Adjectives are allegedly bad - examples?

[Spectrum]

Dear fellow writers. I have a question.

Some people claim that using many adjectives makes for bad prose. This appears to be an oft-cited piece of writers' "wisdom", but I have been unable to find any good arguments for why this is so. Most of the examples I have found are either straw men or non-examples.

For example, Publication Coach says that "Jerome was an A+ student" is bad and should be replaced by "Jerome earned straight As at school". This seems like a non-example to me. The first phrase sounds just as good as the second in my ears.

Similarly, Suite 101 has an example of a bad adjective-ridden piece: "Her stomach had felt unpleasant and nauseous for months. Gradually, the sickness subsided and she began to feel better and her head a little clearer."
Their suggestion for improvement is: "A cloudbank of fugue and nausea suddenly cleared as though a stiff sea breeze had torn it apart. For the first time in months, her stomach pined for food."

This example is unconvincing for three reasons:

1. The adjective-ridden sentence is a straw man. Of course you can construct a bad sentence by overloading it with adjectives. That does not prove that pruning adjectives improves writing in the general case.

2. The meaning and tone seems to me completely different. The writer has not re-written a sentence, he has constructed a completely new one inspired by the original theme.

3. The new sentence does not sound very good to me. It sounds ridiculously purple. Such a sentence might work well in certain contexts, but I do not buy it as an example of generic "good writing".

What do you say? Do you agree that adjectives are generally bad, and if so, can you provide better examples?

 

[The Judge]

For the first example I'd prefer the second version if I had to choose since it's more active, though both are so heavily Americanised I would write neither other than for an American character. As to the second example, I agree with you entirely.

Adjectives (and adverbs) aren't bad per se, it's the way in which they are used which can be bad. Poor writers tend to go overboard with them, which makes for an easy but false reasoning: "This piece has lots of adjectives; this piece is bad; therefore lots of adjectives must be bad."

For myself, I put in the adjectives (and adverbs) I feel the piece needs, but it is certainly possible to overdo them I think. It might not occur at the level of a sentence -- ie simply removing one adjective might not make a startling difference to an individual line -- but the cumulative effect of having too many can be deadening.

 

[j d worthington]

Chiefly, at least, this idea emerged from the "Hemingway revolution". Papa Hemingway (allegedly) said "Kill your darlings" on the subject... the idea being that a leaner, terser prose was more fitting for a literary art representing the fast-paced, dynamic form of modern society. It also represents the idea (quite valid in itself) that an overuse of adjectives is also a misuse of adjectives, creating not a cloud of association and resonance but of obfuscation, a fog obscuring the forward momentum of a sentence's structure and thereby breaking down the dynamic of what the sentence is in fact saying. Poe (himself fond of adjectives, though not as much so as some have claimed) argues this point when it comes to, say, Carlyle, Gibbon, and others, by noting the transpositions in their sentences which make false relationships between primary and secondary elements in the sentences, so that the object to which descriptives (for example) apply becomes confused.

There's nothing wrong with adjectives per se; or even a fairly frequent use of them, if that usage actually increases the effect or impact of what a writer is saying (or adds layers of resonance, metaphorical potentiality etc.), so long as it remains reasonably controlled. The problem arises in using them inappropriately, either because the intended meaning is at odds with the actual definition or associational meaning of the word, or because use of such adjectives is at odds with the general tone of the writing, either overall or of that particular passage. Judicious use of adjectives is like the proper use of seasonings in a meal; it adds a savory quality and calls up associations in a reader's mind evoking additional emotional weight to what is being said. Overuse, on the other hand, burdens the writing with so much extraneous material that it either becomes sensory overload or, frankly, mush which loses all meaning whatsoever without having to be reread several time to extract the kernel from the fat.

 

[j d worthington]

A thought on examples: Try reading a passage from, say, Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space" or At the Mountains of Madness, then compare it to nearly any passage from, say, Varney the Vampyre. Both use adjectives to a great degree, but the first used them very carefully to accomplish the things mentioned above, while in the other they become mere empty padding or (worse) a confusing mishmash of verbiage which undermines the thrust of the passage.

