"Up" and "down"

[JoNightshade]

Right now I'm straining my manuscript for gnats. Er, useless words. On my list were "actually," "that," "somewhat," and "a little."

I have two new words I can delete in almost every instance: UP and DOWN. Oh, and BACK.

He folded up the chair.

He went back down the hall.

He was about to go up and break the door down.

He sank back into the leather seat.

He sat down on the bench.

She went up to him and tapped his shoulder.

AAAAAAAAAAGH!

Well, at least this helps me cut my word count some more. ;)

[qdsb]

He was about to go up and break the door down.


My favorite thing from your post! Any chance that line originally started with "Actually"? ;)

Good for you, putting your manuscript through the strainer! And thank goodness for the "Find" function!

[JoNightshade]

My favorite thing from your post! Any chance that line originally started with "Actually"? ;)

Good for you, putting your manuscript through the strainer! And thank goodness for the "Find" function!

There might have been a "really" in the vicinity, but I'm not telling. ;)

[Devil Ledbetter]

My crit partner is the bomb at pointing out extra words. Over is another one. She waddled over to the jukebox.

[Devil Ledbetter]

There might have been a "really" in the vicinity, but I'm not telling. ;)What? I thought it was suddenly.

[blacbird]

Agreed. These things are insidious. They creep into a manuscript in the dark, when you're sleeping. They don't even sound bad, read out loud, but they are often pure fluff. Every time I see someone here complain that they can't possibly cut any more words from their novel manuscript, I guarantee they could find a thousand of these superfluous prepositional modifiers.

caw

[RedScylla]

The hardest part about up, down, back--having been raised in western Kansas, where those are the linch-pins of dialect. My spoken language contains them in large quantities and it's hard to root them out of the written word.

[melaniehoo]

I have a lot of these fluffy words and I haven't decided how to handle them. I'm writing my memoir so it needs to sound like me. I'm very sarcastic and don't want to overdue it, but I don't think I should scrap ALL the reallys, etc. I'm aware when I'm writing them because I know they're unnecessary, but that's how I talk.

[Azraelsbane]

I hate these as well, and you're right, there are very few instances where up, down, and back do ANYTHING. Though I think "he broke the door" and "he broke the door down" come across two different ways.

[melaniehoo]

I would say "he broke down the door" in that instance.

[David I]

Oh, these are always so much fun.

Up and down can be extraneous or useful. For example, some people claim Bob sat down is redundant.

Well, that depends on what we already know. If we know Bob is standing, sure, it's redundant (though not exactly criminal). But if we're early in a scene, and haven't positioned Bob in the readers mind, there's a big difference between Bob sat down (because he is standing) and Bob sat up (because he is lying down).

To go back to an example form the original post, I prefer He sank back into the leather seat rather than the improvement He sank into the leather seat. Sinking back into something is different from merely sinking into something, as the latter gives the notion He may be headed for the floor, and possibly disappearing altogether: He sank into the leather seat and was never seen again.

There are also times when rhythm and common usage may make the addition of these extra words a good idea. My ear prefers She waddled over to the jukebox to She waddled to the jukebox. (This is partly because the syntactical slot filled by over is begging for something--She waddled across the scuffed linoleum toward the jukebox or some such.)

And there are phrases like He wandered over to assess the damage which make no sense without the 'excess' word; He wandered to assess the damage makes no sense.

The name of the game as I see it isn't cutting words; it's cutting words when that involves an improvement. For example, I wouldn't have counseled Bob Marley to change Stand up for your rights to Stand for your rights. Up, down, over, etc. should always be carefully examined, but that doesn't mean the writing is always improved by their removal.

As George Orwell put it, there are certain rules for writing, and one ought to break any of them rather than say something barbaric.

[Sage]

I hate these as well, and you're right, there are very few instances where up, down, and back do ANYTHING. Though I think "he broke the door" and "he broke the door down" come across two different ways.
I agree.

I also would make a case for "go back" or "come back." Going back down the hall is a little different from just going down the hall. But... if you look at your "go back"s or "come back"s, you can replace them with "return"s some of the time, so you still can reduce words (of course, context might make a difference).

[Nymtoc]

I remember reading something by a writing guru who complained about writers who had a bad case of the "thens." The guru was talking about the overuse of the word, e.g.:

"Bruce stood up. He looked around cautiously. Then he crossed the room and picked up the machete. But what could he do with it? He put it back down. Then he walked to the refrigerator and pulled out a beer. Did he hear someone moving outside? He shivered, then walked to the window. Then he heard another sound. He picked up the machete again, and then..."
:e2writer:

[David I]

My personal curse is excess of "thats". Always have to trim about a hundred.

