I used to write examples 1)he started his journey 2)he began to kiss her which I feel like telling the story instead of showing the scene to readers so, what are the words better to avoid for betterment in the novel?
I don't think there's any word that should be avoided across the board. They all have their uses. It seems like maybe you've got a show/tell issue, though? Like, you're TELLING that he started his journey. This can be a totally effective way to get information across quickly, but it's usually a good idea to SHOW things that are important to the book and TELL those that are less important and skip entirely those things that aren't important at all. So, for your example - if there's significance to the start of his journey, it probably makes sense to slow down and give us some details. Did anyone say goodbye to him, was he excited about the trip, etc... If the start of the journey isn't significant but for some reason you still need to mention it, then your sentence as is seems fine. But quite possibly you could skip this part entirely and just tell us the next important part of the story. Like, instead of: He started his journey. He traveled for three three days along the highway, and on the fourth day he stopped in what had been a small town and was now a collection of barely upright shacks. You could skip the "started" part altogether and jump to: He'd been on the road four days when he stopped in what had been a small town and was now a collection of barely upright shacks. Or whatever. You can often skip "started" and "began" and whatever else and just jump to the good stuff. In the example of the kiss, the beginning probably IS part of the good stuff, so give us some detail! Was he tentative, enthusiastic, casual, did he lace their fingers together or run his hands through her hair or... whatever. If it's important, SHOW. If it's it not important, TELL or even SKIP.
The words you don't understand well enough to use properly. But the solution still isn't to avoid them; the solution is to learn their full meaning, both denotation and connotation, and in what environments they thrive.
It's more about choosing the right words. And as Cogito said, avoid using words you don't know the true meaning of and anything really flowery.
Avoid repetition of uncommon words. Common words pretty much have to be repeated often. The, and, to, my, these you use wherever they're needed. Other words stick out when used in close succession. If you're talking about something large, for instance, don't use the word gargantuan twice in a paragraph. It seriously calls attention to itself. This applies to words sharing a root. In your question you wrote "better to avoid for betterment." If I ended up with a sentence like that, and you just do sometimes, I would immediately try to find a way to restructure it. I would change the question to something like "What are some words that are best avoided when attempting to improve a novel?" People have their pet peeves, and you can find lists and clickbait slideshows all over the internet about words some blogger thinks you should eliminate from your writing. My general reaction is "screw you," but sometimes they have a point. A popular item on those lists is the suggestion to use the words "really" and "very" as sparingly as possible (or never, if they're being ridiculous.) The reasoning behind this is usually that they're weak words, and that "extremely" or "magnificently" are stronger. The problem with that is, not everything is so extreme. Some things are just "very loud", not "deafeningly loud". You can satisfy everyone though by saying "the music was quite loud" or better yet, "the volume was excessive". One I actually do agree with and try to keep in mind when I write is to not overuse qualifiers, fillers and crutch words. For instance, you can change "He began to kiss her." to "He kissed her." Neither is in passive voice, but the latter is more active than the former. It's assertive. An easy way to smarten up a passage is to avoid the words "get" and "got." I don't see this one mentioned, but I think it's a great idea. No word in the English language has more synonyms. I got received my paycheck yesterday. I'll get pick up food on the way home. I got bought a new car. I got procured a bottle of wine. I got contracted salmonella. @BayView covered all of this, but I'll say it anyway. "Show, don't tell" is over-prescribed, but it's good advice when you've written a cursory or expository bit of explanation in place of what could be a compelling scene. Sometimes you need to "tell" just to skip ahead. Example: "We ate and packed our bags. By nine, we were back on the road." We don't need you to "show" us the characters eating breakfast and packing their luggage unless you have something important or compelling for them to say to each other in the scene. Conversely, we might feel cheated out of a scene if you write "He showed up and said some things I didn't appreciate. We got in a fight, and I won." That's probably a scene that deserves action, dialogue and detail. This is important stuff. You may already know all of this, but it's worth mentioning. Never use a word unless you have a firm grasp on not only its dictionary definition, but also its nuance. "dwelling" and "habitat" have similar definitions with very different connotations. They're not interchangeable in most sentences. Ditto to "tiny" and "minuscule" or "erotic" and "lewd." Also, many words, especially adjectives, share identical roots with entirely different uses, like "joyous" and "joyful," "sensual" and "sensuous" or "ironic" and "ironical". Always know which one you mean.
Just practice and get some feedback. Really you have to make all the mistakes so you can understand why they're mistakes. And you might even discover some aren't mistakes they just need to be placed in the right context. Trying to avoid making a mistake when you're starting out is just going to make your writing very wooden especially in the first draft phase.
I think you want to avoid cliches and warn phrases which is what you kind of have in your example. But certain words? Na, they're all up for grabs. Well, the word "that" can often be eliminated. Otherwise, I don't really think of specific words that harm a piece of writing.
There are no words you should never use. Words exist for a reason. However, we can get into the habit of using certain words too often. Certain favourite words or phrases become our 'go-to' words for a variety of situations. When we use them too often, they jump out at the reader. I remember reading a popular author, whose go-to phrase for any kind of anxiety was his/her stomach tightened. Those stomachs got quite a workout during the course of a novel. One of my 'bad words'—which got caught by a beta reader some years ago—was 'scrabbled.' Scrabbled is a strong verb that conjures up specific visuals, but should not used FOUR times in one chapter! And eight altogether in the first few chapters. Yikes. I never spotted this repetition myself, though. The beta caught it for me, bless her cotton socks. I know I have posted a list of 'bad words' above my computer—words I tend to use when I'm not paying attention. There are fourteen of them on my list—mostly weasel words like 'really, just, possibly, hopefully, beautiful, very.' Just having them posted in front of me as I write is a good trick. I do still use them when I write, but I rarely keep them during an edit. When in doubt, I put each of these words into my 'find' facility on Pages and prune most of them out. Most, but not all! Even weasel words have their uses, though. Especially in online communication. They can soften what could otherwise be taken as a harsh statement, and can qualify what you are saying so you don't sound dictatorial when you didn't intend to be. They can create the feeling that you are offering an opinion, rather than issuing orders or delivering smackdowns. Tactful words, maybe? Rather than 'weasel words?' All words do have their uses.
