Why shouldn't we use worn-out tropes and cliches?

[Mara]

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.

[AMCrenshaw]

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?

If they think it will sell? No. In my opinion, they accept what they think will sell, ultimately.


AMC

[Mara]

Originally Posted by AMCrenshaw

If they think it will sell? No. In my opinion, they accept what they think will sell, ultimately.


AMC

But is the prevailing theory among publishers closer to A or B?

A) Tropes don't usually sell, so I'm not reading past the first few sentences. Form rejection.

B) Tropes are great for sales, so I'll give this a chance.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by Mara

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.)

I think perhaps there's a misunderstanding, frankly.

There are large patterns of story. They are sort of birds-eye-view maps.

They are in some ways embedded in our shared heritage as humans. Many of them are closely tied to language and culture; here's one example:

The sister's son in Indo-European myth.

You know that your sister's son is your relative, usually. But what happens if your sister's son is also YOUR son (King Arthur)?

What happens if your sister is your half-sister?

You might look at the concept of folklore motifs, in a broad sense, and, more specifically, look at (though I don't like Campbell) Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell, and, Northrup Frye on Anatomy of Criticism.

Please take both these books with a pound of so of salt.

And if your head isn't melted, go find a copy of Brinley Rees and Alwyn Rees. Celtic Heritage: Ancient Tradition in Ireland and Wales. It applied the idea of patterns in Indo-European cultures in Celtic stories; it's got lots of stories in it.

There's also a good book that's a quick overview of comparative mythology, in Indo-European terms, relating Greek, Roman, Celtic, Hindu and Persian stories to sort of an ur-heritage of story/myth; Jaan Puhvel Comparative Mythology. This ought to be dead easy to find used.

[Pied_Piper]

This is a great topic Mara. I have had the same thoughts you had for a while now. I have seen so many bestsellers filled with cliches, that I was wondering if the old adage of using them might put the reader off. I agree to a large extent to that adage but I also feel adding a few to a novel would actually be an asset. The number of cliches great increase with time and I have inadvertently written cliches without even knowing they were cliches in the first place! I think anything overused can be tiresome (like jokes!). I have to agree with AMCrenshaw though. It all depends on numbers. If the publishers think a book will sell regardless of how badly it is written; then it will sell. It helps if you have a great novel though. My 2 cents!

[Polenth]

If a writer decides to throw out a dragon story because someone told them dragons were so yesterday... they probably weren't that keen on writing a dragon story anyway.

The big issue is putting your own spin on it. For a novel, that spin can be relatively small. For a short story, it better be the spinniest spin you've got. Often what we're trying to say is the spin isn't big enough or it's not working.

[knight_tour]

I agree that there is a big difference in what writers are saying and what the book-buying audience wants. What I see are lots of writers saying they dislike seeing any more Tolkien rip-offs, when from my point of view there haven't really been many decent ones. We had Terry Brooks and Dennis McKiernan do decent imitations, but who else? Sure, there's lots of terrible stuff, but you don't need to read them. I look at the back cover and toss them back on the shelf. I think these writers are completely underestimating the number of people who love what they read in Tolkien and hunger for more, and NO ONE is providing what they want. The sad thing is, though, I think if a writer did a very good job of writing for this audience, I think no agent would be foresighted enough to take it on.

[eyeblink]

Also consider that the best-selling examples you cite are not written DOWN to their readers - they are written AT them and UP TO them. You may or may not be that target reader of course.

Talking down to your readers is fatal - and a lack of conviction is usually obvious. Once you start thinking that readers only want the same-old same old so why try to be original, then you're on that path already.

Originality isn't always a matter of plot (there are a limited number of those anyway) or of writing style, it can also be a matter of a slant or angle. This is one reason why wide reading is essential, and not just in your chosen genre - by reading outside, you can pick up ideas and inspiration which can give your work freshness. If you only read your genre, then eventually all you'll produce are generic cliches.

[SPMiller]

I don't understand where you got confused. Perhaps you think vampires and dragons are "worn out". News flash: they aren't. Also, relatively few novels use cliches the way you're thinking. Sparkly vampires, for example, are stupid, but they're certainly not cliched.

[Wiskel]

I read book reviews. Over the years I've bought books based on reviews of a couple of hundred words, or even just the back cover because:

I've liked the description of the story.
I've liked the sound of one or more of the the good guys.
I've liked the sound of the villain.
I've liked the description of the world.
I've liked something quirky about the book.
I've liked the humour of a book.

Somewhere along the way, the author has to hook me with an idea or a character that interests me enough to want to know how the story turns out.

I don't care if there are some cliches in the book, but I won't be hooked by a cliche. There is nothing that should be off limits, but to get me to pick up a book it needs something interesting to hook me.

So, a story about a farm boy who saves a typical fantasy world from a powerful dragon by finding a mcguffin that happens to be the dragon's weakness won't hook me....if that's all the book has got.

I think it's fine to give me some cliches just so long as you give me something else too, just like it's fine to serve me bread and water in a restaurant so long as the bread comes with some decent soup and they haven't run out of wine.

Craig

[Rhys Cordelle]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Sparkly vampires, for example, are stupid, but they're certainly not cliched.

Bloody hell, I hope they don't become a cliche.

[Sevvy]

I think one reason you can have multiple books on the bookshelf with similar tropes and cliches because not everyone reads every book. There are the voracious readers (and writers usually fall into this category) that are getting tired of seeing the same damn thing over and over...but they've also read a lot. When you've read half the sci-fi/fantasy section, it gets old.

But if you're someone who reads less than that, what is considered a cliche to those more experienced in that genre is still fresh and new to you. Elves don't seem old if this is the first book with elves in it you're reading.

I don't think that accounts for all of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the same-old still selling.

[Capital]

Excellent topic.

Here is my simple take on it.

All style/spins aside, consider this:

There will be a thousand Twilights in every agent's mailbox on any given morning.
One of them is yours.
One of them will go on to become a bestseller.
999 of them will go on to the trash can.

Can you write with certainty that yours will be the one to become the bestseller?

If so, by all means.

----

Secondly, ask yourself a question.
Who reads Twilight and Eragon? Who listens to Backstreet Boys and Britney?
Is this the kind of audience you are seeking to cater to?

Don't make an elitist out of me for saying this. There is nothing wrong with writing for this sort of audience. As long as you, yourself want and like to do it, rather than do it because it theoretically has more cash potential.

Originally Posted by Sevvy

I think one reason you can have multiple books on the bookshelf with similar tropes and cliches because not everyone reads every book. There are the voracious readers (and writers usually fall into this category) that are getting tired of seeing the same damn thing over and over...but they've also read a lot. When you've read half the sci-fi/fantasy section, it gets old.

But if you're someone who reads less than that, what is considered a cliche to those more experienced in that genre is still fresh and new to you. Elves don't seem old if this is the first book with elves in it you're reading.

I don't think that accounts for all of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the same-old still selling.

You're right of course. The main question though is how this affects what you do with your story as a writer.

[knight_tour]

Originally Posted by Sevvy

I think one reason you can have multiple books on the bookshelf with similar tropes and cliches because not everyone reads every book. There are the voracious readers (and writers usually fall into this category) that are getting tired of seeing the same damn thing over and over...but they've also read a lot. When you've read half the sci-fi/fantasy section, it gets old.

But if you're someone who reads less than that, what is considered a cliche to those more experienced in that genre is still fresh and new to you. Elves don't seem old if this is the first book with elves in it you're reading.

I don't think that accounts for all of it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it had something to do with the same-old still selling.

I disagree and think it is just a matter of taste. I read voraciously and still search for someone (anyone, please!) who can try to do fantasy well following the Tolkien baseline. I just never really find it.

[Sevvy]

Originally Posted by knight_tour

I disagree and think it is just a matter of taste. I read voraciously and still search for someone (anyone, please!) who can try to do fantasy well following the Tolkien baseline. I just never really find it.

I think taste is part of it too. I would love to read the spiritual successor to LOTR, but so far I haven't found it. And I don't think I will by looking for books that have something like "In the style of Tolkein" as a back cover blurb either.

[Straka]

I heard some somewhere that one trick Rowling used was she found a "new bottle for old wine." Take old tropes and motifs and package them into something new.

Perhaps there is a balance, too many tropes / cliches will make your story feel crunchy, but having a few in there will give the reader enough familiarity to keep reading. Then you through in a few new twists towards the end to surprise them.

[bearilou]

Originally Posted by Mara

If that's the case, why are we advising writers to avoid cliches, and generally speaking dismissively of tropes that are used often?

What I find amusing is hearing writers talk about 'turning a cliche or trope on its head' and when they discuss how they are doing it...it still sounds much like another cliche or trope I've read dozens of times before.

The difference is the books that grab my attention have, like Wiskel said, has hooked my imagination in some way. Characters, worldbuilding, prose...something.

After that, I'll take all the cliches you throw at me.

[Capital]

Originally Posted by bearilou

What I find amusing is hearing writers talk about 'turning a cliche or trope on its head' and when they discuss how they are doing it...it still sounds much like another cliche or trope I've read dozens of times before.

Agreed. New spins are overrated. Give me old spins with good writing, fun characters, and story I will care about.

[Mara]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. They're very helpful.

I really have seen lots of people actually say things like "dragons are worn out," "there shouldn't be any more novels with vampires because nobody will buy them after another year or two when Twilight gets old," "never use elves," and stuff like that. I've even seen them on these forums in some places.

On the other hand, the replies here mostly say the opposite, and they're very rational, so I think they're what I'm going to believe. Maybe I just misunderstood the opposite posts I've read that complain about "cliches" (usually just tropes), or overestimated their number because I'm sensitive about my own writing.

Well, now that I've cleared that up in my head, I guess I'm going back to actually getting some work done.

