# Ten Words to Cut from Your Writing



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

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 (Nov 4, 2013)

> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

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 (Nov 4, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

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 (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

Devor said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

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 (Nov 4, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

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



BWFoster78 said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> 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.



Svrtnsse said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

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 (Nov 4, 2013)

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 (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> 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 (Nov 4, 2013)

> *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 (Nov 4, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> 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.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> 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?



Absolutely! In the first person we're going to be deep within the POV most likely... That being the case, I'd want internal thought to mimic the way people really think, or at least that person.

Same would be true with a strong narrative voice. If that voice has a personality, and that voice speaks in such a way, with consistency, then by all means, yes.  

I was hoping to steer the conversation back to the words and their use in different styles (like you just did...thank you) and away from the "Don't tell me how to write" sentiment that often can derail these types of debates.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I was hoping to steer the conversation back to the words and their use in different styles (like you just did...thank you) and away from the "Don't tell me how to write" sentiment that often can derail these types of debates.



Yeah, I hear you  I think part of the problem is that when people write these sorts of things, the tone (if not some of the wording) suggests they're dealing in absolutes, so people fixate on that (like I did earlier. Heh).


----------



## Guy (Nov 4, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> 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.


Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig +1 on that. One of these days I'm going to see an article advising never use "the" or "of."

I agree that "amazing" and "literally" are used way too much, and usually incorrectly. Reminds me of a T shirt I saw that said, "Misuse of the word literally makes me figuratively insane."


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> 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.



The problem is, far too many writers -- and people in general -- think their experience is normative. In some instances it is, in others it most definitely is not. Writing is one of those areas where it is not, but people continue to think "it worked well for me, so it *must* work well for everyone, right?"

And that's where the friction starts.


----------



## Penpilot (Nov 4, 2013)

To a certain degree I agree. I'd use this list as more of words to be careful with. In my current novel I made a conscious and deliberate choice to use "got" and "just". The manuscript is peppered with many many instances of these words. My POV character's diction required it, in narration and conversation.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 4, 2013)

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

**EDIT for those demanding lean prose:

Be real, and you won't be frontin'

(I prefer the original)


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 4, 2013)

Right, I went through my wiki and checked the occurrences of the words on the list in the short stories I have there as well as in the scenes for the book I'm writing. I've used all but one.

*Just *- _"The inn looked just the way a traditional anfylk countryside inn should."_ - The sentence would work without the word, but to me it's a case of narrator voice. The sentence just wouldn't feel the same without it (bad pun intended).
*Really *- _"She was able to interact with the trees just as well dressed as undressed – it really was just a matter of personal preference."_ In this case it's a matter of internal monologue. 
*Very *- _"The top of the hill had been cleared except for a gnarly old pine at the very edge of a sheer drop overlooking the forests to the south"_ - I feel that using "very" here is perfectly acceptable.
*Perhaps/maybe *- _"It was perhaps thirty minutes later that he reached his destination."_ - Yeah, I could have skipped the perhaps here. I could have just gone with "Thirty minutes later he reached his destination." It says the same thing, but again, it's how I write. It's not particularly tight or active, but as far as the time is concerned I'm fine with the vagueness. He's on a leisurely stroll through the forest and the exact time he spends going from point a to point b is not that important.
*Quite *- _"Waving his hands in the air and yelling at the top of his lungs he made quite a spectacle."_ - Narrative voice.
*Amazing *- _"It was a wonder of technology and even though she’d owned her own stereo for years the little machine still amazed her."_ - Strictly speaking it's not "amazing" but it was the closest I could find. 
*Literally *- Not used.
*Stuff *- _"It had started out just like any other day; receive customer orders, prepare deliveries and lodge payments – all perfectly normal, mundane stuff."_ - I'm okay with the usage of "stuff" here. It's a recollection of the POV character's day so it's sort of internalized. It also serves to underline how unremarkable the day had been.
*Things *- _"At the moment it held one lone cart and some gardening tools; rakes, spades, things like that." "None of those things had happened and now it was too late and he wouldn't get another chance."_ - In both of these cases the word refers collectively to stuff mentioned earlier in the text.
*Got *- _"The kids had eventually managed to agree on a clever way of carrying his suitcase between them and after that they'd disappeared up the path so quickly Enar got a little embarrassed."_ - Yes, I could probably have used a different way of saying the same thing. In fact, I should probably rewrite the entire sentence. 

Sure, the writing isn't the tightest and the most active and could almost certainly be done better. Still, these are the cases where I've used the listed words. If these examples aren't as polished as they could be, it's down to my skill as a writer on the whole, not just because these words appear in these sentences.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> "This above all: to thine own self be true,
> And it must follow, as the night the day,
> Thou canst not then be false to any man."
> 
> ...





> You have to follow your own voice. You have to be yourself when you write. In effect, you have to announce, ‘This is me, this is what I stand for, this is what you get when you read me. I’m doing the best I can—buy me or not—but this is who I am as a writer.



--David Morrell



> Write the kind of story you would like to read. People will give you all sorts of advice about writing, but if you are not writing something you like, no one else will like it either.



--Meg Cabot



> Write your story as it needs to be written. Write it honestly, and tell it as best you can. I’m not sure that there are any other rules. Not ones that matter.



--Neil Gaiman



> The job of the writer is to kiss no ass, no matter how big and holy and white and tempting and powerful.



--Ken Kesey

But, hey, what do these people know about writing?


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 4, 2013)

All these rules are just driving me crazy! I mean, really? I find it disconcerting to see a lot of these very useful words being put on this list. Perhaps some people like for their dialogue to be quite realistic and nonrestrictive? The truly amazing thing is that I see this kind of stuff in fiction all the time. I've literally got tons of books on my shelf right now that exhibit many of these features that are perfectly fine books.

OK, now go back and read that paragraph. Is it really that distracting? I used all 10 words. 

Now let me try to rewrite that without the words.

"All these rules are driving me crazy! I find it disconcerting to see a lot of these useful words being put on this list. Some people like for their dialogue to be realistic and nonrestrictive. I see this in fiction all the time. I have tons of books on my shelf right now that exhibit many of these features that are perfectly fine books."

Hmm...I don't know. The meaning doesn't change much, but it feels sterile to me. Like I steamcleaned my paragraph. 

OK, let me try again with some dialogue.



> Richard wiped shaving cream from his face. "Missy just washed that dog and it literally jumped in the mud again."
> 
> "Really?" Lisa brushed the knots from her hair and wiped the mudtracks with her socks. "That dog's got another thing coming if he thinks he can just wallow around and prance around the house like a king."
> 
> ...



OK, same dialogue without the words.



> Richard wiped shaving cream from his face. "Missy washed that dog earlier and it jumped in the mud again."
> 
> "What?" Lisa brushed the knots from her hair and wiped the mudtracks with her socks. "That dog can't wallow around in the mud and prance around the house like a king."
> 
> ...



For the second example,the dialogue may be tighter, but I lost some flavor in some ways. The flow seems off. I'm going to say in general, these words can be cut if they're in abundance, but sniping them all out of your fiction doesn't seem conducive to display the natural way people talk. 

I'm going to say, if you're writing medieval fantasy, sure, you can cut most if not all of these words considering they're modern words for the most part. If you're writing in a modern style, modern people talk this way. Vague wording for me, isn't always bad. People think in vague terms. 

Yeah, I don't think this thread needs to be "Don't tell me how to write!" again. We've already established that in numerous posts. For me, it's seeing how cutting these words works in practice. I practiced them and yeah, it felt weird and unnatural in some cases. The only true way to determine if these words belong in your toolbox or not is to try not using them and see if it somehow hurts your soul or annoys you. That's when you know there's something wrong.


----------



## ThinkerX (Nov 4, 2013)

We are watching a shift in writing style take place, similiar to the one that happened a few decades ago.

And some of us are active participants in that change.

Back when my computer still accepted it, 'Pro-Writing-Aid' used to flag many of these words in my writing.  Which sort of says where they stand on this emerging new style.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

Speaking of those ten words, let's look at Tolkien:



> "And why not? Surely you don't disbelieve the prophecies *just* because you helped them come about. You don't *really* suppose do you that all your adventures and escapes were managed by mere luck? Just for your sole benefit? You're a very fine person, Mr. Baggins, and I'm *quite* fond of you. But you are *really* just a little fellow, in a wide world after all."





> "Good morning!" said Bilbo, and he meant it. The sun was shining, and the grass was *very* green. But Gandalf looked at him from under long bushy eyebrows that stuck out farther than the brim of his shady hat.





> This of course is the way to talk to dragons, if you don't want to reveal your proper name (which is wise), and don't want to infuriate them with a flat refusal (which is also *very* wise). No dragon can resist the fascination of riddling talk and of wasting time trying to understand it.





> "I should think so — in these parts! We are plain quiet folk and have no use for adventures. Nasty disturbing uncomfortable *things*! Make you late for dinner!"





> As all *things* come to an end, even this story, a day came at last when they were in sight of the country where Bilbo had been born and bred, where the shapes of the land and of the trees were as well known to him as his hands and toes.



And one of the most famous quotes:



> "What have I *got* in my pocket?" he said aloud.



And that's just in _The Hobbit_. I guess ol' JRR never read those rules. He even has three of the forbidden words in one paragraph of dialogue, one of them twice!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

Not to diminish the importance of Tolkein but that was 60 years ago....

No, I'm not saying to have modern success you have to write lean. The reason I started this thread was to begin a discussion on how each of us use the words...where I why we choose to use them. I've heard some excellent reasons; characterization, internal thought with uncertainties, dialogue, narrative voice in close POVs, distinct narrative voices, etc. that's what I was hoping to generate & they're all valid.

It wasn't intended to be viewed as another rule set to fight against. Perhaps the tone of the article comes off that way. I didn't see it in that light and I don't fully agree with its assertions. Still, I think it's probably a valuable practice to examine the use of any words that often don't offer meaning. You have to recognize the use and understand it for what it is before you can discern if it's performing the function you intended. That's a productive discussion.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

Mr. Smith:

If a writer isn't examining every single word they use (including the possibly superfluous ones in this very sentence), they're not doing their job very well.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 4, 2013)

Tolkien books sell very well right now.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Tolkien books sell very well right now.



I see what you did there, intentional or otherwise.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 4, 2013)

I'm on my phone. I might have done anything


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Tolkien books sell very well right now.



My point being, you're not going to see many modern advice columns advocating that style. They will offer contemporary advice, more than likely.

Again, I don't diminish Tolkein's contribution, his sales longevity, or his style. Style choices are completely valid. Success speaks for itself.


----------



## Jabrosky (Nov 4, 2013)

I apologize for derailing the thread, Mr. Smith. I simply thought the article linked to in the OP was advocating for an absolute approach to writing, but I see you don't interpret it that way.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> I apologize for derailing the thread, Mr. Smith. I simply thought the article linked to in the OP was advocating for an absolute approach to writing, but I see you don't interpret it that way.



I agree with your interpretation, for what it's worth.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

No, it's fine Jabrosky. Threads take a life of their own and we're all entitled to voice our opinions. I was just hoping for a more constructive discussion on style choices.     

I totally understand why artists lash out at something they view as confining. I just don't see advice as restrictive. It's within my power to accept, reject, or ignore. So, I'm always a bit surprised to see discussion inevitably head down that road. Perhaps I shouldn't be....


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 4, 2013)

Getting back to the style issue, I've read plenty of good books (including recent ones) that take a more roundabout, meandering approach to the narrative. It can certainly be done well, and not every story has to have the mile-a-minute, laconic pacing of a thriller (and it is my view that the 'rules' we so often see discussed are meant for writing that is intended to be that way).

It comes down to the author making a stylistic choice and not being bound by thinking they have to write a certain style of book. A more verbose narrative has a certain flavor to it. Use of the words on this list can add to that, and will create a work with an overall different impression than something you might read from Lee Child or Elmore Leonard. In our genre, fantasy, I do not think the approach of crime-fiction writers is the standard yet. At least not in epic fantasy. You'll see it much more prominently in urban fantasy.

Awareness is the key. If you're going for that lean, fast-paced approach and you've riddled your writing with these sorts of words, then you've made a mistake out of lack of skill or perhaps ignorance (everyone has to start from a point of ignorance). Knowing what these rules are, and what type of work they're meant to produce, will help you.

On the other hand, if you're consciously going for a different style, then knowing the rules won't hurt you unless you mistakenly think they're somehow mandatory and should take precedence over your own ideas of what the narrative should be like.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> No, it's fine Jabrosky. Threads take a life of their own and we're all entitled to voice our opinions. I was just hoping for a more constructive discussion on style choices.
> 
> I totally understand though, why artists lash out at something they view as confining. I just don't view advice as restrictive, so I'm always a bit surprised to see discussion inevitably head down that road. Perhaps I shouldn't be....



Okay, let me explain a bit further why I read it the way I did. It comes down, ironically, to the word choice of the author.



> When you want to make your writing more powerful, cut out words you don't need--such as the 10 included in this post:



And later in the article...



> Cut the filler to make your writing stronger.



It's not, "...consider cutting out words you don't need..." or "Consider cutting the filler..." the author is making an absolute statement, the equivalent of "you must cut!"

So, taking their own word choice at its face value, I am reading it less as friendly advice to be taken or discarded as each writer chooses and more as an attempt to codify solid laws to which every writer must conform, or else the Writing Police will be banging on your door.

Your mileage may vary, of course. That's just how I read it.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 4, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> All these rules are just driving me crazy! I mean, really? I find it disconcerting to see a lot of these very useful words being put on this list. Perhaps some people like for their dialogue to be quite realistic and nonrestrictive? The truly amazing thing is that I see this kind of stuff in fiction all the time. I've literally got tons of books on my shelf right now that exhibit many of these features that are perfectly fine books.
> 
> OK, now go back and read that paragraph. Is it really that distracting? I used all 10 words.
> 
> ...



I have to admit I didn't spot what you did there until after I'd read it through. What I did spot was that you seemed really upset. The second example, by comparison seems a lot more lifeless.

I think that instead of listing a bunch of words to avoid or be careful about it would be better to sum things up with a quote along the lines of "don't write your prose like you write your dialogue" - or something to that effect.

Then again, that's probably a much easier rule to agree with and we wouldn't have had this discussion about it. On the other hand, there are of course exception to that rule as well and we could probably come up with some good ones if we tried.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Okay, let me explain a bit further why I read it the way I did. It comes down, ironically, to the word choice of the author.  And later in the article...  It's not, "...consider cutting out words you don't need..." or "Consider cutting the filler..." the author is making an absolute statement, the equivalent of "you must cut!"  So, taking their own word choice at its face value, I am reading it less as friendly advice to be taken or discarded as each writer chooses and more as an attempt to codify solid laws to which every writer must conform, or else the Writing Police will be banging on your door.  Your mileage may vary, of course. That's just how I read it.



Sure, I get that. The tone is a bit forceful, no doubt. But... When you're trying to communicate an opinion, do you have to soften the sentiment or offer a disclaimer after every point? I mean, that's what works for them (in their opinion). That seems clear to me which is why I don't feel restricted by advice. 

For example, I love writing quotes. I don't love them all though. Some I might consider silly, foolish, or completely lacking in merit. Those won't make my quote file. They certainly won't be quoted by me to another. I see any writing advice in the same light.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Sure, I get that. The tone is a bit forceful, no doubt. But... When you're trying to communicate an opinion, do you have to soften the sentiment or offer a disclaimer after every point? I mean, that's what works for them (in their opinion). That seems clear to me which is why I don't feel restricted by advice.
> 
> For example, I love writing quotes. I don't love them all though. Some I might consider silly, foolish, or completely lacking in merit. Those won't make my quote file. They certainly won't be quoted by me to another. I see any writing advice in the same light.



If I'm offering advice, as I do here, I say, "this works for me," or "you might try this...". In other words, I choose my words carefully to make sure the tone is what I want it to be.

On the other hand, if I am stating cold hard facts, like "two and two are four," or "Barack Obama is President right now," then I don't couch them in words that make it sound like something that's up for discussion.

We're all supposed to be writers here, we know what a difference words can make. The author of the article is also a writer, therefore I am assuming he/she (too lazy to look it up) also knows what a difference words can make, and that he/she deliberately chose the words he/she did to make his/her point and to set the tone he/she wanted.

In other words, I am assuming that a professional writer is a professional and wrote with care and forethought to things like tone.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> If I'm offering advice, as I do here, I say, "this works for me," or "you might try this...". In other words, I choose my words carefully to make sure the tone is what I want it to be.  On the other hand, if I am stating cold hard facts, like "two and two are four," or "Barack Obama is President right now," then I don't couch them in words that make it sound like something that's up for discussion.  We're all supposed to be writers here, we know what a difference words can make. The author of the article is also a writer, therefore I am assuming he/she (too lazy to look it up) also knows what a difference words can make, and that he/she deliberately chose the words he/she did to make his/her point and to set the tone he/she wanted.  In other words, I am assuming that a professional writer is a professional and wrote with care and forethought to things like tone.



That's all well and good for forum discussions but I doubt that tack would work for a professional article publication. Those softening remarks would probably be edited as unnecessary. I could be wrong though...but I rarely see disclaimers like that in articles.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> That's all well and good for forum discussions but I doubt that tack would work for a professional article publication. Those softening remarks would probably be edited as unnecessary. I could be wrong though...but I rarely see disclaimers like that in articles.



Well, then, they're going to be taken as rules and not advice by a lot of people, it seems. Sort of defeats the purpose, don't you think, especially when you're (the author, not you, TAS) pontificating about word choice?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

I can't disagree with that but they might not be very concerned with forum discussions...or potentially it's exactly the aim.

Still, it'd be nice to discuss the topic and not the intent.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I can't disagree with that but they might not be very concerned with forum discussions...or potentially it's exactly the aim.
> 
> Still, it'd be nice to discuss the topic and not the intent.



The topic is intertwined with the intent in this case. The topic is choice of words, which to use and which not to, is it not? And the words that were chosen lead to the question of their intent.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 4, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> I have to admit I didn't spot what you did there until after I'd read it through. What I did spot was that you seemed really upset. The second example, by comparison seems a lot more lifeless.
> 
> I think that instead of listing a bunch of words to avoid or be careful about it would be better to sum things up with a quote along the lines of "don't write your prose like you write your dialogue" - or something to that effect.
> 
> Then again, that's probably a much easier rule to agree with and we wouldn't have had this discussion about it. On the other hand, there are of course exception to that rule as well and we could probably come up with some good ones if we tried.



I wasn't actually upset, I was just trying to show how using some of those words like "really" or "very" can add emotion to writing in some cases. It's interesting that you didn't even think twice about the fact I was using all the words in the first example. For me, emotion always supersedes word choice. If the word choice conveys the emotion you want, then go for it. That's one reason people may question the use of profanity in writing or movies. Some say it's a lazy way to convey emotion, but others say that's how people really talk. If you "clean up" your writing constantly, you run the risk of sterilizing it I think.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> The topic is intertwined with the intent in this case. The topic is choice of words, which to use and which not to, is it not? And the words that were chosen lead to the question of their intent.



This is where we disagree, and that's okay. I read the intent as a spark to generate discussion on the use of words that may often be used unconsciously or to questionable effect, not to demean another's choices.

Our views on the use of the words themselves appear to be similar at least. 8)


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 4, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> This is where we disagree, and that's okay. I read the intent as a spark to generate discussion on the use of words that may often be used unconsciously or to questionable effect, not to demean another's choices.
> 
> Our views on the use of the words themselves appear to be similar at least. 8)



Okay, one last attempt then I'll drop it.

The writer was writing about the choice of words. Therefore you'd think they'd want to choose their words carefully so as not to lead reasonable people like Jabrosky and myself to infer an intent that is not present, wouldn't you?

If they accidentally chose the wrong words to convey their intent, well, doesn't that put their own word-choice expertise in question?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Nov 4, 2013)

The first version did come through as a lot more emotionally charged than the second one. It may of course be that I read it as part of a discussion on a forum and not as part of a written narrative, but I'd like to think that's not the whole truth.

Let's try this.


> "Maybe all these rules are driving me crazy? I find it so very disconcerting to see a lot of these really quite useful words got put on this list. Perhaps some people like for their dialogue to be realistic and nonrestrictive? I see this stuff in fiction literally all the time. I have tons of amazing books on my shelf right now that exhibit many of these features that are perfectly fine books."


I took the section without the naughty words in it and added the words to it. Maybe I'm reading too much into it as I know what I was trying to achieve, but I feel it reads rather differently (more neurotic than upset). What also struck me is that doing this was a lot trickier than I first expected. I thought it'd be pretty easy, but I actually had to spend a few minutes thinking about it


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 4, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> Okay, one last attempt then I'll drop it.    The writer was writing about the choice of words. Therefore you'd think they'd want to choose their words carefully so as not to lead reasonable people like Jabrosky and myself to infer an intent that is not present, wouldn't you?  If they accidentally chose the wrong words to convey their intent, well, doesn't that put their own word-choice expertise in question?



Yes, I got your meaning a couple posts ago and, like I said then, I can't disagree. The intention may well have been to cause the controversy and reaction to fuel debate, in the first place.     

I'd just rather look past any assumptions and have a fruitful discussion on word choice amongst us reasonable & accepting folk.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 4, 2013)

OK, back to the topic for me, which I assume is to be careful not using vague words. I could see how cutting some of these words in the actual narrative may be better, but I can't agree with cutting them in dialogue. Going through your writing with a fine-toothed comb is more about conveying the best meaning you can than about cutting words. Sometimes cutting words can actually damage what might have been an otherwise nice segment.

For example:

"Really? Are you bloody joking? Where is my damn dragon when I need it? Come down here you slick-scaled, overgrown lizard!"

Becomes:

"Are you joking? Where is my dragon? Come down here you overgrown lizard!"

Just feels a little flatter to me.


----------



## Devor (Nov 4, 2013)

We get a lot of these articles where authors post rules like these as total absolutes.  Some of us have been through this debate a hundred times - I know I've just decided to ignore the absolutism of the article, and also to assume that every "absolutist" community member comes to lighten that stance by about their third post or so.

Some people find that having clear rules for their writing style helps them be better writers.  That's fine.  And they get a little carried away with it sometimes and come across as pushy, and honestly, that's fine too.  It might be a problem if everybody here agreed and pushed one style, but there's a healthy variety of opinion in this community.  I think it's fine that people take firm opinions - sometimes it makes a better discussion.

I just wish we'd see this many discussions like this about character arcs instead.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


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



T.Allen,

Whereas Steerpike and I have fundamental differences, for the most part, you and I agree pretty closely on all matters writing related.  Perhaps an elaboration on my part would help:

1. You and I both believe that there are significant advantages to tight writing.  My position is that those advantages do not go out the window just because you're now writing dialogue.

2. You and I both agree that a rule should only be broken after careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages.  I feel the same should be applied to the lack of tightness in dialogue.  Is the advantage gained from a characterization standpoint outweighed by the negatives from the lack of writing tight?  That's what I meant by saying that you should use such words in certain instances.

3. Since you and I both agree that a deep POV is a good thing, I was surprised at your response to Steerpike.  When he rightly pointed out that the narrative in a deep POV should mimic to a great extent the POV character's speech, you seemed to dismiss the thought without much comment.  To me, this is an important point.  If you think you don't need to have dialogue be tight and that the narrative should resemble the dialogue, when is tight writing good?  Do you disagree that the narrative should be in the POV character's voice?  

4. I don't feel that these words are necessary to make dialogue sound "natural," just as they're not necessary to make the narrative sound natural.  Are you saying above that your narrative isn't meaningful, appropriate, and natural because those words were left out?  My contention is that the narrative should be all those things as well.

5. Your primary argument for including these words in dialogue seems to be, "it sounds natural."  You and I agree that we're not trying to reproduce a transcript with our dialogue.  Why, then, is it reasonable to think that the use of worthless words is somehow necessary to serve the story purpose of our dialogue?

To further clarify my position, let's look at an example that I feel is important - the word "maybe."

"Maybe," Tom said, "we should turn right instead of left."

(Okay, I'm really looking at the phrase "maybe we should" here.)  There are a lot of instances where the use of the phrase is a good thing.  Perhaps you want to show that the character starts out having a lack of confidence.  In the beginning, you use a lot of maybes and I believes.  As the story goes on, he grows.  At the end, you eliminate these words.  I'd say that's a fantastic and subtle bit of writing.  Good job!

Perhaps the use of the phrase is appropriate for the situation.  If Tom would not realistically be in a position to make a demand (Turn right!) of the person who he's addressing, then it makes sense to use it.

