Tiresome Trope #10 - The Copycat
This trope certainly isn't the worst out there, but it's still too common. It consists of a character whose background and setting is taken from another character's, and then said first character's history being conveniently taken as well, subtly, of course, under a different being. This is fan fiction for you. Not all fan fiction is like this, mind you, but most fan fiction I have read takes the setting and background of a popular published character and then takes all their conflict and history and transposes it onto a just conveniently different, new character. For instance, there may be a character who was trained to be an assassin in HYDRA, succeeded for a time in Russian undercover groups, and is eventually reformed, but this character is now a man rather than a woman, or African rather than Russian, or an extrovert rather than an introvert or whatever. But it's basically like taking the backdrop of a portrait and just painting a different face over the original. It's an oft overlooked form of plagiarism, unfortunately. And worse, oftentimes, if the names are changed, this stuff can get published. Ugh.
Tiresome Trope #9 - Fight, Fight, Fight!
This is the trope that we see in most action and sci-fi movies. This is the loooooooong battle scene where most of the characters die, and meanwhile, many character show off their splendid fighting abilities. There is nothing wrong with battles in stories, nor climax battles, so don't get me wrong. It just that when you invent this cataclysmic, do-or-die battle scene and most of what the characters do during it is just fight and kick butt and maybe one or two die just at a moment when all the characters can see and have a dramatic moment shouting "Noooooooooo!," then something's wrong. (This is like every Avengers climax, btw.)
Tiresome Trope #8 - Civil War
Perhaps a very similar trope to #9, but it is different in that all the fighting goes on within the circle of main characters. When the characters just start pettily bickering for no reason, that's about when I put the book down for a while. Why? Firstly, because it's done too much without good cause other than lack of good conflict ideas, and it's bad writing, and secondly, because it drives me nuts when otherwise likable characters behave like spoiled brats. And usually it's just to provide silly conflict in the story or even just among the readers! To quote the immortal HISHE's (How It Should Have Ended) perfect summary of it, "You could have some kind of a civil war for conflict - you know, like a 'pick a side' type thing?"
Tiresome Trope #7 - The Silver Tongue
I get it. Nobody's perfect, even in real life, and so character shouldn't be either. But you know one sure way to make me - and a lot of other more valuable readers - despise a supposedly good main character? Make them lie. Constantly. To everyone. Whenever they're in a scrape. And even when they're not, if you really wanna throw down the gauntlet. Just make them lie, lie, lie. That'll make your readers love them. And it will totally reinforce your depiction of them as a good guy. There are characters who get away with it, maybe, but generally those characters are neither main, nor supposed to be good. Plus, they're usually such well put-together characters that a common trope like that barely dents their lovely, well-polished writing. So... unless you have the next Loki, Dustfinger, or Yank in the R.A.F., then it's a trope better left alone.
Tiresome Trope #6 - Tough and Tiny
These are the characters, usually small, and usually animals, that are all bark and bite and no brawn. Of course, these characters somehow magically conquer everyone they face, despite their usual size disadvantage and the skill disadvantage that realistically they would have. Good examples of this are, I'm sad to say, in many a movie and book I love. It wasn't always cleche writing. Narnia did it, and that's one thing. Chronicles of Prydain did it, and that's one thing. It wasn't old the first few times, maybe. But then, when everybody started doing it, and every kid's movie had one of those characters necessarily, it got old.
Tiresome Trope #5 - That Brat Upstairs
I'm sure all you have seen some movie or read some book with that older sibling - usually a sister - who just stays upstairs, never coming out to the light of day, constantly on her phone/headphones/computer/pad/whatever technology, who hates her younger siblings and is always rude to her parents. She is a teenager who has no respect for most people, bullies and bosses her siblings behind her parents' back, is always put in charge as the tyrant of the house, is usually stupid and easily outsmarted by her rival little siblings, and generally cares nothing for things that are not dating, driving, napping, or partying-related.
I cannot even stress how harmful a trope this is, especially in kid's fiction. Ramona and Beezus; Spiderwick Chronicles; Zathura - there are too many. But the common nature of the trope is not what makes it bad writing, per se, in this case. It hurts.
I cannot even stress how harmful a trope this is, especially in kid's fiction. Ramona and Beezus; Spiderwick Chronicles; Zathura - there are too many. But the common nature of the trope is not what makes it bad writing, per se, in this case. It hurts.
Do you know how many impressionable young whippersnappers watch or read stuff like this and then forever imagine their older sibling as stupider, meaner, bossier, and overall less pleasant than a decent person? It works the same way with this figure as a parent. Little kids will read stuff with unintelligent parents, guardians, older siblings, or babysitters, and they will think that this means adults must just not be worth much. Trust me - as an oldest sibling, I can speak from experience on the impression it makes on younger siblings, and as a once-impressionable child, I can speak from experience on how much of and impression it makes on daughters and sons. It really is not cool to trash older siblings, writers. It's not cool to trash parents. And it's definitely not cool to write something everybody else is writing without even thinking about what it will impress upon your readers.
Tiresome Trope #4 - I Know What I'm Doing!
Imagine this scenario. A main character who is usually rather strong-willed develops this bizarre, radical idea that nobody else believes. Most people doubt said character and eventually, even their friends think they're just being silly, lying, hallucinating, etc.
And then... poof! This main character, though their idea was unusual, and founded on mostly nothing but prejudice, instinct, or jumping to quick conclusions, turns out to be right. Perhaps even more right than they originally thought. And of course, everybody else pays for not acting on the main character's original gut feeling, because now it's too late (everybody believes them now, of course). And then the main character saves everyone, and they grovel on their knees for not yielding to the main character's every all-knowing whim. Yep. Sound like good writing to you? No? I think I've said enough.
Tiresome Trope #3 - Macho... But Not So Macho
How many male characters are there in fiction at this point who seem masculine and tough and then end up being sentimental or insecure? Really, writers. There's a reason men are called 'men,' for goodness's sake. It's because they are men, and not sops or women with guns or effeminate wimps.
Please. Just recognize that not all men out there are pathetic! This is a particularly harmful trope, too, because it has established the now all too common humor of stupid men and intelligent women, which, really, is incredibly sexist, guys. And don't think I'm just criticizing the muscle men with secrets - male characters who never even start out masculine (for no particular reason, too) are even worse, and also unrealistic writing.
Tiresome Trope #2 - Lil Sassy Feminist
I had a very hard time choosing between this and #1 as to which one was worse. Eventually, I chose this to be second place because it went more with #3 in its content. But, while #1 won out, this one is still one of the most ridiculous cleche tropes out there. There are so many women in fiction who fight (and do as well or better than the poor, pathetic men), are cleverer than all their surrounding people (usually comically egotistic or stupid men), and are generally more skilled and insightful than the other characters (need I even say it again?).
Every single girl. In every single book. Everywhere.They also coincidentally wear tight or showy clothing, dislike dresses, are uncomfortable in feminine society, scorn womanly practices, and are generally rebellious, sassy, and unintentionally egotistic. They think the best of themselves because they are the best. They fight because they are better at it than the men. They read, invent, and design not, despite appearances and claims, because it is a hobby they enjoy, or because they with to educate themselves, but merely because the brutish, Neanderthal males would deny them the privilege of it. I would supply examples, but I am quite confident that you shall be able to easily think of many without my help. And if I hadn't already complained enough, I would elaborate further upon my disgust with this quite thoroughly tiresome trope.
Tiresome Trope #1 - Father Fallacious, Sister Sinister, and Brother Boorish
This is perhaps the most tiresome trope of all. Because it's another harmful trope. A very harmful trope. Because the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, is so oft maligned, most people have a mental image of religious life, religious people, or even religion in general as stupid, outdated, or simply sinister. And, as opposed to the other harmful tropes mentioned above, this targets something that is not quite so easily off-key.
When you malign older siblings and parents in fiction, you are merely maligning an imperfect, human group. There are mean parents and bad siblings out there. When you malign masculinity, you are still maligning a mostly human thing. There are pathetic men out there. But when you malign Christ, Christianity, and His Church, you're maligning the very wellspring of Truth.
Yes, there are surely bad priests, bad nuns, bad monks, etc., etc. out there - there's no doubt of that. But the thing is, when you have only a single, or a couple representations of the Church or its members, and you choose to make them negative for no particular reason, then you choose to imagine that Church, that religion, and that Divine Savior as in general false, fearful, greedy, evil, outdated, and overall unintelligent. Fiction may be meant to imitate real life, but it is not real life. We write novels because we have ideas of what the world could be, not by necessity exactly, molecule for molecule, what it is. Because who would want to read an exact account of their daily life, word for word, nothing spared?
The thing is, we want novels to be like our life, but not just like our life. We would like a little bit of fancy. We would like a little bit of hope. We would like a little bit of Truth, and Beauty, and Goodness. So to pointlessly malign something, even in fiction, is not only oftentimes libel, but also incredibly bad writing.
All of these are pretty bad writing. But they're not the only options. To clear up the gray cloud, I hope to follow up soon with 10 more tropes, but these will instead be good ones that are in need of revival. Because I know that no one wants to just hear a post that is completely negative and critical without any practical suggestions - I certainly don't - I'll try and get that follow-up post ready as soon as possible. Thanks for reading! Tell what you think in the comments, whether it be (civil) debate, additions, critique, or suggestions for part two - chat with me! (As a last word, I must needs apologize - methinks I went a little crazy with the gifs.)
Heehee, but oh, I like the gifs...
ReplyDeleteSeriously, when Elizabeth picked up that sword in PotC, it was like, "Girl, have you even been taught how to hold that thing?--Realistically, you'd be dead right now." One of the things I love about The Lord of the Rings is that even though Tolkien HAD that tough feminist character in Eowyn, a crucial part of her character arc was her realizing that being a shield-maiden was not her purpose in life. She was happiest when she looked forward to a life as Faramir's bride.
Also, yes to #1. Of course there are bad clerics out there, as we've seen all too clearly in the horrible scandal coming out over the past few weeks...but the vast majority of priests and nuns and sisters *just aren't like that.* And feeding the image of the Church as evil...no, no, no.
Great post, Belle!
Haha, I usually hate gifs - they drive me nuts, because I can only see the same piece of something repeated over and over again and never fulfilled. But I felt like them today for some reason. :P
DeleteExactly! That's one thing I love about Tolkien's writing - traditional gender roles (yay!).
Definitely. But we shouldn't let that distract us from what the Church is really about. It drives me nuts. Even in books and movie where the only appearance of a priest is a cameo role, they're often disrespected by being made comically-voiced, fearful, arrogant, bossy, or bored. Nothing irritates me more, I think, in fiction.
(Adhering to a few of these, though, Megs, I highly recommend watching How It Should Have Ended - while a couple of the episodes are rather inappropriate, for the most part the show consists of making fun of overused tropes like these, and it's absolutely hilarious.)
I'd like to say a huge AMEN to this post! Seriously, I keep seeing these tropes everywhere, and it drives me CRAZY.
ReplyDeleteCatherine <3
Thanks! I know, right? It's so annoying when people can't seem to even have their own ideas anymore... and when they do, their ideas are stupid (like a snail in the Indie 500 or a video game villain inside the Disney website). Hopefully these tropes disappear over time.
DeleteHey, I know this was posted a while ago, but I have a tiny -one might say minuscule- bone to pick with one of these tropes. To whit, the "Lil Sassy Feminist" one. I know that radical feminists are an actual problem. Women should not push themselves forward as much as they do. However, they are certainly able to act in a dangerous manner, one might say, or take action. Many women are certainly more clever than men. Mulan was a historical character. True fact, not fiction. There was a woman thousands of years ago, who invented a martial art that was later practiced by one of the most famous martial artists, Ip Man. The salient fact is, a clever, intelligent, and daring woman is an interesting character.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth Swann, whom I noticed as a prominent figure in your post, is driven to life as a sailor in order to save her own life, and aid her fiance, who, turns out, is actually a better swordsman than she is, and taught her how to fight. And notice moreover that she fights in a dress, just saying, she can be feminine and awesome at the same time. Not every female character needs to be a timid, frail, restrained woman.
Anyway, that's just my take on the subject. Perhaps, the old view is not the correct view. Perhaps the new view is not the correct view. Maybe, the right view is the balance between both. The Past is irrevocable, the future is inevitable. We need to stop worrying about our past and future and concentrate on the present.
The fact of it is, though, the basic principle of debate - if you can push your opponent to accept an extreme point, then you have already pushed your opponent to accept all points. To bring up the unusual cases (such as self-defense where no one else is available, or Mulan, who is herself an ambiguous historical person) is to commit the logical fallacy of thinking that the extremes equate the whole. The point of my post is to decry these fallacious and cleche attitudes - not the extreme cases where these things may be perfectly accurate/acceptable.
DeleteNo, not every female character needs to be timid. But not every female character (and large percentage otherwise) should be masculine. Fighting in a dress is the equivalent of a man wearing armor and still hiding, though - what you wear is only relevant when your behavior matches is (thus modesty is of no use to the lustful person).
The old view of gender roles is, in my take, the correct one because it takes a stand. The new view is merely to dismiss the roles. Disagree with me - I welcome all comments, and would love to carry the topic further! Just know that in dismissing our past, we make it impossible to reform our present from its mistakes.
I did not say we should dismiss our past at all. It is a useful tool in shaping our decisions. I said we should stop worrying about it. We often wish that we could return to the seeming security of the past, but God has placed us in the present.
DeleteThere are many cases of women warriors, and women who have more "masculine attitudes", in history. I was using the examples as (I thought) well known ones that helped to illustrate my point. I don't think that you should directly say that they are fallacious and cliched attitudes, you have set yourself up as a judge of a very controversial subject, and that could be taken in a wrong light. Female characters don't have to be masculine to kick butt, hence my example of fighting in a dress. Elizabeth wears her feminine garb whilst doing something that she actually learned to do , not some skill she magically acquired that makes her "Better than a male character". In fact, the ratio of male vs female strength is well shown in that scene, it is only by clever swordsmanship that she can beat someone, if the person is stronger and also a good swordsman then she doesn't stand a chance, i.e. the Davy Jones fight.
I don't know if I agree with either view of the gender roles, the old or the new.
God has indeed placed us in the past, but I think we are just talking past each other here - the past is important, but the present needs more attention at present. Right?
DeleteThe fact of it is, though, that all of those examples would be abnormal. What civilization is based on effeminate men and masculine women aside from the twisted one we live in now?
The truth of it is, though, that they *are* fallacious. This is the first era in history where proper gender roles have not been one of the cores of society. Most things that last that long are not imaginary or irrelevant. As for cliché, to prove that these points are in that grouping, one only needs look to 90% of the movies, books, songs, and cultures that come out nowadays from any popular celebrities.
Where did Elizabeth learn this clever swordsmanship? Are we given any reason previously to believe that she is as good a swordsman as an ancient, quasi-immortal pirate king? Or that she is even strong or balanced enough to hold the sword correctly in a fight, if at all?
The gender roles are merely the outward expression of the genders - to erase them is to erase recognition of men and women's differences. Just curious, are you a relativist? (That is not an insult, or meanly intended, so please don't take it as such - I am just curious, and I apologize wholeheartedly if that is offensive.)
No I am not a relativist, I do not agree with relativists. I'm a Traditional Roman Catholic.
DeleteEvery civilization was twisted somehow, men can be chauvenist as much as women can be radically feminist, and I think that we have both those problems, effeminate men are not really an issue as much, saying that having radical feminists is followed by having effeminate men is not necessarily true.
