Cliches used for good, not evil

I can't think of a specific example, but cliche could fall under voice for a first-person narrator.

I can't think of any specifics right now, but I'm going to repeat what a million other people have said in other places in the writing world: a cliché only becomes a cliché because it's a good idea. Clichés are just that -- overused elements. And they become that way because people liked them enough at one point or another to re-use them.

Clichés are almost impossible to avoid these days and I do feel as if the word is thrown about too much. Some people will tell you practically everything is a bloody cliché. I think if you use them well (and infrequently) and keep them fresh, then it's all good.

lisamarie84x said:

a cliché only becomes a cliché because it's a good idea.

Click to expand...

The fact that an idea is widely used does not inherently mean it's a good idea. It merely means that it's a widely used one, and that is all.

Over the generations, ideas have been recycled so much that it's virtually impossible to have a completely original idea. However, that isn't really the point. A writer should be able to take a familiar idea and make it slightly different. Watchmen is a perfect example--Alan Moore took the standard superhero story and filled it with narcissists and sociopaths, and uses them to ask the question, "Who exactly said these people were heroes in the first place?" This way, you create an original idea out of something that had already been here.

Well, a cliche is defined as "being used so often that it loses meaning or being of an interesting nature." I think films get away with this more than successful books. Just my opinion. And don't really know why. Because once we've paid our $8 to get in, we're a captive audience?!

So what makes cliches work well? I think it's because they're given a fresh twist in character portrayal, dialogue, plot, situation, and so forth.

Here' some examples I thought of:
*The Funny or Quirky Sidekick of either hero/heroine. The swashbuckler-lover boy who duels with swords AND poetry, Mikal, in Mistress of Winter by Carwyn/Fahenstock (fantasy) works in multiple ways; he's just brilliant, GO READ this series & meet Mikal! ...Trumpkin in Narnia works well, but hey -- he's a dwarf and grumpy (that just slipped out).

Girlfriends of almost ANY major female character. Movies are so easy -- the guys in both Sahara or Nat'l Treasure both work because they are so unique, provide skills the MC needs, and provide a means to know about his past; Rosie O'Donnell's character "fat-funny" sidekick in Sleepless in Seattle isn't too special, but she works because she keeps voicing Meg Ryan's inner conflict about men in her life.

* Loving the girl/boy-next-door thing. Shea L in Transformers because she actually has never noticed him since Kindergarten -! And he tries to be so casual about hanging with her. My Best Friend's Wedding, because Julia Roberts' "buddies" are so different (one's gay, the other's asked her to be his 'best man') The Lovely Bones because the MC is DEAD.

More movies than books...but many, many take "cliches" and turn them on their heads. I think my fav books twist the cliches or don't use them...that's part of why I love them. The Bestsellers seem to get away with more of them (the deranged serial killer, the cop-gone-bad, etc) because that's what the "public" wants to see. But it's got to work, still.

It seems to be what is done WITH the character or the idea...which takes a cliche and twists it anew to make it fresh, have power, etc.

So by reworking a cliche...it's no longer one by its own definition...
Oh I am so rambling here!

The Lonely One said:

I can't think of a specific example, but cliche could fall under voice for a first-person narrator.

Click to expand...

I'm still trying to figure out what this means. Are you referring to when first-person narration lacks a distinct voice (which does happen often), or just using first person to begin with?

Personally, I don't tend to use the word "cliche" unless I'm referring to an archetype or trope done poorly. E.g., the mentor figure is an archetype; the Gandalf clone is a cliche. The sidekick is a trope; the sidekick who's only good at snappy one-liners and getting into trouble is a cliche.

This might not be the proper usage of the word, but it works for me.

lisamarie84x said:

I can't think of any specifics right now, but I'm going to repeat what a million other people have said in other places in the writing world: a cliché only becomes a cliché because it's a good idea. Clichés are just that -- overused elements. And they become that way because people liked them enough at one point or another to re-use them.

Clichés are almost impossible to avoid these days and I do feel as if the word is thrown about too much. Some people will tell you practically everything is a bloody cliché. I think if you use them well (and infrequently) and keep them fresh, then it's all good.

Click to expand...

I agree now, but I didn't used to when my head was full of all those writing 'instructions' from various sources, years ago.

If the cliche is so obvious that it jumps out on you when you're editing, then it should be removed, but if it fits in and you used it without realising it, then the reader will be happy too.

The point was made too that bestsellers are often full of them, doesn't that answer all of it?

Personally, I'm in the camp of people who think cliches are bad because people see them coming a mile away and sigh in boredom. "Oh, a farm boy with a magical sword...siiiiiiigh.' I think if you want to talk about 'good cliches', it might be more productive or accurate to talk about tropes.

(Points everyone over to this page at TV Tropes: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TropesAreTools ) (warning: extremely addictive website)

The best bit:

Good writers understand tropes and use them as tools, using them to control audience expectations (either by using them straight or by subverting them) and to convey things to the audience quickly without saying them...

...Bad writers either don't understand tropes at all and therefore parrot them mindlessly even in situations where their work would be better if they could look past them, or mindlessly repeat tropes as an attempt to substitute for having any original contributions of their own. The problem isn’t the tropes, the problem is they don’t know how to put them together or just don’t have anything to say.

Click to expand...

Is that more of what we want in the things that we read and write?

No kidding. TVTropes WILL ruin your life.

(Huh, I should talk. I was just editing over there a couple of hours ago. Not in the literature section, but still.)

Two places where I've found cliches that worked were both from film & TV. The first from Back to the Future when Biff Tanner kept getting his cliches mixed up, like "Scrren doors on a battleship" and Marty would correct him.
The second instance is from Stargate SG-1. Nearly every cliche scene, line or even costume, was pointed out as a cliche, by the Richard Dean Anderson character.

To get back to writing, the editing software I use, has a cliche finder. So far, it has located several phrases that it considered cliche, I've never heard of most of them, and the others, were not written in the context that would make it a cliche. On the other hand, the program did find a few actual cliches that I had inserted in dialog.

it's one thing to have cliches in your work. I think it's another to have your be cliched. I can't remember the last book or movie i've read or seen that didn't have at least a couple of cliches in it. What I am very conscious of avoiding is being predictable.

> What I am very conscious of avoiding is being predictable.

That's the key point here.

-cb

Don't let anybody tell you not to use cliches. They have their place. Just don't overuse them unnecessarily.

I write regency romances- they meet, have trouble then live happily ever after. My whole genre is a big cliche. LOL