This. Pretty much. Some writers have such terrible use of adjectives, and verbs. J.K. Rowling has a funny habit of using the word 'ejaculated', and using boring near-stock phrases like 'like an enormous balloon', or something else like that. But their lack of skill shows you where you can improve in a 'NOT THAT' sort of way.
May I add being annoyed by writers who use words that aren't adjectives as adjectives? My current pet peeve is the use of cliché (a noun) as an adjective: "That plot is so cliché.". I see that mistake nearly every time the word is used.
I actually find this kind of syntactic shift fascinating, especially since it's occurring with a borrowed word. If it stabilizes in that form, it will be hard to argue as a mistake. There are other pairings like this I can think of across languages. In English, innumerable is an adjective. In Spanish it is a noun, un sinnúmero de, treated like other measurements (a bunch of, a pound of, a peck of, etc.)
Depends on what you mean by 'stabilizes', I guess. I don't like to think that we'll allow a critical mass of the lazy and ignorant determine proper grammar, syntax and usage. If so, it seems like human communication will inevitably devolve into a series of grunts and tongue clicks, though many would argue that as long as everybody knows that two low grunts and one high tongue click means 'gimme eat', that's all that matters. I'll continue to disagree. I like to think of us, we writers, as the 'keepers of the flame' of proper usage. There's a satisfaction gained in using the language properly that's denied to those who don't know the rules or who don't care about them. We do know, and should care, I think.
Funny thing is, what we consider "proper usage" today doesn't reflect proper usage from days past. It's a fiction to suggest that usage is somehow immutable and there is some eternal truth we're defending as writers. That just not what happens with language.
Well, I'll agree with Steve above for one particular case, and that is the popular usage of the terms: should of, would of, could f-ing of... Using cliche as an adjective is not half as annoying as that. I can understand why cliche has shifted to being an adjective. I cannot for the life of me agree with the mistake of using "of" in "should have" simply because spoken quickly, it certainly does sound like it's "of" rather "ve/ev/ave/have" - but this is the phenonmenon of a generation of poor readers, as opposed to the usage of the word "of" actually making sense in context. Anyway, to add another pet peeve of mine... I hate the word "appendages". A friend of mine constantly used that word to describe human limbs (not disembodies ones either - it was just a normal description) and it threw me every, single, time. I know it's correct usage but it just sounds like something that belongs to an alien...
ap·pend (-pnd) tr.v. ap·pend·ed, ap·pend·ing, ap·pends 1. To add as a supplement or appendix: appended a list of errors to the report. 2. To fix to; attach: append a charm to the bracelet. [Latin appendere, to hang upon This suggests that it's only the third (and any subsequent) arm that qualifies as something that had been fixed or attached to the body.
I am not that well read, so I can't comment, but I noticed a theme. People don't like repeated terms? A friend of mine once told me this but I thought he might have been too picky. The context was a character talking about himself, and he labeled himself an asshole I think like 5 times in a page. I used asshole 5 times on purpose, the point being to bring attension to that word. He was lamenting and sad in tone. I wanted people to have a clear thought of what he thought of himself. I thought repeation was my friend there. Was I wrong?
Repetition is too often unintentional...my wife once pointed out something I'd written where a character keeps "taking her by the elbow"...in your piece, it depends. While it may indicate his low self-opinion, it may merely indicate his poor vocabulary. However, you don't want him to use a different synonym every time...that looks as if he swallowed a thesaurus. YOU have got to re-read it critically - if you believe it's a good reflection of your character, and the repetition doesn't p*** you off, it's probably OK.
Yeah I think my friends advice was to never to repeat the same word if it can be avoided on a page. So you think that can anger readers too? In my case exactly I think he said this; "I wear this sword as a symbol, to remind me of the asshole I was. The asshole I vow to never be again, the asshole you so quickly accused me of still being," William said as he began to walk away. In this case do you think repeating is bad?
William is making a point by repeating the word, and it's an effective technique. I'd actually make every repetition in a separate sentence to punch this home. The only problem for me is that asshole is a fairly modern-sounding word with American connotations (to my UK ear), and it doesn't sit comfortably on the same page as "I wear this sword". George R.R. Martin got round it by using bumhole - which sounded just as weird, I'm guessing because the rest of the dialogue didn't quite fit - a bit like a prissy schoolgirl suddenly coming out with a load of swearing. I'm assuming that the context is fantasy, and I think that I'd be inclined to invent a term, such as the Klingon 'petaq'. I also don't get the impression that he has a low self-opinion, rather it sounds as if he is annoyed with the person he is speaking to, and is deliberately calling himself an asshole, almost to wear it as a badge of honour.
