Strange things in fiction
I just recently started to read mysteries after avoiding them for years, and though I am by no means a good detective, it is enjoyable to try to deduce things for yourself. One problem about reading mysteries is that, since you know that they are mysteries, you automatically suspect everyone, because you know there will be a murder at some point. That idea (of knowing a little about what's coming) struck me as not only true for murder mysteries, but for many other books. For all the wonderful variety in fiction, there are some cliches that seem especially hard for authors to break (and I do not mean that in a derogatory way), and which make the task of a detective reader slightly easier once you know the code. Here are some examples that came to mind:
Romantic Fiction:
The most prominent male will be the groom (this is even true of Jane Austen...she mentions Darcy too much and Wickham too little for their places to be the same at the end of the book as at the beginning)
The male the main character hates from the beginning will be the one she loves by the end (again, people in romantic fiction rarely keep the same opinion of people, especially men, throughout the entire book)
Fantasy:
Countries are always kingdoms (you would think that, with such a wonderful medium for political musings, fantasy would have more than kingdoms or, occasionally, clans)
Any piece of jewelry mentioned will become important (this is almost without fail a definite clue for the reader detective)
Bad guys are never short (this isn't a really useful clue, but I found it very odd)
Kings are either wonderful or awful (where is neutrality in fantasy? I suppose that fantasy is a black/white medium in general, but I so much enjoy the shades of grey)
The horse culture is rarely the bad guy (big clue here...the clan of horsemen who surround the main character and demand his surrender are usually just independent, and not in league with the Dark Lord. Is this bias towards people who love horses a matter of fantasy books being written by equusphiles?)
Bad guys never pick the lush green land, but always the desert or barren land. (once again, not a very useful clue, but odd. If dark lords are smart enough to create specialized armies and weapons of mass destruction, you would think they would know enough about geology to pick the best ground for raising a nation. How do they feed their huge armies in the middle of a desert?)
The old man who acts as your mentor (and asks you to blindly trust him) is nearly always for the good (this is a cliche/clue that I am determined to break)
Victorian:
Fathers are never strong figures (not a clue, just an odd cliche)
Arranged marriages are never carried through with, and therefore never turn out well (another odd cliche)
Minor illnesses are nowhere to be found (yet another one!)
General:
First impressions are either right or a complete misjudgment; bad ones are never merely a result of seeing someone on a bad day (do people even have moody days in fiction?)
Characters can recall every line of dialogue they ever heard, even years from the event, word for word (this constantly jumps out at me...perhaps some people have photographic memory, but everyone?)
Characters can note the least change in the color of the face (“she paled slightly”) or the brightness of the eyes (I'd like to see that happen in real life...not only is it difficult, but characters usually trace the change to the right cause too)
Events are rarely mentioned which do not relate to the later plot (ah, back to some real clues)
Small children and pets are rare (another cliche I am determined to break. Small children are so endearing and common, you would think they would be more present in literature)
Odd or uncharacteristic things always have a meaning (ah, yet another important clue. If the character hears a scream in the night, or a whispered line of strange dialogue, or finds a monogramed handkerchief with no recognizable initials...it always means something. An ingenious author would have some odd things that are just that—odd, to throw people off. After all, it would be more realistic)
While these are probably just quibbles on the part of a reader, I not only enjoy finding them, but intend on breaking most of them in my writing for even more fun. I think that my main impulse to be a writer is that nobody writes certain things that I want to read. Has anyone else found cliches or clues in fiction?
7 comments:
Good thinking! It's funny how everything always seems to work out that way. However, the bad king in "Shrek" was really short. - Ladybug
Again, some great thoughts, Merry K! I, too, am determined to stop some of the cliches that dominate fiction. I believe in a kind of fictional realism that says that people, however fantastic the situation they are in (i.e. on Mars, etc.), should act as real people act. Some cliches make people act in completely unrealistic ways.
Another one in fantasy:
The climax of the book is always a great battle. (I don't see why this should be. After all, it's not as though the climax of all real life stories is war, so why should it be in a separate, but equally valid, world?)
"Bad guys are never short."
I just finished reading The Princess and the Goblins again, and the goblins in that book are short. But then, MacDonald isn't typical fantasy.
"Events are rarely mentioned which do not relate to the later plot."
For good reason, else the book could get bogged down. Les Miserables has this problem...
"Odd or uncharacteristic things always have a meaning."
I don't think this is the case for mythic tales such as the Mabinogion or the Arthurian tales; but again, those are not typical fiction.
I think a lot of the others have exceptions too. But certainly there are cliches, and it's nice to know what they are--if nothing else as a writer, to prevent oneself from falling into them unwittingly.
