Tropes you hate and why
- Thread starter creativemechanic
- Start date
I was going to say elephant instead of rabbit. But I like rabbits more. And the tree might get squashed.
Alternate history stories with a POD (point of divergence) in the last 150 years. Confederacy won the civil war. Germany won WWI. Germany won WWII.
Can't we have Vercingetorix winning the Battle of Alesia for a change?
Can't we have Vercingetorix winning the Battle of Alesia for a change?
Straight white guys being over-represented.
Because I'm familiar with math: ≈85% of Americans are straight, ≈65% of Americans are white, and ≈50% of Americans are men. This gives ≈25% of Americans are straight white men, and yet I would guess that straight white men make up 65%-85% of leading protagonists in mainstream American fiction.
On a similar note, the idea that a woman who's in charge is Bossy, whereas a man who's in charge is The Boss.
And, since I find doing something about problems to be almost as fun as complaining about them
The narrator of my UrFan WIP is a straight white man, and he looks like the main character at first because he's the only protagonist we see doing anything, but then his black lesbian friend shows up at the end of Chapter 2, and it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that she's the one driving the action against the antagonists, whereas my Decoy Protagonist / First-Person Peripheral Narrator spends the book following her lead because She's The Boss.
I'm also going against the idea that people of compatible gender and orientation (or even semi-compatible) can't be friends unless one of them is taken. And that men have to be uncomfortable with a woman being a better fighter than he is.
And once my characters start learning magic: the idea that the leader of the group has to be the strongest fighter, the idea that women get either healing or long-range fighting powers while the men get up-close fighting powers, the idea that healing is a power for the good guys, the idea that you can use magic or technology but not both
Because I'm familiar with math: ≈85% of Americans are straight, ≈65% of Americans are white, and ≈50% of Americans are men. This gives ≈25% of Americans are straight white men, and yet I would guess that straight white men make up 65%-85% of leading protagonists in mainstream American fiction.
On a similar note, the idea that a woman who's in charge is Bossy, whereas a man who's in charge is The Boss.
And, since I find doing something about problems to be almost as fun as complaining about them
The narrator of my UrFan WIP is a straight white man, and he looks like the main character at first because he's the only protagonist we see doing anything, but then his black lesbian friend shows up at the end of Chapter 2, and it becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that she's the one driving the action against the antagonists, whereas my Decoy Protagonist / First-Person Peripheral Narrator spends the book following her lead because She's The Boss.
I'm also going against the idea that people of compatible gender and orientation (or even semi-compatible) can't be friends unless one of them is taken. And that men have to be uncomfortable with a woman being a better fighter than he is.
And once my characters start learning magic: the idea that the leader of the group has to be the strongest fighter, the idea that women get either healing or long-range fighting powers while the men get up-close fighting powers, the idea that healing is a power for the good guys, the idea that you can use magic or technology but not both
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2014
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 35
I'm not sure if all of these fit the trope category:
1. A super special hero. Out of the billions of people in the world, they're the only person who can do what they do. Or, even worse, they're the absolute best.
2. Hot characters avoiding relationships...but the MC is the exception.
3. When the characters kiss days after meeting. Seriously? ._.
4. War. War. War. War. That's the entire book or series. Let's stop a war! ._. Of course, it's hard to repackage war.
5. Secrets that, normally, aren't a big deal. Yet suddenly in this book, it's life or death. "Omigosh, why didn't you tell me you had grandparents??? I'm insulted!" <- exaggeration, but y'all get the idea.
6. Oh look, it's the last (blank; you fill it in) and I coincidentally found it.
1. A super special hero. Out of the billions of people in the world, they're the only person who can do what they do. Or, even worse, they're the absolute best.
2. Hot characters avoiding relationships...but the MC is the exception.
3. When the characters kiss days after meeting. Seriously? ._.
4. War. War. War. War. That's the entire book or series. Let's stop a war! ._. Of course, it's hard to repackage war.
5. Secrets that, normally, aren't a big deal. Yet suddenly in this book, it's life or death. "Omigosh, why didn't you tell me you had grandparents??? I'm insulted!" <- exaggeration, but y'all get the idea.
6. Oh look, it's the last (blank; you fill it in) and I coincidentally found it.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2012
- Messages
- 5,425
- Reaction score
- 1,911
- Location
- Denver, CO
- Website
- www.badfoodie.com
There's a lot to be said for technique and motivation.
I'm 5'4", and was, at the time, about 140 lbs and 40 years old.
My opponent was 6'1". ~ 200 lbs and 18 years old and came in to sparring class with his mini-mall TKD black belt saying he could take any one of us.
I had him on the ground, at my mercy in less than 10 seconds.
In gene wolfe's first book, he has humanoid aliens (shapeshifters who adopted human form, and stuck with it) who mate with trees...
I subscribe to the chosen one trope, although I try to have them be chosen for unpleasant fates.
Ic an't stand get-out deus ex machina endings.
eg guy must choose between saving the world or saving his gf and she conveniently dies. Lucky fo rhim.
I subscribe to the chosen one trope, although I try to have them be chosen for unpleasant fates.
