Unredeemable Tropes

[Kasper Hviid]

Preface
Some tropes are not just cheap, but downright unredeemable. They shouldn't be used, ever. I'm not simply exaggerating for controversial points. I see those tropes as different from ordinary cheap tropes like Deus Ex Machina, which can work under the right circumstances. With some of those tropes, there is a build-in lack of humanity that will always shine through, no matter how the trope is turned. Those tropes are simply assholes.
Now, if I were to read the paragraph above, I would instinctively want to defend those poor innocent tropes. Possibly, others will have the same reaction. So please listen on with the awareness that I'm just a random guy sharing my thoughts online. Get a feel of what sounds sound, and what sounds offkey. Then give voice to your own thoughts.

The openly racist stereotype
Obviously, those no longer work. If you were to add a greedy jew stereotype, the reader will get pulled out of your story, and begin analyzing it. The use of the trope will be more interesting than its role in the story. Also, it's racist, duh!

Killing off a problematic character
A character is wanted for robbery, but he’s also kind of a nice guy. The heroes can’t turn him in, but they can’t let him walk either. What to do? Oh, one of those monsters just happened to bite his head off. Problem solved!

Fridging
This can take many forms, but essentially you kill/rape/torture a less important character solely for giving the hero something to be emotional and angsty about. In its most cringe form, it is the hero himself who commits the abuse, to show how wounded and dark he is.

The whiny and helpless protagonist
It might be part of his character arc, but I always find it unpleasant to follow someone who lacks agency. This trope might not be totally unredeemable, but it's pretty close.

Exploiting the reader’s suspension of disbelief
Example: The hero is locked up, but can hear the voice of a fellow prisoner in the next cell. Super corny trope, but I accept it because the whole story is rather kitschy. But then, it turns out to be a guard pumping the hero for information. The story asks me to lower my guards, only to punch me on the nose. Such ungentlemanliness!
I especially hate this trope when it subverts humor. The hero says a cool one-liner. The reader recognizes it as such, and don’t think too deeply about it. But later, information revealed in the one-liner comes into play in the story. This is cheating. The reader accepted the agreement that the one-liner was there for fun only. When the author cracks a joke, the reader should be able to enjoy it in a relaxed state of mind, without having to look out for any hidden agenda.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Interesting list. I think this is one to keep in a document somewhere, thanks.

I'd expand the first one a bit to include all identity categories when it comes to straight-up ‘isms and obias’. It’s slightly different but I’d also include lazy identity stereotypes, even if they’re not negative. It’s kind of a difficult one because it would be a bit crazy to say that you couldn’t write an English character who drank tea because it’s ‘lazy’ - actually, it’s just the way things are and a practical way to show their Englishness (laboured example but bear with me).

What I do object to are 2D characters who seem to pop up fully formed with no development because the author assumes people will just accept that these characters’ gender/ethnicity/age/sexuality/etc. serves as a sufficient explanation for their motivations and present state: Tropes such as a female character whose defining purpose is to be sexually available for a male protagonist, acting as the Macguffin. The indigenous character whose purpose is to be magical because they’re native and… mother nature and stuff. The man who is automatically brave and strong because he’s a man. This doesn’t mean you can’t have a love interest, magician or hero, it just means you have to earn them.

Your point about exploiting the reader’s suspension of disbelief is well made but I think it can be used to good effect and only applies at all if the piece is written with omniscient narration. There are other styles where the reader never knows more than the main character for example. Perhaps this is one of the rules you learn so that you know how to break it - carefully?

 

[Ban]

An interesting list of things to generally avoid, but I'll be playing Devil's advocate because I enjoy doing so. Just to be clear, this is not a dismissal of the list or the viewpoints guiding it, just my take on something that grabbed my interest

1. The Openly Racist Stereotype
I believe this one can still be used in comedy if purposefully subverted in some manner. Sure, it's going to end up as a darker shade of humour, but it can work nonetheless. I'm also assuming you factor culture into race here, given your example of the greedy jew stereotype?

For example, if I write about a cheese-eating, beer-gurgling, joint chain-smoking, clog-stomping, stingy, ten feet tall blond Dutch uncle Dutchman laden with Dutch courage, Dutch talent, the voice of a Dutch nightingale and a Dutch wife waiting for him at home, would that be an openly racist stereotype? I'd say so, however given that the stereotype is blown out of proportion, given the non-disadvantaged position of Dutch people and combined with me being Dutch of Dutch descent on all sides, I don't think anyone would argue there's anything wrong with me writing this character.

To put it differently, the context of the character matters and so does the presentation. If instead of the example above I did the same thing with any other group of people I have an understanding of, the presentation would still be fine, but to my mind the biggest issues with racist stereotypes are two-fold: 1. Punching down, and 2. Not writing from a point of understanding of the actual people behind the stereotype.
I'd say this is why it feels (and is in most cases) wrong to write or read about a character who could have been ripped straight from a minstrel show, but it's fine to listen to your average comedian making 'this group such and such' jokes.

2. Killing off a problematic character

Generally agree, but it depends on how important the character is. While you have a point if you restrict this to main characters and important supporting characters. I don't believe this is a thing to deride or worry about when it comes to minor characters. Setting up good deaths takes time and if you're writing a Martinesque murder fest filled with problematic characters, the minor ones who need to go don't always merit a full death arc.

3. Fridging

Here I simply disagree. You can argue that in high literature each death and each character should be meaningful, although I wouldn't, but not all literature and not all fiction is high literature. If I write a high-octane action flick, or a cheesy retro-80s horror, the subjects of life and death are relegated as meaningless to the medium, therefore a death here and there for setup is nothing to shy away from.

Point 4 and 5 I mostly agree with.

The whiny protagonist is surely not a character I'd miss, but it has its place in limited circumstances as you also hint. Number 5 in the specific scenarios you describe are cases of bad writing to me, and bad writing of course isn't anyone's end goal. Well... unless you want to write a cult classic like the Eye of Argon.

 

[Devor]

I disagree on all counts, partly on principle, but I’ll give the first one a pass for the obvious reason that I don’t want to defend stereotypes or confuse people trying to debate rare or stupid cases.

2) It does often feel like people write themselves into a corner and take the easy way out. But literary justice isn’t the same as real justice, and most people understand that. Just for example it’s far more satisfying to readers when justice comes within the boundaries of the story. Going to prison? That’s outside the story, and pursuing it just creates a plot tumor. Having a redemptive moment getting eaten by a giant toad? That's a satisfying conclusion. That’s just how literary justice works. When there's a problem, I think it's usually in how the character is portrayed before getting eaten, when the author lets "likability" overshadow the character's moral defects. If the other characters are giving bad conduct a pass, that's a problem, whether the character gets eaten or not.

3) When it comes to fridging, the original example was pretty extreme: Green Lantern's girlfriend was butchered, left in a fridge, and never mentioned again. The girlfriend had no real character qualities to note, and the Green Lantern didn't even have any character development because of it. The more we water down that example, the more we open it to debate and wiggle room. Real people do grow from the loss of a loved one, and villains on the level of evil many villains are portrayed with really would target them. The more we develop the murdered character, and the character development that comes from the event (and importantly, include lots of other well-rounded characters so that it's not like this is the only woman in the book or such), the more we can make a case for a valid use of a horrific loss early in the story. Examples like the original Green Lantern are pretty common and pretty hard to justify, but the description in the OP is nothing like it. Eventually we can water it down so much that even a story like Pixar's "UP" fridges the only noteworthy female character so that a man can be all angsty, which is of course ridiculous because the story is about loss.

I have to go for a minute but I'll come back to the other two.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Everything can work if written well. Everything can fail if written poorly.

However, I’m not sure how that explains 50 Shades, heh heh. So, to expand, someting written poorly can sell well, and something written well can sell poorly. Such is life.

 

[The Dark One]

I'm with DDN on this one. If it's good, it's good.

I especially disagree with the OP's trope 5. Exploiting the suspension of disbelief is cool - that's the whole reason you get them to suspend, right? So you can sneak information past their guard for a later reveal. Of course, done badly, one can feel cheated. Done well, one can't help but applaud.

As I've said in other threads, I love it when a writer can trick me. It doesn't happen often because - being a storyteller myself - I tend to see the tricks coming. I just love books that can slip something past me and then have them go off in my face...without cheating.

 

[ThinkerX]

we had a challenge here years ago where we incorporated overused or unworkable troupes into short stories. Most of them came out fairly good. It's not the troupe, its the writing.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I think point 5 is actually the basis of a lot of detective novels. There are a lot of little clues that seem insignificant but at the end, the protagonist pulls them all together and reveals the killer.

In general, I agree with Demesnedenoir. If it's written well, it works if not then it doesn't

 

[The Dark One]

I think point 5 is actually the basis of a lot of detective novels.

I'm best known for being a crime writer myself, and while I agree completely with the point about apparent insignificance - so important to a crime plot - I don't think this is quite how the OP meant it. He was talking (I thought) about breaking your own rules established while suspending disbelief to hoodwink the reader. For me the worst ever example of this was The Sixth Sense - the way all the ghosts' death injuries were obvious - except Bruce Willis's. That's a cheat. But slipping apparently insignificant (but highly important) details past the attention of the reader - for the purpose of a triumphant reveal - is the quintessence of crime writing, or any other story featuring a twist.

All my stories feature a couple of twists, including crime, historical and spec fic. Funny thing is, I never set out to write a story with a twist. It just happens - despite me being the consummate planner - every time.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Sixth Sense, I disagree that it was a cheat, it was Willis’ perception of himself portrayed by the camera. Or at least I’ll excuse it in this way, heh heh.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Funny thing is how often I foreshadow twists I didn’t plan.

I'm best known for being a crime writer myself, and while I agree completely with the point about apparent insignificance - so important to a crime plot - I don't think this is quite how the OP meant it. He was talking (I thought) about breaking your own rules established while suspending disbelief to hoodwink the reader. For me the worst ever example of this was The Sixth Sense - the way all the ghosts' death injuries were obvious - except Bruce Willis's. That's a cheat. But slipping apparently insignificant (but highly important) details past the attention of the reader - for the purpose of a triumphant reveal - is the quintessence of crime writing, or any other story featuring a twist.

All my stories feature a couple of twists, including crime, historical and spec fic. Funny thing is, I never set out to write a story with a twist. It just happens - despite me being the consummate planner - every time.

 

[WooHooMan]

I’ve always thought misanthropes are pretty intolerable. I’ve heard some people don’t like lycanthropes but I’ve always thought they were cool.
Oh, sorry, I misread that thread title. I thought there was an H there.

But seriously, are there any “irredeemable” cliches, conventions or tropes? Even lazy, tired cliches can be easily and effectively used in comedy. Hell, even offensive archetypes can work in comedy.
I’m genuinely curious if there’s any that everyone would agree is bad.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Even with racial/sexual stereotypes, the fact is some people are walking stereotypes. If you write without stereotypes you leave out a segment of society, LOL. I’ve a gay friend who admits to being a walking, talking stereotype, and so he finds comedy poking fun at his traits hilarious. He knows, he owns it! The guy who really catches crap is the straight dance instructor... so, it gets repetitive, anything done well works.

Also, sterotypes can be positive as well as negative. To me it’s more how you treat the character than any individual traits, whether you follow or break stereotype.

Also, a poorly written character will almost always feel like a sterotype, even if it’s a stereotype of breaking a sterotype.

I’ve always thought misanthropes are pretty intolerable. I’ve heard some people don’t like lycanthropes but I’ve always thought they were cool.
Oh, sorry, I misread that thread title. I thought there was an H there.

But seriously, are there any “irredeemable” cliches, conventions or tropes? Even lazy, tired cliches can be easily and effectively used in comedy. Hell, even offensive archetypes can work in comedy.
I’m genuinely curious if there’s any that everyone would agree is bad.

