Cliches and stereotypes exist because the original form described something so perfectly that the form stuck. It's the twist that makes it work.

In college, I worked on a survey for the student radio station. I got bored calling people who had never heard of our radio station, so I decided to fake the rest of the responses. I know, bad me. I did the majority to match the other responses, but I made about a quarter just that little bit different: the grandma who loved rock and roll, the 18-year-old classical music devotee.

At a followup meeting, it turned out someone else had faked her results, but she just marked everything in the same two groups. My fakery was not discovered.

Most people are stereotypes. A fair number of them have twists. Don't go so far in avoiding cliches that you do stupid metaphors. Lips are compared to rose petals, because rose petals are red and soft. Cherry jello works in a bizarre sort of way, but comparing lips to your Aunt Helen's snuggly red afghan may be over the top.

Also, the only ones who got to tell truly original stories were the cavemen, and even then the proto-chimps may have been telling tales about how the female in the next tree really wanted to hook up with that new guy, but the dominant male wouldn't hear of it.

Wanna see a writer who has no clue? (And no, not talking about me-- I KNOW I don't have a clue *g*)

[link]

Really, it's amazing the level of self-absorption and self-importance this woman has. I had a run-in with her on a board where she declared that she would read Cormac McCarthy over Rowling any day because McCarthy writes books for adults and SHE is an adult.

She also said that any adult who read YA literature was basically lazy and not stretching themselves intellectually.

She also said that any adult who read YA literature was basically lazy and not stretching themselves intellectually

Oh, she's an ar-teest and a Writer, not some wanna-be, huh?

Ha. I wouldn't have to read YA if there were more decent adult lit.

Oh, she's an ar-teest and a Writer, not some wanna-be, huh?

Yeah. I ripped her three kinds of a new one after that comment. Just flat-out called her arrogant and clueless of what the genre had to offer.

Then, she tried to challenge me by asking why it was that YA needed its own category to be judged in most contests and I came back that it was because of closed-minded idiots such as herself, who are preconditioned to categorize and attempt to judge like against like, rather than actually doing the intellectual thing, which would be to judge each book on its own merits.

And she STILL didn't give up, asking if I really thought that a YA novel could compete on the same playing field as an adult novel.

To which I responded, "Well, given that my YA novel won in an adult category of a prestigious competition against acclaimed writers and NY Times Bestsellers, I'd have to say that yeah, I think they can."

::blinks innocently::

Also, Gud, does your Righteous Leader have to be likeable to the audience or just to the girl in question? If he's going to turn out to be an idiot later anyway, does the audience's viewpoint have to be in accord with hers?

And she STILL didn't give up, asking if I really thought that a YA novel could compete on the same playing field as an adult novel.

Has she never heard of Jacob I Have Loved or The Chocolate War or The Outsiders ?

I mean, just to name a few.

I think there's plenty of good adult lit out there, and I read a lot of it. But I love YA, too, because of the stories the authors tell.

I was going to say I love YA too but I think it's really that I don't disriminate on the basis of genre. If a book catches my eye I don't check to see what section I'm in before I pick it up and start reading.