posted
I was sitting in a tree last weekend hunting, sweating my brains out (which was bizarre for me in and of itself--I recently moved from northern Indiana, where hunting is an activity accomplished in 10-25 degree weather, to northern Georgia, where it's done in 50-80 degree weather) and stewing over the nature of cliche in writing.
What initially got me stewing was my equipment. Like many of you, every time I see something interesting I try to describe it in words. As I was getting situated for the evening hunt last Saturday at about 1 pm, I got settled in my stand and drew an arrow. The arrow body is black carbon-fiber; the arrowhead is a wickedly sharp three-bladed affair of stainless steel (the native americans may have been more skilled with their weapons, but the modern archer certainly has a technological advantage). I unsnapped the arrow from the quiver and, as I brought it out, a shaft of sunlight darted between the branches and caught the arrowhead. It was a magnificent sight. It was magical, enchanting, Tolkienesque. Like a good wannabe writer, I tried to think of how to describe it in words. And all I could come up with was cliches (blazing, shining, razor-sharp, glinting, etc., etc.)
Here are the thoughts that resulted from my frustrating inability to describe something I had personally experienced in a fresh way. Cliche seems to occur on two levels: the broad cliche (peasant boy is told my mysterious and secretly powerful old wise man that he must go on quest to retrieve magic item and save the world) and the specific level (swords clash, donkeys bray, people around the donkeys "wrinkle" their noses). The broad cliche seems more egregious to me than the specific cliche. In fact, the specific cliche seems to me to have some definite use. A lot these specific cliches--wrikling of the nose, for example--convey in a generally understood manner something that might otherwise be difficult to describe. Part of me tells me that I'm wrong, and even specific cliches should be avoided.
quote:I unsnapped the arrow from the quiver and, as I brought it out, a shaft of sunlight darted between the branches and caught the arrowhead. It was a magnificent sight. It was magical, enchanting, Tolkienesque.
Sounds like a good description to me.
It lets me imagine what you saw without you spoon-feeding me the image.
posted
How are [blazing, shining, razor-sharp, glinting] cliche? Next thing you know, we won't be able to call a spade a spade... Posts: 1275 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the same thing as Chris. Those words aren't cliche, they're just fitting adjectives.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're very fitting adjectives. So fitting that they have been used over and over and over and over to describe the exact same thing, even though there are other ways to describe that thing. Hence, cliche.
Posts: 683 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I say, "I ran fast," that's not a cliche, even though it's been used A LOT. I think "the glinting arrowhead" falls in the same category. It's not cliche, it's just used a lot because it's the common usage of the English language.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're kind of talking around each other, and you're in a way making my point for me. As writers, our success lies in saying something meaningful and new in a manner that is meaningful and new. There are obviously limitations on the newness aspect--nobody (except Tolkien) will invent a new language, and nobody (except Shakespeare) will invent new words in English when the old ones don't fit. Within those limitations, what's the best way to approach well-trodden descriptions? Maybe it's a question of resource allocation. There is incredible power in describing something in a way that strikes home to the reader. Cliches--even short ones like glinting arrowheads--just don't do it. They have lost their luster from long use. I guess the judgment call is when you want a passage to scintillate, and when are content merely to let it sparkle like a diamond. Take Jack London and Hemingway--they use simple language, but every_word_strikes_home. I think the reason why might be in part because they avoid the specific cliche "like the plague." My frustration comes from my inability to achieve that same simplicity and penetration, due in part to my reliance on the workmanlike utility of the cliches.
[This message has been edited by J (edited September 19, 2006).]
posted
Just googled "figures of speech" and found a marvelous page that does just what I was talking about (definitions and examples).
Before you go check it out, consider the possibility that one of the main reasons for description is to create an image in the reader's mind.
Then go look at the various figures of speech and their examples and ask yourself how you could use each of them (or even just a few of them) to create images in your readers' minds in new ways.
posted
This is my opinion. The dictionary will contradict me but, you know, dictionaries document word usage not necessarily meanings
A plot can be boring, conventional, derivative, predictable, commonplace, formulaic, contrived and unoriginal but not clichéd. In its purest sense, cliché refers to a phrase. One that is used with such frequency, regularity and familiarity that it loses its original meaning and clarity.
People stop looking at what it means and assume they know because they have heard it/used it so often before.
It is like when someone says "he was hoist by his own petard" and have no idea what a petard is, nor how one is 'hoist' by one.
Another example is: "loose cannon." Imagine an unsecured 3 tonne cannon rolling around on deck in the pitch and swell of heavy seas. What effect would it have on the wooden ship? On the crew trying to secure it? You begin to get the idea of what that particular cliché originally meant. Now think of the feathered, boring and inspid way the expression is used today.
By the process of 'assumption' he shot himself in the foot which originally meant 'cowardice' has transformed into 'clumsiness'.
The colourful and informative quality of the original is lost.
It does not mean, however, that people will not call your plot a cliché. That's because the 'word' cliché has become one. Those who use it most regularly are generally the most likely to assume they understand the word.
POINT: I think there is real power in discovering the origins of clichés and thoughtfully reworking them in order to recapture their original potency.
"hoist by his own petard" could become "incinerated by his own roadside bomb"
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited September 19, 2006).]
posted
Is "he was hoist by his own petard" an actual expression???? What does it mean?
I used 'shooting oneself in the foot' in a F&F critique recently, and I meant "unnecesarily hampering one's efforts". Hmm.
When I'm writing, I discover the clichés when my characters start talking like me instead of like themselves. The other day, I wrote one of my characters saying, "I'd lose my own head if it weren't attached." I say that all the time. Needless to say, I needed to back up and get out of my own voice and back into my character's.
posted
"He was hoist by his own petard" literally means blown up by his own bomb. Figuratively it means the same as "He was caught in his own trap."
Posts: 1517 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
if you want the reader to remember it, describe it specifically and concretely. does the arrow actually glitter or glimmer, or does it really do something else? you did well enough indeed in describing your description, though you'd do well to avoid well-trodden topics to start with.
if you can't describe it vividly, perhaps you're best not describing it at all. writers should never describe a bar, because we've all already been in it. we know what's there, and unless you have something truly astounding to offer us, there's no point. mention that a broadhead catches the sunlight, and anyone since robin hood will know what you mean. it's nearly an archetype. is it salient to the plot? to the point? before you try to describe comes the significant decision of what to describe.
i've learned this the hard way. as you can tell, i'm pretty verbose.
quote:mention that a broadhead catches the sunlight, and anyone since robin hood will know what you mean. it's nearly an archetype.
Ah, but this speaks to audience as well. I don't know what a broadhead is. Regular fantasy readers probably do, since fantasy is apparently rife with bows and arrows (if the book covers are any indication). (Yes, I'm being facetious.) That is not to say that arrows are exclusive to fantasy, but they certainly don't show up much in the SF I read.
My point is that your comment shows that the audience for whom you are writing will affect what is or is not cliché.
[This message has been edited by sojoyful (edited September 20, 2006).]
posted
Broadheads are a modern development, not a fantasy staple.
Self-sabotage, for whatever reason, can be reasonably described as "shooting oneself in the foot". The essential image is not lost just because you're imagining the character doing it out of idiocy. The fact that we tend to more readily accept that image than the older interpretation is because those militaries which allow the wounded to be exempt from combat no longer force cowards to be there in the first place.
"Hoist on his own petard", on the other hand, is an interesting example of a phrase that retains its meaning perfectly well even though the image has radically changed. Partily this is the result of the advent of high explosives (explosives which produce a supersonic blast). When we imagine a man being blasted sky-high by his own bomb, the image is very different from what a person from a low-velocity powder age would imagine. Partly it is the result of "petard" appearing almost exclusively in this context, which tends to result in people thinking it is some kind of rope-trap or gallows. We do not imagine a man being shot comically (and very potentially non-fatally) into the air like a clown out of a cannon.
I suppose the stuggle is to know what you mean, mean what you write, and write what you know
Printer-friendly view of this topic
