i.. don't.. get it... so shes not a ghost?

What an overwhelmingly unsatisfying one shot. I could barely tell whether the love interest was the glasses girl or the student council member and even then there was literally no resolution in the end (not that I'm particularly surprised about that), besides with the student council girl being a ghost but not really a ghost. My point is that LITERALLY nothing happened/changed throughout this entire thing. Like if you were to take this story out of their lives then there would be no difference in it.

If this was the first chapter of a series I'd say it has potential, but as a one-shot it didn't accomplish much

I absolutely agree.

Wow, I must be pretty genre blind because that twist came out as a genuine twist for me.
And then it became a double twist when it untwisted itself. That was amusing.

That's a major issue with the argument of 'cliche'. It doesn't take much analyzing to see that every story has been told in every which way possible. So inevitably a story may speak wonders of new beauty to one yet seem trite and overdone to another. It all depends on execution, and how our predetermined bias comes to fruition in the middle of a story.

It's also a great word when you want to sound smart and critical, but without the requirement of saying anything substantial.

While he/she used the most pretentious word possible to explain it (I really do hate the word cliche because of how fucking overused it is), he/she is actually technically right. There are multiple literary theories that state that every story has already been told and every new story is just a retelling of already told stories. One of them is called the monomyth, or "The hero's journey," and it's explained in detail by Joseph Campbell in his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." In the book, to help prove his point, Campbell uses Luke Skywalker in Star Wars as an example, but it can really be applied to a lot of things. It basically says that every myth follows a set pattern or design and can arguably be broken down to the same basic steps. It's actually really interesting and I recommend giving the book a read or at the very least reading the Wikipedia entry (which tbh does JUST a good of a job explaining it as the book in less words lol).

Hahaha!

Vince Russo totally wrote this! It was a matserfull double swerve if I've ever seen one!

i.. don't.. get it... so shes not a ghost?

Nope. It was strongly implied she was ghost but in the end she really wasn't. It was a double swerve.

last edited at Jan 20, 2015 9:37PM

After reading the story and then reading some of the comments, am I safe to assume that the real twist to this story is that it's just a one-shot.

What an overwhelmingly unsatisfying one shot. I could barely tell whether the love interest was the glasses girl or the student council member and even then there was literally no resolution in the end (not that I'm particularly surprised about that), besides with the student council girl being a ghost but not really a ghost. My point is that LITERALLY nothing happened/changed throughout this entire thing. Like if you were to take this story out of their lives then there would be no difference in it.

I didn't wanted to put it so blunt but yeah, this is like subtext, not quite yuri... And I prefer the girls with glasses btw

I like the fact that most of the people here got twisted.

Ha, saw that coming a mile aw-
Wait, what?

While he/she used the most pretentious word possible to explain it (I really do hate the word cliche because of how fucking overused it is)

So you're saying calling things cliche is . . . cliche?

predictable or not, if it's well executed, then it's good for me

While he/she used the most pretentious word possible to explain it (I really do hate the word cliche because of how fucking overused it is)

So you're saying calling things cliche is . . . cliche?

If a cliche falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Well I didn't expect that, so she's not a ghost. What a twist.

Is there another part? This feels very incomplete to me.

Oh, hey, PLG. Fancy seeing you here. o/

I think the "incomplete" feeling is because it was fairly short, and none of the characters (save for Torikai) were delved into whatsoever and acted more like extras than main characters. There was more atmosphere than dialogue, and likely the whole setup was for the double twist. So yes, I can agree that it was a little lacking when it comes to material, but I also don't really see any way that this could continue while still keeping it interesting, since the setup has been fulfilled already.

last edited at Jan 21, 2015 11:15AM

Wow, I must be pretty genre blind because that twist came out as a genuine twist for me.
And then it became a double twist when it untwisted itself. That was amusing.

That's a major issue with the argument of 'cliche'. It doesn't take much analyzing to see that every story has been told in every which way possible. So inevitably a story may speak wonders of new beauty to one yet seem trite and overdone to another. It all depends on execution, and how our predetermined bias comes to fruition in the middle of a story.

It's also a great word when you want to sound smart and critical, but without the requirement of saying anything substantial.

