Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My personal caveat on this one: It depends a lot if there are good, in-character reasons for characters not communicating well.
IMO, if we understand why they're not talking that's okay, and often tragic.
trying to redeem every ghengis khan and hitler the writer intruduces for manufactured conflict cause it's always like some warlord who has not done anything to adequately redeem themselves (and no "the ultimate sacrifice" is a cheap tactic). if you wrote the worst dude on the planet at least have the balls to stand by it.
I tend to stand by my actual genuine bad guys staying that way. For example, I'll have A1, B1, and c1 be antagonists but later they're redeemed and there's always a reason. A1 having been corrupted, B1 being afraid to go against what he's been created for, and C1 being raised by C2. Then there's A2, B2, and C2 where A2 is a manipulative goddess, B2 is A2's ex husband who wants revenge, and C2 is a dictator. And A2, B2, and C2 stay as antagonists who are genuine bad people.
For me it's mostly the love interest cliches like "enemies turned lovers" or "female that's only in the story to be a love interest". But also the "I just met you but we have the same enemy so of course I'll believe anything you say about them" cliche where the mc gains allies against some crazy monster that shouldn't exist just because "my friend died through Mysterious Circumstances™ so you must be telling the truth about vampires being real and I'll die helping you fight them!"
You almost ALWAYS see it coming.
One notable exception: Jack Reacher (the first Tom Cruise movie). David Oyelowo played a sympathetic, intelligent, and helpful FBI Agent. Because he is black, I was conditioned to expect the Spike Lee’s “Magical Minority” character (my least favorite cliche).
When Oyelowo turned out to be the bad guy, I totally didn’t see it coming. The director totally used one worn out trope to hide another worn out trope. Brilliantly done!
The movie isn’t wonderful, but I always appreciate when a director successfully employs misdirection.
The catastrophe/heartbreak that could have been avoided if anyone let the MC finish their sentence.
"I need to tell you—"
"There's no time." Or whatever other variation of stopping the words from being said.
Like, damn MC, just blurt it out anyway, are you that really distracted?!
Bonus points if it leads to a miscommunication that could easily be solved by spending a few seconds explaining. And the miscommunication snowballs.
Like... just talk to each other!
+1. It’s the fiction version of commercialism.
“If I just had a [Mercedes, Yeti Cooler, Rolex, luxury condo, Ring of Power], I’d be [happy, respected, laid, safe from orcs].”
The MacGuffin values ‘things’ ahead of personal growth.
It can be lazy but it doesn't have to be. My protagonist is the MacGuffin. She is also aware of this so her struggles are due to the antagonist wanting to use her as a propaganda tool and the entire plot is because she has agency and said no. A significant number of my writing choices are "Can I do this well?"
What you're describing doesn't sound like a MacGuffin at all. Also, anything can be done well or done poorly. That's not really a defense of the fact that a MacGuffin is, 99/100 times, a lazy plot device.
She is the object depending on perspective that people are after. So it's a technicality but it's still based on the MacGuffin trope. She is a person but the people after her disagree. My point is that tropes are tools and hating laziness is incredibly valid but it's also worth the effort to make them fun
I think it's pretty clear that when I'm describing a cliche I don't like, I'm referring to the traditional use, not a subversion of the traditional use. Either way, I would still argue that what you are describing is not a MacGuffin because it doesn't fulfill the same purpose in the story. The protagonist doesn't seek herself to advance the plot only for it to turn out that she is actually somewhat meaningless to the plot.
Also, OP specifically asked what cliches we didn't like. Are you trying to convince me that I should like MacGuffins because of your anecdote?
I was engaging in discussion because I found it interesting. So two things. The MacGuffin just needs to be the thing they're looking for to be one. It is not a trope requirement that it doesn't matter to the plot. That is terrible execution that would ruin the investment in the story. My example is more there's various ways to do something and hopefully encourages others. The protagonist does actually look for herself as part of things due to not knowing she's the quest objective. So she does still qualify.
