|
|
Post by Jason Parris on Sept 17, 2013 14:11:34 GMT
A cliché or cliche (UK /ˈkliːʃeɪ/ or US /klɪˈʃeɪ/) is an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning, or effect, and even, to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
The term archetype /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/ refers to either:
A statement, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated.
The Platonic philosophical idea, referring to pure forms which embody the fundamental characteristics of a thing.
In Jungian psychology, archetypes refer to a collectively inherited unconscious idea, pattern of thought, image, etc., universally present in individual psyches.
Archetypes can refer to a constantly recurring symbol or motif in literature, painting or mythology. This usage of the term draws from both comparative anthropology and Jungian archetypal theory.
Rock on Wikipedia. Using "Cathedral" as a springboard, explore your feelings about the line between cliche and archetype. Why can something that some things feel familiar in a deeply resonant, profoundly "true" way, while others just feel predictable and lazy?
|
|
|
|
Post by adamgrace on Sept 17, 2013 21:32:31 GMT
The line between archetype and cliche is very thin. Archetypes can be described as sort of placeholders that allow for creativity. The archetype doesn't describe exactly what the specific story and/or character is. Cliches are overused things to fall back upon once creativity has run dry. Archetypes are familiar while cliches don't give much room for creativity. In "Cathedral" I think the theme of the story was incredibly cliche. Don't judge a book by it's cover. Be open to new experiences. Blind people are pretty cool once you get stoned with them. etc. etc... But I think the method Carver used to express these themes is very interesting. The main character starts off as a jaded and cranky man. He sees Robert and only refers to him as "the blind man". Towards the end of the story things seem to not be going anywhere. Until Robert asks the main character to show him what a cathedral is like. He uses physical contact between the main character and Robert, as it's one of the very personal things that they share. We're shown a glimmer of understanding, then it ends. I personally love the "zero ending" archetype. It leaves the reader to interpret the meaning of the story. Our imaginations create things that resonate with us in a way that no writer could. Since we are left to create our own ending we feel much more connected with the story. For this reason I can't see "Cathedral" as a cliche'd story. I see it more as a different and more imaginative take on the old saying about books and judging.
|
|
|
|
Post by betsyrahe on Sept 17, 2013 21:46:25 GMT
Cliches and archetypes are often mistaken for each other. Cliches are annoying, I think most people would agree with that. Cliches are like those little flies that just fly all up in your face and never leave you alone. Then what makes archetypes so different. In "Cathedral" the archetype of the narrator disliking blind men because of his ignorance, but then he has a profound moment and everything is rainbows and bunnies in the world. I myself, did predict this archetype, but thought HOW it was done interesting and different. Archetypes have been around since the time of the Greeks and Romans and they have the same archetypes that still exist today. They all have this pattern or cycle(we all remember the Paradise Cycle) and while the stories tend to be similar then aren't quite the same thing. The things with cliches is often they are saying like "it was a dark and stormy night". Cliches tend to be the same thing sometimes slightly tweaked. Archetype stories tend to have the same pattern but the how in the story is different, and it still allows alot of creativity and diversity in these stories.
|
|
|
|
Post by jessicalee on Sept 17, 2013 22:53:36 GMT
To be honest, archetypes and cliches do not occur to me as being all that different from each other. An archetype is an underlying idea, while a cliche is dependent on how that idea is carried out. I think that the biggest difference comes down to human perception. A cliche seems to carry a more negative stigma, whereas an archetype does not. Furthermore, an archetype can be turned into a cliche depending on how the main idea is presented. I agree with Betsy in that although the overarching archetype of "Cathedral" seemed cliche and all too predictable upon first glance, the "in-between's" are what made the story unique and drove it away from becoming another cliche story. For example, having Robert and the narrator get high was not in my original agenda for what was going to happen in the story. I think that for many, however, archetypes and cliches are so similar in definition that "Cathedral" could lean toward either side. It ultimately depends on whether or not the reader enjoyed the story enough to consider it a brilliant archetype or disliked it enough to attach a negative stigma and call it another cliche.
|
|
|
|
Post by sheridanf on Sept 17, 2013 22:57:30 GMT
The line between the archetype and the cliché is a fuzzy one, mostly because it can be so hard to define when something becomes a cliché. At no point can someone say "Yes, okay, this phrase has been used so many times that it can now be dubbed a cliché." And something that is a cliché once may become obscure in the future- like fashion, some clichés could go out of style but come back in another two decades or so. Also, the understanding of a cliché differs from person to person. When I think of a cliché, for me, it generally has some sort of negative connotation- it's an idea or phrase that's been used so many times that it seems to have become meaningless and unintelligent.
