# Cliché vs meeting audience expectations



## AdrianBraysy (Nov 30, 2018)

As writers, we are at constant war with the little voice in our heads saying "this has been done before". At the same time, if you are marketing your book as genre fiction of some sort, you should still meet audience expectations and demands. The line between meeting those demands, and making your story feel like cliché, is thin.

Let's say I decide to write, and market my book as, a whodunit type of story. I start with a crime. Then I have a detective follow clues in order to solve said crime. This detective, is of course a cynical chainsmoker. On his adventure, he meets a femme fatale, who later turns out to be playing tricks on him.

Is this story cliché? Some people would say this story is not cliché, but actually satisfies the demands for an audience who enjoy the noir-mysteries. Originality, in this case, comes in the form of execution which does not demand straying away from the formula (maybe the femme fatale in this case is a blow-up doll or something. If nothing else, it says a lot about a character). Also, it is often the case that a writer wants to pay homage to a certain style in which other works are written.

So how do we meet expectations while avoiding cliché? I'm not sure I have the answer.


----------



## ironpony (Nov 30, 2018)

I haven't seen a chain smoking protagonist since Humphrey Bogart, or Robert Mitchum or around that era.  So is your story set back then?  If it is, with a femme fatale then it it's a cliche compared to modern times.  However, it's been quite a while since I've come across a story like that, so maybe it will be more of a fresh throwback to today's standards.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 30, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> As writers, we are at constant war with the little voice in our heads saying "this has been done before". At the same time, if you are marketing your book as genre fiction of some sort, you should still meet audience expectations and demands. The line between meeting those demands, and making your story feel like cliché, is thin.
> 
> Let's say I decide to write, and market my book as, a whodunit type of story. I start with a crime. Then I have a detective follow clues in order to solve said crime. This detective, is of course a cynical chainsmoker. On his adventure, he meets a femme fatale, who later turns out to be playing tricks on him.
> 
> ...



Good topic.

A big problem is people confuse *cliches *with *tropes.

*Essentially cliches are always bad whereas tropes can be useful - essential actually if one is targeting a particular genre or audience. It's hard to separate the two because there are definitely overlaps and no clear boundary as to when a trope degrades into a cliche.

I tend to think a good rule of thumb is a cliche is something employed in lieu of imagination. _A cliche concerns the execution where a trope concerns the idea._

In noir we have a collection of tropes and cliches. A detective being cynical is way too broad to ever be classified as a cliche and a femme fatale is a stock character of the genre. It is difficult to achieve "noir-ness" without either of them.

On the other hand the use of chain-smoking to foster a nihilistic character bent very definitely is a fucking cliche and probably should be avoided. Especially given smoking isn't exactly commonplace these days (if your novel is set in the 1940's that would obviously be different) so it probably wont even fit in to a novel set in 2018. They wont be able to smoke indoors, for instance. Mainly though, is it possible to create the character of a tough-guy or a cynical bastard without having them be a chain smoker? Of course it is. Therefore any use of chainsmoking for these reasons is inevitably going to be a result of creative laziness - an inability to think of a more original way to express that character trait. Ergo it is a cliche.

Similarly if your attempt at creating a femme fatale is to borrow significantly and obviously from the stereotype cultivated by previous noir works you run the risk of falling into cliches. There is plenty of capacity to reinvent pretty much any stock character endlessly and that's a great idea - especially in something like noir: Why not have your femme fatale be a woman who is markedly different than the stereotype in some way? Have her be older/younger? Have her be of unconventional ethnicity or body-type? Heck, why even have her be a *woman at all*? 

There's no law that says the detective in a noir has to be a male. So consider changing that. Have him be the "femme fatale". Or why not make them both - the femme and the cop - women? Why not make them both men? Why not make one of them/both of them transgender? Make one of them an martian or a cyborg or...or...animals? Yeah why not do that? A story featuring two homosexual cats may sound un-noir-ish, but that's only because nobody has read it yet.

You might find any or all of the above suggestions a stretch, silly even, and maybe: The point is simply not to feel limited by what has been done before. Think outside the box.


----------



## Arachne (Nov 30, 2018)

I think the smoking could be a bit too far also. The cynicism of the male character, the crime and the femme fatale would be enough to meet expectations, I think. 
I don't believe changing things up a bit disappoints readers, in fact I'm almost certain it's refreshing. In your example, you could replace the fags with a daily kale smoothie and a need to exercise regularly, as long as it's not an anachronism. 

