Overused plot themes, scenes, character types in fiction?

[PastimeSteve]

Hello:

Edit note: I thought I should broaden the scope of this thread, because "plot devices" was a semantics error on my part.

I've been working on a fictional novel concept (fantasy/adventure), mostly in my head and via outline form, for a couple of years now. Without giving away anything, I've been concerned about one particular plot device/technique being overdone or touching on issues previously addressed in other books.

For those of you aspiring authors or just well-read FL members, what would you say are the top overused plot themes/devices, character-types and scenes in fiction these days?

Thanks in advance for sharing,
Steve

 

[erikb02809]

I've found with most of the fiction I've been reading lately that the plot is more character driven than relying on a "plot device". If your worried about ending up with a cookie cutter novel, I'd put effort primarily into making sure your characters are fleshed out and not cliche', with secondary concern toward a plot device. Put the characters into the situation, and see what happens.

I know a lot of people think he's a hack, and although as an admitted fan I will say some of his stuff is better than others, but I found Stephen King's "On Writing" to be very helpful when I started out. Particularly his chapter on the concept of plot versus the concept of story when writing a book. He also touches upon using outlines in that chapter (which he frowns upon). What works for one author might not for another, but I recommend that book highly.


*edited for spelling.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

"There are thirty-two ways to write a story, and I've used every one, but there is only one plot -- things are not as they seem." -- Jim Thompson

King's On Writing, which I haven't read, is supposed to be very good. An old creative writing teacher did a little raving on it. But I think erikb02809 really nailed it; If you write about genuine characters and let the characters make decisions, you'll be all right.

 

[Dr Doran]

Great idea for a thread. To make this more generally applicable, I'm slightly widening my answer so that other people may find something useful in it too. I read a lot and write a lot so I have a few ideas. Here are things to avoid:

Female putting alcohol on male's recent scrapes while male winces. Not exactly a plot device but a scene, an overused scene. Actually this happens more in movies. In fact, it is in almost every single movie I have ever seen in my entire life.

Male pulling out old fashioned straight razor. Will he cut someone? Cut himself? Or just shave? Actually, this one is overused in movies, too -- not really in books. Sorry. Just warming up.

Overused in books specifically:

Having as your protagonist the really really boring Joe Average character who wears a baseball hat, likes sports, drives an uninteresting car, and has his sights set firmly on banal things. This is the thing that Steven King did wrong in just about every single one of his books, making them difficult to read despite his admirably large imagination.

A male protagonist with a strictly 14-year old sense of sexuality. This is the fault that the usually execrable author (but nice guy, I know -- I still have 3 letters he wrote me when I was a kid and wrote him) Piers Anthony did. The sexuality in the books is practically prepubescent. One gets the impression that the author does not know what he is talking about.

While we are on that subject: generally speaking, authors who do not know what they are writing about usually cannot write convincingly and writing needs to be convincing in order to be good. This point was hammered home to me by Floyd Salas, my writing teacher at Foothill Junior College in the early 1990s. He has a few books out, including Tattoo the Wicked Cross. Good writer.

It is a fact that the publishers of certain genres of literature (e.g. fantasy and sci-fi) have low standards for actual writing. Writers know this and they accept this low standard. This is a practice to be avoided. My best advice is to read the greatest writers you know of and try to learn from them. Even if you are writing fantasy or sci-fi. There are some good writers in those genres (HG Wells; George Orwell; Poe) but if you read excellent writing that is not within those genres you'll be better off.

Lajos Egri's book The Art of Dramatic Writing helped me a lot. He constantly refers to Aristotle's Poetics and that's marvelous too, of course, and quite easy to read.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

I get really tired of those action/adventure/thriller books in which the protagonist(s), usually a man and woman together, have to run from the evil people in almost every moment of the book. The DaVinci Code was like that, and too many other books I've read in recent years.

Let the folks running or pursuing have a decent conversation once in awhile. Or get a good night's rest.

This happens in movies, too -- a lot.

karol

 

[Paisley]

A male protagonist with a strictly 14-year old sense of sexuality. This is the fault that the usually execrable author (but nice guy, I know -- I still have 3 letters he wrote me when I was a kid and wrote him) Piers Anthony did. The sexuality in the books is practically prepubescent. One gets the impression that the author does not know what he is talking about.

