# Trope Avoidance



## Incanus

Are you eschewing any of the well known fantasy tropes?  If so, which ones?

For myself, though I’m writing what might be termed ‘classic fantasy’, I’m steering clear of a number of them, such as:

Dragons
Elves/dwarves/goblins/orcs etc.
Pure evil dark lord types/Devil/Satan
POV kings/queens/princes/princesses/or other powerful political figures (such characters may show up, or have an impact on a story, but they won’t be POV characters)
Grey-bearded wizards in mystical robes holding staves or wands.


----------



## WooHooMan

Come on, that's silly.  No story follows every convention to the letter.  It'd be easier to list "tropes you like to use".

I guess as far as conventions (that I know of) that I'm going out of my way to avoid or subvert...

A setting based on Europe, Japan or China
Monarchies
Constructed languages
An accurate map of the whole setting
Orcs as savage monsters
Elves as an advance civilization
Deities/gods/demons/spirits actively participating in mortal affairs
MacGuffins or any specific mystical object that is super important to the plot
Magic as a practice that can be learned and follows a system
Magic-users who _aren't_ bearded wizards in mystical robes holding staffs or wands

That's all off the top of my head.  This is all from my most by-the-numbers fantasy story.


----------



## Caged Maiden

How can you POSSIBLY call grey-bearded wizards with pointy hats and staves trope?  (tongue in cheek)

I've noticed in the past few years how very cliche my early writing is.  It's embarrassing, actually.  I've got it all...kids who suck at magic in magic school, dragons on piles of gold, elves who are clones of Orlando Bloom Legolas, dwarves returning to a homeland under a mountain, OMG, it just goes on and on.  Looking at the Clichea World map, I'm sort of rethinking my world, too!  Who knew a "scar" was cliche?  What's that from?  I've never seen that in a book...but I have one and now i need to rethink that since it appeared on the Clichea map.  HAHA Guess I'm doomed!


----------



## BWFoster78

I was thinking of trying to avoid using the trope of using letters to form words, and then words to form sentences, and then sentences to form paragraphs.  I want something truly original.


----------



## Reaver

Why bother writing at all? Even non-fiction books contain tropes.


----------



## Ireth

BWFoster78 said:


> I was thinking of trying to avoid using the trope of using letters to form words, and then words to form sentences, and then sentences to form paragraphs.  I want something truly original.



How about numbers?


----------



## BWFoster78

Ireth said:


> How about numbers?



Good point!


----------



## ascanius

BWFoster78 said:


> I was thinking of trying to avoid using the trope of using letters to form words, and then words to form sentences, and then sentences to form paragraphs.  I want something truly original.



You mean modern art?

I don't really have a problem with using tropes.  I stopped trying to be completely original after slogging through TV tropes and realizing that creating something truly unique is more work than what it is worth.


----------



## Reaver

Ireth said:


> How about numbers?



Yes!!! I'm going to be the first to write a story in binary code:

01001111 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01110101 01110000 01101111 01101110 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101...


That translates to once upon a time. Hmm... this may take a while.


----------



## BWFoster78

Here's a cool idea: tell a story using only emoticons.  Sounds like a good challenge.


----------



## Incanus

Well, I'm not at all suggesting that we don't use ANY tropes.  I was just wondering if there were a few here and there that some of you were shying away from.  My list was hardly comprehensive.  I'm absolutely using some very recognizable tropes--Medieval setting, traveling/journeys, important props (macguffins), a 'magic' system (of sorts).

Also, I'll read books that use any and all of the tropes that I'm not using myself.  The kind of world-originality I'm going for might be comparable to something like The Land of the Thomas Covenant books.  The way I see it, that world has a blend of the recognizable and the original.

Oh, yeah, thought of two more I'm not likely to use:

Save the whole world plots
Prophecy


----------



## WooHooMan

I didn't expect this thread to go in this direction...but I like that it did.


----------



## Incanus

I'm not sure how asking this question equates to saying that tropes are bad, or that some stories use nothing but tropes.  I've said no such thing, or implied it in the least.  Nowhere did I say that we all need to be 100% original.  Because that would be silly.  I just can't see these things in such extreme, black/white terms.

I was just a little curious, that's all.


----------



## BWFoster78

Incanus said:


> I'm not sure how asking this question equates to saying that tropes are bad, or that some stories use nothing but tropes.  I've said no such thing, or implied it in the least.  Nowhere did I say that we all need to be 100% original.  Because that would be silly.  I just can't see these things in such extreme, black/white terms.
> 
> I was just a little curious, that's all.



Incanus,

It's my fault as I got the ball rolling in that direction.  Mainly I was just trying to be funny...

My personal tastes are that I'd rather read a well-written, good story about characters with not an original thought otherwise than the most original piece ever that wasn't well-written or a good story.


----------



## fantastic

In my opinion, in somewhat serious stories, you should avoid tropes of character not being logical or making stupid decisions just for the writing to be convenient. Avoid too convenient situations or something happening just because it is cool even though it doesn't make sense. People are still people in most stories, even if there are differences in other things.


----------



## Tom

That trope's called the Idiot Plot, in that it only works because the characters are idiots. And I hate it.


----------



## Gryphos

I don't think its too much to ask for a story to be well written and original. I value both of those qualities separately, but am overjoyed when I see them together.

That's why in my writing I actively try to avoid the more cliche and overused tropes, such as 'the chosen one', and often I do try to steer clear of medieval western-esque settings.

Obviously nothing can ever be 100% original, but that doesn't mean you can't at least try and be different.


----------



## Tom

Hmmm...for now I'm trying to subvert tropes or give them a new twist, not outright avoid them. Sometimes they're useful, and there's no need to fear using some of them. They're just narrative devices. That being said, relying to much on tropes creates books that lack original ideas and creativity. All in all I think it's a matter of balance--"Everything in moderation", as the Greeks said. 

Some tropes I've been avoiding in particular are as follows:

Chosen One/prophesied savior of the realm
Old wizard mentor
Magical object quest
Evil Dark Lord
Elves, dwarves, orcs, and other stereotypical fantasy races
Female characters rebelling against The Evil Patriarchy (my societies lean toward gender-equal or matriarchal)
Medieval Feudalism
Medieval settings in general


...And a lot more I can't think of right now.


----------



## Incanus

BWFoster78 said:


> Incanus,
> 
> It's my fault as I got the ball rolling in that direction.  Mainly I was just trying to be funny...
> 
> My personal tastes are that I'd rather read a well-written, good story about characters with not an original thought otherwise than the most original piece ever that wasn't well-written or a good story.



No problem.  By all means have fun!  That's the last thing I'd want to quash.

I think it goes without saying that all our priorities are not going to match up perfectly.  And that was the point of this thread.  For me to really love a story, it must be well-written (a subjective item all on its own), and have something going on in the intellectual department.  Strong characterizations are great, of course, but there are a few writers I love that aren't particularly great at this.  HP Lovecraft comes to mind (I'm guessing you don't care for him).  I can't help loving what I love, any more than I can alter my personality.


----------



## cupiscent

Whenever I tell someone I write fantasy - especially when I tell someone who doesn't read it - I specify, "I'm more about politics and humanity in conflict than swinging swords at dragons." This has become a little easier to communicate since Game of Thrones became a thing, I must admit. Before that it was all, "Oh, like Lord of the Rings?" and it's difficult to explain that my work is almost completely different, while still being the same genre. If I work with a lot of the standard fantasy tropes - prophecy, evil overlords, fantastical races, dragons - I'm probably going to be working hard to subvert expectations somehow.


----------



## ThinkerX

> How about numbers?



THAT was my mind numbing non fiction science project which occupied me from mid November last year to early March of this year.  

That said, the settings, races, types of government and whatnot don't matter.  What does matter is the story telling.  

The core of my principle world comes from half a dozen old AD&D 'Historical Earth' handbooks respectively dealing with ancient Rome, even more ancient Greece, Celtic Europe, Charlemagne's Europe, Viking Europe, Crusader Middle East, and a few other like sources - about as generic or troupe as you can get.  I took those and mashed them together and added some themes I wanted to explore - social change, moral dilemma's, technological compatibility with magic, and Lovecraftian abominations to name the main ones.

I also kept a lot of things dirt simple.  Doing so helps avoid confusion on the part of the reader.  A large portion of the map marked 'Raslantar' doesn't say much to the reader.  Labeling that same region 'Unknown Southern Plains,' says quite a bit.


----------



## DeathtoTrite

Sometimes I feel like "trope avoidance" becomes a negative force in writing, particularly when a writer says "I need to avoid dark lord, since that's bad." I don't think, even a trope played fairly straight, is a bad thing-- the issue arises when a trope replaces your own genuine content and creativity. Calling someone the dark lord, and then stopping there would be an example. Creating a dark lord, with their own background, motivation, etc. would be a way that you play the trope straight while still engaging the reader.


----------



## skip.knox

I don't believe in tropes. IMO, that word really means "bad writing".

I do try to avoid bad writing. But everything that is identified as a "trope" (in places such as TV Tropes) has been done *well* by some author or other. 

I really do think "trope" is a word used by people, wittingly or unwittingly, as a synonym for crappy writing. As such, it's not a terribly useful word.

I therefore declare I shall avoid the trope of trope.


----------



## Feo Takahari

skip.knox said:


> I don't believe in tropes. IMO, that word really means "bad writing".
> 
> I do try to avoid bad writing. But everything that is identified as a "trope" (in places such as TV Tropes) has been done *well* by some author or other.
> 
> I really do think "trope" is a word used by people, wittingly or unwittingly, as a synonym for crappy writing. As such, it's not a terribly useful word.
> 
> I therefore declare I shall avoid the trope of trope.



You're laying it on a little thick. For instance, it's relatively complicated to say "It's a device that allows the user to move backwards through the fourth dimension and arrive at an earlier period in history," and relatively simple to say "It's a time machine" and count on audiences to be familiar with that trope.


----------



## WooHooMan

Feo Takahari said:


> You're laying it on a little thick. For instance, it's relatively complicated to say "It's a device that allows the user to move backwards through the fourth dimension and arrive at an earlier period in history," and relatively simple to say "It's a time machine" and count on audiences to be familiar with that trope.



I think skip.know is saying that they're avoiding using the word "trope" to mean bad writing.  Or they're going to start using trope to mean bad writing.  One or the other.

People have misused the word to the point where it doesn't mean what it's supposed to mean.  Like people think it's a synonym for cliche or convention.  Maybe in a decade, it will just be another way of saying "bad writing".  
I don't know, words are weird.


----------



## Miskatonic

Making the "good guys" perfect/flawless is one of the worst tropes you can use. Some artists put in character flaws that are really just used to create more sympathy. Bella Swan being a huge offender. Mary Sue on steroids.


----------



## TWErvin2

Honestly, I don't set out to avoid any tropes. I focus on telling an engaging, action-filled story with interesting characters, events and situations. 

I think writers sometimes get more hung up on tropes than readers. More than a few readers enjoy something familiar, over and over again. Yes, there are trends that become hot and those that become stale (to most readers...there is always at least niche of holdouts for anything).  I could point to formula romance novels. They sell very well, even though the readers know what's going to happen. Names and places change, but the path of events is largely predictable.

Focus on the story first, and if it contains a trope you despise...maybe come to 'un-despise' it. Take it and make it your own.

Take Stephen R. Donaldson's Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever books. Lord Foul, the ultimate evil power as the antagonist. But what I liked was that to so many people of the Land, he was something different, a different aspect. Even his names: Lord Foul, The Despiser, The Gray Slayer, Fangthane, Corruption. Those are all I remember off the top of my head.


----------



## Nagash

Miskatonic said:


> Making the "good guys" perfect/flawless is one of the worst tropes you can use. Some artists put in character flaws that are really just used to create more sympathy. Bella Swan being a huge offender. Mary Sue on steroids.



This has been so overused in storytelling as a whole, that it's more of a clichÃ© than a trope.

Trope isn't a negative word, as it was said previously.


----------



## Miskatonic

Nagash said:


> This has been so overused in storytelling as a whole, that it's more of a clichÃ© than a trope.
> 
> Trope isn't a negative word, as it was said previously.



I think Mary Sue has officially been classified as a trope. At least according to that massive tropes site.


----------



## Tom

Miskatonic said:


> Making the "good guys" perfect/flawless is one of the worst tropes you can use. Some artists put in character flaws that are really just used to create more sympathy. Bella Swan being a huge offender. Mary Sue on steroids.



THIS. My most hated fantasy trope/cliche is the Mary Sue. When you make your protagonist the most powerful, beautiful, amazing, perfect Living Embodiment of Good Evah, there's not much room for character development. Especially if you exclude flaws or only give him/her superficial faux flaws that are only there to make him/her "relatable". 

Even the living embodiment of the Light Side of the Force (in Star Wars: Clone Wars) has flaws! She's arrogant, overconfident, and sort of standoffish. That's what makes her a living, breathing, three dimensional character instead of just the living embodiment of the Light Side of the Force. 

And don't get me started on Bella Swan. Could she be even more of a Sue? Her name literally means "Beautiful Swan"! 

Arrrgghh. I hate Twilight.


----------



## Manalodia

Here I was thinking that writing was going the other direction by writing more overly flawed characters or ambiguous morality. That at least seems to be the trend in what I've heard is on TV and seen in some movies. I can't remember the last time I've seen the perfect hero aside from expecting them in children's television, but even that has changed. I don't worry about tropes, I worry about coherent writing. H.P. Lovecraft was frustrated with the fact that humans can only write/describe what they are familiar with and tried his damnedest to break that mold. It's impossible to not write something we all can visualize or be familiar with because it comes from some aspect of our world or observation.


----------



## Incanus

I agree that the word 'trope' is rather ill-defined.  For purposes of discussion, I needed a short title to get the ball rolling.  I was--and still am--interested in which common fantasy elements people are using and not using, that's the main thing.

I certainly don't think there is any right or wrong answer, and I believe any one of these so-called overused 'tropes' can be employed effectively in the right hands.  I'll continue using the ones that aren't bothersome to me, and shun others that I find less useful for whatever reason.

Thanks to everyone for responding!


----------



## Snowpoint

As an Actor, a trope is "a thing you do"

Everything you do is a trope, or will become a trope when other people emulate your masterpiece. Just make each trope you use matter, and be interesting at the same time.


----------



## Mythopoet

I don't think tropes are something to avoid or subvert. They are something to have fun with. The the Jazz singer taking the basic chords of the music and riffing on them to create amazing improvised music.


----------



## WooHooMan

Incanus said:


> I agree that the word 'trope' is rather ill-defined.  For purposes of discussion, I needed a short title to get the ball rolling.  I was--and still am--interested in which common fantasy elements people are using and not using, that's the main thing.



I don't think there's a clear consensus as to what are the common fantasy elements.  I think most people just think "if Tolkien did it, it's a fantasy cliche" but that's not very, y'know, useful as a definition.  I like to belief that fantasy and its conventions extend pass Tolkien and his imitators.
What I'm saying is: a cliche is only a cliche when you call it a cliche.


----------



## glutton

Tom Nimenai said:


> And don't get me started on Bella Swan. *Could she be even more of a Sue?* Her name literally means "Beautiful Swan"!



She could if she could already beat the crap out of the bad vampires as a human and took on the role of a 'big sister' to the Cullens lol.


----------



## Manalodia

WooHooMan, I'd have to agree with you. Fantasy developed from folklore and mythology of cultures around the world; Tolkien used them effectively for his own story and the West clung to it. It really is personal preference in which ones work for a story-teller and how well they can craft it to become their own.


----------



## Miskatonic

Mythopoet said:


> I don't think tropes are something to avoid or subvert. They are something to have fun with. The the Jazz singer taking the basic chords of the music and riffing on them to create amazing improvised music.



It certainly makes little sense to take an extreme approach and try to avoid anything that resembles a trope/cliche because you think your work won't be origina. It is good to be aware of these tropes so you can improvise them as you've said, not just throw them in because you think that's what is supposed to be included in the genre you are writing.


----------



## WooHooMan

Tom Nimenai said:


> Arrrgghh. I hate Twilight.



Twilight hasn't been relevant in like three years.  The whole world has accepted that it was a horrible mistake.  If you don't bring it up, we can pretend it never happened.



Manalodia said:


> Here I was thinking that writing was going the other direction by writing more overly flawed characters or ambiguous morality. That at least seems to be the trend in what I've heard is on TV and seen in some movies. I can't remember the last time I've seen the perfect hero aside from expecting them in children's television, but even that has changed.



I should start a thread about this phenomena.  I think it's pretty interesting how humanist characters are the standard now rather than the exception.  For better or for worse.  You're not even likely to see cool simplistic characters like Indiana Jones or James Bond or any 80's action movie heroes anymore.

I feel like even bad writers - the kind who make Mary Sues - know that good characters are supposed to have some kind of flaws.  Like Bella was the last pure Mary Sue and now some new species of bad characters are going to emerge.

I don't know.  Tropes change over time.  That's what I'm getting at.


----------



## cupiscent

Mythopoet said:


> I don't think tropes are something to avoid or subvert. They are something to have fun with. The the Jazz singer taking the basic chords of the music and riffing on them to create amazing improvised music.



Yes, this! Just because something is a commonly identified trope doesn't mean it should never touch your work. It does mean you should be aware of the ways in which it commonly manifests and think about how it should manifest in your own work.


----------



## MapHatter

It's a dangerous thing to think of things as 'tropes', or 'clichÃ©s', since it forces you to limit your imagination. There are elements that appear throughout fantasy, to the point that they maybe come across as contrived, or unoriginal. 'The orphan' comes to mind, or 'the chosen one', or 'the magical sword.' These are done to death, but there's no reason you can't employ the same things in your own work if you can only find a way to handle it deftly, gracefully and with some element that makes it unique to you.

I've not read ASoIaF, but I've watched Game of Thrones. Jon Snow is all of the above; he is an orphan, he would appear to be 'the chosen one', and he is wielding a sword that appears to be uniquely capable of slaughering the White Walkers, (which to my mind classifies it as 'a magical sword.') I don't know how true to the books this is, but I'm assuming these elements in particular, remain largely accurate. (If not, my example falls apart, but there are others out there, to be considered). 

The point is, I suppose, don't limit yourself by thinking of anything as a trope or a clichÃ©. If something works within the context of your story, and you can make it unique to your story, then full steam ahead...


----------



## WooHooMan

MapHatter said:


> It's a dangerous thing to think of things as 'tropes', or 'clichÃ©s', since it forces you to limit your imagination. There are elements that appear throughout fantasy, to the point that they maybe come across as contrived, or unoriginal. 'The orphan' comes to mind, or 'the chosen one', or 'the magical sword.' These are done to death, but there's no reason you can't employ the same things in your own work if you can only find a way to handle it deftly, gracefully and with some element that makes it unique to you.



Ok, now here's the problem that I'm worried about: to some people, originality is sometimes treated as a very major factor of a work's quality.  These people may look at something like Game of Thrones or whatever and say "oh, an orphan chosen one with a magical sword?  Seen it!  Forget this story.  It's probably a rip-off of [insert heroic fantasy here]".  I mean, don't pretend like you haven't acted this way to some piece of fiction: dismissing it because it shares some superficial similarities to another work.
I think that's the real danger of tropes: dumb readers wanting to avoid them altogether.

Of course, that's if you care about what potential readers think.


----------



## MapHatter

There is plenty of fiction out there in which the originality does act as a mark of quality. I'm inclined to think of things like the Name of the Wind. It might not be the most original story in the world, but it's told in a suitably unique manner, in such a way that any tropes and clichÃ©s didn't even make themselves known to me. I was entranced from start to finish.

Then I think of books like Magician, and any of Raymond E. Feist's books over the last 5 years or so. They're so contrived, so sloppy, so predictable, that you can't help but notice every time a clichÃ© appears on the page.

If I was to read on the back of a book 'orphan chosen one finds a magical sword, slays evil villain, saves the world and the damsel in distress,' I would not only put the book down, I would find a way to hide it behind the shelves, or behind other books. But it's such a minor part of ASoIaF, one subplot amongst dozens and dozens of subplots. If it's not the focus of the story, if there's more to it, if the tropes and clichÃ©s are buried beneath original, creative thought, then there's no reason they can't serve the greater good.

Of course, in certain other genres, namely YA, tropes and cliches seem almost to have become a fundamental aspect of storytelling. Or so it would seem based on the blurps I read on Goodreads.


----------



## Miskatonic

A lot of us are telling a very similar story at times, as far as the main themes and types of fantasy elements we include, it's just a matter of writing a good story and doing something a little different with what we put into our tale. 

A whole lot of plots have been written over and over throughout the years, it's the talent of the storyteller that makes them interesting.


----------



## Nimue

Wow, I did not think this would be a devil's advocate kind of position, but can we also talk about why it might be a good idea to avoid cliches and overused tropes? I think we can all agree that cliches can be done well, and there's a hundred examples to prove it.  But I think cliches can be and often are relied upon too much, particularly by still-amateur writers like most of us are.

An author can expect tropes to do their work for them--take a look at the many book blurbs that go along the lines of Dragons! Quest for Shiny Thing! Big Evil! without a hint of character struggle or subtler conflict.  Or they might think they _have_ to include something, like powerful and complicated magic systems or political plots, because "that's what fantasy novels have" even though it's not their strong suit, and their lack of enthusiasm shows through.

Imitation can create wonderful offshoots, but I do think that we've all been in that place where we came into a story with a preconceived image of how it ought to go, without listening to the little voice of what you actually enjoy writing and what kind of a story you could really make your own--and maybe that doesn't involve a lot of battles or high magic or romantic sub-plots or gritty anti-heroes, or whatever it is you think good fantasy novels _have_ to have.  I know that when I first started writing, my stories suffered from Even I'm Starting to Hate my Special Chosen One and My Characters Are Wandering the Countryside Out of a Sense of Obligation, or whatever the corresponding tropes are.

Most of us right now have waded out of the Primordial Soup of Tropes and into the stories that we, particularly, want to tell, but chances are there are still some things we cling to that could be let go, for the benefit of our writing? I dunno.  Thing is, if someone told me that something in my writing was cliched, I would find that valuable. (If it was a valid point and this wasn't a person whose only insight on anything is to call it derivative of their favorite movie/show/franchise...ya know.). Because that tells me that element doesn't feel like it needs to be part of the world, that it hasn't been made unique, real, or fun enough, and the bones of the trope are showing through.  And any place that I've just stuck something familiar and said "Good enough." is bound to be a weak spot in the story.


----------



## Mythopoet

The thing is that avoiding tropes or subverting tropes is basically just placing the blame for poor writing on the tropes themselves rather than on the writer who couldn't use a time tested element of storytelling successfully. It leads to writers thinking there's something inherently wrong with certain storytelling elements, which is NEVER true. There are storytelling elements that don't appeal to some people, but that doesn't make them bad or wrong. The most that can be said is that some people don't like some things. Too many writers as it is come into writing with a subconscious assumption that the things they don't like are bad. And thus they tend to have the opposite subconscious assumption that the things they like are good. This type of thinking is much more dangerous to a budding writer than any amount of tropes. This is the kind of thinking that leads to lazy writing. 

If you or any other writer can't write a trope effectively, IT IS NOT THE TROPE'S FAULT. It is the writer's fault.


----------



## Feo Takahari

@Mythopoet: I 90% agree. As an example of the 10%, nothing I've read has ever sold me on Rescue Sex. (Though I did like a story where the "hero" won't take no for an answer and the damsel has to kill him in self-defense.)


----------



## Nimue

I don't think a single person here is arguing that there's a cliche that is wholly bad and unusable. (Even the awful sexist and racist ones can be turned around to make a point.)

And I think we both want writers handling things well--it's just that I think part of that is writers thinking deeply about the ideas they're using and _why_ they're using them.  Not everyone can write everything well--very few can, in fact.  So we're better off separating what we want to write from what we feel obligated to write by High Fantasy.


----------



## Mythopoet

Feo Takahari said:


> @Mythopoet: I 90% agree. As an example of the 10%, nothing I've read has ever sold me on Rescue Sex. (Though I did like a story where the "hero" won't take no for an answer and the damsel has to kill him in self-defense.)



Well, I wouldn't define every single entry on TvTropes as an actual "trope" as in convention or motif. A LOT of them are just "things that we've noticed in several pieces of media". Considering how much media exists in the world, recurrence is NOT, in my opinion, enough to make something a "trope". A trope has to have built in meaning and significance for its target audience. (I don't think "Rescue Sex" has that in a storytelling sense.) That's what makes tropes valuable. You either use them for their built in meaning, or you riff on them for thematic purposes.


----------



## Gryphos

Let's say you're browsing the library for a book and you come across two books, each by an author you're not familiar with and each, at a glance, having very similar writing styles. Now let's say one of the books is titled 'The Dragon's Destiny' or some bullshit like that, and from the blurb you can gather that it's about a farm boy who turns out to be a chosen one and must topple an evil empire with the help of a magical sword. Now let's say the other book is called, I dunno, 'The Panda's House of Tarot Cards' (don't ask), and the blurb describes a story in which a sentient panda is a mafia boss in a city-state under siege having to pull all the strings to keep his organisation afloat while an army of lightning-wielding knights besieges the city. I don't know about you, but I know which book I'd be picking up.

To sum up, originality serves to distinguish between authors equally matched in other regards. People want good things and they also want new and exciting things. Your 'chosen one' story could be amazingly crafted, but how's someone going to tell if they walk right past your book because they've read a hundred 'chosen one' stories already?

That, I think, is the key usefulness of being original: you stand out.


----------



## Mythopoet

Gryphos said:


> Let's say you're browsing the library for a book and you come across two books, each by an author you're not familiar with and each, at a glance, having very similar writing styles. Now let's say one of the books is titled 'The Dragon's Destiny' or some bullshit like that, and from the blurb you can gather that it's about a farm boy who turns out to be a chosen one and must topple an evil empire with the help of a magical sword. Now let's say the other book is called, I dunno, 'The Panda's House of Tarot Cards' (don't ask), and the blurb describes a story in which a sentient panda is a mafia boss in a city-state under siege having to pull all the strings to keep his organisation afloat while an army of lightning-wielding knights besieges the city. I don't know about you, but I know which book I'd be picking up.



Honestly, assuming these are the only two choices and all other things being equal, I'd choose the Dragon's Destiny one. I have zero interest in a Panda mob boss. It may not be the best book I've ever read, but it would probably be a safe bet for a fairly entertaining read. 

And there are thousands of people who would much rather read the "cliched" one as well, for a couple of reasons. First, that may just be the kind of stuff they _like_. Just because you think "The Chosen One" is a cliche that has seen its day doesn't mean all readers feel that way. Lots of people love that trope. And yes, they love it over and over again in fresh and different ways. You're confusing your own tastes with objective quality. Second, they may be a reader new to the fantasy genre who is unfamiliar with all the "Chosen One" stories that have come before. This may be one of the first ones they see and it may spark their imagination. There are new readers coming into the genre ALL THE TIME. Either older readers who just never tried fantasy before, or new generations growing up into it for the first time. Nothing is cliche to them because they don't have the experience. It means nothing to a new fantasy reader that 10,000 Chosen One stories have been published before if they haven't read those stories.


----------



## BWFoster78

Gryphos said:


> Let's say you're browsing the library for a book and you come across two books, each by an author you're not familiar with and each, at a glance, having very similar writing styles. Now let's say one of the books is titled 'The Dragon's Destiny' or some bullshit like that, and from the blurb you can gather that it's about a farm boy who turns out to be a chosen one and must topple an evil empire with the help of a magical sword. Now let's say the other book is called, I dunno, 'The Panda's House of Tarot Cards' (don't ask), and the blurb describes a story in which a sentient panda is a mafia boss in a city-state under siege having to pull all the strings to keep his organisation afloat while an army of lightning-wielding knights besieges the city. I don't know about you, but I know which book I'd be picking up.
> 
> To sum up, originality serves to distinguish between authors equally matched in other regards. People want good things and they also want new and exciting things. Your 'chosen one' story could be amazingly crafted, but how's someone going to tell if they walk right past your book because they've read a hundred 'chosen one' stories already?
> 
> That, I think, is the key usefulness of being original: you stand out.



I would absolutely grab the chosen one book.  Just sayin...


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mythopoet said:


> Well, I wouldn't define every single entry on TvTropes as an actual "trope" as in convention or motif. A LOT of them are just "things that we've noticed in several pieces of media". Considering how much media exists in the world, recurrence is NOT, in my opinion, enough to make something a "trope". A trope has to have built in meaning and significance for its target audience. (I don't think "Rescue Sex" has that in a storytelling sense.) That's what makes tropes valuable. You either use them for their built in meaning, or you riff on them for thematic purposes.



Wait, I think you addressed something important. There seems to be a dichotomy between a trope and a "trope." And for me, since I am an idiot, this is new information. Other than what you provided here, is there something more about the technical definition of a trope one should be aware of?


----------



## BWFoster78

> Lots of people love that trope. And yes, they love it over and over again in fresh and different ways.



Yes.  More please!


----------



## Nimue

Okay, I'm still a little puzzled by the one-sidedness of this argument.  Ignoring the idea of anything being universally good or bad, nobody else thinks that it's a good idea to examine your own writing through the lens of tropes, and see if you can find areas of laziness or under-thinking? Even when so much bad writing sprouts in reoccurring patterns from cliches--the Mary Sue from the Chosen One, the hollow, cartoonish villain from the Dark Lord?  For every great farmboy hero tale, there's a hundred mediocre ones that have fallen through the cracks.  And I really think it's important to understand the ways that tropes can fall flat in order to write them _well_.  Simply saying "All tropes can be done well!" doesn't really help us understand how to do that, and how to avoid doing them poorly.


----------



## Mythopoet

Nimue said:


> Okay, I'm still a little puzzled by the one-sidedness of this argument.  Ignoring the idea of anything being universally good or bad, nobody else thinks that it's a good idea to examine your own writing through the lens of tropes, and see if you can find areas of laziness or under-thinking? Even when so much bad writing sprouts in reoccurring patterns from cliches--the Mary Sue from the Chosen One, the hollow, cartoonish villain from the Dark Lord?  For every great farmboy hero tale, there's a hundred mediocre ones that have fallen through the cracks.  And I really think it's important to understand the ways that tropes can fall flat in order to write them _well_.  Simply saying "All tropes can be done well!" doesn't really help us understand how to do that, and how to avoid doing them poorly.



I honestly don't think it's a good idea. I even think it's a bad idea and an idea that will not make you a better writer. All tropes fall flat with some people and not with others. It's totally subjective. Treating subjective things objectively will not make you a better writer.


----------



## Gryphos

Mythopoet said:


> I honestly don't think it's a good idea. I even think it's a bad idea and an idea that will not make you a better writer. All tropes fall flat with some people and not with others. It's totally subjective. Treating subjective things objectively will not make you a better writer.



The point is you need to examine why these tropes do fall flat when they do. Sometimes you might find that it goes a bit deeper than just shoddy writing, that perhaps there is an inherent flaw with the trope that only skilled writers are able to avoid. It's not about 'tropes: yes or no', it's about examination of tropes and consideration placed on each individual one's value and/or flaws.


----------



## Mythopoet

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Wait, I think you addressed something important. There seems to be a dichotomy between a trope and a "trope." And for me, since I am an idiot, this is new information. Other than what you provided here, is there something more about the technical definition of a trope one should be aware of?



And going back to this... the thing is, as I said, a "trope" is NOT just something that's been done a lot or found commonly in stories. A trope is something that has a certain meaning or significance that is part of it. Thus when a trope is used, it automatically carries that meaning or significance on to the reader. That's WHY tropes are used. Using one is not lazy, as some people think. It's just one kind of tool for communicating with the reader in storytelling. Thus any approach that says "Tropes should be avoided!!!" is essentially taking a very useful tool, that has been used by storytellers since the dawn of storytelling, and throwing it away. There's no good reason to do that.

It's fine to say, "I don't like this particular trope, I don't like the meaning it conveys" or "this particular trope just doesn't feel meaningful to me in the way it does to others" and thus decide to personally avoid a particular trope that is not useful to you. But to look at ALL tropes as something all writers should only touch with a 10 foot pole is ridiculous. It's denying the thousands of years of storytelling culture that is the foundation of EVERYTHING we write, whether we like it or not. And often enough, by turning your back on that foundation, you're more likely to be less original than if you had embraced it and interpreted it through your own voice.


----------



## Nimue

Mythopoet said:


> But to look at ALL tropes as something all writers should only touch with a 10 foot pole is ridiculous. It's denying the thousands of years of storytelling culture that is the foundation of EVERYTHING we write, whether we like it or not.


Absolutely no one is saying we should do this.  I'm not certain how to reply to you, since you seem to be arguing with opinions found somewhere other than this thread.


----------



## Russ

Nimue said:


> Okay, I'm still a little puzzled by the one-sidedness of this argument.  Ignoring the idea of anything being universally good or bad, nobody else thinks that it's a good idea to examine your own writing through the lens of tropes, and see if you can find areas of laziness or under-thinking? Even when so much bad writing sprouts in reoccurring patterns from cliches--the Mary Sue from the Chosen One, the hollow, cartoonish villain from the Dark Lord?  For every great farmboy hero tale, there's a hundred mediocre ones that have fallen through the cracks.  And I really think it's important to understand the ways that tropes can fall flat in order to write them _well_.  Simply saying "All tropes can be done well!" doesn't really help us understand how to do that, and how to avoid doing them poorly.



Tropes are tricky.  Fantasy, like romance, can become forumalic, and I find it hard to see how that can be considered a good thing.  Overuse of tropes, or tropes taking on too many central roles can make the work formulaic, derivative or repetitive, all bad outcomes.  Might as well do fan fic 

I think Tropes can be done well, as long as you minimize their use, use them properly, and usually either do them with tongue in cheek or with appropriate reverence as a homage.  But I think there is value in being self aware enough of your writing to know that they are they, and realize they can cripple your work if handled poorly.

But your book can have too many, and quite often they are done poorly.

I plan to keep a copy of Tough Guide To Fantasyland beside my desk.


----------



## Devor

I don't think you can define the creativity or quality of something based on what isn't there.  That a story avoids tropes tells you nothing about the story or about the way it delivers.

To me, the conversation feels like a red herring.  It's like chefs arguing about whether it's better to prepare chicken or duck.  Maybe you can find a way to win the argument, but it wouldn't do anything towards making you a better chef.

There's a way to make elves awesome.  There's a way to screw it up.  What can't that be said about?

Tropes can often be lazy writing because we tend to think of them first. But they also give readers a sense of familiarity.  Elves and dragons take less "work" for readers to process, which leaves you more of that mental space to do new things with your story.  It would be a lot to ask readers to dive into a story and care about all eight of your magical races if you didn't mix some of the familiar in with the strange.

What's important, I think, is to start with that core concept lying underneath your story and finding ways to support it. Familiar tropes can offer some of that support, or not, but it's the core concept that matters, that sets the barometer for the needs of your story. When we talk about avoiding tropes, or embracing them, it's important to understand that we're talking about redesigning the core around that stipulation.


----------



## Penpilot

Nimue said:


> Simply saying "All tropes can be done well!" doesn't really help us understand how to do that, and how to avoid doing them poorly.



Sorry, I don't want to be flip, but to me at least, the answer is simply become a better writer. Which means the question boils down to "How do I become a better writer?" Most would say the simple answer to that is write.

As with any job/hobby, like writing, a person decides to try, there are many tiny tasks that are required to perform that hobby. And when you first pick up a job/hobby you are overwhelmed by how many things you have to focus on and keep track of. It's like trying to juggle thirty balls.

The more you practice the more of those tiny tasks fade into the background, mostly the fundamental and basic ones like grammar, story structure, scene structure. Those are done almost automatically and thus draw almost zero focus. This leaves more focus to spend on tasks such as playing with tropes, themes, just generally making the story good. And that only comes about through practice.

For example, when I first started driving, it had my complete focus. I always had my hands on ten and two and flicked my eyes from mirror to mirror every few seconds. I was very conscious of my distance from other cars and my speed. Because I was focus on doing all these things all at the same time, I drove slowly and driving was a chore. 

After 20 years of driving, doing all these things draws minimal focus from me. I still do all of them, but it's all in the background now. With all that left over focus, I can do other things on top of the basics. I can look to change lanes to speed up my journey. I can look ahead and behind, past the cars directly in front and behind me, to make assessments on my situation and determine what to do next.

I can think about writing when I drive, because I've practised driving so much that the little stuff doesn't require effort to do any more, so I can focus on a multitude of other things.

How do you write a trope well? There's no one answer, because each situation is different. It depends on things like theme, what characters do you want to play with, what type of story your telling, your setting, your plot, your genre, and whether your name is Alfred E. Newman. 

Take a look at these three movies, Alien, Jaws, and Friday the 13th. Fundamentally they are all the same story. It's the monster in a house story, with all the tropes associated with it. They each have an unseen monster, with a group of people trapped in a seemingly confined space. They deal with sin, and those who commit it die. In the end they have a lone survivor that must defeat the monster.

Even though they follow all the tropes, why are Alien and Jaws highly regarded and Friday the 13th not?


----------



## Russ

Penpilot said:


> As with any job/hobby, like writing, a person decides to try, there are many tiny tasks that are required to perform that hobby. And when you first pick up a job/hobby you are overwhelmed by how many things you have to focus on and keep track of. It's like trying to juggle thirty balls.



Yes but...

only perfect practice makes perfect.

Tropes can be like crutches and make you lazy and you can use them and become dependent on them in a negative way without knowing it, unless you are aware and concerned about them.

The driving analogy is perfect.  If you get bad habits in driving, and do them for so long they become second nature they can be very hard to get rid of.  Not only that, skills evolve and change and require updated.  A driver who has done something for a long time and takes that location/maneuver for granted is in many situations more dangerous than a driver who is focused and vigilant because they are encountering the situation for the first time.  

And many jurisdictions mandate that professional drivers take updated driving courses that cover the basics again, in new fresh ways to make sure they are safe on the roads.  There is actually tons of data on the subject.

So learning what a trope for your genre is, is quite important.  If you can't spot the problem you can't fix it, or at least make the decision to fix it or leave it in wisely.

Taking the value of a trope for granted is a big risk for any writer who is working in genre with a significant history.  Some genres are more at risk of this than others, and it can hurt you in the market as well.  Right now, for instance, is a tough time for thriller writers to rely on Islamic terrorists for their antagonists.

PS- in the modern world you no longer hold your hands at 10 and 2 for safety.  That is an old standard developed before power steering and airbags. The new standard (for quite a while now) is 9 and 3.  Which perfectly illustrates why one should be aware of ingrained tropes and constantly re-evalute and often discard them.

Holding the steering wheel at '10 and 2' is dangerously outdated - Business Insider


----------



## WooHooMan

Russ said:


> Tropes are tricky.  Fantasy, like romance, can become forumalic, and I find it hard to see how that can be considered a good thing.  Overuse of tropes, or tropes taking on too many central roles can make the work formulaic, derivative or repetitive, all bad outcomes.  Might as well do fan fic
> 
> I think Tropes can be done well, as long as you minimize their use, use them properly, and usually either do them with tongue in cheek or with appropriate reverence as a homage.



I'm actually very much against the idea that "it's okay if you're self-aware".  I also don't see how minimizing a trope would make it better.  At the end of the day, you're still using it.

I also don't think something being formulaic or derivative is bad on it's own if the formula works.



Mythopoet said:


> The thing is that avoiding tropes or subverting tropes is basically just placing the blame for poor writing on the tropes themselves rather than on the writer who couldn't use a time tested element of storytelling successfully. It leads to writers thinking there's something inherently wrong with certain storytelling elements, which is NEVER true. There are storytelling elements that don't appeal to some people, but that doesn't make them bad or wrong. The most that can be said is that some people don't like some things. Too many writers as it is come into writing with a subconscious assumption that the things they don't like are bad. And thus they tend to have the opposite subconscious assumption that the things they like are good. This type of thinking is much more dangerous to a budding writer than any amount of tropes. This is the kind of thinking that leads to lazy writing.
> 
> If you or any other writer can't write a trope effectively, IT IS NOT THE TROPE'S FAULT. It is the writer's fault.



Can I "favorite" thread posts?  Because I so agree with this sentiment.



Mythopoet said:


> Well, I wouldn't define every single entry on TvTropes as an actual "trope" as in convention or motif.



Also, this.
I generally think tvtropes does more harm than good to a writer/critic.  It dumbs down critical thinking to identifying recurrences.


----------



## Nimue

Look, I don't have much of a problem with tropes in my writing right now.  I like the ones I use because I've made them my own, and because I've sat down and thought about whether or not they're working for me.  Though I appreciate the multiple insinuations that I must just be writing with tropes really badly if I don't think cliche-centric writing is a 100% good idea 100% of the time.

But at one point, when I was 16 or 17, I stumbled across Limyaael's fantasy rants.  I had never heard of tropes or seen fantasy dissected in this way, and it was immensely helpful to my writing.  She pointed out aspects to common tropes and the way they're used that didn't make sense, or weakened character interaction, or made the world more shallow.  I began to jettison plot points and archetypes that I didn't care about but felt had to be there, like Big Bad Villains and Quests for Things and sparkly magic of various sorts.  I think that analysis like this, which is basically what trope-talk boils down to, can be especially helpful for new writers and people who want to look deeply at structure or themes or what have you.  I can clearly see how it helped my writing back then.  

So you are welcome to tell me that it's a bad idea and will only lead to terrible writing but, uh, it definitely worked for me.  Yes, of course it was all ultimately just about learning to write better, but part of that was gaining knowledge about what other authors have done in the genre and having the language to talk about this stuff.  I don't understand how it would be better to ignore tropes forever just because the terminology has been overused sometimes.


----------



## Incanus

I still prefer to look at the 'trope' concept as one tool out of a hundred in my writing tool-box.  It's a crude tool.  It's certainly not an all-purpose tool.  But it has its uses and I won't simply throw it away, even if others have not found it particularly helpful.

I want to write, and I want to learn as much as I can about it as I do so.  I've improved a little, and I want to improve more.


----------



## Mythopoet

Russ said:


> The driving analogy is perfect.



No, it isn't. Nobody is in danger of injury and/or death if you use a trope badly. At absolute worst, they're out of pocket the cost of the book.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> No, it isn't. Nobody is in danger of injury and/or death if you use a trope badly. At absolute worst, they're out of pocket the cost of the book.



Failure is failure.

But that is a pretty funny stretch.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mythopoet said:


> No, it isn't. Nobody is in danger of injury and/or death if you use a trope badly. At absolute worst, they're out of pocket the cost of the book.



That is a bit of a stretch there. Besides aren't analogies not supposed to be applicable in every case, or was this a TiC comment and I missed something.


----------



## Russ

WooHooMan said:


> I'm actually very much against the idea that "it's okay if you're self-aware".  I also don't see how minimizing a trope would make it better.  At the end of the day, you're still using it.



Well, one has two choices.  One can be self aware or not.  Surely you are not advocating that one be oblivious to one's writing.

Being self aware does not mean you will solve the problem for certain, it means you have a chance to solve the problem.



> I also don't think something being formulaic or derivative is bad on it's own if the formula works.



No it means it is forumulaic or derivative.  Which are polite ways of saying unoriginal.

Now say you are an agent or editor.  And say you are reading a synopsis or outline and you come to the conclusion that the book is forumlaic or derivative.  Do you think you are more or less likely to buy that book?

Do you follow any agents of publisher's blogs?  Do you know what they say about derivative or original work? Do you see any of them looking for "more of traditional trope X"?

How do  you think when an agent sees the strong female character being an assassin?  Do you think that helps sell the book or do you think they roll their eyes and think "female assassin #567...next manuscript please?"

Do you see them use the words like fresh or original, or new or unique in their asks?  They ask for "new voices" and "unique twists" on old themes.  You don't those things by simply trotting out traditional tropes without approaching them in a new way.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Russ said:


> Well, one has two choices.  One can be self aware or not.  Surely you are not advocating that one be oblivious to one's writing.
> 
> Being self aware does not mean you will solve the problem for certain, it means you have a chance to solve the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> No it means it is forumulaic or derivative.  Which are polite ways of saying unoriginal.
> 
> Now say you are an agent or editor.  And say you are reading a synopsis or outline and you come to the conclusion that the book is forumlaic or derivative.  Do you think you are more or less likely to buy that book?
> 
> Do you follow any agents of publisher's blogs?  Do you know what they say about derivative or original work? Do you see any of them looking for "more of traditional trope X"?
> 
> How do  you think when an agent sees the strong female character being an assassin?  Do you think that helps sell the book or do you think they roll their eyes and think "female assassin #567...next manuscript please?"
> 
> Do you see them use the words like fresh or original, or new or unique in their asks?  They ask for "new voices" and "unique twists" on old themes.  You don't those things by simply trotting out traditional tropes without approaching them in a new way.



But doesn't all of this depends on what one means by original? Because assassins are overdone in general, and are often done poorly, I think the problem isn't the lack of originality, it's poor execution. Take the female assassin example, the problem a lot of writers have is they don't have a cogent answer for why the assassin is an assassin. Some have her be orphaned, which is great, but aren't there other less dangerous occupations (whoring, being a maid, and other ones) for an orphaned girl? Which I think is why there is an eye roll at female assassins. Besides, there are only so many original origins a character can have in a medieval fantasy setting. 

Even still, trotting out a trope without something new is a symptom of bad and inexperienced writing. Utilizing a trope, even doing it straight, isn't if there is a new wrinkle that isn't a subversion or TiC reference to the trope.


----------



## BWFoster78

> Now say you are an agent or editor. And say you are reading a synopsis or outline and you come to the conclusion that the book is forumlaic or derivative. Do you think you are more or less likely to buy that book?



So I was walking through LAX this morning and looked at the newstand.  Full of completely original non-forumlaic works by James Patterson.


----------



## Penpilot

Russ said:


> Yes but...
> 
> only perfect practice makes perfect.
> 
> Tropes can be like crutches and make you lazy and you can use them and become dependent on them in a negative way without knowing it, unless you are aware and concerned about them.



Sure, perfect practice, which is part of my point. Don't focus too much on this one singular issue and instead focus on the broader scope of your skills. I mean I've read plenty of stories where the writer is trying super hard to subvert the trope and do all the things you're supposed to not do with them, but they don't have the writing chops to do it. And they still end up falling into the bad execution of tropes category. Give a carpenter a hammer and they'll build you a beautiful shed. Hand it to a shelp like me and all you'll end up with is a pile of bloody wood and a urgent call to 911. 



Russ said:


> The driving analogy is perfect.  If you get bad habits in driving, and do them for so long they become second nature they can be very hard to get rid of.



Bad habits like constantly over obsessing about things like tropes, cliches, and originality? 



Russ said:


> Not only that, skills evolve and change and require updated.  A driver who has done something for a long time and takes that location/maneuver for granted is in many situations more dangerous than a driver who is focused and vigilant because they are encountering the situation for the first time.



If an experienced driver, like an experienced writer, gets themselves into trouble, it's more likely they'll have the knowledge to get themselves out of the jam. The inexperienced person will probably just stare blankly and just mumble Frak before the spit hits the fan. My point wasn't about not being focused or not being vigilant. It was about being able to focus on more things and process more information because with experience, the small stuff no longer requires as much focus and processing power.



Russ said:


> So learning what a trope for your genre is, is quite important.  If you can't spot the problem you can't fix it, or at least make the decision to fix it or leave it in wisely.
> 
> Taking the value of a trope for granted is a big risk for any writer who is working in genre with a significant history.  Some genres are more at risk of this than others, and it can hurt you in the market as well.  Right now, for instance, is a tough time for thriller writers to rely on Islamic terrorists for their antagonists.



Sure, but this applies to the broader scope of know what archtype your story fits into, what archtype your characters fit into and knowing has been done before and is similar to what you want to do.



Russ said:


> PS- in the modern world you no longer hold your hands at 10 and 2 for safety.  That is an old standard developed before power steering and airbags. The new standard (for quite a while now) is 9 and 3.  Which perfectly illustrates why one should be aware of ingrained tropes and constantly re-evalute and often discard them.



Ok sure, how does this relate to writing? Just because there's a modern standard, doesn't automatically invalidate older works or styles of writing.


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> So I was walking through LAX this morning and looked at the newstand.  Full of completely original non-forumlaic works by James Patterson.



And how much time do you think James' agent or editor thinks about taking on that work? ;-)

What do you think his query letter looks like?

Unfortunately my name is not Child.


----------



## Russ

Brian Scott Allen said:


> But doesn't all of this depends on what one means by original? Because assassins are overdone in general, and are often done poorly, I think the problem isn't the lack of originality, it's poor execution. Take the female assassin example, the problem a lot of writers have is they don't have a cogent answer for why the assassin is an assassin. Some have her be orphaned, which is great, but aren't there other less dangerous occupations (whoring, being a maid, and other ones) for an orphaned girl? Which I think is why there is an eye roll at female assassins. Besides, there are only so many original origins a character can have in a medieval fantasy setting.
> 
> Even still, trotting out a trope without something new is a symptom of bad and inexperienced writing. Utilizing a trope, even doing it straight, isn't if there is a new wrinkle that isn't a subversion or TiC reference to the trope.



I pretty much agree with you.  My argument is that you should be careful in your use of tropes, and self-aware that you are using them, so it is conscious decision to use them for the right reasons, at the right time.

But I do think agents and publishers, and the public, look for new and original work.  Especially from authors who are not a brand.

I also know that agents and editors will reject work based on seeing a trope they think they have seen too much of lately.


----------



## BWFoster78

Russ said:


> And how much time do you think James' agent or editor thinks about taking on that work? ;-)
> 
> What do you think his query letter looks like?
> 
> Unfortunately my name is not Child.



Regardless of what some blog you read stated, agents, editors, and publishers seek only one thing - writing that will sell.

When considering originality versus formula, it seems logical to me that formula makes more sense if you want to create a career as a writer.

1. Formula is known to work.  People have already bought and enjoyed books exactly like it.  Original may or may not work.
2. If you create formula, a reader who likes your work will likely like all your works.  If each of your works is original, the reader will have to evaluate each one individually.

Just seems to make sense to me...


----------



## Russ

BWFoster78 said:


> Regardless of what some blog you read stated, agents, editors, and publishers seek only one thing - writing that will sell.
> 
> When considering originality versus formula, it seems logical to me that formula makes more sense if you want to create a career as a writer.
> 
> 1. Formula is known to work.  People have already bought and enjoyed books exactly like it.  Original may or may not work.
> 2. If you create formula, a reader who likes your work will likely like all your works.  If each of your works is original, the reader will have to evaluate each one individually.
> 
> Just seems to make sense to me...



Fortunately I do more than just read blogs, agents sites, and publishers sites etc.  I get to talk to people in the industry quite frequently.  Nonetheless I think it is polite and fair to refer to public sources where you can seek out the information on their own.

But all that aside, once you published and have created a brand, and have created your formula for success by all means keep working it until it doesn't work any more.

But if your goal is to convince an agent, editor or reader to buy your work for the first time, when you don't have a track record, you need to stand out.  Following tropes or deploying them in the traditional manner doesn't do that.  Can you imagine how many times an agent sees a letter suggesting someone's work is perfect for GRRM fans?  

I would say that use of formula can lead to a good living in the romance genre because the different marketing structure there.  I don't see any indication it works in Spec Fic or Thrillers for new writers, the other genres I have some knowledge of.

Since most of the people on this site as I understand it are not yet making their living at writing, that is how I tailor my comments.  If you want to discuss how an author can avoid mid list slumps, or how an author can move up in advances as their career goes on, or how to break into the NYT bestseller list, or how to get those coveted number one slots, or how recent changes in publisher marketing is impacting top selling authors... those are different topics.


----------



## Mythopoet

Fortunately, I'm far more concerned with how readers will think of my stories than with how agents and editors will. Frankly, trad publishing has no idea what readers want, and while all they really care about is what sells, it's actually what sells to bookstores, not readers that they're thinking of. Bookstores are the real customers of publishers and authors' careers are determined by how many of their print books the bookstores will order. Bookstores don't care about what is new or fresh or original. They are about what actually moves off of their shelves. But none of that really has anything to do with the discussion.

The problem here seems to me is that some people have an underlying assumption that tropes = predictable and unoriginal while no tropes = fresh and original. This is not true. A work by a skilled writer that is not afraid to put their own personal spin on a time tested trope is just as if not more likely to be fresh and original than a work by a skilled writer who avoids or subverts tropes. Tropes have nothing to do with originality. Ideas have nothing to do with originality. Storytelling elements have nothing to do with originality. Everything has been thought of before. There is nothing new under the sun... except individual people. The only place originality can come from is the author. If the author has a fresh and compelling voice, their uniqueness will shine through whether they utilize tropes or not.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> Fortunately, I'm far more concerned with how readers will think of my stories than with how agents and editors will. Frankly, trad publishing has no idea what readers want, and while all they really care about is what sells, it's actually what sells to bookstores, not readers that they're thinking of. Bookstores are the real customers of publishers and authors' careers are determined by how many of their print books the bookstores will order. Bookstores don't care about what is new or fresh or original. They are about what actually moves off of their shelves. But none of that really has anything to do with the discussion.



Only fortunate in the sense that it allows you to escape a discussion that might reference anything other than your own subjective opinion on an issue.  

So let me understand this, your contention is that traditional publishing spends all that money surveying and studying readers to see what they will buy and this has lead them to a place where they have "no idea" what readers want.  Which is exactly how they continue to make really good profits, because they don't understand their customers.  That makes sense.

Your theory about bookstores being the real customers and how publishers and bookstores operate is simply factually untrue.  Having a basic understanding of how many books are now sold online and how book returns work makes your suggestion look downright silly.  Online sales is now the largest proportion of how books are sold and you suggest that publishers only care about bookstores?  Seriously?  Come on...you are pulling our leg right?




> The problem here seems to me is that some people have an underlying assumption that tropes = predictable and unoriginal while no tropes = fresh and original.



I would ask you to show that someone in this thread actually said that, because I didn't see it, but I see you have tried to innoculate yourself by saying that it is an "underlying assumption."  No one on this thread has said that.  Perhaps on this point you are arguing with yourself?  Or is that argument just a straw man?


----------



## Mythopoet

Russ said:


> Only fortunate in the sense that it allows you to escape a discussion that might reference anything other than your own subjective opinion on an issue.
> 
> So let me understand this, your contention is that traditional publishing spends all that money surveying and studying readers to see what they will buy and this has lead them to a place where they have "no idea" what readers want.  Which is exactly how they continue to make really good profits, because they don't understand their customers.  That makes sense.
> 
> Your theory about bookstores being the real customers and how publishers and bookstores operate is simply factually untrue.  Having a basic understanding of how many books are now sold online and how book returns work makes your suggestion look downright silly.  Online sales is now the largest proportion of how books are sold and you suggest that publishers only care about bookstores?  Seriously?  Come on...you are pulling our leg right?



