Many writers may have heard some form of the following writing advice: "Avoid clichés like the plague." Some clichés that tend to have a bad reputation are the following:
- The power of friendship will overcome any obstacles.
- An orphaned boy is the only one who can defeat a terrible tyrant.
- The butler did it.
This piece of advice on the surface is good. After all, there are a plethora of clichés that saturate the world of writing and storytelling.
But I ask that writers don't completely shun cliches out just yet. Consider this: Are clichés inherently bad or is there fault in the way these ideas are presented?
For example, most of us have met "true love always triumphs" with an astounding eye-roll. And I agree that this message is often shoehorned to the point I just drop a story altogether. But stories such as Eleanor and Park and A Walk to Remember give a similar message, yet both are widely considered to be good stories despite having clichéd stories.
The thing about clichés is that they're overly used ideas. However, the fact that they're overly used doesn't make them bad. When a cliché adds nothing new, is uninspiring, or doesn't present itself as worthwhile, then that, my fellow writer, is a pretty bad use of a cliché.
But if a cliché still makes you feel warm, fuzzy, excited, and all the other emotions you associate with a good story, then that my friend is clichés presented well.
Clichés aren't bad by themselves; the way they're presented makes them bad. So, to the adamant writer with a list of things never to write because they're widely considered clichéd, think about this: If an idea seems bad, ask yourself "How is it bad?" and "Is there any way I can present this idea different than the other bad ways?"
Let's stop avoiding them like some disease!
