Originality, Tropes, Stereotypes, Avante Garde - Stop Obsessing

[BWFoster78]

If you're going to write a story in which one group is the clear antagonists, feel free to--just give a bit more thought to why they're the antagonists. (Winds of the Forelands, a mixed effort in many ways, succeeded on this count, with a charismatic evil leader who hijacked legitimate grievances about racial prejudice.)

Feo,

For me, the antagonist is bad simply because he opposes the protagonist's goals. If I were writing about the American Revolution from the side of the Americans, I'd portray the British as evil. If my protagonist were a red coat, those colonists rebelling against the crown would be the bad guys.

It all depends on your point of view.

I'd be curious to hear your opinions on this thought.

Thanks.

Brian

 

[Feo Takahari]

Which one of us are you addressing, Feo?

I guess the ^ hasn't really caught on here. (On the last site I frequented, you counted one ^ for every post above yours, so ^^ meant two above.) For simplicity, I'll just use quotes.

Feo,

For me, the antagonist is bad simply because he opposes the protagonist's goals. If I were writing about the American Revolution from the side of the Americans, I'd portray the British as evil. If my protagonist were a red coat, those colonists rebelling against the crown would be the bad guys.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" and "evil." You wouldn't write their characterization any differently, right?

(This is getting into territory way outside the topic, and while I have strong views on the subject, I don't know anyone else who agrees with them, so if your answer is "yes," I'll drop it.)

 

[BWFoster78]

I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" and "evil." You wouldn't write their characterization any differently, right?

(This is getting into territory way outside the topic, and while I have strong views on the subject, I don't know anyone else who agrees with them, so if your answer is "yes," I'll drop it.)

I'm pretty confused right now. I've read through your posts, and I'm not sure what your actual objection is. You seemed to be complaining about the good guys killing the bad guys, but your objection seemed to be not the actual killing but the justification for it. Am I understanding your point?

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you because I'm not 100% clear on what you're trying to say.

As for if I would write the characterization any differently, of course I would. The British as seen from the eyes of the American colonist is a completely different creature from the British seen from one of their soldiers, and I tend to have only my protagonists be viewpoint characters.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'll get out of this thread and just discuss things in PMs.

Edit: Actually, on second thought, I'll inquire as to whether I can submit an essay containing my thoughts on the subject. (I seem to be operating off of very different premises than everyone else in this thread, so I might as well outline all of those premises in a single cohesive article.)

 

[Ghost]

I'm turned off by constant references to TV Tropes, hero's journey, and similar things. If you have a story to tell, then tell your story. Clogging up your process with someone else's steps or checking tropes after every idea seems strangling to me.

Some writers haven't dug deeply enough to find the story they need to tell. Whatever makes your heart go pitter patter, with happy thoughts or not so happy ones, that's what makes a story. I see writers aspiring to be like a famous author or struggling to make a certain kind of story. Most likely, what the famous author wrote meant something to him or her.

Of course, it all depends on your goal. If you're writing strictly to entertain, you should be happy when tropes come up in your work—not that you should be actively looking for them as you write. Tropes mean your work shares ideas with what's come before. A tropeless story is more worrisome. What the heck could you be writing about that's relateable? If you're writing for yourself, no one else's opinion matters anyway. You're the only person who needs to be happy with it. If you're writing to move people, write about what moves you. That's the most authentic way to go about it. When you find yourself wondering how others will react to your ideas, whether they'll like them or whether it's been done before, then you might want to question your passion for this particular story and how much it comes from your own perspective. (There are other reasons to write and most people have more than one reason, but I only wanted to touch on those ones here.)

All this talk of writing novels to fit or contrast with other novels, video games, and TV shows/movies out there seems like procrastination mixed with a tiny bit of perfectionism and some silliness. Whatever you do, do it well (or as best as you can). Do it because you love it. Write what no one else could write, not because the ideas are so original but because it's written from your perspective and with your aesthetic. Don't write an post-apocalyptic, alternate history thriller set in Tbilisi with a donkey as the MC because you think no one else is doing it. Write it because that's the story that makes you happiest or most satisfied.

BTW, all the imperatives in my post aren't meant as edicts, they're just how I feel about writing.