While he/she used the most pretentious word possible to explain it (I really do hate the word cliche because of how fucking overused it is), he/she is actually technically right. There are multiple literary theories that state that every story has already been told and every new story is just a retelling of already told stories. One of them is called the monomyth, or "The hero's journey," and it's explained in detail by Joseph Campbell in his book "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." In the book, to help prove his point, Campbell uses Luke Skywalker in Star Wars as an example, but it can really be applied to a lot of things. It basically says that every myth follows a set pattern or design and can arguably be broken down to the same basic steps. It's actually really interesting and I recommend giving the book a read or at the very least reading the Wikipedia entry (which tbh does JUST a good of a job explaining it as the book in less words lol).

I'm a he, just to clarify that.

A little confused where the pretentiousness came across from if you were referring to me...I apologize for that, I did not mean to come across that way.

But that is exactly the point I was making. It's not my idea, it's a fact that's somewhat known. Like I said, it doesn't take much analyzing to find that every story ever told has been told before. Basically you can hate something because it is a cliche which is the same as saying you just hate that type of character. But saying you hate something because it is cliche equivocates to saying you hate it because it exists.

Horn: Well, "while keeping it interesting"--sure, I'd agree, but there are a bunch of manga that go on forever about cute girls randomly interacting in some kind of half-assed school club or whatever, doing mild comedy and maybe pursuing yuri relationships which never really get anywhere and are half there as comic relief fodder. The art style here and some of the interactions feels just like them.

On the cliche thing--well, everything is relative. Sure, at some level every story has been told umpteen gazillion times before. But that's talking in a very bare-bones way. Person-meets-person, they fall in love, obstacle, obstacle, they get together the end. God, I've seen that so many times . . . wait, that's why they call it "romance", isn't it?

When we say something is "cliche" usually we mean something a bit more than that. Certain kinds of characters, certain particular elements of setting, certain specific plot points, get used much more often than others. Maybe they fit the general culture very well, maybe someone did it once and sold a billion copies, but in any writing environment (like Japanese shoujo manga or North American fantasy novels or whatever) there are some "bits" that are floating around ready to use because they've been used so much lately. If an author just kind of grabs a bunch of those and doesn't add much to 'em or change anything up or grab any bits from elsewhere, we call the results cliche and I don't think there's too much wrong with that. And it's totally relative to where and when you are. If I tell a shoujo romance and go back to Icelandic sagas and grab one of the bits that's totally overdone in the sagas, that was a cliche in the sagas but it really isn't in shoujo romance (it might not work, but it won't be a cliche).
People know what it means until they overthink it. Then you have to overthink it even more to get the meaning back.

Now personally, I don't mind yuri or shoujo manga cliches much, at least if the mangaka's adding something, making it her own in some way. I like the genres ultimately because I like their cliches. But I think it's just as pretentious to claim it's verboten to call "cliche" as it is to use the term in the first place.

Whew, I was sure we were gonna get a bad end on this one.

Oh that double twist, wonderful job. It wasn't very yuri though after the untwist.

last edited at Jan 21, 2015 1:59PM

On the cliche thing--well, everything is relative. Sure, at some level every story has been told umpteen gazillion times before. But that's talking in a very bare-bones way. Person-meets-person, they fall in love, obstacle, obstacle, they get together the end. God, I've seen that so many times . . . wait, that's why they call it "romance", isn't it?

When we say something is "cliche" usually we mean something a bit more than that. Certain kinds of characters, certain particular elements of setting, certain specific plot points, get used much more often than others. Maybe they fit the general culture very well, maybe someone did it once and sold a billion copies, but in any writing environment (like Japanese shoujo manga or North American fantasy novels or whatever) there are some "bits" that are floating around ready to use because they've been used so much lately. If an author just kind of grabs a bunch of those and doesn't add much to 'em or change anything up or grab any bits from elsewhere, we call the results cliche and I don't think there's too much wrong with that. And it's totally relative to where and when you are. If I tell a shoujo romance and go back to Icelandic sagas and grab one of the bits that's totally overdone in the sagas, that was a cliche in the sagas but it really isn't in shoujo romance (it might not work, but it won't be a cliche).
People know what it means until they overthink it. Then you have to overthink it even more to get the meaning back.

Now personally, I don't mind yuri or shoujo manga cliches much, at least if the mangaka's adding something, making it her own in some way. I like the genres ultimately because I like their cliches. But I think it's just as pretentious to claim it's verboten to call "cliche" as it is to use the term in the first place.

Well, when I said you don't have to do much analysis...I meant it quite literally. As in you don't have to cut away (ana + lysis) from a story that much to see it's already almost identical to another. Because there is no such thing as original or unique if you take the words by their denotative definition. It's the sort of thinking of "This character is used more than others" that is exactly the trap that we as humans fall in. Because every single character has been used a LOT. And the thing is, that's all we as humans can do is either make stories out of bits and fractions of ideas not our own (or from ideas that were created from ideas that were not our own, etc) or stumble upon something new by accident - which only happens in scientific research if you use the paradigm of 'accident'.

Now don't get me wrong...I am not being pessimistic. I think every story deserves the right to be given its due attention sovereign of how "original" it is. And I do think stories are unique and original, as well as we as human beings...just by the paradigm case of its meaning, not by its literal definition. I love entertainment, and the fact that I've heard a story before does not make me enjoy it any less. It doesn't make any of us enjoy it any less. We just enjoy the story.

There is a such thing as cliché, that's not what I was trying to say either. All I am saying is that cliché carries no weight as an argument.

I think you do understand most of what I am saying though...the idea of liking a genre because you like the clichés is hitting on the broader picture as I was trying to say.

This whole thing is just a giant complicated argument that takes a really close look at way more than just the word 'cliché', it looks at human nature, the scientific composition of us and namely our brain, it observes our behavior...it's really something that's not worth filling this thread about.

I don't even ask that you agree with me, just give these words some thought. You as in anyone reading this, that is.

last edited at Jan 21, 2015 10:20PM

Well, when I said you don't have to do much analysis...I meant it quite literally. As in you don't have to cut away (ana + lysis) from a story that much to see it's already almost identical to another. Because there is no such thing as original or unique if you take the words by their denotative definition. It's the sort of thinking of "This character is used more than others" that is exactly the trap that we as humans fall in. Because every single character has been used a LOT. And the thing is, that's all we as humans can do is either make stories out of bits and fractions of ideas not our own (or from ideas that were created from ideas that were not our own, etc) or stumble upon something new by accident - which only happens in scientific research if you use the paradigm of 'accident'.

Now don't get me wrong...I am not being pessimistic. I think every story deserves the right to be given its due attention sovereign of how "original" it is. And I do think stories are unique and original, as well as we as human beings...just by the paradigm case of its meaning, not by its literal definition. I love entertainment, and the fact that I've heard a story before does not make me enjoy it any less. It doesn't make any of us enjoy it any less. We just enjoy the story.

There is a such thing as cliché, that's not what I was trying to say either. All I am saying is that cliché carries no weight as an argument.

I think you do understand most of what I am saying though...the idea of liking a genre because you like the clichés is hitting on the broader picture as I was trying to say.

This whole thing is just a giant complicated argument that takes a really close look at way more than just the word 'cliché', it looks at human nature, the scientific composition of us and namely our brain, it observes our behavior...it's really something that's not worth filling this thread about.

I don't even ask that you agree with me, just give these words some thought. You as in anyone reading this, that is.

in a nutshell, saying you don't like something because it's cliche, is just being lazy. why EXACTLY do you not like it? because you've seen that character type a million times before? because you've read the plotline a million times before? but in reality, is that really an excuse to say it's bad? to you personally maybe it is. but to someone else who hasn't seen that character type a million times, or read that plotline a million times, it could be great. considering there is no new ideas anymore, isn't it a bit pretentious to say something is cliche based on your own personal reading history? for something to be a bad story, you need to look into things in much more detail. was the character growth spotty? nonexistant? characters unlikable? the research into topics used in the story done poorly? etc etc. but to do that would require in depth analysis and people just don't want to do that with something they read for entertainment. so, instead, they just slap "cliche" onto it. because honestly, a story can be unique, or original, and still be bad. just because it's cliche does not mean it will be bad, and just because it's original or unique, does not mean it will be good.

last edited at Jan 21, 2015 11:43PM

got trolled

Wow, I must be pretty genre blind because that twist came out as a genuine twist for me.
And then it became a double twist when it untwisted itself. That was amusing.

That's a major issue with the argument of 'cliche'. It doesn't take much analyzing to see that every story has been told in every which way possible. So inevitably a story may speak wonders of new beauty to one yet seem trite and overdone to another. It all depends on execution, and how our predetermined bias comes to fruition in the middle of a story.

It's also a great word when you want to sound smart and critical, but without the requirement of saying anything substantial.

^^^^^^^^^

last edited at Jan 23, 2015 12:40PM

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!! need more!