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.
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.
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"?
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.
She sits down amongst the cabbages and peas. She sits among the cabbages and peas. Both of these are correct. The first is more complex and may mean the joke is missed. The second is 'clear, concise and direct', neither are soulless. When spoken both are funny.
@@mikebutler2420 The two are correct, but they have different, not equivalent meanings. In the first case, she has (just) lowered her body in an active movement. In the second case, she could possibly already be dead and "sitting" passively for hours.
@@Manker00 No, sorry, but 'down' much like its opposite 'up' are not timebound, she sat and she sat down are saying exactly the same thing. Both down and up in this case would be a redundacy. When editing it is usual to remove any redundacies unless they are quotes or dialogue. I would expect some context either immediately before or after. She sat as a complete sentence in isloation would be odd, but so would 'she sat down'. She sat, poised. She sat, expectantly. She sat, eyeing the jury. Adding 'down' into such a sentence would be very poor English as it adds nothing. Up might be used to add emphasis, but it is still looks and sounds wrong to the trained ear. She sat up, poised. Poised implies an action, in the manner of, so up is again redundant.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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
@@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.
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.
When it comes to exposition, I think it’s best to avoid these, but for dialogue, definitely anything goes, after all when we speak we don’t really have the same time to think, nor can we edited after the fact, that doesn’t mean make your dialogue aimless or whatever, but the truer it is to the source, the better.
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
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.
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 RUclips 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.
Yes, agreed. In the example "There was something creepy about that house" this would be a good way to begin a section of a horror story, for example. Following this, there would be an elaboration about what precisely it was, but this is a good way to introduce people to that idea.
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.
Curious: Why do you utilize _utilize_ professionally? As one who does tech writing, I don’t see much value in it. The only value I can muster is perhaps to invoke a sense of [novel] _utility_ in the use of something. I suspect it's basically the norm for the office rather than any connotative distinction....
@77thTrombone from what I was told, the word ‘Utilize’ is the preferred term when writing about how an individual uses an everyday object to commit a crime. It sets them apart from somebody who uses the same object for its intended purpose. For example: “the sales associate used the sensor remover to remove the product protection device in order to assist their customer” vs. “[John] Doe utilized the sensor remover to remove the product protection device. After the device was removed, Doe concealed the merchandise into his backpack.” Or “Jane Doe uses Bobby pins to secure her hair in a bun,” vs. “[John] Doe utilized a Bobby pin to forcibly open a lock. After the lock was opened, Doe gained entry without the homeowners permission.” ‘Used’ indicates that an item was used for its intended purpose but ‘utilized’ indicates that an item wasn’t used for its intended purpose. Same with ‘concealed’ instead of ‘placed inside/put inside.’ If I’m writing about a shoplifter, I have to write “they concealed the merchandise inside of” instead of “they placed the merchandise inside of.”
Linguist here. “She sat” and “she sat down” do not mean the same thing! English has phrases verbs for a reason. Trust your language instincts. Also beware the ‘weasel words’ and ‘empty calorie’ rules. Words like ‘that’ and ‘something’ in those cases do not add any meaning to their sentences, but that’s the point. They add grammatical structure, they’re a sort of scaffolding, like dowels in a cake. Feel free to review them and reconsider them, but don’t feel you need to delete them!
In phrasal verbs, the second element has the role of marking the result of the action in remarkably subtle ways. Consider the following: He cleaned the fridge. He cleaned up the fridge. He cleaned out the fridge. He cleaned off the fridge. These do not mean the same thing! Here’s a writing exercise, for each of these variations try to write a scenario that works for only that phrase. Be careful not to overapply any grammar advice from a style guide, or you’ll remove all voice from your work!
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'.
It depends. The word "quite" can be used to soften a word. "Quite hot" is different from "hot" alone, and sure, you could you "warm" instead, but "quite hot" feels hotter than warm but less hot than hot. Although, I prefer using "quite" more in dialogue than exposition.
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!
