It’s Valentine’s Day here at the Carina Press blog and I’ve been thinking about the elements of romance and, not coincidentally, the elements of romance fiction. The other day on TV I saw a commercial for these chocolate diamonds which are supposed to be very special but just reek to me of gimmicky consumer manipulation. Instead of a classic, crisp, sparkling jewel, you get something that looks like it was dropped in coffee too many times. I get the need to be different, but sometimes a classic is a classic for a reason and doesn’t need to be changed.
In researching a different bit of writing the other day I came across a discussion from a few years back of the most hated cliches in detective fiction. After a bit of discussion of some of the most common cliches, the discussion veered off into a side discussion of whether the cliche was the issue or if the execution of the cliche was the problem. We’ve all seen tired and worn-out story elements and stock characters revived and renewed in the hands of a master. We’ve also all reveled in a book or movie or television show that may not have broken any new ground, but did everything we as a reader or viewer wanted it to do and did it well.
This is also true in real life. Many an hour has been spent trying to plan a unique date or a unique proposal or any other extreme way to differentiate our actions from those that came before it, but most times it’s not the gimmick that works, it’s the person behind the gimmick. So as we celebrate Valentine’s Day here as readers, and writers, and husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, and proud singles, let’s remember that it’s all about the heart and soul of something more than the gimmick.
What current novels, movies, or TV shows do well with the classical elements of fiction?
First, you are SO right about chocolate diamonds. I saw them for sale in the jewelry store on a cruise I took recently, and they look just like quartz. It’s definitely all about marketing; if you packaged excrement the right way and told people it was “special”, they would buy it.
With respect to fiction, there are a great many things I enjoy, but one of the most important parts which I believe people forget is that there has to be some bit of humor, however small, to lighten anything heavy. This is why I enjoy Shakespeare, but disliked the rebooted “Battlestar Galactica”. I had no problem with the story-telling in BG, which was actually fairly good, but the constant, unremitting tragedy and angst with no leavening of relief was more than I could take. I watched it, but I didn’t enjoy watching it as much as I would have because I had to take lengthy breaks from so much depression.
One show that did it very well was Firefly.
I also agree about the chocolate diamonds. My reaction to them, and the cotton candy colored diamonds I recently saw on TV, is to wonder if they’re real diamonds. I prefer authentic natural gemstones, anyhow.
The formula that comes to mind, first, is the natural disaster epic. It’s easy to see how the story will unfold as each stock character is introduced. The deadbeat dad/bad husband will be the hero, for example.
I think the genres people have tired of work better when the characters and stories have a greater symbolic meaning. I love Vampire/Werewolf stories, but Vampires need not always be filled with angst and Werewolves need not look like they need a shower. If they’re symbolic of a specific issue, I think there’s an unlimited list of possibilities.
I have to say “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” did a great job of stock characters growing and changing as the series went on.
You asked about TV shows doing well with old cliched story lines.
I couldn’t help thinking about Downton Abbey. With the death of Matthew we are confronted with two deaths in the same family following the birth of a child. As my brother said, how many times can they get away with that in the same family?
It’s true. And yet on balance, Downton Abbey is a great story. And it is wildly popular in the U.S. and the U.K.