Here's the problem with the phrase, though.  A lot of newbie writers use it thoughtlessly because, to their ears, it sounds "natural."  It portrays the character as having a lack of confidence.  It communicates a certain position between the speaker and the person on the other end of the conversation.

It also lessens tension.

The use of the phrase fundamentally gives the speaker an easy out.  Let's say I tell you emphatically, "Do this!"  If I turn out to be wrong, it's harder for me to take it back because I was so emphatic.  Let's say I instead tell you, "Maybe you should do this."  In this case, it's a lot easier for me to take back the advice if proven wrong.  In which state exists more tension?

By thoughtlessly applying these kind of words because they sound natural, you risk a lot of problems.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> 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).



I disagree.  It was what I inferred from your statements.  I still feel it was a reasonable inference.



> If the language serves characterization, then it isn't ineffectual.



Which is what I meant when I said to use it in isolated instances.  If it serves characterization, it's okay.  Use such with careful consideration when it serves the story.

Truthfully, though, it's not like you and I are ever going to convince each other of anything.  I get that you feel voice is of absolute importance and that creating a unique voice is more important to you than tight writing.  I don't happen to share that view, but I can respect that you feel that way.  In the end we both agree that story elements are more important to overall success than any technique.  I simply feel that technique is higher on the importance scale than you do, and you feel that voice is more important than I do.  Not a real biggie.

Something struck me last night that did bother me, though:

Maybe I'm wrong on this, but my recollection is that you are usually one of the first people to point out what a reader finds important versus what a writer does.  I, for the life of me, can't ever remember as a reader thinking, "Wow.  That book sucked; the voices of the characters were too similar."

Don't get me wrong.  I think that a writer absolutely should strive for characters having a distinct voice (even if I give less importance to it than you do and obviously disagree on methods to achieve it), but I have a tendency to make such statements about what a writer "should" do a lot.  You, on the other hand, seem to avoid ever telling a writer what they "should" do.  It seems to me that you even chastise posters on occasion for taking a strong stance on what writers "should" do out of general principle.  (Am I wrong on this?  It's my honest impression.) 

It certainly seems like, on the issue of character voice, you're doing what you normally stand against.


----------



## wordwalker (Nov 5, 2013)

Thoughtless is bad.

No question, using exact phrasings like this can do a lot to fine-tune the story, while overusing them (or just using words by habit without asking if they carry their weight) is a problem.

Especially for dialog (and 1st-person narration), it's the same challenge amped up. You're still balancing More Fun with Less Delay, but dialog's different because readers have a lifetime actually hearing how people talk, so all their standards for authenticity are much higher -- and at the same time real-world chat is much further away from streamlined writing.

That would be why, whenever you pick up a book on writing, the dialog chapter is liable to center around "Be authentic, but never too authentic." It's *the* advice on dialog, and it's good advice.

Which is why "kill list" articles like the OP might be good reminders of what to watch for, but it's irritating to see the author forget (if they ever knew) that it's still part of each writer's own decision for each moment.

And anyone who makes sweeping statements is a blithering idiot. (Um, let me rephrase that last one...)


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> Thoughtless is bad.



Exactly.

And I think a lot of people misunderstand the advice to get rid of useless words.  If a word serves a purpose, it's not useless.  I think that most of us have a tendency to use words sometimes and not give careful enough consideration to what that word's purpose is.



> "Be authentic, but never too authentic." It's the advice on dialog, and it's good advice.



Agreed.  It's a fine line.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Don't get me wrong.  I think that a writer absolutely should strive for characters having a distinct voice (even if I give less importance to it than you do and obviously disagree on methods to achieve it), but I have a tendency to make such statements about what a writer "should" do a lot.  You, on the other hand, seem to avoid ever telling a writer what they "should" do.  It seems to me that you even chastise posters on occasion for taking a strong stance on what writers "should" do out of general principle.  (Am I wrong on this?  It's my honest impression.)
> 
> It certainly seems like, on the issue of character voice, you're doing what you normally stand against.



I'm just pointing out what I like as a reader, for the most part. I definitely notice generic writing, or characters that all have a generic voice. Sometimes it is done very well, so that's great. But a lot of the best books I've read, both old and current, completely fly in the face of this kind of advice, or any of the other rules of writing that people seem to think are necessary to make a better book. Those books would be ruined entirely if their authors had heeded this kind of advice, so out of my own personal preference to preserve good books of all kind, representing a wide diversity of writing styles and approaches to fiction, I discourage anyone from thinking these rules are absolutes, or that they'll necessarily make your work better. I know from personal experience as a reader that this is not the case.

They'll make it different, and if you're going for that certain type of style, then fine. But if you're not going for that, then you should feel free to ignore this sort of thing, and new writers particularly shouldn't be made to think that they have to follow these pronouncements if they want to write a good book.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 5, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> But if you're not going for that, then you should feel free to ignore this sort of thing, and new writers particularly shouldn't be made to think that they have to follow these pronouncements if they want to write a good book.



Imagine if everyone followed precisely the same "rules" for writing each of their books. The books would almost certainly be bland, uninspiring gruel with no spark, no life, no zest.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 5, 2013)

I know this may be a weird request, but I do notice a lot of these sort of back and forths about generic writing vs. tight writing.

Maybe if both Steerpike and BW offered a couple of novels each that can serve as great examples of both a book that uses language economically with great success (from BW's POV) and a novel that ignores tight writing in favor of a more distinct voice (from Steerpike's POV) there might be more sold evidence to argue. As it is, I find a lot of these arguments go in circles because I haven't seen many actual examples offered up from either side about why a specific author does something right in each other's estimation.

So perhaps if both of you offered up something that you think follows your line of reasoning, and then you both read each other's offering (since you both seem to read a lot, I don't think that would be a problem), there would be a clearer understanding of why the other thinks one method works while another thinks it doesn't.

Just throwing that out there. 

To add my two cents, I agree with both of you in various ways. I don't like generic writing. I rather something being flawed and exciting than just plain vanilla writing. That's my personal preference. But at the same time, I like writing that isn't messy. Perhaps using some of these words equates to messy writing? I don't know. I don't really think so.

On the other hand, I think at least _trying_ following some rules isn't a bad idea. Even if you think it's weird or restrictive or whatever, trying out different ways of writing can open up new horizons for you. Following lots of rules can teach you what you don't want to use and what you do. So I do find value in these kind of lists because it makes me think more about my own individual techniques as a writer. I don't see a point in getting angry and saying "This advice is crazy! I want to do things my own way!" That's obvious. But I think I can learn something significant about myself as a writer by looking at these kind of things and seeing _why_ I don't want to follow rules.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

Economy of writing with greater success:

Michael Connelly and Robert Crais are masters at if. If you want to see how it is done right, and how to keep the reader turning the page with it, this is where you should look. Connelly's Bosch books and Crais' Elvis Cole books. No one in Fantasy comes close, which is one reason it is good to read outside of your chosen genre.

Lee Child does pretty well with it too.

As for books that would have been utterly ruined if the author took to heart the 'rules' of writing you commonly see on writing forums:

Anything by Angela Carter
Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books
Tolkien
Felix Palma's Map of Time
KW Jeter's Infernal Devices
James Blaylock's The Elfin Ship and The Disappearing Dwarf, and also Homunculus and others
Danielewski's House of Leaves
Roberto Bolano's 2666 and The Savage Detectives
Anything by Caitlin R. Kiernan, particularly her earlier works
Dan Simmons' Drood and The Terror (the former of which is being made into a film)
Tanith Lee's fantasy works
Kage Baker's Anvil of the World

That's of the top of my head and is just a small sample.


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> On the other hand, I think at least _trying_ following some rules isn't a bad idea. Even if you think it's weird or restrictive or whatever, trying out different ways of writing can open up new horizons for you.



But that's where the problem comes in.

If I sat and thought for a while, I could easily come up with ten things that I do consistently because they sound good to me and I don't even realize it most of the time.  I could write my own rules for writing in my own voice, and follow them myself.

I don't tell everyone, _write like me for a while and you'll be a better writer!_

But for some reason a particular set of rules are popular, and I think I know why:  They're designed to tell you _don't do this_ instead of actually giving you an active direction to push yourself towards.  They are _destructive_ writing rules instead of _constructive_ writing rules.

And that makes them _easier_.  They create the _illusion_ of better writing by simplifying every possible avenue of variation or complexity.  It's like saying "Let's build a house out brick.  Bricks are pretty. They're red.  Did you see the ugly colors some people use to paint their wooden houses?  Or the god-awful siding?  Sure, somebody built a skyscraper around metal beams, but let's be real, most of us would be foolish to try something like that.  You can't go wrong with brick."

And they're not wrong - bricks are pretty.  Bricks are nice.  Brick buildings are hard to screw up, aesthetically.  But building with brick doesn't teach you much _because it leaves everything else out_.  There are no good character descriptions because there are no character descriptions.  There's no practice at setting the scene because there's no scene to set (Let the imagination fill in the gaps!).  There's no _good use_ of a phrase because the phrase just isn't there.  There's no _ambition_ in the language.

And the worst part is, the whole debate is a red herring because nobody is talking about which rooms to build.  I mean, people have laid out ideas for character arcs, for building a good group dynamic among your characters, for doing developing your bad guy's supporting characters.  Where are _those_ debates?


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 5, 2013)

I agree with most of what Devor said. However, I take issue with this part:



Devor said:


> I mean, people have laid out ideas for character arcs, for building a good group dynamic among your characters, for doing developing your bad guy's supporting characters.  Where are _those_ debates?



And my issue is, why haven't *you* started those debates and nursed them? I sure haven't seen them in the time I've been here, and I do my best to check every new thread.

This goes for every member here, but especially for those wearing the moderator badge. If there's a kind of thread you want to see more of, *create it yourself!* Don't sit around and whine about "where are the funny cat videos threads?" *Be proactive!*


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

GeekDavid said:


> And my issue is, why haven't *you* started those debates and nursed them? I sure haven't seen them in the time I've been here, and I do my best to check every new thread.



There's not much engagement.  And there's a lot of pushback if you want to discuss anything that sounds like a trope.  But posting isn't the be-all of the community, and I'm focused on other possibilities of pushing the discussion at the moment.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> And that makes them easier. They create the illusion of better writing by simplifying every possible avenue of variation or complexity. It's like saying "Let's build a house out brick. Bricks are pretty. They're red. Did you see the ugly colors some people use to paint their wooden houses? Or the god-awful siding? Sure, somebody built a skyscraper around metal beams, but let's be real, most of us would be foolish to try something like that. You can't go wrong with brick."
> 
> And they're not wrong - bricks are pretty. Bricks are nice. Brick buildings are hard to screw up, aesthetically. But building with brick doesn't teach you much because it leaves everything else out. There are no good character descriptions because there are no character descriptions. There's no practice at setting the scene because there's no scene to set (Let the imagination fill in the gaps!). There's no good use of a phrase because the phrase just isn't there. There's no ambition in the language.



So, it's better to have this conversation?

"Build me a house."

"What kind."

"One that's a house."

"What criteria am I building to?  What kind of materials do you want?"

"Be creative."

"Okay, so you'll like whatever it is that I make for you as long as I'm creative."

"Absolutely not.  The house still has to meet all my needs for me to like it."

That's how I view your side of the argument.  At least, I'm trying to give beginners some good parameters to get them started.  If you're a beginner and want your work read, be clear, create good tension, and give your readers a character that they can sink their teeth into.  Here's a great place to start achieving that: (list of rules that tell the beginner how to effectively communicate and entertain)

Are there other ways to do it besides these rules?  Entertaining books that don't follow the rules do exist, so obviously yes.

What I see from most beginners, however, is a lack of understanding of even rudimentary basics.  If they follow the rules, they can at least advance quickly to where they're producing something readable.  Maybe the approach will somehow stifle their creativity, but, frankly, I think that, if they're that easily stifled, they were unlikely to ever have created anything great anyway.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

When you give the new writers that advice and frame it as an objective requirement for good writing, then you've already decided for them what kind of house they want. That's not only presumptuous, but harmful to the development of new writers. Someone has to point out that they have options and that the rules being expounded merely represent one approach designed to achieve a particularly style of novel.


----------



## Philip Overby (Nov 5, 2013)

That's a good point about most of these "rules" being about "don't do this." However, I do see a lot of constructive writing rules that people think are restrictive or argue that they don't work just the same. If you entitle anything "5 Things Not to Do" people will read it because they want to argue. If you entitle it "5 Things to Make Your Writing Shine" people will read it and say "Well, that's obvious." The rare instance exists where people actually say, "Wow, these rules changed my life!" I've taken to the fact that sharing rules with artists doesn't really go anywhere because people have their ideas ingrained in them and aren't really going to change them. Something shaped their opinion and forged it and it's not going to shift. For me, I'm very malleable because I still think I can improve greatly as a writer. I like to share techniques that have worked for me because humans can really only experience so many ways to do something. I figure if something helped me, it may help others. That's why I trumpet on and on about "Scenes/Sequels" and The Snowflake Method because those ways actually _have_ changed my life. 

So going to your idea of debating more solid ways to improve writing, we get into those same cyclical conversations. "This is how I build characters." "Oh yeah, well that doesn't work for me." "Oh, OK." Then it's over and people move on. Either that or they get argumentative and it goes around and around. 

Perhaps giving character studies (something I believe you've done) can allow us to more deeply analyze these concepts. If we talk about ideas, we're just talking. If you have concrete examples to look at and say "I think this character arc works well becaue_______" then we can have a deeper debate, I feel. Arguing nebulous points rarely goes anywhere. Concrete examples go a long, long way in my opinion.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 5, 2013)

Devor said:


> There's not much engagement.  And there's a lot of pushback if you want to discuss anything that sounds like a trope.  But posting isn't the be-all of the community, and I'm focused on other possibilities of pushing the discussion at the moment.



A good leader understands that he should never ask others to do things he's not willing to do himself.


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> So, it's better to have this conversation?
> 
> "Build me a house."
> 
> ...



If you're talking about me well that's silly - I've given lots of advice in my articles on the front page, and in the many other threads I've engaged in.  A few posts in one thread does not the end-all and be-all of things.

There are ways of discussing _how_ to do better character descriptions, instead of just leaving them out.  And for instance, I started the Break the Rules Challenge just last night.




BWFoster78 said:


> What I see from most beginners, however, is a lack of understanding of even rudimentary basics.  If they follow the rules, they can at least advance quickly to where they're producing something readable.  Maybe the approach will somehow stifle their creativity, but, frankly, I think that, if they're that easily stifled, they were unlikely to ever have created anything great anyway.



Honestly, that's wrong.  Stifling somebody is easy.  Drawing them out is not.  It's much more effective to encourage excessive descriptions and scale them back later than it is to tell somebody to leave them out.  If you don't practice, you don't improve.  You're telling them not to practice this part of their writing and to just leave it out instead.


----------



## Devor (Nov 5, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> That's a good point about most of these "rules" being about "don't do this." However, I do see a lot of constructive writing rules that people think are restrictive or argue that they don't work just the same. If you entitle anything "5 Things Not to Do" people will read it because they want to argue. If you entitle it "5 Things to Make Your Writing Shine" people will read it and say "Well, that's obvious."



There are articles that do that.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't feel that people push those rules and that they turn into big debates.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> When you give the new writers that advice and frame it as an objective requirement for good writing,



First, I disagree with that it's the responsibility of the person giving advice to frame the advice perfectly.  This statement, to me, confers just this responsibility.  If I'm searching for advice, it's my responsibility to get from it what I can.  If someone has told me something that may be of great benefit to me and I reject it because of how it's stated, that's my own fool fault.

It seems like you're saying, "It's okay to give people advice as long as you frame it the correct way and include a bunch of disclaimers so that there is no way they can possibly misunderstand you."  I reject that requirement.

Second, the fundamental disagreement between us, I feel, is that I think the most beneficial thing I can do for the beginning writer is to say, "You did this wrong.  Do it this way instead."  You feel this somehow hampers their creativity.  I just don't agree.  At all.

I feel that, by following your path, these poor people are going to languish for years thinking, "Why, oh why, doesn't anyone want to read what I've written?"  My answer to them is, "Because your experiments at being creative have produced unreadable dreck.  If you would have done this instead, you could have at least gotten your story across."

Had someone not told me exactly what I was doing wrong, I certainly wouldn't be where I am.  Granted that I'm not where I want to be yet, but I'm heading in the right direction.  And, guess what, I was able to make my own decisions about which rules to follow and which ones not to.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> It seems like you're saying, "It's okay to give people advice as long as you frame it the correct way and include a bunch of disclaimers so that there is no way they can possibly misunderstand you."  I reject that requirement.



It isn't a requirement. You said yourself that your goal was to help writers. If you can't be bothered to frame your advice accurately, then you haven't done anyone any favors and it runs contrary to your own stated goal. You don't _have_ to state it any particular way. As can be seen, there are plenty of us around to supply to necessary caveats 



BWFoster78 said:


> I feel that, by following your path, these poor people are going to languish for years thinking, "Why, oh why, doesn't anyone want to read what I've written?"  My answer to them is, "Because your experiments at being creative have produced unreadable dreck.  If you would have done this instead, you could have at least gotten your story across."



I don't see any evidence to support this view. It's a convenient assertion to bolster your own subjective viewpoint, but I'm not sure what it is based on, other than opinion.


----------



## GeekDavid (Nov 5, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> It isn't a requirement. You said yourself that your goal was to help writers. If you can't be bothered to frame your advice accurately, then you haven't done anyone any favors and it runs contrary to your own stated goal. You don't _have_ to state it any particular way. As can be seen, there are plenty of us around to supply to necessary caveats
> 
> I don't see any evidence to support this view. It's a convenient assertion to bolster your own subjective viewpoint, but I'm not sure what it is based on, other than opinion.



Hear! Hear! I knew there was a reason I liked Steerpike! (and not just the avatar that reminds me of a kitty that's since passed on... except she had yellow eyes.)


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2013)

Sorry for the late response Brian.... Busy morning.



BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen,
> 
> Whereas Steerpike and I have fundamental differences, for the most part, you and I agree pretty closely on all matters writing related.


True, with a few exceptions, like our differing opinions on the importance of voice.



BWFoster78 said:


> 1. You and I both believe that there are significant advantages to tight writing.  My position is that those advantages do not go out the window just because you're now writing dialogue.


I understand your position and I lean towards tight writing most of the time. My point was that I make exceptions when the writing might sound better to my ear with one of these "taboo" words being included. I have read sentences that sound choppy without their inclusion. In my experience, with my writing, that occurs primarily in dialogue. As such, I'm not as strict with my dialogue &, as a result, I feel the conversation quality comes out more natural...sometimes.



