YA stereotypes: good or bad?

Weatherby · Aug 5, 2007

My genre of choice is YA fantasy/urban fantasy.

For the most part, I realize that clichés and stereotypes are frowned upon in the literary community.

However, I think in some settings, that certain stereotypes are appealing to younger readers.

I.e., trolls are big and brutish, dashing knights are chivalrous, princesses are often spoiled and vain, elderly wizards are eccentric, etc...

While the reversal of stereotypes can be a humorous device (imagine an effeminate troll!) I think that there is a certain "comfort level" in the stability of the fantasy realms.

If you ask a 13 year old to describe a troll, chances are most of the adjectives they'll come up with is the same -- ergo, isn't it wise to continue to portray such a creature in the same light?

Your thoughts?

Shady Lane · Aug 5, 2007

They're stereotypes because we've seen them already. And YA's are plenty old enough to realize they've seen them already.

I'd try for something new.

RLSMiller · Aug 5, 2007

Weatherby said:
My genre of choice is YA fantasy/urban fantasy.

For the most part, I realize that clichés and stereotypes are frowned upon in the literary community.

However, I think in some settings, that certain stereotypes are appealing to younger readers.

I.e., trolls are big and brutish, dashing knights are chivalrous, princesses are often spoiled and vain, elderly wizards are eccentric, etc...

While the reversal of stereotypes can be a humorous device (imagine an effeminate troll!) I think that there is a certain "comfort level" in the stability of the fantasy realms.

If you ask a 13 year old to describe a troll, chances are most of the adjectives they'll come up with is the same -- ergo, isn't it wise to continue to portray such a creature in the same light?

Your thoughts?

No. I like to surprise people - there's no fun in familiarity. The more you do something, the more desensitized you become to it. Sure, I suppose it's comforting to be revisited by the same old caricature, but I don't write to comfort people. If I wanted to do that, I'd write a self-help book.

I write to enthrall, shine a new perspective on things that people take for granted, to take the familiar and monotonous and make it unfamiliar, dangerous but exciting.

If we keep churning out the same old same old, how can we ever progress?

Dancre · Aug 5, 2007

Weatherby said:
My genre of choice is YA fantasy/urban fantasy.

For the most part, I realize that clichés and stereotypes are frowned upon in the literary community.

However, I think in some settings, that certain stereotypes are appealing to younger readers.

I.e., trolls are big and brutish, dashing knights are chivalrous, princesses are often spoiled and vain, elderly wizards are eccentric, etc...

While the reversal of stereotypes can be a humorous device (imagine an effeminate troll!) I think that there is a certain "comfort level" in the stability of the fantasy realms.

If you ask a 13 year old to describe a troll, chances are most of the adjectives they'll come up with is the same -- ergo, isn't it wise to continue to portray such a creature in the same light?

Your thoughts?

You're forgetting the most important person in the writing process: the publisher. IF the publisher finds the characters cliched, they'll never publish the story. I suggest you find something new instead of the same old, same old.

kim

reenkam · Aug 5, 2007

I don't think main/major characters should ever be clichéd. If they're important enough to be in the story, then they're important enough to get some attention.

That being said, I think minor characters can be stereotypes, mostly because if they're only going to be in the book for a chapter or so, it's easier and makes more sense to give them an appearance that is easy to imagine and follow. They don't the same screen time (word count?) as other characters, so you have to work with what you've got.

That being sad, I do think there are some clichés you can get away with because they're not so much clichés as they are, well, set descriptions. Like big and brutish trolls. Unless you have a reason for them to be something else, that's how they were described in mythology so why change for no reason? On the other hand, eccentric wizards are a pretty modern description that I'd find clichéd, but I wouldn't mind seeing a very wise and cryptic wizard because, well, that's what they were in history (usually).

bethany · Aug 5, 2007

cliches and stereotypes are dull. It might be interesting to start with some seemingly normal characters and then let them surprise the reader....

Zoombie · Aug 5, 2007

Note to self, write a story with weak, intelligent trolls, friendly, well adjusted princesses, overweight and ugly elves, mundane wizards and a boorish knight.

Steryotypes are there to be broken. That's my motto at least. Mostly becuase, in real life, stereotypes are rarely (if ever) actually true. And real life is strange and bizarre and interesting. And, if I'm any indicator of the standards of the population, strange, bizarre and interesting sells well.

Maprilynne · Aug 5, 2007

If you watch the NYT bestsellers list for children's chapter books over a long period of time (I've been keeping close tabs on it for about 18 months now) you'll find that the books that tend to hit high and stay long are the books that challenge stereotypes. For example Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series that puts a twist on vampires and more recently, Melissa Marr's Wicked Lovely which puts a whole new spin on faeries. Sure you see the books that follow stereotypes, but the one that people remember and tend to get more word of mouth hype are the one that go against stereotypes.

Just my $.02

MsJudy · Aug 5, 2007

Agents and editors say they want a good, well-told story, but they won't read a page unless they like your query. So you could have a great plot, fabulous characters, delightful voice, and they'll never know it unless something in your query really captures their attention. And there it seems like they really want to know you've done something no one else has done.

Maprilynne · Aug 5, 2007

But if you send 3-5 perusal pages most agents will at least glance at them regardless of what your query says unless it is totally illiterate.

In which case your pages probably are too.

javili · Aug 7, 2007

The way you use cliches is to cut back against them. This is very common in children's books and films. (Almost a cliche?)

So you find stories about the sensitive troll who suffers from the stereotype or can't get other trolls interested in discussing Proust and interior decorating?

Or a witch that's afraid of heights and allergic to cats?

I should probably add that these are not story suggestions. Please.

What I'm saying is that a lot of writers use cliches in fresh ways.

Moonfish · Aug 8, 2007

reenkam said:
That being sad, I do think there are some clichés you can get away with because they're not so much clichés as they are, well, set descriptions. Like big and brutish trolls. Unless you have a reason for them to be something else, that's how they were described in mythology so why change for no reason?

I have to jump in here - trolls were originally NOT brutish and ugly! I have just been researching Nordic mythology the past few days and to my surprise found out that trolls in the beginning looked very much like humans (some sources even describe them as more beautiful!) and that the only difference was that they had tails. It was only in the 19th century that they became big and ugly.
This is, however, just in the Nordic countries, maybe it's different in anglosaxon mythology?

reenkam · Aug 8, 2007

Moonfish said:
I have to jump in here - trolls were originally NOT brutish and ugly! I have just been researching Nordic mythology the past few days and to my surprise found out that trolls in the beginning looked very much like humans (some sources even describe them as more beautiful!) and that the only difference was that they had tails. It was only in the 19th century that they became big and ugly.
This is, however, just in the Nordic countries, maybe it's different in anglosaxon mythology?

True. I just meant the more recent image of trolls. I can't remember exact descriptions, but I know they were different depending on where they were/what mythology they're from. The same's true for fairies, elves, etc. As in, if you put a small, thumbsized fairy in a story as a minor character, I don't think it's really a big deal. Fairies are/were of any and every size, depending on the specific type, but to keep things focused I wouldn't see a description of them as "small" as a problem.

THough, I guess it really depends on the nature of the story and what you're trying to say...

JLCwrites · Aug 8, 2007

OR.... another approach is to begin your characters under the stereotype, then have him/her/it change during the course of the book.

1 The noble knight who turns out to be a demon in disguise
2 The fierce dragon that changes into a lap dog.
3 The arrogant stud who is a secret agent and has a great scene walking out of the ocean with an awesome body. (oh wait.. that was Casino Royale, never mind)

Anyway, the point is, it will also be more fun for you as the writer to mix things up a bit. If you're bored with your characters, your agent, publisher, and audience will be too.

Evaine · Aug 9, 2007

Think of Detritus the Troll from the Terry Pratchett stories. He's a big, brutish, stupid, stereotypical troll - but he's also an individual the reader comes to care about.

johnzakour · Aug 9, 2007

For minor character stereotypes can work. Stereotypes serve a purpose in our brains as they allow us to easily picture a "person" and justify their actions and reactions. A writer can take advantage of this if he or she doesn't want to spend a lot of time setting up a minor character.

Major characters though need something to separate them from the crowd.

Mattcody · Aug 9, 2007

Wow, what a great conversation. If I could throw a thought or two into the mix - I'd make the distinction between archetypes (the chivalric knight, the eccentric wizard, etc) and stereotypes. I do think that certain archetypes are useful as a quick way into a character, especially for genre readers and young readers, but it's what we do with them as the character progresses that's important. You can develop an archetypal character and turn him into something unique and fun to read. If you fail that then you're left with two-dimensions, a cardboard stereotype that your reader will grow bored with.

ps- recently joined and it's nice to be here!

swvaughn · Aug 9, 2007

Evaine said:
Think of Detritus the Troll from the Terry Pratchett stories. He's a big, brutish, stupid, stereotypical troll - but he's also an individual the reader comes to care about.

I looooove Detritus many lots.

wyntermoon · Aug 11, 2007

Mattcody said:
Wow, what a great conversation. If I could throw a thought or two into the mix - I'd make the distinction between archetypes (the chivalric knight, the eccentric wizard, etc) and stereotypes. I do think that certain archetypes are useful as a quick way into a character, especially for genre readers and young readers, but it's what we do with them as the character progresses that's important. You can develop an archetypal character and turn him into something unique and fun to read. If you fail that then you're left with two-dimensions, a cardboard stereotype that your reader will grow bored with.

ps- recently joined and it's nice to be here!

Nice to have you here, welcome to AW!

Little Jane · Feb 14, 2008

I think another thing to do, if you don't want to go against the stereotype or archetype is to have a character who wants to be the stereotype but tries too hard (just think of all those wannabe gangsta types in high school) or someone in a fantasy story who happens to be the archetype, but is self aware enough to realize this and to "own it." Sometimes characters who are too self- aware of their roles can back fire though. At times it can take you out of the story.

mcnorth · Feb 14, 2008

I'm starting to feel like the anti-sterotype is becoming cliched. I'll bet lit. agents get as many of those sorts of queries (the ogre is the hero - shocker!) as they do knights in shining armor.

And it might be a hard sell to an agent or publisher at the query stage, because it feels so similar, but 'sterotype' riddled works are still massively popular with readers (and in other media). Harry Potter, Spiderwick... pretty much as expected and classic creepies all around but still very effective stories.

Story set-up remains a constant of predictability as well - how often does the MC come from a well-adjusted, two parent family? And that as a set-up has been around forever and is used today because it's still effective and resonates with young readers.

Whatever works - and whatever sells. :Thumbs:

mcnorth · Feb 14, 2008

Little Jane said:
I think another thing to do, if you don't want to go against the stereotype or archetype is to have a character who wants to be the stereotype but tries too hard (just think of all those wannabe gangsta types in high school) or someone in a fantasy story who happens to be the archetype, but is self aware enough to realize this and to "own it." Sometimes characters who are too self- aware of their roles can back fire though. At times it can take you out of the story.

One way to approach sterotypes that I'm seeing and enjoying as fresh and exciting is switching the POV. The main character is a bit player in a bigger story - but we see that character's part to play. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead, Cloverfield - ideas defined by the audience following a 'lesser' character through a story bigger than themselves.

I think that's much fresher than an anti-sterotype. Not necessarily more original, but perhaps a path that has not been ground down quite so much.

peevy · Feb 19, 2008

Anti-stereotypes are just as stale as stereotypes. I'm pretty sick of reading about the "troll with the heart of gold" or the knight who turns out to be vain/evil.

I think stereotypes can work if you flesh them out. Go ahead and have a brutish troll but give us fresh details of what a troll is. Not just big and ugly, but with warts that spew acid, or with a taste for only housecats--something to make the stereotype more interesting.

Or find a contradiction within your stereotype--a brave knight with a strange weakness.

Gina_Marie · Feb 24, 2008

I say shake it up. I also encourage you to read the Twilight series that was just mentioned and also the Gemma Doyle series which starts with A Great and Terrible Beauty. These two series are hot. In fact the Twilight series will be a movie, or atleast book one will be a movie. While Twilight does deal with a pretty typical story teenage girl falls in love with a vampire...there are some twists and turns to it to make it interesting.

I hope this helps.

Lapillus · Feb 27, 2008

I can certainly see what you're saying. There is a comfort in the stereotypes, but those stereotypes, especially if you have a lot of them, will present trouble in the world of publishing. They are stereotypes because they have been done too much. It is usually best to push the boundaries of these and add at least a touch of originality to them.

YA stereotypes: good or bad?

Weatherby

Shady Lane

my name is hannah

RLSMiller

Dancre

Just have fun.

reenkam

aka cupcake

bethany

:)

Zoombie

Dragon of the Multiverse

Maprilynne

Author Waiting in the Wings

MsJudy

Maprilynne

Author Waiting in the Wings

javili

Moonfish

reenkam

aka cupcake

JLCwrites

Evaine

johnzakour

Dangerous with a Keyboard

Mattcody

swvaughn

adrift

wyntermoon

Little Jane

mcnorth

Gigantopithecus canadensis

mcnorth

Gigantopithecus canadensis

peevy

keeping my head

Gina_Marie

Lapillus

Procrastinatin'