3 ms·

Few people understand why they should eliminate those words. In fiction, the writer should be invisible unless they are a narrator. If you are a narrator, do it

Few people understand why they should eliminate those words. In fiction, the writer should be invisible unless they are a narrator. If you are a narrator, do it well, but if you are writing in the third person or omniscient view, don't "break the fourth wall" with editorial words that beg the question of whose judgment the word expresses. Hence the advice to strip out adverbs and re-write sentences that use words with the "-ly" suffix. Each one is a passive, begged question. If there is no person and character with intent associated with the adverb, strip it. The advice to eliminate superfluous words is not a recipe, it's a joke that is a variation on, if you want to be a good writer, only write the good stuff, or don't publish the bad stuff. Worshipping great writers won't make you a better writer any more than doing a cargo dance will get supplies dropped from the sky. If you want to write, have a story to tell, the rest is editing.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
“ In fiction, the writer should be invisible unless they are a narrator.” I don’t actually think this is reasonable or possible. Readers are fully aware that writers are distinct from other writers in their prose structure. This is colloquially known as “style”. Additionally, other writers can most certainly identify individual writers by their narrative choices based on the same notion of “style”. Hemingway had a style and that’s why so many people compare their prose to him!
- motohagiography 6y ago
  Crappy writing isn't a style unless it's on purpose, and often not even then. A great example of this is Philip K. Dick, who was a terrible writer by any standard, and not on purpose either, but he still became a great author because the overall effects of his ideas were so good that readers tolerated his crappy writing. The total effect of his ideas were his unique style, not his clunky dialogue or characters with less animation than action figures. He was like the Sex Pistols of science fiction in that he could barely play his instrument, but made the equivalent to some pop hits and he inspired a lot of other much better people to get over their own fears and write. Authors certainly have a voice, but it's because the whole story is told in it, and not because they interject to comment and give the reader direction using extra descriptions from a perspective that is outside the story. It would be like a director addressing the audience or an "applause" sign. When I read fiction, I read it to appreciate the effect of the author's craft, and not to listen to someone sounding things out and practising. Adverbs aren't forbidden, but I see them as cribs for re-editing because they are usually placeholders for unformed ideas.
NoOneNew 6y ago
The writer being invisible is an academic perspective that never holds water in the real world. Every single reader and reviewer talks about how good or bad a writer's voice is. The concept of invisibility makes beginning writers go from one extreme to another. From too much poetic prose to being sterile and monotone. This also applies in nonfiction writing. And no, adverbs do not make sentences passive. This idea popped up in amateur writing forums recently and its driving me nuts. Passive tense involves using is, has, was as verbs in a sentence. No where in any official definition of passive tense does anyone claim adverbs create passive tense. And the joke is, writing is about life, minus the boring parts.

SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago

“ In fiction, the writer should be invisible unless they are a narrator.” I don’t actually think this is reasonable or possible. Readers are fully aware that writers are distinct from other writers in their prose structure. This is colloquially known as “style”. Additionally, other writers can most certainly identify individual writers by their narrative choices based on the same notion of “style”. Hemingway had a style and that’s why so many people compare their prose to him!

motohagiography 6y ago
Crappy writing isn't a style unless it's on purpose, and often not even then. A great example of this is Philip K. Dick, who was a terrible writer by any standard, and not on purpose either, but he still became a great author because the overall effects of his ideas were so good that readers tolerated his crappy writing. The total effect of his ideas were his unique style, not his clunky dialogue or characters with less animation than action figures. He was like the Sex Pistols of science fiction in that he could barely play his instrument, but made the equivalent to some pop hits and he inspired a lot of other much better people to get over their own fears and write. Authors certainly have a voice, but it's because the whole story is told in it, and not because they interject to comment and give the reader direction using extra descriptions from a perspective that is outside the story. It would be like a director addressing the audience or an "applause" sign. When I read fiction, I read it to appreciate the effect of the author's craft, and not to listen to someone sounding things out and practising. Adverbs aren't forbidden, but I see them as cribs for re-editing because they are usually placeholders for unformed ideas.

NoOneNew 6y ago

The writer being invisible is an academic perspective that never holds water in the real world. Every single reader and reviewer talks about how good or bad a writer's voice is. The concept of invisibility makes beginning writers go from one extreme to another. From too much poetic prose to being sterile and monotone. This also applies in nonfiction writing. And no, adverbs do not make sentences passive. This idea popped up in amateur writing forums recently and its driving me nuts. Passive tense involves using is, has, was as verbs in a sentence. No where in any official definition of passive tense does anyone claim adverbs create passive tense. And the joke is, writing is about life, minus the boring parts.