When the story starts out with the main character either peering into their reflection or waking up from a dream. I also become irritated when writers use common physical descriptions such as "ice blue eyes". I'm not sure if this is a cliche or not, but I'm not too fond of when authors begin their stories with dialogue.
I hate writing the colour of my character's eyes. It's as pointless as releasing their star sign. The only reason I would do it is because I know the reader might want to know that information.
Eyes are the windows to the soul. I like to know eye colour, particularly when it's used to add something to the character's mood. Ice blue eyes makes me think of someone who's quite cool and calm and also a little bit of a know-it-all. And, I'm not ashamed to admit that one of my characters has brown eyes that under certain circumstances, have been known to shine like 'chocolate coloured diamonds'.
First off, I don't even like the 'eyes are the window to the soul' phrase. How so, exactly? Personally I think this is just another old cliché. If it has any truth, it refers to the surroundings of the eyes: are the eyelids droopy signifying age? Are the eyebrows fine, the eyelashes long and the corners cat-like, indicating beauty? etc. Furthermore, you can still call a character icy without referring to their eyes. Eye colour has no relation with character or soul, except in one way: eye colour.
When the book begins with a year and a location like 13 April 1942- 11:24 am Near Paris Don't get me wrong, it's good to know where we are and what era we're in, but I find this too metallic, too bland and stiff; an excuse to not allow the readers to immerse themselves in descriptions of the setting and fully enrich themselves in what the characters are seeing, feeling, and doing in that setting. Unless you're starting the book with a report on a mission, avoid it. Let the readers be acquainted with the setting through the characters.
Eyes are the window to the soul - it's a cliché, you asked for them. My apologies for not making this clearer. As for the rest, it's my opinion. And as for clichés in generally, I'm not going to stop using them just because some people roll their eyes at them. Pardon the pun. Clichés, whether we like them or not, appear in everyday life. Yes, some are more groan-worthy than others but I for one am not going to stress about their appearance in my work.
I like mentioning eye color. People do notice eye color. But I hate when it's bland or over done. I once created a stir in French class by describing my eyes as gris, vert, bleu. A bully sneered you don't have three color eyes. I said okay, you decide are they blue, gray or green? He shut up. I also read once in one of Pauline Kael's movie reviews how she described Tanya Roberts as having a blank stare with eyes that appeared to have been applied with blue chalk - love that image. Like your chocolate diamonds - Cutecat!
Just NEVER make your character's eyes "violet". Unless you are Dirk Whatshisface's girlfriend du jour, from the Clive Cussler books. Then you must ALWAYS have violet eyes and auburn hair and legs up to here and Ph.D.s in Neuro-Electrochemistry and Plasma Interfacing With Para Molecular Biology and a terribly lonely heart due to your inability to find men who are intelligent, sensitive and fantastic in bed.
What if my character had some freaky eye condition that made their eyes violent, or were an alien race with violet eyes?
'Marionettes' always appear in CW poems, I avoid all string puppets. 'Swathes' is a TV news special word. I never write 'swathes.' Second step terms like 'languor' are quite dangerous to our careers, and some vile magazine yesterday wrote Clooney's new wife has 'espresso brown eyes.' Euch. I particularly detest any reference to coffee in writing. Always the earnest blogger with his bucket of soya beans - 'and my terrible habit tsk tsk, I drink coffee nnnneeeennnnneee,' nerd. I hate them. Actually I will campaign against anybody who yawns on about his coffee addiction. I drink tea.
*slides coffee away from him in a subtle, suspicious manner* Other clichés I hate and will avoid: (1) When there's a character who's just so good at everything you wonder why he/she isn't solving the problem all by him/herself. (2) When the villain has the hero at his/her mercy and...just doesn't kill the hero. Instead he/she just rambles, rants, reveals his/her whole plot all while the hero is figuring out a way to get out of this. Or if the villain finds that he/she can't personally kill the hero, he/she doesn't just ask one of his/her minions to do the job. (2.5) When the hero has the villain at his/her mercy and...just doesn't kill the villain. Instead he/she just has an internal conflict/goes on a speech about mercy and compassion, then decides it's better to not kill the villain or else "[I'll] become just like [them]." Protagonists, if you don't want to kill the villain, fine, but don't let them go! Drag them to jail in chains to face justice! Don't just tell them to take off assuming that they've learned their lesson and will never threaten anyone again. If you do, you deserve it when the villain returns again to *big sarcastic gasp* make trouble again. (3) The evil aunt/uncle cliché. Or really the evil caretaker of the plucky little orphan cliché in general. (4) Stock characters who are just evil/bullies for evil/bullying's sake. Really any time there's a stock character. (5) Any time a group of villains are based off the Nazis. I get it, they were bad, but can you please base your villainous group off of any other evil group in human history?? (6) The dirty, plucky orphan turns out to be the Chosen One, and only he/she can save the world. Even the most competent soldier is second class to this orphaned Jesus-like figure. (7) The hero is getting pummeled by the villain and is about to give up when he/she suddenly has a vision of those he/she once fought for/or is fighting for, or maybe a child (and it's always a child) urges them to get back up. Bonus if he/she does get back up while the villain is now terrorizing the others and he/she does a surprise tackle from behind. (8) When the whole purpose of a character considered a 'minority' seems to be teaching the main character tolerance. Sorry, but my Estonian character has better things to do.
I wouldn't consider it cliché if a bad caretaker is in the story. A lot of guardians are bad, plus the chances are 50/50 that the guardian is bad. It can be a good way to show the modus operandi of the character. Although, I agree about the stock character point, going the way of a character with no redeemable qualities need not be cliché. They probably aren't doing the bullying / evil things just for the sake of it, the writer simply chooses not to explore the character, to stick with the main story-line (although I do prefer a villain with redeemable qualities).
