Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Nina Aug 2 05, 02:23

Fran has raised the question of use of adverbs being unfashionable a couple of times on threads  which I hope she doesn't mind me quoting.

Posted by: Toumai Aug 2 05, 02:53

Hi, Nina

I am sorry to have bothered you with that comment. What an excellent idea to raise it for discussion here.

I think we have two issues: one specific (adverbs) and one general (poetry leading not following).

In regard to the second, I quite agree. Hence, if adverbs are seen as less than cutting edge they may be removed (what a circular argument, lol - sorry).

Adverbs themselves describe a verb (I hope I got that right?); they are all those 'LY'-ending words like meanacingly, quickly, brightly, carefully, slowly.

If you say someone 'walked quickly' it is more descriptive to say s/he 'strode' or 'scampered' or 'jogged' - it gives an idea of the kind of movement - the gait as well as speed. Even if we just say s/he 'sped' we still loose a word (making the writing 'tighter' as beloved of poets especially).

So my main reasoning is that a) they rarely add to a description and b) they clutter the text, which would be tighter without them.

(A final point (which will not apply to any MM writers, of course) is that they are often taken as a sign of careless writing: if the verb was chosen well, an adverb would not be needed. I know that my first draft novel MS was horribly peppered with adverbs ... still some to be honed)

An interesting excercise is to take a passage of prose and remove all the adverbs. Read it out loud and compare it to the original version. Some of the adverbs may carry their weight, but many may be written out by careful initial choice of verb.

Does that clarify my heartless cruelty to adverbs?

Fran

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 03:01

Hi Nina, Fran, et al.

Firstly, in any and all walks of life, I couldn't care a toss about fashions. They are simply approaches put up by people with big heads (or wanting big profits) and followed by the proverbial lambs, until someone else has the guts / nous to start a new one.

That said, if one wants to be published...

Then, again, by the time most sheep jump on the band wagon it's well on the way to the abattoir and a new fashion is taking its place.

(Aren't mixed metaphors topping fun?!)

For me, poetry is a deep expression of feelings / ideas / observations etc. Moreover, it is using precise language finely honed (that is NOT to say it has to be minimalist or owt like). Poetry, for me, is the pinnacle of writing; no form of writing condenses so much meaning and / or emotion into such a package. There can be as much (more) in a poem as any novel. Indeed, there often is. But, of course, the reader often has to bring more to poetry than to a novel. (some novels excepted). Think of poetry as a reader/writer romance and novels as pornography - as we gaze-in. (I love novels - reading and writing so NOT slamming them; just in awe of poetry).

What is bad language in poetry?

One has to admit there must be a long-term fashionable element (cultural changes). If someone writes in the style of Shakespeare then we’d say that is old-fashioned. It would not necessarily be good nor bad - just olden. I expect most poets to write in today’s language unless they have a good reason not to (e.g. JGD - Ron - intentionally writes “as the poets of yore” and does it brilliantly). [Hope that doesn’t sound patronising - I mean it].

However, general trends (fashion) - I’d ignore them 100% (but then no one has published my poetry).

As regards adjectives and adverbs - they might still be undesirable, regardless of fashions?

I think they can bog us down if over-used. I suppose it is exposition as opposed to demonstration (that horrid (tell / show phrase).

Generally it is thought better to demonstrate something that to simply explain it - especially by piling on heaps of description. However, we must remember that poems are not short stories in the prose sense. Each word needs to work hard and try not to duplicate (save for special effect / emphasis). So piles of extra description may sound tedious and may not be tight writing.

I would judge matters on that: does it help or hinder the writing?

I have focussed on poetry but, in reality, good prose is also tightly written. I’m convinced that poets can write better prose than pure prose writers (in general) as long as they are careful with alliteration etc. So write right demonstration in poetry and prose can follow. Having said that, I think much good poetry is exposition (from the heart, so to speak) we must just be careful of over-egging the descriptive puddings.

Thanks Nina.

Toodle Pip,

J.

Posted by: Nina Aug 2 05, 06:52

Hi Fran

Your comment didn't bother me in the least, it just seemed a weak reason for not using adverbs and one I would ignore deliberately.  This thread was to gain greater clarification and knowledge of good/bad techniqe and the justification behind it.

Now that you have given a more reasonable argument for avoiding the adverb, I can see what you you were getting at and I now have a clearer understanding, so this this thread has served its purpose.

Now I just need a dictionary that will find me the exact word I'm looking for when it seems to hide just out of reach in my brain.

Thanks James as well, what you say is very interesting and you make some good point (i.e. nothing I can argue against LOL)

Cheers

Nina

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 07:05

Hi Nina,

>N>(i.e. nothing I can argue against LOL)

What an unusual lady you are! Never met that before. Mind you, I can argue until the cows come home. (Have to break to do the milking).

As regards thinking of the right word. Easy - think of approx words and ask Steggy to chew them over. She's quite likely to produce something for you to use. (Just be careful from which end she's producing, though!) [One end is pearls of wisdom; t'other 'fridge-magnet poetry].

Pint of milk anyone?

J.

Posted by: Nina Aug 2 05, 13:26

Hi James

What an unusual lady you are! Never met that before. Mind you, I can argue until the cows come home. (Have to break to do the milking).
LOL,

That's me - definitely strange.  

Seriously though I can't see the point in arguing for the sake of arguing if I don't find anything to disagree with in your argument.  What does it achieve?  

Of course, as you well know, if I do disagree, then I will argue my case tenaciously till the cows come home, sleep and head out for the pasture again.  

Nina

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 13:47

Hi Nina,

No there is no point in arguing for the sake of it. So, what's the next topic? :)

J.

Posted by: Nina Aug 2 05, 13:54

Hi James

So, what's the next topic

Good question!

Posted by: Toumai Aug 2 05, 14:04

Milk it for what it's worth  :sun:

Fran

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Aug 2 05, 14:33

I agree with Fran that it appears a action verb in place of adverbs may help settle this one.

Next: How about CONJUCTIONS? ???

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 15:19

My bug-bare with conjunctions is when writers put a comma round them - e.g.:

she walked in, but was in the wrong type of spacesuit.

he was vexed, and a strange shade of orange.

Though it's correct for a sub-clause - e.g.:

he was vexed, and rather drunk, that night.

J.

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 15:22

Fran,

>F>Milk it for what it's worth

If we spend too long on it, people may become cheesed-off. So you have to whey-up the pros and cons or you-ghert people upset. As Dickens wrote:

"It is a far, far butter thing I do now than I have ever done before."

(Cow-Tail of Two Cities).

J.

Posted by: Nina Aug 2 05, 15:33

J

If we spend too long on it, people may become cheesed-off. So you have to whey-up the pros and cons or you-ghert people upset. As Dickens wrote:

"It is a far, far butter thing I do now than I have ever done before."

(Cow-Tail of Two Cities).

only one gouda answer to those cheesy comments



Nina

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 15:37

N :) J.

Posted by: Toumai Aug 2 05, 15:41

And what is the problem with conjunctions, Lori? Because I'm not sure where we are going now and is this for poetry or for prose?  :oops:

Fran

Posted by: Don Aug 2 05, 17:29

Hi all,

I have a mentor older than I who believes in the older tropes such as rhymed forms.  However, she insists on we students not using ly or ing endings (note the contradiction).  Often instructions are to not use any adverbs or adjectives.  The result is that nouns and verbs become modifiers, which is also a contraction.  It is like using a noun as an adjective, but the dictionary claims it is a noun. Of course, the idea is to use as many action nouns and verbs as possible.

Since I have composed using these advancing features, I've noted a few flaws above.

What is the purpose?  The purpose I have found agreeable. It is to make the poem tighter, terser and promote action, which keeps reader interest.  It is simple as that.  If you can keep reader interest otherwise, do it. Our practice sessions make identical poems with and without modifiers.
The latter usually wins during comparison.

In time another theory will offset this terse action-trap-the-reader trick.
We forever look for the illusive magic wand that does everything with minimum effort.

Trust this information has been helpful. Art is using the hues that you like, and don't forget it.

Don

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Aug 2 05, 18:21

And what is the problem with conjunctions, Lori? Because I'm not sure where we are going now and is this for poetry or for prose?  

Fran

Posted by: Jox Aug 2 05, 18:28

Hi Lori,

I agree with being tight in poetry (limiting words, not being drunk!). I have to say, though that "nor" is a great word - it even sounds well for poetry. Another bug-bear of mine is people using "or" for negatives, when it should be "nor" - yes, I'm sure I do it, too - and that annoys me even more.

Conjuections or not, lots of small words are very bitty and (for me) wreck poetry. The real danger one is actually "the" - it would appear three times in every line if we allowed it.

Cheers, J.

Posted by: Don Aug 2 05, 19:07

Hi Lori,

I am more likely to use a conjunction (sparingly) than an adverb or adjective.

These small connecting words are nearly necessity for iambic meter.  The word "as" is used for such "as sweet as sugar."  "Like sugar is sweet" is similar in that these are poetic similes to indicate we do not know exactly what something is but it is like or as something else.

Different strokes for different styles of folks.

Don

Posted by: Cleo_Serapis Aug 7 05, 11:25

I know - I find it hard to not use complete sentences myself in poetry, for they seem to cause the most nits.

We don't cut out those words in normal conversation - so why do we in poetry?

Good question!

~Cleo

Posted by: Don Aug 7 05, 12:14

I know - I find it hard to not use complete sentences myself in poetry, for they seem to cause the most nits.

We don't cut out those words in normal conversation - so why do we in poetry?

Good question!

~Cleo

Posted by: Don Aug 7 05, 14:07

Someone asked way back what is the other topic.  We have not discussed in depth the originality issue.  I wish I could remember the name of the famous poet that was exceptionally original.  He was original to the point hardly anyone knows his name anymore.  Since I started out hardly known I have saved shoe leather walking the circuit.

Jox's experiments with words changing on display is a modern capability. He uses shape and changing shape if I remember correctly.

There are primarily two types of originality.  Simply to be different and to establish a monument for posterity.

Don

Posted by: jgdittier Mar 31 08, 09:33

Dear All,
I haven't attempted prose and so my comments only refer to poetry. Then again, perhaps they should be more limited to light verse....
However, I believe the current thrust that takes the writing of both prose and poetry to promote terseness justifies deep thought.
I see it as practical for prose in that prose is the language of law and clear communications and as such should promote full understanding with efficient usage of words.
Poetry contains a far greater element of beauty at the expense of clarity and terseness. Thus I reject the thought that terseness should be an element of poetry.
I believe the commitment to terseness results solely from the modern attitude about poetry, that is, IT SHOULD BE MORE LIKE PROSE!
I want my verse to be as far removed from most elements of prose as possible. I want it to sing to you. I want it to make you smile. I want it to appeal to your emotions. I don't want its form to be restricted by a long list of no-nos that make accomplishing those goals more difficult. Terseness in poetry is to me an intolerable and valueless constraint.
Read Longfellow's "The Day Is Done". It is chock full of little, unimportant words, "the", "of", "and", yet for me, its perfect simplicity and sincerity penetrates my shell and so represents the essence of what poetry should be.

I don't know who the folks are who are considered the Shepherds of poetry, but I am not one of their flock!!!
Cheers, Ron jgd