Klingons or Romulans or Orcs or Elves conjure up a pretty immediate picture for most people who are into SF or fantasy. I''m wondering two things: How, as a writer, do you capture this sense of a people... who they are, what they stand for, emotions they invoke in a player... and... Do you think "Klingonness" or "Orcishness" is so such a memorable trait because of what it is, or because we''ve been exposed to the concept in countless books / movies / other media? -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

I really dispise things that use existing earth culture stereotypes to define alien races. Kligons = Russians (first Show) Ferengi = The offensive stereotypes of the jewish people, Cardassians = Germans...

The first three Star Wars movies were blessedly free of this crap. But in the new one, they did it painfully often. Trade Federation = Japanese buisness culture, Gungans = Jamaicans, Watto = Italian.

I hate this crap. They are stereotypes built on stereotyps, with no grounding in realistic or even mythical importance. Try to avoid this at all costs. Mind you, I feel star trek''s Aliens got a little more alien as the shows went on, it''s to bad the writing went to seed.

LF,

I totally hear you (or read you... whatever )

Episode 1 was so blatant as to be offensive. Even switching voices around would have helped a little! (Have you heard the Jar Jar Binks with an impeccable British accent?)

However, isn''t it the case that sometimes our own stereotypes get in the way of what''s being presented to us. I mean, how would you do an *extremely* greedy, capitalistic culture if you found the Ferengi insulting? (hmmm.... maybe they should have been presented as blends of cultures... otherwise, how would we relate to them?)

I''ve heard the Ferengi thing, btw (which I really think is baseless). I think they''ve managed to imbue the Klingons with more "Klingonness" but I still don''t know if that''s an effect of something they did really well, or years of exposure to "Klingon" as a concept.

--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

How, as a writer, do you capture (create?) this sense of a people?

First, brainstorm something interesting, pound on it until it gets coherent, then impress that ''sense of the people'' on your mind.

Now, figure out what attitudes/assumptions the people would have that your audience would not. Work these into dialogue/narration: Make up some ''traditional proverbs'' and have the characters use them casually. Have characters obviously assume things counter to what your audience would assume. Think of some traditions that your people would have and toss them into the plot.

Oh get off the high horse will you LandFish!

You say the stereotypes are offensive, but that''s because YOU read stuff into the characters that wasn''t there.
If you watched Star Trek carefully enough, you''ll see that they build up the stereotype only to break it up for the main characters afterwards. They do this because it WORKS. It''s an excellent plot device. People instantly recognise it, and start linking it to their own cultural experience.
If you want really alien aliens, you wouldn''t understand ANYTHING of their moral and social structure. They''d probably be realistic aliens, and completely worthless to your game.


People might not remember what you said, or what you did, but they will always remember how you made them feel.
~ (V)^|) |<é!t|-| ~

Funny LF, I thought the Ferengi were based on Americans
As well, I have to support MadKeith on that one, it''s easier to use stereotypes because people KNOW them. you tap into the collective conscience of the public (or whatever you would call it), and this help the public get a general idea. Then you make exceptions... you can deny as hard as you want, that''s the way it works. You have ready made ideas, and you change them everytime you meet a specific person (for instance, if I meet an american, I am happy to discover, sometimes, someone who''s not totally like the stereotypical american).
I don''t think this is totally evil to do that, but it might be misused, especially if it promotes racism as you seem to imply it ?
Personally I think we ARE different, and it''s nice to have typical traits to refere to.

As well, I was thinking that unlike what you are thinking Wavinator, the definition of orks and trolls, and other "common" mosnters is quite vague, and often subject to a lot of confusion. Just look at the representation of a Troll in Willow ?
Or the way people confuse elves a la Tolkien, and the original Norse legends ?
Look at the definitions of orks in AD&D, in Tolkien, and in Warhammer, in Chronopia, etc ... there are lots of different interpretations. If you go for some overused race of the medfan pantheon, be careful to clearly describe them, because if after 200 pages the reader realise that for you an ork is green with evergrowing teeth, a triple stomach and blood that cahnges color depending on the last meal, while he was imagining a Tolkien ork ... you might confuse them totally.

As well, I don''t think it''s that easy to miss cliche when trying to create a race. I mean, look at the number of shows where you have "the peaceful mind oriented species" (Babylon 5, Farscape), or the "race of warriors" (again, StarTrek, Babylon 5, Farscape), or the Evil Empire against the Free Republic ... etc, etc.

Your freedom depends on the size of your cell ...

Hey, didn''t I say that I felt it gotten better as the shows went on?

Face, the writers have admitted the Klingons were written as Russians. None of the things I said in that other post were of my own invention.

But we have a tendancy to make races in SF that are really just one personality heaped on several million individuals. Where the hell are the girlie klingons? The articulate Gungans? The selflessly moral members of the trade federation?

This is the crap I''m attacking. Archetypal themes are one thing. Stereotypes can even be good. But whole species just don''t behave in this silly manner and that''s that. This isn''t even about political correctness, it''s about adequate suspension of Disbelief. Star Wars used to be REALLY GOOD at this, and now it''s worse than Star Trek ever was. At the same time, Star Trek has grown up a lot since the first series.

Stop taking me so literally people. I''m off in philosophy land.

I see your point LF.

I think that it''s perfectly believable for cultures to have many similarities about their personalities, but there should be exceptions to the rule. I did notice that the early Star Trek: NG had much more sterotypical races than the latter episodes which resulted in deeper characters.

I''ve always thought that the Seinfeld characters were a lot deeper than most other sit-coms. Most sit-coms have the sarcastic one, the dumb one, so on. On Seinfeld they were at least a bit deeper.