Sorry, but it seems like you're the one in ignorance here if you actually think trad pubs spend much at all on studying readers. Maybe a publisher here or there does something. There are a few that are actually good, like Baen, at interacting with readers. But for the most part the Big Pubs and their imprints don't have the faintest idea, nor do agents. If they knew how to appeal to readers and knew how to effectively sell to readers, far more books would be big successes. It's really all a guessing game. They're throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something will stick. 

And yes, I am perfectly well aware of the amount of books being sold online these days. That's why I'm going to self-publish. However, trad pubs have been fighting that transition tooth and nail from the beginning. That's why they colluded to raise ebook prices. Trad pubs are still fighting it. They would much rather the industry be predominantly print based and brick and mortar store based, as that's the aspect they have the most control over. 



Russ said:


> I would ask you to show that someone in this thread actually said that, because I didn't see it, but I see you have tried to innoculate yourself by saying that it is an "underlying assumption."  No one on this thread has said that.  Perhaps on this point you are arguing with yourself?  Or is that argument just a straw man?



Of course no one said it. If they had actually admitted it then I wouldn't have had to point it out. But the arguments being made clearly come from a point of view inherently biased against "tropes" in general.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> Sorry, but it seems like you're the one in ignorance here if you actually think trad pubs spend much at all on studying readers. Maybe a publisher here or there does something. There are a few that are actually good, like Baen, at interacting with readers. But for the most part the Big Pubs and their imprints don't have the faintest idea, nor do agents. If they knew how to appeal to readers and knew how to effectively sell to readers, far more books would be big successes. It's really all a guessing game. They're throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something will stick.



Since you are clearly an expert in this field can you tell us the source of that information?  How about you tell us which company does the most public surveys of reader desires and how they buy, who they do them for and roughly what they cost?  Who is the biggest player in that field.  Surely you can tell us that much?  

According to you it must be Barilla!



> And yes, I am perfectly well aware of the amount of books being sold online these days. That's why I'm going to self-publish. However, trad pubs have been fighting that transition tooth and nail from the beginning. That's why they colluded to raise ebook prices. Trad pubs are still fighting it. They would much rather the industry be predominantly print based and brick and mortar store based, as that's the aspect they have the most control over.



Their attempt to enhance and raise their profits, and control their market, does not make your comment about them only caring what book stores buy (at most 20% of their market) any less absurd.




> Of course no one said it. If they had actually admitted it then I wouldn't have had to point it out.



So instead you can mind read it out of them and place it in the worst light possible to build a straw man argument.  That seems like a good faith way to discuss an issue.

Your argument comes down to "everybody else, especially the professionals are too stupid to know what they are doing.  Listen to me instead."  That is pretty unpersuasive.


----------



## Mythopoet

Russ said:


> Since you are clearly an expert in this field can you tell us the source of that information?  How about you tell us which company does the most public surveys of reader desires and how they buy, who they do them for and roughly what they cost?  Who is the biggest player in that field.  Surely you can tell us that much?



Russ, you're the one that claimed trad pubs spend so much on market research. And you know "people in the industry", so why don't you tell us more?




Russ said:


> Their attempt to enhance and raise their profits, and control their market, does not make your comment about them only caring what book stores buy (at most 20% of their market) any less absurd.



Honestly, I don't care if you think it's absurd or not. 





Russ said:


> So instead you can mind read it out of them and place it in the worst light possible to build a straw man argument.  That seems like a good faith way to discuss an issue.
> 
> Your argument comes down to "everybody else, especially the professionals are too stupid to know what they are doing.  Listen to me instead."  That is pretty unpersuasive.



No mind reading, just analyzing the underlying logic of the statements being made. 

And no, that's not what my argument is. As I said, all the stuff we've been saying about the publishing industry is really not the point of this thread. The main point of everything I've been saying here is "Keep your mind open, don't rule out any tools in your writing kit, and respect the efforts of the thousands of years of human culture that have given rise to the storytelling motifs that we call tropes".


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Mythopoet said:


> . If they knew how to appeal to readers and knew how to effectively sell to readers, far more books would be big successes.



I take exception with this notion. There's only so much media a person can consume within a given time period. The easiest to consume are passive media like music, TV, and movies. Reading is a fairly active pursuit that has to compete against these other forms of media. Reading also takes more time to complete a story than watching a movie. (_See e.g._ How Long Will It Take To Read That Book? This Chart Gives An Estimate (noting that it will take 60+hours, or so, to finish the HP series vs 19 hours or so for the movie version of HP)). Modern society is too busy for this nonsense. We have cat videos to watch dammit! This is just one factor as to why there aren't more blockbusters. And one that is more quantifiable than "What readers want."

Other factors, especially in the Internet era, could be a persons opinion. (_See e.g._ Skip Ender's Game) Or poor marketing, a Goodreader catfishing an author making them appear to be a Badly Behaving Author, lies, defamation, and the list goes on and on and on as to why a book, even a good one, doesn't come off magic, guns, and swords a blazing.

Besides that there are several marketing research techniques that don't require polls and other methods. One could combine the book genome project and Internet activity of people to find books that people are likely to buy. I would bet dollars to donuts that the big three are using this same technique to find out what readers want. It's disingenuous to claim that there is little to no market research done, because how else would they make money. And I am not convinced the shotgun method would work.

I'll grant that all market research can only generate a close approximation of what readers want, because readers are fickle. But, just because it is an approximation doesn't mean that it doesn't happen, that it isn't effective, and isn't a useful tool.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> Russ, you're the one that claimed trad pubs spend so much on market research. And you know "people in the industry", so why don't you tell us more?



Actually I can.  And I am happy to.  Right after you answer.  I am testing your argument to see if any of the assertions you make about the publishing industry are based in fact or are just pure opinion.

Still waiting...






> Honestly, I don't care if you think it's absurd or not.



So let's be clear.  You stand by your comment that the only thing the trad pub industry cares about is selling to books stores when only about 20% of their income comes from that?  You really must think most of the world is too stupid to live.  IT makes you wonder how they tie their shoes in the morning doesn't it?







> No mind reading, just analyzing the underlying logic of the statements being made.



Telling people what they mean, when they said something different, is "mind reading" at best, misrepresenting at worst.  If you were polite in discourse instead of telling them what "the problem is" and what they mean, you might consider asking them to find out if that is what they mean...but that wouldn't help build your straw man.


.





> If they knew how to appeal to readers and knew how to effectively sell to readers, far more books would be big successes.



this is more vague rubbish.  How many more big successes does it take?  What is the definition of success?  If they knew what readers wanted what proportion of books should sell how many copies?  How do you take into account competition, the fact that publishers are fighting for a limited pool of readers' money?  

The interesting part is that apparently you claim to know what readers want and plan to publish.  If this is so can I then assume 100% of your published works will be "big successes"?


----------



## Mythopoet

Russ said:


> Actually I can.  And I am happy to.  Right after you answer.  I am testing your argument to see if any of the assertions you make about the publishing industry are based in fact or are just pure opinion.
> 
> Still waiting...



I don't have any documentation at hand. It would take a lengthy internet search to find the sources I have read over the years that led to my arguments. I honestly don't have the time to look them up. You can count that as a win for you, if you want. It really doesn't matter to me. This whole train of the discussion doesn't matter to me. This is the last post I'll make adding to it because I've got housework to do now.



Russ said:


> So let's be clear.  You stand by your comment that the only thing the trad pub industry cares about is selling to books stores when only about 20% of their income comes from that?



I standby the fact that the entire business model of trad publishing is selling directly to bookstores, not customers. Only recently are some of them attempting to get into direct sales through their websites. But publishers are distributors, not retailers. They need bookstores to carry their offerings. Please explain to me how only 20% of their income is from bookstores. They make 80% of their income selling directly to readers? Really? 



Russ said:


> Telling people what they mean, when they said something different, is "mind reading" at best, misrepresenting at worst.  If you were polite in discourse instead of telling them what "the problem is" and what they mean, you might consider asking them to find out if that is what they mean...but that wouldn't help build your straw man.



No, it's taking the words that people use as representative of what they mean. Which is how communication works. I'm analyzing the words people are using, not their thoughts when they wrote them. If your words and arguments are not correctly representing what you mean then you're doing it wrong. You can disagree with me about my assessment of the words, but do not act as if I'm committing a logical fallacy by assessing them. It just shows that you have a poor understanding of critical thinking and debate.



Russ said:


> You really must think most of the world is too stupid to live.  IT makes you wonder how they tie their shoes in the morning doesn't it?



Are _you_ "mind reading" at _me_ now? 

But actually, living doesn't require much intelligence, unfortunately.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> I don't have any documentation at hand. It would take a lengthy internet search to find the sources I have read over the years that led to my arguments. I honestly don't have the time to look them up. You can count that as a win for you, if you want. It really doesn't matter to me. This whole train of the discussion doesn't matter to me. This is the last post I'll make adding to it because I've got housework to do now.



There really comes a time to have the courage and wisdom to say "I don't know" instead of doubling down on something that is factually wrong, and having the complete lack of integrity to tell someone they are ignorant when you are in fact making things up.  It is pretty clear that your knowledge of how the traditional publishing industry would fit in a thimble with a lot of room left over. 

For future reference the industry leader in gathering data on the book world is the Codex Group.  They are almost continuously doing studies and surveying consumers on reading habits and book buying issues.  They do studies and surveys for major publishers, and many other industry and non-profit groups.  They poll thousands upon thousands of people on what they want in books, what causes them to buy books and their spending habits.  They do these studies (most of the time) because they are commissioned to do so by major publishers, online sellers as well as non-profit and academic groups.  

