avoid verbs look and hear

You can use them if they fit the moment, just as you can break nearly any 'rule' in English and be an effective writer. These are good guidelines for new authors - not the Ten Commandments.

Edited To Add: of that last example, the first sentence is probably more effective than the second. The second example is trying too hard. Both sentences have problems.

I am years away from Grammar, so I'm actually going to go hit my style manuals for filter verbs.

jaus tail said:

should one avoid verbs like look, see, hear, smell. Also what are filter verbs and why must one avoid them?

Click to expand...

Mostly what you're describing are 'filter verbs', meaning you filter what happens through the MC, which isn't always needed.

For example...

John heard a knock on the door.

There was a knock on the door.

It is often unnecessary to do this. I can't quite explain why, but for me it takes me out of the story, which is probably the opposite intention. In a larger context, however, it could be important to note that is it indeed John who heard the knock on the door. For example, if we expand it a bit...

The bass was turned up to eleven and the neighbour's cat was howling, but through the blaring noise John heard a knock on the door.

Lame example I know, but because of the context it's important that John heard the knock, not that there merely was a knock.

So to answer your question... sometimes?

Filters are words that put the reader at one remove from the POV character. If you want to write in close POV, avoid filters. They don't add anything of value. Simply say what happened without the preamble about which senses or organs detected it.

However, "avoid" does not mean "never use." In your second example, "a loud bang attacked" is just awkward. There may be a way to write this without "he heard," just make sure the avoidance of a filter isn't clunkier than the filter.

Getting hamstrung on writing advice is a major pitfall of writing advice.

Yep, that's what the trusty style manuals said.

Devil Ledbetter said:

However, "avoid" does not mean "never use." In your second example, "a loud bang attacked" is just awkward. There may be a way to write this without "he heard," just make sure the avoidance of a filter isn't clunkier than the filter.

Getting hamstrung on writing advice is a major pitfall of writing advice.

Click to expand...

Agreeeeeed.

(writing without "he heard"): I might say something like "A loud bang sounded outside. What was that? He inched toward his window and craned his neck to peer through it while keeping a safe distance."

jaus tail said:

a beta told me to avoid using verbs look, hear, see.

he raised his head, a lean outline of a man stood before him
vs
he saw a lean man before him.



should one avoid verbs like look, see, hear, smell. Also what are filter verbs and why must one avoid them?

Click to expand...

As others have already said, you don't need the filter. But I think it's important to note that of these two sentences:

he was solving the math problems when he heard a loud bang from the window
vs
he was solving the math problems when a loud bang attacked from the window, invaded his peace and coerced him to look outside.

the first is the better option, if you're choosing between just the two. The second one tries way, way too hard with those verbs, which aren't good choices for the context.

A bang can't attack the window. And invaded and coerced are just too much. You want the loud noise to startle him and draw him away from what he's doing, right? He'd just divided 800 by 9.7 when a bang rattled the window. He snapped his head toward the sound.

Simple is often best.

A lean man stood before him.

He was solving math problems when a loud bang came from the window.


Not the greatest sentences, but out of context, that's about the best you can do. Some of the other examples seemed overdone.

I think the advice you're getting is re the excessive use of filters (filtering words). As with all advice, it needs to be seasoned with common sense and moderation, because there are times when these verbs are needed, or at least play into a given narrative style more than others.

But the general reason why some critiquers suggest you be mindful of their use and eliminate them when they aren't needed for clarity is because they remind the reader that they're being told a story about the pov character's perceptions, rather than drawing the reader into the pov character's perceptions.

A very simplistic and off the cuff example:

John stood by the window, wondering if Kara was going to be late. He heard the crunch of gravel in the driveway and knew she'd arrived at last.

as opposed to

John stood by the window. Was Kara going to be late? Gravel crunched in the driveway. Oh good, she'd arrived at last.

Same information in both, but the second omits the filtering words "wondered," heard," and "knew." Ironically, by removing the words that remind us that we're being shown the inside of John's head, we're actually more deeply inside it.

Words to watch for include all the "sensing" words as well as all those thinking and knowing words. Heard, smelled, felt, saw, knew, realized, thought, hoped, remembered etc.

Again, it's not an all or none thing. Sometimes the "filter" word is the point of the sentence (My stomach hurts whenever I think of mushrooms). Or the situation needs a filter to differentiate between, say, an omniscient narrator's perception and a character's, or to establish pov at the beginning of a scene, or whatever. And popular writers do vary in how often they use these.

But if several critting buddies are pointing it out, it may mean that you are using filters where they're not needed.

Definitely a difference between use of a word and excessive use of a word. Sometimes a particular verb is better because the action isn't that important - what's important is what happens next. The verb just does it's job - gets us from point A to point B, with point B the whole point of the passage.

Stared, glanced, frowned, scowled, peeked, ogled, leered, and eyed can be used in place of looked.

morriss003 said:

Stared, glanced, frowned, scowled, peeked, ogled, leered, and eyed can be used in place of looked.

Click to expand...

That completely misses the point of avoiding these words in general. It's still filtering when you use those words.

Do be sure, though, that you go back to your beta and ask exactly what he or she meant - because there's a world of difference between "Don't use filters" and "Use fewer filters" and "You might want to have a look at your use of filters."

jaus tail said:

a beta told me to avoid using verbs look, hear, see.

Click to expand...

sounds like it might have been part of a longer suggestion, and the longer suggestion might be the point that mattered (Or - I don't know your beta - it might be an inexperienced beta quoting a "rule" that they've heard and misunderstood themselves.)

jaus tail said:

a beta told me to avoid using verbs look, hear, see.

he raised his head, a lean outline of a man stood before him
vs
he saw a lean man before him.

he was solving the math problems when he heard a loud bang from the window
vs
he was solving the math problems when a loud bang attacked from the window, invaded his peace and coerced him to look outside.

should one avoid verbs like look, see, hear, smell. Also what are filter verbs and why must one avoid them?

Click to expand...

Filter verbs are those that stand as a filter between the reader and what the character is experiencing. So -- look, hear, etc. are filter verbs. Often it's best to use "A bird was singing" than "He heard a bird singing." The second example explains that he heard the bird singing, when no explanation is needed.

But that doesn't mean one should never use filter words. In your example where the man hears the bang outside the window, the first sentence is superior to the second one, which sounded contrived and convoluted.

There is certainly a place for look and hear verbs, just not all the time and you should definitely ask your beta to explain further. If they mean you filter too much, you should take a look at your work. If they said don't filter at all you should still look at your work but understand sometimes filtering is not only necessary, but moves the story far better than not filtering

mccardey said:

( ... it might be an inexperienced beta quoting a "rule" that they've heard and misunderstood themselves.)

Click to expand...

I've done this before during LBL critiques in the SYW section. Usually, someone with a better grasp of the concept in question comes along to correct me.

In a case where an otherwise grammatically-correct sentence form should or shouldn't be used, the ultimate answer should be, in my humble opinion, "what does the story call for here?"

Seeing how other writers handle it is a great way to get a fix on a style issue, which it seems like this is.

A rule I heard many years ago was that if you can cut something out without changing the sense, then you probably ought to.

Filtering (look, heard, smell) can be useful if it adds something to the scene. We might want to describe how a characters perceives something if it tells us something about that character.

But if you can describe the action perfectly well without the filter then you probably don't need it. As others have said, it adds another level of distance between the reader and the action.