Tight rope writing

Where do you find that place between cliché and innovation? In genre fiction, especially mysteries, there is a certain expectation on the part of the reader for elements specific to that genre.

I finished writing the 43^rd chapter of Smoked yesterday. In it, I have used a cliché and then dismissed it. The following is a scene in the interrogation room, Sam Terwillager trying to get information out of the prime suspect, Otis Carter.

“You don’t have to answer that,” said Harlow, his voice raspy and his eyes never leaving the table top.

Carter waved the cliché away. “Jimmy walked ten miles to call Didi to tell her someone took the truck.”

One of my critique readers registered her approval. “Use a cliché and then dismiss it for what it is.” (Or something to that effect.) 

I hadn’t given it a thought, but I took in what she said. It made me think about writing detective fiction and how to be realistic as well as inventive. But, when a lawyer is advising his client in this situation, does it seem realistic that he might say it like this? Or should I be trying to find a more creative way to portray this? Do we all want that flawed detective, or are we okay with a well-adjusted, logical solver of mysteries? In other words, what’s the difference between fulfilling expectations and presenting trite, stale stuff?

I have two critique groups, and what one doesn’t find, the other does. And they all have different suggestions. I try to take all their suggestions and weigh them against my own vision of how things should be. And, sometimes you just don’t know until you consult with an expert in the field. My instinct is to go with what I have until some editor or agent tells me to reconsider it.