The Quarteback and the Cheerleader

I would like to waltz with all you lovely ballroom dancers---in my opinion, the line between archetype and cliche is like a piece of tape; it seems thin from one side and thick from the other. After briefly skimming through the previous posts I understand that the general trend is that the line between archetype and cliche is very fine. And I partially agree. Archetypes are just like cliches in the way that both are basic structures, the scaffolding to a story, forming the basic ideas regarding character, plot, setting, and anything else you can think of.

The difference---the thick, flat side of the tape---between the two is this: is the archetype easily noticeable? And, if it is noticeable, does the author add to the archetype enough to make it not "trite or irritating", like in the definition from the prompt?

This is a not-so-fine line, and why I originally despised "Cathedral." I originally thought the piece was beautifully composed, but that Carver makes the archetype too obvious for my tastes. The narrator is too outwardly racist and anti-disability (not sure if that's grammatically correct, but you know what I mean), and in the end he---surprise!---changes his ways. It is important to notice, as Mr. Parris mentioned, that this "opening up" only occurs after the two of them have bonded over the classy activity of smoking dope and watching a church documentary while the unnamed wife is asleep in a half-closed robe---an activity atypical of the "socially conservative discriminating jerk" archetype. I admire Carver for taking this step because it says something about the plot archetype itself (Can people really change? Like, without drugs?), or perhaps about the narrator's existence as an archetype: his use of dope literally breaks down his archetypal wall and reveals his "true nature", removed from the societal influences such as racist culture or the inaccurate portrayal of the disabled in film, during his moment of clarity when he states, "my eyes were still closed. I was in my house. I knew that. But I didn't feel like I was inside anything" (Carver 108).  By using the narrator in this manner, Carver shows that archetypal behavior is a product of our current society---much like the exhaustion of archetypes and their subsequent descent into cliche-dom is a product of the "norms" created from their use in society. 

To classify "Cathedral" within the bounds of archetype and cliche is thus difficult. As it turns out, "Cathedral" is partially cliche---which is precisely the reason why it is not at all cliche or even archetypal; "Cathedral" is the dub-step of stories. 

"I'm discriminatory and bitter and-and-and-and DROP THE BASS. krrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr eeeeeeeeeeeee wub wub wub wub wub wub wub wub ooooooOOOO dope and documentaries now we're sort of friends normal archetype parts back to musical non-music kerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr..."  

For me, the difference between a cliché and a archetype is massive, the main difference being that clichés make me angry and archetypes don't. I see the majority of clichés as lazy and often meaningless, where as archetypes lend themselves to some sort of truth with enough wiggle-room to be creatively...messed with, I guess. Cathedral didn't strike me as outright lazy, the way the 10,000 ABC Family films about a Quarterback and A Cheerleader do, but sort of morally vacant: Don't judge people. Be nice to those less fortunate. Sometimes you have to close your eyes to see. Oooo. Thanks.
Those "life-lessons" drug out of it are cliché. The way it is written lends itself to more "creative wiggle room", especially with Parris' question of "what happens the next morning?" This story would be cliché if it had been tied up with some pretty bow (example: "and then me and the blind man were best friends and my wife was like lol"), but it wasn't. It gives itself more life that way, by reflecting our interpretation of life after story.

People have already developed a number of very solid points on this subject, so I’ll salsa with the thoughts already posted, referencing them when necessary to create a sort of, well, salsa of ideas.

To begin with, let’s assume that archetype, for the purposes of my thoughts, will be, as per Mr. Parris’ question, anything that “feel(s) familiar in a deeply resonant, profoundly ‘true’ way.”

This assumption, I believe, reveals the very basis for the negative connotation of clichés and the positive connotation of archetypes that we seem to have, both in this thread and throughout our live: we appreciate—and perhaps even need— “stufffff” (to use Sammy’s word) that we can relate to. In class, when discussing our “nascent aesthetic credos,” many people declared that they enjoyed narrators they could relate to, settings descriptive enough to picture (in other words, relate to), or ideas that change one’s perspective, the “something I didn’t think of before” (*this is a bit complicated, but I would argue that this, too, is rooted in your ability to relate to the work. See the paragraph at the very end if you don’t want to take my word for it and would prefer some reasoning to back up this statement). Because relating to a work seems vital to our understanding and enjoyment of it, and archetypes, as defined above, are the parts we relate to, archetypes seem to have a positive connotation.

Clichés, meanwhile, have a negative connotation, seemingly arising from the fact that we perceive clichés as, to paraphrase from this thread, lazy, overused, derivative, and annoying; all in all, we don’t relate to cliché. But why, since we find clichés so unappealing, do authors or artists even use clichés? “Laziness” is probably not the answer; these authors and artists are not being forced to create anything, and I doubt that many authors that we read today began their works with a mindset of choosing the easy way out. After all, if you are going to go to the effort to create something, most people naturally want others to appreciate their efforts and creation, and since clichés seem to be fundamentally understood as bad, artists would theoretically avoid clichés when attempting to make art that is not bad. So, if clichés are bad, why would an artist not make every effort to avoid them? Why would cliché vs archetype even be a discussion centered on critically acclaimed art pieces that were, hypothetically, largely free of negative cliché?

The answer to this question is, in my opinion, essential to understanding the difference between archetype and cliché. Recall that we like what we can relate to, and that we don’t like cliché because we can’t relate to it—the cliché itself gets in the way of the meaning it may contain. Now ask yourself a different question: how does the author know what we can and cannot relate to?

I don’t believe that every artist knows what another person can relate to, because much of our connection with a piece arises from past experiences we have had that are similar to the idea presented. With that in mind, I would propose this simple yet hugely important difference between the archetype and the cliché: a cliché is something you are supposed to relate to. An archetype is something you do relate to.

Maybe, as Steve began to suggest, that distinction can be made in style and presentation. Perhaps there are certain ideas that are cliché when presented repetitively, like “be thankful for what you have,” but are much more profound when presented in a more detailed way, such as in Mitch Albom’s Tuesdays with Morrie.

Maybe, however, presentation and style are not always the deciding factor. For example, let’s look at what now may be a cliché, the famous “win one for the Gipper” line. When we hear that line, it instantly registers as a cliché; after all, its original use was supposedly in the 1920s. But now consider the members of the Notre Dame team that actually won the game “for the Gipper.” I would seriously doubt that any of them ever considered the phrase cliché. If you want to discount that example, because one could argue that the first use of any phrase is necessarily not cliché, apply it to present-day hypothetical. Imagine you’re the member of a sports team, and you go on to win an incredibly unlikely championship against disheartening odds, all the while having your coach end every halftime and before-game speech with the same “clichéd” slogan. After that, are you really going to consider the slogan cliché, or will it forever hold some archetypal meaning for you, personally, an ability to recall the wonderful game/season you once experienced? Or, think about a time when you heard someone describe something about him/herself, and end with, “it’s cliché, but it’s true.” Essentially (since they’re talking about him/herself, I’m going to assume he/she is telling the truth about him/herself), what he/she is really saying is that he/she can only convey the idea about him/herself using terms that may be common and previously heard. But does this mean that the quality he/she is trying to describe is any less “true?”

The point I’m trying to make is that it is impossible for an artist to know what we may or may not relate to, and thus may or may not find to be archetypal. Similarly, finding something cliché or not also depends on personal experience. If you’ve never read a story about a prejudiced man changing his viewpoints, you probably don’t even consider the fact that “Cathedral” could be perceived as cliché. While amount of detail in the presentation may influence our ability to relate to something—since, with detail, we now have more “somethings” to relate to—it is not necessary; as seen by the examples above, the only thing that really matters is personal experience.

Contrastingly, we discard things we can’t relate but feel that we should relate to as cliché. We are generally good at recognizing when something makes a point or tries to reveal a particular idea. If we can relate to it, then it resonates with us (often landing the work on our Mahster Works of Lit’ret’chur list), but if we can’t, we need some way to classify the work as having meaning that we don’t find meaningful. In other words, we use cliché to distinguish (when examining a universal list of all “things” but removing the archetypes) between things we don’t relate to and all other “things” that simply exist (the phrase, “the house was blue,” for example, is not something you would “relate” to, and it is also not cliché; the phrase “the house was blue as the ocean at midnight” is probably more cliché, since you may have never seen the ocean at midnight or have a distinct image of the midnight ocean in your mind but can understand at a basic level that someone else could possibly have such a picture).

Keeping all this in mind, if we ask whether or not “Cathedral” is cliché or simply makes use of archetypes, we can see that it first depends on the person. For example, the narrator describes the drawing with the blind man as “like nothing else in my life up to now” (108). That seems to definitely have some sort of meaning—the question is now whether or not it is cliché. I think this distinction comes down to each reader. If you have had an unusual experience that changed your perspective, you probably find this a very deep archetype, as you can imagine exactly what the narrator means. But if you have never experienced something quite out of the ordinary that ended up changing your perspective, you might be more likely to label this as cliché: it seems meaningless, a failed attempt at meaning. For me, I find Carver’s work more archetypal and something I can relate to, since I have experienced an unusual event that changed my perspective.

This isn’t to say, however, that you can never claim a work is generally more cliché or generally more universally archetypal. After all, I think most people can probably relate to the “never before experienced it in my life” sort of perspective-changing event. Contrastingly, if the narrator simply suddenly realized the blind man is just like him after hearing him talk sports for a bit, we might label this more clichéd; I would guess few of us have significantly changed our perspective because we talked about sports with someone for a few minutes, and thus we can’t relate to this.

To conclude, an archetype is anything we relate to, even if others may consider it cliché, while a cliché is something that we feel we should relate to but can’t. While the difference is determined on a person-by-person basis, since we all have unique experiences, I think the best works are written with the audience and likely life experiences of said audience in mind, in order to ensure a majority of the audience finds the work more archetypal than cliché. As for “Cathedral,” I think Carver accurately taps into an experience many of us can relate to, and thus it emerges less cliché than archetypal.

(*The stuff about needing to relate to a work before it can challenge your perspective: Don’t you have to relate to some perspective or idea, to understand it, before it can be challenged? There’s a difference between being taught something for the first time and re-examining a belief you have held for a long time. When you’re first taught something, you often accept it as true. At the very least, it probably doesn’t strike you as unusual because, by definition, being taught a perspective on some concept you have never before developed a perspective on means you have no frame of reference to determine if it is “unusual” or if you have/have not thought about it that way before. For a work of art to challenge your perspective, I think you must first possess a good understanding of your current perspective, and thus you have to relate to the perspective you currently hold as it is reflected and then evaluated in the work of art.)

Looking at the definition, one could definitely defend the argument that Cathedral had cliche moments. I, however, think that it's relative to the person. To a person living in Africa, the footballer and cheerleader may or may not be considered a cliche. To an everyday American the footballer and cheerleader may or may not be a cliche. Obviously, us Americans are more exposed to both types, but are they cliche? People are STILL pining to be a part of both American pass-time. Are they cliche at all if they're desirable? They are definitely not trite.

As for Archetype- it's completely different. I don't necessarily, at first glance, see the connection between Archetype and Cliche at all. Cliche seems more social while Archetype seems more literary.

I think the line, for me, is very obvious. Archetype is something that came along, was recognized as pretty, dang cool and then used for a starting-point for different works or Art. As for Cliche, it seems like it's some kind of "archetype" gone rogue thing where it just multiplies like wildfire until we're all over it.
I'm not really sure if this makes sense but this is what I feel.

Cathedral was most likely inspired or encouraged from some type of archetypal piece of Art OR cliche moment. Is ANYTHING really new anymore? Therefore is EVERYTHING a cliche and archetype? That question is for sure overwhelming and I don't have an answer.
Thanks

Cliches and archetypes are all relative, so objectively, there's really no difference between them. Something that is "overused" and "annoying" according to someone might be profound and new and original to someone else, so how can we label a thing as cliche to all audiences?
"Cathedral" bears many similarities to countless other stories, but it's not a direct copy of the text from these stories, so how can we call it the same? There are quirks about it that make it unique. At its very bones, it's similar to your traditional "perspective altering experience" story. An ignorant narrator has hang-ups about some kind of handicap, he experiences that handicap firsthand, and suddenly it is endearing and he sees the error to his ways. Done.
But how many of those heartwarming, preachy stories contain a round of toking, marital jealousy, and the unique and stunningly average life story of a blind man? Not many. So is it really cliche, overused, the same old story? No. It couldn't be.

I'm still sorting out whether I think the line between clichés and archetypes is solid or not.  But so far, I tend to agree more with all those that said that with a cliché, the author has taken the easy way out because they no longer have to try to think of something unique and different - they're just using the same cookie cutter that's been used a thousand times (thanks Corey).  Meanwhile, by using an archetype instead of a cliché, the author has a form, or a mold, and can go along from there.  I believe it was Fiona that pointed out that an archetype is a preconceived norm - I agree with this too.  Archetypes are archetypes because they've been around for so long that everyone has gotten used to them and can understand them.  I'm not sure I can articulate the difference between a well known archetype and a tired old cliché, but there seems to me to be a difference.  It's as though while a cliché is often as well known and as well worn as an archetype, the cliché is thin and superficial, while the archetype is more substantial.  I seem to be going down the road of baking metaphors here, so I'll keep going:  While you could put different kinds of chocolate chips in the cookie dough every time you make cookies, you'll always use the same recipe for the dough.

When I first read "Cathedral," the story never struck me as cliché, and still does not. I think that often, people are too quick to label a piece with either title--cliché or archetype--because of an innate desire to categorize. Yet, in my opinion, most pieces of literature or short stories that I have read do not fit either definition; I suppose I am arguing that the cliché or archetype is actually more uncommon than we tend to believe. Most pieces of art focus on themes or ideas that have already been expressed, but most also contain unique points of view and styles that keep them from being an obvious example of a cliché or archetype.

In fact, I think the most agonizingly cliché pieces I can think of are those teen books that take some total nerd kid and pair her up with the most popular guy in school; those books seem to be trying so desperately to defy the cliché "quarterback & cheerleader" tale that they end up sweating clichés out of every pore. And while it inevitably feels good to read a story about the underdog who is so obviously cooler than that high-up popular kid he or she longs to be like, that idea has been so worn out in recent years with the major onslaught of young adult novels that it is extremely difficult to find a story that feels refreshing and humble enough to make it worth the time.

But besides those overused teen-novel-archetype clichés, I cannot say I recall many other written works that overwhelmed me so due to their unoriginality. I guess I don't really believe a specific concept can be overused to the point of cliché; rather, a cliché evolves when the author fails to rejuvenate the concept to fit with the zeitgeist of the times or use an authentic voice. Hence, to play off the mixed sentiments over "Marley & Me," I do not think that the dead dog story is a cliché. A reason exists for why so many people cannot handle those ASPCA commercials or read *Where the Red Fern Grows* without bawling. The human connection to pets--and animals in general--has always been very deep because, from my suppositions, animals represent unconditional love; human interactions are full of misunderstandings and blunders, but animals (well, most pets, at least) love us despite the spinach in our teeth or the quality of our singing voice. Therefore, just because a certain topic can provoke strong emotions with more ease than some others does not make it less valid or poignant.

Thus, to conclude, I guess my own decision on the difference between the archetype and the cliché is that an archetype is a foundational concept that has been included in art for a long time, and in many different cultures. A cliché, on the other hand, must be appraised for each work individually and describes a piece of art that takes an archetype and regurgitates it with little nuance or fresh insight into the basic idea it focuses on. I did not consider "Cathedral" cliché because Carver took an interesting story, fitted it with a minimalist and nontraditional writing style, and then allowed the reader to discover what he or she could from what he laid out. I do not think he aimed to point out that THIS IS A STORY ABOUT A GUY WHO WAS JUDGEMENTAL BUT NOW SEES THINGS FROM OTHER POINTS OF VIEW with a neon sign. Instead, like Mr. Parris brought up in class, Carver sort of suspends this idea in the end, but it is unsure whether the narrator will truly change his perspective about blind people, and judging others in general, once he wakes up the next morning. The story certainly plays with the archetype of the blind man teaching the seeing man how to truly "open his eyes," but Carver does not leave it at that, making the story fascinatingly complex and debate-invoking. In fact, I believe if the story had truly been cliché, there would have been no room for debate about whether it is or not; that there is debate proves that it is multi-layered, not one-dimensional.