Tropes get a bad rap—and it's not entirely unearned. When they're over-used, or used incorrectly, then they can make a story feel predictable and cliche, stealing the potential for surprise and discovery that pulls readers into a story and makes them eager to get to the end. Tropes can also end up being crutches for writers, preventing them from reaching for more imaginative and distinctive ideas. When archetypes are used in place of fully developed characters, those people in the story feel flat, lacking in the depth, personality, and realistic flaws that make a character feel like a real person the reader can relate to. There are also some tropes that perpetuate stereotypes when they're used uncritically. This can happen even when the trope or archetype isn't overtly negative—having a old, wise Asian sensei, for instance, both feels derivative and dehumanizes the character, reducing them to one-dimensional traits based on their demographic identity rather than allowing them to be unique, fully realized individuals.
But while they have a lot of potential pitfalls, tropes aren't inherently bad. They're a tool in the writer's toolbox and, like any tool, whether they're effective depends on how you use them. Especially for writers in genres like romance, cozy mystery, fairy tales, or space opera, readers expect to see certain tropes employed in a story, and if they're not present at all that can leave those readers disappointed. Some genres are defined by their tropes and a story doesn't really qualify for that label unless it includes certain conventions. For something to qualify as “bad boy romance”, for example, it needs to have an innocent and rule-abiding protagonist, a rebellious and edgy love interest, and an ending where they're together and live HEA: happy ever after (or are at least HFN: happy for now).
Tropes can still be a useful tool in genres where they're more optional. I would say this is especially true for short fiction writers. When you're working under a word count constraint, employing a trope can serve as a useful shorthand to convey ideas to the reader without taking up much space on the page. It comes down to understanding where and how to deploy tropes, and how to balance them with more original details so the story’s not just a rehashing of something they’ve see a hundred times before. Here are some of the rules I follow when I'm integrating tropes into my writing.
Rule 1: Use tropes as templates and starting points.
The problem with dropping unaltered tropes into stories is that readers are familiar with them, and that makes them predictable. This familiarity is also a strength of the trope, however, because they quickly convey baseline expectations for what the reader will get out of the story. As the author, you can then either embrace or subvert these expectations—you don't need to follow the whole formula that comes along with the trope you're utilizing, but starting from the trope gives you a foundation to either build off of or push back against, turning it into a source of forward momentum.
I think cooking metaphors often apply well to writing, and in this case I think of it like one of those semi-homemade recipes. If you want to make spaghetti and meatballs, you could do the whole thing from scratch—make and roll out the pasta, cook down fresh tomatoes for the sauce, grind up your own meat, etc. That version has the potential to taste the best, but it's going to take a long time, and requires some skills and tools that not every home cook has. On the other side, the fastest way to put the meal together is to boil a box of pasta then heat up some frozen meatballs in a pot of jarred sauce. That's the easiest way to do things, but you'll sacrifice some flavor. For most people, the best option is a middle ground. Maybe you buy pre-ground meat but season it and form the balls yourself, or you start from a jar of pasta sauce but add some fresh herbs and seasoning.
This same concept can apply to writing from tropes. You could come up with every single character, location, and plot point entirely from scratch, but that's going to take a lot more effort that may or may not end up being worth it for the story. The more efficient option is often to focus on fully developing the story’s most interesting aspects, then taking a “semi-homemade” approach for the rest. So let's say you're writing a high fantasy story, and you've come up with an original magic system that's the core, unique aspect of your world. Instead of building the setting where you'll put that magic system from scratch, you can pick your favorite from common fantasy location tropes and adapt it to your story's needs—the writing equivalent of adding garlic and herbs to a jarred sauce to make it your own.
Rule 2: Selectively use character archetypes to keep less important characters in the background.