I'm sorry, but this is objectively bad advice. I don't want to come off as hostile, but I strongly feel the need to be honest here as it's a very important subject. All words can have a place in writing. Telling people not to use certain words in their writing is like telling an artist not to use certain colors. The way language works is that every word has not only a meaning, but a _feel_ as well. The sentence "This battle may well be our last. On this day, we face our final challenge." sounds WAY different from "This might be our last battle. Today is our final challenge." Tolkien used a ton of fancy words, and a lot of them, and ended up creating the most well known, classic fantasy story to date that has stayed extremely popular for 60 years now. I've heard a lot of writers talk about how they were told early on to always use certain words, or never use other words, and it limited them and gave them bad habits that were hard to shake and stayed with them for years. The decision of which words to use is entirely up to the writer and what they feel works the best. When writing a sentence, sometimes just rephrasing the same line with different words makes it sound and flow better, and give a different feeling to the story, one they want to evoke. Again, not trying to be overly critical, but this needs to be said.
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.
Excellent; I'm so glad I discovered your video. I count myself as an experienced writer but have always held the view that I'll never stop learning about creative writing. The amount of "weasel words" I found throughout my latest novel shocked me; some of those I should have learned to avoid many years ago! Now that the manuscript is clear of them, the previously affected sentences (or should that be "infected?") are now more direct and transparent. Thank you :-)
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.
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.
I'm a german author, but all of your tipps can be derived into the german language. Your videos are super helpful and come at an easily understandable, still detailed level. Thanks for the continued great work :)
"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.
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.
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.
The "out" is not extraneous. The phrase "cut out" has a specific meaning which "cut" on its own cannot replace, at least not in UK English at the time Orwell was writing. Cut means to cut something with a sharp object, not to erase words, and the distinction would have been clearer then. The "always", however, would have been extraneous then, as it is now.
Here, the most laconic forms of your sentence: "Cut words, when possible." "Cut words." "Cut." "*cutting gesture**, *optional mouth bla bla bla talking gesture*."
I will fight for "expedite" some times because it's a process involving skipping to the front of the queue after paying money and filling out forms. (as opposed to normal speed of the process).
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.)
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.
@@whitehawk4099 That verges on an intentionally unhelpful reply. It's a numbered list for ease of reference, it quite literally couldn't be easier to be specific. Which number are you referring to?
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.
Does the character know the direction of the sound? If so, you could use that instead. E.g. "A low rumbling sound was coming from the shadows at the back of the room."
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 fell from a ramp at a country music festival. While I was thanking the man who caught me, I saw a performer standing stunned. I said, "I'm so sorry. I didn't see you there. I didn't mean anything by it." I ran as fast as I could because I was afraid I'd be detained by security. My friend, who was standing at the top of the ramp, told me the star and his bodyguard laughed. The bodyguard said, "I've often heard about women falling for singers, but that's the first time I LITERALLY saw it happen."
I love how he used "ultimately" in a sentence where he could have deleted it in a rant about "time words." It kind of proved his point. Another one is "put something in its place" rather than "replace it" in a rant against using the word something. But ultimately... at the end of the day... in the final analysis, this is a great video.
I strongly disagree with the section on puff words. None of those words are big or complex words. Using synonyms is great to reduce redundancy. If someone genuinely gets mad at any of those words being used, it's probably some type of insecurity. They're completely normal and common words. People don't use to try to sound smart.
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.
Question! On the expendable words part, would it be smarter to keep a word anyway if it’s purpose is keep a certain rhythm in the sentence structure? Lyrics, poems and such, but also in general ease of reading.
Words like utilise, commence and expedite are useful for information manuals or some academic papers, but not for fiction. That should be obvious. I really didn't want to use "suddenly" in my current writing, but I needed it in one sentence - I'm still trying to get rid of it in editing and can't find a substitute 😕. Unfortunately, the sudden event isn't as automatically startling as a shot ringing out. (Btw, I do appreciate the image of John Cusack in that section.) Nooo! "Creakily" doesn't add anything to that sentence. In fact, get rid of adverbs. Use powerful verbs instead - they work harder. I thought that most of the examples here are used more in speech than writing. Nevertheless, it's good to realise that you might be adding filler words, which will water down your prose. I'm going to open my manuscript and do a search for "that"! Btw, "The papers spread across the desk" means that they moved across the desk by their own momentum. "The papers were spread across the desk" means that they had been spread out by the person working on them. BE PRECISE!
