148
149

Consider activating static descriptions (self.writing)

PCBlue22Published Author が 投稿

Static descriptions are characterized by linking verbs such as is, are, was, were.

Often, that description can be re-worded so that the thing being described does something.

Compare:

There was an old box in the far corner of the closet.

Versus:

An old box had spent the past three years collecting dust in the far corner of the closet.

Or:

Her sweater was too tight.

Versus:

Her sweater stretched over her figure, pulling the button holes into wide gaps.

Things that aren't doing anything can be made to sound like they're doing something. Flat, dead prose can be enlivened by waking up some of those static descriptions.

Of course, it's not as if you absolutely must activate every single description in a piece. But it's probably good to be aware of the difference between active and static, and to work with them consciously, rather than automatically.

This isn't an original idea of my own creation. You'll probably find this advice repeated in a number of other places, by authors who are much better than myself - but I suspect that for several redditors, this might be their first time encountering the concept.

全 49 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]fourtenfourteen 47ポイント48ポイント  (2子コメント)

Beginners: use this advice sparingly. If you describe every setting like this, I will throw your book in the garbage.

[–]Clumpy 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Beginner prose is so plagued by this; poorly-paced, poorly conceived writing which tries to cheat with little tips to make what it is sound more active and dynamic, rather than to fix and punch up what it is.

[–]Winged_Hussar91 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

There's the balance for you, especially for novel writers and the like: how do I keep my style, but make my book readable and interesting --WITHOUT going overboard with purple prose or castrating my dialog by going all Hemingway on it.

[–]Atheose_WritingTales of a Dying Star 48ポイント49ポイント  (5子コメント)

Just as a personal opinion, you don't want to always do this. Sometimes a quick description works better, and sometimes you want it more dynamic. Ideally you have a good mix of both.

[–]CharlottedeSouzaWriter 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Agree - a time and a place for everything. There was one book I read where the character was running for his life, then suddenly there was a paragraph-long description of a gossamer spider web he encountered. Just, no.... A beautiful description, but not there or then.

[–]Atheose_WritingTales of a Dying Star 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

True that.

[–]PCBlue22Published Author[S] 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

Agreed.

[–]scorpious 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Not "always," perhaps, but unpacking explanatory writing (i.e., things the writer is telling me to just accept as given) is generally FAR more engaging than the alternative.

Doing it well takes more work, not just more words.

[–]Peritract 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

unpacking explanatory writing

That's not the same thing as what's being recommended here. The OP's examples happen to also be examples of that, but you can do that using "was" and "is".

[–]EgonIsGod 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

This sort of simple, clear, and actionable advice is the sort of thing we need more of here.

[–]EpsilonRose 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

That doesn't seem like the appropriate use of the word activate, largely because you're completely replacing something, not activating it.

[–]addledhands 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Not to mention pushing the prose much closer in the direction of being spoken in a passive voice.

[–]PCBlue22Published Author[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

How's that?

[–]skyskr4per 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Does the opposite, doesn't it? Removes the be-verbs. Are you referring to the 'had spent'? Because that box fix is certainly a bit clunky. I would have gone with something like, "An old box sat in the far corner of the closet."

[–]shatteredvissage 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Like all things dealing with prose rhythm, variation is always key. A writer can get away with using a lot of linking verbs as long as he's changing up his syntax. Yeah, using "There was..." over and over again will frustrate the reader, or worse, bore her. But to attach an "active" predicate to a subject that doesn't earn it can annoy even more so. This can lead to unneeded personification which for this reader makes me more likely to stop reading than finding too many linking verbs.

Editing linking verbs does help with passive voice, clunky gerunds, and eliminating lazy adverbs. But sometimes the 'is' is what you need.

EDIT for word joke: "Consider the stars."

[–]cheesehead144 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

"ing" verbs, "hads" and "is's" murder promising writing:

The box was sitting in the corner for three years.

and

The box had been sitting in the corner for three years.

vs.

The box sat in the corner for three years.

If one has to use had, then:

The box had sat in the corner for three years.

[–]neuropathica 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

I would not recommend overusing this. Also, do not use it with cliches. Example 1 from OP is lacking, whilst Example 2 is far fresher.

[–]PCBlue22Published Author[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ah, I fell into that tired, "box that's spent the past three years collecting dust in the far corner of the closet" cliche. Fuck me, right?

[–]weekendblues 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

To be fair, "collecting dust" isn't exactly a fresh concept when used in this context. If I read "box that's spent the past three years collecting dust in the far corner of the closet," the first thing I think is, "Well, why do I need to know that? Sounds like a standard old box." In your second example, it's different; it actually gives me an image. But "collecting dust" is such a well used phrase, it doesn't really have much texture to it anymore. Also, "the far corner" is both non-specific and superfluous. "The far corner?" Unless this closet is not rectangular, it has two far corners, so the definite article is not appropriate. This means that the phrase "the far corner" also is being used in an idiomatic context and is not actually describing the location of the box. Furthermore, if the box has been in the closet for three years, we would already assume that it's been out of the way; it's not surprising at all. We only really need to be told if the box hasn't been out of the way; that would be interesting because it would defy our expectations and furthermore would not just be a detail that our imaginations would fill in anyway.

I just want to make it clear that I don't really think this is bad advice, however it has to be used properly and not overused.

If I wanted to say the box was actually dusty and had been stored in the closet, I might write "The old box was caked with three years of closet dust." Some people might try to criticize my use of the passive voice here, however the passive voice is generally the most natural way to describe stationary inanimate objects with no emotional agency. If I just wanted to say "there was an old box in a far corner of the closet" I would probably write, "In a far corner of the closet was a box wearing three years of wrinkles" or something like that." Or if I wanted to really give the box some agency, "The wrinkled face of a cardboard box peaked out from a far corner of the closet." This, of course, doesn't say the same thing. "The box was old" is a sentence that cannot be restated; a part of its content is its ambiguity-- it's lack of specific details as to "why" the box is old. Hemingway did awfully well with sentences like this.

[–]PCBlue22Published Author[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Gee, thanks for the help.

[–]subrosasymphony 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haha, over-analyzing the hypotheticals of what is supposed to be an example. I don't get it either.

[–]Peritract -2ポイント-1ポイント  (25子コメント)

More than any other piece of nonsense advice, I get annoyed about the directive to eliminate the verb "to be".

That verb is fundamental to English and various other languages. It's irregular in almost every language because it's so vital and used so frequently for so many things. Don't stop using it.

Without this verb, a whole host of things are made much more difficult or impossible: expressing states, existence, time, the weather, ownership, half of the tenses. Removing it is genuinely idiocy.

The advice given here is by someone who doesn't even know that the four examples they list

is, are, was, were

are all the same verb. It's like saying 'My two favourite verbs are "cooking" and "cooked"'. It's the same verb, not four separate ones, and if you don't know that, then you shouldn't be giving advice on the topic.

Don't get rid of the verb "to be". Get rid of any other verb before it. Using a fundamental common verb doesn't result in "flat, dead prose", but in effective communication. The verb blends into the background like other basic building blocks - "said", for example. This advice is the equivalent of telling you to always use "questioned querulously" as a dialogue tag. Which would be verbose, pretentious, awkward, and stupid. Just like getting rid of this verb.

I'm not, I hasten to add, suggesting that you should only use this verb, eschewing all others. That would be ridiculous. And it is perfectly possible to overuse it, starting each sentence with "I am..." or "There is...". But that overuse is generally a weakness of your sentence structure, not your verb choice. Switch that up and your problems will magically disappear.

By all means, use all the other verbs you wish, but don't stop using this one. Don't try and stamp it out, because that will make you and your writing awkward and annoying.

Ignore anyone who tells you to stop using "to be". They don't know what they are talking about. Go tell a programmer to stop using "=", go tell a mathematician the same - you will be ignored.

There's a lot of writing advice floating about online and in books and coffee shops. Some of it is good, some of it harmless, some of it incredibly obtuse. It can be difficult to work out which is which. This one is the obtuse kind, misdiagnosing a problem and picking the worst possible tactic as a solution. It is like treating a headache by cutting off your feet.

[–]james_gandalf_feeny 5ポイント6ポイント  (13子コメント)

You spent all that time to write such a wordy, passive-aggressive strawman argument? You took OP's point to an extreme and started arguing with that extreme instead of the point being made. Your tone is becoming increasingly pretentious and defensive as you are being called out on it.

[–]PCBlue22Published Author[S] 8ポイント9ポイント  (5子コメント)

Do you realize that my advice wasn't to completely eliminate the verb "to be," but to become conscious of its use, and to examine one's prose with that awareness?

[–]wiseguy149 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

As a native Pittsburgher, I have trouble trouble trying to use "to be" in the first place. Around here nobody ever says that phrase, it's just been cut from the English language.

[–]christothefuture 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Anyone down voting you clearly doesn't know anyone from that area and thus misunderstood what you meant. My roommate is from Pittsburgh and I cringe every time I hear him skip over "to be" as if it's not necessary.

[–]Peritract 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

You don't have to use "be" at all, but I'm sure you use at least some variant of "is" or "was".

[–]wiseguy149 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Pittsburghers generally say stuff like "My clothes need washed" instead of "My clothes need to be washed."

I know I don't have to use the word be at all, I was just commenting that I find it difficult to remember how everyone else talks and not overdo it with this nuance of my local dialect.

[–]wolfsjoint 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah "To Be," is an... infinitive verb. The phrase itself I mean.

Conjugations of "to be,": I am, You are, He/she/it is, and They are, We are. And in French: Etre, Je Suis, tu es, il est, nouse sommes, Vouse etes, ils sont. And in Latin: Esse, Sum, Es, EST, Sumus, Estes, Sont.

You can't just get rid of them. They make up a great deal of writing intrinsically.

[–]Bro666 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think this is a gateway for bad writing. I prefer much starker and clean prose, such as the prose Cormac McCarthy uses.

[–]PCBlue22Published Author[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's fine if you prefer starker prose - but if you think McCarthy's work is cleaner than this, I have to wonder if you've read Blood Meridian. Also I think you might be mistaking "bad writing" for "writing that doesn't exactly fit your personal aesthetic."