Ten Words to Cut from Your Writing

[T.Allen.Smith]

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report...-your-writing/article15017159/?service=mobile

I agree with these points with the exception of dialogue. In normal prose yes, they don't serve any purpose for my writing.

With dialogue though, I'm more concerned with the conversation sounding natural. Fact is, people use these words when they talk. Shouldn't dialogue replicate this?

What do you think?

 

[BWFoster78]

Fact is, people use these words when they talk. Shouldn't dialogue replicate this?

In isolated instances to make a character's voice stand out? Absolutely.

As a general rule? I don't think so. We're not trying to replicate the way people talk; we're trying to entertain the reader by creating tension and conveying action and emotion. These words should be cut because they don't work well. This fact stands in dialogue the same as in narrative.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree regarding dialogue, but I can think of stylistics reasons to use any, if not all, of these outside of dialogue well.

What if I want to write "Just around the bend, a broken wagon leaned heavily on one cracked wheel."

Sure, I could take out "just," but it provides spatial context. It tells me that the wagon is very close to the end of the bend, instead of some way further down the road. The author hedges by saying removing it 'rarely' affects meaning, but the tone of the article is largely too black and white for my tastes.

But yes, with dialogue, all of this advice should be ignored. You should trust your ear to approximate the voice of the speaker.

 

[Steerpike]

As a general rule? I don't think so. We're not trying to replicate the way people talk; we're trying to entertain the reader by creating tension and conveying action and emotion. These words should be cut because they don't work well. This fact stands in dialogue the same as in narrative.

I don't agree. Not unless you want dialogue where all of your characters sounds the same, anyway. Trying to force these kinds of rules into writing of dialogue is a big mistake, in my view. You don't have to limit that to isolated instances, and if you're doing it in isolated instances to make the voice stand out, then it stands to reason that the rest of the time your character's voice is generic, right? Not a good thing.

 

[Devor]

I agree with this completely, and in accordance with this article, I shall endeavor to replace phrases like "Jim got up" with the less vague, "Jim acquired an upright position."

 

[Svrtnsse]

With dialogue though, I'm more concerned with the conversation sounding natural. Fact is, people use these words when they talk. Shouldn't dialogue replicate this?

Yes and no.
To my mind readability is even more important in dialogue than in normal prose. If the reader stumbles upon the wording in a dialogue section it not only disrupts their reading it'll also gets them to question the character speaking. I guess you could say the fourth wall is thinner in dialogue and thus easier to break?

That said, those words are used by real people in real talk and I don't think I'd hesitate to use them if I had a character that used them. I'd still avoid using them too often though, but then that's true for all words. Repeating the same word too many times will get annoying unless you're doing it to produce a specific effect. The words may be part of the voice of the specific character talking, but it'll be enough to put them in now and then, not all the time.


I do tend to use "perhaps" and "maybe" quite a bit when relating to internal thinking. My MC is rather insecure and I tend to mix his thoughts up with the rest of the text so those word figure quite a lot outside of obvious dialogue.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I agree with this completely, and in accordance with this article, I shall endeavor to replace phrases like "Jim got up" with the less vague, "Jim acquired an upright position."

You forgot to explain where he acquired it from.

 

[BWFoster78]

Trying to force these kinds of rules into writing of dialogue is a big mistake, in my view.

I am shocked you feel that way!

Obviously, we disagree. I feel that, if a word isn't effective, it isn't effective in dialogue the same as in the narrative.

You don't have to limit that to isolated instances, and if you're doing it in isolated instances to make the voice stand out, then it stands to reason that the rest of the time your character's voice is generic, right? Not a good thing.

So, you're saying that the only way to make a person's voice stand out is to use ineffectual language?

 

[Devor]

This was originally an edit, but it was ninjaed by too many that I'm making it a separate post.

----

I'm only kidding a bit to make a point about taking it too far. I agree with the premise that these words mostly shouldn't be used unless you're doing it deliberately for a purpose. Most incidental occurrences should be expunged during editing.

But something about these conversations makes me feel that just having them does more harm than good. For instance, if you notice that you're using these words while you write, ignore it - hit your groove, don't dare stop because you realize you used the word "got" and need to replace it.

I almost feel like there should be an editing-questions forum, so that those who are editing can worry about this stuff, and those who aren't can have those topics separated.

 

[Steerpike]

So, you're saying that the only way to make a person's voice stand out is to use ineffectual language?

No. This is a straw man (i.e. take something someone didn't say, then pretend they said it so you can attack that statement). If the language serves characterization, then it isn't ineffectual. All you have to do is make a cursory browsing of the book shelves to find a wide variety of style in writing, both in narrative and dialogue, as well as a number of books with characters who stand out as a result of their dialogue. There are also plenty of generic books around, with generic dialogue. But the idea that it has to be done one way to the exclusion of others is empirically false, and empirical data should be sufficient for the engineering mind

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Wow, you folks are fast.... I'll try and catch up.

