Mendicant98

Just thought for my first post I would share with you all something in writing that really peeves me: adverbs and adjectives that are absolutely unneeded in reference to the noun or verb they are describing. For example:

He ran quickly.

-Can you actually run slowly? As defined by dictionary.com, the verb "ran" means:

1. To move swiftly on foot so that both feet leave the ground during each stride.
1. To move at a fast gallop. Used of a horse.

To move swiftly? Right. So then to run quickly is not needed.


So if you are trying to say that the person was running for a long period of time, try: "he ran until he felt like his lungs were about to begin bleeding"

And use different phrases respectively.


Lastly, I am going to need to post about the argument people will no doubt present if I do not cover it. Yes, "he ran quickly" can be good if you wish to emphasize the fact that he was running. But according to me, "He ran quickly" is not needed at all. "He suddenly ran toward the forest with a burst of insane speed" emphasizes it enough for me. Be more creative than "He ran quickly."

Ok, I'm done now



-Mendicant98

False Dawn

I don't think there is a real problem with that adverb in itself, because it is there to emphasise the verb more. It is true to say that words like "swiftly" or a description like "with an intense determination in his eyes" are better, but I think the point is so small, that it is not worth bothering with on many occasions. It is not something the reader is going to stop and mull over for a great length of time, in my opinion.

Mendicant98

I agree that the reader will not mull over it, but writing should be concise in getting across its point, with not too many unneeded words, which are words that repeat the meaning of the verb or noun.

I am all with you on the emphasis thing, but what I'm trying to say is that there are so many ways to emphasize that he's running without actually restating the fact that running means moving quickly, which "running quickly" does.

False Dawn

Does that mean you are against the idea of something "shining brightly"? I think the case is exactly the same, but the sun is said to shine brightly all the time. I think it is merely a trait of the English language to repeat meanings in our adjectives and adverbs to emphasise the meaning. In poetry, it can be used to astonishing effect too.

Mendicant98

Shining brightly is excellent, for this reason: Things can shine brightly as well as dimly. But as for running: people, when running, cannot run slowly. In the definition of running, it says moving quickly, so when you say running quickly, you are restating that fact.

False Dawn

You can run cautiously. Surely that indicates a slow run? What about if the time schematics of a scene are changed to accommodate a certain event and someone runs in slow motion. I think that this example can be glossed over, unless there are others of its type.

As I said before, it may not be the best of adverbs to use, but I think it is certainly an applicable one.

Mendicant98

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and I don't want to make an enemy of you. I do agree with you, False Dawn, you can run cautiously, but I think you know what I meant.

Anonymous

But if you're really against unnecessary verbiage, then wouldn't the sentence "he ran until he felt like his lungs were about to begin bleeding" be a little excessive? I mean, you could take out several words and make it a much stronger sentence (not so passive) to turn it into: "He ran until his lungs felt as if they were about to bleed." Conciseness is important, but make sure you're trying to shorten the right things. An extra word here or there is fine; an entire extraneous sentence is not. The verb "to run" means different things to different people, and interpretation isn't something that you want when writing. It prevents people from understanding your own vision of a story. So saying "he ran quickly," while a little bit clichéed, is appropriate because it's something that impresses upon the reader that the character is trying to be quick. Certainly it's different than saying "he ran languidly," which would obviously imply a relaxedness about the way that he was running. "Quick" doesn't necessarily refer to a speed. It can also refer to an attitude.

"He suddenly ran toward the forest with a burst of insane speed" is a little redundant, too, in my opinion. After all, if he ran suddenly, wouldn't it be implied that there was a burst of speed? And why "insane" speed? Can speed be given a characterization like that? Maybe something like this, instead: "He burst into a run, headed toward the forest." It emphasizes all of what you wrote in your sentence, but is much more direct and to the point.

As writers, I'm sure we've all heard the term "show, don't tell." But I think that too many people think that this means "give more details than are necessary." Details are fine, but overloading a person with them prevents them from understanding the basics of the message we're trying to send. Sometimes, more isn't necessarily better.

Okay, this being my first post and all, I just realized how pompous I sound. Please don't take my comments as trying to show off or anything.. This is just the way I think when I'm analyzing writing, and it rubs off in the way I respond to it. I'll try and let up on my reponses from here on out, because I don't want to seem overbearing.

So, uh, yeah. Hi, and all that stuff. I like this place, even though I suppose I'm more of an editor than a writer, although I always wanted to fix that.

Andrew

Oops. That last post was supposed to be by me, but I had forgotten to log in. Yeah, I'm smart.

So again, hi and all that happy stuff.

Mendicant98

Hey Andrew Yeah now that I think about it I must have been out of my mind when I posted all that stuff.

Everyone has different styles, and I'm not to say how people write things.

False Dawn

I think Andrew made some good points in that first post of his - especially the idea of intepretation. Everything that is written into word is subject to interpretation by the reader. This can lead to ambiguities because each reader will have a similar, yet slightly varying definition to the same word. So, adding perhaps an extra adverb here and there to reinforce the action, can indeed cut down on this ambiguity.

I think it is probably an individual decision as to which adverbs and adjectives are necessary and which aren't.

counterglow

I think both sides of this little "debate" are valid.

Mendicant makes a good point by saying writers need to THINK about what they're writing. "He ran quickly" is not the best way (necessarily) to write about a character's method/manner/style of running.

It seems a bit juvenile to tack that on to the end of the sentence just for description's sake. Because really, "quickly" doesn't DESCRIBE anything. How quick IS quickly? People run at different speeds. My quick isn't Olympic Gold Medal quick.


HOWEVER...

A writer's best friend or worst enemy is word choice. Word play. Word meanings. Word contradictions.

How many of us ACTUALLY look up the word "run" on a daily basis? Writers are more concerned with the proper use of the word maudlin or xenophobic or flews. Words that people may know, but rely on the author (to an extent) for the definition.

We have to be careful we don't write an entire story about a man who is a petroleum engineer and list his job as a gas station attendant.

We do know (with a certain sense of fact-ness) that a run IS faster than a walk. Maybe the problem with the sentence isn't the word quickly, but the verb "run".

He closed the distance between the two of them quckly.

He jumped up and followed after him quickly.

Not that these sentences are Pulitzer Prize winners...but I think they get the point across.

__________________
So far away from where I was
Or is it where I should be
And I couldn't get there because
I'm looking behind me

[--excerpt from a poem by me]

Anonymous

According to Strunke and White's Elements of Style, "Delete unnecessary words", and modern literature seems to follow the rule. Part of the shortening attention span movement...

However, there's always the context to consider, the atmosphere, the effect etc..

Though quickly's not the best word for this..well...

Example:
Quickly, quietly- each syllable running over the other- her words were gentle, so gentle that they were almost inaudible; yet he heard them, and so hesitated.

"Quickly then," His friend nudged him, "They are coming, let it go!"

Granted, it's not the best example, but sometimes repetition conveys a haunting atmosphere, and when brought into contrasting context, often it serves to allow the more modernism intent to compare and contrast symbolisms, so to speak.

False Dawn

Elements Of Style? Pfuh. Put away that rubbish. Writing does not work by rules! It flows from the mind and onto the paper.

You don't delete words just because you perceive them as unnecessary. You put words in which you want to have in, which will describe everything better, even if the reader does not necessarily need to know all this information. All this "give him the basics" is nonsense. Give the reader a story to enjoy! Stick him in it! Show him what you see the scene to be! Don't let rules judge you writing.

As for the haunting atmosphere in that little piece, I think it is made more by the alliterated Qu sound, rather than just repeating quickly. If he was to say "quickly, quickly, quickly!" however, that'd be a better example, because it conveys the tenseness and the hurried nature of the scene. Also, you may not have realised, but quick is actually "quick" when you say it. It doesn't hang about like "fast" and isn't as haphazard as "rush". In some circumstances, quick may be the best adjective to describe the scene, especially when you don't want long flowing prose.

counterglow

Strunke and White is actually a pretty good book.

The "delete unecessary words" doesn't mean get rid of descritors. Quite the contrary. It means...give them enough. And nothing more.

Like sitting down at a fine dinner. You eat just enough--where you may want to taste a little more--but you aren't stuffed.

Mostly, "unecessary words" means..anything that can detract from the sentence. It's not about chopping words out until you have the bare minimum. It's about finding the RIGHT words to describe a circumstance. And not be superfluous.

If the point is to be descriptive and airy? Well, you're going to have lots of descriptors.

But if you're a journalist...it's a different story.

__________________
So far away from where I was
Or is it where I should be
And I couldn't get there because
I'm looking behind me

[--excerpt from a poem by me]