Concept: Changing Cliches Just a Drop, in order to Try to Make them Somewhat Unique

Question

If you were an author writing a novel or a magazine article, how would you feel about changing cliches to make them a little bit different and to give them some new flavor? I gave two examples I heard on the radio below.
I don't know Hugo Chavez from Adam's house cat?
Doesn't stand an icecube's chance in Hell.

Usenet · Accepted Answer

[nq:1]If you were an author writing a novel or a magazine article, how would you feel about changing cliches to ... on the radio below. I don't know Hugo Chavez from Adam's house cat? Doesn't stand an icecube's chance in ****.[/nq]
Like in I Got You Babe, Sonny shortened the phrase "don't got a pot to *** in" to, "we don't got a pot." Which made it fresh. This is fine for a song, but what if it were a book?

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]If you were an author writing a novel or a ... Adam's house cat? Doesn't stand an icecube's chance in ****.[/nq]
[nq:1]Like in I Got You Babe, Sonny shortened the phrase "don't got a pot to *** in" to, "we don't got a pot." Which made it fresh. This is fine for a song, but what if it were a book?[/nq]
People frequently mix metaphores, or simply change existing ones a bit. Unique, however, is one word that never accepts a modifier. Something is either unique or it isn't. Things can't be 'really unique', 'rather unique', or 'somewhat unique'.
I'm out of here like a cheap suit, (whatever the **** that means) JOE

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]Unique, however, is one word that never accepts a modifier. Something is either unique or it isn't. Things can't be 'really unique', 'rather unique', or 'somewhat unique'.[/nq]
It is risky to use the word "never" in a discussion of English usage.
I think "almost", or another word or phrase with a similar meaning, can be used with "unique". I would agree that that is used in a context where uniqueness is not being asserted.
I would in principle defend the use of a modifier for "unique".

The usage and meanings of words change over time.
COED:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise oed/unique?view=uk

unique
* adjective

1 being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else.
2 (unique to) belonging or connected to (one particular person,group, or place).

3 remarkable or unusual.

When it is used with the meaning 3 there is (again, in principle) no obstacle to the use of a modifier.
My interpretation of " unique" is that where "unique" is being used with the meaning "unlike anything else" or "different from anything else" the modifier indicates the degree of unlikeness or difference.
Having said that, I have met very few acceptable instances of this use in the wild. Most things described as, for example, "very unique" are either not unique or are so nearly like their nearest comparators that "very" is wildly inappropriate.

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

Usenet · Answer

[nq:1]If you were an author writing a novel or a magazine article, how would you feel about changing cliches to ... on the radio below. I don't know Hugo Chavez from Adam's house cat? Doesn't stand an icecube's chance in ****.[/nq]
There are two other ways that are (IMO) okay to use a cliche in a book or magazine.
1. To leave the last part out. For example, A rose by any othername ...
2. To change the meaning of the cliche.

Usenet · Answer

[nq:2]If you were an author writing a novel or a ... Adam's house cat? Doesn't stand an icecube's chance in ****.[/nq]
[nq:1]There are two other ways that are (IMO) okay to use a cliche in a book or magazine. 1. To leave the last part out. For example, A rose by any other name ... 2. To change the meaning of the cliche.[/nq]
Can we expect another post to this thread from you around 10 September?
That aside, I disagree that changing a cliche improves it. Most of the time, it results in something inane. Most cliches are cliches because they are succinct and flavorful summations of more complicated ideas. To mess with them breaks the link between the cliche and what it summarizes, leaving only a feeble attempt at derivative cleverness. As for leaving the last part out, that works great if you can trust your audience to finish it. Given the educational level of most audiences today, I ordinarily prefer to take no chances. (I make an exception for the English usage groups, which teem with sophisticated native speakers, *** luv'em.)
If you have a cliche that will cover a lot of ground succinctly without eliciting a gag reaction, go for it and use it all. Otherwise, I'd recommend eschewing them as much as possible.

Concept: Changing Cliches Just a Drop, in order to Try to Make them Somewhat Unique

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions