The case against clichés :
A cliché is defined as a trite, stereotyped expression that has lost originality and impact by long overuse. Those skilled in the art of writing say you should avoid clichés like the plague. Some go so far as to suggest that clichés are a giveaway of laziness. Are they barking up the wrong tree?
As in any argument a case can be made for and against clichés. To make a case against clichés one has only to question the context of a cliché. Most of the time if clichés are challenged they fall short. Lets examine a few.
How many times has a shivering soul complained that it was colder than a witches tit? Now how cold is a witches tit? I have absolutely no idea. I doubt that anyone has. Have you ever seen a witch? Ugly as sin! Warts all over her. Why would anyone get close enough to feel her tit? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Not even a twenty foot pole.
If colder than a witches tit leaves me shuddering and perplexed, "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey" leaves me disappointed. I was chagrined to discover that the phrase has nothing to do with a monkey's balls but a lot to do with ancient battleships, their cannons and pyramids of cannon balls.
Continuing the case against clichés, just exactly what does “happy as a clam“ mean? I have no idea what a happy clam is like. Immediately I think of clambakes. I can't imagine any clam being happy at the prospect of being tossed into a steamer. Have you ever seen a raw clam smiling? If clams were happy why do they live in a shell? Clams in the final analysis are really not happy and there is no scenario where anyone could be happy as a clam unless they have had several brews at a clam bake.
Then there is the issue of origin. Most of the time there is no clear paper trail to the origin and the result is an expression subject to misinterpretation. I always thought that the ship of state simply referred to the government such as in "Obama takes the helm of the ship of state". I've discovered that in its original meaning the ship of state metaphor is a cautionary tale against rule by anyone other than an enlightened, benevolent monarch-of-sorts . Talk about idealism, where do you find such an individual. No wonder that in its common usage any politician can aspire to be captain of the ship of state no matter how unenlightened or corrupt he is.
Thinking about the ship of state, how does the ship fare when caught up in a storm. They say that to weather a storm, any port will do. The implication is that you shouldn’t be so particular about your options if adversity strikes. Once the emergency is over, decisions can be re-evaluated. I’m sure that these are cliché’s that no one should take seriously, especially the captain of a ship of state. I would think that if you are caught in an emergency you should not put off for tomorrow what you can do today. Applying these clichés to a storm such as the current economic storm will not do. Options are limited and must be chosen carefully. This is where the original meaning of the ship of state metaphor comes into play. Anyone short of an enlightened, benevolent monarch-of-sorts at the helm of the ship could be a disaster. If you believe that every cloud has a silver lining , perhaps Obama may adequately fill the shoes of an enlightened, benevolent monarch-of-sorts . I'm not suggesting King Obama, only Captain Obama.
Someone defending clichés could well ask at this point “where is the relevancy? How did politics get into the act?” If we are discussing clichés does there have to be relevancy? After all that’s the point, clichés! lack relevancy! I rest my case!
In defense of clichés:
If clichés are overworked and overused they can hardly be associated with laziness. With all due respect, the choice of a good cliché requires putting your nose to the grindstone.
A good cliché will paint a picture worth a thousand words. As a matter of fact, however, this should be taken with a grain of salt . Being worth a few drab words is more to the point.
Consider the expression “clear the air”! I’m obviously trying to clear the air about clichés. I could say that I’m trying to eliminate ambiguity or that I’m trying to dispel differences about clichés. More scholarly but dull.
A better example is describing the final days of a mass murderer. Is it more descriptive to say that he is scheduled to be electrocuted or that he will be fried? Actually he couldn’t care less, and would prefer to fly the coop.
How about sacred cow? Isn’t it easier to say that something is a sacred cow rather than something is too highly regarded to be open to criticism? Everyone knows what a sacred cow is , especially Hindus.
If you are being fired, would you rather get the air or be dismissed? In this case dismissed might be preferable. Getting the air sounds like you got the boot. On second thought dismissed does not tell the whole story. Why mince words, if you really screwed up you should face the music and quit before being kicked out.
In making my case for clichés, I cannot ignore the frequently used “busier than a one armed paper hanger “. If you have ever done any paper hanging this cliché merits respect. Consider a not too oft repeated version " busier than a one armed paper hanger with the clap" and you can well picture a completely disorganized person busy but accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Last, but not least consider “ants in his pants”! Isn’t it much more picturesque to use this cliché in describing a restless and nervous individual? At first blush I would say all bets are off if the individual is in a nudist camp!
Ringing down the curtain and without further ado, its best not to beat around the bush . I’ve concluded that the detractors of clichés are all wet and they are making much ado about nothing. If the shoe fits wear it, if a cliché fits use it! If it doesn’t fit, you must quit. ( With apologies to the late defense attorney Johnnie Cochrane).
The jury is still out!
