posted
I've done a lengthy search on Hatrack for topics that discuss clichés. There are several, but most of them are about a particular setup or scene someone is working on. I wanted to dicuss the viability of using clichés in a story, i.e., when they DO work. Because sometimes they really do work, especially when you are writing a parody.
EricJamesStone posted a great link to a website in one the topics I found; I'm reposting it for your general amusement:
While I realize that I can't please everyone, I must admit I was disappointed with some of the comments I received for my recent flash challenge story. That story deliberately parodies about 3 different "body snatcher" scenarios, and puts forth my own interpretation of the world of "telemarketing." Notably, I couldn't find my "clichéd" story idea on the above link, but nevertheless, there are dozens of these stories out there.
Predictability: I wrote the above tale to be utterly predicatable, like wearing comfortable shoes. You know exactly what you're getting into from the very beginning. It's a parody, written dryly so it's not over-the-top, and still people moaned about the predictability. I don't get the criticism here. "Make it funnier and more obvious that it is a parody," some people said. I thought it was obvious, actually. In fact, I couldn't see how anyone could actually miss it. Is there something wrong with a story that is predictable? Isn't it good enough to go along for the ride? I think so.... others disagree.
So, now... I'm going to ask you kind folk to discuss this matter at some length with me. Because, quite frankly, I'm unconvinced that predictability for a particular type of story is a problem, and I also feel that using clichés can be a good thing from time to time. Maybe in our collective efforts to be original, we forget that many stories are rewrites, reworkings, and new spins on old ideas.
So have at me, here. Tell me I'm an idiot and I'll shut up about it.
posted
It's obvious that predictability in general is not an issue, or there wouldn't be genre fiction. So, it must be predictability in the specific that some people don't like. I read recently the start of a story that was predictable, and I liked it and would gladly have read more. The predictability in this case immediately immersed me in a familiar world (it felt like slipping into comfortable clothes) and allowed me to look for and enjoy those items that were unique to that story. I watched about 5 minutes of a movie the other night, and realized I could predict the entire plot. My wife won the fight over the remote control, so I went elsewhere to read. In this case the preictability was so repulsive that I just couldn;t even be in the same room and read comfortably. What was the difference? I liked the familiarity of the one environment, and was repulsed by the shallowness of the other.
SO, where am I going with this? I'm not quite sure but I think that the predictability enhanced my response in both cases, the eager anticipation as well as the revulsion. If it does that with me, it may well do so for most readers. S, it means that in addition to the everday challenges of writing, you also run the gauntlet of enhanced personal response. That, I think is the real challenge of writing cliche.
posted
On the topic of predictability may I say that I like it as long as people don't try to hard to pretend they're doing anything other than writing to formula. In fact many a time e.g. romantic comedy, david eddings. I watch / read because of the genre predictability. I also read books I like 10 times but I'm sick.
To a certain extent I like predictable outcomes. It's good to know that the hero will triumph. The guy and girl get together and everyone live happily ever after. The only time you ever get predictable is in fiction. That gives you a step on the wobbly sands of sanity I think.
I also think cliches can be great. And mostly everything is a cliche i.e. it has been done a thousand ways before. So what's the issue as long as you're aware that describing someone as "as beauitful as a rose" may not be a good thing and you're happy with that - go for it.
removed non topic specific comments
[This message has been edited by limo (edited April 26, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by limo (edited April 26, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by limo (edited April 26, 2005).]
There's a lot to be said for cliches. (I think "there's a lot to be said" for is one.) They're good shorthand. They're easy to parody. They make great titles. ("Just Shoot Me.")
I didn't see the story, so I can't comment on yours. I find "this is cliched" an annoying criticism. Like recently, I had a leader who was a bully also be a big man. Cliched? Sure. But having a string-bean yell out orders would have introduced more complexity into a bit-part character than I wanted to explain.
OSC says stereotypes are a great starting point, and it's good to LEAVE minor characters there (but not major ones). I would qualify: it's still ok to have major characters cliched if their situations are strange enough (Alice, for example).
OTOH I wouldn't like it if a cliched protagonist had a cliched situation and that's all we got. It would be like watching a rerun.
I have an emotional reaction to the link you posted. I like many of those alleged cliches (including some plotlines that I have never encountered). The ones I don't like were stupid the first time they happened.
posted
Cliches certainly serve a function, as long as they act as single bricks instead of foundations or structural supports in the edifice of your story. (Feel free to flinch and boo away, but understand that I just pulled a psych paper all-nighter and it might be nice to cut me some metaphorical slack. ) Basically, they can be important shorthand, and a good way to ensure that you've placed exactly your intended idea in your reader's head.
As to predictability...I've read all of my favorite books multiple times. Read "multiple" as "at least thirty, in some cases". If that isn't an example of the unimportance of predictability, I don't know what is.
posted
or the importance of predictability if you're reading them because you know whats going to happen. Comfort blanket style.
Posts: 112 | Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted
I guess though, there are two types of cliches at least: (1) Cliche phrases.
I find myself doing Cliche phrases all to often. A person here who gave me some good feedback said I should tape a sign on my monitor saying, "Thou Shalt Not Use Cliches".
The intention I believe is that we can take the time to create our own cliches instead of relying on time honored ones.
That said, I still have a problem with them. They seem to pop up against my will.
(2) Cliche characters or events. I believe I remember OSC said we have these things programmed into us. Usually the first idea we pull off the shelf is the cliche one, for its at the top of the stack. So if we do that too often...
Whats embarassing is write something you think is original, and then months later to read it again and find how unoriginal it is.
That said, I believe with parody: No holds barred. It just better be funny.
posted
It's extremely difficult to come up with original storylines for novel-length works. The names and places may change, but the formula for a successful story are somewhat constant. That doesn't mean there aren't original story lines out there, just that they are hard to find. What makes some stories unique and fun to read is the stuff you put around that formula.
Take "Lord of the Rings". Good guys battling bad guys with the fate of the world in the balance. Or was that "Hunt for Red October"? "Star Wars"? Can't argue all three were successful, and all three had the same basic idea. What made them unique (and ultimately successful) was how the writers wove the details into this well-travelled storyline.
As for cliche phrases, well, they're older than dirt, and I try to write my way around them.
posted
Cliché characters and situations are not too bad. If you are writing a parody they are essential.
But there is no excuse for cliché phrases in your writing, even if it is a parody. Your parody will be much better if it doesn't use any cliché phrases, but instead parodies cliché phrases.
Douglas Adams used this to great effect in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Here's a great quote that parodies a cliché:
quote:In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
posted
I've read the story in question, so feel free to ignore me (especially you, HSO).
There was a movie on, here in America, called "Locusts". The commercials reminded me of the old fifties "bugs try to devour the world" kind of movies and sure enough that's what it was. It was a parody through and through. I knew it from the moment they had a scientist create pesticide resistent locusts just because he thought it would be COOL!
What made the predictability fun was that I didn't know specifics. I knew there would be only one thing that would kill the bugs and that it would be deadly to humans; I knew there would be a sappy love story with corny music to match; I knew the mad scientist who created them would probably realize, most likely through the wounding/death of a loved one, that what he'd created was a terrible monster; etc., etc. I just didn't know that the one thing would be VX nerve gas, that the chick in the love story would get pregnant, or that the loved one would be the scientist's daughter (whose wounding took place inside a school bus with her father racing forward to save her).
That said, my husband enjoyed it up until the end. It was too unbelievable for his engineering mind, though that was the part that made me laugh the hardest (I'd tell you but it would take too long to describe).
So, here's my first point. Not everyone will enjoy the parody to its completion. I really enjoyed HSO's story even though I was one of the ones who said it should be funnier and that it was a bit too predictable. There were others who thought it was great and caught the tongue-in-cheek tone from the beginning.
Second point... I like predictability as long as it's a general plot with only a very few key devices. Back to the movie, if I'd guessed that the one thing that would kill the locusts was VX, it would have become less enjoyable for me. The plot still needs to have a few surprises and in comedy, it's a very difficult thing to both surprise and tickle.
Anyway, that's just my thoughts on predictability. Feel free to ignore me.
I do appreciate your insights, however. And I won't ignore your opinions. I may disagree with them. But I won't ignore them, as that would be unfair to both of us, and you've earned far too much of my respect for me to allow that to happen.
posted
Well, Chris points out: "with parody: No holds barred." That is, he uses a cliche. A mortal sin? I don't see a problem. It's a cliche, but it's a short cliche with punch.