I guess my problem about omitting "that" is that having studied many non-English languages there the clausal "that" is required, when I don't use it it doesn't sound right.
Even though you only make an exception for dialogue from these rules, you should probably add an exception to first-person narration too. After all, that's a character's internal thoughts.
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.
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.👺
Instead of always using "whispered" you could use an action, such as someone leaning in, straining to hear. Or, perhaps, something along the lines of, "His words came soft and low: _".
'said' kills dialogue flow, and is devoid of meaning. Whispered needs to be contextual, as you rightly say. But give me a descriptive verb over 'said' any day.
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
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👍👍
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.
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 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.
The best writing advice I have received is, there are two kinds of words, full and empty. Full words have a specific meaning. Empty words are filler. Use full words and edit out empty words where possible. Your concise illumination of this advice is appreciated.
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'.
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.
I cringe at "nodded his head". Which other body parts nod? Following every line of dialogue with I said, he said, or she said. Why not tag a line of dialogue with the character's behavior or physical stance.
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 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'.
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.
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.😁
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.
Software developers use programs called "lint" to help clean up their code-to remove the lint. I'm a software developer and a writer. Thus I may be required to write lint for Scrivener. I could make it annoying as hell by having it annotate every objectionable word and change the icon on every file that it marked up.
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)?
Great video as usual. I do have one criticism about "sloppy words." The advice to avoid them in fiction writing is sound, but your broad, prescriptivist statements about nonstandard usage are incorrect. As long as there are speakers of a language, the language will change. The only languages that don't undergo changes are dead languages. If you recognize that language change is inexorable, you should recognize the changes you observe in your lifetime. One example I like to give is the etymology of the word "nice." The semantic drift this word has undergone is remarkable. It _literally_ used to mean "stupid." Speaking of which, there is evidence of "literally" being used as an intensifier as early as the 17th century. People started complaining about it in the early 20th century, but, like any commonly lamented use of a word, it's here to stay. I once heard a lexicographer say something like, "If you're complaining that lots of people are misusing a word, that's evidence that it's no longer considered a misuse." This is very true. The job of a lexicographer is to _recognize_ how words are being used-not to arbitrate it. Language is very democratic in that way. Sorry about the tirade. Again, I love your channel. It's helped me a lot with my novel. Cheers.
Glad the channel has helped! And I do agree with you that language changes, but you're bringing up a longstanding debate in the linguistic community between Descriptivism and Prescriptivism -- there are ardent advocates (fight to the death advocates!) on either side.
@Bookfox Thanks for the reply. I intended to bring up that debate, yes. You can probably tell I'm one of those radical descriptivists, lol. Strongly disagree with Orwell's essay. Ever heard of Swift's _A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue?_ It's sort of a prototypical example of "Politics and the English Language." Anyway, my point is that prescriptivism is a losing battle. But then again, you seem relatively sympathetic to both sides, which I can respect. Sorry for assuming that you hew more closely to prescriptivism. And if you do, I should probably just invoke the old thought-terminating cliché and "agree to disagree," lol. Just to say something nice, your list of metaphors and similes on your website is fantastic, as is your RUclips video on the topic. And your dialogue writing tips? Chef's kiss. Sometime when I can afford it, I'll sign up for your writing courses. I should probably also read one of your books. Anyway, thanks again! Sorry for my verbosity. Cheers.
@@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.
I found 111 "somethings" in my manuscript. LMAO. I immediately got to work. You are so right. The word says nothing. Edit: 15 min later, and I already cut them down to 73🥳
I've found that a of the words mentioned are ones i don't really use in prose but do by use in dialogue, like something, which characters in my work say quite a lot, not to a distracting extent, but its definitely there, like, 'can i ask you something' 'theres something about him' and i think it can work in that context because people arent usually articulate enough in conversation to specify what they mean, and in some cases, wouldn't know how to specify. the other time I use something in prose is when the perspective character doesn't know what what the thing is, like, 'he heard something from behind him' suddenly i think i do have a but of a problem with, specifically because i do a lot of fight scenes, and i think its useful to clarify that an action is unrelated to what previously being done or what the character was reading into the movement as, but i think it might be diminishing the impact for when its actually useful for shock. I'll look at cutting down on it.
