But then I read this article on Springhole.net, a wonderful writing and roleplay resource that I often use or even just read for fun. And that's when I realized, "You know what? Holy crap, the author is right. There are too many dragons in fiction, and they are used too often to disguise a piss-poor plot."
The following text is taken from that article, and is being used according to the terms of use for Springhole.net. It is not the full article. If you want to read that, then please visit the above link. The text presented here is for discussion purposes only.
"I like dragons. Big dragons, little dragons, dragons with scales, dragons with feathers... I like 'em. Yet invariably, I end up hating almost every dragon story I come across.
Why is that?
Because writers see dragons as gimmicks, that's why.
It's like we live in a world where OMGDRAGONS are a substitute for a good story. [...] It's almost as if some of these authors are saying, 'Hey, ignore the fact that I can't write to save my life and look at this DRAGON! OOOOOOH!!!!!!!! DRAGON!!!!!!!' "
And sorry, say what you will, but the author of this piece has a very, very good point. One of the biggest criticisms of The Inheritance Cycle, the series about that kid named Eragon who has a dragon named Saphira he can ride on, is that it's little more than mixture of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but with dragons. I'd argue that the whole "dragon-rider with a telepathic connection to his dragon" is ripping off Dragonriders of Pern as well, but to be honest I really didn't care that much for that series and found its basic plot just as odd. Seriously, the entire base plot of the Pern universe is, "Alien dragons and their riders fight deadly cosmic mold". I'm dead serious. Dead. Fucking. Serious.
You want an example of a good way to use dragons in fiction, one that actually doesn't detract from the plot that much? Try the dragons in Harry Potter. No, they're not able to converse with humans and it's implied that they're really not that bright. But at least the dragons in that universe are consistant, they could be removed without affecting the plot too much, and they aren't there just to be cool. As I have said before, the moment you do something in a story just because it's cool (instead of because it has a reason to be there), the moment the story falls flat. Accordingly, the only times that dragons ever become relevant in Harry Potter is during the Wizard's Cup in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (they were there as part of the competition) and during the escape on that albino dragon from Gringott's in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. That's it. Those are the only two times J. K. Rowling uses dragons in her most well-known opus, and even then she never had to use them. She could have removed dragons from the equation entirely and written those scenes differently if she wanted, and the story overall would not have changed.
Another example of how a dragon character is used for a good reason is with Smaug in The Hobbit. Smaug is this greedy, bloodthirsty monster that actively killed a bunch of dwarves to get their treasure. Smaug later goes and kill a bunch of villagers, as a result of Bilbo, this cute little hobbit with only a dagger (a sword to him) and a ring of invisibility for protection, sneaking into Smaug's horde. Now, I'm heavily paraphrasing the plot since I haven't read The Hobbit in years, but Tolkein could have used another monster besides a dragon for Smaug. The reason he didn't is because using a dragon made the most sense for his story (a fantasy story for children), and that's why we have a dragon named Smaug instead of, I dunno, a Chimera named Smaug or whatever.
The big difference between both The Hobbit and Harry Potter versus The Inheritance Cycle and Dragonriders of Pern is that neither of the former stories are exclusively about dragons and neither need dragons as integral parts of the story; they just happen to have characters in them that are dragons or plots that involve dragons in some way. The latter stories, however, would not function nearly as well or be as memorable if they didn't have dragons. If you cut the dragons out of The Inheritance Cycle, you're left with a basic, played-over fantasy story about a ragtag group of adventurers that Tolkein already did much better, and if you cut the dragons out of Dragonriders of Pern, you're left with a basic, played-over sci-fi story about humans surviving on an alien planet that numerous Sci-Fi authors have already done much better numerous times.
So what does this mean, ultimately, for your dragon story, aspiring writer? Basically, it means that you are thinking about why you want the characters in it to be dragons. Why is that character a dragon? Could they work as any other species, or are you using the fact that they're a dragon as an excuse to add something cool? Does the dragon serve a purpose, or does the whole plot hinge around the dragon... or is the dragon just there because dragons? The story's plot and the characters themselves are always far more important than what the characters look like or what species said characters happen to be. Or, as Springhole.net's article puts it:
"Don't write a story about a dragon. Write a story that happens to have a dragon in it. This doesn't mean reduce your dragon characters to fire-breathing MacGuffins, but instead try to write a basic plot that would stand up even if there were no dragons involved. [...] The plots of Doctor Who don't rely on the fact that the Doctor is an alien with superhuman powers to entertain you. [...] Likewise, the plots of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic would still be entertaining even if the characters weren't ponies (and a dragon). The fact that the series [...] relies on good characterization and storytelling to entertain is the reason the show has such a wide audience. But Eragon, Dragonheart, etc... take the dragons out, and all you've got are some very cliched fantasy stories. And that's why most stories about dragons suck."
I couldn't agree more, Springhole.net. I couldn't agree more.