# Examining fantasy stereotypes, wizards and warriors. .



## Annoying kid (Oct 19, 2018)

This idea that wizards  are smarter than warriors. It's popularized by gaming and Lord of the Rings, but that idea comes from the nerd/jock dichotomy. We see that played out in how they stereotypically learn. 

The assumption that the wizard learns in a cloistered tower, or enchanted library, while the warrior learns in some bootcamp. When if one thinks about it, both have equal need to be in each place. Bootcamps have shooting ranges. Libraries have books on fighting. I bet they're just dusty from never being opened. 

The idea of warriors "needing" armour and wizards not. That works in video games because enemy AI will crowd the "tank" and leave anyone out of their aggro range alone. But in a story, that doesn't quite work. 

This idea that the wizard is refined, the warrior is rough and insensitive. This is an assumption that's based on the real world denigration of manual work. Never mind that magic can be just as physically taxing, the stereotype is it uses the mind more. When it doesn't inherently.

Then there's the stereotypical weapons. Wizards use staffs why? Oh right cos Gandalf and Sauruman used them. So ours must too. And have pointy hats. HAHA.


----------



## H.Brown (Oct 19, 2018)

I think that as a writer we have the ability to challenge many stereotypical roles, so why not write a story that challenges these, you could have both warriors and wizards training together either in a tower or in a boot camp. There is nothing stopping said writer from having their wizards use magical weaponry other than staffs, for instance in Robert Jordan's wheel of time books the most powerful wizard uses a powerful sword not a staff.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 19, 2018)

I think it is only in a particular group of writers that either warriors or wizards are stereotyped, of course warriors fight and wizards do magic, but who they fight, and how, or what sort of magic they do and who for varies enormously. 


> Then there's the stereotypical weapons. Wizards use staffs why? Oh right cos Gandalf and Sauruman used them. So ours must too.


So, what we are talking about is a sort of fan fiction, not original work? Try reading about Ursula LeGuin's wizard of middle earth, or JBS Haldane's Mr Leaky, original wizards. I am not so up on literary warriors, but how about Rosemary Sutcliff's Roman legionary in Eagle of the ninth, or Miyamoto Musashi's Book of five rings? Would Robin Hood count?
Imitation is relatively easy so lots more people do it, but original writers are individuals. The same applies in other genres as well, Philip Marlow spawned a good few look a like private eyes for example, but when he first appeared he was original and different, as was Agatha Christie's, Monsieur Poirot. In retrospect we do not to realise how original things were, because they have been imitated so often since. It is imitation of the original that turns it into a stereotype, that will go on happening, but so will original writing.


----------



## Guard Dog (Oct 19, 2018)

When I first started concocting the story I'm writing, the first thing I did was throw all those stereotypes out the window.

Most of the magic-users in this book/series of books are female, though the MC does have some ability in that area.

He just prefers punching, shooting, or carving things up to using some magic whammy.

Conversely, several of the "warrior women" have Phd's or Doctorates, and genius-level I.Q.s.

All in all, I tried to keep it mixed-up, with no particular gender being limited to any particular skill or job description.

Oh, as for weapons, there's all sorts. Swords, knives, guns, and various enchanted items.

And again, you'll find any variety of those in most of the character's hands, no matter what their particular skill or ability. 

And even the main Sorceress/magic-user has a suit of powered hi-tech armor with a built-in A.I.



G.D.


----------



## Sir-KP (Oct 20, 2018)

It's already stereotyped far before gaming and mass-viewed TV shows.

Warriors or in western style usually linked to Knight in badass armor, with sword, shield, spear, brave attitude. In Japanese and Chinese literature, they usually are honorable, good sport, may not really needing armor but good with melee weapon.

Witch, shaman, priest, and wizard, all the magic, sixth-sense, fortune telling people, usually are shorter, skinny, kind of weirdo, sometimes elder, dressed without proper protection, oversized robe, uses wands, staff, magic that relates to poison, death or curse, fire.

