# H



## Corvid (May 15, 2014)

...


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

It really is just subjective, and in particular I'm a little perplexed as to how you've managed to lose the verb "to be" without some very strange phrasing.

I'm wary of too many semi-colons; in many cases the writer probably needed to use two sentences instead.

But I've gone to town with pet peeves on my own work in the past when editing, so I think the instinct is normal enough. But save your drafts in case you decide you've thrown out the baby with the bathwater later...


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

You can tell when people go overboard with this. It's called Creative Writing 101.

Tortured prose, weird sentences. Every sentence starting with the subject. Every place where "that" should be, there isn't a word. It's absolutely fecking annoying and reads like hell.

Just write it as it comes naturally, and then cut about 50% of those words. No more. Please.

Oh yeah, there is only one thing worse than a piece of fiction in which the word was is used twice in every sentence: one in which it isn't used at all.


----------



## alawston (Jun 3, 2012)

Yeah, I think I was really wondering WHY cutting out "to be" was such a priority. But hey, it's your book.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Wait. I'm now pretty sure this thread is a joke.


----------



## AlexBrantham (Feb 27, 2014)

I think all writers probably suffer from "weak" words that they tend to overuse. In my case "some" (and its variants) is at the top of the list!

I now have a list of such words, and one task early in the editing process is just to use Word's Find function to go through from beginning to end, for each word in the list, looking to see if I can eliminate any. That doesn't mean eliminating all of them, but doing it like this (one word at a time) means that I can get a sense of whether I'm using one too often - for example, if a target word turns up 5 times in one chapter and then not at all in the next ten, I've probably gone wrong.

If you're worried about weak words then I can highly recommend "Pro Writing Aid" which will highlight, in pretty colours, words it thinks you are overusing. There is a free version which is good, and the paid version isn't expensive. Both versions do a lot of other things as well!

Having said that, once I've cut back on all the "bad" words I usually find myself, in a later edit, putting some of them back because they're needed to make the language flow properly (like the missing "that"s referred to earlier).


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

kward said:


> *Anyone else out there cutting these words and then some? What's your opinion?*


IMO, adverbs and the verb "to be" aren't weak words. They can sometimes be symptomatic of weak story or weak writing, however.


----------



## Daizie (Mar 27, 2013)

kward said:


> I have been editing my WIP, and in the interest of strengthening the writing I've been cutting out the dead freight - or what I perceive to be dead freight. Thus far I've cleaved the following words from my story:
> 
> *is, am, are, was, were, got, went, things, used to, stuff, very, all, every*
> 
> ...


I go by meter (narrative has a musical quality to it), voice (especially in First), clarity for the reader, and more to determine what my sentences need, not what other writers say I need or don't need. You are going scalpel-crazy. If you tell a good story, readers won't notice that you relied on 'was' too much. You don't have to strip out every Be-verb or adverb or 'that'. Why other writers mention these itches is typically not because they're bad in all uses, but because new writers tend to go for the easiest way to say something. You can often stretch a little for more vivid verbs instead of relying on a Be-verb or there's already an attribute action that conveys "said quietly". I, personally, like to work in punchier verbs if I can because I am visual, but don't force it. Sometimes, a 'was' fits fine and works best. I made the mistake of of listening to too many critique partners early on, and it stripped out my voice. If that happens or your prose sounds choppy and reads colorless, you've definitely gone too far.


----------



## Annette_g (Nov 27, 2012)

How can anyone write a story that doesn't use any of the 'to be' words? I'd be tearing my hair out. How could you say something like "the bedroom was dark" without using 'was' in there? LOL!


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2014)

The whole advice about never using forms of "to be" or adverbs or the word "suddenly" is nonsense. All these words are in the language for a reason: they convey something not conveyed when they are absent.

Sure, you can overuse a particular technique. It's a great idea to go through your work and see how you can tighten it. But it's counterproductive to follow "always" and "never" advice. As previous posters have said, it can leave you with contorted or lifeless wording.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

kward said:


> Please don't sugar-coat it - tell me how you really feel.
> 
> Thank you for replying, I am interested in hearing other ideas.
> 
> ...


Since you're a Hemingway fan, have you tried running it through the Hemingway app? http://www.hemingwayapp.com I have not used this, but other people seem to like it.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Annette_g said:


> How can anyone write a story that doesn't use any of the 'to be' words? I'd be tearing my hair out. How could you say something like "the bedroom was dark" without using 'was' in there? LOL!


"Darkness prevailed in the bedroom." [sarcasm on]And that's a really superior way to say it, isn't it?[/sarcasm off]


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

"To be" verbs are _required_ for progressive tenses, which is a completely different thing from passive voice. Passive voice itself has uses and significance that active voice can't mimic well. For instance, passive voice is useful for hiding or denying guilt. It's the difference between "The cat was killed" and "I killed the cat".

"To be" verbs can also be linking verbs, which are yet again something different from passive voice.

Adverbs, like "to be" verbs, have their uses, too. That part of speech exists for a reason. "He said softly" conveys something different from "He whispered," "He murmured," or "He said."

Then there's the detail that people talk with weasel words and imprecise ones all the time. If you've cut them all out, your dialogue's probably ended up sounding stilted.

The problem comes in overuse and misuse of words (or any particular writing technique). "Suddenly" can be conveyed in sentence and paragraph structure, so it often isn't needed--but there are situations in writing where it can be needed, either for meaning or for cadence. For instance, sentence fragments are fine, but overuse sounds choppy and misuse produces misplaced modifiers.


----------



## Lady Runa (May 27, 2012)

Patty Jansen said:


> Every place where "that" should be, there isn't a word. It's absolutely fecking annoying and reads like hell.
> 
> Oh yeah, there is only one thing worse than a piece of fiction in which the word was is used twice in every sentence: one in which it isn't used at all.


Big sigh of relief. I'm known for my aversion to "that" and "was". Then my editor comes and puts them back in.


----------



## darkline (Mar 30, 2014)

It all depends on the writing style and intimacy of POV. It depends on how far inside the head of the narrating character the reader will be taken. Normal people use "to be" a lot  when they talk. If we have a constant running monologue of every thought that passes through the narrator's head, you have to stay realistic and true to the character. And unless your character is someone like Spock, I expect a lot of "weak words." So it depends on the writing style, the character and the story.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2014)

vmblack said:


> Wait. I'm now pretty sure this thread is a joke.


