This has been on my mind for about ten years, but I've never quite directly said it.
Almost every bestselling fantasy novel is heavily based on playing tropes straight, and most even contain loads of what many consider to be cliches.
There are a lot of novels out there that do not rely heavily on the tired old tropes and cliches. I can't think of any on the bestseller lists.
If that's the case, why are we advising writers to avoid cliches, and generally speaking dismissively of tropes that are used often?
Sure, we might be tired of farmboys-destined-to-save-the-world, ancient prophecies, long journeys, and obvious Lord of the Rings ripoffs. As writers, we might recognize that Robert Jordan kinda takes a while to say anything, and that the kid who wrote Eragon fit every single stereotype of the stubborn novice writer. We might be tired of vampires, especially sparkly vampires, and we might be tired of glowing swords and orbs and wise old wizards. We might think that R.A. Salvatore puts too many fights in his books, and they take too long.
But readers don't. Readers buy these books and make the authors successful beyond what most of us will ever achieve.
I'm absolutely not saying that we should write books we hate, about cliches we're tired of, because that will never work. We can't write about something we have no interest in and still write well.
But when someone else is eagerly starting a story with all the tired old cliches and tropes, should we really tell them it's a newbie mistake? Because, liking those cliches actually seems like an advantage, if anything.
See, my style of fantasy is outside the mainstream, and I consider that to be at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage. But even then, I still have some old tropes and maybe cliches.
I've been trying to write them out of the story. I stripped out the long-lost heir whose father is a Darth Vader equivalent (though I think she's nothing like Luke Skywalker). I got rid of the "wise old wizard" (though he's full of crap, anyway.) I feel guilty when I find myself writing a fight scene with exploding magical blasts and signature moves (even though they worked so well for Salvatore.)
All of these weren't attempts to emulate others, but my natural writing style. But I took it out, because for ten years (long before I came here, before I wanted to be a novelist), I listened to gamers whine about how much they hated Salvatore, and Jordan, and Meyer, and sometimes even Rowling, and Koontz, and Stephen King. But maybe they're a tiny minority, and listening to their complaints is actually bad for any possible career I have as a writer.
Heck, that's why I took so long to decide to try writing. I thought that there was something dirty about wanting to write a book I'd like to read, because what I like to read is pretty much a pattern of cool explosions alternating with melodramatic dialogue or angsty soul-searching.
I want to be a good writer. I want to get published. I don't want to be rejected by agents and publishers for writing crap.
But do they really reject people for writing trope- and even cliche-based works? Do they really do that if the writing is competent, and the story is coherent, and there's some interesting spark? Or is that just what jaded gamers and writers wish they would do?
This is not a rhetorical essay. I want to know. Is my storytelling automatically bad because I've got some worn-out tropes* and maybe some cliches in it, and do I need to learn another style if I ever want to be a real author?
Or will I have a decent shot at getting published even if I use cliches and tropes, and write the stories I want to read**, provided my basic writing and structure are good?
*Everyone says "tropes aren't inherently bad," but every thread about "things you hate in novels" is just a long list of tropes and people telling other writers not to use those elements anymore because they're done to death.
**People say "write what you want to write," but then talk about Golden Word Syndrome and other stubborn behavior. Obviously, 'write what you want to write" is not going to get you published if what you want to write is not what the publishers want to buy.
EDIT: And I'm not doing one of those whiny rhetorical rants. I'm repeating this, just so it can't be missed easily. I'm honestly wondering, because I take this seriously. I don't want to sabotage my potential career because I don't listen to advice, but I also don't want to sabotage it by listening to the wrong advice.
I've gotten the strong impression that the consensus seems to be "if it's already been done a lot, don't do it in your novel," but that doesn't actually seem to match what I see on bestseller lists. I'm just honestly confused.
Almost every bestselling fantasy novel is heavily based on playing tropes straight, and most even contain loads of what many consider to be cliches.
There are a lot of novels out there that do not rely heavily on the tired old tropes and cliches. I can't think of any on the bestseller lists.
If that's the case, why are we advising writers to avoid cliches, and generally speaking dismissively of tropes that are used often?
Sure, we might be tired of farmboys-destined-to-save-the-world, ancient prophecies, long journeys, and obvious Lord of the Rings ripoffs. As writers, we might recognize that Robert Jordan kinda takes a while to say anything, and that the kid who wrote Eragon fit every single stereotype of the stubborn novice writer. We might be tired of vampires, especially sparkly vampires, and we might be tired of glowing swords and orbs and wise old wizards. We might think that R.A. Salvatore puts too many fights in his books, and they take too long.
But readers don't. Readers buy these books and make the authors successful beyond what most of us will ever achieve.
I'm absolutely not saying that we should write books we hate, about cliches we're tired of, because that will never work. We can't write about something we have no interest in and still write well.
But when someone else is eagerly starting a story with all the tired old cliches and tropes, should we really tell them it's a newbie mistake? Because, liking those cliches actually seems like an advantage, if anything.
See, my style of fantasy is outside the mainstream, and I consider that to be at least as much of a disadvantage as an advantage. But even then, I still have some old tropes and maybe cliches.
I've been trying to write them out of the story. I stripped out the long-lost heir whose father is a Darth Vader equivalent (though I think she's nothing like Luke Skywalker). I got rid of the "wise old wizard" (though he's full of crap, anyway.) I feel guilty when I find myself writing a fight scene with exploding magical blasts and signature moves (even though they worked so well for Salvatore.)
All of these weren't attempts to emulate others, but my natural writing style. But I took it out, because for ten years (long before I came here, before I wanted to be a novelist), I listened to gamers whine about how much they hated Salvatore, and Jordan, and Meyer, and sometimes even Rowling, and Koontz, and Stephen King. But maybe they're a tiny minority, and listening to their complaints is actually bad for any possible career I have as a writer.
Heck, that's why I took so long to decide to try writing. I thought that there was something dirty about wanting to write a book I'd like to read, because what I like to read is pretty much a pattern of cool explosions alternating with melodramatic dialogue or angsty soul-searching.
I want to be a good writer. I want to get published. I don't want to be rejected by agents and publishers for writing crap.
But do they really reject people for writing trope- and even cliche-based works? Do they really do that if the writing is competent, and the story is coherent, and there's some interesting spark? Or is that just what jaded gamers and writers wish they would do?
This is not a rhetorical essay. I want to know. Is my storytelling automatically bad because I've got some worn-out tropes* and maybe some cliches in it, and do I need to learn another style if I ever want to be a real author?
Or will I have a decent shot at getting published even if I use cliches and tropes, and write the stories I want to read**, provided my basic writing and structure are good?
*Everyone says "tropes aren't inherently bad," but every thread about "things you hate in novels" is just a long list of tropes and people telling other writers not to use those elements anymore because they're done to death.
**People say "write what you want to write," but then talk about Golden Word Syndrome and other stubborn behavior. Obviously, 'write what you want to write" is not going to get you published if what you want to write is not what the publishers want to buy.
EDIT: And I'm not doing one of those whiny rhetorical rants. I'm repeating this, just so it can't be missed easily. I'm honestly wondering, because I take this seriously. I don't want to sabotage my potential career because I don't listen to advice, but I also don't want to sabotage it by listening to the wrong advice.
I've gotten the strong impression that the consensus seems to be "if it's already been done a lot, don't do it in your novel," but that doesn't actually seem to match what I see on bestseller lists. I'm just honestly confused.
Last edited:
