Judging by the number of cliches I see on this site, I wonder if any of you have any useful guidelines. Let me offer a couple of possiblities:
• Careful authors should ban cliches from their writing.
• They should not be banned, but should be avoided.
• They got to be cliches because they were useful in expressing some particular thought. If what you mean to say is that the pen is mightier than the sword, you'd better write it using the recognized cliche.
Judging by the number of cliches I see on this site, I wonder if any of you have any useful guidelines.
The problem with cliches is simple. They exist for the same reason that stereotypes exist. Just because you end up putting someone or something the category of a stereotype or cliche doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad thing.
I would make a distinction between the primary statement of a concept and providing extra details.
A common idiom is often the easiest way to convey a concept to readers.
I think it's different with something like metaphors providing some non-essential descriptive detail. I'd say it's better adding nothing than adding something hackneyed.
So, if you can simply delete a cliche, you probably should. If you'd have to replace a cliche with something else, you should probably keep it.
what you mean to say is that the pen is mightier than the sword
If you leave out the space between "pen" and "is", you get a new thought, not a cliche.
With regard to human fertility, the pen is mightier than the dil do.
Cliches are like mini-tropes - readers expect them and their familiarity makes them easy to read. Don't shun them, but if an author finds they're using too many, they should be questioning whether their story lacks originality.
AJ
One thing I also noticed, both as a reader and a writer (different site and name), is this. When several writers seek to avoid a certain cliché, trope, or mini-trope, the mass reaction tends to create a new cliché or trope or mini-trope. Which causes a reaction, which causes a reaction, and so on.
Personally, I think what matters isn't IF you use them, but HOW you use them. The execution. And that is determined by the skill of the writer.
Personally, I think what matters isn't IF you use them, but HOW you use them. The execution. And that is determined by the skill of the writer.
I strongly agree. Sometimes cliches seem natural and add interest, but other times they seem unoriginal and become tedious.
Do you, or others, have any thoughts about when they work well, and why?
I suggested above they are probably okay when stating an essential idea but not when the idea could simply be deleted. Even that, if true, would be an over-generalised observation rather than a "rule" to be followed.
A further thought is they may work better for authors wanting to inject humour into their writing. On the other hand, for stories with high drama they may distract readers from the flow of the story.
AmigaClone sort of touched on another point. Perhaps in dialogue, authors should make choices about which of their characters use a lot of cliches and which do not?
Does anyone else have any thoughts about when and why cliches work well or not?
Perhaps in dialogue, authors should make choices about which of their characters use a lot of cliches and which do not?
Hmm? Maybe we should be clear in this discussion that we're talking about distinct situations, in dialogue and in narratives.
Does it all come down to a question of whether characters tend to use a lot of cliches or not? I think so. If so, authors should identify how often their characters use cliches as part of their choices for how to best show their character, and then maintain consistency in each of their characteristic voices.
And, isn't the narrative of a story just another characteristic voice for which the author should attempt to maintain consistency? In first-person stories the narrative should be similar to the MC's dialogue, while in third-person stories the narrator's voice should be distinctive.
Is the real problem with cliches only when they result in the voices of too many characters ending up sounding too similar?
Does it all come down to a question of whether characters tend to use a lot of cliches or not? I think so. If so, authors should identify how often their characters use cliches as part of their choices for how to best show their character, and then maintain consistency in each of their characteristic voices.
Better yet, restrict the cliche usage to a single character, so it becomes a character trait that's expected. If everyone does it, then it's clearly author intrusion, as the author clearly has nothing else to say and is throwing them out like confetti during a parade to generate applause where none is deserved.
As for the Narrator, there's really NO reason for the narrator to use cliche's, as the narrator's point isn't to make points, but merely to describe what's happening. In the end, you want your narrator to disappear into the background so you don't notice them, but instead focus on the characters in play. In the 1st person, the MC narrator often interjects humor when observing details, but they rarely add much detail into the story.
In the end, you want your narrator to disappear into the background so you don't notice them
I can see why that works for the kind of stories you write. But I'm not convinced all styles of authors should want that.
And are we even talking about the same thing here? You suggest there's no reason for a third-person narrator to use cliches, but, are things you would consider to be cliches the same others here? Are some things I'd regard as simply the natural idiom to use?
Without disagreeing with your comments, I would be reticent to state them in such a hard-line manner.
And are we even talking about the same thing here? You suggest there's no reason for a third-person narrator to use cliches, but, are things you would consider to be cliches the same others here? Are some things I'd regard as simply the natural idiom to use?
I'm not suggesting that, say, a first person narrator shouldn't reflect the character's voice (manner of speaking), but I'd save the cliches for the dialogue, so it's seen as a particular character trait, so readers learn to anticipate them. If everyone, including the narrator use them, then it just becomes annoying. In this sense, cliches become like an accent. It's not uncommon to find someone quoting Buddhist idioms, but it's very uncommon for everyone you meet to quote them every time you turn around.
I'm merely suggesting you limit the cliches to a specific character's dialogue, so it's seen as his particular style. That way, rather than seen as being obnoxious, readers will think, anytime something happens, I wonder what Bob will say about that?
The cliches themselves aren't bad, it's the overuse, so limiting them to a single character is a natural defense against such overuse.
Applying that to narration, it's better to reserve the cliches to character dialogue, rather than having the narrator 'say it' when they character should 'show' it as a character trait.
The cliches themselves aren't bad, it's the overuse
Your suggestions themselves aren't bad, just their overuse :-)
Your suggestions themselves aren't bad, just their overuse :-)
I agree. In the words of T. S. Elliot: Everything in moderation, including moderation.
And quoting Oscar Wilde: "Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong."
When several writers seek to avoid a certain cliché, trope, or mini-trope, the mass reaction tends to create a new cliché or trope or mini-trope.
Agreed, and the catalyst can be as few as a single writer, provided their work achieves critical mass.
AJ
Remember, you can have fun with cliches and stereo-types as well, weave them into your story in a humorous manner, use them to break the fourth wall.
There are no rules, only guidelines to be ignored when convenient. If the story is good and the writing is good, you can do anything you damn well please and get away with it.
If the story is good and the writing is good, you can do anything you damn well please and get away with it.
I wholeheartedly concur. I'd even say you virtually need to do so to write an entertaining story.
Having a single character in a story that consistently uses cliches might actually work well, but in general the fewer used the better.
Think of the interactions you have with other people and their use of cliches to determine if a story has to many to be considered realistic and original.
Writing about intergalatic space adventures is interesting, because my characters keep spouting cliches. The uses are appropox, but would they make any sense to aliens from an entirely different culture.
I've worked around many issues, by having translators in the brain that trigger similar regions in the brain which respond to certain words/terms, so "the pen is mightier than the sword" might make sense, but not something like "Where's the Beef?".
As a result, I often point out the misunderstandings, having the humans provide a clever quip to a certain situation, and then having the aliens go "Huh? WTF does that mean?" That way, it provides a nice pithy comment while also lightening the mood over the main characters inability to put themselves into the shoes of those they're spending their time with.
But the biggest issue, isn't is avoiding cliches altogether, it's a lack of originality. If you keep using cliches because you can't think of another way of expressing something, then you're simply passing the ball, and your avoiding your responsibility eventually shows through. Each author and editor have their own goalposts for which are accessible and which are too many, and those can vary wildly. But, you'll notice that better authors don't rely on cliches often. Instead, they often manage to find their own analogies, which often become famous cliches themselves.
So ultimately, do you want to be known as someone who constantly repeats the words of others, or as someone who people constantly quote, because you speak to their emotions in a way that no one else manages to?
Shakespeare used many cliches. Of course when he wrote those words, they were new. When everyone else used them they became cliches.
"All that glitters is not gold."
"All's well that ends well."
"As good luck would have it."
