Favorite and Un-Favorite Tropes

Is there a theme or trope or type of character in a story that you find irresistible, even though everything else about that work is terrible? On the flip side, what themes or tropes in books, movies, and other media will keep you from reading/viewing/playing something that you think that you would otherwise love?

---

 

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)



Comments

[Karen]

I am a total sucker for amateur detective tales, and the more absurd the occupation of the protagonist the better. In real life, mostly police officers and prosecutors never deal with murder, but in fiction it is acceptable for yarn shop owners, caterers, and every retired governess in Great Britain to constantly beat the authorities at solving the always-picturesque and interesting killings which never, ever involve drugs, gangs, or people with scary tattoos.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I have an odd reaction to this sort of thing (example: Ana Mardoll's recent question about characters we'd like to see less of in fiction), because I just don't think that way. Others were throwing out list after list of stock characters and ... maybe I'm just an unperceptive reader and don't see the resemblances of one stock character to another, or maybe I just read different books. I dunno.

I do read a fair bit of trash* on Nifty (gay stuff: a very odd mix of outright porn, erotica, and romance, with very few clear signs of which category any given story is going to fall into), and I can recognise the stock characters there, but not in the books I read.

TRiG.

* There's also the occasional gem hidden in there.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Oh, yes. I don't know whether this counts as a "tope", as such, but when I read a first-person book, I imagine the person actually writing it down. So if it's not in the protagonist's voice, it jars. And in every Dick Francis novel, there comes a point where I just want to shake the guy: Hey, you just promised to take that secret with you to the grave! Why are you now writing it down for me to read?

It annoys me. If you're going to have a first-person narrator, give that person a motive for telling the story.* (It doesn't annoy me enough to stop me reading Dick Francis, mind you, but it does annoy me.)

TRiG.

* And that weird novel narrated by Judas, explaining how he organised all Jesus' conjuring tricks to spread the word, which ends with him writing in a cave which is suddenly sealed up by persons unknown outside, so the last thing you read is something like "Now I'm scrabbling at the soil, trying to push back the stone. No light. No air ...."

Listen, author, whoever you were (I've forgotten), if you're going to introduce a note of verisimilitude by having the narrator tell us where he currently is, and describing the actual writing ("Here I am, writing this, sitting at a rough table in a cave"), don't break that again in the next paragraph. It's annoying.

DISCLAIMER: NOT ACTUAL QUOTATIONS

[chris the cynic]

@TRiG,

In that Mermaid story I keep meaning to write down, protagonist, now female (there's a a reason the species is called mermaid, not merperson) is trying to convince her best friend to let her in the house so she can, in private, switch from legs to tail in hopes that, "I can prove I'm really a mermaid," makes, "I'm your best friend who was male when you last saw me, not long ago," more believable.

To get through the door the plan is something like this:

She leaned in close and spoke a secret. The kind of secret that stays a secret because only in times of greatest need does one even admit there is a secret. The kind of secret that is never, ever, committed to writing.

And have no more indication of what was said than that because, seriously, it's a secret.

The argument presented after that is, "Either my absurd claim is true, or your best friend thought it was worth it to tell a third party about that in order to get you to let me inside." The absurd claim being, "Hi, you don't exactly recognize me, but I'm your best friend."

[Coleslaw]

Funny you should ask this question. I really do not like books, movies, etc which glamorize adultery, or even near adultery. So far as I know, I have never had a spouse cheat on me, but it still is something I feel strongly about. I'm not saying this to start a fight, just to explain why I said "funny you should ask this question".

There is a series of mystery novels in which the protagonist, an Episcopal priest, has an (in my mind) inappropriately close friendship with a married man, the chief of police. I finally stopped reading the series because it made me so uncomfortable.

So this evening (just a few minutes ago) I was reading another blog where the subject of romance plots had come up, particularly the trope "“They love each other, but they can’t get married/admit their feelings because ____________” with the suggestion that anyone who could come up with a new and different situation to fill in the blank could make a lot of money. Of course, someone pointed out the Twilight books "Because he's a vampire". Well, next thing you know, the author (or someone claiming to be the author) of the book series I described above showed up and posted

“They love each other, but they can’t get married/admit their feelings because __he's married and she's an Episcopal priest___.”

