Ten Words to Cut from Your Writing

[Steerpike]

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]

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]

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."

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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,

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]

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]

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]

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.