"As merry is the day is long."
"All of our yesterdays."
"Bated breath."
"The better part of valor is discretion."
"Brave new world."
"Break the ice."
"Catch a cold."
"Dead as a doornail."
"Foregone conclusion."
"Heart of gold."
Etc., etc., etc.
I know it's what you said, but I just wanted to emphasize the point: When Shakespeare used them for (as far as we know) the very first time, they were not cliches. It's the repeated use of them by all of us who came afterward that made them cliches.
"Bated breath."
'Bated breath' is a variant of 'abated breath', meaning the action of holding your breath while waiting for something to happen. Not a Shakespeare innovation, I'm afraid :(
AJ
Either that, or the aftermath of a dish of anchovies.
Wait... that's 'baited breath', which I've seen in print a time or two... Usually two paragraphs down from 'tounge'.
oyster50 tstamp = new Date(1532368628000);document.write(tstamp.toLocaleString());7/23/2018 12:57:08 PM2018-07-23 1:07:08pm
@awnlee jawkingEither that, or the aftermath of a dish of anchovies.
Wait... that's 'baited breath', which I've seen in print a time or two... Usually two paragraphs down from 'tounge'.
"The cat ate some cheese and then waited at the mouse hole with baited breath." A very old joke.
'Bated breath' is a variant of 'abated breath', meaning the action of holding your breath while waiting for something to happen. Not a Shakespeare innovation, I'm afraid :(
Didn't you realize that no one ever held their breathe until Shakespeare told them they could? 'D
• Careful authors should ban cliches from their writing.
• They should not be banned, but should be avoided.
• They got to be cliches because they were useful in expressing some particular thought. If what you mean to say is that the pen is mightier than the sword, you'd better write it using the recognized cliche.
Do YOU use clichés, or do YOUR Characters use clichés?
There is quite a difference. I hope that, when my characters use clichés, it fits with my vision of that character.
Then, too, there are "private clichés," that is to say, things which are clichés for that character or that group. "Bob says of his baby, "She's getting political," and his sister knows immediately that, "it's time for a change."
Using cliches in dialog can be ok. Example:
My dad was just settling into his chair and his nightly bowl of ice cream. "If you want my opinion," he said, "I think your brother got his just desserts." This effectively closed the topic; it was never a smart move to interrupt dad's ice cream time.
What about this sentence? They hatched a plan.
The pairing of the verb 'hatch' with the noun 'plan' is surely a cliche in anyone's book. But what is the alternative? I cannot think of any other succinct way of saying a plan was created with the same connotation of being either cunning or devious.
I think this is one of many cliches which are the simplest way to convey an idea, and as such, the easiest for readers to gloss over without disturbance while reading.
I'd say 'they concocted a plan' has the same connotation and is just as clichéd. Maybe they would be better off plotting.
The pairing of the verb 'hatch' with the noun 'plan' is surely a cliche in anyone's book.
I disagree. Hatch, (verb) meaning to conspire to devise (a plot or plan) is in the dictionary, therefore it's normal English and not a cliche.
AJ
I disagree. Hatch, (verb) meaning to conspire to devise (a plot or plan) is in the dictionary, therefore it's normal English and not a cliche.
I disagree. Hatch is in the dictionary with the meaning to conspire or devise. That is the second meaning listed; the first meaning is to emerge from an egg.
But I don't consider the meaning is literal determines whether or not something is a cliche. I think it's the frequency that combinations of words are used to express an idea compared to other literal choices which could be used instead. My test is whether an expression is chosen frequently enough to have become trite or hackneyed, and I think it does for 'hatch a plan (or plot)'.
I think it's the frequency that combinations of words are used to express an idea compared to other literal choices which could be used instead.
'Hatch a plan' has few literal alternatives, just like 'open a door'.
If you consider 'hatch a plan' a cliche, then by those criteria 'open a door' is too.
