What is the worst Charcter Cliches you can possibly name?

I hate when a female protag starts out as being strong, driven and independent, but as soon as she gets with Mr. Right, she becomes clingy and passive. I want to read about women who are both independent AND in love - and why is it that there's no female protags who end up happily single at the end? My great-aunt is a bachelorette and the coolest, happiest person I know. But in lit and movies, single women are either mean spinsters, pitied or itching to find someone.

 

I agree, Mal, and I'm a dude!

I also hate it when the story has an orphaned protag being raised by a family, the other child in the house is usually a fat bully. I get what the author is trying to say, but doesn't it have unfortunate implications of "If you're not rail-thin like the protag, you're a stupid, pigheaded, twit who doesn't know anything!"

 

The funny thing is, cool independent women can be written who have a spouse/significant other... But only if they *start* that way. It's more that the stereotypical emotional character arc is broken rather than the actual character itself. Maybe no one knows the secret to how those women get with their men folk in the first place, or if they do it just doesn't make good reading/watching.

 

Maybe you're just reading the wrong pieces of fiction. There are plenty of writers with strong female protags that stay just as strong when a relationship develops.

 

Such as Rukia from the Bleach comics. She's not entirely helpless, or entirely aggressive. She's a lone wolf and a supporter at the same time.

 

I agree. Introducing the "strong woman" in adventure/fantasy fiction (and probably other genres) whose primary role is to prove that she is as strong as or stronger than the men is in itself a form of sexism, IMV. It may have had its place 40-50 years ago, but now comes across as a rather pointless cliche.

I am all for strong, competent female characters, but they have to be interesting beyond filling the stock character slot.

 

I like the idea of the dwarfs who fish. That in and of itself would make for a fun story setting.

And great point about humans getting along better with dogs than with apes.

 

Yes, definitely. Salander is the geeky outcast nobody likes, yet who ends up saving the day. Sure she didn't save the world or anything, but still. Add the "stole several million without anyone noticing even when she's spending them" as a quick excuse to let her travel around the world for a while. I wish she had stayed put in her home town and faced the consequenses instead. Still a great trilogy, though.

Just once I wish we could have a strong, driven and dependent male character who falls hopelessly in love with a woman and becomes clingy and passive. Or for that matter, let Mr. Right meet another Mr. Right, fall hopelessly in love and become clingy and passive. Why are there very few, if any, gay heroes of either gender?

And once again you are missing the point of this thread. This thread is about stereotypes we hate. It has nothing to do with there already being non-stereotypes around.

 

What about elves that are "fading" away? Dwarves that live underground in mines?

I'd like to read a fantasy story where a dwarf (who doesn't live underground) takes personal offense at the idea that he and his family would live underground.

 

What about the human/orc/goblin alliance fighting the evil dwarves and elves? No one says the orcs and goblins have to be evil. And why can't humans be the evil ones?

 

I don't mean to sound offensive, but this is what I've noticed in some romances like Hunchback of Notre Dame. The guy is the deformed one and the girl is the hot, pretty one.

 

Same with Phantom of the opera, The wolf man and Frankenstein. And Creature from the black lagoon. King Kong. The fly. Um... yeah, I see your point.

 

Well, with the case of Frankenstein, the creature became buddies with an old blind guy, but even that has unfortunate implications of "Only blind people will think you're pretty 'cause they can't see you!!"

 

^haha...

 

But do you think it was a coincidence the doctor, his assistant and the monster were all male? As a mini-spoiler, the monster eventually got a wife, but she was so repulsed of what she was that she killed herself. That's when the first monster finally realized he (and the female) were not meant for this world.

(though I guess you can say it was a classic example how men can accomplish anything and even cheat death, but it still only takes one woman to ruin everything.)

 

This doesn't actually happen in the book

Spoiler

In the novel, Victor starts to create a female monster, but when he is nearly finished and about to bring it to life, he changes his mind because he can't bear to bring two monsters into the world. So he rips her into peices, but the origional monster sees this, prompting him to go on a killing spree to kill Victor's fiance on their wedding night.

 

Stole the words from my mouth, you did!

Don't forget that the ship captain who rescued him was male also. Hell 99.9% of the cast in the book were men. The only other female we see besides Frankenstien's fiancee and Female Monster was that woman that got hung for a crime she didn't commit.

 

Oops, sorry.

And I don't think that is necessarily a comment on females though, but on Victor as a character and who he choses to interact with. There are obvious questions raised about Victor's sexuality, and I think the lack of female characters in his parts of the novel helps to highlight his discomfort/lack of interest around women. Although I dislike Victor as a character, I think he not particularly stereo-typical, as he isn't fighting for the life of the woman he loves, and he doesn't play a heroic role like most other male protagonists, but instead he thinks for his own safety.

Spoiler

For example, his assumption that the monster is going to kill him, and not giving a second thought for dear little Elizabeth, even though she is the target
Another example is how he allows Justine to die because he daren't speak up and admit that he created the moster - again portraying him in a very anti-hero way.

 

I was joking, mi amigo.

And yes, you've got a point. He acted very anti-hero in the story.

 

I wasn't sure, tone can be difficult to read online sometimes

 

Sorry for the mistake, it's been ages since I read the book. I usually stick to the Boris Karloff-movies. But anyway, don't forget Frankenstein was written by a woman. That's gotta count for something. My point was that there are far too many male scientists, and not enough females. How would Frankenstein be different if" Victor" was "Victoria"?

 

I would write this - would probably have the elves/dwarves be the good guys though, but the humans would be on the bad side! (Not that I'm misanthropic or anything, but the plot needs to be done). Except I'd change the names of the races so it doesn't feel like LotR fanfic.


Haha there are so many of these stereotypes in Harry Potter (the orphan with the mean adoptive family and fat bully brother, the fiery/heroic Gary Stu, the brooding angsty guy, the best friends who fall for each other, the best friend's little sister.....)

 

Yet it became one of the best series in the world.

It's like what Cogito said. As long as the story is good, the characters developed and relateable, the cliches will not matter.

 

No, it became one of the most popular series in the world. There's a difference.

 

My point still stands: Even if a series of books has the cliches we listed here, it doesn't mean the books will automatically be 100% pure suck.