The archetype differs from the cliché in that its meaning will never change but, at least for me, can still hold that negative connotation. Archetypal characters just aren't real people- no one actually acts like a true archetype in the real world. Archetypes, however, appear to give rise to new clichés. In "Cathedral," the narrator can be considered a judgmental archetype- so much of an archetype that he doesn't have a name. But from his archetypal actions in "Cathedral," including his bonding with a blind man he had already judged, comes the cliché "Don't judge others." So the reason it can be hard to tell an archetype from a cliché and vice versa is that one can lead to the other, and personal definitions of the cliché may differ. |
|
|
|
Post by hannahlewman on Sept 17, 2013 23:31:59 GMT
In a way the difference between archetype and cliche lies not in the story itself, but how reminiscent the story is of other works. An archetype is similar enough to other stories that it helps the reader mentally connect the messages of multiple stories, whereas a cliche is so overdone and has such little variation that it makes multiple stories feel like the same one. Basically, a cliche is an archetype without a twist on it. Using this definition, I would say that "Cathedral" is not totally a cliche because even though the theme (acceptance, not judging, etc) is common, the style and events the author used to develop that theme are very unique. By putting a twist on an archetypal idea, the author avoided the cliche. While this may not be totally cliche, I still don't think it's the most radical and original piece out there; the theme is a little overused.
|
|
|
|
Post by emilybrinkmann on Sept 17, 2013 23:38:29 GMT
There is not much that differentiates a cliche from an archetype. I am often annoyed by cliche's because of the lack of originality and predicable outcome, but I think of an archetype as a good example that others follow. One of the things that I enjoyed about "Cathedral" is the way the author used both in somewhat the same way. The author uses the cliche of the ignorant person and a "happy ending" to illustrate the close mindedness of people. The archetype lies within the narrator, and the reaction to the unknown. It is not a negative thing to be cautious and curious to things we don't understand but the narrator turns curiosity into a bad cliche when he is so narrow minded about blind people. Another cliche in the story (going off what Mr.Parris said about the after school special) is the life lesson the narrator learns by opening up to Robert and trying to understand. When they share a moment together around the description of a cathedral and the narrator comes to understand that just because he has eyes, does not mean that he really sees everything around him. Overall it is a very thin line between what makes something cliche as oppose to an archetype. Carver uses these ideas to show how fine this line is by turning an archetype into a cliche and dancing across the line throughout the story. I agree with adam about how an archetype allow for creativity and change, while still following a pattern; as oppose to a cliche which is the lack of creativity and innovation.
|
|
|
|
Post by fionabyrne on Sept 17, 2013 23:52:39 GMT
My reaction is born from your answer to a question I asked in class regarding your expressed irritation with static characters and our archetype-focused curriculum. Whether or not this message is the one you intended to communicate, it made perfect sense to me. It seems that a cliche accepts the mold and even emphasizes its "mold-iness". This is like Robert of "Cathedral" simply being a saintly blind man and the narrator a generalizing judge, or the story being simply one of a man learning, for one night, that the blind aren't as creepy as he thought.
Other times authors take not the mold but the preconceived norm and don't slide into it but use it as a platform off of which they build something new. That preconceived norm is generally an archetype. I believe that is what the author of "Cathedral" does. When you look at the surface or even a bit deeper, the story reeks of after school special. For me, however, it doesn't have the familiar feel of a story already played out. Which is interesting because the tone the narrator employs is tired in itself. I guess I don't have an answer to why I didn't find it cliche but for one reason or another, the narrator's closed eyes are never-before-seen.
|
|
alice
New Member
Posts: 30 
|
Post by alice on Sept 18, 2013 0:16:23 GMT
Yo I definitely agree with Lewman in the way archetypes allow the reader to easily make connections to other stories they read. They are the mentor or the villain that we see from story to story, but they are never the same, even if they do share attributes. Sometimes, however, I do think that archetypal vagueness and similarity becomes a cliche when the text or work clearly says something like "let me explain my entire plan to you so you can probably figure out how to escape and save everyone MWUAHAHAHA" or "then his eyes were opened and he suddenly understood everything". To me, phrases or explanations like that are very cliche because they're ready made and lacking effort. Also very, very repeated (especially in children' novels but hey, I'll cut 'em a little slack). Archetypes, on the other hand, can easily be filled with new details, like the narrator of "Cathedral" is a close minded man but has very particular rituals that make him an individual. I think the more details that are thrown into the mix, the less cliche something becomes. I think Carver tried to avoid cliches in this story because he seemed to work hard to avoid making the blind man "the blind man". Robert had no can or glasses, he wasn't somber, and he even wore a trimmed and fancy beard! Ooh la la! THis break away from set images and cliches of people allows the reader to make a new image in their heads and think more about what the author is really providing them.
