Bitchin' Blog Posts
Cliches: I Do Not Think They Mean What Moths Think They Mean
by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | December 12, 2011 | Monday at 12:26 am | 101 Comments
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?
Filed: General Bitching, Ranty McRant
Tagged: wtfery, make the burning stop, cliche
snarkhunter said on 12.12.11 at 08:35 AM • [link]
Any comparison between a vagina and a glove. Or a fist. Just…no.
Gillybags said on 12.12.11 at 08:40 AM • [link]
One that really annoys me is ‘at the end of the day’ don’t know why but it just make me wince!
BethR said on 12.12.11 at 08:46 AM • [link]
The cliche I hate most is more of a phrase, but I dislike it because so many people get it wrong, adding insult to injury (see, I used a cliche right there!). Anyway, it’s “couldn’t care less”. When I see or hear it as “could care less” you might as well be driving hot nails into my eyes because it annoys me no end. If you are going to be lazy and use an overused expression, at the very least, get it right.
Taylor Reynolds said on 12.12.11 at 08:57 AM • [link]
“It is what it is.” HATE that damn phrase. HATE. Of course it is what it is, if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be! ARGH!
Lisa J said on 12.12.11 at 09:10 AM • [link]
I had a boss who used to tell us every day we were in a target rich environment to effect change. Any time I hear that phrase I want to vomit.
Darlene Marshall said on 12.12.11 at 09:31 AM • [link]
I’m likely guilty of the “moth to the flame” use because one of my favorite poems is the lesson of the moth[cq]by the great Don Marquis in his collection archy & mehitabel:
but at the same time i wish
there was something i wanted
as badly as he wanted to fry himself
I think that’s a theme that resonates with romance readers and writers.
SB Sarah said on 12.12.11 at 09:41 AM • [link]
YES. I HATE THAT PHRASE. It makes me insane. I visibly twitch when people say it.
SB Sarah said on 12.12.11 at 09:42 AM • [link]
“A target rich environment to effect change?”
That sounds like a locality with a LOT of Target stores to choose from. Let’s see, there’s the Super Target, the Target Greatland, the regular Target, the Target with the food court… which one should I visit to break this dollar into quarters?
Patricia M. said on 12.12.11 at 09:48 AM • [link]
If you would like to read a lovely send up of corporate speak, read Elizabeth Bevarly’s My Man Pendleton. There is a scene where the hero ruthlessly uses corporate speak and random intials (refering to federal agencies, other organizations) to cover the fact that he was not paying attention in a business meeting. The book is from 1998 so the catch phrases are a bit different but it is still fun.
Asia Morela said on 12.12.11 at 09:48 AM • [link]
I think the first time when I saw that metaphor used was in Dickens’ Great Expectations, in which Estella is indeed as dangerous as a flame for all the men who are attracted to her (because she will not love them back, but instead probably break their heart and so on).
Cliche phrases… “Their gazes locked”. In the last romance I read, there was even something like “their gazes locked as if with a pad and a key” and I went, what?! That was pushing the metaphor a little far, LOL.
Riwally said on 12.12.11 at 09:50 AM • [link]
Not so much of a cliche, but a “catch phrase” which using that terminology is like fingernails across a blackboard (OMG!, a cliche), but I HATE with a purple passion (someone stop me!) is something my boss uses ALL the time which is FYI. Makes me want to kick her ass up between her shoulder blades (I’m a runaway train!). Sigh.
Terry Odell said on 12.12.11 at 09:53 AM • [link]
I’ll forgive cliches in dialogue if characters would be likely to speak that way. And didn’t one high school student grumble about having to read Shakespeare because “his stuff is nothing but cliches”. (Probably an urban legend by now). My recent pet peeve was the phrase “one off” simply because it suddenly appeared, and then appeared again. And again. And again. It was like someone hit me on the head every time I read it.
Terry
cleo said on 12.12.11 at 10:11 AM • [link]
Connie Willis did something similar in Bellweather - also from the 90s (I think). The whole book is a send up of fads, corporate and otherwise, and she plays with corporate buzz phrases.
Guest said on 12.12.11 at 10:13 AM • [link]
Some time ago a friend was reading a medieval romance and in it one character tells another “grow where you’re planted”. Several years later, she still practically froths at the mouth over it.
Redheadedgirl said on 12.12.11 at 10:18 AM • [link]
There’s a point where all the heroines with a “mouth just a touch too wide” get super annoying. Especially speaking as someone with a clinically small mouth.
Jazz Let said on 12.12.11 at 10:23 AM • [link]
archy & mehitabel LOVE!
Tabs said on 12.12.11 at 10:28 AM • [link]
This discussion is making me think of the great Springsteen song that’s pretty much just Bruce singing one cliche after another for 2 minutes. Yet, somehow I love it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Joanne said on 12.12.11 at 10:30 AM • [link]
I hate when people say “same difference.” Ugh!
Most annoying romance novel cliche: During sexytimes, “She no longer knew where she ended and he began.” The “he” and “she” are interchangeable. That irks me no end, and I’ve read it in several books recently. What, did they have some kind of creepy Star Trek transporter accident? Get careless with a soldering iron or super glue maybe? So annoying!
Darlene Marshall said on 12.12.11 at 10:44 AM • [link]
Don Marquis is one of my favorite poets of the 20th century, and I love the books with the George Herriman illustrations. He too was a fascinating character, an African-American cartoonist most famous for “Krazy Kat” comics.
dick said on 12.12.11 at 10:44 AM • [link]
When used in situations right for them, cliches express “what oft was thought but ne’er so well expressed” to cite Alexander Pope. I doubt anybody misunderstood what the author was implying with the moth’s attraction to the flame. A lot of the phrases in romance fiction, it seems to me, are jargon, oft-repeated shortcuts—those such as he moved like a large cat; he rode as if part of the horse; he was unusually graceful for such a large man, etc., etc., etc.
Jim L said on 12.12.11 at 10:57 AM • [link]
Two I’ve seen countless variants of:
For the heroine: “She had never felt anything like this before.” You’re in love, we get it, you’re far from the first and it always feels like that.
For the hero: “He forgot every other woman he’d ever been with before [insert name here].” Ah yes, how noble of you to reduce every non-heroine romance you’ve ever had to as disposable and forgettable. T’riffic.
Darlynne said on 12.12.11 at 10:59 AM • [link]
Deer in the headlights. Really? That’s the best you could do to indicate that someone has frozen in action, is startled or has just seen their mother-in-law come down the stairs naked?
Gennita Low said on 12.12.11 at 11:01 AM • [link]
“At the end of the day.” I hate it muchly. Because usually the person uttering that phrase will utter it another half a dozen times the next ten minutes.
Wasn’t there a romance novel titled The Moth and The Flame? :)
Rowan Speedwell said on 12.12.11 at 11:08 AM • [link]
If there isn’t, there should be. Made up entirely of cliches. I wonder if anyone would notice!
Lynn Soderstrom said on 12.12.11 at 11:17 AM • [link]
First, great post. It has me thinking of the possibilities behind the real meaning of the moth/flame relationship.
Not a cliché, but what is it about the word inexorable that almost every romance I read uses it or its adverbial partner, inexorably, at least once and always describing an action of the hero or the heroine’s reaction to him? I guess it makes her a more succinct moth to his flame. I see it often enough, I’m beginning to wonder if it isn’t the secret word to get you into a particular branch of the writer’s clubhouse.
Cherry said on 12.12.11 at 11:31 AM • [link]
Mine were already named. “It is what it is.” Oh my GOD. Of COURSE it is what it is; WTF else would it be?
And the “where he ended and she began” thing is in SO many books. I facepalm whenever I see it. Let’s retire that already.
Flo_over said on 12.12.11 at 11:42 AM • [link]
You know… the whole moth to flame does work if you look at it more like a trope of change. The hero, having encountered the heroine and being “drawn” to her WILL have his old life essentially dragged down. If he was a rake he’ll be less rakish. If he was a staid, proper gentleman he might be more inclined to cuss and act out. However you write it or think it life as the hero knows it is going to most certainly change. Is that flattering to the heroine? No. But it’s one way to look at it.
Many cliches are also altered by the passage of time. The etymology of words changes as we alter the words (helloooo adding internet slang to the dictionary anyone?) so the cliches, while still vaguely useful, alter their true meaning. Moth to flame reminds our current population of possible bug zapper sounds. Back then it was considered downfall. Either way it’s not flattering to the heroine. Which, frankly, I’m OK with. I get annoyed when the heroes all deal well with their lifestyle changes. I get annoyed when heroines do it too. Marriage, and romance even, is work. Even in romance land dangit!
Mimi said on 12.12.11 at 11:47 AM • [link]
One thing I disliked about the trashy romance genre was the coercion involved. There were times when I wanted to grab the bitch and say “WAKE UP! That wall your banging your head against, it’s called reality.”
So really, the cliches aren’t even the worst of it.
cbackson said on 12.12.11 at 11:48 AM • [link]
I am a business lawyer, so I live and breath corporatespeak, unfortunately: “the optics on this are bad”; “we should foreground this”; “telecon”, etc.
Redheadedgirl said on 12.12.11 at 12:07 PM • [link]
“Foreground”? What does that even MEAN?
Kelly said on 12.12.11 at 12:09 PM • [link]
I think the only option is to read the entire book and rewrite it, chapter by chapter, with all the unpacked hidden meaning. I mean, this blog post alone confirms that it’s not a romance movie, but a horror/morality play, where the hero will be undone by his confusion for the false, and dangerous, woman masquerading as the heroine. (I’m gonna be stranded with my family for a week in PDX for Christmas - gimme the title and I’ll do it!)
Melissa S. said on 12.12.11 at 12:12 PM • [link]
I’m tired of seeing large black untamable horses named Demon, Balthasar, Lucifer, Devil. I know it’s a throw away detail (or sloppy metaphor to taming the beast), but it’s like naming a dog spot…old.
Zee said on 12.12.11 at 12:58 PM • [link]
For English class I once read an Annie Dillard essay (or excerpt) about reading by candle-light outside, and a moth crashing into the candle and then acting as a second wick. Gorgeous language, and the comparison between the burning moth and the poet… man. The cliche just doesn’t do that.
For me, it’s the (already-mentioned) comparison of the hero to a great cat of some sort, and also that his muscles are like steel.
Kate Pearce said on 12.12.11 at 01:03 PM • [link]
I don’t get the American compulsion to turn things into verbs-he ‘medaled’, ‘he summitted’ why why?
and ‘be that as it may’ drives me nuts as well-what does that actually mean?
PamG said on 12.12.11 at 01:18 PM • [link]
Sexual clichés would be the easy target until they become the butt of our humor. (yuk yuk yuk) Only thing worse is writing that gives metaphor a hernia from straining so hard to avoid cliché. Though that too is good for a laugh.
However, what I really hate in all writing are those words or phrases that are first tortured out of all recognition, and then hammered into cliché with overuse. Examples: facilitate, utilize, impacted, and my latest most hated, relatable. Boring and unfunny.
Donna said on 12.12.11 at 01:21 PM • [link]
Oh, the tragedy that is Coitus Onset Alzheimer’s.
garlicknitter said on 12.12.11 at 01:34 PM • [link]
Ooh, not just large black untamable horses—large black untamable *stallions*. Because real men don’t ride mares and certainly don’t riding geldings. That might be catching.
Also, heavy horses (draft horses or knights’ chargers) with “hooves the size of dinner plates.” I live with draft horses. I’ve been good friends with Clydesdales, Shires, Belgians, and Percherons. The largest had hooves the size of salad plates, not dinner plates. Most had hooves a bit smaller than salad plates.
Sarah Hurt said on 12.12.11 at 01:41 PM • [link]
‘Welcome aboard’. Aboard what? The second floor?
Miss Green Eyes said on 12.12.11 at 02:01 PM • [link]
Every single time I see the phrase “he looked at her, and her insides unravelled” - I think of a huge pile of intestines being stretched. Not exactly the effect the author had in mind, I suspect.
The other one that really, really irks me (and I’ve come across this a few times, possibly the same author) is the phrase “he looked like he should have been dipped in bronze.” Oh f*ck off, he’s gorgeous, we get it… referring to the male parts as “his arousal” gets on my wick too. Ha! Wick… I’ll get my coat…
cbackson said on 12.12.11 at 02:03 PM • [link]
To present something to others as the most important issue. It’s stupid, though - why not just say “we should make it clear that this is the most important factor”? Perfectly clear, and avoids the verbification of a perfectly nice noun.
The Romance Slut said on 12.12.11 at 02:09 PM • [link]
“Curvy”. I hate that word, and it appears in every flippin’ romance I read now, regardless of sub-genre. Do they mean fat, or do they mean normal/thin with big tits and a pneumatic butt?
In any case it always seems to me that the heroines referred to as “curvy” end up barely filling a B cup…
joanne said on 12.12.11 at 02:26 PM • [link]
I’m in the middle of the 12th book in a mystery series by Deborah Crombie. I would have passed right by - and totally forgiven & forgotten - the phrase ‘moth to a flame’ if not for your post this morning. Ack.
Since there are more books to come in the series I’m blaming you Sarah instead of the author.
Now I feel better.
@Darlynne: Deer in the headlights. LOL! Much worse then the moth.
Olivia Waite said on 12.12.11 at 03:46 PM • [link]
If we’re starting a clubhouse for the Inexorables, I call dibs on the tower windowseat and the chenille throw. That may be my favorite romance-novel word of all time, despite it’s admitted frequency.
Olivia Waite said on 12.12.11 at 04:05 PM • [link]
There is a great passage at the beginning of Dickens’ Christmas Carol where the narrator says Marley was dead as a door-nail—and then goes on a tangent asking why door-nails are deader than, say, coffin-nails. Then he gives in and says quite ironically that it must be true if people keep saying it, because “the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile.” So sneaky, the knife in that sentence!
This kind of thing is why I feel the Muppet version of A Christmas Carol was the most accurate possible adaptation.
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.12.11 at 04:12 PM • [link]
Oh I hate that too! As a fat woman if I’m reading about a character that’s suppose to be overweight I’d actually like to see the word “fat” used! Not curvy, diva, goddess, etc. Just plain old every day fat. I don’t like it when people call me the other names.
And yes on the B-cup crap too. B-cup does not “curvy” make. Call me when she’s at least a D cup. Or a triple-D like poor old aching me!
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.12.11 at 04:15 PM • [link]
Perhaps Dickens didn’t do his research? The “door nail” is the flat metal part of a door knocker. (Don’t ask me why it’s called that.) Because the knocker part hits that flat part, it’s “dead” because it’s been hit so darn much.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 12.12.11 at 04:15 PM • [link]
the phrase that i hate is “teachable moment”. It is used way too often in places it isn’t needed. I saw it on television the other day and I couldn’t believe that some writer somewhere thought it was a good idea to include it in the script.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 12.12.11 at 04:21 PM • [link]
I think I read that in high school! It just weirded me out, though, despite the language.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 12.12.11 at 04:23 PM • [link]
it sounds like they want to bring something to the front i.e. make it the focal point, but it just sounds so odd.
Darlynne said on 12.12.11 at 04:39 PM • [link]
This isn’t a cliche, it is more often spoken than read, but hey, that won’t stop me from ranting about my all-time-hated word and what’s Monday for if not ranting? I mean, have you seen the lines at the post office today?
“Guys,” as in “you guys.”
I realize we English speakers struggle with the absence of an acceptable plural form of “you,” and that when addressing a table of customers, a group of people or the room at large, we fumble for something more all-encompassing than “you.” Sadly, while every other language in the world appears to offer the necessary conversational tools for these situations, we are stuck with “you.”
I am here to declaim that “you guys” is not now nor will it ever be the plural of “you.” That “you,” all by itself, works in both singular and plural address. There is no need for more, there is nothing wrong with asking, “Can I get you anything else?” or “Are you ready to order?” to any size group or gathering; everyone knows they are included in the question. Exceptions may be made for regional variations of “y’all” and “all y’all,” but that’s it.
This little space right here? This is my “you guys”-free zone.
Kim said on 12.12.11 at 04:45 PM • [link]
I was watching a television show and one of the characters kept saying “AKA” over and over. She had for or five in a row. It was embarrassing and I just wanted her to shut up aka close her trap.
kinseyholley said on 12.12.11 at 04:45 PM • [link]
My corporate-speak pet peeve is “reach out.” “Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.” “I’ll reach out to you in a couple of weeks…” It’s a combination of therapy-speak and corporate-speak and it just grates.
I don’t mind cliches so much if they aren’t overused. If they’re popping up on every page, it’s usually an indication that it’s a badly written book and so I wouldn’t be finishing it anyway. My big hangup is what I call the narrative tic - if an author uses the same phrasing or the same rhetorical device over and over. The most recent example I can think of is the last BDB book before last - John Matthew’s book. All her characters’ internal monologues are becoming indistinguishable, and they all started with “And wasn’t it just like ____ to ____” or “And wouldn’t you know it, no matter how….” or “And didn’t it just figure that so and so would so and so.” Drove me nucking futs. (Didn’t make me stop reading, because I’m an addict.)
I’m probably guilty of cliched phrasing but my bigger weakness is an overuse of certain words. My SIL complained that in one of my books, every character called every other character “baby” every other page and damn, she was right.
Janine Allen said on 12.12.11 at 05:29 PM • [link]
I had a boss once who used to ask me if I had any “bandwidth,” meaning time to get something accomplished. Every time I would answer, “No, I don’t. I’m not a computer.” Good thing he had a sense of humor.
Kirsten said on 12.12.11 at 06:12 PM • [link]
That is one of my favorite books by her. I read it aloud to my husband and all we have to do even now, 12 years later, is mention the name of the book, and we start laughing.
Miranda Neville said on 12.12.11 at 06:35 PM • [link]
I can no longer stand “lave”, a word I’ve only ever seen in romances. Real People Don’t Lave. On the other hand, I quite enjoy it when it’s misused at lathe. “He lathed her nipple.” Ouch.
it's Ebony McKenna said on 12.12.11 at 06:38 PM • [link]
A cliche I hate in films is the clumsy/klutzy heroine.
It’s supposed to be movie shorthand for ‘adorable’ but it makes me want to throw things at the screen and send an angry email to the director.
ehem.
As opposed to a whole phrase or cliche, the word I keep seeing - which makes me stop reading for a moment and wonder ‘did they really need that there’ is ‘literally’.
It feels as if the author isn’t sure she’s made her point, so she’ll have a sentence like ‘she fell at his feet’ and then throw in ‘literally.’
arrrghghghghghggh!
DreadPirateRachel said on 12.12.11 at 06:46 PM • [link]
Add me to the list of “It is what it is” haters. I hear that, and it makes my eye twitch. It is the epitome of meaninglessness. Why not just say, “It exists.” It means the same thing!
Stef said on 12.12.11 at 07:14 PM • [link]
The most annoying cliche to me is not so much a phrase as a descriptive device. I am so tired of heroes with muscles of steel or heroes without “an ounce of fat” anywhere on their bodies. Why can’t there be some lean, normal-sized heroes for once? Or at least a better way to describe his physical perfection.
Also, clumsy heroines (as mentioned by Ebony McKenna). That was/is one of the annoying things about the Pink Carnation series, Eloise is such a klutz/directionally challenged I have no idea how she functions in life. Most women do not grab a glass of champagne and then instantly spill it all over themselves like a fool in front of a crush. Capable heroines are so much cooler and identifiable than extremely klutzy ones (at least to me).
Lastly, inexorable is in a lot of romance novels, haha. I am going to notice it all the time now.
cleo said on 12.12.11 at 07:16 PM • [link]
I’m not sure this is a cliche, but last night I read about a couple “swirling into the same vortex of wanting” and it made me laugh so hard my husband asked me to read it out loud. The rest of the book was quite good - but that vortex of wanting swirled me right out of the story.
I’m sure I’ve read other swirling, stormy, eye of the hurricane, vortex-y type descriptions of lust. Not sure it’s common enough to be a cliche, but it’s a weird metaphor (and it always whooshes me out of the story, with gale force winds).
JuJuBee said on 12.12.11 at 07:21 PM • [link]
Toujours gai, Darlene, toujours gai!
Lynnd said on 12.12.11 at 07:44 PM • [link]
The corporate-speak terms that annoy me the most are “dialoguing” and “utilizing”. What the heck is wrong with just talking and using?
As for romance cliches, it’s the heroes who are named Demon, Lucifer etc. that annoy me.
Emily said on 12.12.11 at 07:59 PM • [link]
None of these cliches particularly bother me, but I enjoy reading the rants. Physical clutziness doesn’t bother me, mainly because I have known a lot of clutzy people. I also enjoy many of the cliches.
Also “it is what it is” is not the same as “it exists” at least not to me. An Example is: Let’s say you’re turning a paper to a teacher or a professor. You see a small typo but decide you don’t have time to fix it and you hand it in. “It is what it is.” It nots saying the paper exists: it saying the paper exists in this form (usually imperfect) as opposed to a perfected form which could also exist. Its way of acknowledging things could have turned out better but now you’re going to move on and accept the thing it whatever form its in. Anyway the cliche doesn’t bother me particularly. I think its a way of accepting the little things that go wrong which some people have harder time with than others.
Anyway I can’t think of any verbal cliches that annoy me. Grammar yes, cliches no. Maybe plot cliches, (like my brother fights for my honor)?
The Romance Slut said on 12.12.11 at 08:15 PM • [link]
Oooh, I’ve never going to read the nipple suckin’ bits without wincing now..
Darlene Marshall said on 12.12.11 at 08:24 PM • [link]
If it was a good enough motto for Mehitabel, it’s good enough for us!
Ezreader said on 12.12.11 at 09:25 PM • [link]
I really hate the phrase a certain author uses in every book: “she was so beautiful it hurt to look at her”. Gawd!!!!! I want to gouge my eyes out when I see it. A close second is the sexytimes love noises which the heroine hears and is startled to realize its coming from herself. GIVE ME A BREAK. No real woman would ever do that. Sheesh! Too many authors are guilty of that one.
Redheadedgirl said on 12.12.11 at 09:33 PM • [link]
You guys, Google Ads is asking me if I would like to look at some wood lathes. NO I WOULD NOT.
Melissa Bradley said on 12.12.11 at 09:35 PM • [link]
I hate “she was female to his male…” Then carry on with how perfectly the hero and heroine fit together because she is so soft and he is so hard. I gag every time I see this phrase in a romance
kinseyholley said on 12.12.11 at 09:48 PM • [link]
“I realize we English speakers struggle with the absence of an acceptable plural form of “you”...
Hence the word y’all. It always bugs me when non-Southern types ridicule “y’all” as a hick word, but it perfectly addresses the second person plural problem. What bugs me even more is when a character in a book or movie addresses a single person as y’all. It may have been used in the second person singular in the past but I really don’t think anyone uses it that way today.
lathed vs. lave…ay yi yi.
Rei said on 12.12.11 at 10:17 PM • [link]
THANK YOU. I absolutely hate it. Yeah, okay, we get it, he’s a dude and she’s a lady (I almost typed those the other way around, which I’m actually pretty sure would make for an interesting romance) - STOP. Stop beating us over the head with it. I want to know why they’re attracted to one another as people, not because he’s so manly and she’s so womanly and they need to come together in a glorious union - a melding, one might say, of yin and yang - a masculine-feminine love soup. Yeesh.
persnickety said on 12.12.11 at 10:31 PM • [link]
I’ve been having a Mary Balogh re-reading fest for the last few days so “her(or his) laughed at him(her)” is starting to grate.
on the plural you- I believe that you used to be the plural/formal one and thee/thou was the more informal singular in English (yes, we really had one and we jettisoned it). I struggle to reconcile this with the many religious references, as would one really address one’s god informally? Or maybe it is meant to imply singularity. Too much french and spanish at the wrong age, clearly. Or english used the plural and singular you’s in a mnner completely differnent to the oher latinate languages.
What irks me is the use of “you” in a procedure where it should be a pronoun to symbolise the protagonist, but english no longer has an appropriate common usage one. One is only allowed to use one if one sounds appropriately posh british. Otherwise it just sounds wanky.
Unimaginative said on 12.12.11 at 10:54 PM • [link]
“He shut her up by the simple expedient of kissing her”, or something to that effect. Kissing is always a simple expedient. Bleh.
PamG said on 12.12.11 at 11:41 PM • [link]
“It is what it is” annoys me not because it is a cliche, or a pointless variant on “it exists,” but rather because of the way I’ve heard it used. One could address oneself thus in order to express one’s acceptance of Things As They Are, but I’ve usually heard it used to address others and shut them down. It comes across as a veiled way of telling someone to quit whining and of minimizing another person’s problems.
And another thing…. When did problems become such a dirty word that all we have are issues and concerns?
Oh yeah, one more…. “Branding” makes me want to hurl. Heat up them irons, boys; my ass needs a corporate logo.
Joanna S. said on 12.13.11 at 01:41 AM • [link]
I agree with Snarkhunter about having vagina-as-fist icks. I mean, really, my vagina does not “grip,” nor does it curl its fingers towards its palm, cock (heh.) its arm back, and deliver an well deserved right cross to the hero’s jaw. My vagina can do many things (even for love!), but it can’t do that.
kkw said on 12.13.11 at 01:59 PM • [link]
Flaubert’s dictionary of received ideas is hilarious, but it sometimes also makes me sad because all the same cliches are still being used well over a hundred years later.
Lave bothers me because if he’s cleaning her, well, that strongly implies she’s dirty. Not like sexy kinky dirty, but lacking in hygiene.
Which reminds me: nauseous. Fortunately this rarely comes up (sorry) in romance novels, but this used to mean something that makes you want to throw up, and I know that it’s now considered synonymous with nauseated but I still really dislike being asked if I’m nauseous.
I wonder at what point we will just give up and declare that literally now means figuratively.
It’s the inaccuracy that irritates me, not the lack of originality, with the whole moth/ flame issue. I’ll take a familiar metaphor over a jarringly bad one any day. Quivering like blanc-mange, or any similarly gelatinous variant, is better than that whole shimmying like two armadillos doing a slow dance under a silk scarf bit.
SB Sarah said on 12.13.11 at 03:26 PM • [link]
There is nothing better than two armadillos doing a slow dance, or just doing the dance as old as time. You know, while you dialogue.
Wren Andre said on 12.13.11 at 03:32 PM • [link]
In business I vomit to the sounds of “cutting edge” and “think outside of the box”. They are most definitely not cutting edge anymore, and they make me want to crawl back into the box. In romance, overly abundant references to heat, burning, flame, etc, in reference to passion. I’m sure one can’t get away from them 100%, but limiting it would make the writing seem less lazy!
Lisa Anesthesia said on 12.13.11 at 04:22 PM • [link]
As an artists I would rather be blind for the rest of my life than hear, ” The duality-of-man. ” used in any fashion ever again.
kinseyholley said on 12.13.11 at 09:11 PM • [link]
Ok, I thought of a sex scene cliche that I hate: the tweaking of the nipples. Nipple tweaking is painful. Every time a guy has tried to tweak my nipples, he got slapped because that shit hurts. Do I use my teeth on your johnson? No. So don’t twist my nipples, dumbass.
