# "Thought" verbs and why they're evil



## squidtender

I came across an article by Chuck Palahniuk. He makes some great points about “thought” verbs and how to get rid of them. Believe me, this is much harder than you’d think. The next time you write, you very well might be pulling your hair out . . . and hating me for making you think like this. Here goes . . . 

From this point forward – at least for the next half year – you may not use “thought” verbs.  These include:  Thinks, Knows, Understands, Realizes, Believes, Wants, Remembers, Imagines, Desires, and a hundred others you love to use. 

The list should also include:  Loves and Hates.

And it should include:  Is and Has, but we’ll get to those, later.

Until some time around Christmas, you can’t write:  Kenny _wondered_ if Monica didn’t like him going out at night…”

Instead, you’ll have to Un-pack that to something like:  “The mornings after Kenny had stayed out, beyond the last bus, until he’d had to bum a ride or pay for a cab and got home to find Monica faking sleep, faking because she never slept that quiet, those mornings, she’d only put her own cup of coffee in the microwave.  Never his.”

Instead of characters _knowing_ anything, you must now present the details that allow the reader to know them.  Instead of a character_wanting_ something, you must now describe the thing so that the reader wants it.

Instead of saying:  “Adam _knew_ Gwen liked him.”

You’ll have to say:  “Between classes, Gwen was always leaned on his locker when he’d go to open it.  She’d roll her eyes and shove off with one foot, leaving a black-heel mark on the painted metal, but she also left the smell of her perfume.  The combination lock would still be warm from her ass.  And the next break, Gwen would be leaned there, again.”

In short, no more short-cuts.  Only specific sensory detail: action, smell, taste, sound, and feeling.

Typically, writers use these “thought” verbs at the beginning of a paragraph  (In this form, you can call them “Thesis Statements” and I’ll rail against those, later)  In a way, they state the intention of the paragraph.  And what follows, illustrates them.

For example:
“Brenda knew she’d never make the deadline.  Traffic was backed up from the bridge, past the first eight or nine exits.  Her cell phone battery was dead.  At home, the dogs would need to go out, or there would be a mess to clean up.  Plus, she’d promised to water the plants for her neighbor…”

Do you see how the opening “thesis statement” steals the thunder of what follows?  Don’t do it.

If nothing else, cut the opening sentence and place it _after_ all the others.  Better yet, transplant it and change it to:  Brenda would never make the deadline.

Thinking is abstract.  Knowing and believing are intangible.  Your story will always be stronger if you just show the physical actions and details of your characters and allow your reader to do the thinking and knowing.  And loving and hating.

Oh, and you can just forget about using the verbs _forget_ and _remember_. 

No more transitions such as:  “Wanda remember how Nelson used to brush her hair.”
Instead:  “Back in their sophomore year, Nelson used to brush her hair with smooth, long strokes of his hand.”

Again, Un-pack.  Don’t take short-cuts.

And while you’re avoiding “thought” verbs, be very wary about using the bland verbs “is” and “have.”

For example:
“Ann’s eyes are blue.”
“Ann has blue eyes.”

Versus:
“Ann coughed and waved one hand past her face, clearing the cigarette smoke from her eyes, blue eyes, before she smiled…”

Instead of bland “is” and “has” statements, try burying your details of what a character has or is, in actions or gestures.  At its most basic, this is showing your story instead of telling it. 

And forever after, once you’ve learned to Un-pack your characters, you’ll hate the lazy writer who settles for:  “Jim sat beside the telephone, wondering why Amanda didn’t call.”

Please.  For now, hate me all you want, but don’t use “thought” verbs.  After Christmas, go crazy, but I’d bet money you won’t.

(Chuck Palahniuk, Nuts and Bolts: "Thought" verbs, 2013)


----------



## Myers

squidtender said:


> The next time you write, you very well might be pulling your hair out . . . and hating me for making you think like this.



No I won't. Those are all perfectly good words that have a place in writing fiction. I'm not going to take them out of my tool box because someone says they're "evil." These kinds of bogus restrictions and pseudo-rules make me nauseous.


----------



## Robert_S

I'd say minimize the use of them, but when you use them, it had better be for a good reason.


----------



## Leyline

I have no desire whatsoever to make my writing sound like Palahniuk, so...no thanks.


----------



## Leyline

Robert_S said:


> I'd say minimize the use of them, but when you use them, it had better be for a good reason.



I'll use them whenever and however I please. _And_ I'll decide if my reasons are good or not.


----------



## popsprocket

This smacks of one of those pseudo-rules that shouldn't really be heeded. Yes, being able to describe blue eyes like that is good, but you sacrifice expediency for an unimportant detail. It can work, sure, but it's no better or worse than any other way of writing.

Self-gratifying nonsense.

Maybe I can say that because I'm not exactly a statement after statement kind of writer, but I still think it's ridiculous.


----------



## ppsage

> These kinds of bogus restrictions and pseudo-rules make me nauseous.


And make Palahniuk such an infamous darling!


----------



## squidtender

Wow, I expected a discussion about this, but not outright violence!


----------



## Leyline

squidtender said:


> Wow, I expected a discussion about this, but not outright violence!



Thing is, Randy, it's just yet another, more specific, reiteration of 'show don't tell': a writing canard I find of dubious value in the first place, since so many of my personal heroes have ignored it with impunity.

I _like_ writing that deals with abstracts, and I like to write about abstracts. His statement that writing will _always_ be stronger by eliminating abstracts is, quite frankly, just his opinion. And I don't agree with it.


----------



## popsprocket

squidtender said:


> Wow, I expected a discussion about this, but not outright violence!



I think it's a pretty fair response.

He's basically dismissing an effective part of writing without any evidence as to why.

There's a difference between getting someone to do something like this as a writing exercise and proclaiming that it is something that _should_​ be done.


----------



## squidtender

I never claimed he was right. I'm trying to bring a more advanced discussion to the forum. This had me and several other people talking about the pros and cons of this exercise. I thought I would share it to get the juices (and thoughts) flowing.


----------



## Bad Craziness

Heh, to balance the ledger a little for you Squid, I can see the value in this exercise.  I think the purpose of it is to get people out of lazy habits they may have picked up. Besides, anything that makes you think more about what you're putting on the page, and specific word choices, can only be a good thing.

That being said, like others have pointed out, if you're consciously choosing to use these type of verbs I don't think there's anything wrong with that either. In the end each individual stylistic choice lives and dies by the final result. What worked for him may not work for you.

Personally, I don't mind Palahniuk's style. It's that he keeps writing the same book over and over again that bothers me.


----------



## Grape Juice Vampire

*Headdesks repeatedly til brain explodes*

This particular subject  is not really going to get much of a debate as such anymore. It's been done to death, and has come to the point where is sounds more like, "if you don't do it like this, it's not writing, just laziness." Which is, of course, ridiculous and insulting. Writing is a personal thing, fraught with uncertainties and choices that make sense for the writer, the work, even a specific character.


----------



## Kyle R

I like Chuck's approach. I've been a convert to the school of Deep POV ever since I discovered it (though I found it through another author).

The idea is to make the reader _experience_ the character's feelings, rather than telling the reader _about_ the character's feelings from an outside perspective. To put the reader inside the character's head and body, rather than diluting the effect with narrative distance.

Something like,

_Arnold worried the test results would be bad
_
is, by itself, not necessarily poor writing. But there is room for improvement. Chuck would say, "Don't tell me Arnold was worried. Make me worry with him*.*"

Following Chuck's advice, I'd write something like:

_The letter arrived on Tuesday, triple-wrapped in a fat manilla envelope and stamped with bold red ink like some hazardous bio-specimen. Everything about it, even the gloved hands of the concierge warned, _Open at your own risk._

The bulge in Arnold's throat, it grew a little. It clamped down on his Adam's apple, wedging up against his esophagus like a clam.

Maybe if he didn't sign for it. Feigned amnesia, something. If he avoided it long enough, maybe it'd just go away. The test and its malignant results, like the veiny arms of some carnivorous octopus. What if _he_ went away? Took a train across town. Hopped a barge. Caught a plane. Sipping Mai Tai's in a leopard thong on some sparkling cigarette beach, who would stop him? Come to think of it, what was stopping him now?

Pen in hand, eyeglasses askew, Arnold slapped the envelope back at the wide-eyed, pimple-faced clerk. Before the man could yell out, Arnold's boots were flopping against the wet tiles, his shirt ballooning in the sticky air-conditioning of the hotel lobby, all the way to the exit._

Yes, that took a lot more effort (over ten minutes, as compared to less than ten seconds for the original sentence). And yes, not everyone will like it. Some might even consider the second example to be _worse_! :cower: I like the improvements, though. 

I think the approach, as a technique, is both valid and useful. I feel it challenges me to be a better writer, rather than a lazy one. Not to say I'm implying those who don't use this approach are lazy writers. But ever since learning about this style, *I* consider myself lazy whenever I disregard it, at least without good reason.

Good post, Randy. Controversial, yes, but I like it! :encouragement:


----------



## Nickleby

I just realized that I'm a lazy writer. I allow my characters to have inner lives, to think, to feel, to gather information, and to reach conclusions. What was I thinking? Oh, wait, I can't _think_ any more.


----------



## Sintalion

For the most part, I already do what Chuck Palahniuk talks about in the article. However I very much like a good "thought" verb here and there! Thought verbs can be excellent connectors. Sometimes I like down and dirty information, such as if my protagonist is passing a firetruck and remembers that she left the oven on. I don't always want to unpack three extra sentences to explain why she's banging a U-turn and speeding after the truck.

 Naturally I moderate my usage of them because it just is how I write, but I don't know why anyone would want to call them evil and ban yourself from using them (unless used purely in the exercise sense). They're fabulous tools.


----------



## Bloggsworth

Sounds like a reasonable illustration of show not tell and vice versa. It removes the problem of omniscience...


----------



## shadowwalker

I think exercises to make one aware of possible problems with one's writing are good for beginning writers. However, any writer who proclaims or implies that their methods or style of writing is the way all others should write is full of beans, and do more harm than good because those same beginning writers will start to think in terms of "rules".


----------



## JermShar

If any pseudo-rule i would say actually use this sparingly as needed. I have read 800 page books where only 300 pages are the story and 500 is details to the bone marrow. I lost interest in one book because the first 8 page chapter described the house the main character was pulling into, only to find out he leaves it 3 pages later.

Dont get me wrong when describing a fight i like to read about a punch that takes 1 or two pages to describe the destruction of that single swing but only if its a really damaging one. 

It shouldn't take a whole paragraph to describe a tree in a driveway unless it's significant.
 But The veins popping from the war scarred hands of a 60 year old Marine veteran as it swings into the jowl of his attacker. The blood flings from the knife wielder looking like crimson body spray, stains the ex-marine's shirt...etc. < this being a low description.

 Giving a whole page or two of that punch would be acceptable, as long as old dude destroyed the guy's face in one hit. About 3 pages more for the rest of the fight and your gold. Just don't make me read about a chair being warm from a dog's butt though...

The way I thought is except for timeline, spelling and most grammar, there are no rules to writing. Maybe that's why I always got bad grades in school.


----------



## Jeko

Very easy to relate this to the 'show don't tell' crap, but what Chuck's actually saying is, I feel, a lot more important.

He's promoting what is usually called third-person objective - a popular, powerful voice for any kind of story - and pointing out what must be done to achieve it. The moment we say 'Kenny _wondered _if Monica didn't like him going out at night' we make the narrator a god, or a mind-reader. A human being can't know that Kenny was thinking that at the time. So a human being can't narrate honestly with these words, unless they are narrating about themselves in first-person.

Did anyone else notice he did every example in third?

The narrator can have the perspective of a character but that doesn't mean they have to know their thoughts. Therefore a narrator who is _not _a god cannot say many common thought verbs - love and hate _can _be used, but they act as the mode of 'commentary' which exposes the narrator (as it has to be the narrator's judgement). If we want a non-omniscient yet covert narrator, we must train ourselves to avoid casually using the words Chuck disallows for the exercise. We will be left with what Chuck promotes: action, smell, taste, sound, and feeling. Of course, there are many other kinds of narratives we can craft that don't require this kind of practice.

As shadowwalker said, writers shouldn't think in terms of general 'rules' for writing. But if you want to create a particular kind of narrative voice, you've got to pay attention to these things. The point of the exercise is not to make you never use them, but for writers to realize themselves what effect using them and not using them has on their work.

Thus, I find Chuck to be an excellent teacher. Though he could have pointed out that this is for a particular kind of narrative. At least, I think it is. Can anyone else find some other applications for his advice?


----------



## Tettsuo

Just so you're aware, your title is the problem. [h=1]"Thought" verbs and why they're evil[/h]Is in and of itself a proclamation that is not true and reeks of more "rules" that are thought up by one writer to impress a particular style upon other writers.  What works for this writer doesn't necessarily work for others.


----------



## Kyle R

Cadence said:


> Did anyone else notice he did every example in third?
> 
> Can anyone else find some other applications for his advice?



Great post, Cadence. Yes, Chuck's advice is meant to improve the power and intimacy of the writer's narration, though it applies to any POV just as well, not just third.

_I thought the wind was cold. Too cold for August.
_
is the same thing. Chuck would whip out the red pen and strike away the "I thought" and say, "Don't tell me you thought the wind was cold. Make me, the reader, feel cold from the wind with you!"

_I worried, I believed, I considered__, et cetera._

My favorite way of thinking of this approach is through an example such as:

_Suzy hated eggs.
_
A fun writing exercise to work your writing muscles would be to:

1) Make the reader hate eggs as much as Suzy does

and

2) Do it without ever using the word "hate"



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> The point of the exercise is not to make you never use them, but for writers to realize themselves what effect using them and not using them has on their work.



:encouragement:


----------



## Jeko

> Great post, Cadence. Yes, Chuck's advice is meant to improve the power and intimacy of the writer's narration, though it applies to any POV just as well, not just third.
> 
> _I thought the wind was cold. Too cold for August.
> 
> is the same thing. Chuck would whip out the red pen and strike away the "I thought" and say, "Don't tell me you thought the wind was cold. Make me, the reader, feel cold from the wind with you!"
> 
> I worried, I believed, I considered, et cetera._



I think this is the reason third-person omniscient is popular - it's powerful and intimate, as you said. So if a writer wants to get more power and intimacy into another voice, they can learn from third-person omniscient.


I agree with Tettsuo, though; the title isn't relevant to the article. I recently got rid of a lot of bad dance music from my MP3 player. Doesn't mean it's evil - it was simply getting tedious for my critical ears.


----------



## squidtender

Tettsuo said:


> Just so you're aware, your title is the problem. *"Thought" verbs and why they're evil*
> 
> Is in and of itself a proclamation that is not true and reeks of more "rules" that are thought up by one writer to impress a particular style upon other writers.  What works for this writer doesn't necessarily work for others.



I was being facetious, Tettsuo, and I apologize if you weren't able to grasp that.


----------



## Tettsuo

squidtender said:


> I was being facetious, Tettsuo, and I apologize if you weren't able to grasp that.


Whoa dude, why the aggression and insulting comment towards me?

I was just pointing out why I think your initial post ran into such angry-ish comments.


----------



## Kyle R

Tettsuo said:


> I was just pointing out why I think your initial post ran into such angry-ish comments.



I think it was more the content of the article, rather than the title. 

People tend to react negatively to statements about the craft of writing when it is presented in absolutes ("You must do this, you cannot do that, this is always better, this is always worse...")

Though, I think it should be noted that this article was originally written for students in Palahniuk's workshop as a writing lesson and exercise.

Much like when a quarterback coach tells his player he can only throw to the left side of the field as a way to hone his field awareness. He's not saying "You can never throw to the right side of the field ever again," but rather, "For the duration of this drill, you will only pass to the left."


----------



## Tettsuo

KyleColorado said:


> I think it was more the content of the article, rather than the title.
> 
> People tend to react negatively to statements about the craft of writing when it is presented in absolutes ("You must do this, you cannot do that, this is always better, this is always worse...")
> 
> Though, I think it should be noted that this article was originally written for students in Palahniuk's workshop as a writing lesson and exercise.
> 
> Much like when a quarterback coach tells his player he can only throw to the left side of the field as a way to practice awareness on the left side of the field. He's not saying "You can never throw to the right side of the field ever again," but rather, "For the duration of this drill, you will only pass to the left."


I get it.  But, the title is written as an absolute.  If he meant it facetiously, it absolutely doesn't come across as such.


----------



## J Anfinson

shadowwalker said:


> I think exercises to make one aware of possible problems with one's writing are good for beginning writers. However, any writer who proclaims or implies that their methods or style of writing is the way all others should write is full of beans, and do more harm than good because those same beginning writers will start to think in terms of "rules".



This is the problem I have with articles like that. As someone trying hard to learn the craft, hearing all kinds of "rules" like this makes me second guess everything I write, and impedes progress at times.


----------



## OurJud

squidtender said:


> Wow, I expected a discussion about this, but not outright violence!







I stopped reading at this post. That was enough for me.

I'd quite like to be able to write like Palahniuk, but right now the thought of complicating my writing even more terrifies me. It's all I can do to put a sentence together at the mo.


----------



## J Anfinson

Double post


----------



## Sunny

I love your thread Randy! 

Kyle has been teaching me this for months and months (more over a year!), and at first I was resistant to it a little. But I think it's improved my writing phenomenally. I know I still have a long way to go to get to where I really want to be. But this type of writing style has made me dig deeper and made me more aware of my readers and not just what I'm writing for myself. I'm glad you put this up. I like reading what everyone has to say about it, too. I thought this would have been a great sharing thread... I hope it turns more into a discussion of why it could be good vs being bad. 

Are there some examples of the "thought" verb working better than Chuck's examples? Easier for the writer to get it out is not what I mean. I mean so it's better for me, the reader.


----------



## Jon M

Agree with those who say this is just another version of "Show, don't Tell" advice in swank new, Palahniuk-approved packaging. But I think something very important is missing from this discussion: context. Lines like, _"Arnold worried the test results would be bad" _are all too easy to "unpack", as Kyle did above, and while it's interesting to see how such a line could be reinterpreted, milked for all it's worth, it may not be appropriate for the story.

As usual, this kind of advice presents _narrative summary_ as some hillbilly, gap-toothed cousin to the much more pretty and pristine s_cene_, where all things are shown in exhaustive detail, as if one is an improvement and the other is garbage, and over the years so many writers have _shown_ this to be nonsense. 



			
				Cadence said:
			
		

> He's promoting what is usually called third-person objective - a  popular, powerful voice for any kind of story - and pointing out what  must be done to achieve it. The moment we say 'Kenny _wondered _if  Monica didn't like him going out at night' we make the narrator a god,  or a mind-reader. A human being can't know that Kenny was thinking that  at the time.


Not necessarily. The narrator may be omniscient, or it may just be the writer telling the story from a Limited point of view (Kenny's).


----------



## squidtender

Thank you, Jon. That was a well thought-out statement against what he's saying. And I agree with you that this method should not be followed 100% of the time. If so, you could turn a 300 page novel into something the size of a dictionary. But, I do think it's worth talking about and applied _when needed_. I know that since I've read the article, I've caught myself using it in places that I would normally take the easy route . . . but only a few times among thousands and thousands of word.


----------



## Robert_S

Tettsuo said:


> Whoa dude, why the aggression and insulting comment towards me?
> 
> I was just pointing out why I think your initial post ran into such angry-ish comments.



Don't be too mad at him. Both sides of this thread seem hostile.


----------



## Lewdog

I don't think I could do it.  I feel enough pressure in writing something unique and well thought out, that hamstringing myself with silly rules would only prove counter-productive.  I write because I enjoy it, not in order to make it a chore.  When putting words to paper becomes a burden, and I have to force myself to fit inside a box, then I'll probably find something else to do with my spare time.


----------



## J Anfinson

It's certainly not a bad thing to learn. But to add to my earlier thoughts, I think this is something that might be appropriate for those who have already written novels, and it may be a good thing to keep in mind while editing. For those who are still trying to jump the first hurdle (like me) and write their first novel, all these daunting rules, regulations, and whatnot more often than not cause us to hesitate in what we're already doing and change everything we've written to fit "the standard". At least it does with me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I've got tons of "how-to" books that have told me a thousand different things, sometimes conflicting. Only as of late have I realized it's all opinion. Some of it is proven methods, yes, but that doesn't mean it's the way everyone should do it.


----------



## Sunny

I don't think it all has to be made into dictionary lengths as Squidboy said.  

I don't usually draw it out into long paragraphs like the examples show. It doesn't mean you have to take your "thought", "felt", "looked" verbs and make it into some long drawn out novel for each instance. Just changing it in simple ways works too. Well, that's my opinion anyway. 

I _felt_ the sun hot on my face. 

or 

Sweat trickled down my neck. The sun was bright today. 

I think the second one is a big improvement, and I just took out the word "felt". It's easy for the reader to know what they are feeling without me telling them what was felt. It's just a little change but a huge difference in feel. :icon_cheesygrin:


----------



## Tettsuo

Sunny said:


> I don't think it all has to be made into dictionary lengths as Squidboy said.
> 
> I don't usually draw it out into long paragraphs like the examples show. It doesn't mean you have to take your "thought", "felt", "looked" verbs and make it into some long drawn out novel for each instance. Just changing it in simple ways works too. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
> 
> I _felt_ the sun hot on my face.
> 
> or
> 
> Sweat trickled down my neck. The sun was bright today.
> 
> I think the second one is a big improvement, and I just took out the word "felt". It's easy for the reader to know what they are feeling without me telling them what was felt. It's just a little change but a huge difference in feel. :icon_cheesygrin:


This to me is an example of why rules don't always work.  I like the first sentence more than the second.  It's clear and concise, the second doesn't have the same sense of a hard edge to it.

You can just as easily add:

The sun felt hot on my face, my skin tight and sharp like old yellowing newspaper.

The first isn't wrong or weak.  It's simply a matter of artistic interpretation.  Both can lead to power and meaningful feelings being conveyed if you write it that way.


----------



## Sunny

Tettsuo said:


> This to me is an example of why rules don't always work.  I like the first sentence more than the second.  It's clear and concise, the second doesn't have the same sense of a hard edge to it.
> 
> You can just as easily add:
> 
> The sun felt hot on my face, my skin tight and sharp like old yellowing newspaper.
> 
> The first isn't wrong or weak.  It's simply a matter of artistic interpretation.  Both can lead to power and meaningful feelings being conveyed if you write it that way.



Okay, so what if we just take out the word "felt"? 

I felt the hot sun on my face. 

or 

The sun was hot on my face. 

Why use the word felt? We know it was felt. There's really no reason for it, is there?


----------



## FleshEater

If the name Palahniuk were left from this thread, I think the discussion would have been better. 

After I read this (when Randy first sent it to me), I started looking for these principles in my reading. And, to my surprise, I found them hard at work. Where? Probably in the least of all places: Jack Ketchum's The Girl Next Door. 

Written entirely in first person, there were times that 15 pages would go by without one thought verb, or use of the words "is" or "has". I couldn't believe that Ketchum had applied this to his writing, and seeing that gave me a little more faith in the principles presented. 

So, I applied it to my writing. And in my opinion, it made it far better. Sometimes I wouldn't even have to re-write a thought verb, I just deleted it because it wasn't that important. 

The thing is, Chuck doesn't write like this. Pick up one of his novels. You'll find all of these forbidden words. However, I think he could progress in this direction in latter novels, but as it stands, he does not apply his own "exercise" in any current novels. It's nothing more than something to look at and try out.

Like others have said, this doesn't work for everyone. But, aren't we all here to be better writers? Why come to this idea with your nose in the air already upset and ready to condemn it to the fiery pits of Hell instead of with an open mind of possibly trying smething new? 

Stephen King told me to quit using ridiculous adverbs, and so I did. And it felt good, and looked even better. These ideas have had the same effect on me. Of course, I literally will try anything in my writing to make it better, regardless of how stupid I might think it is.


----------



## FleshEater

Sunny said:


> Okay, so what if we just take out the word "felt"?
> 
> I felt the hot sun on my face.
> 
> or
> 
> The sun was hot on my face.
> 
> Why use the word felt? We know it was felt. There's really no reason for it, is there?



Booyah! Exactly what I posted at the same time. Delete them, they're not needed. I would have hit "like," but it wasn't available at the moment.


----------



## shadowwalker

Sunny said:


> Okay, so what if we just take out the word "felt"?
> 
> I felt the hot sun on my face.
> 
> or
> 
> The sun was hot on my face.
> 
> Why use the word felt? We know it was felt. There's really no reason for it, is there?



Personally, I like the first sentence better because it puts me in the character, versus the rather 'bald' second statement.


----------



## Kevin

shadowwalker said:


> Personally, I like the first sentence better because it puts me in the character, versus the rather 'bald' second statement.


 Me too... 'The hot sun was on my face but I couldn't feel it. All I could feel was the humiliation.'  Could someone bald these for me, just as an example? Just curious...


----------



## philistine

If I listened to the advice of every professional writer, I'd be consulting more texts before actually writing than a corporate lawyer does before stepping into court.


----------



## squidtender

philistine said:


> If I listened to the advice of every professional writer, I'd be consulting more texts before actually writing than a corporate lawyer does before stepping into court.



The same is true with every profession. If you took the advice from a dozen different nutritionists on what _not_ to eat, you'll starve to death in a week. Heck, I think water is supposed to be bad for you anymore :shock:


----------



## Lewdog

You can die from just an ounce of H2O, yet it is used in every restaurant and kitchen.  Scary huh?  :lol:


----------



## squidtender

Here's a list of thought verbs (obviously not complete) that might help clear things up for some of you:



_wondered_
_thought_
_imagined_
_mulled over_
_stewed_
_assumed_
_doubted_
_speculated_
_sensed_
_believed_
_pondered_
_weighed_
_marveled_
_questioned_
_meditated_
_reflected_
_considered_
_noted_
_suspected_
_noticed_
_supposed_
_rationalized_
_analyzed_
_deduced_
_concluded_
_judged_
_deemed_
_reasoned_
_inferred_
_worked out_
_contemplated_


----------



## Jeko

> The narrator may be omniscient, or it may just be the writer telling the story from a Limited point of view (Kenny's).



I'm not sure you got what I was saying (or that I'm getting what you're saying). A human being can't be omniscient, and telling a story from either subjective or objective perspective defines whether we report the thoughts of a character. A third-person objective narrator simply cannot use thought verbs, because they have to be as human as possible.


----------



## Tettsuo

Sunny said:


> Okay, so what if we just take out the word "felt"?
> 
> I felt the hot sun on my face.
> 
> or
> 
> The sun was hot on my face.
> 
> Why use the word felt? We know it was felt. There's really no reason for it, is there?


Depends on who is speaking.  If you're writing from first person, yes.  That's because the writer is transcribing the thoughts of the character, and people often use words like felt, wondered, believed, etc. to express themselves.  If you're narrating the thoughts in third person, I'd have a different opinion.


----------



## FleshEater

Regardless of whether people use these thought verbs to express themselves or not, by removing them, you're not losing anything. Like I said, Jack Ketchum does this endlessly in The Girl Next Door, and it's invisible. He wrote it in first person, and by negating the use of words like "is" or "has" and thought verbs, he kept you in the story and it felt more natural and real. Did he apply these principles throughout the entire story? No. But when he did, nothing was lost. 

For those of you using the excuse that you refuse to hang onto every single piece of advice you receive from another writer. I have to ask, why are you here? Everyone posts work on here for critique. Everyone critiques that work. Are you saying the critiques are worthless because there are so many different opinions that you can't keep track of them all, or even attempt to use any of them?


Instead of coming to this with your arms crossed and shaking your head, "No." Why not sit down with a WIP and try to use these principles? It's not going to turn you into Palahniuk, and it's not going to destroy your masterpiece. You can always delete the outcome and go back to writing like you never heard this before. But, the idea is to try new things on to see if they fit. 

When I applied these to my WIP, I found myself asking why I wrote a sentence the way I did to begin with. What was the purpose of that sentence? After I unpacked it, it actually added nice little details into the story. 

For instance, my opening paragraph went from this;

It’s been five miles since he’s seen another car. He slows the van down and comes to a stop. Looking both ways, he turns left through the intersection off Route 33 onto Hill Road. It’s a low-traffic paved road without lines. There are no street lights, no homes. He knows there’s a pull off ahead on the right where he can get himself together and calm down after everything’s done. From there, it’s two miles to Route 33. That’s three minutes, twenty-two seconds. He passes the pull off and glances at the clock. Six minutes, fifty-one seconds. That’s how long the drive took last time. 

To this;


He slows the van down and comes to a stop. The last car he passed was five-minutes-twenty-eight seconds ago. The driver was holding a cup of coffee below her chin, lips pursed, blowing on the coffee to cool it down. He watched as she passed. Her eyes never left the road. She never saw him, or the van.

In that moment he saw how his actions would affect her. A woman that drove the same route to work every day, preoccupied with mundane tasks, reminders, unaware of the tragedy unfolding ten miles from her commute. She wouldn’t be aware until after, when she’d watch the story on the local eleven o’clock news. She’d see how similar her life was to the victim’s, and that would terrify her, make her vulnerable. The threat was no longer far away. It was close. It was real. She’d try to understand, maybe even blame herself. She could have passed whoever was responsible, even seen their face or spoke to them at the gas station while filling her coffee mug. The guilt won’t last. But that doesn’t matter, because the scar his actions leave will. 



The above isn't perfect, but it's still a rough draft. The point is, is that by considering these principles, it forced me to really think about what I was writing, and why I was writing it. Sure, I could simply tell the reader everything, but why not explore my characters more? By forcing myself not to use words like "is" or "has" or "knew" or "thought," I opened up the reasons why. 

As I've seen before, every writer on here will offer up why they don't like the second version. But, ask yourself this. If you'd never read the first version, what would you think of the second? 

Here is another example. However, it's only one example written in first and third.

I opened the door this morning and was greeted by another hot day. The air was thick and humid, and every piece of clothing stuck to me like I'd ran a mile.

Matt opened the door this morning and was greeted by another hot day. The air was thick and humid. Every piece of clothing stuck to him like he'd ran a mile. 

This can literally be done in every sentence that you attempt to use words like "feel," "know," etc. etc. etc. And, without using 8 sentences to say it. What does it offer? It offers your reader the chance to be in the story, in real time.


----------



## Tettsuo

FleshEater said:


> Regardless of whether people use these thought verbs to express themselves or not, by removing them, you're not losing anything.


Right here I disagree.  You are losing something when the person's thoughts are not clear, but muddled with descriptions that aren't needed.

I feel hot and sweaty.

Very clear representation of how someone is feeling.  Right away the reader can connect to the character and personalize the thought.

My shirt clings to my skin, damp with sweat.

Not as clear, but very descriptive.  The reader can visualize what's occurring.

I feel hot and sweat. The shirt I pressed perfectly moments ago, now clings to my damp skin.

IMO this is even better than the individual sentences.  We the reader now know exactly how the character feels and what the character is experiencing visually.  Sure you could write "The shirt I pressed perfectly moments ago, now clings to my damp skin", but that begs the question... why is his skin damp? Is he sick with a fever?  Did someone toss a bucket of water on him?  Is it raining?  There an immediacy to the first sentence that doesn't automatically come across the same in the second. Both have their place and both are valuable.  To exclude either is foolish imho.



> Like I said, Jack Ketchum does this endlessly in The Girl Next Door, and it's invisible. He wrote it in first person, and by negating the use of words like "is" or "has" and thought verbs, he kept you in the story and it felt more natural and real. *Did he apply these principles throughout the entire story? No.* But when he did, nothing was lost.


And that's MY point.  All of it is useful.  Nothing should be exclude from your toolbox.  There are no hard and fast rules that MUST be adhered to at all times.  That's all I'm saying.



> For those of you using the excuse that you refuse to hang onto every single piece of advice you receive from another writer. I have to ask, why are you here? Everyone posts work on here for critique. Everyone critiques that work. Are you saying the critiques are worthless because there are so many different opinions that you can't keep track of them all, or even attempt to use any of them?


No one is saying that all advice is worthless... just some of it.  Some advice isn't applicable for every piece you write, just like you don't use a phillip's screwdriver when a flat head will work better.



> Instead of coming to this with your arms crossed and shaking your head, "No." Why not sit down with a WIP and try to use these principles? It's not going to turn you into Palahniuk, and it's not going to destroy your masterpiece. You can always delete the outcome and go back to writing like you never heard this before. But, the idea is to try new things on to see if they fit.


People are saying no to the idea that thought verbs are bad.  They are not and never will be bad.  But, they should be used when needed just like every other tool we use in writing.


----------



## FleshEater

Tettsuo said:


> Right here I disagree. You are losing something when the person's thoughts are not clear, but muddled with descriptions that aren't needed.
> 
> I feel hot and sweaty.
> 
> Very clear representation of how someone is feeling. Right away the reader can connect to the character and personalize the thought.
> 
> My shirt clings to my skin, damp with sweat.
> 
> Not as clear, but very descriptive. The reader can visualize what's occurring.
> 
> I feel hot and sweat. The shirt I pressed perfectly moments ago, now clings to my damp skin.
> 
> IMO this is even better than the individual sentences. We the reader now know exactly how the character feels and what the character is experiencing visually. Sure you could write "The shirt I pressed perfectly moments ago, now clings to my damp skin", but that begs the question... why is his skin damp? Is he sick with a fever? Did someone toss a bucket of water on him? Is it raining? There an immediacy to the first sentence that doesn't automatically come across the same in the second. Both have their place and both are valuable. To exclude either is foolish imho.



Look at my examples again. I make it very clear that it's a hot and humid day, and that's why the character is sweaty. Very clear. And not once did I use the word "feel." We are discussing fiction here, not non-fiction. Not every little piece of information needs to be spoonfed to a reader. Every example you provided was missing a little more detail, and that's what you're basing your example on. Of course, "My shirt clings to my skin, damp with sweat," isn't very clear. But, give us one sentence of detail prior to the sentence, as I did in my examples, and there is your clarity. Without telling the reader flat out, "I feel this." 




Tettsuo said:


> And that's MY point. All of it is useful. Nothing should be exclude from your toolbox. There are no hard and fast rules that MUST be adhered to at all times. That's all I'm saying.




Chuck isn't saying that they should be excluded either. He's asking readers that are writers to refrain from using them for 6 months as an exercise. 



Tettsuo said:


> No one is saying that all advice is worthless... just some of it. Some advice isn't applicable for every piece you write, just like you don't use a phillip's screwdriver when a flat head will work better.



Most advice is applicable in almost everything you write, unless it's dialogue. I use a minimalist approach, and it can be done in any format for any story. The advice in question is applicable in EVERY situation, because it brings reason to the table when discussing emotions, or rather, when telling emotions. 




Tettsuo said:


> People are saying no to the idea that thought verbs are bad. They are not and never will be bad. But, they should be used when needed just like every other tool we use in writing.



They're saying no without thinking it through, or even trying it. The wave of posts that followed the start of this thread shows that.

And again, I haven't seen one example where a thought verb was "needed." Expressed in opinions by others they're needed, but there is no way of proving that a thought verb is actually needed anywhere, in any sentence. Even in your examples the thought verbs are not needed if the sentence before and after properly describe the "why."





I realize all advice is to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially advice from one amateur to another. But, when a well known, well written, extensively published author offers up advice, I choose to listen. I swallowed this information like a brick when I first read it, and I wanted to sledge my computer into a million pieces when I first tried Chuck's exercise. However, after calming down, evaluating the reasoning behind it, I found it to be a very, very useful tool, and great advice.


----------



## shadowwalker

FleshEater said:


> Most advice is applicable in almost everything you write, unless it's dialogue. I use a minimalist approach, and it can be done in any format for any story. The advice in question is applicable in EVERY situation, because it brings reason to the table when discussing emotions, or rather, when telling emotions.
> 
> They're saying no without thinking it through, or even trying it. The wave of posts that followed the start of this thread shows that.
> 
> And again, I haven't seen one example where a thought verb was "needed." Expressed in opinions by others they're needed, but there is no way of proving that a thought verb is actually needed anywhere, in any sentence. Even in your examples the thought verbs are not needed if the sentence before and after properly describe the "why."
> 
> I realize all advice is to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially advice from one amateur to another. But, when a well known, well written, extensively published author offers up advice, I choose to listen. I swallowed this information like a brick when I first read it, and I wanted to sledge my computer into a million pieces when I first tried Chuck's exercise. However, after calming down, evaluating the reasoning behind it, I found it to be a very, very useful tool, and great advice.



Give me 10 different professional writers with their lists of "how-to" and "do this" and "don't do that" and there will be 10 lists which contradict each other at various points. I don't care if it worked for Hemingway - it doesn't work for me. Stephen King said "this", someone else said "that". If most advice is applicable in almost every situation, I would spend all my time rewriting because Author A said this, then rewriting again because Author B said just the opposite. Advice is just that - advice. It may or may not be helpful depending on the writer and the project. Just because an author is a professional does not make them God.

As an exercise, yes, it has as much validity and usefulness as any other exercise (take that for what you will) - but as a reader and a writer, 'thought' verbs don't bother me or cause me to throw down the book - unless, like _any other part_ of writing, it's misused or abused. Mere usage is neither.

Oh, and please don't presume to know whether I'm offering an opinion "without thinking it through, or even trying it". You have no idea what my (or anyone else's) thought process is.


----------



## Kyle R

Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.


^ The above excerpt was written by a professional, published author, in an article about POV writing. It was given as an example of good writing, of giving the reader an insight into the character's motivations and thoughts.

I consider it weak writing. Or, lazy. However you want to call it. And yes, that is only my personal opinion, but allow me to show why I feel that way.

The example is laced with the very same type of thinking/feeling verbs that are the subject of Randy's OP. To rewrite the passage, first I'd identify the verbs:


Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.


The portions highlighted in red are what I like to call thought/feel tags. I'm always on the lookout for these in my writing. Usually, I'll leave them in on first drafts, then go back in and "unpack" them, as Chuck recommends.

She was terrified
Good for day to day conversation, where conveying information is usually the main priority. Not the best for fiction-writing, where eliciting emotions in the reader is usually the main priority. Show me her being terrified, instead of telling me she's terrified.

She was wondering
Show me her wondering, instead of telling me she's wondering.

She decided
Show me her decision-process, instead of telling me she decided.

Notice how there's a lot of "show me instead of tell me"? Yes, like Chuck mentioned in the article, this is show versus tell at a basic level.

So once again, for comparison we have the original passage:


Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.


And here is how I'd rewrite the passage, "unpacking" the thought/feel verbs to show the actual thoughts/feelings, as recommended in the OP:


Betty walked carefully down the street, her heart thundering in her chest. Her heels clicked against the pavement, echoing into the night. Steam puffed from her lips in jagged spurts. The metal edges of her keys dug into the palm of her hand.

What if the man came back? What if he was hiding in the hedges right now, waiting for her? Would she be able to fight him off?

She could rake his face with her keys, maybe. Wasn't that what they recommended at that company meeting? Something about pressure points or soft spots or... God, why hadn't she paid attention? 

Maybe her umbrella would work. It was heavy enough, wasn't it? Heavy enough to give Jeff a purple bruise that time she accidentally jabbed him with it, at least.

Betty nodded to herself and tugged the umbrella from her satchel. Yes, if the man came back, she'd slam the umbrella straight into the bastard's face.


What do you think? Improvement, yes? Instead of being told Betty was terrified, the reader gets a chance to sense her fear. Instead of being told that Betty wondered, the reader gets to experience her wonderings. Instead of being told she decided, the reader gets to experience her decision process.

The thoughts/feelings come through, unannounced, unobstructed, and the result, in my opinion, is an improvement.

:encouragement:


----------



## FleshEater

shadowwalker said:


> Give me 10 different professional writers with their lists of "how-to" and "do this" and "don't do that" and there will be 10 lists which contradict each other at various points. I don't care if it worked for Hemingway - it doesn't work for me. Stephen King said "this", someone else said "that". If most advice is applicable in almost every situation, I would spend all my time rewriting because Author A said this, then rewriting again because Author B said just the opposite. Advice is just that - advice. It may or may not be helpful depending on the writer and the project. Just because an author is a professional does not make them God.
> 
> Oh, and please don't presume to know whether I'm offering an opinion "without thinking it through, or even trying it". You have no idea what my (or anyone else's) thought process is.



You're right, if you sat there with the top ten writing rules from the top ten authors, you'd spend all your time re-writing. However, go back and look at your progression in writing. Haven't all of those rules shaped (to a degree) the writer you are today? Perhaps not consciously, but how many times when you were starting out did you take one of these rules and work it to death until it felt "right" to you? I know I've done it with every rule I've read. And I'm sure most writers have as well. It's how we learn. And, once you learn to craft and use the rule, it is applicable in every situation. It's just a matter of wielding it to work in every situation. 

To tie this in with your last statement.

You're right there, too. I don't know what everyone's experience or thought process is with the ideas presented here. However, I do know what their responses were, and most of them look more like five second posts calling B.S. on this "psuedo" rule, rather than an intelligent conversation discussing the pros and cons of it. And to reiterate, I said most, not all.


----------



## FleshEater

KyleColorado said:


> Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.
> 
> 
> ^ The above excerpt was written by a professional, published author, in an article about POV writing. It was given as an example of good writing, of giving the reader an insight into the character's motivations and thoughts.
> 
> I consider it weak writing. Or, lazy. However you want to call it. And yes, that is only my personal opinion, but allow me to show why I feel that way.
> 
> The example is laced with the very same type of thinking/feeling verbs that are the subject of Randy's OP. To rewrite the passage, first I'd identify the verbs:
> 
> 
> Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.
> 
> 
> The portions highlighted in red are what I like to call thought/feel tags. I'm always on the lookout for these in my writing. Usually, I'll leave them in on first drafts, then go back in and "unpack" them, as Chuck recommends.
> 
> She was terrified
> Good for day to day conversation, where conveying information is usually the main priority. Not the best for fiction-writing, where eliciting emotions in the reader is usually the main priority. Show me her being terrified, instead of telling me she's terrified.
> 
> She was wondering
> Show me her wondering, instead of telling me she's wondering.
> 
> She decided
> Show me her decision-process, instead of telling me she decided.
> 
> Notice how there's a lot of "show me instead of tell me"? Yes, like Chuck mentioned in the article, this is show versus tell at a basic level.
> 
> So once again, for comparison we have the original passage:
> 
> 
> Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.
> 
> 
> And here is how I'd rewrite the passage, "unpacking" the thought/feel verbs to show the actual thoughts/feelings, as recommended in the OP:
> 
> 
> Betty walked carefully down the street, her heart thundering in her chest. Her heels clicked against the pavement, echoing into the night. Steam puffed from her lips in jagged spurts. The metal edges of her keys dug into the palm of her hand.
> 
> What if the man came back? What if he was hiding in the hedges right now, waiting for her? Would she be able to fight him off?
> 
> She could rake his face with her keys, maybe. Wasn't that what they recommended at that company meeting? Something about pressure points or soft spots or... God, why hadn't she paid attention?
> 
> Maybe her umbrella would work. It was heavy enough, wasn't it? Heavy enough to give Jeff a purple bruise that time she accidentally jabbed him with it, at least.
> 
> Betty nodded to herself and tugged the umbrella from her satchel. Yes, if the man came back, she'd slam the umbrella straight into the bastard's face.
> 
> 
> What do you think? Improvement, yes? Instead of being told Betty was terrified, the reader gets a chance to sense her fear. Instead of being told that Betty wondered, the reader gets to experience her wonderings. Instead of being told she decided, the reader gets to experience her decision process.
> 
> The thoughts/feelings come through, unannounced, unobstructed, and the result, in my opinion, is an improvement.
> 
> :encouragement:



I like the second one better. It could be cleaned up, but it places you in the woman's shoes a thousand times better than the original. However, this is just my _opinion_.


----------



## Tettsuo

KyleColorado said:


> Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.
> 
> 
> ^ The above excerpt was written by a professional, published author, in an article about POV writing. It was given as an example of good writing, of giving the reader an insight into the character's motivations and thoughts.
> 
> I consider it weak writing. Or, lazy. However you want to call it. And yes, that is only my personal opinion, but allow me to show why I feel that way.
> 
> The example is laced with the very same type of thinking/feeling verbs that are the subject of Randy's OP. To rewrite the passage, first I'd identify the verbs:
> 
> 
> Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.
> 
> 
> The portions highlighted in red are what I like to call thought/feel tags. I'm always on the lookout for these in my writing. Usually, I'll leave them in on first drafts, then go back in and "unpack" them, as Chuck recommends.
> 
> She was terrified
> Good for day to day conversation, where conveying information is usually the main priority. Not the best for fiction-writing, where eliciting emotions in the reader is usually the main priority. Show me her being terrified, instead of telling me she's terrified.
> 
> She was wondering
> Show me her wondering, instead of telling me she's wondering.
> 
> She decided
> Show me her decision-process, instead of telling me she decided.
> 
> Notice how there's a lot of "show me instead of tell me"? Yes, like Chuck mentioned in the article, this is show versus tell at a basic level.
> 
> So once again, for comparison we have the original passage:
> 
> 
> Betty walked carefully down the street. She was terrified after the last attack. She was wondering what she would do if anybody jumped out of the hedges. She’d hit them with her umbrella, she decided.
> 
> 
> And here is how I'd rewrite the passage, "unpacking" the thought/feel verbs to show the actual thoughts/feelings, as recommended in the OP:
> 
> 
> Betty walked carefully down the street, her heart thundering in her chest. Her heels clicked against the pavement, echoing into the night. Steam puffed from her lips in jagged spurts. The metal edges of her keys dug into the palm of her hand.
> 
> What if the man came back? What if he was hiding in the hedges right now, waiting for her? Would she be able to fight him off?
> 
> She could rake his face with her keys, maybe. Wasn't that what they recommended at that company meeting? Something about pressure points or soft spots or... God, why hadn't she paid attention?
> 
> Maybe her umbrella would work. It was heavy enough, wasn't it? Heavy enough to give Jeff a purple bruise that time she accidentally jabbed him with it, at least.
> 
> Betty nodded to herself and tugged the umbrella from her satchel. Yes, if the man came back, she'd slam the umbrella straight into the bastard's face.
> 
> 
> What do you think? Improvement, yes? Instead of being told Betty was terrified, the reader gets a chance to sense her fear. Instead of being told that Betty wondered, the reader gets to experience her wonderings. Instead of being told she decided, the reader gets to experience her decision process.
> 
> The thoughts/feelings come through, unannounced, unobstructed, and the result, in my opinion, is an improvement.
> 
> :encouragement:


I like both for different reasons. In the first, I like brevity and the immediacy of the scene.  In the second, it builds tension and provides the reader with details that the first does not.

It's not always useful to expound upon each and every thought by provide tons of detail.  Honestly, that gets boring to me as a reader after going over pages and pages describing things that could have been explained in a paragraph.  I especially find it tiresome when the detail provided has little or no impact on the story itself.  It ends up feeling like noise and a lack of focus.

