Good v. Evil Trope

[HabeasCorpus]

So, by assigning the term 'trope' to the theme of good v evil, the entire theme has been reduced to obscurity and borederline derision. As a result, the rise of the morally ambiguous or gray characters has been swift and is itself quickly approaching 'trope' status.

My question, poorly presented, is what is wrong with the old trope? Has anyone else experienced the frustration with endings of recent works that are less conclusive but feel like a stop on the road. Has anyone else been left wanting as a result of the advent of the departure from the g v e trope? Without posting spoilers, Memories of Light is a prime example of this in my opinion. I know there are other circumstances in this case with a second author picking up where one was responsible for a significant portion of the body of work. I only guess what the end game is for the GoT series and even Rothfuss' series.

Perhaps this is all a bit of a rant that most of what I've read of late has left me feeling like there was something missing at the end, or... and this is what I fear the most... that as we write, we have no clue what ending we really want our readers to see at the end. Perhaps this could diverge into a discovery v outlining thing... but meh. Anyway, thanks for listening. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts if anything in this post has triggered a thought. Cheers.

 

[Ermol]

Well I agree that the "grey" is now a trope, or perhaps not so much as a trope but a more common theme. The morally ambiguous or "grey" characters are pervasive these days because they may be potentially more interesting and more "realistic". It's much the same movement that gave us "grim & gritty" comics, an attempt to replicate real world in fantasy (or superhero) setting.

"Grey" may also be popular because sometimes (far from always) simply good or bad characters are portrayed quite 1-dimensional, whereas with grey characters there is much more scope for character exploration and drama. You are more likely to incorporate both external and internal conflict to move the character and the story forward.

Furthermore, say your protagonist must make some really dodgy choices to get things done, those scenarios are also made to make the reader think: "Would I do this? How would I act?". And the true skill of a writer is to really make the reader to care about both the choices and the character. Of course, for all the books like Game of Thrones or Malazan book of the Fallen, there is the bullcrap that was Man of Steel, so a writer has to be careful to not go overboard on the dark and grim and the grey.

I say there's nothing wrong in having more modern "good v evil" stories. In fact I would love to read a good one. I also think that you are far from the first person to think about that, and perhaps they may be making a resurgence.

PS: Still haven't read the last two books of WoT, on my post-exam list.

 

[Steerpike]

There's nothing wrong at all with the good v. evil trope. It may not be the subjective preference of some readers but to assign objective fault to it is misguided in my view.

 

[Mythopoet]

"Grey" may also be popular because sometimes (far from always) simply good or bad characters are portrayed quite 1-dimensional, whereas with grey characters there is much more scope for character exploration and drama. You are more likely to incorporate both external and internal conflict to move the character and the story forward.

I would say that this is an illogical assumption. Particularly, it is illogical to assume that when one comes across a one dimensional character portrayal, that the fault lies with the characteristics that the author has assign to the character rather than with the author's skill at characterization. Likewise, it is also illogical to assume that when one comes across a well rounded character that the success of the character lies with the characteristics the author assigned to the character rather than the author's skill. In other words, "good" or "bad" one dimensional characters aren't one dimensional because they are either "good" or "bad". They are one dimensional because the author is not skilled at portraying three dimensional "good" or "bad" characters. And three dimensional "grey" characters are not three dimensional because they are "grey". They are three dimensional because the author is skilled at portraying three dimensional "grey" characters. A bad author will struggle to portray any characters well, no matter what characteristics they have. Whereas a good author will be able to portray any character well, no matter what characteristics they have.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There's room for all sorts of stories, and all along the spectrum. I don't know why people get so wrapped up in tropes. Something becomes popular and all of a sudden it's a trope? If there's nothing truly original, then I suppose everything you could possibly write is a trope. It's all been in fashion at one time or another.

Tropes create too discouraging a view for my liking. I'd rather just tell stories as I see them, with my unique characters & voice (hopefully). I'm not the least bit concerned about tropes. If it's the story I want to tell, so be it. Of course, I strive to be different and unique where I can. I just don't dwell on it.

Further, both types of stories have been around for longer than the printed word. The "morally grey character" may be enjoying a resurgence, but it's hardly a new thing.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with Mythopoet. You can have a perfectly well-rounded character in a good v. evil story. People reach for justifications to provide objective support for their preferences because they want to believe what they are writing or reading is of inherently greater worth or higher standard. It's just not the case. There's nothing wrong with just leaving it as a preference.

 

[Ermol]

I would say that this is an illogical assumption. Particularly, it is illogical to assume that when one comes across a one dimensional character portrayal, that the fault lies with the characteristics that the author has assign to the character rather than with the author's skill at characterization. Likewise, it is also illogical to assume that when one comes across a well rounded character that the success of the character lies with the characteristics the author assigned to the character rather than the author's skill. In other words, "good" or "bad" one dimensional characters aren't one dimensional because they are either "good" or "bad". They are one dimensional because the author is not skilled at portraying three dimensional "good" or "bad" characters. And three dimensional "grey" characters are not three dimensional because they are "grey". They are three dimensional because the author is skilled at portraying three dimensional "grey" characters. A bad author will struggle to portray any characters well, no matter what characteristics they have. Whereas a good author will be able to portray any character well, no matter what characteristics they have.

Yeah, I agree. To be fair, my observations were more based how I felt about the characters in the books that I've read.

 

[Philip Overby]

I also agree. I think something like TV Tropes, while entertaining, has obliterated the creativity of a lot of people. It's created this constant stream of "I can't do that because it's been done already." Good vs. evil, orcs, elves, zombies, whatever can all be done well in the hands of a capable writer.

There's nothing really wrong with the actual tropes themselves, it may be the way people are approaching them that's problematic. You could probably pick up 100 random books that explore this trope and find several that approach it in a way you wouldn't expect or that gets one thinking about how to deal with it in his or her own way.

The shift in popularity of gray characters has made it so no one wants to write good vs. evil as much. I don't see that as a good thing. I think writers who want to write good vs. evil stories should do them and see what they can bring to the trope that makes it fresh in some way (notice I didn't say original, just fresh). However, I tend to think if a story has strong characters and an excellent plot, I'm not going to even pick up on some of these tropes as a reader anyway.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't even look at sites like TV Tropes. There is really nothing to be gained from them unless you're writing satire.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think it ultimately comes down to which characters you want to characterize. If you're writing a story where the villains are pure evil, brave, noble heroes will stand out greatly against them. If you're writing villains who're multidimensional, you may want to try other points of contrast. Either way, I think what matters is strong characterization, whether of the heroes or of the villains.

I like to say I don't write many "evil" villains, but I have used villains who were too strange and alien to characterize, because I wanted to focus on the heroes' personalities. I've also written stories where the villains were full-fledged characters, even if they were doing awful things. I wouldn't call them separate styles or say they're for different audiences--they're just different ways of writing the story.

 

[Penpilot]

When it did calling something a trope automatically make it a bad thing?

All stories of a similar type will always have common elements. Trying to avoid tropes is like trying to avoid getting wet while swimming. It's silly. It's impossible, and the only way to avoid tropes is to not write... EVER... which is sillier still.

If you're trying to write a boy meets girl story, and somebody says "Boy meets girl trope huh. Bet they get together at the end and live happily ever after," are you just going to avoid the happy ending... forever? No one should ever write a boy meets girl story with a happy ending ever again until the end of time because it's a trope?

When I started trying to write, I wanted to avoid everything that's been done before. I never progressed beyond a few pages until gave up on being 100% original. Don't worry about originality of ideas/concept, because it ain't going to happen. Strive for originality of execution.

 

[Svrtnsse]

One good example of good vs evil is the story of Paksenarrion (The Deed of Paksenarrion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). At some point I read how it was written partly as an experiment in creating an absolutely good character. The first book was published in 1988, so it's not exactly recent, but it's still a great example of good vs evil done right.

 

[Mythopoet]

When it did calling something a trope automatically make it a bad thing?

At the same time that people started believing that a "trope" is the exact same thing as a stereotype. Now the question is, when did that happen?

 

[Gryphos]

I think a problem with trying to avoid good vs evil scenarios is that, when you think about it, it's actually rather difficult to. In that I mean in almost every single conflict there can be one side identified as the good side and the other the bad one. That doesn't mean every bad guy is Sauron or every good guy is Santa, but in almost every case one side has the moral high ground. And then when people try really hard to avoid either side being the bad guy, they just end up making both sides bad guys of varying degrees. And I'm sorry, but I'm not about to root for a protagonist just because he's slightly less of a shithead than the other guy.

