Ravenous Beauty: A Writer's Workshop

So uh... not really curse words, but words do you dislike?

I've always hated the word "chuckle."

Also not a fan of "pretentious", because it's almost never used properly or carefully enough. Especially on the internet.

adverbs. i realize im regurgitating any minimalist you can name, but they're right. these things are just signs of lazy writing. you have no idea how many of them i saw daily in my WR-240 class. just unpacking them would have made the writing noticeably better, and its not that hard to do.

contractions [outside of dialog] your characters might talk like that, but your voice probably should not, unless you like seeming juvenile.

people who swear in their writing just to seem edgy. i dont think i need to explain that one any further.

rainbowsheeps wrote:I've always hated the word "chuckle."

Yeah, chuckle, chortle, guffaw – they all suck. And it's a shame, because we really do need words that describe the vastly different types of contextual laughter, but the English pickins is slim, yo. So i always end up putting in too much other description so they know what kind of laugh it is, when one word should really suffice.

In screenwriting, wryly was always the enemy (as a dialogue cue).

Me, I despise etcetera. Whatnot, which I'm oft-guilty of myself in non-writing life. Another one, not that I dislike it per se, but its usage annoys, is hysterical. Only women can be hysterical; biological fact. Petifore (finger sandwich). Sounds like some kind of candy that a child molester dangles as bait from his van. When people use not-quite-common foreign phrases in casual or out-of-character situations, like de rigeur or zeitgeist. Oh, and finally (for now), proverbial. Usually they mean allegorical or metaphorical, as most of the usages people assign to it don't refer to actual proverbs.

Yup, "chortle" really rubs me the wrong way too. I also dislike how it sounds when people laugh that way.

I'm with Chuck on people cursing nonstop to seem edgy. I disagree on contractions outside of dialogue though. It doesn't automatically equal juvenile for me. It depends on the writer.

My addition to this topic: "Uber" is used way too much these days.

adverbs should only be used in dialogue. i think its acceptable there because people use them.

building on describing the way people laugh, id say you shouldnt describe how people say something either. it just annoys me. also, when people say replied, retorted, and things of that nature.

i, in general, just hate any word that seems out of place in writing. chortle is a good example because who the fuck every says chortle?

as far as swearing, if it fits the character go for it. some times i swear a lot when writing things. i think its because i swear constantly when i speak. like once every other sentence. but i dont believe people say damn so i never use it. i stick mostly to fucks and shits or just plain fucking shit. and im anything but edgy. or at least i never try to be edgy.

contractions, for me, depend on the speaker. i dont think that people think outside of contractions. of course, thats mostly for first person narrative. something that usually bothers me is when people dont use contractions in dialogue. few people say do not instead of dont.

why would anyone ever say uber?

"why would anyone ever say uber?"

My point exactly.

I'm just wondering something here - if you can, read the two below passages with a reader's eye:

The bench behind the little family eating sandwiches there was a woman waiting for Jesus or Cain in a little blue dress. I thought someone should have spoken to her or something, she was staring at this one page in her book and kept wiping her face with a mascara stained tissue. Well one second she was there and the next she was in a thousand places all over the little family's table, and I guess Cain had turned up because there he was, stubble and Stetson, already reloading and staring right at me.

He lay there in the attic for a week before I even thought of going up to him. He had his water, his food. I should've checked on him, brought up a newspaper or coffee and something fattening. Berlin Metro had printed a story about his fight with the scientist. The man had lost an eye but was unwilling to press charges. I should've sent the cheque that morning. Evening time I went upstairs and found him spread out on the wood, his chest rising and falling with maggots, fur all covered in dust and flies. I decided not to send the cheque.

Right, now I'm sure you read them with a writer's eye - I can only apologise for how awfully written they may be, but I'm dropping writing skills aside for this point: I think it's importance to note the difference between contractions and inflectional suffixes. I'm personally used to writing should've rather than should have, but I'm wondering now if maybe should've is more jarring than should have? It doesn't seem so to me, but I can't tell for you people, thus the above quotations. Any difference? Should've is used in the second extract, should have in the first. Did they get to you when you read them?

What was once a thread about words turned into a writing lesson!

If you stripped those extracts down to one sentence, that might help people make a decision. I don't (see?) mind contractions. I used them in my writing all the time. They're(naturally) a part of a writer's voice in my mind. Not many people say things like "do not" instead of "don't" unless they're emphasizing the not. If you're writing in first person, anyway, it's best to write it the way your character would to submerge the reader in the voice of the character.

I don't really find contractions juvenile.

neither bothered me. didnt even notice till i read the note at the bottom.

i think shouldve is better than should have though. its the way we talk and the way we think, or at least its how i think/talk. when i read the top quotation i read should have as shouldve. in my opinion, its what readers naturally do which is why i never have a problem with it.

that being said, on an unrelated note, i think spelling too many words phonetically takes away from the writing and distracts the reader. think irvine welsh. to me, theres just too much of it. makes things hard/awkward to read. it may be how they speak but you can make the same effect using syntax rather than phonetics and abundant apostrophes.

but, yeah, shouldve is good in my opinion. when i read do not in a book i subvocalize it as dont in most cases. the best thing to do is to just write it the way you subvocalize it. that is, of course, assuming first person narration. when in third, i somewhat agree with chuck above. but possibly for arbitrary and foolish reasons. something about the omniscient being proper, well spoken british folk. dont ask me why, its just the way they are.

Yeah, didn't bug me either. Actually, not to get too analytical (too late!), but it was the "or something" and "I guess" that threw up my red flags.

Like others have said, I form the contractions in my head anyway. I'm so used to receiving horrid scripts (for voiceovers) that have obviously never been read aloud before, that my inner copyeditor works in real time these days. That need for closure. "Do not" is an exception. Like Rainbow, I emphasize "not" because it stands out. Doesn't really change the meaning, but I'd be especially careful of it in dialogue.

Good good. There was a point to having more than one sentence though, it would have been obvious what I was doing.