tropes – Selina J. Eckert

5 Things to Remember When Writing Scientists (and 5 tropes to avoid)

Ever wanted to write a scientist but not sure what to do (or avoid)? Start here!

You may or may not know this, but I’m not just a writer. I’m a biologist. I have a BA in biology and a MS in neuroscience, and I’ve worked in the contract research industry since 2015. In fact, I also received a promotion this year to the title of Senior Scientist (and yes, there were tons of jokes about me suddenly becoming elderly!).

Several years back, I wrote a couple articles on Tumblr (my major blogging platform at the time) about science. And while I don’t spend much time there now, I figured it was a good time to revisit this in a new way.

But if you missed the previous links, feel free to get a refresher here:

There also an awesome article I came across a while back all about how the evil scientist trope is harming scientists.

Now that that’s out of the way, today I want to discuss things I wish writers knew about scientists…and some things I wish they’d stop writing.

1. Scientists are diverse.

Yes, there is a lot of diversity in science! There are tons of females, minorities, and immigrants working in science in the US. It’s not all stuffy old white men.

HOWEVER, that being said, there is a known issue in retaining female scientists. It’s been referred to as the “leaky pipeline,” and there are plenty of articles out there about it. It’s not completely clear why this happens, but a lot is inherent misogyny leading to less pay, lower opportunities, and bias in publishing and hiring. But I won’t get into that too much now. Here is just one example among many, though.

2. Scientists are ethical.

Just like every other job, scientists have codes of ethics they must follow in order to receive funding and keep their jobs (as well as avoiding things like fines and a black mark next to their name in the field). Sure, there are a few bad eggs, but the majority of scientists stick to their ethics. In fact, all biology graduate programs I know of require students to take bioethics classes. And all scientists who receive funding must comply with the rules and guidelines that have been established.

If you’re ever curious, there are plenty of textbooks available that will give you a better understanding of modern bioethics, as well as current challenges and practices.

3. Scientists are people.

Yup, that’s right. They’re just like everyone else. They have their own lives outside their work, with family and friends not in their field. They have other interests (I know several scientists who love baking, I love writing, others love travel or martial arts or music… the list is as endless as the possibilities).

4. Scientists can be religious.

There’s a huge trope out there that says all scientists are jaded atheists who hate God.

But the truth is that about half of scientists observe some kind of religion, and more than 2/3 of them believe religion can be important to society. (I quoted this in “Scientific Misconceptions and Misrepresentations in Writing” from a 2005 survey)

And that religion can be anything.There are lots of Christian, Catholic, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic scientists, just to name a few. I myself am Christian, and what I see as a scientist strengthens my faith in God.

5. Not all scientists work in labs.

Scientists can have jobs all over the place. They may be consultants or writers. They may be salespeople or technicians for instruments and equipment. They may not focus on bench science (in the lab) but rather work outside in nature.

We’re everywhere. (insert cackling here)

I wish writers would stop writing these tropes:

Evil scientists, of any kind. If you’re really uncertain what I mean, go back to that article above.
Scientists who are master of all fields (omniscientists). We specialize. Like, a lot.
Only male scientists. I want to see some women! There are a bunch of us. Why are there only ever nerdy, geeky, awkward (or evil) white men???
Scientists as nothing but geeks. Again, they have so many varied interests. Why make them into a cardboard character?
Scientists who always wear a lab coat. Again, they do tons of jobs outside the lab. Also, we generally aren’t supposed to wear our lab coats outside the lab. It’s a health and safety hazard.

Obviously, these are only a few of the tropes I hate… and there is also so much more you could learn about scientists in their natural environments. XD

If you are writing a story involving scientists or science of any kind, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND you seek a scientist beta reader or consultant. You can again check out my previous links when I discussed why plausibility in scientific writing is important, but also remember, again, that scientists are people. And in this day where science is becoming mistrusted, it’s important not to spread fear and misinformation about a profession that only wants to advance our knowledge and ability to care for ourselves.

If you need a biologist, I actually do consult with writers about biology and the life of an industry scientist! I’m here to answer your questions and talk the science of life. Check out my Services page for more info, or you can Contact Me.

And now to you. What science tropes do you love? What ones do you hate? Tell me in the comments!

10 Mental Health Tropes I Hate in Fiction

Are there certain types of tropes that just bug you? Here are a few related to mental illness that I can’t stand!

For a ridiculously long time, there has been a large back-and-forth between the societal stigma of mental illness and the progress science, and society, has made in understanding and treating these illnesses. This stigma and the views of society are often apparent in fictional depictions of mental health and mental illness. And, honestly, they’re usually at the best not very good and at the worst downright dangerous and harmful. And this is coming from a girl who loves to read books with mental health elements to them! So today I want to talk a little about some of the tropes surrounding mental health that I just cannot stand.

There may be some tough topics ahead, and you may not agree with all my points. But hang on, friends. This is a long one.

1. Labeling a person as “crazy.”

This just irks me, mostly because when it is used, a lot of the time it is simply because the character doing the labeling (like an ex-boyfriend) is making an excuse for the horrendous behavior that led the person to their so-called “crazy” behavior. Or, it is used as an excuse to disregard a person’s feelings and opinions. OR it is reducing a person or a character to someone else’s flawed idea that is mostly just a smokescreen for that other person’s flawed ideas.

And sadly, this happens in real life, too. We can do so much better, people.

2. People with mental illness are dangerous.

OH MY WORD I cannot stand this one. And it’s current! I just saw Bird Box on Netflix this week, and boy, does it hold onto this one!

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT! (Skip this paragraph if you haven’t seen the movie yet) In the movie, there are “criminally insane” people from an asylum who escaped after everything started going downhill for the world. And these people don’t kill themselves after seeing the creatures, like most people do; instead, they force other people to look at them, leading these other people to kill themselves. And if you don’t willingly look, they force you to. Violently.

Here’s the problem: this trope perpetuates a fear of people with mental illness that already exists in society. Furthermore, this is an unfounded fear. In fact, people with mental health issues are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators, and if you want a stat, only 3-5% of violent acts are attributable to people with mental illness (that debunked myth, and a bunch of others, can be found over on MentalHealth.gov).

3. Dissociative Identity Disorder

Yes, this disorder gets its own bullet-point.

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID), formerly known as multiple personality disorder, is often used in fiction to create either dangerous characters (see Point 2) or quirky, multifaceted characters. The alters (personalities) are often portrayed as just good folks in need of acceptance.

But like so many mental health scenarios in fiction, this is wrong. DID is a complex and serious disorder requiring a properly trained and competent therapist to help integrate the alters. Accepting the alters as they are shouldn’t be the goal of therapy or of the person suffering from the disorder. But instead of this, a lot of fiction writers exploit this disorder to perpetuate a harmful idea that alters can be good, or to make their character more interesting.

4. Mental illness makes a person smarter or more creative.

No.

Oh, you want the long version? Okay, let me explain. So there’s this romanticized notion that to be an intelligent or artistic person, you must be a “tortured soul,” aka suffer from some sort of mental illness. But this is yet another myth perpetuated by fiction.

Here’s the facts: people with mental illness typically find that the illness interferes with their ability to think clearly and create. In fact, I can personally attest to this.

You see, a few years back, I suffered from a pretty serious bout of depression, which I had experienced to a slightly lesser degree on and off for years and years before that. Before the depressive episode hit, I was writing thousands of words per day, and I even completed two full-length novel drafts within only a few months. And when the depression hit, I went to school, then came home and sat on the couch until 3-4 in the morning doing nothing other than watching TV. I couldn’t create. I wasn’t more creative or thoughtful or intelligent. I was stagnant and unmotivated and self-depracating. It killed my ability to live to my potential. And for a lot of people with depression, they don’t even survive to come out the other side like I did.

So yes, please, let’s stop romanticizing mental illness.

5. The weird, dangerous, or unethical therapist.

*sigh* Okay. So fiction seems to mostly have two options for treatment of mental illness by a mental health professional: no help (which is Point 6) or help by a therapist who is weird, dangerous, or unethical.

“Weird” therapists are those who seem spacey or are bumbling, fumbling idiots. It makes therapists seem aloof and distant, when in reality, a good therapist is attentive, down-to-earth, and easy to talk to.

But what I personally find even more alarming are the portrayals of therapists who do things that are unethical and, quite frankly, dangerous. They experiment on their clients or patients. They torture them. They form relationships with them that step beyond the appropriate professional relationship. It bothers me.

And why do I hate these so much? Because they scare people by painting an image of a horror movie or ridiculous scenario every time someone suggests therapy. And it can keep people from seeking the help they need. And that is dangerous to their well-being.

6. There are no therapists.

On the other end of the spectrum are the stories where mental illness runs rampant and unchecked or there is never anything to address traumatic experiences. These are the stories where the kid watches his parents die, but no one bothers to consider how that might impact him emotionally or psychologically. Or the girl going through a manic episode just keeps getting worse because no one seems to notice. The reality of life with mental issues and illnesses is ignored in favor of drama. And that is also not okay. I see it spreading a message of hopelessness and feelings of being unnoticed and unimportant. We need more realistic pictures of therapy across the board.

7. Mental illness as a “quirk” or “flaw.”

This is another pet peeve of mine. Writers will take a person, decide they’re too bland or uninteresting, and give them a mental illness, like OCD, to make them more interesting or quirky. Or their character is too perfect, so to give them a flaw, they give them severe and crippling anxiety.

Now, it’s perfectly fine to write characters with mental illness (and in fact there should be plenty of them, since so many people experience them). But what’s not okay is using them as a sideshow for the story. The illness needs to be purposeful and sensitive, and it shouldn’t be used for comedy or to imply that having a mental illness makes a person flawed. There are so many other flaws out there that mental illness shouldn’t be used as one of them.

8. Mental illness can be overcome by trying just a little bit harder.

This one also angers me from my experience. I can’t tell you how many people told me, when I was going through my worst, to “just be happy,” or “get over it,” or “pray more.” Like I wasn’t trying hard enough to get through my problem. Like it was somehow my fault. And unfortunately, this societal attitude carries right through to fiction.

There are so many stories out there where one character will tell another to just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get over it… and they did. And that is completely unrealistic.

And this trope is harmful, because it implies to people experiencing mental illness that it’s their own fault and their own shortcoming that is causing them to suffer.

And that’s so very much not true. Mental illness is like physical illness; even the brain can get sick. Do you tell a person with the flu to just get over it? What about someone with meningitis? No! You take them to a doctor and tell them to let you know if they need anything. And that is how it should be for mental illness, too!

9. Taking a pill immediately fixes everything.

There’s another trope where a person suffering from a mental illness will take a single pill or have a startling revelation and suddenly everything is fine. It’s the idea that a single quick fix can change that person’s state immediately.

That is not how it works.

Some medications take weeks to start working, and they work better when a person also talks to a mental health professional. It takes time. And it’s not a straight process; there are ups and downs, relapses and recoveries. It’s hard work. It’s not just a simple fix of “take this pill and everything will be great!” And every illness, and every medication, has different timelines and effects and side effects. And none of them is that easy.

10. Suicide: romanticizing or using for revenge.

We’ve finally made it to the last one. And this one is the heaviest, and the one I considered not including.

Suicide is never to be taken lightly. It’s not a joke, it’s not something you just casually throw in. And many fiction writers talk about it in ways that can make it seem appealing, like and escape or a way out, especially to people who are struggling with just living life.

And then there is the idea of using suicide as a way to get back at someone. Looking at you, Thirteen Reasons Why! These tropes suggest that suicide is a viable way out, a good way to get the last word. But it’s not. Because the person who dies is still gone. And they leave broken hearts and broken friends and families behind them. Every single one. So let’s stop making it into something pleasant and positive when it’s not.

Concluding Thoughts

I know this was quite a long post today, but mental health is something I am very passionate about, and seeing these destructive tropes in my fiction burns me up! Let’s do better, as writers and readers, to create and demand realistic fiction that doesn’t make light of mental illness, make it a joke, or perpetuate harmful stigmas. Let’s make it something for people to understand and relate to. We need to do better, for ourselves, for society, and for people suffering from mental illness.

And if you are struggling in any way, with anything at all, please consider talking to your doctor or a mental health professional. There are so many options available to you, and help is out there, waiting! There is hope. You can visit To Write Love on Her Arms, the National Suicide Hotline, or a variety of other sites all designed to help you get through the bumps and deep valleys of your life. Please use them, reach out, and take those steps.

~~~

I said a lot today, but I also want to hear from you! What are your least favorite (or favorite) tropes related to mental health? Tell me in the comments!

Writing Post-Apocalyptic Fiction

If there’s one genre that is both overdone and under-explored, I would say it’s post-apocalyptic fiction. Now, don’t confuse this with dystopian. They are two different genres, though they do have great potential to overlap. Let’s start by distinguishing them.

Post-apocalyptic: stories about the world after a great catastrophe that completely changes society in one way or another.

Dystopian: a world in which everything is terrible, either due to a totalitarian or dictator government or through an environmental catastrophe (note: environmental disaster would also make it post-apocalyptic).

Now, some people may still argue that these are basically the same thing. And they can be. But I would argue that the difference is the presence of a catastrophe. This leads to the idea where a dystopian can also be post-apocalyptic, but it doesn’t have to be. Likewise, just because something is post-apocalyptic doesn’t mean it must be dystopian. Who knows; maybe the catastrophe drives civilization to become better and more hopeful for humanity!

Some common types of apocalypse stories include zombies, flu epidemics, or world war stories (to name a few) that leave the world a barren, empty place with a few survivors. These tropes have been done and redone so many times it can be hard to see dystopia or post-apocalyptic fiction as anything but overused and tired. And honestly, these tropes follow cycles of popularity and boredom. If you write it, eventually it will come back to market.

But the problem isn’t the genre itself. The problem is the stale ideas being used too often or at times when the public is exhausted of the topic. Authors have been playing off the same old tropes and ideas for years, so how can we do liven it back up? New catastrophes, updated situations, and unique perspectives on old tropes. Here are a couple examples:

New catastrophes that aren’t tired, like an alien invasion, superstorm (which borders on overdone), or something people haven’t written yet.
More relevant situations (think the long-term effects of climate change). Relate your catastrophe to something people weren’t writing about 50 years ago.

Let’s take a moment to examine a couple poor decisions, to balance out our understand a bit. What shouldn’t you do with your post-apocalyptic story?

Choosing effects of a catastrophe that are not realistic. Simply put, don’t overextend the catastrophe’s capability. For example, I once saw a book in which an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) killed a huge portion of life on Earth. But there’s a major flaw: EMPs are harmless to living things. They really only affect electronics. And for this reason, I never picked the book up. Keep things logical and realistic to keep from losing readers.
Writing the same story. We have enough stories about survivors of a zombie apocalypse going out and kicking butt. We need more stories with unique takes, like the scientists making a cure, or the onset of the catastrophe. Don’t write what everyone has always written. Make your own twists on it. If you don’t, your story will be lost in the noise of all other stories like it.

Now for some of the most unique catastrophes I’ve encountered.

Life as we Knew It by Susan Beth Pfeffer. In this story, the moon is knocked closer to the Earth by a meteor. Ever wonder what would happen in a case like that? Me either. Until I read this.
Ashfall by Mike Mullin. Here’s another (scary and potential) disaster: the eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano. And this trilogy was really well-done and excellently researched.
Not a Drop to Drink by Mindy McGinnis. This one plays off the possibility of a future water crisis. Another, newer release that follows this idea is Neal Shusterman’s Dry.

There are a few other upcoming or recent books I can’t wait to see, ones that show promise for reinvigorating this genre. These are my most anticipated post-apocalyptic TBRs:

The Islands at the End of the World by Austin Aslan
Dry by Neal Shusterman
Trail of Lightning by Rebecca Roanhorse

I’m sure there are more, but honestly I have over 700 books on my TBR, and things can get a little lost. 😉 But these three definitely stand out at the top.

What are some of your favorite post-apocalyptic tropes? Do you agree with me, or disagree? What recommendations do you have for post-apocalyptic or natural disaster books? I’d love to find some more good ones, so leave a comment and let me know!

The Trouble with Tropes

And yes. This title is totally a play on my favorite Star Trek episode ever, “The Trouble with Tribbles.”

But that aside, today I want to talk about tropes. I’ve been noticing a trend among readers, writers, and audiences of all kinds in voicing an opinion that tropes are bad. But this reasoning has one serious flaw, and I’d like to discuss that today. Tropes exist and repeat themselves for reasons. They aren’t good or bad, they just are. It’s how writers use them that can make or break it.

Let’s take a step back for a second and actually define a trope.

Trope: A pattern or recognizable part of a story, character, etc. that occurs across shows so often that readers and viewers can predict these patterns. These have been made pretty famous by the advent of the TV Tropes website, which lists many common (and less common) tropes.

As I said above, writers seem to be growing more afraid of using tropes in their work. But there’s just one problem. As Brandon Sanderson says,

“Everything is a trope.”
~Brandon Sanderson, Writing Excuses season 13 episode 35, “Cliche vs. Archetype” (a podcast you should absolutely listen to, since it’s 15 minutes per episode and oh-so-valuable to writers)

And how about this post I found on Tumblr recently:

Do you see the issue here? There is very little that is new under the sun, and tropes are things that have become integral to every story. There are so many tropes, in fact, that I would challenge you to find just one story of any length or genre that has absolutely no trope or variation on a trope in it. Hint: if one exists, I can’t find it. And you probably won’t either. But please tell me if you do; I’d love to read it.

Here’s the thing. The problem isn’t with the existence of tropes. It’s with the overuse of tired, worn-out or problematic tropes.

So how do we, as writers, evaluate our work when writing and revising? When do we consider removing a trope? How can you tell if a trope you want to use is something you should avoid or retire?

It’s overdone. Think about recent stories that have been released. What tropes do they have? How have readers responded to them? Take a love triangle, for instance. They were HUGE for a while, but readers are starting to burn out on them. There is also a lot of polarization around it, so you know that some will love it and some will hate it. You need to be okay with whatever reaction you get to the tropes you use.
It perpetuates hate or harmful stereotypes. Let’s face it: there are far too many tropes that support racism, sexism, and other -isms. One I hate is the girl with the glasses trope: a girl removes her glasses and is suddenly beautiful. It’s so harmful, saying that smart girls aren’t pretty, smart girls wear glasses, or you can’t be pretty with glasses. Another related one was discussed pretty extensively by Marina Sirtis, who played Deanna Troi on Star Trek: The Next Generation. Please read this and watch this (they are basically the same, but in different format, for whatever preference you have). It is so worth your time, and I’m not sure anyone has discussed the “pretty vs. smart female” trope better, and how it’s been handled in Hollywood, specifically. But writers are just as guilty of these issues.
Reactions of your beta readers and critique partners say “no”. This is a much deeper topic, but basically, here’s the idea: if your readers are having strong reactions, figure out why. Ask them. Take their comments to heart and decide how to handle them. And maybe it will mean removing a trope or shelving the book altogether.

Here’s another simple question: how do you take something inherently prone to cliche and make it fresh and new? There are two major methods (there could be more, but these are the two I am familiar with):

Context. Trope context is when you use a trope as it is but change the context so that it feels fresh, not tired, old, or cliche. For example, an “after the apocalypse” setting has become pretty common to dystopia and post-apocalyptic fiction (it’s right in the names). But a reader will be more willing to forgive jumping into this worn trope if you make it somehow unique. One example I can think of is the Last Survivors series by Susan Beth Pfeffer. It is post-apocalyptic, but the catastrophe is from a meteor knocking the moon closer to the Earth. It’s not something you see every day, unlike nuclear war post-apocalyptic fiction. Another excellent excellent example I can’t praise enough is the Ashfall trilogy by Mike Mullin, which takes place after the eruption of the Yellowstone Supervolacano (read it!). It is packed full of tropes, but they are so well done and in such a unique and well-thought-out setting that they are some of my all-time favorite books. You have to give readers something special to make the predictability of the story worthwhile. Because let’s face it: tropes mean the reader knows what’s coming.
Subversion. Contrary to context, where you use the trope as is, subversion is when you actively twist the expectation. For example (to use Brandon Sanderson’s example from the Writing Excuses podcast I referenced above), rather than killing the dragon, which everyone expects from the trope that is the Hero’s Journey, the character releases the dragon. It subverts the expectations and makes the story feel new.

There is seriously so much to unpack with tropes, but the takeaway I want you to have is this:

Tropes are not bad, but they must be used with intentionality and sensitivity.

You must pay attention to the tropes you are using and the impact they will have on your readers. You must pay attention to the amount the trope has been used in other media. If you fail to pay attention, you are setting your story up to fail and disappoint readers.

So there you have it! I will probably continue visiting some of my favorite and least favorite tropes in the future, but for now, tell me your thoughts! What comments do you have about tropes? What tropes do you hate or love? Tell me why in the comments!

~~~

ANNOUNCEMENTS!

Guess what? I finally have a newsletter! If you’re interested in keeping up with all my writing and publishing news, as well as upcoming free works and giveaways, either scroll to the top of the sidebar or follow this link to sign up. I hope you’ll join me!

Six Relationship Tropes I Hate in Fiction

I don’t know about you, but I have very specific tastes when it comes to fictional romantic relationships, particularly the “I never want to see this” kind. These are definitely personal preferences, and if you like one or more of these, I’m certainly not trying to convince you not to or belittle you for something you like. To each their own! But these are the romantic relationships I could do without in my books.

Student-teacher relationships. Example: Pretty Little Liars
Especially in YA, I really, really despise these kinds of relationships. In fact, let’s extend this out to any kind of relationship with a dangerous balance of power issue. Student-teacher or student-coach or student-parentofafriend or student/employee-boss. Why, you may ask? It’s gross (if it’s a child or teen and an adult), it’s not legal (or ethical), and I really feel like it gives young readers in particular a skewed idea of healthy relationships. It can blur the lines of right and wrong or safe and unsafe. Any kind of relationship where the balance of power is off (one person has more power than the other, like one controls a job or grade) can be incredibly dangerous and unethical, if not illegal, and it is just as dangerous to idealize or romanticize this abuse of power (as many books do).
Love triangles. Examples: The Infernal Devices, Twilight
I am so over this one. Particularly as a person who never had more than one crush and never more than one person (if that) interested in her, I find these kinds of stories dull, self-indulgent, arrogant on the part of the one caught in the middle, and unrealistic. That whole “Oh no, two boys like me, how will I choose when I like them both!” thing just grates on me. Yeah, maybe some people can relate to the situation, and that’s fine. And I know enough people like them for it to have become a trope in the first place. But if I never see another love triangle again, it will be too soon.
Distant “family”. Examples: Born of Earth by A.L.Knorr, Newsflesh trilogy (to be clear, I LOVE both of these books/series…except for that relationship)
These are the romantic relationships that also toe the line between legal and illegal, just barely on the side of “this isn’t actually taboo.” For example, a girl falls in love with her adopted cousin or brother. Yeah, they’re not specifically related by blood, but they are still legally related. It just bothers me.
Actual family. Examples: Flowers in the Attic
Speaking of family, how about actual family? Like, surpassing the normal family relationship to become romantically involved. It’s just another relationship that weirds me out. I don’t like reading about it. I find it unenjoyable and awkward, and that’s not something I’m looking for in my fiction.
Bad boys/girls. Example: The Infernal Devices and so many others
I will never understand the books that romanticize falling in love with a guy or girl who treats the other person like dirt. Why would you want to be around someone who is mean all the time or acts like they don’t care about you? A real, good relationship is one where both parties feel valued and loved. Anything otherwise is modeling poor relationships. It’s not as dangerous as the power balance issues, but it can still lead to some bad times for actual humans.
Abusive relationships. Example: 50 Shades of Gray (I didn’t read it, but I know enough)
Much like some of the above relationships, abusive relationships are difficult. They can model dangerous roles and choices to impressionable people, particularly if the relationship is romanticized. Personally, unless it is incredibly important to the story, I don’t really want to read about it. Especially with something like 50 Shades, where the characters seem ignorant and tolerant of such behaviors and it is never addressed. Abuse is never okay, and a lot of times it is lazy writing. I will be more okay with it if it is addressed or necessary, but it’s a hard balance, and I’ll need convincing.

So these are my most hated romantic relationships in fiction. Again, please remember that if you happen to really enjoy one of these kinds of relationships in your reading, I’m not trying to dissuade or belittle your choices and your enjoyment; I am merely pointing out the relationships I dislike and find particularly worrisome or troublesome.

Now that I’ve shared with you, it’s your turn! What are your least favorite romantic relationship tropes in fiction? Why? Share in the comments!