|
|
|
|
Post by samwerner on Sept 18, 2013 0:34:23 GMT
There appears to be a thin, yet concrete line between cliche and archetype. When thinking about cliches, the term "YOLO" immediately pops into my head. The idea with YOLO is that, at first, it was somewhat meaningful, but was overused and stretched to cover so many different facets of life that it has lost all of its strength as a powerful idea. In a similar way, stories with common, overlapping themes about caring for everyone and not judging a book by its cover are, well, cliche. "Cathedral," I believe, had just enough of a twist in the way its ideas were presented to escape the 'cliche' category.
Archetypes are broader than cliches; a type of boundary with some wiggle room. If there was an archetype that "Cathedral" resembled, it would be more open than cliche-themed literature. Most of the book does follow a quite cliche set of events without greatly impactful meaning, but the way these events are presented and later ended are where Carver moves away from cliche and into the realm of archetype. The general themes of the book are certainly general, but the lack of names and abrupt ending force a far greater amount of interpretation than a simply-written cliche. It could be argued that Carver's work fits the archetype of a piece of literature that makes one think. Smaller themes match cliches, but a certain level of analytical thinking required by the work is what separates it from a cliche.
|
|
|
|
Post by stever on Sept 18, 2013 0:41:22 GMT
I agree with the idea that archetype and cliche can be easily misconstrued for each other and that the line between the two of them is very thin. I believe that what differentiates cliche and archetype is style. If I were to explain the story of "Cathedral" to someone else, I am sure that my explanation would sound like a cliche -- I would probably describe it as a blind person teaching someone to "See" with a capital "S." When I read "Cathedral," however, I did not think of it as a cliche at all, and I think that is because of the style of the work. Some of this may be because of the "zero ending" that seems to eradicate the didactic nature of the story. Some of this may also be do to the sparse language or the character details that make the blind man archetype (or cliche) seem three-dimensional and fully realized. These elements are all stylistic, which makes me believe that style differentiates archetype and cliche.
Because the human experience is relatively universal, archetypes (or cliches) are nearly unavoidable. If someone wants to write something that the reader is able to relate to, he or she probably has to rely on some sort of archetype to ensure that the writing resonates with the reader. It is up to the author to craft a piece with deft style so that he or she can eliminate that sense of cliche. Something is cliche when it reminds us of several other pieces of literature we have seen in the past because the author did not use unique style, whereas something can be archetypical and not cliche if the author takes a unique perspective on the archetype, which I believe Carver did with "Cathedral."
|
|
|
|
Post by sammywong on Sept 18, 2013 0:41:28 GMT
I would agree that the line between an archetype and a cliche is not necessarily concrete. In my opinion, "Cathedral" had cliche aspects. That does not mean I did not enjoy the short story, but I do think that the idea of "Cathedral" was a cliche. Even in this forum, there are mixed feelings whether "Cathedral" displays an archetype or a cliche. Our labeling of the story has to do with our own individual views points and that alone; the majority generally is thought as correct in ruling. Yes, there are guidelines to what is a cliche and what isn't, but ultimately it depends on how exposed we are to the topic. Over exposure equals the feeling of cliche, even if it rings more relevant or true in our lives than what we consider archetypes. This is the same reason why I would label "Cathedral" a cliche, yet its repetitive message does not irritate me in the slightest. In my opinion, I do not think the message of acceptance and "not judging a book my its cover" can ever be stressed enough as it is so constantly relevant in all of our lives.
