CCamfield said:
I think I would agree with you about those particular movies, but I think this argument is a little too simple. It suggests that any work (book, film) in a genre is either classic or cliché, but I don't think that's the case. A work can fall between the two, using the genre elements or changing them without radically redefining them. Whether it's then considered a good work or not is then probably a matter of the abilities of its creator(s).
Being cliche, in my opinion, means only or primarily using already overused genre elements.
Is the movie Aliens cliché? Why or why not?
How about the book The Deed of Paksennarion?
Here we get into the definition of "cliché." I'll try to explain how I see "classic" versus "cliché" in the sense I was alluding to above. It may be splitting hairs, but I sense you are using the definition of "clichéd" to refer to (copied) use of people, themes, etc. that
have already become cliché - i.e., you are using things that already bear the label "cliché."
I am using it in a much different sense... I refer to the objects that are original at first blush, but so one-dimensional or so type-driven or overused that they actually "become the cliché." As an example, a "might-thewed barbarian warrior" is now a cliché - because it has become so overused. "Conan" is the embodiment of that cliché... when he was first envisioned, his character was somewhat original; however, overuse of the "might-thewed barbarian" has made "Conan" BECOME that very cliché. When I say "Conan" everyone thinks "might-thewed barbarian" because his name has become synonomous with the general character type.
In other words, I am using "cliché" to refer to something that is relatively limited in overall scope, that is easily and frequently copied to the point where any originality it may once have had is lost. The overall literary work is lost by its reduction simply to a single characterization.
A "classic," by contrast, defines many points of a genre, and is generally thought of as a "benchmark reference" for writers from that time onward. Examples include Robert Heinlein's innovation in SF to say, "the door dilated as he exited the room" with no further comment on the door - i.e., to describe a "difference" due to technology by simply selecting a different word than usual and moving on (breaking the earlier convention of "stopping the action" to explain the technology) or Tolkien's use of the "semi-mythological/I am not a storyteller, I am merely a translator who is translating records of Middle Earth, so of course there are holes in the record" technique. Another example (I am told - I have not read the work myself) is Neuromancer in the SF genre - my understanding is that almost every SF writer since has been shaped by the ideas in that work.
Sometimes the line is blurred... Asimov, for instance, has several classic works in his repertoire, yet his "Three Laws of Robotics" have become cliché (including through use of the "antitype" of his stereotype; think about it - SF robots to this day almost universally either strictly follow those laws or flagrantly break them every possible chance they get). Lord of the Rings... clearly a classic, yet "old, bearded wizards with a pointy hat and a staff" are now a cliché (read: Gandalf).
I should also note that there are two types of works in any field: those that are known (especially to "fans" of the field), and those that are not.
Clearly, in order to be in consideration for "classic" status - OR "cliché" status, a work must be well-known enough to have some sort of recognition from most casual fans of the field, and probably has enough "name recognition" that even those who are not fans of the field but are occasionally connected to the field to have at least HEARD of it. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and the like are clearly known by most outside the field and all within it.
Of a classic it is required to have some sort of "meta-importance," if you will - either a unique new literary convention, a depth of meaning, or a great spark of socio-political insight; i.e., that which allows its relevance to transcend the story and plot contained within the pages. Tolkien's works have been the benchmark for fantasy writers ever since, both for depth of world-building (a new literary convention that is Meta-Important) and for socio-political resonance (as fine a study in the corrupting influence of absolute power and the environmentalist movement as you're apt to find). While one could say that hobbits are "clichéd," they are only clichéd within the context of Middle Earth - you just don't see hobbits roaming around other fantasy worlds much (they're too sedentary and too boring - kender *spits* are much more "exciting").
On a similar note, it is probably fair to say that Faerun has been a "classic" within the D&D sphere - for the depth of its world-building and characters... even if some of those characters HAVE become clichés themselves (see: Elminster aka DM's pet
). Every D&D world-builder that has come after Greenwood has used Faerun as a "measuring stick" of sorts.
Can you say about Salvatore's works? Probably not. Is there any "meta-significance" to Salvatore's works? Not really. While they may be a deep and interesting study of "one man" (Drizz't), is he REALLY a character that forces us to look deep within our society or ourselves? No. We can't all relate well with Drizz't. Worse, he represents the stereotypical "dark outcast whom everyone assumes is evil and overcomes via his great physical skills and who just wants to be loved," which means he can easily "Become The Cliché." Given the number of Drizz't clones running around in D&D games these days, I'd say
that transformation has already happened.
Not that he was cliché when he was created, necessarily, but the transformation into cliché has already occurred (IMO of course), and there's not enough "other stuff" in Salvatore's writing that you can pull up to let it "mature" into a classic (one poster above praised Salvatore's ability to write action scenes; while nice, he's not revolutionary nor does he find a standard so far above the norm that everyone tries to emulate him; further, combat action is NOT something most of the populace is going to have an easy time empathizing with). In other words, while there may be substance to his work, and substance to his writing, it's substance that lacks "meta-importance" and it's not an obvious cut above the rest. Writing can be wordy and pithy at the same time (Exhibit A: This post).
Heck, I would suggest that Ender's Game (Orson Scott Card) has a better potential to become a classic, because it examines the relationship all of us have with our potential for doing that which we hate (and don't get me started on how it reminds adults that children think of themselves as "full-fledged people" while adults tend to think of children as "half-people" - because we forget where we came from) - and there is some "meta-importance" that all of us can relate to there. But I digress.
At the end of the day, I think it's like a "Hall of Fame" vote. When I hear "classic," I think of a work that, to a limited degree, transcends the genre and sets a standard by which all later writers in a genre measure their own work (note: NOT by which others measure their work, but by which writers themselves do). A "cliché" is something with which everyone in the genre is familiar, but which no one makes a special effort to measure themselves against; it defines a single point and can be "tossed in" with no amount of extra effort.
I would further suggest that whether or not something is destined to be a "classic" or a "cliché" can be determined within about 10 years of it becoming "mainstream" in the avenue of writing in which it exists. That is sufficient time for other writers to become aware of it, read it, and if it merits it, start measuring themselves against it. I posit this as a guess/theory rather than a point of fact. Interestingly, however, it points to no "classics" coming out of the written fantasy genre in the last thirty or so years, with the possible exception of Harry Potter, so perhaps it is not a good theory.
Not sure if this is making sense - as I mentioned, perhaps this post is cliche/wordy/pithy rather than a classic - but I'm trying to get my point across. Which is actually a good hijack - what posts/threads on ENWorld (if any) are classics?
--The Sigil
