I think the word "suddenly" works great in person. I used to tell scary stories and would use it to grab kids' attention, then stay silent for a long time, holding their anticipating as long as I could, before delivering the "scary part". It worked like a charm! But as you said, in writing, it doesn’t have the same effect.
I'm, like, totally and literally surprised, like, overwhelmed that, like, the word "like" was like, you know, not mentioned as, like, one of the, like, overused words. Like, it really belongs, like, on the list. Literally.
19:05 Hmmmm. No I actually like “He stood up” because it seems to me if you just say “He stood” that could mean he’s been standing there for some time. “He stood up” makes it clear that the standing up JUST happened. Does anybody else agree?
His point being all along that there are times when words could be left out and not change the meaning. This does not mean that you should ALWAYS leave them out even if you have a specific point to make. Sat Down/sat up/sat back/sat on the edge of his seat. If there is a point to be made, write to the point. Literally.
I literally just sat down and was watching something that lowkey made me want to edit my work somewhat, even though I usually really don’t like it. And then I suddenly wrote this comment.
Eh... I agree with most of these, with the exception of most of what comes from Strunk & White. As countless other comments have already pointed out, "she sat down" & "he stood up" neither have the same meaning as "she sat" & "he stood" -- but for me, it goes further than that. Following Strunk & White about omitting "needless words" (or separable phrasal verbs as they are technically called) it really hamstrings your ability to add any prosody to your writing. When readers say they enjoy the "musicality" or "lyricism" of a particular writer, you can bet that there are some "needless words" seasoned heavily throughout the text in order to achieve that rhythm. Focusing entirely on being clear, concise, direct, & economical with your word choice can make your writing just read as soulless or sanitized.
@@caseydavis57 Well, see, this is true--but it's important to understand when a word needs to be left in to provide that context. This phrase, in fact, is a good example "left in to provide that context." I wouldn't speak that way out loud; I'd say "left in in order to provide that context," but it looks silly in writing. In fact, if this were a book, I would rearrange the entire sentence, because the context is too easily misconstrued. Most valid uses of the word "that" are for this purpose: to prevent readers from having to *re-read* a sentence once they have discovered the correct context.
@ "That" is a good point as wel! Though I was also half-awake when I initially commented, I think; you can't write "stand down" without either of those words, because "stand" on its own implies an upward motion, so "down" is always needed to clarify that particular phrase's meaning. It's funny to think about how you can write both "sit up" and "stand down," but my addition doesn't have any other relevance to this conversation because it has a much more specific usecase. I think what you're saying aligns with what BookFox said though, that each word should add meaning to a sentence. If you can write that a character sat, and in context it's understood to be in a downward motion, then you can take out the word "down". If not, leave it in. I'm seeing a lot of people in the comments taking BookFox's advice literally, or at least without nuance; he's obviously not saying to confuse your readers, but instead to not bog them down with unneeded words.
Yeah, I'mma disagree hard on the 'she sat down' versus 'she sat' and 'he stood up' versus 'he stood" as removing the down and up, respectively, does actually change the meaning. 'She sat' could mean she was sitting and continued to sit, or it could mean she stayed in a single place (viz. and the chalice sat there for the rest of eternity). The one thing, however, 'she sat' does not mean is that she went from a standing position to a sitting position. Including the 'down' specifies that she went from a standing position to a sitting position. Same thing with 'he stood up' versus 'he stood.'
Came here to say this. It's a fine point but an important one. Also, it's perfectly feasible for someone to "sit up." As in, "he sat up," which might describe the action of a character wary of a new person who has entered the room, etc.
It's needed for context sometimes, but not always. I think short tends to be better if it's not something you need to draw attention to. All of these are context relevant. Also, 'imma' is a great word. Slang is great for flavor.
the german word for poem is "Gedicht". "dicht" can be translated to dense(ly), tight(ly), thick(ly)or close(ly). my teacher always said it's called Gedicht because the words are all squeezed tightly together. every single word needs to be at it's place and there's no room for unnecessary words. i don't think that's the true origin of the word Gedicht but it's a great metaphor. it also works for "dichten" which means writing poetry but can also mean to compress/tighten (you'd need to use prefixes for the latter meaning but it's still cool)
These two words indeed have different origins. One has its origin in Latin (Gedicht), the other in Proto-Germanic (dicht). It's a fun coincidence though.
Yes: "dicht" 'dense, tight' and "dichten" 'write (poetry)' have different etymologies, but they're both Germanic. Or what Latin origin did you find for "Gedicht"?
I'm not sure I would agree that "something" is an empty word that doesn't convey anything, as it seems clear to me that it conveys uncertainty and a general lack of clarity on the part of the viewpoint character. It's for feelings that you can't accurately pinpoint or identify. The rewritten sentences all lose this feeling of uncertainty by being too quick to put a face on the unknown. It goes from something nebulous and vague-the house being creepy for reasons the protagonist can't quite put their finger on-to something much more concrete and limited like groaning and creaking in the wind.
@@MrInitialMan Can they? I've personally never eaten something I didn't know without knowing it. But even if someone did, there's better ways to describe it and immerse the reader. In my opinion, "something" can be used, yes, but it tells us nothing and is rather lazy.
@ I have, especially when my mind is on something else, and have had to guess my snack from its aftertaste. There has also been times when I haven't recognized my own handwriting or even accidentally gaslit myself, so make of that what you will.
I recently finished a first draft and actually cut out 50 instances of actually. And saved hundreds of words by combining things like “have to” to “must”. I would say there is no problem with writing these things in a first draft, because obviously we’re all writing as we think and a lot of the time you want to maintain momentum rather then loose your train of thought to look up a strong verb. I find it satisfying going through and fixing these things before sending by WIP out for feedback.
I like printing out my first draft and just mark the hell out of our it with a red pen before anyone else looks at it. It is very satisfying for some reason
Some big o'grains of salt with this!! 1) Dialogue: your characters will use poor grammar, bad sentence structure, technical terms, and even puff words if it works for them 2) Expedite a package or delivery is industry parlance, and for dialogue or point of view of a character in related fields, it is entirely appropriate.
I think that often the word "love" is over-used. "I just LOVE those shoes!" "Don't you LOVE when a movie ends terribly?" "I LOVED the way she decorated her house."
I cut some filter words and the editor added them because she couldn't understand which characters were on the scene and completely changed the meaning of the ending
Interesting stuff. I think there's a lot more to say here, though, so point by point: 1: That (weasel words) - train yourself not to write it in the first place unless it's the subject of the sentence, or you're writing realistic dialogue. If these words aren't there in the first place you don't need to go through and read 800 out-of-context sentences to decide whether you can safely delete them. 2: Utilise (puff words) - this is typical of management-speak, to me, that haze of meaningless words and worn cliches managers use to make it less obvious that they want to bark orders like a drill sergeant but know they can't get away with it. Nobody should write or speak like this, ever. My personal most hated word of this type is 'yourself' or 'yourselves' used in place of 'you', or 'ourselves' in place of 'us'. This has never been correct but it's everywhere because people think it's formal. That's not to say 'fancy words' are bad - jargon exists for experts to speak to other experts precisely, and sometimes that's what you need to convey. EDIT: 'Utilise' means to make use of, i.e. to make into a tool, so I can see a place for it when discussing makeshift solutions in a formalised way. For example in the movie Hard Boiled a character uses a pair of handcuffs to undo a bolt - I bet if he was in court a lawyer might ask "You utilised a pair of handcuffs as an impromptu wrench, is that correct?" 3: Filter words - another category to train yourself out of using in the first place and save yourself time on later. 4: Suddenly (time words) - while suddenly is almost always unnecessary, ordering words can be important for complex actions. Plus, these words crop up a lot in dialogue and if you're going for realistic dialogue you'll need these to sound natural. There needs to be a distinction between words used by characters in their speech and words used by the POV narrator. 5: Something (empty calorie words) - there are times when a non-specific word is just right. I'd also argue in favour of 'somewhat' as a good moderating modifier to use alongside 'kind of' or 'a bit' when you want to soften a word's impact and no more appropriate adjective exists, or even for comical effect - "He's looking somewhat dead", etc. 6: Really (inflation words) - definitely a hard one to avoid for me, but again a very common group of words in real speech, so these should be reserved for dialogue. 7: Usually (hedge words) - This is covered by point 5. 8: 'Sloppy words' - Orwell is right about most things and is again here. I think the video misses the point, and 'sloppy words' as a term is not really addressing what Orwell means - Orwell is not just saying words are overused and that the overuse renders them less meaningful, he's talking about the effect that the overuse has on the values or concepts they signify, and how the speaker is perceived. As an example, Americans talking about freedom are impossible for people from most other countries to take seriously because it has become empty rhetoric, just waffle Americans come out with to defend their lifestyle, and it becomes hard to understand how significant it is culturally in the US or what it really means to them. Yes, don't be lazy, but more importantly, don't assume; think whether readers different from you will share your understanding, and if it's possible they won't, accommodate that somehow. 9: Separable phrasal verbs are not necessarily expendable. Phrasal verbs are one of the most idiosyncratic elements of English and they should absolutely not be treated as equal to the bare verb. "He ran the zombie down" is very different from "he ran the zombie". 'Stood up' and 'Sat down' happen to work without their prepositions, but contextually 'sat' could also be 'sat up', 'sat in', 'sat on', 'sat with', 'sat behind' and more, all of which are different and potentially important. There are also questions of who does the action, e.g. 'Spread out' is intransitive, where 'spread' is transitive - "The papers spread out across the desk" tells us someone has done this but doesn't mention who, whereas "the papers spread across the desk" tells us the papers themselves are spreading unaided, like a war or a virus spreads, which without context just sounds wrong. Here I don't agree with Orwell entirely - just because you can remove something doesn't mean you should in every case. Words that provide flavour, nuance or mood can often, technically speaking, be removed. but may well leave a sentence worse off.
I agree with all of those. But is good to notice there are exceptions in his essay book "Burning Down the House", Charles Baxter has a great article called "On Defamiliarization". He mentions the words 'Something' and "that" and "the thing" can be used when a character wants to distance himself or belittle a bad thing he witnessed, not describing it to the reader or himself
That's a fantastic book -- Baxter is simply the best. And have you read his book "The Art of Subtext"? Also wonderful. And excellent point about defamiliarization. I've taught that point before in other videos -- might have to bring it around for a UA-cam round.
It's also good for simply concealing the source of the thing, as when the character does not know. "Something familiar about that guy..." If the character knew what, he wouldn't be thinking that; he'd just know the guy.
Great video! A lot of this advice hits on my favorite style: Write in a way that puts the reader as CLOSE TO THE CHARACTERS as possible. Thanks for the content!
Nidifugous, coming from nidus (nest) + fugere (to flee), a callback to my Latin studies. That's a word I won't forget now and I'm glad you shared that particular example. Thanks!
I think a word to be added to the Hedge category is 'quite' as in, "It was quite warm in the lounge." It adds nothing and subtracts some intensity. Good list, though! I'm now reading The Emotional Craft of Writing on your recommendation, by the way. I enjoyed Maass' Writing the Breakout Novel many years ago.
@IPrayToSappho Hmm, no. The word adds no additional clarification (how warm is 'quite warm'?) while at the same time diminishing the directness of 'the room was warm'. Admittedly 'warm' itself is not particularly explicit as a statement of temperature, but I'd still say the sentence is better without 'quite'.
I'm so over the word "Amazing". Awesome is getting old too. But yes, in my very first draft of a historical novel, I was trying to sound old fashioned and important, and there were a ton of "thats" that needed to go...several hundred in fact. A number of the words you suggested changing to a simpler choice reminded me of management-speak. Utilize is definitely one of those. I've heard most of these before, but it's always helpful to have a reminder. It also helps to know we are not alone in the way words we hear all the time make it to the page without us noticing. Enjoyed the humor in this one.
For a lot of these words I think I (and other writers) come to them when they are trying to add emphasis or intensification to a sentence or moment. I’d love to see you make a complimentary video with positive suggestions for better strategies to add emphasis or intensification.
Checking in on my first short story: 5,164 words and 100% complete! I started writing it because of your videos. Now to editing--I'll be sure to comb the text for these weak words. Thanks again, Prof. Fox.
A word I think is overused is "whispered." A probable carryover from the last century, or two. Back in the day, when there was dialogue between two people, one of them "just" (sorry) HAD TO say "WHISPERED," as in "she whispered." It was "usually" (🙂) part of the dialogue tag if the writer felt "he said" was getting monotonous. It is now used regardless of where the dialogue is taking place. You could have have fifty people in a bar, and they're all whispering to each other at the table! "Whispered," has never lost favor, still quite fashionable, and seems obligatory as a dialogue tag because all the great writers used it, and se we must also, regardless of the scene. If someone REALLY whispered, I have no problems with its usage, but DAMN, I think we're getting lazy.👺
Wonderful, as always! What's currently obnoxious is 'purchase' for 'buy", and "aesthetics' for 'style'. I'm interested in what makes others cringe. (And 'cringe' is starting to annoy me, too).
The words exist for a reason. If Dave bought a car, that's Dave's style. Rodney purchased a watch, purely for its aesthetics. Two different characters, two different modes of operation.
Style is a way of doing things. Aesthetics are the subjective elements of beauty or attractiveness to a thing. For the watch example (@KnugLidi), John could refuse to buy an Apple Watch because of the lack of aesthetic details he likes, such as a dial (implying he greatly prefers analog watches). John's style, by comparison, would be to wear a watch with every outfit, no matter how casual. Sarah could have the same style rule, but only wear Apple Watches, because that's the aesthetic *she* prefers.
I agree it takes away from a book to use the word 'finally' too many times. However, feel it could still be used to describe a scene if it showed how the character was feeling. For instance, After sailing across the world, Annie was finally home. She (or perhaps her family) has been waiting for this moment with great anticipation, or impatience. You could also write your sentence like this: After sailing across the world, Annie was home. Home at last! Both give a sense of how Annie (or her family) feels upon her returning home.
Wikipedia's Manual of Style has a guideline called "words to watch", which also discourages weasel words and puffery, although its usage of those terms is slightly different. For instance, weasel words it describes as "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The focus is on unsupported attributions such as "some people say" or "it is believed". In anyone's interested in Wikipedia's style guidelines which give it its distinct voice, here's their section on words to watch: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
Most editors are way too aggressive in removing the conjunction “that.” And they don’t even replace it with a comma when they should. There are only three rules of good writing: CLARITY, CLARITY, CLARITY. If conjunctions are missing when they are required you’re creating potholes in your text and that irritates the snot out of people because it draws attention to the bad editing. Sometimes words are required. Sometimes they’re just extraneous. Each one requires judgment.
I agree completely. (Is completely a weasel word?) I did a run through of my book where I waged a war against excessive words. My entire goal was to get the word count down. But then I ran through it again and realized I'd trimmed some sentences and paragraphs so much I'd reduced the clarity of my writing, so I added some words back. As you say, it's a balancing act and requires judgment. It's more of an art than a science, but yes maybe editors sometimes make it seem like an exact science.
You failed to mention my worst hedge word: seem or seemed. I have to search and change out almost every "seem." I also do a search for every version of is or was. Half the time, I can use a stronger verb.
