Writerly Ways

[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).

118401 / 150000
(78.93%)

Comments

[bay115.livejournal.com]

O.o; Yeah I find it weird people would say a duo/trio/group is considered a cliche. Really scratching my head over that.

As for groupings I prefer, I tend to go for duos and trios as there are always endless dynamics instead of the lone wolf.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

yeah and I was surprised that it wasn't just one crank. Several people had objections to it and I'm still puzzled.

I agree with you on the groupings

[masqthephlsphr.livejournal.com]

It's a "common literary trope" if you enjoy the particular example, it's a "cliche" if you don't.

Tomato, Tomahto. Sticks and stones may break my bones...

[a2zmom.livejournal.com]

That has to be one of the dumber comments I've ever heard. A duo in and of itself isn't cliche. It's what you do with it.

[wildrider.livejournal.com]

Good grief, I never even realized that was "a cliche." Storytelling often requires more than one character, and having your hero have friends makes him, well, more heroic. Even in some of the ones where our "hero" is alone, s/he has SOMEONE to talk to, like Lyra and her daemon--and I know there's others like that but I can't for the life of me think of them right now. I'm stuck on all the varieties of main characters with backup, who in turn may not have their name in the title but are just as "heroic" as the hero him or herself; Anne of Green Gables has her Diana; Harriet the Spy her Janie and Sport; Nancy Drew her Beth and George -- I can think of passing few books I read where the hero didn't have a "best chum" (or two) helping solve the problem or move the plot forward. If there wasn't a best friend, there was always family, like the Penvensie children or the Ingalls family.

(The main ones that come to mind were first-person stories where the teller was speaking to the reader rather than a best friend.)

[evil-little-dog.livejournal.com]

I love pairings and trios, personally, but yeah, big groups are harder (I think the only one I've read that does it convincingly is David Eddings, even though his stories are pretty much all the same thing - "Road Trip!").

And, uh, the Mod Squad were a trio? That was waaaaay before Rowling, and pretty popular. Doctor Who did it - the Doctor, Sarah and Harry come to mind, or the Doctor, Nyssa and Tegan.

Pairings are fun, too, though I'm trying to think of anything I've read where there was a pairing I really enjoyed that didn't have more regular interactions with others...and not relate it to partners on TV cop shows.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

and Eddings stole the group Road Trip from Tolkein.

That said you make my point for me. I'm not sure how the number of protagonists could possibly BE a cliché. I swear some of these reviewers try to sound more worldly than they are because they toss out terms and I'm like I don't think that means what you think it means

[evil-little-dog.livejournal.com]

Who took it from the Canterbury Tales....

Quote the Princess Bride to them. :D

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

Like I said to ELD, I think there are reviewers on Amazon/Goodreads that just toss crap out there to sound like they know what they're talking about. I see cliché, grammar and several other things used incorrectly.

And again, you make my point for me. Outside of a lone wolf first person, the protagonist needs SOMEONE to go thru the story with.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

seriously and more than one person said it which is what got me thinking about today's column. It's like um people? Really?

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

this is also a very valid point

[wildrider.livejournal.com]

I don't read a lot of reviews of books on Amazon unless it's something I've read and I want to see if others agree with me -- so often they DON'T, which just proves my own point, that literature and arts are so subjective depending on who is viewing the art that reviews just aren't all that helpful. (Mostly I read reviews of things I want to buy to compare them....)

I can't imagine actually choosing to read a book based on an Amazon review, though. A professional review, maybe, but I'm not going to decide if a book is any good when a reviewer who hates it can't spell...

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

exactly

If I didn't think it would kick off a troll war I would

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

same here especially when there are those who decide they don't like you or your genre etc and purposely run it down. I've seen books with 1 star and it's not even published yet.

Mostly blurbs decide what I buy BUT I will admit, if it has a collection of 2 stars and lower I am more likely to get it from a library than buy

[evil-little-dog.livejournal.com]

Dawwww, that sucks.

[tinhutlady.livejournal.com]

Holmes would have been far less interesting without Watson to ask questions, reveal actions, and draw the reader into his friend's world. Same with Archie and Nero Wolfe. The Narnia books, Charlotte's Web, etc. introduce children to different points of view, virtues, vices, heroes, villians, friends and family. Multiple character dynamics create interest, spark debates, reveal information, promote angst, etc. A lone wolf can become boring pretty quickly unless there is some interaction somewhere.

[cornerofmadness.livejournal.com]

I'm with you 100%. Excellent examples