next »

[azeo]

Does anyone else have this problem? When they're writing something, and they come to some description or metaphor or something, and you find yourself refusing good ideas because they are, to put it simply, too plain?

There's always this fear of sounding cliche, which I understand, but sometimes I feel like it can go too far, and instead of sounding cliche, it just sounds weird. You never hear someone talking about a book because it had one line that had some novelty to it. And I can imagine reading a book entirely full of these lines would be horrible.

So does anyone else feel this way? A desire to do something entirely original, regardless of whether it makes sense or not? Describing a pair of shoes as "lower hats"?

[Captain_404]

There is a large difference between clichéd writing and simple writing, mark that you don't confuse the two. Hemingway is simple, but not clichéd.

If "shoe" is the word you need to use, use it. Using abnormal phrases may obfuscate your meaning rather than enhance it. If the only reason you're choosing a word is to avoid cliché, that will likely be detrimental to your piece.

And again, clichés are not just more commonly used words. If we extend that logic far enough all of language becomes a cliché! Since a word is unit intended for repetition, the most original words would logically be those never uttered before or since. I have a feeling you don't want to spend your time writing Dada sound poetry.

I highly reccomend you take a look at George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" if you haven't already. He discusses a lot of the reasons behind avoiding cliché (and a bunch of other useful stuff). Understanding the logic here is imperative, as senselessly avoiding words that have been used already can be just as detrimental to your work as writing only with clichés.


[for example, see how many times I use the word cliché here? Arguably, the word cliché itself is a cliché, but I use it regardless because it carries the EXACT definition I need for this case. Had I tried to find a new phrase to convey "cliché" each time I wanted to use the word not only would it have been a waste of my time, but it would have been a much more confusing post.]


That said, "lower hats" is wonderfully silly.

[pixhead]

I have always wondered the same thing and everything you said made sense. Thanks 404

[baconman]

True novelty is rarely achieved without cliche as a precursor to it. How many original motivations are there, for example? Survival, Wealth, Love (or Sex), Venegance, Service/Mission... you can't have a twist without a plot to begin with.

[azeo]

And then you get to the even more basic stuff, Man/Man, Man/Nature(Anything not man, really) and Man/Self.

[BlueSweatshirt]

The cool thing is that because of the ways our brains work, we always try to relate a specific concept into a larger idea to understand/remember/etc it better. Genres are a result of this tendency which has evolved over <insert long time span here>

Inductive reasoning.

So basically I'm saying that no matter what, our brains will almost always make something cliche by identifying it in a broad category of generalizations already present.

(I know I sound like what I'm saying is law, but it's all inference based on stuff I've read and observed.)


I see the problem as people being uninterested in the subject, which they've already identified as similar to something else they've seen. And then they call it "cliche" with a contextual meaning of "it didn't interest me."
Annnnd, for example Avatar was extremely cliche, using many common storytelling stereotypes,(etc etc~) but at the same time I found the film very interesting and enjoyable.

And, sorry if I'm off track a little bit... I think it's still relevant, though.

[:^)]

Thanks for that George Orwell link, 404.

Bookmark'd. 

[antymattar]

Read the narnias. Read the lord of the rings. Read a Redwall(Tho not all of them. I would suggest "Mossflower" and "Redwall". "Outcast of Redwall" is very disapointing and so is "Martin the warior" If you have ever(Like me) wanted to make some point that Mathias could be Martins Greatgreatetc grandson.) Read real books if you want  to learn something from them. Read Gulliver travels. Read "The last mohican". BY GOLY! READ!

[:^)]

BY GOLLY! READ!

fix'd ... And Uh. This. 

[Aquin]

Well it also depends on your tone.  If you're going for fantasy or camp, having a lot of prose can definitely fit.  It's only a problem when you're going for realism.  It's a sliding scale I guess, though I won't claim to be an expert.

I tend to shy away from metaphors in my writing because I'm afraid of cliche, but it's true you can't escape it.  I dunno, I guess I'm a coward that way.

But at least try to avoid summarizing actions to the point of silliness.

"And then they had sex.  It was very sexy."

[Nix]

I'm arguing with my team mate right now about whether or not to include jumping in our puzzle platformer. He doesn't want to take the "easy" route, but sometimes the easy route is the best route for your design. Novelty is important, but it shouldn't dominate your design in the face of actual enjoyment.

[Aquin]

Heh.  Well and then there's always the other end of it:

You think you're being clever or grand.  You aren't.  Self-delusion can lead you down a very dark path (fanfiction and poetry readings are its neighbours on the Venn diagram.)

Ah well.  How about this?  I'll go get a novel published.  Then I'll pretend to have a valid opinion about all this.