Ic an't stand get-out deus ex machina endings.
eg guy must choose between saving the world or saving his gf and she conveniently dies. Lucky fo rhim.
Stuff that happened in the last 150 years or so, most people remember what happened, so it's 'alternate history'.
Stuff that happened 'in a time long ago, and a place far away' with characters and places with unfamiliar names will be considered 'secondary world fantasy'.
Last edited:
Of course she dies, because Fridging. All the better for him to come roaring back for revenge in the sequel!
I particularly hate when the hero's wife and (especially) kids die for Plot Reasons. It can work, but it is overused, plus where are the heroes who shut down from the grief?
Oh, and all those antebellum Southerners who conveniently freed their slaves before the Civil War so they can still be the good guys. They never go bankrupt from this or suffer any other consequences, and nothing bad happens to the people they freed either (some communities legally required free blacks to move away, for example). There are so many of these with historical fiction actually, having a character act modern without any reaction. It really minimizes the deadly struggles it took to win the freedoms we have today.
Last edited:
Devabbi
Registered
1 - fridging. If you're taking the time to introduce a character and kill them, their death should matter, and not just when it's convenient to the plot.
2 - the ~chosen one~ trope. I actually had fun taking a plot I wrote out when I was 15 and turning that trope on its head to make the story even better - what happens when the chosen one dies?
Also seconding all of the aforementioned sexist tropes - women running in heels, "I'm not like other girls", etc. All BS, all the time. This actually made me stop reading my favorite author from when I was high school age. She started writing more and more overtly anti-feminist, obvious self-insertion plots and I just couldn't take it anymore. The racy bits weren't worth it.
2 - the ~chosen one~ trope. I actually had fun taking a plot I wrote out when I was 15 and turning that trope on its head to make the story even better - what happens when the chosen one dies?
Also seconding all of the aforementioned sexist tropes - women running in heels, "I'm not like other girls", etc. All BS, all the time. This actually made me stop reading my favorite author from when I was high school age. She started writing more and more overtly anti-feminist, obvious self-insertion plots and I just couldn't take it anymore. The racy bits weren't worth it.
I'll probably have it sooner or later too, seeing that I write historical fiction (as in the past people lived shorter and died more easily), but I'll fight that particular necessity tooth and nail. Two reasons: 1) it's a cheap plea for compassion and/or attention, or an equally cheap attempt at characterization through backstory, 2) it's an easy way to remove certain obstacles from the character's path. In a word, lazy storytelling.
I particularly hate being told that the female character is intelligent, strong and independent only to have her make a particularly idiotic decision that puts her in danger from which she gets rescued by the male character and then she swoons into his manly arms. Crime thrillers with a female protagonist are particularly prone to doing this since she's got to be in danger at the climax of the story - doing it by making her run off to a final confrontation without backup and oh no! She has no phone signal! I'm so very surprised - so damn lazy.
One of things I do find irritating is books that reference other (contemporary) books.
So many books mention Harry Potter. I don't mind Harry Potter, but this isn't a Harry Potter book. Shut up about Harry Potter. Please.
So many books mention Harry Potter. I don't mind Harry Potter, but this isn't a Harry Potter book. Shut up about Harry Potter. Please.
Yeah, it's tricky to avoid it in historical fiction. I've got an estranged son returning to care for his dying mother, but he's a grown man. I tend to have more parental separation, like the female MC in that book is trying to find her father who was sold away. Originally I had him die (but not before being freed) but I'm reconsidering. Another WIP has a late-teens newlywed whose parents and younger siblings leave town before a siege, and then because Bloodshed Ensues they believe she's dead for several years. Oh damn, that showing alive again thing is so soap opera isn't it?
Back to bad tropes. I'm sure all the medical personnel here hate, hate, despise the almighty Flesh Wound. Also note that the action heroes/heroines never seem to get scars unless they're something discrete and kinda sexy.
Sweet Escape
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2008
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 6
This is an interesting one because I can understand the appeal of having a female character that is not going to smile because people ask them to do, who is not going to be all warm and sweet but instead just don't like people in general. Sometimes girls can be rude, so why not? But often those type of characters are written down as such a caricature that they are lacking any depth and they just come off as bitchy and mean and cold. It can be done well if the character is three-dimensional and has depth.
With male characters, I am tired of this type of character. Usually the Jerk With A Heart Of Gold/Troubled But Cute trope. You know that teenage boy who is brooding, sarcastic, rude, aloof with everyone. Who doesn't care about anyone except for -that one special girl- They can be a jerk, such a jerk and in some cases even abusive. They most of the time have that troubled history, some shit things happened to them so that is why they dislike everyone and have a bad atttdude. It always has to be justified because they had a crappy childhood. Bad childhood does not justfy crappy behaviour. No, you are an ass with an attidude problem that needs to be dealt with. What is even so appealing with a male character having such a crappy personality? He is a bad boy, so he is hot. There is nothing charming about them. In a recent book series fandom there is a character who fits most of these things of this type of personality and is actually the most popular character in the fandom and I just sigh... I don't get it. I thought the most people would be over this trope by now. Just stop with these type of characters, epsecially in male form, I'm sick of it!! Give more characters with bad childhood who don't have a bad attidude.