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 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.
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.
Remove all "literally."
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"?
@@zunfdo "dicere" no?
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.
I think people who think too much about this are not natural writers.
She sits down amongst the cabbages and peas. She sits among the cabbages and peas. Both of these are correct. The first is more complex and may mean the joke is missed. The second is 'clear, concise and direct', neither are soulless. When spoken both are funny.
@@mikebutler2420 The two are correct, but they have different, not equivalent meanings. In the first case, she has (just) lowered her body in an active movement. In the second case, she could possibly already be dead and "sitting" passively for hours.
@@Manker00 No, sorry, but 'down' much like its opposite 'up' are not timebound, she sat and she sat down are saying exactly the same thing.
Both down and up in this case would be a redundacy. When editing it is usual to remove any redundacies unless they are quotes or dialogue.
I would expect some context either immediately before or after. She sat as a complete sentence in isloation would be odd, but so would 'she sat down'.
She sat, poised.
She sat, expectantly.
She sat, eyeing the jury.
Adding 'down' into such a sentence would be very poor English as it adds nothing. Up might be used to add emphasis, but it is still looks and sounds wrong to the trained ear.
She sat up, poised. Poised implies an action, in the manner of, so up is again redundant.
@@mikebutler2420 One describes an action, the other a state - how can they be the same?
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.
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.
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
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 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."
This. It's often better to describe what someone feels and how someone expresses their love-whether good or bad-than to simply say "X loves Y".
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. 😏
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.
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!
Grain-of-salt is a dead metaphor. The point is that a single grain of salt is small and insignificant.
@@JiveDadson So a big grains would *not* be small and insignificant. Thanks for playing.
@KnugLidi That's correct. To exaggerate, one would say take it with one microscopic grain of salt. But it's a weary metaphor in any case.
When it comes to exposition, I think it’s best to avoid these, but for dialogue, definitely anything goes, after all when we speak we don’t really have the same time to think, nor can we edited after the fact, that doesn’t mean make your dialogue aimless or whatever, but the truer it is to the source, the better.
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’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.
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.
"Quite" Is my word crutch.
Thank you for this wonderful list! I enjoy your videos to no end, clear and concise, and endlessly helpful!
I quite enjoyed this video
@@bellerian9896 XD
*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.
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 RUclips 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.
Yes, agreed. In the example "There was something creepy about that house" this would be a good way to begin a section of a horror story, for example. Following this, there would be an elaboration about what precisely it was, but this is a good way to introduce people to that idea.
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.
Curious: Why do you utilize _utilize_ professionally? As one who does tech writing, I don’t see much value in it. The only value I can muster is perhaps to invoke a sense of [novel] _utility_ in the use of something.
I suspect it's basically the norm for the office rather than any connotative distinction....
@77thTrombone from what I was told, the word ‘Utilize’ is the preferred term when writing about how an individual uses an everyday object to commit a crime. It sets them apart from somebody who uses the same object for its intended purpose. For example: “the sales associate used the sensor remover to remove the product protection device in order to assist their customer” vs. “[John] Doe utilized the sensor remover to remove the product protection device. After the device was removed, Doe concealed the merchandise into his backpack.” Or “Jane Doe uses Bobby pins to secure her hair in a bun,” vs. “[John] Doe utilized a Bobby pin to forcibly open a lock. After the lock was opened, Doe gained entry without the homeowners permission.” ‘Used’ indicates that an item was used for its intended purpose but ‘utilized’ indicates that an item wasn’t used for its intended purpose. Same with ‘concealed’ instead of ‘placed inside/put inside.’ If I’m writing about a shoplifter, I have to write “they concealed the merchandise inside of” instead of “they placed the merchandise inside of.”
@ nice explanation. I'll modestly say your distinction is not unrelated to mine, but yours is much better formed.
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
Linguist here. “She sat” and “she sat down” do not mean the same thing! English has phrases verbs for a reason. Trust your language instincts. Also beware the ‘weasel words’ and ‘empty calorie’ rules. Words like ‘that’ and ‘something’ in those cases do not add any meaning to their sentences, but that’s the point. They add grammatical structure, they’re a sort of scaffolding, like dowels in a cake. Feel free to review them and reconsider them, but don’t feel you need to delete them!
