...so, how many books, movies, TV shows, and/or video games did I just summarize? The details may change, but this is a cliché that I have seen an awful lot of. And, quite frankly, it irks me. Not just because it's an overused cliché, though that certainly helps. The main reason why I'm sick of it is it's, usually, just lazy writing. Worse, sometimes it recognizes that it is used in almost all forms of fantasy--so they can assume the audience is used to it, and they'll assume the intended significance, rather than the story earning it. *Sigh* (Hopefully, you'll see what I mean.)
So, first of all, I want to explain what exactly I'm talking about:
- The "Ancient" part. Virtually anything "Ancient" (civilization, magic, evil, etc.) is several times more powerful than anything modern. This more has to do when the writers make it ancient simply because "Ancient is better!"; if the timetable actually makes sense (like it takes place in our world, and is incorporated into our history), then this is not only acceptable, but sometimes very well-played.
- This is also directed at the historical figures, who frequently formed some kind of group (often a "council") and established peace and order, hooray! I'm also tying this in with their "descendants" (the modern incarnation of the council or the like), who usually revere them and study their teachings carefully, and though they're never as powerful, they usually know quite a bit.
- And, of course, the Ancient Evil. Generally a powerful sorcerer who wants to take over the world, for kicks. I'm referring specifically to the ANCIENT ones, whose plans were thwarted and who has, for some reason or another, been prevented from endangering the world again. Usually, he's been locked away in some kind of prison, but he's still alive; RARELY, he's actually dead/incapacitated and someone has merely learned his tricks.
- For both of the above points: I'm also usually talking about when they're virtually demigods. Like, covering the world in darkness and turning its inhabitants into skeletons via one ritual, and then using the Power of Light to put it all back to right.
Okay, so the big one is kind of an obvious one, that can actually apply to ancient and modern heroes ('specially fantasy ones) alike: Why do they never, ever, ever just kill their Ancient Foe?! Okay, I know it's kind of bad taste to have a heroic character also be a killer--that kind of automatically takes him into anti-hero territory. However, in this case, I feel like there should be an exception. First of all, this guy usually is a mass murderer--if this isn't explicitly stated, then it's strongly implied. If he doesn't actually kill, then he comes close--turning people into his zombie army, etc. Basically, he has done terrible things--usually, "for the evulz!!!" And taking over the world and stuff. He's proven himself a threat and, frankly, justice demands that he pays for it.
Before anyone jumps in and says "But the heroes will be just like him if they do" and all that--that more applies when the hero kills because it's convenient and/or out of revenge. Also, the Ancient Foe usually is king of his own country/world/whatever; other than our heroes, there is no other system of justice he can face. This is why I'm applying it mostly to fantasy heroes; for superheroes or something like that, yeah, they need to deliver him to the authorities. After that, it's the city of Gotham that REALLY needs to stop sending Joker back to Arkham already.
Another big factor: most of the time, this Ancient Foe is immortal, and/or too powerful to throw in a normal dungeon. So, what do they do? Lock him in a timeless prison. ...Because that was a BRILLIANT idea. Now, if he wasn't immortal already, he's never going to die--he will ALWAYS be a threat looming over this world. Again, brilliant. Because these Ancient Wise Ones were too focused in a superficial idea of "good", now their Ancient Foe can be released any time in the future when they're not around to do anything about it. So, in order to not become "evil" themselves or whatever (read: not wanting to "dirty" their own hands), they're endangering generations to come. Great going. (Obviously, this does NOT apply to any Ancient Foes who are too powerful to actually be killed--in which case, there's really not much else they can do.)
(Also, think about it--it's a timeless prison. Every time you see the inside of these prisons, it's a void--no people, no food, rarely solid ground. And you trap him there for all time, provided he doesn't find a way out. How is this not more cruel than killing him outright?)
And... that was only issue #1 I have with this cliché, but they should be shorter from here on out. ;) So, onto issue #2: why is "ancient" always better? The Ancient Civilization that fended off the Ancient Foe--usually, a peaceful, Utopian society, threatened only by this horrible monster, which was usually much more scientifically and magically advanced than their descendants. (More on that later.) Also, any ancient artifact--ranging from the ones specifically designed to be powerful, to the shield that the hero happened to use--will always be incredibly powerful, and, incidentally, immune to aging, rusting, or any kind of entropy. (Not dust, of course.) And, of course, the one that I will never, ever understand: how in the WORLD did these Ancient Civilizations build those elaborate traps in the temples, how do they still function after centuries/millenia, and how were they supposed to get to their own treasures??