Worked well for me.

So there is my opportunity to tell her that I find her main character self-deceiving and unethical and in any real church I've ever known the gossip she is generating would have her shown the door, but then I think, what would be the point? The author has a lot of readers who like the series. She's not going to listen to me, and it would be a diversion from the main point of the thread anyway.

And then this thread popped up, where I get to vent and be on topic. How timely.

[Mike Timonin]

I'm a sucker for disaster novels. Also, I like a series, and will often continue to read even after it becomes apparent that the series sucks. I like strong female characters, either women doing "men's" work or women being strong doing "women's" work.

[Amaryllis]

@Karen: I loved that kind of book for years and years. Then one day, I realized that I don't want to read it any more. Ask me again in a few years.

Also, as I think I said on the Ana thread, if I see a serial killer lurking anywhere in a mystery, I'm done. (Unless it's by Tana French or Fred Vargas.)

@Coleslaw: I'm with you, and I know which books you mean. I read the first, and that was enough.

It's not that I won't ever read a book with adultery in it-- for example, I just finished Jane Smiley's Good Faith, in which the protagonist engages in an affair with a married woman, without either of them feeling particularly guilty about it. But that's a book about good-faith relationships being broken in all sorts of ways, with the people involved never stopping long enough to really look at what they were doing and what effect it was having.

[Brin]

chris the cynic: The argument presented after that is, "Either my absurd claim is true, or your best friend thought it was worth it to tell a third party about that in order to get you to let me inside."

Or a telepath, which is still far enough outside known reality to be worth further investigation.

[anamardoll]

CN: Nice Guyism, Stalker Behavior

Ooh! I went on a rant today to Mom about how I am DONE with movies where the Schlubby Guy is turned down for marriage-slash-serious-relationship by the Hot Chick because he's got a slacker job or is not her type or isn't "alpha" enough, and then the rest of the movie is either him changing or her 'coming to her senses' or Better, Hotter, Blonder girlfriend coming along to scoop up what Hot Chick couldn't appreciate.

YOU HEAR ME HOLLYWOOD? I WILL NOT WATCH THESE THINGS ANYMORE.

Sometimes people aren't good in a relationship together. They go their separate ways. They mourn and move on. I don't find "unhealthy obsessed to the point of stalker behavior" to be a sexy plot vehicle.

[Kirala]

I'm powerfully impacted by major physical and/or character transformation - to the point where a major positive transformation, however tritely presented, is irresistible to me, while major negative transformation (especially of character) is abhorrent. This is probably one major reason why Beauty and the Beast stories are pure catnip for me.

For a smaller-scale trope - non-sexual intimacy, especially telepathic, especially between couples who also have sexual intimacy. Again, powerfully positive reaction to the positive version, powerfully negative reaction to the negative version.

Come to think of it, this is probably why Robin McKinley will never leave my shelf. In Deerskin, [very vague spoilers], vg srryf yvxr nyy gur genhzn vf sebz zl jbefg ubeebef naq nyy gur ornhgl sebz zl orfg ubcrf. Very powerful stuff.

[Coleslaw]

@anamardoll

Yeah, I don't like those, either.

@Amaryllis, I'll have to look for that book. It sounds interesting.

[Karen]

Amaryllis, I did the same thing a couple of year ago and only started again with detective novels recently. Now I'm a lot pickier.

Ana Mardoll-- Aerrgghhhh how much do I hate that plot. I don't remember anything like that before the early 90's, then all of a sudden it's the only plot. I can't entirely decide if it is an improvement on the 21 year old girl with a 70 year old guy plot that preceded it. (see also the James Bond trope of teenaged physicists).

[Coleslaw]

That's why I usually don't like romance movies. If its not the "it's okay if he's a stalker if he's a sexy stalker" plot, then it's the "hot chick as a reward for good behavior " plot, or the barely disguised Taming of the Shrew plot.

Years ago, when I listened to Joy Browne on the radio, I remember her reviewing the movie Roxanne, which was a modern retelling of Cyrano de Bergerac. She said the movie asks the question, how important are looks, anyway. I thought to myself, not very, apparently, if you could look like Daryll Hannah and still have your romantic choices come down to the dumb hot guy vs. the smart guy with a nose that birds could nest on.

[Froborr]

I used to really hate urban fantasy. My suspension of disbelief couldn't handle it; things like computers and airplanes and such exist *because* magic and elves and vampires don't. Turned out I was just reading bad books; the suspension of disbelief is not an issue if I'm enjoying myself enough. (I should have been able to predict this, since superhero comics ought to provoke the same reaction yet don't.)

I generally don't care for romance novels or movies.

I am a complete sucker for bad people doing good things for bad reasons and good people doing bad things for good reasons.

I am a total sucker for geeky allusions. Especially musical allusions; when I noticed the Ballad of the Goddess in the most recent Zelda game is actually Zelda's Lullaby played backwards I eagerly told everyone I know, because to me that is the coolest thing ever. The most enthusiastic response I got was, "Huh. That's weird."

[Nenya]

I feel like this should have a content note on it, but I'm not sure what:

On the possibly-creepy/disturbing side, I'm a total sucker for secret government experiments, or hive minds, or everyone is secretly part of a virtual reality. Think the Borg, or the Matrix, or Wolverine & X-23 in Marvel. Things where the characters have their perception of reality challenged, perhaps their identity--What I grew up believing is all wrong. Who am I, now? What will I choose to be and do for myself? Bonus points if in their new, free life they have amazing, loyal, sane friends, or a group of them, who love them through all the weirdness. I'm pretty sure this particular narrative kink of mine comes from having left a cult in my teen years and spending the next decade figuring out who the fuck I was without it. I'll still read all the Borg stories, oh, yes--though, again, it's not about the body modifications for me, it's about the brain weirdness.

I also adore mentor/student dynamics. Doc Brown and Marty, Dukhat and Delenn (Delenn and Lennier), Qui-Gonn and Obi-Wan, Giles and Buffy. I haven't the faintest clue if relationships like this actually exist in the real world, but in fiction they make me happy.

I can't stand love triangles, particularly as practiced in most romantic comedies or romance novels. BUT I will read happy polyamory with glee. (As they say in fanfic circles, my solution to ship wars is OT3s.)

In my erotica, I'll go straight for the female dominant stuff (with any gender), or the male submissives (with any gender), but I have way, way higher standards for what male dom/female sub stuff I'll read. Like, I almost won't read it at all, because it's almost never done without making me feel icky about being a girl. This is probably the top reason I haven't read 50 Shades of Grey, in fact. It's not that the trope can't be hot, it's that I find that a lot of it is poisoned by patriarchy and misogyny, and who wants that in their happy fun porn?

You will also need a crowbar to pry from me my smart, well-spoken characters who save the day by talking and reasoning their way out of trouble rather than shooting first. And my sexy engineers. (Hi Kaylee Frye! Geordi LaForge! B'Elanna Torres! Sam Carter!)

[Sarah]

I'm a sucker for the trope where a character's weird hobby, ability, or upbringing turns out to be useful towards the end of the story ("Just like shooting womprats back home!"); I'm also fond of what I call a "boomerang gag" where an apparently throwaway moment comes back several scenes later. I guess these are both variants on Loading the Gun in Act I, but I really appreciate it when it's done so that the audience doesn't *realize* it's a gun until Act III. I also enjoy stories where we follow two or more groups of characters, and eventually see that their quests are going to converge.

I guess I'm really describing plot structures rather than tropes, but I guess plot construction is one of my squees.

[Lonespark]

As they say in fanfic circles, my solution to ship wars is OT3s.

Mmmm, yes. Or 4s. Or 6s... Although "moving on like adults" works, too.

I also hate glamorized adultery. Especially things were it's presented as though the cheated-on person deserves to be betrayed because they're a jerk or a bad lover or gone a lot or something.

[Coleslaw]

@Lonespark, exactly, and in the series I referred to, as least in the books I read before I gave up, the [about to be, maybe] cheated upon person's flaws were things like being so anxious that her husband's job put him in physical jeopardy that he found it difficult to talk to her about it, and redecorating the house because she owns an interior design business and likes to try out new things. Meanwhile, the fact that she moved a three day drive away from her own family to be near her husband's family even though her MIL hates her is stuff you have to glean on your own, because her husband treats it like it's negligible.

[Mike Timonin]

I dislike books which exist to show the reader how much smarter the author is than the reader. The Book of Dave comes to mind.

[Froborr]

Thought of a couple more I dislike:

Badly designed games in stories. Quidditch, the spectacularly boring-sounding video games in Oryx and Crake, that kind of thing.

What TVTropes refers to as Female Success Is Family and (IMO, closely related) Babies Ever After.

[Nick Kiddle]

I wrote a story once where the protagonist has a relationship with a man behind her boyfriend's back. I think she might have been poly if she'd been in a culture that understood it, but because she'd never heard of such a thing the best she could manage was to make sure he didn't find out. There were never any direct consequences to the adultery, but a lot of the indirect consequences drove the story. In the end, the affair relationship because non-sexual but still intense and loving, and the boyfriend was aware and comfortable with that.

I'm never quite sure how I feel about that story.

[Raj]

I hate, hate, hate, absolutely hate that "Honey, it's not what it looks like" trope (or as we so fondly call it, "The flowers are in the trash"). I especially hate the fact that it almost always plays out so that the girl* adamantly refuses to listen to one word of (the usually very simple) explanation as to what's really going on.

The only time I ever enjoyed this trope was when "Fawlty Towers" did it (in that episode with the pretty Australian tourist).

*It's almost always the girl who is the one who misunderstands the situation.

[Karen]

Raj, there are a few old plays that do that trope where it works, but those plots all turn on fooling the boss or father figure. The Roman play that inspired "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum." comes to mind, as well as Shakespeare's girls-pretending-to-be-boys plots. Then again, those tales work by subversion of authority; "honey it's not what it looks like" depends on the lower status character being an idiot, so really they're not the same at all.

[Raj]

Karen: "honey it's not what it looks like" depends on the lower status character being an idiot

It does indeed. In the footnote of my previous post, I meant to add, "Teh misoginee we haz it." In the M/F couple situations in which this trope is usually used in the modern world, the woman often suddenly turns into a scatterbrained harpy even if it has already been established that she is very intelligent, rational, and strong. An example in a certain series of very bad books comes to mind.

[Mike Timonin]

"Honey, it's not what it looks like"

This is a regular feature in Wodehouse novels - upper class twit trying to get an eyelash out of a girl's eye when his betrothed walks in, sort of thing - and I'm not sure that, in Wodehouse's case, it's predicated on the woman being an idiot, necessarily. Although, you know, in a Wodehouse book everyone is an idiot except Jeeves (or equivalent), so.

[Karen]

Mike Timonin -- I think Wodehouse uses that trope like the Claasical writers did, as a way of lampooning the upper class.

[Amaryllis]

@Mike and Karen: In fact, I recently re-read "The Adventures of Sally," in which Sally's current fiance walks in her in a compromising situation with her former fiance. Spoiler: it wasn't what it looked like, but the result was that she was free to dump both of them for her real True Love.

Come to think of it, that book was a good example of another Wodehouse trope: all men (except Jeeves) are idiots, but women love them anyway.

[Izzy]

Adultery per se doesn't bug me in other people, either in fiction or RL, but I'm reluctant to get into it in fiction because it pretty much always involves tragedy and angst and woe, and I do not do that. I could see doing a historical version, where the parties were married for political reasons and everyone involved looked the other way, but otherwise...nah, not into the Bridges of Madison County-type drama.

Contrariwise, I suppose, I cannot stand jealousy. I can deal with a little envy, but possessiveness...no, go away. Same thing with overprotectiveness: I really liked Ilona Andrews's books until the male love interest started with the "rar, mine!" bullshit and the main character didn't tell him to go peddle his papers.