Repetitive words. "Don't use adverbs" does not mean that adverbs are bad. It means that some other word - usually verb - says usually the same thing. So adverb is useless repetition and you should avoid it. Pompous words. Don't use them. Fashionable words. Fashion has left the building before reader gets your text. Strange words. Say the word. What does it taste and feel? If you don't use it in your normal life, then don't use it in your text.
I'd say two words to avoid using are 'had' and 'was'. As in "she had always felt that way" and "he was seething with rage". 'Had' pulls the reader out of the moment they're reading and forces them into the past. By removing 'had' and writing the sentence in a more current and active way, you can keep the pace and action of the moment. "She had always felt that way." into "The feeling never really left her. It crept into her heart every time he smiled at another women--every time he laughed at his secretary's jokes so earnestly. So disgustingly." 'Was' is the ultimate perpetrator of telling over showing. If "he was seething with rage", then I'm being told what kind of emotion he's feeling, instead of his actions being explained to me. "His face swelled into a sort of reddish balloon as his hands balled into fists. He looked like he might pop, and when his mouth opened to speak, a sort of shrill shriek came instead." You have to use more words. A lot more words. But it's more fun to read.
I strongly disagree with the "had" - see https://www.writingforums.org/threads/past-perfect-the-forgotten-verb-tense.160649/ for discussion. For "was"? I think there are lots of times when you WANT to tell, not show, and I'm not sure "was" automatically leads to telling anyway.
Absolutely agree with this! I probably should have said it was a tool, rather than to avoid it altogether. There are many points in a novel where telling is appropriate. 'Was' should be used, like most words, with intent and purpose!
No it doesn't - it means that some writing authorities think that verbs are stronger than adverbs so you should say "whispered" instead of "said softly" - its got nothing to do with repetition Its also junk advice out of the 'show don't tell' school of lazy rules … unnecessary adverbs aren't needed, but not every adverb is unnecessary
Again this is junk advice - there's absolutely nothing wrong with using was or had. There's also nothing wrong with telling. A book in which absolutely every action was shown would be deeply tiresome. You show the important things and tell the less important things, and the example you give is an incredibly purple example of overwriting. "his face flushed as his hands balled into fists" communicates the same information without distracting the reader
Absolutely true! There's certainly a place for 'was' in novels, and there might even be a place for 'had', although I have my own personal doubts on that! There are places in a novel where it's appropriate, and actually better, to tell rather than show, so I'm 100% with you on that one. However, I tend to see a lot of 'was' in newer writer's works where it isn't appropriate--or, maybe, where it could be something much better. In fledgling works, it's not uncommon to see the author, not yet knowing exactly the best way to convey what the character is feeling, just say that he 'was' feeling this, or he 'was' in the middle of acting however he was acting. That's not as good as it could be, and in those situations, 'was' drains the action out of the action. "He was sitting by the fireside, polishing a knife" is a lot less impactful than "He sat by the fireside, polishing a rusty knife." I even got an extra descriptor word in just by dropping was! That is, of course, if the scene in question is one that's important enough to spend words on. There are plenty of places, as you mentioned, where it's appropriate to tell rather than show. If an author starts showing every single thing that happens, goodness, that would be a long and dragging novel! And it would be impossible to differentiate which details are relevant to the story and its mysteries from the background fluff. But that's why it's important to use it with intent. Scenes need to alternate between zeroing in on the most important action, and glossing over what doesn't matter. It's the task of an author to highlight the important bits, go into detail, and write them well, and use the same talent to make less-important bits pass by easily, with a bit of telling. There is certainly a place for 'was', but that place isn't everywhere, and I think writers looking to make their writing less tell-y and more show-y could do a lot worse by avoiding 'was' where they can!
people who parrot 'show don't tell' at beginner authors are suggesting exactly that - if they werent the advice would be called 'show and tell'
So if you didn't know anything about clothes and I told you to wear red not black, I'd actually be telling you to wear red and black ? If someone doesn't know enough about writing to filter the advice they are given and you tell them "show don't tell" you're telling them not to tell, ever. If you google show don't tell you can find lots of examples where this stupid advice has crept into the school curriculum and teachers are encouraged to teach students to show at all times - consequently the examples of 'good writing' given are more purple than barney the purple dinosaur's big purple cock.
Do you think so? "He was sitting by the fireplace, sharpening a knife" vs. "He sat by the fireplace, sharpening a knife". The second version seems so crisp and active and smooth! The first version reads a little clunky to me, and I feel like I trip over the 'was'. I wonder if it might depend on the context it's in? I'll have to mess with it and see if I can come up with a sentence where I prefer it with 'was' in it, rather than without. That'll be a fun exercise! Edit: I think I could see a situation where 'was' referring to a location would be a good use of it. I can't think of one where 'was' referring to a state of emotional being is better than just elaborating on the actions being exhibited.
Note that "sat" and "was sitting" are different tenses with slightly different meanings. "was sitting" is the past continuous tense "that express incomplete action or state in progress at a specific time" "sat" is the preterite (past) tense, "expressing a past action or state" that may or may not be complete. (Compare to "had sat," the past perfect, expressing a completed action at the time.) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_English_verb_forms So, the two sentences you compared are not quite saying the same thing.