David Duchovny once said about sex scenes in movies, "What do you learn about two characters from watching them have sex?" Similarly, in some bad novels, the protagonist--again, an average Joe--gets a drop-dead gorgeous woman into bed after he's known her for, oh, two hours. What's wrong with this? First, it's far-fetched. Second, it typically has nothing to do with the plot.

The characters should act like real people, and everything in the story should tell the reader something relevant, not showcase all the author's bright ideas. Most novels today make the great novels of the early 20th century look like short stories.

 

[PastimeSteve]

Thanks lady and gents. Some really good advice. I'll have to check out King's theories.

Doran, lol no lead character in a baseball cap! Just a kid learning how to overcome fear, brought on by self-doubt, the unknown and confrontation.

I'm more concerned about not creating a contrived action point that moves the main character forward, but I need something that motivates him to take a leap of faith, to find strength, to deliver the message. He's not going to find this on his own. So, this is where I'm trying to exercise caution.

I've been hearing a lot lately about how certain modern fiction seems extremely contrived and how it has a "been there, done that" feeling to it -- obviously things I want to avoid. For example, lately it seems fiction adventure/fantasy writers are trying to emulate themes and environments from Lord of the Rings or Star Wars... Or, how many legal thrillers start sounding the same after a while? Blah, no thank you.

My book idea is much more about a message and the characters delivering that message, than driving home a plot twist. But, I don't want to put my lead character into environments or situations that feel recycled.

How do folks feel about mentors that help move the main character to take a certain action? I'm concerned this has been SO overdone lately. I don't want Obi Wan Kenobi or Gandolf! lol

Again, great advice. Please keep it coming.
Steve

 

[Paisley]

An authoritarian figure might be refreshing--too many adults now want to be kids' friends.

In the story of Naya Nuki, a Shoshone girl who was taken as a slave during a raid, she was driven to cross what is now North Dakota and Montana in the winter, by herself, because she missed her family.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

While we are on that subject: generally speaking, authors who do not know what they are writing about usually cannot write convincingly and writing needs to be convincing in order to be good. This point was hammered home to me by Floyd Salas, my writing teacher at Foothill Junior College in the early 1990s. He has a few books out, including Tattoo the Wicked Cross. Good writer.

Floyd Salas was a guest speaker for my creative class once. He was a pretty intense little guy. And his writing "routines," as he described them, were even more intense. My professor was Ishmael Reed.

This is a true statement. For a long time, I tried writing a lot of crime/romance stuff, but nothing ever pulled through. Then one day I sat down and in 5 hours wrote the greatest short story I had ever written. Why was it so great? I wrote about baseball, which I have 15+ years experience playing.

 

[Dr Doran]

Floyd Salas was a guest speaker for my creative class once. He was a pretty intense little guy. And his writing "routines," as he described them, were even more intense. My professor was Ishmael Reed.

This is a true statement. For a long time, I tried writing a lot of crime/romance stuff, but nothing ever pulled through. Then one day I sat down and in 5 hours wrote the greatest short story I had ever written. Why was it so great? I wrote about baseball, which I have 15+ years experience playing.

Floyd rocks. Too bad about his ancient dog. Flatulated an average of 3 times per hour. And it was a 3 hour class. Floyd explained that it had a problem with its anus ... poor thing.

Floyd hated Science Fiction. He said, "as soon as the characters leave the planet it's nonsense and doesn't feel real because no author has done that and you can't really write convincingly about something you don't know about." I think that's an extreme position; but it's just something to keep in mind.

 

[PastimeSteve]

Floyd hated Science Fiction. He said, "as soon as the characters leave the planet it's nonsense and doesn't feel real because no author has done that and you can't really write convincingly about something you don't know about."

Good thing that philosophy didn't become mainstream. With Floyd's opinion, there would have been no Lord of the Rings, Narnia, Dune, Star Wars, etc. From my knowledge, no one has been to Middle Earth. But, just to be clear, my characters don't leave the planet and there are no spaceships. lol How about a ferry instead?

I do agree, however, that you should only write about themes you're familiar with or have a gifted-enough imagination that you can translate an imaginary world to paper fairly easily, down to the dirt on the ground.

I know there are a lot of well-read FL members around here, judging by the "What are you reading?" thread, so I still want to hear more feedback on my initial question...

