A minor treatise on cliche

How do you decide when to use or not use cliche?

The most important thing to understand is what cliche is: replacement of thought with a shorthand representation of thought.

Technically, I suppose, all writing is just that, but in the case of cliche, it's a bit more insidious. The tendency of many of us is to whip right through the thought and jot it down.

Cliches are shortcuts. Instead of forming the whole thought, we skip right ahead to the description of the thought neatly provided by common words and phrases. This is the antithesis of poetry, where the thought itself is supposed to be examined and presented in a unique way.

So, it is correct to say, 'it's fine to use them with a twist' -- because then what you're doing is taking advantage of the audience's prediliction to jump to conclusions based on cliche, and then leading them down a new path and opening up a new line of thought.

When a cliche merely fits in the line, both literally and metaphorically, it is the sign of a lazy writer.

This, I think, extends beyond just the use of certain 'clicheed phrases' and on to entire poems. It is not enough for a poem to paint a lovely picture of a sunset. We all know that sunsets are lovely, to describe it thusly is neither useful, nor enlightening.

If the writer wishes the writing to be something other than cliche, then the trite subject matter must be approached in a different way. This is the key. So much has been written, that it would seem that there is nothing original left to say, and yet, there is.

A sunset begs so many questions, with so many possible answers, the image only requires that the poet ask a question not normally asked, or answer a normally asked question in a different way.

For example, Why is the sunset beautiful? Commonly, poets attribute this to God. Or not. But perhaps asparagus is a better answer -- the vitamins in asparagus giving the poet better vision, and thus more ability to perceive the subtleties of co! lor otherwise imperceptible.

The image is the same regardless, but the context is changed from the cliche of God's painting to the silliness of the poet's musings. Musings which will lead the audience to wonder about the very nature of their own perceptions, and how physicality affects spirituality. Where the lines blur between mauve and metaphysical, that is where the cliche's are burnt away.

I would offer the idea that a poet should throw away high-style while forming the thought. Clarity is far more important then. Strip down the cliche. Slice out the sesquipedalians. Eliminate the inversions.

Before building the poem, find the core of your point. What are you trying to say? If you are saying the same thing a thousand other people have said a thousand other times, that does not mean it's not worth saying. It means that you have to say it differently.

Cliches are the symptom, not the problem. The problem is lack of thought.

If you have no point, do not write. If your point is ridiculous. If your point is to be silly. If your point is to practice some skill or subset of skills for later works, that is more than good enough. Don't be afraid of the critics. Don't cater to them. Think. Do.

Be.

Do not accept the limits, but understand them. Cliches are only one type of constraint, I can think of several more.

When you know the 'why' it is much easier to decide when to say, 'why not?'