I mean, that's just how it is. Warriors historically will wear whatever technologically possible they can find in order to protect their body and arm themselves for fight. Peasant warriors from my country fought foreign invaders only with sharpened bamboo stick. And that was against a foreign army with firearms. They were still ruled under regional kings and technologically years behind than the European invaders. Sharpened bamboo was the only safest long range weapon they could arm themselves with and charge through the ranks. That's just what they do as Warriors. Meanwhile the shaman and stuff don't go to war. They all were 'studying' in some mystical place with mystical mysterious teacher to cast their mysterious power and prayer, giving X dagger some extra damage and luck boost -yadayadayada.

It's not stereotypes from LOTR and video games. It's rather the stereotypes adopted by LOTR and video games.


----------



## moderan (Oct 20, 2018)

That's not even close to accurate.
LOTR existed long before video games or board games like D&D. Tolkien's warriors partake of the tradition that warriors are lettered and sophisticated. Wizards are virtual immortals with certain paranormal abilities but are otherwise indistinguishable from 'warriors'. They are in fact of the same lineage if you follow along through the Silmarillion and such.
Modern stereotyping is based on Gary Gygax and such rot as Sword of Shannara that bowdlerize the original in favor of gaming pieces or making an easy profit.
It is true that warriors in most cultures have armed themselves with the best in tech that is available to them...it's being done today, too. The military has ever been the driver of technology. But that has very little to do with modern fantasy stereotyping, which isn't based on knowledge, but on the profit motive and on assessments of how fun things can be to play with, without all of that complicated foreknowledge.


----------



## Annoying kid (Oct 21, 2018)

The man who managed the houses of healing was stunned that Aragorn wasn't just a brutish "Captain of War" and was instead a learned man. So Aragorn comes off as the exception not the rule in LOTR. As he's probably seen alot of warriors go through his healing house.


----------



## moderan (Oct 21, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> The man who managed the houses of healing was stunned that Aragorn wasn't just a brutish "Captain of War" and was instead a learned man. So Aragorn comes off as the exception not the rule in LOTR. As he's probably seen alot of warriors go through his healing house.



Really...go read how the rest of the warriors are portrayed. Faramir, for example. I think your healer had elvish elitism bias.


----------



## Annoying kid (Oct 21, 2018)

moderan said:


> Really...go read how the rest of the warriors are portrayed. Faramir, for example. I think your healer had elvish elitism bias.



The healer was a man from Gondor. The one who Aragorn told to find kingsfoil to heal Eowyn, and he instead went into the other names for it because he assumed Aragorn was uneducated. The same Faramir who thought Frodo and Sam were enemies despite their obviously elven apparel which the actual enemy has never used ever.


----------



## moderan (Oct 22, 2018)

You are aptly named. Because he was from Gondor, he doesn't have bias, despite where he was residing? You've managed to disprove nothing, simply moved the strawman a couple of spaces. But have it your way...I don't have time for this.


----------



## Guard Dog (Oct 23, 2018)

Eh, I figure modern stereotypes are just the result of some newer author latching on a portion of something older, and popularizing that as the entire thing, rather than just a piece of what came before.

Merlin, from the Arthurian legends, for instance has several aspects, ranging from a youngster to a dottering old man - one who no doubt used a staff to walk with, and probably had a big floppy hat. Leave it to those that follow to latch on to that and that alone, and eventually people forget the rest, and that image becomes the typical wizard, in most people's minds.

As for witches, I'm not sure where exactly that one comes from, since it doesn't make sense for someone that has to worry about other folks wanting to burn them at the stake to dress in a manner that stands out from what other people are wearing.

Were long black dresses, and pointy, wide-brimmed hats a typical fashion for women, somewhere, at some point in time?

And what about the whole "Conan the barbarian" image? It always bugged me that the guy ran around in freezing cold with nothing but boots, a loincloth, and a mail shirt as much as he did... and even more so that every "barbarian" since then seems to do the same.
( And yes, I've read all the Robert E. Howard/L. Sprague de Camp books, as well as a fair number of the comics. )

Anyway, I'm as much interested in where these stereotypes came from as I am avoiding them... though it's nearly impossible to avoid them in their entirety.




G.D.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 23, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> This idea that wizards  are smarter than warriors. It's popularized by gaming and Lord of the Rings, but that idea comes from the nerd/jock dichotomy. We see that played out in how they stereotypically learn.
> 
> The assumption that the wizard learns in a cloistered tower, or enchanted library, while the warrior learns in some bootcamp. When if one thinks about it, both have equal need to be in each place. Bootcamps have shooting ranges. Libraries have books on fighting. I bet they're just dusty from never being opened.
> 
> ...



How many of your professors were bodybuilders? How many Olympians have PhDs? Stereotypes exist for a reason, and that reason in this case is that specialization comes at a cost.

Just take a moment to actually think about the things you're saying, and the basis for all of these tropes becomes quite clear.  You can read a book a week on martial arts, and it'll never be the same as spending an hour at a gym or dojo every day.  Warriors need armor because people are swinging heavy and sharp things at them.  Wizards do not because they're not engaging in hand-to-hand combat.  If Wizards are considered refined, it's because their discipline is similar to a scholar or scribe, and both traditionally were from the genteel upper class.  If Warriors are considered unrefined, it's for the opposite reason: those in manual labor have no need or opportunity to learn the niceties of society, so they go without.

I could go on, but you get the idea.  Perhaps when you title a post with the word "examining," you could actually examine the things you're complaining about, rather than just making unfounded and poorly thought-out claims?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 24, 2018)

You do get crossover in real life though, Gamer. I remember reading the history of sonnets, one of the earliest writers (Sorry, don't remember the name off hand) was a knight who was also famed for fighting skills. One day in a town being Besieged by the French he got pissed off by a catapult that chucked a rock over the wall every so often , as our hero was having his meal. He went out through a sally port, killed the crew of eight, wrecked the machine and got back in before anyone was able to respond. I believe he went back to his lunch.

Of course there are more modern examples, like Wilfred Owen, of warrior poets, but I bet there is plenty of crossover in the other arts, I don't suppose there are many magicians, conjurers perhaps  , but on the whole I would expect the better someone is in one direction the more other directions he will also pursue, things like samuri doing calligraphy seem the norm to me, I don't see why it wouldn't work well in stories. 

On the other hand, maybe for some writers it feels easier to maintain separate extremes and not try to write complex characters.


----------



## Teb (Oct 24, 2018)

Warriors use shields and melee weapons in most fantasy so they need to be encased in something slightly harder than flesh, Wizards use magic for defence and offence so their need for armour is less. That and the unfortunate effects when your lightning bolt spell misfires and your wrapped in a big piece of metal.

Wizards are probably seen as refined as they are made to understand the powers of their chosen art and that it is not to be used at the drop of a hat, whereas a barbarian is often more action now and deal with any consequences later, generally by killing them as well. As a long term gamer I can see your argument about RPG classes but you should also be aware these are not dictated in most games. You can adapt most classes to suit your individual play style, just add the skill points as required. In fact the more rewarding challenges out there is designing yourself a magic character that doesn't actually rely on magic.

That aside it's the author that tells you what to think of each characters skills and how they act in the given circumstances so if you did want to make your Wizard a tank that can aggro the hordes,  like a Diablo 2 Sorceress with frost nova, chilling armour and a damn fine mace that leads the cows on a merry dance, you write this and the reader will see it. If you want a true hack n slash barbarian that's got an axe in each hand and a loincloth for defence then that route is the well travelled one, which generally means it works and people can relate to it so you don't have to put too much effort into their mental image.

Stereotypes are there to be challenged in the long run, if you want to go with them do so if not then break tradition and write your own version, you never know it might become the new norm!

I'm rambling now.


----------



## Guard Dog (Oct 24, 2018)

Teb said:


> Wizards use magic for defence and offence so their need for armour is less. That and the unfortunate effects when your lightning bolt spell misfires and your wrapped in a big piece of metal.



Unless of course your full harness acted as a Faraday Cage, in which case it would actually protect you from those lightening bold misfires. :untroubled:

Or is that too much _science fact_ for fantasy?

Edit: A more likely reason for a wizard to not wear armor is that some believe that iron can have a blunting or blocking effect on magic. So wearing full armor could produce the same effect as trying to fire a gun from the inside of an iron container with no openings in it, effectively bottling-up the spells or what have you.


G.D.


----------



## Annoying kid (Oct 26, 2018)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> How many of your professors were bodybuilders? How many Olympians have PhDs? Stereotypes exist for a reason, and that reason in this case is that specialization comes at a cost.
> 
> Just take a moment to actually think about the things you're saying, and the basis for all of these tropes becomes quite clear.  You can read a book a week on martial arts, and it'll never be the same as spending an hour at a gym or dojo every day.  Warriors need armor because people are swinging heavy and sharp things at them.  Wizards do not because they're not engaging in hand-to-hand combat.  If Wizards are considered refined, it's because their discipline is similar to a scholar or scribe, and both traditionally were from the genteel upper class.  If Warriors are considered unrefined, it's for the opposite reason: those in manual labor have no need or opportunity to learn the niceties of society, so they go without.
> 
> I could go on, but you get the idea.  Perhaps when you title a post with the word "examining," you could actually examine the things you're complaining about, rather than just making unfounded and poorly thought-out claims?



Bodybuilding is just drugs and genetics. They have nothing to teach. 

Bruce Lee kept lots of books on fighting and got into the theory heavily. It's a very modern, western idea that fighting is divorced from philosophy and spiritualism. Knights were educated, well read men and there are lots of treatises on fencing and the like that has survived today. The only reason sportsmen today don't need to read as much is because that task has been outsourced to sports scientists and coaches. 

The reason why reading books on martial arts isn't enough is because you're untested under pressure and it takes drilling a technique to get it right. 
You could read books on magic, doesn't mean you'll be able to do it under pressure, in an actual real battle scenario. And spells don't require drilling it over and over? Says who? I'm not seeing the inherent distinction. 

"Wizards do not because they're not engaging in hand-to-hand combat."

They're engaging in projectile range. They're engaging in range where they can be charged down. Wizards aren't stereotypically portrayed as being hundreds of meters away from close combat. If you're so good the magic can catch arrows out the air or deflect them, or combat attacks when you are charged down, or negate opposing magic, without fail, great, but that's no different to a warrior who can dodge everything.

We've established wizards aren't inherently more scholarly, and magic potentially takes just as great a physical toll, so would require physical conditioning as opposed to sitting on your ass reading books. You can't explain a stereotype by invoking the stereotype. To do so is begging the question. 



> I could go on, but you get the idea. Perhaps when you title a post with the word "examining," you could actually examine the things you're complaining about, rather than just making unfounded and poorly thought-out claims?



Save the snark for World of Warcraft, "Gamer".


----------



## Euripides (Oct 26, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> You do get crossover in real life though, Gamer. I remember reading the history of sonnets, one of the earliest writers (Sorry, don't remember the name off hand) was a knight who was also famed for fighting skills. One day in a town being Besieged by the French he got pissed off by a catapult that chucked a rock over the wall every so often , as our hero was having his meal. He went out through a sally port, killed the crew of eight, wrecked the machine and got back in before anyone was able to respond. I believe he went back to his lunch.
> .



Sounds like my favorite hero, Cyrano!


----------



## Terry D (Oct 26, 2018)

Write your characters in any way you choose. It's fantasy for godsake, you manage the rules of your world. As long as you remain consistent within the story you can have your magic-users be as fragile, or erudite, or as filled with machismo as you want. Good books have been written following all the tropes, and good books have been written with iconoclastic characters. Staff or sword? Pointy hat or armor? It doesn't mean a thing.


----------



## Newman (Oct 31, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> This idea that wizards  are smarter than warriors. It's popularized by gaming and Lord of the Rings, but that idea comes from the nerd/jock dichotomy. We see that played out in how they stereotypically learn.
> 
> The assumption that the wizard learns in a cloistered tower, or enchanted library, while the warrior learns in some bootcamp. When if one thinks about it, both have equal need to be in each place. Bootcamps have shooting ranges. Libraries have books on fighting. I bet they're just dusty from never being opened.
> 
> ...



Warriors/wizards/mentors all interchangeable and been done may times (Matrix, Dr Strange etc). Again, it's all in the execution.


----------



## kaminoshiyo (Oct 31, 2018)

I think the best answer I've heard on the subject is similar to H. Brown's...

You are going to see a lot of tropes and cliche's. You may even have used some without noticing it. But the best way to "change the meta", so-to-speak, is to become the example of your ideal.


----------

