/lit/ - Literature

everything is cliche

all of my characters are dyslexic blind people
they are also ocelots
and none of them speak

You can't write. Take me seriously. YOU CAN'T WRITE. FUCKKKKK OFFFF.

whether or not you do not write something as cliche, someone is going to find a way to categorize it...

You're already losing if you're writing about a necromancer. WTF?

so... no serious answers?

Or is that my answer, that worrying about writing a cliche'd character serves no purpose and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously? I should just write my characters the way I like and damn the rest? Sounds good, thanks /lit/!

>>480981
and what do you write about hm?

>>480981

Seriously. Who the fuck describes a character as a necromancer? Whatthefuckamireading.jpg

It wouldn't be a cliche but it wouldn't be good characterization either. You can have a character who behaves in a cliche fashion but the character itself is not a cliche.

For example, a knight who saves maidens but only does it because he's kind of a pervert and wouldn't get pussy otherwise.

So you can have a morbid necromancer who is actually very fleshed out and interesting. You can also have a shitty, cheery necromancer character who isn't a "cliche" but has as many dimensions as a picture of my balls and half the personality.

>>480985
How is it any different than describing a person who practices medicine as a doctor? It's his skillset, his job, and the function he performs for the majority of his day. How else should I describe him?

>Is it a cliche if I deliberately try to NOT make it a cliche?

No, it just makes for a shit character.

>>480986
But that doesn't mean that, with the appropriate amount of work, I can't write a character that is a cheery happy master of strapping together flesh and bone who is well characterized and fleshed out, right?

Every single character you care to write will be categorised in some way or another. That's because everyone ever falls under a certain type. I don't think that makes them cliches. There's no reason to assemble a clusterfuck of characteristics and assign them to one person who couldn't feasibly have them all. It draws from the realism of the character.
So yes, I think inverse cliches do exist and are pretty damaging when the reader's like "well this guy is some kind of fucked up patchwork of multiple characters".

>>480996
but that'd detract from the colness, unless he is totally insane

>>480988

So the majority of his day is involved with witchcraft? Sounds like a weak character with a lame occupation.

>>480996
Exactly. I'm just saying that there are two sides to the cliche coin. The crappy cliche character and the crappy character who isn't a cliche (but is just as poorly thought out).

>>480999
Change literally one word of that and you've just insulted The Name of the Rose. Cheap shot, I know, but a focused character isn't necessarily a bad thing.

>>481013

>implying I give a shit about insulting The Name of The Rose.

I mean, a focused character is one thing. But a focused character involving sorcery and witchcraft? I hate to bring up Stephen King but even "Carrie" had more elements than just the supernatural.

>>481002
I imagine him not unlike a mortician who has a very happy disposition. We aren't always able to choose where our talents lie, and whether or not they match our emotional disposition.

>>481037
I apologize for not giving you a full complete rundown of the elements of my character, I was trying to be brief so that it wasn't tl;dr. As I understand, people who go on and on about their ZOMG so cool! characters aren't appreciated. I'm merely asking for advice on one facet.

>>481046

Whatever. Guess I got carried away. But I was merely trying to actually answer your question. Maybe you should be writing this character's story instead of talking to assholes like me online about it.

>>481041
So he's like every coroner on network TV crime shows?

>>481056
I understand where you're coming from.

And I am writing, but one of the pieces of advice I hear is that it always helps to talk to other people involved in writing or literature to get different ideas. And I totally recognize that just having a guy who's a wizard is pretty sparse as far as characterization. I've been writing for a few days just getting to know this character, looking at his childhood, his likes/dislikes, all that fun characterization jazz. So no need to apologize (I'm assuming the 'whatever' is you're way of apologizing)

>>480968
> necromancer

>>481069

There was no outright apology. I don't write or read fantasy so why would I go to the trouble of apologizing to someone who does. I was just interested in talking about character development; don't give a sit if they are a wizard or a fuckin' deep space explorer.

>>481068
I hadn't considered that particular genre before, perhaps there are some similarities there. But he's more active than a person just going through dead bodies, he's actually going out there into the world and doing things.

>>481080
>implying that no relevant experience in the field excludes you from apologies when you act like a dick