On the prevalence of US tropes in storytelling

[hippokrene]

On the prevalence of US tropes in storytelling

In short, I’m tired of being invaded by US culture. I’m tired of US tropes being cited as the norm (even when it’s obvious that the rest of the world doesn’t follow such tropes), of bookshelves featuring translations from US writers and movies following standard Hollywood fare–of the one-way street which means the US sets the tune for the rest of the world, and that anything that looks remotely worthy from non-US countries is given a local remake for those who can’t stand to watch dubbed or subtitled movies (guess what–we watch dubbed/subtitled US movies all the time in France). I’m tired of the way US culture and tropes have so pervaded popular culture that we no longer even question them, or even recognise them–and, worse, that people outside the US are actively aping them in search of the so-called “universal stories” [1].

<SNIP?>

I’m tired of plots that value individualism and egotism above all else; of heroes that always have to be the masters of their own fates, to be active and not take anything that life deals at them lying down (whereas most of the time, we lie down, we accept, we deal with what we have been given); of heroes that have to be strong and only take marginal help from others to solve their own problems; of heroes that have a destiny, and of movies and books in which breaking up with all traditions is good so long as one finds and follow one’s own path (there are a lot of cultures where breaking up with traditions isn’t necessarily a good thing, and no, this doesn’t mean that they’re evil and backward). I’m tired of how genre(s) put(s) a disproportionate value on heroes who are active and not passive (and, by extension, belittles and dismisses every use of passive voice, and always asks for sentences to be frenetically punchy); of how the most important thing that can happen to a person is to be “given their own story”, as stories weren’t made up of a mosaic of people all interacting together; of how teams exist only either as a background and foil for a single hero, or as a compendium of individuals, each fighting to be outdo each other in stupid displays of heroism (yes, X-men, I’m looking at you).

I’m tired of the casual acceptance of violence as a valid answer to anything, of the proliferation of guns in movies and books, of how it’s always acceptable to go face the bad guys with a sword or a pistol instead of seeking a peaceful resolve. I am sick of the redefinition of narrative as violence, of how everything has to be a conflict in order to be valid–even to the point of defining conflict “against yourself”, which contributes to trivialising the use of the word “conflict”, not to mention twist it far beyond its original meaning. I don’t want my stories to be only about blowing things up, or about good guys facing off bad guys, and dispatching them while stubbornly refusing to think about the ethics of killing, and the fact that the world seldom comes in black-and-white. I want violence to have consequences, both for those who have recourse to it, and for its victims; not to be something you can shrug off in the morning as if it never happened.

I don’t want stories in which the main character has to be sympathetic and with the moral high ground [2] in order to be worthwhile; in which people have to change in order for the plot to be significant; in which women exist only to be sidelined or as surrogate men. I don’t want stories that can be described in neat little boxes, or novels which can be reduced to a high concept and a series of story arcs (and, especially, I don’t want to hear about the Hero’s Journey, or the Three-Act Plot, or the Thirty-Six or Fifty-Five Basic Plots as if they were all some kinds of Holy Gospel). I want novels which can be complex and organic like life itself, and which don’t have to be neatly pigeon-holed in order to be read and enjoyed.

[FULL POST]

Interesting?

 

[zachariah]

Aren't most of the so-called tropes mentioned just modern equivalents of classic stories from antiquity? Doesn't Hollywood still worship at the altar of the hero with a thousand faces, which is basically retelling Grecian epics? I don't think the argument is valid. You'll find identical themes coming from Indian and Chinese cinema, all based on their own folk tales dating from waaaaaay back.

 

[oasis seeker]

Human nature is human nature. There's no getting around it. Certain stories work because the majority of human minds are wired (through genetics and environment) to respond to certain things a certain way.

A non-sympathetic character? A story with no change? Etc? Not for me and for the majority of readers. Those things are simply what the majority of people like when they read a story. Might as well wish there were no crime or people didn't have affairs or wish for things they couldn't have.

