I really, really dislike clichés. I dislike them a LOT. And it's not just in writing that I dislike them. I hate when I'm talking to someone and suddenly a chain of corporate speak comes out of their mouth. Sometimes, I overhear people on business conference calls on the train and it's ridiculous, between the touching base, the face-to-face, the circling back, and (my favorite) the calenderize-ing.
Yes. Calendarize.
In romance, there isn't so much calendarizing (though I think if anyone did calendarize something, it would be a villain, or someone rather hapless) but there is no shortage of cliche.
Recently I came across “she drew him like a moth to a flame,” and I may have pulled a lateral rectus muscle rolling my eyes. First, moth to a flame? Really? That's the best language we have?
Second, why a moth being drawn to a flame? If we're describing the hero, which we are, that implies he has no choice in the matter and is drawn to the heroine by some instinctive and reflexive attraction that ultimately will be bad for his mortal state (he's going to get burned to a crisp, right? It IS a flame). That language calls to mind the idea that the hero's attraction to the heroine is predetermined (by moth brains, apparently) and he has little power to choose someone or anyone else, while she has to accept that predetermined attraction as well – and also try not to burn his short hairs, what with all the flaming. Moveover, as the Phrase Finder says, being the moth hero (note: this is not a request for shifter moths, please) means that the hero is a moth, and “moth was used the the 17th century to mean someone who was apt to be tempted by something that would lead to their downfall.”
OMG. FLAMING VAGINA DENTATA people. Watch out! Oh, those pesky heroines with their powerful female wiles, attracting men so they might destroy them.
Sigh.
And third, moths aren't actually attracted to the flame, as some scientists on NPR explained. They're confused by it.
They're trying to either hide from predators that come out at daybreak, or trying to use the moon as navigation and end up distracted by all our porch lights – similar, as the NPR host says, to beach turtles who look for the moon to head back to sea, and head for your patio instead.
So if you unpack that moth/flame cliche, the hero is irrevocably attracted to the heroine, she's dangerous and will contribute to his downfall, AND she's a false signal, a modern, technological replacement for the natural light of the moon. The figure posing as the flame, so often the heroine when this cliche is employed, is in reality a false heroine, and, if used correctly, the language would probably indicate that the temptress is about to be revealed and circumnavigated by the hero due to the stronger, more natural and wholesome pull of the real heroine's full moon.
Heh.
I find cliches so tiresome because they are lazy, and sometimes, when you examine them closely, the words don't do what the writer thought they were trying to do. The cliche might end up undermining the original intention, which was to say that the hero was powerfully attracted to the heroine, perhaps despite his own intentions. You'd think I'd love that, since I'm a known fan of 'I don't want to like you, I don't want to like you, I can't stop thinking about your hair, DAMMIT' conflict. But I am not drawn to cliches like a moth to a flame. If anything, I'm repelled by them, like a wise insect from the bug zapper.
What cliches do you hate? Which phrases do you wish you didn't see in romances so often?
Thanks Jami – you’re right. There is an infinite variety of sexual impulses and responses and I should never assume that my likes or dislikes are universal.
I remain opposed to any mention of wombs during intercourse scenes.
Thinking back many years ago, when one of my English classes covered Shakespeare, our teacher told us that the/thou was the correct singular form (to speak to thee, Matt; what troubles thou, Lindsey?) , and you was used for two conditions: 1) plural (a group of people are you) or 2) the monarch (and the monarch’s spouse, who equally held the power to make the life of that person who annoyed them either very miserable or over).
The class was told that gradually ‘you’ expanded from being used for royalty (that is why royalty speaks with the Royal We – they are symbolically not just theirself, but also speaking for their entire country (a definite plural!) to include the nobility and then eventually everyone along with the gradual increase of rights for non-royalty in general – well, sooner than other rights. After all, permitting others to use the plural for each other was so much simpler than letting them have equal protections, or a say in their future, or an education.
Is that true? I don’t know. But I can say that it both stuck in my head and made the whole thee/thou/thine thing that I kept seeing in Shakespeare, Canterbury, and the King James translation of the Bible make so much more sense.
Mention of the singular/plural you’s also came up in Spanish class, because Spanish still has singular and plural forms of you. Of course, that mention was left to ‘this one would be used for you-the-class, this one would be used for singular-you-I-just-met, and this one would be used for singular-you-my-friend. Most of the class thought the whole singular AND plural forms of you was just not fair.
Down with tautology! Viva la revolucion!
No problem, Kinsey. Just didn’t want to see you hating yourself for writing something that some woman said “OH MY GOD THAT IS SO HOT!” Well, maybe not that loudly but still….
