36. Exclamation mark abuse. Honestly, who wants to read something where everyone's yelling all the time?
Pet Peeve: Wrong use of the word smirk. A smirk is a grin with callous/cruel intent. Stop writing characters smirking when someone falls/acts sexy/wants to look mysterious unless they are planning to push them down a larger drop/kill them mid sex/ is hiding a murderous obsession
I've always thought of a smirk as a smart-ass or know it all type of smile, not necessarily an evil one. Anyway, I found this by typing "smirk" into the bing.com search engine- smirk [ smirk ] 1.insolent smile: an insolent smile expressing feelings such as superiority, self-satisfaction, or conceit
39. Constant repetition of words. Just my opinion really, but it gets annoying when you can count how many times a certain word has been used. Especially conjunctions. I know you can't get around those sometimes, but (see?) I dislike when people use 'and' more than three times in a sentence. 40. The cliche mirror description. Or, just saying she had blue eyes and brown hair with lack of any 'real' description. Why do we even need to know that anyway, unless it's rare to be 'normal'? (I laugh at my younger writings of this. Straight from my notebook when I was fourteen: Miss Abigail Rose was a pretty and attractive girl of eighteen with beautiful brunette curls and bright blue eyes. She wore a gown of blue satin with pretty lace, which was her favorite gown.) Ha, I broke my own repetition sin above too.
Writing Process #3: Writing without a purpose or writing with only a purpose (or purposes) not relating to writing (e.g. writing to become famous). That's a pretty bad thing (in my opinion) and I see that quite a lot. However, maybe you should put your rule number 14 in big bold letters or move that up to rule 0 because that's probably the most important rule. A lot of the rules listed can limit important things - especially style.
I feel as though this is a misinterpretation of Hemingway's prose, minstrel. If I could, I'd jovially pinch you. Hemingway wrote in short sentences when his character's mood reflected such, or personality, or what was going on at the time. But, he also wrote short thoughts with long sentences, using the conjunction and in order to prevent the reader from slowing down. He also wrote very long sentences, and paragraphs, when the character's mood would become, let's say, captivated by his surroundings. Each word he put down to page was written with his character kept full in mind. If the character was simple in every aspect, he wrote simple sentences, but if the character was complex, or achieved a complex frame of mind in a scene, the prose would change. I also disagree with the rule about adverbs, save for their overuse, or the redundant use of them. If it's needed, and you will have some that are needed, then include it. But if you have a verb that already states the obvious or a noun that implies what the adverb would otherwise remind, omit the adverb.
I agree that a smirk doesn't necessarily mean evil, but to me it has very strong connotations of severe self-absorbed rudeness. When a character smirks, I as a reader am likely to hold the character in contempt, permanently. So it always irritates me when an author paints a smirk on a character that they clearly expect me to like. Edited to add: Y'know, that leads me to another sin: Writing with the assumption that obnoxious, smirking, self-absorbed, generally mean or unpleasant character behavior is charming. The "fiery" redhead who smirks and mocks the hero in a romance novel. The teenager who's rude and nasty to his teacher for no better reason than that they're a teacher and he's a rebel and isn't that _so_ cool? Bleah.
While you're right that run-on sentences can be a problem, your example is actually a well-formed -- though perhaps overly long -- sentence it is not a run-on sentence (which this one is). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-on_sentence @E. C. Scrubb Within the "process" section, you might add: 3. Reading only within your chosen genre, as opposed to widely and voraciously Possible revision/addition/clarification to number 14: unthinking adherence to rules
The girl was called Fyre, because of her red hair. Little did she know that this name was to be ironically appropriate soon enough. -Character's names sound overcool -Red hair(NO MORE REDHEADS OKAY) -Overuse of foreshadowing.
Putting _clown-shoes_ on words and phrases . . . Whatever next - colourful costumes? A big red nose? A flower that squirts water?
Apparently I have been using that term much more broadly than it is intended and I stand corrected on its definition, however, I would still group all excessively long sentences whose length serves no discernible purpose under the banner of the relevant "deadly sin of writing," regardless of their level of grammatical correctness, and might consequently amend said "sin" as such: "The use of extraordinarily long sentences whose length serves no purpose."
41. (I think?) -> Using overly-complex words incorrectly in an attempt to sound smart. (TvTropes calls this "sesquipedalian loquaciousness," I believe.) I know I've read too many stories in which someone chucks some word-of-the-day into a sentence and uses the word horribly wrong. I'm not against using big words, but I can't stand it when people completely obfuscate their meaning (see?) because they want to sound like a professor or something. =P
I'm aware of this. I'm actually a big Hemingway fan. I've read a great deal of his writing and I've also read a lot of critical and biographical material on him (Carlos Baker is a good starting point.) The paragraph I posted was intended as a send-up of the kind of superficial, thoughtless writer who heard somewhere that Hemingway used simple, declarative sentences in a time when most literary prose was much more elaborate. This writer oversimplifies what he's heard and comes up with the kind of ridiculous paragraph I wrote. My paragraph is intended partly as a caution to novice writers, as well. Blind, slavish adherence to any given rule or set of rules (including most of the rules discussed in this thread) can result in ridiculous and unreadable prose. That's why rule 1 of any list of writing rules should be "Feel free to break any writing rule if doing so makes your prose better. Treat the rules as guidelines, not absolute laws."
