# Are you bored to tears with cliched character tropes? I am. Here's my shortlist



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

*1. The divorced and drunk cop.* This isn't deep, risque, or original anymore. It's so overused that you can predict the scenes and plot points to come. At some point, for example, usually after a close call--the incident will always stop short of culpability for an innocent's death--he'll look in the mirror and swear off the booze. And then there are the melodramatic scenes--often flashbacks or exposition--between him and his "ex," which always culminate in the wife's harangue about how he loved "the job" more than her. Ugh. Given how overused this character trope is, the moderate drinking, happily married cop would be more interesting.

*2. The technical savant.* I love Sherlock Holmes. He's a brilliant character. But his knock-offs invariably lack plausibility and the plots based around them lack the same punch because authors substitute technical knowledge for intellectual analysis.

Holmes solved crimes because he had a knack for inferring causes from observations. Suspension of disbelief is possible and the conclusion satisfying because you can see how you could've arrived at the same conclusion if only you'd paid attention to the details. Knock-offs, however, almost always draw on technical expertise that no one outside forensics would know or on technology that doesn't exist. A spectral analysis of the dirt found on the seams of the victim's shoes, for example, doesn't satisfy the way the "dog that didn't bark" does. And how many times can you use the old image-of-the-perp-reconstructed-from-a-reflection-in-a-window device? Such devices call to mind Star Trek's technobabble ex machina: "If we change the ion polarization on the deflector ray, we just might be able to [escape the aliens and resolve the plot in a boring and predictable way]."

*3. Daddy and Mommy issues.* The only people whose whole lives are defined by their relationships with their parents are in books of fiction.

*4. Traumatic experience as motivator*. A close cousin of Point 3 is the traumatic experience--usually a childhood one that shapes the grownup's life. True, the coming-of-age plot is driven by a traumatic or otherwise significant event. Everyone can relate to it because the transition to adulthood is marked but such events--even if not always traumatic--so it belongs there. But it's overused and out of place in books outside this genre.

Denis Lehane's _Live by Night _was a refreshing departure from this trend. Given that his protagonist had taken up a life of crime, Lehane had every incentive to rationalize it with some stock childhood trauma in order to make the MC sympathetic. To Lehane's credit, he didn't; and the book was better for it.

*5. "We're the same, you and me," says the vicious killer. "We're nothing alike," growls the heroic cop. But, in truth, he's terribly haunted by the possibility that he is!* Puke. I'm so sick of this kind of moral equivalence that's so transparently ridiculous. A serial killer who hacks up and eats people and the cop who contemplates shooting him are not even in the same moral ballpark. The cop--especially a self-aware cop--shouldn't be stricken by self-doubt when a psycho pulls this card. A realistic response would be "Huh?" or maybe "Pffst! That's ridiculous." Better yet, the writer shouldn't write this scene in the first place.

So what's this political statement even doing in police procedurals? I can only speculate that it drifted over from Le Carre's spy thrillers, where at least it had some currency. One can see how a bad spy could leverage the good spy's conscience to undermine his confidence or just distract him. But cops and psychos? No dice.

I could go on all day...so what's your shortlist?


----------



## Joe Mynhardt (Apr 26, 2015)

Although I still enjoy it, the average person who finds out they're special (a prince or superhero) is overused.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

1.  If I don't like the character, I'm not going to enjoy the book. Not keen on Jo Nesbo for that reason.

2.  I DO like the folks who are smart about something and use that to figure things out. Though I admit to rolling my eyes sometimes when they pull something really arcane out of thin air. . . . . if it's at least something true I appreciate it more. There was something I read once that did that . . .and the 'critical fact' happened to be something I was familiar with so I thought it was pretty cool to use it the way he had. But lots of reviewers thought it was completely made up and not believable. 

3.  We're back to not liking the character, most likely

4.  This can go either way. . . . ofttimes I find it tiresome, but it's sometimes done very well.

5.  Again . . . can go either way depending on how well it's done.  But it is a bit cliche.

I don't read much in the way of romance any more because so many of the plots are based on a Major Misunderstanding that, if the two people had just talked to each other -- rather than everyone else -- the whole thing could have been resolved in about two pages.  But that would be a very short book, I guess. 

I also get annoyed at characters who are too perfect. Read a book once and it featured a teen who was such a good kid as to be entirely unrealistic. Hence, incredibly annoying. I kept thinking, "you're the kid who get's put in the locker, aren't you". Of course, it was made more obvious by the fact that every OTHER teen in the book -- except his conflicted best friend -- was a bully or mean girl or stoner.

Caveat: at the same time, I understand why people use these types . . . . they often WORK to tell a story.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 10, 2015)

My personal bugbear is what I've seen referred to as "idiot scripts" where the characters have to do something moronic in order for the plot to advance.

"Let's all split up and individually look for the serial killer."

"I wonder what this box with the skull painted on it is for. Let's open it."

"Of course it's dead. Look, I can put my hand in its mouth."

There is actually a car commercial that riffs on this trope. The hockey-mask-wearing guy with a chainsaw actually looks down and shakes his head at the antics of the protags.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

bizmuth said:


> My personal bugbear is what I've seen referred to as "idiot scripts" where the characters have to do something moronic in order for the plot to advance.
> 
> "Let's all split up and individually look for the serial killer."
> 
> ...


Affectionately known as "too stupid to live".


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

bizmuth said:


> My personal bugbear is what I've seen referred to as "idiot scripts" where the characters have to do something moronic in order for the plot to advance.
> 
> "Let's all split up and individually look for the serial killer."
> 
> ...


Gotta agree with these or any of the other TSTL. I also won't read the drinking cop anymore--male or female.

I actually have a hard time reading books unless the main has an interesting career. I rarely, rarely read journalism careers because I read a lot of mysteries and that one is very tired to me.

Technical experts (savant or not) are some of my favorite reads, whether main character or secondary.

By the time the story gets to the serial killer and cop being face-to-face, little things like comparisons don't bug me much. I read for the action at that point and I'm generally more satisfied when the main has the confidence/fortitude to rid the world of a killer. It's not that I'm bloodthirsty it's more that I do *not* want to read about the same killer in subsequent novels when the main had his/her chance...


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 10, 2015)

MariaESchneider said:


> It's not that I'm bloodthirsty it's more that I do *not* want to read about the same killer in subsequent novels when the main had his/her chance...