 

[Toby Frost]

I've had loads of advice to avoid adverbs, but not much on adjectives. The "Now you die," he shouted angrily construction is bad because the adverb actually weakens the sentence instead of making it stronger, but adjectives is new to me.

Anyhow, in answer to your questions:

I don't detect any difference between the A+ examples. Like the Judge says, both sound suitable only in an American context.

I think you are right on all three counts re the second example. I don't like either sentence much but I like the second one slightly less. It does indeed sound purple.

I think JD is right: it's a matter of knowing what you're doing and what effect it will have. It's important to steer clear of clumsy things like the "red-headed detective" trait, where you artificially use a descriptive tag to avoid overusing a character's name, and of course not every word needs amplifying with the extra description that adjectives provide. "Dave pulled a gun" is much more powerful than "Dave pulled a long-barreled Colt" unless the long barrel is the point of the sentence. Otherwise, I'd go along with the Judge and JD.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

This overlaps to a certain extent with what JD is saying but perhaps it puts it in simpler terms:

Writers who overuse adjectives often use the thesaurus too much as well. They use words for which they don't know the exact meanings ... or words they didn't know at all until they saw them in the thesaurus. Take the word "aquiline." Someone who didn't know its exact meaning, but who had a vague impression that it meant something attractive in the way of noses, might write, "She had a pert, upturned, aquiline nose." But though aquiline is generally used in a complimentary way, it means a classic Roman nose, beak-like (the word derives from the Latin word for eagle), or even hooked. People might admire an aquiline nose, it may look regal and imposing on the right face, but it is the opposite of pert and upturned.

Often, new writers don't seem to realize that synonyms rarely mean exactly the same thing, that they have different shades of meaning, or apply to different situations, and even when they say essentially the same thing, one can imply that what it describes is a good thing and the other imply very much the reverse. For instance "abundant" and "excessive" both could be used to describe a large amount of something, but they don't have the same meaning. Sometimes inexperienced writers will pile on the adjectives to make their writing look more important; what they don't understand is that each adjective added has to expand in some meaningful way on what has already been said. It can't just be tacked on.

And it certainly shouldn't contradict the other adjectives (unless you are trying to set up a paradox), or confuse their meaning, as in the example I gave up above about noses. Nor should adjectives take away from the impact of the sentence. Some sentences are more effective when they are long and descriptive. Others are better when they are short and get to the point, like Toby's example with the gun. When someone pulls a gun on you, you are thinking, "There is a gun pointing at me." You're not thinking about what it looks like. It's a fricking gun.

Since new writers don't always take all of these things into account, they layer adjectives on with a liberal hand, creating very bad sentences in the process. Sometimes they will take five adjectives to say something, because they don't know the one right word, a word that is more precise and specific, that would have said it better. To give you an extreme example:

"It was a big, large, huge, circular, round thing like a ball."

"It was an immense globe."

I'm sure you can see that one sentence is better than the other. The first one is something a child might write. The second says exactly what it means in two words.

And all of these common mistakes I have mentioned are the reason that adjectives get a bad rap.

 

[mosaix]

"Dave pulled a gun" is much more powerful than "Dave pulled a long-barreled Colt"

Unless, of course, you're Raymond Chandler describing Philip Marlowe's reaction to having a gun pulled on him. A master of "show don't tell", Chandler uses Marlowe's description of the gun, rather than his reaction to it, to show us just how self confident a relaxed Marlowe is in, what would be to us, a stressful situation.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

That second sentence of the second example is indeed purple. Immensely, hugely, flashily, profoundly, flamingly purple. It also does not convey the same feeling at all as the one it tries to replace.

Just out of curiosity, how would the non-American version of the first example be written?

 

[Mouse]

Just out of curiosity, how would the non-American version of the first example be written?

Jerome was a right square and got all A grades at school. Annoying little sod.

 

[Peter Graham]

Adjectives aren't bad, but their usage can be one feature of badly written prose.

Some writers seem to feel a need to write in what they perceive to be a literary or lofty way, or at the very least feel that they have to impress the reader with their dazzling vocabulary. And herein lies the problem. If they actually have a dazzling vocabulary and hammer it mercilessly, they can end up looking like smug clever dicks (such as the aptly named Will Self), but if they don't, they end up looking like absolute numpties.

