Adapting Myth or Creating New?

[Dresdenus Prime]

In the book series I'm planning a lot of the back story has to do with people and creatures popular in mythology. There will be Wizards, Vampires, Valkyries, and more.

My question is what would your opinion be on using these types of creatures versus original created creatures.

Take the Dresden Files and The Twenty Palace Society novels. Jim uses a lot of mythology for his books, but he adapts it and makes them fresh, for example taking the Vampires and splitting them into courts, or having multiple types of Werewolves. Harry Connolly on the other hand in his first two novels as far as I know creates the creatures that threaten his hero's world.

So does the reader jump to the new ideas because so many of the mythological ideas have been played out? Or is mythology so enticing that it actually has a better chance at luring a reader to see how loyal or how much of a risk you took with the source material?

I'm going to attempt to do both. I'm going to try and keep the mythological creatures as faithful as I can while at the same time adding my own twist to their origins, but I hope to create a couple new ones in the process.

I just thought I'd ask for everyone elses two cents, and see how many dollars I can get from that 

[Nickeris86]

I love mythology a great deal and defiantly pull from it by the hand fulls for inspiration in my own works. However I never completely copy said myth unless my story takes place in the setting of that myth.

Like you I am writing a novel that is heavily inspired from vampire myths, however the being in my actual story are not classic vampires, and no they do not sparkle that is not anywhere close to a real vampire. Instead they are a completely different species from humans who have completely different anatomy that relies more on magic than science to actually be fees able.

[Figging Mint]

Mythology mining is horribly convenient if you want to launch into action or emotive conflict sequences without a lot of world setup.   

 I don't enjoy that sort of thing, to be honest.  I prefer *enormous* world setup, on the order of Dan Simmons' Ilium, Drake's Northworlds (for an example of enormous world setups with mythology pulls),  unless there is a very detailed exploration of the state of being of  the mythical critter.   (Brust's Agyar and CJ Cherryh's Rusalka pop into mind here).

If you're good at descriptive pacing and infodumps, create your own.   Write the next Amber.    Nine Princes in Amber is a perfect example of zero explicit mythology pulls with an absolutely fascinating, gripping pacing of reveals.   Heck, if you're really good at reader hooks, you can have a Belgariad.

[newtinmpls]

"If you're good at descriptive pacing and infodumps, create your own.   Write the next Amber.    Nine Princes in Amber is a perfect example of zero explicit mythology pulls with an absolutely fascinating, gripping pacing of reveals.   Heck, if you're really good at reader hooks, you can have a Belgariad."

Lovely point about Amber.

Belgariad? Had it's flaws. I have yet to meet a male reader who could stand Polgara. I did love the storytelly intros that had nothing overt to do with the plotline.

[Figging Mint]

"Lovely point about Amber."

Thanks.   I like to use Amber here because Binder/Siddharta in Lord of Light gives us another version of the Corwin character in a world with explicit mythology pulls (and told in third person).     

[trboturtle]

Belgariad? Had it's flaws. I have yet to meet a male reader who could stand Polgara.

*Raises hand*

You found one......

Craig

[newtinmpls]

So Craig, what was your take on her relationship with Garion?

[Beefstew]

I think readers love well told stories.  It doesn't really matter, to me at least, if authors use old stuff or make up new.

Creating your own world is great, but it can take away from the story a bit, as the focus becomes more about the world you're building, and less about the story that you're trying to tell.  That's not always the case, but it can happen.  I don't know if you've ever built a world, but it's a whole lot of work to make sure your world is not flat.

Borrowing/stealing myths and changing them a bit can be easier, and a little less strain on the reader.  They don't have to learn new stuff and the story can really start straight out of the gate.  Look at the Dresden Files, all kinds of action, very little explaining what's going on.

I do think built worlds are more memorable.  There is (or was I'm not sure anymore) a group of people trying to live by the standards of the White Tower in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time world.  Look at how many Star Wars fans are still running around, and they haven't made a good movie since '83.

In the end I think it depends on what genre you're going to write.  If you're going for fantasy, create your world.  Fantasy readers usually have the patience and maybe even the desire to see big and complex worlds.  If you want to write another genre, go with the borrowing of myths and changing them to better fit your world.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

I don't know if you've ever built a world, but it's a whole lot of work to make sure your world is not flat.

yeah, and the oceans leaking off the edges is such a pain.

Borrowing/stealing myths and changing them a bit can be easier, and a little less strain on the reader.  They don't have to learn new stuff and the story can really start straight out of the gate.  Look at the Dresden Files, all kinds of action, very little explaining what's going on.
I do think built worlds are more memorable.  There is (or was I'm not sure anymore) a group of people trying to live by the standards of the White Tower in Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time world.  Look at how many Star Wars fans are still running around, and they haven't made a good movie since '83.

I think the difference between venerable-enough built worlds and myths is kind of blurry.  I mean, references to Sherlock Holmes are at least as recognisable as references to Hercules.

[AdamPepper]

As writers we should always strive to invent and create.  In my novel, I created my own monster.  Dont get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a fresh spin on an old favorite, and there's always a market for that too.

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

As writers we should always strive to invent and create.  In my novel, I created my own monster.  Dont get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a fresh spin on an old favorite, and there's always a market for that too.

As writers, there's pretty much noting we should always do except get the words set down.

[AdamPepper]

As writers, there's pretty much noting we should always do except get the words set down.

Words on a page is a good start. 

[the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh]

Words on a page is a good start.

Well, speaking just for myself, I don't physically print the things out until and unless a publishing professional wants it in that format, so "words on a page" is not strictly accurate and I'm just OCDish enough not to use it.

[newtinmpls]

The word processing programs I use all utilize "page" functions for display purposes (and fancier for print veiw) so for me, "words on a page" is accurate for paper or screen.

[Figging Mint]

Words on a page is a good start.

How DO you get the silly youngsters to stay still long enough?