WORDS TO AVOID?

[StephieM]

Just catching up on some of the "rules" of writing, which words I should avoid, that kind of thing.

Here's my list...if I'm wrong or I've missed something please let me know.

1. Have been (have, been)
2. But
3. There is, there were, they are...
4. would, could
5. "ly" words (use sparingly)

Thanks ahead of time!
Steph

[maestrowork]

Add these to the mix (as usual, there are always exceptions, and these "rules" don't apply to dialogue):

"almost"
"somewhat"
"somehow"
"some"
"quite"
"very"
"had"
"beautiful"
"is because" (as in, "the reason for X is because...")

[BlueTexas]

Suddenly, out of nowhere, "blank" happened.

The deus ex machina ending.

And the bane of my writing career, too much exposition in the beginning.

[reph]

Overused and sometimes wrongly used words:

fruition
unique
ironic
restive
involve, involving
hallucinatory

[maestrowork]

"More/Most importantly" (the correct word is "important," not "importantly")

[Medievalist]

"Due to," even when it's used correctly, has been so tainted that it makes my hackles rise.

[azbikergirl]

rather, little, pretty (used as qualifiers)
seemed

[maestrowork]

"just" (I admit, it used to be my crutch word)

every cliche you can think of...

"honestly"

"thus" (I don't know, I just hate this word)

"you" (try to use "we" more often)

[trumancoyote]

Hahah. I use all of these things -- and too often, at that.

Ahaha...hah...heh... Hm :(

[Birol]

There's words you're supposed to avoid? Like they come from the wrong side of the tracks or something? *cringe* And here I always loved all words equally. Live and learn I guess. I wonder what vipers I've let into the nest with my babies? :Smack:

[Trepanny Peck]

At school, I was always taught never to use "nice" or "good". I think that this is an extremely stupid rule, as they are often the best and most appropriate words to use if you're talking about something that is mildly pleasant or a virtuous person respectively.

The same teacher also taught me never to use the word "said" if a different verb could be used, but if I had to use "said" to always use an adverb with it. I can understand that she wanted to develop juvenile vocabularies, but my God, what it did to my writing until I realised that the books I enjoyed reading broke The Rules all the time...

[NeuroFizz]

started to . . ., as in "he/she started to move toward the door . . ." followed by an interrupting action. I used this occasionally until I realized (through a reader) it was passive. Have the character get into the action, don't have him/her start to get into the action. Once in the action, then interrupt.

began to . . . ditto

[James D. Macdonald]

Picanthropus

Few stories are improved by having this word. I avoid it with a firey passion.

[azbikergirl]

I was also told to avoid 'even'

[maestrowork]

"Even"? I never thought of that as anything to avoid...

"See," "hear," "smell"...

[azbikergirl]

Yeah, as in

He didn't even give me the time of day. = He didn't give me the time of day.

I've found, though, that some sentences just aren't the same, don't have that je ne sais quoi, without it. Same with 'just.'

[maestrowork]

Use with moderation, that's all. :)

I used to find three or four "justs" on one page, sometimes one after another. Wow! Like, How did that happen?

"He just finished drinking his coffee when the phone rang. He grabbed the receiver just before the answering machine would pick up. 'Just my luck,' he thought. It was just Justin..."

;) You get the idea...

[Jamesaritchie]

Just catching up on some of the "rules" of writing, which words I should avoid, that kind of thing.

Here's my list...if I'm wrong or I've missed something please let me know.

1. Have been (have, been)
2. But
3. There is, there were, they are...
4. would, could
5. "ly" words (use sparingly)

Thanks ahead of time!
Steph

I hate the idea of avoiding words. There are no words that shouldn't be used, though I will go along with UJ and say Picanthropus is an exception.

BUT for the most part, it's a matter of how you use a word, not whether or not the word should be used. After all, "I could have been a contender" is a pretty famous sentence, and it uses three such words in a row. There are many good words writers avoid for no rational reason except some say they should. You even use an ly word in saying we should use ly words sparingly.

Use the word that fits, and that sounds right to your ear.

[Jamesaritchie]

At school, I was always taught never to use "nice" or "good". I think that this is an extremely stupid rule, as they are often the best and most appropriate words to use if you're talking about something that is mildly pleasant or a virtuous person respectively.

The same teacher also taught me never to use the word "said" if a different verb could be used, but if I had to use "said" to always use an adverb with it. I can understand that she wanted to develop juvenile vocabularies, but my God, what it did to my writing until I realised that the books I enjoyed reading broke The Rules all the time...

I think your teacher was the one breaking the rules. The rule is to use said, not to avoid it. And adverbs bite.

[ashlee111]

How can one possibly avoid using the word "said" especially when they are writing a book?

[Zane Curtis]

Echh. I hate how topics like this go out of their way to miss the point.

It doesn't matter the slightest little bit how you write your story. What matters is that you edit it afterwards. And editing is not about deleting "naughty" words. It's about looking at each sentence as a whole, and rearranging it so it is vivid, grammatical, to the point, and pleasing to the ear. And while you're at it, you should make sure it contributes to the plot, characterisation, and mood of the scene.

The best you can get from all these red-flag words is a hint of where you may have gone wrong. And you may not have gone wrong. If you write a story that demands a colloquial kind of style and delete every "kind of" and "every" and "just", you'd just be pointlessly gutting it. If you avoid every single word you're supposed to avoid when you write, you probably wouldn't write anything at all.

[NeuroFizz]

Picanthropus

Few stories are improved by having this word. I avoid it with a firey passion.

Let's go way off the point. I'm a member of the "Duck Club." To join, I had to use the word "duck" (meaning the animal, not used as a verb) in a scientific talk to an international audience. My buddies (colleagues, none of whom work on ducks) thought it would liven up the proceedings if we had to somehow work the word into our talks. We all did it without distracting from the messages of the presentations, and it caught on with others and really charged the sessions, particularly the evening ones in the tavern.

I propose a "Picanthropus Club" with membership to anyone who uses the word, or Picanthropus erectus in a work of fiction (to describe an action, someone can "go Picanthropus", kind of like "going postal" is used, although the two aren't equivalent). UJ would have honorary membership for bringing it up in this medium, but further mention here will not give membership.

[oswann]

Let's go way off the point. I'm a member of the "Duck Club." To join, I had to use the word "duck" (meaning the animal, not used as a verb) in a scientific talk to an international audience. My buddies (colleagues, none of whom work on ducks) thought it would liven up the proceedings if we had to somehow work the word into our talks. We all did it without distracting from the messages of the presentations, and it caught on with others and really charged the sessions, particularly the evening ones in the tavern.

I propose a "Picanthropus Club" with membership to anyone who uses the word, or Picanthropus erectus in a work of fiction (to describe an action, someone can "go Picanthropus", kind of like "going postal" is used, although the two aren't equivalent). UJ would have honorary membership for bringing it up in this medium, but further mention here will not give membership.



'Picanthropus Erectus' is a fantastic album by Charlie Mingus the jazz bass legend. Highly recommended.


I could easily insert a reference into my WIP. Does this count?



Os.

[James D. Macdonald]

I propose a "Picanthropus Club" with membership to anyone who uses the word, or Picanthropus erectus in a work of fiction...

May I propose that to become a voting member, the piece of fiction must be professionally published?

[Fractured_Chaos]

Would someone care to define Picanthropus for me? I did a search in Dictionary.com, and the closest I could get was: Pithecanthropus erectus n : former genus of primitive apelike men now Homo erectus [syn: Pithecanthropus (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pithecanthropus), Pithecanthropus erectus (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pithecanthropus%20erectus), genus Pithecanthropus (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=genus%20pithecanthropus)]














*I feel like such a dummy. :o

[oswann]

May I propose that to become a voting member, the piece of fiction must be professionally published?


I'll second the proposal.


Os.

[James D. Macdonald]

Pithecanthropus is Picanthropus spelled right.

[NeuroFizz]

I'll second the proposal.


Os.
Motion on the table with friendly amendment on alternate spelling permutations.

All in favor, say "Aye." Opposed???? Motion carries. Roberts Rules of Order satisfied, the work has to be published. First one in has a lifetime dues* waiver.

*Acceptable currency--fermented and/or distilled beverages, or non-alcoholic beverage that starts with the letter "V".

Move to adjourn to the original thread.

[katiemac]

Also known as Java Man, Laurie. One of the archaic hominid forms, found near Java, and is approximately 700,000 years old. Walked upright, and still apelike, yet seems more predominately human.


On an aside, I've been sitting on an idea where pithecanthropus would fit in quite nicely. I'll let you know.

[Bufty]

The same teacher also taught me never to use the word "said" if a different verb could be used, but if I had to use "said" to always use an adverb with it. I can understand that she wanted to develop juvenile vocabularies, but my God, what it did to my writing...


I think your teacher would have achieved better results by helping her pupils find ways of writing dialogue that didn't require the use of adverbs. As far as words to avoid are concerned, there are dozens of them - if I recall correctly 'weasel words' in a Google may provide some. They are mostly of a 'vague' type, where it's easier, or rather, lazier, to use them than to think of a more specific way of expressing oneself. I feel that they - like the overuse of 'was' - drain life out of prose because they don't convey a clear picture to the reader.

