|
|
Post by Lauren on Sept 18, 2013 4:10:18 GMT
In my mind, cliches come from ideas that can be turned into those cheesy sayings that get embroidered on pillows or decorated on a poster. Archetypes however, tend to be a pattern by which a story will follow. They're things like the eight basic plot lines ( www.johnlescroart.com/the-8-basic-plots/ ) that you hear about in English class. Cliches are the common ideas that are being displayed through the art, where as archetypes are how that theme is being explored. An artist can use a typical hero archetype but mix it around creatively to put their own personal twists on it. "Cathedral" has that archetypal pattern of a grouchy man who learns to appreciate something he didn't understand, which is bordering on cliche. But Carver tips the scales away from cliche by adding in the themes about names, rituals, and the ability to see physically vs. metaphorically. A cliche is supposed to have lost "its original meaning", and I don't find that "Cathedral" is meaningless. If an artist is willing to put in the effort, they can take a seemingly common archetype and spin it in a fresh new way that can't be done with a cliche. |
|
|
|
Post by pjharris on Sept 18, 2013 4:11:33 GMT
I know this is stated in your definitions at the top, but an archetype is unoriginal; a cliche is annoyingly unoriginal. I appreciate neither. At least, the idea of using one is unappreciated. I personally try to use all my own work and never rely on the guidelines someone else has laid out for me. And yet, as wonderful as that would be, I find it impossible. The idea that nothing you think is truly an original thought, as absurd as it seems, is brought to be proven in most things I read, write and analyze; all works have a cliche or archetype in them. Why? Perhaps it is because we create from what we already know and lack the omniscient minds to create what we don't already or haven't once known. What's more frustrating for me, besides the fact that I have found myself enjoying these at times, is that I do believe they are necessary. Every single one. Imagine you are a child, you haven't had all these high held english or AP classes. How do you learn your lessons? "After School Specials". And what is an after school special? 70% Cliche/Archetype and 30% cheesy animation. And as you grow older and think, "Yes! I GET it already!" we still need these to make sure we remember our morals and how people interact in a meaningful and safe way. For example, "Cathedral" is ripe with these: A man who is too quick to make judgements (not observations), a less-fortunate man who had a better disposition on life, and, in the end, the grouch becomes happy and see's life in a whole new way (as it really is?). Now we MUST ask the question, "What have you learned?" Well, nothing new. But maybe you saw something in a new light, like how sometimes taboo things can open people up to greater personal connections? Or you were cast inward for personal reflection, are YOU harboring discomfort or malice to someone who doesn't really need to be eliciting that reaction from you?
I hope you noticed that I haven't separated between the words "cliche" and "archetype" yet. That is because I don't believe there is a difference between the two. The only difference is that you, the interpreter have become so fed up with one mechanism, or you feel it has become so basic that it need not be said, and therefore, now a useful archetype is thrown into your cliche category titled, "Please, for the love of God, do not use!" For example, categorize this: A boy raised from the depths of poverty and through hard work makes it to a successful life as a man and gets the cheerleader who was previously with the mean quarterback". Cliche? Archetype? Which one would you say? ...(Input your answer here)... Are you sure? Couldn't it be the other if you come at it from a different stance? Isn't Cathedral a bunch of cliches? Or does its "original" (yet not original) presentation make it an archetype?
And there is my my point. They are both unoriginal. I believe an archetype is defined by whether you find it acceptable to use the method and Cliche is when you find it irksome to mention at all and don't feel the need for its presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by allegra on Sept 18, 2013 4:17:29 GMT
Sometimes, as had to believe as it is, people have different preferences. "WHAT?" you may find yourself asking, but yes, it is true. Some people like peanut butter on their broccoli, some people like plain broccoli, some people may like plain peanut butter, and no one likes plain broccoli. Cliche archetypes are preferred by some and, yes, some people may even like the football-cheerleader archetype. "WHAT?" you may find yourself once again saying, "how can someone in AP english enjoy such cliche works of literature?" Now you're just dismissing their preferences. Rude. To some, however, the football-cheerleader archetype does resonate strongly. And that's okay. I think Cathedral does have some cliche moments in it; all stories do (arguably a main character can me seen as cliche). It is Carver's ability to describe such things in a corresponding way with the main character that makes such a story so resound. For example, Carver writes in such a dismissive, detached tone that the author feels as though they are looking into the story without much emotional connection UNTIL the narrator comes to a conclusion. We are meant to feel like a person the narrator casts aside; we are meant to be looking in as though the narrator feels all people are blind men. And that is not cliche at all. Some may enjoy it and some may not, but to me, Carver's twist of the classical man-finds-hope archetype is truly what is profound about the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidqin on Sept 18, 2013 4:20:07 GMT
The difference between cliche and archetype seems to me a matter of connotation. However, I believe that texts with cliche and archetype differ (although only slightly) in the way the text relates to the reader and what kind of response is provoked. An archetype is a recurring pattern of behavior, yet we as readers attribute more to archetype than to cliche because it does something for our understanding. The familiarity of an archetype that we've probably seen elsewhere helps with this, and the archetype can go on to stir new interpretations of a story. For example, in "Cathedral" the story of the narrator slowly learning to understand Robert's perspective is an archetype because it has prompted us to think about the meaning of different perspectives and also forced us to challenge the concept of the cathedral itself. We leave "Cathedral" having understood the value of a building, not in its religious or even structural value, but in its ability to start a conversation between two people and get them to bond. However, this example is not cliche because we have learned something. If "Cathedral" were cliche, we would have the recurring story of two men with their differences learning to bond, and leave with a profoundly "meh" reaction because we have seen it so many times. The sheer familiarity of the storyline would leave little room for interpretation just because we have seen it so many times and have formed strong, immovable opinions on the storyline already. However, even if we have seen this refrain many times before, "Cathedral" spices things up with the intangible concept of the cathedral-building and it lets us play around with something not defined, therefore leading to an interesting conversation instead of "meh" and an opportunity for us to challenge these long-held opinions and form new realizations. The gray area that it leaves makes it interesting rather than dull, and that is what sets archetypes apart from cliches.
|
|
|
|
Post by carolinedorman on Sept 18, 2013 4:20:47 GMT
From the provided definition, it seems like a cliché is simply an undeveloped or poorly worded archetype. Due to the nature of people, it is not uncommon to encounter a common link between all humans. Thus, what is typical and known is often referred to as a cliché. An archetype, however, utilizes the similar thread between humans to point out truth. One could easily argue that writing about an ignorant man who, when introduced to a blind man, suddenly realizes that he was the blind one all along is very cliché. Raymond Carver's delivery of the common cliché in "Cathedral", however, creates a beautiful and truthful story. Carver paints the picture in a different way and, although the outcome is predictable, still introduces a new perspective. A story/ character/idea is only a cliché if the reader does not see the common in a new light.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lacey Doby on Sept 18, 2013 4:30:53 GMT
Personally, I love archetypes. I love how one simple storyline can be layered and adjusted and sculpted to fit an authors needs. Lion King two, one of the best movies of all time, is the story of Romeo and Juliet, but with lions. Warm Bodies is the same way, but with Zombies. I love both of those movies because the archetype is so beautifully sculpted and so remarkably unique, despite using a storyline created by Shakespeare.
But clichés are uncreative. Just as many of you agreed above, clichés tend to be so predictable and uncreative that the reader gains no deep insight into life or a further understanding of the universe or humanity. Clichés pretend to be important and profound, but then they disappoint the reader by being an exact echo of something the reader has already seen. You know, they don't add any zombies or lions, they just say, "sometimes you just need to make compromises so that everyone can frolic and be happy yada yada."
When referring to "The Cathedral," to determine whether it is a cliché story or an archetype, I would look for any creative unique qualities that I have never seen before. This is where the process becomes tricky. Just as in most stories, there is a steady mix of fresh new ideas as well as old overdone ideas. The trick is to determine whether one ought weights the other. This will vary from person to person, but in my mind, the overused ideas outweigh the new and fresh ones making this story more of a cliché than an archetype.
|
|
|
|
Post by rubyking on Sept 18, 2013 4:34:39 GMT
PJ, what an interesting thought! This makes me ponder all of the moving pieces of literature I have read...all of the memorable characters that are waltzing about in my head don't fit the cliche nor the archetype..instead they seem to have become their own point of reference. If someone models a character with a feisty yet warm nature, one might say, "Oh how Elizabeth Bennet of you." But really, with a nod to my avatar image, how many times have we heard " That is such a Carrie/Miranda/Samantha/Charlotte thing to say/do!" It seems like the unconventionality of some characters are becoming their own norm. But I really believe some individuals find solace or comfort in things like a cliche, perhaps because it offers a solid path (Or being able to predict the resolution to a film just makes them feel rather smart). Even though Carver's Cathedral might have offered this predictable sort of path, I still felt a sense of resolution in the ending. Maybe cliches are my guilty pleasure
|
|
|
|
Post by juliamoreland on Sept 18, 2013 4:36:49 GMT
Going off of Mitra's point above, I actually found the ending the most cliché part of the story. Carver keeps the relationship between the narrator and Robert in its fairytale stage. He leaves the audience with "aww" instead of making them think. If Carver had gone on to the next morning, and recognized how perhaps neither of these two men will follow through with the relationship, then that would be an interesting ending. Slightly twisted, but wouldn’t it catch you attention? Recognizing the tough parts of life can be more rewarding than frolicking fairy tales. Leaving the ending open does not capture the true picture of humanity.
Someone said in class the other day that they love archetypes that allow them to see something in a new light. Archetypes hold the power to open new doors and create new connections. With a previously established base for connection, archetypes push us to a place of new understanding. With the narrator in "Cathedral" I was able to assume his entire character from past archetypes. The author, however, pushes and changes my previous understanding of this ignorant white guy. That is the part of this story I appreciate, the way he pushes the archetypes to a new place. This new place, however, pushes the story down a cliché path that loses its meaning. I agree with many of the comments above, certain elements (such as the cathedral itself, or smoking pot) are original and unexpected. But the theme and ending? SO CLICHE. Of course the blind guy finds a new friend, and of course the ignorant white guy gains perspective.
I like this story for its "aww" factor but not much more than that. Carver does create successful twists to his story, but the basic plot I have seen too many times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Sept 18, 2013 4:38:12 GMT
From what I see in those definitions, and the archetypes I've come to know in the world of storytelling, they're both in the same class of idea. Archetypes may simply be something we as a group keep going back to subconsciously, and upon noticing this, concluded that they matter. The strong male protagonist will probably never die. But isn't it possible that what we call cliches are just discarded archetypes? I think it's safe to assume that stories evolve with culture. So archetypes make up the most basic commonalities of stories from any given period. which sets a precedent for a cyclical nature between archetype and cliche, where if an archetype gets used in the same way too many times, we move on to the next, and eventually come right back to the first. I think this could be plausible because writing is difficult, and there are only so many combinations of characters and events, especially since the human experience is limited. Archetypes allow storytellers to reach a wider audience, using a known structure to create relateable content.
|
|
|
|
Post by amysohlberg on Sept 18, 2013 5:10:56 GMT
Cliches and archetypes are two totally different things. As they were defined in the original thread, cliches are annoying and distasteful. They distract from the message the author is trying to get across because the audience already knows what is going to happen. They've seen the quarterback and the cheerleader a thousand times. I think cliches annoy us because they pop up everywhere in fictional literature yet we never really see them in our real lives. There aren't perfectly popular cheerleaders and totally cool quarterbacks who fall in love at any high school, because they don't exist. Everybody has a story, and there isn't anybody alive who fits the cliche. Cathedral didn't really have any cliches that really caught my eye, except for maybe the "ignorant jerk who is later enlightened", but even that cliche doesn't fit fully. Sure, the narrator was introduced to a new point of view but we didn't really get to see any of his response. I doubt his life would have changed radically after the Cathedral experience.
An archetype, on the other hand, is a deeper, more subtle concept. I believe every archetype is rooted in universal truth, and there isn't anything irritating or unoriginal about that. Archetypes shouldn't irritate us because we experience them in our own lives. They fit a broad range of situations and characters. The biggest archetype that stuck out to me in Cathedral was "there is more than meets the eye". This is an archetype because we confront this idea daily, whether it's finding out about an enemy's deep personal struggle or searching for God in a hyper-rational society. Archetypes resonate with us because they are rooted in the experiences of our own lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by keelycorrigan on Sept 18, 2013 5:12:50 GMT
Archetypes and clichés are different novels stacked on the same shelf—those who do not look close enough will assume the wrong spine. The difference tends to be in the everlasting and universal qualities of one or the other that separates the two. An archetype is a tried and true manipulation of character or story arc that relates to a larger, universal and timeless sentiment. The hero is the archetype, fulfilling his/her quest and overcoming those obstacles that attempt to stop his/her defeat of whatever dark force (s)he is fighting. It becomes a cliché when non-universal, cultural commentary is added, especially the kind that is reiterated by anyone who wants to make a point on an issue. The hero/outcast is a cliché when (s)he fulfills his destiny while overcoming whatever is the latest metaphor for society’s most recent phobia. I am thinking specifically of a direct juxtaposition of Odysseus to a superhero of today. Odysseus’s quest can be seen in a whole spectrum of reiterations in almost every culture. It is only in our modern day culture do we see the infallible --except to that certain point that makes him/her irresistible to the audience—hero who will always overcome the opposing force. To simplify, clichés become clichés because they are too specific to and overused in a certain culture that they are unable to obtain the shield of universality that protects and gilds archetypes.
This archetype versus cliché paradigm problem is inherent to the piece most recently read by the class, “Cathedral”. The story balances between the two and layers them together to form a complex understanding of what it means to be predicable. The story is, essentially, a, and I mean no disrespect the original, pedestrian reimagining of the Odyssey without the magic and language that makes Homer’s epic so, well, epic. Parris explained it most excellently in class: Man has prejudice, so he goes to the blind man to help him see what his eyes won’t let him see. I would argue that this is a foundational concept of Odysseus’s archetypal story line that this in itself adds a layer of archetype to the short. But, one cannot ignore the simple language of the piece. I am not trying to suggest that simplistic writing is by any means underdeveloped, because I think that this author wrote this piece this way for a very specific reason. The butchering, shortening, and gerrymandering of the English language has been changing on for centuries, but has escalated in the past few decades. Superficially, the author is succumbing to this—but, because of the depth and clarity that the simplest writing is able to bring to the moment at the end, it is a cliché well used. But, this is an entirely different topic together. Were archetypes and clichés well balanced and layered in the short? I thought they were. Though I did not enjoy the writing, I saw meaning a beauty in it. And, this meaning and beauty were primarily precipitates of the author’s interwoven archetypes and metaphors.
|
|
|
|
Post by madisonarmst on Sept 18, 2013 5:24:36 GMT
Unlike some of the other responses, I find the line between archetype and cliche to be very clear. The difference between profound and cheesy lies in the style and language that the author uses. In both the cliche and archetypal story, we all know how the ending is going to play out. The difference, however, lies in the language and writing style that the author employs. In the cliche movie about the quarterback and the cheerleader, the plot may be predictable, but the language and style are also elementary, making it even less appealing. If the reader can easily comprehend the language AND the plot, there is virtually no reason to experience the "art" because we have essentially already learned all that we can learn from it. In a work of literature that is archetypal and has an interesting style, we may already know the ending, but the beauty of the writing style keep the readers' interest. In some ways, the archetype adds to the beauty of the literature because it takes the focus away from the plot, and allows the reader to focus almost solely on the beauty and excitement within the style. Finally, although the plot is predictable in both the cliche and the archetype, the style is what separates the basic, cliche works from the extraordinary pieces, even if they do use an archetype.
|
|
|
|
Post by avinash on Sept 18, 2013 5:37:41 GMT
When you try to summarize the “general” message from cathedral it may seem cliché. When the narrator essentially says he hates blind people, it can be argued that you know he is going to change his viewpoint after he meets the blind man. This is kind of an obvious outcome that makes this story cliché for some readers.