Anyway, thank you again, everyone.

[Hittman]

I recently discovered TVtroupes.com from a post here, have spent hours on it, and will spend many more, I'm sure. I've had lots of Ah Ha moments there, recognizing a trope for the first time and immediately being able to think of a half dozen examples.

Is it even possible to write something that is trope free?

Is there any particular series you like? Isn't it full of tropes? The same ones, over and over?

I like Rotten Tomatoes for movie reviews, but am very cautious of plunking down my money for any move with a rating of 90% or more, unless it's a Pixar movie. Critics, who watch a dozen movies a week, often give high praise to movies for sheer novelty, i.e. the lack of tropes, and a lot of movies they love are dull, artsy crap.

As writers, we're a lot more critical of these things than our readers are. They don't notice tropes, or even know what they are. They want an entertaining read, something they're comfortable with.

My village has a huge arts and crafts festival every year, and they always have a booth in the middle for musicians. One year they hired two of my friends to play. On Saturday Steve, a guitar virtuoso who plays beautifully, with expression and feeling and technical expertise, played obscure Windom Hill type instrumentals all day. On Sunday a couple, who are very nice people with no real musical talent, played Beach Boys and Beatles and the like, poorly, all day. Their guitar playing was inept, their harmonies were discordant (close, but no cigar) and their choice of songs was uninspired.

I asked several crafters with nearby booths what they thought of the musicians. Their opinions were identical. They thought Steve was OK, but they loved The Couple who played stuff they knew.

[SPMiller]

Okay. Guys. Seriously. In general, tropes are not bad. All tvtropes is trying to do is point out recurring elements in fiction. The site itself warns against thinking of tropes as bad, because they aren't.

[IdiotsRUs]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Okay. Guys. Seriously. In general, tropes are not bad.

This

A cliche takes a trope ( a trend in fiction) and renders it a stereotype. Immortal elves and hard as nails dwarves are more tropes. Haughty, tree-loving elves, scottish, hard drinking dwarves are maybe cliches. Elves with a new slant - they like to kill trees for fun? - are not

[Capital]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Okay. Guys. Seriously. In general, tropes are not bad. All tvtropes is trying to do is point out recurring elements in fiction. The site itself warns against thinking of tropes as bad, because they aren't.

OP was talking about more obvious cliches and "tired" tropes.

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.

[Liosse de Velishaf]

I'm going to address the dragon example, since there was a great discussion over on NaNo about it. I love dragons. I think dragons are awesome. Over on NaNo, dragons that could shape-shift into human form were given praise as a clever new idea, and "totally awesome". If I read one more book where a dragon shapeshifts into a hot elf chick, I may kill myself. Have none of these people read Dragonlance? But that's just one form of dragon--which could theoretically be done well again, though not by the NaNoers--and I still like stories with dragons. I have plans to write at least three, and I've recently enjoyed Naomi Novik's spin, and am soon to test out Robin Hobbs'.

I find that individual components are not boring. "Dragon" is an individual component. Immortal shape-shiftng dragons who breathe fire (or something) are cliche. Naomi Novik had long-lived but mortal dragons that breathed fire/acid/wind, but they weren't cliche. She added and subtracted and the whole was pretty nice.

I'd say "even" elves could be done well, still.

Like other have said, it all depends on the execution. However, I'd expect a better execution of elves from someone who's read more than just Eragon, LOTR, and Dragonlance.

[Bookewyrme]

Originally Posted by SPMiller

Okay. Guys. Seriously. In general, tropes are not bad. All tvtropes is trying to do is point out recurring elements in fiction. The site itself warns against thinking of tropes as bad, because they aren't.

Tvtropes has actually inspired me to check out a book or a series on more than one occasion, based solely on their description of a particularly amusing trope which features in it. I don't always like the series, but sometimes I do.

Also, as a long-time and voracious reader, I find that books which are TOO original can sometimes put me off at first, just because I'm not comfortable. Of course, sometimes I overcome this and go on to love the book. But sometimes the "same old tired storyline" is what draws me in, and the unique voice of the writer and more importantly the great characters, keep me there.

A great example of this is David Eddings' Belgariad/Mallorean and Elenium/Tamuli cycles. These are for of the most tired, cliched, overly-used cycles with the same story-line in each of them. But I read them over and over and over and over because the characters which populate the storyline are engaging. Not unique in general outline, but their characteristics are quirky, fun, and above all multi-dimensional.

Another example - Mercedes Lackey and the 500 Kingdoms series she's started. These are all books based intentionally on the oldest cliches there are (Fairy tales!) but with twists in the characters, rather than the story itself to keep it interesting and engaging.

I can't claim to be any sort of expert writer (read: rank beginner) but I read, a lot, widely, and voraciously, and I observe and analyze what I like, and try to find more like it. I guess what I'm trying to say is, write the characters, and let the story unfold as it will. The characters are what the reader is going to fall in love with anyway, and want more of.

*deposits 2 cents*