CAN WE GIVE CLICHÉS A BREAK, ALREADY?
Harangues about using cliches are as old as the hills (sorry, I couldn’t resist!). Every primer or book about the basics of writing has a chapter on cliches: what they are, some representative examples, and why they should be avoided. My take on the subject is not so much about presenting that same old wine in new bottles (sorry again!) but rather, to perhaps view cliches from a different perspective, to pose valid questions about why they get so much bad press, and to even let you know about times when it’s okay to use them.
CLICHÉ: WHAT’S IN A WORD?
Okay, if your feelings about etymology are the same as some people’s feelings about entomology, just skip this part. (Some people are repulsed by insects, and others could give a flying fig about the origin of words or expressions; I can totally understand both). But if you’re curious as to how a small, innocent French verb came to be the ancestor of an entire phylum of grammatical concern, keep reading.
The word cliché can be traced to early nineteenth-century France. Cliché is the past participle of the French verb, clicher, meaning “to produce or print in stereotype.” It was printer’s jargon for a method used to print newspapers, one that utilized interlocking plates to form a new plate that would print an entire page at once. The idea of a metal plate from which a design could be reproduced endlessly without variety, gave rise to the notion of mechanical reproduction being a metaphor for a repeated idea. Over the ensuing decades, the extension to a “trite phrase, or worn-out expression” took hold, and by the 1920’s cliché had gained sufficient traction to become a recognized term in English writing.
Given its heritage, the word cliché has always had negative connotations when it comes to writing and communication. The English Language Learner’s definition of “cliché” is 1: a phrase or expression that has been used so often that it is no longer original or interesting; 2: something that is so commonly used in books, stories, etc., that it is no longer effective.
Nowadays, in the most up-to-date interpretation of the word, its meaning has been expanded. In addition to the classical definition that deals with the literal nuts and bolts of words and phrases, it can be used to describe something that occurs repeatedly, producing a feeling of fatigue in those exposed to it. The struggling actor who waits tables to support himself while awaiting his “break” is a cliché. So is the “antihero” cop, who defies his bosses and textbook procedure to get the bad guy his way.
And, in keeping with the modern interpretation of the word, writers are also admonished to avoid so-called “situational cliches,” examples of which might be: starting your story with the main character waking up; having the bad guy that your hero has just killed, suddenly come back to life and ruin the well-deserved celebration your hero was about to enjoy for saving mankind; or having your character live through a harrowing experience, then having him wake up, because it was “just a dream.” It doesn’t take much effort to come up with dozens more. Contemporary literature is neck-deep in them (Oops! Sorry! Are you beginning to see how easy it is to fall prey to using a cliché?)
WHY CLICHÉS?
Writers use clichés almost unconsciously, because they’re easy to use. They’re at hand, convenient, and don’t require much (if any) creative energy to utilize. But therein lies the danger: they got to be convenient and easy-to-use because they’ve been overused to the point where they’re automatic, no-brainer solutions for filling gaps in your narrative.
This degree of overuse renders them functionally weak and lacking in meaning. In other words, ineffective. By using a cliché, a writer or speaker is selling out, in a sense, by resorting to the quickest, easiest way to up his word count, disregarding originality and making it seem like he or she didn’t put much thought into what they were creating. (I might mention here that platitudes and banalities are synonyms for cliches).
In a nutshell (OMG I am sooo sorry, again!): AVOID THEM.
THE DIRTIEST DOZEN: CLICHÉS TO AVOID AT ALL COSTS
Many years ago, the multi-talented writer and editor Brian A. Klems collaborated with a team of editors from Writers Digest to compile a list of the 12 cliches in writing “that need to be permanently retired.” In no particular order, here they are:
Avoid it like the plague
Dead as a doornail
Take the tiger by the tail
Low hanging fruit
If only walls could talk
The pot calling the kettle black
Think outside the box
Thick as thieves
But at the end of the day
Plenty of fish in the sea
Every dog has its day
Like a kid in a candy store
WHO DETERMINES WHAT IS A CLICHÉ AND WHAT ISN’T?