Oh yeah, that's another one -- the bad guy who just can't be killed permanently. It's gotten so bad-- in Bones a year or two ago, they shot the evil genius psychopath point-blank and watched him die. I'm _still_ expecting him or his twin brother to show up in a future episode with a lame explanation.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

The mommy/daddy issues can bore me unless the character grows mature enough to see them for what they are, mommy/daddy issues and gets past them. 

I was growing super tired of the drunk cop/investigator character until I watched Jack Taylor, the TV series set in Ireland. It's based on the continuing character (Jack Taylor) in the books by Ken Bruen. They don't get any drunker or more self-destructive than Jack.  And I think he's brilliant. So just when you think a trope is shopworn to the max, a talented writer comes along and makes it work all over again.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I've read one or two of the Ken Bruen and while he writes an astounding novel, the drunk cop is only unique because he's more depressing than most of the novels where the character generally finds at least a tiny bit of redemption in each novel.  Bruen doesn't bother with that so while the books are perhaps more realistic, you have to be prepared for some pretty dark stuff.  And the primary reason I stopped reading is:  Drunk Cop and No let up in the dark themes.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Whenever I see the heroine fall for the bad guy for no good reason other than 'they're hot' (and always against her will, honest), I want to toss the book (or my Kindle) into a corner. I'm especially tired of the 'betrayed by her body' line. Graaaaaaaaagh. Or the horrific villain who doesn't really do anything horrific because he wants to impress the heroine for some narrator-enforced reason.

Oh, and characters being paired up with pretty much the first (insert opposing gender here) person that gets any amount of description / screentime. I find it especially annoying when there's no natural relationship development and no deeper reasoning, just... 'you're hot and available' or something along those lines. It bores me to tears.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

C. Rysalis said:


> Whenever I see the heroine fall for the bad guy for no good reason other than 'they're hot' (and always against her will, honest), I want to toss the book (or my Kindle) into a corner. I'm especially tired of the 'betrayed by her body' line. Graaaaaaaaagh. Or the horrific villain who doesn't really do anything horrific because he wants to impress the heroine for some narrator-enforced reason.
> 
> Oh, and characters being paired up with pretty much the first (insert opposing gender here) person that gets any amount of description / screentime. I find it especially annoying when there's no natural relationship development and no deeper reasoning, just... 'you're hot and available' or something along those lines. It bores me to tears.


TOTALLY AGREE. I don't care if they are bad guy, good guy or whatever. If I even see anything hinting at this sort of thing in the description, I can't be bothered. Do not give me that "I have work to do" and then spend three pages "must not wrap my body around hot guy." It's really, really hard to believe a gal is kick-ass when this sort of thing is described. And for the love of all that is holy, there's nothing worse than when it's MORE THAN ONE GUY in the book, ie Love Triangle. *Flings book at wall*


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

C. Rysalis said:


> Whenever I see the heroine fall for the bad guy for no good reason other than 'they're hot' (and always against her will, honest), I want to toss the book (or my Kindle) into a corner...


Ditto. Similar to that for me would be any character who does silly/stupid things seemingly for no reason other than so the author can write a fight or flight scene. (Not sure how much of that is character vs. plot, but either way, I hate it.)

As I've read a fair amount of epic fantasy over the years, I'm really tired of the "rightful" heir who would be a much better king/queen/whatever than the person who currently has the job. I'm sure part of that is my strong belief that the ability to rule fairly and wisely has nothing to do with heredity.

Finally, why do so many important female characters have the combination of high cheekbones and green eyes, or for that matter, just the green eyes? Come on, authors: show a little imagination and creativity. (Frankly, I don't really even care what color characters' eyes are and think telling me is a waste of words, but whenever I see those green eyes mentioned now, my hackles get raised.)


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Maybe the green eyes is because that is the rarest color?  The high cheekbones is probably because, well, no one is ever described as having low cheekbones.  "She was a lovely lass with cheekbones in the middle of her face like any ordinary gal..."  "Her low cheekbones called too much attention to her strong jawline..."  



I agree with the whole heredity and 'rightful' heir.  I also get tired of the romance where the guy always turns out to be wealthy (Ilona Andrews I'm looking at you for book two in the Fates Edge series.  Really, it would have been perfectly okay for him to move in the castle with whatshername and have them scrape by until they figured out how to make some money. That whole ending made my eyes roll so far back in my head, I fell over.)  

I'm sure there are romances out there where the woman is wealthy so she doesn't have to fall in love with a billionaire after solving some impossible to solve mystery and thawing his frozen heart...but I haven't seen any lately.  Or ever that I can think of.

Not that I'm a picky reader or anything...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

C. Rysalis said:


> Whenever I see the heroine fall for the bad guy for no good reason other than 'they're hot' (and always against her will, honest), I want to toss the book (or my Kindle) into a corner. I'm especially tired of the 'betrayed by her body' line. Graaaaaaaaagh. Or the horrific villain who doesn't really do anything horrific because he wants to impress the heroine for some narrator-enforced reason.


Along these lines: She's smart and educated and just happens to be wearing the most slutty of clothes for some presumably good reason when she meets him. He's good looking but cocky and chauvanistic and keeps making comments about how hot she is. She 'hates' him, he thinks she's stuck up -- but it's dead clear that they'll end up in bed together pretty soon. Neither one will ever become more interesting or likable persons.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

WHDean said:


> *4. Traumatic experience as motivator*. A close cousin of Point 3 is the traumatic experience--usually a childhood one that shapes the grownup's life.


While I understand about being tired of these because they're so common, I often have a different take - they're treated too lightly. I've read quite a few books where characters simply bounce back from child abuse, domestic violence, rape, etc., in ways that I don't think are realistic. My understanding is that most people are affected by experiences like that all their lives.



C. Rysalis said:


> Whenever I see the heroine fall for the bad guy for no good reason other than 'they're hot' (and always against her will, honest), I want to toss the book (or my Kindle) into a corner. I'm especially tired of the 'betrayed by her body' line.


Yup, the whole so attracted to someone he/she loses control is common in romances, and I hate it. It's hard to consider someone a hero or heroine if their self-control is at the level of a hormone-ridden rabbit.

Another common, and tiresome, trope in romances is the seemingly ordinary hero/heroine who turns out to be an aristocrat and/or wealthy.

I stopped reading anything with a serial killer in it some years ago in part because of the never-die types.

