# Fantasy cliches to avoid?



## mklemo (Sep 25, 2011)

So I'm in the process of brainstorming ideas for a fantasy world that I may write about sometime down the road, after I've finished the Sci-Fi book I'm working on (these different books are completely unrelated to each other).  My fantasy is in a medieval setting, and right now I'm just focusing on world-building, creatures, races, societies, and especially the rules of magic.

I was curious to know what cliches people can think of that I should try avoiding.  I'll start the list with one of my personal favorites :-D:
The seemingly-insignificant farm boy who turns out to be the subject of a prophecy in which he is destined to bring down the dark lord and become the great hero of the world.  This is probably the greatest of all fantasy cliches, hahaha.

So anyway, what other cliches can you guys come up with that I should avoid as much as possible?

By the way, Peter's Evil Overlord List is a great resource for people looking to make smarter and less cliche villains.  It's helped me out a ton with my own antagonists.


----------



## RM Americano (Sep 25, 2011)

in my opinion if you are looking to avoid cliches you should avoid writing about anything you heard somewhere else.


----------



## aj47 (Sep 25, 2011)

The idea generally in creating a world isn't to exclude things.  It's tough to not-think of pink elephants.  I mean it's sort of like saying what ingredients should I leave out when making brownies instead of asking for a good brownie recipe.


----------



## mklemo (Sep 26, 2011)

RM Americano said:


> in my opinion if you are looking to avoid cliches you should avoid writing about anything you heard somewhere else.


 
Okay, so I should avoid putting anything like characters, settings, and plot elements in my book.  Got it.



astroannie said:


> The idea generally in creating a world isn't to exclude things.  It's tough to not-think of pink elephants.  I mean it's sort of like saying what ingredients should I leave out when making brownies instead of asking for a good brownie recipe.



I'm not saying that my focus is to avoid certain things when I'm writing.  I've been brainstorming quite a bit about what "ingredients" to put in my book.  I just wanted to get some opinions on overused cliches that other people have seen, and then decide if there are any that I should definitely avoid, or if I could use them and try to put a different twist on them.  I guess I should rephrase the original question, since just because I see a cliche listed on here doesn't necessarily mean I won't use it, but I was just curious to see people's thoughts on the subject.  Doesn't mean I'm going to make my decisions based off of what I see here.

It's really a simple question, but so far no one seems to have bothered giving me a solid answer.


----------



## Scarlett_156 (Sep 27, 2011)

If you think about it, there's scarcely any way you can avoid cliches in writing fantasy, right?  Sure, the "farm boy who turns out to be the subject of a prophecy" thing is a well-worn fantasy cliche, but how does the fantasy tale begin, if not with the main character's dawning realization that he/she is not ordinary, or that he/she has fallen into most un-ordinary circumstance?  

Every situation in a story--fantasy or otherwise--runs the risk of cliche-ism.  I feel strongly that it's the choice of words the writer uses, and not his choice of situations and characters, that determine whether the writing is cliched or not.  

For example, that your fantasy hero has some sort of animal, or non-human, companion of great understanding and wisdom (and/or great physical prowess) is pretty much a cliche in fantasy.  Try to avoid that altogether, however, and you start to run into problems; without the help of the non-human companion and its great wisdom and/or strength, the hero himself has to be unusually wise and/or strong, and that will make him somewhat boring.  I mean, who wants to read a story about a guy who never loses a fight and always makes the right decision?  

For another example, in fantasy the bad guy is almost always a gearhead, i.e., he will always have tech stuff and machines; he's also almost always quick-tempered, arrogant, and vain.  The good guy is usually a "salt of the earth", mellow, reluctant-fighter-type who eschews urbanity & mechanization.  These are pretty much fantasy cliches you can count on.  Can things be turned around so that hero and villain don't have to be such predictable cliches...?  Probably not, if you want to keep the story along fantasy lines.  The hero is pretty much going to HAVE to be a tree-hugging semi-wimp in order to be believable, mainly because people like that are the ones who notice small things that the Type A personalities don't, help others in need (and therefore more likely to receive help when needed), and generally work in harmony with the natural part of your fantasy world. Your hero can't be the type of guy who goes out 4-wheeling every weekend, shooting rabbits for fun and leaving the bodies to rot, and alienating the elves by cutting down trees to build a pier for his giant yacht. He can't be that kind of guy--he has to be, therefore, sort of a cliche.  Even if he starts out as a beer-chugging frat boy type, he will have to become more sensitive in some regard as the story progresses or your readers will get bored or irritated. 

I don't think you should worry too much about cliches in your writing, and in fact I think you should embrace them.  With enough talent & dedication, you should be able to take the most cliched situation or conversation ever and make it fresh and readable with good writing. 

But since you asked: 

The villain stopping to make a gloating speech when he has the hero in his clutches. Who does that? No self-respecting villain does that.
Constant references to "lore" or "magic" with no further explanation.  Like your reader is just supposed to know already how magic works.  Also creating the impression that the magic works just fine via recitation of formulae or use of a tool already endowed with magic power, without the characters having to learn anything or  have any discipline to use it.
Stereotypes.  You know what those are already. "The corrupt clergyman."  "The blowhard politician."  "The sinister old crone."  "The giggling, mischievous fairies."  "The cute and unnaturally perceptive urchin."  (etc)
As noted above, the invincible hero who wins every battle.  Boring!
Having a lot of the action take place in dreams.  Too easy.  That's why it's a cliche.
Exhaustive descriptions of arms and armor.  Role-playing games, _si_; fantasy tales, _no_.
Descriptions of battles without any semblance of strategy; long, drawn-out fight scenes between two antagonists when there's supposed to be a battle going on, like they are the only two combatants on an empty field.  That will make me close a book right there, even if I'm halfway through it.
Going on and on about who the hero's parents REALLY are & why they are so special.  That's for little kids.  If your hero is a self-made man, he's gonna be tons more interesting.
Ok, well time for bed.  I hope this was helpful.


----------



## Aello (Sep 27, 2011)

Well, there's evil dark elves, benevolent and wise wood elves, regal high elves, dwarves living in mountians, and also the peasant who happens to meet and get the princess to fall in love with him, or the peasant who becomes a knight and rescues the princess stuff. 

   But then again I love a good princess-saving story. So if you're creating your characters and world and happen to realize that you're following a cliche, no matter which one, I would just forget about it and keep going. Think about Disney and Shakespeare. None of their stories were purely original at their core. It's putting that fresh twist on the story that's going to keep reader's interest and make it your own that you really need to be focused on.


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 28, 2011)

Scarlett_156 said:


> But since you asked:
> 
> The villain stopping to make a gloating speech when he has the hero in his clutches. Who does that? No self-respecting villain does that.
> Constant references to "lore" or "magic" with no further explanation. Like your reader is just supposed to know already how magic works. Also creating the impression that the magic works just fine via recitation of formulae or use of a tool already endowed with magic power, without the characters having to learn anything or have any discipline to use it.
> ...



Good list

#1: The incredibles call this monologing, and do a good job of laughing at this cliche. Its a cheap ploy to explain everything away in one fell swoop. Motive, intent, opportunity, and long term goals all dumped into one monolog.

#2: Most of my characters are new or there is one new one so I can explain maguc. If everyone in the story is use to magic, how do you explain it?

#3more: the man in shiny armor riding in to save the Damsel in distress. (later becomes the cavalry.) Arriving just in the nick of time, or the reverse, the cavalry arrives just after the heros finish the fight.

#4:characters must be human, if they fight alot, the reader must know the MC can bleed or take a beating.

#5: My biggest turn off to a book. Dream sequence, basically how ever long the dream takes place has nothing to do with the reality of the story. If the whole book was a dream then it was a waste of time reading.

#6:I hesitate on this one, teaching people *something *about arms and armor of old, can be interesting. But info dump about everything the author found during research is boring.

#7:Large battles are a mass of confusion and insanity, people killing people around them as quick as they can to avoid being killed. There was no honor on the battle field, backstabbing, killing the opponent of a fellow comrade was expected. Prolonged battles brings fatigue, fatigue will get you killed. The man in front charging through hacking everything in sight will be fatigued, while the man waiting for his turn to fight is not fatigued. Who will win? The tired expert swordsman that hacked his way through the enemy fighting for over twenty minutes, or the lightly trained but fresh warrior? Eventually the tired warrior will fail.

#8 I am your father, give me a hug and lets end the battle. 
The helpless damsel in distress waiting for the mc to save her is about the biggest cliche there is.
Although my favorite character cliche in this one was the damsel in distress in "City Heat" the heros come to save her and her first words?
"Well it's about time." as she finishes filing her nails.

In a different thread, a person wrote that "a dark and stormy night" is cliche, it is, those words are, having the beginning scene open after the sun goes down and it happens to be raining is not cliche. Half of a day is in darkness, and in some climates it rains more then it is clear.

Cliche's are a big part of fantasy, but weaving the tale so the cliches are minimized is the goal of the modern writer.
You can take cliche childrens stories and make them intetesting. Red riding hood, Swan princess, Repunzel have been made into movies, but the movies were not typical cliche movies.

Its all about how you write the cliche as to how well it works.


----------



## Cara (Sep 28, 2011)

Don't try to avoid cliches just because they have been used very often.

As already been posted; it's how you use them.


----------



## Joanna Stone (Sep 28, 2011)

Try reading Diana Wynne Jones' Tough Guide to Fantasyland - it's very funny and sends up loads of fantaasy clichés you already know and quite a lot of the ones you hadn't realised existed but recognise once they're pointed out.


----------



## RM Americano (Sep 28, 2011)

Now you're starting to sound innovative.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 28, 2011)

SeverinR said:


> #2: Most of my characters are new or there is one new one so I can explain maguc. If everyone in the story is use to magic, how do you explain it?



Why do you have to? The Lord of the Rings didn't bother explaining any of its magic, and it did alright.  In fact, it was implied that "magic" is just something some races and beings can innately do.  They might not even realize it's considered magical because it's so natural to them (example: hobbits' stealth).


As far as cliches go, if you really want to avoid them, then just do it.  Think of all the fantasy stories you've read, and think of the things that happen in all of them.  Then make the opposite happen.

I say this because that's what I've built my current novel around.  It's a science fiction, battle-oriented story.  So who's the best fighter? It's not the main character, not by a long shot.  There are at least two men and two women who are all better than him in various ways.  Does anyone have "plot armor"? Nope; by the end of the story, almost all of the main characters have died or been otherwise ejected from the story.  Well, the protagonist at least gets the girl, right? Actually, it turns out that she doesn't actually return the feelings he has for her, and he doesn't realize it until it's too late.

If you really want to avoid cliches, just think, "How would people in real life handle this situation? Does it make logical sense for this character to be doing this thing?"  That's why the "gloating villain" cliche is so stupid.  If someone got in a position where the villain has a chance to kill them, the villain should kill them.  Period.  If they need to stay alive, then you shouldn't write them into situations like that.

Also, I've found that there's a good deal of truth in this quote from C. S. Lewis: "Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."

Just write from your heart.  Tell the story you want to tell.  Everything else will fall into place.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Sep 28, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Also, I've found that there's a good deal of truth in this quote from C. S. Lewis: "Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it."
> 
> Just write from your heart.  Tell the story you want to tell.  Everything else will fall into place.



This is very true.

Every fantasy story I have ever read has been a "cliche" to one extent or another when you look at overall plot and specific elements.  Any author who thinks that their work is ultra original is just deluding themselves.  Don't worry about if something has been done before.  Whatever you create will be unique to the best extent possible


----------



## mklemo (Sep 29, 2011)

Ok, so here's a couple questions:
In the sci-fi book I'm writing (not at all related to the fantasy one, as I mentioned in the first post) the main character is sort of "possessed" by an alien being that gives him special abilities, and also passes down all of the memories, DNA, and muscle memory/skill from its previous host (that's not exactly how it works, but it's the easiest way to explain it without giving away the whole plot).

A couple people said how it's stupid when the hero is ridiculously good at everything and wins almost every fight.  My question is, does that count if there's an explained _reas__on_ for that (as in, rather than just being totally good at everything for no reason, something actually _made_ him that way)?  Because compared against normal people, he is exceptionally skilled even before he actually receives any training, and he picks up on new skills really fast because, in a way, he has already learned those things through the alien's previous incarnation.  As such, he wins most fights against normal humans.  However, as soon as he encounters others like himself, he loses the first few battles (though he makes it out alive from each of these) and has to go through a lot before he is able to match their skill.  So, as I asked before, does it count if he is inherently superior to humans because of an alien entity in him that enhances all of his attributes?  (It should also be noted, the "previous incarnation" was one of the best of their kind, and all of those skills were passed down to him; he just has to sort of "relearn" them, but it's sort of like relearning a skill you used to be good at, but haven't used for years).

My second question is, since he is "possessed", some of the story takes place inside of his head.  Some of you guys mentioned dreams as a bad cliche, so would I be walking into dangerous territory if the alien communicates to him through his dreams? (Note: he is not initially aware that he is "possessed")  It is also through a number of dreams that he relives the memories of the alien's previous host.  Would it perhaps be better to find some alternative rather than dreams?


----------



## Rustgold (Sep 29, 2011)

I'd estimate that over 95% of books in bookstores today are exactly the same, except with a different title and different names.  Sorry, but if you're interested in being published, the books in bookstores don't lie, cliché is vogue (sadly).


----------



## SeverinR (Sep 29, 2011)

The reason for someone being great at everything doesn't matter, there is no suspense if the person can't be hurt, no threat of death or injury. The achilles heel exception is weak. Invinsible except for one super flaw that will kill the monster instantly.  There is no rules, but remember superman, they had to give him the weakness of Kryptonite so he could stay interesting.

Dreams; the dreams I hate are the ones that rule out the main point of the story. If dreams have a purpose they are fine.
Its the hopeless scenerio ended by the person waking up and it was all a dream that I hate.  The loved one comes back to life because the mc only dreamed she died.

Anything can be a dream and anything can be insanity, using either to explain the main part of the story makes the story a waste in my opinion, unless done in a way so as not to seem like a desperate way to end a book.


----------



## Mathias Cavanaugh (Oct 1, 2011)

mklemo said:


> Ok, so here's a couple questions:
> In the sci-fi book I'm writing (not at all related to the fantasy one, as I mentioned in the first post) the main character is sort of "possessed" by an alien being that gives him special abilities, and also passes down all of the memories, DNA, and muscle memory/skill from its previous host (that's not exactly how it works, but it's the easiest way to explain it without giving away the whole plot).
> 
> A couple people said how it's stupid when the hero is ridiculously good at everything and wins almost every fight.  My question is, does that count if there's an explained _reas__on_ for that (as in, rather than just being totally good at everything for no reason, something actually _made_ him that way)?  Because compared against normal people, he is exceptionally skilled even before he actually receives any training, and he picks up on new skills really fast because, in a way, he has already learned those things through the alien's previous incarnation.  As such, he wins most fights against normal humans.  However, as soon as he encounters others like himself, he loses the first few battles (though he makes it out alive from each of these) and has to go through a lot before he is able to match their skill.  So, as I asked before, does it count if he is inherently superior to humans because of an alien entity in him that enhances all of his attributes?  (It should also be noted, the "previous incarnation" was one of the best of their kind, and all of those skills were passed down to him; he just has to sort of "relearn" them, but it's sort of like relearning a skill you used to be good at, but haven't used for years).




I think you did something very good here in describing the way things are going to work for your character.  You said the hero "wins almost every fight".  Believe it or not, this is not uncommon for a hero to do.  What I would have warned you about is saying out of the box that the hero "wins every fight" and leaving out the almost.  It is when a hero is seen as not only invincible but invincible to the point where he knows it and takes insane risks that things often go awry in stories.  It is also usually fairly boring for the reader once he or she realizes that there is no real threat to the hero.Look at Superman for example.  He has great power.  But he also has weaknesses.  These weaknesses pose a threat even to him.  He loses his power in the presence of Kryptonite and other super powered beings can give him a run for his money and often match him on the battlefield requiring him to get help in defeating a foe  or using something other than his phenomenal might or getting pasted.  Like your character, he loses the first fight he has with some of his "own kind" in the movie adaptations.  These sorts of things put him in at least perceived danger.  Even though I think everyone can agree that story arcs in the comics like the Death of Superman have pretty much proven that Superman is never in any real danger of dying permanently.  That whole tale basically put to bed once and for all any chance of a real "Death of Superman" assuming future authors of the series stick to the lore as has been set down.  Always a big if in the realm of comics.
Anyway, I don't mind a character that is "super".  But what I do mind is the sense that I know that he or she is super and that the end of the story is going to be nothing more than him or her riding off into the sunset because I have been given no reason to believe he or she is ever in any danger.  However it does not necessarily mean that a character has to die or be confronted with a threat of dying to be perceived as being in danger.  The character, even though insanely overpowered, can face danger from other influences.  He could start out as a good guy but be tempted to turn evil because of his power.  And while he is nearly invincible, probably others around him are not so lucky.  Perhaps killing off ancillary characters (especially those really close to the "super powered" character) show vulnerability and weakness.  Such events can also lead to changes in the "hero" making him less of a straight-forward, true blooded "hero" by the end of the story.  Again, back to Superman, but remember when he appears to give up his super powers when General Zod has Lois Lane in a compromising position?  That is the sort of thing, even though it turned out to be a ruse, that can make people doubt, if even for a moment, the true "superness" of any "super" man.  Make sure your character's weaknesses are exposed and exposed to the point where he is in danger.My suggestion to you would be to keep in mind what you said.  He "wins almost every fight".  If the story is to ultimately end with him being triumphant, you still have to show throughout your story that he might not and figuring out how to pose a threat to your own "super man" is going to be your challenge as an author. I like your approach thus far to show his vulnerability by having him lose to some of his "own kind"'.  I think that is a good start.





> My second question is, since he is "possessed", some of the story takes place inside of his head.  Some of you guys mentioned dreams as a bad cliche, so would I be walking into dangerous territory if the alien communicates to him through his dreams? (Note: he is not initially aware that he is "possessed")  It is also through a number of dreams that he relives the memories of the alien's previous host.  Would it perhaps be better to find some alternative rather than dreams?



I have two "dream" sequences in my current fantasy novel I am    writing where the main character is shown visions by the Goddess of    the world.  They further the story as they explain how things work    in the reality of this world.  It is clear that they are dreams or    visions.  Although one not at first.

    No, dreams are not a bad cliche as long as there is a reason for    them.  I think was some people take offense to is when entire    stories that happen in a dream world, which is only revealed at the    very end of the book without any rhyme or reason given to lead    people to expect such.  Don't hide the fact that it is a dream from  the reader.     But you don't have to come right out and say "HEY!  READER!  THIS IS    A DREAM!" either.  Give the reader the clues.  They will figure it    out.

    I think you have given a very good reason for him to experience    things in the "dreams".   If you are talking about a dream sequence    every couple of chapters after you have established your character    and the reality he exists in and it is clear to the reader that he    is having these flashbacks through the description of events that    don't fit with the story you have already laid out then you should    be fine.


----------



## The Jaded (Oct 1, 2011)

It's quite simple. You need not avoid any cliches. Just don't think about it. I'm sure you are all ready well read in your target area, and probably know (if you aren't a member of) your target audience. Sure, peasant-as-the-agent-of-destiny is overdone, but if that's the kind of story you want to write, write it and don't look back. Adding your own touch will happen on its own, as long as you go with the flow and don't over-think it (I tend to fall into the over-thinking trap myself on occasion, I know how much it can paralyze you as a writer). Any story will come out better if you just roll with it than if you shape every sentence terrified of cliches.


