# Words to Avoid



## PrinzeCharming (May 18, 2016)

*All writers will fall into ineffective writing habits hindering their potential to write masterpieces. One of the most common writing habits to kill is the usage of unnecessary words. The following word table is an example of these words: 


*
*
any infinitive (to walk)**feel**not**about**finally**often**all**frequently**only**almost
**got**so**always**just**that**anxiously**merely **"the public"**believe**nearly**then**eagerly**need**unique**every**never**very*

*
*​*Throughout my critiquing, judging, and overall mentoring here at Writing Forums, I have been secretly using these guidelines to refine your pieces. Take a look at the resources I have provided, and comment your thoughts on this topic! *

*Resources: 
*


43 Words You Should Cut From Your Writing Immediately
Words and Phrases to Avoid

Plaque Words and Phrases

Conciseness 

10 Words to Avoid When Writing

15 Clunky Phrases to Eliminate from Your Writing Today ... and How to Crack Down on Wordiness

15 words you need to eliminate from your vocabulary to sound smarter

10 Words to Eliminate From Your Writing


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 18, 2016)

I put it as qualifying words weaken things, as:-

One of the most common writing habits... 
One of the common writing habits...

People often see it as adding a word that adds importance, but it really does not work that way. Another way of putting it is 'less is more' that is usually true. 

It can pay to consider whether you actually want a 'strong' sentence or 'more', at times weak and lesser can be appropriate.


----------



## Terry D (May 18, 2016)

I use many qualifiers in my forum posting. It just seems more conversational.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 18, 2016)

*Yeah, you are absolutely right. I would call it, 'word saturation' to describe how a sentence cannot take any more words. Imagine life without removing verbosity. 
**
On the Road: *







​



Olly Buckle said:


> People often see it as adding a word that adds importance, but it really does not work that way.



*Olly, you brought up a great point. Our sentences weaken when we use useless words. See the example below. *






*Discussion Idea:  How would you define being concise? 
*





*WRITERS: What does plain, simple language mean? 


Here's an example of unnecessary words. 
*








*Going back to Olly's point, make every word count. 
*






​


----------



## Jigawatt (May 18, 2016)

This is excellent information. Thanks for posting. I spent time on all the links. Some I knew, and some was new (yeah, I rhymed, and punned).

When I revisit material written as a teenager, I see the bad examples in my writing. I've grown as a writer, one less word at a time. One of my favorite words was suddenly: "Jose squatted at the water's edge and dipped his bloody hand into the cool water. Suddenly, the sea erupted, engulfing Jose in a froth of water and tentacles. Jose, kicking and screaming, was pulled into the sea. The gurgling cries drowned in a swoosh, replaced by the caws of seagulls nipping at the bits of meat floating on the surface of the water." It took years to realize the adverb, suddenly, was having the opposite intended effect. I don't use suddenly anymore. Too bad I didn't have access to this information as a teenager.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (May 18, 2016)

To that list, I'd add a two others:

Suzannah Windsor Freeman made a list of what she calls filter words (but some call crutch words) that break POV because they're the narrator, explaining, rather than what the protagonist is doing/feeling/thinking.

Another word is "was," in its various forms. A perfectly good word, except, when used by the author to explain, and so breaks POV: "There was concern in Zena’s voice," Which is the narrator explaining, as against, "Concern showed in Zena’s voice," which is the protagonist's observation.


----------



## ppsage (May 18, 2016)

I agree with Terry. There's a time and place for everything and categorical prescriptions lead to predictable voices. Flashy graphics notwithstanding.


----------



## Sam (May 19, 2016)

There is no such thing as a weak word in the hands of a skilled writer.


----------



## bdcharles (May 19, 2016)

"as" is a big one for me. I want to use it far more sparingly than I generally do. It is like a shortcut, something out of Making Longer Sentences 101. "Bob skipped on as the world exploded." IMO this should be something like "Bob skipped on, a shadow-marionette against the fiery tumult of the exploding world." This way you can deploy relevant imagery, add impact and colour, say something about Bob, in place of that two-letter germ.


