Why you shouldn’t use Tropes.

Basically what Ars said. You were not writing 'to' a trope; it wasn't that you were trying to fit the trope into the work, it was the examples given on the Trope page gave you the examples of how this worked. Its back to the having three males, and finding they work best as a Freudian Trio . If you are TRYING to write them as a FT, that, in my argument, is bad, but reading about F Ts and seeing that is how it works best is not writing to the trope. Rather what you have done is not reinvent the wheel.

Again with Meaningful Names. If you are naming to fit this trope then that is forcing the trope. If you are naming from [trope name alert] a Doylist Po V, to indicate character that is another thing entirely. I have a character which I have given meaningful surnames to, one maiden name, one married, not because they are important, but as a joke. They mean nothing 'in-universe', but it is a little joke if ever I am read by a Troper here. Yes, I have written to the trope, but not because I 'felt' I had to, but rather as a little joke for myself; I needed surnames, and it made me smile to put them in.

In that same story I have Meaningful names for the leads, NOT because I felt I had to, but because they are subtle clues to their psyche; I didn't write because I felt they had to have meaningful names, but because I *wanted* to make the names meaningful.

Can't use tropes if you dont ever finish anything.

Sort of, but not quite. Tropes can be a good source of inspiration (hell, I've started quite a few stories based on tropes that really resonated with me, like Dungeon Punk) but what we're saying to avoid is the whole "you HAVE to use these tropes in this combination or your story is WRONG!"

Just write a story. If it ends up with certain tropes, cool. If slotting in a trope helps your story function better, great! But if it's not Troperiffic, no big deal. What matters most are that the story is fun and that you as the writer get to say something that's true to you.

But that's a much bigger topic.

Heck, our stories may even be the ones to codify new tropes. It's all a matter of perspective.

OK, this will look like a 'boast' but it isn't (really!). I see this as the difference between the 'pre-trope' generation (i.e. me) and the 'Trope writers'

Writing my (2nd romance^*) book, and the devil on my shoulder analysing it as I do.

What I am actually writing is a 'Red Oni, Blue Oni' (I'm not, but roll with it, the characters don't know.)

What it looks like is the two leads are parts of a Freudian Trio, but not always the same trio.

The Female Lead is regarding the Male Lead as the Ego, as she bounces between Super Ego and Id(s).

The male lead sees himself the Super Ego, with the Female Lead as Id, and he is looking for an Ego. What he actually dates is OTHER Super Egos.

None of this is planned by me, it is just what works. My point is, with this example, is I am NOT 'writing to a trope', it just so happens that the natural fit is the trope, no matter what the characters think is going on; they are as constrained as I am. I am reminded of the George R.R. Martin quote "Why do you keep killing your characters?", "I don't, they kill each other."

My point is that I am not trying to fit a trope, it just works better this way, and it happens to be a way we have a trope for.


^*I'm a middle age man, for gods sake, I wanted to be a Douglas Adams or Terry Pratchett. But oh no, I happen to have written two full length novels I would never have foreseen... Damn it, am *I* a trope...?

Edited by Last_Hussar on Jun 9th 2022 at 5:05:13 AM

While I agree with your overall advice, I think, on the point quoted above I still disagree: I sincerely doubt that there's the great divide that you perceive.

I strongly suspect that what you refer to as "trope writers" are the minority—indeed, the minority even on this forum, where they're likely very overrepresented.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jun 10th 2022 at 5:05:46 PM

If anything the difference has less to do with "intentional trope usage" and more just about being able to recognize the tropes you're using as you're writing the story. Like, you realize what you're doing just because you know what the trope is.

Excellent topic - a rich vein of discussion.

For me, the point of tropes is that they are an emergent quality of fiction. Most acclaimed trope definers, while they probably write to a certain genre and *some* tropes, weren't thinking "I should have a Sealed Evil in a Can here, a Power Trio there, a Part-Time Hero in this other place - oh! All in a Crapsaccharine World..."

The pitfall of overt trope literacy is writing backwards - finding tropes you like and shaping stories to fit them. A trope is created upon consuming much fiction, noticing stories having a commonality, and naming a trope.

My issue with this, is as follows: that these stories have diverse contexts and executions of what is later labelled a 'trope'. When a writer writes with tropes, their story is based on grey putty. It's averaged out and homogenised; frictionless; lacking bumps or rills. You might call it the 'federalisation of literature', from the perspective of a George Clinton.

It's using Lego when the trope definers used pencils and paint.

(If 'trope-informed writing' takes off, a human's writing output will be indistinguishable from an AI's output by 2030. In terms of the grey putty-ness.)

I have a hypothesis, completely untested, that 'trope literate' writers are more likely to write in terms of genre-crossing, bricolage, and metafiction. These are valid writing streams, but based on TV Tropes having a younger, internet-literate audience, you're highly likely to see complete novices write in this fashion. In my opinion this is poor training, and will likely lead to inferior products/literature/what have you.

It encourages a highly-self conscious and categorical approach to fiction, one that is stripped of pathos and gravity. It works for some genres better than others (sitcoms don't suffer much if everyone talks like a snappy Joss Whedon character - for literature it's a travesty). My point is that the actual state of trope literacy encourages this kind of thinking - the Tetris effect essentially. Again, this approach is not inherently bad, but it shouldn't be the dominant one and shouldn't be mostly under-40 novices doing it.

The whole point of postmodernism is that it was built on the memory of non-postmodern works. What happens when the base itself is postmodern? You can only break rules if there are rules.

I have seen similar concerns dismissed with 'you can't write without tropes' or some species thereof. In the way tropes are canonised, this is true. The counter-argument is my one, that tropes should be an emergent quality of your writing, not your building blocks. Your writing is the brain, the identified tropes are its thoughts. Or something.

I am an aspiring writer, so take an interest in TV Tropes. I view it as a parlour game; the equivalent of jibing while watching a movie with friends. It's certainly fun, but not something to base my own writings on. My feet are planted on both sides of the threshold - clearly I have a TV Tropes account, and am more trope-savvy than someone plucked off the street, yet I keep a larger distance than its editors and other forumgoers.

When writing a chapter, I am not concerned about 'tropes' and 'cliches', because my writing is the drawing-out of silly unique thoughts and 'what-ifs' richocheting around in my head. In a way, it's similar to the deconstruction listed above. But only because I aim for a certain type of realism (realism in execution, absurd fantasy in premise). Reality itself is deconstructive - it is the original genres that are conscious constructions.

Edited by ParmenideanProvince on Jul 8th 2022 at 12:24:07 PM

Yep, that's pretty much my thoughts.

I started writing decades before 'tropes' were a thing - pre internet. My writing has tropes, but that is the descriptor, not the skeleton.

...But tropes have always existed, tho? All TVT does is name them. And I don't think you can make any definite statements on "how" it's affecting people's writing abilities unless you, say, can take a massive representative sample of writers who started writing in the post-TVT era and compare styles. To be honest, I find your analysis to be sort of elitist and restrictive.

I'm a "post-TVT writer" who does consciously write tropes because of my knowledge of said tropes. But I can't imagine that heavily impacts my writing skills when I'm also heavily inspired by various other works I enjoy, including books I've read in the past, and stories I wrote as a kid - before I knew about TVT.

Knowing what tropes are only impacts writing styles if the tropes are shoehorned in for the sake of being there. Otherwise, I think having an understanding of storytelling conventions can lead to some really interesting stories, like deconstructions/reconstructions and perhaps faster evolution of various outdated tropes.

As I think that I've said before, my stance, in short, is that I see little problem with "writing tropes" if that is one's preferred style.

Different artists have different processes, after all.

What concerns me, rather, is those cases in which a writer enters the forum and asks questions that indicate that they have the impression that they should "write tropes"—that that's simply the way that it's done.

I think that, as WarJay says, so broad and strong a statement would seem to call for evidence to support it.

And yet, Lego can produce some really neat works of art, from what I've seen.

This I strongly disagree with: it may not be my preferred style, but there's nothing wrong with such writing in literature, I would say.

That perhaps holds if the writers in question are seeking to create something postmodern, to "break the rules".

But conversely, if they're simply writing in a style that they like and that happens to draw from what was in its time postmodern, then I don't offhand see a problem.

Myself, I think that it can be more useful to a writer than that: In understanding what patterns already exist, one can perhaps better analyse one's own work, and through that, perhaps improve.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jul 9th 2022 at 11:09:54 AM

Thinking about it, for me it is the intention of the writing. There is a difference between
"Bob is strong here, but weak here - Alice can be weak in his strong areas, because she covers his weaknesses"
and
"Bob is a Red Oni, I must write Alice as a blue oni"

It is the difference between writing characters who cover each other's weaknesses, and writing to a trope because the trope is there.

I suppose in sports (football) terms it is picking a defender for defence, and putting Ronaldo (a noted striker) as centre-back so 'you have a defender'.

Edited by Last_Hussar on Jul 16th 2022 at 4:18:41 AM

I mean, if someone's process involves intentionally implementing a "red oni, blue oni" pair—or indeed, explicit building of elements from tropes—then that's okay. I would say.

That process might not work for you, and it might not work for me, but it doesn't have to. It only has to work for that other person. and if it does work for them, then what of it?

As I've said before, what I have a problem with is the idea that one should write from tropes.

Someone having an artistic process that involves writing from tropes is not something that I have argument with, I feel.

Edited by ArsThaumaturgis on Jul 16th 2022 at 2:29:53 PM