Yeah, the womb thing I don’t get. I remember in human sexuality class we had a former male porn star come to talk to us and he revealed that a lot of female porn stars refuse to do Ron Jeremy movies not because he’s fat, but because his penis is so long it hits the cervix and it hurts and they can’t deal with the pain.
So why would any romance novel heroine want a guy in her womb? Especially when you have those ones who are virgins and the author’s describing the first time.
I started a new book this evening: The Vampire Shrink by Lynda Hilburn. I read the post about cliches this morning and just had to share.
The opening sentence of the book:
“My involvement with vampires began innocently enough, long before the blood hit the fan, so to speak.”
And a couple of pages later:
She “is definately wearing rose-colored – I mean blood-colored – glasses.”
Really?! And I’ve only read the first chapter. I just might have to make a list!
I think my least favorite cliches are those involving brand names. Like “he had Abercrombie & Fitch looks” and the like. Drives me nuts! (But I still let my authors keep them if they really believe in it.)
Adam, I really dislike that, too. What if I don’t like that style or brand? I think of A&F and think headache because the store smells so strongly of cologne. I also dislike it when authors name a specific actor to describe a hero’s looks. What if a reader dislikes that actor, or what if they name someone who later goes absolutely barking mad and uses racial slurs during an arrest while a camera is rolling? Oy.
I’ve recently gotten annoyed at the cliche “to the hilt”—as if a penis were a sword.
I have a thing about “roaring”. Judith McNaught is famous for it. Her heroes are constantly roaring with laughter, roaring their release, or roaring in anger. It makes me chuckle every single time I read it. RAWR!!
Cliches don’t usually bug me unless they are reused in the same book. Twice is too much and three times is tiresome. But a cliche can be an effective, if also easy, way to communicate information. Personally, I liked the part of the month-to-flame analogy that said the hero will actually be dangerous to her. I mean, often it is true in the books, that the hero is her downfall, of a sort, or at least she thinks he will be, thus making the analogy appropriate. Of course, if you get particular with it, you see that moths are confused and moreover, moths are stupid, but I’m thinking any analogy falls apart if you look at it from every angle. My 2 cents.
In sexual situations: “She drew him in [further, etc.]” usually without shifting position at all. Is her vagina made by Hoover? Maybe it’s just that I instantly flash to those stage shows where the ladies pick things up with a straw, but that is so not a pretty notion.
It could be worse. I remember one novel by Eric van Lustbader where “With one smooth motion, he hilted her.” I don’t think you’d even describe an actual sword that way….
A good compromise for sex-scene cliches that I’ve read is to make it obvious that it isn’t what’s literally happening, but it just feels that way to the characters in their current state of mind.
Oh I get tired of the way true love automatically equals mindblowing sex every. single. time. It’ could be a great story, then they’re having sex and suddenly all the cliches come out- the stars behind the eyes, melding into each other, thinking that they’ve never felt that good until that moment and no one else will ever compare… it gets ridiculous.
” a masculine-feminine love soup.” I love it! I give you a big Amen. 🙂 And did you ever notice this cliche springs up when the male is oh so very alpha (Navy Seal/Army Ranger/Viking warrior)?
“A target rich environment to effect change?”
Coming from a military perspective, ‘target-rich environment’ is milspeak for “lots and lots of enemies”. The “change” you effect in a ‘target-rich environment’ involves killing people and breaking things (aka “blowing shit up”). So your boss was talking about having lots of people to kill? Gee, I hope he was talking about playing a video game…
I loved Kindred Hearts!
HEA
I just got through a uni course where the prof basically spoke in mish-mashed psychology/sociology jargon for 90 minutes straight, twice a week. My friend and I were convinced he was just throwing words together.
“Today… we are going to examine… the framework of contextual bidirectionality through the lens of a bidirectional context…”
I just read a medieval ebook where “his gaze finds mine, focusing on me like a raptor fixed on its doomed prey.” Had to leave a comment about that since most dinosaur bones were not officially named/discovered until may hundreds of years after the time period of book, ie 1800s -ish. (Before then they were thought to be bones of mythical creatures such as dragons or griffins). There was no time travel in the book either, so no excuse for the heroine to know about something that had no label/name/existence in her time period.
A raptor is a bird of prey, like a hawk or a falcon. She’s not talking about dinosaurs.
I sometimes wonder how or between HER “shuddering at his touch” and HIM “seeing stars from her (innocent, virginal, something) kisses” they get any sexytimes at all. What with her having a fit and his optical ditriment.