cliche vs slightly cliched

maybe the esteemed gentlemen and women who gave out the pulitzer that year were clueless

just because they give out awards does not make them any sort of authority on what is good and what isn't or what is tripe and what is sublime

to some extent they are just guessing same as you and me

I like this and that, but not that or that.

Yippee !!!

Steppe said:

Seems to me if something is a cliché the critique ought to say so. A good dictionary of clichés will keep us from using most of them.

But what is meant by "slightly clichéd".

I have a used copy of Theodore Roethke's poems in which someone went through in pencil marking all the places where it was thought he used a cliché.

Roethke won the Pulitzer for those poems.

Click to expand...

That marked up book is a treasure, Steppe.

You raise two interesting points, well, at least two.... First, I don't know if a critique "ought to say" if a cliche is present. I don't always comment on everything I find that I think might improve, but perhaps I should. I'll have to think about this part.

The other is the use of cliche itself. Phrases and images are cliched because they have been used a lot and they get used a lot as a shorthand for something people commonly wish to express -- so they are useful. Using them in poetry is problematic because they are not fresh and people will tend to slide past thinking they already get that part. Which may not be a bad thing in a given poem (as Roethke may have known....)

Early morning ramblings here so people may find things to pick apart in my response -- have at it! I do believe there is a place for anything and everything in poetry; it's a question of finding the place. If a cliche is used out of laziness or failure to find a more precise expression, then it weakens the poem.

Ken said:

maybe the esteemed gentlemen and women who gave out the pulitzer that year were clueless

just because they give out awards does not make them any sort of authority on what is good and what isn't or what is tripe and what is sublime

to some extent they are just guessing same as you and me

I like this and that, but not that or that.

Yippee !!!

Click to expand...

\

Yeah, that must be it. Those who hand out awards never know what they're doing, even when the committee usually contains some of the best writers and editors in the worlds.

Yep, they award by guessing, not by objective quality. Sure, they do. Have you even read Theodore Roethke?

Steppe said:

Seems to me if something is a cliché the critique ought to say so. A good dictionary of clichés will keep us from using most of them.

But what is meant by "slightly clichéd".

I have a used copy of Theodore Roethke's poems in which someone went through in pencil marking all the places where it was thought he used a cliché.

Roethke won the Pulitzer for those poems.

Click to expand...

First, a cliche used the right way can be brilliant.

Second, when did the reader make those comments in the used copy? They may have been cliches when the reader made the notes, but not cliches when Roethke actually wrote them. No cliche starts out as a cliche. Some brilliant writer coins the term, and lesser writers not good enough to come up with original phrases reuse the brilliant writer's phrase so often it becomes a cliche. Roethke died, what, fifty years ago? He certainly coined some brilliant phrases that went on toe become cliches.

Third, who gives a rat's whisker what some reader jotted in a book? That reader may have been a sixteen year old high school kid who wouldn't know the history of a writer, or the history of a cliche, from a pimple on his own nose.

Jamesaritchie said:

First, a cliche used the right way can be brilliant.

Second, when did the reader make those comments in the used copy? They may have been cliches when the reader made the notes, but not cliches when Roethke actually wrote them. No cliche starts out as a cliche. Some brilliant writer coins the term, and lesser writers not good enough to come up with original phrases reuse the brilliant writer's phrase so often it becomes a cliche. Roethke died, what, fifty years ago? He certainly coined some brilliant phrases that went on toe become cliches.

Third, who gives a rat's whisker what some reader jotted in a book? That reader may have been a sixteen year old high school kid who wouldn't know the history of a writer, or the history of a cliche, from a pimple on his own nose.

Click to expand...

I agree with all of this.

I often see "cliche" tossed out as a flip dismissal in a critique, and I don't find it particularly valuable or thoughtful, and very often, it's not particularly accurate, either.

To paraphrase Kylabelle, if the words in question are tired and cause the reader to gloss over an image or metaphor when he should be honing in on it, it's a problem, and the poem would be best served by finding fresh words. But sometimes a cliche in the right spot can be used quite effectively, and sometimes it can be twisted in a fresh way.


ETA:

Heh. I did a stint student-teaching high-school English before I went to law school. One of my more pretentious students dismissed Shakespeare for using too many cliches. It was delicious.

Perhaps "slightly cliched" means something along the lines of "somewhat expected" -- though that's just a guess.

Kylabelle said:

Perhaps "slightly cliched" means something along the lines of "somewhat expected" -- though that's just a guess.

Click to expand...

Like most things, it probably depends on context and who's using the words.

As far as pointing it out in a critique goes -- I'll mention it if I feel the words in question stopped me in my tracks or in some way impaired my appreciation for the poem, and I feel a fresher image or metaphor might better serve the poet's purpose.

Really, that's my approach in any critique. If something is just a seething mass of cliches and tortured language, I generally will avoid commenting altogether (unless the writer begs for feedback). And if it's working for me, I'll either say nothing or give a general "I like this."

As a rule, I'll only go out of my way to point out what I perceive as a flaw or what I think might be improved if there's just a specific niggle or two that stopped me in my tracks, and I think might be tweaked to the poem's advantage. (And sometimes, when I think it over, I realize that the poet's original choice is in fact a good choice after all.)

I do sometimes feel that critiquers feel compelled to point out something wrong with the poem, or else they don't think they're doing their job. And all too often, they fall back on "somewhat cliche" "you could tighten this" etc., whether or not it's really applicable. Very often I've seen "you could tighten this" thrown out at pieces where IMO every word is working for the poem, and "somewhat cliche" at a piece that IMO is quite vivid.

ETA:

I've thrown out "you could tighten this" or "cliche" myself, but I usually try to elaborate a bit or give an example. Just thrown out there as a general statement, I don't think it's helpful (which is the purpose of a critique).

Bingo.

To use a cliche.

I often think people are too concerned with whether something is "cliche''. If it works, it works. If it doesn't, then by all means point it out. If it works but could be better if said cliche' was rewritten, suggest it. But, I'm not sure I understand "slightly cliche'". It is or it isn't, imo.

what recently earned my (relatively good-natured) snark was the critique that components of the poem "seemed a tad cliche."

this is the kind of weasel-wording i think steppe is referring to.

in my estimation, if a critic levels an accusation of employing cliche which, by definition, means the image/phrase/metaphor has been so overused as to become more or less meaningless, said critic should have the depth of knowledge to cite where it was used, either freshly or one of the presumably multitude of rehashed times that relegated it to cliche.

otherwise, it just seems like taking a tad of a piss.

How many people call something a cliche when they like it? Not very often. A cliche is a cliche because it can be very good and as a result has been overused. Find a new and original setting for that cliche and it becomes interesting again.

The cliche isn't so much of the problem, but how out of place that cliche is. Bob Dylan made a remark upon songwriters of his early day and the conflict that they often found themselves in: trying to be the everyman and as a consequence, speaking as a no-man. That is, one trying to get the broadest of appeal by using cliches that are predicated solely in reminding us what we should be feeling, even if we are incapable of doing so or that the feeling we should be feeling about something is trite and fabricated. The cliche, just like any other tool of the poet, is there for us to use as a shorthand that is not supposed to rip us away from what the poet is trying to say, but to reaffirm the place.

The cliche out of place is what makes the poetry of William McGonagall so hilarious to read.

Usher said:

How many people call something a cliche when they like it? Not very often.

Click to expand...

Unless someone is simply looking to tear something down. Which, alas, happens now and then.

Usher said:

How many people call something a cliche when they like it? Not very often. A cliche is a cliche because it can be very good and as a result has been overused. Find a new and original setting for that cliche and it becomes interesting again.

Click to expand...

this sounds an awful lot like apologia for people using cliche simply as a substitute for "it fell flat for me," which, by the way, is a perfectly valid critique.

but saying it is cliche is a veiled appeal to authority, as it suggests that there exists multiple uses of the same element creating the trail of decay that neutered it.

In one of my poems, I used the phrase "glared daggers into your back." As someone pointed out, and as I was well aware, "staring daggers" at someone is certainly a phrase that has been used before. But, after much thought, I kept it in the poem. In that one particular instance, I thought "fresher" images felt distracting, and did not serve the purpose of that line.

As I recall, in one of Stew's poems, she used the phrase "and you can't take a joke." My first reaction, and that of a couple of others, was that she might find a fresher phrase that matched the freshness of the rest of her poem. But the more I rolled the poem as a whole in my head, the more I thought Stew's decision to use that line was the right one for the poem.

We aren't all going to connect emotionally with every poem, or every line of a poem. We might write it differently if it were our own. But before we dismiss something as "cliche" in a critique -- or automatically conclude that it therefore ought to be changed -- it's worthwhile to weigh whether, in the context of the poem, it truly is a cliche, and whether, even if it is, it isn't nonetheless serving the purposes of the poem.

That is, if you genuinely are seeking to be helpful and to engage with the poem and the poet.


ETA:

I should add -- I was not remotely offended by having my "glaring daggers" pointed out as potentially a cliche. Not only was it on-point in that instance, but it also was part of a detailed and very thoughtful critique on my work, for which I was quite grateful (thank you, Kuwi). It was not in the least dismissive, and it was certainly something I found worthwhile to reconsider.

ETA:

That said, I have sometimes been irked by piss-and-go critiques on other people's poems that dismissed them as "cliche" without much (or any) basis.

Jamesaritchie said:

\

Yeah, that must be it. Those who hand out awards never know what they're doing, even when the committee usually contains some of the best writers and editors in the worlds.

Yep, they award by guessing, not by objective quality. Sure, they do. Have you even read Theodore Roethke?

Click to expand...

Just because a writer or an editor is great at the former and later in verbal form, respectively, does not mean that qualifies them to access another writer's work. Maybe they can; maybe they can't. There's always a chance they will get it wrong. Though of course a far better one they'll get it right, at least compared to us joes and janes.

Still, there's a chance. Subjectivity and all.

Haven't read Roethke. Will check out a poem or two outta curiousity.

Excellent thread and discussion. Thank you, Steppe, for raising it.

I've used the term cliché in critiques before, but tried to keep it to refer to specific phrases. If a passage or poem didn't move me, I've tried to be more specific about what didn't do so, and/or why.

Awarding prizes is always going to be subjective to a degree. Hell, this is poetry. I guess we all have to decide, constantly, how much we back our own opinion, and how much we trust in people who have been doing this longer, and better, than we have. There will always be, I suppose, some element of appeal to authority.

I'm with Cassandra and Steppe, though - in principle, any word or phrase, however worn, can have its use and purpose.

There's also a danger in trying too hard to be unique. The loveliest thing about poetry, I think, is that there is no autopilot, and there is no right or wrong.

Nevertheless, there is wonderful, and there is just plain crap.

William Haskins said:

this sounds an awful lot like apologia for people using cliche simply as a substitute for "it fell flat for me," which, by the way, is a perfectly valid critique.

but saying it is cliche is a veiled appeal to authority, as it suggests that there exists multiple uses of the same element creating the trail of decay that neutered it.

Click to expand...

That's how I see it.

That's exactly the reason I love books a previous owner has made notes in, of whatever kind. Sonetimes there's nothing of interest but sometimes there's treasure.

I always get stuck with the used books in which some idiot has highlighted or underlined every other passage rather than those in which some rare and sensitive soul has written his most profound and soul-stirring observations.