Top 10 Story Devices That I Love

To close out the year on a positive note, I decided to make a follow-up to my Top 10 Story Devices That I Hate post, and make it I did. It's true that at this point in time many devices, jokes, plot points and story elements are done to death. But 'trite and overused' can also be read as 'tried and true', or at least we can enjoy them even when we've seen them a thousand times. So I'll be listing off my top ten clichés that I don't see myself getting sick of any time soon...

10. Blatant Sexual Innuendo

From visual metaphors to strangely suggestive dialogue, there's an immature part of me that finds innuendo just so damn funny. I especially like it when two characters exchange dialogue that, in context is perfectly innocent, but that sounds just a little bit too similar to something a little more seedy. The simple use of phrases like 'was it good for you?' and 'it meant nothing to me!' make the discovery of someone breaking a diet sound strikingly like an act of infidelity. Of course, subtext is key in any well-written piece of work, but let's be honest, sometimes it doesn't need to be subtle; in some cases, it's better when it's right in our faces (oh my!).

9. The Stupid Genius
The stupid genius (or maybe the intelligent idiot) is the character who is very intelligent, knowledgeable and maybe even a genuine genius, but he (or she) is either not well-versed in areas outside academia, or just lacks basic common sense or, like all of us, just has the occasional (or maybe frequent) dumb moment. I find these characters fun because it's an interesting contrast; you'd expect a brilliant rocket scientist to have a good head on his shoulders, so seeing him losing his car keys or failing to realise that the door says 'pull' is just funny. It also helps to divide intelligence from common sense, as there seems to be the misunderstanding that they are the same thing. Think Scrubs, especially JD; he's a doctor, he's clearly intelligent, he went to college and Med. School and he knows medicine, but that doesn't stop him from being air-headed, and doing frankly idiotic things. And, of course, like the stronger clichés, this does happen in real life. Someone who just scored 100% on his maths test might not think to put the lid on a blender before switching the on button. Seriously, it happens.

8. The Loveable Bastard
The character you love to hate. He (or she) can be the villain, the hero, or just a supporting character, but is always rude, unkind, sometimes even downright sociopathic. But we just can't get enough of their snide remarks and their glee at others' misfortune. They're usually intelligent or talented, which commands a kind of respect, and they feel they have the right to be so smug and brash. We should hate them, but instead we find ourselves oddly compelled.

7. The Dance
That scene when the two characters dance. It can be almost any kind of dance; whether it's a formal waltz, a saucy tango, or a tender, romantic slow dance, we know that somewhere down the line the two characters will be sharing more than just a dance together. The physical intimacy and sexual connotations of a dance make it an excellent way of showing a romantic connection, and it can be not only beautiful to watch, but very telling of a couple's dynamic. Who is leading? Are they stepping on each others' feet? Is one resting their head on their partner's shoulder? Whatever the dance, and however well it goes, the message is clear: the two dancers are meant for each other.

6. The Lovable Coward
I know cowardly characters can often be annoying or even despicable; putting others in the path of danger to save their own skin. But sometimes a coward will be endearing, or at the very least justified: they are thrown completely out of their depth, or the situation really is terrifying and any normal person would react the same way, or maybe they're just skittish by nature. I always found these characters enjoyable, because while the main hero will often be the person we want to be, the cowardly cohort is essentially the person we really are, and that's why I often find myself liking these characters. If there was a zombie apocalypse, would you really take on the horde with naught but a shotgun and a handful of nerve, or would you curl up under a table trying not to smell too much like meat? Be honest, now.

5. Sibling Rivalry
As someone with two older sisters and a younger brother, sibling rivalry is certainly not an alien concept to me, which is probably why I enjoy seeing it so much in the media. Seeing two people who have known each other their whole lives fighting, arguing and competing against one another for the smallest possible reasons is something that I can understand and that is extremely entertaining. It's especially amusing when said rivalry is between adults who should really be above all that by now, but who can't seem to help the occasional 'because I say so and I'm the oldest' argument.

4. We're Just Friends
The characters who insist that they are not romantically involved, but who are all too often mistaken for a couple. Whether they seem closer than most friends, they keep getting caught in compromising situations, or their friends have just decided they would be a great couple, they will always be asked if they are an item. This can go different ways, but usually they will end up as a couple eventually, but this device can be, and often is, played with, and sometimes they will end up just being platonic friends, something which I think we don't see enough of in the media, but a lot of the time, this trope is a way for the writers to show who the real couple is, even if they aren't officially an item. Yet. Maybe.

3. The Straight Man
I mentioned in my previous post that I liked the straight man in comedy; the comedic foil to the zany guy. Not to say that I don't like the zany guy, I just always seem to prefer the straight man. Maybe it's his sarcastic retorts, maybe it's his stark contrast to the wacky antics of his associate, or, most likely, it's his endless patience and astounding ability to avoid going on a killing spree. The fun thing is that the straight man doesn't need to be very serious, or even all that normal, he just needs to look that way in comparison to the other guy, a situation which I find answers the question many people ask when they see this comic duo: why are those two friends? Because the straight man would look weird standing next to anyone else, this guy makes him feel normal. That's just my theory though, maybe he just likes getting roped into his wild antics on a weekly basis; he probably has nothing better to do anyway.

2. Guy Love/Bromance
Similar to the above 'We're Just Friends', but with two major differences: it only involves two main characters,  and it almost never results in a romantic relationship. This is those two guys who always seem to be together; they are best friends, they aren't afraid to hug or express their platonic love for one another (or maybe one of them is...), but above all, they are as close as two men can be. Although people around them may think that these two guys are a couple, they very rarely are; they are usually both straight. Now, I don't have an issue with homosexual relationships (most of the romance-related clichés here can refer to gay couples), but as I have mentioned earlier, I just have a soft spot for platonic love.

1. Love-Hate Relationships
It's so predictable; boy meets girl, boy hates girl, girl hates boy, girl and boy fight and end up spending a lot of time insulting one another. Then this passionate hate and anger grows into something beautiful; love. But, even when they get together, they will stop at nothing to mock, insult and shout at each other, despite how much in love they both are. It's a story you see a thousand times, yet I still love it. These relationships are just so fun to watch; I always enjoy seeing two people who we know really do love each other just ripping each other to shreds, either to avoid their feelings of love because of pride, or because that is their way of expressing their love. Now, this doesn't only apply to romantic relationships; there are always those friends who can't stand each other but couldn't live without them. I suppose what I like the most about this cliché is the juxtaposition of love and hate that, in reality, we wouldn't normally think to combine. But in fiction, it makes a very interesting, passionate relationship that is just so enjoyable to watch.


So those are the clichés that I will probably never tire of. Here's hoping 2012 will be filled with films, books, and TV shows filled to the brim with these devices, and utterly lacking those in my last post. Can't a girl dream?

Top 10 Story Devices That I Hate

I'll be honest, this doesn't really need much of an introduction. Everyone has the tired old plots, character templates, etc. that they're either tired of, or that they've never really liked. Here is a list of mine, ready for the impending new year. This list goes from minor pet-peeves to full-on rage-triggers, so expect many rants. I'll see you on the other side.

10. One Word Too Many

Okay, so this isn't an intentional device, so much as something I consider to be bad practice in writing, but this is when a line of dialogue has just one or two words too many, turning an ambiguous implication into an unambiguous statement, making it weaker for it. One example of what I'm talking about is in the Hellboy film (a good film, mind, it's just this line that bothered me), in which this line is spoken to the hero: 'This whole thing is a farce, because in the end, after you've killed and captured every freak out there, there's still one left: you.' That would have been a great line if it had ended one word sooner. Especially since the character speaking was staring right at Hellboy when he said it, that final 'you' just made it obvious. It's a minor thing, but it's generally good form to keep dialogue tight, and although it's only taking away one word in this case, short, concise dialogue makes all the difference between a good line of dialogue, and a great, pithy line of dialogue that people will quote for years to come. Case in point: 'To be, or not to be'.

9. Informed Characteristics

This is when we're told that a character has a certain characteristic, when we never see any kind of evidence to support this claim. This is your basic 'show, don't tell' rule; it's usually better to show us a characteristic than to just tell us about it. It's fairly obvious why this one rubs me up the wrong way, it's just basic bad character writing. Don't tell me that the character is a badass with a heart of gold, show me that he is by his actions, his reactions, how he acts when no one's looking, or if you are going to tell me, you'd better make sure you back up your claim later on. Just because you wrote it, doesn't mean I have to trust you. Why yes, I am a bit of a bitch, thanks for noticing.

8. The Pointless Backstory

A character's backstory can be really interesting; in fact, fans of a work can become obsessed with knowing about their favourite character's backstory, and I would argue that giving it to them is risky business. As you've seen from my post about Origin Stories, I'm not a big fan of telling the reader/audience everything about a character, because it often takes away while it informs. Now, I do think that an interesting and fleshed-out backstory is no bad thing; in fact, I would advise thinking through a character's backstory even if it won't be revealed, just so you'll know your character well enough to write them convincingly. It's when a backstory is either poorly put together, lifted from the standard list of clichés, or if it simply adds nothing to the plot or character that it becomes a problem. If a plot opens doors for the story, or reveals something new and exciting about the character, or causes dramatic conflict among characters (or internal conflict for just the one character), then it has been done well. Unfortunately, this sometimes just comes across as the writer badly wanting to share the traumatic backstory to try and excuse their character's bad attitude, to use but one example, and that doesn't really add anything.

7. Childhood Friends = Marriage

This relates to my love of the portrayal of friendship and platonic love, which tends not to be explored so much between men and women, I find. It seems the only way a man and woman who knew each other when they were children are safe from eventually getting married is for one of them to be gay. Apparently people are just so full of lust they will leap on anything with corresponding erogenous zones. Never mind the fact that a lot of the time two people who have known each other since childhood often see one another as siblings and may even find the idea of viewing them in a sexual way as wrong, or even disgusting (known as the Westermarck Effect); they have a close connection, and close connections are apparently always romantic and never platonic. Yeah, I don't care if it does happen in real life, it's been done to death in the media and now it does nothing but annoy me.

6. Stupid Americans

Yes, as an English person, I don't think that all Americans are stupid; it's just a stereotype. I think that they have been poorly represented over time because some of the less intelligent Americans also seem to be the loudest, from what I've seen. I tend to get irked by racial or national stereotypes anyway (although I do have a soft spot for the English stereotype, but that's just an odd little fancy of mine), but there's something about the over-the-top, uneducated, air-headed, burger-chowing, obnoxious American stereotype that just grates on me. Now, I'm usually okay with the endearingly simple character; the one who might not be all there, but is still a likeable character because they're pretty much harmless (hell, I've written characters like that myself); it's when the character is both stupid and obnoxious that it really starts to grate on me. I'm not sure if it's because I get indignant at such a negative stereotype, or the fact that most of the time the 'stupid' character does nothing but slow the plot down and provide 'comedy', or the fact that characters being portrayed as that stupid make me weep for humankind, but this trope just doesn't sit well with me.

5. No Straight Man

This definitely needs an explanation, because on its own, it must sound strange. First and foremost, I mean 'straight' in the context of comedy: the straight man is the 'normal' guy. He represents logic, reason, sensible rationalisation; he's boring, really. But he acts as a foil to the 'crazy' guy. It's a basic comic device: the zany guy and the straight man; they compliment each other. Now that I've explained a little, I'll move on to what I'm really talking about here. I'm talking about a comedy set in a crazy world with crazy people, but there's just one problem. There's no straight man. The straight man is required in a mad comedy to draw attention to just how insane everything (and everyone) around him is. He doesn't even need to talk about it, you only need to see the look on his face to realise just how mad everything is. Without him, it's just a group of crazies running around and it gets a bit all over the place. Now, some comedies manage without the straight man, and that's fine, but it's actually very difficult to pull off. Plus, I like the straight man. He's the one who sits there trying to work it all out, slapping his forehead as more and more insanity is thrown his way. He is what Marge is to Homer, what Squidward is to Spongebob, and what Brian is to the entire cast of Family Guy. The straight man is the boring, sensible glue that holds the funny, zany cast together.

4. Flashbacks

This is a difficult one to explain. It's related to my 'should you reveal backstory' conflict, but it's harder to pin down exactly what I dislike about flashbacks. I think it's mostly the contrived way they're often placed into narrative, like the character gets knocked out and flashes back, or someone will say something vague to them, making them flash back, I don't know. I have seen it done very well, and realistically, like in Ratatouille, when a mouthful of food takes the character back to his childhood, because that is actually something that happens in real life: senses like smell and taste are very closely linked to memory (I'm not sure how or why, they just are). And I think that very short flashbacks that are literally just flashes of memory are good too, for the same reason that they are somewhat realistic. It's when whole scenes, or whole episodes are flashbacks that I start to lose my suspension of disbelief. I start to wonder if the character is relaying everything we're seeing, and every line of dialogue being spoken, or if they just black out for fifteen minutes while this flashback occurs. It makes me think too much about the technicalities of it, and I start remembering that in real life, actual flashbacks are really very rare in people who aren't suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Like I said, it's hard to explain exactly what I dislike about it, I suppose it's just so easy to do badly that I always focus on that and often forget how well it's been done in the past. I think it's so often used as a cheap way to crowbar in a character's backstory that I've become a little sceptical now.