BWFoster78 said:


> 2. You and I both agree that a rule should only be broken after careful consideration of the advantages and disadvantages.  I feel the same should be applied to the lack of tightness in dialogue.  Is the advantage gained from a characterization standpoint outweighed by the negatives from the lack of writing tight?  That's what I meant by saying that you should use such words in certain instances.


Yes. In all cases where I would choose to use these rules, it would be an intentional use because I believe their inclusion adds something to meaning or the feeling of natural conversation. Let me be clear though, you won't find it happening a ton in my work. Their use is the exception (just like adverb use) but they are tools that may be used to a certain effect when applied properly.



BWFoster78 said:


> 3. Since you and I both agree that a deep POV is a good thing, I was surprised at your response to Steerpike.  When he rightly pointed out that the narrative in a deep POV should mimic to a great extent the POV character's speech, you seemed to dismiss the thought without much comment.  To me, this is an important point.  If you think you don't need to have dialogue be tight and that the narrative should resemble the dialogue, when is tight writing good?  Do you disagree that the narrative should be in the POV character's voice?


I agree with Steerpike in this case because we're talking about a choice in style. For my own writing, I always try to incorporate a deep POV because I feel it lends the greatest emotional impact. My take on what he asked was different than yours. It seemed to me, Steerpike was asking my opinion on stretching my acceptance of the use of these words beyond my practice of dialogue only. I thought he was making a case for their use in creating a consistent & strong narrative voice. I agreed with him. The point he made, along with a few other posters, was exactly the type of discussion I was hoping for, one that might expand upon my understanding, points that I might experiment with, and therefore, grow as a writer.



BWFoster78 said:


> 4. I don't feel that these words are necessary to make dialogue sound "natural," just as they're not necessary to make the narrative sound natural.  Are you saying above that your narrative isn't meaningful, appropriate, and natural because those words were left out?  My contention is that the narrative should be all those things as well.


No. That's not what I'm saying. However, I recognize there are occasions where these words can make dialogue flow more and feel more natural than a deboned version which may come off as choppy or jarring because it doesn't sound like real speech.



BWFoster78 said:


> 5. Your primary argument for including these words in dialogue seems to be, "it sounds natural."  You and I agree that we're not trying to reproduce a transcript with our dialogue.  Why, then, is it reasonable to think that the use of worthless words is somehow necessary to serve the story purpose of our dialogue?


I'm not talking about the inclusion of useless words. Rather, I'm talking about instances where these words do add something, whether it be meaning, or context, or fluidity in speech. Although I'll agree those occasions are few in my own writing, they do exist.



BWFoster78 said:


> To further clarify my position, let's look at an example that I feel is important - the word "maybe."
> 
> "Maybe," Tom said, "we should turn right instead of left."
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about unconscious usage. I've been very clear, during my tenure at Mythic Scribes, on my stance toward choices and habits. 



BWFoster78 said:


> It also lessens tension.


I don't know if it lessens tension but it lessens urgency, I'll give you that. That is the choice though...is the author conveying a less than sure commitment to the thought OR are they trying to ramp up urgency & pacing? Either choice is a valid one, depending on intention.



BWFoster78 said:


> The use of the phrase fundamentally gives the speaker an easy out.  Let's say I tell you emphatically, "Do this!"  If I turn out to be wrong, it's harder for me to take it back because I was so emphatic.  Let's say I instead tell you, "Maybe you should do this."  In this case, it's a lot easier for me to take back the advice if proven wrong.  In which state exists more tension?


Yup, very true. Can we not see a time where this consideration would also exist for characters?



BWFoster78 said:


> By thoughtlessly applying these kind of words because they sound natural, you risk a lot of problems.


I'm never an advocate for thoughtlessly doing anything, especially in my writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

> I don't see any evidence to support this view. It's a convenient assertion to bolster your own subjective viewpoint, but I'm not sure what it is based on, other than opinion.



My evidence is my own experience.

I languished for years trying to find my own way.  I produced dreck and more dreck.

I've progressed more in the two and a half years after finding people to tell me what I was doing wrong than in a decade of trying on my own.

I'll say it again: if the people I encountered in my writing group had not specifically pointed out, "That's wrong.  Do it this way," I would not be anywhere near where I am.

I also enter into evidence every single person I've critiqued who has said, "Wow, that was a big help.  I didn't understand that."

While you can make an argument that my experience does not translate to every person possible, you absolutely cannot call it "a convenient assertation to bolster" my own subjective viewpoint.

Note also that, not only have I voiced this experience in many other threads, but I mentioned it in that very post:



> Had someone not told me exactly what I was doing wrong, I certainly wouldn't be where I am.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 5, 2013)

T.Allen,

I think we're in pretty close, though not exact, agreement 



> It seemed to me, Steerpike was asking my opinion on stretching my acceptance of the use of these words beyond my practice of dialogue only. I thought he was making a case for their use in creating a consistent & strong narrative voice. I agreed with him.



To me, this position seemed contrary to my understanding of your position on tight writing in general.  I was trying to say that it makes no sense to believe that these words are okay in dialogue but not the narrative assuming the use of a deep POV.

It seems like your position on the overall worth of tight writing is changing, then?



> I don't know if it lessens tension but it lessens urgency, I'll give you that.



I thought, in the next paragraph, I explained how it lessens tension.  With what part did you disagree?



> Can we not see a time where this consideration would also exist for characters?



I don't understand.  I was talking about characters?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Nov 5, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> T.Allen,
> 
> I think we're in pretty close, though not exact, agreement
> 
> ...


No, not really. I still write tight for the most part. I've always made exceptions for dialogue, even with my arch-nemesis "the adverb". People use adverbs in speech, therefore my characters might employ them in an extremely limited number. Even then, it has to convey meaning or a feeling. I see these words in the same light. They're not useless, but they should be viewed with caution & when given due consideration...not unconsciously.



BWFoster78 said:


> I thought, in the next paragraph, I explained how it lessens tension.  With what part did you disagree?


That it really doesn't impact tension greatly. It might make the sentence less urgent because of the indecision, and that it reads slower.



BWFoster78 said:


> I don't understand.  I was talking about characters?


I don't know. Were you? 

It seemed like you were relating your experience. If that was the case, it seems reasonable that characters could have a similar experience.


----------