1. Plagiarism 2. All "telling" or "showing" without a mix 3. Bad punctuation 4. Using adjectives like Stephanie Meyer 5. Using adverbs like JKR 6. Two-dimensional villains who are "evil for evil's sake" 7. 2.Misuse of semi; colons 8. Subject/verb disagreement 9. iMpRoPer UsE oF CapiTols 10. "Using adverbs in dialoge tags." He said dramatically (c.f. Deadly Sin 5) 11. Utilizing a magnanimous variety of verbosities with the express intention of pronouncing exceedingly concise ponderings. (Saying little with many words.) 12. Describing things it TOO much detail. 13. Being a lazy writer (c.f. 29, 34) 14. Not breaking any of the other 8 rules to make your writing interesting. (or any of them - E.C. Edit). 15. Oh! Cliches! 16. Believing that dialogue should literally reflect conversation 17. Confusing homynyms, like "capital" and "capitol" 18. Also "there", "their" and "they're" (an abuse seen with irritating frequency on this site) 19. Comma/Semicolon confusion (c.f. 3 - and threads on whether to even use a semicolon) 20. Not varying sentence length 21. Making the MC too snarky or sarcastic 22. Mixing metaphors (never mix a metaphor, it's the end the hell on earth if you do - or something to do with being up a creek without a monkey wrench) 23. Pronoun confusion 24. Treating your readers as stupid (leading a reader to a question that you want them to ask, but then putting it in the text yourself just to make sure they get it [originally written as "thinking out loud"]) 25. Overly dramatic (including pauses - I stretched this one to include all types of drama, not just pauses) 26. Run-on sentences 27. Writing to impress, rather than communicate 28. Spoonfeeding conclusions (c.f. 24) 29. Lack of precision (c.f. 13, 34) 30. Bumlicking/brown-nosing 31. Naming a character Skeeter (almost as bad as Eustace Clarence Scrubb, isn't it?) 32. When the writer can be seen behind the writing (dare I say, that especially includes self-inserts? See next three for explanation) 33. Character with no goal/no depth 34. Cardboard landscapes/vagueness (He walked into an apartment. . .)/hazy descriptions (a flower, etc.) (c.f 13, 29) 35. Cringeworthy Dialogue/making your characters speak in ways they never would (c.f. 4, 5, 10) 36. Exclamation mark abuse (c.f. 3) 37. Making a book sounds like a game. Leveling included 38. Not utilizing the right word/misusing words according to their definitions 39. Constant repetition of words (echoes) 40. The cliche mirror description. Or, just saying she had blue eyes and brown hair with lack of any 'real' description. 41. Writing with the assumption that obnoxious, smirking, self-absorbed, generally mean or unpleasant character behavior is charming. 42. Run-on Sentences - including overly long and complex sentences with no discernible purpose; such sentences normally do not have to be like that except for specific reasons: Dialogue; running internal thoughts (which, of course the author should try to stay away from using italics in these cases, as there's a discussion concerning whether such uses may hinder the writer from being published - a concern that many of us may have and all of us should keep in mind for future hope in publishing), whether in first person or third person points of view; and certain other situations that may come up from time to time. 43. Trying to make a character's name overly cool 44. Overuse of foreshadowing 45. Abusing the thesaurus 46. Thesaurus solecism or misemployment, including malapropism (okay, deep breath) ____ Writing process - 1. Submitting work to a critique group without doing your own editing/proofing first. 2. Procrastination 3. Reading only within your chosen genre, as opposed to widely and voraciously
I don't want to appear too ignorant, but I guess I am. I've never read Stephanie Meyer or JKR (I know; I must be a Foul Beast from the Pit), so I don't know what's so bad about their use of adverbs and adjectives. Could somebody explain rules 4 and 5 without requiring us to read the works of those writers? Please?
Sure. Stephanie Meyers: she uses words adjectives like "perfect," "glorious," "Greek God," etc. over and over, leaving nothing to the imagination of the reader. JKR: she loves writing "Blah blah blah," he said loudly. "Blah, blah, blah," she said, fearfully. "Blah blah blah," he said, slowly.
Not to be a kill-joy here, but Rowling does have a published series that lots of people have read and enjoyed. So does Stephanie Meyers. I find it a bit hypercritical to chew published works and spit them out as though they are inferior. For their genres and intended audiences, their writing works. That would be like trashing Tolkien, or Robert Jordan. I think I will do this. People love Steven King, and he is considered a good writer. I find something in his writing to be completely lacking. That is the ending. I find the ending so wanting that I've stopped reading and refuse to read a book or watch a movie by Stephen King. Why? The whole book is culminating in amazing scenes and imagery, and when you get to those last two pages, its like he runs out of ideas and has to throw everything into the wash all at once to tie all the loose ends together. I may be losing out on some amazing stories, but I will never be disappointed in the ending because I won't invest myself in a series of books by an author that does that to an ending.
I do agree it's easy for people around here to be armchair quarterbacks. Once published, then you have the right to complain about another writer's prose. At this point, I think everyone should be focusing on improving their craftsmanship. The subject of long sentences tend to peeve me off, because I write long, complex sentences during my narration quite often, because combining two small actions, or thoughts, together allows for better flow then a short, jarring sentence. People put too much emphasis on what the rules are instead of writing around here. There isn't a novel out there that doesn't break the rules, yet they're published and making money while we do what? Play arm chair quarterback...
I concur. But then again, some writers aren't interested in making money but writing for the sake/art of writing.