I sure hope so...


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Personally, I think it's a fallacy that was/were are "bad" words (they are also NOT indicative of passive voice, by the way...or not always), and I definitely think it's wrong that all adverbs are bad.

Clean your work up by cutting out parts of the STORY that don't need to be there. Or rather, I should say, cut out scenes that don't bear directly on the story. I'd also recommend that you keep careful track of words you use too often. They are probably not these relatively innocuous words that you already removed. For example, I have a tendency to rely too much on "little" and "haze" in my writing. Though often, instead of removing these words, you just need to replace them with something less repetitive.

Adhering to some silly writer's mantra of words you should never use is not the way to spruce up a manuscript.

ETA: To clarify my point a bit, when I am self-editing I don't focus on specific kinds of words (to-be verbs, adverbs, etc.) I focus on how each sentence sounds. I am aiming for a particular melodic flow of words, and something that feels good as it rolls around the brain...not for avoiding specific word types. Yes, often a sentence that sounds bad has some clunk word in there. But to-be verbs don't automatically make a sentence sound bad. I find that the flow of a sentence has much more to do with the vowel sounds in words, and how closely spaced (or how distantly spaced) consonant sounds are. So maybe you should give it a shot for a chapter or two, focusing on sound instead of mechanics. If you have a hard time accurately "hearing" the sound of your own words just by reading through them, try reading aloud and repeating the sentence a time or two. If it feels like it has some flow to it, leave it alone. If it's difficult to speak easily (wrong consonant sounds next to each other, too many similar vowel sounds tripping up the tongue, etc.) substitute some synonyms here and there and try it again.


----------



## John Ellsworth (Jun 1, 2014)

Which do I prefer:  "It was stormy outside."  OR
                            "Outside the wind howled and the rain pelted down."

Believe it or not, my answer is "it depends."

And for me it depends on the texture of the story at that particular point.  For example I might ask myself, Is it important for the reader what the weather was outside?  Is it important to the story?  Or is simply telling the reader "It was stormy" enough?  Perhaps because I don't want additional detail load in the reader's mind because my point is something other than the weather outside.

Write loads.  Write a lot.  It will become second nature to you, this decision.

Thanks.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Isn't this supposed to be a joke? I assumed so when I read it. Or is this really what people do? I didn't go to riting Skool, I realize. I use adverbs when they need to be there, sometimes something "is," and lots of my books have prologues. Oh, and everything is "a bit" or "pretty" something, because that's how Kiwis talk.


----------



## Joe_Nobody (Oct 23, 2012)

I appreciate anyone trying to improve their skill and raise the quality of their craft. That being said, I think it's really easy to take some of the "writing rules" and go overboard. In reality, there are no rules, only suggestions or guidelines. Too much of anything is bad.

Readability to the average customer is the key from my POV. Mark Twain once said, "My books are like water, those of the great geniuses are wine. Fortunately, everybody drinks water."

So my books are water. Shrug. I'm cool with that.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Your book now sounds boring and hard to read with all the semi colons.  To cut more fat remove all the articles.  ( a, an and the).


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> Your book now sounds boring and hard to read with all the semi colons. To cut more fat remove all the articles. ( a, an and the).


Feh, lightweight. Remove all verbs period, I say! Those pesky A, E, I, O, and U's are always getting in the way.

ETA: Vowels, not verbs!  Argh!


----------



## Daniel Dennis (Mar 3, 2014)

I worried about this with my first book. I went through and tried to find ways of running statistics to see what words were used most and how frequently. In the end I put it down for about two weeks and came back and read it cover to cover in about a week's time carefully looking at every sentence for readability while also bearing in mind sentences that were also within the last paragraph or so. The finished product reads well (I think) and includes the words you're looking at cutting out. If all those words you're concerned about are the little things *necessary* to tell the story properly, what's the harm in keeping them if they aren't making it more difficult to read?


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

Grayson Morris said:


> The whole advice about never using forms of "to be" or adverbs or the word "suddenly" is nonsense. All these words are in the language for a reason: they convey something not conveyed when they are absent.


I strongly agree with this. I don't understand why so many writers are opposed to adverbs. Sometimes a verb needs to be modified. If you're relying on them excessively and they make your sentences read awkwardly then you've got a problem, but I don't think "She placed her glasses down with care" is any better as a sentence than "She placed her glasses down carefully."


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Feh, lightweight. Remove all verbs period, I say! Those pesky A, E, I, O, and U's are always getting in the way.


I do believe a e i o and u are vowels not verbs, but yes they all need removed. 
And what about those horrendous connector things like if, and, or, but. I think they are conjunctions. So let's go to conjunction junction and find their function.


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

abishop said:


> I strongly agree with this. I don't understand why so many writers are opposed to adverbs. Sometimes a verb needs to be modified. If you're relying on them excessively and they make your sentences read awkwardly then you've got a problem, but I don't think "She placed her glasses down with care" is any better as a sentence than "She placed her glasses down carefully."


Same here. While I agree that overusing any word isn't great, I have yet to see any of my readers flip out because I occasionally used "suddenly"


----------



## Rick Gualtieri (Oct 31, 2011)

cinisajoy said:


> I do believe a e i o and u are vowels not verbs, but yes they all need removed.
> And what about those horrendous connector things like if, and, or, but. I think they are conjunctions. So let's go to conjunction junction and find their function.


Hahahahahaha...and thus the facade falls and I am proven the idiot. 

That's what I get for multitasking.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Rick Gualtieri said:


> Hahahahahaha...and thus the facade falls and I am proven the idiot.
> 
> That's what I get for multitasking.


I myself made a bad error the other day.
I put I half to re-read this book. Yes someone asked which half. Thus proving I am not perfect.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Joe_Nobody said:


> Readability to the average customer is the key from my POV. Mark Twain once said, "My books are like water, those of the great geniuses are wine. Fortunately, everybody drinks water."
> 
> So my books are water. Shrug. I'm cool with that.


Great quote, and the interesting thing about both language and the different genres of books is that one style of writing is perfect for one type of story and absolutely abysmal for another. How could one make semantical decisions in isolation of considering what the story _itself_ needs? The _story_ decides the form the language takes.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Whenever I see the word "that" I start feeling really bad.


----------



## Lummox JR (Jul 1, 2012)

Stand up against rigid writing rules and don't go to tortured lengths to purge your prose of whatever some self-proclaimed expert said was bad. What works for you might not for them, and vice-versa.

Not too long ago I saw 



 on the subject; it's worth watching in its entirety.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

According to most common writing rules and wisdom, you must never write how normal, meat-based human being think or talk, only how long-dead Victorian jerks wanted people to think and talk.


----------



## Norman Crane (Sep 25, 2013)

Sky? Dark. Lightning. Man killed man. Fog; detective. Discovered: Motive: Jealousy. Detective--gunfire--apprehended culprit. The End.

("Pfft. Now they'll all complain that it's too short!")

I think it's possible to admire an author's clean prose while yawning and putting down their book.

It's also possible to see too many _suddenlies_ and read on, enthralled.*

* Edit to remove _It_ and _to_: Also a possibility is, enthralled, reading on.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Hi.  Here is a reader's perspective.  A clean book does not mean take out all to he's because that is what ONE author did.  It does not mean use semi-colons instead of words because ONE expert says that is better.  It does not mean use em-dashes for dialog tags because that is what your favorite author does.

A clean book is one that doesn't pull you out of the story with a bunch of extra junk.  I will use two examples of books that should have been cleaned up.  One trad/one Indie.  The first one had useless and sometimes repeating info dumps every two to three pages.  I was expecting a mystery not a medical textbook/travel guide/diary of EVERYTHING the protagonist did.  
Other book had 3 sentences of describing the area for 1 sentence of action.  It was way too much because the protagonist would not have noticed most of it and it was from her point of view.  The second one would have been great as a movie.  As a book the story kept getting lost.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

I think it's "too clean" when you lose your unique voice.  I've also found readers are a lot more forgiving than I originally thought.

Including you... because I'm not sure if it's "than or then," but went with my gut.


----------



## Bluebonnet (Dec 15, 2013)

Norman Crane said:


> Sky? Dark. Lightning. Man killed man. Fog; detective. Discovered: Motive: Jealousy. Detective--gunfire--apprehended culprit. The End.
> 
> ("Pfft. Now they'll all complain that it's too short!")
> 
> ...


   

To make that sample squeaky clean, we could write it in dogespeak:

Much dark.
Very lightning.
So kill.
Very jealousy.
Such detective.
So gunfire.
Very apprehend. Wow, end.


----------



## Norman Crane (Sep 25, 2013)

Bluebonnet said:


> To make that sample squeaky clean, we could write it in dogespeak:
> 
> Much dark.
> Very lightning.
> ...


I imagine the audiobook read in the movie trailer voice. _Shiba Inu of the Baskervilles_.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

I don't think "to be" verbs are inherently weak, it's just that they shouldn't be in EVERY sentence...unless you're making a stylistic decision. You need variety, imo. Not every sentence should be 'strong' or full of action, or else you risk repetitiveness. Think of your work as an organism. It can't go full blast all the time without risk of wearing itself (or the reader) out. it also can't be so weak as to barely respond to stimuli (or the reader to it). 

I love to pepper my writing with strong and weak verbs, long and short sentences, formal and familiar language, etc. Whatever sounds cool.


----------



## SunshineOnMe (Jan 11, 2014)

ok, what the heck is a "to be" verb?? To be or not to be?


----------



## Cherise (May 13, 2012)

EelKat said:


> I do that to some extent, but you don't have to remove ALL of all those words. You just want to remove enough so that you are not boring your reader by saying the same word every other sentence.


I see it this way, too. "To be" verbs and adverbs are a few of the tools in the writer's toolbox. Yes, overdependence on one particular tool much makes you weak. However, using every tool in moderation creates variety of sentence structure, and variety is the spice of life.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

SunshineOnMe said:


> ok, what the heck is a "to be" verb?? To be or not to be?


"to be" = infinitive form of am/is/are/was/were etc.


----------



## I Give Up (Jan 27, 2014)

I thought this thread was a joke. Which genre are you writing in that doing all of that would make sense?


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

And I thought this was going to be a romance thread. In a clean romance, are they allowed to kiss, or are they limited to longing looks?


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

Viola Rivard said:


> I thought this thread was a joke. Which genre are you writing in that doing all of that would make sense?


It's not a genre. It's a special subsection of fiction called CW101. Whether the thread is a joke or not (and OMG I do hope so), I have seen fiction in the slush that does all this and it's mind-blindingly awful, because it's so obvious that the author has applied these rules.


----------



## I Give Up (Jan 27, 2014)

Sandra K. Williams said:


> And I thought this was going to be a romance thread. In a clean romance, are they allowed to kiss, or are they limited to longing looks?


I need a "like" button for you.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

The Victorians are responsible for the predicate nominative, but don't saddle any of this on them!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

They're to blame for so much horrible, it's just easier this way.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Ha!  Sez you.

Nah, it's 99% bad press.


----------



## abishop (May 22, 2014)

Viola Rivard said:


> I need a "like" button for you.


I think that's about as far as a "clean" romance can go.


----------



## Cactus Lady (Jun 4, 2014)

I tried to edit one of my books to follow all the rules, and what happened was it turned into boring, voiceless mush. I had to do an un-editing pass to make it readable again. So then I came up with the only writing rule anyone will ever need:

Use the words (grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, whatever) that say what you want to say in the way you want to say it.

You'e welcome 



abishop said:


> I think that's about as far as a "clean" romance can go.


lol! I also thought this thread was about clean romance from the title.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

vmblack said:


> Ha! Sez you.
> 
> Nah, it's 99% bad press.


They thought dinosaurs lived only in water because they were so fat.

They also got an entire nation addicted to opium so they could steal _tea_.

These... were not well people.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Yes, if this is serious, please undo all the editing you've done. I've got 600 adverbs in my current WIP - I'm going to cut half of those, at least, but some NEED to stay. Rules are not set in stone, it's perect(ly) acceptable to bend and break them.


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

kward said:


> I have been editing my WIP, and in the interest of strengthening the writing I've been cutting out the dead freight - or what I perceive to be dead freight. Thus far I've cleaved the following words from my story:
> 
> *is, am, are, was, were, got, went, things, used to, stuff, very, all, every*
> 
> ...