If that's what she wants - fine. She can write a novel she likes (or a literary novel, as opposed to a genre novel) and best of luck to her, but a lot of people won't read it.

 

[Mickief]

Oui, oui....oh how the French love to whine and sneak in some American bashing while they're at it. *(Yes, I know, it's not nice to make these kinds of blanket statements, but there it is.)

I can't count the number of times a French person, learning that I'm American, starts out with how great the USA is, only to start griping in the very next sentence how we've screwed up the world. *(Of course, this love-hate thing they've got going for us is perfectly normal, according to them. *Hate is only a sidestep from Love, and not at all the opposite--which is Apathy as any sane person knows.)

The first paragraph quoted above is all about how alive and well Communism (or, at least a toned down version of it) is in France. *I can't say if that's good or bad, as much of it really is about looking out for one's fellow man (but it also leads to things like my husband worrying that our two year old car is too ostentatious for the neighborhood and needs to be traded in for something more modest, preferably with a few dings and not so shiny).

As far as unsympathetic characters or those who don't evolve, or plot lines that don't come to some satisfactory end, well, that's got late 60's, early 70's French cinema written all over it. *Claude Chabrol films are like that, finishing up and you don't who dunnit or why...which leads us to " who cares?", as Oasis Seeker rightly states. *(A great example of this influence in American films, and where it works marvelously while still talking a certain risk, is the conclusion of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, with its ending hanging in the air for all time...wonderful, but not always tenable.)

More than anything, though, where are her concrete solutions for counteracting this invasive Americanism of literature, film and what have you..? *Sure, there is so much junk, empty calorie culture sliding down the pipes these days, but what is she saying is she will do about it? Writing books that don't give the reader a reason to feel their spirit soar or to live an adventure...it's hard to do that in a new and unique way, that's true. But that's the challenge, isn't it?

Griping and whining is all well and good, but one had better be able to offer some real thoughts on what to do about it, otherwise, it's just b*tching to hear oneself b*tch and that shouldn't interest anyone.

 

[N. E. White]

Very interesting to read some of the comments on her blog. One commenter quoted someone else:

And to quote Zoran Zivkovich “In the rest of the world, writers write what they want; in the US, they write what the publishers want.”

Really?

Wow. And all this time, all the writing instructors I've had, all the fellow writers I've encountered, and all the random readers on Critters who have been advising me to write from my heart, write what YOU want to write, well...they never existed. They never said those things.

Must have been faeries.

 

[G.L. Lathian]

Not in Fantasy. We all know that back in medievil times, people were wired differently. They were more violent for one.

 

[slindeman]

My sour grapes detector is bleeping loudly. She must want to write the types of stories that do not sell well enough to make her rich. Or perhaps she just feels that her tastes in film and literature are so much better than those of the millions that enjoy Hollywood blockbusters and sparkly Vampires.

Personally, I don't enjoy Hollywood blockbusters any more than she does, but I don't think of myself as superior, just different. It takes very little logic to figure out that the popular tropes are popular because lots of people like them. If US tropes have flooded the shelves and theaters of France, it is because the people of France like them. The essence of her rant is that the majority of western civilization has poor taste compared to her.

These kind of rants are a dime a dozen. Take this rant, and substitute Wal-mart, Top-40 Music, McDonalds, Reality TV, or any number of other popular things, and you'll have covered the majority of rants out there. Of course, now that this has become a rant against rants, someone needs to take the mantle of ranting against people who rant against rants.

 

[Mickief]

Slindeman, if I could, I'd give you a big smooch for this post (I hasten to add, chastely and on the cheek).

 

[Laer Carroll]

Pure SNOBBERY. Hidden in an anglophobic rant. She's basically saying her taste in art is superior to every one else's.

It's also laughably ignorant of France's own contributions to "American" artistic sensibilities. From at least as early as the 19th century, with the writings of Jules Verne, and modern detective and political noir films which still stand as entertainment and artistic triumphs. Some of which have been re-made as English-language films!

