I think that cliché is a lot more complicated than that. I firmly believe that artists SHOULD strive to be original; not necessarily to be avant-garde or esoterically high brow or anything (though that can be fascinating of course), but to make the familiar new. My favourite novel is Fugitive Pieces by Anne Michaels. It's the story of a young boy's life after he escapes a Nazi attack on his family during the Holocaust. Not particularly unique, and I read it a few months ago, so it's not like it was the first of this kind of book that I read. But the characters and relationships that Michaels creates haunted me, her landscapes are careful and alive, and her language undoes me with its unlikely metaphors and quiet syntactical grenades.
Very few stories are unique. It's their telling that make them new. I don't think you can wholly blame a lazy reader/viewer/listener/etc. The artist needs to give something that suggests the desired interpretation.
I would never suggest that the writer doesn't have to work, I blame lazy writers as much as lazy readers, don't get me wrong. But I don't think it's so much a matter of trying to be original, as trying to DO what you're doing. I see why someone would argue that for impact it's necessary to be somewhat original. But I don't believe that saying things often makes them less meaningless, like "I love you."
That said, I didn't mean to suggest that it was fine to write a book that didn't have original thoughts. Perhaps I emphasise too much my idea of the lazy reader, because I am irritated by the dismissal of clichéd phrases, for example, when they can be used in ways that are still effective, if the reader is willing to pause on the language for a moment.
I'm also annoyed by the idea of a "desired interpretation," but that's something I'll have to think about for longer and devote an entire entry to at some point.
Oh I don't mean for a moment that the reader/etc has to go along with the desired interpretation. They'd have probably kicked me out of school by now if I did. :-P I mean something more along the lines of the artist having a specific meaning in mind that they work to evoke, which is then up to the reader to interpret as they choose.
Basically, though, I think that the mark of the best art is that the reader/etc never notices a cliché, regardless of whether or not one is employed. If a character says "I love you", it should be like a bolt of lightning or the trace of silk across naked skin. Not just a payoff for the reader/etc's expectation.
I didn't think you meant that. I mean I don't like the idea of even desiring a particular interpretation from the reader. But, understanding the complications of that, I have to really organise my thoughts before I can discuss it fully.
*Nods* Ok. I think you're mostly right there. As long as one can still be moved, I guess is my thing. I suppose the reason I was thinking about it though, is that while I was watching this movie, I was moved by even the things I could predict, even the things I could identify as tropes, I found moving and well done.
I suppose it's the difference between agreement and understanding. I don't feel like I need people to think the same music that I do is good, just to be open to more of it. There's a lot of music I don't particularly like, but there's very little music that I would say doesn't DO anything, doesn't contain anything.
In the end, I agree with you, that it would be elitist to think that everyone should feel as passionately about the music I like as I do, but I don't really expect that. Just....acceptance, I suppose.
Comments 11
Reply
Very few stories are unique. It's their telling that make them new. I don't think you can wholly blame a lazy reader/viewer/listener/etc. The artist needs to give something that suggests the desired interpretation.
Reply
That said, I didn't mean to suggest that it was fine to write a book that didn't have original thoughts. Perhaps I emphasise too much my idea of the lazy reader, because I am irritated by the dismissal of clichéd phrases, for example, when they can be used in ways that are still effective, if the reader is willing to pause on the language for a moment.
I'm also annoyed by the idea of a "desired interpretation," but that's something I'll have to think about for longer and devote an entire entry to at some point.
Reply
Basically, though, I think that the mark of the best art is that the reader/etc never notices a cliché, regardless of whether or not one is employed. If a character says "I love you", it should be like a bolt of lightning or the trace of silk across naked skin. Not just a payoff for the reader/etc's expectation.
Reply
*Nods* Ok. I think you're mostly right there. As long as one can still be moved, I guess is my thing. I suppose the reason I was thinking about it though, is that while I was watching this movie, I was moved by even the things I could predict, even the things I could identify as tropes, I found moving and well done.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
In the end, I agree with you, that it would be elitist to think that everyone should feel as passionately about the music I like as I do, but I don't really expect that. Just....acceptance, I suppose.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment