Redefining Established Paranomal Beings

[Son of an Ogre]

I was wanting to get some opinions on a matter that's been bothering me. What happens if you take a traditional paranormal entity, one that a lot of people are familiar with, like say ghouls, and redefine them? Like what they are; how they work. Should it be then that the name of said creature should be changed? I don't want to get into too many details, of course, but for a story I'm working on, I've basically redefined what a ghoul is...but have kept to basic ideas about the mythology. I know...that doesn't make any sense probably. I've looked at certain aspects of the origin Persian mythology and have developed ideas from that. A friend of mine said it'd probably be better to just rename my creatures since people have preconceived notions of what a ghoul is and how they operate. That they come from graveyards and eat flesh. Mine don't come from graveyards nor do they eat flesh...

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I was wanting to get some opinions on a matter that's been bothering me. What happens if you take a traditional paranormal entity, one that a lot of people are familiar with, like say ghouls, and redefine them? Like what they are; how they work. Should it be then that the name of said creature should be changed? I don't want to get into too many details, of course, but for a story I'm working on, I've basically redefined what a ghoul is...but have kept to basic ideas about the mythology. I know...that doesn't make any sense probably. I've looked at certain aspects of the origin Persian mythology and have developed ideas from that. A friend of mine said it'd probably be better to just rename my creatures since people have preconceived notions of what a ghoul is and how they operate. That they come from graveyards and eat flesh. Mine don't come from graveyards nor do they eat flesh...

I wouldn't see any need to rename them, so long as you are good enough to make things work. I mean, an awful lot of the current cultural notions of how vampires work was defined by Bram Stoker and a goodly subset defined by Anne Rice, so you can redefine them as well as anyone else.

[Starbeam]

I wouldn't really say that most people have as much of a preconceived notion of ghouls as they do for werewolves and vampires.  Ghouls aren't used very often.  And like neuro said, there's really no need to rename them.  SMeyer didn't rename her vampires as something else, though about the only thing they have in common with mythological vampires is the need to drink blood.

[comprex]

There's a joke here somewhere about reboots and 'Troll sat alone on his seat of stone' that is just out of my reach at the moment.

[polarglen]

Perhaps they are mutated ghouls.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

There's a joke here somewhere about reboots and 'Troll sat alone on his seat of stone' that is just out of my reach at the moment.

Have another mackerel, dear.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Perhaps they are mutated ghouls.

But just saying that implies a whole pile of stuff about DNA and so forth, and the mechanisms by which mutation actually works, which one might or might not want to lock down as applying to one's ghouls.

[Son of an Ogre]

I wouldn't see any need to rename them, so long as you are good enough to make things work. I mean, an awful lot of the current cultural notions of how vampires work was defined by Bram Stoker and a goodly subset defined by Anne Rice, so you can redefine them as well as anyone else.

Good point. You can set down your own rules and change things up, I guess. And if it's good...people will popularize it. Or, I should say, it can help influence thoughts on that particular subject.

I wouldn't really say that most people have as much of a preconceived notion of ghouls as they do for werewolves and vampires.  Ghouls aren't used very often.  And like neuro said, there's really no need to rename them.  SMeyer didn't rename her vampires as something else, though about the only thing they have in common with mythological vampires is the need to drink blood.

I guess that's probably true about ghouls. They aren't used as much as other paranormal beings. For some reason I had always had "flesh-eating" in my mind about them--probably that's from the very first Anita Blake novel and few movies I've seen. Smart zombies lol  I felt good when I'd come up with what my ghouls are--just didn't want to confuse people between what I'm doing and any notions that might already be out there. They're not mutants, but more like automatons. A construct of magic. Besides, like you're pointing out: you can go in whatever direction you want. I guess so long as you're consistent is what matters

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

They're not mutants, but more like automatons.

Ghoulems ?

[comprex]

Goombas

[Son of an Ogre]

lol Goombas! Darn someone beat me to it

Neurovore, Ghoulems...actually sounds pretty good. Sounds familiar, though. Oh yeah. Like Golem.

[comprex]

"Is your Ghoul Description Language strongly typed?"

[Kris_W]

TOO LONG - DON'T READ 

Not only are you allowed to explain paranormal creatures for your readers, you are pretty much required to explain them.

This explanations belong in the exposition. It’s a tautology, the exposition is where things are explained. This is normally somewhere around the first third of the book (first sixth is better).

There’s a sliding scale for what readers will accept – The closer a fictional ‘fact’ is to the beginning of the book, the easier the reader will feel about accepting it. Introducing details too close to the point where the main character needs it feels like cheating. (Ok, ok, ok, I know. This is part of American fiction writing style, not everybody does this.)

Identify the Key Points that your readers must understand about the creature for the story to work. Make sure these things are repeated, preferably with examples that will stick in the reader’s mind.

But disguise the Key Points amid other pieces of information so that the reader does not obsess about the point. AND do not give the reader too many unneeded Creature Facts so that the reader does not obsess about the point. (And NO, writing is NOT easier without readers.)

Even if you are using an absolutely bog-standard creature that Everyone Knows – You still have to define it for the reader. You just have to make sure your definition is more entertaining. If you know you are diverting from popular notions about a phantasmal creature you must address that notion. Have some character ask about the misconception, and have some other character (As you know, Bob) give the facts as they apply to your story – Or some such literary trick.

A good Dresden example is the Black Court Vampire Attack in Chapter 17 of Blood Rites. That scene is almost completely exposition – and one of the funniest fight scenes I’ve ever read (…the timer popped out…)

[Son of an Ogre]

There’s a sliding scale for what readers will accept – The closer a fictional ‘fact’ is to the beginning of the book, the easier the reader will feel about accepting it. Introducing details too close to the point where the main character needs it feels like cheating. (Ok, ok, ok, I know. This is part of American fiction writing style, not everybody does this.)

Identify the Key Points that your readers must understand about the creature for the story to work. Make sure these things are repeated, preferably with examples that will stick in the reader’s mind.

But disguise the Key Points amid other pieces of information so that the reader does not obsess about the point. AND do not give the reader too many unneeded Creature Facts so that the reader does not obsess about the point. (And NO, writing is NOT easier without readers.)

Even if you are using an absolutely bog-standard creature that Everyone Knows – You still have to define it for the reader. You just have to make sure your definition is more entertaining. If you know you are diverting from popular notions about a phantasmal creature you must address that notion. Have some character ask about the misconception, and have some other character (As you know, Bob) give the facts as they apply to your story – Or some such literary trick.

I completely understand what you're saying. In fact, I had planned on doing tricks, for example, similar to how Bob sometimes has to educate Harry. I like how that's done. My character knows a few things about ghouls already, but not everything. And I agree with you that certain points need explaining during the first part of the story.

[Darwinist]

For the love of god, do not rename it. Part of the charm of stories like Jim Butchers is that he redefines the genre. Vampires that feed on emotions instead of blood. Ghouls that are supernatural hitmen. Werewolves that can change and control their ability. Think back to any books you've read before. It's the very lucky few authors who can write a genre piece that can somehow engage the reader without stumbling into unoriginal territory. It's the brave few who break this mold and invent something new that stick out in your mind.

True, if you rename it, you are still creating something original... but in the same token, you are also betraying the roots of that original idea in the process. And unless you can come up with a decent idea for this new creature, it will come off as forced or lame in the process. If you feel you are that strong of a writer, have at it. If not, stick with breaking the mold, not the name the moldmaker gave it. Because 9 chances out of 10, that name is going to come off as lame or forced. Butcher did it, imo, with Loup Garou. That stupid name still makes me cringe everytime I read it. But I can forgive one mistake, because he's done so many other wonderful things with his writing to make up for it.