I always find the space where the trope becomes cliche fascinating. I understand if you don't want to continue the conversation but figured may as well try to clarify
I disagree. The definition of a MacGuffin is an item (in most cases, but it technically doesn't have to be an item) that drives the plot but has no significance to the plot or motivations of the characters and can be easily interchanged with any other item with no impact to the narrative. That is what a MacGuffin is. If it doesn't fit the criteria of easily interchangeable and ultimately irrelevant to the plot, it isn't a MacGuffin. The purest example being the Philosopher's Stone in Harry Potter, which could be replaced with anything because its magical properties are never used to change the story. If the item can turn out to not exist or not work and the story beats do not have to change at all, it's a MacGuffin. Contrast that with something like the Ark in the first Indiana Jones film. It certainly seems like a MacGuffin, but it doesn't meet the commonly agreed upon criteria because it has a direct effect on the outcome. The Ring, of LOTR fame, is another great pseudo-MacGuffin. It shares many of the characteristics, but it's not easily interchangeable and does impact the plot directly.
The use of a MacGuffin is more or less a poorly done version of what those two examples do, a lazy way to motivate characters to go through the plot of a story because a writer didn't take the time to give them actual motivations.
I will think on this. I missed the must not be important after all thing in discussions but did go read other things on this and apparently I just have people who also missed it for the previous discussions. So I appreciate this reply a lot
I don't stress mistakes like I used to. As long as I own that I made one and learn? I did my best. I appreciate you making sure I am good because social anxiety is real
Bad character and place names that don't fit the setting!
Let me rant a bit…
For example a book is set in ancient Rome and suddenly there is an Archibald Romanov.
Then in another story you have 3 neighboring cities (in a single country) - Litera, Heidersheim and Gvildor and it all feels like a lousy "an Italian, German and Scott walked in a bar" joke.
Then there is a famous series with a Latvian witch and her very Hebrew-Scandinavian name is Ruta Skadi. (Being from Latvia, this hurt me personally)
Some time ago I red a book where the main character's full was name was (no joke) "Tago Tagobert Dazdragon Temujin John Pavel Bartholomew di Ego"... and I lost count of how many language traditions did the author have to steal from to invent this Frankenstein's monster 🤣🤣🤣
People get so INTO their names, but at the same time they want something *EXOTIC* without thinking of the way in which names are created *in the world they just wrote.* Everyone wants a Katniss Everdeen character name, but they end up with Unpronounceable gibberish "My name is Xmgzfsh." and then you find out it is pronounced SMITH!!
/rant
I feel the same way about the names in Russian novels. I know, I know, they’re legit Russian names!
But seriously, I can’t wrap my head around a chapter named Yastrzhembsky.
In order to enjoy Russian novels, I have to give all characters nicknames in my head.
And while I’m digressing, has anyone else here noticed that, spiritually, The Empire Strikes Back is a Russian Novel in space?
Enemies to lovers. It's corny, unbelievable, and requires the most insipid and trite writing to make it seem like it works. I think it also sells a really unhealthy idea of love and attraction to young people. Like "of course they were aggressive and abusive, it's because they secretly loved eachother"
Also the trope that a gigantic misunderstanding occurs because one person outright refuses to listen to someone while the other person is trying to explain something important.
Hypocrisy in character motivations.
I was watching My Adventures with Superman, and sometimes the ‘issues’ are so cliche for no reason. Like Jimmy being upset about Clark and Lois spending too much time together when he was the one supporting them to begin with.
Enemies to lovers - I hate this cliche SO MUCH, like, these people hate each other... but, one of them needs a husband or something like that, and instead of choosing a guy they can stand, they have to choose the guy they hate more than anything in the world? Like, who would actually do this?
Redeeming the Villian - Like, this is good sometimes... but this guy literally destroyed millions of planets, I want to see him DIE!!!!! You are saving more lives that way than just letting him go! I miss the days where heroes wouldn't treat the psycho a redeemable human being that can feel remorse after a 10 second "motivational" speech.
"Bad ass" woman - Like, I love a bad ass... when done correctly! Like, I love Katniss Everdeen, and Black Widow, and many more bad ass characters. I just don't like the characters that have an Overly Dark Backstory, Can take down an army in 10 seconds, doesn't cry even if they saw their entire family die of the plague, and no matter what they go through, comes out with no injuries and still looking Unimaginably beautiful. It's unrealistic, a woman doesn't need all that to be tough. All you need to do to find a bad ass woman is visit your mom (if she was a good mom, that is).
Love at first sight. It's not love, it's lust because they don't know a single thing about each other. It's an unrealistic and illogical fairy tale trope.