P.S. Am I the only one who has trouble with the timelines of the Viet Nam vet who is still kicking ass? James Lee Burke's Dave Robichaux, Robert Crais's Elvis Cole, Craig Johnson's Walt Longmire. I suppose I have sympathy with authors who gave their series heroes that background and the series has run so long the heroes are now too long in the tooth for all the physical exploits, but still I have trouble with it. Maybe they should have stopped the clock at some point instead of writing stories set in the current day with these old guys.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Along these lines: She's smart and educated and just happens to be wearing the most slutty of clothes for some presumably good reason when she meets him. He's good looking but cocky and chauvanistic and keeps making comments about how hot she is. She 'hates' him, he thinks she's stuck up -- but it's dead clear that they'll end up in bed together pretty soon. Neither one will ever become more interesting or likable persons.


Along those lines, I really fail to see what is attractive about a guy who is good looking but a jerk. I just don't see it. So when these books try to convince me of the "hotness" of some guy who is rude, conniving, insulting, demeaning and especially if he's abusive--putting or leaving the heroine in bad situations, or making fun of her when she can't get out of trouble on her own...or worse, well, let's just say I don't get the book and I don't read it. These gals are supposed to be bad-ass. Pull out your gun and SHOOT him already!


----------



## BeachB (Sep 3, 2013)

MariaESchneider said:


> Along those lines, I really fail to see what is attractive about a guy who is good looking but a jerk. I just don't see it. So when these books try to convince me of the "hotness" of some guy who is rude, conniving, insulting, demeaning and especially if he's abusive--putting or leaving the heroine in bad situations, or making fun of her when she can't get out of trouble on her own...or worse, well, let's just say I don't get the book and I don't read it. These gals are supposed to be bad-ass. Pull out your gun and SHOOT him already!


"Pull out your gun and SHOOT him already!" Made me laugh out loud at work and choke on my tea! Thank you for the laugh, btw I feel the same way about it.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

MariaESchneider said:


> Maybe the green eyes is because that is the rarest color? The high cheekbones is probably because, well, no one is ever described as having low cheekbones. "She was a lovely lass with cheekbones in the middle of her face like any ordinary gal..." "Her low cheekbones called too much attention to her strong jawline..."
> 
> 
> ...


I truly feel that there are more than a few authors who use the "high cheekbones" description without actually understanding what they are and how they look. (Generally speaking, high-fashion runway models tend more toward high cheekbones, whereas swimsuit models -- which I suspect the average heterosexual male actually finds more attractive -- do not.*) But regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, it always just seems lazy to me when some female character is introduced as being green-eyed with high cheekbones -- it's just so incredibly overdone, at least in books I tend to read.
___________
* I actually did some research on this a couple years ago when I'd first started getting bothered by its overuse in novels I was reading.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

NogDog said:


> I truly feel that there are more than a few authors who use the "high cheekbones" description without actually understanding what they are and how they look. (Generally speaking, high-fashion runway models tend more toward high cheekbones, whereas swimsuit models -- which I suspect the average heterosexual male actually finds more attractive -- do not.*) But regardless of whether I'm right or wrong, it always just seems lazy to me when some female character is introduced as being green-eyed with high cheekbones -- it's just so incredibly overdone, at least in books I tend to read.
> ___________
> * I actually did some research on this a couple years ago when I'd first started getting bothered by its overuse in novels I was reading.


Well, yes, but those men looking at the swimsuit models may not have noticed that the women HAD cheekbones. At all. 

Agreed, it is lazy characterization in any case. If you have to resort to just "looks" to make the heroine attractive--be it the most basic green eyes/high cheekbones, the author has missed a huge opportunity to round out the character and make her attractive with other attributes. It goes both ways, however, as you can see from the complaints above. Many an author describes some muscled, good looking guy and that is the extent of the "attractiveness." We're supposed to believe that the heroine will fall head over heels even if the guy is an ass a jerk because OF COURSE he doesn't mean a single mean thing he says or does. He's just overcome by her cheekbones or whatever it is that makes him so defensive. Later, all will be forgiven, up to and including stalking behavior that is later called "protective instincts" and so on. Or so I suppose from some of the books that I've read all or parts of.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

I think we're talking about clichès instead of tropes but as others have said, I'm getting really tired of damaged characters. It seems to be easier to provide a character with a drinking problem, a fear of getting struck by a meteor, a haunted past, or some such other foible than it is to actually draw a character.


Mike


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2015)

jmiked said:


> I think we're talking about cliches instead of tropes


Yes, there is a fine line between tropes and cliches. Tropes serve a purpose to plots as they provide a universal framework for the story. But it is easy for the trope to become a cliche.

My personal pet peeve: All female protagonists in urban fantasy are "smart, sassy, and sexy." Every...friggin...one. You never come across a female protagonist who is just a normal person thrown into extraordinary circumstances (though we see male protagonists like this all the time). And of course, she's also a master street fighter who can kick the butt of 300 lb men despite the fact that she weighs 90 lbs soaking wet. Though she's never actually had any real training in martial arts. They are never above the age of 20-21, and if they older the age is simply an arbitrary figure because they still act and think like a twenty-something and don't seem to have any real life experiences.

And, of course, her super hot quasi-love interest/"guardian" or "mentor".


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Yes, there is a fine line between tropes and cliches. Tropes serve a purpose to plots as they provide a universal framework for the story. But it is easy for the trope to become a cliche.
> 
> My personal pet peeve: All female protagonists in urban fantasy are "smart, sassy, and sexy." Every...friggin...one. You never come across a female protagonist who is just a normal person thrown into extraordinary circumstances (though we see male protagonists like this all the time). And of course, she's also a master street fighter who can kick the butt of 300 lb men despite the fact that she weighs 90 lbs soaking wet. Though she's never actually had any real training in martial arts. They are never above the age of 20-21, and if they older the age is simply an arbitrary figure because they still act and think like a twenty-something and don't seem to have any real life experiences.
> 
> And, of course, her super hot quasi-love interest/"guardian" or "mentor".


Oh, they are out there. Unicorn on Speed Dial -- UF and the lady is a soccer mom (essentially. I don't recall if her kids actually played soccer). Frank Tuttle's Meralda series is sort of steampunk/UF/Fantasy and Meralda isn't any good at hand-to-hand. The trick is basically looking for "cozier" UF. And they are harder to find. But there are some. I could probably find more if I went through my list...I know there's another one on there, but I can't think of the name of it. I wouldn't call Frank a cozy writer either--the characters are just not as dark as a lot of UF. Sort of a cross between thriller and cozy. We are out there, but not all that common. I'll go look up that other one. It has a pink/purple cover/weird looking thing...edited to add: Illegal Magic. I don't remember her being at all badass. There are fights and towards the end, she might have gotten more badass.

