Writing Styles/Cliches You Don't Like?

ErithEl 2016-02-21 02:39:18 UTC #53

If lack of communication serves a purpose for the story, that's different. If it's there for the sole purpose of causing unnecessary drama, that's when it annoys me!

thesisterscomic 2016-02-21 05:47:22 UTC #54

Concerning Tom Bombadil (who frankly I always loved), the main issue is that it is unclear what he is supposed to be, beyond who he is. If Tom Bombadil is the Green Man, a stand-in for old goodness in Pagan Faith; nature by the view of man (or hobbit kind); giving him the ring wouldn't work because he would not comprehend the situation. Not because he is foolish, but because he is so alien to the concept of it; and of course if he was "corrupted" by it things would get infinitely worse. Tom Bombadil is something that cannot be matched, namely because he's larger than life by way of viewing from people who are far quainter than anyone's life is. And while he is not corrupted by the ring, he is in and of itself his own entity who could be corrupted by the promise of things to come. Which fits the theme of the story.

Gondor wants the ring, as a weapon; but it corrupts Boromir who uses his last bit of humanity and free will to see those predetermined by fate to survive. Galadriel considers it, but she'd be corrupted by it and realizes this. Gandalf is offered it but he knows he could be corrupted by it and is terrified of that fate. Tom Bombadil does not want the ring, but he could do the deed; but he could also listen to Sauron and say in a flight of fantasy "All right, evil sounds like the order of the day for me too."

A lot of people talk about it, especially if you get into Tolkien scholarship properly. Tom is a very polarizing figure. I'd still say the Eagles aren't a -huge- problem, just because the real toll of the war on Frodo and Sam doesn't happen until the Scouring proper. Gollum is, to me, less deus ex machina, and more a traditional protagonist without being given the title. He drives the movement forward, and it is clear he is (like the rest of the Fellowship sans Boromir) fated for something. There's a lot of Catholic themes brought up with Gollum, namely commensality, and it is made clear rather early by way of Frodo that they're supposed to be mirrors. Gollum will be redeemed through his corruptions and die, whereas Frodo will become corrupted through constant sacrifices, and yet live. Which is why Frodo is really a very tragic character once the end of the stories happen. He's so burnt out.

But it has been awhile since I wrote those papers. Mostly been grumbling about dwarves for the past few years. I don't disagree with you on how they can be seen; but intent is important and with a broader reading it does make sense within Tolkien's works. There's an internal cohesion to it.

iddqd 2016-02-21 06:05:28 UTC #55

Not to hijack the topic, but... that's funny, I remember reading somewhere that Bombadil would not be corrupted by the Ring because he did not care for it under any circumstances, but he would ultimately fail because the rest of Middle-Earth would become Sauron's domain, until only Bombadil's little kingdom is left under siege it can't withstand.

Greg_Dickson 2016-05-22 19:58:01 UTC #56

I know I'm bringing up an old topic here, but I remembered seeing this one when I lurked on the forums before starting my comic. One cliche I really can't stand is that I see too many comics open up with the main character being late for school and going through their morning routine (brushing their teeth, getting dressed, eating breakfast while usually leaving the house while simultaneously putting their shirt on with a piece of toast in their mouth), while monologuing how old they are, what school they go to and what friends they have, what their favourite colour is, etc. Also, hearing the character describe themselves as average in every way and how they long to be swept up in a life of adventure apart from their boring life's routine (in which some other being usually comes along and whisks them to another world or makes them the chosen one).

There are just much more interesting ways to begin a story or to introduce your main character. I'd rather see a character come into their own personality naturally instead of listing off their traits in checklist form and heading out to what seems like a regular day to have their world turned upside down. I can't tell you how many comics I've seen start off this way since I really started looking for more series to read a couple weeks ago.

quakeulf 2016-05-23 02:01:29 UTC #57

Clutter

Way too much going on at the same time. Busy pages with way too many panels, colours all over the place with no clear focus, speechbubbles with way too much text in them (characters don't have to be verbose, the overall flow of the comic is more important), also overlapping panels that are hard to follow.

Mediocrity

Ordinary stories about ordinary people doing ordinary things, saying ordinary things with ordinary outcomes. I have a life, so I don't read comics to remind me of it. I read comics to get away from it.

I know there are both more general but they are the main things I don't like when reading comics.

carloswebcomic 2016-05-23 03:22:51 UTC #58

Nothing gets on my tits like the introduction of the "mysterious" character. You know, the one that every kid that wants to draw manga does where you just see close ups and the face is always obscured by his hair or a hood. Then we have a close up of his mouth (on the side) and says something like "It's time...." or some other mysterious shit. Then, after going through that, we have the big 'reveal' of the main character where we see his/her face. Why is there a reveal of a character we've never seen before? Who knows?
Perhaps at that point we're supposed to exclaim "Oh my god! It's a guy I've never seen before! I was sure it was Mahatma Ghandi or queen Victoria, but I was totally wrong!".