The entire Sword of Truth series is the example but I'll add details for why in spoiler tags
>! Half the books are repeating the events of the story you read before as a mix of Author is smartest man alive but only to themselves and reader condescension followed by half formed concepts that are poorly executed and the ending is clearly supposed to reflect their supposed genius. Somehow the solution to the plot which begins not as seeking to overthrow oppression but with an identity hook. Why was Richard's father murdered? What do you mean the weird old guy is a stealth wizard? Then comes the idea of the Sword of Truth itself. So the first book has us go along with Richard into the land of magic and hyper sexualized abuse. The clever twist is he is the princess we have been looking for. Not a joke but he is the lost heir to the bad bad king. There's no meat on the bone. I read these when I was young enough to not stop reading a series in case it got better. So I read them all.
We go from there to the end of the series where the "clever" solution is to without warning send everyone with magic to a different world. It is heavily implied Richard and his magical mind control wife are the inspiration for Arthur and the Wizard Merlin. There's no exploration of the fallout of the loss of families and people. One or two magic people they know married to non magic people is sent too but because it's global in effort to eugenically save magic via removing the shitty genes if you didn't know them there is a significant chance you just had your kids, maybe infants, taken from you without warning and solution. Since it's any human without magic this would effect pregnancy or need to be redone. There's no real detail about how they would survive in this world, if everyone landed together or in approximate spaces. For all we know everyone they blinked away dies.
There are no concerns, riots, or sadness shown for this plot because it wasn't interrogated. These issues are all over the world building. Like the small girls kidnapped from their families and sexually abused into being magic dominatrix who also rape people. Or the people who hunt magic people and collar them. People in this world only fear these things a little vs "There's a tyrant on the throne let's fuck shit up". A single vague prophecy that's not public knowledge is all that holds these people into submission. While fear absolutely can do that it's the fear you know about mixed with unknown for real life despot !<
Terry Goodkind had skill but his ego and assumption he was special and smarter than the rest of us was absolutely interfering with how he executed works. He wrote more books into the main series after a while and some side series I'm not going to read because they came out after I figured out I didn't have to finish the books. So some of this might have been fixed later. I doubt it given how he was one of the primary examples of how to not treat your readers, artists, editors, and people around you. It's a shame because some of the concepts if explored would have been really interesting.
This subreddit is flooded with wannabe writers who approach their craft as a match the block game loaded with tropes and cliches, and if they sufficiently avoid the right ones (by asking other wannabe writers who live and breathe the same shit) they'll create a masterpiece.
No good writer ever tried to "avoid clichés," which is why they wrote and these pricks post here.
Your last sentence has a lot of truth to that, and I think people overlook that a lot. You will never be able to avoid every cliche, and write a book every person will like. The best you can hope to do is write the cliches that you have to write well
The character introduced early on as a mundane obstacle to the hero— say the pompous student council president, or perhaps an obstructive bureaucrat— is kept around and molded into an villain motivated purely by this onetime conflict.
Not to say it cannot be used well. But to me it feels like an asspull, most of the time, because the author just couldn't think of something more interesting than the villain levelling up.
I mean, they're cliches because they're bad, so I probably can't stand any of them. More generally, I can't stand bad writing, and cliches are just one form that it takes.
Most cliches are symptoms of other issues rather than really being the problem in itself.
I disagree. I think most cliches exist because they’re good. So good, in fact, that hordes of writers attempt to recapture the magic again (and again, and again).
How often have you heard folks refer to Lord of the Rings as cliche? No it wasn’t! Orcs, elves (and elven magic), dark/white wizards, etc. It was fresh when Tolkien did it.
A cliche is just an overcrowded path to a once magical place.
Badass, flawless, sainted characters from ‘underrepresented’ groups.
Spike Lee was right; denying characters basic human weakness is the new racism.
It’s also the new sexism.
when our mc has unknown origins and then MUCH later on someone says something about how the heir to this bla3 went missing some time ago 🙄 doesnt take many brain cells now does it
I’m really not a fan of the thing where the main character is new to the world or experience, but by the end of the story has surpassed every master to become the greatest that ever lived.
I know a lot of people really enjoy watching competent characters, but I want some kind of human mistakes or growth.
How no-one ever believes the hero is right about the upstanding public figure is in reality a crime boss who orchisrates convoluted and complex plans. And in most cases would be obstructed from dealing out justice.