AJ
(Ugh, edited to correct the consequences of a wrong bracket type)
'Hatch a plan' has few literal alternatives
Thesaurus.com suggests:
breed
come up with
conceive
concoct
devise
dream up
formulate
incubate
invent
originate
spawn
I suggest all of those I've placed in bold could reasonably be used with 'plan/plot'.
'Hatch a plan' has few literal alternatives, just like 'open a door'.
Uh, "cook up a scheme", "devise a plan", "figure out a strategy", "figure an approach", "choose a means"?
Many dictionaries point out that the first meaning of a word listed has nothing to do with what definition is preferred, but simply that that meaning had been used for a longer period of time that subsequent listings.
used for a longer period of time that subsequent listings.
Used for a longer time or is the first the more common usage? I understood it to be most common usage. Longer period would result in archaic meanings first, which I recall coming last.
I know several dictionaries say they list the meanings in the order in which the dictionary found their first use, meaning that meaning has been used for a longer time - not the more common usage. I've found that, for many dictionaries, those multiple pages in the front of the dictionary (before you get to the meaning of AAA or aardvark), the editors of that particular dictionary describe their practices. In some, substandard" uses (archaic, slang, etc.) come at the end, but some include substandard uses in the numbered entries.
I can't speak for what ALL dictionaries do, but many use the numbers to indicate age, not best or most common.
The meanings provided by many dictionaries are questionable in my opinion. In many instances, they replace a former meaning without retaining the older meaning. The approach they use in deciding to change the meaning of a word is also questionable.
If you like old meanings, the
O(xford)
E(nglish)
D(ictionary)
is the book for y9ou.
Librarians keep telling me that it isn't p to date. I tell them I don't want to know what the meaning is in 2018; I want tyo know what the meaning was in 1820.
I hope you find a dictionary that pleases you. May I suggest Webster's unabridged dictionary published in 1948. It's the most recent one I know of (I certainly do NOT know them all) that was written to convey what was right and wrong in English usage. The same dictionary in the early 1960s dropped pretending to tell us what was correct, and simply reported on how education people use words.
I disagree. Hatch is in the dictionary with the meaning to conspire or devise. That is the second meaning listed; the first meaning is to emerge from an egg.
If you're suggesting that the 2nd definition of "hatch" exists purely because of a single cliche is pretty simplistic and insipid. If you really believe this, then check ngrams and see whether there are any other uses of this definition of the word. That seems like an easy enough test of your theory. But authors such as Agatha Christie were tremendous at creating entirely new turns of phrase, so I seriously doubt they ALL used the exact same cliche (I was researching various Christie epigraphs, and was astounded at her breadth of creativity in capturing the moment in a simply phrase).
Hatch is in the dictionary with the meaning to conspire or devise. That is the second meaning listed; the first meaning is to emerge from an egg
I wonder if the dictionary had only one definition of "to hatch" at one time (to emerge from an egg), but then so many people used it in a cliche to devise that they added it to the dictionary as a second meaning.
I wonder if the dictionary had only one definition of "to hatch" at one time (to emerge from an egg), but then so many people used it in a cliche to devise that they added it to the dictionary as a second meaning.
FINALLY, AN ANSWER TO THE AGE-OLD QUESTION ... The egg came before the chicken! :-)
I expect that was the sequence too: that the meaning 'from an egg' came first, 'create to plan' started out as a metaphor, then that became common enough for it to be classified as a second meaning. I wonder if dictionaries existed at the time of that third step?
The egg came before the chicken! :-)
That's a given - the only way a chicken could be created was to hatch from an egg that was laid by a proto-chicken.
not a cliche
I've been wondering through this entire thread whether it had any value at all - on the grounds I suspected there'd be little agreement on what is, and is not, a cliche.
I thought I'd at least found an example in 'hatch a plan' that was unlikely to be questioned by anyone. Apparently not.
I'll stated why I think it is a cliche, but I'm not going to argue against reasons you may give for thinking otherwise.
I've been wondering through this entire thread whether it had any value at all - on the grounds I suspected there'd be little agreement on what is, and is not, a cliche.
That's such a cliched statement.
:)
Otherwise, they could have devised a plan to deal with the cliches. After all, if we've told you once, we've told you a million times, don't exaggerate about how whether something is a cliche or not.
I thought I'd at least found an example in 'hatch a plan' that was unlikely to be questioned by anyone. Apparently not.
As my previous examples showed, there are plenty of alternatives to "hatching a plan", so I agree that the term is cliche, but then you turn your own argument on its head by claiming that the ONLY reason for the verb "hatch", meaning to devise, is due to this one phrase alone.
It can't throw out your pie and crap on it too, pick a side. Either it's a cliche, or other uses of the term are possible.
claiming that the ONLY reason for the verb "hatch", meaning to devise, is due to this one phrase alone.
I SAID NO SUCH THING!
Read what I was responding to! This from AJ:
... therefore it's normal English and not a cliche.
I thought his claim that "normal English" meant "not a cliche" was ludicrous.
I thought his claim that "normal English" meant "not a cliche" was ludicrous.
As, presumably, you also think my claim that 'open a door' isn't a cliche is ludicrous.
AJ
you also think my claim that 'open a door' isn't a cliche is ludicrous.
I would say that 'hatch a plan' is a cliche because of its overuse compared to suitable alternatives, but 'open a door' is not because it has no suitable alternatives.
References suggest an expression needs more than just overuse to be classed as a cliche - it also requires a wow factor at its initial inception that has been subsequently lost, possibly through overuse but also through meaning drift.
A quick perusal of SOL shows 'hatch a plan' to be relatively rare, hugely outnumbered by 'devise a plan' and 'come up with a plan'. As such, I'm not confident your claim of overuse has legs.
AJ
requires a wow factor at its initial inception
I think that's complete nonsense.
'hatch a plan' to be relatively rare
I don't care. I never wanted a discussion about whether or not one expression is a cliche, or what a chiche is. I wanted to discuss what is best for quality writing.
I concede I was naive to think that may be possible here!
I wanted to discuss what is best for quality writing
When I read a cliche and roll my eyes, it's bad. I came across one today or last night in an article and did just that.
I don't care. I never wanted a discussion about whether or not one expression is a cliche, or what a chiche is. I wanted to discuss what is best for quality writing.
If you don't understand what a cliche is, then you can't debate their use vis-a-vis quality writing.
AJ
what a cliche is,
a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.
a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.
That's a dictionary definition, and IMO not a very good one. Creative writing websites give slightly different criteria for identifying cliches, including the loss of novelty factor and a drift towards meaninglessness, as well as overuse.
AJ
If you don't understand what a cliche is, then you can't debate their use vis-a-vis quality writing.
FUCK YOU!
I've been using the same dictionary definition all along.
You're the one who's been inventing additional criteria on the fly, like needing an initial wow factor.
@Switch Blayde
a phrase or opinion that is overused and betrays a lack of original thought.
That's a dictionary definition, and IMO not a very good one.
Why didn't you state that a long, long time ago? I stated what I meant by 'cliche' as soon as you challenged my initial comment. You've been making arguments ever since based on a different definition without stating what that is. You haven't been trying to discuss anything; you've only been trying to score points, and vicious with it too.
I don't care. I never wanted a discussion about whether or not one expression is a cliche, or what a chiche is. I wanted to discuss what is best for quality writing.
I concede I was naive to think that may be possible here!
That always happens, someone raises a point, and to illustrate, they invent an example on the spot, and then EVERYONE attacks the one example, as if that one example was symptomatic of the entire point.
That's why, most times, it's better to pick examples of published works, something that's already been thoroughly edited, so it has fewer flaws to nitpick over, but is also better structurally than something you think up on the fly. :(
better structurally than something you think up on the fly.
This one was not thought up 'on the fly'. I'd had some nagging doubts going round my head, but said nothing, for about a week. I thought I'd found an example that was so uncontroversial it would allow a discussion of the principles for quality writing. Silly me. :(
What about this sentence? They hatched a plan.
The pairing of the verb 'hatch' with the noun 'plan' is surely a cliche in anyone's book. But what is the alternative?
How about: "They created a plan" or "they plotted the execution of their scheme in detail, practicing each step"?
Just because a cliche exists doesn't mean authors are suddenly free from their obligation to write a story in their own words. There are times, especially in dialogue, when cliches are appropriate, but using it rather than painting a picture for readers is just a crap out.
Just because a cliche exists doesn't mean authors are suddenly free from their obligation to write a story in their own words. There are times, especially in dialogue, when cliches are appropriate, but using it rather than painting a picture for readers is just a crap out.
You have at least offered an opinion on my question.
You are saying (I think) that using 'hatch a plan' in narratives would be an author not using their "own words". I think it paints the right picture for readers.
You are saying (I think) that using 'hatch a plan' in narratives would be an author not using their "own words". I think it paints the right picture for readers.
As always, it depends on the specific example. I'm not saying that authors can never use a cliche, and even if I was, authors typically go out of their way to break any and every existing writing guideline. What I was objecting to was the insistence that authors cannot possibly come up with anything better than that one phrase, so everyone should just jump aboard the cliche train and never look back.
It's an authors job to choose the right words for the job, but if you're simply stringing together one cliche after another, ad infinitum, then you're shirking your responsibility to discover new ways of expressing old thoughts, so that readers can 'rediscover' emotions that have been written about endlessly.
Instead, every now and then, authors need to dig deep and create their own literary analogies and similes, and create their own clever word plays. That's what makes one author better than all the others just churning out junk.
All that said, I still maintain that cliches are best used when restricted to a single character, so readers expect them, and they're not running rampant through every single aspect of the story. That's not to say you can't slide one in, but when it looks like the cliches keep appearing because the author simply can't think of any alternatives, then the use of cliches has simply become a crutch.
I agree with you that cliches should generally be avoided, and why.
However, I've seen the suggestion they should never be used quite often, and I think that goes too far.
I'm inclined to think they are okay with expressions that express the idea an author needs perfectly.
'Hatch a plan' is something I consider a cliche but may still be willing to use for that reason. To me, it can carry a negative connotation, that there is some devious intention in the plan, that other alternatives do not.
'Hatch a plan' is something I consider a cliche but may still be willing to use for that reason. To me, it can carry a negative connotation, that there is some devious intention in the plan, that other alternatives do not.
That's another reason why the phrase is so apt, it's because the plans that they hatch are often as fragile as an eggshell. All it takes is a single misstep, and their entire plans collapse in on themselves. Thus it's a perfect metaphor for storytelling, of carefully planning schemes gone astray by a single random encounter/event.
Again, it's no so much that someone can't come up with alternatives, but that it fits on so many different levels, it's hard to bypass for something that's clearer on only a single level.
the phrase is so apt ... it's hard to bypass
Thanks. We've both said we think the phrase is a cliche but it may be best in the right situation.
My reason for starting this exchange was a feeling that "avoid them like the plague?", as the thread title asked, goes too far. I wondered what criterion an author could apply to make the decision 'Yes, I think it is a cliche, but it's the right choice here.' My conclusion is that the cliche would need to carry some connotation, beyond that of possible literal alternatives, which makes it a perfect fit for the what the author needs.
My conclusion is that the cliche would need to carry some connotation, beyond that of possible literal alternatives, which makes it a perfect fit for the what the author needs.
Or, to put it a slightly different way, most authors could probably rephrase the sentiment in an entirely new way, but what precisely would be post by doing so. In this case, you'd lose the entire 'this scheme is so uncertain, it's as fragile as walking on eggshells' implication, which you'd never even notice on a first read. That kind of double meaning is hard to capture, especially in so concise of phrasing, but it makes for a decent test.
On the other hand, no one will ever become good at turning a phrase, if they don't push themselves, and thereby gain the necessary experience. So don't take the easy way out, push yourself to come up with alternatives, see which work and which don't, and build on your strengths going forward. But if you keep relying on cliches, you'll never become adept at creating your own turns of phrase.
That's another reason for my 'stick to one character'. If you have one character who keeps using standard cliches, and another who always counters with his own take on it, you can develop a nice back and forth, where readers will see the one phrase, accept it for what it is, but then look to the other character to see whether he can one-up him. Thus it becomes an expected competition between the two characters. They might not all be winners, but if it helps develop the characters, and the readers get caught up in the competition, then the verbal sparing speaks louder than any single cliche.
Now, I wouldn't do that all the time, but doing if for a single story, between two characters, you should come away with a really good feel for you potential at create alternative analogies. If it doesn't pan out, then it's no great loss, but if it turns out that you have a knack for it, stick with it, and soon you'll be sparing with the best of them.
As I've said before, I've always dreamed of being a great wordsmith, able to phrase things beautifully. Agatha Christy's books were almost pure schlock, but her phrasing for her summaries were classics—everyone. Those 'new cliches' can carry a LOT of dead wood, so it's worth developing.
So don't take the easy way out, push yourself to come up with alternatives
I agree that is crucial for quality writing. I've only been looking here for the point at which one of the margins becomes a bit fuzzy.
I'm done with this exchange.
Besides avoiding cliches and using them in moderation, authors have a third option, playing on them.
"That's the problem with TV these days, gratuitous Saxon violins."
A story of mine that played off one sort of cliche, the pick-up line, is _Lines_.
It's a short-short, so the usual warning applies if you don't have premium status: You're going to get damned-few words for one of your few stories that day.
authors have a third option, playing on [cliches].
I do that all the time. My choice of pen name was intended to warn readers that's what I do.
There are two main ways I play with cliches: twisting the words of a cliche, and retaining the words but twist the meaning. I use a lot of everyday cliches as euphemisms for sex.
I call that originality.
They hatched a plan
In the Dragonriders of Pern, they could plan a hatch. (When the dragons appear and adopt a friend after the dragons break out of their eggs.)
they could plan a hatch.
Isn't planning a hatch what maritime designers do when they design where to place a secure point to move between levels of a ship?
Ok, I just wrote:
He didn't play basketball as often as he liked, but shooting hoops alone in his gym relaxed him.
Shooting hoops? Is that a cliche? It doesn't jump out at me like "he went home with his tail between his legs."
Shooting hoops? Is that a cliche?
I'd give that a definite 'no' because it's a normal English term. It had no novelty value to start with so it will never become stale and lose impact, and its meaning is very unlikely to become degraded.
(But a definite 'yes' to the tail between the legs.)
AJ
I wonder if "shooting hoops" is an idiom. Would it make sense to someone who doesn't speak English and is trying to translate it? So I googled "cliche vs idiom." http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-cliche-and-idiom/
Clichés are phrases which have been overused and have become very common and boring. Idioms are phrases which are not so overused, and a vocabulary needs to be built to learn to use them.
Using idioms is considered a sign of good writing; using clichés in writing is considered poor writing.
It also says "some idioms can be figurative clichés" (vs literal cliches). An example of a figurative cliche is "It's raining like cats and dogs."
I wonder if "shooting hoops" is an idiom.
I suspects it's more of an idiom as many people call it 'shooting baskets.'
I suspects it's more of an idiom as many people call it 'shooting baskets.'
'Shooting hoops', and basketball players, is what they typically do in Chicago drive-bys.
"It's raining like cats and dogs."
That is an example of when I think cliches are awful (ex. consistent with a character's voice.) There's no need to use a simile there and using something that unoriginal would make my eyes roll.
