Cliches.....are they really all that bad?

[Giovanna Clairval]

With or without Mrs. Brown

Ursula LeGuin said that one character is missing in the genre. It is Mrs Brown, the mousy, unnoticeable lady.
In Science Fiction and Mrs Brown, U. Le Guin quotes Virginia Woolf, who is musing upon her meeting an old lady ("Mrs. Brown") in the train:

"I believe that all novels begin with an old lady in the corner opposite. I believe that all novels, that is to say, deal with character, and that it is to express character - not to preach doctrines, sing songs, or celebrate the glories of the British Empire, that the form of the novel, so clumsy, verbose, and undramatic, so rich, elastic, and alive, has been evolved. [...] The great novelists have brought us to see whatever they wish us to see through some character. Otherwise they would not be novelists, but poets, historians, or pamphleteers."​

Ursula Le Guin wonders whether the SF writer can ever sit across that old lady; or whether he is doomed to be "trapped for good inside our great, gleaming spaceships", which are capable of "containing heroic captains in black and silver uniforms, and second officers with peculiar ears, and mad scientists with nubile daughters", and indeed are capable of anything at all "except one thing: they cannot contain Mrs. Brown".


In the 40's and 50's,

"The humanity of the astronaut is a liability, a weakness, irrelevant to his mission. As astronaut, he is not a being: he is an act. It is the act that counts. We are in the age of Science where nothing is. None of the scientists, none of the philosophers, can say what anything or anyone is. They can only say, accurately, beautifully, what it does. The age of Technology; of Behaviorism; the age of the Act."​

Around 1950, Mrs. Brown shows up in Fantasy, in the form of Bilbo Baggins, Frodo, Sam, and Smeagol. And it is the most unexpected thing that could happen in the genre, because:

"If any field of literature has no, can have no Mrs. Brown in it, it is fantasy - straight fantasy, the modern descendant of folktale, fairy tale, and myth. These genres deal with archetypes, not with characters. The very essence of Elfland is that Mrs. Brown can't get there - not unless she is changed, changed utterly, into an old mad witch, or a fair young princess, or a loathly Worm."​

According to Le Guin, the arrival of Mrs. Brown is a good thing:

"Should a book of science fiction be a novel? [...] I have already said yes. I have already admitted that this, to me, is the whole point. That no other form of prose, to me, is a patch on the novel. That if we can't catch Mrs. Brown, if only for a moment, then all the beautiful faster-than-light ships, all the irony and imagination and knowledge and invention are in vain; we might as well write tracts or comic books, for we will never be real artists."​

And yet, she goes on, one could say that the novel is dead because there are no characters anymore, only "classes, masses, statistics, body counts, subscription lists, insurance risks, consumers, randomly selected samples, and victims". Or: "There are moving pictures of a woman in various places with various other persons. They do not add up to anything so solid, so fixed, so Victorian or medieval as a 'character' or even a personality."

Well, if I am right, says Le Guin, then why keep writing?

"What good are all the objects in the universe, if there is no subject?"


And she concludes by saying that...

... we should either give up all hope, or write novels.

 

[dustinzgirl]

I hope I'm not repeating anyone. I couldn't be bothered to read the other replies, since I'm too tired at the moment.


Remember, there are no new ideas anymore, or so people say. It's about making your story unique from all the countless others. It's about bringing your book to life with engaging characters, a great plot, and a strong, intriguing world. I think if your story is well written, certain clichés can be used effectively.

I don't think there ever were any original ideas. Even the earliest caveman drawings depict cliches. We can go back to the earliest writings and see expressions of other stories, I read an interesting article on how the story of Jesus was a rip off of Homer, LOL! So, in every story relative to the human condition, which all stories truly are, it has been done before. The environment may change, the plot may change, but the core of all stories are essentially the same. Thats why your last sentence is so important.

 

[j d worthington]

But there is something to be said for the cliche character----every book has one, the wise old witch/warlock, the smart arsed jester, the reluctant hero, these are all staples whose behavior is highly predictable. Roland in DT was a cliche, but a well loved one. Darth Vader, a cliche bad guy, and loved even still. Donkey from Shrek, totally cliche, but so darn cute! Most cops in movies are cliche, most politicians and scientists, cliche. Women and men in every romantic comedy, cliche. Most horror flicks in and of themselves are totally cliche.

The trick is to keep the cliche, but be subtle about it. Milla Jovovich in Resident Evil, an utterly cliche reluctant zombie killing hero, but not so cliche because she was a woman.

I think cliches are important because people who will buy your stories must be able to attach a familiarity with the product. The basic thoughts of customer perception and brand equity. Your characters are your brand, the more a customer (reader) perceives familiarity mixed with innovation, the more likely they are going to love and buy your story.

But you can't be too cliche, customer's (readers) can smell a knock-off brand before they even open the package.

So use cliches, but wisely and with an innovative twist.

This may (again) be me being pernickety, but I think the difference here is, again, between clichésand types -- one is (again) a template: well-known, recognizable to even a mildly-literate reader (or viewer), having time-honored (or worn) characteristics while still retaining a certain individuality in subtle ways; in other words, the writer brings something of their own to the type. A cliché, on the other hand, doesn't have any distinguishing marks any longer. (It certainly did at one time, but that was long since.) It has lost all its power to evoke any positive response (save, perhaps, in satire -- though even this is questionable) because it has no originality bestowed upon it; else it wouldn't be a cliché.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

One of my favorite fantasy novels (published about thirty years before LOTR, but certainly Frodo and Sam paved the way for it to be reissued and gain a following in the 1970's) is Lud-in-the-Mist, which is full of ordinary people, living ordinary lives, even though they live on the borders of Fairyland. It doesn't have a medieval setting -- although anyone determined to stretch anything pre-Industrial Revolution into medieval could probably accomplish it -- the main characters are merchants and their families, no one discovers a magical artifact or learns they're the heir of kings, and there isn't a single battle scene. There are no wizards, no magicians or witches, and it is still one of the most magical books I've ever read.

 

[GOLLUM]

On a more general note, Teresa is right, anyone wishing to study the Genre really must check out Lud-in-the-Mist, it's one of the most significant and inspiring novels to have ever been written, period.

 

[j d worthington]

Agreed, Teresa. A lovely book, well worth seeking out. (I believe it's still in print, actually....)

EDIT: Yep. At least, it's easily available in a tpb with prefatory material by Neil Gaiman. Interestingly, Amazon mentions that those who searched for this one also expressed an interest in James Branch Cabell's Jurgen -- another non-typical fantasy (though it does have such a setting). They're even offering the two together for a reduced price....

 

[GOLLUM]

Well don't forget it's part of VG's Masterwork series, sorry couldn't help myself....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

There are at least two recent reprints. One of them gave me quite a jolt when I saw it in a bookstore a year or two ago, since it has nothing at all to do with the book, and it looked like they were trying to market it as the generic fantasy it most emphatically is NOT. So depressing.

 

[GOLLUM]

There are at least two recent reprints. One of them gave me quite a jolt when I saw it in a bookstore a year or two ago, since it has nothing at all to do with the book, and it looked like they were trying to market it as the generic fantasy it most emphatically is NOT. So depressing.

Who is the publisher? We should write to them!

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't remember the publisher. I'll go see if I can find it on amazon.

Yep, here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1593600410/?tag=brite-21

Actually, it's quite a pretty cover. I would like it on practically any other book.

What I love about Lud is that it captures the poetry of everyday things (while still advocating for an element of magic and mystery in a well-regulated life).

 

[GOLLUM]

Yes I see what you mean by the cover, looks like something out of Grimms Fairy tales.

 

[Jarshen]

Well this has certainly thrown up some ideas and I will definitely read Lud-in-the-Mist, so thanks Teresa, never heard of it.

I guess I am your pretty average fantasy reader (actually this is not true, but hey, whatever.) I do think my perception of the genre is limited, I would never have though to inlcude Lovecraft there, so will search out some of the other people you mention Mr.Worthington, makes me wonder about Peake and Bulgakov. This is good news 'cos I was getting very tired of reading some new fantasy.
Read Winterbirth by Brian Ruckley, nice writer and great feel for his setting, but you know who is going to die, who survive and what they need to do. Maybe the story itself has become a cliche.

This said a cliche reinvented is a powerful tool, (I always think of Han Solo in this regard, a wonderful character/cliche reinvented by Harrison Ford that was so strong it becomes an archetype and moves into cliche at the same time) and I think we do re-examine and re-intepret both cliches and the past. To some degree Gio this is what I meant about the Golden Age, every age has one and its representation has as much to do with the current times as it does with history. On this point, and to the despair of academics, pedants, historians and anyone else with more knowledge than me I think we have to be very careful with being too concise, too correct. Rules stimulate and control, they can also inhibit, I have seen a lot of accurate and worthy commedia dell'arte shows with all the 'right' movements acted out and it was dull. The one thing commedia was not was dull.

I certainly have no answers to your original question Thor Doomhammer, but it has got me thinking and I will come back with a few questions of my own (have a particualar thing about the politics of fantasy.)

That said I reckon in terms of writing, write what inspires you and what you want to write about, what you want to read. And your thread has certainly proved that if the form is cliched, there is in interest in changing that.

 

[j d worthington]

...makes me wonder about Peake and Bulgakov.

Oh, yes, I think Peake and Bulgakov (at least some of their work) would definitely be labeled fantasy, and was for a very long time; but they're not "typical" fantasy in the modern sense....

This said a cliche reinvented is a powerful tool [...] and I think we do re-examine and re-intepret both cliches and the past. To some degree Gio this is what I meant about the Golden Age, every age has one and its representation has as much to do with the current times as it does with history. On this point, and to the despair of academics, pedants, historians and anyone else with more knowledge than me I think we have to be very careful with being too concise, too correct. Rules stimulate and control, they can also inhibit, I have seen a lot of accurate and worthy commedia dell'arte shows with all the 'right' movements acted out and it was dull. The one thing commedia was not was dull.

That said I reckon in terms of writing, write what inspires you and what you want to write about, what you want to read. And your thread has certainly proved that if the form is cliched, there is in interest in changing that.

Some very good points here, I'd say. My only differences with you are that I'd say a cliché that's been reinvented has moved from cliche to type, as it is no longer simply a hackneyed, overused, and unimaginative repeat of what's been done before, and I'd make a distinction between being too concise and too correct (at least, in one sense of the latter) in that concision (and, necessarily, precision) allows for a better understanding of terms and the possibilities of words, thereby allowing for a much better use of the language and its nuances, shadings, and variety in general; it's like a carpenter (or a sculptor) knowing the difference between an awl and a chisel. If you are precise in your terms and use them with such knowledge, you can use them much, much more effectively because you have much better (though not total) control of their effect, and therefore of communicating what you desire to communicate.

And I think your final statements reiterates the distinction between cliché and archetype (or type), in that, if something inspires a person, they usually bring something of their own, something individual (not original in the purest sense, but with a tinge of originality because it's filtered through their own individual perceptions and use of language, etc.), and therefore won't truly be a cliché ... unless the person him- or herself is extremely clichéd in their way of thinking....

Oh, and you're right: the commedia was never dull.....

 

[Jarshen]

Oops absolutely right, being 'too concise' is almost an unachievable state of enlightenment, something to be aimed for.

I think I meant too defined, thereby absolutely proving what you are talking about in terms of the shades of meaning.

 

[Giovanna Clairval]

No one reacting on Ursula LeGuin and Mrs. Brown?

Why is Mrs. Brown (and her like) so rare in Fantasy novels?

And do Fantasy writers actually write novels?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, actually, my post was in response to the question of Mrs. Brown.

One of my favorite books -- and, in my opinion, one of the best fantasies ever written -- is both a novel and populated with a whole town full of Mr. and Mrs. Browns.

Another author whose work I admire is James P. Blaylock. He doesn't write about Mrs. Brown, but he's been known to write about her somewhat-befuddled slacker sons.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I also think, if we are going to be able to discuss whether fantasy writers do write novels, we need to come up with a definition of "novel" that we can all agree on.

Is The Count of Monte Cristo a novel? What about Virginia Woolf's Orlando?

 

[j d worthington]

First, not having looked up the date of the essay, it rings like something that was written in the 1960s-early 1970s, when such an approach was very common in sf, especially with the newer writers (like Le Guin); something of a polemical approach to set themselves off from the Old Guard, if you will; necessary, but also necessarily modified as time has gone on. (I repeat, this is my impression, and may not be accurate.) And, in fact, the New Wave writers quickly set about doing just that: making the sf story about characters, often very mundane characters, though sometimes still using archetypal characters (or, as has been said of Moorcock's Jerry Cornelius, portmanteau characters), though they, too, fell into certain clichés over time (as well as creating some of their own, very well satirised by John Clute in his encyclopedia, as I recall).

I also strongly question her statement about novels as being somehow a better species of prose than any other -- that smacks (even from such an intelligent and insightful commentator) of personal prejudice rather than reasoned critical judgment. I'd argue that -- at least from this bit here -- it's again an hyperbolic statement to bolster a particular position, and that short stories, novellas, novelettes, and novels each have their strengths and weaknesses that make them uniquely appropriate for a particular type of story, and that novels are, in the final analysis, no better for what they are designed to accomplish than a short story or a prose poem is for their purpose. Each is extremely exacting if done well, and in some ways short stories may be said to be more so, as they require the ability to accomplish much of what a novel accomplishes with much less room -- an extreme precision of language (with all its attendant power) at best. But, again, this is because of the special constraints of the form, and does not actually say short stories are better than novels, any more than the reverse is true.

As for whether fantasy writers write novels.... well, for one thing, I object to any writer being pigeonholed as a fantasy or a science-fiction or horror or thriller or whatever writer, as a writer writes all sorts of material in their lifetime, and by so categorizing (as we have come increasingly to do) we've cut off a fair amount of flexibility in some of our best writers by forcing them to either stick with one branch of fiction or suffer economic consequences, when they may be extremely versatile and able to do quite well in many. I'd much rather consider them as writers who often work with fantasy or whatever -- again, Moorcock is one example, as a lot of his work is fantasy, but he has also written polemics, satires, western, slice-of-life, sf, romances (in the older sense of the term), and so on.

As for whether they write novels... not as much as they once did, no. Again, I'd say this is more something that's a result of trying to make it as a professional writer in an increasingly narrowly-focused field (or set of fields), where readers are once again demanding a much narrower range of stories (but will eventually find this to be too stultifying and emotionally and imaginatively unsatisfying -- something we are indeed witnessing increasingly from those who have been reading in the field for any length of time). But it used to be much more the norm, yes, and could be again.

And last: the definition of novel given in the essay is also rather limited, as there are many things that come under the rubric "novel", from Petronius' and Apuleius' works to the "fragmented" novels of the post-structuralists or the modernists, the picaresque novel, etc.... all of which rely heavily on saying what the writer has to say through character. In fact, I'd say this, too, falls under what I mentioned earlier: that attempt to set themselves apart from the Old Guard, with their roots in the pulp tradition, as a great deal of any fiction does this.

In other words, while the essay is certainly thought-provoking, and has a certain amount of truth to it, many of the ex-cathedra announcements made there strike me as somewhat rhetorical and having something of the cliché to them themselves, as they echo many statements I've run into from the Modernists and those who were criticizing them at the same time, without truly adding a great deal....

 

[Wiglaf]

Actually, I thought the "wrong" cliches came from old stories (fairy tales, epics, whatever) in which a traditional story was written down much later with many later elements having crept in. I figure we have merely adopted modern characterization, writting styles, etc. to the process. The conventions are basically passed down from when Beowulf, the Volsung Saga, El Cid, and numerous others were written. Elvish civilization resembles Celtic on occaision because, elves predate humans and Celts predated Germans in Western Europe. Glimpses of a now-fallen, but in-the-past great civilization come from Rome. Shiny plate mail from the late middle age practice of changing the armor and weapons from older stories. At least, this is what I always believed.

As for the definition of a novel, I always went with a fictional story too long to be a short story. Of course, I only worry about if I want to read something, not its category.

 

[HardScienceFan]

it's BAD cliches I object to