Cliche Sells

[Heliotrope]

Lol thinker, the same thing happened when I saw The Village. I liked the twist. Everyone n the theatre expected a monster movie and hated it! There was boo-ing.

 

[evolution_rex]

Maybe its because I've yet to publish anything and I'm still very much an amateur writer, but I'd rather be unsuccessful and write what I want to write than force myself to write a trope-filled easily-marketable story for the sake of getting my name out there. I genuinely cannot intentionally write that kind of stuff even if I sometimes like reading it. And I'm not trying to put myself on some pedestal either, its just not within my skill to do something like that and I say more power to you if you can do it.

 

[Miskatonic]

If you want to make money just write a halfway competent series that tugs at the heartstrings of young girls. Seems to have been a pretty successful approach.

 

[Miskatonic]

Maybe its because I've yet to publish anything and I'm still very much an amateur writer, but I'd rather be unsuccessful and write what I want to write than force myself to write a trope-filled easily-marketable story for the sake of getting my name out there. I genuinely cannot intentionally write that kind of stuff even if I sometimes like reading it. And I'm not trying to put myself on some pedestal either, its just not within my skill to do something like that and I say more power to you if you can do it.

I'd be happy making a living writing what I want rather than to be rich and write material I absolutely loathe.

If I can pay my bills and have money left over to put into savings I'm not going to complain.

 

[Peat]

There's a huge difference, imo, between writing what you think will sell best, cliche by cliche and trope by trope; and writing what you want to write, but using cliches and tropes to make it a better story.

To me, cliches and tropes are like the established flavour combinations of writing. You can be traditional and use eggs and bacon to make breakfast, or you can be insane and use them to make ice cream, but either way start with flavours that work.

 

[Svrtnsse]

How to Cook Like Heston - Articles - Bacon and Egg Ice Cream Recipe - Channel 4

 

[Russ]

Damn you Lee Child.

Lee's (although I like his work and him as a person) work is not all that original. He is effectively writing westerns set in the modern world. Jack Reacher is very much like Clint Eastwood or many other western drifter characters. They roll into town where they really know nobody, solve the bad guy problem, and then go on their way. It is an intentional and brilliant choice on his part.

His writing style really is amazing though.

And it appears karma is biting Lee on the ass this year, did you see the year Aston Villa had?

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

All this talk about Bourne and Bond got me thinking. But not about comparisons between them. Comparisons between the franchises they were and what happened when they changed things.

The latest Bourne with our genetically modded soldier was a failure in my view. And why? Because they messed with the formula. There are things you expect from Bourne - and top of the list is that he's a scary dude who's always ten steps ahead of you. As they said in the first film - these guys don't make mistakes. But the new Bourne was a straight up action guy with no - look at me all those mistakes you thought I made were actually strategic brilliance moves.

The latest Bond was also a failure, again because they messed with the formula. What's the one thing that Bond always does? Wins the day in some high risk, big exploding spectacular where the villain gets it. Instead we got this wimpy ending where Bond walks away and the baddie goes to jail. What's that about? We didn't want a Bond who was human, law abiding and meek. He's an agent of righteous fury / vengeance.

The point is that cliche or trope, you have to really think carefully before you start breaking them. People like them. They take comfort in them. In knowing where the story is going to go. You don't really want uncomfortable readers.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Russ]

Hi,

All this talk about Bourne and Bond got me thinking. But not about comparisons between them. Comparisons between the franchises they were and what happened when they changed things.

The latest Bourne with our genetically modded soldier was a failure in my view. And why? Because they messed with the formula. There are things you expect from Bourne - and top of the list is that he's a scary dude who's always ten steps ahead of you. As they said in the first film - these guys don't make mistakes. But the new Bourne was a straight up action guy with no - look at me all those mistakes you thought I made were actually strategic brilliance moves.

The latest Bond was also a failure, again because they messed with the formula. What's the one thing that Bond always does? Wins the day in some high risk, big exploding spectacular where the villain gets it. Instead we got this wimpy ending where Bond walks away and the baddie goes to jail. What's that about? We didn't want a Bond who was human, law abiding and meek. He's an agent of righteous fury / vengeance.

The point is that cliche or trope, you have to really think carefully before you start breaking them. People like them. They take comfort in them. In knowing where the story is going to go. You don't really want uncomfortable readers.

Cheers, Greg.

It is really hard to write such iconic characters when you are not their creator. I know some people who are now writing franchise characters developed by others and they struggle greatly with trying to make the series their own but being true to the original vision and what the audience expects.

This is particularly hard where the franchise is being written by more than one "legacy" writer, like say Clancy's Jack Ryan work.

The money is pretty good and it can jump start your career, but it is a real challenge for any writer to do it well. Can you imagine the pressure of writing new works about Frodo or Conan or Elric?

 

[skip.knox]

>I'd be happy making a living writing what I want rather than to be rich and write material I absolutely loathe.

I think we'd all vote for this one. But if it is not quite a false dichotomy, it is perhaps an overwrought one. There's plenty of room in there for becoming rich while writing material I didn't like as well as I thought I would. Or which I thought I would hate but came to find ways to enjoy. Or to make a living by cranking out boilerplate some of the time and writing more experimental stuff other times.

And anyway, I'll follow good writing pretty much anywhere it leads me. I followed Jordan, at least for a few books, despite that farm boy. I followed Martin even though GoTR began with devices that normally send me running--a world driven by weather, and kewl wolves. And the heroic bastard son.

Looking at it from one perspective, I could argue there's no such thing as a cliche. There is good writing, there is bad writing. If the reader likes it, it's fresh and engaging. If the reader doesn't like it, it's a cliche.

Note this is a factor separate from that of markets. I knew a woman in a writing community who spent years writing stories in which the main characters were termites. It really didn't matter how well or poorly she wrote. Not even Richard Adams could sell stories about heroic termites. She was most emphatically not writing a trope; it was entirely original. And it didn't matter to anyone but her.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Oh, I would totally disagree with Bourne revolutionizing anything, but that could be a definition issue. Not like Jason Bourne was even new, played on lots of tropes born in the 60's and 70's. It increases in revenue for many reasons, franchises tend to do that if done well. What Bourne did best, is hit on the mood of it's audience-- see the glut of super hero movies that has gone so far overboard it makes me want to vomit even when they are entertaining.

I think if you want to look at the same but different comparison, maybe Bond vs Bourne. Bourne revolutionized that genre, and since then, everyone has copied it, even Bond.

Now if you take a look at box office comparing Brosnan's Bond to Damon's Bourne, Brosnan's numbers are way better. but when you look at critical praise, it's the other way around. And as the Bourne franchise kept going its numbers grew, maybe because people began to understand more of what to expect from it and they liked it.

But then Craig comes along and takes what Bourne did and applies it to Bond and gets box office and critical reception, while Renner took Bourne and I don't know what he did with it, probably nothing new (Edit: actually the did change something. They made him some sort of genetically enhanced super person), but it took a step back in box office and critical reception.

 

[Miskatonic]

>I'd be happy making a living writing what I want rather than to be rich and write material I absolutely loathe.

I think we'd all vote for this one. But if it is not quite a false dichotomy, it is perhaps an overwrought one. There's plenty of room in there for becoming rich while writing material I didn't like as well as I thought I would. Or which I thought I would hate but came to find ways to enjoy. Or to make a living by cranking out boilerplate some of the time and writing more experimental stuff other times.

And anyway, I'll follow good writing pretty much anywhere it leads me. I followed Jordan, at least for a few books, despite that farm boy. I followed Martin even though GoTR began with devices that normally send me running--a world driven by weather, and kewl wolves. And the heroic bastard son.

Looking at it from one perspective, I could argue there's no such thing as a cliche. There is good writing, there is bad writing. If the reader likes it, it's fresh and engaging. If the reader doesn't like it, it's a cliche.

Note this is a factor separate from that of markets. I knew a woman in a writing community who spent years writing stories in which the main characters were termites. It really didn't matter how well or poorly she wrote. Not even Richard Adams could sell stories about heroic termites. She was most emphatically not writing a trope; it was entirely original. And it didn't matter to anyone but her.

ASOIAF has been quite helpful as a studying tool. It's given me a lot of great insight into what to do and what to avoid.

My goal is to try and find a happy medium between the political intrigue and scheming of powerful forces and the more classical fantasy/mythology stories where the gods play a significant role, even if behind the scenes.

I want to write adult fantasy that isn't considered adult merely because of violence and sex, but because from a philosophical point of view it's treating the audience as intelligent; to present ideas without preaching and let the reader decide if they agree with what's being presented. A "thinking person's" fantasy without pretentiousness and convoluted ideas. With plenty of action of course.

 

[evolution_rex]

There's a huge difference, imo, between writing what you think will sell best, cliche by cliche and trope by trope; and writing what you want to write, but using cliches and tropes to make it a better story.

That, I would say, is a highly subjective statement.

 

[Penpilot]

Oh, I would totally disagree with Bourne revolutionizing anything, but that could be a definition issue. Not like Jason Bourne was even new, played on lots of tropes born in the 60's and 70's. It increases in revenue for many reasons, franchises tend to do that if done well. What Bourne did best, is hit on the mood of it's audience-- see the glut of super hero movies that has gone so far overboard it makes me want to vomit even when they are entertaining.

Just in terms of the fights, look at the way fights were filmed before Bourne and after, you'll see the influence everywhere. Bourne's fight choreography was grounded and brutal looking and made what Brosnan's bond was doing look silly in comparison. Since then, everyone has stolen from this style. Just look at Casino Royal or even Batman Begins.

You could probably argue that others did things similar before, but Bourne was the one that brought it to the forefront. And to me, there's a clear delineation of things before and after Bourne.

 

[Chessie]

I would rather write abstract stories, too, but I'm not going to make a living doing it. Maybe I'll be proven wrong later and come back here to happily report on it. However, the idea of writing to market is a strong one in the Indie community. Things are just done differently in that type of publishing. Prolific is the name of the game but you also have to write stories that people will read. Otherwise, the general experience of many authors is crickets.

And writing tropes isn't easy. Last night, I actually (HELIO will LOVE this) sat down to freaking brainstorm. Pen and paper, going through the first part of this story I want to write because the last one is shit and I flushed it down the toilet. The dark lord trope in my story is a woman and I think, wow, am I gonna get slammed for this? Idk...but I plan on making her as wicked as possible and enjoying every moment of that darkness. I'm okay with that trope but what about the rescue of my princess?

Because that's what I'm doing just for the hell of it. And actually, I'm getting sick to my stomach just thinking about it. But like I said before, things need to change for me. My husband is 100% supportive of me doing this right so I'm willing to do what it takes and this is just part of that plan.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

If all of this makes you sick, writing to tropes, I think you should spend effort geared toward subverting reader expectations.

You still take them on a journey with familiar elements, but use those expectations to take them somewhere they haven't been. That is vague, I know, and not easy. However, since you're brainstorming, look at the tropes you're using and, as you think about each character and plot point, think about how you can subvert the reader's expectations to effect.

 

[Chessie]

That's great advice, T. Allen. Thank you.

It doesn't make me sick because I don't want to do it, but just that it's difficult for me writing a story in this way. It's a different feeling outside my comfort zone.

 

[Heliotrope]

Lol, I DO love a good brainstorm. And yeah, I even use templates and storyboards and spreadsheets and all that stuff. It is just what works for me, and I can see how, if being prolific is the name of the game, getting used to a standard template might be a good idea, but hey, whatever works. I'm sure there are tons of prolific authors who don't brainstorm.

But moving on from brainstorming back to tropes, I totally agree with T.Allan.Smith. Use the tropes, but then try to subvert reader expectations a bit so that it is a new way that readers haven't seen before. I actually read this the other day when reading about the Lester Dent formula from another post

Dirty 30s! - The Lester Dent Pulp Paper Master Fiction Plot

And I thought it was a pretty good example of how to do this.

He suggests still using the typical trop-y villain (like your awesome villian-y woman), but giving them an different murder method. Something the reader has never seen before

(Ex: I wrote a 30's pulp one time where the MC had to defeat a mummy in an ancient tomb who was buying souls in order to extend his life. He was burning up his victims, but there was never any flammable materials at the crime scene, and him being so dry and old he was highly flammable himself, so they couldn't figure out how he was doing it. By the end she realized that linseed oil, one of the oils used by the ancient Egyptians used for embalming was known to spontaneously combust. All this mummy had to do was spill the linseed oil on some linen and in a few hours it would start to burn, giving him enough time to exit the scene.)

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

Wasn't there a movie called ants? It's only a small step away.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Miskatonic]

If all of this makes you sick, writing to tropes, I think you should spend effort geared toward subverting reader expectations.

You still take them on a journey with familiar elements, but use those expectations to take them somewhere they haven't been. That is vague, I know, and not easy. However, since you're brainstorming, look at the tropes you're using and, as you think about each character and plot point, think about how you can subvert the reader's expectations to effect.

Tropes are most likely going to end up in our stories whether we like it or not. Tropes don't bother me terribly as long as they don't stick out like a sore thumb.