[Cassidy]

Yeah, I just cut out at least a hundred words just by searching for all of the following and getting rid of the unnecessary ones: that, just, really, actually, seems, though, still... Amazing how they sneak in there.

[J. R. Tomlin]

"Then" used to be the one I used until an editor sent a ms back to me to be edited and told me to stop-over using it. The experience cured me. I had used it 16 times in the first chapter!

Other words I look for that creep in are "there" and "it" with no direct antecedent. "Just" also gets the axe. "Finally" can usually go.

[Arkie]

I would say "he broke down the door" in that instance.

Cormac McCarthy would write: He found the door locked from the inside. He turned back, leaned against the wall. Through the window old gothic soffits hung with tar and lapsing paintflakes. Ragged cats picked their way over the glass and black dogs in the dooryards beyond the railsiding twitched in their sleep. He balled his fist and lunged at the door. He hit it very hard. It detached from the hinges and slewed dust motes rising like brown angels passing through the broken window pane. Two brown rats came from under the bed like great hairy beetles and scampered between his legs and down the hall.

[David I]

Cormac McCarthy would write...

Indeed. :D

[amber_grosjean]

In my recently published story, "moved" was a word that had been used a lot.

Her hands moved down his back
He moved to her neck, ect, ect.

My editor suggested ways they moved like "inched" because I kept adding slowly to it not realizing it. I didn't even realize I was doing it lol. And when it was edited before sending it out, I never caught it. A friend of mine helped me with a final edit before it was sent out and she didn't catch it either. In fact, I think she even added one lol. But it is completely changed now.

You're not going to be able to catch all of those pesty repeats and some of them may appear ok to you but will seem too much for the editor, who knows. Polish it the best you can and hope for the best. Besides, chances of them rejecting it because you used one word too many times is very small. It can happen but likely. Just do the best you can. Good luck and I wish you the best in making this a best seller! I really hope all of us get there!

Amber

[KTC]

I check all my THATS and all my LY words.

[Nymtoc]

Here's another one I picked up from a writing guru: redundant use of "now."

Examples: "There were now three people at the table."

"She knew it was time to make that phone call now."

"Now the senator stepped to the microphone."

I think the guru was on to something. However, "now" does have its uses. In the first example, there may have been two people at the table a minute ago, and you want to underline the fact that there has been a change. In the second example, "now" is unnecessary, but you might want to use it for emphasis. In the third example, you might be writing about a sequence of events--first this happened, then that happened, and "now the senator stepped to the microphone."

Nevertheless, in writing fiction I do try to avoid "now" as much as I can.

(Another point the guru was making was that, since you're writing in the past tense, "now" doesn't make sense. I don't buy that part of the argument.)

[RickN]

On my editing cheatsheet, I have a list of about 50 words. Up, down, now, then, but, was, were etc, are used in Word searches. Everytime I read a writing manual I find something to add to my cheatsheet.

It takes me a long time to edit, but that's why I'm acclaimed by my family as the best writer residing in the house.

[Pamster]

I'd be interested in what words are on your cheatsheet RickN. What else besides those seven are on it? I think I need to make such a cheatsheet and appreciate this thread, thanks for posting it JoNightshade. ;) :)

[qdsb]

I'm another "then" addict. Trying to curb my addiction.

I also tend to write compound sentences that end up better as either separate sentences or with one of the two sentences changed to a subordinate clause.

Here's a basic example:
"Her denim shorts were streaked with yellow paint, and they matched her tie-dyed shirt well." (Now picture this sentence structure at least once in every paragraph. No no no.)

"In paint-streaked denim shorts that matched her yellowish red tie-dyed shirt, she..."

Tighter and more effective as a lead-in to action.

[CaroGirl]

I have two more that tend to add redundancy are are rarely needed: any and own.

Such as, the always laughable, "He choked on his own vomit." I shudder to think who else's vomit one could choke on.

[Prawn]

There is a whole category of verbs called Phrasal Verbs

Go off on
Put up with

These verbs have to have these prepositions because they are part of the verb. If you don't like prepositions, you'd need to choose a non-phrasal verb.
P

[preyer]

'Up, down, over, etc. should always be carefully examined, but that doesn't mean the writing is always improved by their removal.' ~ well, lol, not sure most people who overuse these prepositional words need a careful examination as, yeah, you can remove the vast majority outright and it help the sentence. you're right, though, that there are a few times it helps. in my critiquing experience, folk can dump about 95% of these and it not hurt a lick. the times to keep them just sounds right in the sentence and, imo, are usually pretty clear. it's a safe bet that if you use 'up' in every paragraph then they could mostly be deleted. they're just crutch words.

mine is 'but.' i do too much 'actually,' too, just not as much. at least with 'but' you have several synonyms you can use, and beyond that simple sentence restructuring can remove it.

were i to suffer from too much 'up' i'd just have the programme remove every single one, then in the next read-through add them where i feel the sentence really requires it. i feel it's fairly common sense stuff to know if a sentence needs it or not. usually it doesn't if you already know you could choke a whale with how many you use.

