# In defense of stereotypes



## qwertyman (Jun 25, 2020)

The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?

*'Half a dozen people were at the bar.  Fergal was still there, talking to an older man, wearing a yellow cravat and a short-sleeved shirt, the breast pocket was jammed with pens, a glasses case, and a notebook.  It sagged forward as though about to tip out the contents.  He had put something on his ginger- grey hair that flattened it and after that, run a comb through it to give a centre parting.  He had vowel sounds that would have kedgeree for breakfast.' * 

The person described above I knew well; it is accurate albeit stereotypical.  There are good reasons why a stereotype exists, there are many people who fit the type.

Why is it lazy writing to pass this information to the reader?
Is it good writing to withhold it?

If you prefer 'a blank canvas', why would you prefer your perception to the writer’s?
As a writer, why would you want to cede this control to the reader?

Just saying,

qwerty


----------



## Theglasshouse (Jun 25, 2020)

I see nothing wrong with it as long as it is done to artistic effect and to reverse expectations to entertain. In a fictional universe the lie is what tells the truth. When it is done wrongly it serves as a commentary. So I guess this thread is about how to do it rightly if I am not mistaken. By all means it could help with characterization if you try to revert expectations. Readers expect for example to see a plot twist when they have seen many stories of the same plot. It happens that characters are also part of the plot. Because some stories depend on it much more. It seems like a good topic. I think I can see some merits in stereotyping. In stories, you can try to bend the stereotype to create emotion on the reader. When you do that you succeed as a writer. Because you can try to surprise the unsuspecting reader. Surprising is important in storytelling. It makes the story less predictable. So its a good way to characterize when done. I often read stereotypes don't help a story. But when you change the stereotype you can do clever things with story. So yes its worth writing about, only to change how a character behaves and ask why they behave in a different way for the purposes of the plot or story.

Now for writers who like to use archetypes I do wonder if this advice would be useful as a good writing exercise to help depict a character. In fact, I think the same advice that some writers say is good to reverse expectations applies to archetypes. But that's my own opinion. Such as the caretaker, the warrior, the trickster, and so on.


----------



## bdcharles (Jun 25, 2020)

I think problems arise when the description takes over, or when it's done poorly. I wouldn't say that description is particularly stereotypical. I actually thought it pretty well-done. To me, stereotypes are where the description is very cliched both in style and content - "he was a hard-bitten man with a lantern jaw and a five-o'clock-shadow", for example. That same person could be portrayed better; eg  "The newspapers, in their trope-driven laziness, dubbed him hard-bitten, but the ladies said his jaw, smothered beneath a greying of five-o'clock shade, put them in mind more of chopping blocks than lanterns."


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 25, 2020)

Raymond Chandler, completely stereotypical characters interspersed with original and amazing metaphor. Yes, stereotypes work, but something has to be original and individual.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 25, 2020)

qwertyman said:


> The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?
> 
> *'Half a dozen people were at the bar.  Fergal was still there, talking to an older man, wearing a yellow cravat and a short-sleeved shirt, the breast pocket was jammed with pens, a glasses case, and a notebook.  It sagged forward as though about to tip out the contents.  He had put something on his ginger- grey hair that flattened it and after that, run a comb through it to give a centre parting.  He had vowel sounds that would have kedgeree for breakfast.' *
> 
> ...



Good question.  I used to make judgements about people based on what I see, but have learned to stop it!  Every person is so unique.  Now I just try to learn more about people when I meet them for the first time.  If they seem typical at first, they usually surprise me later on. And if say something or wear something unusual, then I try to understand why.   The world is far more interesting that way.   And as writers, every person we meet has something to teach us about charaterization.  

For example, I don't see a stereotype in the person you describe above.  I mean what man wears a yellow ascot?  Or parts his hair in the middle?   As the reader, I want to learn more about him.  He sounds a bit excentric.  What's in the notebook?  Does he record bets, or is he a writer?   

Personally, I think we need to avoid stereotyping people, in writing and in real life.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 25, 2020)

Biro said:


> If I meet someone for the first time I will like them or dislike them.  Sometimes my instincts may be wrong.  But not that often.
> 
> I imagine others are the same?
> 
> Does this happen with the description of your characters?   Probably yes?



I would never like someone or dislike someone based on how they look.  And when writers try to get me to like or dislike a character purely on how they look, I find it offensive.    Example: "She looked perfect all the time, was very slim and wore designer clothes. She glared and Susan and then turned around quickly walking away, swishing her long blonde ponytail."    I see this all the time.  It's the classic "mean girl" description.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 25, 2020)

Biro said:


> I never mentioned how they look.  I also base my findings on how they perceive me or what I say as well. layful:



Yes you are right Biro.  My apologies!    I was thinking you were responding to the original post:  "The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?"     But I guess the word "see" could mean "see in them as people" as well.


----------



## luckyscars (Jun 25, 2020)

qwertyman said:


> The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?
> 
> *'Half a dozen people were at the bar.  Fergal was still there, talking to an older man, wearing a yellow cravat and a short-sleeved shirt, the breast pocket was jammed with pens, a glasses case, and a notebook.  It sagged forward as though about to tip out the contents.  He had put something on his ginger- grey hair that flattened it and after that, run a comb through it to give a centre parting.  He had vowel sounds that would have kedgeree for breakfast.' *
> 
> The person described above I knew well; it is accurate albeit stereotypical.  There are good reasons why a stereotype exists, there are many people who fit the type.



I read that three times and it did not read as particularly stereotypical at all. Maybe I'm losing it? I'm honestly not sure why you felt it was a good example of a stereotypical character.

Here is the definition of stereotype to make sure we are operating from a common definition.

_*a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.
*
_Looking at the description of your character, I do not feel the description was simplified. Phrasing like 'he had vowel sounds that would have kedgeree for breakfast' is hardly something I feel I come across often, or ever. 

I do not feel it is a 'fixed' image either, at least in the sense that I don't necessarily see this character as typecast into a certain role within the story? For example, I have no idea if he is a 'good' character, a 'bad' character or something in between. There's no sense of a prefixed placement, at least not one that was particularly obvious. 

The character could, of course, end up being a stereotype in other ways or through other descriptions. But in what you posted? Not so much.



> Why is it lazy writing to pass this information to the reader?
> Is it good writing to withhold it?
> 
> If you prefer 'a blank canvas', why would you prefer your perception to the writer’s?
> ...



It isn't lazy writing to pass information to the reader. It's lazy writing to pass information in a lazy manner.


----------



## rarie (Jun 26, 2020)

I mean, in general, stereotypes or any assumptions you form about people when you meet them are usually based on intuition, which is collected unconsciously from your experience of past people you've met. (That might be overcomplicating things, but in my experience that seems to be how it works.)

From that perspective, it's perfectly logical for a person's first impressions of another to be primarily influenced by their appearance, actions, and how other people relate to them. I do think it's important, though, to note that one definitely wouldn't _only_ want to form a character's first impression on their looks.

Characters in general are stereotyped in some way shape or form until you delve deeper into who the character is. By making them more specific than their stereotype, they become real people.


----------



## qwertyman (Jun 26, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Good question.  I used to make judgements about people based on what I see, but have learned to stop it! ...Personally, I think we need to avoid stereotyping people, in writing and in real life.



You can no more stop it than look at your reflection in a mirror and see an armchair. One can always say 'I reserve my judgement,' but it would be an admission that a judgement had already been established. It's, only after the writer has revealed the stereotype, and the reader has an image formed can the writer elaborate away from common perception and regain control. Paint by numbers but change the numbers.




			
				rarie said:
			
		

> I mean, in general, stereotypes or any assumptions you form about people when you meet them are usually based on intuition, which is collected unconsciously from your experience of past people you've met...