In isolated instances to make a character's voice stand out? Absolutely.

As a general rule? I don't think so. We're not trying to replicate the way people talk; we're trying to entertain the reader by creating tension and conveying action and emotion. These words should be cut because they don't work well. This fact stands in dialogue the same as in narrative.

In my view, dialogue without these commonly spoken words might come off sounding stilted, even jarring at times. I'd rather my writing not be noticed by the reader. That's why I lean towards natural dialogue.

In my mind, dialogue should be three things:
1) Meaningful
2) Appropriate for the situation (meaning not contrived or forced)
3) Natural

I'm not proposing your dialogue should be littered with these words. However, when you read it aloud, if it sounds better to your writer's ear with the word "perhaps" or "quite" thrown in, you shouldn't be afraid to include it.

For me it's not a matter of a character's voice, although that's a reasonable consideration. Rather, it's a focus on fluidity of speech.

Of course, there are also times when these words do add meaning. Learning to recognize when they have meaning & when they don't, is mentioned in the article.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

To my mind readability is even more important in dialogue than in normal prose. If the reader stumbles upon the wording in a dialogue section it not only disrupts their reading it'll also gets them to question the character speaking.

Yes. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I do tend to use "perhaps" and "maybe" quite a bit when relating to internal thinking. My MC is rather insecure and I tend to mix his thoughts up with the rest of the text so those word figure quite a lot outside of obvious dialogue.

This is another case for the use of these words (sparingly). Here, "perhaps" can add meaning, especially if the character is in consideration, unconvinced, or questioning something.

 

[Feo Takahari]

4. Perhaps/maybe: Do you want your audience to think you're uncertain about what you're saying?

Yes. When I use the word "maybe," I wish to suggest that a thing may be true, and conversely, that it may not be true. If I only wanted to discuss certainties, I would be writing mathematics textbooks.

More generally, this article looks like something that would apply to essays, newspaper articles, and other nonfiction. A lot of the advice doesn't seem relevant to stories. (I can't help but notice that this is in the "small business" section of the website--maybe it's intended for writing advertisements?)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

More generally, this article looks like something that would apply to essays, newspaper articles, and other nonfiction. A lot of the advice doesn't seem relevant to stories. (I can't help but notice that this is in the "small business" section of the website--maybe it's intended for writing advertisements?)

Could be Feo. Though, they did quote Mark Twain from the get go.

 

[Jabrosky]

The word "just" is a filler word that weakens your writing. Removing it rarely affects meaning, but rather, the deletion tightens a sentence.

I am getting sick of this tightness fetish that saturates the writing community. I don't mind if a writer chooses to write in a tight style if that's what they want, but demanding that every other writer adopt this style is conformist and obnoxiously evangelical.

That said, I will concede that "really" and "very" are rather vague adverbs. If you want to say something was "really big", for example, might it not help the visual imagery if you chose a stronger or more specific descriptor (e.g. "elephantine")?

 

[Steerpike]

The key is diversity. I just read Felix Palma's Map of Time. I'm in the middle of KW Jeter's Infernal Devices. Both are modern novels. Both are quite wordy, break the rules in terms of the narrator addressing the reader directly, and break just about any rule of revising a novel for tightness that you might think of (in fact, revising them for tightness would have ruined both of them).

On the other hand, I like some crime fiction writers who are the embodiment of lean prose.

It's all good. Trying to fit every foot into the same shoe is not.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

It's just advice from a perspective folks, not a demand that you conform.

I think the article brings up some good points. It misses a quite a few as well. Did my use of the word "quite" add meaning? I hope so.

 

[Steerpike]

It's just advice from a perspective folks, not a demand that you conform.

I think the article brings up some good points. It misses a quite a few as well. Did my use of the word "quite" add meaning? I hope so.

You make an exception for dialogue, Tim (which I agree with), but what do you say when the narrator has a voice. Take a first-person narrative, for example? Don't the same considerations for dialogue also apply to a first person narrator? Or even a third person narrative with a demonstrable narrator whose voice comes through in the telling of the story?

 

[teacup]

Perhaps/maybe: Do you want your audience to think you're uncertain about what you're saying? When you use words like "maybe" and "perhaps," uncertainty is exactly what you're communicating.

...Well I write deep POV, so if the character is uncertain then yes, I'd use this, as it's essentially the character's thought.
._.

 

[GeekDavid]

That said, I will concede that "really" and "very" are rather vague adverbs. If you want to say something was "really big", for example, might it not help the visual imagery if you chose a stronger or more specific descriptor (e.g. "elephantine")?

Mark Twain once said that you should replace every "very" in your writing with "damn." Then he said your editor will strike it out, and your prose will be the better for it.