LoL. I know what you've mean. I made up my mind early that my huntress character was keeping the scars from a wild-animal attack when she was a child. Her face is gouged into three sections cheek-to-chin. It just didn't seem right for the "faint line" near her eye kind of thing.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,130
- Reaction score
- 10,901
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I think the main problem is it's a trope that has been done so often in fantasy and historical fiction that it's become a cliche. This doesn't mean it's always bad to have a parent or parents die or be dead. One reason it's been so popular is that intrepid orphans tug at our heartstrings and because not having living or functional parents creates a pretty serious set of obstacles for a kid to overcome. I've got a story in the works centered around two sisters, and even though they are adults in the story, their dad was never in the picture and their mom died when they were fairly young. They wouldn't be in the situation they are in if this weren't the case. If their mom were around and they'd had a more normal childhood, there wouldn't be a story, or at the very least, the story wouldn't be the one I have in mind.
So maybe that's the question to ask oneself. Is it necessary for the parents to die or be dead? Does their death or absence drive the plot, or a central part of the protagonist's arc, that couldn't be done via another means? Or is the parental death just there, even though it would make little difference if the parent were alive? And are there going to be any unusual or unexpected developments that stem from this arc?
I think there's a huge difference between tropes that are common and don't appeal to all readers and story elements that are simply sloppy or so implausible (or offensive in some way) they knock a reader out of disbelief. When reading through hated tropes lists, I think it's important to differentiate between the two, or pretty much everyone will end up being discouraged. I don't think it's possible to write something that isn't on someone's pet peeve list.
I agree with this. It's hard to hit someone so that they're out cold for just a few minutes and wake up with nothing worse than a passing headache. I know plenty of people who have had concussions (which are more serious brain injuries than many suppose and require time to recover) who weren't knocked out at all, or were only stunned for a few seconds.
Do they? If this were so, then the largest, strongest soldiers would always survive (or come out on top) in military encounters, and populations that consist of larger, stronger men (on average) would always dominate populations that consist of smaller, less robust men on the battlefield.
If all else is absolutely equal in terms of physical attributes, then it's probably true (assuming one person doesn't get the drop on the other), but how often are all things absolutely equal? If strength and all that always trumps technique, then why would anyone bother with anything but strength/fitness training with military and law enforcement personnel, and why would martial arts ever have been a thing?
And even if it's absolutely impossible, so are many of the male-centered combat tropes that pop up (like the "natural" who masters swordsmanship in just a few weeks of hard training). Why does "feel good" (and escapist) fun for female readers attract so much stink eye? it's so damned satisfying to read about a woman beating a man at something he assumes he'll be superior at because of his gender.
Last edited:
Exactly. There needs to be more to the character than "he/she is an asshole". With some of these characters, I get the impression that the unpleasantness is supposed to be compelling in and of itself - like, it's such a subversion to have the heroine be an antisocial bitch that she doesn't need to do more to gain or keep my interest.
Also, other characters need to react realistically to this. Want your heroine to smash someone's jaw because he made a racist remark? Fine, but don't have the racist either repent of his sins or conveniently vanish. And others, from his family to people who share his bigotry to people who don't think violence is the best response in such situations, should behave accordingly.
What I hate most about this trope in romances is when the guy does something that is harassing, abusive or illegal - anything from invading a woman's personal space to following her around to kidnapping her - but we're supposed to find it romantic because he's hot.
And sometimes, because the writer doesn't see his actions as being wrong. He grabbed her and kissed her before he even knew her name. So what? Men do that sometimes in the real world. It shows they're really turned on by you!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,130
- Reaction score
- 10,901
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Agreed. What's most baffling to me is when this trope appears in romances, which are generally written by and for women. I guess some women do enjoy fantasizing about a guy they secretly like doing just that, even if they'd find it creepy in real life.
And to return to the issue of unrealistic combat-related tropes, it makes me cringe how often horses are treated like machines in fantasy and adventure fiction. Fictional horses can go for hours without stopping for food or water (horses need gallons of water a day, and many pounds of food). No one ever seems to worry about how to feed or water them on long journeys in settings where water or grass won't always be abundant or worries about their care. And don't get me started about someone with no previous experience being able to master riding in a few hours (or even minutes) and no one ever seeming to be sore as hell after spending hours in the saddle.
Yet, conversely, if the plot needs a convenient death by accident (or nefarious sabotage of tack), it's almost always a riding injury. Riding, especially without a helmet, has plenty of risks, but the vast majority of people who fall off a horse don't die. It's not a very good murder plan to damage someone's girth/cinch strap before they go riding or hunting. And even a recreational rider double checks their cinch strap and buckles before mounting up.
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks damaging a girth strap is a reliable way of even seriously injuring someone, let alone killing them, has never ridden. It might injure or kill them but they might just end up in a bramble bush with a few scratches and a bad temper. It boggles my mind that's common enough to be considered a trope!