[Scurries off to see if she ever used nipple tweaking in her own books.]
[Son of a bitch. I did. “slowly circling, tweaking and teasing.” I hate myself right now.]
And I confess to feeling some sympathy for authors who fall back on cliches, and it’s not just because I know I’ve done it myself. It’s because we don’t want our narrative to be flat, just “he went here and did that” and “He was very hot. Like, really, really hot.” Myself, I can write dialog till the cows come home - I love writing dialogue and it comes easily to me - in fact, I think up my stories in terms of dialogue. Narrative is just the boring bits I have to stick in between the dialogue to show what’s happening, and sometimes in striving to make it lively, interesting, snappy, descriptive, I find myself falling back on cliches without even really realizing it. And also, if you’ve been reading romance for 30 years, you’ve internalized a lot of it, and by now some of those cliches are like technical specifications. I know, this sounds like an excuse, and it is. But it’s also a reason.
Sigh. Now I have to go see if I’ve ever described a vagina in terms of how well it accommodated a dick. I tell you one thing - no womb has ever clinched, nor been poked or bumped or rubbed, in any of my sex scenes.
Sybylla said on 12.13.11 at 09:25 PM • [link]
One of my romance-novel peeves is “male nipples” or even “flat male nipples.” There are a couple of current authors who seem to use those descriptions in every single book they write, and I chuff with exasperation every time I read them. You know what? We’re mammals. We’ve *all* got nipples. I’m not going to suddenly get confused about the hero’s gender (or wonder if he’s going to start lactating) if you eliminate the adjective.
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.13.11 at 10:05 PM • [link]
Don’t worry too much about the tweaking nipples in your own books, Kinsey. Some women like having their nipples tweaked to varying degrees. I assure you, some woman read that part and got really hot just on the thought of getting tweaked.
kinseyholley said on 12.13.11 at 10:17 PM • [link]
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.
Lu said on 12.13.11 at 10:47 PM • [link]
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.
Kelda said on 12.13.11 at 11:00 PM • [link]
Down with tautology! Viva la revolucion!
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.13.11 at 11:14 PM • [link]
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.
Sherdnerd said on 12.13.11 at 11:27 PM • [link]
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!
Adam Wilson said on 12.14.11 at 08:07 AM • [link]
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.)
SB Sarah said on 12.14.11 at 08:23 AM • [link]
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.
Eleanordew said on 12.14.11 at 10:35 AM • [link]
I’ve recently gotten annoyed at the cliche “to the hilt”—as if a penis were a sword.
KatiD said on 12.14.11 at 10:52 AM • [link]
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!!
Amber Skye said on 12.14.11 at 03:08 PM • [link]
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.
Rebecca Kovar said on 12.14.11 at 04:40 PM • [link]
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.
Elemental said on 12.14.11 at 05:05 PM • [link]
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.
C? said on 12.14.11 at 05:23 PM • [link]
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.
Melissa Bradley said on 12.15.11 at 03:04 AM • [link]
” 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)?
Dragoness Eclectic said on 12.15.11 at 01:57 PM • [link]
“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…
Kimberly said on 12.15.11 at 04:46 PM • [link]
I loved Kindred Hearts!
VirginiaLlorca said on 12.15.11 at 05:43 PM • [link]
HEA
Jen said on 12.17.11 at 11:39 PM • [link]
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…”
Mucklepuppy said on 12.19.11 at 04:29 AM • [link]
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.
Redheadedgirl said on 12.19.11 at 09:03 AM • [link]
A raptor is a bird of prey, like a hawk or a falcon. She’s not talking about dinosaurs.
Jennifer Gardner said on 12.29.11 at 11:38 AM • [link]
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.
Care to comment?
Comments are now closed for this post.
Subscribe to These Comments