# Suddenly...



## deilaitha (May 1, 2014)

So, the word "suddenly" is generally frowned upon by the writing community.  We've talked about it on Mythic Scribes, I've talked about it in creative writing classes, I've read articles about it, I've received critiques about it.  

Yet I can't stop using it. 

I've started combing out a bunch of instances of it--granted, there are many that are completely extraneous and I just wrote out of sheer habit (it's pretty common in speech, so it's easy to slip into in writing).  Sometimes, though....nothing else seems to fit.  "Abruptly" is just about the same thing, though.  It's when a total change of events takes place.  That "suddenly" just really _feel right._

For example, 



> I sat in the living room, crunching on graham crackers as I wrote a post on Mythic Scribes.  Suddenly, my cat started attacking the recliner for no apparent reason.


 [It's a true story!]

vs. 



> I sat in the living room, crunching on graham crackers as I wrote a post on Mythic Scribes.  My cat started attacking the recliner for no apparent reason.



The second one seems flat.  How would you transition between sentence A and sentence B without using "suddenly," "unexpectedly," "out of nowhere" or something similar?  Any ideas?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 1, 2014)

Use it.

That's my two cents. An overused adverb is still a meaningful part of the English language... and it's overused for a reason.


----------



## deilaitha (May 1, 2014)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> An overused adverb is still a meaningful part of the English language... and it's overused for a reason.



While I agree with you, I am curious about the fact that a lot of writings suggest that the use of "suddenly" is a lazy route to take.  I'm not sure whether I agree that using "suddenly" is lazy, but would there be a better way to imply the "out of the blue" sentiment? Perhaps, 



> I was eating graham crackers when my cat decided that the time was ripe to spring a full frontal assault on the recliner, which as far as I could tell, had done nothing to provoke such aggressive behavior.



Besides being a little funnier, does the "suddenness" of the cat's behavior come through as strongly when using the word "suddenly?"


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 1, 2014)

I understand the reasoning behind not using it, but I think there are instances when nothing else fits.  So... yeah, I'm undecided.  It IS a hard word not to use, when something happens...uh..SUDDENLY, but still, I get the reason it looks weak.


----------



## WeilderOfTheMonkeyBlade (May 1, 2014)

I say use it, not too much, but that's like anything.  I think it should be avoided when there's a better option, but if you want to use it, bang it in. 

However, and this is going to make you hate me, but I think the second sentence, without suddenly in,  is better. I knew what was coming, but it just seemed so deadpan and hilarious, It made me chuckle, whereas the first one did seem a bit flat. But maybe that's because I was expecting it too.....hmm..... *Eyes narrowed suspiciously.*


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 1, 2014)

I would imagine the use of the word "suddenly" strongly implies a narrator's voice and to that end, I try to cut it out.  If it were in deep POV, I would imagine it would go something like this:

Typing on Mythic Scribes at the end of a hectic day might have been just the thing to ease my weary mind.  A still room, the scent of dinner's garlic meatballs still in the air, and a vicious "Meow" pulling me from my solace.  As if a mad beast, rabid and voracious, Snowball set upon my recliner with abandon, biting and clawing.  What had gotten into him?  I pulled my laptop and undefended flesh free of the ill-fated chair and fled the room, not looking back.

I mean, there are ways to avoid "sudden;y" was my point, but you have to pick and choose your moments, I'm guessing.  If we were working on another type of scene, maybe a chase, maybe it would work differently?:

The lead horse reared, whinnying as its rider turned sharp.  His sudden direction change, coupled with my clumsier steed, and I rode right by his escape onto an overgrown forest path.

Could be:

The lead horse reared, whinnying as its rider turned sharp.  I couldn't adjust in time and rode right by on my clumsier steed.  I wheeled about, not daring to let him escape me, down the narrow, overgrown forest path.

I don't know.  I don't think the word "sudden" or "suddenly" is a strict no-no, but it should be used correctly.  Things happen suddenly.  Unexpected things.  To simply say, "He suddenly turned his mount left" may imply I thought he was going to go straight, but it's also "expected" that he's fleeing and bound to make sudden moves.  It might take a few more words to show it was sudden, but I think the reason it's frowned on, is that it's simply a weaker way to say what happened and it takes a reader out of the action as much as any narrated sentence does.  Yeah, use sparingly is my understanding.  The word itself sort of skips past the tension of something happening unexpectedly, and therefore, it appears as a sort of negative on the tension-meter.


