Things to consider while writing: Dummy's Guide to Reader Fatigue

I posted this on Reddit and got a pretty good response. TV Tropes was one of my early stops when starting to write, So I figured I'd post it here.

When I stated writing I never considered myself a savant of the English language. People said to me you’re being too passive! Adverbs are the Deboh! Stuff like that. Well this is a public service announcement to people with dreams of writing. This is what they mean in plain English. I wish someone had smacked me upside the head and spelled this out to me a long time ago.

Reader fatigue is a thing. People will get sick of reading if it feels like work. You’re looking for a natural flow that entrances your reader.

Adjectives – were ____/was_____/is _____ /are_____: Often leads to ‘passive voice’. Describing an object or a person with an adjective means you’re slacking on description. This goes back to the old ‘show don’t tell’ argument. You are telling the reader what something is rather than showing it.

Why is that a problem?: was takes up valuable space when you could be saying the same thing with a powerful verb.

How do I fix it?: Describe the object in a brief manner. This does not mean a three paragraph rant on a door being oaken.

The tree’s leaves were green.

I sure wish I knew what kind of green. What type of tree? What season is it? If you go on to explain that good, if not you’re being too passive.

Bob was fat. (Ok. He’s fat)

Bob’s chins jiggled with each step. He had long since abandoned the search for his neck. (Wow, dude.)

Note: Sometimes people do both. Which is talking rather than writing. “Bob is fat. How fat is He? He’s so fat he—“ That works while talking but even then don’t you typically get annoyed with friends that beat around the bush before getting to the point. Every. Single. Time.

Adverbs – The ‘ly’ monster: Describing an action with an adverb is a shortcut and a crutch. If used in excess, you are feeding context to the reader when the content of your writing is supposed to do that for them.

Why is that a problem?: Imagine watching a TV show where a person is told their brother died, and the actor turned to the camera and said: “This is sad. You should be crying.” That’s basically what you’re doing.

Suzie danced happily.

You should be happy. She is dancing.

How do I fix it? Ask yourself is that added detail important? If so, doesn’t it deserve a longer explanation?

Bob ate quickly. (Is it important that he ate fast?)

Bob stuffed his mouth full of food. (I want the reader to know he’s a piggy)

Note: Imagine how annoying it is when talking to someone and they say ‘really’ too much. That properly emulates the exhaustion caused by adverbs.

Bonus — The five senses from your character: One of the fast tracks to ruining immersion is putting your character in the way of your reader feeling the emotions.

“Bob felt cold.” vs. “Wind carried a chill through the air, clinging to Bob’s skin.”

edited 22nd Oct '13 1:39:47 PM by Dimanagul

I am soooo guilty of that adverb one. -.-

While I'm not sure how iron-clad these rules are, I am soaking up the information because this is sometimes a challenge for me. I've read some pretty decent stories that used a lot of these techniques but I've also read better stories that didn't use them as often, so I see how it makes a difference. I just posted a piece of something on the "write anything" thread and I see how I can immediately improve on it, so thanks

edited 22nd Oct '13 7:53:26 PM by nekomoon14

Nothing is iron clad in writing. Passive voice and adverbs have their uses, they're just easily abused is all.

Passive voice and adverbs can and do serve a purpose...they exist in the English language for a reason. However I've found with my own writing that if I can think of a way to take them out, I should - even if doing so involves thinking up a new way to arrange the sentence. Every time I've gone through such work I've gotten a piece of prose with smoother flow. This can be hard work, but I have yet to find a place where it was not work worth doing.

To the OP's list I will add this: several common words arranged well conveys an image. A single obscure word conveys that the author owns a thesaurus.

The simpler, shorter words are on balance a better choice. There is a good reason why such words are the ones in common use, and that reason is most people have a clear notion of what they mean. This meaning varies from person to person but for each individual it is well defined.

Example: I know what "sad" means. My idea of it and your idea of it might be different, but if I read the word "sad" I can see things in my mind...times and places where I felt this emotion defined by a word we all know. When combined with other words this definition grows more distinct, but "sad" has a clear meaning. On the other hand "lugubrious" reminds me of the noise the soap makes when I drop it in the shower *

Like all rules this one can be stretched, but I tend to regard obscure words as a necessary evil at best.

edited 23rd Oct '13 4:19:09 AM by drunkscriblerian