And hell, I find this even applies to real life. IMHO the world is a lot more black and white than some people like to think.

 

[Steerpike]

At the same time that people started believing that a "trope" is the exact same thing as a stereotype. Now the question is, when did that happen?

I think it is common with writers who are just starting out, and sites like TV Tropes exacerbate the problem. The home page of TVTropes explicitly points out that the content should't be used in the way, but that doesn't stop people. You see a lot of beginning writers ask "has this been done before?" And if they find out it has and there is something about it on TVTropes, they become disenchanted with the idea and look for something that hasn't been done, or else immediately assume that they have to subvert it somehow to have a good story.

Many tropes occur repeatedly because there is some inherent quality about the trope that connects with the human mind and human emotions. Those sorts of things are powerful tools for a writer, and the idea that you have to get away from them entirely or else you're dealing in cliches is misplaced.

 

[Guy]

To be fair to TV tropes, they do say tropes are not necessarily bad and they are not the same as cliches. I find the site entertaining, and it does provide some food for thought. I think the trick is to read the site with the attitude of "How can I make these work for me?" as opposed to "I must avoid these at all costs!" and realizing, as others have said, there's no way you can tell a story and avoid all tropes.

As for morally grey characters, I think they might be more realistic. Coincidentally, I stumbled across this article earlier today: Evil not so banal, says disturbing new probe - Yahoo News

Basically saying people are willing to commit evil acts if they think it is for some higher cause.

 

[deilaitha]

I believe that tropes and cliches are a writer's friends. They enable you to communicate things to your readers faster, because in their minds, they are already (whether they know it or not) conditioned to expect certain things.

"Originality" in writing has more to do with twisting tropes than it does with avoiding them altogether. There just simply is no way to avoid them. The question is one of whether you are abusing the trope or putting exactly the same spin on that trope as somebody else has.

I've talked to some young writers who say that they don't like to write original fiction because "all of my ideas are cliche or tropes." I think Steerpike really hit the nail on the head with that problem. It's a question of how you use or present tropes rather than eliminating them.

Personally, I love the good versus evil trope. I also love things which explore a more "gray" morality. At some point, no matter what your x versus y is, it's going to turn into a trope if it gets popular enough.

 

[Mythopoet]

Basically saying people are willing to commit evil acts if they think it is for some higher cause.

Which is basically the same thing fiction writers have been saying forever: almost no one sees themselves as the bad guy. Probably not even serial killers see themselves as bad guys. Hitler certainly didn't. But that doesn't mean they aren't the bad guy.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

This whole grimdark movement in my view is a simply a reaction to the fantasy of the seventies and earlier which was mostly pure good versus evil. Readers and writers grew a little tired of having characters / MC's who were completely beyond reproach. And to an extent I can understand that. However that does not make those characters necessarily unrealistic. Frodo for example, and the even more righteous, Samwise, are well written, well fleshed out characters. They have depth and emotional pull, but almost no (and in Samwise's case absolutely no) moral greyness. You understand them and love them.

Are they unrealistic? Probably. But do you believe them as a reader? Hell yes.

And then along comes grimdark and people automatically think it's more realistic. In terms of character and in terms of plot. And maybe to an extent it is. But then I look at GOT (which I really enjoy) and I think - Does GRRM have a fetish for suffering and death? I mean the characters are well fleshed out, but really does any family etc suffer so much in reality? Is there no end to the pain? When does the good stuff start? And when it does, will any of these people be alive to see it let alone enjoy it?

At some point I think you have to accept this is just as unrealistic as the lily white hero riding victoriously into battle. And yet the characters are still compelling. It's like watching a train crash in slow motion. You can't take your eyes off it even though you know where it's going to end.

Cheers Greg.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with @psychotick. The truth is, wholly good or bad representations of fantasy characters and the types of gray characters we see in grimdark are equally unrealistic. Both can be equally well developed, deep, and fleshed out, but neither is a good representation of reality. These stories are entertainment. In either approach, the author latches onto characteristics of these individuals and makes those characteristics larger than life. Either approach can be fun, either can be used to tell complex, entertaining stories, but if you look around the world at real people, you'll see that neither is truly representative of the whole, so I don't think the "more realistic" argument has any merit.