posted
You know... I always knew that adverbs were a thing best left out of fiction. Always knew it.. never really GOT it. Until one day, I read a book (interestingLY enough... written by a girl at the high school I went to, about 4 years younger than me [im 22] -published by a small time company uhhmmm **jealous) Anyways.... on the first page, there were FOUR... that's right folks, FOUR of them, and it was very terrible to read. And I was like... OH...NNNOOOWWWW I get it. hahaha You guys ever have in revelations like this while reading some bad books? I won't mention this book name out of karmic reasons. Also because she isnt well known or wealthy from writing. THEN you are fair game! lolol
Posts: 147 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really hope you wrote that paragraph to show an example of bad bad bad writing because I just flashed back to freshman year of high school and listening to a little girl talk.
Anyway, I could care less about what other writers do in their books. If they do a good job at it, then who cares if they used some word somewhere. Now if, like in your case, the book is garbage overall, then those four adverbs only add to the book's poorness of quality, but are not the cause.
I guess my point is this: Poor books fade away for a thousand reasons, but never just one like a weak word here or there.
posted
While Mystic makes a good point that a poor book rarely suffers from just one weakness, the reasons that a book is poor can still sometimes (should be usually, if you've got much experience as a critter) be isolated and identified.
And yes, I've had things hit me about bad writing while reading published works. I work in a bookstore, and I get to open a goodly portion of our shipments. Since a lot of the books have to be security tagged, I often glance at a paragraph or two in the middle of a book. Cheesy dialogue abounds, even among very well regarded authors.
I also regularly read the first few paragraphs of books that are laying around. Probably the closest thing to an epiphany like you're talking about came from the first couple of pages of a book (I'll leave it nameless as well; it's sold respectably, but I don't think it's a best seller) that Mystic would have probably hated. For the first page or two, the MC was simply described as "she," "her," or "the girl." Then we were suddenly told her name. As best as I could tell, there was no reason whatsoever for not giving us her name in the very first paragraph -- aside from a desire to create suspense by leaving the reader with completely unnecessary questions.
posted
1. Who said adverbs were best left out of fiction? The only time adverbs are bad is when you can substitute one verb for the verb + adverb phrase. Hence: "walked slowly" can be changed to crept, stumbled, meandered. These verbs are better because they tell us the way a person "walked slowly." Of course, this doesn't mean that "walked slowly" is always wrong. There might be a time when your character is just, well, walking slowly.
2. It is incorrect to say "I could care less." If you can care less, then whatever it is matters to you. The correct form is: "I couldn't care less." I've seen this error in published writing; it drives me bonkers.
3. It seems to me an overall healthier attitude not to ask, "How in the hell did this piece of crap ever get published?" but, rather, "Despite its flaws what makes this work salable and not mine?" Then you might actually learn something useful.
[This message has been edited by Garp (edited March 12, 2006).]
[This message has been edited by Garp (edited March 12, 2006).]
posted
But all Leaf II is talking about is finally "getting it" about advice on writing.
Leaf II, you are absoluteLY right that sometimes a good way to understand why people advise against something is to see that something in use and experience why it doesn't work. When something works, it's harder to notice, but when it doesn't work, it can be extremeLY easy to see.
The trick is to learn when it's a good idea to use something and when it's not a good idea to use it. Bad writing can certainLY help to show poor usage, but it's not the onLY way.
posted
clarification: internet post writing /= (does not equal) proffesional/story writing, cuz I COULD CARE LESS (get it?) about msg. board writing, and I doubt anyone cares so much also... u know.. cuz its the internet LOLZ!!!!
haha ...anyways good show with the -LY... laughed extra
Also... just for further clarication, I will be sure to put Leaf II in the front of my novel if/when it sells *(pray pray pray hope hope) just so you all know. ...psh... HS girl. yeah right.
Oh well...
-leaf
p.s.. for those who do not get it... just to save 15 posts aruguing about it... this particular post = sarcasm... mostLY
posted
“I could care less.” VS “I couldn't care less.”
I've heard them both used and I think that they’re both used in the States. However, I’m not sure. I’ve been living in Korea for ten years now and spend a lot of time with teachers from other English speaking countries.
posted
Leah -- if you want to "get" the problem with adverbs I suggest reading Hary Potter. Some of the worst adverb abuse I've ever seen.
But I will suggest one thing about reading to writers...stop reading with the rule book in your hand! Seriuusly, I'm not saying that there aren't bad bad bad things out there, but I find that writers are harder than they need to be on so many things and one "error" will kill a story for them.
posted
"I could care less" appears to have become fairly common usage, meaning precisely the opposite. It's not an uncommon technique.
Of course, there is a limit to such usage. I have noticed a tendency in sports commentary for "literally" to be used as an emphatic, which frequently results in it's meaning being precisely reversed into "figuratively". I have been known to look up at the screen when a commentator says "This game has literally exploded into life!", expecting to see roiling smoke and the aftermath of a massive detonation. No such excitement, of course.
And just today I was browsing discussion boards on the subject of the "V For Vendetta" movie and noticed people arguing (very heatedly) about "graphic novels" and how "Graphic" meant "with pictures". As a student of ancient Greek, I was taught that "graphein" was the verb for "to write". That one clearly mutated a long time ago (think of "graphs"). But it also has more than one meaning - one poster joked that a "graphic novel" should have "explicit depictions of sex and/or violence". Depressing to report, nobody else appeared to get the joke.
posted
No, it's a perfectly accurate statement. Just think, if you cared as little as it was possible to care, then you wouldn't even bother to comment on how little you care. "I couldn't care less" is always a falsehood, since there are things that you care about so little that you don't bother to mention how little you care about them, thus demonstrating that however little you care, if you've bothered to mention it at all then you could have cared even less
And yes, I was among the pedants who would make exactly that point to people who would say that they couldn't care less about something.
Of course, the proper, complete phrase should be, "I could care less, but then I wouldn't care enough to let you know how little I care." But generally this isn't said, because the people who really mean it don't care
posted
I just want to believe that my tendancy to do that actually resulted in a general change in usage. That would be so cool.
Sadly, it's probably just because when people say they couldn't/could care less/more, they really just don't care which they're saying, and say whichever is easier to say.
Which is why "like I care" is supplanting both phrases
posted
Should have read this thread...considering I just recieved complaints about adverbs in my post on F&F. Maybe I should shutup and take advice as it comes...lol.
Posts: 131 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Personally, I hate poor grammar,spelling, punctuation. Awkward phrasing. Trite phrases used as "good" material.
After all the above obvious flaws, what really turns me off is "dense" writing. By that I mean when the text is so tightly packed with ideas and description that I have no space in which, while reading, to visualize stuff on my own. I hate it when the author is determined to force me to see EXACTLY what he saw. Give me some room to create the town, world, character on my own within the parameters given. If I see the tavern sign as green and the author sees it as red, unless the color is important, let me add my imagination to what is written. If I can participate in little ways, I am more likely to sink deep into the story.
At least, that's how I think I feel about dense text. The art is to select the right details for the framework and let me, the reader, fill in the rest. To evoke the city from the depths of my imagination rather than force me to try and build an exact duplicate.
posted
Truthfully, bad writing is a matter of opinion. Even within the rules, everyone has his or her own style that some appreciate and others don't. Most people tell me I'm a good writer, but even I had someone tell me a few years ago, in no uncertain terms, that I was a "bad writer." Actually, that made me cry...amazine how one voice of decent can cancel out all those voices of praise. Guess I'm going to have to get over that before my book goes public... Posts: 3567 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To me poor (I don't want to say "bad") writing is bland and lifeless, and a poor writer is someone who continues to produce bland and lifeless stuff no matter how much effort others put into giving helpful feedback to that writer.
If someone can't learn, then maybe that's a "bad" writer.
posted
No, that's just an eL Dee writer, a bad writer inflicts injury on the reader in a willful manner
Writing is a form of communication. An effective writer communicates with the reader. An ineffective writer fails to do so. The moral or intellectual quality of what the writer is communicating is up to the writer, not to the writing. But the moral and intellectual quality of what the text communicates exists in its own right. If that makes no sense...it's because I'm making a distinction that may contradict my usual strict textualism.
In other words, I have to judge writers qua writers by their writing. But I've come across too many instances of writings that say something that was in no way matched any possible intention of the writer to believe that my judgement of a writer as a person is accurate based on their writing. And writers are people first, and sources of text only secondarily.
I believe that anyone can learn to write better, and that means that a present lack of skill as a writer doesn't preclude writing really well in the future. Which is why my textualism goes both ways. I'll criticize your writing as ferociously as I like, but that doesn't mean I'm saying anything about you. And whatever my opinion of you as a person, that shouldn't affect my judgement of your writing.
Or more simply, bad writing is bad, but it doesn't make you a bad writer or a bad person
Printer-friendly view of this topic
right that sometimes a good way to understand why people advise against something is to see that something in use and experience why it doesn't work. When something works, it's harder to notice, but when it doesn't work, it can be extremeLY easy to see.