 

[kronides]

"whereas most of the time, we lie down, we accept, we deal with what we have been given"

Eminently arguable. Unless, of course, she is referring to her own country's history for the last hundred years.

Case in point:

"I’m tired of the casual acceptance of violence as a valid answer to anything, of the proliferation of guns in movies and books, of how it’s always acceptable to go face the bad guys with a sword or a pistol instead of seeking a peaceful resolve."

How'd that work out for you guys back in '39?

 

[A. Lynn]

I'm so glad that the rest of the fine people of this forum have risen to such an occasion,

I agree whole heartedly with the posters to this thread. This person needs to take a history lesson and consider the following points.

1. America is only 200 years old and is pretty much an amoeba of the many cultures that have come before it. This is for better or for worse.
- France is MUCH older than America, where are their alleged "tropes" at?

2. You have the wrong culture anyways, you can thank the Greeks for their play in this, as much of the world bases their plays and stories off of "Aristotlian Values"
- Too many Greek tales surround which hero is better than the other hero and how that hero can best castrate the other heroes before they castrate him.

3. If it's not the Greeks then blame the northern Germanic tribes who brought us Beowulf, another fine example of heroic "I will be the one" values, and much older than America.

4. It's more a mammalian reaction than anything to come out being the alpha male. Being on top is good.

Finally, 5. The descendants of the Franks are still mad that the descendants of the Anglo-Saxony beat them up anyways, and have been mad ever since.

Glad I'm not the only one who disagreed with this person.

 

[Wojciehowicz]

American? Obviously this person hasn't noticed the last 200,000 years of human history. Humans were slaughtering each other en mass LONG before any nations that modern Earth even catalogs were around. AND they were celebrating it around camp fires and making decorations of their enemies' body parts.

Mastering one's fate is a theme common all across Earth. The idea that other lands are accepting of what is imposed on them from above is just European snobbery. Rugged individualism is natural for humans. It's what makes them all such bloody minded bastards that would otherwise not be worth writing about.

 

[G.L. Lathian]

"I have come here today, to take your army with words, rather than swords," the King of Fasdian said.

"But, my army is much bigger and i have skilled warriors far superior to yours. It would make no sense to let you take my land," Handanas replied smoothly.

"Maybe so, but I can make women weep, children dance and men throw down swords, as if they were nothing more than an apple-core," the King said, with a slight grin.

"Oh really? I would love to see you do that," Handanas spat, pulling his sword free of its scabbard.

The King looked at him blankly, an unsure look in his eyes. His mind searched for something the sword had seemed to scare out of him.

"Do the happy dance, do the happy dance, do the happy dance," he continued to sing. His arms moving from side to side.

Handanas' booming laugh fell over his army like a rolling cloud, until all that could be heard was the ear wrenching sound of ten thousand men bent over in fits of laughter.

"Did you expect that to work?" Handanas said, as the army around him began to fall back into silence.

"Words speak louder than violence, Handanas," he replied.

With a swift motion, Handanas flicked his sword towards his throat, a line of black blood began to pool around the cut, before running down his neck in small streams. The Kings eyes were wide, wide with realisation that he was wrong. Words don't win battles, swords do.

 

[KatG]

Yes, Ghandi and the Indians who protested with him for the British to leave, Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights protestors in the U.S., the people of Egypt -- these were all obviously fools, risking their lives to advocate peace when they should have just slaughtered everyone around them. Sure, they would have been slaughtered for it, but they wouldn't have been pussies. Forget the Magna Carta, the idea of equality and democracy, women getting to vote, and any of that sort of nonsense. Forget peace treaties with enemies when peace may be possible -- we should never end wars and slaughter our enemies' children and nuke their lands out of existence. Might makes right, forcing others into slavery and deprivation should always be one's life goal, and I'm so much cooler than you because I can get my bully buddies to beat the crap out of you.

Thanks for supporting her argument.