----------



## Steerpike (May 1, 2014)

I think it has more to do with the cadence of a sentence. If you want the sentence itself to convey suddenness, then use of the word "suddenly" slows the sentence down. It is more "sudden" to eliminate that word and get on to the rest of the sentence. However, you aren't always going to that kind of sudden, sharp sentence, and in fact it doesn't always make sense to. If you're not, then use of the word "suddenly" isn't harming you, and it can serve to clarify. 

The question isn't whether or not to avoid it all the time. It's a matter of whether the specific use you are putting it to is working for you or against you.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

I have a bad tendency to rely on using "suddenly" as well. I don't think that the word itself is necessarily a bad one to use. But I don't like overusing any word. It makes me wonder why I rely on it so much. What's missing from my vocabulary?


----------



## skip.knox (May 1, 2014)

I agree with Caged Maiden here. I would rewrite the two sentences, adding more narrative to the cat. By doing so, the reader sees what the cat is up to while the human sits oblivious. 

That said, I agree with others who say sometimes it's the right word to use. Use it. See if it holds up during editing and re-reads. Then see if it holds up through beta reads. Then again, the same can be said for all the words you use!


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I think it has more to do with the cadence of a sentence. If you want the sentence itself to convey suddenness, then use of the word "suddenly" slows the sentence down. It is more "sudden" to eliminate that word and get on to the rest of the sentence. However, you aren't always going to that kind of sudden, sharp sentence, and in fact it doesn't always make sense to. If you're not, then use of the word "suddenly" isn't harming you, and it can serve to clarify.
> 
> The question isn't whether or not to avoid it all the time. It's a matter of whether the specific use you are putting it to is working for you or against you.



Yes. Exactly.    

A way to tell if it's working for or against is to ask yourself where the "suddenness" of the moment is placed. Is the emphasis on the sudden action itself, or is the emphasis on the precursor, in this case the word "suddenly"? 

In my opinion, when the emphasis falls on the word "suddenly" (or similar word like "abruptly") you're leaching away the urgency of the action. You're shifting the emphasis, and that makes it read less sudden.    

There are always going to be reasons for the use of words like this. Caged Maiden illustrated a few above, and as Steerpike said, it could also be used to establish a certain cadence. More often than not though, I'd recommend avoiding the sentence structure that leads with these words.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

skip.knox said:


> I agree with Caged Maiden here. I would rewrite the two sentences, adding more narrative to the cat. By doing so, the reader sees what the cat is up to while the human sits oblivious.


Of course, if you were in a deep POV, this wouldn't work. In that case, you could start with the pain of claws ripping through socks and the POVs reaction to an unexpected play session.


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 1, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> What's missing from my vocabulary?



It may not even be vocabulary. It could also be related to how you approach pacing (though I guess it could be argued this is part of a writer's vocabulary). One way of giving the impression of suddenity is to abruptly change from long, slow, sentences to short, fast, ones. The danger with that would be that the reader may get confused about what's going on. If the shift is too big they may think there's a sentence or two missing.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 1, 2014)

I agree with it not being vocabulary.  I've read manuscripts for people who use almost the same sentence structure for a whole book.  "She did this to the adverby thing in her hand and looked north toward the adjectivey place." 

I think adverbs fit better in certain sentence structures, same as words like "was" and "had".  I was talking with a friend about this yesterday.  He said he wanted to avoid the word "was' in a description but wasn't sure how to get around it.  I advised him to change sentence structure from:

"The house was a dingy building with rickety shutters and a slouching roof." 

To:

"Nestled between two shops, the old inn appeared to lean on them for stability.  It's roof sagged like an old nag's back and shutters clung to the front despite loose hinges."

Or:

"One more storm and the ramshackle inn might crumble to the ground.  Perhaps it might have already, if the neighboring buildings hadn't held it up."


My point is, that it isn't vocabulary that's lacking in most cases, it's sentence structure.  New writers tend to write only a couple variations on sentences, while more experienced writers have more structures in their arsenal.  It isn't a deficiency, it's how you train your brain to form interesting, poignant sentences.  

The worst offenders for me as a reader are things like:

"Suddenly aware of how cold my hands were..."

OR 

"Suddenly aware how quiet the room got..."  Oh man, I need to trim that one out of at least every first draft.  Yeah... 

You become aware of things as you become aware of things.  there's no "suddenly" about it.  Otherwise, I could say, "I suddenly became aware my kids were hungry, when they demanded lunch."  I mean... it IS sudden when my baby birds start tweeting and I realize it's noon, but really, the word wouldn't belong there.  I would just show myself doing something (writing, probably) and the kids making demands that interrupt what I'm doing.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 1, 2014)

Steerpike said:


> I think it has more to do with the cadence of a sentence. If you want the sentence itself to convey suddenness, then use of the word "suddenly" slows the sentence down. It is more "sudden" to eliminate that word and get on to the rest of the sentence. However, you aren't always going to that kind of sudden, sharp sentence, and in fact it doesn't always make sense to. If you're not, then use of the word "suddenly" isn't harming you, and it can serve to clarify.
> 
> The question isn't whether or not to avoid it all the time. *It's a matter of whether the specific use you are putting it to is working for you or against you.*


That's^ a far more eloquent way of putting the thoughts I didn't type.

My gut instinct was don't automatically eliminate a word from the language because people hate adverbs. But yeah, I felt you were better off with the word than without in the specific case (a first-person past tense recounting of an event), and taht substituting with another adverb would be even more awkward than no adverb.

Also, suddenly is not a word I would use multiple times in one piece, unless of course it's a children's book (like one called "Suddenly" which I loved when reading to children was my job in Hong Kong).


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 1, 2014)

To be honest, I can't think of a situation where "suddenly" would be the best word to use. I can think of situations where "suddenly" would be an okay word to use, but not ones where it would be the best.

For instance, if you want to focus on reader surprise, use either a paragraph split, or a paragraph split followed by a "then." In this case, the latter works better:



> I sat in the living room, crunching on graham crackers as I wrote a post on Mythic Scribes.
> 
> Then my cat started attacking the recliner for no apparent reason.



Or if you want to create a more whimsical feel, use something whimsical, like "quite unexpectedly" or "to my surprise." But it seems like the most appropriate approach would be to just let the information run its course without trying to force a response from the reader:



> I was sitting in the living room, crunching on graham crackers as I wrote a post on Mythic Scribes, when my cat started attacking the recliner for no apparent reason.


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

Caged Maiden said:


> "The house was a dingy building with rickety shutters and a slouching roof."
> 
> To:
> 
> ...



This may be why I use "suddenly". It's a word that conveys a clear meaning very quickly and efficiently. As a reader, and I guess as a writer, I tend to prefer clear, to-the-point description. Of the three sentences above, the first one is the one I prefer. The others feel unnecessarily long and rambling to me.


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 1, 2014)

"Suddenly, it wasn't so fun anymore."

Six word story containing the word suddenly (and a variation of was). I'd say there are ways to use the word to great effect, just usually not when it comes to presenting some kind of sudden action or surprising/startling the reader - which is a bit ironic.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 1, 2014)

Svrtnsse said:


> "Suddenly, it wasn't so fun anymore."
> 
> Six word story containing the word suddenly (and a variation of was). I'd say there are ways to use the word to great effect, just usually not when it comes to presenting some kind of sudden action or surprising/startling the reader - which is a bit ironic.



But in context, that might work better as "This wasn't fun anymore." Or "This had stopped being fun." Or "I couldn't keep treating this like a game." Like I said, there's almost always something that improves on "suddenly."

Come to think of it, here's a bit from Roger Ebert's review of Night of the Living Dead: 



> "The kids in the audience were stunned. There was almost complete silence. The movie had stopped being delightfully scary about halfway through, and had become unexpectedly terrifying."


----------



## Mythopoet (May 1, 2014)

Svrtnsse said:


> "Suddenly, it wasn't so fun anymore."





Feo Takahari said:


> But in context, that might work better as "This wasn't fun anymore." Or "This had stopped being fun." Or "I couldn't keep treating this like a game."



For what it's worth, I like Svrtnsse's version best.


----------



## Svrtnsse (May 1, 2014)

Feo Takahari said:


> But in context, that might work better as "This wasn't fun anymore." Or "This had stopped being fun." Or "I couldn't keep treating this like a game." Like I said, there's almost always something that improves on "suddenly."



It may have to do with our attitude to the words, or how we'r reading them or something like that, but I think that the usage of the word "suddenly" in my version implies that the change from fun to unfun was something unexpected. Also, and again because I may be charging the word differently I feel that the change from fun to unfun was fairly quick to the narrator - the change may have happened gradually but the narrator doesn't realize until it's gone too far.

I'm pretty sure I could go on arguing about it, but in the bigger scheme of things it's not that important. The important thing is that in the scenario I envisioned, "suddenly" was an excellent word for what I had in mind. Trying to fit it all into a six-word story may not have been the best idea (but I'm somewhat obsessed with those at the moment).
Perhaps a better version would be: "Suddenly, the 'game' wasn't fun anymore."

Then again, we may just have different relationships to the word.


----------



## Julian S Bartz (May 1, 2014)

Mythopoet said:


> For what it's worth, I like Svrtnsse's version best.



I agree. Removing suddenly changes the whole thing for me. I think you can get way too caught up in using and not using it. Good writing will make use of suddenly in such a way that the reader doesn't even realise that they have read the word. 

I know that sounds a bit wierd, but its all about maintaining the constant reader. Suddenly conveys an abrupt event, so the focus for the reader should be solely on the event itself.

I also think it is something writers worry about way more than readers. I once talked to my beta readers about certain words, adverbs and suddenly. They all said that until I had mentioned them they didn't notice those things because they were caught up in what was happening. As writers we research and read a lot into technique and are far more aware of the word suddenly, so much so that it can jump out of a page and interupt our own reading.

They very best writers can make us miss the use of the word suddenly, but still utilise it to convey abruptness.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 1, 2014)

Julian S Bartz said:


> I also think it is something writers worry about way more than readers. I once talked to my beta readers about certain words, adverbs and suddenly. They all said that until I had mentioned them they didn't notice those things because they were caught up in what was happening. As writers we research and read a lot into technique and are far more aware of the word suddenly, so much so that it can jump out of a page and interupt our own reading.


I totally agree. It's easy to turn a perfectly clear sentence into a paragraph that reads beautifully… but in a way that does more harm than good to your story.

If the words tell your story well and the story is working, nitpicking over an adverb may not be the best use of your time.



STEALTH EDIT - I almost immediately changed "best" to "most productive." How ironic is that?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 1, 2014)

Julian S Bartz said:


> Suddenly conveys an abrupt event, so the focus for the reader should be solely on the event itself.


I disagree with this statement. In my opinion, it's the exact opposite effect. The precursor "Suddenly" steals focus away from the event, making the comprehension of the sentence less abrupt. 

It's like saying, "I'm about to show you something exciting. Ready? Okay, here it is...." I'd much rather the writer just show the happening itself. Going from point A to B can't be more abrupt. "Suddenly" acts as a speed bump.


----------



## Penpilot (May 1, 2014)

I'm of the opinion that sometimes it's needed and sometimes it's not. But a lot of it has to do with how you're shaping your sentences. When ever I use adverbs there's a conscious choice on my part deciding this is the best choice. During edits, I always take adverbs as stop signs telling me to pause and think because there might be a better way, not just for a sentence but for describing the situation as a whole.

Caged Maiden wrote a nice example, but it doesn't have to be that drastic a change in length. The original is 29 words vs a revised version which is 36.



> I sat in the living room, crunching on graham crackers as I wrote a post on Mythic Scribes. Suddenly, my cat started attacking the recliner for no apparent reason.



I don't know if mine is really better, but it's generally how I would have changed things given the situation. I think the "suddeness" comes from disrupting the typing and the eating and from the WTF reaction.



> From the living room couch, I typed at my new post on Mythic Scribes. Graham crackers crunched in my mouth when the cat hissed. She leaped onto the recliner, and her claws slashed into leather. WTF.



my 2 cents *shrug*


----------



## Julian S Bartz (May 2, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I disagree with this statement. In my opinion, it's the exact opposite effect. The precursor "Suddenly" steals focus away from the event, making the comprehension of the sentence less abrupt.
> 
> It's like saying, "I'm about to show you something exciting. Ready? Okay, here it is...." I'd much rather the writer just show the happening itself. Going from point A to B can't be more abrupt. "Suddenly" acts as a speed bump.



I get what you mean. In my point I meant that Suddenly is 'supposed' to convey an abrupt event. In terms of the purpose of the word. Whether it actually takes you out of the story as a reader or not is dependant on how well it is integrated into the writing. 

And as I mentioned I firmly believe that readers who aren't writers are a lot less likely to pick up suddenly as an issue. As writers we are almost trained to look out for things like this and they jump out to us and make us second guess. Try it out and ask 10 of your friends (Who have no interest or experience in writing, but are readers) to read a passage with 'suddenly' and give you their feedback. And see how many of them mention the word suddenly without you telling them beforehand.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 2, 2014)

I think a lot of reading is subconscious.  If a word is used in the flow of a good scene, I agree, readers probably won't notice it.  Pacing is key.  However, as T A Smith is saying, the use of the word in certain contexts actually defeats its own purpose.

Silence all around me and the room felt suddenly cold.  IS BETTER THAN Suddenly, someone sprang from the shadows and buried his knife in my neck.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 2, 2014)

Julian S Bartz said:


> I get what you mean. In my point I meant that Suddenly is 'supposed' to convey an abrupt event. In terms of the purpose of the word. Whether it actually takes you out of the story as a reader or not is dependant on how well it is integrated into the writing.


I won't argue against that. It could be the case, but....(See comment below).