Agreed, it can change with life experience but always exist.

Any opinions on whether all physical description should be avoided on character introduction, (like Hemingway)? Give the reader a blank canvas? An example would be welcome.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 26, 2020)

Thanks Biro and Qwertyman for your thoughtful posts, you have caused me to think.  As a novice novel writer, I had to go back and check my own writing and guess what?  There were stereotypes!  The points you raise make a lot of sense, and I have changed my position on this issue.



Biro said:


> Do writers get this correct when writing their characters? I do not read books but by watching a film, it is rare that a character doesn't burst onto the screen and you do not get the jist of what he/she is like.





Biro said:


> Our hero is never an ugly man and will not have the traits of what we usually associate with a bad person. There will always be something to like about him. There has to be.
> 
> The heroine will not be an ugly, unkept, even unclean girl/woman with filthy habits. She will not be a nose picker or worse. She will not have rotten teeth. She again must have something we can like about her.



I had to think why I and others use stereotypes.  I would say it is because it is efficient.    My story has a very complex plot and is based on a historical event, so there is already a lot of information that the reader needs to learn/know to understand the story.   Most of my characters are based on real people. And you are right, they do fit certain types.  And there doesn't seem to be a reason to make the characters more complex, unless as you say, it is for a disguise.  And yes, I want people to like the protagonist.  If you make the lead someone with a lot of quirks, it might just make them unlikable.




qwertyman said:


> You can no more stop it than look at your reflection in a mirror and see an armchair. One can always say 'I reserve my judgement,' but it would be an admission that a judgement had already been established. It's, only after the writer has revealed the stereotype, and the reader has an image formed can the writer elaborate away from common perception and regain control. Paint by numbers but change the numbers.



I really like this approach for a basic novel.  It adds just enough interest without creating too much confusion to the storyline.   Perhaps for my next novel, I'll try to advance my writing chops by making the story about people who break the mould.

Great thread...


----------



## Theglasshouse (Aug 24, 2020)

Currently, going to use this strategy. It's part of a writing exercise I read in a creative writing book.


----------



## Pallandozi (Aug 26, 2020)

qwertyman said:


> The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?



When I search on google for "biker" the first image I get is:



If I were describing him in a book as someone who rode a motorbike, had a shaven head, muscular arms, tattoos and a leather jacket, no doubt my readers would form some sort of mental image.

If I went onto say he deals drugs, that would be playing into the stereotype.    If I said he was a successful accountant who liked going out riding on Sundays with his mates, that would go contrary to the stereotype.   Either way, I need to be aware of which stereotypes will be invoked by my choices of what things to describe.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

qwertyman said:


> The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?
> 
> *'Half a dozen people were at the bar.  Fergal was still there, talking to an older man, wearing a yellow cravat and a short-sleeved shirt, the breast pocket was jammed with pens, a glasses case, and a notebook.  It sagged forward as though about to tip out the contents.  He had put something on his ginger- grey hair that flattened it and after that, run a comb through it to give a centre parting.  He had vowel sounds that would have kedgeree for breakfast.' *
> 
> ...



Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

You are not allowed to decide what is offensive to someone else. That's the problem. So, what do you do?

If you try to be realistic, they will be offended by your vulgar honesty.
If you try to be non-stereotypical, they will be offended by your inaccurate depiction of them, and call it a mocking display.

If they get offended, and you choose to erase it from the story, they will be offended by your decision.

Greatest thing about getting old. You stop caring what other people think. Maybe everyone just needs to get a little older.

My wise and aged advice: Choose your audience. If anyone else gets offended, just tell them you're sorry they feel that way, and refund their book purchase.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Pallandozi said:


> When I search on google for "biker" the first image I get is:
> View attachment 25996
> 
> If I were describing him in a book as someone who rode a motorbike, had a shaven head, muscular arms, tattoos and a leather jacket, no doubt my readers would form some sort of mental image.
> ...




The guy in that picture doesn't care. I don't think the accountant does either. Point is, the audience in that situation can cope with you assertions or assumptions whether true or false. subject=audience

Others, if you change the subject in the picture, don't care if it is true or not. They can't cope. So don't talk about them.
Inevitably, people who can't cope will get ignored for being unreasonable. <---always happens that way


----------



## Taylor (Aug 27, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> The guy in that picture doesn't care. I don't think the accountant does either. Point is, the audience in that situation can cope with you assertions or assumptions whether true or false. subject=audience
> 
> Others, if you change the subject in the picture, don't care if it is true or not. They can't cope. So don't talk about them.
> Inevitably, people who can't cope will get ignored for being unreasonable. <---always happens that way



Lee, it sounds like an interesting point you are making.  But I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean it doesn't matter how you describe the character, the audience will accept your image, whether it's an accountant or not?


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Lee, it sounds like an interesting point you are making.  But I'm not sure what you mean.  Do you mean it doesn't matter how you describe the character, the audience will accept your image, whether it's an accountant or not?



Yes, only if the audience/subject you pick is one that can cope. I'll give examples of similar pictures to search:

Search term: "Man"
Probably not a subject that would attract a group that would get offended.

[video=youtube;CS9OO0S5w2k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9OO0S5w2k[/video]
Search term: "Village People"
While not something I can even comment on, I can tell you someone will have a problem if you do not identify with the subject.
This is why women can write about men, all day long in a negative tone without complaint, but men cannot write about women even when they give a compliment. It's not the writer, it's the audience.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 27, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> Yes, only if the audience/subject you pick is one that can cope. I'll give examples of similar pictures to search:
> 
> Search term: "Man"
> Probably not a subject that would attract a group that would get offended.
> ...



Ok, that makes sense....I see what you mean.  But we write because we want people to read.  It is natural for a writer to think of a target audience when we are writing.  If we provide images and characters that our audience may not find interesting or can relate to, then do we take a risk of loosing them?  Or do we want to push them to get out of their comfort zone?  

As a reader I fully appreciate a writer that pushes me to see things a different way.  I try to "cope" with whatever they give me, so I can learn something new.  But that's just me....


But I'm not sure what you mean by "men cannot write about women even when they give a compliment".   There are plenty of men who write women very well.  I think some of the earlier threads on this subject have been on men writing women and focusing to much on physical features rather that what's going on inside.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Ok, that makes sense....I see what you mean.  But we write because we want people to read.  It is natural for a writer to think of a target audience when we are writing.  If we provide images and characters that our audience may not find interesting or can relate to, then do we take a risk of loosing them?  Or do we want to push them to get out of their comfort zone?
> 
> As a reader I fully appreciate a writer that pushes me to see things a different way.  I try to "cope" with whatever they give me, so I can learn something new.  But that's just me....
> 
> ...



Exactly, learned this yesterday. If I identify myself as white, and write about black women I've dated in the past. It gets highly offensive and gets removed, even if I give an honest account, and cover the pros and cons of each relationship. I actually prefer to date black women for many reasons that again can't even be allowed to speak about no matter what I say. I think it's racist, short-sighted, and adds nothing to resolving racial issues to cancel my comment, but I also don't care. It's their loss, not mine. Let them stay ignorant in their own experiences.

If I don't identify myself it is less likely to be an issue. If I don't identify the race, same thing. If I don't identify the gender of the subject. Same thing.
If I write about a character, I will write them as ambiguously as possible. Why? I know the truth because of my personal experiences, but the audience cannot cope with my experiences.
This is because the subject *IS* the audience when the audience is unable to cope. You have to understand that this is how important it is know your audience. I don't agree with it, but I'm trying to explain the world today. Personally, I think it's all bullshit.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 27, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> Exactly, learned this yesterday. If I identify myself as white, and write about black women I've dated in the past. It gets highly offensive and gets removed, even if I give an honest account, and cover the pros and cons of each relationship. I actually prefer to date black women for many reasons that again can't even be allowed to speak about no matter what I say. I think it's racist, short-sighted, and adds nothing to resolving racial issues to cancel my comment, but I also don't care. It's their loss, not mine. Let them stay ignorant in their own experiences.
> 
> If I don't identify myself it is less likely to be an issue. If I don't identify the race, same thing. If I don't identify the gender of the subject. Same thing.
> If I write about a character, I will write them as ambiguously as possible. Why? I know the truth because of my personal experiences, but the audience cannot cope with my experiences.
> This is because the subject *IS* the audience when the audience is unable to cope. You have to understand that this is how important it is know your audience. I don't agree with it, but I'm trying to explain the world today. Personally, I think it's all bullshit.



Oh I do remember reading your post, and something about it did make me feel uncomfortable, but I don't remember what part of it.  I didn't report it, but either someone did or the moderators took it down.   It might be a useful exercise to find out which rule you broke. It might just be that you need a subtle tweak to make it acceptable by all.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Oh I do remember reading your post, and something about it did make me feel uncomfortable, but I don't remember what part of it.  I didn't report it, but either someone did or the moderators took it down.   It might be a useful exercise to find out which rule you broke. It might just be that you need a subtle tweak to make it acceptable by all.



I know now. There's something wrong with people today, though. They seem to paint with such a wide brush that anti-racism becomes reverse racism, and anti-sexism becomes reverse sexism. I wonder how many men will never see their children again, because of the image men are given. It's sick.

They won't tell me.


----------



## Taylor (Aug 27, 2020)

Lee Messer said:


> I know now. There's something wrong with people today, though. They seem to paint with such a wide brush that anti-racism becomes reverse racism, and anti-sexism becomes reverse sexism. I wonder how many men will never see their children again, because of the image men are given. It's sick.



Lee you are really loosing me here.  When you say "with people today", is that not using a wide brush?  I feel that something is troubling you and you are trying to put it all in one container.  Life is complicated, but we are all just trying to do the right thing.  That right thing doesn't look the same to everybody, but society in general is moving in a direction that is kinder and gentler to all, I believe.  but it takes time...


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Lee you are really loosing me here.  When you say "with people today", is that not using a wide brush?  I feel that something is troubling you and you are trying to put it all in one container.  Life is complicated, but we are all just trying to do the right thing.  That right thing doesn't look the same to everybody, but society in general is moving in a direction that is kinder and gentler to all, I believe.  but it takes time...



The world today is very quickly becoming way too sensitive I can say.
I've watched many a well spoken argument get cancelled with no resolution, and nationality is irrelevant.
This is a disturbing trend worldwide. It means the issue is not resolved for anyone. Think about that.
Even the discussion is denied. In my time, we either talked out our differences, or we fought... and then we talked.
This is the first time I've had a comment removed from any site for being offensive.


What will happen to humor? It won't be funny. It will be kind and gentle.
I am particularly concerned with Horror. It won't be scary. It will be kind and gentle.
How am I supposed to scare people when they get offended at a slight? What am I supposed to write about? Teddy bears?


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Ok, that makes sense....I see what you mean.  But we write because we want people to read.  It is natural for a writer to think of a target audience when we are writing.  If we provide images and characters that our audience may not find interesting or can relate to, then do we take a risk of loosing them?  Or do we want to push them to get out of their comfort zone?
> 
> As a reader I fully appreciate a writer that pushes me to see things a different way.  I try to "cope" with whatever they give me, so I can learn something new.  But that's just me....
> 
> ...



I say push them out of their comfort zone... otherwise anything you do will not be original. Redundant work is a one shot pony, not a career.


Very good question by the way... lol. You gave me an out of my rant.


----------



## Lee Messer (Aug 27, 2020)

Taylor said:


> Lee you are really loosing me here.  When you say "with people today", is that not using a wide brush?  I feel that something is troubling you and you are trying to put it all in one container.  Life is complicated, but we are all just trying to do the right thing.  That right thing doesn't look the same to everybody, but society in general is moving in a direction that is kinder and gentler to all, I believe.  but it takes time...



I'll explain the statement about men and their children. I spent a good 15 years after winning a custody battle to raise my two sons. My ex-partner took full advantage of the sexist nature of the court system to take me to court at least once a year for fifteen years. We lost everything because she vowed that I would have nothing when we divorced (which by the way was her fault not mine).

Think of the amount of legal fees I had to pay for fifteen years. She had us homeless by the time my sons finally graduated from high school. The court charged her $25 per child per month in child support after $5,000 of litigation. The court system hates men, and hates their children even more.


----------



## Pulse (Aug 30, 2020)

Being a 'type 1' diabetic, who was misdiagnosed as 'type 2' for four years, I am sceptical about the 'typical'.

That said, it is interestng that 'archetypes' are often admired, whilst 'stereotypes' cause readers to recoil.  The difference is not always obvious to me, but i am not looking for a prescription.  

I love the kedgeree hairstyle.  You are right; ginger hair can create expectation of angry temperament.


----------



## Squalid Glass (Aug 30, 2020)

Pulse said:


> That said, it is interestng that 'archetypes' are often admired, whilst 'stereotypes' cause readers to recoil.  The difference is not always obvious to me, but i am not looking for a prescription.



The debate around archetypes is similar to debates in the sociopolitical sphere. A lot of people hold archetypes up as traditions to be valued. A lot of people, on the other hand, seek to defy archetypes and upend their narratives. These people often see archetypes as played out systems that need to be refined, revised, or demolished.

The battle is interesting to watch in art the same way it is interesting to watch in the real world.


----------



## Newman (Aug 31, 2020)

qwertyman said:


> The first time you meet somebody; do you have no opinions based on what you see?
> 
> *'Half a dozen people were at the bar.  Fergal was still there, talking to an older man, wearing a yellow cravat and a short-sleeved shirt, the breast pocket was jammed with pens, a glasses case, and a notebook.  It sagged forward as though about to tip out the contents.  He had put something on his ginger- grey hair that flattened it and after that, run a comb through it to give a centre parting.  He had vowel sounds that would have kedgeree for breakfast.' *
> 
> ...



TENET (2020) has just come out and it's loaded with stereotypes. Perfectly acceptable, all in the execution.


----------



## clark (Sep 1, 2020)

I sometimes speak of myself as 'a bear of little brain', from Winnie the Pooh, such self-deprecation designed, of course, to remind everyone that I'm a terribly bright and alert fellow, so confident in my advanced wisdom that I can afford to say I have none. THIS thread, however, is making me very nervous--perhaps I *am *a 'bear of little brain' after all--because I just read 31 posts well -written on the boards by some very bright people whom I respect, but the thread seems to be going in ever-diminishing circles aimed at a nether orifice into which it may soon disappear.

The primary issue here--indulge me as I try to summarize for myself--was a basic question: what's wrong with stereotypes. . .if they work?​ There were some probes into archetypes vs stereotypes, some very interesting comments about the critical role of context as a component of both character-building and plot development, and an equally interesting exchange between Lee and Taylor about what I'd call the huge difficulty for the current fiction writer to find a VOICE within his/her work that honestly reflects their needs as writer. Period. Full stop. Whoa! And if that honest reflection of the writer's need as a writer offends or outrages the potential audience . . . fuck 'em. That essential arrogance may limit your readership and narrow your prospects down Publishers' Row, but it will also enable you to write. In my opinion, it is truly that simple. The more that writers pander to anticipated negativity from audience, the more strangled and constipated the work that stumbles from their creative core. Such writing is fraudulent. You might as well book a stall in the Romance Writers of America barn, receive your formulaic instructions, and start cranking out the stereotypical pablum required by that kind of audience. Lee and Taylor and luckyscars nailed the issue when they said that a critical part of a _caring_ writer's job was to take the reader to places never before imagined in a style uniquely the stamp of that writer. _S T R E T C H _the reader, PUSH the language to where _you_ and your fictional world need to go.

