posted
I have been thinking about this for a while.
We all know to avoid cliches in writing, but when my characters are frequently feeling fear or anger and other emotions, it is hard not to fall back on the well established cliches. Like: Heart pounding, heart racing, jumped out of his/her skin, etc.
Is it okay to use these when you just want to give a quick reference to how the character is feeling?
I think there are times when the emotions are felt deeper, and you want to emphasize that so at those times it is best to give a more original and in depth explanation.
But if a cat jumps out at the character startling her can't you just say her heart pounded wildly to illistrate her surprise? You just want to give a quick reference to how she feels.
There is a reason these phrases are cliches. They very nicely convey the emotion.
But I want to know what you think.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited September 14, 2009).]
posted
Trust your readers to assume that when a cat jumps out at your heroine, and she screams "EEK!" or something like that, that they know her heart might be pounding harder.
There shouldn't necessarily be constant updates as to the emotional status of your characters. This is a good example of show vs. tell. Their actions should ideally show the reader their state of mind. Telling us her hands are sweaty (or that she noticed her hands were sweaty) is still telling.
posted
OSC described a cliche as something "overfamiliar and unearned" and said the best way to fix that is to be more specific and in-depth.
In the case of the heart pounding wildly, "wild" to me is the word that makes this cliche - it's reaching for a depth of emotion it hasn't earned. It also happens to be vague and could use with a bit more specificity in any case. How exactly does a heart pound "wildly"? Is it pounding faster than normal? Harder than normal? Has the heartbeat actually become irregular and the heart is skipping beats? But the overall reaction of a pounding heart is a common and genuine reaction to fear. I don't think we should censor that reaction out of our writing simply because it's so true that people often fall back on it as a method to show fear. We should just be careful in employing it.
When I find myself using overfamiliar phrases, I always ask myself, is this the best way to describe what I want to show? If It is, then I use it. If not, then I search around for exactly the right way to write what it is I'm trying to show.
A random thought on showing vs. telling. If it's something that needs to happen, but it's not that important, then I just tell it. No point in spending a whole page describing my MC's reaction to a scary cat when she's about to be attacked by zombies (or whatever) in the next scene.
posted
Thoughts precede emotions and can be used to illustrate character. Everyone's heart accelerates when they're scared, so that's usually a yawner by itself. When the cat jumps out, what does the character think? Is he afraid of monsters? Being robbed? The grim reaper? What is it about his reactions toward/feelings about the setting that causes fright rather than simple surprise or amusement? What about semi-conscious reactions? Does he run? Duck? Attack? Urinate? Plead with God? Then once he figures out it's just a cat, does he laugh? Cuss? Kick the cat? Befriend it?
Including those types of details can sometimes convey the character's fright in a more meaningful way than a cataloging of physical symptoms or reverting to cliches. Trembling doesn't scare us, but the character's image of his child being devoured by a werewolf might.
Of course, you can have you character utter cliche's: "Geez, cat, you scared the crap outa me!"
Meanwhile, something I tend to do is to give my character a chance to observe his/her own mental/physical state and make a comment on it, as a way to get at deeper characterization.
For instance, one character gets worried that her heart is pounding so loud that others will be able to hear. Another can't stand the way she blushes every time something mildly embarrassing happens, which makes her blush even more, which makes her nuts (and she's clumsy, so embarrassing things happen on a semi-regular basis.) It's a chance for the characters to make observations about themselves that show more of themselves beyond just the physical actions they take. "She began to wonder if she'd ever outgrow this whole blushing thing, or if she'd be forty and still blushing every time a store clerk looked at her."
I wouldn't get too caught up in the show don't tell stuff, though. OSC has a great piece on that written on his writing lessons - I strongly encourage everyone to read it. He covers it Here in this bit about Point of View
posted
I'm inclined to work through the cliche, but make an effort at rephrasing it. The-cat-jumps-out-the-heart-pounds scenario...I'd have to try to bring something else out of it if I could think of something, maybe adding more detail to it. (I try to avoid "ly" adverbs in the process, too, but that's a side issue---I use 'em here but try to cut 'em out of my work.)
(They tell me the word "cliche" comes from an old printers' phrase for some block of print already set up, like an ad, that they'd be able to drop in pretty much anywhere in the print job. I suppose this accurately refers to the use of one.)
posted
You must write as you believe is true to your style. Everything else is mere noise.
That said, I have a personal aversion to cliches in narration. Perhaps hearts can pound, but if you can think of a better way of saying it then I will enjoy reading it all the more. When I am frightened I notice a lot of other reactions before I notice my heart rate and blood pressure.
Cliches have their places, especially in dialog. A character can say "My heart is pounding!" or "He's as old as the hills!" or whatever. Many characters speak in cliches. In fact, some first person narrators can narrate in cliches.
posted
I personally believe cliches become cliches for a reason: because they make sense to/resonate with people and because real people use them a lot.
Now if you use cliched phrasing for every line of dialogue and every description of every situation then you may have a problem. You want to be creative/original and have your own voice as well, but I see no problem with the use of oft-used phrases and idioms.
As to showing/telling...trying to "show" emotions can often lead to ambiguity and confusion. Some times its going to happen, and certainly its good to some times "show" characters physical manifesations of their emotions, but being able to clearly let a reader know exactly what a character feels is one of the advantages of the written medium. And thoughts, of course, more or less have to be "told."
posted
"show dont tell" like most "rules" of writing is really more like a guidline than an actual rule...and I think in the end more of a stylistic choice. Especially when it comes to the emotion thing...when you "show" emotions you run the risk of people not understanding what it is your actually trying to convey...some will and some wont...but if they dont and they are the type of reader who requires a strong emotional connection to your characters, they will feel distanced.
On the other hand more clearly stating or "telling" the emotion ensures understanding but to some it feels to straightforward or generic. Its all basically a matter of taste.
Emotional ambiguity can be good if thats what your going for...especially as an overall aspect of a story. But when you do want to clearly express an emotion trying to "show" it by things like facial expressions etc is some times going to muddy the waters. A lot of it depends on whether your aiming at the "I must have a deep emotional connection with the characters" crowd or not.
Basically, theres no "right" or "wrong" aproach and "telling" is neither better nor worse than "showing"...its all going to be in the taste of the reader.
I'm curious though, how do you feel about dealing with thoughts, then? Emotions can some times be "shown" but I'm not sure how one would "show" a thought.
And getting back on topic, its the same for cliches...however, just as any story is going to include both "showing" and "telling" (putting aside the fact that technically all writing is "telling") you'd be hard pressed to write a story without a single phrase or incident or whatever that somebody couldn't call cliche. Some people like em, as I do, but some people feel they should be avoided whenever possible.
posted
Maybe "ambiguity" is a bit strong of a word for me to have chosen. Maybe "requires reader interpretation" is a better way of looking at it. Not necessarily lacking emotion, but missing authorial direction.
How do I deal with thoughts? Thoughts are, in my opinion, just a subset of dialogue.
quote:Maybe "ambiguity" is a bit strong of a word for me to have chosen. Maybe "requires reader interpretation" is a better way of looking at it.
I understand what you mean, and often do so myself. One whole subset of my writing often involves characters who are very detatched, apathetic and often confused.
However theres a pretty wide swath of readers, I'm finding, that want to know clearly and without question what the characters are feeling...if you "show" the emotion in a way they can relate to than its perfect but if you show it in a way they can't relate to you loose them. Whereas if you more or less clearly state the emotion, theres no chance of non-understand, or if you couple some expression or whatever meant to show it with a clarifying statement.
Likewise with cliches...they serve as more or less sure fire means of communication and understanding with no need for interpretation.
quote:Not necessarily lacking emotion, but missing authorial direction.
Trouble is, one person's missing authorial direction is another person's lack of clarity or connection. And you can never tell which it's going to be with a given person. Thats why I feel its usually best to stick mostly to what comes natural.
quote:How do I deal with thoughts? Thoughts are, in my opinion, just a subset of dialogue.
Which is to say telling. My point is you can't tell a story using either "showing" or "telling" exclusively. I mean it may be possible I guess but basically everything you read is going to include both. Some things must be done one way or the other. Some, such as emotion, can be done and done well by either means.
I think these two issues (whether to show or tell emotion and emotion-showing cliches) are closely linked. Most people do express emotions physically in similar ways, and so those things (grimacing in pain, racing heartbeat from fear etc) become "cliche." But if you try to "show" emotion in some other non "cliche" way, you often wind up not getting your point across.
posted
I think that this whole discussion does relate back to style, to a certain degree. Personally I would rather lose a reader, or force them to reread a section to try and glean some insights, than hand-hold their way along. To each their own.
Whether dialogue & thoughts falls under the canopy of show vs. tell is complicated I suppose. I term showing to be something that a character is doing of their own accord. That includes speech and thoughts. Conversely, telling is the author stating that the character is behaving in a certain way for reasons A, B, C, etc.
Now, a character can behave in an obvious, "telling" way, declaring their emotional state on a regular basis, or they can be more subtle and restrained. This can be a great bit of characterization, but in my books doesn't quite fall under the tell=evil category, so long as your characters are speaking and acting on their own behalf.
posted
Personally, I don't think beginning writers need to be focusing on not using cliche phrases. I think they should be focusing on not using cliched stories.
If you have a good story, and the reader is into it, they won't bat an eye at your cliches. If your story is weak/unclear/uninteresting/unbelievable, all those little cliches will stick out like more nails in the coffin.
I wouldn't be shocked to find out that a lot of my favorite stories are full of these little phrases.
I think I, as a beginning writer, need to focus more on the forest, rather than the trees.
That said, as long as we ARE beginning writers, I would endeavor to keep our openings (1st 13 or 1st page or whatever) free of these things lest they become a reason for an editor to stop reading.
posted
This is an awesome discussion. Thanks everyone for your input, very enlightening.
Wolfe_boy, I see your point about over explaining things and not trusting the reader's interpretation. I am definitely guilty of that. It is one of my weakness, but at least it is a weakness that I know about.
Kitty, I love OSC definition of Cliche, that really makes it clear to why to try to avoid them. I agree that in "heart pounding wildly" that "wildly" is vague and could be described better.
Merlion-Emrys,
quote:I personally believe cliches become cliches for a reason: because they make sense to/resonate with people
This is what I thought as well. There is a reason people started overusing these phrases. At some point they were original discriptions that really resonated with people, and that is why others used them.
But I like the advice given by others (dee-bonci and KayTi) to convey the emotions through thoughts rather than the physical aspects. When I am scared or angry, I don't notice the pounding heart or heating of my face. I am only focused on what is causing my fear or anger. It is only when the fearful situation is over that I notice that my heart is racing. So that is great advice, thank you, a real light bulb moment for me.
Alliedfive, You are right. Wording is not as important as telling a great story. When I am reading for fun, I only notice the wording when the story is boring me, so telling an interesting story is more important than awesome writing. But it would be nice to do both.
But I think Doc Brown really summed the whole thing up.
quote:You must write as you believe is true to your style. Everything else is mere noise.
Once again thanks everyone.
[This message has been edited by MAP (edited September 15, 2009).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