3. 'Wait, It's Not What It Looks Like!' Used for Drama

Seriously. This is a comic device, and I don't know why it's being used in drama so much. I love the comedic misunderstandings when someone walks in on someone (or more than one person) in a compromising position and they get the wrong idea. But I hate it when they are used for drama; a girl flirts with a married man, his wife walks in on them, gets the wrong idea: DRAMA! No, not drama, idiocy. I know that the other character has a right to get upset because they didn't see what we saw, but that doesn't stop it from really annoying me. I suppose what really gets me about this one is that it's so contrived and you often have to make people act out of character for it to actually work, whereas when it's used for comedy, not so much. This is an example of dramatic irony done really badly because instead of creating tension, it makes the audience exasperated. But what's really irritating about it is that almost every time it's used, it's of no real consequence. The two characters will fall out for a while, but eventually one of them will see the error of their ways and they'll get back together anyway, so the whole thing just feels like a massive waste of time. Yeah, we'll get back to the literary and cinematic cancer that is false tension in a bit. In short, this trope needs to stay in the comedy genre, because it's just not working in drama.

2. Tacked-on Love Story

Everyone talks about this one, so I won't go on too much. Basically, people need to realise that not every story needs a love story in it. Sometimes all the character needs is to find himself, or to find love in his friends, or to realise the importance of family, or to quench his thirst for adventure. Not every plot calls for a romantic sub-plot, and it annoys me when an uninspired love story is just thrown in at the last minute. It makes me think that once the adventure is over, and the adrenaline wears off, they'll immediately break up because they have literally no romantic feelings for one another, they just kissed in the excitement of the moment, or because they were staring death in the face, and now they realise that it wasn't much different from a huge drunken mistake. Anyway, long story short: stop this nonsense, it's not necessary, believable, or satisfying, and everybody has worked it out now.

1. The Fake Death

Ooh, where do I start... This one has annoyed me for years, with perhaps the most egregious example being in Pets (the first film I can remember watching that I thought was bad. I saw it when I was maybe ten years old), where the dog gets shot, and everyone is distraught, only for the dog to jump back to life and be absolutely fine. I hate this cliché so much. There is just so much wrong with it; namely, it's an obvious attempt to get tears from the audience without actually killing anybody off. It only serves to create--I told you we'd get back to it--false tension.

This cliché is very common in children's films, which makes it all the more despicable in my opinion, because it essentially teaches children that death is just a temporary inconvenience. No, you do not get to do that. When a person dies, you need to mourn, pay your respects, accept it and then eventually move on. When a fictional character dies, you need to take responsibility for it. Did Bambi's mother come back to life thanks to bullshit plot contrivance? No. Do you know why? Because her death was actually meaningful and that meaning would be totally lost if she was magically fine for no good reason. So don't pretend to kill a character off only to have them sit back up after about a minute or so of that tender, heart-wrenching piano solo and expect us to cheer. It's manipulative, it's overused, and it's insulting.

Now, there are some instances where I will accept this device, and all of them require some semblance of a reasonable explanation as to why the character is not really dead. These include resuscitation, some form of shield, makeshift or otherwise, that we were previously unaware of (or perhaps we were aware of it at one point and since forgot about it), or a previously established device that brings them back to life in some sense (think the eponymous dragonballs that can resurrect the dead in the Dragonball series). Even if these are not realistic, I personally support artistic licence: if something doesn't technically make sense, but it has some artistic merit, I will normally accept it, providing it isn't too contrived. For example, I will accept a Bible taking a bullet and saving someone, even though I'm fairly certain that wouldn't work, because it's symbolic and can be meaningful when handled correctly. As for the established device, if it makes sense in continuity then I can accept it even if it's not realistic; that's just suspension of disbelief. And no, this doesn't mean that a fake-out death is okay as long as you explain it, because it's really the deceit that I hate the most, and in series like Dragonball we are told pretty much off the bat what the rules are when it comes to resurrecting people, so there isn't a lot of trickery when a character dies. The writers don't toy with our emotions; it's sad, yes, but we know that they can come back. No, it's when we are given some hamfisted, shameless cop-out Deus ex Machina just because the writers didn't have the balls to actually kill off a character, but they still want their emotional moment that I start to get really angry. And don't even get me started on that 'power of love' nonsense; the only kiss that can save someone is the 'kiss of life' (not nearly as effective or romantic as movies will have you believe), unless sexual arousal is actually a cure for sudden cases of death. Doubtful. So I'll finally wrap this up by saying that this is a cliché that I really think needs to be killed off for real, so no contrived magical bullshit can save it.

Wow. Okay. So there's my top 10 list of devices that I hate. Look out for New Year's Eve, where I'll be putting up this post's more optimistic little brother. I'll just take a few days to cool off...