Getting back to reality, American culture is the giant elephant in the world room. In China they are building lots of movie theaters into which American action movies go and get most of their revenue, because those movies travel, whereas American comedies and romances are confusing for other countries and don't do as well. (Whereas we loved Notting Hill.) Nobody cares about French movie stars and McDonald's are still everywhere. In the English language market, America is the biggest market with its 300 million folk and trade language domination. And so other people have to deal with how to cater to us and how to make money off of us. And you make more money creating an entirely new show or movie and selling it to advertisers and vendors than you do importing a show in the U.S. so that's what they do. In books, we import a lot of foreign authors, but we also have 300 million people, half of whom want to write fiction, plus Canada. We have numerous bestsellers that don't contain guns, action, successful people, etc., some of which get made into movies, but what the woman is complaining about is the big tough hero that gets the loud explosion movies and permeates the creative stories of non-American authors, she's arguing.

But as Zachariah pointed out, that's not from America. America is a few centuries old, and the number one complaint about us is that nothing we produce culturally is original. We're really good at borrowing. Maybe the Western, but that's really just the setting. Arguably the plots were done by the Asians and the ancient Greeks first. We have the money to do films in which a lot of things explode or use really cool CGI. And we have more money to spread our stuff around. Or at least we did until 2008.

It's not the first time, someone -- French, American, Brazilian, Indonesian -- tried to identify millions of people as being one thing because of where they live. So basically I don't care about her essay either. But that she believes peace is better than war -- I agree with that. I think most people would agree with that. I hope so. And that U.S. stuff is everywhere and kind of in your face and often valued more than local people's creations -- that's not an unreasonable claim to make to me.

And it's worth noting that a lot of you keep telling me that you're sure that stuff only sells if it's "commercial" and that you define commercial as being violent, action filled, sex filled, gritty stories about a (often male) hero kicking butt and taking names. So that's basically agreeing with her main point. She doesn't really have to be either French or communist to say the things that Americans serve up to me every day. She doesn't have to even be a snob to say them. It's still inaccurate, but it does seem to be the way that a large percentage of people believe the world works anyway.

I guess I'm saying that my reaction to the essay is "Menh." And I also hope that while we may have to sometimes take up the sword, we don't decide that trying words should never occur. Because then we'll all be dead and the planet will be a radioactive cinder.

 

[G.L. Lathian]

Don't misentepret my words KatG.

Your brain, my brain, human's living in todays society-- can't even begin to understand the vast difference that actually existed in medieval ideologies. It's like trying to picture the world flat, you just can't do it. The best examples of it are in history, in which we know they lived bloody lives, often choosing the sword over democracy. Why? Because of honor and glory. Things we have lost over our progression from then to now.

We're not attempting to recreate the old traditions of warfare, skill, glory, strategic maneuvers, honor and freedoms into a modern context. It just can't be done. Today's warfare is completely different, nukes win wars, not how many cavalry you have, or if you control the high ground. In my opinion, if you're literally comparing modern warfare to medevil ideologies, beliefs, strategies-- than the whole point in fantasy is lost.

Who wants to read about peace treaties? Really, how many of us. I don't read aSoFaI to read about peace treaties between blacks and whites. I don't want to escape to the real world, i want to escape to somewhere, where things are different, and the realms of possibility can't be measured by peoples limited imaginations.

I want a world that is different, i want a hero, i want violence and all that jazz, why? Simply because it's not what today's society represents. We don't have hero's that win wars, because everyone can die from a bullet. The best soldier in the worst army is still going to die to a rocket, or a sniper, or a battalion of men. In fantasy, it's not the case, it was about skill and passion for your cause.

In my opinion, it's what fantasy is all about.

 

[Laer Carroll]

Don't misentepret my words KatG.

I don't think she did. "The sword wins over the word." That was your basic point.

She disagreed. So do I.

Sometimes the sword wins. Sometimes the words win. Sometimes the words launch swords, as when a charismatic leader speaks them. Or dull boring speakers put forth ideas which are enormously compelling.

History is filled with examples of words winning over swords. If you don't believe that, try reading more of it.

Who wants to read about peace treaties? Really, how many of us.

Actually, as many or more than those who read the kind of stuff I write, which has a lot of action-adventure. The book-stores and people's book shelves are full of fiction books about ordinary life, without a single fight or chase. And they are much fuller of non-fiction books about the very ordinary stuff of daily life.

I don't want to escape to the real world, i want to escape to somewhere, where things are different, and the realms of possibility can't be measured by peoples limited imaginations.

I want a world that is different, i want a hero, i want violence and all that jazz...

You and me both. But it is a mistake to take one's own tastes as the only ones that count. The world is a hugely various place, with people who want to read more than just what I (we?) want to read and write.

 

[hippokrene]

Aren't most of the so-called tropes mentioned just modern equivalents of classic stories from antiquity?

No, Greek heroes could never escape their fate, and while there was an emphasis on individual achievement, there wasn't on 'making your own way.' Greek virtue and heroism have as much in common with modern, American heroism as the Olympian pantheon has in common with modern, American Christianity.

 

[A. Lynn]

No, Greek heroes could never escape their fate, and while there was an emphasis on individual achievement, there wasn't on 'making your own way.' Greek virtue and heroism have as much in common with modern, American heroism as the Olympian pantheon has in common with modern, American Christianity.

I do disagree.

With the reference to "making your own way," I think that was the penultimate journey of all Greek warriors. They had to find their way to manhood, but each had to suffer through the proverbial "belly of the whale" on their own, nobody could go through it for them.

If you're speaking about "breaking from tradition" then I still disagree as Odysseus broke the tradition of raw strength always winning the day, and he also broke the typical tale of the warrior meeting with the untimely fate. He also cherished his wife, another break of Greek tradition in which women were nothing.

 

[KatG]

Your brain, my brain, human's living in todays society-- can't even begin to understand the vast difference that actually existed in medieval ideologies. It's like trying to picture the world flat, you just can't do it. The best examples of it are in history, in which we know they lived bloody lives, often choosing the sword over democracy. Why? Because of honor and glory.

If you talk to biologists, they'll explain that the human brain has changed very little in the last few thousand years. The people in the past were not wired differently from us. They had different circumstances -- although many of those circumstances are still the same in parts of the world -- but they wanted to be able to live their lives and raise their kids in peace just as much as we do now. Many of them believed in the same sort of things that many people do today, though back then it was more likely to be in fairies and demons than alien visitors (but ghosts are still popular.) There were fewer democracies up until relatively recently, but just because we have some doesn't mean that we've given up the same power and greed repression politics that they had. It's just that you're a little less likely to get killed now in some parts of the world. The Magna Carta was signed in the Middle Ages and the ancient Greeks and Romans practiced forms of democracy. Many ethnic groups in different countries at different times in past times protested for more rights and sometimes got them. Wars certainly happened, but fewer people got killed in them. Disease took way, way more and had a lot more effect, though war was good for inventions that then greatly helped the culture and business. And business and trade was still where all the money was, and war can be both good and bad for trade.

There was no honor and glory in the Middle Ages. (There may be honor but no glory in war.) There was disease, filth, suffering and hard work. That a fantasy story may remove some of those things doesn't mean that they didn't exist. And Martin of course makes a point to not remove those things from his world and his main goal is to show that there is no glory in the suffering of war, and that honor is rather hard to maintain too. His main characters mostly don't want war -- they want peace and freedom. And they don't necessarily use the sword to seek them. Fantasy authors often are not writing about war, are writing about contemporary settings or post industrial historical settings, have their main characters win the day by words, bargaining and persuading, recreate the civil rights movement or World War II in an alternate world such as Harry Potter, etc. There's nothing wrong with battle scenes, but it's not the definition of fantasy fiction and it's not all there was to the Middle Ages.