Steve

 

[Dr Doran]

I do agree, however, that you should only write about themes you're familiar with or have a gifted-enough imagination that you can translate an imaginary world to paper fairly easily, down to the dirt on the ground. Steve

I think that's the thrust of his point.

 

[Sunny]

My biggest peeve with the little modern writing I've read is sloppy characterization. Characters should act consistently with how they've been revealed; if they change, it should be clear that it's a change and not just sloppiness. And characters should act like real people, not types, and not plot devices; human nature is still the same, fiction or real life.

Putting oneself in the character's skin is, I've found, a great reality check. "What would I do in his place?" Of course not every character has my personality. But in that case, I'm still led me to what he would do. And it's very often steered me away from a more typical storylike action, and toward a more genuine human action.

I like what Paisley said about having an authoritarian character. That's not something that's seen very often anymore. Why not a parent? They've certainly been the strongest influence in my life, and I daresay for most people still. Teachers are the next obvious choice. (Trying to be realistic here. Introducing a mentor seems to me far more storylike, since those are outside my personal and vicarious experience.) The only other thing I can think of is having the character steer himself into taking that certain action, after contact with/seeing other people or other situations. Plenty of people make their own decisions, and if one analyzed their reasons, they would be a mishmash of thoughts and observations and conclusions.

 

[Dr Doran]

My biggest peeve with the little modern writing I've read is sloppy characterization. Characters should act consistently with how they've been revealed; if they change, it should be clear that it's a change and not just sloppiness. And characters should act like real people, not types, and not plot devices; human nature is still the same, fiction or real life.

Putting oneself in the character's skin is, I've found, a great reality check. "What would I do in his place?" Of course not every character has my personality. But in that case, I'm still led me to what he would do. And it's very often steered me away from a more typical storylike action, and toward a more genuine human action.

I like what Paisley said about having an authoritarian character. That's not something that's seen very often anymore. Why not a parent? They've certainly been the strongest influence in my life, and I daresay for most people still. Teachers are the next obvious choice. (Trying to be realistic here. Introducing a mentor seems to me far more storylike, since those are outside my personal and vicarious experience.) The only other thing I can think of is having the character steer himself into taking that certain action, after contact with/seeing other people or other situations. Plenty of people make their own decisions, and if one analyzed their reasons, they would be a mishmash of thoughts and observations and conclusions.

I agree with everything you are saying. Also, note that your third paragraph contains ideas that Lajos Egri develops extensively in his The Art of Dramatic Writing, which I again highly recommend.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

My biggest peeve with the little modern writing I've read is sloppy characterization. Characters should act consistently with how they've been revealed; if they change, it should be clear that it's a change and not just sloppiness. And characters should act like real people, not types, and not plot devices; human nature is still the same, fiction or real life.

Putting oneself in the character's skin is, I've found, a great reality check. "What would I do in his place?" Of course not every character has my personality. But in that case, I'm still led me to what he would do. And it's very often steered me away from a more typical storylike action, and toward a more genuine human action.

I think writing is at its best when everything you planned out suddenly falls apart because your main character did something you didn't expect. You get in the groove, you're writing steadily, and suddenly Mr. Protag says something out of nowhere, through your fingers. No, no, Jack what are you doing? I have an outline! At first it may seem random, but thinking about it, those kinds of changes act on an intuitive level and usually are far more accurate to character than anything you had in mind. Character driven at its most literal.

 

[Dr Doran]

The most important thing I remember from Lajos Egri's book on dramatic writing is that the protagonist should NEED to do what he does. He should HAVE to do it. Because if he does not, then he will die, or he will live life ignorant of who his father is and that's intolerable, or he will lose the money he needs, or etc.

This rule is blatantly broken now in the postmodern novel and in the postmodern short story (cf haruki murakami and just about every short story in the New Yorker for the past 10 years, in which nothing much happens and we are "treated" to a blow by blow of the minutiae of the life of the privileged and educated Manhattanite social circles in their mid-40s). This may be why these stories, interesting as they may be, usually fail to be dramatic. Of course Egri was aware of the dual meaning of the word dramatic:
1.) reminiscent of a drama (he analyzes Oedipus Rex by Sophocles in his book) and
2.) gripping.

 

[Sunny]

I think writing is at its best when everything you planned out suddenly falls apart because your main character did something you didn't expect. You get in the groove, you're writing steadily, and suddenly Mr. Protag says something out of nowhere, through your fingers. No, no, Jack what are you doing? I have an outline! At first it may seem random, but thinking about it, those kinds of changes act on an intuitive level and usually are far more accurate to character than anything you had in mind. Character driven at its most literal.

Clearly you're more experienced than I. But yes, that's the next step to what I was saying. So far from being a cardboard cutout, he makes his own decisions.

The most important thing I remember from Lajos Egri's book on dramatic writing is that the protagonist should NEED to do what he does. He should HAVE to do it. Because if he does not, then he will die, or he will live life ignorant of who his father is and that's intolerable, or he will lose the money he needs, or etc.

This rule is blatantly broken now in the postmodern novel and in the postmodern short story (cf haruki murakami and just about every short story in the New Yorker for the past 10 years, in which nothing much happens and we are "treated" to a blow by blow of the minutiae of the life of the privileged and educated Manhattanite social circles in their mid-40s). This may be why these stories, interesting as they may be, usually fail to be dramatic. Of course Egri was aware of the dual meaning of the word dramatic:
1.) reminiscent of a drama (he analyzes Oedipus Rex by Sophocles in his book) and
2.) gripping.

I must find this book.

That also explains a big part of my dislike for most recent writing. Not only does nothing happen, what is described is petty and either boring or quite unenlightening. (Of course, I also dislike what seems like gratuitous content intended to spice it up or redeem it. That may reflect my personal preferences more than the authors' ability, however.)

 

[Dr Doran]

That also explains a big part of my dislike for most recent writing. Not only does nothing happen, what is described is petty and either boring or quite unenlightening. (Of course, I also dislike what seems like gratuitous content intended to spice it up or redeem it. That may reflect my personal preferences more than the authors' ability, however.)

My wife and I have been working on (in our heads only) a parody of "the New Yorker short story." It is a fine magazine, but the short stories often are terribly undramatic. Very typically the stories concern these overeducated overprivileged well-off Manhattanite professionals in their 40s who are so incredibly au courant on everything it makes you sick; they have a circle of friends, all incredibly educated, they are terribly cynical and name drop cool bands while being also quite yuppish; in the typical story there is a party, a guy sees a girl who meant something once to him, then she tells him something and the story ends and you-the-reader are supposed to take something from that but you are not sure what. This is supposed to constitute a revelation of some sort at the end that is supposed to be dramatic and often isn't. And you are supposed to believe that you should know what it is you are supposed to take from it, and that you must be insufficiently sophisticated if you neither know nor care what that is. All these writers read each other and write like each other and despite their admittedly fine usage of English at the level of the sentence, there is just not much going on dramatically at all. Minutiae of everyday life, when to take the babies to the expensive babysitter by taxi across the Park, etc etc etc, as though we are supposed to find that dramatic or interesting. Stories for a prozac audience and a prozacked set of characters. The New Yorker editors do not realize that by their choices and editing they have created a recognizable style and it is parodyable.

 

[Jack Scorpion]

I love postmodernist writing, so I'm bad advice here! I don't go for the theory that characters "need" to act. If your characters are true and act within their personalities, they can act for whatever reason they wish and it'll work on paper. If anything, the more drama, the less character.

But that doesn't mean that nothing should happen. Everything should happen. (Plenty happens in Murakami!) And "gratuitous content intended to spice it up or redeem it;" I don't care for that either. Then again, I like short, bare sentences, period.

P.S. I have no intention to the defend The New Yorker.

 

[Dr Doran]

I love postmodernist writing, so I'm bad advice here! I don't go for the theory that characters "need" to act. If your characters are true and act within their personalities, they can act for whatever reason they wish and it'll work on paper. If anything, the more drama, the less character.

But that doesn't mean that nothing should happen. Everything should happen. (Plenty happens in Murakami!) And "gratuitous content intended to spice it up or redeem it;" I don't care for that either. Then again, I like short, bare sentences, period.

As for Murakami, I liked Norwegian Wood, and I have read a great deal of his short stories, and I like that wistful feeling he so artfully conveys, up to a point, but I hate surrealism in literature and ... I guess in the end his style is just not my cup of tea.