Returning to stereotypes/archetypes. The latter have been with us for thousands of years. Take the Hero, probably the most dominant of all archetypes. From Prometheus stealing fire in defiance of the establishment to Dolores fighting for minority rights  in the series _Westworld, _this larger-than-life compendium of cultural values and hopes continues to enthrall us and find its way into so much of our work. Each one of them, interestingly, takes on the mantle of their times and our appetite for their symbolic stature seems insatiable. The western _Shane_ should never have worked, because it seemed nothing more than a tissue of stereotypical plot details: the nasty, land-grabbing cattle baron; the hard-working homesteader and his pretty wife; the amoral hired gunfighter (dressed in black from head to foot); the annoying  little brat of a kid; the grubby little town and its general store--give me a fucking break! I'd rather count stripes in the wallpaper! But then, in a stroke of sheer directorial genius (George Stevens), the archetypal hero (Alan Ladd) is short, dressed NOT in white but in grubby buckskins. He is kind, moody, respectful . . .and continues to surprise throughout the movie, though there is never any doubt that his _affect _hearkens back to Prometheus stealing the fire thousands of years ago.

For me, stereotypes are very different. They are usually little things, defined by overuse, pounded into us by repetition, hence usually stale and boring. Visual cliches. I agree with luckyscars that the OP does NOT qualify at all. It's quite unique . . .except for one detail, an excellent example of using a stereotype as a flick, an LED flash, that says volumes: the breast pocket stuffed with pencils and pens. Spells nerd. Loser. Weirdo. FLASH, and it's gone, its work done. Damn good writing, in my book.

The sub-text of this thread is the uncertainty and anger and nervousness that PC has engendered in all of us, one way or another. The nominal subject here has been stereotypes. Surely we don't have to argue that presenting in a story a ditsy blonde who giggles constantly, never stops talking about nothing, hasn't a brain in her head, heaves her ample chest around at every opportunity, and thinks Eisenhower is a tall structure in France--​_unless you were writing​ comedy_--would be an insult to women and betray a lamentable laziness in the writer. Leaning on full stereotypes is not a good thing. But PC has got so out of control, as various contributors to this thread have noted, that saying anything assertive about anything gets misconstrued and turned in on itself by hysterically sensitive audiences eager to accuse . I truly believe--and I'm an old guy so you have to listen; your mama taught you that--fuck the audience. You have an obligation, a duty to yourself, to write what you want in the way you want. Don't laze into blanket stereotypes , , ,that's just dumb and it's bad writing. Use a flick here and there--very effective. TRUST the archetypes. They have survived for a reason. And push your audiences around. MAKE them grow, whether they want to or not. When I read Hugh Selby's _Last Exit to Brooklyn,_ I thought I was going to heave on two occasions, and I took a 15-minute shower as soon as I finished it. Bukowski's poem about his wallet swirling around in his own shit was disgusting beyond description . . .but those two works pushed audiences into new worlds of possibility. Some wag told Milton that _Paradise Lost _was so dense with arcane references that a reader had to be a biblical scholar to read it. Milton responded, "I write for Fit audience, though few." In my opinion, THAT is the issue here: self-censorship is the death of our work, We do not use the n-word (you would have winced had I written it out) not because we are censoring ourselves but because that word, right now, anywhere but in the usage of a black rapper, sends a signal far in excess of its historical usage and its use would obliterate the entire story in which it appeared

Thus great with child to speak
and helpless in my throes
Biting my truant pen
Beating myself for spite
"Fool" said my Muse to me:
"Look in thy heart and Write!"
oooooooSir Philip Sidney
ooooooo1st sonnet of _Astrophil & Stella. 1582_


----------