So… when does something become a cliché? That’s a damn good question! Once upon a time, a journalist writing an article on chicken farming for The Agrarian Times, used the metaphor “madder than a wet hen” to describe anger. The expression was novel and innovative, and amongst his readership, was met with smiles of recognition, and praise for having so succinctly captured the essence of what he was trying to convey with a colorful, creative phrase they all could relate to.
Obviously, it resonated with chicken farmers, but would the readers of Quantum Physics Digest have thought it amusing, or clever, or have been able to relate to it? Probably not. Given that, how did such an expression, resonant with only a small fraction of the population, make the crossover to gain enough traction in general writing to not only become widely used, but overused, and thereby attain the status of a cliché?
The point is, when does an expression that is novel and innovative, and captures the essence of metaphor in a new and refreshing way, become a wrinkled, balding, long-in-the-tooth collection of words that serves no purpose any more, and should be rejected and thrown onto the scrapheap of literature?
Further, who, or what entity, determines when an expression becomes a cliché? Is there an International Cliché Committee that conducts a yearly review of popular slang and expressions, and then determines which ones are to be henceforth branded as undesirable?
In researching this article, I was appalled to find that an expression I have always been fond of, “low hanging fruit,” had been voted as one of the 12 most deserving cliches to be permanently retired (see that list elsewhere in this blog). The expression, for me, captures the concept of easily acquired gains so precisely, and in such a visually entertaining way, I couldn’t possibly believe it had been relegated to the garbage pile of hackneyed prose. And yet it was. But who sentenced it to such a fate? A perplexing question, to be sure.
SO, WHEN IS IT OK TO USE A CLICHÉ?
Believe it or not, there are times when it’s okay to use cliches. When, you ask? Well, in a word: dialogue. Yes, that’s correct; unless your character is a professor of English Lit or a lauded writer, it’s okay (and even expected) that they will use cliches in their speech. Characters are people, and it helps to create a touchstone with your readers if they talk like people. And people use cliches in their speech.
Another example of when the use of cliches is okay (or at least tolerated) is in advertising writing, or other easily digested prose, like newsletters, house organs, and any other type of folksy, familiar communication that is meant to appeal to a wide audience. In this type of writing, the aim is not to challenge your readers, but to engage them by using language they are familiar with. I can personally vouch for the difficulty I experienced in transitioning from years as an advertising copywriter, to becoming a writer of fiction struggling to create refreshing and captivating prose. Guys like me always had cliches and hyperbole on tap, and it is a constant challenge learning how to dig the deeper well to get to the sweet and refreshing waters of newness and innovation.
There is another way that cliches get used without (more or less) much recrimination. I like to call this the “softened” or “camouflaged” cliché, where the writer makes use of the cliché’s recognizability but defuses his culpability by cloaking the cliché’s appearance with a no lo contendre stance in presenting it. In other words, you are admitting to the expression’s widespread usage, but defusing any backlash precisely by doing so. This is accomplished by prefacing the cliché with any of the following:
As the saying goes, “a stitch in time saves nine,” and Drummond’s quick thinking averted a sure disaster.
The proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” was about to come from the most unexpected of sources: the children in her class.
As has often been said, “a watched pot never boils,” and Hogan exhausted the full measure of his patience waiting for a nibble on his line.”
Okay, a little underhanded, I must admit, but a camouflaged cliché allows you to slip that puppy in there, more like a wise, objective philosopher rather than a phrase-challenged writer, making your point but sparing you the guilt and stigma of having used the expression unashamedly, bareback naked. Pretty sneaky, huh? But, caveat: don’t use the camo’d cliché approach so often that it, too, becomes a cliche!
So, there you have it: my feelings, good and bad, about using cliches. Final advice? Exercise judgment in using cliches, but realize that there is a time when it’s okay. And then go ahead and use them. ‘Til the cows come home.
PHOTO: Brett Jordan on Unsplash
Copyright © 2021 Raoul Edmund