[preyer]

prawn, it's stuff like this that made me drop out of advanced grammar, lol. remind me that if ever i get pubbed to send the copyeditor a box of esther price dark chocolate (the best chocolate ever. period. keep that nasty godiva junk away from me).

[Tracy]

I'm laughing reading these, because I'm an 'actually' and 'then' merchant myself. And ALL my dialogue starts off with "Well ..."

But I have to defend 'that'.

It's more gramatically correct to say: He said that he was going to be late, than: he said he was going to be late.

[mkcbunny]

But I have to defend 'that'.

It's more gramatically correct to say: He said that he was going to be late, than: he said he was going to be late.

I would appreciate a short explanation of improper 'that' usage, because most of my applications follow the model above. I think I've been over-pruning based on fear of improper use, when I should be leaving some of them in.

[Sassee]

Ahh, the wonders of first draft land. I'm not even through revising chapter 1 and I've already started hacking away those extra words like pesky weeds...

I use "but" too much. "That" is another bad one. Later chapters have different ones, I'm sure.

Dialogue I don't care. Real people use way too many of the wrong words. If I cut too much out of the dialogue my characters' speech patterns would change drastically.

[JoNightshade]

Dialogue I don't care. Real people use way too many of the wrong words. If I cut too much out of the dialogue my characters' speech patterns would change drastically.

Characters can be guilty of word-crutches also! ALL OF MY CHARACTERS compulsively say "sorry" (something they get from their creator). I have to go through and weed out as many as I can. Oh, "Well" is another one they like.

[Sassee]

Characters can be guilty of word-crutches also! ALL OF MY CHARACTERS compulsively say "sorry" (something they get from their creator). I have to go through and weed out as many as I can. Oh, "Well" is another one they like.

LOL! Okay, the "sorry" thing might be a problem if it's spread to all of your characters. Now that you mention it, two of my guy characters are nearly identical when they talk. They aren't major players but they're there often enough that it's noticeable and I intend to fix it when I get to that point.

[GerriB]

Caveat: the following does not apply to dialogue.

Words and phrases I do my absolute best to avoid:

It
You

At the beginning of sentences:

There is/are/was/were
This is/was
That is/was
These are/were
Those are/were

Subordinating conjunctions:

That

Time transitions:

Then

I also watch my timing. I make sure my gerunds (i.e. the dreaded -ing at the beginning of the clause) can be done simultaneously with my main action in the sentence.

(Why yes, I did teach college English composition for 8 years and had to nag my students about prose. How could you tell?)

Good luck!

[a_sharp]

Cavet: the following does not apply to dialogue.


Is a cavet anything like a caviat? I'm just curious since you taught English and all. ;-)

[David I]

Is a cavet anything like a caviat? I'm just curious since you taught English and all. ;-)

Is a caviat anything like a caveat?

I don't teach Latin.

[David I]

I agree "then" can be overdone. But consider the following ludicrous one-sentence paragraph from the first page of The Da Vinci Code:

On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly.

I guess he wasn't really frozen. Maybe sort of like Soft-Serve ice cream, so he could be frozen and turn at the same time.

A good "then" could have helped this sentence at least make sense:

On his hands and knees, the curator froze, and then slowly turned his head.

Though it's still no gem. But I guess Mr Brown follows the rule that if it's later in the sentence, it is later in time, too.

[GerriB]

Is a caviat anything like a caveat?

I don't teach Latin.

I taught English, not spelling. And this blasted thing doesn't have a spell checker. *mutter*

[Judg]

I'm laughing reading these, because I'm an 'actually' and 'then' merchant myself. And ALL my dialogue starts off with "Well ..."

But I have to defend 'that'.

It's more gramatically correct to say: He said that he was going to be late, than: he said he was going to be late.

Well, no, both of those sentences are perfectly correct, grammatically. That, in that kind of construction, is optional as a grammatical element, and the choice is made for stylistic reasons.

[Judg]

I also watch my timing. I make sure my gerunds (i.e. the dreaded -ing at the beginning of the clause) can be done simultaneously with my main action in the sentence.
OK, I'm putting on my anal grammarian hat now. You are talking about participial phrases, not gerunds. Gerunds are present participles used as nouns.

I appreciate your taking the time to help me. Taking is a gerund in this sentence, the object of the verb appreciate.

And yes, I know it's true, because I get them confused every time I haven't thought about it for a few years (which is most of the time) and then I have to look it up all over again. Unhappily for you, the last time was pretty recent...

[GerriB]

OK, I'm putting on my anal grammarian hat now. You are talking about participial phrases, not gerunds. Gerunds are present participles used as nouns.

I appreciate your taking the time to help me. Taking is a gerund in this sentence, the object of the verb appreciate.

And yes, I know it's true, because I get them confused every time I haven't thought about it for a few years (which is most of the time) and then I have to look it up all over again. Unhappily for you, the last time was pretty recent...

Mea culpa. :)

[preyer]

i've up and named my dipthong 'gerund.'

since we're on the subject, since so many folk aver that readers don't care about literary 'rules', do they care equally as less about grammar? that is, would the reader even notice a breach of grammar as long as it *sounded* right?

[qdsb]

preyer---I don't think I want to know the answer to your question. I swear, if something like 's for plural (as in "We ordered ham and egg's.") becomes acceptable in publication, I will have a nervous breakdown.

Having said that, split infinitives (i.e., for those of you playing at home, "to boldly go"...grammatically, boldly doesn't belong within the infinitive "to go") have become not only acceptable but commonplace.

{hysteria rises in qdsb's gullet}

[RickN]

since we're on the subject, since so many folk aver that readers don't care about literary 'rules', do they care equally as less about grammar? that is, would the reader even notice a breach of grammar as long as it *sounded* right?

If I'm involved in the story, then some grammar issues don't bother me. Certain ones are so egregious that they kick me out of the tale: "Bob were going to the store." This is something up with which I shall not put.

So, I guess I'm saying it a completely personal preference. Things that don't bother me might make you crazy and vice versa. All readers care about some grammar rules; no readers care about all grammar rules.

[preyer]

obvious errors, sure, those are unacceptable. but, as mentioned, split infinitives. do you feel that most readers have even heard of gerunds and phrasal verbs let alone know how they're used? most *writers* don't even know how they're used (myself included ~ i'm of the 'if it sounds right' camp for the most part, though if it's pointed out to me something is off, i'll change it).

[RickN]

I find more grammar errors in stories that I'm not caught up in. This tells me that either:

A) the disliked story has more grammar errors and that's why I don't like it. or
B) the preferred stories have just as many grammar errors and I don't notice them since I'm wrapped up in the plot/characters.

I believe it's mostly B with a dash of A thrown in. So, in a good story, if it sounds right then I don't care/notice.

P.S. I used to have a dog named "Infinitive". One day he split and I never saw him again.

[qdsb]

This is something up with which I shall not put.


:D

[preyer]

so, is yoda a grammatical villain? 'the darkside you need to come... cookies have we.'

[qdsb]

so, is yoda a grammatical villain? 'the darkside you need to come... cookies have we.'

Not at all. He just uses unusual syntax. With that there is nothing wrong.

[melaniehoo]

I feel like such a geek that I love the turn this thread has taken. :)

I came across a BAD grammatical error in the book I'm reading - using 'is' with multiple subjects - and I almost threw it away. That was in the middle of five consecutive paragraphs starting with 'he'. grr.

[Judg]

Preyer, more to the point, how much do EDITORS care about grammar? And agents? You've got to get it past them first. And a lot of them care a great deal.

As for the difference between gerunds and participial phrases, I don't really care all that much if people can label them, as long as the English is correct. (The only reason I bothered saying anything about that is because I'm not a fan of confusion either.) Remember, grammar is not a series of rules about what you're doing wrong, it is the bones and muscles of a language, how it's put together. If you defy good grammar, you are going to create confusing, inelegant prose. It becomes difficult to tell who is doing what, for instance. Most of what crops up in the grammar forum at Absolute Write has more to do with punctuation and alternate spellings than it does with grammar. English actually has one of the simplest grammar structures in the world and mistakes are relatively rare. If I were an agent or an editor, if I started seeing basic mistakes cropping up, I would read on with a highly skeptical eye. This is never good for the writer.

[David I]

You are talking about participial phrases, not gerunds. Gerunds are present participles used as nouns.

Ohmigod! Is that what a gerund is?

Until just this moment I thought a "gerund" was that little lumpy thing in the fold of skin right under my--

oops. sorry. Thanks for clarifying.

[Deirdre]

Not at all. He just uses unusual syntax. With that there is nothing wrong.

Yoda sometimes uses Irish syntax -- and sometimes not.

