The Cliché-go-round

By -
A good writer avoids clichés whenever possible. The more popular and trendy some phrase or construction fad is, the more it is to be avoided.

But bad writers use clichés more the trendier they are. The reason is that the clichés offer a way to engage the non-discerning reader without doing any work. If you write "How cool is that?" you are instantly "in" with the mindless hordes who have been repeating that phrase themselves since it was first made popular on TV show X.

For instance, Eamonn Brennan, discussing UConn's win over Texas, wrote: "After the win? Not so much."

If you look back at the previous paragraph, "not so much" hardly even makes sense here. He was talking about UConn's performance at Maui being forgotten. Now, after beating Texas, it will be "not so much forgotten"? The mindlessness of clichés nicely illustrated: Brennan was so desperate to drop in the cliché that he couldn't even be bothered to see if it harmonized with what else he was writing.

Comments

  1. PH1:18 PM

    Surely a far worse specimen of clichédom is the proliferation of "doth protest too much." Some of the examples aren't even grammatical. "Rich professors doth protest too much?" That's like saying "Rich professors does protest too much." Ugly stuff.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more