Comments on A Brain Scientist's Take on Writing: Genre, writing, and cliche, oh my!

> In the end, I think I'd rather read a well-writt...

2009-11-04T00:49:13.400-05:00

> In the end, I think I'd rather read a well-written cliché than a poorly written fresh concept.

True. The irony, though, is that you don't get the choice. The fresh concept is REQUIRED to be well written in order to overcome the industry bias against anything they don't know how to market.

So if it's kind of chick-lit, but not really because of X-Y-Z new thing, and it's not really mainstream because it's too much about characters than plot or whatever--in short, if they can't readily pigeon-hole it--then it had better be hella good or there's no way it's ever going to get published.

At least, not through a traditional publisher.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Fresh concepts SHOULD be well written. Otherwise, what a waste!

I agree with Jason (above) and you when you write,...

2009-11-03T17:29:42.437-05:00

I agree with Jason (above) and you when you write, "As a genre develops, writers and readers absorb the characteristics that define a genre and emphasize it. But for that very reason, these defining characteristics get worked and reworked until they turn into cliches. If that's true, then it would get progressively harder and harder to write fresh fiction as a genre becomes established."

I think genre characteristics, though, present a bit of a double-edged sword. Yes, the fabulous gay friend is cliché for chick lit, and yet some of the best chick it novels I can think of exploit that gay friend and make me want one of my own (as if finding a fabulous gay friend is like finding a pair of fabulous shoes). If authors write it well, I have no problems with, say, witty banter in coffee shops. It's when writers don't have a solid grasp on their genre and style that adding in genre-related clichés becomes painful.

And I think we could argue that no story is truly fresh. Take love stories, for instance. People argue that Shakespeare wasn't even fresh with his ideas, and Shakespearian love themes are still rather popular. Young love doomed from the start? Check. Two lovers, each from a different place in society? Check. Messy love triangles? Complicated paths to true love? Love that takes time to develop because first impressions were deceiving? Check, check, and check. Should we be overly concerned with being fresh? Maybe not. Maybe we should instead be more concerned with letting a story organically develop--even if it means your main character has a cheating lover.

In the end, I think I'd rather read a well-written cliché than a poorly written fresh concept.

> If that's true, then it would get progressively ...

2009-11-03T16:08:35.632-05:00

> If that's true, then it would get progressively harder and harder to write fresh fiction as a genre becomes established.

Nail, head, bam.

At least, that's how I see it. As you say, genres ARE genres exactly because books that fit the genre fit some pattern of readily identifiable tropes.

And familiarity breeds contempt.

When the genre is new--say, vampire books--it was easy to be fresh. (Not necessarily easy to be _good_, but easy to be _fresh_ anyway.) Anne Rice was out there breaking new ground. I imagine it was hard for her to find an agent/publisher who was willing to say "Hm. Main character is soulless bloodsucking demon. Yeah, let's give that a try." But once she did, she set in motion a whole new sub-genre that has led us now all the way into the *yawn* Twilight.

Twilight may be entertaining, sure, but is it fresh? It's hard to imagine how it possibly could be, now that we've had Anne Rice around for a few decades now, now that we've had Buffy (the movie) and Buffy (7 years worth of TV episodes) and Angel (5 more seasons of must-watch TV) and Christopher Moore's "Bloodsucking Fiends" and "You Suck," and who can even keep track of what all else.

Sci-fi had its heyday after notions of space and science became mainstream when Sputnik freaked out the western world. But then after a while it was all weird aliens and robots and rocketships and started to feel done to death. The genre dwindled noticeably down from that heyday until Sterling came in and invented cyberpunk, giving Sci-fi new life by introducing to it a whole new set of tropes. That is, he broadened the pattern of readily identifiable tropes that constitutes Sci-fi. If he hadn't done that, I don't know that Sci-fi would have lasted as well as it has. (Although to be fair, other writers have helped, too, Neal Stephenson perhaps chief among them.)

So yeah. Genres get old. They get worn and tired. This is why they say "don't write for the market" because by the time your slick vampire book is written, edited, agented, and sold, the genre may well have gotten old. People may well have gotten tired of it.

Any genre is doomed to die (except, perhaps, Romance but that seems to have other neurogical factors in play that you might want to blog about sometime), unless a clever writer can come along to re-define or broaden that genre's definition.

Which, of course, is a pretty tall order for someone writing in a well established genre. So yeah, it's hard to stay fresh.

I wonder whether the cliche-ridden nature of most ...

2009-11-03T14:18:11.849-05:00

I wonder whether the cliche-ridden nature of most writing is due to an understandable wish to write books like those one likes to read (whoa... rough sentence, but I'm not editing it). There's only one person who could have written Bridget Jones' Diary the way it was, and that's Helen Fielding. There's only one person who could have written Metamorphosis, and that's Franz Kafka. I can emulate my favorite authors, but that likely won't produce anything new and interesting.

What I can do, however, is tell stories that only I know. There's only ever been one of me. But the beauty of it is that my experiences, while unique, are also common to most other people. That's the point of contact in fiction, no?

I think my point (I had one, I swear) is that most writers could find wonderful resources of freshness and creativity if they'd only look to their own lives and experiences for them, instead of to their favorite books.

I love chick lit and have thought about writing on...

2009-11-03T13:37:31.696-05:00

I love chick lit and have thought about writing one, but every time I try, it turns into a cliche-riddled crap fest by page 2.

When reading chick lit (and I've read a lot--both good and bad) I've noticed that the books that stand out read less as romance novels and more as stories about a woman's relationship with her friends and family (and herself of course).

I think cliches are generated as people remember elements of classic genre books they have loved (ex: Bridget Jones's Diary for chick lit, LOTR for fantasy) and re-use them when going to write their own novels. Voice and character cliches can happen in any type of fiction. For example: just before our last critique group, Peta and I were talking about the excess of children's novels featuring a main characters who love to write/love big words/want to become a writer. In adult novels I've seen a lot of (award-winning) novels within the last five years about a man who grows up in a bad family situation, says a lot of bad words, and thinks constantly about sleeping with women who don't want to sleep with him.

And world-building occurs in all books, not just fantasy, and as such cliches are inevitable in non-fantasy books as well. I'm drawing a blank for an example right now but I know I've seen it in "regular" fiction.

Comments on *A Brain Scientist's Take on Writing*: Genre, writing, and cliche, oh my!

> In the end, I think I'd rather read a well-writt...

I agree with Jason (above) and you when you write,...

> If that's true, then it would get progressively ...

I wonder whether the cliche-ridden nature of most ...

I love chick lit and have thought about writing on...

Comments on A Brain Scientist's Take on Writing: Genre, writing, and cliche, oh my!