Could a werewolf family be sophisticated?

[Terastas]

worse than constructing a framework and coming up with a plot that doesn't fit it?

I've seen that done before, and the results are not much better. Reign In Darkness had, in my opinion, an excellent foundation / concept behind their script. Only problem is that the writers didn't have any clue whatsoever what to do with it. So yes, taking good framework and using it to tell a craptacular story isn't much better.

It's generally easier, however, to make the plot conform to the framework than the other way around.

Going back on Stephanie Meyer as an example, much of what she did to further the "plot" involved tacking on extra rule-sets to her vampires and werewolves just to try to justify her plot advancing as she desired it. Meyer could have made a couple out of Edward and Bella by giving them mutual interests or sparkling (pun not intended) personalities, or if she found their personalities were not immediately compatible with each other, by using a plot point to bring them together.

J.K. Rowling, one of the authors Meyer defiantly compares herself to, was smart enough to do this. Even though she had a world of wizards as her framework, she didn't use any magical means to make Ron or Hermione become friends with Harry. Harry and Ron did meet by chance, but became friends mostly on account of Harry's support and generosity and Ron's patience with the kid that didn't know jack crap about the world he was famous in. Hermione, on the other hand, Harry and Ron initially couldn't stand. Then came the incident with the troll, but even after that, they weren't really friends; it was their mutual respect for each other and an intense interest in the sorcerer's stone that made them a trio. Rowling was able to bring the three of them together without making any changes to the rule-sets of her setting to allow them.

Meyer, on the other hand, justified the relationship between Edward and Bella, not by giving them compatible personalities, common interests or interlocking plot points, but by stapling a superpower to each of them; she made Edward a mind-reader (Can all vampires do that? No. Will we ever find out how it is that Edward can and not anyone else? No.) and Bella (also without explanation) the only one whose mind he can't read. This was Meyer's method with virtually everything -- whenever she wanted the plot to go a certain way, she slapped on an extra rule (one often unique only to that character) to her rule-set to make it happen, and not once did she ever explain why she included this new addition to the rule-set, much less try to justify it as being within the realm of even her reality.

As an added consequence of Meyer's murdering of the framework, none of her characters ever truly developed -- by the end of the series, every single one of them was the same personality-deprived douche bag that they were when she first introduced them.

What I would argue is that, by forcing her characters and plot to adhere to her framework, J.K. Rowling wound up creating better characters and a better plot. In contrast, Meyer, by continually altering her framework, did a great disservice to her characters by never requiring them to develop, and to her plot by allowing it to advance without any effort.

The best plots are, in my opinion, the ones that not only adhere to a strict framework, but deliberately drive their protagonists into situations where that framework works against them. Lets take this Youtube classic, for example. Would that scene have been better if the central character could catch bullets in his fist or shoot laser eye-beams at his enemies instead of having to outmaneuver them? No, of course not. And it's because he has to work within the limitations that were given to him that the scene is so entertaining.

That's not the only way they could have handled that situation either. If their character was more of a nerdy bookworm Chuck Bartowski type for whom kung-fu would have been seriously out of character (why yes, I did love the first two seasons of that show and despise the third), the plot could have progressed with him trying to sneak out, hide, set traps or bluff his way out. The scenario should never have required any alteration to the ground rules of their fictional setting for it to advance.

And if your characters are not capable, in any way, shape or form, of working their way out of the tough scenarios that you place them in, you might as well just let them get killed in such scenarios, because chances are they are not going to be characters that your audience will be able to relate well with or have any sympathy for.

So what I would like to say in closing (and to tie it back into the original subject of this thread) is that some things are cliches because they make perfect sense. Vampires living in large dark estates while werewolves live on the outskirts or coast along under the radar is one of the cliches that does.

Is it annoying? Yes, sometimes in an "I think I've seen this story before" kind of way. But that's okay -- it's a framework cliche -- apart from the Douchy McNitpicks in the audience, nobody will pay attention to it. As long as you can do something else outside the norm, nobody else should mind at all.

[Uniform Two Six]

Using Stephanie Meyer as an example of literary art is kind of like using the Mountain Dew jingle from the 80s as an example of music. Let's not forget that she was not really trying to write a vampire novel so much as write a teen-romance novel (and a pretty shallow and crappy one at that). The "plot" was primarily a vehicle to have Bella and (insert character's name here) have some sort of overblown teen angst or thinly veiled pedophilac lust. I'm sorry, but when you look at the target audience for that thing, you sort of have to expect two-dimensional characters.

[Terastas]

Using Stephanie Meyer as an example of literary art is kind of like using the Mountain Dew jingle from the 80s as an example of music.

Which makes Meyer perfect as a cited example of what not to do. Which is precisely what I was trying to do. Everything Meyer did with her writing should never be emulated by anyone else trying to break into (screen)writing because everything Meyer did was crap.
So if you try to make a case for something, and the response is "Well, that's what Stephanie Meyer did," that means they disagree with you.

Another one of Meyer's problems was that she effectively wanted all of her vampires to be like Blade, a-la having all the common perks of being a vampire but absolutely none of their common drawbacks. The closest she came to ever keeping anything was their aversion to sunlight, but even that she butchered; they aren't weakened by it, they're ashamed of the fact that they sparkle in it (as they should be!). This effectively meant that there was nothing wrong with Edward (apart from his being a creepy douche bag, but that was never stated by the writer), and therefore nothing to motivate the reader (unless the reader herself is a creepy douche bag too). Meyer's one-shot uber-powered villains therefore had to come springing out of the woodwork left and right just to make sure her "plot" still had a pulse.

For that reason, I don't recommend completely eliminating the drawback tropes of any mythos you are working with. Rethink or reinvent them, maybe (I have vampires suffering heatstroke in sunlight instead of combusting, for example), but not eliminating them altogether. If there are no pros and cons beyond the social aspects (having "humans hate us" be the only drawback risks your work sounding too preachy and antisocial), it won't be as interesting to read about.

Those cons are what, in turn, encourage vampires and werewolves into their stereotypical ends of the financial / class system. It doesn't necessarily mean that they have to, per say, though having the characters deliberately subvert the trope risks them being viewed by the audience negatively. If the thought doesn't even occur to them, they'll be regarded as idiots. And if the thought occurs to them and they shun it, that'll be even worse for the character. A werewolf who refuses to isolate himself out in the boonies instead of giving up his high society status risks being viewed as a materialistic prick, while a vampire who chose to keep risking exposure nightly instead of striking a deal with some philanthropist-type rich people risks being viewed as a self-righteous holier-than-thou bastard.

The other drawback would be that deliberately pulling a 180 on a trope can generate just as many groans and eye-rolls from an audience to all of the tropes straight down to the details can. Reading a book I feel like I've read before can be just as painful as one that tried to be as unfamiliar as possible.

At the very least, when it comes to the rich / poor divide, there should be a cap on how far up or down one should be allowed to go before their situation becomes unrealistic. You shouldn't expect to find all vampires and werewolves living at one far end of the spectrum, but it should be unusual to find one living on the side at which you'd more commonly find the other.

[Neare]

I don't know if this qualifies as "sophisticated", but I always felt that werewolves would make excellent criminals. Any enhanced traits they have (they are too varied to name) could be used to further their own less-than-legal goals.

[RedWolf]

>he other drawback would be that deliberately pulling a 180 on a trope can generate just as many groans and eye-rolls from an audience to all of the tropes straight down to the details can . . . .

What about using a variant version of the trope? For example, mythology regarding werebears seems to be at least as old as werewolves, but werebears have seldom been used in movies and books. However, there are supposed to be at least two major films in 2012 featuring werebear characters: "The Hobbit, Part I" and Pixar's "Brave." Early reports suggest that a CGI human --> bear transformation is supposed to be a major scene at the end of the first "Hobbit" movie.

[Terastas]

I don't know if this qualifies as "sophisticated", but I always felt that werewolves would make excellent criminals. Any enhanced traits they have (they are too varied to name) could be used to further their own less-than-legal goals.

It would make sense for werewolves etc. to wind up on the wrong side of the law, even if they weren't very well-suited to the trade. Werewolves aren't supposed to be letting anyone know that they are even there at all, so it would make sense for them to have the same survival strategies as, and eventually cross paths with, any other people who don't want anyone to know they are even there at all.

What about using a variant version of the trope? For example, mythology regarding werebears seems to be at least as old as werewolves, but werebears have seldom been used in movies and books. However, there are supposed to be at least two major films in 2012 featuring werebear characters: "The Hobbit, Part I" and Pixar's "Brave." Early reports suggest that a CGI human --> bear transformation is supposed to be a major scene at the end of the first "Hobbit" movie.

Eh, it depends on how the "variant of the trope" is implemented. I trust Peter Jackson will come up with something decent, but most variants like the ones you're describing come in the form of stereotypical B-horror werewolf movies ". . .but with [insert species here]s!"
I honestly don't remember when the last time was that I saw a variant. . . That wasn't on the SyFy channel.

[Louve_Lillith]

There is actually a fairly good novel that explores this. The novel "Lonely Werewolf Girl" actually has a ruling caste of Werewolves, ( as well as a billion other creatures, blissfully no vamps though! ) that are united under the Thane or clan lord. They are fairly raucous group but you have amongst them a fashion designer, a dandy, two royal princesses, and the Thane's daughter Alix who is the title character who is very unstable. Overall I feel that the "werewolf as courtier" is not impossible. Another great example is the Murphy's Lore Series novel "Shadow of the Wolf" with your average Joe wolf, one that is a covert operative, and one that shared a seat with Arthur and his men at the round table.

[Joey Liverwurst]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've started to post to this thread. I've never done anything with it, but I've long had this idea of a wealthy werewolf family piling into a Range Rover and going hunting together, all very proper except while attacking whatever animal. L.L. Bean all the way, only werewolves.

[Celestialwolf]

I wish I had a nickel for every time I've started to post to this thread. I've never done anything with it, but I've long had this idea of a wealthy werewolf family piling into a Range Rover and going hunting together, all very proper except while attacking whatever animal. L.L. Bean all the way, only werewolves.

Joey, have I ever told you that you're the most ace werewolf ever? Best thread comment yet!

[Joey Liverwurst]

Joey, have I ever told you that you're the most ace werewolf ever? Best thread comment yet!

Aw, shucks. There ought to be a blushing werewolf emoticon.

[ladygrail]

I think families are all changing dynamics all the time. Thus werewolves could easily be sophisticated especially if the person who is bitten is an aristocrate or high brow person. Some could be bottom dwellers others could be basic middle class it all depends on the pack and the individual. Every person is different and so will every werewolf.

[Grayheart]

Joey, have I ever told you that you're the most ace werewolf ever? Best thread comment yet!

Aw, shucks. There ought to be a blushing werewolf emoticon.

Well, take this one ->

[Joey Liverwurst]

Well, take this one ->

Thanks! Looks sophisticated, too.