Are classical tropes overdone?

[pmmg]

Just want to say, I thought all the answers above were all well thought out, and showed me people who are really tying to understand, and share, their approach to the craft. Makes me think I am in good company.

 

[pmmg]

3. Trying too hard to avoid them. I blame some of the baffling cinematic plot-contortionism I've been seeing come out of Hollywood on this. Tropes are "common story tools", and common tropes are mostly just beloved tools. There are a few that make me roll my eyes, sure, but the set of tropes I don't like are almost certainly a completely different set than the ones you don't.

Hmmm....I've been trying to think of an example of this, and I'm not sure I am coming up with any. Definitely many trying to take some and put a twist on it instead, like how about a farm-girl, or how about the prophecy is false, but....ones where I know there was an effort completely avoid one... Is that even possible without falling into another?

On further thought, maybe dragon-slayer, cause the hero in it sucked. Failed to kill the dragon, failed to rescue the princess, was played so the wizard could actually kill the dragon instead. But that was a long time ago. I dont think Trope was in anyone's vocabulary then. I'd have to see it again.

Maybe Disney's Muana, or Encanto... Yeah...maybe there are some.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Hmmm....I've been trying to think of an example of this, and I'm not sure I am coming up with any. Definitely many trying to take some and put a twist on it instead, like how about a farm-girl, or how about the prophecy is false, but....ones where I know there was an effort completely avoid one... Is that even possible without falling into another?

On further thought, maybe dragon-slayer, cause the hero in it sucked. Failed to kill the dragon, failed to rescue the princess, was played so the wizard could actually kill the dragon instead. But that was a long time ago. I dont think Trope was in anyone's vocabulary then. I'd have to see it again.

Maybe Disney's Muana, or Encanto... Yeah...maybe there are some.

Yeah, usually bad storytelling isn't purposeful, and I love a good twist just as much as the next guy, but lately there's been this feeling of finger-wagging pleasure taken on the part of the writers.
Usually the choices made render large parts of the previous story meaningless, and treat the concept of trope subversion like it was the plot all along.
"We're gonna make our main character actually meaningless and absent in the final battle, because everyone is expecting them to be important!"
Yeah, well, why have I been following them this whole time as the main character then?

 

[Incanus]

But you could subvert all of these to great effect with tropes sooooo.........hahahaha

I suppose I could, but for the most part I haven't. These tropes don't appear in my story, subverted or otherwise.

 

[Incanus]

I sometimes struggle with the more abstract things in writing, such as this topic.

How about elves in fantasy?

Tolkien's use of them was a subversion of the elf trope at the time. But since his work has gone on to (more or less) redefine fantasy ever since, his elves have become tropes.

So, if I include the older, diminutive elf, am I using an old trope, or am I subverting Tolkien's elves, which were a subversion themselves? This sort of thing gives me a headache.

In the end, if you've got an idea you like, and it fits well in your story, just do it! Old trope, new trope subverted trope, re-subverted trope, anti re-subverted trope--it may not matter all that much.

 

[Devor]

I've been ruminating on this for a few days, feeling like I had something to add but unsure how to pinpoint it. I'm not quite there yet, so forgive me if my response is a bit muddled.

There are a handful of big tropes which, when looked at in isolation, follow a pattern. First there's a big piece of work that does it well and wows everyone. Then there's some works which take it further, subvert it, or pair it with another trope that makes it feel fresh. Then there's a stretch where it's just "more," and it doesn't even try to do something fresh, but just tries to give the audience more of what they're already enjoying, even with little to add to it. And alongside all of those, for want of a better phrase, the trope will also be trending in the slushpile, getting featured heavily in a lot of poorly written stories. That last part is where all the eye rolls come from, and for a lot of people (and especially critics) there's a blurry line between "more" and "slush."

None of this makes a trope bad or obsolete. Stories have a lot going on besides just one trope. But, if it's me, and I'm using a big trope, I want to know which group I'm falling into. Am I going further with it? Twisting it? Blending it with a trope cocktail? Or just offering "more" of it? Because all of that is fine, but in a way those are all very different books. And I would need to find a way to set those expectations and make the right promises to my readers. - to set up the story in a way that hints and foreshadows and sets the right tone.

I did a series of articles for Mythicscribes called Trope Reboots on some of the big tropes: The Chosen One, who has to actually win hearts and be chosen by the people for the magic to work and grow. The Medieval City, suffering from depopulation, and other issues that were actually common in the Medieval times but rarely featured in stories. The Mentor, who has to hide some twisted secrets in order to manipulate the hero .... to save the world. I, for sure, believe that even the most well-trodden of tropes can still deliver a big "Wow!"

But, I still see so many stories which don't. There really is a lot of slush out of there. How do you get out of it? You've got to be impressive, to at least some readers, somewhere. If a big "cliche" trope is your answer, you need to nail it.

 

[skip.knox]

>But, I still see so many stories which don't.
Sure, but that doesn't relate to the trope, it relates to the fact that few stories are very good, and that even fewer are judged good by any one reader (your list would be different from mine). The fact that many stories aren't very good should be no impediment or even consideration in whether a new writer takes one on.

Here is in so much else, the best advice I've heard is: do nothing by accident. If I employ a trope, I should as the author know I'm doing it, why I'm doing it, and exactly how I'm doing it. Whether I do it well or not is more a matter of whether I am writing well throughout the story, regardless of the trope.

It's also worth stating that one reader's trope is another reader's novelty. It might be a trope to the reader who has seen a dozen other examples, or even simply has read a list of tropes. Another reader, though, maybe has never see it. Or rarely seen it. Or even just plain doesn't recognize it here in this particular story. And yet another reader might claim to spot a trope while I the author stoutly maintain it's no such thing.

This range of individual interpretation is still more reason for an author not to let the Trope Yea or Nay business deflect or derail them in the slightest.

 

[Orilindë]

OK, we'll start with some definitions.

A literary trope is, in its original meaning, the use of figurative language, via word, phrase or an image, for artistic effect such as using a figure of speech. Literary tropes have also come to mean commonly recurring or overused literary and rhetorical devices, motifs or clichés in creative works.

So the advice you got in that video seems to mean using a trope in its original meaning as a way of avoiding clichés in the form of common literary and rhetorical devices. In other words, write good prose in a story with a good plot, good pacing, good characterisation and good dialogue. Which is, to be honest, the key to getting picked up for publication.

So should you avoid all those commonly recurring or overused literary and rhetorical devices, motifs or clichés? No. You can write a story which is stuffed full of all these and still produce a good story. The proof of the pudding is David and Leigh Eddings bestselling series The Belgariad. However, as that series shows, you still need a decent plot, good pacing, good dialogue and and good characterisation.

Basically, learn to write well - and then practice your writing. Write, write, write.

Since I'm Swedish, I can't help but ask Mad Swede if it is possible to know if you've published any writing. I'm writing in English, so if you're Swedish and can do the same, it would be interesting to read your work. That is, if you're Swedish, I assume, based on your username.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

Well, I don't care what literary agents are tired of seeing, because I am not.
I love the classic high fantasy for example and some tropes that are usually used in them. Also I love some typical romantasy tropes.

I would argue that you recognize very well, who's book is a work out of passion, and which author just tried to copy well-known tropes to become popular.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I think there's a sweet spot for classic tropes. I've been thinking about this thread and trying to figure out why sometimes classic tropes are annoying and sometimes they're wonderful.

Obviously good writing makes a difference.

I think there's a tendency to try to hide a well used trope under a thin blanket, like a kid hiding by standing behind a floor lamp.
If you don't want to spend the time or energy to really come up with a new spin on the trope, that's fine, but EMBRACE it.
Use the fact that the reader is already familiar with the plot device and really showcase it.

When you combine a whole bunch of these classic tropes together, you get one of three things:
1. Something boring because it lacks passion.
2. Something comical or nauseating because it's too self-aware of its tropyness.
OR
3. When you combine a pile of classic tropes and a ton of passion and honest storytelling you hit a sweet spot. You could call it old-fashioned, campy, even (usually in cinema but I thing the term should apply to some paperbacks too) a sort of exploitation film-style adventure, when you're speaking the love language of a specific audience.

I think I really appreciate 3, even if it's not in my preferred genre.

 

[Queshire]

I'm not a big fan of high fantasy personally, but I will always prefer to put my own twist on Elves over coming up with a completely original race.

 

[LittleOwlbear]

I don't even think there needs any twist to elves or others, just write them as people first.
Imo characters seem like they are stereotypical for their race, if the race builds on a monolith and doesn't have individuals first and foremost.

 

[Mad Swede]

Since I'm Swedish, I can't help but ask Mad Swede if it is possible to know if you've published any writing. I'm writing in English, so if you're Swedish and can do the same, it would be interesting to read your work. That is, if you're Swedish, I assume, based on your username.

Yes, I am a published writer in Sweden and not with any of the sk hybridförlagen. No I'm not going to tell you my pen name or real name, I'll let you work that out yourself... I and my publisher are currently negotiating a publication deal with one of the English language publishers but as we're (still) not done negotiating I can't tell you who that is.

 

[pmmg]

You can read mine, but its not out yet...

And I am not Swedish.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I'm not published and I haven't finished it yet but you can't read mine either.
***darts face behind caped elbow, throws handful of all-purpose flour in the air and runs from room.

 

[pmmg]

^ Who was that?

 

[Finchbearer]

Why wasn’t it self raising flour?