I would remove using "usually." Adverbs are a big n0-no in writing. Dialogue being the only exception IMO. I would also add the reason for reader's wanting to off themselves.. Melemadh Oreed’s Discourse on the Nature of yellow Kidney Stones had a nasty habit of making readers perish from a similar fate because..
I once wrote "he rather sadly died" as a conclusion for some homework, and my mum found it hysterical.
I appreciate your input and while I agree with the point of keeping it short, I don't think your suggested version brings the intention across. It's a jab at how boring that book is, it doesn't actually give its readers kidney stones. The previous sentence reads "Jhaleri shifted her papers back into order, not too disappointed to be torn away from their tedious content." So it's referring to that. Edit to add: in that scene my MC is poring over stacks of books in preparation to her final exams before getting summoned to some important meeting. That's the context, if that makes it any clearer. Jokes aren't funny anymore if you explain them, right? As mentioned above, it refers to the book being a real dull read. Why would adverbs be a no-no? While the use of this one in this very sentence may be debatable I don't think it's a good idea to barr yourself from using a whole word class. They exist for a reason and if I cut every qualifying word, in my opinion a lot of tone and intention would be lost.
two reasons: Adverbs are overused and clutter sentences Writing is all about showing, not telling: Adverbs are lazy shortcuts where 99 percent of the time further exposition would be an improvement. Just ask Stephen King: https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/03/13/stephen-king-on-adverbs/
You're right, of course. When I posted this I was aiming for grammatical advice rather than full-on critique though so I didn't think context would matter. (Also, how did a quote of mine end up with your name on it?) Even though I enjoy reading authors that make use of adverbs, I wouldn't presume to argue with Stephen King on how to write a strong sentence. How's this then: Melemadh Oreed’s Discourse on the Nature of yellow Kidney Stones was prone to make its readers feel like they'd caught a case of that same affliction.
I thought the meaning of the sentence was obvious from Jenissej's first post *we need a shrug emoticon*
Maybe by having them thrown at you by an angry medicine lecturer because you dared to disdain his favorite nephrological essay.
What's wrong with: "Melemadh Oreed’s Discourse on the Nature of yellow Kidney Stones was prone to make often made its readers feel like as if they'd caught suffered from a case of that same affliction." [Shorter and more active] Also, I wonder if in this sort of statement you should state the author's first name -- treatises are often referred to by simply the author's last name, like "Prosser on Torts." And I don't think people "catch" kidney stones, they suffer from them or develop them. IMHO.
'Instantly' breaks the flow of the sentence for me. If it were, Melemadh Oreed’s Discourse on the Nature of yellow Kidney Stones usually made the reader wish to spontaneously perish of a case of the same, it flows better and gives the same imagery with a bit more flash. 'A case of the same' is the best one you have. The others sound clunky and wrong. Also, you have to capitalise 'yellow'. Discourse on the Nature of Yellow Kidney Stones.
I would, yes I'm in the UK so it could be a regional thing. How did he die? From shingles From injuries sustained falling off a roof. From a bash to the head. From old age.
Yes, I think it's an older saying regarding people, "she perished in the great fire of 1943 ..." etc, that said, my day job is working in a kitchen so we still use it a lot where food storage is concerned, i.e. perishable and non-perishable food items.
Overused doesn't mean that they should never be used. I think that "usually" or "often" or some other adverb with the same meaning works just fine in this sentence. ALL about? No. New writers do tend to over-explain, but "show, don't tell" doesn't really mean DON'T tell. It means, essentially, "It's quite likely that you're over-explaining things, so why not try demonstrating the important ones instead, OK?" Which is why "show, don't tell" is a very poorly phrased piece of advice.
Mindless quips of "Show, don't tell!" just burn my boobies the fuck up. I hate it. It was sort of popularized in general internet culture by crappy vlogger movie critics who'd throw the term around whenever they'd complain about bad exposition in movies or whatever, and now people vehemently criticize any amount of 'telling' anywhere, believing it's really good advice all on its own. It's a pet peeve of mine and I hate it.