----------



## Aquilo (May 19, 2016)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Another word is "was," in its various forms. A perfectly good word, except, when used by the author to explain, and so breaks POV: "There was concern in Zena’s voice," Which is the narrator explaining, as against, "Concern showed in Zena’s voice," which is the protagonist's observation.



Copula Be (was) usage is the main offender in most manuscripts. Filtering... show and tell... summary, they all come down to using _copula be_ and copula verbs: she _was _beautiful, there _was_ concern in her voice. She looks, feels, hears became...

There's always a place for copula Be etc, but you need to make sure you know what it's doing in the text, know when and why to not filter: 


> Marley was dead: to begin with


(Dickens)

Dickens starts with a pretty flat copula be usage in a relational clause: Marley was X. It's known as "Schema-reinforcing" in general because its going with a state of being known to readers: dead. But then he turns that state of being around on the reader with adding: to begin with. And it's shifts reinforcing a normal state of being into schema-refreshing territory: playing with an unknown state, or turning what readers are used to, upside down. It works well, especially in the social climate, as ghosts were still new and not written about.

Dickens is brilliant at showing why there's no such thing as weak usage in a skilled hand.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Terry D said:


> I use many qualifiers in my forum posting. It just seems more conversational.



We can feed our old habits in forum posting. Although we are not writing for business, we should at least practice deleting unnecessary qualifiers. 






​Think about the examples. How unrealistic can something be? Why _isn't _there a measure of being convinced? I am not entirely convinced about that one.  We might have had something exciting or worth experiencing, but were they always definite? I can understand uniqueness.



Here's another example to throw in for conciseness.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

The passive voice is largely responsible. The advice is good to bear in mind while editing, but I'd refrain from calling them "words to avoid".

Hilary Mantel, Bring Up the Bodies: "His children are falling from the sky. He watches from horseback, acres of England stretching behind him; they drop, gilt-winged, each with a blood-filled gaze."

When she says that they are falling from the sky, the continual falling suspends them up there in the reader's mind until they drop (they're not dropping now) in the form of a bird. It fits the poetic imagery she uses in the second paragraph for the transmigration (metempsychosis) of the soul, because the children have already been transmigrated from child to bird in our mind.

So you can see how "are falling" or "were falling" (if you were writing in the past tense) is superior to the more concise: "his children fall from the sky." They're no longer suspended, hauntingly, on the upper currents until they drop in this instance.


----------



## Terry D (May 19, 2016)

PrinzeCharming said:


> We can feed our old habits in forum posting. Although we are not writing for business, we should at least practice deleting unnecessary qualifiers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Practice what you like, when you like. I choose to keep my general forum posting casual -- even wordy at times -- because that's how I want my casual writing to be read. It's far different from my writing for publication, or even for LM competitions.

BTW -- There are no words to avoid. Only bad ways of using them.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 19, 2016)

Terry D said:


> There are no words to avoid. Only bad ways of using them.


Quoted for truth and accuracy.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

Does anybody else have a problem with removing "that" from sentences? It just doesn't seem right to me. For instance, in one of the blog posts linked in the op, the author gives this advice: That. If a sentence still makes sense after removing “that,” delete it. For example, “This is the most amazing blog post that I’ve ever read.” can be, “This is the most amazing blog post I’ve ever read.”


----------



## Sam (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Does anybody else have a problem with removing "that" from sentences? It just doesn't seem right to me. For instance, in one of the blog posts linked in the op, the author gives this advice: That. If a sentence still makes sense after removing “that,” delete it. For example, “This is the most amazing blog post that I’ve ever read.” can be, “This is the most amazing blog post I’ve ever read.”



If you read classic or old literature, a lot of the time the writers don't omit 'that' from any sentence. That may be why you find it disconcerting. 

Personally, I remove them in sentences where they aren't necessary, such as the one you referenced above.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Does anybody else have a problem with removing "that" from sentences? It just doesn't seem right to me. For instance, in one of the blog posts linked in the op, the author gives this advice: That. If a sentence still makes sense after removing “that,” delete it. For example, “This is the most amazing blog post that I’ve ever read.” can be, “This is the most amazing blog post I’ve ever read.”




I generally follow *that *rule. 'That' is often a filler for most sentences. If there's no need for it, why use it? 'That' is a follower word. It doesn't have to be there, but always makes an appearance.


----------



## Terry D (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> Does anybody else have a problem with removing "that" from sentences? It just doesn't seem right to me. For instance, in one of the blog posts linked in the op, the author gives this advice: That. If a sentence still makes sense after removing “that,” delete it. For example, “This is the most amazing blog post that I’ve ever read.” can be, “This is the most amazing blog post I’ve ever read.”



I'm tempted to say I struggle with 'that', but that wouldn't be entirely accurate. I'm aware, of it; sometimes too much so. I think the over use of 'that' is a hangover from conversation. I think that we say it a lot, so we tend to write it frequently.

Another word I am acutely aware of is, 'thing'. I was drilled by my high school rhetoric teacher that the vast majority of 'things' have names, and we should use them rather than default to the less precise word. In fact, he claimed he would never give a passing grade to any work in which that word appeared. I don't know if that's good advice, or not, but, to this day, I use 'thing' only rarely.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 19, 2016)

You guys aren't serious, are you?

Is this some kind of joke that I'm not getting?


----------



## bdcharles (May 19, 2016)

"That" can be a hallmark of voice. Writing may not always be in the most perfect prose, particularly where you're psychically up close to a character. Additionally if you want to write in a more florid, dense, Lovecraftian style - that is to say; that which cannot be named - "that" becomes an indispensible tool. As with anything, it depends what you're trying to achieve. Not overusing a word, breaking rules while knowing you're breaking them, and all...
THAT!


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Terry D said:


> Another word I am acutely aware of is, 'thing'. I was drilled by my high school rhetoric teacher that the vast majority of 'things' have names, and we should use them rather than default to the less precise word. In fact, he claimed he would never give a passing grade to any work in which that word appeared. I don't know if that's good advice, or not, but, to this day, I use 'thing' only rarely.




I believe we were all taught in school that a noun is a person, place or thing. If the word was not classified as a person or place, we naturally called it a 'thing'. It later became 'stuff'. We don't say people are 'stuff' or places are 'stuff'. People or places often carry _things _we can _stuff _in our pockets. Ah, now 'stuff' is a verb. 

Your teacher has a point, but I would have never taught my students to eliminate 'things'. We experience living and non-living things. I believe we should reserve 'things' and 'stuff' to the context of the sentence provided.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

I end up going with what feels right. I sit there with so much ambivalence about every word I write that if I didn't end the debate by saying, oh sod it, I'd be stuck to my chair in front of an ever-changing single sentence. We all have our own oh-sod-it point, and it is the saviour of our writing.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I end up going with what feels right. I sit there with so much ambivalence about every word I write that if I didn't end the debate by saying, oh sod it, I'd be stuck to my chair in front of an ever-changing single sentence. We all have our own oh-sod-it point, and it is the saviour of our writing.




Exactly. Imagine words are hired to do a job. If one word isn't doing a significant job, what's the point? Are we allowing this word to change the quality of the performance? If the word can stay, let it stay. If it feels right, it feels right. You know your writing better than you do with mine. We all have preferences. We all have styles. How we utilize words will separate us from them.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 19, 2016)

PrinzeCharming said:


> Exactly. Imagine words are hired to do a job. If one word isn't doing a significant job, what's the point? Are we allowing this word to change the quality of the performance? If the word can stay, let it stay. If it feels right, it feels right. You know your writing better than you do with mine. We all have preferences. We all have styles. How we utilize words will separate us from them.



You do understand that if we start adhere to these foolish rules all stories will start to sound exactly the same, right?

For me, it's like you're stating that certain colors shouldn't be used.  Or particular notes should be avoided.  Or there are specific movements dancers shouldn't preformed.

It's how you use those words that matter.  The same applies to all of these so-called rules that are ultimately meaningless when we put them to the test of actual application.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> You do understand that if we start adhere to these foolish rules all stories will start to sound exactly the same, right?
> 
> For me, it's like you're stating that certain colors shouldn't be used.  Or particular notes should be avoided.  Or there are specific movements dancers shouldn't preformed.
> 
> It's how you use those words that matter.  The same applies to all of these so-called rules that are ultimately meaningless when we put them to the test of actual application.



I think many of these words are the ones that are often used badly or without any thought. Of course, prohibiting their use is a waste of time. But if you can look past the issue of avoidance, there's some good advice here.

I think of a thread like this as consciousness raising, but with an impolitic thread title. However, most articles are written with these attention-grabbing headlines.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I think of a thread like this as consciousness raising, but with an impolitic thread title. However, most articles are written with these attention-grabbing headlines.



Now that I have your attention ... 

"Avoid" is often interpreted as being careful or cautious in our actions. In a writing forum, we're constantly communicating. Questions rise before our members click the thread link. Glad it worked.


----------



## Sam (May 19, 2016)

PrinzeCharming said:


> "Avoid" is often interpreted as being careful or cautious in our actions. In a writing forum, we're constantly communicating. Questions rise before our members click the thread link. Glad it worked.



'Avoid' means "do not touch with a sixty-foot barge pole", which is exactly why these threads get the responses they do. 

You can't tell someone to avoid something and then turn around and say, "What I really meant to say was be careful about using them". 

Avoid means avoid. Be careful means be careful. They're not interchangeable.


----------



## Tettsuo (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I think many of these words are the ones that are often used badly or without any thought. Of course, prohibiting their use is a waste of time. But if you can look past the issue of avoidance, there's some good advice here.
> 
> I think of a thread like this as consciousness raising, but with an impolitic thread title. However, most articles are written with these attention-grabbing headlines.



There are no words to avoid, only use in the best way possible to communication a point accurately.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Tettsuo said:


> There are no words to avoid, only use in the best way possible to communication a point accurately.



Exactly. We can't all bounce around in bubbles. We make decisions with our best interests. Whether you avoid something or be careful about it, we still carry on doing what we need to do. A word to avoid is 'avoid' itself.

I'm just playing with you guys. The irony is in the title.  It's not about avoiding but effectively utilizing.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

Sam said:


> 'Avoid' means "do not touch with a sixty-foot barge pole", which is exactly why these threads get the responses they do.
> 
> You can't tell someone to avoid something and then turn around and say, "What I really meant to say was be careful about using them".
> 
> Avoid means avoid. Be careful means be careful. They're not interchangeable.



Sam.:love_heart:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (May 19, 2016)

I think I get it.  As we fill our writing with fluff to avoid "said" words and -ly adverbs, we can at least cut these out to keep the word count down.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I think I get it.  As we fill our writing with fluff to avoid "said" words and -ly adverbs, we can at least cut these out to keep the word count down.



Excellent point. That's exactly why I brought up how I use these resources while judging. It's that feel good moment when a judge can guide a writer using the original message the writer expressed without all those extra words. If more members use some guidance to write a story within a 650 word limit, they might perform at their greatest potential. It's self-discipline. Everyone can do it.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

*The Words. The Reasons. The Options.*

The following are five weak words, the reasons to explain their weakness, and the options we can do about them. How do you feel about them? Is it really necessary to delete 'really'? Do unspecified 'things' need to be defined? If you truly believe in something, are you still not confident in your beliefs? What are your thoughts about passive vs. active voice? Are there passive or active voice words we shouldn't use? *
*


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 19, 2016)

It depends what you are trying to do, if you want to state something once, simply, it may appeal to a very limited audience. Look:-

 "I generally follow that rule. 'That' is often a filler for most sentences. If there's no need for it, why use it? 'That' is a follower word. It doesn't have to be there, but always makes an appearance."

'That' is often a filler for most sentences.
'That' is often a filler.

A bit of fleshing out makes it more palatable; then look at that piece from the second sentence on, if not actually tautology it is tautological in nature, that is a fairly common way of emphasising a point, as with the double negative "I never did nothing Guv." It is not 'Correct' English, or 'Queen's', or B B C English, but there are times and places when it works luverly, because it is English as she is spoke and understood. The trick is not in defining the good and bad words, they are all good in the right place, it is bringing conciousness to the table and using them effectively.


----------



## J Anfinson (May 19, 2016)

There is only one rule. Never use "ejaculated" as a dialogue tag. Never. Ever. Surely I don't need to explain why.


----------



## Sam (May 19, 2016)

Words exist to be used, not to be avoided. As with everything in the world, they can be overdone or overused. 

That does not make them weak or something to be avoided; it makes them improperly used by people who don't when, how, or why to use them.


----------



## PrinzeCharming (May 19, 2016)

Sam said:


> Words exist to be used, not to be avoided. As with everything in the world, they can be overdone or overused.
> 
> That does not make them weak or something to be avoided; it makes them improperly used by people who don't when, how, or why to use them.




Words are like food. Food exists to be eaten, not to be avoided. They can be overdone (unless you prefer blood with your meat) or overconsumed. This does not make them taste disgusting or something deemed unhealthy. It makes them improperly enjoyed by people who don't know when, how, or why they should moderate their consumption.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

PrinzeCharming said:


> Words are like food. Food exists to be eaten, not to be avoided. They can be overdone (unless you prefer blood with your meat) or overconsumed. This does not make them taste disgusting or something deemed unhealthy. It makes them improperly enjoyed by people who don't know when, how, or why they should moderate their consumption.



Well-done steak is a travesty. Give it to us rare, precious.


----------



## joshybo (May 19, 2016)

I'm conflicted about some of this information.  There are definitely some valid points all throughout, however, I'm hesitant to encourage any hard and fast "rules" regarding what words we should or shouldn't use as writers.  First off, it can make the craft of writing seem daunting or discourage new writers from really digging in and exploring their own unique voice or style.  They may feel pressure to conform to rules that, while reasonable, are really just guidelines that more experienced writers know how to work around, or how to incorporate appropriately.  Point in case:  Avoiding adverbs.  The biggest proponent for this little gem may well be Stephen King.  However, have your ever read his work?  He uses adverbs quite frequently, although effectively.  (Yes, I recognize the irony in that statement).  The heart of the guideline is correct--when misused, or over-used, adverbs can do more harm than good.  That said, I feel like trying to avoid them outright is a fool's errand and just as destructive to good writing as including them would be in certain situations.  The trick is learning where the balance exists, and the best tip I could probably offer on that front is another of King's oft-cited bits of wisdom:  Read.  Read as often and as intently as you can.  There really is no better source of knowledge regarding effective writing than effective reading.  Reading teaches us what works and what doesn't work in the reader's ear and mind.  In my opinion, that should be something a writer keeps in the back of their mind as they write.  "How's this going to sound?"  "How would I feel if I read this from someone else?"  Maybe that's too vague a way of saying what I mean, but it's something that I feel has helped me improve as a writer.


----------



## Patrick (May 19, 2016)

I never think in terms of how many adverbs and adjectives I use. There isn't even a balance to speak of. It's just personal preference and what sounds right to you. 

Adverbs and adjectives are essential. That I do know.


----------



## joshybo (May 19, 2016)

Patrick said:


> I never think in terms of how many adverbs and adjectives I use. There isn't even a balance to speak of. It's just personal preference and what sounds right to you.
> 
> Adverbs and adjectives are essential. That I do know.