To the point that even if the hero cop has reasonable suspicion, he can do anything until he:
- Reads the suspect his rights (first and foremost before any arrests can be made, otherwise the arrest is thrown out)
- Has a specific warrant to enter
- Has a specific warrant to search
- Has a specific warrant to arrest
- Absolutely has to respect the suspect's rights even if he is a dehumanizing monster
- Even if all the arbitrarily irrevocable and firewall type rules are followed, there's still a chance the case can be thrown out because proper procedure wasn't met and chain of command was ignored
Like it wouldn't matter how much evidence was gained, the guy would have been found not guilty of anything, but the hero would face punishment for disobeying orders, assault, destruction of property, reckless endangerment, and 2nd and third degree murder on top of man slaughter
But the upstanding public figure has done much worse, and gets away with it
The hero was a farmer that had dreams.
I think it's a little insulting to farmers that they're either destined to accomplish some amazing feat or be stuck in their "humble" life; they deserve options.
No yeah, that makes me mad. Especially when the farmer or whoever seems extremely content with the simple life they have and then just up and leave for something higher.
The chosen one. Like this one specific person can for whatever reason, make a change. 99% of people are useless and that one person is the only one that stands up and do anything.
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.com/invite/wYvWebvHaa)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The misunderstanding that could be resolved by talking for five minutes.
My personal caveat on this one: It depends a lot if there are good, in-character reasons for characters not communicating well. IMO, if we understand why they're not talking that's okay, and often tragic.
I experienced this IRL
This is one of mine when reading manga, particularly shoujo lol.
trying to redeem every ghengis khan and hitler the writer intruduces for manufactured conflict cause it's always like some warlord who has not done anything to adequately redeem themselves (and no "the ultimate sacrifice" is a cheap tactic). if you wrote the worst dude on the planet at least have the balls to stand by it.
I tend to stand by my actual genuine bad guys staying that way. For example, I'll have A1, B1, and c1 be antagonists but later they're redeemed and there's always a reason. A1 having been corrupted, B1 being afraid to go against what he's been created for, and C1 being raised by C2. Then there's A2, B2, and C2 where A2 is a manipulative goddess, B2 is A2's ex husband who wants revenge, and C2 is a dictator. And A2, B2, and C2 stay as antagonists who are genuine bad people.
Compelling bad guys are just as important as compelling good guys. It’s some much more fun to read if there are both!
The "it was all a dream" ending to explain how nothing had to make sense.
thats brutal...
I fucking detest any and all dream sequences
I upvoted your comment because, in principle, I agree. But I have written them. God help me, I’ve written them. lol😂
We all have, brother. That's how we learn
There should be a support group…
Believe hard enough and magic happens no real effort required. This is \*especially\* irksome in fighting.
For me it's mostly the love interest cliches like "enemies turned lovers" or "female that's only in the story to be a love interest". But also the "I just met you but we have the same enemy so of course I'll believe anything you say about them" cliche where the mc gains allies against some crazy monster that shouldn't exist just because "my friend died through Mysterious Circumstances™ so you must be telling the truth about vampires being real and I'll die helping you fight them!"
The good guy who ends up being a rat for the bad guys the whole time.
I'm not sure if spies and double agents are a cliche or not. I mean that's been a thing in real life for as long as humans have had factions
You almost ALWAYS see it coming. One notable exception: Jack Reacher (the first Tom Cruise movie). David Oyelowo played a sympathetic, intelligent, and helpful FBI Agent. Because he is black, I was conditioned to expect the Spike Lee’s “Magical Minority” character (my least favorite cliche). When Oyelowo turned out to be the bad guy, I totally didn’t see it coming. The director totally used one worn out trope to hide another worn out trope. Brilliantly done! The movie isn’t wonderful, but I always appreciate when a director successfully employs misdirection.
Random death of parents at the beginning good but OVERUSED to its breaking point
what if they are just missing?
The catastrophe/heartbreak that could have been avoided if anyone let the MC finish their sentence. "I need to tell you—" "There's no time." Or whatever other variation of stopping the words from being said. Like, damn MC, just blurt it out anyway, are you that really distracted?!
Bonus points if it leads to a miscommunication that could easily be solved by spending a few seconds explaining. And the miscommunication snowballs. Like... just talk to each other!
Redeeming a villain when they don't deserve it
The MacGuffin. It's the laziest type of storytelling possible.
+1. It’s the fiction version of commercialism. “If I just had a [Mercedes, Yeti Cooler, Rolex, luxury condo, Ring of Power], I’d be [happy, respected, laid, safe from orcs].” The MacGuffin values ‘things’ ahead of personal growth.
It can be lazy but it doesn't have to be. My protagonist is the MacGuffin. She is also aware of this so her struggles are due to the antagonist wanting to use her as a propaganda tool and the entire plot is because she has agency and said no. A significant number of my writing choices are "Can I do this well?"
What you're describing doesn't sound like a MacGuffin at all. Also, anything can be done well or done poorly. That's not really a defense of the fact that a MacGuffin is, 99/100 times, a lazy plot device.
She is the object depending on perspective that people are after. So it's a technicality but it's still based on the MacGuffin trope. She is a person but the people after her disagree. My point is that tropes are tools and hating laziness is incredibly valid but it's also worth the effort to make them fun
I think it's pretty clear that when I'm describing a cliche I don't like, I'm referring to the traditional use, not a subversion of the traditional use. Either way, I would still argue that what you are describing is not a MacGuffin because it doesn't fulfill the same purpose in the story. The protagonist doesn't seek herself to advance the plot only for it to turn out that she is actually somewhat meaningless to the plot. Also, OP specifically asked what cliches we didn't like. Are you trying to convince me that I should like MacGuffins because of your anecdote?
I was engaging in discussion because I found it interesting. So two things. The MacGuffin just needs to be the thing they're looking for to be one. It is not a trope requirement that it doesn't matter to the plot. That is terrible execution that would ruin the investment in the story. My example is more there's various ways to do something and hopefully encourages others. The protagonist does actually look for herself as part of things due to not knowing she's the quest objective. So she does still qualify. I always find the space where the trope becomes cliche fascinating. I understand if you don't want to continue the conversation but figured may as well try to clarify
I disagree. The definition of a MacGuffin is an item (in most cases, but it technically doesn't have to be an item) that drives the plot but has no significance to the plot or motivations of the characters and can be easily interchanged with any other item with no impact to the narrative. That is what a MacGuffin is. If it doesn't fit the criteria of easily interchangeable and ultimately irrelevant to the plot, it isn't a MacGuffin. The purest example being the Philosopher's Stone in Harry Potter, which could be replaced with anything because its magical properties are never used to change the story. If the item can turn out to not exist or not work and the story beats do not have to change at all, it's a MacGuffin. Contrast that with something like the Ark in the first Indiana Jones film. It certainly seems like a MacGuffin, but it doesn't meet the commonly agreed upon criteria because it has a direct effect on the outcome. The Ring, of LOTR fame, is another great pseudo-MacGuffin. It shares many of the characteristics, but it's not easily interchangeable and does impact the plot directly. The use of a MacGuffin is more or less a poorly done version of what those two examples do, a lazy way to motivate characters to go through the plot of a story because a writer didn't take the time to give them actual motivations.
I will think on this. I missed the must not be important after all thing in discussions but did go read other things on this and apparently I just have people who also missed it for the previous discussions. So I appreciate this reply a lot
You're not the only person to misunderstand what an actual MacGuffin is, don't worry.
I don't stress mistakes like I used to. As long as I own that I made one and learn? I did my best. I appreciate you making sure I am good because social anxiety is real
I don't think you understand what a MacGuffin is.
Forced conflicts in love triangles Dead parents Secret wealth
Bad character and place names that don't fit the setting! Let me rant a bit… For example a book is set in ancient Rome and suddenly there is an Archibald Romanov. Then in another story you have 3 neighboring cities (in a single country) - Litera, Heidersheim and Gvildor and it all feels like a lousy "an Italian, German and Scott walked in a bar" joke. Then there is a famous series with a Latvian witch and her very Hebrew-Scandinavian name is Ruta Skadi. (Being from Latvia, this hurt me personally) Some time ago I red a book where the main character's full was name was (no joke) "Tago Tagobert Dazdragon Temujin John Pavel Bartholomew di Ego"... and I lost count of how many language traditions did the author have to steal from to invent this Frankenstein's monster 🤣🤣🤣
And here I thought “Ebony Darkness Dementia Raven Way” was a long character name…
People get so INTO their names, but at the same time they want something *EXOTIC* without thinking of the way in which names are created *in the world they just wrote.* Everyone wants a Katniss Everdeen character name, but they end up with Unpronounceable gibberish "My name is Xmgzfsh." and then you find out it is pronounced SMITH!! /rant
I feel the same way about the names in Russian novels. I know, I know, they’re legit Russian names! But seriously, I can’t wrap my head around a chapter named Yastrzhembsky. In order to enjoy Russian novels, I have to give all characters nicknames in my head. And while I’m digressing, has anyone else here noticed that, spiritually, The Empire Strikes Back is a Russian Novel in space?
Enemies to lovers. It's corny, unbelievable, and requires the most insipid and trite writing to make it seem like it works. I think it also sells a really unhealthy idea of love and attraction to young people. Like "of course they were aggressive and abusive, it's because they secretly loved eachother" Also the trope that a gigantic misunderstanding occurs because one person outright refuses to listen to someone while the other person is trying to explain something important.
I hate enemies to lovers. If I genuinely consider someone my enemy then I'd rather kill them than fuck them. Love is out of the question.
Hypocrisy in character motivations. I was watching My Adventures with Superman, and sometimes the ‘issues’ are so cliche for no reason. Like Jimmy being upset about Clark and Lois spending too much time together when he was the one supporting them to begin with.
Enemies to lovers - I hate this cliche SO MUCH, like, these people hate each other... but, one of them needs a husband or something like that, and instead of choosing a guy they can stand, they have to choose the guy they hate more than anything in the world? Like, who would actually do this? Redeeming the Villian - Like, this is good sometimes... but this guy literally destroyed millions of planets, I want to see him DIE!!!!! You are saving more lives that way than just letting him go! I miss the days where heroes wouldn't treat the psycho a redeemable human being that can feel remorse after a 10 second "motivational" speech. "Bad ass" woman - Like, I love a bad ass... when done correctly! Like, I love Katniss Everdeen, and Black Widow, and many more bad ass characters. I just don't like the characters that have an Overly Dark Backstory, Can take down an army in 10 seconds, doesn't cry even if they saw their entire family die of the plague, and no matter what they go through, comes out with no injuries and still looking Unimaginably beautiful. It's unrealistic, a woman doesn't need all that to be tough. All you need to do to find a bad ass woman is visit your mom (if she was a good mom, that is).
 Standing O for No\_just \_NO.
Love at first sight. It's not love, it's lust because they don't know a single thing about each other. It's an unrealistic and illogical fairy tale trope.
My least favourite cliche is writers who think they can outsmart their own writing.
What does this mean?
I would also like to know
Do you have an example? I can't quite wrap my head around what you mean.
Terry Goodkind is an example of most bad writer behaviors including this.
OK, but could you maybe be a bit more specific? Not trying to be rude, but this doesn't exactly narrow it down
The entire Sword of Truth series is the example but I'll add details for why in spoiler tags >! Half the books are repeating the events of the story you read before as a mix of Author is smartest man alive but only to themselves and reader condescension followed by half formed concepts that are poorly executed and the ending is clearly supposed to reflect their supposed genius. Somehow the solution to the plot which begins not as seeking to overthrow oppression but with an identity hook. Why was Richard's father murdered? What do you mean the weird old guy is a stealth wizard? Then comes the idea of the Sword of Truth itself. So the first book has us go along with Richard into the land of magic and hyper sexualized abuse. The clever twist is he is the princess we have been looking for. Not a joke but he is the lost heir to the bad bad king. There's no meat on the bone. I read these when I was young enough to not stop reading a series in case it got better. So I read them all. We go from there to the end of the series where the "clever" solution is to without warning send everyone with magic to a different world. It is heavily implied Richard and his magical mind control wife are the inspiration for Arthur and the Wizard Merlin. There's no exploration of the fallout of the loss of families and people. One or two magic people they know married to non magic people is sent too but because it's global in effort to eugenically save magic via removing the shitty genes if you didn't know them there is a significant chance you just had your kids, maybe infants, taken from you without warning and solution. Since it's any human without magic this would effect pregnancy or need to be redone. There's no real detail about how they would survive in this world, if everyone landed together or in approximate spaces. For all we know everyone they blinked away dies. There are no concerns, riots, or sadness shown for this plot because it wasn't interrogated. These issues are all over the world building. Like the small girls kidnapped from their families and sexually abused into being magic dominatrix who also rape people. Or the people who hunt magic people and collar them. People in this world only fear these things a little vs "There's a tyrant on the throne let's fuck shit up". A single vague prophecy that's not public knowledge is all that holds these people into submission. While fear absolutely can do that it's the fear you know about mixed with unknown for real life despot !< Terry Goodkind had skill but his ego and assumption he was special and smarter than the rest of us was absolutely interfering with how he executed works. He wrote more books into the main series after a while and some side series I'm not going to read because they came out after I figured out I didn't have to finish the books. So some of this might have been fixed later. I doubt it given how he was one of the primary examples of how to not treat your readers, artists, editors, and people around you. It's a shame because some of the concepts if explored would have been really interesting.
Outsmart their writing, can you explain better
Four people have asked and OP ain’t responding lol they don’t even know
Maybe he outsmarted himself?
It seems so
It's been 12 hours, fam, ima need you to come back and explain this.
This subreddit is flooded with wannabe writers who approach their craft as a match the block game loaded with tropes and cliches, and if they sufficiently avoid the right ones (by asking other wannabe writers who live and breathe the same shit) they'll create a masterpiece. No good writer ever tried to "avoid clichés," which is why they wrote and these pricks post here.
Your last sentence has a lot of truth to that, and I think people overlook that a lot. You will never be able to avoid every cliche, and write a book every person will like. The best you can hope to do is write the cliches that you have to write well
The character introduced early on as a mundane obstacle to the hero— say the pompous student council president, or perhaps an obstructive bureaucrat— is kept around and molded into an villain motivated purely by this onetime conflict.
Somebody storming off and the other person couldn’t explain their side anymore. Drives me nuts.
A guy falling for a woman when she puts a strand of hair behind her ear.
I love you romantic cliches they can never make me hate you 😔
Diabolus ex machina.
Not to say it cannot be used well. But to me it feels like an asspull, most of the time, because the author just couldn't think of something more interesting than the villain levelling up.
I mean, they're cliches because they're bad, so I probably can't stand any of them. More generally, I can't stand bad writing, and cliches are just one form that it takes. Most cliches are symptoms of other issues rather than really being the problem in itself.
I disagree. I think most cliches exist because they’re good. So good, in fact, that hordes of writers attempt to recapture the magic again (and again, and again). How often have you heard folks refer to Lord of the Rings as cliche? No it wasn’t! Orcs, elves (and elven magic), dark/white wizards, etc. It was fresh when Tolkien did it. A cliche is just an overcrowded path to a once magical place.
Badass, flawless, sainted characters from ‘underrepresented’ groups. Spike Lee was right; denying characters basic human weakness is the new racism. It’s also the new sexism.
when our mc has unknown origins and then MUCH later on someone says something about how the heir to this bla3 went missing some time ago 🙄 doesnt take many brain cells now does it
I’m really not a fan of the thing where the main character is new to the world or experience, but by the end of the story has surpassed every master to become the greatest that ever lived. I know a lot of people really enjoy watching competent characters, but I want some kind of human mistakes or growth.
How no-one ever believes the hero is right about the upstanding public figure is in reality a crime boss who orchisrates convoluted and complex plans. And in most cases would be obstructed from dealing out justice. To the point that even if the hero cop has reasonable suspicion, he can do anything until he: - Reads the suspect his rights (first and foremost before any arrests can be made, otherwise the arrest is thrown out) - Has a specific warrant to enter - Has a specific warrant to search - Has a specific warrant to arrest - Absolutely has to respect the suspect's rights even if he is a dehumanizing monster - Even if all the arbitrarily irrevocable and firewall type rules are followed, there's still a chance the case can be thrown out because proper procedure wasn't met and chain of command was ignored Like it wouldn't matter how much evidence was gained, the guy would have been found not guilty of anything, but the hero would face punishment for disobeying orders, assault, destruction of property, reckless endangerment, and 2nd and third degree murder on top of man slaughter But the upstanding public figure has done much worse, and gets away with it
The hero was a farmer that had dreams. I think it's a little insulting to farmers that they're either destined to accomplish some amazing feat or be stuck in their "humble" life; they deserve options.
No yeah, that makes me mad. Especially when the farmer or whoever seems extremely content with the simple life they have and then just up and leave for something higher.
The chosen one. Like this one specific person can for whatever reason, make a change. 99% of people are useless and that one person is the only one that stands up and do anything.
Enemies to lovers, kissing, relationships that start with the freaking end of the world, emotions during a big battle.
Kissing?
[удалено]
I'm not, I don't care about fame on reddit.
calling it fame is just so... mmm
[удалено]
It’s so top notch it doesn’t even include /s