I'd call character archetypes a sub-category of tropes. It's the same basic idea, where you're using a common set of patterns, just applied to a type of character instead of broadly to other aspects of the story. A common issue you'll hear with using archetypes for characters is that they're less interesting and don't feel as fully realized as more unique and original characters. And while that is a problem with your protagonist, that can actually be an advantage for the other characters that populate your story. If your background characters are too interesting or well-developed, then they can pull the reader's focus and end up competing with your primary characters for attention. Using archetypes lets you quickly create characters the reader will recognize, and also sends a signal that the character is solely functional and not intended to be someone the reader gets too invested in.
Now, this doesn't mean you just want to copy-paste an archetype into your story. You often still want to do a little tweaking in that “semi-homemade” spirit I mentioned above. This could mean giving them a couple of unique physical traits, a specific accent or speaking pattern, or something else that links them firmly into your story's world. But when it comes to big-picture things like their personality and motivations, you can let the archetype do the heavy lifting.
The question, of course, is which characters in your story to develop fully and which are fine to leave as archetypes. With some, it's easy to tell. I already mentioned that the main characters should be three-dimensional. You can use an archetype as the frame, but will want to do some significant work beyond this, personalizing how the character looks, acts, and thinks, and giving them the complexity and layers that make them feel like a real individual. On the other end, any characters who only exist in the background or to move the plot forward are obvious archetype contenders.
The ones that can be the trickiest to determine the correct level of development for are secondary characters—the ones who aren't the main focus of the story, but do have an impact on the narrative or emotional arc. It usually makes sense to develop a few of these figures beyond the flat archetype level, but exactly how many and to what extend will often depend on the story. If you're writing a short story, for instance, you probably don't have space to really flesh out more than 3-4 characters, so if your story's cast list is bigger than this, you'll likely be best served by keeping the rest as flatter archetypes. On the other hand, if you're writing a multi-book fantasy series, having a broad array of fully developed characters can give the reader more to keep them invested in the story. A common approach here is to introduce secondary characters as archetypes then gradually layer in more depth as the story calls for it.
Rule 3: Understand the relationship between trope and genre.
I mentioned in the intro that there are some genres that depend on their tropes. Readers of certain types of books expect specific things from stories. This doesn't mean you as a writer always need to hit every single one of those points, but if you don't hit any of them, then you're not living up to the expectations of the genre. A shifter romance must include at least one character that transforms into another animal or creature, and end with an HEA or HFN. If it's missing either of those elements, most would argue the genre label is inaccurate. The same goes for something like solarpunk. It requires the use of sustainable technology and a focus on commual over individualistic problem-solving. A story lacking those elements is probably better classified as another subgenre of sci-fi.
Many of the tropes associated with specific genres or subgenres directly tie into those key elements. This makes them an efficient shorthand to fill in details of the story that aren't central to the plot or character arcs. So for instance, if you're writing a solarpunk story, you send an immediate genre signal if it’s set it in a solar-powered city where skyscrapers have been repurposed into vertical gardens. Are those things solarpunk readers have seen before? Absolutely—and that's the point. Not every element of the story needs to be unique. Using tropes as needed lets you focus your creativity on the specific details you want the reader to focus on. It also gives you more freedom to do things that are unexpected or defy genre conventions because the tropes you’ve employed anchor the story to teh genre’s traditions.
These ideas also aren't exclusive to the genres they're associated with. You can use these genre-coded tropes to bring the spirit of a genre to a story, even if you're not fully writing within that tradition. When you take this approach, it can actually make the trope more interesting than when you find it in its expected turf. If you're writing gothic fiction and the story is set in an isolated, run-down estate that harbors family secrets, that's nothing particularly noteworthy—that's the set-up and setting for a lot of stories in the genre. But if you transport this trope into a genre where it's less common, then it becomes more interesting by virtue of its unexpectedness. Maybe that means having space adventurers dock on an obsolete and ominous space station, bringing a gothic flair to a space opera, or you could plop this mansion down on the outskirts of a Shire-like fantasy utopia.
The point here is, while there are some universal tropes, many of them have a link to a specific type of fiction. Because of that, the way they'll be perceived by readers will vary depending on the context, and you can use that to your advantage if you take the time to understand this link.
See similar posts: