Forum: Author Hangout

My understanding is that a cliche is a metaphor that has been over used

Which is a good indicator it's a damn good metaphor.

Good writers and speakers try to use thoughtful and original language rather than clichés in their work. Synonyms for cliché include platitudes and banalities.

Double poppycock. Whoever wrote that was parroting bubblethink.

As @Switch Blayde indicated, metaphors become cliches because they work and readers have come to expect them. Although it's wrong to overuse cliches, just as it's wrong to overuse just about anything when you'e writing, substituting something pretentious in the guise of being creative hampers the reader and may jerk them out of the story.

'Platitude' and 'banality' might share some of their meaning in common with 'cliche', but they're a long way from being an exact match.

AJ

Good writers and speakers try to use thoughtful and original language rather than clichés in their work. Synonyms for cliché include platitudes and banalities.

Double poppycock. Whoever wrote that was parroting bubblethink.

It sounds like the entire discussion has boiled down to 'why bother', as in 'why bother being creative, when I can simply borrow a common phrase that describes something I can't be bothered describing originally.

But my point wasn't that metaphors were easy to create, but that they mark a higher level of creativity, originality and define an author's voice. If you don't care about any of those, then please, feel free to use every cliche in the book. But some of us still strive for something beyond 'just good enough to slip by unnoticed'.

If you want middling descriptions, then stick with the standard tropes. If you want your writing to shine, then quit looking for the shelter of the crowd (hey, if millions of others use the phase, then it must work, right?).

But, in the end, no one has apparently EVER struggled with creating their own metaphors. Sure, we can all define the term, but if you literally have no experience with wrestling over original creative phrasing, why why are you even venturing an opinion?

I guess, once again, I'll head back over to Quora, where the members may not all know the answers, but they're generally curious and are at least seeking to expand their expertise.

On the other hand, I would suggest that obsessively avoiding cliches is not a major improvement.

Excuse me, but nowhere did I EVER mention any such thing. I was requesting information concerning other authors' personal advice, so--as usual--I'm stunned by the relentless attacks.

If you prefer cliches, then use them as much as you want. I certainly did, and I still do. If, as I admitted, I can only create enough to partially fill a couple chapters, what do you suspect I do?:

Please, stop reading between the lines and taking insult from everything I say. That's not an open discussion, it's a diatribe, pure and simple.

no one has apparently EVER struggled with creating their own metaphors

I have a hard time with metaphors. I use similes most of the time. That's why I asked if you differentiated between them.

no one has apparently EVER struggled with creating their own metaphors

I have a hard time with metaphors. I use similes most of the time. That's why I asked if you differentiated between them.

That you! That's the personal feedback I was looking for. I'll admit, metaphors require a whole new way of looking at things, which is why a beautiful metaphor is something to treasure. I continue to struggle with the difference, but having finally learned to appreciate the difference, I tend to bounce back and forth between continued cliches and clumsy metaphor, hoping to find the correct balance so they'll become a little easier to write.

I have a hard time with metaphors. I use similes most of the time.

You probably use metaphors more than you realise because so many words have additional metaphorical meanings nowadays.

AJ

You probably use metaphors more than you realise

Maybe you're right. I just wrote: "Pearl was a statue."

"Pearl was a statue."

That's what comes from ignoring the 'Beware of the Gorgon' sign at the cave entrance ;-)

AJ

With the first, the things that the MC thinks are important in defining who he is are all still there, but other people haven't been able to see them due to other forces. Take away the thing that's pushing them aside and they will reassert themselves.

To me the second actually implies a significant and permanent change in personality.

Thanks. At last, an original idea, expressed with thought and consideration (rather than knee-jerk 'no one else is' responses).

However, I was merely trying to avoid the equally trite "washed" or "carried away" cliches, so I focused on the aftermath, rather than the preceding incident. But it also shows that a metaphor, even clumsy, badly stated ones, trigger thoughtful consideration and thoughts, which is kinda the point, isn't it?

I can't say for myself how well I've implemented it, but the vividness of my prose writing vastly improved after I started reading poetry by the truckload and started paying attention to how good poets make their language fresh.

I've long stated that I regretted not learning poetry, as poetic authors learn to value every single word, and tend to be write beautifully measure prose that flows across the page.

Unfortunately, you can practically count the number of successful poet/novelists on your hands, so it's not an easy transition. You'll also note that--unlike mine--most successful metaphors fit within existing poetry stanzas, which is why the pacing is so ... magical. It's easier to quote prose than it is a 40-word, convoluted run-on sentence. ;)

I'll admit that I still don't read a lot of actual poetry, though I've actively studied numerous poet/authors to determine (unsuccessfully) how they've made the transition, but so far, I haven't quite mastered the process.

You don't need to aspire to writing poetically to find the tools of poetry useful. In prose, just a little vivid language can go a long way, if it's in service of the telling details.

The morning was crisp and clear as freshly buttered toast.

LOL! I have yet to see a clear toast.
Perhaps, it is better to borrow a good metaphor when it's on the verge of becoming a cliché, rather than creating a hamfisted original one.

For an example of an extended metaphor you will find no better example than the poem 'she being Brand-new' by E. E. Cummings. Masterful!

Alas, I haven't used an extended metaphor for yonks.

For an example of an extended metaphor you will find no better example than the poem 'she being Brand-new' by E. E. Cummings. Masterful!

Excellent! Thanks for the cummings note.

Though often I eschew metaphor, from time to time I make use of them, and once in a while I go overboard. (That's a clichéish metaphor, I know.) The most blatant example is this piece, "Cough," which was designed to be completely metaphor stuffed.

https://storiesonline.net/s/24777/cough

and once in a while I go overboard. (That's a clichéish metaphor, I know.)

Maybe "occasionally I'll dive in, plunging into the rich metaphorical churn, searching for the one which will prove the keeper among all the enticing but unproductive chum"?

Some writers/readers insist that any writing that calls attention to itself is to be avoided. Tell the story as simply and clearly as possible.

That's the safest approach, and it's easy to verify on SOL. Authors who use florid language might get high story scores but they attract relatively few readers.

AJ

The drill sergeant barked his orders.

The drill sergeant grilled his recruits with the buttery attention they need to develop a professional sheen.

Personally, I like complex, thoughtful metaphors (just like my sentences), rather than the one-word variant, which often sounds overused and needlessly repetitive. One needs to carefully weigh when to expand a thought, and when to cut away the unnecessary blubber from their whale sandwiches.

It ruined the book. I think I put "DNF" (Did Not Finish) on it and moved on. The author was just trying too hard and, the worst part was, he was doing it on things that didn't matter! It was (and this is TOTALLY made up), "The smell of the coffee in the lobby assaulted my senses like Seal Team Six breaching Osama's compound." And this would be for a throwaway bit that had no importance to the story, characters, or anything else I cared about. (And, no, I don't know if it was Seal Team Six. Don't care - and apparently neither did the author; if it was "creative," he ran with it (metaphor!)) whether it made sense or not. The non-stop "unique" metaphors just served to take me out of the story.

Metaphors are like (simile) descriptions, too many and they lose all their appeal and simply chum up the works (cliche). The best ones are rare, well placed and wonderfully rich and involved, to be fully appreciated.

As for your 'bizarre emotional reactions', you may be overplaying your hand, just as you were your metaphors. Instead of the bizarre, I personally prefer the rich, varied and conflicting, where the main characters have personality traits which often counter their good traits, but insert enough personality to make them memorably conflicted. After all, no one is either purely good or evil, instead we're each trying to get by, string one moment to the next the best we can.

"His hand flew with the speed of a striking rattlesnake."

It's actually part of a longer sentence. Is that a simile or metaphor?

That's a tricky one, because since the absence of the adjective "like" indicates it's a metaphor, "with" serves the same role as "like", indicating that one thing IS like the other, rather than simply stating the thing itself.

But that's easily resolved by rephrasing it as: "His hand—striking as rapidly as a rattlesnake—stunned everyone." Or stating it more classically "His hand—a striking rattlesnake—stunned everyone."

Again, the main differences between simile and metaphor rely on sentence structure. But, if you're interested, you should investigate Dr. Mardy Grothe's excellent i never metaphor I didn't like. It's part of his three-part investigation into metaphors, oxymorons (Oxymoronica) and one-line zingers (Viva la Repartee).

By reading metaphor after metaphor and comparing them, based upon their roles in their stories, it gives you a much better feel for how to apply them.

P.S. Each of those three books are very humorous, easy to read, enjoyable and educational.

That's a tricky one, because since the absence of the adjective "like" indicates it's a metaphor, "with" serves the same role as "like", indicating that one thing IS like the other, rather than simply stating the thing itself.

That's what I thought. It's a simile because it's comparing the speed of his hand (to grab the forearm to stop the knife being thrust at him) to the speed of a striking rattlesnake even thought there's no "like."

As I previously said, I use similes but rarely metaphors.

"His hand flew with the speed of a striking rattlesnake."

Not my area of expertise but it IMO looks like a straightforward simile because there's nothing unliteral about it.

Unless, of course, the rattlesnake was having a sit-down strike for better pay and shorter hours ;-)

AJ

Not my area of expertise but it IMO looks like a straightforward simile because there's nothing unliteral about it.

As Switch stated earlier, he's more inclined to consider noun-based metaphors (otherwise known as personalized verbs, as they signify the person's intent, rather than describing what they actually did and/or said.

As such, I was trying to paint the main differences between similes and metaphors, which I spent so long studying them, but still snuggle over applying that knowledge. But the clever use of proverbs (religious metaphors) defined Abraham Lincoln, as he studied his entire life and could toss out a proverb for virtually any occasion, often winning an argument, as it took his opponents all day to make any sense of what he was actually saying, at which point they'd already conceded the argument.

But since he's used to one-word metaphors, I was giving him a little more credit for expanding his usage.

How about "His hand a striking rattlesnake" for a metaphorical version?

AJ

I'd probably skip the simile / metaphor completely and go with "His hand striking faster than the eye could track."

It's arguable that's both a metaphor (since it's not literally true) and a cliche ('faster than the eye' has exact matches in 51 SOL stories).

AJ

It's arguable that's both a metaphor (since it's not literally true)

Once again, the power of an original metaphor isn't that it's 'not true'. It's instead that we process the concepts differently. Rather than reading that 'someone was fast', we process that someone's hand isn't actually human, which them forces us to interpret their actions via another mental pathway, which gives it more emotional strength.

But this entire argument is convoluted, since "as fast as a striking snake" has been SO overused, that there's essentially NO surprise left, so the concept is never diverted, and the entire power of the metaphor is lost.

Originality it key here, so a more powerful metaphor would be "His hand striking faster than diarrhea soaking your pants during a business meeting." Since that does force us to process the idea of 'being fast' in an all new way (both emotionally from being embarrassed, but also fearfully from the following ridicule), that statement has the original impact the cliche lost thousands of years ago!

However, to fully appreciate the reason why it's more powerful, require an extensive analysis of the 'rules' of rhetoric, outlined by the Ancient Greeks, and only occasionally 'rediscovered' in modern times. Those rhetorical points are the main reason why Shakespeare is still relevant today. He really didn't have such outstanding story ideas, and his use of English was positively atrocious, but he truly appreciated how to apply those rhetorical devices!

a more powerful metaphor would be "His hand striking faster than diarrhea soaking your pants during a business meeting."

'faster than' surely means it's not a metaphor.

AJ

'faster than' surely means it's not a metaphor.

You're right, but I was trying to present it in an easily grasped way--which is generally contrary to the nature of metaphors. It should have been:

His hand striking him--diarrhea soaking your pants during a business meeting quickly.

It should have been:

His hand striking him--diarrhea soaking your pants during a business meeting quickly.

I think that's a thinly disguised simile, not a metaphor, because of the 'quickly'.

AJ

His hand striking him--diarrhea soaking your pants during a business meeting quickly.

I think that's a thinly disguised simile, not a metaphor, because of the 'quickly'.

It's a simile because the -- is really the word "like".

a more powerful metaphor would be "His hand striking faster than diarrhea soaking your pants during a business meeting."

Better to use a cliche than something like that. Original isn't always better.

The reason for using a metaphor is to invoke a visual image. The speed of someone stopping a hand with a knife coming at him doesn't apply to diarrhea.

I suspect stories about fixed mindset protagonists are few and far between (and dark and dismal).

As you suggest, they're mainly the domain of revenge fantasies, where the protagonist's ONLY motives appears to be payback, even leveraging new girlfriends or even family members in an attempt at payback.

It's not a sizable amount of the SOL stories, but it's apparently a dedicated minority.

But generally, there's aren't many stories which focus on failed relationships which then move on to 'trying again', as those are often restricted to those who are either single, have never had a relationship or who are otherwise 'available' for a relationship (aside from a brief side-diversion of a daughter or two).

I'd probably skip the simile / metaphor completely and go with "His hand striking faster than the eye could track."

There are numerous reasons why metaphors are so powerful, many dating back to the ancient Greek playwrights, but the key is that they do work. So, the one isn't the same as the other. Instead, the linking of two unrelated items triggers something inside the brain—essentially short-circuiting or normal thought processes—that readers find captivating. It's also why referring to 'touching' sounds or 'hearing' colors is such a powerful technique in fiction, but collapses in the video world of film, as they force readers to reevaluate how they normally process information, forcing them to process the information through alternate mental pathways, causing them to take on a heightened meaning and impact.

Of course, that's also the reason why cliches are so problematic, not because they're merely overused, but because, having heard them so often, we've learned to not treat them seriously anymore, so we essentially ignore the original metaphor, and our brains merely process the thoughts the same way they treat everything else (i.e. no diverting images and concepts through alternate pathways).

There are numerous reasons why metaphors are so powerful, many dating back to the ancient Greek playwrights, but the key is that they do work. So, the one isn't the same as the other. Instead, the linking of two unrelated items triggers something inside the brain—essentially short-circuiting or normal thought processes—that readers find captivating. It's also why referring to 'touching' sounds or 'hearing' colors is such a powerful technique in fiction, but collapses in the video world of film, as they force readers to reevaluate how they normally process information, forcing them to process the information through alternate mental pathways, causing them to take on a heightened meaning and impact.

Of course, that's also the reason why cliches are so problematic, not because they're merely overused, but because, having heard them so often, we've learned to not treat them seriously anymore, so we essentially ignore the original metaphor, and our brains merely process the thoughts the same way they treat everything else (i.e. no diverting images and concepts through alternate pathways).

Whether it's embedded in a cliché or not, whether it's part of a metaphor or not, snake works because of the power of the word. It's not just the speed of the strike but the snake-like character of the person doing the striking. I don't think "snake" can be diminished by overuse.

It's not just the speed of the strike

That's probably a good thing. Since rattlesnakes are cold blooded, I'd expect their strikes to be quite slow in low temperatures.

AJ

I don't think "snake" can be diminished by overuse.

I agree, but you don't need to replace 'snake' to reinvent a cliche, you just need a new image. My trying to replace the adjective 'quickly' (in response to a clever quip) was clearly a mistake. Despite investigating the process, I'm still not terribly comfortable with it, which accounts for how rarely I actually employ it.

But consider such cliches as 'snake eyes', 'speaking with a forked tongue', or even 'slithered away', which describe untrustworthiness (implied danger) rather than a direct, immediate danger.

@Mat Twassel
I don't think "snake" can be diminished by overuse.

I agree, but you don't need to replace 'snake' to reinvent a cliche, you just need a new image. My trying to replace the adjective 'quickly' (in response to a clever quip) was clearly a mistake. Despite investigating the process, I'm still not terribly comfortable with it, which accounts for how rarely I actually employ it.

But consider such cliches as 'snake eyes', 'speaking with a forked tongue', or even 'slithered away', which describe untrustworthiness (implied danger) rather than a direct, immediate danger.

Partly it's the word itself. The sound of it. It starts with a hiss. The K conclusion is a sort of penetration, much like fuck. And despite being but one syllable, it has a sleek but discernible curve to it. Streamlined. Potent. And it's also got a subtle fullness, much more so than the similar but by contrast impotent stick.

Partly it's the word itself. The sound of it. It starts with a hiss. The K conclusion is a sort of penetration, much like fuck.

Yet the same attributes don't apply to "snuck" (though, who knows, maybe that's why the word has NEVER been terribly popular). I think I've seen more uses of "sneaked" than "snuck" over the years.

But I've always been fond of "snuck" myself, as the same sinister qualities apply, of someone Sneaking into your room late at night, with hostile or criminal intent. "Sneaked" just doesn't cut it in a mystery or true crime story. There's nothing menacing about someone sneaking into your room at night. More often than not, they're after your diary rather than your jewels or your life.

WWII for reasons unknown

Because US Soldiers aren't known for being grammarians. "I snuck up behind them Germans, so's they didn't know I was there!"

They were QUOTING US soldiers. Also, what part of the US were you in, prior to WWII, so you can state it categorically?

I'm not being an ass here (any more than usual, anyway). I'm saying that in regular, everyday language, people that weren't considered literate would use 'snuck', especially those in rural environments. When I was a kid, no one said, we 'sneaked' out behind the barn to steal a smoke, everyone said we 'snuck' out there. While that was in the early '60's, that's because our parents talked that way, and had since THEY were kids.

Of course, you wouldn't find it in literature, because they WERE grammarians. Once those rural hayseeds went off to war, the press began quoting them exactly and thus, snuck came not from the press itself, but from their quoting soldiers.

I'm not being an ass here (any more than usual, anyway). I'm saying that in regular, everyday language, people that weren't considered literate would use 'snuck', especially those in rural environments.

Like the other claims about it's origins here, there is no reason supporting this supposition. It developed regionally, but that's more likely to tied to other social changes following WW II, rather than simple poverty and/or illiteracy. Suggesting it is, is merely trying to win a discussion by insulting the intelligence of people long dead, who are no able to defend themselves, and represents a low blow in debate techniques.

insulting the intelligence of people long dead, who are not able to defend themselves, and represents a low blow in debate techniques.

Rural folks are some of the most intelligent people I know. I'm descended from them. However, we're definitely NOT grammarians, and are damned proud of it. You're actually conflating poverty and illiteracy with intelligence, which as many a city slicker has found out the hard way, ain't the way country folk work. From where I sit, you're the one slinging insults at their intelligence.

to win a discussion

Oh dear :-(

AJ

I think it's likely that snuck was pushed by the press, because they went to extremes to save column inches and snuck is shorter than sneaked.

I seriously doubt that, as there are many, much longer words, which remain intact. And given the etymology, the construction is logical, is consistent with other irregular past tense verbs, and moreover (concerning it's modern popularity) the implications based on the sound alone (onomatopoeia) easily accounts for why it would gain popularity, especially during a time of great change like WW II.

My guess would be that snuck got introduced by the US press during WWII for reasons unknown.

Curious, I looked up the words etymology. Actually, it was, like many other words, adapted to fit many other existing words (struck vs. strike, dove vs. dive). Despite it's late start, it is now 'very' popular and in common use across America (though it was largely regional when first struck.

As for why it became popular, check the previous discussions (i.e. "snuck" is similar to "snake", with the same implications of danger, untrustworthiness and silent surprise, thus it's a more natural word in many situations).

Beyond that, both forms were derived from the original Germanic (?) "snike", which actually is much closer to "snuck" than "sneaked" is.

As for why it became popular, check the previous discussions (i.e. "snuck" is similar to "snake", with the same implications of danger, untrustworthiness and silent surprise, thus it's a more natural word in many situations).

Beyond that, both forms were derived from the original Germanic (?) "snike", which actually is much closer to "snuck" than "sneaked" is.

Right around the corner: slink, slank, slunk.
Not to be confused with skink, skank, skunk.

Right around the corner: slink, slank, slunk.
Not to be confused with skink, skank, skunk

stink, stank, stunk

AJ

Right around the corner: slink, slank, slunk.

I never heard of "slank." I use "slinked" which comes up often enough in my thrillers.

My guess would be that snuck got introduced by the US press during WWII for reasons unknown.

It came about long before WW2, in the late 1800s. From Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/snuck-or-sneaked-which-is-correct)

The original past tense of sneak was sneaked, following the pattern of other regular verbs. However, in the 19th century snuck started appearing, and is now the more common version for the past tense of "sneak." Most irregular verbs become regular over time, but sneak has become irregular, and no other word like sneak (peek, creak, etc.) follows a similar pattern.

Most irregular verbs become regular over time, but sneak has become irregular, and no other word like sneak (peek, creak, etc.) follows a similar pattern.

Dive/Dove? Drive/Drove? Each of those became the more popular usage around the same time, despite their older histories, which indicates a clear, though infrequent trend--which again strengthens the lyrical role of the word with it's sinister implications being the primary driving force behind it's acceptance.

But thanks for the Merrian-Webster link. I'd seen it when searching for the words etymology yesterday, but had dismissed it after noting how they word was referenced in their normal dictionary definition.

Soon, black railroad tracks ran down her cheeks.

Yuck! Double yuck!

How about:

Black trails of despair rained down her cheeks, carrying her lost desires with them.

It's neither a metaphor or simile, but it gets the message across in a dramatic way.

Technically, a metaphor has to transpose one thing into another, while this simply sidesteps any mention of tears entirely.

So if you have a character if you want to portray as a numbnuts think in a highly original manner possibly using a rich vocabulary? As a reader I would start to think the character was trying to pull something shady and be highly disappointed when they turned out to be just a numbnuts. My point being everything in language has its uses. Use the things that annoy you in a way that makes sense and they will grate on your nerves less. We will not think less of your intelligence or creativity.

Similes, metaphors and cliches, like other tools, all have their roles, but can hardly be used equally everywhere. Like most tools, you won't get far hammering nails with a screwdriver, you pick the right tool for the job, and the right size/design for the particular situation.

Cliches fit nearly everywhere, similes aren't overly particular, but metaphors are difficult enough to come up with, I seriously doubt you'll have enough for every character in your story. At best, unless you've worked with them for years, you'll be lucky to fine a home for one or two, at best.

So save you numbnuts protagonist the angst, but if you've ever read any of the great metaphoric masters, such as Agatha Christie, they typically save them for short rhetorical put-downs, following someone's stupid comment. In that role, they're particular effective, but trying to this of a metaphor for 'I think I'll go take a shit' won't work for anyone.

My point wasn't in listing my top ten annoyances, just that I was having trouble figuring out how to employ them, and was wondering whether anyone else has had any success with the rhetoric devices. What's more, just because I pose a question doesn't mean I think it's obligatory in every SOL story. If it fits, use it, if it doesn't, ignore it and move on to something else.