I want a world that is different, i want a hero, i want violence and all that jazz, why? Simply because it's not what today's society represents. We don't have hero's that win wars, because everyone can die from a bullet. The best soldier in the worst army is still going to die to a rocket, or a sniper, or a battalion of men. In fantasy, it's not the case, it was about skill and passion for your cause.

Okay, this part I don't get. Are you under the impression that the best soldier in the worst army in the Middle Ages or a pre-industrial fantasy story can't die just because there aren't guns? Or that the war is always won by one guy in fantasy stories? You say you like Martin's series, which doesn't meet this preference at all.

No, Greek heroes could never escape their fate, and while there was an emphasis on individual achievement, there wasn't on 'making your own way.' Greek virtue and heroism have as much in common with modern, American heroism as the Olympian pantheon has in common with modern, American Christianity.

The template of the action hero who goes on a quest, that the writer is casting as American, did come from those myths though. And from other cultures' myths, folktales, sagas like Beowulf, clever hero stories, etc., that did not necessarily have the belief that fate could not be escaped. Jack and the Beanstalk, Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves, Bel and the Dragon, The Song of Roland, etc. -- these are not American stories. And these are what fantasy authors certainly raid all the time. SF authors tend to raid them more metaphorically. Americans only have about four hundred years of culture and sporadic folklore of their own. The myth of the tough, gung-ho American is not that different from the myth of the stalwart, brave Brit or the martial, indestructible German. The Industrial Revolution occurred in Europe first. Individualism was a British philosophical idea, and early American government drew heavily from French philosophers like Charles de Secondat and Voltaire. It's true that Americans made good use of upward social mobility, but that's kind of a good thing and led to more peace.

But the complaint that Americans dominate selling opportunities in the English language markets and the West -- I think that's possibly not off base. But it may be becoming less so. The problem is that the writer is trying to cover too broad a number of issues -- militancy, hero issues, American cultures, action movies, noir, individualism, books, etc., so it doesn't really look at anything with complexity or depth, it seems to me.

 

[G.L. Lathian]

I wasn't actually reffering to the brain in a physical sense, i meant it in understanding how their world worked. Sure, we can look at history, but, being their and seeing it is like another experience. Like reading books on starving children, and then going to Africa and seeing it.

Difference being, in the Middle Ages people had very few choices and often went to war because they were made too. Have a look at aSoFaI - Jamie Lannister, Robb Stark, John Snow, every Knight, Arya, Bran, Cersei - all have interests in war and glory. I do believe their was glory to be had in war, for people like Alexander and Ghengis Kahn. It was their life goal.

Okay, this part I don't get. Are you under the impression that the best soldier in the worst army in the Middle Ages or a pre-industrial fantasy story can't die just because there aren't guns? Or that the war is always won by one guy in fantasy stories? You say you like Martin's series, which doesn't meet this preference at all.

I am saying that a true hero really did make a difference back then. Like Sun Tzu(not Middle Ages), William Wallace and Timberlane to name a few.

And need we look any further than the one Hero more powerful than anyone else-- Jesus? He held power at his fingertips, what makes hero's in Fantasy novels who can do the same so ridiculous? I mean the key religion in all our upbringings (assuming most of us come from Western Culture on these forums) told us of the power a single man can have. Fantasy often recreates that power, but it still stems from an idea that we all grew up with.

I'm not comparing the Middle Ages to now, and if you do look, it's quite clear that the world isn't that much better today and that's why i read fantasy. What's wrong with believing a single person can change the way the world works? Hell that's what everyone thought Obama was going to do. I also don't believe in war, in any context, nor would i ever be able to actually front it.

The thing a good story does, is make you feel slightly abstract from the world, it pulls you away from the disease, war and starving children. It puts you in a place where your own imagination creates the world for you. I love George RR's books, I love Jordan, Juliet Marillier, etc., because even through all the sh*t you still have hope, and in no place is their more hope, than in a Hero that can save you from whatever danger your scared of.