The expectations of the genre can surely also be met by the writing style, the voice of the mc, for example. If you get it to read like the genre then that's surely the biggest step towards meeting expectations?

Good question.

Arachne


----------



## AdrianBraysy (Nov 30, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> You might find any or all of the above suggestions a stretch, silly even, and maybe: The point is simply not to feel limited by what has been done before. Think outside the box.



I don't find them silly at all. I think a lot of what you write echoes an "archetype vs stereotype" discussion I had with a friend the other day. He tried to argue that mentor characters are cliché. I argued that the mentoring role is an archetypal one, and can take endless forms.

One thing I enjoy doing from time to time, is to subvert genres for, often comedic, effect. I remember a noir-styled short story I wrote back in high school, where I first created a really bleak, cynical depiction of the story world, and then "broke the rules" by making the main detective a happy-go-lucky type of guy. Once the character was fully established close to the end of the story, I decided to reveal that the surface happiness was just a mask he put on as a defense mechanism. It was my way of saying "you thought this was going to be different, didn't you".


----------



## EmmaSohan (Nov 30, 2018)

My guess.

Don't try to write a book that satisfies expectations. Don't try to write a book that defies them. If you have a good idea for a book, write the book, write what you like and be honest. Sooner or later, probably from the start, you are off the beaten path.

I mean, if you started out trying to write a detective novel with a hero like Humphrey Bogart, but you put it in a modern setting, he doesn't fit. And living in this world would change him. So you have a new character, or so.  But to me, a good reason to write a book is that I have an original starting point. (Or, at least, original to me.)

I want to say that Being Sloane Jacobs is a trading places book, which is a trope, and it does all the tropes for trading places, but it's a hockey player and a figure skater, and it was wonderfully original.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 1, 2018)

I don't think all genres require the use of tropes_or _cliches, but I think all genres need to meet the basic requirements of the genre...

For romance, for example, the basic requirements are a central romantic relationship with a happy ending. I think of that as being the skeleton of the book. But everything I add on to the skeleton? It can all be fresh and  new.

There certainly are a lot of readers who are _looking_ for tropes, and publishers who cater to that audience. But there are other readers and publishers who are looking for less trope-y work.

I don't know much about noir, but I wonder if it might be a genre that's defined more by style than by plot? I mean, Romance, for all it's character-centred stories, is _defined_ by the plot. But for noir, maybe the skeleton is the style? And then plot, settings, characters, etc., are the "fleshing out" parts that have more flexibility? (Again, I don't know much about noir, so this is absolutely a guess.)


----------



## Jeko (Dec 1, 2018)

> As writers, we are at constant war with the little voice in our heads saying "this has been done before".



Not all of us. The more something has been done before in fiction, the more I'm interested in reading and writing about it; the more history and heritage an idea, a subject, a style etc. has, the more things your work could be connected to.

A 'cliché', being something that's been done many times before, is only a problem if you don't do anything with it in your story, unless you want it to remain as a cliché element. Good subversive fiction necessitates the use of some clichés so that you can establish the expectations that you're going to play around with.

The last thing aspiring writers should be worried about us that what they're waiting will be cliché. Start with what's familiar, and your creativity will gradually morph it into something new and fresh. The fiction of the past is the clay you have to mould into your own work, so work with it.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Dec 1, 2018)

I can see the smoking hero who meets a woman who is playing him for the fool (Maltese Falcon).
But these days readers are very savvy so this will be old-hat. In the modern market you need at least one more good twist. You need Kevin Spacey walking away without a limp at the end of Usual Suspects.  Don't stop with one deception, layer that chit.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 1, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I don't think all genres require the use of tropes_or _cliches, but I think all genres need to meet the basic requirements of the genre...
> 
> For romance, for example, the basic requirements are a central romantic relationship with a happy ending. I think of that as being the skeleton of the book. But everything I add on to the skeleton? It can all be fresh and  new.



I agree it can be fresh and new but in all likelihood it won't be. At least not "all" of it.

These days I am pretty much happy to read a novel that is 90%+ derivative so long as there is at least one significant element (be it an unusual character or setting or technology or whatever) that feels refreshing. In your metaphor this would make the entire skeleton a Frankenstein's Monster of borrowed elements, sparing perhaps only a pair of alluring eyeballs or usually strong jawline.