Julian S Bartz said:


> And as I mentioned I firmly believe that readers who aren't writers are a lot less likely to pick up suddenly as an issue. As writers we are almost trained to look out for things like this and they jump out to us and make us second guess.


Yes, I'll agree that for the common reader, the one that doesn't read like a writer, it might not bother them. Heck, they might not be able to tell you they notice it. Again, no argument there. However, there's a reason we train as writers. One of those is to present the information as effectively as possible. 

Your reader might not notice the word suddenly. However, that doesn't mean dropping that precursor wouldn't have a greater impact on the reader. To put it in perspective a bit, you'll have to excuse a hypothetical....

Imagine a reader, your run of the mill lover of stories. They read a passage, and a sentence somewhere toward the paragraph's end begins with "Suddenly,....". They move along thinking nothing of it. They still enjoy the story. No harm done, right?

Now, imagine we go back in time to the moment that reader begins that very same passage. But, this time, we've rewritten our "Suddenly,..." sentence by cutting that precursor. Is it possible that the feeling of suddenness now has a greater impact? Over time, could this enhance the enjoyment of the story, or at least the excitement of that paragraph and the one which follows? Is there an additive effect? I submit that it could, and that there is an additive effect, especially if done a moderate amount of times.

In light of this, as a writer, I'd rather use techniques which I think will aid the reader's experience. Whether or not they are aware of it is irrelevant, in my opinion. You may disagree and that's completely fine. It's merely my preference and part of my personal philosophy on writing.


----------



## Feo Takahari (May 2, 2014)

To follow up on what Smith is saying, I don't think I naturally "read as a writer." Rather, I'll read a sentence and think "this feels awkward" or "this feels really long" or "this feels stop-and-start." If I choose to go into editing mode, I can think it over and figure out _why_ it has that effect, tracing it to a particular word or structure, but the effect itself occurs before I consciously notice the structure.

Of course, there's some degree of variability here--as noted in responses to my previous post, my response to "suddenly" may be different from other people's responses. I think it's good to pick up two betas if you can, so you can figure out what only one cares about and what affects them both.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 2, 2014)

Julian S Bartz said:


> As writers we are almost trained to look out for things like this and they jump out to us and make us second guess.


I agree. Second-guessing is a good thing, but too much of that means never finishing a story.

For myself, I want my story to be polished. I also want it finished. If getting hung up on one word prevents me from writing a couple thousand, I'm doing more harm than good.

My thought on the process is this:

Write the words that come naturally.
Finish the scene/chapter.
Read your work (aloud).
Fix only what is broken.
Are you happy with your scene/chapter?
If , write the next.
If , it's still broken.
The word "suddenly" may be among the broken things, but if it didn't make you cringe while writing/editing, leave it. Beta readers may catch problems you didn't think of, and non-writers who are avid readers may not think "suddenly" is an issue. Or if it is, they'll catch the reason why the word doesn't work without necessarily tying the issue to that one word.



Spoiler: when the whole book is written




Read the entire thing
Edit a lot.
Read the whole thing again.
Edit again.
Read again.
Happy yet?
If , send the queries!
If , read and edit again...


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 2, 2014)

Legendary Sidekick said:


> My thought on the process is this:
> [*]Write the words that come naturally.


I don't disagree, but I do try to train myself so the way I want to write becomes natural. To achieve that aim, I often have to deliberately practice a technique as I'm writing the first draft. Consciously paying attention to elements like word choices I want to avoid (like our "suddenly" precursor), passive voice, POV, etc. is the only way I've been successful at training style. 

I'm sure others have success with different methods.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick (May 2, 2014)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't disagree, but *I do try to train myself so the way I want to write becomes natural*. To achieve that aim, I often have to deliberately practice a technique as I'm writing the first draft. Consciously paying attention to elements like word choices I want to avoid (like our "suddenly" precursor), passive voice, POV, etc. is the only way I've been successful at training style.
> 
> I'm sure others have success with different methods.


Well said. I consider that part of the process, especially for those of us still on our first million words.


----------



## The Dark One (May 2, 2014)

Suddenly, nothing happened. (...with a nod to Monty Python.)

It's one of those words I tend to overuse in draft and find ways of deleting in edit. Not because I have any intrinsic problem with it - more because I don't like to use any word with noticeable frequency. When I find oft-repeated words as a reader it irritates me and distracts me from the flow, so I find it really embarrassing in my own work.

I would suggest that suddenly is nearly always the best word when sudden things happen. The question is, how often in the flow of your story should things be sudden? Sudden alerts the reader that things have changed. If things change too often the pace is wrong.


----------