Bufty

[maestrowork]

The things our teachers taught us! They sure come back and haunt us.

[oswann]

Also known as Java Man, Laurie. One of the archaic hominid forms, found near Java, and is approximately 700,000 years old. Walked upright, and still apelike, yet seems more predominately human.


On an aside, I've been sitting on an idea where pithecanthropus would fit in quite nicely. I'll let you know.


Sure, now everyone suddenly has pithecanthropus ideas coming out of the woodwork.



Os.

[Fractured_Chaos]

Pithecanthropus is Picanthropus spelled right.

LOL! Thank you for clearing that up! I thought I was losing it. And really, I can't afford to lose anything right now. I have so little of it as it is.

[StephieM]

Wow, I didn't expect to get so many reactions. I think I would have to agree with Zane on the matter.

"It doesn't matter the slightest little bit how you write your story. What matters is that you edit it afterwards. And editing is not about deleting "naughty" words. It's about looking at each sentence as a whole, and rearranging it so it is vivid, grammatical, to the point, and pleasing to the ear. And while you're at it, you should make sure it contributes to the plot, characterisation, and mood of the scene"

The only reason these words should be avoidable is because they are overused, not because they make the story sound any worse. I admit, I use most of these words a lot when I am writing. I'm sure I can delete most of the words and the flow will still stand. But on some occassions there just isn't any other way to put it.

-Trepanny-
"The same teacher also taught me never to use the word "said" if a different verb could be used."

-Ashlee-
"How can one possibly avoid using the word "said" especially when they are writing a book?"

My biggest pet peave is "he said, she said" books. Where almost every line of dialogue is followed either by "he said" or "she said".

I was reading an Iris Johansen novel, and I couldn't stand to go on, because it was written just like this. I put it down and never picked it back up. Too many "he said, she saids" interrupts the flow, it can become a distraction that ultimately pulls the reader away from the story. I think that is what this teacher was getting at. Not to never use the word "said", but don't use it after every single line of dialogue.

And I have no idea what the word Picanthropus means. :Wha:


So my conclussion is, use the "bad" words sparingly. But if it takes away from the flow let it go.

Thanks everyone. I will keep a list of these words with me at all times. You HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY helpful. :)

Steph

[trumancoyote]

Pithecanthropus is Picanthropus spelled right.

Heheh :ROFL:

[StephieM]

Okay, I looked up the correct spelling of Picanthropus, and I'm getting it means, ape man? :D

Steph

[Jamesaritchie]

My biggest pet peave is "he said, she said" books. Where almost every line of dialogue is followed either by "he said" or "she said".

I was reading an Iris Johansen novel, and I couldn't stand to go on, because it was written just like this. I put it down and never picked it back up. Too many "he said, she saids" interrupts the flow, it can become a distraction that ultimately pulls the reader away from the story. I think that is what this teacher was getting at. Not to never use the word "said", but don't use it after every single line of dialogue.

Steph

No, not after every single line of dialogue, but for heaven's sake, do not use substitutes. What really makes writing unreadable is "He exclamed," He Cried," "He laughed," etc. after every line of dialogue, That's wallbanger writing, unless kids are the target audience.

For adults, use "He said/She said," or use nothing.

For most readers, He said/She said quickly become invisible.

Once dialogue gets going, and when there are only two speakers, you don't need anything following the dialogue. But when you do, He/said/She said, or the speaker's name, is good writing.

[Ella]

And here I thought a pithecanthropus would be a duck. Foiled again.

I did the phrase search on my wip, and came up with a whole lotta 'had been's, to the point where it was ridiculous. How else can we portray the past tense, when writing in third person is already past tense?

[James D. Macdonald]

Said-Bookisms (http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue%205/tags.htm)

He walked toward her. Slowly. Took each step in leisure. Contemplating Irena with gimlet eyes. Taking in that voracious figure and the elongated blond hair. The carroty dress. The ruby band. He wanted to linger, to savor the moment, to pounce at once.

She leisurely drank from her gin and tonic again.

"Irena," he pontificates. "You are the daughter of Isaac Stevens. I will reveal your dark secret to your father unless you allow me to have my way with you."

"No," exclaimed she, horror stuck.

"Yes," grated he, harshly.

"You will not!" expostulated she.

"I will reveal your dark secret!" exclaimed he.

"I will not allow you to have you way with me!" she avowed.

"You will!" he averted.

"No, you won't reveal my dark secret," threatened she, numbly. "My father will never believe you."

"I will, and he will," exerted her.

"You won't and he won't," claimed he.

"I will, and he will," remonstrated he.

"You won't," explained she, in an explanatory tone of voice. "My father will be very, very, very furious with you. He will certainly blame you."

"I will and he won't," demonstrated he, contemptuously.

"You won't and he will," proclaimed her, definitely.

"I will and he won't," declared he, defiantly.

"You won't," denounced her, angrily. "I already told him last Tuesday."

It was as if a copious galleon of wintry water had been surreptitiously poured over his hansom head. He sat stonily and goggled explicitly and gaped impassively as if he were a fish precipitously extracted from its appropriately aqueous environment. He boisterously, wordlessly, softly sputtered like a boiling tea kettle. He stolidly sat like an ancient, moss-overgrown statue from the radiantly fragrant gardens that the noble city was plenteously, bountifully endowed with.

[NeuroFizz]

I did the phrase search on my wip, and came up with a whole lotta 'had been's, to the point where it was ridiculous. How else can we portray the past tense, when writing in third person is already past tense?

I believe, and grammar experts please chime in if I am incorrect, when tranisitioning into a short narrative backstory and then back out of the backstory, pluperfect is used:

"He had wiped his tears with his shirtsleeve . . ." Establishes that the forthcoming description refers to events that happened in the past (even thought the entire story is written in past tense). Another pluperfect sentence brings it back out of the flashback.

Even if I'm mistaken about the proper grammatical term, I believe the technique is solid. Yes?

[StephieM]

James-
I agree, to a point. When people are talking normally, said is to be used without question, but not after every...single...line of dialoque. Like you said, an avid reader comes to ignore the "saids" after awhile, so why add more then needed?

What if a person is shouting, crying, stuttering, ect. ect.

Would it not be proper to use "he shouted", "she cried", "he stuttered" rather than the same old boring said?

When I read a book I occassionally like to know how the charactors are reacting in a line of dialogue. If someone is outraged to the point their head is ready to pop off, I don't want to read

"I can't beleive you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she said.

Wouldn't it read better like this?

"I can't believe you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she shouted.

Steph

[katiemac]

"I can't beleive you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she said.

Wouldn't it read better like this?

"I can't believe you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she shouted.


The top one reads just fine to me. The context and the structure of the sentence should be all you need for the reader to understand the emotional delivery behind the sentence. In your second example, "she shouted" is redundant. If we had that in a whole paragraph, we'd understand she was upset, that this is an argument, and that voices are raised. We understand especially she's shouting because of the use of the exclamation point at the end (also to be used sparingly).

What James A. and others are getting at is that any word other than "said" behind dialogue is a crutch. If you can't get the point across by your dialogue and context alone, something's wrong with the sentence, not your dialogue tag.

[oswann]

If your unsure of how the characters are reacting from the dialogue, it probably means the dialogue should have been reworked.



Os.

[trumancoyote]

And here I thought a pithecanthropus would be a duck. Foiled again.

I did the phrase search on my wip, and came up with a whole lotta 'had been's, to the point where it was ridiculous. How else can we portray the past tense, when writing in third person is already past tense?

What I've read a lot of recently suggests that writers use the double-past-y thing at first "At that time, he had had a problem w/ that pugnacious duck"... but as it continues, you start dropping the past-past tense (sorry, I'm dumb when it comes to grammatical terms), and just use normal past. So the following lines would be: "You see, the duck had this way of pecking at everyone's feet. He would waddle up, act sweet and all, but inevitably end up jabbing into people's toes w/ his beak. One time, he even defecated on my shoe. Oh! That crazy duck!"

That sorta' thing. I know the example's bad, but I'm not very creative.

Hope what I said was right! :B

[azbikergirl]

If your unsure of how the characters are reacting from the dialogue, it probably means the dialogue should have been reworked.

If one character is angry at another,
"John!" she said. "How could you?"
makes sense. She doesn't need to shout it. But what about this:
"John!" she said. "Look out!"
seems to lack the volume that
"John!" she shouted. "Look out!"
has.

Will shouted as used here really flag this as a said bookism, if such things are kept to a minimum?

[stormie]

I wish the word "clearly" " or "clear" would be avoided. It's over-used in essays and op-ed pieces, as in "He clearly couldn't avoid using the word." "It's clear that the work needed editing."

My two cents.

[StephieM]

I've read many authors who use words other than "said". I'm not saying replace it with something else ALL the time, but I don't see any problem using other words occassionally when the story calls for it. I think using "said" ALL the time could be just as hazardous as using substitutes ALL the time. I'm going to search my book shelf for that Iris Johansen book and post one of the pages I'm referring to and see if any of you thought the same as I did when I read it.

