I've been reading a ton o' books over the past few weeks, and I think I've exceeded my cliché quota for the next two or three years. Don't get me wrong, I've fallen prey to the evil cliché fairy's machinations, finding multiple instances of worn out descriptions in my own work, many, many times. I have a friend who shrieks in glee every time she comes across one in my work - "you're always busting me, and then here's a bunch in your story!" Well, yeah. Guilty as charged. Which is exactly why I ask others to read stuff before I send it out. I mean, if I could catch 'em and exterminate 'em on my own, I wouldn't need another reader would I?!

But c'mon...what the hell does "stench of death" really smell like? Besides, "sweet" and "metallic," or possibly "rotten." Seriously. I wanna know. Just once I'd like to read a description of what rotting, bloody corpses smell like that's actually visceral and not short hand for "trust me...it's gross and it stinks." Come to think of it, that's more interesting and original than "stench of death."

And do cops eat anything besides pizza when they're working a case in police procedurals? Don't they ever, y'know, just pick up a bucket o' chicken, or get some sandwiches? A burrito, maybe? Hey, I'll even settle for the ever popular take-out Chinese food if it breaks up the pizza parade.

Then there are the stereotypical characters. Mob guy? Must have an Italian last name, or maybe Russian. Um...okay. It works especially well if the only Italian in the story is...a mobster! How about a Canadian mobster? I've always found those shifty Canucks particularly worrisome.

Cop? Anger issues, PTSD, substance abuse (alcohol is a big winner in this category), divorced or busy gettin' busy on the side are all de rigeur and freakin' boring. "Ka-Ra-Zy" bad guy? Hmm, childhood trauma, usually sexual abuse, and either brilliant or quite stupid, not much in the middle ground. Typical "mommy didn't love me, daddy didn't care" stuff, so now s/he is gonna make (somebody) pay. Oh, and don't forget the "psychopath" label. That one makes me extra nuts, because it is not accurate and has become shorthand for "Ka-Ra-Zy" bad guy without actually specifying anything. Yawn.

Now I've got a lot of respect for writers who grab a cliché and then tweak it into something nifty and new - Bruen's Jack Taylor should be a cliché, but isn't even in the same area code, IMO. And I understand the well-chosen (and written) icon. But I'm finding that those tend to be the exceptions rather than the rule. What's up with that?! With tons of words and personalities and plot variations available, why do we trot out the over-used cliché so damn often? 'Cause, y'know, I'm just askin'...

Views: 23

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

A potpourri of gutted mullets, egg salad, banana peels and pork fat--all left in the hot sun to stew for a few days--filled the room. I smeared some Vick's under my nose, walked in and made an initial assessment of the corpse...

How's that? ;)
Well, okay. There's that logic thing with the hyper-commercialization of just about everything. Makes sense that new writers are heavily influenced by (and likely to imitate) writers/novels that they like, but most of them aren't going to rush out and get their book picked up and published until they've had (hopefully) a chance to grow their craft a bit. Guess I just get bugged that with all the options available, many writers stick to the tried (and tired) phrases/descriptions/stereotypes.
Is there an argument that it comes down to effort as well? It takes work to weed out those stock metaphors. When it comes to stories, a PI and a femme fatale are the first things that spring to mind if you think noir and some people stop there. Others go a step further - maybe reverse it: what if the gal's the PI and the guy's fatale? What if we follow the client, rather than the PI? What if the PI doesn't have his own office, but has a desk at the back of an estate agents that a friend lets him/her use?

Original (or at least not obviously derivative) can come in a flash of inspiration, but it also comes from a dogged investigation of 'what if I did this instead'? My guess is that a lot of writers, especially beginners, either don't do that or eagerly set to work on their story after one question instead of twenty.

And I must admit that I try to avoid homage in my stories. The number 1138 turns up all over the place just because George Lucas used it in a few films (though I doubt many know it originally came from a 1967 short film) and it is tempting to slip in a reference like that, but I say: why not come up with your own four-digit number? No one homages a homage, but they can show respect for an original.
That's an excellent point. It definitely takes work, but geez, if you're gonna put all the work into writing a coherent and cohesive story or novel, isn't it worth it to make it vaguely original?

Like I said, I get a kick out of it when a worn out trope is tweaked into something a bit different. I love the idea of role reversals - I'm in a radio theater group and we do this all the time to shake up the story (and writers!) and turn an idea that could be ho-hum into something much more interesting.
Hmm, I kinda like the pizza box stain shaped like South America ...

The books in this genre that I've read with the most cliches fall into two types.

One: I'm going to entertain you with something very predictable. You'll read this book for the same reason that you buy Kentucky Fried Chicken when you're on vacation in Iceland. It may not be great, but you know what you're getting.

Two: I'm so excited I just finished writing my first mystery. No, I haven't read many of them yet, I just know I love them. I think it's a swell idea to send my heroine down to the basement in her nightie with a candle when she hears a strange noise. That'll be really suspenseful.
Well... Canadian mob? You'll find Russian and Italian names there too. And some others. Prominent organized crime? Hell's Angels. Not sure that's very original.

It's hard to go too far from some stereotypes, because people are conditioned to believe in them to the point that anything radically different is unbelievable. I never really thought of something like pizza being a cliche... on Law&Order it's usually hot dogs if it's quickie food, isn't it? Around here, if we want something fast it pretty much has to be pizza (though I realize I live in an exception).

I think what makes the difference is whether or not you're able to sell off, on the whole, the story. If the characters are real what will happen is the book will read like a story, instead of someone ticking off a list of required ingredients to make a story.
Well, yeah. I think that's probably true. It's easy to think of cops as "other" and not as, y'know, actual people. And I don't think being real is necessarily boring. Everybody has their individual quirks, mannerisms, ways of talking that make for way more interesting characterizations than the stereotypes. Just my opinion, o' course, but there are very few police procedurals I can get through any more because of the cliches and stereotypes.

The cops I know play on community basketball and softball teams and a couple are really into health food and fitness in general. No more weirdness with alcohol or relationships than the rest of us. And while a lot of folks eat pizza, it just seems a little bizarre for so many books to have the cop protags eating non-stop pizza...what, they don't ever get a calzone from the pizza shop?!
Don Harstad writes the most realistic cops in the genre, possibly because he was a rural sheriff's deputy himself.
*gets out pen and paper - note to self, check out Don Harstad's work*
Okay, I gotta ask... what am I? chopped liver? ;-)
*gets out pen and paper - adds Robin Burcell to Must Check Out list*

And oddly enough, you don't look anything like chopped liver!
Oh, good. I was a little worried after this last haircut. ;-)

RSS

CrimeSpace Google Search

© 2024   Created by Daniel Hatadi.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service