TheVoidchildProject 2016-05-23 06:14:58 UTC #59

I dont know how much of a cliche it is by itself, but here's some of my biggest peeve:

Saturation:

Several of the examples mentioned above fit this. Kill characters too often, revive them too often, repeat patterns of any kind and I'll become desensitised. Modern superhero comics are obviously the worst offender her. Whenever someone dies in dc/marvel it has zero emotional impact on me. I feel more like "ugh, wonder how long befor they come back".

Everyone falls in love:

When groups of characters, typically with an equal male female ratio, all have to ducking fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. Is this the only way to portray relationships. Honestly, I'm so happy whenever I come across a story that doesn't revolve around a romantic situation at all because of this. There has to be more options to characters relationships than this.

Grimdark:

Talking about oversaturation again. I have a big problem with (especially main) characters who are meant to be "dark and kewl" and overdo this. I think it's absolutely possible to make a character with these traits but they can't be the only traits they have. But I want them to have more to them than just being quiet, grim, dark and violent. On an aside, when a character rarely speaks or gives you insight into their persona it feels to me like a writer is playing it safe or isn't really sure who their character is.

All the above said, I'll throw in my vote with "any cliche or trope" can be done well. Cliches doesn't mean a story is bad. I'll certainly have some in my comic. It's almost impossible to expand on every little thing so some aspects will appear more cliche than others. But give me an interesting spin on a trope and I'll be there to comb through your story.

TheVoidchildProject 2016-05-23 06:16:32 UTC #60

Oh and for the "damsel in distress"-trope I want to add in the "i can take care of myself"-sub trope. Generally a seemingly strong female character who utters these words only to five seconds later be kidnapped, killed or somesuch... No thank you!

Aspie_Gamer 2016-05-23 06:33:06 UTC #61

haha I like how you started your comment.

@Greg_Dickson That's alright.

On the subject of this thread, yeah I agree. Establish your character's personality traits and quirks organically.

ShrewdManeuver 2016-05-23 06:33:53 UTC #62

I don't like "chosen ones", I don't like some destined prophesied person, Being special and better than the rest, nope, let the average Joe get lucky or grow under his own power and time to be the hero.

ShrewdManeuver 2016-05-23 06:36:08 UTC #63

Lol, My prologue has a room filled with these guys

Aloredd 2016-05-23 06:50:30 UTC #64

honestly, i almost always have a character like that, but mostly because that's how i am. I have an odd mix of a boisterous personality while being almost extremely shy (I'll meet your eye and speak when spoken to and don't 'cower' from people, but wont initiate conversation very often). My silent characters are almost reflections of myself, but i characterize and personify them through their actions and the few words they say here and there (i'm trying to break the habit of having the silent character though)....

joannekwan 2016-05-23 06:55:39 UTC #65

I think it's also a matter of overall characterization and execution. You can have a character that doesn't talk much at all but still have lots of personality in how they do things. I have a friend who barely speaks unless spoken to and her movements are pretty slow and deliberate, but when she silently laughs or smiles at things, her whole face lights up.

TheVoidchildProject 2016-05-23 08:30:23 UTC #66

I'd say if you have a silent character whom still had a personality outside of "being silent", then you're not part of my peeve. I'm talking about those types of characters that I think become one dimensional because of their silence. They don't necessarily have to talk a lot and inner monologues work as well. Just don't have them be silent just to be mysterious or "kewl" or such. That's what makes such a character one-note to me.

quakeulf 2016-05-23 08:34:19 UTC #67

Imagine Gandhi revealing himself in a contemporary setting, only this time he brings nukes to get his points across.

ShrewdManeuver 2016-05-23 09:48:32 UTC #68

I would like to mention for fantasy and scifi set your world's rules, don't just let things run wild, One of the reason I hate macros plus and bleach a character finds a new way to evolve and gain strength through no reason, they gain new abilities in an instant, either through the power of love, friend of determination, devoid of training, later I learned Kubo Tite sometimes just draws with no script.

BlackMantaStudios 2016-05-23 10:20:49 UTC #69

Well, as TV Tropes has said like a billion times before, tropes are not bad. I think a sufficiently skilled writer can produce something new from old, trite ingredients. What drives me away from a work, however, is mostly sloppy execution, especially when the subject matter being written about is very sensitive. I hate it when writers use things like rape and the like for the sheer shock value of it--for the mere purpose of coming off as "edgy." This is one of the reasons I dropped Akame ga Kill, with all its grimdark bullshit tacked on to make it seem "deep." Deep, my foot.

Zanreo 2016-05-23 12:32:16 UTC #70

Similar to this, having the male and female main, or any male-female close friends, invariably get together by the end, even when there's barely any hinting to this earlier. A lot of these just seems so forced and it would have seemed more natural for them to just stay friends

Or the trope where you see the female character fighting off an enemy, clearly on their level (if not above it) and able to fight back herself... but the moment the male character enters the scene, she instantly curls up shivering into a corner to let him handle it by himself. Why not have her keep fighting alongside him? Would that hurt his Manly Pride? xD

TheVoidchildProject 2016-05-23 13:08:00 UTC #71

Mayhap are you thinking about this one as well:

Zanreo 2016-05-23 13:32:09 UTC #72

Had to open the link in another tab to make it show, but yeah, that's also pretty ridiculous.
(...and right after I had posted this it properly shows. well then)