cornerofmadness

Are clichés always really cliché? Some are without a doubt but again let me use Brandon Sanderson's The Rithmist. The protagonist is a sixteen year old boy with his friend, a young lady of approximately the same age. Several reviewers dinged it heavily because of the clichéd friendship. 'oh look it's the hero and his friend.'

And I was left thinking, that's not really a cliché. I mean, how many ways can you possible do this? What exactly do you people want?!?

So we have a) the lone wolf. S/he has no friends and only interacts with people as they cross paths. To me this is one of the least interesting because it lacks the group dynamics I enjoy.

b) the duo. The one the reviewers were complaining about. Yes, of course we can point to countless duos, Sherlock and Watson, The Hardy boys, Samwise and Frodo, The young wizards, The Doctor and his companion etc. There is something fascinating about having two close friends (or siblings) interacting as they go through the story. I reject the idea that it's a cliché simply because we're not spoiled for choice here and because it frankly works. There can be an inherent tension between the two protagonists.

c) the trio. Again we can find a lot of examples, Kirk/Spock/McCoy, Harry/Hermonine/Ron. One of my stories was instantly set upon in one writers group because I dared to 'copy Rowling' in having a trio of protagonist. Guess what, she didn't invent it but she surely made it popular. This has even more potential for group dynamics and tensions.

d) the large group which is rarely mostly because it's hard to maintain. Often it is broken up into smaller ones like Samwise and Frodo vs the entire Fellowship.

So can you actually call this clichéd? Does it even matter? What sort of grouping do you prefer (I'm good with anything but the Lone Wolf to be honest).