 

[Vaporo]

Personally, I say that no trope should be discarded out of hand. Tropes are tools, and nobody should arbitrarily forbid themselves from using a tool if it fits the job. Anything can be written, so long as it is written well.

1. Mostly agree. I'd argue that stereotypes can be done without issue so long as you present it as an "affectionate parody," give the character traits more than the base stereotype, and don't cast anyone in a negative light. For example, look at Team Fortress 2. Every single one of the characters is a stereotype, but it's not offensive.

2. I agree. Resolving a character-related plot thread by arbitrarily killing off said character is bad form. It doesn't really "resolve" the situation, just renders it null and unsatisfying. Might as well have not had the plot thread in the first place.

3. I think it's easy to make this trope sound problematic when taken out of context, but I really don't think it's an issue. A dead character raises the stakes. I can see this trope being abused, but I don't see any inherent problems here. If the Joker killed Alfred just to get on Batman's nerves, I would have no problem with it since it fits with what we know about the Joker. You could base an entire comic around this trope. The Joker sets up Batman to find a kid and take him in. Batman grows attached to the kid. Then, the Joker kills the kid, all simply because he knew that it would anger Batman.

That said, killing off a main character just for the sake of making another sweat is probably also bad form. It should propel the story forward somehow. For example, Alfred's death prompts Batman to end his fight with Joker, regardless of the cost.

4. Depends on your personal preference. I'm not particularly fond of whiny main characters either, but some people like watching the transition from whiny brat to Chosen One.

5. Completely disagree. Misdirecting the reader's attention is a key tool in the writer's toolbox. The trick is to make the reader slap themselves on the forehead and think "Of course! It's so obvious. How didn't I notice that before?" I see your example about prisoners talking to each others through walls and think "Hmmm. That's an interesting way to subvert the trope." So long as you drop occasional hints that there's something more going on with the other "prisoner" than meets the eye, you should be perfectly fine.

I guess it depends on the type of story your writing. If you're writing an old-fashioned adventure story, yeah. If the rest of the story sticks to established tropes, having this one scene that subverts them could be a problem. That said, I can't imagine a story that follows all of the genre tropes verbatim to be terribly interesting.

 

[Darkfantasy]

I think most things can be redeemed if done well. A trope becomes a trope for a reason.

But one I can't stand in YA and children's is that all adults are useless. I get why it's there. You can't have a twelve year old be in the front line defeating the most powerful evil ever if adults are doing their jobs. Parents will get in the way, teachers will get in the way and so the kid can't be victorious but it still irritates me. Teens leading a rebellion...if I'm going to join a rebellion and follow someone, I'd want it to be someone with some military experience if possible. In the very least someone with some life experience and capable of keeping their mind on the job, not some hot-headed teen with loads of attitude who spends more time running around after her crush or being indecisive about whether she likes the brooding boy or her best friend better.

 

[Miles Lacey]

The openly racist stereotype
Obviously, those no longer work. If you were to add a greedy jew stereotype, the reader will get pulled out of your story, and begin analyzing it. The use of the trope will be more interesting than its role in the story. Also, it's racist, duh!

It''s very rare these days that you will encounter a Merchant of Venice type stereotype of a Jew in any modern writing. However, there are the Asian martial arts experts, the wise old Asian man, the island native cannibals, the Arabian harems that are little more than brothels and other racial stereotypes that really do need to be taken out back and shot.

Killing off a problematic character
A character is wanted for robbery, but he’s also kind of a nice guy. The heroes can’t turn him in, but they can’t let him walk either. What to do? Oh, one of those monsters just happened to bite his head off. Problem solved!

I must confess I haven't encountered that one much in the fantasy books I've read but I have encountered something similar: the morally questionable character always suffers a terrible fate. Sometimes it''s death but sometimes they are punished with horrible fates like being tortured, raped, locked up in a dungeon and forgotten or worse.

Fridging
This can take many forms, but essentially you kill/rape/torture a less important character solely for giving the hero something to be emotional and angsty about. In its most cringe form, it is the hero himself who commits the abuse, to show how wounded and dark he is.

