weak verbs

Usually it's not so much an issue of weak verbs as an issue of weak sentence construction.

caw

Weak verbs are usually vague.

Walked, looked, sat (in the chair).......

A more vivid image could be conveyed if these weak verbs were changed to stronger, clearer verbs such as strolled, sauntered, strode, searched, examined, lounged, sprawled and so on.

I'm with Bufty, as I so often am. The weak verbs look, see, have, get, go, start, begin, try, make, play, take, wonder, seem, appear, and is/are, plus many others dependent on context, are not wrong per se, but they are uniformly lackluster and can nearly always be replaced by something which produces a visual image in the mind of the reader. (Bufty's example of walked is excellent.) A weak verb shored up with an adverb ups your word count without adding anything worth having.

In a second draft, one of the things I do is identify the verb in every single sentence and determine if there isn't a stronger one in the wings.

Maryn, verb freak

For "opened slightly" you could say "peeked through narrow slits" or something like that, but actually that's getting pretty awkward. "Fiercely stabbed" doesn't really mean anything different from "stabbed." Ask yourself to picture someone stabbing someone and someone stabbing someone fiercely. You could say "stabbed repeatedly," or better, "stabbed seven times," or even better, "stabbed at her shaking body, over and over, not paying attention to where the knife fell or even if she was alive under his blows."

When I hear "weak or strong verbs," I don't think of "opened." I think of regular and irregular verbs. See/saw/seen is a strong verb. Look/looked/looked is a weak verb. It's not because look sounds wimpier, it's because it's parsed regularly. I doubt if that's what they meant, but that's what I thought you meant before I opened the thread.

I don't think that there are "weak verbs", but I can imagine "weak constructions". The thing that was mentioned about "stabbing slightly (or whatever)" is a weak construction, but the verb is perfectly good.

Even on the "active" end of the verb spectrum, I see characters doing a lot of darting, racing, hurrying, leaping, vaulting, rushing, and ushering in otherwise bland writing. The issue isn't always with the verbs being bland--it's with the language itself being bland.

Solution? Read, read, read. Read outside your genre, read manuscripts, read poetry.

If you can tell the difference you can answer your own question.

sciri said:

Thanks. Your book seems interesting, does it give hints on how to "un-bland" the language? I definitely do not want my writing to sound "bland", although from what I see at the bookstore these days it doesn't prevent some writers from getting published....

Click to expand...

Strong verbs are nice and all, but you can really overdo it.

"Thinking deeply" can be very different from "agonizing".

Agonizing about decisions is rarely helpful. You cannot predict the future, you can only make the best decision possible with the information availabe. Of course there is a certain probability that you will be wrong. But there's no use wallowing in worst-case-scenarios.

Thinking deeply about decisions however? That's something I'd wholeheartedly recommend, as it implies a rather different state of mind. You can make your best effort to account for all possible aspects of a problem without getting lost in worst-case-scenarios.

Flashy verbs are great for describing spectacular actions. A lot of interesting processes in this world are not so very spectacular however, yet they do occasionally make for good reading and are definitely better served with less flashy verbs.



And if for nothing else, weak verbs are good for making the strong verbs stand out.

Agreed. Don't go overboard.

Simply say what you mean and mean what you say. Aim for clarity.

sohalt said:

Stronge verbs are nice and all, but you can really overdo it.

"Thinking deeply" can be very different from "agonizing".

Agonizing about decisions is rarely helpful. You cannot predict the future, you can only make the best decision possible with the information availabe. Of course there is a certain probability that you will be wrong. But there's no use wallowing in worst-case-scenarios.

Thinking deeply about decisions however? That's something I'd wholeheartedly recommend, as it implies a rather different state of mind. You can make your best effort to account for all possible aspects of a problem without getting lost in worst-case-scenarios.

Flashy verbs are great for describing spectacular actions. A lot of interesting processes in this world are not so very spectacular however, yet they do occasionally make for good reading and are definitely better served with less flashy verbs.



And if for nothing else, weak verbs are good for making the strong verbs stand out.

Click to expand...

I think this is one of those things that comes up in writing books and conferences, which, while strictly speaking, is true, can be overdone, and in fact is overdone. On the one hand, I don't think we shouldn't be telling be these things, because it is sometimes a problem. On the other hand, when you dedicate a whole conference session to it, you usually find sample texts so badly written that no one would create them, and when you try and "correct" reasonably well written texts, you often end up making them worse.

I don't think there's such a thing as a "weak verb", honestly. I think there's such a thing as "the wrong word" but not a "weak verb".

Sometimes people are just sitting, walking, looking and not lounging, striding or gazing. Each word carries a different connotation and the writer has to not default to a single word. Likewise, if they really just mean "Ted walked across the room" they should say that instead of "Ted paced across the room" because there's some thought that paced is "more active" than walked--even though the writer does just mean walk.

Writers who don't do the work to say what they really mean to say (connotations and all) are the ones who have the problem. Likewise, writers who blindly follow rules and end up not saying what they really mean to say still have the same problem. To me, it seems the answer is both problems is very simple: Say what you meant to mean the first time.

There certainly are weak verbs, and slush piles are filled with manuscripts written by writers who think they don't exist.

Sciri, I do define "bland" and offer some examples in the lexicon. There are other concepts and terms that talk about it tangentially as well. Here's the main entry:

blandness (also flatness) is a problem created by not enough attention to detail. The writer relies on dull adjectives, overused adverbs, and simplistic actions to convey emotions and description. The effect on the reader, after several pages, is boring and numbing because the writing doesn’t tell us much, and further, lacks the precision of music that comes from having an ear for the English language. Revise by adding succinctness and more voice.
NO: {He ate his sandwich with one hand and drove with the other. The light turned green and he accelerated through the intersection. He listened while she spoke, and made a left at the next light.}
YES: {He navigated the streets, driving, eating, stopping, and going when the lights prompted him to go. He paid fastidious attention to everything but his wife’s voice.}

Click to expand...

Hope that's helpful. If you want to see more of the book, 20 percent is a free sample on Smashwords. Thanks for the question.

Action verbs (known as material verbs in functional grammar): run, walk, sit sat, catch, kick, sit, stand.

Weak verbs (relational and mental verbs in functional grammar) is, are, was, (relation verb: they set up a relation between one thing and another: the garden is gorgeous) think. love, hate, say, thought (mental verbs: so named because they are verbs used to describe mental states).

Weak sentence:

The forest is beautiful.

Why is it weak? Well, can you picture beautiful? You have a relational verb (is) relating an abstract word (beautiful) back to 'a forest', but can you really 'see' what beautiful means.

How do you stop it being weak? You change relational verbs (is etc) to action verbs and your abstract language (beautiful) to more easily pictured language (concrete language: I say 'house', you instantly picture four walls, windows etc):

Bracken cracked under foot and the heather's soft scent of Jasmine brushed the hair from her eyes. The heat of the day sizzled the surface of a lake and as kids raced bikes along wooden tracks deer lifted munching mouths with a grin.

You have action verbs of 'cracked' 'brushed' 'sizzled' 'raced' 'lifted munching' (these involve your senses)

and the abstract has been change from beautiful: to 'Bracken' 'heather' 'hair' 'eyes' 'surface of a lake' 'kids' 'bike' 'wooden tracks' 'mouths' (these make your language really easy to picture and the reader reaches the conclusion that, yeah, maybe the forest is beautiful)

Use of relational verbs and absract goes most of the way to 'telling' Use of concrete language and action verbs go most of the way to 'show'. Both play a good part in fiction, but you have to get a good balance.

Heated