'm all about the comfort).
-
-
That's good that they don't shed, but do they have fleas?
Oh MY! When did they get silk sheets?When I grow up can I become a vampire - just for the sheets?
-
-
Fleas? Heavens, no. But, he has been picked up by animal control once or twice for not have a collar and tags.
I take myth and legend and bend it to my will on vampires and werewolves. The whole 'howl at the moon', and 'I vant to suck your blood' is so cliche to me. I want werewolves that run Fortune 500 companies, vampires that race motorbikes and live in condos....yet still get frustrated when trying to hook up the stereo to the TV.
-
-
-
-
-
It strikes me that there is a theme developing here. Almost all the vam/were/zom stories that have come my way, both on this site and elsewhere are up against the same problem. They want the gore and guts, and they want to be taken seriously. You can have one or the other, but not both.
If you really want one of this genre to be taken seriously, it requires the author to do the same as other authors, viz make it believable. Or if not, comical is a good second.
I still take the view that a well written story needs these bits of mythical rubbish like George W needs an astro-physics set of calculus puzzles. I agree that there are people who like the genre, and it's not for me to cast aspersions on their taste. I might question the need for this kind of escapism, just as anyone might question my taste too.
A word about escapism and fantasy here. The nearer fantasy is to reality, the more believable, and therefore the more acceptable it becomes. It starts to transcend genre, and reach out to those who would normally not touch it with an infinitely long pole.
This actually raises an interesting conundrum. Are were/mav/zom writers actually constricting their readership by churning out the same formulaic stuff again and again? Similarly, are those who churn out the more realistic stuff confining themselves by genre too?
I think the answer is fairly straightforward (but feel free to shoot me down). If you start writing from a fairly realistic perspective, you have a whole broad spectrum of avenues to explore. Real humans are so diverse, real human activities vary from the mind numbingly tedious to the unbearably exciting, that the material that can be mixed and matched does not require us to take myths with any degree of seriousness; they are therefore fair game for a gentle bit of satirical treatment.
On the other hand, if you start from the perspective of the vam/were/zom stuff, the possibilities depend on previous formulae (because the readership has certain expectations) and that sort of constraint requires a truly brilliant mind to shift the perspective and take the readership along. Someone who has had a training in writing about reality would be the best bet! -
bump
-
Yes.
No.
At times.
Depends on what the reader wants, and is willing to read. Personally, I'm not fond of the typical werewolf or vampire stories. I like a little kick to the tales; a spin on canon that blends nicely with the story and makes it seem like it's always been that way. -
Werewolves.
And it depends on how you write it.
I myself will actually be starting a werewolf novel this summer, but it will be different from current ones. Instead of trying to make up my own twists and facts, I'll be working with all of the myths and legends. I want to focus on the emotion with a tragic hero, like Talbot or someone of the like. -
I don't think they are so much overused as used in the same way--as vampires are always written in the same way--he's dark and mysterious and she's an innocent maiden blah,blah,blah. The Underworld movie series wrote it differently, the maiden was a vampire and her lover a werewolf. Stronger characters would read better. Also making a werewolf with more dominant human features and give him/her a sense of humour--so many of them are droll and take themselves way to serious. And insert some other characters into the story--who doesn't like the manic fly eating Igor in that 1930s? Movie Dracula with Bella Laguosi (named spelled wrong).
When he comes gliding down those wonderful wide stairs of the old mansion saying "I bid you welcome..." That's a classic right there--the man had class. And Igor was hilarious in his craziness. And what about the Wolfman from the same era? Classic stuff there. Bram Stocker's Dracula was less appealing in his grotesqueness and I didn't like An Interview With A Vampire starring Brad Pitt. An American Werewolf in London was okay but, better was the story Wolf starring Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfieffer.
So werewolves aren't overused, they just need to have the class of the era models and be brought up to date a bit--to be brought into society not as mindless flesh eating animals but, (and blood-sucking night creatures) but, maybe a bit more human mentally if not physically as well as humane and something like that would read real well.
Forums /
About Writing /
Are warewolves overused?
|
|
ForumsSign up for FREEA free account is required to comment and participate. It's fast, free, and easy! 
Already a member?Our MissionTo help you improve your writing skills, by providing a fun environment to share your stories. Join a small group or get to know your fellow writers! → Learn morePlease Support Storywrite |
|
Notify an Admin •
Chat •
Random •
Categories •
Lists •
Terms of Use •
Contact Us
Our sites: Poetry, Critical Poetry, Old Poetry, Quotes, Philosophy, Journals. © Social Design | |
Adding your reply:
Surreal Rhapsody
Oct 15 10:07 PM 2008
Reply