A cliché is defined as a trite, stereotyped expression that has lost originality and impact by long overuse. Those skilled in the art of writing say you should avoid clichés like the plague. Some go so far as to suggest that clichés are a giveaway of laziness. Are they barking up the wrong tree?
As in any argument a case can be made for and against clichés. To make a case against clichés one has only to question the context of a cliché. Most of the time if clichés are challenged they fall short. Lets examine a few.
How many times has a shivering soul complained that it was colder than a witches tit? Now how cold is a witches tit? I have absolutely no idea. I doubt that anyone has. Have you ever seen a witch? Ugly as sin! Warts all over her. Why would anyone get close enough to feel her tit? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. Not even a twenty foot pole.
If colder than a witches tit leaves me shuddering and perplexed, "cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey" leaves me disappointed. I was chagrined to discover that the phrase has nothing to do with a monkey's balls but a lot to do with ancient battleships, their cannons and pyramids of cannon balls.
Continuing the case against clichés, just exactly what does “happy as a clam“ mean? I have no idea what a happy clam is like. Immediately I think of clambakes. I can't imagine any clam being happy at the prospect of being tossed into a steamer. Have you ever seen a raw clam smiling? If clams were happy why do they live in a shell? Clams in the final analysis are really not happy and there is no scenario where anyone could be happy as a clam unless they have had several brews at a clam bake.
Then there is the issue of origin. Most of the time there is no clear paper trail to the origin and the result is an expression subject to misinterpretation. I always thought that the ship of state simply referred to the government such as in "Obama takes the helm of the ship of state". I've discovered that in its original meaning the ship of state metaphor is a cautionary tale against rule by anyone other than an enlightened, benevolent monarch-of-sorts . Talk about idealism, where do you find such an individual. No wonder that in its common usage any politician can aspire to be captain of the ship of state no matter how unenlightened or corrupt he is.
Thinking about the ship of state, how does the ship fare when caught up in a storm. They say that to weather a storm, any port will do. The implication is that you shouldn’t be so particular about your options if adversity strikes. Once the emergency is over, decisions can be re-evaluated. I’m sure that these are cliché’s that no one should take seriously, especially the captain of a ship of state. I would think that if you are caught in an emergency you should not put off for tomorrow what you can do today. Applying these clichés to a storm such as the current economic storm will not do. Options are limited and must be chosen carefully. This is where the original meaning of the ship of state metaphor comes into play. Anyone short of an enlightened, benevolent monarch-of-sorts at the helm of the ship could be a disaster. If you believe that every cloud has a silver lining , perhaps Obama may adequately fill the shoes of an enlightened, benevolent monarch-of-sorts . I'm not suggesting King Obama, only Captain Obama.
Someone defending clichés could well ask at this point “where is the relevancy? How did politics get into the act?” If we are discussing clichés does there have to be relevancy? After all that’s the point, clichés! lack relevancy! I rest my case!
In defense of clichés:
If clichés are overworked and overused they can hardly be associated with laziness. With all due respect, the choice of a good cliché requires putting your nose to the grindstone.
A good cliché will paint a picture worth a thousand words. As a matter of fact, however, this should be taken with a grain of salt . Being worth a few drab words is more to the point.
Consider the expression “clear the air”! I’m obviously trying to clear the air about clichés. I could say that I’m trying to eliminate ambiguity or that I’m trying to dispel differences about clichés. More scholarly but dull.
A better example is describing the final days of a mass murderer. Is it more descriptive to say that he is scheduled to be electrocuted or that he will be fried? Actually he couldn’t care less, and would prefer to fly the coop.
How about sacred cow? Isn’t it easier to say that something is a sacred cow rather than something is too highly regarded to be open to criticism? Everyone knows what a sacred cow is , especially Hindus.
If you are being fired, would you rather get the air or be dismissed? In this case dismissed might be preferable. Getting the air sounds like you got the boot. On second thought dismissed does not tell the whole story. Why mince words, if you really screwed up you should face the music and quit before being kicked out.
In making my case for clichés, I cannot ignore the frequently used “busier than a one armed paper hanger “. If you have ever done any paper hanging this cliché merits respect. Consider a not too oft repeated version " busier than a one armed paper hanger with the clap" and you can well picture a completely disorganized person busy but accomplishing absolutely nothing.
Last, but not least consider “ants in his pants”! Isn’t it much more picturesque to use this cliché in describing a restless and nervous individual? At first blush I would say all bets are off if the individual is in a nudist camp!
Ringing down the curtain and without further ado, its best not to beat around the bush . I’ve concluded that the detractors of clichés are all wet and they are making much ado about nothing. If the shoe fits wear it, if a cliché fits use it! If it doesn’t fit, you must quit. ( With apologies to the late defense attorney Johnnie Cochrane).
The jury is still out!
No comments:
Post a Comment