A. W. Gifford

I have something to get off my chest. About a year ago I read a collection of short stories from a fairly well known writer, and I have a complaint. It’s not that the stories are bad, they’re passable in my opinion but nothing to write home about, and it isn’t the writing as a whole, but it is something about the writing that irks me to no end.

Let me just say this: I hate adverbs. I believe the road to Hell is paved with them and they should be limited in good writing. Now don’t get me wrong, I can be a good sport about adverbs, but I think they need the toughest scrutiny before allowed to stay. They just can’t be trusted. Pat them down, run through a metal detector, and make them disrobe to be sure they aren’t carrying something dangerous.

It may seem that I’m being ridiculous here, but I have a point and I now going to give a few examples from this well-known writer. I’m going to give you my re-written version and lets see if you can pick out which one if from the well known writer and my version, and then ask yourself which is better. I’m not trying to be holier-than-thou, but I hope to make a point and help my fellow writers to improve their own writing.

So, here we go.

Sentence number one.

His mother had died swiftly and messily in a highway accident when he was fifteen.

His mother died in a highway accident when he was fifteen. Death came quick, but not clean.

Which one do you think is my rewrite? I’ll give you a minute . . .

Okay enough time. Did you see the two awful adverbs in the first sentence? I can perhaps live with swiftly, but messily I have a hard time even believing it’s a word. Mine my not be the best two sentences in the world, but at least it got rid of the two awful adverbs.

Sentence number two.

The last thing he saw was the singer staring confusedly toward the back of the club.

The last thing he saw was the singer staring toward the back of the club with a confused look in his eye.

Confusedly? Again to me this doesn’t even sound like a real word.   Sure, my sentences uses an adverbal phrase, but at least it gets rid of confusedly.

In recent months I've read some more bad adverbs in published works, which only begs the question:  where the hell is the editor?

Some of my favorites are: owlishly, crispily, tragically, and my all time favorite, clichely.  He smiled at her clichely.  I kid you not.

In my opinion, adverbs are the last resort of the good writer and the first choice of the dullard.  My advice to you is this:  Take your story, search for all the adverbs you have, take them out and then go back and read the story again.  If you put back more than ten percent, you're doing something wrong.

I’ll see you in Oz folks.

AW

For six years or so I was a member of the critique group Critters, and throughout those years, I’ve given about three hundred critiques. I believe this qualifies me to give my opinion on the proper way to give a critique.

Remember, it isn’t the job of the writer to please all of the readers all of the time, or even some of the readers all of the time, but just some of the readers some of the time. What you dislike about a story, some one else might like.

First rule of critiquing is simple enough but some just don’t seem to get it. No mater what you may think, your critique is just your opinion. The writer is not required or obligated to do everything or even one thing you say. I’ve heard the argument that if a publishing house accepts your work, they have editors that will request you to rework your story base on their comments. This is true. The difference between you, the critiquer, and the publishing house, is simple, money. In most cases the publishing house is paying the writer for his or her work, you are not.

Second rule goes along with the first. Be polite and always state comments as suggestions. Don’t say that the writer “must” do something. Instead say “I suggest” or “I feel this might work better”.

Third, always try to find at least one thing nice to say about the story, even if it’s just “I like the idea”. The reason for this rule is that if the writer receives nothing but negative comments from someone, then he or she is more likely to ignore everything you’ve said which renders the critique useless. If you can make the writer feel good then it is more likely he or she will take your advice. Sometimes this is a hard rule to follow. If you can’t find something nice to say about the story, then maybe you shouldn’t say anything at all.

That’s really all the rules, pretty simple huh? But I’m not done. I have a few words for those of you who are going to disagree with me about not being “brutally honest” Nothing is gained from being mean to your fellow writer. I find that people that give “brutally honest” critiques are just trying to knock down other writers so they feel better about their own work. “But how are you going to grow as a writer if you don’t receive honest critiques?” This is another question I get from those that want to be “brutally honest”. Being honest is good, being mean about it doesn’t serve any purpose. Mean critiques are ignored, so you might have had some very valid points, but since you are being “brutally honest” the writer will ignore you.

I'll see you in Oz folks

AW

Since everyone and their mother seems to have a blog these days, I'm going to try my hand at if for a while.  I'll try to keep it all writing or genre related, but the occasional political rant may happen.