10 Modern Clichés to Avoid or Stop 'Thinking Outside the Box!'

 I recently spent some time cat sitting for a friend. In the process, I managed to get in a few hours of television watching, something that takes up very limited amount of time in my home. After messing around with the remote for a while, I discovered many shows and people I had never heard of before. Now ordinarily, this would not bother me ... but it did make me realize that cutting the cable and relying on just two networks (one of which is public television), I was getting close to the morass of ignorance with regard to what is going on in the world beneath the heavy veil of politics.

Not only did I discover a whole world of reality personalities, cooking celebrities, and detailed forensic methods for murdering women, I discovered also that either the writers or the unscripted dialogs have created a new wave of clichés or there is very little creative effort by media.

I call this phenomenon "modern clichés" because while the combination of words has not been around as long as the true cliché, the rampant overuse leads me to believe I can call them clichés.

In just a week, I heard these worn phrases while surfing various channels and shows.

• Think outside the box. Really? How many times have you used this?
• Kick it up a notch. Now this one was used six times on six different cooking related shows.
• You know what I'm saying? This is kind of like adding "you know" to your statements.
• I'm just saying. (Don't we know what you are saying; after all, you just said it.)
• I mean. (Have you noticed how many speakers answer questions by using these two words to preface their responses?)
• It is what it is. Ah, this needs no further discussion.
• To be honest ... (Oh, so otherwise what you have to say is dishonest?)
• I cannot even ... (I cannot even think of what this means!)
• That's a game changer.
• That's my final answer. (Is that show still on TV?)

Now, the 2nd Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) has 21,728 pages in 20 volumes. I have no idea how many words that equals but I would wager it is at least 13,000,000. Not surprisingly, English-speaking Americans use only (an estimated) 3,000 of 20 volumes of words.

I realize that broadcast media has to get a message across quickly, but I wonder if they assume the public will not be able to understand what they are trying to convey if they use more than the 3,000 words.

Surely with this many words available to us, we could cease employing these "clichés" and become more descriptive.

Do we really need editors? Do we really need proofreaders?

Do we really need editors? Do we really need proofreaderes?

Before anyone comes after me with hammers raised, I'll answer the questions.

Yes. We need both. But, life might be a tad easier for these experts if we had more a more effective education system. After all, look at the picture below. It's a sign that's been posted all over the complex where I live.

Almost makes you want to through (sic) up, doesn't it?

Now either someone was in a hurry to get that sign off the computer, off the printer and onto the local sign posting areas or they weren't paying attention in English class. I don't know who made the sign but if it's the person I think was responsible then I believe that person was just in a hurry and didn't proofread it before sending it to the printer.

Using proper grammar and spelling presents a problem for many people, even those of us who make a living in the writing trade. I recall writing an article I prepared about something I was very familiar with, and the final product was perfect -- almost.

When it came to the closing "For further information, call ...."

Being a creature of habit, I listed a toll free number starting with 1-800. Unfortunately, the number was supposed to start 1-888. I was embarrassed. The head of the company I was writing about was angry. And the company to whom the 800 number belonged tracked the magazine down to find out why he was getting so many calls for something that had nothing to do with his business.

Oh, my proofreader apologized, but nobody outside of the magazine staff cared. The magazine and the writer were to blame.

Unfortunately, I make mistakes, mainly because I write fast, and because I am often satisfied with my first draft. My grammar is better than average but I still goof up at times. My spelling is much better than average but I am grateful for spell check. I paid attention in all 12 years of high school English.

Still, I'd be overjoyed to have a full-time proofreader as a roommate.

Search engine optimazation and the writer

In my last post I ranted and raved a bit about my disappointment with the way websites required writers to write to a certain formula – specifically one that used target words that would draw searchers to the article.

Shortly after, while checking out my twitter page, I noticed a reference to some software that writers can use to turn one article into a half dozen different versions of itself. I guess it could be considered cloning? I guess I could be old fashioned but the very thought of this takes me back to high school and using the Cliff Notes or Classic Comics to avoid the real work of reading,

The idea behind the software is that it will save the writer tons of time in the originality seeking department while providing different ways to extract saleable material from a single article. The purpose is kind of wonky, if you ask me, because instead of requiring that a person write solid, well-researched, informative content, the software agrees that the real reason to have articles published on the web – beyond the monetary reimbursement – is to provide a website with search engine optimized verbiage.

All this certainly flies in the face of the rules George Orwell wrote should be followed by every writer.

(Image via Wikipedia)They are:
• Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
• Never use a long word where a short one will do.
• If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
• Never use the passive where you can use the active.
• Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
• Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

To read Orwell’s entire essay, check out Politics and the English Language.

Six phrases a writer should NEVER use

Why would you say something that’s “needless to say?”

Every time I see these words as they introduce a statement, I’m tempted to skip anything that follows them.

After all, if something is “needless to say,” why say it?
Do we really need to write “for example?”

Admittedly, I do it all the time. I know if my words are clear, concise and comprehensive, I don’t need to tell someone I’m citing an example.
I guess the usage goes back to my high school English teacher who insisted we use examples in all our writing. I vow to stop using these two words together again.

Do you really mean you “could care less?”

If I hear this phrase one more time, I might slap myself on the forehead. If I see it on a blog or in an article again, I will definitely respond.

Think about how the phrase breaks down. If you COULD care less then you must care.
Here’s one I find strange: “Let me state …”

No! I’ve already allowed you to state numerous things. Why do I have to give you permission now?

Who’s saying (writing) it anyway? “If it were me” (also known as “If it was me”) I already know it is you.

Finally, this one bothers me: “Plan on.” From what I know about the English language, “on” needs some kind of contact. You can put your plan on something but you plan to do something.

Redundancy lives. It breathes – in books, articles, blogs, columns, practically anywhere a writer writes. We’re probably all guilty. I know I am. At least, though, I won’t uses these six demons again.

Five items or less?

Ah the perils of the nitpicking editor and the careless writer whose fingers trip across the keyboard faster than his brain can correct.
Kudos to Stephen Fry’s Kinetic Typography - Language video.

When did a pronoun become a noun?

Super Bowl weekend wasn’t about football for me. It was about getting away from the laptop, the plots and characters in my head, and the chilly high desert weather.

Southern California beckoned.

I answered.

I won’t go into the details of the trip except where it concerns the writer side of me … and that side was totally confused.

I was staying with friends, a lovely couple raising three grandchildren. Grandma volunteers at the elementary school once a week. On an uncharacteristically rainy day, she sat with the teacher to discuss an in-class assignment.

Students had been given a paragraph and asked to find ten nouns. Grandma read the paragraph but could find a mere seven … and she’s well-versed in the English language. So she asked the teacher what she was missing.

To her surprise, the teacher pointed to two words – we and I.

“Those are pronouns!” she exclaimed.

The reply? “Yes, but we teach them as nouns.”

A heated discussion produced no results. As far as the teacher was concerned, we and I are nouns!


With no little frustration, Grandma relinquished that part of the argument and asked about the tenth noun.

“Bike,” the teacher pointed out in a sentence that read, “We bike to the park.”

“But in this sentence bike is a verb.”

“Yes,” came the explanation, “but the children recognize bike as a noun.”

This is an accurate account of the event that makes me wonder … a lot.