If the name Codex Group is not on the tip of your tongue you really should not be accusing executives at large corporations of not knowing their business now should you?  The truth is clear, you really don't know how much work they do to see what readers want.

And as a cautionary note you really can't come to understand an industry just by reading a few articles on the internet.  Try actually speaking to some industry people, or reading a few of the studies, or applying some basic business and accounting principles.




> I standby the fact that the entire business model of trad publishing is selling directly to bookstores, not customers. Only recently are some of them attempting to get into direct sales through their websites. But publishers are distributors, not retailers. They need bookstores to carry their offerings. Please explain to me how only 20% of their income is from bookstores. They make 80% of their income selling directly to readers? Really?



Once again you show you don't know what you are talking about.  You are assuming the only way to sell books is direct to readers or bookstores.  But anyways here is the data, only 20% from bookstores:

E-Retailers Now Accounting for Nearly Half of Book Purchases by Volume, Overtake Physical RetailDigital Book World | Digital Book World

Or are the people at DBW as clueless as traditional publishing execs?



> Are _you_ "mind reading" at _me_ now?



No mind reading required.  You called me ignorant and suggested that executives at multi-billion dollar companies were making decisions by effectively throwing spaghetti at the wall.

Logical debate?  Usually that is founded on facts, not a mound of suppositions based on wishes and prejudices.


----------



## Incanus

Well, this debate is getting a little heated.  I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that the thread veered into an argument about ‘originality’, or the usefulness of the very concept of ‘tropes’.

At the risk of misunderstanding what a few here have said, I am a little bit surprised to find arguments that seem to recommend against trying for some originality.  If I simply wanted to write, and not to invent or create, I would probably just work at fan-fic.  I have no interest in that, however.  Not that there is anything wrong with it, mind.  I just don’t think it is the proper milieu for my particular creative outlet.

I’ll say again that my original post did NOT contain an attitude toward tropes one way or the other.  It passes no judgment upon them good or bad, or upon those who would use them (which would include myself).  If I had wanted to express an opinion to go along with my question, I would have provided it.


----------



## WooHooMan

Incanus said:


> Well, this debate is getting a little heated.  I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised that the thread veered into an argument about ‘originality’, or the usefulness of the very concept of ‘tropes’.



Yeah, you really opened Pandora's box.  Just let the thread play out and move on.


----------



## Mythopoet

Incanus said:


> At the risk of misunderstanding what a few here have said, I am a little bit surprised to find arguments that seem to recommend against trying for some originality.  If I simply wanted to write, and not to invent or create, I would probably just work at fan-fic.  I have no interest in that, however.  Not that there is anything wrong with it, mind.  I just don’t think it is the proper milieu for my particular creative outlet.



This is not at all what people are saying. No one arguing that tropes are good is saying you shouldn't try to be original.

I'm saying that using tropes or not using tropes has nothing to do with originality. You can be original if you use tropes. You can be predictable if you avoid them. Tropes are just a tool. The originality has to come from within you.


----------



## Incanus

WooHooMan said:


> Yeah, you really opened Pandora's box.  Just let the thread play out and move on.



It just looked like a plain box of cereal when I opened it.  I swear it had no 'Pandora' label on it anywhere!


----------



## Garren Jacobsen

Incanus said:


> It just looked like a plain box of cereal when I opened it.  I swear it had no 'Pandora' label on it anywhere!



That disclaimer is only online.


----------



## DeathtoTrite

Mythopoet said:


> This is not at all what people are saying. No one arguing that tropes are good is saying you shouldn't try to be original.
> 
> I'm saying that using tropes or not using tropes has nothing to do with originality. You can be original if you use tropes. You can be predictable if you avoid them. Tropes are just a tool. The originality has to come from within you.



I think this says it really well. Just write, and see what happens!


----------



## Nimue

Mythopoet said:


> I honestly don't think it's a good idea. I even think it's a bad idea and an idea that will not make you a better writer.



Ok, I caught up on this thread, and I know this already blew up, but... I have to say to Mythopoet that it's incredibly patronizing to tell me that the way I'm approaching my writing is a bad idea.  I can, and have, pointed out ways in which thinking critically about tropes has helped my writing in the past.

I understand that you're generally against critique and critical analysis, but not everybody thinks the same way.  If you go into a discussion with the notion that there is One True Way to Write (and of course, you know what it is) it's inevitably going to escalate. Capslock doesn't really help.  Neither does repeatedly putting words in people's mouths.

The thing is, I think everyone agrees on most of the fundamental things about this argument.  There's nothing new under the sun.  Writing can be good or bad regardless of what tropes it uses or doesn't use.  Tropes are an important part of the fantasy writer's toolbox.  It's just that I would argue that analyzing why and how you're using tropes is also incredibly useful.  Not to dismiss any of them out of hand, but to question assumptions about why they're there.

If they hold up, if they're adding strength and meaning, that's great.  But sometimes writers can use them like crutches or placeholders, and there are patterns of lazy writing that I want to be able to recognize and fix.  Because every time I've challenged myself to move beyond the first concept that comes to mind, it has improved my writing.  And of course this is subjective and of course I'm still using a million tropes and enjoying them.  But I find this approach valuable, and I don't think it's a mistake that deserves to be shouted down.


----------



## Russ

DeathtoTrite said:


> I think this says it really well. Just write, and see what happens!



I think this is not a bad idea for a first draft.  But at some point I would suggest you need to think about what you have written, how it is written and other issues of craft/content.

Depending on your time pressures, it might not even be that good an idea for a first draft.  Catching a problem early can save you a lot of valuable time later.

How one writes a first draft I think is a very individual process, but I do think at some point one needs to be critical and analytical of ones' own work.


----------



## Ben.D

I would say instead of writing a story based off of fantasy stories and books, write a story about what you know, about events that are happening around you through a fantasy lens. This way you don't have to worry as much about sticking to specific races and rules of magic, or avoiding them, and just develop the characters and plot. Then as you write you can create races that fit the story and let them be personalized to the book you're writing so even if they are similar to other stories they'll also be very different.


----------



## Miskatonic

Mythopoet said:


> Fortunately, I'm far more concerned with how readers will think of my stories than with how agents and editors will. Frankly, trad publishing has no idea what readers want, and while all they really care about is what sells, it's actually what sells to bookstores, not readers that they're thinking of. Bookstores are the real customers of publishers and authors' careers are determined by how many of their print books the bookstores will order. Bookstores don't care about what is new or fresh or original. They are about what actually moves off of their shelves. But none of that really has anything to do with the discussion.
> 
> The problem here seems to me is that some people have an underlying assumption that tropes = predictable and unoriginal while no tropes = fresh and original. This is not true. A work by a skilled writer that is not afraid to put their own personal spin on a time tested trope is just as if not more likely to be fresh and original than a work by a skilled writer who avoids or subverts tropes. Tropes have nothing to do with originality. Ideas have nothing to do with originality. Storytelling elements have nothing to do with originality. Everything has been thought of before. There is nothing new under the sun... except individual people. The only place originality can come from is the author. If the author has a fresh and compelling voice, their uniqueness will shine through whether they utilize tropes or not.



Agreed. The ability to tell a compelling story trumps whether or not tropes are used.


----------



## Mythopoet

Nimue said:


> Ok, I caught up on this thread, and I know this already blew up, but... I have to say to Mythopoet that it's incredibly patronizing to tell me that the way I'm approaching my writing is a bad idea.  I can, and have, pointed out ways in which thinking critically about tropes has helped my writing in the past.



Ok, you asked if anyone thought it was a bad idea, so I said yes, I think it's a bad idea. I clearly said _I_ think, showing that this is _my_ opinion. And now I'm accused of being patronizing because I answered a question by stating my opinion? Give me a break. The people on this forum are ridiculous.


----------



## Russ

Ben.D said:


> I would say instead of writing a story based off of fantasy stories and books, write a story about what you know, about events that are happening around you through a fantasy lens. This way you don't have to worry as much about sticking to specific races and rules of magic, or avoiding them, and just develop the characters and plot. Then as you write you can create races that fit the story and let them be personalized to the book you're writing so even if they are similar to other stories they'll also be very different.



Well said.


----------



## Russ

Mythopoet said:


> The people on this forum are ridiculous.



You mean like the arrogant ones who say things about the publishing industry that are patently and demonstrably false?

The "Fantasy" part is supposed to apply to the writing, not the worldview!


----------



## Nimue

Mythopoet said:


> Ok, you asked if anyone thought it was a bad idea, so I said yes, I think it's a bad idea. I clearly said _I_ think, showing that this is _my_ opinion. And now I'm accused of being patronizing because I answered a question by stating my opinion? Give me a break. The people on this forum are ridiculous.


If you don't see the problem with your tone--even in this post?--I can't help you there.  But the issue is that the whole time you've been arguing with a strawman who thinks that tropes should be thrown out the window and we should write via avant-garde word generators to be really original.  The debate isn't "tropes are good and useful" versus "tropes are bad and you shouldn't use them".  It's "tropes are useful but you should think about how you use them" versus "tropes are useful and it's not really worth it to think about how you use them".  And making statements like "a lack of tropes doesn't equal originality!" is dodging the point.

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree here, but I'm baffled by how you've gone about making this point, and who you think that you're defending tropes from.


----------