A man suffering from disabilities teaching others important life lessons? How overrated. Where is the new "stuff"? Where are the important words and phrases and sentences that will lift me out of my spell of ignorance and teach me new "stufffff" and expand my knowledge? I am not the biggest fan this attitude because I think you can still take away a lot from what you think you already know.
|
|
|
|
Post by clairem on Sept 18, 2013 1:31:59 GMT
The line between archetype and cliché is that archetypes allow readers to easily connect with certain aspects of stories as they have seen them before, but clichés loosen the readers' grasps out of boredom for repetitious main ideas. If there is a hero and villain in the story the reader is able to quickly understand the idea or conflict in the story, but if the same morals of good always triumphing is brought up it pushes the reader away because they have heard this story a million times. Archetypes can vary and be manipulated to have a kernel of similarity to other stories but still be masked with unique style, voice, etc.; the problem with clichés lies in their inability to morph into anything else. A reader may have read an archetype 100 times and not truly noticed the small connection that binds them together, but if a reader reads 100+ of the same moral in a story they can easily recognize it and are dissuaded from enjoying the novel. Even though "Cathedral" had fairly similar focuses in terms of themes to other stories, the way Carver went about portraying this theme was incredibly unique to the story. Carver definitely has the archetypal ignorant character who changes and the character who opens the eyes of the other one, but because of the interesting choices in types of characters (a blind man) and scenes (getting high and having two grown men drawing cathedrals) the story feels like something a reader has never read before. "Cathedral" walks the fine line between leaning too far towards cliché and archetype but the unique voice and writing style of Carver allows it to lean closer to archetypes than a boring cliché story.
|
|
|
|
Post by austinellerbruch on Sept 18, 2013 1:34:00 GMT
I love the way Wikipedia used the Platonic idea of forms in its definition of archetype (YAY PHILOSOPHY!!!), so in addition to "Cathedral" I am going to use this idea as the basis of my analyzing the line between cliche and archetype. Plato's idea was that everything that exists in the observable world is actually a variation of ideal entities that exist without space and time. I think that archetypes are ideal forms and that a cliche is an overused variation of the archetype. In "Cathedral," for example, the story uses the classic "seeing by not seeing" archetype. This is not a cliche, however, since the archetype was uniquely displayed with the use of a cathedral. The use of the cathedral is a variation of the archetype that has not been seen (or at least I have not seen) before, therefore it is not a cliche. A variation of the archetype can become a cliche if it has been overused consistently, thereby losing its meaning. Perhaps I was wrong in class to state that I had witnessed "Cathedral" as cliche found in previous works of art. Indeed, I have seen the archetype in the past, but never the way in which it is presented, therefore it is not a cliche but an original piece of creativity.
|
|
|
|
Post by mitralebuhn on Sept 18, 2013 1:55:35 GMT
I think the difference between a cliche and an archetype comes down to the method in which the identical message is portrayed. It's irritating to hear an idea re-iterated in the same, predictable way, as a cliche does. It's not new, it's not challenging, and it doesn't help one understand the concept, that was once very profound, at a fresher and more meaningful level. Cliches are repetitive and lack the creativity that interest readers, and that's why we "hate" on them. An archetype may say the same exact message as a cliche, but will tell it in a different way that inspires re-thought. For example, one can say "treat others the way you want to treated", or they can re-word it to send the same universal message that we need to value and respect one another because relationships are what make the world a beautiful place.
All in all, people like to connect and relate with one another, and archetypes and cliches both deliver messages that everyone thinks of independently or can understand or relate to if shared with them. This is what makes these literary aspects so valuable, they are messages to the masses that are generally easy to understand but something we can turn over and gain new meaning from every time we think of them. In general, I think we crave the excitement of being surprised, like Anders expressed in "Bullet in the Brain" over the scent of the robber and the "they is" statement, or the narrator of "Cathedral" showed when he was startled by yet appreciative of his strange experience with Robert. It's the element of surprise that makes us think and test our original beliefs. I agree with Sammy that there were cliche aspects to "Cathedral", and they definitely bothered me at first. I found myself thinking, "this is really interesting and I'm loving the oddities and Carver's descriptions, but the story would be so much better if it wasn't so cheesy and cliche!" But, I think Carver turns the cliche around in the end. In class we discussed the ending and how it was extremely open, and I believe that is what saves this story from being a cliche. It's openness allows you to think, to be creative and connect the ideas to your own life. How would you act the next day? How would you treat Robert, or any other person for that matter? Would you actually change? What do you take from the line, "I didn't feel like I was inside anything," (108). Had Carver answered these questions it would complete the cliche, but because we don't know the result of the story the message is an archetype. It's all about the twist, that spice, switching up the routine methods so the meaningful stuff doesn't get old and repetitive. Nothing's worse than forgetting, or not caring about, the meaning of something beautiful that is meant to remind us of our humanity.
|
|