If the first example was a note or a piece of the character's motivation, it's great.  But if it's was the point of the story for the reader to be fully aware of her fears, it's doesn't work at all.  If the second example was the point of the story, it's perfect.  But if it's only a footnote, it's a waste of time to read that much into it.

There's a time and place for everything.


----------



## FleshEater

Tettsuo said:


> There's a time and place for everything.



Precisely. 

You don't have to unpack every single thought or emotion. But, you also don't have to use words like wondered, or thought, or knew, either. If or when a situation arises and you find it necessary to write, "He thought about opening the door," then just leave it out. Stick to the action, keep the character moving through the story. Pick and choose your emotions or thoughts you want to unpack. If you don't feel like unpacking them, then keep it focused on the action. 

Keep it simple.


----------



## squidtender

Tettsuo said:


> There's a time and place for everything.




And that's the point to exercises like these. Whether you use it a hundred times in a story or just once, it's up to you. But, the only way to grow as a writer is to absorb as much information as possible, talk to other writers about what you've learned and PRACTICE.


----------



## Tettsuo

squidtender said:


> I came across an article by Chuck Palahniuk. *He makes some great points about “thought” verbs and how to get rid of them. *Believe me, this is much harder than you’d think. The next time you write, you very well might be pulling your hair out . . . and hating me for making you think like this. Here goes . . .
> 
> (Chuck Palahniuk, Nuts and Bolts: "Thought" verbs, 2013)





squidtender said:


> And that's the point to exercises like these. *Whether you use it a hundred times in a story or just once, it's up to you.* But, the only way to grow as a writer is to absorb as much information as possible, talk to other writers about what you've learned and PRACTICE.



Do you now see why I and so many others disagreed with the original premise of the thread?

It's not that unpacking a thought verb isn't useful or valuable, it's the idea that they shouldn't be used at all.  That, I'm in disagreement with this thread over.


----------



## Tettsuo

FleshEater said:


> Precisely.
> 
> You don't have to unpack every single thought or emotion. *But, you also don't have to use words like wondered, or thought, or knew, either. If or when a situation arises and you find it necessary to write, "He thought about opening the door," then just leave it out.* Stick to the action, keep the character moving through the story. Pick and choose your emotions or thoughts you want to unpack. If you don't feel like unpacking them, then keep it focused on the action.
> 
> Keep it simple.


I disagree with the bold part.  Giving thought verbs does keep it simple.  It's far simpler than unpacking the thought each and every time.  Some times, just giving the thought verb for minor things is better than filling pages and pages trying to convey the thought through action verbs.


----------



## FleshEater

Perhaps. 

The next time you write a thought verb in a story, go back and try to unpack it, and elaborate on the why. If you can't, I'd say it's an unnecessary word. 

I've found in my own writing that sometimes when I go back and try to unpack a "know" or "thought," I simply can't. And I think it's because I don't know the reasons why myself. So, I take it out, get rid of it and keep the action moving.

If you can unpack your thought verb, by all means, simplify it. But, this is what we're talking about here. Knowing the why of your characters thoughts.


----------



## squidtender

Tettsuo said:


> Do you now see why I and so many others disagreed with the original premise of the thread?
> 
> It's not that unpacking a thought verb isn't useful or valuable, it's the idea that they shouldn't be used at all.  That, I'm in disagreement with this thread over.



But why take it black or white? You don't have to read this article and say "Follow it 100% or don't do it at all!". Just about every aspect of this craft is debatable, which is why we bring ideas forward and discuss them.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

I think Chuck is unintentionally giving bad advice here.  While it's true that actions and thoughts should have motivation behind them, that deeper knowledge should be revealed on a larger scale than the purple prose-infested paragraphs he offers.  If Adam _knew_ Gwen liked him, it should be because of the things she's done throughout the story, not because of a single massive paragraph the author smacks the reader with.

Also, "clearing the cigarette smoke from her eyes, blue eyes" is one of the worst bits of writing I've ever read.  No exaggeration.


----------



## Tettsuo

squidtender said:


> But why take it black or white? You don't have to read this article and say "Follow it 100% or don't do it at all!". Just about every aspect of this craft is debatable, which is why we bring ideas forward and discuss them.


I took it black or white because it was presented as such (which is why I quoted that portion of your original post).

I'm certainly not saying thought verbs are the end all be all.  Heck, my novel was written totally in first-person present-tense and I tried to make 100% sure that no thought verbs were used for the supporting characters (it's impossible for the main character to know the thoughts of those around him).  So trust me, I get it.

It appears we agree fundamentally.  Thought verbs shouldn't be tossed out altogether, but used when needed.  Just like everything else in our writer's toolkit.


----------



## Tettsuo

FleshEater said:


> Perhaps.
> 
> The next time you write a thought verb in a story, go back and try to unpack it, and elaborate on the why. If you can't, I'd say it's an unnecessary word.


I'd say it's worse than simply an unnecessary word.  It's the writer not knowing the characters and their motivations. 


> I've found in my own writing that sometimes when I go back and try to unpack a "know" or "thought," I simply can't. And I think it's because I don't know the reasons why myself. So, I take it out, get rid of it and keep the action moving.
> 
> If you can unpack your thought verb, by all means, simplify it. But, this is what we're talking about here. Knowing the why of your characters thoughts.


I agree.  As the creator, the writer should know the why's of what their characters feel, think and why they behavior as they do.  But, that doesn't mean that each and every thought needs to be detailed out to the reader.  Some thoughts aren't important enough in regards to the story to be detailed out to the reader.  I find efficiency is often very useful at times.  Some thoughts should be expounded upon as they're very important for moving the tale in the right direction.  Some are minor and detailing them out imo can muddle the story's pace.

Just to add, there are also times when a person's behavior is in opposition to their thoughts.  How would you unpack that, specifically for a minor character?  Is it worth the time to detail it out?  I'd say no.


----------



## squidtender

Because of the title? Once again, I was being factious and PRESENTED this as an article that I would like to share for discussion. I figured that most people would clearly see the "evil" part as humor, not as gospel.


----------



## Lewdog

Squid you are a horrible person and you should be sent to India and forced to sit in an un-ventilated room full of curry eating men with irritable bowel syndrome while making fake gold teeth.

I only say things like this to people I like, you should feel special.


----------



## Morkonan

In regards to the OP:

I agree that it's always best to "Show" and not "Tell." But, banning words or treating certain ones with an almost neurotic avoidance isn't the way to do it.

"She knew he loved her. She knew it. Everything he did screamed it at her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that he knew it too."

"Sam muddled over his choices. He could choose the hard candy or the new chocolate drops that just came in this morning. Decisions, decisions."

"Uriah sensed the tension in the air and placed his bulk between his master and the closest threat - the noisy dishwasher in the corner. Uriah knew that dishwasher was nothing but trouble, from the first day he heard its rumbling, discordant, beats and growls."

(Not good, but you get the idea, I'm sure.)

The only Evil word in a Writer's lexicon is "suddenly." It should never be used, ever. Never.


----------



## Lewdog

Morkonan said:


> In regards to the OP:
> 
> I agree that it's always best to "Show" and not "Tell." But, banning words or treating certain ones with an almost neurotic avoidance isn't the way to do it.
> 
> "She knew he loved her. She knew it. Everything he did screamed it at her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that he knew it too."
> 
> "Sam muddled over his choices. He could choose the hard candy or the new chocolate drops that just came in this morning. Decisions, decisions."
> 
> "Uriah sensed the tension in the air and placed his bulk between his master and the closest threat - the noisy dishwasher in the corner. Uriah knew that dishwasher was nothing but trouble, from the first day he heard its rumbling, discordant, beats and growls."
> 
> (Not good, but you get the idea, I'm sure.)
> 
> The only Evil word in a Writer's lexicon is "suddenly." It should never be used, ever. Never.




I suddenly see you in a different light.


----------



## Morkonan

Lewdog said:


> I suddenly see you in a different light.



Suddenly... poopies.


----------



## Jeko

> The only Evil word in a Writer's lexicon is "suddenly." It should never be used, ever. Never.



Proof that YA fiction is evil - it pops up everywhere!


----------



## Kyle R

Morkonan said:


> "She knew he loved her. She knew it. Everything he did screamed it at her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that he knew it too."
> 
> "Sam muddled over his choices. He could choose the hard candy or the new chocolate drops that just came in this morning. Decisions, decisions."
> 
> "Uriah sensed the tension in the air and placed his bulk between his master and the closest threat - the noisy dishwasher in the corner. Uriah knew that dishwasher was nothing but trouble, from the first day he heard its rumbling, discordant, beats and growls."




"[strike]She knew[/strike] He loved her. [strike]She knew it.[/strike] Everything he did screamed it at her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that he knew it too."

"Sam [strike]muddled over his choices[/strike] thumbed his lip. He could choose the hard candy or the new chocolate drops that just came in this morning. Decisions, decisions."

"The tension filled the air. Uriah [strike]sensed the tension in the air and[/strike] placed his bulk between his master and the closest threat - the noisy dishwasher in the corner. [strike]Uriah knew [/strike] That dishwasher was nothing but trouble, from the first day he heard its rumbling, discordant, beats and growls."


(Same meaning, minus the "evil" thought verbs.  And yes, partly I'm doing this just to mess with you, Mork. I actually agree with your post. But I couldn't resist. : P )


----------



## FleshEater

What is going on here? No more "Likes"?

Well, whatever, I "Like" Kyle's post. An excellent display of deleting words, which always makes something better.


----------



## Gamer_2k4

FleshEater said:


> What is going on here? No more "Likes"?



Just click the little six-pointed star at the bottom of the post, next to "Blog this Post" and add to their reputation instead.  That's a much underused feature on this site.


----------



## Morkonan

KyleColorado said:


> "[strike]She knew[/strike] He loved her. [strike]She knew it.[/strike] Everything he did screamed it at her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that he knew it too."
> 
> "Sam [strike]muddled over his choices[/strike] thumbed his lip. He could choose the hard candy or the new chocolate drops that just came in this morning. Decisions, decisions."
> 
> "The tension filled the air. Uriah [strike]sensed the tension in the air and[/strike] placed his bulk between his master and the closest threat - the noisy dishwasher in the corner. [strike]Uriah knew [/strike] That dishwasher was nothing but trouble, from the first day he heard its rumbling, discordant, beats and growls."
> 
> 
> (Same meaning, minus the "evil" thought verbs.  And yes, partly I'm doing this just to mess with you, Mork. I actually agree with your post. But I couldn't resist. : P )



But, it's a good illustration, nonetheless. See how the flavor of each of those passages changes? For instance, what if I had written the first one like this: 

"She knew he loved her. She _knew_ it. Everything he did screamed it at  her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that  he knew it too."

Here, the character is insisting that something is true, even if it isn't. (Which, it probably isn't as far as the Reader is concerned.) What we have here is the beginning reveal of a character that is obviously going to turn murderous - Fatal Attraction is born! Just a simple italicization makes a huge difference.

Take out the "knew" or any other introspection that includes "Thought Verbs" and I can not successfully communicate the illusion that this somewhat unstable woman is experiencing. I "must" use those thought verbs if I want to communicate these things in that specific, insistent, way. Sure, I could use other ways, but then I wouldn't be able to easily have the unstable woman defy the Reader's logic by insisting she "knows" the boy/man loves her. The Wall has not been breached and the woman does not know the Reader is watching her thoughts, but, for herself, she uses that word in absence of evidence, to prove it to herself. If she already "knows" he loves her, she needs no logical form of evidence to prove it to herself...


----------



## Leyline

Morkonan said:


> But, it's a good illustration, nonetheless. See how the flavor of each of those passages changes? For instance, what if I had written the first one like this:
> 
> "She knew he loved her. She _knew_ it. Everything he did screamed it at  her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that  he knew it too."
> 
> Here, the character is insisting that something is true, even if it isn't. (Which, it probably isn't as far as the Reader is concerned.) What we have here is the beginning reveal of a character that is obviously going to turn murderous - Fatal Attraction is born! Just a simple italicization makes a huge difference.
> 
> Take out the "knew" or any other introspection that includes "Thought Verbs" and I can not successfully communicate the illusion that this somewhat unstable woman is experiencing. I "must" use those thought verbs if I want to communicate these things in that specific, insistent, way. Sure, I could use other ways, but then I wouldn't be able to easily have the unstable woman defy the Reader's logic by insisting she "knows" the boy/man loves her. The Wall has not been breached and the woman does not know the Reader is watching her thoughts, but, for herself, she uses that word in absence of evidence, to prove it to herself. If she already "knows" he loves her, she needs no logical form of evidence to prove it to herself...



Well said.


----------



## InkwellMachine

Morkonan said:


> But, it's a good illustration, nonetheless. See how the flavor of each of those passages changes? For instance, what if I had written the first one like this:
> 
> "She knew he loved her. She _knew_ it. Everything he did screamed it at  her. There was no doubt. Now, all she had to do was to convince him that  he knew it too."
> 
> Here, the character is insisting that something is true, even if it isn't. (Which, it probably isn't as far as the Reader is concerned.) What we have here is the beginning reveal of a character that is obviously going to turn murderous - Fatal Attraction is born! Just a simple italicization makes a huge difference.
> 
> Take out the "knew" or any other introspection that includes "Thought Verbs" and I can not successfully communicate the illusion that this somewhat unstable woman is experiencing. I "must" use those thought verbs if I want to communicate these things in that specific, insistent, way. Sure, I could use other ways, but then I wouldn't be able to easily have the unstable woman defy the Reader's logic by insisting she "knows" the boy/man loves her. The Wall has not been breached and the woman does not know the Reader is watching her thoughts, but, for herself, she uses that word in absence of evidence, to prove it to herself. If she already "knows" he loves her, she needs no logical form of evidence to prove it to herself...


I would 'like' this post if that were still an option.


----------



## Tettsuo

InkwellMachine said:


> I would 'like' this post if that were still an option.


You can add to Morkonan's rep by clicking the star.


----------



## Kevin

Cadence said:


> Proof that YA fiction is evil - it pops up everywhere!


 It's also because nothing is "suddenly" with fogies. They've (we've) either seen it all before or it unravels slowly, unless we're in denial (for instance: _"He suddenly died."_)


----------



## Leyline

Another place where 'thought verbs' become extremely helpful is in the establishment of an unreliable narrator, one of my favorite techniques in both reading and writing. Now, it's not impossible to write an unreliable narrator without thought verbs*, but it becomes far more difficult to _signpost the unreliability to the reader_, which is often a very important aspect of the technique.

*I've seen Gene Wolfe do it. But anyone who knows my literary tastes knows that that's the equivalent of saying 'I've seen God do it.'


----------



## shadowwalker

FleshEater said:


> You're right, if you sat there with the top ten writing rules from the top ten authors, you'd spend all your time re-writing. However, go back and look at your progression in writing. Haven't all of those rules shaped (to a degree) the writer you are today? Perhaps not consciously, but how many times when you were starting out did you take one of these rules and work it to death until it felt "right" to you? I know I've done it with every rule I've read. And I'm sure most writers have as well. It's how we learn. And, once you learn to craft and use the rule, it is applicable in every situation. It's just a matter of wielding it to work in every situation.



Strangely enough - and perhaps fortunately - I never read advice books or articles by writers until long after I had been writing. Perhaps not so strangely, when I did start checking them out, most of them bored me to tears. It was like running down a dating list: Nope, not that one; yeah, already do that; no, that's bogus, yada yada yada. I knew they were just as full of snowflakes as anyone else when they started telling me I would be a lousy writer if I didn't do things their way (The Rules). Well, since I already knew I was not a lousy writer and I hadn't been doing things their way, I didn't see much point in continuing to read. So the only rules I follow are grammar rules, and there are exceptions even to that. What other writers say - regardless of their sales figures - is mere _advice_. It worked for _them_. That's all. (And frankly, there are a lot of readers who would probably say it really _didn't_ work for them.)


----------