I’m glad you clarified that most of the rules needn’t apply to dialogue or quotation, because so many of these “unnecessary” words are powerful for displaying the character of the speaker. My quandary is that I’m writing an epistolary novel, so everything’s a quotation! I have a bit of an issue with the last point about “expendable” words. This is excellent advice for technical writing or journalism, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to fiction, because in a sense it’s all expendable! No one has to read it if they don’t want to, and if reading your book is such a chore that people feel they need to get it over with as soon as possible then I’d question whether it’s worth reading in the first place. Sure, if you’re writing hard-boiled detective stories or lean plot-driven thrillers then every extra word is just baggage, but that doesn’t work if you’re writing something that needs to be languid or baroque in style. In some of the examples you gave, the long versions sounded better to me since they flowed more gracefully and allowed for a certain rhythm and assonance. Some genres are more about mood and atmosphere than just getting the plot moving, so while I think it’s worth being aware of when a sentence could be shortened without changing the meaning, literature’s not just about meaning.
Deleting words and precision writing are the rules of the game for the Australian Novellen Poem: The book must be 18 chapters, 5 parts per chapter, 277 words no more, no less per part. See D. M. Wright's "The Magpie" for an example.
On the use of "that": It has 2 distinct usages, only one of which is optional (deletable). It can be a demonstrative (pointing word, "this book, not that book") or to start a relative clause (adding information about a noun, "it was the day [that] my grandmother exploded" -> adding information about the day in question). The latter can be removed (except for when it can't), but as a demonstrate you can't drop it.
One writer with crazy vocabulary is Steven Erikson, who is a fairly unknown fantasy writer but with a loyal fanbase nonetheless. I've learned words like desultorily, crepuscular, loquaciousness, and moribund.
Thank you for including literally. I heard someone say “I literally woke up this morning.” Social media has made us desperate to bring attention to what we’re saying and mundane statements get emphasized. And the word they mean to use is actually, not literally.
I use sit/sat along with the conditions related to the action of sitting ("sat in a pile," "sat alone"), but "sat down" by itself, if that's all I got (in which case, the sentence probably deserves rewriting). Both people and objects can "sit up," "sit back," and "sit there," as well as "sit on" or "sit on top of" (as in a benchtop or a mantel). Some expressions are also regional and/or historical, like "just then" and "like so." This is why we need both know-how *and* editors.
Hey guys what are your top 10 favorite words? Just like by how cool they sound, not necessarily meaning or being extremely useful. Tho ofc they can be. Mine are, no particular order: Zephyr, galvanize, sentinel, mollify, glorious, exacerbate, complacency, connoisseur, languid, meander.
I think you hit on something when you caught yourself wanting to say "literally" and the like. Words like "literally" and "something" can usually (lol) be cut out of prose, but in dialogue, they serve a purpose: either the character has limited vocabulary/understanding, or whatever they're trying to communicate is so out of the ordinary they can't find the words to describe it.
In a short story that I just wrote. The main character creates a ball of light in her hand so she can see in the dark. I did use some puff words like radiate and illuminate. But, I only used them once each. So I didn't fall into the trap of, "The glowing light in her hand glowed. Causing light to fill the room."😁 It is slightly exaggerated, but the point is that you can sprinkle a fluff word here or there to break up the description. But, I fully agree. You don't need them everywhere. And very limited. It should be used in a sense that the reader understands what you're saying without having to think about it.
Illuminate's a good word. Writing is also about creating pictures in reader's heads and one shouldn't be too utilitarian, in spite of the communist hell rising about our ears. "Illuminating the room" is nice.
@Gooders478 Ha, ha . . . Agreed. I think there's a balance between using adult words and trying to sound smart. The difference, impo, is using them as a description is natural. Having a character speak with them is less so.😁
The THAT tip is easy for me bcos lately I've been making perfectly understandable sentences which would normally use THAT, but without using THAT. Thank you so much,your videos help A LOT👍👍
Your video is a handy reference when polishing a draft. The caveat that not every weak word, such as 'that', can be cut. Good 'guidelines' instead of 'rules'.
One thing to remember, of course, is that some people just have this tendency to talk very passively and vaguely, stuffing in words in their sentences just because it makes them feel that they're actually saying more than they are because more words are coming out of their pie-hole. And some people just talk funny. The narrator should generally be clear, concise, unfluffed, and on a reasonably low-calorie diet. But dialogue between characters should have some element of character, even to the point where having a borderline unintelligeble character is perfectly fine, if that happens to be part of their character. And utilize is a nice word but it's not really a word that feels very high on empathy. Makes one think of "utilitarian", doesn't it? Feels a bit abstract and distanced, somehow. A character who is more into seeing the world as a web of mechanics that must be adjusted and manipulated in accordance with one's goals might utilize a tool (or a person) to achieve something. A character that is more feeling, more connected, more acting from within rather than affecting at a distance, might be more inclined to use a tool. Sonic uses whatever is at hand but Dr Robotnik? He's definitely a utilizer.
I just wrote a “something” into a scene today. 😅 The sentence is: “Something started to rumble.” I think it’s okay because the thing that starts to rumble is unseen and unknown; the character literally can’t give clearer information because she doesn’t have it. Is that good? Do I get a pass? I am definitely bad for “just” and “then,” though.
@@Ukrainiangirl1990 Yeah, so far I've got 5 in my manuscript, two are in dialog and will stay, one needs a slight re-write because taking it out alters the intended tone, and one just works. The last one got deleted. Now "that" on the other hand... SO many. I'll have fun deleting those.
In English, "that" can be clarifying, however, it is not usually necessary. (In French, the equivalent word, "que," must be used, but we are not writing French.)
I had to remove a lot of 'something's from my first novel, I used it an embarrassing amount. Which hurt the couple of times where it (and other nebulous words) were useful; basically when a character disassociated with reality immediately after a highly traumatic event. When I removed the imprecise language earlier in the book, then things being imprecise for this character made the scene a bit more jarring. Also: Need to do a robot character at some point that calls food 'literally organic'.
Hi, I found your channel today and am very grateful for it! My pet hates are; I, me, my, would, could and was. I Find all of these and work through to replace or re-phrase the sentence. I now have new ones to add thanks to this video. Can't wait to watch more.
I come from a painting and drawing background and there one of the #1 things good teachers always weight on is "Simple is better". If you think about it, something like the Mona Lisa is super simple: Just a portrait of a woman. Her clothes don't have intricate patterns, she doesn't have crazy nuanced makeup, her hair has hints of texture, the background is misty and vague just like her expression. It's a super simple painting done extremely competently which doesn't make it simple. This same idea applies to writing. Removing all the excess that make your writing verbose simplifies your core to a digestible size. Not every scene has to have it all.
An exception for time words is in comics writing, where a good "Then" or "soon" in a narrative box lets you skip transitions, especially between scenes with the same characters in the same location. That said, "suddenly" has no place in comics. The art will handle that.
I write fiction for fun and I write legal narratives and reports detailing criminal incidents for a living. I would use the word ‘utilize’ in my report writing, but never in my fantasy novels.
What if the word _suddenly_ is placed at the end of a sentence? Taking the example and changing its structure to be "A shot rang out suddenly" has a bit of a different feel and flow. I agree the word could still be cut out and be stronger for it, but I think having the word at the end of the sentence isn't as jarring as when it's at the beginning of a sentence.
I think then it ought to be totally fine to use, because then it's just an adverb describing how an action is done. The main issue that I've seen with suddenly is when authors use it as a transition into an action, which ends up slowing down the pacing instead of speeding it up.
I think in most cases it just dulls the sentence's punch. 'A shot rang out' works well and if the setup is good the reader will know that this happened suddenly without you having to say it.
@MelissaJ22 I agree how its use as a transition slows down the pacing rather than increase its speed. While writing I saw how at times placing that adverb at the end of a sentence gives a different feeling such as being caught by surprise, and it works better than placing _suddenly_ somewhere in the middle of a sentence. It's as if it better captures and describes a surprising speed. Suddenly a portal appeared. A portal suddenly appeared. A portal appeared suddenly. The three sentences above all feel distinctly different from one another.