I _think _that's normal as far as what a typical reader would expect. There are always people who want to re-read the same stuff over and over and then there are always those who expect everything they read to have the same innovative take as _House Of Leaves. _Most fall in the middle ground of being happy with the familiar so long as its still sufficiently entertaining. Originality is great, absolutely, but its not the workhorse of most books and are you really suggesting it's realistic for most of us to write an _entire _book within any given genre that is entirely free of all tropes from said genre? That seems pretty ambitious. Possibly delusional. 

But this doesn't mean for a moment I think a regurgitation of tropes should be part of the writing process, only that they seem somewhat inevitable. With that in mind, the OP is asking about how to fulfill an audience's expectations of a given genre without resorting to cliche. What I am suggesting to them is to understand that tropes are _not_ the same as cliches and to know the difference and know it well. Knowing will not only avoid bad writing but may even improve it.

Not sure I recognize the practical difference between "meeting the basic requirements of the genre" and the avoidance/inclusion of tropes. As somebody knowledgeable in romance, can you explain how that actually works? Specifically, what examples of romances can you recommend or suggest in which none of these https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanceNovelTropes would feature even passingly? 

I don't really believe that the ONLY requirement of a romance is "a central romantic relationship with a happy ending". I am aware that is the basic definition, what makes a book eligible, but if you're going to tell me that's all it takes to make a book recognizable as "A Romance" as opposed to something else, and that a writer can do what they want otherwise, I would question that. 

For instance, how would you assess a story about an 14 year old girl who gets into a "romantic relationship" with an older man who gaslights her to the point she decides to brutally murder her entire family and the happy ending involves them evading the police and running away together? That's probably not going to be considered a romance novel, right? It's something else - psychological thriller or crime or something. I imagine it wouldn't _feel _like most romance novels. Yet it would seem to fall under your "basic requirement" as it has both a romantic relationship at its central focus and a happy ending. Therefore either the genre is massively broad, or there's other stuff that goes in.

I think genres are malleable and pretty slippery and actually it is the tropes as much as the definitions that keep things held together. Horror that lacks specific tropes and stock characters tends not to be viewed as horror at all (_Jaws _or _Jurassic Park - _both meet the definitions of horror fiction yet neither are widely viewed as such) and the only explanation is they lack the common stock characters and aesthetics of, say, Stephen King or whatever. Furthermore when you ask most people to describe "romance" or "horror" or "western" they will automatically go to tropes. Probably to cliches, actually. I am totally okay with that.

Regarding Noir - Some of it is definitely nothing more than an aesthetic within the larger genre of crime fiction. Not all though. Classic Noir is very different to "Neo-Noir" and what you tend to get nowadays is no longer about Humphrey Bogart etc so much as troubled characters with certain nihilistic/Machiavellian attitudes to life which then feeds into the story design. Your Noir "hero" is usually cynical, often guilty of evil in the pursuit of good to the point they are almost as bad if not in some ways worse than the villain. Shares a lot of similarities with hardboiled crime in that respect only usually with much more sexual overtones.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 2, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Not sure I recognize the practical difference between "meeting the basic requirements of the genre" and the avoidance/inclusion of tropes. As somebody knowledgeable in romance, can you explain how that actually works? Specifically, what examples of romances can you recommend or suggest in which none of these https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RomanceNovelTropes would feature even passingly?



Well, there's:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425282066
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003T0GJ08/?tag=writingforu06-20 (although this one has a "billionaire hero", which is certainly a trope, although not one mentioned in your list)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X2Y5OV6/?tag=writingforu06-20
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PNPONF0/?tag=writingforu06-20 (although it's got a "dark secret from the past" which should probably be on your list)
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00HCHHP8Y/?tag=writingforu06-20

And... I'm tired of cross-referencing. I think I made it about half-way through the books I've written myself... obviously there are lots of other authors out there writing their own trope-free stuff.



> I don't really believe that the ONLY requirement of a romance is "a central romantic relationship with a happy ending". I am aware that is the basic definition, what makes a book eligible, but if you're going to tell me that's all it takes to make a book recognizable as "A Romance" as opposed to something else, and that a writer can do what they want otherwise, I would question that.
> 
> For instance, how would you assess a story about an 14 year old girl who gets into a "romantic relationship" with an older man who gaslights her to the point she decides to brutally murder her entire family and the happy ending involves them evading the police and running away together? That's probably not going to be considered a romance novel, right? It's something else - psychological thriller or crime or something. I imagine it wouldn't _feel _like most romance novels. Yet it would seem to fall under your "basic requirement" as it has both a romantic relationship at its central focus and a happy ending. Therefore either the genre is massively broad, or there's other stuff that goes in.



The genre _is_ massively broad. But I'd question whether the romantic relationship is really _central_ to your example. Like, if the structure of the plot is based around their romance, if the growing tension of the novel matches the growing tension between them, if the climax of the novel is based around their romantic relationship, etc... if the relationship is the reason the story exists, in other words.

I'm not saying this novel would be successful (because who the hell knows) but it would fit under the Romance umbrella.

And I'm not saying Romance has to be _only_ romance. Austen's novels are mostly romances but are also considered literary; there are well-established sub-genres of Romantic Suspense, Paranormal Romance, Western Romance, etc. Romance is incredibly broad.

It's one of the reasons I write romance - I can pick whatever setting, whatever characters I want, and I'm still not totally genre-hopping and messing up my marketing.



> Furthermore when you ask most people to describe "romance" or "horror" or "western" they will automatically go to tropes. Probably to cliches, actually. I am totally okay with that.



I'm pretty used to non-romance readers rolling their eyes and talking out of their asses when they discuss romance, but that doesn't mean I'm going to take their ignorant babbling too seriously, you know? I mean, sure, if you ask someone who doesn't read romance to describe romance, they'll probably fall back on cliches. But this is because they don't know what they're talking about, so... why listen?

If you asked me what "noir" is about, I'd say, "Oh, yeah, it's always raining and everyone's an asshole." But I assume there are nuances that I'm missing because I don't know much/anything about the genre. So why would I be the one to trust?


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 2, 2018)

I read a Nora Roberts book and it seemed like the previous Nora Roberts book I read except for a different setting. Like, New York City versus Wyoming; she's a successful businesswoman versus a successful author.

And I read the start of one of Bayview's books and I didn't have that sense at all. The characters were fresh, the setting was fresh, their first meeting was fresh. The hurdles they have to get over were fresh.

So there's a range. But in Bayview's book I could spot the male love interest immediately. That's true of any good romance, it's an unavoidable trope. (But I can spot the subtlest of cues; Roberts makes it really obvious to everyone.) And they did not immediately start dating and then fall in love, because . . . them finally getting together as a couple doesn't occur until the end. That's another unavoidable trope. Or, if they do fall in love at the halfway point, something always goes wrong. (Or almost always.)

And so . . Bayview is not unique, a lot of writers write fresh romance stories. But some of the tropes are there for a good reason. And even in a book I love, I can be annoyed by a flimsy plot-contrivance used to keep them apart until the end.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 2, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> So how do we meet expectations while avoiding cliché? I'm not sure I have the answer.



As a reader, my only expectation in a given genre is that the story contains the expected elements. If I'm reading steampunk, for example, then I'd expect the story to contain steam-powered machines and some sort of social hierarchy. Paranormal Romance? I'd expect romance, with one of the characters possessing paranormal abilities.

Beyond that, though, I'd hope for originality. I'm less eager to see the same story told in a different way—I'd much prefer to see familiar elements, but used to tell a unique story. Or at least a story where the author made an effort at being original. :encouragement:


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 2, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> As a reader, my only expectation in a given genre is that the story contains the expected elements. If I'm reading steampunk, for example, then I'd expect the story to contain steam-powered machines and some sort of social hierarchy. Paranormal Romance? I'd expect romance, with one of the characters possessing paranormal abilities.
> 
> Beyond that, though, I'd hope for originality. I'm less eager to see the same story told in a different way—I'd much prefer to see familiar elements, but used to tell a unique story. Or at least a story where the author made an effort at being original. :encouragement:



To return to Bayview's story, none of the characters in the scene were startlingly original. They seemed normal. But they didn't remind me of any other characters I had ever read. And once Bayview got into the details of their lives and hopes and personalities, they seemed unique. In the way that we're all unique.

The setting -- a small hockey-obsessed town in Canada -- did seem original. But that was used as a base and then woven into the story. Honestly done, it had to make her story different.

Hmm, and yet there was a standard trope -- the expectations people had for the MC didn't match who she wanted to be. I don't know if that trope should be avoided in any Y/A book. I think the male lead was reacting to things in his past and trying to be something that didn't really fit him. The Y/A book has to have, if not that trope, other tropes like that. But Bayview never comes across as arbitrarily choosing those tropes, they arose naturally in her story.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 2, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> To return to Bayview's story, none of the characters in the scene were startlingly original. They seemed normal. But they didn't remind me of any other characters I had ever read. And once Bayview got into the details of their lives and hopes and personalities, they seemed unique. In the way that we're all unique.
> 
> The setting -- a small hockey-obsessed town in Canada -- did seem original. But that was used as a base and then woven into the story. Honestly done, it had to make her story different.
> 
> Hmm, and yet there was a standard trope -- the expectations people had for the MC didn't match who she wanted to be. I don't know if that trope should be avoided in any Y/A book. I think the male lead was reacting to things in his past and trying to be something that didn't really fit him. The Y/A book has to have, if not that trope, other tropes like that. But Bayview never comes across as arbitrarily choosing those tropes, they arose naturally in her story.