This annoys those of us who'd like to use Irish syntax, because we get critiques like: "Sounds like Yoda, she does."

Grr.

[Deirdre]

Right now I'm straining my manuscript for gnats. Er, useless words. On my list were "actually," "that," "somewhat," and "a little."

My friend Joyce offers this example of that:

That that "that" that that man used is wrong is incorrect.

She also has the best example I've heard of prepositions at the end of sentences:

What did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of up for?

[preyer]

it's funny, though, to think that a mistake gets made by the writer, the agent doesn't catch it, the editor misses it, then the copyeditor doesn't see it. or is it more likely the mistake is made by someone at the very end of the process?

[job]

Having said that, split infinitives (i.e., for those of you playing at home, "to boldly go"...grammatically, boldly doesn't belong within the infinitive "to go") have become not only acceptable but commonplace.

The split infiinitive has been used by careful writers since Chaucer. It was never 'wrong'. The circumlocutions needed to avoid splitting infinitives were never used even in educated speech.

Victorian grammarians, finding Latin more exclusive and upperclass than English, attempted to impose Latin grammar rules on English. (You can't split infinitives in Latin.) Didn't work. Never made sense. Has now been largely dropped, even by prescriptive grammarians.

[preyer]

that's what i've been saying all along. ahem.

[qdsb]

The split infiinitive has been used by careful writers since Chaucer. It was never 'wrong'. The circumlocutions needed to avoid splitting infinitives were never used even in educated speech.

Victorian grammarians, finding Latin more exclusive and upperclass than English, attempted to impose Latin grammar rules on English. (You can't split infinitives in Latin.) Didn't work. Never made sense. Has now been largely dropped, even by prescriptive grammarians.

JoB! Fancy meeting you here (says Precie from the Forum)! I hope all is well in your corner of the world!

I've heard that info about infinitives...originating in Latin structure...funnily enough, from my Victorian lit professor. And my only speciality was Victorian lit...the circle is complete. Thanks!!

[job]

What a good writer has is not proper grammar or bad grammar. What a writer has is control of his words.

Understanding language gives that control. That's understanding cadence and dialect and class markers and popular connotation and word origin and historical usage and, of course, grammar.

[job]

JoB! Fancy meeting you here (says Precie from the Forum)! I hope all is well in your corner of the world!

I've heard that info about infinitives...originating in Latin structure...funnily enough, from my Victorian lit professor. And my only speciality was Victorian lit...the circle is complete. Thanks!!


Hi Precie --

Apparently Latin verbs are one word. Hard to split one word and all. I missed Latin somehow ...

[JoNightshade]

My friend Joyce offers this example of that:

That that "that" that that man used is wrong is incorrect.

She also has the best example I've heard of prepositions at the end of sentences:

What did you bring that book I don't want to be read to out of up for?

Those sentences are just... WRONG! WRONG WRONG WRONG! :)

[Sunkissed27f]

I just wrote:

Emma stared up at the pristine whiteness of the hospital rooms ceiling.

Sigh...the ceiling is already up......*edit edit edit*

[J. R. Tomlin]

Pffft Put the ceiling on the floor just for a change. ;)

[melaniehoo]

I just wrote:



Sigh...the ceiling is already up......*edit edit edit*

I have to thank you - you made me pause this evening when writing "He looked down at me."

Is he really? I'm on the ground & he's standing... ok, I can say down. :)

[David I]

The split infiinitive has been used by careful writers since Chaucer. It was never 'wrong'. The circumlocutions needed to avoid splitting infinitives were never used even in educated speech.

Victorian grammarians, finding Latin more exclusive and upperclass than English, attempted to impose Latin grammar rules on English. (You can't split infinitives in Latin.) Didn't work. Never made sense. Has now been largely dropped, even by prescriptive grammarians.

Yep, all of that is the truth.

There are only two reason for warning against split infinitives these days:

1) The thing that splits them is often one of the wimpier adverbs, and

2) For those who are less than meticulous, whole clauses, phrases, and incoherent sentence fragments begin to wedge their way into the gap.

The latter is particularly a problem in bureaucratese and academese:

"The administration should resolve to, without prejudging any cases, and certainly without abrogating anyone's legal rights, efficaciously expedite any such matters brought before it."

Of course, a determined mind, or an idiot, can make a hash out of any sentence. I've seen some people do some amazing things between "to" and the verb.

That certainly doesn't mean it's a crime to split an infinitive. It just means it's a crime to be an idiot. Or ought to be.

[Deirdre]

"The administration should resolve to, without prejudging any cases, and certainly without abrogating anyone's legal rights, efficaciously expedite any such matters brought before it."

Great example of badness.