@evenask I agree. I think in most cases it should be cut out. I think it has its uses at times. I think removing it entirely from "A shot rang out" is the better option, I used the example sentence in the vid for easy reference. I think its use at the end of a sentence, as I said in a reply to another, works well in describing or capturing a feeling of surprising speed or being caught surprise. Also works better at the end of a sentence than it would if placed somewhere in the middle of the sentence. Take how all of these sentences feel. Suddenly a portal appeared. A portal suddenly appeared. A portal appeared suddenly. It seems to feel better when placed at the end, and it adds more to the sentence's feeling and meaning than if it were cut out of it entirely. A portal appeared. That doesn't have any punch to it at all. By adding _suddenly_ at the end describes a little more about the portal. It told us about its speed and/or surprising nature, but in a sense it also tells us a little bit about its direction. It would imply that it would have to be within the character's ability to notice or sense its appearance and be surprised by it.
@Eidolon1andOnly I agree if the action happening is not in itself punchy, like "a shot" it can be effective. For me it sounds best in the middle of the sentence, mostly cause thats how I would say it myself
I find it humorous when Orwell says "If you can cut a word out, cut it out" When he could have said 'If you can cut a word, cut it'. That may have been the point, though.
Well, John, another great video. BTW, it took me an hour to get through it. I would pause and check my book. Wow!!! Apparently, I really, really like 'Something', 'Really', and 'that' way too much.
Can I make a suggestion for a habit to break? Using back to back prepositions. Like your example of ‘spread out across the desk.’ Across is good all by itself. I looked down at the floor vs looked at the floor.
Food for thought of course, but there's a lot of nuance and subjectivity here. I like to know where I am in a sentence and I never like having to re-read lines. A well placed 'that' helps avoid hanging modifiers (If that's the term I've after?). 'The pigeons scattered like a crowd of frightened children were unlike anything he'd seen.' This is a typical line I would have to go back and read again. 'The pigeons THAT scattered like a crowd of frightened children ...' tells you there's more to come. The word's in the language for a reason.
But leaving out he watched could be to vague to. It conveys the action of the cat, but it could be reasonably assumed that he may not have seen it. Opps! I utilized that. My bad! 😒
What about weak adverbs or wordy? Which is better? Since we shouldn't use adverbs, wordy must be better. But we should cut unnecessary words to make it more direct, clear, and punchy. Maning worry is not to recommend. Bad example: “Sure,” I say flatly. “Sure,” I say in a flat tone.
I'm new to your channel and am enjoying your content! I will be self-publishing my first book (non-fiction) this month and when I received my manuscript back from the editor I could not believe how many times I used the word very! I found it so weird because I don't use the word in my everyday life.
:) Thank you for the video. Just a thought. I actually think some of these words may depend on the *voice you are trying to convey in your stories/books, etc. If work is written in the 1st person (to me) words like "that" or "like" or "really" reflect natural speech and make the work more believable and if--- for example---a work is written in 3rd person I think a more sophisticated speech *would be appropriate. I've read a fair amount of short stories in The New Yorker and a lot of those works include many of the words in this video (Zadie Smith's "The Embassy of Cambodia" has almost 100 "thats" and Sally Rooney's "Color and Light" has more than 60). So in general I think a *balance is fair and realistic (just like with anything. Just like with sentence structure ...It's good to have a mix/balance of sentence structure so lines flow and don't sound monotonous).
Edit: he said the same thing after I posted this comment 😅 I know this is for description, but sometimes they can make a dialog more real, because most of the time, people aren't thinking about the structure of what they are saying, so using these can create a more natural conversation.
In my early days of writing, back when I thought I was some hot shit, someone in my Compuserve writing forum mentioned Elements of Style. I was curious. And then I was depressed. LOL Very depressed. I entered my "everything I write is shit" era. I'm still not outof the woods tbh, but boy am I ever so glad that I read it because I shudder to think where my ego would be now.
"Sat up" is very much a thing.. Granted "They straightened up in their seat" might be better but I'm not sure why we're forgetting 'sat up' is actually a valid phrase.
I started my novel with suddenly. Because my MC wakes up because of the silence caused by the armistice of ww1 and he's not used to this kind of silence and it makes him nervous and it's really sudden because he was at war four years and fell asleep with the drum fire and waked up because of the silene. So I think it fits there
Atchafalaya😂😂😂 I didn't recognize the word when you said it and laughed super hard when I realized what the word must be. Here in Louisiana we say ot this way: ah-chaff-ah-lie-ah
I think utilize can be effective when the object isn’t being used for its primary or obvious purpose. I use a fork to eat, but I may utilize a fork as a letter opener.
Dotdotdot '...' is what I overuse... My biggest pet peeve is when swearing is done excessively, reading it feels like listening to a 14yo trying to be cool, this isn't me being anti-bad words, I cuss as much as any other American.
But what if it's not in dialogue, but it's 3rd-person limited and you're writing in a character's voice who uses some of these words (probably, something, etc)?
I think the word "suddenly" works great in person. I used to tell scary stories and would use it to grab kids' attention, then stay silent for a long time, holding their anticipating as long as I could, before delivering the "scary part". It worked like a charm! But as you said, in writing, it doesn’t have the same effect.
Right. Using the word "suddenly" when telling stories to children is a teaching too that trains them to anticipate thr next part of the story.
as soon as the word "suddenly" was uttered, I knew I was well and truly cooked.
Did you know it suddenly?
it happened all of a sudden did it?
Cook like a lobster? Or chicken nuggets?
*Evil luagh* I don't have that problem!
@@AngryCorky cooked like an author
I'm, like, totally and literally surprised, like, overwhelmed that, like, the word "like" was like, you know, not mentioned as, like, one of the, like, overused words. Like, it really belongs, like, on the list. Literally.
Who actually writes this way
@@devinkelly1213 Too many people.
Lizzy from murder drones@@devinkelly1213
@@devinkelly1213
Purple prosers.
@@devinkelly1213 They exist, that's the worst part.
19:05 Hmmmm. No I actually like “He stood up” because it seems to me if you just say “He stood” that could mean he’s been standing there for some time. “He stood up” makes it clear that the standing up JUST happened. Does anybody else agree?
Oh. And on “sat” you said you always sit down… actually don’t forget “sitting up” *is* actually a thing.
and you can stand down :)
@@phildiamond8549 Yes! To be fair that has a different meaning. But YES!
His point being all along that there are times when words could be left out and not change the meaning. This does not mean that you should ALWAYS leave them out even if you have a specific point to make.
Sat Down/sat up/sat back/sat on the edge of his seat. If there is a point to be made, write to the point.
Literally.
@@artman2oo3 this guy isn't English at all. He has no authorization to even make this video. He should stick to his people's language.
I literally just sat down and was watching something that lowkey made me want to edit my work somewhat, even though I usually really don’t like it. And then I suddenly wrote this comment.
Eh...
I agree with most of these, with the exception of most of what comes from Strunk & White. As countless other comments have already pointed out, "she sat down" & "he stood up" neither have the same meaning as "she sat" & "he stood" -- but for me, it goes further than that.
Following Strunk & White about omitting "needless words" (or separable phrasal verbs as they are technically called) it really hamstrings your ability to add any prosody to your writing. When readers say they enjoy the "musicality" or "lyricism" of a particular writer, you can bet that there are some "needless words" seasoned heavily throughout the text in order to achieve that rhythm. Focusing entirely on being clear, concise, direct, & economical with your word choice can make your writing just read as soulless or sanitized.
you can definitely sit up. its referring to posture
Haha true, and one can “stand down” too! Though I doubt that could be confused if you have context
@@caseydavis57 Well, see, this is true--but it's important to understand when a word needs to be left in to provide that context. This phrase, in fact, is a good example "left in to provide that context." I wouldn't speak that way out loud; I'd say "left in in order to provide that context," but it looks silly in writing. In fact, if this were a book, I would rearrange the entire sentence, because the context is too easily misconstrued. Most valid uses of the word "that" are for this purpose: to prevent readers from having to *re-read* a sentence once they have discovered the correct context.
@@caseydavis57 Yes, especially in a military context.
@ "That" is a good point as wel! Though I was also half-awake when I initially commented, I think; you can't write "stand down" without either of those words, because "stand" on its own implies an upward motion, so "down" is always needed to clarify that particular phrase's meaning. It's funny to think about how you can write both "sit up" and "stand down," but my addition doesn't have any other relevance to this conversation because it has a much more specific usecase.
I think what you're saying aligns with what BookFox said though, that each word should add meaning to a sentence. If you can write that a character sat, and in context it's understood to be in a downward motion, then you can take out the word "down". If not, leave it in. I'm seeing a lot of people in the comments taking BookFox's advice literally, or at least without nuance; he's obviously not saying to confuse your readers, but instead to not bog them down with unneeded words.
And then there's throw, throw up, throw out, etc.
Yeah, I'mma disagree hard on the 'she sat down' versus 'she sat' and 'he stood up' versus 'he stood" as removing the down and up, respectively, does actually change the meaning. 'She sat' could mean she was sitting and continued to sit, or it could mean she stayed in a single place (viz. and the chalice sat there for the rest of eternity). The one thing, however, 'she sat' does not mean is that she went from a standing position to a sitting position. Including the 'down' specifies that she went from a standing position to a sitting position. Same thing with 'he stood up' versus 'he stood.'
Came here to say this. It's a fine point but an important one. Also, it's perfectly feasible for someone to "sit up." As in, "he sat up," which might describe the action of a character wary of a new person who has entered the room, etc.
imma is another word you need to stricken from your lexicon immediately
@@kahwigulumunless its in dialogue
It's needed for context sometimes, but not always. I think short tends to be better if it's not something you need to draw attention to. All of these are context relevant. Also, 'imma' is a great word. Slang is great for flavor.
@@kahwigulum no
the german word for poem is "Gedicht". "dicht" can be translated to dense(ly), tight(ly), thick(ly)or close(ly). my teacher always said it's called Gedicht because the words are all squeezed tightly together. every single word needs to be at it's place and there's no room for unnecessary words. i don't think that's the true origin of the word Gedicht but it's a great metaphor. it also works for "dichten" which means writing poetry but can also mean to compress/tighten (you'd need to use prefixes for the latter meaning but it's still cool)
These two words indeed have different origins. One has its origin in Latin (Gedicht), the other in Proto-Germanic (dicht). It's a fun coincidence though.
Yes: "dicht" 'dense, tight' and "dichten" 'write (poetry)' have different etymologies, but they're both Germanic. Or what Latin origin did you find for "Gedicht"?
I'm not sure I would agree that "something" is an empty word that doesn't convey anything, as it seems clear to me that it conveys uncertainty and a general lack of clarity on the part of the viewpoint character. It's for feelings that you can't accurately pinpoint or identify. The rewritten sentences all lose this feeling of uncertainty by being too quick to put a face on the unknown. It goes from something nebulous and vague-the house being creepy for reasons the protagonist can't quite put their finger on-to something much more concrete and limited like groaning and creaking in the wind.
Yes, and that reduce the creepiness. The unknown is far more unsettling than the known.
Came here to say this
Or "He ate something." Someone can eat without knowing exactly what they ate, esp. when distracted.
@@MrInitialMan Can they? I've personally never eaten something I didn't know without knowing it. But even if someone did, there's better ways to describe it and immerse the reader. In my opinion, "something" can be used, yes, but it tells us nothing and is rather lazy.
@ I have, especially when my mind is on something else, and have had to guess my snack from its aftertaste.
There has also been times when I haven't recognized my own handwriting or even accidentally gaslit myself, so make of that what you will.
I recently finished a first draft and actually cut out 50 instances of actually. And saved hundreds of words by combining things like “have to” to “must”. I would say there is no problem with writing these things in a first draft, because obviously we’re all writing as we think and a lot of the time you want to maintain momentum rather then loose your train of thought to look up a strong verb. I find it satisfying going through and fixing these things before sending by WIP out for feedback.
I like printing out my first draft and just mark the hell out of our it with a red pen before anyone else looks at it. It is very satisfying for some reason
Might also beware of lose/loose too. 😏
Some big o'grains of salt with this!! 1) Dialogue: your characters will use poor grammar, bad sentence structure, technical terms, and even puff words if it works for them 2) Expedite a package or delivery is industry parlance, and for dialogue or point of view of a character in related fields, it is entirely appropriate.
I agree with both those points!
I think that often the word "love" is over-used.
"I just LOVE those shoes!"
"Don't you LOVE when a movie ends terribly?"
"I LOVED the way she decorated her house."
I cut some filter words and the editor added them because she couldn't understand which characters were on the scene and completely changed the meaning of the ending
Yes, sometimes it's necessary to preserve clarity. Sounds like a good editor.
I want you to know, I am in a writers group, and I send them your videos all the time. So helpful and concise. Keep doing your thing!
Thanks for sharing! I really appreciate that. And glad you've found the videos so helpful.
19:40 I'm gonna help Mr. Orwell out there: "If it is possible to cut a word, cut it."
Interesting stuff. I think there's a lot more to say here, though, so point by point:
1: That (weasel words) - train yourself not to write it in the first place unless it's the subject of the sentence, or you're writing realistic dialogue. If these words aren't there in the first place you don't need to go through and read 800 out-of-context sentences to decide whether you can safely delete them.
2: Utilise (puff words) - this is typical of management-speak, to me, that haze of meaningless words and worn cliches managers use to make it less obvious that they want to bark orders like a drill sergeant but know they can't get away with it. Nobody should write or speak like this, ever. My personal most hated word of this type is 'yourself' or 'yourselves' used in place of 'you', or 'ourselves' in place of 'us'. This has never been correct but it's everywhere because people think it's formal. That's not to say 'fancy words' are bad - jargon exists for experts to speak to other experts precisely, and sometimes that's what you need to convey. EDIT: 'Utilise' means to make use of, i.e. to make into a tool, so I can see a place for it when discussing makeshift solutions in a formalised way. For example in the movie Hard Boiled a character uses a pair of handcuffs to undo a bolt - I bet if he was in court a lawyer might ask "You utilised a pair of handcuffs as an impromptu wrench, is that correct?"
3: Filter words - another category to train yourself out of using in the first place and save yourself time on later.
4: Suddenly (time words) - while suddenly is almost always unnecessary, ordering words can be important for complex actions. Plus, these words crop up a lot in dialogue and if you're going for realistic dialogue you'll need these to sound natural. There needs to be a distinction between words used by characters in their speech and words used by the POV narrator.
5: Something (empty calorie words) - there are times when a non-specific word is just right. I'd also argue in favour of 'somewhat' as a good moderating modifier to use alongside 'kind of' or 'a bit' when you want to soften a word's impact and no more appropriate adjective exists, or even for comical effect - "He's looking somewhat dead", etc.
6: Really (inflation words) - definitely a hard one to avoid for me, but again a very common group of words in real speech, so these should be reserved for dialogue.
7: Usually (hedge words) - This is covered by point 5.
8: 'Sloppy words' - Orwell is right about most things and is again here. I think the video misses the point, and 'sloppy words' as a term is not really addressing what Orwell means - Orwell is not just saying words are overused and that the overuse renders them less meaningful, he's talking about the effect that the overuse has on the values or concepts they signify, and how the speaker is perceived. As an example, Americans talking about freedom are impossible for people from most other countries to take seriously because it has become empty rhetoric, just waffle Americans come out with to defend their lifestyle, and it becomes hard to understand how significant it is culturally in the US or what it really means to them. Yes, don't be lazy, but more importantly, don't assume; think whether readers different from you will share your understanding, and if it's possible they won't, accommodate that somehow.
9: Separable phrasal verbs are not necessarily expendable. Phrasal verbs are one of the most idiosyncratic elements of English and they should absolutely not be treated as equal to the bare verb. "He ran the zombie down" is very different from "he ran the zombie". 'Stood up' and 'Sat down' happen to work without their prepositions, but contextually 'sat' could also be 'sat up', 'sat in', 'sat on', 'sat with', 'sat behind' and more, all of which are different and potentially important. There are also questions of who does the action, e.g. 'Spread out' is intransitive, where 'spread' is transitive - "The papers spread out across the desk" tells us someone has done this but doesn't mention who, whereas "the papers spread across the desk" tells us the papers themselves are spreading unaided, like a war or a virus spreads, which without context just sounds wrong. Here I don't agree with Orwell entirely - just because you can remove something doesn't mean you should in every case. Words that provide flavour, nuance or mood can often, technically speaking, be removed. but may well leave a sentence worse off.
I agree with all of those. But is good to notice there are exceptions
in his essay book "Burning Down the House", Charles Baxter has a great article called "On Defamiliarization". He mentions the words 'Something' and "that" and "the thing" can be used when a character wants to distance himself or belittle a bad thing he witnessed, not describing it to the reader or himself
That's a fantastic book -- Baxter is simply the best. And have you read his book "The Art of Subtext"? Also wonderful.
And excellent point about defamiliarization. I've taught that point before in other videos -- might have to bring it around for a UA-cam round.
It's also good for simply concealing the source of the thing, as when the character does not know. "Something familiar about that guy..." If the character knew what, he wouldn't be thinking that; he'd just know the guy.
Great video! A lot of this advice hits on my favorite style: Write in a way that puts the reader as CLOSE TO THE CHARACTERS as possible. Thanks for the content!
Man, I use "as" as a transitional in all the sentences when I decided to write the book.
Ugh same!
THE book.
@@loveboat One book to rule them all haha
One that holds the immense power of Mordor and Lord Sauron@@RandomBloke007
Nidifugous, coming from nidus (nest) + fugere (to flee), a callback to my Latin studies. That's a word I won't forget now and I'm glad you shared that particular example. Thanks!
"I really liked the 'thats'."
I don't know why that made me laugh so much... 😂
I think a word to be added to the Hedge category is 'quite' as in, "It was quite warm in the lounge." It adds nothing and subtracts some intensity. Good list, though! I'm now reading The Emotional Craft of Writing on your recommendation, by the way. I enjoyed Maass' Writing the Breakout Novel many years ago.
Quite.
"It adds nothing and subtracts some intensity." that's a contradictory sentence
@IPrayToSappho Hmm, no. The word adds no additional clarification (how warm is 'quite warm'?) while at the same time diminishing the directness of 'the room was warm'. Admittedly 'warm' itself is not particularly explicit as a statement of temperature, but I'd still say the sentence is better without 'quite'.
I'm so over the word "Amazing". Awesome is getting old too. But yes, in my very first draft of a historical novel, I was trying to sound old fashioned and important, and there were a ton of "thats" that needed to go...several hundred in fact. A number of the words you suggested changing to a simpler choice reminded me of management-speak. Utilize is definitely one of those. I've heard most of these before, but it's always helpful to have a reminder. It also helps to know we are not alone in the way words we hear all the time make it to the page without us noticing. Enjoyed the humor in this one.
For a lot of these words I think I (and other writers) come to them when they are trying to add emphasis or intensification to a sentence or moment. I’d love to see you make a complimentary video with positive suggestions for better strategies to add emphasis or intensification.
Checking in on my first short story: 5,164 words and 100% complete! I started writing it because of your videos. Now to editing--I'll be sure to comb the text for these weak words. Thanks again, Prof. Fox.
A word I think is overused is "whispered." A probable carryover from the last century, or two. Back in the day, when there was dialogue between two people, one of them "just" (sorry) HAD TO say "WHISPERED," as in "she whispered." It was "usually" (🙂) part of the dialogue tag if the writer felt "he said" was getting monotonous. It is now used regardless of where the dialogue is taking place. You could have have fifty people in a bar, and they're all whispering to each other at the table! "Whispered," has never lost favor, still quite fashionable, and seems obligatory as a dialogue tag because all the great writers used it, and se we must also, regardless of the scene. If someone REALLY whispered, I have no problems with its usage, but DAMN, I think we're getting lazy.👺
Insanely helpful. Just eliminated hundreds of 'justs', 'literallys' and 'ups' and 'downs' from an already too long manuscript! thank you!
Wonderful, as always! What's currently obnoxious is 'purchase' for 'buy", and "aesthetics' for 'style'. I'm interested in what makes others cringe. (And 'cringe' is starting to annoy me, too).
The words exist for a reason. If Dave bought a car, that's Dave's style. Rodney purchased a watch, purely for its aesthetics. Two different characters, two different modes of operation.
Style is a way of doing things. Aesthetics are the subjective elements of beauty or attractiveness to a thing.
For the watch example (@KnugLidi), John could refuse to buy an Apple Watch because of the lack of aesthetic details he likes, such as a dial (implying he greatly prefers analog watches). John's style, by comparison, would be to wear a watch with every outfit, no matter how casual. Sarah could have the same style rule, but only wear Apple Watches, because that's the aesthetic *she* prefers.
Instead of 'cringe' (as a verb), you could use recoil :)
@@jessbeee_444 We shall all take up recoiling :)
@@jessbeee_444 I will recoil from this day forward :)
Whoa, freaky timing on petrichor! I used it a couple days before this video for the first time in my writing. It is indeed a fun word!
You’ve been popping up like crazy in my feed, good stuff
Loving that you said "He said that when he was [...]" literally in the section about cutting the "that"s.
Guilty as charged. But you don't want to cut ALL thats!
I agree it takes away from a book to use the word 'finally' too many times.
However, feel it could still be used to describe a scene if it showed how the character was feeling.
For instance,
After sailing across the world, Annie was finally home.
She (or perhaps her family) has been waiting for this moment with great anticipation, or impatience.
You could also write your sentence like this:
After sailing across the world, Annie was home. Home at last!
Both give a sense of how Annie (or her family) feels upon her returning home.
As someone who deleted the 10 instances of the word “suddenly” from her short story, this video made me feel called me out 😂
Wikipedia's Manual of Style has a guideline called "words to watch", which also discourages weasel words and puffery, although its usage of those terms is slightly different. For instance, weasel words it describes as "words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated." The focus is on unsupported attributions such as "some people say" or "it is believed".
In anyone's interested in Wikipedia's style guidelines which give it its distinct voice, here's their section on words to watch: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
Most editors are way too aggressive in removing the conjunction “that.” And they don’t even replace it with a comma when they should.
There are only three rules of good writing: CLARITY, CLARITY, CLARITY. If conjunctions are missing when they are required you’re creating potholes in your text and that irritates the snot out of people because it draws attention to the bad editing.
Sometimes words are required. Sometimes they’re just extraneous. Each one requires judgment.
I agree completely. (Is completely a weasel word?) I did a run through of my book where I waged a war against excessive words. My entire goal was to get the word count down. But then I ran through it again and realized I'd trimmed some sentences and paragraphs so much I'd reduced the clarity of my writing, so I added some words back. As you say, it's a balancing act and requires judgment. It's more of an art than a science, but yes maybe editors sometimes make it seem like an exact science.
You failed to mention my worst hedge word: seem or seemed. I have to search and change out almost every "seem." I also do a search for every version of is or was. Half the time, I can use a stronger verb.
The one I use most is "almost."
I’m glad you clarified that most of the rules needn’t apply to dialogue or quotation, because so many of these “unnecessary” words are powerful for displaying the character of the speaker. My quandary is that I’m writing an epistolary novel, so everything’s a quotation! I have a bit of an issue with the last point about “expendable” words. This is excellent advice for technical writing or journalism, but it doesn’t necessarily apply to fiction, because in a sense it’s all expendable! No one has to read it if they don’t want to, and if reading your book is such a chore that people feel they need to get it over with as soon as possible then I’d question whether it’s worth reading in the first place. Sure, if you’re writing hard-boiled detective stories or lean plot-driven thrillers then every extra word is just baggage, but that doesn’t work if you’re writing something that needs to be languid or baroque in style. In some of the examples you gave, the long versions sounded better to me since they flowed more gracefully and allowed for a certain rhythm and assonance. Some genres are more about mood and atmosphere than just getting the plot moving, so while I think it’s worth being aware of when a sentence could be shortened without changing the meaning, literature’s not just about meaning.
*Just* because I am being told to delete words, I'm going to *utilize* a whole lot more of them *that* people are going to love it.
been looking forward to your vids recently. i'm going to save this for my second draft
As always; when considering a list like this; Break all of these rules - then apply your own filter review ( ? )
Another heroic effort on our behalf. Many thanks.
Deleting words and precision writing are the rules of the game for the Australian Novellen Poem: The book must be 18 chapters, 5 parts per chapter, 277 words no more, no less per part. See D. M. Wright's "The Magpie" for an example.
On the use of "that": It has 2 distinct usages, only one of which is optional (deletable). It can be a demonstrative (pointing word, "this book, not that book") or to start a relative clause (adding information about a noun, "it was the day [that] my grandmother exploded" -> adding information about the day in question). The latter can be removed (except for when it can't), but as a demonstrate you can't drop it.
Please make a compilation of your shorts. Thank you!
How do you know he wears shorts?
@@BigMcLargeHuge125 I'm asking just in case.
@@juandediosreyes8526 thinking ahead. Nice work
One writer with crazy vocabulary is Steven Erikson, who is a fairly unknown fantasy writer but with a loyal fanbase nonetheless.
I've learned words like desultorily, crepuscular, loquaciousness, and moribund.
I know of him but haven't read him. Nice to hear about his good vocabulary!
The word “like”. So I was, like, thinking of overused words that are, like, totally unnecessary and I was, like. . .And he says it A LOT here.
Thank you for including literally. I heard someone say “I literally woke up this morning.” Social media has made us desperate to bring attention to what we’re saying and mundane statements get emphasized. And the word they mean to use is actually, not literally.
You literally explained so well that I literally understood what you literally meant.
Not me being literally called out for this. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)
no they don't want to use actually it's not the same meaning
Totally agree on use of "utilize." It is a pompous, puffed-up word.
Maybe writers need a crash course or a re-read of Strunk & White ?
Grimace mentioned 2:57
I use sit/sat along with the conditions related to the action of sitting ("sat in a pile," "sat alone"), but "sat down" by itself, if that's all I got (in which case, the sentence probably deserves rewriting). Both people and objects can "sit up," "sit back," and "sit there," as well as "sit on" or "sit on top of" (as in a benchtop or a mantel).
Some expressions are also regional and/or historical, like "just then" and "like so."
This is why we need both know-how *and* editors.
I see your videos here and there and it inspires me to write even tho I've never written anything yet
I have been working to strengthen my writing, and this has helped so much!
Hey guys what are your top 10 favorite words? Just like by how cool they sound, not necessarily meaning or being extremely useful. Tho ofc they can be.
Mine are, no particular order:
Zephyr, galvanize, sentinel, mollify, glorious, exacerbate, complacency, connoisseur, languid, meander.
Supine might replace one of those but idk
Good list! Count me a fan of Zephyr and languid as well.
I think you hit on something when you caught yourself wanting to say "literally" and the like. Words like "literally" and "something" can usually (lol) be cut out of prose, but in dialogue, they serve a purpose: either the character has limited vocabulary/understanding, or whatever they're trying to communicate is so out of the ordinary they can't find the words to describe it.
In a short story that I just wrote. The main character creates a ball of light in her hand so she can see in the dark.
I did use some puff words like radiate and illuminate. But, I only used them once each. So I didn't fall into the trap of, "The glowing light in her hand glowed. Causing light to fill the room."😁
It is slightly exaggerated, but the point is that you can sprinkle a fluff word here or there to break up the description. But, I fully agree. You don't need them everywhere. And very limited. It should be used in a sense that the reader understands what you're saying without having to think about it.
Illuminate's a good word. Writing is also about creating pictures in reader's heads and one shouldn't be too utilitarian, in spite of the communist hell rising about our ears. "Illuminating the room" is nice.
@Gooders478 Ha, ha . . . Agreed. I think there's a balance between using adult words and trying to sound smart.
The difference, impo, is using them as a description is natural. Having a character speak with them is less so.😁
getting my ctrl f ready for this one.
The THAT tip is easy for me bcos lately I've been making perfectly understandable sentences which would normally use THAT, but without using THAT. Thank you so much,your videos help A LOT👍👍
Your video is a handy reference when polishing a draft. The caveat that not every weak word, such as 'that', can be cut. Good 'guidelines' instead of 'rules'.
One thing to remember, of course, is that some people just have this tendency to talk very passively and vaguely, stuffing in words in their sentences just because it makes them feel that they're actually saying more than they are because more words are coming out of their pie-hole. And some people just talk funny.
The narrator should generally be clear, concise, unfluffed, and on a reasonably low-calorie diet. But dialogue between characters should have some element of character, even to the point where having a borderline unintelligeble character is perfectly fine, if that happens to be part of their character.
And utilize is a nice word but it's not really a word that feels very high on empathy. Makes one think of "utilitarian", doesn't it? Feels a bit abstract and distanced, somehow. A character who is more into seeing the world as a web of mechanics that must be adjusted and manipulated in accordance with one's goals might utilize a tool (or a person) to achieve something. A character that is more feeling, more connected, more acting from within rather than affecting at a distance, might be more inclined to use a tool. Sonic uses whatever is at hand but Dr Robotnik? He's definitely a utilizer.
He says in the video this all doesn't necessarily apply to dialogue.
Here before the video has had time to play through.
"Got," is my kryptonite word...
My old English teacher used to say that the one word you can always replace is "get"
@@All4Tanuki ya, both should have made your list
I just wrote a “something” into a scene today. 😅 The sentence is: “Something started to rumble.” I think it’s okay because the thing that starts to rumble is unseen and unknown; the character literally can’t give clearer information because she doesn’t have it. Is that good? Do I get a pass?
I am definitely bad for “just” and “then,” though.
You might consider a different phrasing - "a sourceless rumble filled the room" or the simple "a rumble began"
19:38 - Using Orwell's advice, his quote could be, "If possible, always cut words." 😅 💕 ✝️
Thx BookFox. 😊
the word, I HATE is "somehow"... Like, come on! At least YOU, as the author, HAVE TO know HOW exactly something happend
Just because the author knows doesn't mean the main character knows.
@ I understand that, but most times the “somehow” stays a “somehow” 🙈
@@Ukrainiangirl1990 Yeah, so far I've got 5 in my manuscript, two are in dialog and will stay, one needs a slight re-write because taking it out alters the intended tone, and one just works. The last one got deleted. Now "that" on the other hand... SO many. I'll have fun deleting those.
In English, "that" can be clarifying, however, it is not usually necessary. (In French, the equivalent word, "que," must be used, but we are not writing French.)
… a 4th grader on my school bus long ago started every sentence with “and then…”
It was rough. But he was so passionate about his stories lol…
'suddenly', and 'how ever' are certainly a struggle not to use over and over.
I had to remove a lot of 'something's from my first novel, I used it an embarrassing amount. Which hurt the couple of times where it (and other nebulous words) were useful; basically when a character disassociated with reality immediately after a highly traumatic event. When I removed the imprecise language earlier in the book, then things being imprecise for this character made the scene a bit more jarring.
Also: Need to do a robot character at some point that calls food 'literally organic'.
Efficiency is to be commended and yet arrival is not the only goal. Enjoying the trip itself is also a part of writing.
Hi, I found your channel today and am very grateful for it! My pet hates are; I, me, my, would, could and was. I Find all of these and work through to replace or re-phrase the sentence. I now have new ones to add thanks to this video. Can't wait to watch more.
Welcome! Hope you enjoy some of the other videos.
@@Bookfox Thank you, I watched another prior to this and subscribed straight away. I can't wait to see more.
I come from a painting and drawing background and there one of the #1 things good teachers always weight on is "Simple is better".
If you think about it, something like the Mona Lisa is super simple: Just a portrait of a woman. Her clothes don't have intricate patterns, she doesn't have crazy nuanced makeup, her hair has hints of texture, the background is misty and vague just like her expression. It's a super simple painting done extremely competently which doesn't make it simple.
This same idea applies to writing. Removing all the excess that make your writing verbose simplifies your core to a digestible size. Not every scene has to have it all.
An exception for time words is in comics writing, where a good "Then" or "soon" in a narrative box lets you skip transitions, especially between scenes with the same characters in the same location. That said, "suddenly" has no place in comics. The art will handle that.
I write fiction for fun and I write legal narratives and reports detailing criminal incidents for a living. I would use the word ‘utilize’ in my report writing, but never in my fantasy novels.
“Super.” Cut it. Please. Unless of course you’re talking about Superman.
What if the word _suddenly_ is placed at the end of a sentence? Taking the example and changing its structure to be "A shot rang out suddenly" has a bit of a different feel and flow. I agree the word could still be cut out and be stronger for it, but I think having the word at the end of the sentence isn't as jarring as when it's at the beginning of a sentence.
I think then it ought to be totally fine to use, because then it's just an adverb describing how an action is done. The main issue that I've seen with suddenly is when authors use it as a transition into an action, which ends up slowing down the pacing instead of speeding it up.
I think in most cases it just dulls the sentence's punch. 'A shot rang out' works well and if the setup is good the reader will know that this happened suddenly without you having to say it.
@MelissaJ22 I agree how its use as a transition slows down the pacing rather than increase its speed. While writing I saw how at times placing that adverb at the end of a sentence gives a different feeling such as being caught by surprise, and it works better than placing _suddenly_ somewhere in the middle of a sentence. It's as if it better captures and describes a surprising speed.
Suddenly a portal appeared.
A portal suddenly appeared.
A portal appeared suddenly.
The three sentences above all feel distinctly different from one another.
@evenask I agree. I think in most cases it should be cut out. I think it has its uses at times. I think removing it entirely from "A shot rang out" is the better option, I used the example sentence in the vid for easy reference. I think its use at the end of a sentence, as I said in a reply to another, works well in describing or capturing a feeling of surprising speed or being caught surprise. Also works better at the end of a sentence than it would if placed somewhere in the middle of the sentence. Take how all of these sentences feel.
Suddenly a portal appeared.
A portal suddenly appeared.
A portal appeared suddenly.
It seems to feel better when placed at the end, and it adds more to the sentence's feeling and meaning than if it were cut out of it entirely.
A portal appeared.
That doesn't have any punch to it at all. By adding _suddenly_ at the end describes a little more about the portal. It told us about its speed and/or surprising nature, but in a sense it also tells us a little bit about its direction. It would imply that it would have to be within the character's ability to notice or sense its appearance and be surprised by it.
@Eidolon1andOnly I agree if the action happening is not in itself punchy, like "a shot" it can be effective. For me it sounds best in the middle of the sentence, mostly cause thats how I would say it myself
This is just me being the contrarian, but you can *sit up*. It means to sit straighter in the seat as well as an exercise.
I find it humorous when Orwell says "If you can cut a word out, cut it out" When he could have said 'If you can cut a word, cut it'. That may have been the point, though.
Well, John, another great video. BTW, it took me an hour to get through it. I would pause and check my book. Wow!!! Apparently, I really, really like 'Something', 'Really', and 'that' way too much.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Can I make a suggestion for a habit to break? Using back to back prepositions. Like your example of ‘spread out across the desk.’ Across is good all by itself. I looked down at the floor vs looked at the floor.
Food for thought of course, but there's a lot of nuance and subjectivity here. I like to know where I am in a sentence and I never like having to re-read lines. A well placed 'that' helps avoid hanging modifiers (If that's the term I've after?). 'The pigeons scattered like a crowd of frightened children were unlike anything he'd seen.' This is a typical line I would have to go back and read again. 'The pigeons THAT scattered like a crowd of frightened children ...' tells you there's more to come. The word's in the language for a reason.
Could you do a video explaining how you cut these words out but also avoiding your book sounding like "sea spot run"? Thanks!
Love your work. Also laughed when you quote Orwell about cutting unnecessary words: he wrote: ..."cut the word out..." (not cut the word?)
But leaving out he watched could be to vague to. It conveys the action of the cat, but it could be reasonably assumed that he may not have seen it. Opps! I utilized that. My bad! 😒
Then one awkward moment when you realize, the weaks words are your strongest game...
That's me😢.
P.S. your videos are always very helpful. Keep it up🎉
Not me going back to my manuscript and needing to change around 5000 "suddenly" 🤣😅😄 oh man! Thank you! Love your videos, they're so efficient!
What about weak adverbs or wordy? Which is better? Since we shouldn't use adverbs, wordy must be better. But we should cut unnecessary words to make it more direct, clear, and punchy. Maning worry is not to recommend.
Bad example:
“Sure,” I say flatly.
“Sure,” I say in a flat tone.
I'm new to your channel and am enjoying your content! I will be self-publishing my first book (non-fiction) this month and when I received my manuscript back from the editor I could not believe how many times I used the word very! I found it so weird because I don't use the word in my everyday life.
:) Thank you for the video. Just a thought. I actually think some of these words may depend on the *voice you are trying to convey in your stories/books, etc. If work is written in the 1st person (to me) words like "that" or "like" or "really" reflect natural speech and make the work more believable and if--- for example---a work is written in 3rd person I think a more sophisticated speech *would be appropriate. I've read a fair amount of short stories in The New Yorker and a lot of those works include many of the words in this video (Zadie Smith's "The Embassy of Cambodia" has almost 100 "thats" and Sally Rooney's "Color and Light" has more than 60). So in general I think a *balance is fair and realistic (just like with anything. Just like with sentence structure ...It's good to have a mix/balance of sentence structure so lines flow and don't sound monotonous).
Good advice, Matthew. I’m also a John McPhee fan. BTW, the stress in “Atchafalaya” is on the second syllable, which sounds like “chaff.”
Edit: he said the same thing after I posted this comment 😅
I know this is for description, but sometimes they can make a dialog more real, because most of the time, people aren't thinking about the structure of what they are saying, so using these can create a more natural conversation.
In my early days of writing, back when I thought I was some hot shit, someone in my Compuserve writing forum mentioned Elements of Style. I was curious. And then I was depressed. LOL Very depressed. I entered my "everything I write is shit" era. I'm still not outof the woods tbh, but boy am I ever so glad that I read it because I shudder to think where my ego would be now.
"Sat up" is very much a thing.. Granted "They straightened up in their seat" might be better but I'm not sure why we're forgetting 'sat up' is actually a valid phrase.
I started my novel with suddenly. Because my MC wakes up because of the silence caused by the armistice of ww1 and he's not used to this kind of silence and it makes him nervous and it's really sudden because he was at war four years and fell asleep with the drum fire and waked up because of the silene. So I think it fits there
Atchafalaya😂😂😂 I didn't recognize the word when you said it and laughed super hard when I realized what the word must be. Here in Louisiana we say ot this way: ah-chaff-ah-lie-ah
Language is more than just communication. It can also be gloriously nonutilitarian as in not harnessed to only imparting information.
I think utilize can be effective when the object isn’t being used for its primary or obvious purpose. I use a fork to eat, but I may utilize a fork as a letter opener.
Dotdotdot '...' is what I overuse...
My biggest pet peeve is when swearing is done excessively, reading it feels like listening to a 14yo trying to be cool, this isn't me being anti-bad words, I cuss as much as any other American.
But what if it's not in dialogue, but it's 3rd-person limited and you're writing in a character's voice who uses some of these words (probably, something, etc)?
You could write “she sat up.” :) Great tips