Ten Words to Cut from Your Writing

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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]

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]

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]

T.Allen,

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

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?

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.

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.

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.