We had here some discussions about clichés and – if possible – to avoid them.
Like red hair plus green eyes.
I just started reading a sample of "Elfed in New York: Intern" and found this:
I got his eyes, but I would have killed to have mom's crystal blue eyes. I mean, I loved Dad's eyes, they almost glowed, but how cliché was the red hair and green eyes I was saddled with?
The author used a cliché (red hair/green eyes) for the female MC, but she dislikes her cliché look.
HM.
cliché was the red hair and green eyes
Is it really a cliche or is it genetic that red hair and green eyes tend to accompany each other?
AJ
Is it really a cliche or is it genetic that red hair and green eyes tend to accompany each other?
Red is the rarest natural hair colour.
Green is the rarest eye colour.
Ireland and Iceland have the highest percentage.
So the cliche isn't based on the frequency of both occurring, but in the perceived desirability of such a combination. But only in western countries.
In other cultures green eyes are evidence of evil. As is red hair.
ETA
Of course hair and eye colour is genetic. But Neither are dominant genes, so as the gene pool deepens the frequency of either decreases, with the occasional 'throwback' as nature likes to screw with us.
Ireland the Iceland
?
In my experience, Scotland has a well-above average number of redheads too.
In other cultures green eyes are evidence of evil. As is red hair.
Not all of them. Red hair is prized in Japan.
(I don't know why. A Polish/Japanese couple had a red-haired baby and the Japanese grandparents made a really big thing out of it.)
AJ
{Red hair is prized in Japan.
(I don't know why. A Polish/Japanese couple had a red-haired baby and the Japanese grandparents made a really big thing out of it.)
In Japan, any natural hair colour that isn't black/super dark dark brown is unusual. For a mixed-couple, anything other than black or dark brown in kids is very unusual because of the dominance of the Asian genes. I k know this very well from personal experience.
{Red hair is prized in Japan.
(I don't know why. A Polish/Japanese couple had a red-haired baby and the Japanese grandparents made a really big thing out of it.)
In Japan, any natural hair colour that isn't black/super dark dark brown is unusual. For a mixed-couple, anything other than black or dark brown in kids is very unusual because of the dominance of the Asian genes. I k know this very well from personal experience.
In my experience, Scotland has a well-above average number of redheads too.
Genetically, the red hair gene is believed to have originated in Denmark. Today it exists in highest percentage in places that were colonised or raided by the Danes during the Viking eras. This means primary coastal areas.
So yes, Scotland has more redheads than, say, Germany, but it's around 5.5% - 6% in Scotland while it's just over 10% in Ireland.
Interestingly, it has been confirmed that the closer an Irish person's ancestral family lands are to a major river, the greater the incidence of red hair is in their family. This helps substantiate the Danish-Viking connection theory.
However, it doesn't explain why 3.7% of Jewish women in Eastern Europe have red hair while 10.9% of Jewish men in the same area have red beards. Genetics are weird.
but it's around 5.5% - 6% in Scotland
Modern estimates seem to be in the range 7-13% for Scotland. The only source I could find for the 5.5-6% range was from well over 100 years ago.
Genetic sampling estimates that 40% of the population of Scotland carry the redhead gene. Unless I'm wrong (which is quite likely), from that the expected redhead population in Scotland should be around 16%. Since it's less than that, I guess that Scottish redheads are not strongly attracted to each other ;-)
AJ
You could always take the deadpool approach, make a bad pun then have a minor character come in and ask her out.
in which case she kicks his booty......
In this case I'd make a distinction between the author using a cliché and the character referencing it. Yes, clichés do happen in real life. This problem in fiction is when you have too many of them or place too much importance on them.
To me, having a character with pale skin, red hair, and green eyes is cliché, but mostly just a description. However, if that character's whole family has all three traits, that's really unlikely. If these characters also have some ancestral connection to fairies, the ancestral line of kings, or to a prophesied hero, then it becomes a problem.
Clichés are like stereotypes, tropes, and formula. There's nothing wrong with using them to build your world quickly, but then you need to do something with that. If all you have is cliché then you're not creating anything new. The skilled author takes those clichés and uses them to subvert expectations.