----------



## bazz cargo (Oct 2, 2011)

Magic rings
Magic swords
Invisibility cloaks
Talking animals
Top goody Wizard turns out bad.
Fortune teller 

As for clichés, you can use a few, and subvert a lot.


----------



## TyUnglebower (Oct 3, 2011)

Just be loyal to what comes to you. Tell the story you want to tell and let that be a guide, and forget what 95% of the other books out there are doing. If you are determined you can find an audience by being unique, and I applaud you for your desire to not be burdened by the automatic cliche's of fantasy. 

Cliches may exist in all genres but lords in heaven fantasy is the reigning champ. So much so that I have actually given up on reading fantasy. It is the same (poorly constructed) story over and over again. Most of them border on on incoherence, (probably because they feel the need to show horn themselves into said cliches and formulas.)

I agree with some who say that using a cliche need not ruin your story. I would find one without most cliches refreshing though. So bearing that in mind, I can't resist adding at least a few of the cliches I have run into when I (used to) try to read fantasy novels.

-Inns/Taverns. I'd love to read a few where nobody owns, lives in, drinks in, or stops by one of these.

-Fiery red heads. Both literally and figuratively. There has to be at least one other way to describe a woman with red hair other than fiery. The books I read didn't realize this. And that aside, avoid the, "I am a powerful/skilled/strong/whatever woman that is not to be trifled with...but eventually I show a surprising soft or injured side. Usually right after I bath in the lake when I think everyone else in camp is asleep, thus allowing my clothing to cling to my soaked body as I come back to the fire, which reflects off of my moist body...etc." Give me a break.

-Cross-world stuff. I admit this is not as common as some others. But more than the average number of fantasy novels like to play at the notion that they are connected to, used to be, or some how sprung from our actual present day world. I don't so much mind if, like Middle Earth, the setting is a prehistoric Earth society, now forgotten. But when mirrors or spells or something elude to "us" in real life, (even worse to the actual author's life) it isn't cute.

-Killing the cute one. Don't set up the most innocent, pretty, fun loving or goofy character just to have them be the one to die the most gruesome death. Yes, beings die, I get it. But the frequency with which the death comes to the one that we have been most manipulated to enjoy makes this a cliche to me.

-Anything that "convention" says must be so about a given race or creature. Be willing to write about a really stupid elf. Or a troll that plays a lute. Or something. None of these things as far as anyone knows, exists, so they can be whatever you want them to be. Resist the very strong pressures from the fantasy fandom to assign only "approved" characteristics to any given non-human.


----------



## TheFuhrer02 (Oct 3, 2011)

The Jaded said:


> It's quite simple. You need not avoid any cliches. Just don't think about it. I'm sure you are all ready well read in your target area, and probably know (if you aren't a member of) your target audience.



I echo this statement. After all, if we broadly look at it, we'll see that most of the stories tend to be "cliches," since the ideas, in retrospect, are never original. Its the approach to the idea and the way the author presents it that makes it original, makes it fun to read.


----------



## AvA (Oct 3, 2011)

Even the act of writing fantasy is cliche', what more could you expect from the content. Don't over-think it and you should be fine.

Personally, it's the characters that make the story interesting.


----------



## The Jaded (Oct 4, 2011)

TheFuhrer02 said:


> I echo this statement. After all, if we broadly look at it, we'll see that most of the stories tend to be "cliches," since the ideas, in retrospect, are never original. Its the approach to the idea and the way the author presents it that makes it original, makes it fun to read.



That is my perspective exactly. Most of my writing is of the science fiction persuasion, and that is just as much a cliche minefield as fantasy for many of the same reasons. It would paralyze me as a writer to step gingerly through a project, avoiding every cliche. If you start something by asking what it can't be, you're doing something very wrong.

Besides, a new perspective on a "tired" cliche is often even more valuable in literary terms than avoiding the cliche altogether, if you're creative enough to pull it off.


----------



## Infested (Oct 5, 2011)

i, for instance simply created new races(it wasnt too hard, looking for ideas after being awake for 24 hours - and you know what? i think theyre pretty cool)

one major advice - avoid medieval set -biggest cliche, thats what i did, though im writing sci-fi clashes fantasy, i geuss its different huh?
all other here have said much enough. thats what i can add.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 5, 2011)

AvA said:


> Personally, it's the characters that make the story interesting.



And we should note here that characters are just as susceptible to cliches as plots are.  If you're characters start as cliches, that's not terrible, but be sure they receive plenty of depth as the story goes on.


----------



## AvA (Oct 5, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> And we should note here that characters are just as susceptible to cliches as plots are.  If you're characters start as cliches, that's not terrible, but be sure they receive plenty of depth as the story goes on.



That's true. I was in the mindset that we were talking about 'plot cliches'.


----------



## Robdemanc (Oct 12, 2011)

I would say that cliche in fantasy is too much to resist.   Look at all the vampire books out there now.  The trick is to write what you want, but make it unique.   Does the farmboy really have to save the world?  Maybe he chooses not to, or thinks about it for a while.   Maybe he can't save the world without the help of the villan....etc


----------



## Die Oldhaetunde (Oct 12, 2011)

This thread is doomed to become a cliche.


----------



## bazz cargo (Oct 12, 2011)

Hi Mk,
Your question has been niggling me for a while, and I have finally figured out why. Fantasy is read by people who want the clichés. For your own sanity I suggest you might try and refresh them.


----------



## seigfried007 (Oct 13, 2011)

Limyaael's Fantasy Rants - Television Tropes & Idioms

Go here and read everything. It's awesome, informative and usually hilarious


----------



## Anders Ämting (Oct 13, 2011)

bazz cargo said:


> Magic swords



Hey now. Magical swords are _awesome._

I'm fairly sure I've put at least one magical sword into every story I have ever tried to write.


----------



## Reavyn (Oct 13, 2011)

The extremely power wizard/warlock the hero must seek out to learn from but is unwilling to actually help defeat the enemy.

Honestly, brainstorm your story and look over every thing. If something seems too cliche to you just change it a little. It's much easier to decide what not to have in it after you've written it out.


----------



## Anders Ämting (Oct 14, 2011)

seigfried007 said:


> Limyaael's Fantasy Rants - Television Tropes & Idioms
> 
> Go here and read everything. It's awesome, informative and usually hilarious



You know, looking through this, it occurs to me that what she's actually talking about is, mostly, is plain old _bad writing._ For example, take the bickering couple who end up together because opposites attract. Is this a cliché? Sure, I suppose. But the issue Limyaael brings up is that some writers seem to think "opposites attract" is the _only_ justification you need for them to work out as a couple. That is, you don't consider these characters as _actual people_ so they just end up puppets on the strings of common fantasy conventions. That a very bad way of writing characters, but the cliché itself isn't to blame so much as lazyness on behalf of the author.

Anyway, why should we even bother thinking of stuff to exclude from our stories? Shouldn't we focus on the stuff we want to _put in?_ Isn't it enough to write what we want to write and ignore the stuff we _don't_ want to write?

I mean, are dragons and magical swords cliché? Arguably, yes. But maybe you really, really like those things and want to write about them? That's important, I think. We shouldn't have to sacrifice the things we want to write about, all the topes we ourselves enjoy reading and all the literary devices we've grown to appreciate, just because we fear unoriginality. That's the sort of thing that kills all the joy we get from doing this and if that happens, what's the point?

I've talked to a lot of aspiring writers who've given up completely, and you know what the number one reason for quitting writing is in my experience? "I couldn't get it original enough." That's the big writing killer, right there: Obsessing with originality, fearing clichés, focusing on what you _shouldn't _write.

So please, relax a bit, figure out what you want to write, and dare to start your story on a dark stormy night. Some of us _like _dark and stormy nights.


----------



## mklemo (Oct 26, 2011)

@Anders Ämting: Well, I think I should clarify, I actually am focusing mainly on what I want to put in, but I just didn't feel like seeking advice for that.  I find it more enjoyable to put in my own ideas rather than ask other people "what should I put in this?" but at the same time, I think it helps to get a general idea of what people utterly hate to see in a story.
However, you do make some good points.  I've come dangerously close to quitting a few times myself because I didn't think I was "original" enough, but when I thought about it, I realized that all of my favorite authors used lots of ideas that weren't necessarily original, but they were able to present it in such a way that it was still interesting and entertaining.

Thank you guys for your advice and contributions.  You've certainly given me a lot to consider.

So here's a NEW question, in regards to my sci-fi story (the one where the main character is possessed by an alien).  Way back in the day, I originally intended to have this story be a medieval fantasy before I ended up changing it to a post-apocalyptic sci-fi.  As a sci-fi, I want it to seem at least somewhat plausible.  So here's the thing: I've allowed myself to grow too attached to the image of my main character using a sword, since that's how it was with the original draft of the story (though he also uses guns, depending on the situation).  But again, this is in a setting that takes place about 500 years after an apocalyptic event in Earth's distant future.  My excuse is that since everything was more or less destroyed, the survivors had to resort to creating close-combat weapons to protect themselves and hunt, and even after society was reborn and technology was reinvented based on what was salvaged, they still used close-combat weapons (swords, knives, axes, etc.) alongside ranged weapons.  I also tried using the argument that resources were kind of scarce, but that doesn't really work in my mind because there are countless ruins with plenty of resources that could be salvaged and processed for making weapons and armor.
Acknowledging the possibility that I might just have to convince myself to detach my main character from his sword for the sake of plausibility, is it possible I could still pull it off in a way that might work?  Or does the idea of using swords/axes alongside rifles/pistols sound too far-fetched?

Again, I realize I may be overthinking it, but this is one particular issue that I think could potentially ruin the story's plausibility if executed without care.


----------



## Robdemanc (Oct 27, 2011)

I don't think its far fetched.   If its in the aftermath of a global catastrophe people would gather what they could from the ruins.  Also you could invent some idealistic attitude towards swords for your character.  Perhaps they have ancestors (Father, grandfather etc) who used swords.  Maybe swords are worshipped by people because they were ideal for hunting after the dreadful event that destroyed the world.   There are many ways to make it plausible.    Perhaps the sword is not just a sword, perhaps it has another function?   Maybe the sword is made of a special alloy that is unbreakable (like wolverines metal claws).   I like the idea of primitive tools being used in the future alongside more advanced technology.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 27, 2011)

mklemo said:


> Acknowledging the possibility that I might just have to convince myself to detach my main character from his sword for the sake of plausibility, is it possible I could still pull it off in a way that might work?  Or does the idea of using swords/axes alongside rifles/pistols sound too far-fetched?



I agree that it is not far-fetched. Swords are going to be easier to use and maintain. Even if materials are laying around in a post-apocalyptic world, the guns are going to require ammunition, upkeep, parts over time, &c. There are all sorts of reason they would be less desirable, less reliable, and less available.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 27, 2011)

mklemo said:


> So here's a NEW question, in regards to my sci-fi story (the one where the main character is possessed by an alien).  Way back in the day, I originally intended to have this story be a medieval fantasy before I ended up changing it to a post-apocalyptic sci-fi.  As a sci-fi, I want it to seem at least somewhat plausible.  So here's the thing: I've allowed myself to grow too attached to the image of my main character using a sword, since that's how it was with the original draft of the story (though he also uses guns, depending on the situation).  But again, this is in a setting that takes place about 500 years after an apocalyptic event in Earth's distant future.  My excuse is that since everything was more or less destroyed, the survivors had to resort to creating close-combat weapons to protect themselves and hunt, and even after society was reborn and technology was reinvented based on what was salvaged, they still used close-combat weapons (swords, knives, axes, etc.) alongside ranged weapons.  I also tried using the argument that resources were kind of scarce, but that doesn't really work in my mind because there are countless ruins with plenty of resources that could be salvaged and processed for making weapons and armor.
> Acknowledging the possibility that I might just have to convince myself to detach my main character from his sword for the sake of plausibility, is it possible I could still pull it off in a way that might work?  Or does the idea of using swords/axes alongside rifles/pistols sound too far-fetched?
> 
> Again, I realize I may be overthinking it, but this is one particular issue that I think could potentially ruin the story's plausibility if executed without care.



Don't worry about it.  My sci-fi novel is set in the mid-21st century, and all combat is done with bladed weapons because of a mass disarmament around 2030.  All the weapons were gathered up and destroyed, and simple melee weapons are all that are left.  (There's a bit more to it than that, but that's about 40% of the justification.)

I don't know if you're into anime, but if so, here's a darn good example.  This guy carries a sword:


And I'm pretty sure he doesn't even use it once.  The anime is actually about giant robots fighting each other.  But you know who cares? Nobody, because it's FRIGGIN COOL.

Do what you want in your story.  As long as the rest of the story is decent, no one will mind (and some will probably like those parts).


----------



## Anders Ämting (Oct 27, 2011)

mklemo said:


> @Anders Ämting: Well, I think I should clarify, I  actually am focusing mainly on what I want to put in, but I just didn't  feel like seeking advice for that.  I find it more enjoyable to put in  my own ideas rather than ask other people "what should I put in this?"  but at the same time, I think it helps to get a general idea of what  people utterly hate to see in a story.



Fair point, but  again, what people hate to see in a story is called _bad writing_ - the  only really bad idea seems to be not putting enough thought into to how you  use the fantasy conventions, rather then the fantasy conventions themselves.

Let's turn the question around: What do people _love _to see in a story? Aside from quality writing in general, I belive most readers of fantasy love to see creative and clever takes on familiar things. This is important for fiction in general, of course, but I think it's particularly vital for fantasy since the genre ended up so repetitive. There's a certain comfort in the familiarity of fantasy - at the end of the day we _want _our dragons and swordfights and magic and princessess - but we _also _want fresh ideas. If you can find a good balance between the two, I don't think you're going to have any problems with your story.



> So here's a NEW  question, in regards to my sci-fi story (the one where the main  character is possessed by an alien).  Way back in the day, I originally  intended to have this story be a medieval fantasy before I ended up  changing it to a post-apocalyptic sci-fi.  As a sci-fi, I want it to  seem at least somewhat plausible.  So here's the thing: I've allowed  myself to grow too attached to the image of my main character using a  sword, since that's how it was with the original draft of the story  (though he also uses guns, depending on the situation).  But again, this  is in a setting that takes place about 500 years after an apocalyptic  event in Earth's distant future.  My excuse is that since everything was  more or less destroyed, the survivors had to resort to creating  close-combat weapons to protect themselves and hunt, and even after  society was reborn and technology was reinvented based on what was  salvaged, they still used close-combat weapons (swords, knives, axes,  etc.) alongside ranged weapons.  I also tried using the argument that  resources were kind of scarce, but that doesn't really work in my mind  because there are countless ruins with plenty of resources that could be  salvaged and processed for making weapons and armor.
> Acknowledging the possibility that I might just have to convince myself  to detach my main character from his sword for the sake of plausibility,  is it possible I could still pull it off in a way that might work?  Or  does the idea of using swords/axes alongside rifles/pistols sound too  far-fetched?


 
 It's not really far-fetched, though it's a matter of culture. 

If you look at history, swords didn't actually disappear all of a sudden just because guns were invented.  Rather, swords and guns coexisted over a period of 400 years or so.  Swords were still considered practical battlefield weapons in the 19th  century, when industrialization resulted in mass-production of military  sabers. During military service in India, Winston Churchill once came _extremely _close  to engaging in an honest-to-God swordfight to the death. Swords were  still carried by cavalry troops in World War I, and as late as WWII  military manuals brough up the possibility of facing a German officer  with a sword. Meanwhile, the Japanese still carried swords as part of  the rise of Japanese patriotism of the Showa era, and I'm pretty sure  some of them actually ended up being used in the fighting.

So,  yeah, guns and swords being used parallel to each other is pretty much a  historical fact. Though, there are three factors you need to consider:

*1) *Swords as symbols with cultural importance.  One of the reasons the sword was used for so long is because it has  always been a symbol of martial glory, heroism, leadership and bravery.  Often they were a symbol of rank as much as they were weapons. Consider  if such a culture exists in your story, and if your MC is a person who  might carry a sword for such a reason. (For example, being nobility, a  military commander, member of a type of warrior caste, part of a  knightly or even religious order, etc.)

*2) *How  advanced are the firearms and how common, expensive and/or popular are  they? Broadly speaking, as long as guns could only fire one bullet a  time and were slow to reload, melee weapons like swords still had a  place on the battlefield. It wasn't until semi-automatic weapons and  cartridges were developed that the role of swords diminished. In a  post-apocalyptic setting, I imagine the scarcity of guns and ammunition  in general would also play a part in this, though it depends on your  setting. Then there is again the cultural aspect. For example: America  has a lot of guns, and in a cultural sense there has also been a  considerable glorification of guns throughout American history. In a  post-apocalyptic society a lot of that would probably remain and the gun  might even gain a semi-mythical status; an essential weapon you care  for dearly and pass on to your children, etc.

For the opposite of  this, let's go back to Japan for a moment. The Japanese were introduce  that firearms proper by the Portugese in the 1500 and they were, at  least innitially, a big hit. During this period, Japan was shattered by  civil war and Oda Nobunaga soon figured out a tactic of arming his  troops with muskets that proved capable of completely annihilating  conventional forces. Naturally, this caught on and for a time there were  more people manufacturing guns in Japan then there were in Europe. So  it's not like there wasn't an appreciation for the efficiency of  firearms. However, once a period of relative peace and stability was  established, heavy restrictions on guns were enforced precisely because  they were so efficient; they could potentialy become a threat to the  peace. And since they were mostly considered at odds with traditional  samurai values (whereas the sword was considered the _epitome _of  those values) the warrior class stopped using guns altogether and Japan  more or less forgot about these weapons until the Black Ships showed up  and demonstrated just how much the technology had developed over the  last four hundred years.

What I mean is, it's absolutely possible  to create a society where guns do exist but still aren't used as much  as swords, because they are mostly illegal or simply not entirely  "kosher."

*3)* The context in general. Bit of a  follow-up to the second aspect. Basically, if people still use swords  then the context of their everyday lives are going to affect what kind  of swords they use. For a few historical examples: In the dark ages,  European swords were broad and flat and designed for cutting and  hacking, since the armor of the time was leather or at best chain. As  armor technology improved, it gave rise to platemail, which proved  impervious to cutting attacks. To counter this, the swords became pointier and stiffer, built more for thrusting then cutting - the idea  was to pierce through the small gaps in the joints of the armor. Later during the  Renaissance, early firearms gradually started to make heavy armor obselete, leading to lighter weapons which eventually resulted in the civilian  self-defense and dueling sword. At the same time period, the cities grew and it  became more likely to have to defend yourself in narrow allyways where  wide swings were difficult, and that resulted in the rapier; a sword  designed almost entirely for thrusting. But two centuries or so later,  the roads had improved to the point where it became popular to travel by  coach. However, the rapier proved too cumbersome for this mode of  transport, and that gave rise to the much lighter and slimmer  smallsword. I'm generalizing a lot here, but you get the idea.

Basically, there are a lot of factors that will  determine what kind of swords are used, wether they are primarily  civilians or military, cutter of thrusters of both, who carried them, how frequently they are used, etc. You can basically approach  this from either way: Either you can start with the context and try to figure  out what role swords play in this society, or you can start by deciding  that people are going to carry, lets say, something akin to the medieval  arming sword and then try to figure out how the society and technology will have to work for that to make sense.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> I don't know if you're into anime, but if so, here's a darn good example.  This guy carries a sword:
> View attachment 2465
> And I'm pretty sure he doesn't even use it once.  The anime is actually  about giant robots fighting each other.  But you know who cares? Nobody,  because it's FRIGGIN COOL.



I think he used it to fight Viral. Like, once. 

Though, Kamina carrying a sword around doesn't really have anything to do with the story. It's just Kamina being, well, _Kamina._


----------



## Rustgold (Oct 28, 2011)

Have a look at popular fantasy novels.  Try to find one that's not so farfetched as to make it absolutely ridiculous.  Seriously, many best sellers make superman seem like Everyday Joe.

Worry that you're going too far?  Take that extra mile to make sure.  Worried that it it's over the top?  Keep going until you swear the words are in cartoon technicolour.

Nothing is too ridiculous.  Scratch that.  Nothing has gone far enough until it is too ridiculous.  Boy Wonder defeating grown evil men is too blasé.  He needs to defeat a whole army of mutated demons who've been transformed into cyborgs by an evil scientist.  And halfway through, the boy discovers that the evil scientist is his godfather.  And don't forget that near the end, the boy has to be thrown out into space by his godfather, only to discover that he has the magical gift of being able to hold his breath for exactly 8 minutes and 33 seconds; which is shown by him gasping for air once he's busted his way back inside.  And you can ignore the many plot flaws in that, because now its time for him to kick butt.

Now that's just starting to get ridiculous enough.  If you're not there, you have some way to go.


----------



## Loopstah (Nov 1, 2011)

If you read the Deathstalker books by Simon R. Green you'll see a futuristic society (albeit a regressed one) where most people use swords to hack each other apart because the only long ranged weapons take ages to recharge after being fired. Projectile weapons had been abandoned hundreds of years earlier due to being both cheap and easy to make which didn't please the higher classes, so it's either swords or nothing.

So it is possible to write a sci-fi where people use swords, you just need to make sure they are being used for a valid reason, and not just because you like swords.

The excessive use of swords in the Warhammer 40,000 universe really makes me scratch my head. Even the super advanced space elves still hit things with swords rather than sitting back and using their super advanced weapons.


----------



## Anders Ämting (Nov 3, 2011)

Loopstah said:


> If you read the Deathstalker books by Simon R. Green you'll see a futuristic society (albeit a regressed one) where most people use swords to hack each other apart because the only long ranged weapons take ages to recharge after being fired. Projectile weapons had been *abandoned* hundreds of years earlier due to being both cheap and easy to make which didn't please the higher classes, so it's either swords or nothing.



Nitpic: I think the word you wanted is "banned", as in they were considered dangerous so people in power made them illegal. "Abandoned" implies people in general found them disagreeable for some reason.



> So it is possible to write a sci-fi where people use swords, you just need to make sure they are being used for a valid reason, and not just because you like swords.
> 
> The excessive use of swords in the Warhammer 40,000 universe really makes me scratch my head. Even the super advanced space elves still hit things with swords rather than sitting back and using their super advanced weapons.



Well, I think that's a matter of stylistic approach - WH40K is supposed to be highly stylized fantasy, only set in space, and the swords and armors are all a part of that. It's like asking why militaries in Star Wars relies heavily on infantry and the occasional psychic monks (with laser swords), or why people in the Gundam animes fly around in giant humanoid robots (again, with laser swords) even though in real life, building giant humanoid robots for military purposes is actually a terrible idea. We suspend our disbelief of all that since it's part of the fun.

So, I don't think it's wrong to put swords in a sci-fi story just because you think they are cool. It's just a matter of creating the illusion that they belong in the setting.


----------



## tk1841 (Nov 4, 2011)

The cliche' that bugs and irks me more than anything, fantasy or not, is the man/woman boy/girl male/ female, hate each other/ have nothing in common two different to get along blah... after facing incredible circumstances, fall for each other and share an over the top first kiss. Peril then abounds and insert whatever story element needed to bring heartbreak.


----------



## Robdemanc (Nov 4, 2011)

tk1841 said:


> The cliche' that bugs and irks me more than anything, fantasy or not, is the man/woman boy/girl male/ female, hate each other/ have nothing in common two different to get along blah... after facing incredible circumstances, fall for each other and share an over the top first kiss. Peril then abounds and insert whatever story element needed to bring heartbreak.



Yes!  You can always see that one coming a mile off.


----------



## Deyo (Nov 4, 2011)

mklemo said:


> Ok, so here's a couple questions:
> In the sci-fi book I'm writing (not at all related to the fantasy one, as I mentioned in the first post) the main character is sort of "possessed" by an alien being that gives him special abilities, and also passes down all of the memories, DNA, and muscle memory/skill from its previous host (that's not exactly how it works, but it's the easiest way to explain it without giving away the whole plot).
> 
> A couple people said how it's stupid when the hero is ridiculously good at everything and wins almost every fight. My question is, does that count if there's an explained _reas__on_ for that (as in, rather than just being totally good at everything for no reason, something actually _made_ him that way)? Because compared against normal people, he is exceptionally skilled even before he actually receives any training, and he picks up on new skills really fast because, in a way, he has already learned those things through the alien's previous incarnation. As such, he wins most fights against normal humans. However, as soon as he encounters others like himself, he loses the first few battles (though he makes it out alive from each of these) and has to go through a lot before he is able to match their skill. So, as I asked before, does it count if he is inherently superior to humans because of an alien entity in him that enhances all of his attributes? (It should also be noted, the "previous incarnation" was one of the best of their kind, and all of those skills were passed down to him; he just has to sort of "relearn" them, but it's sort of like relearning a skill you used to be good at, but haven't used for years).
> ...



To answer your first question, I think it's fine to make a really powerful main character, the only problem with it is giving him circumstances where he can still fail, where he will still get hurt, despite being so powerful.  If you can do that, then it doesn't matter how srong you make your character.  As for the dream sequence thing, as long as your advancing the plot, or character, with the messages the alien delivers, then it shouldn't be a problem either.


----------



## mklemo (Dec 19, 2011)

Let's go back to the dream sequences.  I'm curious to understand exactly what it is that annoys people so much about dreams.  Is it just moments such as when characters have a dream of someone dying, and then waking up and finding it wasn't real?  Or more along the lines of prophetic dreams (such as having a dream that someone is going to die, and then the character starts to see those circumstances occur in the real world and freaks out when he realizes that person is going to die)?  If that's what annoys everyone, I promise I have no intention of using such plot elements.  I find killing off a character to have a much stronger effect when there is no forewarning (_especially_ when there are no prophetic dreams of that person's death).  In my opinion, that's just a weak attempt at adding suspense to a story.

However, I'm still curious to know what it is about dream sequences that people find so frustrating.  The reason I'm asking is because in my sci-fi book, I use a number of dream sequences in an attempt to show the main character's personal struggles.  For example, he sometimes has nightmares about his sister who died a number of years ago, and my intent is to use these dreams to show that he is still grieving (which ends up being an important part of the main story later on), especially since he prefers not to talk about it with other people, and most of them have the sense not to bring it up.
Also, as I mentioned before, he has occasional dreams where a foreign entity inside of him is trying to communicate with him.  He thinks these are just nightmares at first, but later comes to realize that something actually _is_ trying to speak to him.

