On Cliche

 

Cliches often annoy me. They spread through the media like viruses. A few that are pandemic currently:

Literally
Not on my bingo card
Obviously
Is no exception
Spoiled for choice
, Indeed.
Again,
To be honest,
I’ve got to be honest
Awesome
So,

The modern style condemns cliché. George Orwell’s first rule for better writing is “Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.”

I generally agree, and watch out for this in my own writing. Surely every journalist is taught not to use them. But these things spread due to laziness and haste. It is always easier to use a canned phrase than one you have invented on your own. And the need for speed in journalism makes them especially tempting.

However, Orwell’s rule can also be misapplied. He is primarily a journalist, and he is thinking of news and opinion writing. Different forms of writing follow different rules.

Fairy tales, for example, are all cliché, all the time. And I love them. The fantasy genre deeply offends me exactly because it tinkers with the conventions, and introduces novelties. Friendly trolls? Misunderstood witches? Balrogs? No, it is essential to fairyland that everything there is eternal, unchanging, and follows strict rules. This is Tir na Nog.

The Western is another such genre. I once compiled for classes the opening scenes of a variety of famous Western films, to make the point. They all began with the vista of a large empty landscape. Then you see a single rider approach a farm or settlement.

And, of course, they all end with that single rider disappearing into the sunset.

Similarly, I once found a very good summary of the necessary elements of the Blues—another such conservative form. As is folk music; full of timeless conventions.

The beauty of these forms is their sense of eternity. Reading them, you are back in the familiar land of your imagination.

Nor is a stock phrase even necessarily a fault in a news story. Orwell’s description fits any idiom, and idioms are a valuable level of language. They make discourse both more colourful and more friendly, as author and reader have a sense of shared knowledge and camaraderie. “He hit that one out of the ballpark.” “Blair was put on his back foot.” They are often bits of preserved wisdom and culture, worth passing on. 

The real problem, and what grates in the examples above, is when a phrase starts being leaned on when it is not appropriate to the message. This degrades the language, our ability to communicate, and the culture.

“Literally” is now almost always used to mean “metaphorically.”

“Not on my bingo card” is now a tiresomely cute way to express surprise. And it does not make sense as an expression of surprise. One is probably more surprised when a number is on one’s bingo card. It would make more sense as an expression of disappointment.

“Obviously,” especially in British English, is generally used when one is about to say something highly debatable. In other words, far from obvious.

“Is no exception” is often used in UK promotional bumpf as well as journalism. It may well be true, but it violates the basic principle of either advertising or news: that you write about the exception, not about what everybody already knows.

“Spoiled for choice” is another dead phrase commonly dropped into advertising copy, or travel writing. “Whether you like X or Y,” “Whether your interests range to V or Z.” are like. These phrases are applied to every destination, every shopping place, and are always more or less true. The immediate message to the reader is actually that this place offers nothing special or unique--only the choices you can get anywhere. Which is the opposite of what they mean to say.

Ending a sentence with “Indeed” is a common British verbal tic. “You are very welcome indeed.” The impression left by that extra word is that the speaker had to think twice about whether the listener really was welcome.

“Again,” to begin a sentence, is almost always used when the speaker has not actually said the thing previously. Or anything much like it.

“To be honest” or “I’ve got to be honest with you” or “To be completely honest” is a red flag that the next thing said will be a lie. If not, it is an open admission that the speaker is usually a lying when he speaks.

“Awesome” is now used as a consolation prize for anything underwhelming.

“So,” is a common verbal tic among press agent types and politicians to preface any response to a question. It implies that what it then said logically follows, and is usually used precisely because the answer they are about to give does not answer the question.

You no doubt have your own list of pet hates.

Is Abortion Justified by the Bible?

 

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 12 “Speak to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, 13 and a man has sex with her, and this is hidden from her husband, and she is defiled but keeps it a secret since there are no witnesses and she was not caught in the act, 14 and if a spirit of jealousy comes upon him, and he is jealous of his wife because she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of her even though she has not defiled herself, 15 then he will take his wife to the priest. He will also bring an offering for her, a tenth of an ephah of barley meal in which he has not poured oil nor put frankincense. This is a jealousy offering.

16 “ ‘The priest will bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 The priest will put some holy water in a clay vessel and he will put some of the dust from the floor of the sanctuary into the water. 18 The priest will have the woman stand before the Lord. He will uncover her hair and he will place the jealousy memorial offering in her hands. The priest will hold the bitter water that brings on a curse in his hands. 19 The priest will have the woman swear an oath saying, “If no other man has slept with you and if you have not gone astray, becoming defiled while married to your husband, then you will be free from the curse that this bitter water causes. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband, becoming defiled, and you have had sex with someone other than your husband,” 21 (at this point the priest will have the woman swear an oath to curse herself, and the priest will say to the woman) “then may the Lord make you a curse and a blight among your people. May the Lord make your loins rot and your womb swell;[d] 22 this water that brings on a curse will descend to your womb causing it to swell and your loins to rot.” The woman will then say, “Amen, amen.” 23 The priest will write these curses in a book and blot them out with the bitter water. 24 He will have the woman drink the bitter water that brings on the curse. The water that brings on the curse will enter her and will become bitter. 25 The priest will then take the jealousy offering out of the woman’s hand and wave the offering before the Lord and offer it upon the altar. 26 The priest will take a handful of the offering as the memorial offering and will burn it upon the altar. After that he will have the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, if she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, the curse in the water will enter her and be bitter and will cause her womb to swell and her loins to rot. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself and she is clean, then she will be unharmed and will conceive children.

29 “ ‘This is the law of jealousy, when a wife goes astray while married to her husband and becomes defiled 30 or when the spirit of jealousy comes upon him and he is jealous of his wife. He will bring his wife before the Lord and the priest will fulfill all the prescriptions of this law upon her. 31 The man will be free from guilt, but the woman will bear her guilt.’ ”

 

I have heard this passage from Numbers 5 quoted more than once as proof that the Bible approves of abortion.

Don’t see it? The phrase translated here as “her loins to rot” is translated in the NIV as “make your womb miscarry.” Although King James has “thy thigh to rot.” A Jewish Torah online has “your thigh to rupture.”

Pro-abortionists who use this passage are relying on those words meaning an abortion. 

This reading is almost certainly wrong. It is not what the words literally say, in the first place. They mean “withered thigh.” If abortion were meant, why wouldn’t the Bible say so? Moreover, if the potion was an abortifacient, it would not serve its purpose. A woman who had been unfaithful had good odds of getting off scot free, when no dead foetus or discharge emerged. Most sexual liasons do not result in pregnancy. 

Obviously, a bit of dust in water is not going to wither your thigh, by any real physical or medicinal properties. No doubt that is why some translators changed it to “miscarry.” But this is knuckleheaded; no bit of dust in water is going to cause a miscarriage either. It only sounds superficially more plausible. 

Rather, this is an example of the old judicial practice of trial by ordeal. It worked reasonably well, and in any case was the best option available when there were no witnesses—just the situation carefully specified here. It depended on the accused believing that the potion and the curse would work. All the judge really needed to do was to watch the reaction of the accused when the trial was proposed. 

If the woman were innocent, and had a clear conscience, she would embrace the chance to prove her innocence, and accept the potion gladly.

If the woman were guilty, she would balk. She would more than likely confess. The penalty for adultery would be the same, whether she underwent it with a withered thigh or swollen belly, or in one piece. Either would make her unappealing to any more men, and if she was an adulteress, she probably put much store in her attractiveness to men.

Even if she did go through with it, her obvious hesitation and signs of fear would tell the tale. Probably at this point the judge would call it off, and pronounce sentence. It is unlikely that any adulteress ever actually went through the ordeal. 

If they did, and were brazen and cold-blooded enough not to flinch, at least the husband was reassured. 

Better ten guilty women go free than one marriage be unjustly terminated.

For the rest of us, it is pretty sinful to twist scripture to justify your sin, guys.

Further Thoughts on the 51st State Thing

 

I have been looking through a picture book inherited from my uncle, on the Irish influence on the American culture.

Reading it, it becomes obvious to me that the American Irish culture is also my culture. I remember reading the “Bringing Up Father” Sunday strip at my grandparents’ house. Only now do I realize that I unconsciously identified Jiggs and Maggie with my grandfather and grandmother. And yes, corned beef and cabbage was a favourite meal growing up. Grandma would sing us to sleep to “Sidewalks of New York.” 

We never did think of ourselves as different. At least not we Irish. We were just Irish who happened to have settled north instead of south of the border. Was it because of some deep loyalty to Britain or the crown? Hardly. It was originally, surely, just from hardscrabble necessity. We all did what we could and made what we could of the chances we had in the places we landed. From our perspective, the border between us was arbitrary. We were one people. Cousin Fergus was doing very well in the States.

Given that Canada and the US have generally accepted immigrants from the same places, is this not probably true of all other ethnic groups? Do Canadian Jews consider themselves a different culture than American Jews? Canadian Italians than American Italians? 

I have a warm attachment to American culture. It is my culture, as it is the culture in which I grew up. Watching Roy Rogers and dreaming of being a cowboy. Reading the adventures of Tom Swift. Watching anything from Disney. Playing baseball into the dusk—did you know that the first baseball game was played in Ontario? We loved anything from England too, but it always came to us as something admired, but exotic. Admired, perhaps, largely for being exotic. We were Americans, and perhaps lower class because of it.

I cannot see a problem with Canada joining the US. Canadian independence has always felt a little forced, like adolescent rebellion. It might be like growing up.