We're on SOL and one of the most awful cliches ever breed by man is close at hand. The rock-hard cock. It probably was introduced by one of the great authors of the stone age but never lost its idiomatic appeal over the millennia. I probably used it too without I realized or would be able to remember. That's how common the phrase is. I'm not even certain whether it still can be seen as a cliche. Maybe it evolved into a technical term for erotica. On the one hand, I don't want to read it ever again, but on the other, I'm not too curious to learn about the alternatives creative authors may provide instead.
I'm not too curious to learn about the alternatives [to rock-hard] creative authors may provide instead.
I found only two plausible alternatives at thesaurus.com among its synonyms for hard (rocklike): stiff and rigid.
The steel bar in his pants is almost as common as the rock-hard cock. I remember, not long ago, I read about 'cue and balls' as a billiard reference. That's the kind of inventiveness I'm afraid of.
The steel bar in his pants is almost as common as the rock-hard cock. I remember, not long ago, I read about 'cue and balls' as a billiard reference. That's the kind of inventiveness I'm afraid of.
How about "The Rod of Chastisement" in BJohns Best Girl?
How about "The Rod of Chastisement" in BJohns Best Girl?
That depends. Was the phrase used as aggrandizement or was it used to make fun of someone? If it was anything else but a joke, I'd still prefer the rock-hard cock.
If it was anything else but a joke, I'd still prefer the rock-hard cock.
If you want some variety you could try flaccid, limp, drooping, soft, small ...
If this was anything else but a joke ...?
The adjectives flaccid, limp, drooping, soft, or small placed before 'The Rod of Chastisement' appear as a smiley where none is needed.
That depends. Was the phrase used as aggrandizement or was it used to make fun of someone?
Funny you should ask. If I remember correctly it varied between an appendage-name for nick-name, funny threat, and boosting. I must say the name fits right into the story where a term as "rock-hard" would have been totally misplaced.
IMO it might be.
The three words are not integrally linked by English and it would have had a wow factor at inception. However I'm not convinced it's overused these days - could it be an archaic cliche? ;)
ETA - thefreedictionary lists 'prim and proper' as an idiom, and as such it shouldn't be considered a cliche. However I'm not convinced - I think most, if not all usages would be literal.
FWIW, clichelist doesn't list it as a cliche: http://www.clichelist.net/cliches-p/
AJ
Is "prim and proper" a cliche?
Ngrams suggests over 50% of the time the word following 'prim and' is 'proper'. That's a cliche!
By that criterion
SB asked a specific question about one example.
I answered his question by providing one relevant fact about that example.
'Criterion' is your word, not mine.
OK, substitute 'By direct analogy' for the quote.
There was a specific question about one expression. I provided one piece of evidence about that expression. SB did what I expected. He added my one piece of evidence to what he already knew and concluded it was a cliche.
There's nothing in what I wrote to suggest I was applying some universal test for all cliches. No such test exists. At best, it's only possible to make subjective, case-by-case judgments.
Throwing your argument back at you, what is your definition of a cliche and what test do you apply to determine if something is one? If you have no answer to that, please stop putting words in my mouth suggesting I believe it has an answer.
please stop putting words in my mouth
Never did. I read your post, thought 'That's a specious argument', generated an example to illustrate this, and posted it. I actually agree that 'prim and proper' can be regarded as a cliché, but contend that it has (just about) achieved sufficient acceptance that it has been absorbed into the general corpus of 'English' as an adjectival phrase.
Under some circumstances (such as above) my favourite game is 'Devil's Advocate', which can be difficult to distinguish from 'Troll' (which this thread subtopic seems to have devolved into, so I'm going to stop feeding).
'That's a specious argument'
It wasn't an 'argument'. A simple question was asked, one which has no provable answer. I replied by stating one fact then adding my conclusion. The questioner agreed with my conclusion and responded with:
Thanks. I thought so. I used it in my first novel and saw it in a story recently.
It wasn't a fucking thesis submitted to you for grading. Go away.
Ngrams suggests over 50% of the time the word following 'prim and' is 'proper'. That's a cliche!
Thanks. I thought so. I used it in my first novel and saw it in a story recently.