Thanks
Steph

[reph]

Some of those "had beens" and "had hads" might be softened with contractions.

"Trumancoyote hated ducks. At age ten, he'd had a duck that pecked toes. Truman asked his mother for a new pet for Christmas. He wanted a Pithecanthropus, but Mrs. Coyote said they cost too much to feed. He'd been saving his allowance for a Pithecanthropus, too. A buck a week wouldn't buy a toy truck, let alone maintain a Pithecanthropus. No luck: he was stuck with his duck. It was then that little Truman said his first bad word..."

[NeuroFizz]

If one character is angry at another,
"John!" she said. "How could you?"
makes sense. She doesn't need to shout it. But what about this:
"John!" she said. "Look out!"

Now, get rid of the exclamation points if you can. They may be okay if used very sparingly, maybe once or twice in a story. Some editors will make a big red slash through every one of them.

Here is what Browne and King say about it (Self-Editing for Fiction Writers, p. 200): "...there are the stylistic devices that make a writer look insecure, the most notable offenders being exclamation points and italics. Exclamation points are visually distracting and, if overused, are an irritation to readers. They should be reserved for moments when a character is physically shouting or experiencing the mental equivalent. When you use them frequently, you look as if you're trying desperately to infuse your dialogue or narration with an excitement it lacks."

In isolation, the above examples are fine. But if the surrounding dialogue/action is written properly (if the context is well supplied), there may be no need for the exclamation points. In fact, if the context comes through loud and clear, the exclamation points will be redundant, and jolt the reader.

[trumancoyote]

Some of those "had beens" and "had hads" might be softened with contractions.

"Trumancoyote hated ducks. At age ten, he'd had a duck that pecked toes. Truman asked his mother for a new pet for Christmas. He wanted a Pithecanthropus, but Mrs. Coyote said they cost too much to feed. He'd been saving his allowance for a Pithecanthropus, too. A buck a week wouldn't buy a toy truck, let alone maintain a Pithecanthropus. No luck: he was stuck with his duck. It was then that little Truman said his first bad word..."

Ooh! I agree whole-heartedly. I tend to use contractions to much, though. A kid in my old fiction class made fun of me nonstop for using 'to've.'

I think it's a valid contraction though, that bastard. Hah.

[maestrowork]

"I can't beleive you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she said.

Wouldn't it read better like this?

"I can't believe you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she shouted.

Steph


If you write your dialogue and scene well, you have no need to do "she shouted."

There are many ways to let us know (through dialogue) that the character cries, yells, shout, stutters... the only time when you need such dialogue tag is when it really isn't clear. For example, when someone whispers.

"Hurry, but don't wake him up," Todd whispered.


It's when a writer replaces "said" with no good reason. "He exclaimed," "he laughed," "he bellowed." It's worse if the writer uses them one after another like changing TV channels.

I also use tag to force a beat in the dialogue. Even though the "he saids/she saids" become invisible to the readers eventually, the subtle beat is still there:

"Hurry," he whispered, "but don't wake him up."

[katiemac]

Some of those "had beens" and "had hads" might be softened with contractions.

"Trumancoyote hated ducks. At age ten, he'd had a duck that pecked toes. Truman asked his mother for a new pet for Christmas. He wanted a Pithecanthropus, but Mrs. Coyote said they cost too much to feed. He'd been saving his allowance for a Pithecanthropus, too. A buck a week wouldn't buy a toy truck, let alone maintain a Pithecanthropus. No luck: he was stuck with his duck. It was then that little Truman said his first bad word..."


Can't you just get rid of one of the words rather than use contractions? "At age ten he had a duck that pecked toes," and "He had saved his allowance." ... I guess "He had saved his allowance," gives a slightly different meaning than "He'd been saving," but I really despise those "had beens" and "had hads," contractions or no.

[SeanDSchaffer]

Now, get rid of the exclamation points if you can. They may be okay if used very sparingly, maybe once or twice in a story. Some editors will make a big red slash through every one of them.

Here is what Browne and King say about it (Self-Editing for Fictoin Writers, p. 200): "...there are the stylistic devices that make a writer look insecure, the most notable offenders being exclamation points and italics. Exclamation points are visually distracting and, if overused, are an irritation to readers. They should be reserved for moments when a character is physically shouting or experiencing the mental equivalent. When you use them frequently, you look as if you're trying desperately to infuse your dialogue or narration with an excitement it lacks."

In isolation, the above examples are fine. But if the surrounding dialogue/action is written properly (if the context is well supplied), there may be no need for the exclamation points. In fact, if the context comes through loud and clear, the exclamation points will be redundant, and jolt the reader.


I'd have to agree that the exclamation point is one of my pet peeves. Piers Anthony wrote a book entitled Dragon on a Pedestal, which was filled to the brim with them. It seemed like every other sentence ended with an exclamation point. I had a difficult time reading the book because of them; and frankly, I think the exclamation points did quite a bit to detract from the story.

Has anyone mentioned 'Was' yet? I've always been told to avoid 'was,' although I'm actually guilty of using it too much myself.

Also, a word that I think needs to be mentioned is 'Alot.' I see it all the time, and I've found there is no such word. It should be spelled as two words -- 'A lot' -- which still is not technically correct, but works much better than it does as one solid word.

[trumancoyote]

Can't you just get rid of one of the words rather than use contractions? "At age ten he had a duck that pecked toes," and "He had saved his allowance." ... I guess "He had saved his allowance," gives a slightly different meaning than "He'd been saving," but I really despise those "had beens" and "had hads," contractions or no.

In context, though, it's s'posed to be a past past. As in, the story was already delving into the past, and while there, an event from a more distant past was brought up -- I think someone mentioned the term 'pluperfect'; I looked it up, and that seems to describe the phenomenon quite nicely.

[maestrowork]

[/i]


Can't you just get rid of one of the words rather than use contractions? "At age ten he had a duck that pecked toes," and "He had saved his allowance." ... I guess "He had saved his allowance," gives a slightly different meaning than "He'd been saving," but I really despise those "had beens" and "had hads," contractions or no.

I try to stay in past tense as much as I can. The only time when I have to use "had" is something like:

He'd had the duck killed before he arrived at the dinner party.

Even then, there are ways to rewrite sentences like that. Such as:

He had the duck killed. Then he arrived at the dinner party with it roasted and ready to eat.

[reph]

Also, a word that I think needs to be mentioned is 'Alot.' I see it all the time, and I've found there is no such word. It should be spelled as two words -- 'A lot' -- which still is not technically correct...
I hope you don't see it in published writing. I tried to kill the imaginary word "alot" in my bottom-of-post usage tip from May 4 to May 7. It keeps coming back.

Why isn't it technically correct? We can say "I saw a great lot of mistakes in the manuscript."

[Jamesaritchie]

James-
I agree, to a point. When people are talking normally, said is to be used without question, but not after every...single...line of dialoque. Like you said, an avid reader comes to ignore the "saids" after awhile, so why add more then needed?

What if a person is shouting, crying, stuttering, ect. ect.

Would it not be proper to use "he shouted", "she cried", "he stuttered" rather than the same old boring said?

When I read a book I occassionally like to know how the charactors are reacting in a line of dialogue. If someone is outraged to the point their head is ready to pop off, I don't want to read

"I can't beleive you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she said.

Wouldn't it read better like this?

"I can't believe you did this, that's it, I've had it!" she shouted.

Steph

Not for me. If the dialogue doesn't get the manner of speech across, it's better to work on the dialogue than to use a verb or adjective or anythng else.

"Said" is supposed to be boring. So boring the reader doesn't see it. Using "said" means the dialogue must stand on its own, which all good dialogue should.

And look at it this way. By the time the reader gets to the word "shouted," he's already read the dialogue, and has already heard it in his own way. Now, when he reaches the word "shouted," he has to change the way he read it.

There are exceptions to everything, but on those rare instances where a word such as "shouted" or "whispered" is required, I think it should go before the dialogue, not after. As in:

Adrienne tried, and failed, not to shout. "I can't believe you did this, that's it, I've had it!"

Or: Adrienne's voice was a whisper. "Don't tell anyone, but I happen to know Mark had an affair with the babysitter."

At least this way the reader hears the dialogue correctly in his head on the first pass.

But if written correctly, the setting, the action, and the way the dialogue is written does the job just fine.

[Jamesaritchie]

Now, get rid of the exclamation points if you can. They may be okay if used very sparingly, maybe once or twice in a story. Some editors will make a big red slash through every one of them.



I agree. I think a good rule of thumb is that every new writer gets handed three exclamation points. Use them where you want, but when you run out, that's it.

[LightShadow]

Any technically correct word and some slang can be used, but most of the ones mentioned, including -ly adverbs, to be verbs, and so on ought to be used in moderation. Even "ain't" is fine such as in one of my characters speech patterns because he's not the most educated individual, and it helps to show his lack of eloquence without me having to tell the reader.

[SeanDSchaffer]

I hope you don't see it in published writing. I tried to kill the imaginary word "alot" in my bottom-of-post usage tip from May 4 to May 7. It keeps coming back.

Why isn't it technically correct? We can say "I saw a great lot of mistakes in the manuscript."