Those YA hockey books were actually written for Entangled, which is a publisher that _specializes_ in trope-heavy stories. Like, when I was discussing future stories with my editor there, the first thing she asked was "what tropes are you going to use?"

I have lots of other stories that use tropes, too. I don't think there's anything wrong with tropes. I just don't think they're unavoidable, if someone wants to avoid them.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Dec 2, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Those YA hockey books were actually written for Entangled, which is a publisher that _specializes_ in trope-heavy stories. Like, when I was discussing future stories with my editor there, the first thing she asked was "what tropes are you going to use?"
> 
> I have lots of other stories that use tropes, too. I don't think there's anything wrong with tropes. I just don't think they're unavoidable, if someone wants to avoid them.



What tropes did you say you were going to use?


----------



## ironpony (Dec 2, 2018)

I was having this conversation with a friend and I thought sometimes it's okay to use cliches as long as you build towards an original message or an original ending.  But she disagrees and says everything must be original, not just the execution, but also including the initial set up, instead of a cliched set up.  What do you think?


----------



## Bayview (Dec 2, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> What tropes did you say you were going to use?



Um - I think you read the first book in the series? So that was the one I wrote without Entangled in mind, so I don't think I specified any tropes for it. But I'd say the hockey player's former behaviour would definitely qualify him for a sort of "reformed rake" trope... that's the only one that seems obvious to me right now. For other books in the series I think there was "opposites attract" for one, "fake relationship" for another... I can't even remember what the fourth book was about. Something else trope-y, I'm sure!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Dec 2, 2018)

I like to make my characters meet under dire circumstances.


----------



## Guard Dog (Dec 2, 2018)

Lately my characters have only been meeting in the bed or in the basement... 


...well except for that one trip to Canada.


( I wonder if that met audience expectation. )



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 3, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Well, there's:
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product0425282066
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003T0GJ08/?tag=writingforu06-20 (although this one has a "billionaire hero", which is certainly a trope, although not one mentioned in your list)
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X2Y5OV6/?tag=writingforu06-20
> ...



I just read the opening few "sample" pages of Sacrati (one of the ones you posited as being trope free) in which I was introduced to Theos the popular and powerful "lead male", a guy it makes a point of saying has fathered 46 kids and seems averse to or at least suspicious of monogamy and who is now meeting Finnvid, a love interest whose virginity is repeatedly alluded to and who is clearly made to feel embarrassed about it.

Going strictly by the list I posted previously (which is not "my list") and disregarding the obvious change in gender roles - I believe this set up is pretty consistent with at least a couple romance tropes. _Virgin shaming_ definitely seems present. _Ladykiller in love_ seems almost certain to be explored. Possibly Theos become something of a _Lovable Rogue_? Not sure about that, but that's an early impression.... And this is, what, three chapters?

Look, I'm not going to make ironclad judgments on a book I have not read all of - just to say that if you are going to tell me this story does not involve at least alluding to any romance tropes whatsoever I just don't believe it. Not that this has anything to do with its quality obviously. I enjoyed the sample.


----------



## Dluuni (Dec 3, 2018)

It's impossible to avoid tropes. Stories are made of tropes, and tropes tend to have inverses anyways. It's pointless to even try to 'avoid tropes'. There's no value in that.  Just try to avoid the more cloyingly bad forms of cliché. You should already be trying to avoid having things look too bludgeoningly generic by way of adding enough feathering with other details that the primary characters aren't just that one note.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 3, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> just to say that if you are going to tell me this story does not involve at least alluding to any romance tropes whatsoever I just don't believe it.



All right, then. Not much point in continuing!


----------



## bdcharles (Dec 3, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> As writers, we are at constant war with the little voice in our heads saying "this has been done before". At the same time, if you are marketing your book as genre fiction of some sort, you should still meet audience expectations and demands. The line between meeting those demands, and making your story feel like cliché, is thin.
> 
> Let's say I decide to write, and market my book as, a whodunit type of story. I start with a crime. Then I have a detective follow clues in order to solve said crime. This detective, is of course a cynical chainsmoker. On his adventure, he meets a femme fatale, who later turns out to be playing tricks on him.
> 
> ...