In phrasal verbs, the second element has the role of marking the result of the action in remarkably subtle ways. Consider the following:
He cleaned the fridge.
He cleaned up the fridge.
He cleaned out the fridge.
He cleaned off the fridge.
These do not mean the same thing! Here’s a writing exercise, for each of these variations try to write a scenario that works for only that phrase.
Be careful not to overapply any grammar advice from a style guide, or you’ll remove all voice from your work!
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.
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'.
It depends. The word "quite" can be used to soften a word. "Quite hot" is different from "hot" alone, and sure, you could you "warm" instead, but "quite hot" feels hotter than warm but less hot than hot. Although, I prefer using "quite" more in dialogue than exposition.
@ quite is quite simply a proper word to donate class.
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!
I'm sorry, but this is objectively bad advice. I don't want to come off as hostile, but I strongly feel the need to be honest here as it's a very important subject.
All words can have a place in writing. Telling people not to use certain words in their writing is like telling an artist not to use certain colors. The way language works is that every word has not only a meaning, but a _feel_ as well. The sentence "This battle may well be our last. On this day, we face our final challenge." sounds WAY different from "This might be our last battle. Today is our final challenge."
Tolkien used a ton of fancy words, and a lot of them, and ended up creating the most well known, classic fantasy story to date that has stayed extremely popular for 60 years now.
I've heard a lot of writers talk about how they were told early on to always use certain words, or never use other words, and it limited them and gave them bad habits that were hard to shake and stayed with them for years.
The decision of which words to use is entirely up to the writer and what they feel works the best. When writing a sentence, sometimes just rephrasing the same line with different words makes it sound and flow better, and give a different feeling to the story, one they want to evoke.
Again, not trying to be overly critical, but this needs to be said.
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."
Excellent; I'm so glad I discovered your video. I count myself as an experienced writer but have always held the view that I'll never stop learning about creative writing. The amount of "weasel words" I found throughout my latest novel shocked me; some of those I should have learned to avoid many years ago! Now that the manuscript is clear of them, the previously affected sentences (or should that be "infected?") are now more direct and transparent. Thank you :-)
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.
This isn’t nuance, it’s common sense, we’re looking to make things clear, not to be as economical as possible.
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.
I'm a german author, but all of your tipps can be derived into the german language. Your videos are super helpful and come at an easily understandable, still detailed level. Thanks for the continued great work :)
You’ve been popping up like crazy in my feed, good stuff
"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.
To me, sat up is straight forward and clear. It all depends on that context, but both signal having something grabbing the characters interest.
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.
been looking forward to your vids recently. i'm going to save this for my second draft
3:35 it's different words that have different purposes. You wouldn't say cinnamon and coffee flavours perfectly collaborate with each other
You'd say 'compliment'.
19:40 I'm gonna help Mr. Orwell out there: "If it is possible to cut a word, cut it."
In Orwell's time (and in UK English for some time after) that would have meant you were taking a knife to the words.
@@miaschu8175 Nice!
@@miaschu8175“If it is possible to stab a word, stab it”
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.
"If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out." Orwell didn't need to use the word "always" in that sentence.
The last “out” is extraneous.
@@KJKP Maybe the first "out" as well
The "out" is not extraneous. The phrase "cut out" has a specific meaning which "cut" on its own cannot replace, at least not in UK English at the time Orwell was writing. Cut means to cut something with a sharp object, not to erase words, and the distinction would have been clearer then.
The "always", however, would have been extraneous then, as it is now.
Here, the most laconic forms of your sentence:
"Cut words, when possible."
"Cut words."
"Cut."
"*cutting gesture**, *optional mouth bla bla bla talking gesture*."
"I really liked the 'thats'."
I don't know why that made me laugh so much... 😂
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
I will fight for "expedite" some times because it's a process involving skipping to the front of the queue after paying money and filling out forms. (as opposed to normal speed of the process).
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.)
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.
In that case, those words are providing an element, be it flavour, nuance, mood, or other, and they cannot be cut out. Otherwise agree.
