Literary Cliches

[Deleted]

Does anyone read the Alex Delaware mysteries? The author's last name is Kellerman. Alex is a psychologist who always ends up helping his best buddy Milo, an L.A. cop to solve a crime. This writer is downright enslaved to this cliche: The "heros" (who ultimately come off pretty clueless) towards the end are in an isoloated area for one reason or another. At night, of course. This is when the villain steps out of the shadows to reveal himself, and it's supposed to be this big shocker. You know, "And then we saw his face and realized it was so-and-so all the time, how could we not have seen it!!!" and "Ha ha ha!!!" gloated ---- 'Yes! It was ME all along and you never suspected!'" The thing is, this author jams so many characters into his books that often when the villain is finally revealed, I'm thinking, "Who...? I recall seeing the name somewhere along the line but I don't recall how he fits into the story..."

A friend of mine who is also a big reader and I were complaining about books like this -- The big "shocker" comes where the culprit is revealed and you can barely remember who the person is because there are just too many characters in the book.

[Ripley]

It seems to be a trend among mystery authors. I enjoy the light fluffiness that is Diane Mott Davidson's and Janet Evanovich's books, but I've gotten very tired of the whole "shocking twist." It's to the point now where I know that if a person seems evil and seems like the best suspect, then I know s/he isn't the killer. I try to remember the least significant character because that person is always the murderer.

[Deleted]

ripley said:

It seems to be a trend among mystery authors. I enjoy the light fluffiness that is Diane Mott Davidson's and Janet Evanovich's books, but I've gotten very tired of the whole "shocking twist." It's to the point now where I know that if a person seems evil and seems like the best suspect, then I know s/he isn't the killer. I try to remember the least significant character because that person is always the murderer.

Mary Higgins Clark was perfect for this. Any time she writes a mystery where you don't know who the killer is (as opposed to the ones where you alternate chapters-killer/detective/killer/detective) the killer always turned out to be the least likely person.

Like the heroine has a kind elderly neighbor nammed Fanny who watches her cats and bakes her cookies. The neighbor on the other side is Biff. Biff kicks puppies for fun, beats up his girlfriend and blares loud music. So you THINK that BIff is the killer but lo and behold--it's FANNY! AGGH! Who knew?

[linared]

What is really bad is when you have a mystery writer who has his or her main character live in a tiny, little small town where nothing every happens. Except for the horrible, grisly twisted murders that happens every other week. And of course being that the main character lives in a tiny town there is always the problem of who will be the murderer and the victim. Some books go with bringing in a load of strangers, ruining the surprises. Some use the characters in the town, making the town smaller with every book.

Of course setting the book in the small town, lets the writer use of the small town cliches, nothing ever happens, everyone knows your business, people from big citites are all jerks.

[Ripley]

What is really bad is when you have a mystery writer who has his or her main character live in a tiny, little small town where nothing every happens.

::cough::Miss Marple!::cough::

[Deleted]

We-ell, Agatha Christie was probably the originator of the least suspicious, most mild mannered character being the murderer. But while it annoyed me after a while with Mary Higgins Clark, I didn't mind the same thing in Agatha Christie, because she was so good at setting up intriguing relationships and made me want to read her books for that alone.

[Laira]

I hate the increasingly common habit of having two separate but parallel storylines and switching off between them every chapter. Just as I'm getting into one story, it switches to the other, and as soon as I'm getting into story #2, it switches back. It's very frustrating. I'm not talking about a different viewpoint, I mean one story is in the present day and the other in the past or it's following two different sets of characters.

Just tell me a linear story!

[chonies]

My mom was recently complaining about that, too. I personally love stories with frame stories, and I didn't think the concept was especially new or trendy but my mother reads way more contemporary fiction than I do, and she feels like it's increasingly common.

[famvir]

Marathon Man was a fantastic use of this devise! (Great book, I won't spoiler it). But yeah, I see it a lot more lately, and it is annoying. I don't mind so much when it is two or three story lines, but I've read books where it is five or six! I've taken to skipping ahead and reading each story line individually until they all meet at some point 90% through the book.

There is no reason to split them up every other (other, other, other, other...) chapters. If is just crazy making!

[addison]

Feb 29, 2016 15:20:17 GMT -4 famvir said:

Marathon Man was a fantastic use of this devise! (Great book, I won't spoiler it). But yeah, I see it a lot more lately, and it is annoying. I don't mind so much when it is two or three story lines, but I've read books where it is five or six! I've taken to skipping ahead and reading each story line individually until they all meet at some point 90% through the book.

There is no reason to split them up every other (other, other, other, other...) chapters. If is just crazy making!

I'm reading Beautiful Ruins, which I'm enjoying but she's overusing this technique - story in the 60s, story in modern day I'm okay with, but chapter from book by guy staying at hotel and script summary from guy wanting to sell a movie are overdoing it. I guess the relevance may become obvious but it's still annoying.