Honestly speaking, I don't see a lot of 'alot' in published writing... except where certain scam publishers are concerned.

And you make a very good point with the 'technically correct' issue. I was just going with what I had been taught in grade school. Of course, things have changed quite a bit since those days -- for instance is the list of vowels I received from my 2nd grade teacher: A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y, and sometimes W. To this day I do not know where a W would be considered a vowel.

But I digress. The point is that the English language has changed quite a bit since I was in grade school. And when I think about it, your statement concerning, "I saw a great lot of mistakes in the manuscript," really does make sense. I appreciate your pointing that out to me. Thanks.
:Thumbs:

[Medievalist]

And you make a very good point with the 'technically correct' issue. I was just going with what I had been taught in grade school. Of course, things have changed quite a bit since those days -- for instance is the list of vowels I received from my 2nd grade teacher: A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y, and sometimes W. To this day I do not know where a W would be considered a vowel.

Well if you wanna be technical . . . W and Y are both semi-vowels; sometimes they act as vowels, and sometimes as consonants.

When you think of W, remember its name -- literally, it used to be used (in the good old days when spelling was inventive and phonetic) as a double U, or a uu sound. An example of W as a vowel (one that linguists trot out all the time because we no longer have many such examples) would be W in owl, where it's really a diphthong -- or cow, or how.

But W in coward is a consonant.

[reph]

W is (sometimes or always?) a vowel in the Welsh language. I don't know the details. There are names like Bryn Mawr.

W in "coward" sounds like a vowel to me, as in "cow." Am I missing something?

[Medievalist]

W is (sometimes or always?) a vowel in the Welsh language. I don't know the details. There are names like Bryn Mawr.

W in Welsh is often not W but uu (double u). It used to be written that way, in fact. It's the sound, roughly, of the British pronunciation of oo in words like loom, or spoon, or sometimes, (depending on the speaker) the u in pull. In California sometimes you can see the Welsh w in names like Cwm. In mawr ("big," cognate with Irish mór) the w is a consonant. I'm not sure it's fair to use a foreign language as an example, though.

W in "coward" sounds like a vowel to me, as in "cow." Am I missing something?

No; it's just that the definition of when it's a vowel and when it isn't has a bit to do with how the sound truncates, and the A in coward changes the W enough, barely. To be brutally honest, I can't always hear the difference, though I learned to in part from watching the sound waves on a digital display. This is the territory of linguists, or really, phonologists.

[triceretops]

I've used the word "seemingly" more than once, and it's left a bad taste in my eyes. Should we add that word to the list?

Tri

[Jamesaritchie]

I've used the word "seemingly" more than once, and it's left a bad taste in my eyes. Should we add that word to the list?

Tri

"Seemingly" also leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I suppose there's a proper time and place to use any word, but for the life of me, I can't find a good use for "seemingly."

[maestrowork]

"Seemingly" goes to the trash much like "somehow" and "somewhat." Besides, it's a "-ly" word.

[StephieM]

Okay, I can see where everyone is coming from with the "said". Dialogue should stand on it's own, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that it should be substituted ALL the time, or even half of the time. But it is not unusual to see an author occasionally slip in another word other than "said" or every now and then use an "ly" word after. It only becomes distracting when substitutes are used repeatedly, just as it is distracting when "said" is used repeatedly after EVERY line of dialogue. A dialogue should flow, and should not be interrupted by constant "he said/she saids" (In my own opinion of course).

FINAL THOUGHTS
We can go on and on about which words should be avoided, but words are just words and in the end I don’t think it matters if this word or that word is used when it could have been extracted completely without harm or another could suffice just as well. Yes, there are words that should be used sparingly, no one likes to read a book where every description word ends in “ly”, or every action is described with the word “like” (he ran like a bat out of hell), or “as if” (he ran as if he had ants in his pants), and I think there are words that should be avoided at all costs, like: suddenly, seemingly, somehow, or somewhat. On the other hand I think some words are unavoidable like...have, had, and been. I don’t think I’ve ever read a book where these words weren’t used at least five or six times in a single page. This goes for our best selling authors as well, such as King, Grisham, Dan Brown, et al. You can say “Well they are allowed to break the rules because they have been published over and over again and readers crave new material from them”, but there is a reason readers want more from them, they are what they are, the best at what they do. A good writer isn’t a good writer because of the words he uses or doesn’t use, it’s the words he uses wisely. Writing is a passion, it’s what makes us who we are. The words we choose and don’t choose is what makes us unique against all the other writers. What matters in the end is whether or not we make the cut as a good writer. Is that customer going to flip to the first page and skim through the first paragraph and decide to buy it, or is he going to put it back on the shelf and decide to pick another King book instead?
In conclusion, I will use the suggested words wisely and I will think twice before using such words. But I can not promise not to break the rules occasionally.
Thanks again.

Steph :Sun:

[triceretops]

I think you make a good point, Stephanie. Words are just words, and moderation is certainly the key. I use a lot of these words to tag my dialogue characters--a particular character of mine uses the passive form of expression in an attempt to try and be something he's not. Some of my younger characters use some "ly" words to denote immaturity.

The word "veritable" (sp?) has always offended me, for some reason. whoops!

Tri

[Lilybiz]

Oooh, I came late and everyone's gone home. The discussion's over. But I have one, I have one!

The one I hate is a phrase that's in fashion lately: That said, as in "I understand one isn't supposed to use 'but' at the beginning of a sentence. That said, I still love to break the rule."

I've seen those two words in every other magazine article I've read in the last year. It's a fad, I guess, and I'm sick of it! It's not even the whole phrase, which was originally "with that said." I wonder what brought it into usage?

Wow. I'm glad to have gotten that off my chest. Thanks for listening.

[Trapped in amber]

I'm still confused over the past past tense.
I do what someone mentioned earlier, I begin with past past tense then slip into past tense.

Is this okay?

Am I making any sense?:Huh:

I only found out recently that alot isn't a real word. For years I thought the spellchecker was just wrong. I can't stop using it yet. I have to splat it afterwards, when I notice it.:rolleyes:

[NeuroFizz]

I'm still confused over the past past tense.
I do what someone mentioned earlier, I begin with past past tense then slip into past tense.

I don't know if this is what you mean, but see if this helps:

Gabe wasn't Catholic but he liked the idea of of confessing his sins. The recurring comfort of the lifted burden and the cleansing feeling of official acknowledgement and forgiveness gave him a sense of reverent calm. As he had done so many times, he had left home early to ride his bike to town to confess this week's worth of moral hiccups to Father Costello before heading up the street to join his family at the Lutheran church service.

This is a brief narration from an action scene in Gabe's POV, and it explains how he arrived at the location of the action. It doubles as characterization for the protagonist (Gabe). I could leave off the "As he had done . . . phrase since it's an "As . . . dependent phrase" (not desirable, at least if frequently used), but it indicates that this wasn't a one-time event, and the sentence flows much better with than without it, in my opinion. Either way, the bolded parts signal an event that happened in the past in a scene written in the past tense.

Does this help, or am I missing your question?

[maestrowork]

OK, let me clarify and say why some of these words should be avoided. Sure, they're just words and you should use them when you think they're the right words.

The key is "right."

Take "somehow" or "somewhat." The reason why we should avoid them in prose is that they are almost never the right word to use in fiction (except in dialogue or first person narrative). They are like "very" or "pretty," which are extra verbiage that should be edited out during rewrites. Also, "somehow" or "somewhat" means the narrator is not sure, and unless the narrator is 1st person, he should always be sure about what is going on. These words simply weaken the prose, not strengthening.

[maestrowork]

I'm still confused over the past past tense.
I do what someone mentioned earlier, I begin with past past tense then slip into past tense.

Is this okay?

Am I making any sense?:Huh:

I only found out recently that alot isn't a real word. For years I thought the spellchecker was just wrong. I can't stop using it yet. I have to splat it afterwards, when I notice it.:rolleyes:


My opinion is that if you must use "had" that's the way to do it. Use it once, then slip back into past tense.

"He had done that before. He would use a bat and bash the skulls to pieces. Then he put them in a bag and tossed the bag in the river."

[azbikergirl]

I'm still confused over the past past tense.
I do what someone mentioned earlier, I begin with past past tense then slip into past tense.

Past perfect is the 'had done something'. Simple past is the 'did something.'

Plenty of How To books and articles say your technique is fine when doing a flashback or reference to the past. To make it clear to readers when the flashback ends, some suggest ending the scene with past perfect tense again, but Jerry Cleaver (I think) had the best suggestion: use a marker that'll make it clear the past reference is over, such as, "But he wasn't a kid anymore, and this monster was real."

Ooops. There I go using 'was.' tsk tsk.

[StephieM]

I use to mispell a lot all the time.

It would drive my Eng. Lit teacher insane.

Every time I mispelled it she would have me look it up in the dictionary.

Needless to say I never found it under the "a" words.

Steph

[azbikergirl]

I use to mispell a lot all the time.

next time, look up misspell while you're at it ;)

</teasing>

[StephieM]

Triceretops-

That made me think of something. If someone is writing in first person, isn't only natural to get into that character's head, and write how that person would talk, not how a writer should write?


