Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34676
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/34676
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

## "Avoid Clichés" is a guideline, not a rule

It would be a mistake to understand that any use of any cliché is "wrong," as you humorously do in your question.

Clichés have certain problems (and certain strengths); understand what they are, and you'll better understand what the guideline is aiming at, and why it's good advice _as a rule of thumb_, even if there's no reason to follow it 100% (nor is it really possible to do so).

## Clichés have less impact

Consider the difference between **including a cliché in your writing** vs. **expecting a cliché to feel meaningful.**

For example, consider the difference between:

- 

> "That guy was mad as a hornet."

- 

> "That guy was as mad a tiger with its tail in a trap."

Purely in terms of what's being described, I'd say a hornet is at least as vivid as the tiger. Probably even better, because honestly, an angry hornet is a simple and very vivid image.

But since the cliché is so familiar, the reader won't be imagining a hornet; won't be receiving any vivid imagery. He'll know that "mad as a hornet" just translates as "really mad."

**This is not necessarily a problem.** Maybe "really mad" is all you're trying to say. Maybe you're not _aiming_ for vivid imagery here.

But, _if_ you were relying on "mad as a hornet" as being a more interesting, way to say "really mad," as being more descriptive and vivid and impactful -- it isn't going to do that job. Don't expect it to.

## Clichés often come at the expense of more precise writing

Consider the difference between:

- 

> "Bob started cursing me out in Russian. I don't actually Russian, but it was pretty unambiguous, plus he was yelling at the top of his lungs.

- 

> "Bob growled and punched the wall. Once, twice, three times."

- 

> "Bob had been complaining to me about plot holes in the new _Transformers_ movies for the last three hours, without as much as a bathroom break."

- 

> "Bob was mad as a hornet."

"Bob was mad as a hornet" might legitimately describe each of these, but that would lost a ton of information. Being "mad," and even "mad as a hornet," is a generic, abstract thing -- any cliché is; anything too specific can't become that hyper-popular, always-handy go-to phrase.

So a major problem is using a cliché _instead_ of actually portraying the important part of the scene.

Again: **not always a problem.**"Bob was mad as a hornet about the new _Transformers_ movie, complaining about it for hours and hours" doesn't suffer from this problem (although: once you've explained _how_ Bob is mad, is the "mad as a hornet" really still necessary?). And you don't want to portray every single thing in great detail; sometimes clichés are excellent precisely _because_ you don't want them to occupy to much space or attention.

But a big reason to worry about _overuse_ of clichés, is that if you're using them a _lot_, it's probably as a cover for _not_ coming up with something more precise, something specific to this particular story. If you _keep_ using clichés for emphasis and/or shorthand, over and over, ask yourself why you _need_ to, and if that kind of emphasis and shorthand is really one you want so frequently.

* * *

**The above points are as true for plot and character as they are for phrasing.**

Avoiding clichés doesn't mean you can't have a swashbuckling rogue, or a boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl plot, etc. etc. What it _does_ mean is that you can't just rely on _"OMG will he get the girl?"_ to capture and sustain the reader's interest; or hope that readers will fall in love with your character if they're a cookie-cutter clone of a dozen others.

Maybe what _happens_ to the rogue is what's interesting in this story. Maybe the _relationship_ in this boy-meets-girl story is what makes it powerful. Maybe the dialogue is fantastic and memorable, even if the plot has been done a million times before. All fine.

Original score: 3