What is being overlooked is the fact that Carver didn’t write “Cathedral” for it to be summarized. I think he left it ambiguous on purpose to allow the reader to make his own sense of it. The main example of ambiguity for me was the ending. One can sense the author had a revelation but this revelation isn’t interpreted the same way by every reader. For me I didn’t perceive the story as one of acceptance or advocating that all of us our blind in some way. For me, this story showcased the danger of brainwashing yourself. The narrator often talked himself into believing that he was limited in his abilities (like when he was trying to describe a cathedral). In addition, the cathedral could also have represented something different based on the reader. Cliché occurs when we think along expected lines and don’t allow ourselves to experience something unfiltered and without external bias. I think Carver is sending an anti-cliché message. Don’t think about this story in a conventional way. Take your own life experiences and shape this story the way you want to shape it. That’s why I really enjoyed this story. I was able to think for myself and formulate my own ideas without any restrictions. This is why some works of literature are “true.” When one isn’t able to get across the barrier that limits active thought a story becomes cliché. This barrier often exists because some of the ideas presented in a story can be seen as too concrete (this is subjective to the reader). I didn’t have this problem with “Cathedral” and therefore never thought of the story as cliché.
|
|
|
|
Post by emwolfram on Sept 18, 2013 5:45:33 GMT
I couldn't agree with what Morgan said: I believe if you really examine the origins of cliches you will find that they became cliched because they are anchored in strong universal truths. I don't know if I agree that cliches lose there value. Overuse is a very challenging word. If an incredible song is played too often on the radio is it really no longer amazing? (some would say a loud YES but others might not). I feel like Archetype is just a classier cliche. Cliche is an insult and archetype is a description but in so many ways they are the same. I could say: "Carver uses the cliche of a jaded man who finds new meaning from an unexpected place." or "Carver uses the archetypal character of a jaded man who finds new meaning in an unexpected place." To me they are the same.
What is the difference between "constantly recurring" and "overused"? Can an idea really ever be cliched? If these things are relevant and come from real life can they be overused?
If I had to answer my own questions I would say a cliche is a baby step towards understanding a true. It is a statement that acknowledges the existence of a pattern but does not explore it. The cliche is the name, whereas an archetype is the living breathing thing. Archetypes go one step deeper to make the reader understand what is being expressed. With that distinction, I think Cathedral is more of an archetypal story than a cliche. Carver leaves the ending emotional but somewhat ambiguous. He does not slap the reader in the face with a moral lesson but rather taps them on the shoulder.
|
|
steph
New Member
Posts: 13 
|
Post by steph on Sept 18, 2013 5:48:39 GMT
As many have discussed, "Cathedral" is arguably a cliche or playing the juvenile game of "I'm not touching you" with the distinction between a cliche and an archetype. I generally believe that a story that is an almost-can-I-just-call-it-a-cliche derives its substance from messing with the cliche just enough so that the reader has to rethink all their assumptions that the story touches on. This power is derived from frustrating the expected outcome, forcing the reader to analyze why they expected the outcome in the first place (German fairy tales and their unhappy endings come to mind). "Cathedral", however, doesn't indulge in such manipulation; the outcome is straightforward and carries little self-analytical tools. This feels like a lazy way to present an almost-cliche, Carver isn't using its potential.
Meanwhile, the debatable archetype present in the story forces the main character's own analysis (if one will consider the idea that the archetype is found in the man who at first follows tradition and ritual, then sets himself apart, finds a sage (perhaps "sage"= pot+blind man+ internal dialogue), and then enters upon an internal discovery leading to a positive change). The narration is blunt and unpleasant, while the ending is undefined and the future is uncertainly better. The plot does follow a hero's archetype though, the hero being the distinctly gross narrator.
Perhaps what makes archetypes more profound is their insistence that there is pattern in humanity that will connect all of us, no matter how much we don't want to truly relate to the subject, while a cliche is a lazy pseudo-connection.
|
|