Steph

[StephieM]

Oops. :Smack:

I could say that was a typo. But I would be lying. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

My opinion is that if you must use "had" that's the way to do it. Use it once, then slip back into past tense.

"He had done that before. He would use a bat and bash the skulls to pieces. Then he put them in a bag and tossed the bag in the river."


This is the way I like to go about it. If you slip into a flashback with past perfect. and then switch to simple past for the duration of the flashback, most readers won't even realize you've written a flashback. You can then emerge from the flashback with another line of past perfect, or better, a present tense word such as "now," "this," "today," etc.

[Trapped in amber]

Thank you everyone, that was really helpful.:hooray:

Here is some cake :Cake:.

[Jamesaritchie]

Triceretops-

That made me think of something. If someone is writing in first person, isn't only natural to get into that character's head, and write how that person would talk, not how a writer should write?


Steph

Yes. It's absolutely necessary. In first person, the narrative is the POV character's thoughts.

I think third person limited is also better when written this way to some extent. Few things bother me more than third person limited that has, for example, an uneducated POV character, and Harvard professor quality narrative.

[azbikergirl]

I've been chastized for changing the voice of my third person narrator when I change from one character's POV to another. I don't do it in a big way, but when the POV character is more hoity-toity, I use hoity-toity words, don't use fragments, etc. But in the head of the MC, who's a peasant, the writing is less refined, the vocabulary more "every-man." Is this a Bad Thing?

[Jamesaritchie]

I've been chastized for changing the voice of my third person narrator when I change from one character's POV to another. I don't do it in a big way, but when the POV character is more hoity-toity, I use hoity-toity words, don't use fragments, etc. But in the head of the MC, who's a peasant, the writing is less refined, the vocabulary more "every-man." Is this a Bad Thing?

I hope it isn't a bad thing. It's how I write. Then again, more often than not, I stick to one POV character throughout a novel, whether I'm writing first person or third person limited. I'm in Ben Bova's camp where this is concerned.

But even when I use multiple POVs, I still try to make the narrative reflect the POV character to some degree. I think you can go overboard with this, but I like the narrative to change with the POV character.

[Ella]

Thanks James & Maestro. That's a good idea.

[reph]

I don't know if this is what you mean, but see if this helps:

Gabe wasn't Catholic but he liked the idea of of confessing his sins....As he had done so many times, he had left home early to ride his bike to town...
Shouldn't it say "As he had done so many times, he left home early"? Gabe's act of leaving home early takes place in the "present" of the story time – therefore, past tense, not past perfect.

I thought Trapped in Amber was asking about a different situation: what to do when you move from simple narration (past tense) to describing what happened before the story time (start in past perfect but slip back into past for the rest of the "before" episode).

Gabe wasn't Catholic, but he remembered going to Mass with the family of a friend, Mike, at age eight. He had asked a naive question because he thought the holy-water font was a drinking fountain. Mike's father corrected him kindly, but Mike teased him about it for years. The boys lost touch after high school. Later, Gabe heard that Mike had become a priest. He could imagine Mike laughing it up in the seminary, telling the other young men about his stupid friend who'd wondered where the handle was. Well, it didn't matter now. The important thing...

[cattywampus]

The only problem with words such as "nice," and "good," along with "tall," "short," "wide," "narrow" and 20,000 more of the same is that they are vague. "Nice" means different things to different people. Ditto "good." Something a mile wide is wide, and something 2 feet wide is also wide.

This is the last word in "telling" (as in "show, don't tell"). If you want the reader to see a "tall," tree, show how tall it is: so tall you have to get in a plane to see its top. "Narrow" - it was so narrow she could hardly get her fist through." Even better, "She could hardly get her fist through." That conveys "narrow" quite nicely.

Most of those words y'all are avoiding are perfectly decent, English words used by everybody. Why anyone would advise a writer to avoid "would" and "could" simply boggles the mind.

Catty :hi:

[maestrowork]

Yup. nice, good, wide, short, beautiful... they're all placeholder words -- telling instead of showing. I mean how nice? How good? How beautiful?

In your first draft, by all means use these words. But during rewriter, examine them with a keen eye. If you're telling, then change it. Add details. Show us.

For example, I once wrote a sentence like this:

"The food tasted great."

Nothing was really wrong with that sentence, but it was so blah! All telling. I'd robbed the readers of experiencing it with the character. So I rewrote it:

"The garlic tickled my throat, and the red, plump tomatoes burst with spring sweetness as my teeth sank into them."

[Jamesaritchie]

Yup. nice, good, wide, short, beautiful... they're all placeholder words -- telling instead of showing. I mean how nice? How good? How beautiful?


I agree, but even with these words, it's how you use them. I once sold a novel primarily because of two back to back sentences. The first contained the word "beautiful." The second used the word "was" twice. And, yes, both were tell, not show.

[Aconite]

"The garlic tickled my throat, and the red, plump tomatoes burst with spring sweetness as my teeth sank into them."

This is off topic and nitpicky and I apologize but I can't help it. Tomatoes have no "spring sweetness." Tomato plants don't grow unless the temperature is above 70 degrees F, and the very shortest time to maturity for any variety is over 50 days (and those taste like wet cardboard). Tomato varieties with any sweetness take 70 days or more from the day they're planted out to set fruit, and in most parts of the country you can't set them out until late May or June. You're never going to have a ripe tomato in spring, even if they're imported (because tomatoes are shipped green and gassed to turn red--they're not really ripe).

I'm sorry. I am helpless in the face of all things horticultural.

[skylarburris]

I think your teacher was the one breaking the rules. The rule is to use said, not to avoid it. And adverbs bite.

Teachers do teach not to use said, to varry it as often as possible. And then editors cringe to see all of the shouted, commented, breathed, laughed, etc. that come across their desk.

Said is best in most instances. No tags at all are often better--just make it clear who is speaking without directly telling the writer.

Someone should tell the teachers about said.

[maestrowork]

This is off topic and nitpicky and I apologize but I can't help it. Tomatoes have no "spring sweetness." Tomato plants don't grow unless the temperature is above 70 degrees F, and the very shortest time to maturity for any variety is over 50 days (and those taste like wet cardboard). Tomato varieties with any sweetness take 70 days or more from the day they're planted out to set fruit, and in most parts of the country you can't set them out until late May or June. You're never going to have a ripe tomato in spring, even if they're imported (because tomatoes are shipped green and gassed to turn red--they're not really ripe).

I'm sorry. I am helpless in the face of all things horticultural.


I get tomatoes from the stores in spring. ;) There are always green houses. ;) The thing is, the scene doesn't happen in a farm -- it happens in a restaurant on May 12. Does it make any difference? ;)

Would it please you if I just write "sweetness" or "ripe with sweetness"?

[Aconite]

I get tomatoes from the stores in spring. ;) There are always green houses. ;)
Greenhouse varieties are not very sweet. And, as I mentioned, tomatoes shipped to stores are picked green and unripe (and therefore not sweet) and gassed to turn them red. Ripe tomatoes are too fragile to ship.
The thing is, the scene doesn't happen in a farm -- it happens in a restaurant on May 12. Does it make any difference? ;)
And where do you think restaurants get tomatoes? *g* So, no.

Would it please you if I just write "sweetness" or "ripe with sweetness"?
It would be more accurate, and that would please me. *g* Although I'm not sure something can be "ripe with sweetness."

[maestrowork]

I suppose you're not a poet, Aconite. <eg> Poets don't care about "accuracies." HAHA.

We are so off topic right now.

[Aconite]

Hey! No fair! *Your* posts don't list when they were edited! Pretty sweet, being a mod. *g*

I swear I will either shut up or go on topic now.

[Jamesaritchie]

Teachers do teach not to use said, to varry it as often as possible. And then editors cringe to see all of the shouted, commented, breathed, laughed, etc. that come across their desk.

Said is best in most instances. No tags at all are often better--just make it clear who is speaking without directly telling the writer.

Someone should tell the teachers about said.

Well, some certainly do. None of mine ever did, but school systems are so different it isn't funny.

[Medievalist]

May I propose that to become a voting member, the piece of fiction must be professionally published?

Oy! Some of us don't write fiction (yes, I know, I'm a talentless hack, but I'm very good at it).

[Joni Holderman]

This is off topic and nitpicky and I apologize but I can't help it. Tomatoes have no "spring sweetness." Tomato plants don't grow unless the temperature is above 70 degrees F, and the very shortest time to maturity for any variety is over 50 days (and those taste like wet cardboard). Tomato varieties with any sweetness take 70 days or more from the day they're planted out to set fruit, and in most parts of the country you can't set them out until late May or June. You're never going to have a ripe tomato in spring, even if they're imported (because tomatoes are shipped green and gassed to turn red--they're not really ripe).

I'm sorry. I am helpless in the face of all things horticultural.

Aconite- I think it depends upon region. I now live in Chicago, where tomatoes can't be planted until May 15, and June 1 is better, so you can't really have ripe tomatoes until July 1 or later. But, when I lived in Texas it was not unusual to plant tomatoes in March, and have ripe ones in May. In fact, it was too hot and dry in July and August for fruits and vegetables to produce. . . the leaves just survived, and the plants came into fruition again in September and October. (Or they died and you planted a second crop.)When I lived in southern FL or CA, frost was so unusual that you could have a ripe tomato on January 1, if you wanted to.

I believe people in TX, FL, and CA still consider June 21 the official beginning of summer, so yes, in many parts of the country a "ripe spring tomato" is a viable concept.

[Aconite]

I believe people in TX, FL, and CA still consider June 21 the official beginning of summer, so yes, in many parts of the country a "ripe spring tomato" is a viable concept.

Fair enough. Okay, so, if the character in question was in TX, FL, or CA (because, remember, any tomatoes shipped outside those regions are still going to be picked unripe and gassed to turn red), then they could be enjoying a tomato full of "spring sweetness."

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who obsesses about details like this. I once threw a book across the room because it described the baying of the greyhounds.

[Yeshanu]

May I propose that to become a voting member, the piece of fiction must be professionally published?

Does a book published by PA count? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[maestrowork]

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who obsesses about details like this. I once threw a book across the room because it described the baying of the greyhounds.

And I understand why people are obsessed with details and accuracies -- which makes a novelist's job even harder. Besides, some things that are "facts" to someone might not be so to someone else. I rememer someone telling me, "That's not the way it is in China." And I said, "How do you know?" "Because I lived there in 3 years." "Well, I grew up there. So who knows more?" ;) LOL.

I just hope someone won't end up hating a lot of novels because of little niggles like that. I mean, to throw away the whole novel because of "sweet spring tomatoes..." <g> Let a few pebbles ruin the whole beach.. so to speak.

;)

[Aconite]

I rememer someone telling me, "That's not the way it is in China." And I said, "How do you know?" "Because I lived there in 3 years." "Well, I grew up there. So who knows more?" ;) LOL.

ROTFL! Talk about getting the rug pulled out from under you!

I just hope someone won't end up hating a lot of novels because of little niggles like that. I mean, to throw away the whole novel because of "sweet spring tomatoes..." <g>

I didn't throw it away. I just threw it. When I calmed down, I finished reading it. Though I may put the author in touch with some greyhound rescue groups. *g*

[Julie Worth]

May I propose that to become a voting member, the piece of fiction must be professionally published?

How exciting! I put Pithecanthropus Erectus on page 206, and it looks dandy! Can't wait to get it published and get my membership card.

[maestrowork]

Erectus

This is so dirty...

[NeuroFizz]

How exciting! I put Pithecanthropus Erectus on page 206, and it looks dandy! Can't wait to get it published and get my membership card.


Julie,

Great job. Only one problem--go back to page 206 and change the first "E" in erectus to lower case. In scientific nomenclature, the first name is the genus, with first letter capitalized. The second name is the species, all lower case letters. Either italicize like you did here, or underline. I'm not trying to be picky. I don't want you to jeopardize your membership.

[reph]

Julie,...go back to page 206 and change the first "E" in erectus to lower case.
And say nothing about the wintry sweetness of tomatoes. Horticulturists are watching.

[Julie Worth]

Julie,

Great job. Only one problem--go back to page 206 and change the first "E" in erectus to lower case. In scientific nomenclature, the first name is the genus, with first letter capitalized. The second name is the species, all lower case letters. Either italicize like you did here, or underline. I'm not trying to be picky. I don't want you to jeopardize your membership.

Duh! So this isn't the Charles Mingus album?

[maestrowork]

You're all a bunch of Homo sapiens.

[Aconite]

And say nothing about the wintry sweetness of tomatoes. Horticulturists are watching.

And they carry big tomato stakes, so it's best not to poke fun at them, lest they poke back with enthusiasm and wood.

[NeuroFizz]

And say nothing about the wintry sweetness of tomatoes. Horticulturists are watching.

Just trying to make sure it doesn't come out sounding like it was written by Pithecanthropus flaccidus.

[gogoshire]

And to think I thought this was a family board! :banana:

[mdmkay]

:crazy: Well folks I'm ready to admit it. I have led a much to sheltered life. This is the first time I've seen an exerpt from Alanta Nights. OMG..that was just damn frightening and to think they had to go into reprints (chorkling) I wasn't sure whether to cry (for my own nefarious past with PA) or laugh my big granny butt off. As much as you guys gripe about it being published (and Lord knows it shouldn't have) ya'll had to be laughing up your sleeves as you plotted out your own part in the ultimate prank on someone who deserved it so richly. Sorry for getting off the subject....carry on where ya left off.

[CJWilkes]

Use with moderation, that's all. :)



I ditto this. 100% :Thumbs:

[Timebandit]

From the sounds and sights of everybody's individual list, we have cut down on the use of the english language substantially. There are certainly words I don't like to see repeated in writing, however, most words have their place. My cardinal rule is 'don't repeat' your use of words over and over. Attempt to use proper grammar - period. To use cliques too often bothers me, as do four letter words - except when the situation calls for it. I don't care for the use of the words: that, then, have, when, suddenly, a, an, and, to, of, them, they, you...
Add-up all of the words to avoid we have mentioned, and attempt to write a long sentence that makes sense.

[cattywampus]

"That" is a kind of nothing word, like "very," "really," and "truly." Readers expect to get meaning from words, and when they come across a dead word, it kind of trips them up. It's like bringing home a six-pack and finding one of them is empty. What's it doing there if it's empty?

Just as sometimes you can't help using the passive voice ("This tire is flat") you sometimes can't avoid using 'that." But if you can, do.

Catty :)

[Jamesaritchie]

Is there some kind of obvious problem with the word "that" ?

I ran that passive word finder thing and saw that under misused/boring words, "that" was highlighted like 200 times.

For example:

"Now 2 years on since that night"

I can't help but say "that night" loads of times, to refer to a pivotal night in this guy's history.

So, whadya say

The only real probolem with "that" is in using it when unnecessary, and in drastically overusing it as both a pronoun and a conjunction. Take "that" out of a sentence and see if it still makes sense. Conjunctions often aren't necessary. If it does, you shouldn't use it. More often than not, this will be the case.

And the article "the" can often sucstituute for the pronoun "that." "The night" instead of "that night."

"That" can easily be overused, and soon starts jumping off the page at the reader, as any overused word does.

One of the first editing lessons I learned was to go through a manuscript and see how many "thats" could be eliminated. It's a good idea.

[maestrowork]

When you find yourself overuse "that" such as "that girl" or "that night," you can/should change them to "the" -- the girl, the night.

[Medievalist]

Just as sometimes you can't help using the passive voice ("This tire is flat") you sometimes can't avoid using 'that." But if you can, do.

Catty :)

The sentence

This tire is flat

Is not passive voice. Really. I swear. My hand to . . . you get the drift.

In order to have passive voice you must, positively, absolutely, no exceptions have three ingredients:

1. A vague or non-existant grammatical subject, that is the person or thing performing the action of the verb. The verb "is" while not particularly impressive, has a subject "performing" is; tire is the subject.

2. The sentence needs to have a main verb, in the past tense. The sentence This tire is flat does not have a main verb other than is; flat is an adjective.

3. The sentence needs to have a helping verb, usually a form of the verb "to be." This sentence has a form of "be" but it isn't a helping verb, it's the only verb.

The sentence is therefore not a passive voice sentence.

This sentence:

The tire had been punctured.

Is in passive voice; you don't know who punctured the tire, so there's no subject performing the action of the verb. There is a main verb, punctured, and it's in the past tense, and you have a form of the verb be in the past tense.

And, just for the record, sometimes you might want to use passive voice. Don't condemn it out of hand; you might have a character who's trying to avoid admitting an upleasant truth, or responsibility, use passive voice.

[Medievalist]

We're talking about two kinds of "that" here, both of which are sometimes problems.

First, the kinds of that JamesRitchie is talking about, where that is a conjunction, that is, it "conjoins" two phrases. Lots of times the sentence works fine, and might sound better, without that. For instance:

Rachel knew [that] John loved chocolate.

You could get away with just Rachel knew John loved chocolate. There's nothing wrong, grammatically, with either version. It's a matter of sound, and, quite frankly, whatever the house style and your editor's personal taste might be. Sometimes you might have a really obsessive character always use that, even when it isn't required, as a sign of how obsessive or precise the character is. This kind of "voluntary" that is sometimes called an expletive conjunction, or an expletive that; I used to remember it becuase of the [expletive deleted] convention of lots of news reporting.

The other kind of that editors and such worry about is a that of the sort Maestrowork was describing; it's a vague reference. "I'll never forget that night." It might be perfectly clear to the writer why "that" night is so important, but it's not always so clear to the reader; some details would be helpful.

I'll never forget [the night they drove old Dixie down].

[Prawn]

Did anyone ever compile a list from this thread? Here's what I've go. Any more to add?

Words to avoid or use sparingly

“That”

"almost"
"somewhat"
"somehow"
"some"
"quite"
"very"
"had"
"beautiful"
"is because" (as in, "the reason for X is because...")


"More/Most importantly" (the correct word is "important," not "importantly")

"Due to,"

started to
have the character do the action not start the action

"Seemingly"
"somehow"
"somewhat."

"-ly" words in general.

