A cliche is only a cliche if it is tired and over-used and stereotypical. Your post excludes it from the definition of cliche.
I've read your post several times, and thought about it. I'm still not sure what your point is. Could you please explain what you mean in more detail?
Of course. A cliche by definition is a trite, stereotyped expression; as entence or phrase, usually expressing a popular or common thought or idea,that has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long overuse. We are mistaking tropes for cliches in this thread. Tropes might play on an understanding we have given a certain context, they may be familiar to us, but they do not necessarily have the fundamental ineptitude of cliches. Everything mentioned in the OP is a trope. Every part of it, none of it is cliches.
But that's effectively what I was saying in my post. Though, I didn't name tropes. I said: "Any cliche can be reinvented in some way shape or form. IMHO, it's only a cliche if it's used without reinvention or at least a significantly new view." Are you agreeing or disagreeing with what I posted?
I am glad you consider my opinion so highly Honestly, I jumped to the end without reading. Hang on, I did respond to you, give me a moment to review. Ok, reason I disagree is this, if a cliche is reinvented it is no longer a cliche... by virtue of being reinvented.
A cliché I saw recently: A parent using a child's full name (including middle name) when they were annoyed with them. "Mary Anne Jones, get your butt in here!" I can't see how you could include that in your novel in a new and original way. A trope: A love triangle. Can definitely be done in a new and original way.
But, that's agreeing with me. I said that a cliche was only a cliche if it isn't reinvented or at least varied.
A cliché can't be reinvented. If it is, it's no longer a cliché. It's in the very definition of the word.
If it's a simple middle name like "Anne" then that's cliche-y. But, what if it's something that gives away something interesting about the personality of the parents. E.g. "Mary Bacteriophage Jones, what is it about us that led to you rejecting our scientific approach to life?"
Which is what I said. That's it's no longer a cliche if reinvented. I'm confused. As far as I can see, you and Chinspinner are agreeing with me. While saying that you are disagreeing.
Still a cliché and would only be effective in satire/humourous work. Like starting a story "it was a dark and stormy night" - funny if you've done it on purpose, because it's a cliché, otherwise just... no.
Which is what I said. I'll give an example. Vampire romances are often cliches. However, if a creative author comes up with an entirely new way of looking at a vampire romance, then that wouldn't be a cliche. Which is what I, and as far as I can see everyone else on this thread, says.
No, I'm disagreeing with you. A cliché can't be reinvented. How can you reinvent "it was a dark and stormy night"? You can't. You can describe the weather using other phrases, but that is just a description, not a reinvention of a cliché. "It was a dark and stormy night" is ALWAYS a cliché. Using a child's middle name to scold them is ALWAYS a cliché.
You can reinvent anything that can be invented including cliches. E.g. a vampire romance has become a cliche. If someone goes back to the basics of "vampires" and "romance" and finds an entirely new way to put them together to make a crossover story, then they will have reinvented the "vampire romance". And provided that there were significant differences from the "vampire romances" that have become a cliche, then the result of the reinvention could easily not be cliche. If you reinvented "it was a dark and stormy night", that's such a specific cliche that you wouldn't recognise a reinvention of it unless you were told that it was so. I have written a "It was a dark and stormy night" story set on a distant planet. I'm not going to keep that first line in, as there are aspects of the writing exercise that I like. However, it will start with the scene being set in a dark and stormy night. So, I have to reinvent that cliche by coming up with non-cliche words to describe the same thing. I don't think that using a child's middle name to scold them is always a cliche, and I think the Bacteriophage example, in context, isn't a cliche. Or, perhaps it could be described as subverting the cliche. If you subvert a cliche, is it still a cliche? I've found others who say that in certain genres subverting a cliche has become a cliche in itself as it has been done too many times.
You don't have to do that. I think there is' something interesting in what's causing us to disagree in a subtle way. I think that if we keep on and work out what is happening, something interesting might come out of it.
Gotta agree with Tenderiser. You cannot reinvent a cliche, it is no longer a cliche. The OP is talking about tropes and does not understand the word cliche, which is fine, but it led to a silly debate on an incorrect premise.
It is honestly not a misunderstanding... well it is. the misunderstanding is that one person understands the definition of cliche and the other does not.
I think there are some disagreements as to the exact meaning of terms here. Looking at the Wikipedia definition, the word 'trope' has a wide range of meanings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trope_(literature) "A literary trope is the use of figurative language – via word, phrase, or even an image – for artistic effect[1] such as using a figure of speech. The word tropehas also come to be used for describing commonly recurring literary and rhetorical devices,[2]motifs or clichés in creative works" The word cliche has a similar wide-ranging, and seemingly partially overlapping meaning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliché "A cliché or cliche (/ˈkliːʃeɪ/ or /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, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel." I think we may have to look at the meaning of the word "reinvent", but I think you can take a cliche such as "vampire romance" and reinvent it. It's a crossover genre, between vampires and romance. It can be invented. If someone doesn't follow the gadzillions of vampire romances that have been written but starts from scratch with "vampires" and "romance" and puts them together without reference or influence from what else has been done, then that's reinventing. If the reinvented form isn't trite or irritating, then it may no longer be cliche. In which case the reinvention of the cliche has created something that isn't cliche. What is your definition of cliche? My definition seems similar to that on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, but does provide some indication of the generally accepted meaning of words. The following is from the Oxford English Dictionary, and again it seems to agree with my understanding of the word cliche. Note, this is only one meaning of the word, but it is the one I think relevant to this thread.
I think this comment got completely overlooked because people simply don't want to take the time to make their vocabulary more precise. Many, many, many things that people refer to as cliché are in fact just tropes. A cliché is a trope that has been overused to the point of no longer holding its original meaning, to the point of turning the reader away because, fuck, not again with this crap. But, I don't think there's much chance of getting cliché and trope to settle back into their intended meanings so that we can actually discuss one vs. the other... See, here I disagree. Vampire romances have taken the trope of vampires and overworked them to the point where vampires are no longer vampires in their original sense and purpose in literature. Edward Cullen is a vampire in name only. His story also satisfies the other half of the concept of cliché in that it annoys rather than entertains.