So what is it about dreams that people hate so much, and what can I do to avoid making that same mistake with my own dream sequences?


----------



## themooresho (Dec 19, 2011)

SeverinR said:


> #8 I am your father, give me a hug and lets end the battle.



Okay, I knew I was heading into dangerous territory.  I was pretty much letting my story write itself, but as soon as this concept came up, that's when I got writers block.  Maybe writers block is your subconscious mind telling you, "Stop!  Quit this madness before it's too late!"


----------



## doghouse reilly (Dec 19, 2011)

I recently found a site, "TV Tropes.com," all about fiction writing, characters, situations, as well as cliche's.  it covers all genres, and media.  But be careful, it can be addictive.

doghouse reilly


----------



## mklemo (Dec 20, 2011)

Oh, believe me, I am aware.  I've spent hours and hours on end reading stuff from that site.  It can indeed be addictive, but I also find it very enlightening.  It actually helped me come up with a better alternative to an idea I had that wasn't all that great.

So... dream sequences?


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 20, 2011)

mklemo said:


> So what is it about dreams that people hate so much, and what can I do to avoid making that same mistake with my own dream sequences?



I think unless the story is about dreams (someone dreaming premonitions etc) then you only need refer to them and not write them as action sequences.  If you need to put across that your character is still grieving for his sister then you can do it other ways.  If you really want a dream, then just start off a chapter saying that he woke up and had been dreaming about his sister again.  If the reader knows the sister is dead, they can figure he is grieving without having to read through a dream.  I think dreams are a waste of the readers time, unless they are an integral part of the plot or story.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 20, 2011)

mklemo said:


> So... dream sequences?



I can't remember the last time I read a book with a dream sequence.  That said, I would expect the resistance to them would be because what happens in them DOESN'T happen.  You want to see the story progress through the actual actions of the characters.  Doing things in a dream simply isn't the same.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 20, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I can't remember the last time I read a book with a dream sequence.  That said, I would expect the resistance to them would be because what happens in them DOESN'T happen.  You want to see the story progress through the actual actions of the characters.  Doing things in a dream simply isn't the same.



Yeah it makes you feel like you are wasting your time.  My first book I wrote had a dream in it and my mother told me to get rid of it.  lol

The only time I would use them if it was a supernatural story where the character dreamt things, then later found out they had actually done them.


----------



## mklemo (Dec 20, 2011)

Robdemanc said:


> The only time I would use them if it was a supernatural story where the character dreamt things, then later found out they had actually done them.



Ah, interesting you say that, because I actually do use that in my book.  Whenever the thing possessing him takes control, he experiences it as if he is dreaming, but when he wakes up, he discovers that it was in fact _not_ a dream.

As for the nightmares about his sister... I was mainly using those as a way to show what is going on in his mind, because he feels a certain level of responsibility for her loss, and his nightmares are a manifestation of that.  However, I suppose what I could do instead is have him talking with a friend and telling them about the nightmare, as well as his own interpretation of it.
I tend to be one of those show versus tell people.  I prefer to describe things in detail (including dreams) as opposed to mentioning it briefly after the fact.  BUT, I guess a huge part of being a writer is learning new techniques.


----------



## Robdemanc (Dec 20, 2011)

mklemo said:


> Ah, interesting you say that, because I actually do use that in my book.  Whenever the thing possessing him takes control, he experiences it as if he is dreaming, but when he wakes up, he discovers that it was in fact _not_ a dream.
> 
> As for the nightmares about his sister... I was mainly using those as a way to show what is going on in his mind, because he feels a certain level of responsibility for her loss, and his nightmares are a manifestation of that.  However, I suppose what I could do instead is have him talking with a friend and telling them about the nightmare, as well as his own interpretation of it.
> I tend to be one of those show versus tell people.  I prefer to describe things in detail (including dreams) as opposed to mentioning it briefly after the fact.  BUT, I guess a huge part of being a writer is learning new techniques.



It sounds like a supernatural story, so sometimes dreams will work.  I think the general rule is not to be too liberal with them, it could make the reader confused about what is actually happening.  And always ensure there is a good reason for the dream and perhaps keep them as short as you can.


----------



## Vertigo (Dec 20, 2011)

The big things with dreams is that they're often not dreams- they're flashbacks in dream form, allowing an author to fill in some event that happened twenty years before without actually having to write a chapter titled, "Twenty Years Before." (Whether or not this is a bad thing is up to you to decide.) When dreams are _dreams_, I find them enjoyable both to read and to write, as they're unstable platforms in which just about anything could happen, even more so than the normal world.


----------



## Anders Ämting (Dec 21, 2011)

doghouse reilly said:


> I recently found a site, "TV Tropes.com," all about fiction writing, characters, situations, as well as cliche's.  it covers all genres, and media.  But be careful, it can be addictive.
> 
> doghouse reilly



TV-tropes can be useful, if for no other reason then that it makes you more aware of how stories are actually constructed and gives you greater awareness of what you are writing. It also gives you a healthy perspective on originality, which might save you from getting stuck in the "originality at all costs" mindset that destroys a lot of promising writers.

The main danger is relying on it too much, which can lead to a loss of spontaneity - you shouldn't try to built a story out of tropes as if they were pieces of lego. Rather, tropes happen naturally when you write a story. (Also, please don't become the sort of person who links to TV tropes all the time whenever you discuss writing. It's kinda annoying.)


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 21, 2011)

_duplicate_


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Dec 21, 2011)

Anders Ämting said:


> Rather, tropes happen naturally when you write a story.



Too true.  I found out that most of the time when I thought I was being fresh and original, those things had been dozens and dozens of times before.  Still, as you said, it's healthy to have some perspective on the nature of originality.  One of my favorite quotes by C. S. Lewis pretty much sums up my view of things.



			
				C. S. Lewis said:
			
		

> Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.



Tropes are going to exist in any work; that's just their nature.  And honestly, some small part of me hopes that my book will make it on that site someday, just so I can see how many I used (especially the ones I don't know about!).


----------



## Anders Ämting (Dec 21, 2011)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Too true.  I found out that most of the time when I thought I was being  fresh and original, those things had been dozens and dozens of times  before.  Still, as you said, it's healthy to have some perspective on  the nature of originality.
> 
> Tropes are  going to exist in any work; that's just their nature.  And honestly,  some small part of me hopes that my book will make it on that site  someday, just so I can see how many I used (especially the ones I don't  know about!).



See, _this _is healthy approach to storytelling.


----------