@@whitehawk4099 in which case?
@ In the case where they provide an intended flavour, nuance, or mood.
@@whitehawk4099 That verges on an intentionally unhelpful reply. It's a numbered list for ease of reference, it quite literally couldn't be easier to be specific. Which number are you referring to?
@@Josh_Quillan Any of them, depended on what is desired. That is why I included all of them.
Good advice. I have removed several words from my current manuscript. I'm happy to say that a search for "literally" returned 0
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"
Does the character know the direction of the sound? If so, you could use that instead.
E.g. "A low rumbling sound was coming from the shadows at the back of the room."
Insanely helpful. Just eliminated hundreds of 'justs', 'literallys' and 'ups' and 'downs' from an already too long manuscript! thank you!
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
I fell from a ramp at a country music festival. While I was thanking the man who caught me, I saw a performer standing stunned. I said, "I'm so sorry. I didn't see you there. I didn't mean anything by it." I ran as fast as I could because I was afraid I'd be detained by security.
My friend, who was standing at the top of the ramp, told me the star and his bodyguard laughed. The bodyguard said, "I've often heard about women falling for singers, but that's the first time I LITERALLY saw it happen."
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!
I love how he used "ultimately" in a sentence where he could have deleted it in a rant about "time words." It kind of proved his point. Another one is "put something in its place" rather than "replace it" in a rant against using the word something. But ultimately... at the end of the day... in the final analysis, this is a great video.
8:35 Oh no, not John telling me to replace the word "something" with something
I strongly disagree with the section on puff words. None of those words are big or complex words. Using synonyms is great to reduce redundancy. If someone genuinely gets mad at any of those words being used, it's probably some type of insecurity. They're completely normal and common words. People don't use to try to sound smart.
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.
To say “I personally…,” is something I personally hate.
Next word to go, "actually".
The thing with "suddenly" If I don't use it, the event seems just so ordinary as If it didn't suprise anyone.
Oh, boy. I understand.
getting my ctrl f ready for this one.
As someone who deleted the 10 instances of the word “suddenly” from her short story, this video made me feel called me out 😂
Question!
On the expendable words part, would it be smarter to keep a word anyway if it’s purpose is keep a certain rhythm in the sentence structure? Lyrics, poems and such, but also in general ease of reading.
Words like utilise, commence and expedite are useful for information manuals or some academic papers, but not for fiction. That should be obvious.
I really didn't want to use "suddenly" in my current writing, but I needed it in one sentence - I'm still trying to get rid of it in editing and can't find a substitute 😕. Unfortunately, the sudden event isn't as automatically startling as a shot ringing out. (Btw, I do appreciate the image of John Cusack in that section.)
Nooo! "Creakily" doesn't add anything to that sentence. In fact, get rid of adverbs. Use powerful verbs instead - they work harder.
I thought that most of the examples here are used more in speech than writing. Nevertheless, it's good to realise that you might be adding filler words, which will water down your prose. I'm going to open my manuscript and do a search for "that"!
Btw, "The papers spread across the desk" means that they moved across the desk by their own momentum. "The papers were spread across the desk" means that they had been spread out by the person working on them. BE PRECISE!
I guess my problem about omitting "that" is that having studied many non-English languages there the clausal "that" is required, when I don't use it it doesn't sound right.
This is great. Maybe if you could convince high schools and colleges to require something other than word count 😊
As always; when considering a list like this; Break all of these rules - then apply your own filter review ( ? )
If you have a bad story I promise you the problem is not a word, it's definitely your story.
I have been working to strengthen my writing, and this has helped so much!
Even though you only make an exception for dialogue from these rules, you should probably add an exception to first-person narration too. After all, that's a character's internal thoughts.
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.
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.
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.
Another heroic effort on our behalf. Many thanks.
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.👺
Instead of always using "whispered" you could use an action, such as someone leaning in, straining to hear. Or, perhaps, something along the lines of, "His words came soft and low: _".
'said' kills dialogue flow, and is devoid of meaning.
Whispered needs to be contextual, as you rightly say.
But give me a descriptive verb over 'said' any day.
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!
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
I came across something similar on Google.
Any advice is useful, even if we decide we're going to break the rules.
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👍👍
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.
I see your videos here and there and it inspires me to write even tho I've never written anything yet
The sat down or stood up issue us more complicated. For instance:
She sat staring into space for hours
Or
He stood staring at her
I have problem with those 😕
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 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.
The best writing advice I have received is, there are two kinds of words, full and empty. Full words have a specific meaning. Empty words are filler. Use full words and edit out empty words where possible. Your concise illumination of this advice is appreciated.
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'.
Grimace mentioned 2:57
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.
Here before the video has had time to play through.
I cringe at "nodded his head". Which other body parts nod? Following every line of dialogue with I said, he said, or she said. Why not tag a line of dialogue with the character's behavior or physical stance.
Had to correct that in my writing after I realized what you just said 😊
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 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'.
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!
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.😁
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.
Software developers use programs called "lint" to help clean up their code-to remove the lint.
I'm a software developer and a writer. Thus I may be required to write lint for Scrivener. I could make it annoying as hell by having it annotate every objectionable word and change the icon on every file that it marked up.
“The hike exhausted me.”
Could you do a video explaining how you cut these words out but also avoiding your book sounding like "sea spot run"? Thanks!
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)?
Great video as usual. I do have one criticism about "sloppy words." The advice to avoid them in fiction writing is sound, but your broad, prescriptivist statements about nonstandard usage are incorrect. As long as there are speakers of a language, the language will change. The only languages that don't undergo changes are dead languages. If you recognize that language change is inexorable, you should recognize the changes you observe in your lifetime.
One example I like to give is the etymology of the word "nice." The semantic drift this word has undergone is remarkable. It _literally_ used to mean "stupid." Speaking of which, there is evidence of "literally" being used as an intensifier as early as the 17th century. People started complaining about it in the early 20th century, but, like any commonly lamented use of a word, it's here to stay. I once heard a lexicographer say something like, "If you're complaining that lots of people are misusing a word, that's evidence that it's no longer considered a misuse." This is very true. The job of a lexicographer is to _recognize_ how words are being used-not to arbitrate it. Language is very democratic in that way.
Sorry about the tirade. Again, I love your channel. It's helped me a lot with my novel. Cheers.
Glad the channel has helped! And I do agree with you that language changes, but you're bringing up a longstanding debate in the linguistic community between Descriptivism and Prescriptivism -- there are ardent advocates (fight to the death advocates!) on either side.
@Bookfox Thanks for the reply. I intended to bring up that debate, yes. You can probably tell I'm one of those radical descriptivists, lol. Strongly disagree with Orwell's essay. Ever heard of Swift's _A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining the English Tongue?_ It's sort of a prototypical example of "Politics and the English Language." Anyway, my point is that prescriptivism is a losing battle. But then again, you seem relatively sympathetic to both sides, which I can respect. Sorry for assuming that you hew more closely to prescriptivism. And if you do, I should probably just invoke the old thought-terminating cliché and "agree to disagree," lol.
Just to say something nice, your list of metaphors and similes on your website is fantastic, as is your RUclips video on the topic. And your dialogue writing tips? Chef's kiss. Sometime when I can afford it, I'll sign up for your writing courses. I should probably also read one of your books. Anyway, thanks again! Sorry for my verbosity. Cheers.
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 ?
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.
I found 111 "somethings" in my manuscript. LMAO. I immediately got to work. You are so right. The word says nothing.
Edit: 15 min later, and I already cut them down to 73🥳
I've found that a of the words mentioned are ones i don't really use in prose but do by use in dialogue, like something, which characters in my work say quite a lot, not to a distracting extent, but its definitely there, like, 'can i ask you something' 'theres something about him' and i think it can work in that context because people arent usually articulate enough in conversation to specify what they mean, and in some cases, wouldn't know how to specify. the other time I use something in prose is when the perspective character doesn't know what what the thing is, like, 'he heard something from behind him'
suddenly i think i do have a but of a problem with, specifically because i do a lot of fight scenes, and i think its useful to clarify that an action is unrelated to what previously being done or what the character was reading into the movement as, but i think it might be diminishing the impact for when its actually useful for shock. I'll look at cutting down on it.