"Balance" may have been the wrong word for what I mean.  I guess what I was trying to get at is that both adverbs and adjectives can be over-used, as in they can sometimes distract from the writing they are attempting to add to, but I definitely agree that both are essential.


----------



## Terry D (May 20, 2016)

We writers are a pedantic lot. We fuss and moan and squabble (good naturedly in most cases) about the smallest things. But I don't think anything sets our propellers twirling as quickly as writing advice (the dreaded 'rules'). What often gets lost in the din of the spinning prop is the fact no one -- especially not the writers, or givers of the advice -- view those rules as iron-clad laws. The message behind nearly all of the advice given is, "make your writing strong, memorable, and effective." Just saying that, however, isn't going to help a curious young writer (or curious old writer) understand just how to create that strength, make their work memorable, or help them generate the effect they want, so the advice-givers talk in 'specific-generalities' focusing on common weaknesses most learning writers share.

If you don't think those weaknesses are common, just read the writing shared on this site in the fiction forums, or the LM competitions. It's easy to tell the newer writers from the experienced ones, and most of those telling traits are characteristics covered by the 'rules'. Writing rendered bland by the use of excess passive voice. Paragraphs bloated and lethargic with modifiers and qualifiers. Tense scenes made comic by the use of unnecessarily descriptive dialogue tags. And many, many others.

'Rules' are good. With practice and experience fledgling writers will learn that 'rules' are really just guidelines; fuzzy bordered parameters which can be crossed at will, and to great effect, but, by the time they learn that, they will also know the dangers presented by extending themselves too far beyond those boundaries, or in remaining on that dangerous ground for too long. No writer who really has something to say, or who has a passion for writing strong enough to see him/her through the criticism and rejection we all face, will put down their pen and give up just because they read an article which suggests avoiding certain words.

Advice books and articles speak in absolutes because speaking in generalities would have their editors and eventual readers nodding off like Uncle Bob after Sunday dinner. Now, can someone help this broken down old man off his soap-box?


----------



## Patrick (May 20, 2016)

Terry D said:


> We writers are a pedantic lot. We fuss and moan and squabble (good naturedly in most cases) about the smallest things. But I don't think anything sets our propellers twirling as quickly as writing advice (the dreaded 'rules'). What often gets lost in the din of the spinning prop is the fact no one -- especially not the writers, or givers of the advice -- view those rules as iron-clad laws. The message behind nearly all of the advice given is, "make your writing strong, memorable, and effective." Just saying that, however, isn't going to help a curious young writer (or curious old writer) understand just how to create that strength, make their work memorable, or help them generate the effect they want, so the advice-givers talk in 'specific-generalities' focusing on common weaknesses most learning writers share.
> 
> If you don't think those weaknesses are common, just read the writing shared on this site in the fiction forums, or the LM competitions. It's easy to tell the newer writers from the experienced ones, and most of those telling traits are characteristics covered by the 'rules'. Writing rendered bland by the use of excess passive voice. Paragraphs bloated and lethargic with modifiers and qualifiers. Tense scenes made comic by the use of unnecessarily descriptive dialogue tags. And many, many others.
> 
> ...



Delighted to. Get down from there before you catch a chill, old son.


----------



## Kyle R (May 20, 2016)

Cool topic!

In my opinion, all the words mentioned in this thread (the ones we're being advised to avoid) are completely fine if used intentionally, or for effect—especially in fiction, where the voice of your character, or narrator, is often inflected and nuanced.

It's good to keep an eye out for overuse, though. I definitely agree with that. And if you're writing something more technical, like a thesis paper or a non-fiction work, I agree that one should be wary of making the text sound too conversational.

But in fiction? I'm not going to scrub the the words "just" or "finally" from my narrator's voice simply because they appear on a "words to avoid" list. To do so would, in my opinion, be an amateur mistake, letting the infamous "rules" get in the way of the craft.

Don't let dogma stop you from writing good fiction. :encouragement:

Also, to Terry: Very well said!


----------