"Don't exceed your limitations and no-one will know that you have any" is a useful mantra to keep in the back of one's brain.

Language -and therefore writing - is about communication. The best method of communication is usually going to be your own. Setting out to write like James Joyce or Laurence Sterne is usually going to be a bad idea, unless of course you are James Joyce or Laurence Sterne. In which case you're dead anyway.

In Spectrum's examples, what we are seeing is a commentator decreeing what is Good Writing and what is Bad Writing. And s/he is talking utter cobblers.

Good Writing is not the sort of writing which a small number of self-appointed experts have decided that other people should like. Good Writing is writing in which the writer is able to engage their reader and express their story in a clear and entertaining manner. Good Writers make full use of the basic tools - an understanding of grammar and syntax, strong story arcs, believable characters, a credible backdrop and a confident narrrative voice. Some are good at imagery - so it's right they should use it, adjectives and all. Others are good on dialogue. It doesn't matter - play to your strengths.

But whatever you do, do it well.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Boneman]

Jerome was a right square and got all A grades at school. Annoying little sod.

I know it's off-thread, but that made me laugh out loud! Good one Mouse!

Back on thread: I do have some trouble with adjectives and adverbs and have to trim them in my rewrites: but I still think: "Morris, Peggy is dead," Frank said softly, is preferable to "Morris, Peggy is dead," Frank whispered. Mainly because he spoke softly, he didn't whisper. I know I could put "Morris, Peggy is dead." Frank's voice was low. Now I've done a 'was', so I could instead say: Frank lowered his voice: "Morris, Peggy is dead."

But actually I'm sticking with "Morris, Peggy is dead," Frank said softly because I like it... more pathos than the others, more emotion in a quiet subdued (English?) way...

 

[Ursa major]

"Don't exceed your limitations and no-one will know that you have any" is a useful mantra to keep in the back of one's brain.

Ug! Ug ug ug; ug ug. Ug?

I know it's off-thread, but that made me laugh out loud! Good one Mouse!

Back on thread: I do have some trouble with adjectives and adverbs and have to trim them in my rewrites: but I still think: "Morris, Peggy is dead," Frank said softly, is preferable to "Morris, Peggy is dead," Frank whispered. Mainly because he spoke softly, he didn't whisper. I know I could put "Morris, Peggy is dead." Frank's voice was low. Now I've done a 'was', so I could instead say: Frank lowered his voice: "Morris, Peggy is dead."

But actually I'm sticking with "Morris, Peggy is dead," Frank said softly because I like it... more pathos than the others, more emotion in a quiet subdued (English?) way...

I too would stick to softly if that's how Frank was saying the words.

Whispering does not give the correct feeling at all: threats can be whispered and be all the more chilling for being delivered in this way. And while low would usually indicated the volume, it could mean the pitch; neither indicates a specifically soft voice.

 

[Toby Frost]

"It was a big, large, huge, circular, round thing like a ball."

For some reason this made me laugh out loud, and think of The Prisoner.

As for Jerome, it sounds American for a few small reasons. "Earned" would probably be "got" in the UK and "student" might well be "pupil" (student on its own in the UK often implies a university student, not someone young enough to get As). "Straight As" is used, but "A+" isn't really (the GCSE - 16yr old - qualification has an A* grade, whereas the A level - 18 - goes up to A only), especially as an adjective. So "Jerome got straight As" would be more UK-ish, and "Jerome was an exceptional pupil" would be even more so.

Anyhow, back to topic...

 

[Malloriel]

Sometimes I forget what my own vocabulary is like. It didn't strike me as often when I was younger, how frequently I use words that are not, shall we say, the "norm" in casual conversation. Knowing, them, though, makes it difficult not to use them. If we as writers look to find the best single word to sum something up that could otherwise take a handful, then in conversation as well the skill should be employed. The problem comes when the listener might be a few pages behind in the dictionary.

I recently wrote to an acquaintance " Use of hyperbole to emphasize the length of time it's been is a perfectly valid practice." and "Once I learn a new word, I tend to assimilate it into my everyday speech. Whatever is appropriate to describe what I want to say." after being accused of using many large words. Just how my brain works and applies language.

It has taken more conscious effort to . . . streamline things while writing. My prose has a tendency to become extremely purple if I don't keep myself in check. So many emotions to convey, so many sensations to impart, so difficult to limit them. It's not to say that my purple, adjective-riddled prose is therefore bad; it can, however, be said to be difficult to work through, and I think that that is something I would like to avoid in larger pieces. Something we'd all like to avoid, I should hope. Difficulty in muddling through the words is what can leave a reader feeling disconnected from any and all story elements, over which we as the authors have spent countless hours fussing.

The second, more purple example really threw me off because of this. I could see no real way that it could be called "better" than the first. It came across to me as being excessive and mostly useless. Much as I love the word "fugue", one tends not to see it outside of historical pieces, because it has fallen out of casual use. Many words have, but not all stand out quite as starkly as did "fugue" to my eye.

 

[J Riff]

Funny responses!

He pulled a big, heavy irony-steely looking thing that was amazingly, a German-made pre-war .44 calibre Kalishnikov, or a very astonishingly incredibly americanised facsimile of one, out of his pocket. It was the purplest Kalishnikov that Dave had ever seen, amazingly, as he dealt in such awesomely rare and esotericaly unusual items.

 

[Bella Donna]

"A cloudbank of fugue and nausea suddenly cleared as though a stiff sea breeze had torn it apart. For the first time in months, her stomach pined for food."

My goodness, that is hideous!

I think you need adjectives, but when using them, they need to be appropriate to the tone and style of the story. They need to make sense in the context in which the story is written. The above purple prose might work in an old-fashioned novel, but in a modern one, it jars.

I suggest:

For months she had been ill; heavy-headed, nauseous and miserable. Slowly, her appetite and energy returned.

 

[Kyndylan]

Sorry to go off-topic, and be pedantic with it, but:

the A level - 18 - goes up to A only.

I'm afraid that as of this year A* does indeed exist at A level! But it has some strange form whereby it's conferred upon the student as a whole, rather than a particular subject, if I understand correctly.

And

a German-made pre-war .44 calibre Kalishnikov

To they very best of my knowledge, no such thing ever existed! Please do correct me if I'm wrong - I'd be fascinated.

/tangent

 

[Ursa major]

I think you need adjectives, but when using them, they need to be appropriate to the tone and style of the story. They need to make sense in the context in which the story is written. The above purple prose might work in an old-fashioned novel, but in a modern one, it jars.

But what if a POV character in your otherwise modern novel is old-fashioned and indulges in the occasional passage of purple prose? You would no more expect their narrative voice to be up-to-date than be interchangeable with Shakespeare, Wodehouse or Hemmingway.

(You might, though, wish to avoid using such a POV character unless you really can't avoid doing so.)

 

[Bella Donna]

But what if a POV character in your otherwise modern novel is old-fashioned and indulges in the occasional passage of purple prose? You would no more expect their narrative voice to be up-to-date than be interchangeable with Shakespeare, Wodehouse or Hemmingway.

Some people like to do that for effect, and if it helps with character building, go for it. However, I personally think it's counter-productive, not to mention off-putting, if you use it for general descriptive purposes.

(You might, though, wish to avoid using such a POV character unless you really can't avoid doing so.)

Agreed.

 

[Ursa major]

It isn't just for effect, though, is it? Unless your POV character (or all of them, when you have multiple POVs) are all bang up-to-date with their language and thinking**, or you're using a rather distant or omniscient 3rd person (which isn't at all modern, as I understand it) you are bound to have some narrative voices that are comparatively old-fashioned. I'm sure a POV character based on me would be; even someone in their thirties may be using words no longer thought of as "relevant" to, say, a twenty-two year old. (And that's without admitting the existence of young fogeys.)


By the way, I'm thinking of novel-length works; you may be thinking of short stories given your comment in the Discuss the 75-word Challenge thread.


** - Whatever that means: talking in 140 character bites, speaking in text?