I'm fed up with the use of rape and/or torture to toughen up a female protagonist, to establish the evil credentials of a villain or as a form of punishment.

The whiny and helpless protagonist
It might be part of his character arc, but I always find it unpleasant to follow someone who lacks agency. This trope might not be totally unredeemable, but it's pretty close.

Thomas Covenant in The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, the Unbeliever was really pathetic and whiny but he started to man up (so to speak) as the story progressed. In itself, I have no issues with such a character if they stop being whiny and helpless as the story progresses. What annoys me is when female protagonist begins the story as tough and independent but becomes whiny and helpless when the male love interest/main male character turns up.

Exploiting the reader’s suspension of disbelief
Example: The hero is locked up, but can hear the voice of a fellow prisoner in the next cell. Super corny trope, but I accept it because the whole story is rather kitschy. But then, it turns out to be a guard pumping the hero for information. The story asks me to lower my guards, only to punch me on the nose. Such ungentlemanliness!
I especially hate this trope when it subverts humor. The hero says a cool one-liner. The reader recognizes it as such, and don’t think too deeply about it. But later, information revealed in the one-liner comes into play in the story. This is cheating. The reader accepted the agreement that the one-liner was there for fun only. When the author cracks a joke, the reader should be able to enjoy it in a relaxed state of mind, without having to look out for any hidden agenda.

I feel cheated if there isn't a potential hidden agenda behind a certain one-liner or phrase. I want the writer to tease me, mess with my emotions, screw around with my expectations and generally exploit my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Not just worhless, but idiots. It’s almost to the point of propaganda educating kids that their parents are stupid so you should go ahead and ignore them. And if there is anything I did learn by getting older, it’s how bleeping stupid I was when I was young, so stupid I didn’t know I was stupid... this includes the college years... heck, those early twenties might be the highlight of being stupid and thinking I was smart.

I think most things can be redeemed if done well. A trope becomes a trope for a reason.

But one I can't stand in YA and children's is that all adults are useless. I get why it's there. You can't have a twelve year old be in the front line defeating the most powerful evil ever if adults are doing their jobs. Parents will get in the way, teachers will get in the way and so the kid can't be victorious but it still irritates me. Teens leading a rebellion...if I'm going to join a rebellion and follow someone, I'd want it to be someone with some military experience if possible. In the very least someone with some life experience and capable of keeping their mind on the job, not some hot-headed teen with loads of attitude who spends more time running around after her crush or being indecisive about whether she likes the brooding boy or her best friend better.

 

[Penpilot]

Not just worhless, but idiots. It’s almost to the point of propaganda educating kids that their parents are stupid so you should go ahead and ignore them. And if there is anything I did learn by getting older, it’s how bleeping stupid I was when I was young, so stupid I didn’t know I was stupid... this includes the college years... heck, those early twenties might be the highlight of being stupid and thinking I was smart.

Hahha... Yeah. I couldn't agree more. It's one of the reasons I like that movie Looper. When the older versions of characters time travel and meet their younger selves they always treat the younger selves like they're idiots. Youth is wasted on the young.

 

[Darkfantasy]

Not just worhless, but idiots. It’s almost to the point of propaganda educating kids that their parents are stupid so you should go ahead and ignore them. And if there is anything I did learn by getting older, it’s how bleeping stupid I was when I was young, so stupid I didn’t know I was stupid... this includes the college years... heck, those early twenties might be the highlight of being stupid and thinking I was smart.

So true! I learned about the world and how to operate in it from adults, not from other teens. I got all my support and security from adults. I don't think kids, especially teens should be taught/encouraged to ignore adults.

 

[Kasper Hviid]

I think you're misunderstanding the trope. It's not about the adults being less intelligent. It's more about the adults living in a separate world. Like in the comic Power Pack #1 where the parents are unconscious during the entire adventure. Or that R. L. Stine novel where the killer doll plays dead whenever there's an adult around. Letting the adult be ignorant works great here, because then it's on them, and the reader don't have to worry if the hero should have done a better job of explaining the situation.