(no subject)

[kippurbird]

Someone used the all fantasy is cliche line on me. I am VERY upset about this. I hates that line because it shows that the person who says that while, perhaps a perfectly intelligent person, has no idea what he's talking about.

So, I wrote an inanely long reply, explaining how all fantasy is no more cliche than any other sort of writing.

I await his response.

Obviously because people seem to be so interested, the discussion is going on Here

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Well, except that example you gave is something used over and over, particularly in fantasy. Look at Harry Potter, it fits that to some degree. I would argue that things in life can become cliches in literature. If everyone was writing the same type of story about a man who goes on a quest, etc. wouldn't it become cliche since everything is essentially the same? Then again, maybe we wouldn't see cliches in the first place because everything would be the same. My argument isn't that cliches are necessarily bad, but that they are so common you can't judge fantasy, or science fiction for that matter, based on the fact that it 'is' cliche, but based on how it actually utilizes those cliches within the story. Saying that such and such work is bad because it is horribly cliched is far different than saying a work is bad because it fails to use cliches in a new light, a creative light.

But, other than that, I would generally agree. I think the nature of definition is at fault here. I use cliche to refer to anything that happens to be a cliche, and make reference to bad use of cliches, whereas others, perhaps yourself, would argue that I should say something more to the effect that 'cliche' is purely negative and that I should address good use of cliche as something else. And, I can come to an agreement there, then.

[indongcho.livejournal.com]

Well, by your definition, everything is a cliche, isn't it?

To me, something has to appear in its original form to be a cliche. So if you write about "a poor farmboy discovers he has magic and saves the kingdom from evil" and don't do anything new with it, then that's a cliche. But if you twist it round, turn it on its head, do something new with it, I don't consider it a cliche anymore.

Uhm. I'll try to give an example. There's the cliche of "a poor boy/man turns out to be a member of the royal family and the rightful heir". Without even realizing it, I included that in a story of mine. But the protagonist has actually known that he's the son of the king for most of his life- his mother told him when he was young. And he's illegitimate, so he's not the rightful heir at all. For years he practically bends over backwards serving his own family members, very few of whom are willing to acknowledge him. In the end he does become the king after his father- there's a whole lot of backstory to that which I really shouldn't go into here.

But to me, that's so far removed from the original, it isn't a cliche anymore. What would you say?

[(Anonymous)]

Well, that's somewhat already addressed. The issue with my argument now seems to be more about how I define cliche. I just say everything is cliche, but I don't treat the word negatively. But what you're saying is that something isn't cliche if it takes a cliche and puts interesting spins on it. The cliche is technically still there. If you story is about that farmboy discovering magic and saving the kingdom from it, it is still cliche because that has been done before, but perhaps you've done things within the story that are different, or maybe unique.
In your example, the cliche doesn't even matter. If the story itself is good, creative, etc. then it doesn't matter whether there is a cliche or common idea beneath it at all. The story will override the cliche. That's what good writers are supposed to do, otherwise we'd never have any good novels. So, in your case, it's not a poorly executed cliche, but the opposite. A reader, in theory, wouldn't notice the cliche beneath it, and that's the whole point.