the word "just"

"Just" is one of the words I'm aware of overusing. Usually when I'm going through edits, I trim the those extra words unless it seems right. The key is not overusing any particular word.

One word of advice I read from Jonathan Franzen, to paraphrase, is never use the word "then." I try to heed this as much as possible.

This is from his rules of writing: "Never use the word 'then' as a *conjunction – we have 'and' for this purpose. Substituting 'then' is the lazy or tone-deaf writer's non-solution to the problem of too many 'ands' on the page."

I thought this was really intriguing when I first read it. It gets the writer out of the habit of describing the action using, "and then, and then, and then," which is a sloppy way to write.

Kathl33n said:

For example, "The play was awful." But I feel like it was more than awful. "The play was just awful." Sometimes that sounds better to me...

Click to expand...

"Just" is often used as a substitute for "merely" or "simply," like when someone says, "We're just friends."

So you might want to be careful when using it in place of a word that's meant to convey intensive emphasis.

only

Kathl33n said:

Does anybody else have a hard time getting away from this word? Sometimes I do think it is a useless "extra," but there are times when I feel like I need that little bit of extra "oomph."

For example, "The play was awful." But I feel like it was more than awful. "The play was just awful." Sometimes that sounds better to me.

I am also trying to get away from the words "really," and "very." Very hard (see, I slipped again).

When trimming the fat from your work, when do you "ax" these words and when do you leave them?

Thanks,
Curiously Kathleen

Click to expand...

Try only ... We're only friends.
Truly instead of really ... Instead of "Really, it was good! ... Truly, it was good!
Truly can often work for very (very is a Latinate for truly); ferly can also work tho it is less known.

Lots of words you can throw in there when you feel like your overusing of them.

During the edits for my last novel, my editor was adamant that "and" was appropriate when things happened at the same time, "then" was appropriate when one thing happened after the other, and "and then" was never appropriate under any circumstances. Ever.

Pretty much every instance of "very" or "just" was removed from my work.

But the big surprise for me was "that." Apparently, I'm a serial "that" abuser.

Who knew?

Kathl33n said:

Does anybody else have a hard time getting away from this word? Sometimes I do think it is a useless "extra," but there are times when I feel like I need that little bit of extra "oomph."

For example, "The play was awful." But I feel like it was more than awful. "The play was just awful." Sometimes that sounds better to me.

I am also trying to get away from the words "really," and "very." Very hard (see, I slipped again).

When trimming the fat from your work, when do you "ax" these words and when do you leave them?

Thanks,
Curiously Kathleen

Click to expand...

Great post, Kathleen. You're not alone. I also tend to use 'just', 'very', and 'really' way too often. (Really, it just gets very old )

However: not sure what genre you write, but in YA, those words tend to show up in dialogue, because that's how younger people speak. I think this is okay, in that context.

If you want to try to get a way from just, very or really, try changing the word it modifies (the word after it).

Eg.
Instead of:
The play was just awful.

Try:
The play was hideous.
The play gave me narcolepsy.
If I had to watch that play again, I'd slit my wrists.

You get the idea.

Don't knock yourself out trying to avoid such idioms in dialogue. It's how people talk.

Over overused. The test is simple: Take it out, and read what you have aloud. If it works, leave the word out. This works for a lot of things. In your example "The play was just awful" it seems completely useless to me. "The play was awful" is a strong, straightforward sentence that doesn't need superfluous modification.

I have trouble with the use of "some", either as a single word, or as a prefix (sometimes, somehow, something, etc.). Be brutal. "Just" is one of those weasel words that really don't mean much, and can often be jettisoned, to the benefit of the writing.

caw

I wonder if it's a regional dialect thing. I've never heard anyone here use it the way you've given as an example.

"The play sucked monkey b*lls." and "My IQ went down five points. Thank you so much for making me watch that." are the things I'd say/hear.

Really and very, to me, are ok in casual writing like a response I'd jot down in SYW or a text. But I cull them from my wip, since it's a fantasy book and it just doesn't jive with the tone of the entire piece. I've tried to train myself not to use them, so they don't really pop up that much.

I might use them more if I write a first person POV YA piece.

Kathl33n said:

Does anybody else have a hard time getting away from this word? Sometimes I do think it is a useless "extra," but there are times when I feel like I need that little bit of extra "oomph."

For example, "The play was awful." But I feel like it was more than awful. "The play was just awful." Sometimes that sounds better to me.



Thanks,
Curiously Kathleen

Click to expand...

So use a stronger word than awful.

The play was pathetic works

Monkey said:

During the edits for my last novel, my editor was adamant that "and" was appropriate when things happened at the same time, "then" was appropriate when one thing happened after the other, and "and then" was never appropriate under any circumstances. Ever.

Pretty much every instance of "very" or "just" was removed from my work.

But the big surprise for me was "that." Apparently, I'm a serial "that" abuser.

Who knew?

Click to expand...

Oh, glad you said that. MS word always corrects me whenever I use 'then' and tries to insert 'and' instead, usually resulting in me crying out, 'I don't mean 'and', I really want to use 'then'! He didn't do the two things together, he did them one after the other! Grr!

I am terrible for using 'just'. It's because we use it so much in our everyday talk I suppose. I'm pretty good with very.

Mclesh said:

This is from his rules of writing: "Never use the word 'then' as a *conjunction – we have 'and' for this purpose. Substituting 'then' is the lazy or tone-deaf writer's non-solution to the problem of too many 'ands' on the page."

I thought this was really intriguing when I first read it. It gets the writer out of the habit of describing the action using, "and then, and then, and then," which is a sloppy way to write.

Click to expand...

Just please keep in mind that publishing style will not only differ from from publishing house to publishing house, but also from region to region, country to country.

For instance, the argument this author deals with (over comma splicing) is an old one. Some style guides are adamant you shouldn't ever comma splice, others don't.

E.g., if you're American and you're going by the Chicago manual of Style (which a fair few publishers do like work tailored toward), yes, comma splicing is to be avoided, but not the use of 'then'.

To CMOS, they're not saying don't use it all, just don't use it as a coordinator (which is what I suspect your guy is saying):

Non-coordinator use:

He went to the restaurant, and then he phoned his missus.
He went to the restaurant; then he phoned his missus.
He went to the restaurant. Then he phoned his missus.

Not.

He went to the retaurant, then he phoned his missus.

'and' is implied as missing with the comma, but as 'then' isn't a coordinating conjunction, you can't use it to coordinate' two independet clauses like the example above.

If it was:

He went to the restaurant, then phoned his missus.
(and alternative with 'and' reinserted): he went to restaurant and then phoned his missus

'then' works fine because you have no subject before 'phoned', taking away two independant clauses and you sequent two verbs 'went' and 'phoned'.

With grammar advice, it's good to check where a member is from and take into consideration the little differences in usage and style.

I'm English and personally hate style books, but I can see why some publishers use them.

@Kado if word is insisting the you use an 'and' it's probably because it 'thinks' using a comma to suggest the missing 'and' would be better written as:

He went to the restaurant and then phoned his girlfriend.

Word is happy if you insert 'and' after the comma: He went to the restaurant, and then phoned his girlfriend. And it bugs me that it does that because that comma shouldn't be there. So it may just be screwing it up a touch because it knows 'then' isn't a conjunction, and it needs an 'and', so it's asking for one, albeit with the help of a comma when it's not needed.

Or it's picking up a comma splice.

The whole "then" issue is one I keep going back and forth on. By that I mean stuff like: He went to the store, then he picked up his wife.

It's one of those things I always tried to avoid, but so many people write it that way. Furthermore, many published texts do the same. I've seen some on here say just to ignore that squiggly line. Decisions, decisions...

Hmmm, it plays with my head a lot to, M. The example you give is a comma splice, and to the CMOS it should be either:

He went to the store. Then he picked his wife up.
He went to the store; then he picked his wife up.
He went to the store, and then he picked his wife up.

You can't have 'he went to the store and picked his wife up'. because 'then he' suggests a further independant action. So it could be argued that the wife is not at the shop. You could have 'he went to the shop and then picked his wfie up' (no subject in the latter but still giving the same sense that the wife's not at the shop).

Then there's also Maryn's argument, and I've seen this is published works to with the predicatives: 'he went to the shops then picked his wife up' (no 'and', no 'comma' but acceptable to many).

Grammar is strange.

I definitely understand what you're saying. I always have an idea in my head of how the character would say a phrase, and the tempo gets thrown off if I don't have a specific filler word.

Since it's how a character speaks, it makes sense that it might be in there, but people will still insist that it's not necessary. Personally, I only find it frustrating when it's the crutch of the writer, not the character. If multiple or all characters use similar phrases or gimps in their speech, it becomes distracting. However, if it's an aspect of one character's speech and that makes sense, I can't imagine how that would be distracting.

Someone who is particularly bad at that is Michael Grant, author of the Gone series. I love the books, the storyline is fantastic, but I grit my teeth whenever I hear the kids call each other "man" awkwardly or assert that something is "no big thing," especially considering how the phrase has mostly shifted to being "no big deal."

Thanks for your post Fallen - really informative.

Makes me realise how much work I've got ahead of me edit wise (currently on 2nd draft). I'm pretty good about not using 'and then' but I do believe I'm guilty of comma splicing - probably more times than I'd care to admit.

I actually prefer the no comma usage: He went to the store then picked up his wife. I think that looks easier on the eye and is therefore easier to read. Who knows what any future editor would say though.

Glorium said:

Since it's how a character speaks, it makes sense that it might be in there, but people will still insist that it's not necessary. Personally, I only find it frustrating when it's the crutch of the writer, not the character.

Click to expand...

Agree. All those justs and reallys and actuallys and sort ofs are what people say. Narrators have to avoid them, but some of your characters will use them.

Just remember no words are taboo, it's the proper usage that counts.

I never cut any word if I like the way it reads.

Kathl33n said:

For example, "The play was awful." But I feel like it was more than awful. "The play was just awful." Sometimes that sounds better to me.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't read these as saying the same thing. 'Just' in this sense means 'only'. 'Just awful' means it was terrible and had no redeeming features. 'Awful' means it was terrible overall, but might have had something going for it in parts (like a good actor, if you excuse the pun).

Kathl33n said:

For example, "The play was awful." But I feel like it was more than awful. "The play was just awful." Sometimes that sounds better to me.

Click to expand...

... the way it sounds to you is somewhat important. More importantly, it should mesh with the personality of the character who's speaking the line. That's the deciding factor. Instead of "just," substitute "downright," which works just as well. I'm guessing it wouldn't quite work for you. Why?