Will, Elizabeth's fiance, who is a master swordsman, taught her how to fight. She isn't. Davy easily gets the better of her, but when she's matched with a less incredible opponent, she can beat them using her ingenuity.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
DeleteBut civilization in itself is a concept of trying to get past the barbarism of fallen human nature - it follows the natural and Divine laws and builds on them. This includes the gender roles. Necessarily, whether we realize it or not, they must be filled. When women push themselves into men's places, they push men into their previous places, distorting these roles. Masculine women necessarily tend to create effeminate men.
Why would Will teach this to Elizabeth? I do not remember any scene wherein he trains her to sword-fight, and it is rather out of Will's more traditionally-minded character. It may be true that he does not scold Elizabeth for dressing or acting like a man, just like it may be true that he became a pirate in the series, but he was always of a quieter, more virtuous, masculine character even to the end of the woe-begotten series.
Ingenuity does not make up for lack of skill, no matter how many modern movies portray this to be true. And in a real fencing match, with real swords, Elizabeth would've gotten stabbed early on quite easily, especially if Davy Jones had actually intended to kill her from the onset. It would take more than ingenuity, luck, and a feminist twist on the element of surprise to win a sword fight against pirates, I'm afraid. And in the end, what it comes down to is the fact that Elizabeth is neither my poster-girl for this cliché, nor to I intend her to be. She is simply one of many. And as for whether she is a feminist or not, of course she isn't - but the makers intend her few little escapades to be taken by the audience as feminism, which is what I'm calling out here with this trope.
Not every civilization followed either the natural or divine laws. I would say that that is more of the definition of the purpose of the church than the definition of civilization. But I am no theologian (not by a long shot) so I'm not sure if that is correct (I don't think an opinion should be stated concretely until one has more personal experience with the things one is speaking of, that is why I'm not saying that any of my opinions are definite fact) I don't know that she was intended to be a feminist icon, or that many characters like this are intended to be such. Either side of the argument can read into them, they can be read into as good characters or as radically feminist characters.
ReplyDeleteAs to Elizabeth: Will trained her in the second movie, it is mentioned several times. Woe-begotten series? I thought it was pretty awesome. I never said ingenuity makes up for lack of skills. She was taught the skills, and combined with ingenuity, they make a formidable opponent.
This is true. But civilization ideally does. The Church's purpose is to interpret what those laws mean - the laws are there in Tradition, Scripture, and Creation, are understood by the Church, and enforced by civilization.
DeleteI disagree. To state one's opinion when one is not sure is to learn! For instance - my opinion was that, as it was against Will's character and I didn't personally remember any such part, Will never trained Elizabeth. So I argued that. But you remembered that such a part did indeed exist in the movies and pointed that out. I learned. Which is what the point of debate is, right? I've loved debating with you - it is truly an exercise to the mind to have to continue my case instead of everybody just agreeing with me (which... is also nice, but you know what I mean).
Feminism is, unfortunately, everywhere. Look to characters from movies even just twenty years ago, and there will be a difference between the female characters then and now, let alone female characters in older days, such as those fifty or sixty years ago (not to say there weren't feministically-intended characters then as well, there just weren't as many). One can also judge the intent from things the directors, actors, other makers, etc. say concerning the movie. Several actresses (possibly including PotC's Elizabeth, but I will refrain from saying so for sure as I cannot remember a specific reliable source for that) have boasted of their character's feminism.
Yes, I agree - I like PotC. I only say it is woe-begotten because it unfortunately was not done justice in certain movies due to bad screenwriting.
Again, it is doubtful she would have learned or been physically capable of what she does in the movies. Ingenuity and skills are both acquired with time and experience she didn't have, not fighting bloodthirsty pirates on a moment's notice.
I have enjoyed debating as well, one's mind can use the exercise of trying to come to a conclusion, or simply canvassing another's views on a subject. It's unfortunate that we couldn't come to an agreement.
DeleteIt is unfortunate, but it was an exercise of the mind for both of us, I'm sure, which means it was no loss. Thanks for stopping by -come again anytime!
Delete