To me, clichés can be as much a property of the writing style as of the story. As such, they can be avoided by not writing them. Someone somewhere mentioned today about "her heart pounded in her chest" to which someone else responded with accusations of cliché, saying, "where else would it pound?" I would go further and say that a pounding heart is a cliché, and that maybe "heart kicked against her ribs" could equally work. Then you could still have the key touchstones of crime fiction, but slightly reimagined. Bear in mind noir is a style as much as a type.

If it's the structure you want to keep fresh, again take your example, and swap stuff out. Have the femme fatale be something different than the norm. Have her be the victim. Have the detective be someone else entirely. Why does it have to be a detective? Make them have a penchant for orange bonbons imported from Brochets in Montmartre rather than a cigar. Just do it stylishly and imaginitively and with an abiding passion for the genre.


----------



## Dluuni (Dec 3, 2018)

So, I went and looked up noir fiction and hardboiled fiction on Wikipedia. Probably not THE definitive source, but hey..

The distinguishing feature of the genre is that it is a drama which features law and order vs. crime in a setting where law and order has become just as corrupt and dangerous as the criminals, leading to lose-lose situations. 
Hardboiled features a detective, by definition an outsider to both, who is jaded and unsympathetic; noir removes that requirement and can feature criminals, police, bystanders, or victims.

Nothing in that requires smoking, or femme fatales, or any of a large number of other cliches that some other writers inserted into THEIR personal formula. Just tack in the stylistic notes you think will appeal to your readers enough to get them on board, and tell your black vs. black cops and robbers drama. Bam. Noir. Your own style will appear.


----------



## luckyscars (Dec 3, 2018)

Dluuni said:


> So, I went and looked up noir fiction and hardboiled fiction on Wikipedia. Probably not THE definitive source, but hey..
> 
> The distinguishing feature of the genre is that it is a drama which features law and order vs. crime in a setting where law and order has become just as corrupt and dangerous as the criminals, leading to lose-lose situations.
> Hardboiled features a detective, by definition an outsider to both, who is jaded and unsympathetic; noir removes that requirement and can feature criminals, police, bystanders, or victims.
> ...



That’s pretty much right on.

I think it’s important to note though that style and recurrent themes are huge reasons people pick books up. If I’m a horror fan making a blind purchase of something new I am probably more likely to pick something that “sounds” like horror based on what info is available (the title, cover and what I can glean from the first few pages) than something that is entirely unfamiliar. 

Why? No good reason really. A good book is a good book right? Why should it matter if the novel I find in the horror section is called “Blue Curtains” with a rather plain cover or “The Haunting Of The Demonic Skull” with an image of a screaming corpse. It shouldn’t. If anything I should go with the seemingly more original, less obvious story. Because “originality”.

The problem is as a reader I don’t want to risk wasting money on stuff I don’t think there’s a pretty good chance I will like. As authors I think we often forget that most readers are shelling out financially for our work and every writer-reader relationship is built on good faith investment. The reader is almost always starting our in the red in terms of time and dollars.  All things being equal I am probably going to go with what sounds more up my street, which is why titles and artwork and those first few pages become so important to dictating sales. 

The key thing is to strike a balance isn’t it? Writers like Stephen King are successful in some part because they are able to incorporate the genre tropes and stock monsters freely - vampires for instance - but the actual story is able to transcend what is normally expected of standard genre fiction. Couple that with an enigmatic title like “Salem’s Lot” and you’ve got a sell.  

That’s the way to go for me. Embrace the tropes and conventions fully and completely, pick the ones that work, and then tweak them as needed to fit a strong narrative. Don’t pretend they are somehow optional. They’re probably not.


----------



## Bayview (Dec 3, 2018)

Dluuni said:


> So, I went and looked up noir fiction and hardboiled fiction on Wikipedia. Probably not THE definitive source, but hey..
> 
> The distinguishing feature of the genre is that it is a drama which features law and order vs. crime in a setting where law and order has become just as corrupt and dangerous as the criminals, leading to lose-lose situations.
> Hardboiled features a detective, by definition an outsider to both, who is jaded and unsympathetic; noir removes that requirement and can feature criminals, police, bystanders, or victims.
> ...



Might want to add a little rain, too.

Just sayin'.


----------