[cattywampus]

Maestro, I beg to disagree, a little. First, the fact that one person has lived longer in China than someone else doesn't necessarily mean they know more about the culture. Much depends on what time period each is talking about. Second, I am troubled by the statement "A fact to one person might not be a fact to someone else." I think here you are talking about opinions. Facts either are, or they aren't (in which case they're opinions). My mind is going into spasms trying to figure this out, am I coherent or is this a complete mess?

[Del]

Maestro, I beg to disagree, a little. First, the fact that one person has lived longer in China than someone else doesn't necessarily mean they know more about the culture.

Exactly! And I should know. More than half my stuff came from China.

[cattywampus]

Medievalist, you are right. "The tire is flat" is NOT passive voice, in this sentence "is" is a linking verb. I just found that out yesterday! I'm pretty good at writing but I got lost in diagramming sentences and never found my way back.

[Akuma]

I still can't understand why we should avoid using these words...

I blunder into them like a baby down a misanthrope's basement.

I'm quite confused. Crap, I'm not supposed to say "quite"...

[Akuma]

BTW, Prawn, your avatar trips me out. O.o

[LunarMoon]

Substitute "damn" every time you're inclined to write "very"; your editor will delete it and the writing will be just as it should be.- Mark Twain

In all seriousness there are very few words that are completely off limits; much like story ideas the quality of a word's usage depends on the actual execution of the author. The whole thing reminds me a bit of newspeak to tell you the truth.

[cattywampus]

Akuna, there is no law that says you can't use those words. Use "quite" as often as you like. But if you ever hope to sell your writing for a decent price, to a publication you are proud of, you will cut them whenever possible because:

1. They mark you as an amateur;

2. They are ugly; and

3. They are abstract and useless. What's the difference between "It was cold outside," and "It was quite cold outside?" Nothing. "Quite" is totally subjective (what's "quite" cold for one person may be 56 degrees, while to another it might be 14 degrees. If you want to make a point about how cold it was, give the temperature.

Another irritation is "There is," "There are," "There was." "There was a rabbit scampering in the grass," reads even better as "A rabbit scampered in the grass," and uses fewer words.

Cut deadwood wherever you find it.

[Bartholomew]

There are no words to avoid; only words to avoid using badly.

That said, the one word that I believe can utterly ruin a paragraph, and leave the author baffled as to why is this:

"Was."

[cattywampus]

Bart, now you have me baffled. What's wrong with "was?" If you come across a statement such as, "He was her third husband," would that ruin the paragraph for you? This makes no sense to me. "Was" also establishes tense - past.

[Bartholomew]

Bart, now you have me baffled. What's wrong with "was?" If you come across a statement such as, "He was her third husband," would that ruin the paragraph for you? This makes no sense to me. "Was" also establishes tense - past.

What I meant was that the word is capable of ruining paragraphs, but is so unobtrusive to the writer that he may never notice what, specifically, is causing him problems.

Of course "was" serves an important purpose. So does "That," "Q," "Mexico," "Orbtastic" and all kinds of other words.

Scenes are made of paragraphs, paragraphs of sentences, and sentences of words. Barring spelling errors, we can assume that technical and structural problems within any given scene can be broken down to problems with the choice of and order of words. And the word that is, in my experience, most often the culprit is "Was."

[Elektra]

This is just me, but I always balk at the word "surreptitious" in a novel. It's just a terrible, terrible word.

[Bartholomew]

Me? I dislike the word Serif.

Curse that word. Curse it!

[janetbellinger]

I am making a point of using the word "was." Was, was, was, so there. Nya nya, back to you, lol. Seriously, I've been rejected so many times not using was, that I've decided to put it back in.

[preyer]

i'm constantly ranting againt 'was' when i do critiques. if it's just a few here and there, no problem. i use 'em, too. it's when 'was' appears in every sentence there's a problem. it makes the sentence sound passive.

i also rail on prepositional words like 'up' and 'on' when they're overused.

most of these 'no-no' words i wind up cutting out in the process of editing as a simple result of reducing word count (i'm pretty wordy) just because i need to cut x amount of words (or such is my goal). without realizing the technicalities of why and what i'm striking, words like 'that' and 'had' don't make it. also, tons of articles and pronouns are likewise snipped. what i tend to wind up with is a fast pace.

that's when i actually like something i've written to the point i edit it. :) used appropriately and in moderation, no problems with most of these words. i think we all can point to published books that break the rules. for instance, pick up any danielle steel novel and you'll find literally almost every sentence contains the word 'and.' nothing wrong with 'and,' but just the sheer repetition of it blows me away. were it me trying to pass that off, i doubt it'd fly.

[Akuma]

Thanks for the clarification, Lunar and Cattywampus.
I'll try to look out for these buggers in the future.
Though I do have many blindsides. :p

[pdr]

What's the difference between "It was cold outside," and "It was quite cold outside?"

Well, actually quite cold means a lesser degree of cold than cold. And many people would use it in their speech. So using it in dialogue would be acceptable if the character was the sort of character who would speak like that.

[preyer]

it's not really a word form to avoid, but when i can i try to use words that end in -ing rather than -ed. the issue i'm currently working on it trying not to start as many sentences with -ing words. i don't run screaming from these things, it's just i feel it's another one of my writing crutches to work on, very much like using 'but' in sentences. it's important for the writer to try and recognize their own writing shortcomings, eh?

i think it was JAR who said he sold a story based on two sentences. okay, and how many of us are in the position to do that? sorry, james, but i think your own personal experience in that case applies to you and a chosen few: i don't want the people to get the idea they can, ah, 'get away' with that as a rule. once you've sold x amount of books, maybe you can just wipe your arse with a piece of paper, call that a synopsis, and your trusting editor will buy it with confidence. for the folk trying to break into the biz, i don't trust in what you said there as being any kind of reliable, realistic advice.

for the normal writer trying to get published, you can't afford to slack off or be any less competent than you can possibly be and hope your presentation pulls through by some unquantifiable merit. that is, if you hinge your hopes and dreams on luck, best wishes and i'll likely see you in the slush pile.

i think the idea here is use this stuff at your own risk. i'm not sure if these words are deal-killers (though they probably won't help) in and of themselves. being aware of them, how they're perceived by readers and editors (if indeed that's within our limited ability to do so), can be a useful tool, no? i also make no bones about it when i do critiques: i say i might be able to help make it a better story, but that doesn't mean it'll be more sellable. i think that's a common sense approach to use, especially in topics such as this.

i dunno. i guess if you're able to puke out a bunch of words on a page in whatever manner you want and can consistently sell it, do so. i think most of us can point to writers who do everything technically perfect who'll be lucky to sell a book, who just can't grasp why a writer who does things all willy-nilly manages to somehow have the midas touch (or willy-nilly compared to technical perfection, lol). in the end, i guess if there were any one sure-fire way to do it, we'd all be pulitzer prize winners and would be latched on d'oprah's teat like radiation on godzilla.

[J.S Greer]

What's the difference between "It was cold outside," and "It was quite cold outside?"

The difference is the unecessary adjective.


I like to avoid:
Most words ending in LY
Unecessary descriptive adjectives.
Any use of thee, thine, for (For thee/for I), art (Thou art kind) or anything else that sound pompous and unrealistic.

[chicagogal]

I don't understand this business of not using certain words. If we are to be free and write with our talent then how can we let "certain" words get in the way. It's all about the flow and the emotion. If I stop and worry about using the right or wrong word, then the magic is gone. And what is writing, but magic.

[chicagogal]

a word by any other name would mean something different. think about it.

[J.S Greer]

I don't understand this business of not using certain words. If we are to be free and write with our talent then how can we let "certain" words get in the way. It's all about the flow and the emotion. If I stop and worry about using the right or wrong word, then the magic is gone. And what is writing, but magic.

Agreed, but there are words when used wrong or in the wrong place that dont work. There are also words that are distracting and amateurish.

The magic that the reader feels is as important if not more so than the magic you feel as a writer putting the words down.

You write the magic. When the magic is written, you go back and edit and make it more magical.

"Thou art my King, and I do humbly serve thee." That to me is clunky and would not inspire me to read more. You could honestly say "thats your poinion", and you would be 100% right. However, that kind of passage holds no magic for me, and thusly isnt magical.

Its a balance that must be maintained.

[MattW]

There is only one word I do not use: "the"

[Mike Coombes]

There is only one word I will ever outright refuse to use under any circumstances.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Oh no! I guess I have to trash my whole novel now.

It uses WORDS! What the hell was I thinking?

[FergieC]

A primary school teacher told us never to use the word 'got'. I thought she was stupid at the time, because it was such a common word, required for many sentences. But after years of it always nagging away and her voice always being there whenever I used it, I realised she was right. There is almost never a need to use it. Almost. I still use it in dialogue, but try never to use it anywhere else.

[zenofeller]

I'm pretty sure any words have the potential to be the hinge of a phrase. Even something like "snatch" or "quite" or "actually" or whatever your personal idiosincrasy points to.

Essentially, if you're looking for help with the words you shouldn't use, especially if even for a moment you're entertaining the notion of striking stuff out of your magnum opus because you read somewhere you should, you're obviously not sitting on a magnum opus. Or an opus at all.

[writingmom]

I agree with chicagogal, its about the writing. Yes some words will work - and some wont. You cant take out words that will apply to the story, you will then have wewrites, see, now if its used repeatedly then yes, it may be a habbit.
Just a Thought !

[Akuma]

MattW, mind explaining the "the" philosophy you have? I'm a bit confused, to be honest.


Oh no! I guess I have to trash my whole novel now.

It uses WORDS! What the hell was I thinking?

I suppose this means we only become good by producing nothing. So, I guess I'll just

[mooncars]

I don't understand this business of not using certain words. If we are to be free and write with our talent then how can we let "certain" words get in the way. It's all about the flow and the emotion. If I stop and worry about using the right or wrong word, then the magic is gone. And what is writing, but magic.

Couldn't have said it betterly myself! May as well take half the crayons from the box if we limit ourselves as to palette choices. Is the story engaging? A-ha!

Au remark,
Rick

[J.S Greer]

A primary school teacher told us never to use the word 'got'. I thought she was stupid at the time, because it was such a common word, required for many sentences. But after years of it always nagging away and her voice always being there whenever I used it, I realised she was right. There is almost never a need to use it. Almost. I still use it in dialogue, but try never to use it anywhere else.

Interesting. Got is one I dont use often, but ive never thought of it that way.

Two more:
Aint
and Fergilicious:roll:

[janetbellinger]

Is it a flatulist, then? lol
The sentence

This tire is flat

Is not passive voice. Really. I swear. My hand to . . . you get the drift.

In order to have passive voice you must, positively, absolutely, no exceptions have three ingredients:

1. A vague or non-existant grammatical subject, that is the person or thing performing the action of the verb. The verb "is" while not particularly impressive, has a subject "performing" is; tire is the subject.

2. The sentence needs to have a main verb, in the past tense. The sentence This tire is flat does not have a main verb other than is; flat is an adjective.

3. The sentence needs to have a helping verb, usually a form of the verb "to be." This sentence has a form of "be" but it isn't a helping verb, it's the only verb.

The sentence is therefore not a passive voice sentence.

This sentence:

The tire had been punctured.

Is in passive voice; you don't know who punctured the tire, so there's no subject performing the action of the verb. There is a main verb, punctured, and it's in the past tense, and you have a form of the verb be in the past tense.

And, just for the record, sometimes you might want to use passive voice. Don't condemn it out of hand; you might have a character who's trying to avoid admitting an upleasant truth, or responsibility, use passive voice.

[Risen_Flower]

Wow, I've learned much visiting this thread. Is there a sticky on "words to avoid". My my my, I had no idea about some of these words. I looked over the first paragraph and help me, two words in the first chapter were words listed to avoid.

I feel that if one knew this list by hard and tried their best to avoid them, IMHO I think the author would lose hope in writing the story because the focus would be more on what to avoid. A few of those words seem essential to me I think.

[FergieC]

If I stop and worry about using the right or wrong word, then the magic is gone. And what is writing, but magic.


But there are surely two types of magic in a piece of writing - the magic for the writer of writing it (which is where the freedom and creativity comes in); and the magic for a reader of reading it.

If you don't think about the words you're using, but just splurge whatever comes into your mind onto the page, you will experiece the magic, but a reader is unlikely to. For the reader, the words are everything, it's how you get those ideas, characters and stories across to them, and how the prose flows, how easy it is to read, how fulfilling.

I try not to get too hung up on words on a first draft, but to get the ideas down and get that magic and freedom into it. But on the second draft, I go through and try and take out words I tend to use as props, adjectives etc, and re-structure sentences to make them better. It's amazing how much better the writing can get on a second draft sometimes, just thinking more carefully about word use.

[FennelGiraffe]

I try not to get too hung up on words on a first draft, but to get the ideas down and get that magic and freedom into it. But on the second draft, I go through and try and take out words I tend to use as props, adjectives etc, and re-structure sentences to make them better. It's amazing how much better the writing can get on a second draft sometimes, just thinking more carefully about word use.I agree!

Also, "avoid these words" is not equivalent to "OMG, these words are poison. Never, ever, use them." Rather, these are weak, flabby words that are symptomatic of weak, flabby writing. They are words that should alert you, in revision, to examine that sentence closely. See if you can find strong, specific words instead.

Most of these words do have some legitimate use. Sometimes they are the best choice. But not often. Look at the frequency of occurrence. If most pages of your manuscript include them, that's too many.

[WildScribe]

How about he or she? Used over and over and over and over again in one short paragraph. Makes for major headaches.

[nicegrrl]

Avoid conjugations of "have" and "that" as in

"She had never seen anyone so angry" and

"She noted that the men stopped staring"

[Carrie in PA]

I never, ever use the words "the" or "hamster". Ever.

[J.S Greer]

I never, ever use the words "the" or "hamster". Ever.

Ham is a word I NEVER use. Thanks for reminding me.

[Andre_Laurent]

I know better than to write "he saw" or "he heard" but how about something like "Seeing nothing alarming, he blah, blah, blah"? Is there anything wrong with that? It looks fine to me but what do I know? :D

[UrsusMinor]

I know better than to write "he saw" or "he heard" but how about something like "Seeing nothing alarming, he blah, blah, blah"? Is there anything wrong with that? It looks fine to me but what do I know? :D

Umm, I assume you must be joking about "he saw"?

Opening phrases like "Seeing nothing alarming, ..." (I believe those are referred to as infinite-verb clauses) are actually dangerous little tools. They can be used to achieve some fine effects, but they can also--like "as" clauses*--create major problems. John Gardner has a nice discussion of the use of these in his book "The Art of Fiction" in the chapter "Common Errors."

-----------

* "As he dropped the coin into the beggar's cup, Bill explained to Roger the history of the little town."

That had better be a darn tiny, very recently established town--or Bill had better be able to speak with amazing rapidity--because he has about one second to do this "as" he drops the coin.

[Andre_Laurent]

Umm, I assume you must be joking about "he saw"?


LOL Crap, thinking one thing and typing another. I'm afraid I had myself focused on a database issue and didn't exactly type what I was thinking. :tongue Okay, so I can't do two things at once.

[UrsusMinor]

Okay, so I can't do two things at once.

I can!

But I tend to screw up one or both...

[Elektra]

* "As he dropped the coin into the beggar's cup, Bill explained to Roger the history of the little town."

That had better be a darn tiny, very recently established town--or Bill had better be able to speak with amazing rapidity--because he has about one second to do this "as" he drops the coin.

Yes, but everyone easily understands what you mean when you write this, and it sounds nicer than, "As he dropped the coin into the beggar's cup, Bill began explaining to Roger..."

[Matt McKee]

This seems to be quite the delicate issue... oops

With my first draft, I find I am too busy getting the ideas out in some recognizable form. On the rewrite, however, I blaze over the text as if I were a reader. I try to sense the flow of the writing and, if it feels clumsy or somewhat itchy to read, I'll go back and rephrase it.

I can only hope and pray that it will catch the spurious or innapropriate uses of these unsavoury words. Otherwise, I'm totally pooched because I find that if I start looking for marked words and start chopping, the flow goes to hell.

[Andre_Laurent]

I can!

But I tend to screw up one or both...
Like me, lol. I had a day from IT hell and it followed me home. :D

[UrsusMinor]

Yes, but everyone easily understands what you mean when you write this, and it sounds nicer than, "As he dropped the coin into the beggar's cup, Bill began explaining to Roger..."

As a professor of mine used to used to say, in a strong Scots accent: "In writing, laddie, is not enough that I can understand ye. I must understand ye!"

The example you give, of amending the sentence with "began" isn't the only option, is it? The reason there is a problem is because of the careless use of the "as" clause in the first place, which sets a temporal frame.

The solution isn't to correct the second part of the sentence. The solution here is not to use the "as" clause in the first place. Or to have him explain "as" they do something else--something of reasonable proportion. For example, I could buy, "As they drove from Barstow to Bakersfield, Bill explained to Roger the history of the little town."

And I'm not saying never use an "as" clause--only that they are risky, and often result in bad writing. "As he burst through the door he saw the man with the gun and chased him into the bedroom." I suppose someone can easily understand than sentence, but it is terrible; and people who write sentences like that often write sentences that are indecipherable. I've seen people start a sentence with an "as" clause and then go on to do several things in several different locations--all "as" they were climbing through a window!

And the reason I brought up the "as" clause is because it presents some of the same risks as the infinite-verb clause. John Gardner has a couple of examples of hilarious infinite-verb clauses, one of which is temporally impossible:

"Firing the hired man and burning down his shack, Eloise drove into town."

His suggestion: "Infinite-verb clauses are so common in bad writing that one is wise to treat them as guilty until proven innocent."

Do I use them? Sure. I use a chainsaw, too, but when I do I pay very close attention.

[Elektra]

The solution isn't to correct the second part of the sentence, but not to use the "as" clause in the first place. Or to have him explain "as" they do something else--something of reasonable proportion. For example, I could buy, "As they drove from Barstow to Bakersfield, Bill explained to Roger the history of the little town."

Ah, clever. Words are tricksy little things, aren't they?