Getting back to my original point, though, all cultures are filled with clichés. In fact, I'd wager that there's a cliché for just about any combination of hair and eye colour. In the example, the protagonist is lamp-shading the cliché in a way that provides character development. Having red hair and green eyes does not tell us anything about their personality, but their reaction to the combination does.
This is how you use cliché effectively.
The skilled author takes those clichés and uses them to subvert expectations.
Not criticizing the points in this post, just reacting to this: Seems like the "subvert expectations" becomes the total focus of some authors -- and sometimes the subversion becomes a ridiculous cliché itself. One example would be the female character who, with no explanation, can outfight all the males she meets. Subverting expectations? Originally, maybe, but now it's become so common, many authors seem to think it is just expected and requires no explanation, despite how bizarre and non-sensical such a character is.
Like any other aspect of good reading, subverting expectations makes for great reading with done carefully and thoughtfully by a skilled author. They make it look easy. But it is easy to do badly so that it hurts the story.
Clichés are also "common knowledge" while they may be over used, deliberately going against them, without addressing the "aberration" is also a mistake.
Using a previous example, if a character is described as having red hair and green eyes, and a last name of Murphy, most English speaking audiences will accept that; more detail isn't necessary, because many people will "fill in the details" for themselves.
If a character is described as having red hair, green eyes, and the last name of Ohara, and of Japanese ancestry; the audience will expect, if not an explanation, at least it being addressed in the story.
Clichés can be a useful tool, letting the audience imagine a part of a story you don't need to detail. If the MC needs a lawyer, but your story focuses upon other matters, but failing to mention the MC has legal representation would likely result in questions or disbelief of readers. You could name the lawyer Mary Smith, never give her a line of dialog, and the lawyer is a non-entity. That might be okay, but a bland world is often boring. If the lawyer's name is Saul Greenberg, sure a Jewish lawyer is Cliché, but with no more description than Mary Smith, many readers will make up their own perceptions of Saul. From the lawyer in the show Better Call Saul, to an overachiever, top of his class at Harvard Law, a conniving shyster, or a "bleeding heart" do-gooder, among common tropes.
If all of the lawyers in a story are Jewish, that might be plausible, but That would be Cliché. Instead, if you introduced a group of lawyers as Saul Greenberg, Michael Stein, Miram Weiss, Henry Wong, and Darius M'Tumbo, you wouldn't necessarily have to detail any of them. Several fit the trope, but the writer has included "diversity" just with the names (even if they all share nearly identical perspectives, and backgrounds) [readers are likely to imagine a variety of backgrounds to those minor characters, or ignore them].
If you have a scene: My court appointed lawyer walked in, she didn't have a briefcase, instead she yanked a portfolio out of a messenger bag; mostly I noticed her pink hair and multiple piercings...
Your readers will expect you to "pay that off" not assuming you are just avoiding clichés.
mostly I noticed her pink hair and multiple piercings
Don't keep us in suspense - was she chewing gum?
AJ
If all of the lawyers in a story are Jewish, that might be plausible, but That would be Cliché. Instead, if you introduced a group of lawyers as Saul Greenberg, Michael Stein, Miram Weiss, Henry Wong, and Darius M'Tumbo, you wouldn't necessarily have to detail any of them. Several fit the trope, but the writer has included "diversity" just with the names (even if they all share nearly identical perspectives, and backgrounds) [readers are likely to imagine a variety of backgrounds to those minor characters, or ignore them].
When it comes to lawyers, diversity is overrated. I'm with Larry David on this topic.
Instead, if you introduced a group of lawyers as Saul Greenberg, Michael Stein, Miram Weiss, Henry Wong, and Darius M'Tumbo, you wouldn't necessarily have to detail any of them.
I like the names EB chose for Pat Michaels solicitors (in "Michaels Mansion")
[...] the firm started by two brothers as Malcolm & Malcolm has gone through many changes over the generations and it's now operated by four of their great-great-grandchildren. Pat knows they chose the order in which the new partners were accepted because that changed the way the name read, so the firm of four cousins is now Malcolm, Dunn, Wright & Goode.
HM.
Clichés for me, clichés for you, I'll write a cliché, you write one too.
Being meta about clichés is cliché, even if the cliché they're referencing isn't a cliché at all.