In Unicorn, there are fights--and I know in one case the main is so desperate she has to use a diaper bag...which I remember as quite hilarious. Your Mileage will vary...


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

Ann in Arlington said:


> I don't read much in the way of romance any more because so many of the plots are based on a Major Misunderstanding that, if the two people had just talked to each other -- rather than everyone else -- the whole thing could have been resolved in about two pages. But that would be a very short book, I guess.


It's remarkable how long the "major misunderstanding" plot has been around. The playwright Menander was famous in ancient times for his comedies, all of which (seem) to have turned on misunderstandings. I read some of (what remains of) his stuff as an undergraduate. You could've changed the names to Jack, Janet, and Chrissy, and you'd be reading the scripts for _Three's Company_.



jmiked said:


> I think we're talking about cliches instead of tropes but as others have said, I'm getting really tired of damaged characters. It seems to be easier to provide a character with a drinking problem, a fear of getting struck by a meteor, a haunted past, or some such other foible than it is to actually draw a character.


Trope has two meanings. In classical rhetoric, a trope occurs at the sentence level. Personification, for example, is a trope; e.g., "The brooding sky watched us make our way to the village." In literature, a trope is a "bigger" and a constitutive element of a story. The wise old mentor, for example, is a trope of the fantasy genre. By character tropes, I mean constitutive elements of characters, in particular. The drunkenness of the cop, for example, is a trope.

A cliche is basically an overused trope, so you're right that I'm talking about what I take to be cliches. Of course, a lot depends on how much you've read and whether you enjoy the cliche all the same. I think some people probably don't care. I do, mostly because these cliches make the story too predictable. What's wholly or partly predictable is rarely as enjoyable as what is not.

I think your "damaged characters" pretty much sums up several of my beefs. The pathologies of characters have become too predictable. Maybe it's time for metal-eating fetishes or something rarer than abuse and neglect. Or maybe just a happy childhood. To me it's more interesting when someone turns bad for entirely human reasons than for external reasons like being abused. One of things that made _Breaking Bad _so good, for example, is that Walt's turn was a choice he made. His motives weren't explained away or rationalized by trauma.

ETA: typos...


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

Smart twerps and muscle-bound idiots. Some of the smartest people I've known work out.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> While I understand about being tired of these because they're so common, I often have a different take - they're treated too lightly. I've read quite a few books where characters simply bounce back from child abuse, domestic violence, rape, etc., in ways that I don't think are realistic. My understanding is that most people are affected by experiences like that all their lives.


I used to think that too, but it turns out that we're falling into a common cognitive bias. We think most people suffer life-long symptoms because those are the ones we hear about. All the people who recovered from it go unremarked and unnoticed. A good example is PTSD. You'd think every second soldier had it, given the media coverage and its prevalence in film and TV. But it's actually extremely rare. The last study I read showed that only about 5% of soldiers suffered from one or more symptoms--note that symptoms includes things like trouble sleeping. Full-blown PTSD is only a tiny segment of that 5%. What's even stranger is that soldiers "behind the wire" (i.e., the ones not in combat) have a higher (yes, higher) incidence of PTSD symptoms than combat soldiers. There are all kinds of theories for this, as you might imagine. I found this out because I edit social science research, a lot of which focuses on "resilience" and how traumatic experiences affect some people but not others.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

vrabinec said:


> Smart twerps and muscle-bound idiots. Some of the smartest people I've known work out.


Agreed. I've recently returned to the gym to lose a few pounds, and it's much the same as I remember it when I was younger. A lot of the muscle-bound types defy the stereotype. A lot seem to be shy or withdrawn.


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

NogDog said:


> I truly feel that there are more than a few authors who use the "high cheekbones" description without actually understanding what they are and how they look. (Generally speaking, high-fashion runway models tend more toward high cheekbones, whereas swimsuit models -- which I suspect the average heterosexual male actually finds more attractive -- do not.*)


So "high cheekbones" is basically a more flattering way to say "hollow cheeks" ?


----------



## John Blackport (Jul 18, 2011)

WHDean said:


> What's even stranger is that soldiers "behind the wire" (i.e., the ones not in combat) have a higher (yes, higher) incidence of PTSD symptoms than combat soldiers. There are all kinds of theories for this, as you might imagine. I found this out because I edit social science research, a lot of which focuses on "resilience" and how traumatic experiences affect some people but not others.


The two RL cases I personally know of came about as non-combat events. One person was trapped for a few hours in an area accidentally made hazardous during a training exercise; another was on guard duty in a high-security and almost shot a clueless "intruder" whose headphones were too loud to hear his shouted warnings.


----------



## vrabinec (May 19, 2011)

NogDog said:


> swimsuit models -- which I suspect the average heterosexual male actually finds more attractive -- do not.*)


Who the hell looks at swimsuit models' cheeks? No, not those cheeks, the other ones.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Hey now, I have green eyes and high cheekbones. Although I am not a model, swimsuit or otherwise.  

Now to the tropes I might be tired off. Its a hard one for me. I read a lot of romance, no secret there, so there should be some tropes I am tired off, right? Well really, I often find its more about how the trope is done, rather than how many of one kind there are. I mean every repeated trope can read completely new and interesting with the right author. 

That isn't to say some stuff doesn't get on my nerves. The uprising of this new fandangled "subgenre" called new adult has given way to a rewashed older trope of the alphahole. Now the thing is, in most of the newly published examples, its just not well done. If I want well done, I go back in time and read old Presents, or Anne Stuart, etc. I think the problem why the newer ones don't work for me is a combination of first person, which used to be 3rd, and also the whininess and unlikability of the characters. I mean there is no pay off anymore. No good grovels, no believable growth and emotional buildup anymore.

I think the other reason for that is the insta sex, insta love. This is especially prevalent in new authors in romance and used to be just in contempo, but now its creeping into historical also. It takes the wind out of everything that makes a romance a romance, the journey. The believable journey of characters, together. 

And if I see one more new adult romance with the heroine raped, abused I'll scream. Or a hero that gets to tap everything with legs while the heroine acts like a doormat to him and he didn't mean it, he just has a dead twin, or some  other excuse using deep dark secret. And again, usually no grovel anymore. Just more sex. 

Really, this post is summed up with: Not enough depth. Shallow. That annoys me, especially when tackling some serious stuff. 

One thing though I don't like and I do try to read reviews for that is the screeching banchee heroine. I don't know how else to put it. She acts like a spoiled brat, but the author calls her "fierce".

Its similar when a heroine is called "kick-ass". Usually in urban fantasy. That has been so overused that its a insta turn off for me that term. I read that in a blurb, its possible I'll never pick that book or series up. 

Other than that, I am cool.  . And as always, it depends on the user of the quill in the end.


----------



## xandy3 (Jun 13, 2010)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> My personal pet peeve: All female protagonists in urban fantasy are "smart, sassy, and sexy." Every...friggin...one. You never come across a female protagonist who is just a normal person thrown into extraordinary circumstances (though we see male protagonists like this all the time). And of course, she's also a master street fighter who can kick the butt of 300 lb men despite the fact that she weighs 90 lbs soaking wet. Though she's never actually had any real training in martial arts. They are never above the age of 20-21, and if they older the age is simply an arbitrary figure because they still act and think like a twenty-something and don't seem to have any real life experiences.
> 
> And, of course, her super hot quasi-love interest/"guardian" or "mentor".


^^ That.

It's especially annoying if "every guy wants her, and every girl wants to be her bestie." 

Also, I'm always annoyed by the token jealous girl/guy whose character sevrves no other purpose but to try to ruin the MC's relationship. It's so overdone, and reminds me of old soap operas. I can forgive it if jealous guy/girl serves some other purpose in the story (like jealous guy was the killer all along, or the catty female wound up being the one to save the MC's life.) But other than that, the character just seems pointless IMO.

ETA:
Forgot to mention the sword/dagger that just appears out of nowhere as soon as the MC needs it.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

WHDean said:


> We think most people suffer life-long symptoms because those are the ones we hear about. All the people who recovered from it go unremarked and unnoticed.


I think we're talking about different sides of the same coin here. You wish more authors would show that the majority of people are resilient after trauma. That's true. I'm older and remember all too well the b.s. that all Viet Nam vets had been turned into crazy Deer Killers.

On the other side, my problem is that when writers do include people who have suffered severe trauma in their stories, characters who are suffering ongoing symptoms, they all too often "cure" them instantly. In romance the insta-cure comes from falling in love (or all too often as Atunah hints at from lots of great sex), but I see it in other fiction too. The PTSD guy takes out terrorists; the woman who was brutalized kills her attacker or someone attacking another woman, and that single act fixes everything.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

ellenoc said:


> I think we're talking about different sides of the same coin here. You wish more authors would show that the majority of people are resilient after trauma. That's true. I'm older and remember all too well the b.s. that all Viet Nam vets had been turned into crazy Deer Killers.
> 
> On the other side, my problem is that when writers do include people who have suffered severe trauma in their stories, characters who are suffering ongoing symptoms, they all too often "cure" them instantly. In romance the insta-cure comes from falling in love (or all too often as Atunah hints at from lots of great sex), but I see it in other fiction too. The PTSD guy takes out terrorists; the woman who was brutalized kills her attacker or someone attacking another woman, and that single act fixes everything.


You're right. In fact, you might've hit on one of the things that bugs me about the abusive backstory. In the OP I was concerned with the predictability and frequency of the device; but you've reminded me of the other aspect of it, so here's a new addition to the character cliches:

*6. Cathartic healing*. The MC comes to a realization about her (usually her) past and, poof, the pathology that has plagued her for years evaporates into thin air-a new life begins as if nothing had happened. The trope is borrowed from pop psychology (e.g., Oprah) where psychological healing is as easy as lancing a boil.

To be honest, I haven't read many of these stories, but I have been subjected to them through my wife's preferences in TV and film.



John Blackport said:


> The two RL cases I personally know of came about as non-combat events. One person was trapped for a few hours in an area accidentally made hazardous during a training exercise; another was on guard duty in a high-security and almost shot a clueless "intruder" whose headphones were too loud to hear his shouted warnings.


Yes, my experience with soldiers and those who study them has taught me that the Hollywood take on war is generally out of sync with reality.

Another overlooked angle on trauma is the effect of what's called "minor traumatic brain injury." Some head injuries (e.g., severe concussions) are called "minor" because (in short) there's no observable injury and the person appears to recover from them. But these physical injuries can cause all sorts of psychological symptoms, which appear to be PTSD. Some researchers even speculate that many of the cases that have been classified as PTSD in the past are actually brain injuries (e.g., what was historically called "shell shock").


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

MariaESchneider said:


> Well, yes, but those men looking at the swimsuit models may not have noticed that the women HAD cheekbones. At all.
> 
> Agreed, it is lazy characterization in any case. If you have to resort to just "looks" to make the heroine attractive--be it the most basic green eyes/high cheekbones, the author has missed a huge opportunity to round out the character and make her attractive with other attributes. It goes both ways, however, as you can see from the complaints above. Many an author describes some muscled, good looking guy and that is the extent of the "attractiveness." We're supposed to believe that the heroine will fall head over heels even if the guy is an ass a jerk because OF COURSE he doesn't mean a single mean thing he says or does. He's just overcome by her cheekbones or whatever it is that makes him so defensive. Later, all will be forgiven, up to and including stalking behavior that is later called "protective instincts" and so on. Or so I suppose from some of the books that I've read all or parts of.


Priceless! 

And I agree with everything you said.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

Also tired of the mystery novels where the author spends nearly the entire book building on what an intelligent and independent woman the heroine is, only to have the love interest come to her rescue when she is nearly killed by the villain, who has her at his/her mercy due to circumstances beyond her control that give her the clues to the identity of the murderer when she is somehow left alone with them and stupid enough to blurt out what she has discovered. Right. So much for being either intelligent or independent.


----------



## BaileyM (Jun 16, 2015)

I don't like books or movies "having" to contain a ton of action.  If it fits, it fits, but if it doesn't...I just feel bored.  I think it's supposed to hold people's attention, but for some of us it works the other way.

I don't like "getting the girl" as a trope.  Like, trophy girlfriend, the girl who's just in the plot to be the prize.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

I'm not sure it's a trope, exactly, but my pet peeve is endless question marks in internal monologues. 
_
Maria had to think. She stared out the window. Should she be early for the dinner? Would that make her look needy? And what would her mother think, her niece? Did it have to be this way? Couldn't she just be herself? The decision was too, too much! Should she call and cancel the dinner? What would that do to him? To her? To their relationship? What would her mother think?_

And yes to many of those kick-ass heroines. Overdone and too many of them are just nasty!