Hate love triangles, as stated above, especially the Betty/Veronica, Laurana/Kitiara, Jack/Sawyer type. One person represents the MC's desire for a normal wholesome life of normal wholesome goodness! The other represents the dark potential of the MC's shadow side! It! Is! So! SYMBOLIC! Bite me, Tanis.

And the "honey, it's not what it looks like" trope. Argh.

And I do not do tragedy, downer endings, dystopias, or stuff where anyone can die and often does. Also no dysfunctional characters: the refusal to cope drives me up the wall.

I have a totally irrational and probably Lisa-Frank-influenced love for color-coded powers and/or orders. I also really like weird space magic metaphysical stuff, which means that I'm a giant Green Lantern fangirl, at least where the comics are concerned. Also mythology in general, if done well.

As long as it doesn't hit the dark and gritty or tragic (which means not much biofic) I really love historical fiction, particularly for the late 1800s through the 1980s. Especially when it includes food and/or clothing porn, because yay.

I also love anything that focuses on animals and their training, or really on physical/domestic stuff, q.v. anything by Robin McKinley ever, really.

Character-wise, I'm unduly fond of the "they fight crime" thing, where two or more unlikely people must band together to blah blah blah. I also like makeovers and training, of any sort: if it can be in a montage, I will probably love it, because montage!

I look for sensible people, and intrepid people.

And personal, somewhat sexist gut thing: I can't stand naive women, but naive/shy men, for some reason, grab me like whoa, at least in fiction. I blame exposure to Grease 2 during my formative years.

[Lonespark]

Also no dysfunctional characters: the refusal to cope drives me up the wall.

I don't have a problem with dysfunctional characters. It's a piece of reality I don't mind even in escapist fiction...up to a point. People (including the character him/herself at some point) have to acknowledge the dysfunction and work in some way to make it better.

[sarah]

Adultery bugs me, too. I just can't read about it or watch it.

Also, what Dear Author and Smart Bitches, Trashy Books call the "Too Stupid to Live" (TSTL) character. And the spoiled rich character. Can't do either of those.

Is there another sarah in the mix now?

[Kirala]

For me, the "Honey, it's not what it looks like" thing is a subset of a hated trope: what I call the Five-Minute Conversation Problem. That is to say, any problem which could be solved by a five-minute (or shorter) conversation which doesn't occur, because Reasons, whatever. I find that most of Dumbledore's problems with Harry (although not vice versa) could be solved with five-minute conversations. It fails to drive me crazy only because Rowling usually lets it drive the characters crazy and specifically points it out as a failure on Dumbledore's part.

[Froborr]

@Kirala: That's a very common subset of one of my pet peeves, the Idiot Plot, which IIRC the Turkey City Lexicon defined as a plot which only works because at least one character is a complete idiot, and thus doesn't share what they know.

And I agree, it can be done well if the character in question has a good reason not to talk or (and this is harder to do well) doesn't realize they know what they know. (Pratchett's Feet of Clay contains good examples of both--Pneel xabjf jung'f tbvat ba jvgu obgu gur tbyrzf naq gur cybg gb zheqre gur Cngevpvna, ohg vf gbb sevtugrarq sbe uvf yvsr gb fcrnx, naq Ivzrf npghnyyl trgf nyy gur vasbezngvba ur arrqf gb fbyir gur ubjqhaavg va gur svefg 50 cntrf, ohg qbrfa'g ernyvmr vg orpnhfr ur qbrfa'g unir gur evtug xvaq bs frafr bs uhzbe.)

[Nick Kiddle]

//That is to say, any problem which could be solved by a five-minute (or shorter) conversation which doesn't occur, because Reasons, whatever.//

I have some tolerance for this, if it's meant to be a story about how small miscommunications can balloon into epic catastrophes, or even just about the messy way people go about sharing information. After all, people are often too proud/ashamed/nervous/whatever to say everything that's on their mind in real life. What I don't like is the minor miscommunication milked for all it's worth as comedy. I have a very visceral aversion to any comedy that involves someone being humiliated - and believing the wrong thing for 50 pages/30 minutes of screen time seems like a humiliation to me - so if I see it heading in that direction I'll skim or switch off.

[sarah]

[Nick: I have a very visceral aversion to any comedy that involves someone being humiliated - and believing the wrong thing for 50 pages/30 minutes of screen time seems like a humiliation to me - so if I see it heading in that direction I'll skim or switch off.]]

I have this too. Like "The Office." I...it's funny, but I just can't do it.

[Raj]

sarah: Is there another sarah in the mix now?

If both survive the lirpa, combat will continue with the ahn-woon!

[The Board Administration Team]

@Sarah (with a capital S) -- we have a long time poster who goes by sarah (no capital S.) Not wanting to rob you of your name -- perhaps you could use TheOtherSarah or some such username so others know who is who?

[Izzy]

I'm not a fan of cringe comedy myself.

Frankly, TV/movie comedies are a tough sell for me, especially these days: I don't like Office-style squirmy humor, I loathe Adam Sandler's three million variations on not-too-bright-manchild-with-zero-impulse-control, and romantic comedies actively piss me off most of the time on a feminist level.

[chris the cynic]

I'm very much not good with things where characters can't distinguish between what is real and what isn't.

I think A Beautiful Mind was a wonderful movie, but I can't watch that kind of thing.

I'm not good with misunderstanding, manipulation, or general awkwardness. Romantic comedies tend to incredibly painful for me. Cringe comedy is as well.

It's probably why I tend toward mindless action, it's usually safer for me.

[cjmr]

TV and/or Movie trope I hate--potty humor, esp. flatulence jokes.

[Marc Mielke]

I appear to have a better grasp than other people about when something in a movie/tv show isn't really happening. I've spoiled at least one anime for a friend by immediately, like in said character's second scene, that that guy isn't real.

Totally, totally hate cringe comedy and have since I was a small child. What is it about us? Empathy?

[Firedrake]

Marc Mielke, I don't know anyone who claims to like cringe comedy - I suspect that they either don't notice it or don't perceive it in the same way as people who actively dislike it. So yes, empathy may well be exactly the point.

(Another reason why compatible senses of humour are terribly important when considering long-term relationships.)

cjmr, agreed - bodily functions stopped being funny some time in the not-quite-verbal years as far as I can remember.

[Will Wildman]

Related to cringe comedy but without comedy, there's a trope that thankfully only gets played in media for younger audiences, so I've stopped running into it: young character breaks the rules (sits in parents' new fancy car while no one else is home), there is An Accident (they put the car in neutral and it rolls into the wall and gets damaged), and then they deny all knowledge ("It must have rolled on its own") and guiltily listen to adults who are angry or sad or both, and someone else gets blamed until finally they come forward and 'fess up for their right and just consequences. I saw that so many times and I could not bear it. I was sufficiently obsessive about continuity/completeness that I hated to only get part of a story, but I would switch that stuff right off.

Contrariwise, I suppose, I cannot stand jealousy. I can deal with a little envy, but possessiveness...no, go away. Same thing with overprotectiveness: I really liked Ilona Andrews's books until the male love interest started with the "rar, mine!" bullshit and the main character didn't tell him to go peddle his papers.

I can roll with envy/jealousy, but not when characters are reduced to 15-year-old levels of maturity when dealing with it. (Actually, that applies everywhere, but jealousy seems to be the thing that brings it up most often.) I am jealous by nature, but that doesn't have to ruin everything if I can talk sensibly about it to my hypothetical partner and we can come to an accord that isn't just a unilateral dismissal of anyone's feelings. (Jealousy reducing people to emotionally-stunted teenagers is, I think one of Return of the Jedi's key flaws.)

In terms of things that I like, I've realised that I deeply enjoy overpowered heroes for whom the tension comes not from whether they can win, but how much power they will have to bring to bear and what this will cost them. This is what I like about the idea of many superheroes, for example - Superman may be an invincible alien with unlimited power, but the more he interferes to protect people, the more he infringes on their freedom, so the question is how much effect he can get for how little interference. (The same is true of the Doctor.)