Sometimes, it makes sense. Maybe there was a cataclysmic event that caused this society to lose a lot of its progress, so it's simply a matter of lost practices and technology. Secrets and history are constantly lost to new generations in real life; it's not that difficult to come up with a plausible explanation, enriching the universe rather than finding a cheap way out. And fantasy writers, please note: this does not apply to "His magic is ancient--I don't know if my magic can withstand him". This is exactly what I was talking about earlier: writers have become so good at making the audience assume "ancient = better", that they simply describe something as "ancient", and that justifies it being a legitimate threat. That on its own, I mean. *Sigh*
So, what do we have so far? An Ancient council which ruled a great civilization, and were considered (usually just in-story) to be very wise, often times practically knowing the future. Because they are ancient (apparently), they are also supremely powerful (after all, how often do they instantly clean up the mess their Ancient Foe left behind after vanquishing him?). So, I have a question: what happened to them, and their civilization? If it was so perfect and protected by such "powerful magics", then how did it become its modern state--which is usually a cheap imitation of the original, lacking a lot of the original powers of the original civilization*? Given how often they make prophecies about the future and/or leave behind an artifact destined for one/a group of heroes who will succeed them, how don't they prevent the fall of their awesome kingdom?
*In no small part because they usually hid all the truly powerful artifacts all over the planet. Where anyone could find and use them, if they were lucky. *Sigh* And these were supposed to be the all-knowing, all-powerful Ancients?
Okay, I know full well that it's realistic for civilizations to eventually collapse. I know that if the kingdom kind of went through a gradual decline, the Ancients probably had few options, provided they were of the prophetic variety. The only reason I even mention it is out of spite, admittedly: the writers frequently make the Ancients and the civilization really, really perfect, and it annoys me. It's usually just plot device, and a way to make the audience sympathize with this kingdom that they'll never really "encounter". Doesn't make it any less frustrating when they use this kind of shortcut, and then ignore the actual implications they have.
Okay, and I have one more "Take That" to issue: it's kind of interesting how frequently the modern heroes do better than the Ancients. The Ancients let their civilizations decay; the Heroes have to restore it. The Ancients either let their Foe live or couldn't kill him; generally, the Heroes are better about stopping him permanently, sometimes by removing his power entirely. The Ancients may have kept their hands bloodless, but they're usually terrible about keeping secrets and deceit; the Heroes are bastions of truth, piercing the darkness, all those wonderful images. Again, this is oversimplifying; after all, not all Heroes even do that well. But it is kind of surprisingly common, given that half the time, the Heroes greatly admire the Ancients.
So, what was the point of this post? Basically, I was just venting my frustrations about a tired plot device which is frequently more frustrating than anything else. The Ancients, generally, serve as characters just powerful enough to make shortcuts in the narrative, like prophecies (justifying our hero's involvement in the fight), villains (Ancient Foes they didn't bother to vanquish), or powerful objects (usually, that the villain greatly desires). And, quite frankly, there's generally a sort of hero worship, in-story and intended for the audience, associated with them: they're usually depicted as wise, powerful beings. But, for me, they're worthy of contempt. My biggest issue is easily shuffling off their problems on a future generation, simply because their definition of "good" is so narrowly defined--it really doesn't help that they're powerful enough to create and protect all the Ancient Awesome, and yet they weren't powerful enough to actually do anything useful.
*Sigh* Okay, finally got that off my chest. :P :) I should end with one last thing: I do not have a problem with using history, fantasy or "our world", in the story. In fact, there are times this can be done extremely well--at the very least, it's acceptable. If there is a reason for something ancient--time for the world to have forgotten important details, incorporated into real-world history, etc.--or the writers actually deal with the implications of the things I mentioned. (Ah, writers. With carelessness they can sow seeds of frustration in their audience; if they're clever, they can create a whole new level of enjoyment. Thank you to all the writers who try their hardest to treat their material well! :))