Yay! I had a good first idea concept wise. Well "asshole" isn't notable. It was the repetition that was notable. What is petaq? Or Klingon? I wouldn't be against a better insult. Technically in the context of the conversation they are referring to how he was an assassin and as such has murdered people. He is still a killer but in his past he was well an assassin and did it for money, he has gained ideals. I would have never thought of him as high self esteem but you make a point. Well not wearing it as a badge that he was an asshole but rather that he isn't any more. The person he was talking to was sort of saying "My poop doesn't smell but yours does." So this was meant to be him replying "Yeah, my poop smells, and as long as you think yours doesn't we have nothing more to talk about." So I guess you make a point he is in at that moment ok with himself. Normally he is sort of self hating on himself. So what do you think is a neat counter to asshole in this context then? If it isn't rude to ask. I am bad with forums, is going on to a side topic... in bad taste?
Klingon is a race in the Star Trek universe. They are notoriously bellicose, and full of "honour". In the original series, they came across as the Spartans to the Federation (humans & Vulcans) being Athenians. A "petaq" (there are different spellings - I would have gone for p'takh until I googled it) is a person without honour - the ultimate insult in a culture where honour is so highly regarded. I'm not, incidentally, suggesting that you import a word from a language in another universe (although you could), rather that you create your own word - this is your universe, your rules. Just make it sound (like petaq) as if it's obviously an insult. By "a neat counter to asshole", do you mean a rejoinder from the person he's talking to? If so, nothing comes to mind, but I'm not great on dialogue. As for going "off-piste"...I think it's OK for a bit. If you want to continue down this line, I'd suggest a new thread.
Actually, name aside, that looks like my vision of hell. I'll be good from now on. Please don't send me there. A roomful of banjos is much more preferable.
Hm, but you're quoting the verb. Mine's a noun. I'm not sure if they're necessarily the same even though clearly it's a related word. Here's the definition from the OED for the noun appendages: 1. A thing that is added or attached to something larger or more important: they treat Scotland as a mere appendage of England 2. Biology - A projecting part of an invertebrate or other living organism, with a distinct appearance or function: a pair of feathery appendages through which oxygen is absorbed
Here's one that I dislike and I KEEP DOING IT! She has...she will..she sees...she...etc.etc.etc. It drives me nuts to realize that I have a paragraph written with ten sentences and nine of them have the same beginning. I mean the description fits the moment in the story perfectly. "She saw his body. She decided to pick up a knife. She realized that it was stained with blood. She quickly put ....." the worst about this is that I don't realize I'm doing it until I re-read the paragraph. Then I start to warp the words to flow more naturally. (yes I realize this is a terrible example, but this repetition thing is unintentional!) I also realize frequently that I think a sentence sounds good when i write it, but when I read it again after a day or two, it really needs fixing. I think even when I finish a book and publish it after 100 checks, I'll still grab a pen and correct it on certain places lol Anyone else have this issue? P.S. I'm an amateur, working on it! Working on it! lol
Not after editing, no. I understand that the language and rules of usage and grammar will change over time, but I've always thought there are some unwinnable battles worth fighting. My point was that professional writers should agree on a standard set of rules and abide by them. It's similar to the reason I don't read or write most fantasy. Any hack can create a world where nothing is impossible and magic covers all eventualities, no matter how unlikely. No rules, too easy. Writing mainstream or science fiction means plots have to make some sort of sense, and the science has to conform to today's knowledge or reasonable extrapolations thereof.
The danger isn't in repeating a word you intend to repeat for effect, as in your example. That's fine. Saying 'asshole' five times makes the point that he thinks of himself that way, and that's the only word he's got. The danger is when you repeat a word and you're not aware you're doing it. Some words and even phrases can be repeated and won't draw attention to themselves. A writer needs to work on the ones that do draw attention, not only to the word but to the fact that they've used it before, and here it is again, and several pages later, there it is AGAIN. I suspect we all do this to a certain extent. The trick is finding and eliminating these repetitions once you see them. Beta readers are golden when it comes to this exercise. Ask them to specifically look out for any words they see you using several times. They aren't going to notice the fact that you've used "and" forty times on one page (unless they're incredibly pedantic.) But use "scrabbling" two or three times in one chapter? They'll notice. My beta readers certainly did!
I take it you're not one of those people who would use the word "awesome" to describe a piece of pie?
Professional writers certainly shouldn't agree to a set of standards and abide by them. If so, good bye Joyce, Woolf, or more recently McCarthy, Wallace, Danielewski etc. A lot of nonsense. We don't need a bunch of stagnant writers constricted by rules promulgated by self-proclaimed protectors of what is "right" in language. Thankfully, there are many fiction writers who recognize this.
I agree with you totally, if you mean that rigid adherence to rules means a writer wouldn't be able to experiment. I'm a big fan of creative rule-breaking—note my constant championing of prologues and italics for thoughts! I believe in choosing the storytelling method that works best—even if it means breaking the rules in a big way. That's how many great authors made their mark. However, I very much doubt that any of the ones you quoted were unaware of formal writing. They just chose to break away from it when they told stories. What I am wary of is telling people that it's okay to be a writer when you haven't got a clue what the rules are, that it's fine to think spelling doesn't matter, grammar doesn't matter, punctuation doesn't matter, sentence structure doesn't matter, etc. People will know what I mean. Ermm ...not always. I think we've all seen umpteen examples of dumbed-down language in recent years, with the advent of online interaction. If incorrect language is used deliberately for effect, fine. I do have a problem when it's done out of ignorance. I don't think too many of these incoherent online 'writers' are going to achieve the status of Joyce, Woolf et al. They're churning out ephemeral stuff, which is maybe okay within a peer group in a day-to-day sense. But who is going to read that sort of thing 20 years from now? I think it's a mistake to tell wannabe writers that rules don't matter, and 'nobody uses them any more anyway, you sad old dinosaur.' Sorry. Mixing up there, they're and their, or using 'awesome' as the go-to adjective for anything positive? These kinds of habits are never going to produce great writing. I find it very encouraging that so many threads on this forum are started by wannabe writers who are anxious to get complicated 'rules' of grammar and usage explained to them, or who are striving to find exactly the right word for what they are trying to say. Even when their own grasp of these rules is shaky, these people understand the importance of knowing them. Ignorance is a condition, not a fault. Refusing to learn is a fault, in my opinion. As is carelessness and lack of attention to detail.
@jannert - lol I use awesome all the time. For that matter I use "lol" all the time. That doesn't mean I use it in my writing (yeah, if I did, I think I'd be horrified myself). It seems common that people have different habits when they write emails/posts/blogs and when they write proper narrative - but then again that's the excuse you'll hear from posters who don't want to write with proper grammar on the forum, saying, "I don't actually write like this!" I sorta wonder where the overlap is... I don't think I've actually ever used the word 'awesome' in my novels lol and I'd like to think I have narrative and casual writing separated well. But I just wonder when and how easily do your habits in casual writing crossover to formal writing? I'm also not convinced about being too concerned about repetition either. It can get annoying to use ever-weirder words to describe something when "round" or "ran" would do the job just fine. Or perhaps ever more creative ways to say "window" just because the word happens to be necessary 2-3 times in the same paragraph. I used to vigorously weed them out. Now I have found that it really doesn't matter and actually draws less attention to itself when you simply use a plain word. Sorta similar principle to "he said". People take the meaning in and move on without ever noticing what word was used. Anyway, all this goes to show just how much writing is intuition sometimes. Some repetition is fine and others are not, and I think it takes a sense of flow and rhythm from writing lots to tell just when it's okay and when it's not. Repetition is usually either invisible or very powerful when it falls on the right beats in the prose. The sorts of "repetition" I notice far more is a repetition of ideas. There're times when I'd come across a word and think, "Hasn't this word been used before just recently?" And I'll check the entire page and find that, no, this word hasn't been used before. But it's a word already in my head because the meaning of that particular word has already been established in the scene, if that makes sense. Eg. it's clear the character is confused, and then halfway through the page the word "confused" pops up and you wonder if it's been there before. I'm never quite sure what to do with that sorta, er... what can I call it? Deja vu?