Elinor:
"The climax of the book is always a great battle. (I don't see why this should be. After all, it's not as though the climax of all real life stories is war, so why should it be in a separate, but equally valid, world?)"
The usual good vs. evil structure of fantasy requires that one of them must be defeated, and when one of them is defeated the struggle will end and there will be nothing more to tell. Fantasy usually sets up the two sides clearly, often physically, and the two appear most clearly--often in an out-and-out battle--at the climax. Ultimately the climax of our world will also be a battle (after the good and evil sides come out clearly).
There are fantasy stories that don't follow this pattern: many of the Narnia books, Lewis's Space Trilogy, and most fairy tales--to name a few.
Answers to the comments: Great thoughts everyone!
Ladybug: I wasn't actually thinking of movies...so I didn't take Shrek into account. Comedy is meant to break cliches, too.
Tim: "Bad guys are never short."
I just finished reading The Princess and the Goblins again, and the goblins in that book are short. But then, MacDonald isn't typical fantasy.
Actually, I meant the head really evil dictator bad guy, the Sauron type.
"Events are rarely mentioned which do not relate to the later plot."
For good reason, else the book could get bogged down. Les Miserables has this problem...
We have an abridged copy of Les Miserables, and it cut out all the not-related-to-the-plot scenes, and I am 100 pages into the original (about 20 pages of the abridged), and some of my favorite scenes were edited from the original...so I'm not sure I agree that extra scenes "bog down" a book. With a good writer, I think they can add more to a story.
Tim:
Good thoughts! I love the strong contrast between good and evil in fantasy. I think that that is a specific type of fantasy - the kind that takes an overall, sweeping view. In such a case, the great battle is necessary, and the story would be incomplete without it. But, I think it also would be interesting to take the idea of a different, fantastic world, and focus on a small, microscopic part of it. I LOVE "The Lord of the Rings", for example, as it is, but I think it would be interesting - and innovative - to spend time exploring the lives of the characters within the "new" world. For example, what if an author spent time developing the story of the decline of Rohan? Maybe he could chart the slow overtaking of the king's mind, in King Theoden's voice, and write, from the king's perspective, the way freedom felt. Or maybe he could chart the view of a servant. Or of Eowyn. Or of Eomer. Such a story would give us insight into human nature and the nature of personal redemption. Not that the large sweep of the story is unnecessary (where would we be without it?!), and, in the end our lives are only a small part of a great story, but a microscopic story with a deep focus on a few characters would also be a wonderful contribution. Such stories are usually only told in realistic fiction, but I think that fantasy writers should begin to approach their fantastic worlds that way as well, because their fantasy world would allow them to explore new things. Does that make sense?
I've never read the Space Trilogy, but it sounds as though I should put it on my list!
Merry K:
I'm about 70 pgs. into Les Miserables. Or, at least, I was until I bought my new Chaim Potok book.:-)
I've actually read some of the book before, but we moved and it got put to the side. I think that the entire first section about Monseigneur Bienvenu should be kept intact - I love it! But, latter on, I think that the description of the battle of Waterloo was...um...unnecessary. Sometimes I seems as though Victor Hugo lets his politics bleed into his writing a bit too much.
I LOVE "The Lord of the Rings", for example, as it is, but I think it would be interesting - and innovative - to spend time exploring the lives of the characters within the "new" world. For example, what if an author spent time developing the story of the decline of Rohan? Maybe he could chart the slow overtaking of the king's mind, in King Theoden's voice, and write, from the king's perspective, the way freedom felt. Or maybe he could chart the view of a servant. Or of Eowyn. Or of Eomer. Such a story would give us insight into human nature and the nature of personal redemption. Not that the large sweep of the story is unnecessary (where would we be without it?!), and, in the end our lives are only a small part of a great story, but a microscopic story with a deep focus on a few characters would also be a wonderful contribution. Such stories are usually only told in realistic fiction, but I think that fantasy writers should begin to approach their fantastic worlds that way as well, because their fantasy world would allow them to explore new things. Does that make sense?
I agree almost completely with you, Elinor. I myself have written a lot of Faramir and Boromir's backstory, and thought of doing such for Theoden's household, but it does seem the realm of realistic fiction to do character novels. Fantasy novels seem to be there because there are some stories you just can't tell in realistic fiction. You could almost tell the story of Theoden, Eomer and Eowyn in realistic fiction, because it doesn't need much fantasy. It would be rather like Til We Have Faces. But it's definitely something I've thought on, and I agree that it would be a good idea!
Post a Comment