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> I'm not sure it's a trope, exactly, but my pet peeve is endless question marks in internal monologues.
> _
> Maria had to think. She stared out the window. Should she be early for the dinner? Would that make her look needy? And what would her mother think, her niece? Did it have to be this way? Couldn't she just be herself? The decision was too, too much! Should she call and cancel the dinner? What would that do to him? To her? To their relationship? What would her mother think?_
> 
> And yes to many of those kick-ass heroines. Overdone and too many of them are just nasty!


I don't read many books with this sort of female hero, so I can't speak to it. But I have seen something like this. In the reboot of BSG, the writers made the character Starbuck a woman (instead of a man as he/she'd been in the original series). That didn't bother me. The problem was that the writers didn't change the character at all to accommodate the change in sex. The original Starbuck was a stereotypical fighter jock: a fearless, cigar-smoking, whiskey-drinking, poker-playing womanizer with a heart of gold. The new female Starbuck had all these same qualities. I'm not saying a woman can't have these qualities, but it felt forced or contrived, as if the point was not to write a believable and sympathetic character, but to stick a woman in the role of character that one would expect to see a man play. Again, it was just felt stilted and weird.


----------



## kai_andersen (Jun 20, 2015)

bizmuth said:


> My personal bugbear is what I've seen referred to as "idiot scripts" where the characters have to do something moronic in order for the plot to advance.


I'm with you on this! Either moronic or totally out of character.

Another trope I've been seeing lately and which I hate is the dark, damaged hero in New Adult books. I avoid those like the plague. That's why when I read an NA book that has a normal hero and heroine, enjoying and experiencing the ups and downs of college life or life after graduation, I was pleasantly surprised. And decided not to rule out that category of books totally. Examples that I enjoyed are Make It Count by Megan Erickson and Isn't She Lovely? by Lauren Layne.


----------



## kai_andersen (Jun 20, 2015)

BaileyM said:


> I don't like books or movies "having" to contain a ton of action. If it fits, it fits, but if it doesn't...I just feel bored. I think it's supposed to hold people's attention, but for some of us it works the other way.


I think maybe there's such a thing as too much. Like that Bourne movie with Jeremy Renner as the hero. I thought the chase scene (s?) was too long.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

kai_andersen said:


> I think maybe there's such a thing as too much. Like that Bourne movie with Jeremy Renner as the hero. I thought the chase scene (s?) was too long.


I think most chase scenes are too long and they've been done to death.

And while we're on the subject of pet peeves, I want to scream when a cop or two go to arrest someone and then make themselves and their intent to arrest known from twenty feet away so the criminal has plenty of time to tie up his shoelaces, do some stretches, and start running. Like, no!  (Sorry to veer off into TV territory, but the thug on the run thing makes me nuts.)


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

The thing I hate the most, is series where a major female starts out as strong and independent, and ends up weak, scared, and totally dependent on the MC.

Doctor Who (classic series) were really bad at this. They introduced some really great companions, who all ended up scared and screamy by the time they left.

Its not so bad in books, but the weak, scared, screaming female support character really puts me off. Same with the female MC who needs to be rescued. 

In fact, the whole "rescue" thing bugs me, although there is a place for it if done well. But when it demeans someone in the process, it is not being done well. Rescuing those who simply cant get out themselves through situation, is ok. You cant leave if you cant reach the door without being killed. You sometimes do need someone to drive a tank in through it and provide a better target while you make your escape. Rescuing to make the MC a hero, or to demonstrate that a character needed rescuing, doesn't work for me. The perils of Pauline routine just makes me want to puke.

Now, I think I need to reread my last rescue chapter.   

Edit: I just found another one. I hate it when a new book in a series starts by letting the bad guy escape, usually because of some contrivance to leave the door unlocked. The MC is usually amazed, but every reader just knows, as soon as the power goes off, the bad guy escapes. I'm sick of characters who do dumb things just for plot convenience. Ok, sci-fi so the door is electronic. But sheesh, the ship was beaten up in the previous books, it cant be said to be reliable for everything, so you rely on keeping your bad guy locked up with just the electronics that depend on power? No. You chain and weld the door closed, after drugging the bad guy so he wont wake up for the duration of the next flight. Common sense ? No, never used in my experience. If I ever get a prisoner scenario, escaping wont be an option.

I'm so sick of escaping bad guys, and MC's who didn't see it coming.

In fact I'd go further, and say - I hate MC's who don't see the very obvious coming.

Brand new book, almost put it down immediately that happened. Makes me think I need to pre-read all new books, especially series ones. So many series go seriously wrong at some point. Why is that?


----------



## R. M. Webb (Jul 24, 2014)

Bards and Sages (Julie) said:


> Yes, there is a fine line between tropes and cliches. Tropes serve a purpose to plots as they provide a universal framework for the story. But it is easy for the trope to become a cliche.
> 
> My personal pet peeve: All female protagonists in urban fantasy are "smart, sassy, and sexy." Every...friggin...one. You never come across a female protagonist who is just a normal person thrown into extraordinary circumstances (though we see male protagonists like this all the time). And of course, she's also a master street fighter who can kick the butt of 300 lb men despite the fact that she weighs 90 lbs soaking wet. Though she's never actually had any real training in martial arts. They are never above the age of 20-21, and if they older the age is simply an arbitrary figure because they still act and think like a twenty-something and don't seem to have any real life experiences.
> 
> And, of course, her super hot quasi-love interest/"guardian" or "mentor".


Oh, Julie, this. I should love urban fantasy. It's just so hard to wade through all the 'kick-ass' heroines. I want a real person in a fantastical situation, not a leather clad, snarky little brat who manages to diffuse each situation with a bad one-liner before oogling some hot piece of man flesh.


----------



## RoyoE (May 25, 2015)

I just finished 1984 it was great I for some reason have a real love for books about dystopias such as Brave New World and Anthem Ayn Rands Anthem is one of my top 5 books I have ever read. 

Sherlock Holmes does sound interesting though not something i typically think about at the book store though. To be honest there is always so much different stuff I want to read then i get to my local Half-Price books and just blank out everytime.

Has anyone here ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

RoyoE said:


> I just finished 1984


Did you know the world ended in 1984?

But we are waiting for the paperwork to catch up.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

Please spare me from the 'writer who helps solve a crime.' Writers, in real life, are unhelpful and generally unrealistic.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

Tony Richards said:


> Please spare me from the 'writer who helps solve a crime.' Writers, in real life, are unhelpful and generally unrealistic.


The writer in "First Contract" was a bit helpful, sort of, in the beginning...

http://www.amazon.com/First-Contract-Greg-Costikyan/dp/0312873964


----------



## taiweiland (Oct 16, 2014)

jmiked said:


> I think we're talking about cliches instead of tropes but as others have said, I'm getting really tired of damaged characters. It seems to be easier to provide a character with a drinking problem, a fear of getting struck by a meteor, a haunted past, or some such other foible than it is to actually draw a character.
> 
> Mike


I'm not sure if there's such a thing as an *undamaged* character. I mean, we're all after all damaged in some way. A character without a flaw is a boring one. Sure, the whole 'drinking and drug problem' thing can be such a cliche, but if the writer is able to provide a very good reason why I'd be intrigued to read on to find out if the character will get on top of his pain.


----------



## Dennis E. Taylor (Feb 10, 2015)

True, but there's a difference between damage that's relevant to the story-- like Shatner's character in the twilight zone episode who is afraid of flying-- and damage that's just tacked on to make the character three-dimensional (in theory).


----------



## BaileyM (Jun 16, 2015)

bizmuth said:


> True, but there's a difference between damage that's relevant to the story-- like Shatner's character in the twilight zone episode who is afraid of flying-- and damage that's just tacked on to make the character three-dimensional (in theory).


Either one can be overused, IMO.



Tony Richards said:


> Please spare me from the 'writer who helps solve a crime.' Writers, in real life, are unhelpful and generally unrealistic.


&#128514;&#128517;&#128536; almost like they live in their own little worlds....


----------



## deckard (Jan 13, 2011)

BaileyM said:


> &#128514;&#128517;&#128536; almost like they live in their own little worlds....


Or--- "almost like they live in their own little words."

</pun>

Deckard


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

If you ever watch Korean drama, you will know they have their own tropes and its almost the law that they be used. lol


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> The mommy/daddy issues can bore me unless the character grows mature enough to see them for what they are, mommy/daddy issues and gets past them.
> 
> I was growing super tired of the drunk cop/investigator character until I watched Jack Taylor, the TV series set in Ireland. It's based on the continuing character (Jack Taylor) in the books by Ken Bruen. They don't get any drunker or more self-destructive than Jack. And I think he's brilliant. So just when you think a trope is shopworn to the max, a talented writer comes along and makes it work all over again.


So I watched the Jack Taylor series. Gotta admit that it's a bit of new twist. All the same, I wasn't crazy about him going on a bender every time something went wrong. Seemed like overkill.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

WHDean said:


> So I watched the Jack Taylor series. Gotta admit that it's a bit of new twist. All the same, I wasn't crazy about him going on a bender every time something went wrong. Seemed like overkill.


The books are very well-written and they are unique. The characters are so well-drawn that you are sucked in. BUT. Yup, those stupid benders still get in the way. I just don't enjoy that particular aspect so I simply do not read it anymore.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

MariaESchneider said:


> The books are very well-written and they are unique. The characters are so well-drawn that you are sucked in. BUT. Yup, those stupid benders still get in the way. I just don't enjoy that particular aspect so I simply do not read it anymore.


I'll probably pick up one of the books. Someone gave me another of Bruen's standalone books, but I haven't read it because it doesn't interest me.

Yeah, the benders in the series started getting a little pathetic. I started thinking, "Oh great, Jack blames himself for someone's death--time to head off to the liquor store." Might've been the execution too.


----------



## J.T. Williams (Aug 7, 2014)

This is more of an issue with fantasy tropes.

#1 "Farmboy/girl must go on quest and to defeat ultimate evil" ...and by chapter three the inexperienced farmboy can hold their own in sword fight against a well trained enemy army, high priests using magic (and normally well studied), and any other character deemed necessary to fight... 

...oh and they don't get tired while fighting. I have experience in both fencing and more traditional sword fighting... I get tired and I have been doing it for years. 

#2. Making stew/porridge while travelling on the road... this is neither quick or easy in an ideal and modern camping situation but even more so if you are hiding from an angry wizard or a pack of orcs looking to make you into dinner.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

J.T. Williams said:


> This is more of an issue with fantasy tropes.
> 
> #1 "Farmboy/girl must go on quest and to defeat ultimate evil" ...and by chapter three the inexperienced farmboy can hold their own in sword fight against a well trained enemy army, high priests using magic (and normally well studied), and any other character deemed necessary to fight...
> 
> ...


Yup, those sound familiar--I guess I should say _too_ familiar.

The one about the stew reminded me of the episode of _Walking Dead _where Merle cuts his hand off with a hacksaw because he couldn't cut through the cuffs. If you look closely, you'll notice the other end of the cuffs were clamped around a piece of rusty threaded rod. Cutting through that 3/8 inch piece of soft steel would've went faster than either the cuffs or his wrist. A gear-head like Merle would've known that.


----------



## AltMe (May 18, 2015)

WHDean said:


> The one about the stew reminded me of the episode of _Walking Dead _where Merle cuts his hand off with a hacksaw because he couldn't cut through the cuffs. If you look closely, you'll notice the other end of the cuffs were clamped around a piece of rusty threaded rod. Cutting through that 3/8 inch piece of soft steel would've went faster than either the cuffs or his wrist. A gear-head like Merle would've known that.


That's the sort of wtf moment which stops me dead in a book, or makes me stop taking a movie or series seriously. All you can think is "wtf was the writer thinking about at the time?" to miss the totally obvious.


----------



## DiegoDinardi (Sep 25, 2015)

Daddy/Mommy issues really bore me too. I think there are ways to do it well, of course, but usually I fell it's put there just to add some weight to a character that would do better without it in the context of the story. It tends to be just a 'cosmetic' attachment added to said character, something that's just there and never gets a satisfying development and resolution.

Recently, I've also grown weary of the "super smart with social issues growing up" kind. I find it such and outdated stereotype nowadays. I'd love to see a young character whose intellect is not seen as a burden.


----------



## TomCrossley (Sep 16, 2015)

Yeh, I know how you feel about cliche characters; but at the same time you need one or two to keep everyone happy haha ...


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

J.T. Williams said:


> This is more of an issue with fantasy tropes.
> 
> #1 "Farmboy/girl must go on quest and to defeat ultimate evil" ...and by chapter three the inexperienced farmboy can hold their own in sword fight against a well trained enemy army, high priests using magic (and normally well studied), and any other character deemed necessary to fight...
> 
> ...


I'm not sure I agree with you on the cooking front. I have done both and they're pretty easy. I'm not saying you'll get restaurant fare out of it, but stew is basically boiled veggies (possibly meat, but not necessarily). Sure, it's nice if it is slow cooked and has some bones that are taken out at some point in the process. But it's boiled water either way you look at it. If the veggies are dried, it's actually faster. And you may be thinking "well cooked veggies" when, in fact, if you're using a campfire, "warm" might be close enough. Porridge is even easier (although in my experiences it's buckwheat or cracked wheat. I'm a little vague on what grain is used in porridge, but if it's wheat it will not take long to soften). You boil it in water. It softens quickly. If you are lucky you add sugar and maybe butter or not. Now, to ME, starting the dang fire in the first place is much harder than keeping the water boiling. Having an angry wizard after me is definitely a problem and may cause me to forget to add salt. The orcs? Yeah, I might forget out to cook entirely. And we'd eat the porridge rather than hang around long enough to make an stew.


----------



## TomCrossley (Sep 16, 2015)

I know this doesn't count. But Edna Mode from the Incredibles is a great cliche character.

Could be a book someday.


----------



## SamuelStokes (Oct 11, 2015)

MariaESchneider said:


> The high cheekbones is probably because, well, no one is ever described as having low cheekbones. "She was a lovely lass with cheekbones in the middle of her face like any ordinary gal..."


That made my afternoon, thanks.

I similarly struggle with extremely overused plot lines. For example the Hero/heroine and love interest who cannot be together. Chainfire by Terry Goodkind finally broke me. I didn't think there were any other ways for them (the main protagonists) to not be together.


----------



## martyns (May 8, 2014)

All interesting, the drunk cop really has been done to death - as has the moral equivalency thing... 

The thing is though, are there any truly original character tropes left? Given the volume of books available in the world today, is it possible to buy a new book which has a 100% original character trope in it?


----------



## J.T. Williams (Aug 7, 2014)

100%? No, at least IMHO. I think character attributes are all really similar in some ways just different vices/goals. That being said, it is always fun to try. 

I wrote a book as backstory for a minor character in my primary trilogy. I essentially had to take him from a slightly rebellious but honorable elf to crazed, dual blade wielding, bloodthirsty, slightly manic, version of an honorable elf... psychologically, I tear him apart while still maintaining his disdain for "wordly" vices such as alcohol... its an interesting storyline and thus far I have bounced between normal reactions to situations to *extreme* overreactions....

And about the drunk cop thing... my wife attended a recent police academy. They told them that over 50% of the graduating officers would be alcoholics within a year... from what I'm understanding it seems to be true... an unfortunate truth.


----------



## WHDean (Nov 2, 2011)

martyns said:


> The thing is though, are there any truly original character tropes left? Given the volume of books available in the world today, is it possible to buy a new book which has a 100% original character trope in it?


I'd settle for 50% original--maybe even 20%. Seriously, though, you can keep things fresh without inventing something wholly new. It's not like a cop needs an addiction of some kind to add interest to police procedurals. He could be looking for Rosebud or something--anything other than being a drunk.

Also, some tropes get worn out and need some time on the bench before they can be brought out again.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

I thought Matthew Iden did a great job giving his retired cop a different trope (I don't want to say what it is because I don't think the book tells right away. It's been a while since I read it. )  Anyway, because it started off so unique or maybe just with something that was just different enough, when there were a few cliched parts later, I didn't care.  Once I'm involved enough to care about the characters, the story can get away with a lot!


----------



## A.C Louis (Sep 28, 2015)

How about the orphan teenager? Lots of YA/NA books have an orphan teenager main character seeking revenge/redemption from something. Extra points if it's an angel (and doesn't know yet) or a vampire of some sort.


----------



## Vmurph (Aug 14, 2012)

I'm sick to death of the tough-as-nails female characters who are more masculine than the men in the story. It seems like the only way these authors know how to portray female toughness is in _unrealistic_ ways, like making them kick men's asses, drinking burly men under the table, and by swearing like a sailor while the men use normal language.

It's usually male authors who do this...portraying female strength as crudeness, rather than showing us _true_ strength-of-character. Women authors usually have a better grasp on how a strong woman really behaves.

Unfortunately for me, I prefer male authors over female authors, so I'm exposed to this more than I care to be.

And this isn't a character trope, but my biggest pet peeve _plot_ cliche is the mysterious virus that turns humans into zombies. Omg, enough zombie or vampire stories already! Talk about overdone.

It's especially upsetting when I buy a book with a description that sounds unique, mysterious and intriguing, only to find out 3/4 of the way through, that the big mystery (or family secret) is zombie or vampire related. It makes me feel like I've been tricked.

Where are the authors with original ideas, anymore? 
.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Vmurph said:


> I'm sick to death of the tough-as-nails female characters who are more masculine than the men in the story. It seems like the only way these authors know how to portray female toughness is in _unrealistic_ ways, like making them kick men's asses, drinking burly men under the table, and by swearing like a sailor while the men use normal language.
> 
> It's usually male authors who do this...portraying female strength as crudeness, rather than showing us _true_ strength-of-character. Women authors usually have a better grasp on how a strong woman really behaves.
> 
> ...


Since I tend to avoid zombies, er, zombie books, I haven't seen too many of those (although I did come across a lot of the vampire ones when I was reading quite a bit of UF). I agree. I like tough women--but not tough as in, "They act like guys." But I also tend to like men who show true strength of character rather than crudeness, etc. 

Tell me some of your favorite novels. I'd like to peruse them. 
You might like Frank Tuttle's Markhat series. I think he does a pretty darn decent job of portraying women in his fiction. Some of his male characters have one or two cliches, but not overdone. It might be too cozy for you, but you might also check out Unicorn on Speed Dial (Ignore the very bad cover. Just IGNORE it). Fun read, female writer. I didn't have as much luck with her other stuff, but I really enjoyed that one.

For a pastiche on zombies, I read Booster and Reeves. By Troy Blackford. Silly, stupid fun.

You might also like Nice Dragons Finish Last by Rachel Aaron.

Edited to add: John Levitt is another author with great stories and characters. No zombies. No vamps either, come to think of it.


----------



## missypyxi (Jan 23, 2015)

I'm so relieved to get to the end of this thread and not find any of my characters in here! I do have one with green eyes, but she's a minor character and there's a good symbolic reason behind it.

I'm personally tired of the empowered female character who thinks she knows better than everyone else simply because she's a woman and all men are stupid. And then proceeds to mess everything up and nobody calls her on it.


----------

