posted
I understand that there is a convention, in some genres of fiction, that whenever the hero is knocked out, he recovers fairly quickly. This is, of course, not all that realistic; then again, the convention is perhaps not so common as all that, anymore. At any rate, I rarely encounter it. What I do find, however, the the anti-convention: Namely that, throughout military SF, whenever the hero is knocked out, he spends at least a paragraph telling us that one does not recover instantly from being knocked out, except in certain kinds of fiction. It has gotten to the point, in fact, that I read about the difficulty of recovery, and the stupidity of fiction that does not portray this difficulty, much more often than I read fiction where the hero isn't too bothered by a knock on the head. (Excepting those cases, of course, where complaints notwithstanding, characters do in fact function quite efficiently shortly after waking up.) I now find myself saying "Yeah, yeah, get on with it" whenever an author points out that being knocked unconscious is a serious matter.
So, my point is, what other conventions have grown up in antithesis to older conventions?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about time travel? In the old days, time travel stories dealt with paradoxes (what would happen if I went back in time and caused myself not to be born?), but now some authors spend a good paragraph, page, or chapter talking about how going back in time creates a NEW timeline, independent of the former future from whence they came.
*ahem*
It wasn't until after I started writing my response that I realized the venerable Mr. Card was guilty of this in 'Pastwatch.' Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of time travel, I find that the whole "alternate timeline" thing is the cliche I'd want to get beyond.
In my time travel story I am currently tinkering with, the hero sees the future, and meets himself, and the older character points out that he remembers, when he was younger, going into the future and hearing the older version say the same precise things he's currently saying, etc.
I suppose a bit of fate in there. The time travel is already aprt of the time-line, and the character will eventually be in the same position the older version was, as he at that point will BE the older one, without any changes.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Audrey Niffenegger's The Time-Traveller's wife does it that way as well. Future-Henry spends a lot of time teaching Past-Henry to pick locks and fight and such, which creates its own paradox, but it's a good story so who cares? Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is...Time Travel (at least as normally portrayed in speculative fiction) has absolutely no (current) scientific basis...so the writer is free to make up any rules they darn well please. Posts: 6689 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting question. I don't think I do enough reading to give you a fair answer. Often, I run into things in the few novels I read, think they are incredibly delightful and original, only to be shot down by my friends who explain that they are cliches. How am I supposed to know it's a cliche if it's the first time I've ever seen it?
In the same way, I am likely to view a lot of anti-conventions as being conventions, because odds are I've not seen enough of either to know the difference.
Edit: This came up when discussing Benny Podda (who may or may not be real) with my friends. There's an urban legend about how he punched out his spotter to get pumped for a rep. Someone used the line "Being knocked unconscious implies brain damage," I found it to be very amusing, and that's the closest I've come to experiencing this anti-convention in a work of fiction.
posted
I'd be annoyed if a time-travel story didn't lay out how time travel worked in its world, though I would hope it would do so more naturally than by having someone lecture someone else about it.
I would get annoyed if I kept being told that you don't recover quickly after being knocked out "except in certain kinds of fiction," because whenever a story mentions another story it breaks the dramatic illusion (cf. OSC). Why couldn't the story just say, "He woke up hours later with a horrible headache and unable to think straight." or something?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Often, I run into things in the few novels I read, think they are incredibly delightful and original, only to be shot down by my friends who explain that they are cliches. How am I supposed to know it's a cliche if it's the first time I've ever seen it?
No reason you should be expected to. If your friends aren't just indulging in some pretension they'll kindly point you in the direction of a piece of work that did the same thing better, earlier, and with more originality.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