I think sometimes the verbal cliches do have punch. Cut to the chase. 24-7. Friendly as a wet dog. But sometimes they don't: tables groaning with a load of food, fields bathed in a flood of silver moonlight, beautiful women faced with nightmares of hideous evil from which there can be no escape. (Actually, I still like that last one -- for parody.)
posted
I agree that it is important to distinguish between cliche phrases (which are almost always objectionable) and cliche situations/plots (which are also called archetypes). It is tough to think of a good book that DOESN'T have archetypal elements in its plot. I think Einstein is credited with saying "God is in the details." In my opinion, it is the way the author handles the details that makes a "predictable" book either wonderful or hackneyed. One of the best examples I can think of is Robin McKinley's book _Beauty_. The subtitle is "a retelling of Beauty & the Beast". OK, we all know the story. We know how it ends. Nevertheless, reading _Beauty_ is like having a sumptuous dinner at the world's best restaurant. You would happily go back in a week or two and order the same meal & do it all again. AND IN FACT, SHE DID. Twenty or so years later, she wrote _Rose Daughter_ - a retelling of Beauty and the Beast. We know the story. We know how it ends. Some of the side dishes are even the same - same restaurant, different entree, just as good. When the first volume of the Hatrack River books was published and I read the "blurb", my first thought was "oh, s**t, he's written the story I wanted to write." Well, of course, it wasn't the story I wanted to write, not at all. It involved one of the "predictable" plot set-ups I wanted to use, but it couldn't be much more different from the story I had already started (and just finally finished in first draft form - no fair counting how many years it's been since Card published that first volume!). Another example: When _The Lord of the Rings_ was first popular, back in the 60's, a few imitations began to pop up. They had elves, dwarves, men and a quest. Since I had loved LOTR, I picked up a couple to read. Since I had loved LOTR, I detested the imitations - not because they were predictable, but because they were so far inferior in writing style to the master's work. Does everyone say to a painter, "Portraits are so predictable, don't paint them"? Of course not. Each artist's portraits are unique. Some are wonderful, some are dismal. Architects keep designing houses, poets keep writing about love or connections or dissonance. Fiction writers keep playing with a few basic plot lines, and it's how we people our plots, the skill with which we detail them, and the personal voice with which we invest them that make them either appealing or not.
Posts: 19 | Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted
When using a cliche in parody, the point between success and failure hinges on how clever it is, how subtle, how appropriate. Cliche parody seems to be more successful in movies than in print, partially because the visual cliches evoke a stronger tone. "Spaceballs," "Blazing Saddles," "Mars Attacks," and my all time favorite, "This is Spinal Tap" are all great movie examples of successful use of cliche. I can't imagine that the effect would have been quite as strong in print.
I liked the little romp we had with our Penguin guarding the dragon's horde... if developed, Kaz could have an interesting little short story. Enough cliche and parody to suck you in, a twist to make you cock your head to one side and say, "Huhnh?"
My favorite writing is like an M.C.Escher picture... it looks really familiar at first, until you begin noticing the bizarre twists to it... and then you look at it in a whole new way!
posted
I like that list, although some of the classifications are rather incomprehensible.
Like two items marked with a red X on the screen right now, "Bad guys who miss everything they shoot at" and "The grammatical differences between the languages used by humans and aliens are cited as conclusive proof of radically different ways of thinking."
The only reason that these deserve a red X is under the "items which...require the characters involved to have the IQ of a banana peel" clause. But theoretically intelligent people do both of these all the time, either acting as like bad guys without aquiring weapons skills or asserting that minor grammatical differences demonstrate radically different ways of thinking.
Or the pair of ideas, each marked as being "unconscionably sexist". "Alien races that find our women attractive, while we find theirs to be repulsive" appears just above "Extra breasts on the alien women." I'm sure that both of these are silly for other reasons, but under what definition can they both be "unconscionably sexist"?
Probably the same one which catches "Societies wherein gender roles and attitudes are completely reversed."
They also still have a red X by "A large nuclear explosion can be obtained by putting several smaller devices together." Somebody doesn't understand that this is, in point of fact, how all multi-stage weapons (i.e. anything that will produce a "large" nuclear explosion) essentially work.
But for my money, the winner is
quote:A smart, courageous, gorgeously attractive woman who is rarely if ever asked out.
posted
I've known a few women who fall into that category. Actually it is not a cliche but something which has been statistically proven. Men are daunted by beautiful women.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Dec 2003
|
posted
To be fair, a lot of men are daunted by all women. A woman is a true enigma. We are of the same species, but we are most certainly not the same. This isn't a bad thing -- it's actually what makes life most interesting... for me anyway. To puzzle over the myriad of ways a woman can change her mind in the space of 3 milliseconds is an answer that will elude men (and many women) for eternity.
Posts: 1520 | Registered: Jun 2004
|
quote:A smart, courageous, gorgeously attractive woman who is rarely if ever asked out.
Hmmm. I qualify (she said modestly), and I've been asked out lots. Unfortunately it's generally been by eighteen-year-olds in clubs who had four of their friends snickering behind them and egging them on while they said things like, "Uh... uh... you dance real good."
Honestly, I just wanted to pat them on the head.
Nobody I know, or who knows me well, has ever asked me out; in all of my relationships I was at least somewhat the aggressor. So I'd call this cliche "True, for certain values of 'asked out' that involve the askee having a chance in hell."
As for the rest...
Ursula LeGuin once made a distinction between myths and submyths. When you look at a submyth, she said (Superman was the example used) it turns into a gerbil, an easily explained collection of desires and hopes and what everybody wants and nobody gets. When you look at a myth, it looks back.
Most cliches are myths somewhere down in there; situations and people we recognize, things that look back at us because we *know* them. They become cliches when they aren't processed properly.
The two forms of improper processing:
1) Author can't be bothered thinking about (x), so she tosses in some common element in its place. This can be effective enough in small doses - the big bully from earlier in this thread springs to mind - but for major elements, or when the writer uses the technique repeatedly, the effect is brain-numbing. The writer hasn't bothered thinking about these elements, hasn't chewed them over and made them her own. We read a story because we want to hear the author's take on it, the author's voice. Every time that voice falters we loose something.
2) Author hasn't properly thought (x) through, and thus the character or situation comes across as wish-fufillment. The pretty woman cliche above is one example: writers who think about why a pretty woman might not get asked out can get away with it, those who just want a pretty thing for their MC to sweep away don't. Conan the Barbarian and Superman are other examples. Did the authors think through the implications of being stronger than everyone else in the world? Not really. They wrote a one-sided story, a story about how GREAT it would be and nothing else.
Well, damn. My two cents have made me late for work. Must work on self-control....
posted
Katfeet, you've expressed it wonderfully. All myths can become clichés in writing. But a writer can use myths to great effect with proper homework, thinking the myth through to a logical, believable, but surprising conclusion.
For the record, I'm certainly older that 18 and if I weren't married I would ask you out. It's more than your stunning beauty that got my attention. You see, I am irresistably attracted to your lack of self-control . . .
posted
Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but...my definition of "smart, couragous, and gorgeously attractive" includes the ability to skillfully evade the advances of a true loser without having to shoot anyone.
Sorry, throw things all you like, shoot me if you must
Anyway, I know that it's a cliche, but in the list it was marked with the red X, denoting "those items which flatly contradict the known laws of nature, introduce an irreconcilable contradiction, require the characters involved to have the IQ of a banana peel, or are abysmally stupid for some other reason."
I mean, some of the items that got red X's clearly deserved them, but that one didn't. By the way, another red X ranked cliche was "Children with access to the highest levels of military planning, scientific research, and governmental decision-making."
I'm just saying, that list is funny on more than one level.
posted
I was thinking more about a specific Hugo-Nebula award winner.
Really, I'm not...I've never been wildly impressed with the mental abilities of children. But let's face it, the entire literary establishment of the west has more than once lauded the intelligence and wisdom of leaders who were obviously great fools both personally and publicly.
posted
Hmm, Survivor, I'd hazard to say that you've never actually worked with kids.
I taught philosophy at a fifth grade level in an inner city school for a semester, and found myself having to constantly ratchet up the difficulty of the problems I presented. Those kids ended up tackling metaphysics problems that are often reserved for grad students.
quote:For the record, I'm certainly older that 18 and if I weren't married I would ask you out.
Come to think of it, that's the second time I've been asked out on message boards. Does that count for something?
(And, no, the other time wasn't any more serious than this. Thank God. If my BBs turned into clubs it would be just too disturbing.)
quote:Not to rain on anyone's parade here, but...my definition of "smart, couragous, and gorgeously attractive" includes the ability to skillfully evade the advances of a true loser without having to shoot anyone.
Aw, they weren't losers. Just young. In a few years I'm sure they would have been human.
And I never had to shoot anyone. A simple "No thanks" worked in all cases; I never even had to resort to the imaginary boyfriend or going and standing by the large friendly bouncer. So overall I think I can agree with that assessment.
posted
You have to remember that "human" = "loser" in my lexicon
Oh, Jer, how could you make such a n00b mistake as saying "you've never actually..." to me, of all people? At least you realized it was a hazard, but you still said it. What exactly do you think I was doing at the very moment I typed my previous post on this thread?
posted
We've had several. There was an amusing discussion of thishere.
Oh, and if you just search around generally you'll find lots of me muttering things like "That's what I was getting at with my not-very unambiguous disambiguation of KDW's very ambiguous...idea."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
but I think that the predictability enhanced my response in both cases, the eager anticipation as well as the revulsion. If it does that with me, it may well do so for most readers. S, it means that in addition to the everday challenges of writing, you also run the gauntlet of enhanced personal response. That, I think is the real challenge of writing cliche. 
