You guys already know the definition of 'newspeak' don't you? Just in case you don't know, it's the term George Orwell created and it means "whose vocabulary gets smaller every year."
In the article (and taken from there), it says the the 20 most annoying book reviewer cliches are as follows:
2. Poignant: if anything at all sad happens in the book, it will be described as poignant
4. Nuanced: in reviewerspeak, this means, "The writing in the book is really great. I just can't come up with the specific words to explain why."
5. Lyrical: see definition of nuanced, above.
6. Tour de force
9. Deceptively simple: as in, "deceptively simple prose"
10. Rollicking: a favorite for reviewers when writing about comedy/adventure books
11. Fully realized
12. At once: as in, "Michael Connelly's The Brass Verdict is at once a compelling mystery and a gripping thriller." See, I just used three of the most annoying clichés without any visible effort. Piece of cake.
14. " X meets X meets X": as in, "Stephen King meets Charles Dickens meets Agatha Christie in this haunting yet rollicking mystery."
16. Sweeping: almost exclusively reserved for books with more than 300 pages
17. That said: as in, "Stephenie Meyer couldn't identify quality writing with a compass and a trained guide; that said, Twilight is a harmless read."
19. Unflinching: used to describe books that have any number of unpleasant occurences -- rape, war, infidelity, death of a child, etc.
Personally, I use these words in my reviews sometimes and don't find anything wrong with them. If these are the words that describe how you feel, then why the heck not use them? But of course, there's a difference between how you feel, and overusing these words. Of course, there's always room to improve your vocab and whatnot, but if you use these words over and over and over again, it can get pretty boring and less meaningful.
So, what's your take on this issue? What do you guys think is the most cliched word used by book reviewers?