My opinion is that I think I use *ALL* of these words in the first sentence alone!
And before anyone asks, Yes, it's a very long sentence


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

There is no rule that says you can't use adverbs.  It was a suggestion from some so-called expert that does not like adverbs.  

Oh did you hear the latest rule.  All independently published books must have 50,000 words.  Each sentence must be 5 words long.  Each paragraph must have 5 sentences. Each chapter must have 10 paragraphs and the book has to have 20 chapters.  No deviating from this.  
Also no articles,  prepositions or conjunctions.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

Vaalingrade said:


> They thought dinosaurs lived only in water because they were so fat.
> 
> They also got an entire nation addicted to opium so they could steal _tea_.
> 
> These... were not well people.


But their erotica was exquisitely randy.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

alawston said:


> It really is just subjective, and in particular I'm a little perplexed as to how you've managed to lose the verb "to be" without some very strange phrasing.


It doesn't have to be strange phrasings; one merely has to think a little bit more in terms of active verbs. For example:

A. Tom got up and went into the kitchen, hoping to get a beer from the fridge.

B. Tom rose and entered the kitchen, searching for a beer in the fridge.

Example A isn't terrible, but it's lazy writing.

Example B sounds completely natural, but the writing is a bit more thought out and paints a better picture.

There's nothing wrong with thinking how you craft sentences through a bit more.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

cinisajoy said:


> There is no rule that says you can't use adverbs. It was a suggestion from some so-called expert that does not like adverbs.


You mean Mr. King? His actual quote is in my sig.

Also, he never said "never" use adverbs. His admonition, at most, was to cut down on over-relying on them.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

Too lazy to quote but Craig's sentence should read: Tom told his wife/kid to get him a beer out of the fridge.


----------



## Norman Crane (Sep 25, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> It doesn't have to be strange phrasings; one merely has to think a little bit more in terms of active verbs. For example:
> 
> A. Tom got up and went into the kitchen, hoping to get a beer from the fridge.
> 
> ...


I prefer Example A. He goes to the kitchen hoping to find a beer in the fridge. In Example B, he enters the kitchen searching for a beer in the fridge. But unless he has very long arms the sentence is inaccurate. It should be: Tom rose and entered the kitchen to search for a beer in the fridge. Then we start wondering how conversational we want to be and if "got up" is worse than "rose" and "went into" is worse than "entered"...

Those are questions of style.

Style is subjective. You have to accurately get (Split infinitive: good thing I'm not writing in Latin!) your point across first, then worry about how many brush strokes you need.

_He rose. He entered the kitchen. He searched for a beer in the fridge.

He rose, hoping to find a beer in the fridge in the kitchen, and entered the kitchen to search for that beer.

He rose. Hoping to find a beer in the fridge, he walked into the kitchen.

He rose hopefully and walked to the kitchen to search for a beer in the fridge._

The possibilities, they is endless. I think there's more to it than tossing variants based on how many adverbs they have, the so-called strength of their verbs or whether they use an Oxford comma or not. I remember playing soccer as a kid and the coach telling the defenders never to cross the halfway line. You understand the reason: you don't want your defenders out of position. Then the ball comes within feet of that line, on the wrong side of course, and you have a poor kid standing there and waiting instead of running up and kicking it, all because he's blindly following a "rule".


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

With all due respect to Stephen King, I doubt he knows what the grammatical definition of an adverb is any more than Strunk and Write.


----------



## Sandra K. Williams (Jun 15, 2013)

cinisajoy said:


> Too lazy to quote but Craig's sentence should read: Tom told his wife/kid to get him a beer out of the fridge.


Tom told his wife to get beer out of the fridge and she told him to get his lazy ass out of the chair and get it himself.

How many rules did I break? (Someone else's going to have to count because I'm on my way to the fridge. Fluffy says it's time for her treat.)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

vmblack said:


> With all due respect to Stephen King, I doubt he knows what the grammatical definition of an adverb is any more than Strunk and Write.


Funny. You say all due respect, but demonstrate none. King started his career as an underpaid English teacher. He knows an adverb when he sees one.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

kward said:


> Uh, no.


Then I'd recommend that you look at a big stack of your favorite authors' books with a highlighter in hand.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

kward said:


> Thank you for replying. I guess my issue with adverbs is they tend to be redundant or throw-away words that are not needed. For instance: 'He said softly'. Is the word 'softly' necessary here? Wouldn't the softness of the way 'he' speaks be implied in what he's saying or the context that he is saying it in?
> 
> Thoughts?


That is entirely subjective on what the words are. If it's a short sentence, perhaps only a word or two, it could be hard to convey that it's soft. There is a difference between _"I love you," he said_ as opposed to _"I love you," he said softly._ There's an argument to be made that you could write the former in a more 'friendly' manner, but if the word gets the job done, I don't see the point in tip-toing around it just because 'ly'. There's also an argument to be had where the tone doesn't even need to be suggested.

My point is that it's a case-by-case scenario, it's the reason the only writing rule set in absolute stone is write the best story you can.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Only on KB WC do swords get drawn over how to power up your writing...    I'm looking forward to our forthcoming UFC scuffle over the Oxford comma.  

Also love how helpful advice is misread as arbitrary rules and subjective commands, rather than... helpful advice. Always looking for the sinister interpretation...  Yeesh. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

kward said:


> Thank you for replying. I guess my issue with adverbs is they tend to be redundant or throw-away words that are not needed. For instance: 'He said softly'. Is the word 'softly' necessary here? Wouldn't the softness of the way 'he' speaks be implied in what he's saying or the context that he is saying it in?


If the "softly" can be implied in context, then it isn't necessary to include it...but usually that kind of adverb does need to be included at the start of the "soft" (etc.) conversation, for clarity. One problem I run into (as reader or an editor) is when authors assume that things are clear in context when, actually, they're only clear to people with comparable personalities to the author.

See, different people react differently to the same situations. Some also act differently to different emotions. When I'm about to lose my temper, I actually laugh. It's a different laugh from my "I'm happy!", "I'm amused!", or "I'm stressed out of my mind!" one, but a fair number of my conflicts with my brother growing up came because he assumed that my laugh meant he'd diffused my displeasure. And then my "I'm stressed out of my mind!" laugh actually scares people.

Can you get away with avoiding clarifying adverbs and transitions and such? Sure. Ilona Andrews hits bestseller lists, and there's one scene in particular where I thought the narrator was angry. Then the husband of the writing team wrote the scene from another character's perspective, and I discovered she was actually frustrated. Now that I know that the FMC was actually frustrated, I've been able to puzzle out more scenes where the character could be feeling more than one thing.

(Note that Ilona Andrews is one of my "Buy!" authors. I'm not meaning anything derogatory by my description here.)

As an example of what I mean: "He looked in the fridge. His shoulders slumped."

_Why_ did his shoulders slump? The reader doesn't know if he's hungry and there's no food he can eat, if he's just looking for a beer and only seeing milk, or if someone's eaten his lunch again. If "he" is the PoV character, he'll know why his shoulders slumped, so it should be conveyed to the reader. If he isn't, it may not necessarily be conveyed. If the PoV is omniscient, whether or not it's conveyed will depend on the author's style.

Words mean things. They have their uses, and while you can write yourself in pretzels to avoid them, doing so is likely to _hurt_ your writing unless you have a strong handle on how to write and why you're doing what you are. If you want to be really advanced about writing, cadence and word sounds can be used to influence mood. But those kinds of things? Are 99.999% of the time better to do "by ear" rather than to try to do on purpose, if you want your writing to stay creative. Otherwise, you're likely to end up stilted and editing all the "voice" out of it.

-Someone who's read a few thousand books.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

kward said:


> You illustrate one point of contention I have with adverbs. In your example, isn't the stronger choice to say: 'She placed her glasses down' as opposed to adding 'with care' or 'carefully'?


Caution is *not* necessarily indicated in the verb "placed". If you have already built the character as being careful with her glasses, it could suffice, but if not, it won't.

I can place a glass on my desk, but there will be nothing careful about it-the surface itself is not a good place to put breakables. (I'm going through a major sort & purge, right now.)


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

kward said:


> I'd recommend you go back and read my OP where I asked for your (and others) opinion(s) on craft and cutting certain words or adhering to certain "rules" of writing. I'm interested in your writing approach and less so in your condescension.
> 
> I am aware everyone's favorite authors break rules - again, that's not the point of the thread.
> 
> Among my original questions in my OP: "How far is too far? How clean is too clean? Is it really just subjective?"


I wasn't being condescending. The only way to know what constitutes good writing is to read good writing observantly. If someone tells you of some "rule" and then you discover that virtually no one whose writing you would consider to be good follows it, then there is no rule. It simply doesn't exist.

I was trying, as gently as possible, to suggest that you should determine the validity of your "rules" before going through a manuscript with them in the belief that the result would be better rather than worse.

You might as well have asked if we all held ourselves to the high standard of removing all words with "e" in them, or if that was overkill in seeking a "clean" manuscript. What you describe isn't "clean" but misguided. How far is too far? It's too far the moment you start taking garbled telephone-game advice as a writing rule.


----------



## Mylius Fox (Jun 2, 2014)

Carradee said:


> If the "softly" can be implied in context, then it isn't necessary to include it...but usually that kind of adverb does need to be included at the start of the "soft" (etc.) conversation, for clarity. One problem I run into (as reader or an editor) is when authors assume that things are clear in context when, actually, they're only clear to people with comparable personalities to the author.
> ....


I absolutely loved this post!  
(The entire thing, I just quoted the beginning to avoid the wall of text ).


----------



## Chrisbwritin (Jan 28, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> It doesn't have to be strange phrasings; one merely has to think a little bit more in terms of active verbs. For example:
> 
> A. Tom got up and went into the kitchen, hoping to get a beer from the fridge.
> 
> ...


I have to say, that's entirely subjective, because I MUCH prefer A. 
Mainly, because that's how people talk in this day and age so it resonates with me much more. B, in fact, sounds entirely UNnatural to me.

I feel the same with with the word "must" or "mustn't". Who says the word "musn't" out loud anymore? Or "as if" instead of "like". I know it's grammatically correct, but if my editor corrects it, I STET every time, especially in dialogue (i.e. "Why are you looking at me as if you want to kill me?" I'm sorry, but no one I know would say it like that).

At the end of the day, because I want my my readers to be able to relate to my characters and my writing, and because I'm not writing for literary accolades but for the purpose of entertaining, I choose to write the way people in this millennium talk. It has nothing to do with being lazy. I have an excellent grasp of the language and could just as easily write sentence B. instead, with no additional time or effort. Point being, it's a choice, not a cheat.

Just my .02!


----------



## MatthewBallard (May 21, 2013)

When I read this yesterday, I figured this would open a can of worms.

Here's my take.

I've developed some pet peeves around the verb "to be". My main problem with it is that it makes a sentence either feel static or it places unnecessary separation between the subject and the action.

_The bedroom was dark_

This sentence is static. Nothing is happening.

This whole sentence can be replaced with a single adjective. _dark bedroom_ or _murky bedroom_ for example. Doing it this way allows you to turn the sentence around and combine it with some action.

_Tom's hand froze on the door handle while peering into the bedroom's murky shadows._

or

_Tom's hand froze on the door handle while peering into the shadowy bedroom._

As for separation from the action.

_Nathan was skating with reckless abandon._

This type of sentence drives me nuts, and I see it all the time. It makes a sentence that's already in the past tense occur further in the past. It implies that Nathan is no longer skating but, rather, he skated at some point prior. It's static. Nothing is happening right now. The writer is cheating himself on a chance at painting a more vivid picture.

I would write it as

_Nathan skated with reckless abandon._

All that said, I'm not a "to be" Nazi. I use the verb and all it's conjugations liberally in dialogue because that's how people talk. Stripping them from your dialogue makes your characters sound absurd.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

> Tom's hand froze on the door handle while peering into the bedroom's murky shadows.


Problems I have with this:

Tom's hand becomes an animate object. I can see a hand doing things by itself. What happened to the rest of his body?
Tom's hand peered?

Tom froze. He peered into the bedroom's murky shadows.

Also, sometimes you need was <verb>ing. Really, really. More often than you think you do.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Chrisbwritin said:


> I have to say, that's entirely subjective, because I MUCH prefer A.
> Mainly, because that's how people talk in this day and age so it resonates with me much more. B, in fact, sounds entirely UNnatural to me.


Or, better, Tom got up and wandered into the kitchen to snag a beer.

In a modern-set novel with casual diction, no one rises. In historicals, no one gets up.


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

MatthewBallard said:


> _Nathan was skating with reckless abandon._
> 
> This type of sentence drives me nuts, and I see it all the time. It makes a sentence that's already in the past tense occur further in the past.


No, it doesn't. You're confusing verb tenses. "Nathan had skated with reckless abandon" is the tense that does what you say. "Was skating" is a _progressive_ tense (a.k.a. "continuous")--it means that the skating happened for a period of time, during or until some event that is not defined in the example.

ETA: Here's a handy chart illustrating how the verb tenses work.


----------



## Chrisbwritin (Jan 28, 2014)

MatthewBallard said:


> When I read this yesterday, I figured this would open a can of worms.
> 
> Here's my take.
> 
> ...


Now in these two particular examples, I agree 100%. But it's very specific for me, and if it changes the tone from conversational to literary fiction-esque or Victorian era, I'm not going to do it.


----------



## MatthewBallard (May 21, 2013)

Patty Jansen said:


> Problems I have with this:
> 
> Tom's hand becomes an animate object. I can see a hand doing things by itself. What happened to the rest of his body?
> Tom's hand peered?
> ...


I pulled the example from thin air. I think you're nitpicking a bit.



> Also, sometimes you need was <verb>ing. Really, really. More often than you think you do.


And sometimes you need it less than you think you do.


----------



## MatthewBallard (May 21, 2013)

Carradee said:


> No, it doesn't. You're confusing verb tenses. "Nathan had skated with reckless abandon" is the tense that does what you say. "Was skating" is a _progressive_ tense (a.k.a. "continuous")--it means that the skating happened for a period of time, during or until some event that is not defined in the example.
> 
> ETA: Here's a handy chart illustrating how the verb tenses work.


Thanks. I prefer to avoid that tense.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

The problem with a scorched-earth policy toward adverbs is that the "softly" is not always implied in what the speaker says.

"Get out of the car." has a very different feel when you write it as "Get out of the car," he said softly. 

I understand wanting to polish up your writing and make it a little more thoughtful and deliberate, but I don't think just targeting certain words or certain types of word is a wise way to do that. I think you ought to consider taking it sentence by sentence and editing based on sound.


----------



## cinisajoy (Mar 10, 2013)

kward said:


> Thank you for replying. I guess my issue with adverbs is they tend to be redundant or throw-away words that are not needed. For instance: 'He said softly'. Is the word 'softly' necessary here? Wouldn't the softness of the way 'he' speaks be implied in what he's saying or the context that he is saying it in?
> 
> Thoughts?


Can you please give us the rest of the line so we can make a good comparison. No, he said softly to a child will only get a funny look from the child. No, he said forcefully will get an immediate response to said child.


----------



## ShayneRutherford (Mar 24, 2014)

kward said:


> Thank you for replying. I guess my issue with adverbs is they tend to be redundant or throw-away words that are not needed. For instance: 'He said softly'. Is the word 'softly' necessary here? Wouldn't the softness of the way 'he' speaks be implied in what he's saying or the context that he is saying it in?
> 
> Thoughts?


Sometimes it will be clear from the context and sometimes it won't be. You have to be able to judge each case individually, rather than just using a blanket rule.


----------



## zoe tate (Dec 18, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Isn't this supposed to be a joke? I assumed so when I read it.


I'm glad I'm not the only person who had exactly this reaction.

I've never done any of those things. Not in a trade-published book. Not in a self-published book. No editor has ever suggested I do any of them.

(I do use the word "that" a bit too much, and sometimes change or omit some of them, when I edit.)


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> The problem with a scorched-earth policy toward adverbs is that the "softly" is not always implied in what the speaker says.
> 
> "Get out of the car." has a very different feel when you write it as "Get out of the car," he said softly.
> 
> I understand wanting to polish up your writing and make it a little more thoughtful and deliberate, but I don't think just targeting certain words or certain types of word is a wise way to do that. I think you ought to consider taking it sentence by sentence and editing based on sound.


I have accepted the fact that most people on this thread won't listen to advice because they knee-jerk against all advice as "get your rules off my writing." Which is fine, until you have to interact with an editor.

However, one could get the same intent across without the adverb IF one wanted to do so.

Ex.: "Get out of the car," he whispered.

Ex. 2: He leaned toward the car window, his voice a whisper. "Get out of the car."

Plenty of options, that's all I'm saying. Nothing "Victorian" or "historical" about it.

You may all now resume misunderstanding my advice as advice and rant about "oppressive rules" and "it's all subjective" for another two pages.

In other words: as you were, soldiers. 

NOTE: El, I used your post as a jumping off point, but this is not necessarily all directed at you... just a response to the general flow of the thread.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

If you found an editor who marks adverbs, fire that person immediately. He or she is not a professional.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> I have accepted the fact that most people on this thread won't listen to advice because they knee-jerk against all advice as "get your rules off my writing." Which is fine, until you have to interact with an editor.


As VM said, if you have an editor that marks all adverbs as needing to be cut, I'd question that editors ability to edit.



> However, one could get the same intent across without the adverb IF one wanted to do so.
> 
> Ex.: "Get out of the car," he whispered.
> 
> Ex. 2: He leaned toward the car window, his voice a whisper. "Get out of the car."


Whispered doesn't always mean the same thing as softly. It depends on the context.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> I have accepted the fact that most people on this thread won't listen to advice because they knee-jerk against all advice as "get your rules off my writing." Which is fine, until you have to interact with an editor.
> 
> However, one could get the same intent across without the adverb IF one wanted to do so.
> 
> ...


A whisper is not the same as speaking softly.


----------



## Just Browsing (Sep 26, 2012)

vmblack said:


> If you found an editor who marks adverbs, fire that person immediately. He or she is not a professional.


Yup!

As for the poor copula ... does it really not have any place? Is one not to be (oops ...) allowed any part of the verb 'to be' as an auxiliary verb? Wouldn't that wipe out a lot of verb tenses and voices?

What exactly is wrong with these sentences? Taken from a variety of genres, sort of off the top of my head. Famous first lines. But not famous because they're somehow not 'clean.'

_It was the best of times; it was the worst of times._

_Elmer Gantry was drunk._

_Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice._

_Time is not a line but a dimension, like the dimensions of space. _

_If I am out of my mind, it's all right with me, thought Moses Herzog._

_It was a pleasure to burn._

_In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I've been turning over in my mind ever since._

_It was a queer, sultry summer, the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs, and I didn't know what I was doing in New York._

_It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. _

_Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way._ (Not actually a statement I agree with, but that's not the point here.) (And obviously that's a translation, but the 'be' verb is clear.)


----------



## Nikki Pink (Jan 23, 2013)

Where did the "rules" in the OP come from? The adverb thing is from Stephen King, where are the rest from?


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Nikki Pink said:


> Where did the "rules" in the OP come from? The adverb thing is from Stephen King, where are the rest from?


I've heard them all at some point or another; I just never listened to them. And one thing I will say about Stephen King is that he is not the definitive source on writing. He once said that first person, present tense has no place in fiction.

PUH-lease.

ETA: That comment wasn't directed towards you, rather Mr. King.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

vmblack said:


> If you found an editor who marks adverbs, fire that person immediately. He or she is not a professional.


Entirely depends on what level of edit one is requesting.

If one is requesting a deep, developmental / content edit, pointing out such things could easily be seen as an attempt to be helpful and strengthen one's work.

So, careful there with your absolutes, Ms. Black.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

K.B. said:


> He once said that first person, present tense has no place in fiction.


Well even a broken clock is right twice a day, I guess...


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

Nikki Pink said:


> Where did the "rules" in the OP come from? The adverb thing is from Stephen King, where are the rest from?


The OP never mentioned rules.

That's what the rabid hordes have mislabeled the whole thing.

Opinions, preferences, advice for stronger writing... not "rules."

And again... don't forget our big July 4 PPV UFC fight to settle the Oxford Comma debate once and for all... because we're all such calm, rational people here, able to discuss craft on a nice, intellectual level without resorting to absolutes and knee-jerk reactions, completely tolerant of strong opinions, and neat-o people to boot.

We're squiffy like that.


----------



## Nikki Pink (Jan 23, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> The OP never mentioned rules.
> 
> That's what the rabid hordes have mislabeled the whole thing.
> 
> Opinions, preferences, advice for stronger writing... not "rules."


My sincerest apologies. I will try again:

Where did the advice (not rules) regarding the changes the OP made come from?

P.S. You will notice I said "'rules'" in my original question not "rules". There is a distinct difference.

Sent from my SHV-E210S using Tapatalk


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> Entirely depends on what level of edit one is requesting.
> 
> If one is requesting a deep, developmental / content edit, pointing out such things could easily be seen as an attempt to be helpful and strengthen one's work.
> 
> So, careful there with your absolutes, Ms. Black.


Believing that it would strengthen a writer's work to flag adverbs is a sign of an unprofessional editor who knows nothing about craft. I've had three NY agents, two of whom were former editors, and two NY editors. They would never imagine doing this. Ever.


----------



## meh (Apr 18, 2013)

I agree that there are sometimes "fluff" words that add nothing to the prose and can be taken out without losing the meaning. Many times this makes the writing flow better.

In my own writing, I've had to cut out a lot of "began"--He began reading, (He read), She began to see (She saw). I realized that one doesn't really begin an action. They just do it.

In a similar fashion, I removed "could" a lot. "She could see"--okay she either saw it or she didn't, unless maybe some sand got in her eye and she found that she was still _able_ to see.

And I agree that "Darkness blanketed the room" is more interesting than "The room was dark." But that's just me, and my style.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

vmblack said:


> If you found an editor who marks adverbs, fire that person immediately. He or she is not a professional.


I agree. Same with passive voice: if your editor says it should always go, your editor should go.

My editor, fortunately, is smarter than that, and has a better feel for variety and artistry in writing. Writers and authors ought to know enough of the "rules" so that they can break them when it sounds better to break than to adhere.

And I have to agree with VM Black: adverbs are certainly not a sign of weakness. Choosing words willy-nilly, without any thought for how the piece feels and flows, is a sign of weakness in craft. I don't care whether those words are adverbs or adjectives or pronouns or whatever.

Anybody who thinks that adverbs always equal weak prose hasn't read any Nabokov, I guess. I would not be inclined to work with any editor who had a scorched-earth policy toward adverbs or any other form of word.

Now, if a writer never used anything but adverbs to indicate feeling or clarify action, then yeah, that needs some help. But "you rely on this too much" is very different from "adverbs are bad."


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

CraigInOregon said:


> The OP never mentioned rules.
> 
> That's what the rabid hordes have mislabeled the whole thing.
> 
> Opinions, preferences, advice for stronger writing... not "rules."





> And again... don't forget our big July 4 PPV UFC fight to settle the Oxford Comma debate once and for all... *because we're all such calm, rational people here, able to discuss craft on a nice, intellectual level* without resorting to absolutes and knee-jerk reactions, completely tolerant of strong opinions, and neat-o people to boot.
> 
> We're squiffy like that.


I don't think your being amusing, btw, attempting to paint the members here with a broad brush and conveniently skipping over your own etiquette.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

Nikki Pink said:


> Where did the "rules" in the OP come from? The adverb thing is from Stephen King, where are the rest from?


Strunk and White have a lot to answer for.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm sorry I've been brusque.  I'm trying not to be, but as I mentioned in another thread, I'm a huge crankypants right now.

If I had a checklist of rules of this sort that would make my writing "strong," I'd be thrilled.  Especially right now, when I'm in the middle of some extremely recalcitrant edits!  (I even lost my voice in this book several times, so I have to break out the thesaurus to try to find simpler words, but it's hard once I've framed something a certain way to find a more approachable alternative.  "Traversed" can become "followed" in this instance, but what the heck do I do with "palpable sardonicism?"  I WANT that picture, but the words are in too high a key.  Blech.  Is "jocularity" too much?  I can't think of another, more approachable word that MEANS that right now.  *beats head against the wall*)

Anyhow, just because they're written down, and just because they're repeated and believed doesn't mean that they're actually rules.  And no, not all English teachers are conversant with grammar, either.  (Ack, I'm doing it again--I default to this key when tired, and I'm really tired right now.    )

Anyhow, there are TONS of things you can do to strengthen your writing.  What you've listed doesn't include them.  The one time that a "be" word is often weak is in descriptive passages.  Not always then, but watch out for the phrase "there was/were" and decide if that's really what you want there.  If it is, great.  If not...try something else.  So there you go.  There's a "rule" turned into a guideline that might be somewhat useful.


----------



## CraigInOregon (Aug 6, 2010)

vmblack said:


> I'm sorry I've been brusque. I'm trying not to be, but as I mentioned in another thread, I'm a huge crankypants right now.
> 
> If I had a checklist of rules of this sort that would make my writing "strong," I'd be thrilled. Especially right now, when I'm in the middle of some extremely recalcitrant edits! (I even lost my voice in this book several times, so I have to break out the thesaurus to try to find simpler words, but it's hard once I've framed something a certain way to find a more approachable alternative. "Traversed" can become "followed" in this instance, but what the heck do I do with "palpable sardonicism?" I WANT that picture, but the words are in too high a key. Blech. Is "jocularity" too much? I can't think of another, more approachable word that MEANS that right now. *beats head against the wall*)
> 
> ...


VM,

Thanks for this; I get grumpy when I'm in the midst of edits and/or overtired, too, so I can relate. 

It's very true that there are MANY ways to strengthen writing. There's no one set of rules, certainly.

I don't even think Mr. King (as some suggest) advocates eliminating all adverbs; few folks talk in extremes like that. Cutting down on them, sure. Over-reliance on them? Yeah, I'd say it can become a bad habit; one worth breaking.

In my writing, I look for all sorts of ways to strengthen my writing. Cutting down on adverbs is just one target to shoot at. There are many, as you pointed out.

We're all in the this with the same goal: to improve ourselves at our own game, to *get** better at what we do, and hopefully by doing so, to reach more readers.

My thoughts are with you as you wade through edits.

I'm in a similar boat. Now that I'm done with Nice Girl Like You, do I move on to something fresh? No, it's back to my 100K novel, EyeCU, in a big push to finally move it off my desk and out there for readers. I've spent so long on that thing, it's become an albatross... LOL. Two and a half years, almost!

All best, and shalom.

*See what I did there?


----------



## Norman Crane (Sep 25, 2013)

Few people talk in extremes, but Kward's first post mentions removing *all adverbs* in his WIP. That's a rule ("Thou shalt not use adverbs!"). Hence the responses.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

CraigInOregon said:


> I don't even think Mr. King (as some suggest) advocates eliminating all adverbs; few folks talk in extremes like that. Cutting down on them, sure. Over-reliance on them? Yeah, I'd say it can become a bad habit; one worth breaking.
> 
> In my writing, I look for all sorts of ways to strengthen my writing. Cutting down on adverbs is just one target to shoot at. There are many, as you pointed out.


It really depends on how you write. I still do search for the word "sudden" because I abuse it terribly when I'm struggling with a scene. That's pretty common, but not everyone does that, and I don't take out ALL the instances, just the ones that aren't actually adding anything. If I have multiple sentences with lots of "ly" adverbs or too many adjectives weight things down or too many participles, I cut them. But that's because there's too much of the same that it becomes "noisy," not because participles or adjectives or adverbs are bad, as such. It's all about a good flow.

If you're naturally a very spare writer, adding adverbs might help bring clarity to your writing. What really matters is whether the final version matches the purpose, tone, and audience.


----------



## RaeC (Aug 20, 2013)

My god, never get rid of "palpable sardonicism". I don't care what you have to do to keep it.

"Suddenly" and "that" are the two words that _kill _me, every time.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

I gave up worrying about 'sudden' when I realized that I had a sequence where losing it made a character look weak. As in physically weak.

The line was 'the sudden shock tore the blade from her hands.' Meaning that the fact that it was quick and unexpected factored into why she lost her grip.

Changing it to 'the shock tore the blade from her hands' implies that a character who we've seen kick-flip a 200 pound stone planter couldn't hold on to her sword when it got caught on a hanging chain out of nowhere.

You can't just use 'unexpected' because the celerity is a factor and all other alternative are wasting words in the middle of a fight scene.

"Why yes, dear reader, the promise of the premise here _was_ a kinetic fight scene, but we're going to slow things down because the writer is afraid of words."


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Vaalingrade said:


> I gave up worrying about 'sudden' when I realized that I had a sequence where losing it made a character look weak. As in physically weak.
> 
> The line was 'the sudden shock tore the blade from her hands.' Meaning that the fact that it was quick and unexpected factored into why she lost her grip.


Agreed, completely! I ONLY lose them were it's written filler. And sometimes, it is--FOR ME. I can't say that about anyone else's rough drafts.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

AdrianC said:


> My god, never get rid of "palpable sardonicism". I don't care what you have to do to keep it.
> 
> "Suddenly" and "that" are the two words that _kill _me, every time.


It's the wrong register for the book. Too high. I HAD to ditch it.

Original: He returned the bow, his gesture low, sweeping, and tinged with palpable sardonicism. Caught off guard, I ducked my head and made a wobbly curtsy at his side.

New register: He returned the bow, his gesture low, sweeping, almost exaggerated. Caught off guard, I ducked my head and made a wobbly curtsy at his side.

The first is definitely clearer, but honestly, higher registers are. A very large vocabulary allow you to use exactly the word you mean. But.......it was too opaque for what I'm writing, especially with the first person POV.

If you like that, you'll like some of my historical shorts.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

Someone brought to my attention that I might be construed to say that any editor who marks any adverb should be fired.    I didn't mean that.  I meant editors who mark all or many adverbs ***simply because they are adverbs*** should be fired!


----------



## Vaalingrade (Feb 19, 2013)

No, No, let's got with the first interpretation until they become conditioned to fear marking adverbs.


----------



## ricola (Mar 3, 2014)

I'd post a new thread, but it'd get moved by Ann's magic wand (oh, my, mystyped "wang" the first time)--

I just started The Sekmet Bed (Libbie Hawk)!  It's awesome!  Everyone should get it!    It's free, so what are you waiting for?


----------

