Adjectives: No, there wasn't 'a hot juicy wet pussy'.

Nor a "stiff, swollen, giant, rock-hard cock."

This is a thread about adjectives, and the main 'point' will be to give some examples of how they may be kept to a minimum.
Of course 'quality' is also an issue; the ones used should be good ones, not as above. Adjective problems are rampant in bad porn, romance, or erotica, indeed in bad 'creative' writing in general.

Everyone is free to join in, but if you're unsure of what an adjective is, listen for a bit, first.

For the grammatically unsure. Sentences must indicate an action or change, or state of being. Let's stick to simple sentences.

Taking the first case, action (indicated by the verb) whatever 'acts' is the subject. "The *man came." There may also be an object, "The woman stroked her *breasts."

You will, for a first rough idea, find nouns in either the subject or object position. A noun 'names a person place or thing' is the traditional definition.

Any word preceding the noun is generally 'modifying' it in some way**, as to its quality ('what sort of thing?') number (how many) or location ('which one?'). All modifiers of nouns are adjectives, including 'a, an, and the', additionally referred to as articles. We are not going to be discussing handling or reducing articles.

In the two examples, the additional words marked * are adjectives:

The *thin, *wiry, *American man came.

The *voluptuous, *young woman stroked her *two, *full, *throbbing, *beautiful, *melon breasts.

(The words 'American' and 'two' and 'melon' might, in another context be nouns, but they are not, here).

If someone would supply some writing that's good and sparse in adjectives, great!

J.

**Added: provided that the preceding words are independently applicable to the noun, and not modifying other modifiers: Example: " He hit the big, heavy, red ball." All adjectives.
But: "He picked up the very heavy ball." Very is an adverb; only 'heavy' is an adjective.

================[EXAMPLE]=================

Here is an example, chosen almost at random, from a popular, otherwise well-written story at literotica, which I won't identify further. Is there an adjective problem?


"Oh my god Tommy, oh god oh god oh god, mmm..." she groaned as Tommy pushed aside the skimpy material of her white thong to plunge his tongue between her gaping pussy lips. Her inner labia were so moist with her fluid that she grew light headed, the overwhelming pleasure between her sensuous long legs seeming to draw her to the brink of unconsciousness. Amy felt Tommy's nose press gently against her neatly trimmed, soft brown pubic hair, her pussy gorging his chin in moisture as he swirled his tongue powerfully against her aching clitoris. The shattering sensation made her lovely face contort with blissful agony as she moaned his name over and over, and she placed her palm atop his head as though by doing so she were acknowledging his sexual prowess.

"Tommy oh Jesus Tommy that feels so, sooo good..." she groaned softly, feeling the opening phases of an orgasm beginning to unfold deep within her sumptuous young body, an orgasm a thousand times more powerful than any she had ever achieved through her own hands and fantasies.

Amy's trimmed, wet young pussy was so breathtaking to look at that sucking it was a double pleasure. Her labia quivered beautifully, uncontrollably as the stimulus of Tommy's expert tongue shattered her vulnerable clitoris, and her long thighs rested on his shoulders pornographically as he ate her out with merciless hunger. The young virgin moaned in that unique, blissful sound of excruciating pleasure as Tommy drew the tip of his tongue slowly against the soft lips of her vaginal opening, her clit seeming to scream for mercy as it was fondled by Tommy's thumb and forefinger. She knew she was going to cum, and her thighs began to squeeze against Tommy's ears as she felt her climax begin to tear through her glistening young body.

Good? I doubt it, but here goes nothin'. Analyze this!

Sam strolled to the corner and watched the litter on the sidewalk as the wind blew. His nose dripped in the frost and he wiped it on his sleeve. He looked around and smiled. No one had noticed.

Good point.
"See Spot run. Jane chases Spot." is free of adjectives; so lack or sparseness of adjectives does not guarantee good writing.

Too many adjectives, however, almost guarantees bad writing, though imagination may help: "the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain."

What do you think of the example in the first posting?

J.

I'm a habitual over user of adjectives. I do try to be going somewhere with them when I use them and I try not to abuse those that have been done to death.

That said, there are only so many ways you can describe the various parts of the human anatomy and the odds are greatly in favor of someone having done it before no matter how good your adjective use. Diving into your thesarus you will find only so many words for pussy (pun intended ). Likewise there are only so many for hot and wet. Sometimes the staid versions are there because the work best. Hot wet pussy has almost transcended the words. It evokes in the minds of most readers a woman who is sexually ready. It has become a case of the sum being more than the value of the individual parts.

For me adjectives paint the scene. They are the paints I use to color the world I am writing in just as an artist uses her paints. They can be over used, just as painter throwing too much red into a sunset can take it from sublime to garish. With the same analogy they can be underused, such as a landscape artist using a single color of blue for the sky.

A typical passage from me:

Penelope stood at the marble rail of her balcony and stared out at the roiling sea. The vivid shades of blue that normally graced the glassy surface were shot through with angry greens and the waves carried white crowns of foam. Her delicate hand idly stroked the cool marble of the railing as her eyes tried to penetrate the mists that obscured the horizon. A storm was blowing in, which was unusual for this time of year.

OR:

She stood at the rail of her balcony and stared out at sea. The waves and mists changed the normal scene. A storm was blowing in.

The second is far more economical, but does it truely evoke the scene I wish to portay? Some writers wish to let the reader use his or her imagination to fill in all the blanks. At what point to you cease to be a writer and become merely a director, throwing cues to the reader and letting them go about their part while you sit back? At what point do you become so overly detailed that there is no room for the reader to use his imagination?

In the example Pure used to head this post up I think the writer went overboard, the adjectives ceased to really develop the scene and became almost gratuitous. If that is the writer's style throughout the work then it's fine, that's his/her style. If the lead up is less laden with adjectives and the the sex scene becomes over heavy, then I think you run into a problem.

To borrow from the schoolhouse rock thread when I unpack my adjectives we are talking a U-haul full. When some other's do it might be an overnight bag. Readers familiar with my work expect haevy detail, if I were to become miserly with my descriptions many would cease to enjoy my works. For someone who is sparse with adjectives the converse probably holds true as well.

The question falls to where is the line between enoungh and too much. I don't know that there is a definitive answer to that question.

-Colly

Pure said:

"See Spot run. Jane chases Spot." is free of adjectives; so lack or sparseness of adjectives does not guarantee good writing.

Click to expand...

The two short sentences are good writing for the intended audience of very small children who are just beginning to read.

There is bad writing for children: "The Flopsy Lopsy Bunny has lost his shoe. Shall we find it for him, children?"

Pure's conclusion therefore does not follow but is still reasonably true. Lack or sparseness of adjectives can be effective but like many techniques it is very difficult to do well. The other extreme can also work with purple prose overflowing with adjectives and adjectival clauses but is fatally easy to turn into a parody.

Whatever works to tell the story is valid. A good author should be able to switch from terse active prose to languid descriptive prose and make the reader believe in both. A range of techniques is a good asset to any craftsperson.

Og

Pure said:

Too many adjectives, however, almost guarantees bad writing, J.

Click to expand...

Only one thing nearly guarantees bad writing and that is: lack of skill.

Adjectives are, on the whole, evocative. Evocation is a complex skill, the most part of which, as with many artistic endevours, is knowing when to stop.

Gauche (who knows only what reads well.)

gauchecritic said:

Only one thing nearly guarantees bad writing and that is: lack of skill.

Click to expand...

Amen.

Starting to agree with all those quotations you used to have in your signature.

Just about every interview with established authors and guides to writing that I have read point to the use of economical prose. While you shouldn't feel the need to stop using adjectives and adverbs, the recommendation is to use strong verbs and nouns instead.

I wish I could provide some solid examples, but I'm guilty of profuse usage of adverbs and adjectives in my stories. I've been slowly training myself to revise sentences for economy without sacrificing its intent.

-Mike B.

otherdarkmeat said:

Just about every interview with established authors and guides to writing that I have read point to the use of economical prose. While you shouldn't feel the need to stop using adjectives and adverbs, the recommendation is to use strong verbs and nouns instead.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I can get rather ruthless with prose, even my own. My feeling is that every word should tell the reader something he didn't know before.

The exception -- and this is something I realized only recently, when I became more serious about writing erotica (or smut, if you prefer; I won't argue semantics) -- is that I find myself putting in extra material occasionally, for the sake of pacing. Somehow it seems more critical in erotica/smut. Still, I try to keep it to a minimum.

I guess I'll find out how well it works soon enough. My first piece here, a two-part story, is pending approval. Other works are in progress.

Two Meats in a row!

Mike, as you know, I read many of the same books as you, and subsequently every writing guide book that I've read also encourages writers to use strong, succint prose.

There is a place for adjectives and adverbs, but when over-used, especially in erotica, they can produce string upon string of weak, cliched prose. In my early stories I was guilty of doing such. One friend even pulled me up and constantly ribbed me about the recurring use of "huge, throbbing cocks".

Here's an example, adapted from my own writing, where I have intenionally over-used adjectives and adverbs:

Slowly approaching me, still staring intently at me, he put his muscular arms out. I eagerly stepped into them. We finally embraced, our glistening, naked bodies together for the first time. He seemed so strong and powerful, me powerless, I felt totally at his mercy. Our rampant hands were all over each other, caressing, massaging our smooth, bare skin. There now seemed a sense of urgency in the way he touched me. Grabbing my soft, but firm, ass and clenching it in his strong hands he lifted me off the ground, I wrapped my lithe legs around him.

I was now rapidly being carried backwards, towards the wooden kitchen table; my long, slender legs locked around him. As he sat me on the hard table I felt what I’d been yearning for, his huge, throbbing cock trying to find its way into my dripping, wet pussy. It was searching, trying to push its way into my deep, muscular hole. I was moaning with desire.

When he finally entered me, forcing his whole, rock-hard cock up me, I gasped and threw my head back in ecstasy. His hungry mouth found my throbbing tits, and sucked on my stiff nipples. He began slowly moving himself in and out of me and seemed like a gentle giant. By this point I just needed him to fuck me hard, but he was in total control and wanted to take his time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here it is again, re-written, with what I think is stronger prose:

Approaching me, still staring at me, he put his arms out. I stepped into them. We embraced, naked bodies together for the first time. He seemed so powerful, me powerless; I was at his mercy. Our hands were all over each other, caressing, massaging our bare skin. There now seemed a sense of urgency in the way he touched me. Grabbing my ass and clenching it in his strong hands he lifted me off the ground, I wrapped my legs around him.

I was rapidly carried backwards, towards the kitchen table, my legs locked around his waist. As he sat me on the table I felt what I’d been yearning for, his cock trying to find its way into my pussy. It was searching, trying to push its way into my deep, muscular hole. I was moaning.

When he finally entered me, forcing his entire cock up me, I gasped and threw my head back in ecstasy. His mouth found my tits, sucked on my nipples, and, simultaneously, he moved himself in and out of me. He seemed like a gentle giant. By this point I just needed him to fuck me hard, but he was in control and wanted to take his time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not only does the second effort read much better, in my opinion, but also the pace is much better, the sense of urgency and passion between to the two lovers can be felt. Of course, I have used one or two adjectives and adverbs, but I have tried to be pretty economical, on the whole relying on stronger nouns and verbs.

As others have already said: a skilled writer can use adjectives and adverbs, or not, depending on whether or not they feel it is fitting for a particular piece of writing. Personally, I prefer to read stonger, more terse prose. When done well it is highly effective. I have quite a way to go, but I do conciously try to do this.

Lou

Where is the horse?

so I can flog him some more?

I would have to agree with what most people have said regarding this topic.

Strong adjectives are A-ok in my blue, leather book. However, I know whenever editing my own work, I look for the weak adjectives and really try to re-work them as much as possible. Even if it requires extensive writing and re-writing. A weak adjective (IMO) is worse than no adjective at all.

Now.... adverbs are a whole different issue for me. As everyone knows... I write primarily magazine editorials and I have had my brain hard-wired for the last few years that adverbs are the kiss of death and will almost uniformly be met by the "big red hitler" (AKA- the nasty red pen). So, I am one to really root out the adverbs and obliterate them. I pound on them, stomp them and then laugh at their pain. (Please note...there are a few VERY notable exceptions, where things cannot be said without an adverb).

I would have to agree with the good verb/noun comment made above. If you have the right verb and noun, there is a very good chance that you will not need many adjectives and almost no adverbs.

Of course.... I only worry about these things in the re-write (which is where my "prose" comes out).....my first drafts look like something that would have recieved a 4th grade "check-minus".

~WOK (who lovingly and adoringly writes long, crappy, unintelligable first drafts).

Phrases like 'painting a picture' and need to be 'evocative' are sometimes used to justify an abundance of adjectives. Yet beauty, flow, imagery, evocativeness--besides eroticism-- can be achieved in a spare prose, be it poetic or 'hard realism.'

Consider, first example, poetic, a passage in Leduc, _La Batarde_:

----
Questions one might consider: What are the author's methods of evoking? how does she handle adjectives? Note the 'of' construction as a way of avoiding them. How are adverbs handled?

Re worn out's comments: how do noun verb choices get the job done, here?

[two young women in a school dormitory, with a monitor who just got up and went back to bed; narrator has left her own and has climbed into Isabelle's bed]


I took Isabelle by the mouth, I was afraid of the monitor, I drank our saliva. It was an orgy of dangers. We had felt the darkness in our mouths and throats, then we had felt peace return.
'Crush me,' she said. ...
'Am I too heavy?"
'You'll never be too heavy. I feel cold,' she said.

My fingers considered her icy shoulder. I flew away, I snatched up in my beak the tufts of wool; caught on thorns along the hedgerows and laid them one by one on Isabelle's shoulders. I tapped at her bones with downy hammers, my kisses tumbling one on top of another as I flung myself onward through an avalanche of tenderness. My hand relieved my failing lips. I moulded the sky around her shoulders. Isabelle rose, fell back , and I fell with her into the hollow of her shoulder. My cheek came to rest on a curve.
'My darling'
I said it over and over.
'Yes," Isabelle said. ...

The hand alighted on my neck: a frosty sun whitened my hair. The hand followed my veins downward. The hand stopped. My blood beat against the mount of Venus on Isabelle's palm. The hand moved up again: it was drawing circles, overflowing into the void, spreading its sweet ripples ever wider around my left shoulder, while the other lay abandoned in the zebra night striped by the breaths of the other girls. I was discovering the velvet of my bone, the glow hidden in my flesh, the infinity of forms I possessed. The hand was trailing a mist of dreams across my skin. The heavens beg when someone strokes your shoulder: the heavens were begging now.

Colleen said,

"For me adjectives paint the scene. They are the paints I use to color the world I am writing in just as an artist uses her paints. They can be over used, just as painter throwing too much red into a sunset can take it from sublime to garish. With the same analogy they can be underused, such as a landscape artist using a single color of blue for the sky."

A typical passage from me:

[Colleens Example 1]
Penelope stood at the marble rail of her balcony and stared out at the roiling sea. The vivid shades of blue that normally graced the glassy surface were shot through with angry greens and the waves carried white crowns of foam. Her delicate hand idly stroked the cool marble of the railing as her eyes tried to penetrate the mists that obscured the horizon. A storm was blowing in, which was unusual for this time of year.

OR:

[Colleen's Example 2; pared down version of 1]

She stood at the rail of her balcony and stared out at sea. The waves and mists changed the normal scene. A storm was blowing in.

The second is far more economical, but does it truely evoke the scene I wish to portray? //

No, probably not.

I don't have a problem with setting a scene, giving some 'visuals', etc. In that respect I don't have a problem with the first example.

Can one say that the adjective difference--9 in the first case, 1 in the second-- is the key?

To put it it another way, does the writing gain by adding adjectives, that the railing is 'marble' , that the sea is 'roiling.'

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're NOT scene setting, early on, the question would arise, why the details, e.g., that storms are unusual?

*Assuming that the passage was mid story*, I can think of other ways it might be spruced up. They all stem from the fact that the second example is pretty barren of action. So one gets into adding actions and events: Why is she there. What's she thinking. So instead of the maximum minimum contrast, I'd propose.

/Penelope was a the railing of her balcony; her hands felt calmed by the coolness of the marble. The storm's incoming barely registered with her, since she was in an utter confusion of thoughts over what she was to do. Yes, this was the time to leave the batterer, if there ever was, but she couldn't see what the step coming next. As her hands flitted over the marble, she recalled the caresses of old, some of them, his, which she had not seen for an eternity. The wind now passing by her face might have eased her distress before now, but it had no effect on the roiling at the centre of her self; anguish at having to say goodbye to so much, and the glimmerings of confidence that maybe life without him was possible./

So this is just an illustration, probably crappy, of the point that to elaborate the 'woman at the rail of the balcony' needn't be understood as an exercise in adding adjectives (I've mostly kept them out.) Please excuse my using you as a guinea pig, if that's what it looks like.

Best,
J.

LOL,

I don't object to being a lab rat

Going back to my original para, it's actually the opening to the story rather than a para in the middle. I wish not only to show Penelope's lonliness, but to set the scene in her villa on the Agean sea. I also wish to convey some of the feelings she has as well as her innate elegance.

One thing none of the discussions on adjectives has brushed on so far is style. I consider myself a story teller in the oral tradition as much as a writer. A storyteller can use bodylanguage, inflection, props and gestures to augment a tale. Adjectives must serve not only as my gestures, but must also paint the scene I wish the reader to see in their mind.

For me, I try to paint scenes down to the last detail, allowing the reader to "see" the world I wish them too. Could I use stronger, less descritptive prose? Possibly. Would my readers enjoy that? Possibly again. Woud I be changing my style in a way that I felt was too the better? No, there I know I wouldn't. My only strength as a writer is in my descriptions. Should I tone those down I would have to be comfortable with my dialogue which I by no means am.

For me the scenes, descriptions and to some degree the personalities must tell the tale. If I am forced to rely on the dialogue to drive the story then I might as well trash it and come up with another story idea. The adjectives and adverbs must let my readers see into my world and experience it. It is only by them seeing what I do that I can make my stories work.

-Colly

I agree with Colly....

It is all about style. Some writers (like Faulkner) use tons of modifiers. Others... (like Hemmingway) they are almost totally absent.

I think the AMOUNT of modifiers you use can really depend on your style. That said... choosing bad modifiers (eg- good, nice, etc) is just bad form.

I say...if you are going to include them... include the right ones.

Now unlike Colly, I am a very dialogue-driven writer. I also like to read dialogue-driven stories and for me, what they say, the tone of their voice and the inflection can tell a tale of their emotions. And I tend to leave a lot of the "scene setting" up to the reader (I give him the basics... eg- the blue bedspread with a paisley pattern. But I don't do 3 paragraph descriptions of it. And I only mention it if I think it is really important to setting the mood or scene).

I would never say that Faulkner or Hemmingway were better than each other.** I think they each have a particular style and it is up to the reader to determine which style they like.

~WOK

**I don't think that line is gramatically correct...lol

Re: I agree with Colly....

wornoutkeyboard said:

I say...if you are going to include them... include the right ones.

Click to expand...

That's probably the main rule. My approach is to be ruthless in cutting out words. That means that in my work, a lot of adjectives and adverbs get cut in the second draft.

That also means the ones that are left are what I believe to be the right ones.

I've done a bit of work in the voluteer editing program. One guy sent me a story in which he described the woman's hips as "precious." So what was that supposed to tell the reader? It doesn't contribute to the picture. Maybe it tells us how he feels about her, but at that point, we already know very well. So precious is out the window.

Re: I agree with Colly....

wornoutkeyboard said:

It is all about style. Some writers (like Faulkner) use tons of modifiers. Others... (like Hemmingway) they are almost totally absent.

I think the AMOUNT of modifiers you use can really depend on your style. That said... choosing bad modifiers (eg- good, nice, etc) is just bad form.

I say...if you are going to include them... include the right ones.

Now unlike Colly, I am a very dialogue-driven writer. I also like to read dialogue-driven stories and for me, what they say, the tone of their voice and the inflection can tell a tale of their emotions. And I tend to leave a lot of the "scene setting" up to the reader (I give him the basics... eg- the blue bedspread with a paisley pattern. But I don't do 3 paragraph descriptions of it. And I only mention it if I think it is really important to setting the mood or scene).

I would never say that Faulkner or Hemmingway were better than each other.** I think they each have a particular style and it is up to the reader to determine which style they like.

~WOK

**I don't think that line is gramatically correct...lol

Click to expand...

Someone agrees with me? I think thats a first

Thanks WoK!

-Colly

Pure wrote:

/Penelope was a the railing of her balcony; her hands felt calmed by the coolness of the marble. The storm's incoming barely registered with her, since she was in an utter confusion of thoughts over what she was to do. Yes, this was the time to leave the batterer, if there ever was, but she couldn't see what the step coming next. As her hands flitted over the marble, she recalled the caresses of old, some of them, his, which she had not seen for an eternity. The wind now passing by her face might have eased her distress before now, but it had no effect on the roiling at the centre of her self; anguish at having to say goodbye to so much, and the glimmerings of confidence that maybe life without him was possible./

While this para is evocative, you have achived this through a slight alteration of my ON POV. You have in effect brought the narrator much closer to Penelope, giving an almost 1st person POV. This allows you to describe much more of her feelings, thoughts etc. while not using adjectives. It allows you to reach for the apparently holy grail of "show don't tell", by letting you show how Penelope feels rather than telling about her surroundings.

What you failed significantly to do here is paint the scene. You don't mention the ocean view (significant because she is watching vainly for her husband's ship), I don't get a "view" here as much as I do a "feel". The POV shift allows you to dispense with many of the adjectives because you are no longer concerned with a reader "seeing" anything, you are more concernd with them "feeling" the character out. While my para remains external yours quickly moves internal to the character.

Once internal you can dispense with many adjectives, replacing them with memory or history or internal monologue to convey feelings to a reader. You are drawing on shared experience to create a feeling. I am drawing on words to paint a picture. While neither is "better" my approach demands more description than yours. Bereft of adjectives I would be forced to move the ON internal quickly or loose the reader. By judicious (most would argue liberal) use of my adjectives I can maintain my narrator's freedom to describe and not tie myself to one character.

-Colly

It seems to me that, with one exception, earlier posters
were dealing with a false dichotomy. The choice is not
between a noun clarified with several adjectives and
THAT noun standing alone. Instead of "A man asking a favor
knocked briskly on the grill which had been lowered across
the entrance to the catle," and instead of "A man knocked
on the grill," I'd prefer, "A supplicant rapped on the
portcullis."
Often, not always but often, English has a sinle noun which
conveys both the original noun and the original adjective.
Then, you have to decide whether that word makes the
paragraph sound pretentions or sends your less-educated
readers to the dictionary.
I can remember describing the mouth of a woman in orgasm as
"a rictus." This generated a long thread on whether the
word was too esoteric.

Hi Colly,

While this para is evocative, you have achived this through a slight alteration of my ON POV. You have in effect brought the narrator much closer to Penelope, giving an almost 1st person POV. This allows you to describe much more of her feelings, thoughts etc. while not using adjectives. It allows you to reach for the apparently holy grail of "show don't tell", by letting you show how Penelope feels rather than telling about her surroundings.

My understanding is that the characteristics of omniscience are 1) getting into people's heads, and 2) more freedom as to time. I'd lean the other way, in characterizing the change: yours is more first person, in that it's the sea as it looks to the protagonist; one doesn't need an omniscient narrator to talk about the look of the surface of the sea.



What you failed significantly to do here is paint the scene. You don't mention the ocean view (significant because she is watching vainly for her husband's ship), I don't get a "view" here as much as I do a "feel". The POV shift allows you to dispense with many of the adjectives because you are no longer concerned with a reader "seeing" anything, you are more concernd with them "feeling" the character out. While my para remains external yours quickly moves internal to the character.

Point taken, from the first sentence. So is the only issue how much to describe the sea?

That cant be decided by looking at a para, so you decided it according to the demands of the story. No problem. However, IF the sea is to be described, there are more and less adjective rich descriptions. So, IMO, it is NOT the mental focus that diminishes the adjectives. An quick example of dubious quality, taking a page from Uther about nouns,

[orig para being discussed]
Penelope stood at the marble rail of her balcony and stared out at the roiling sea. The vivid shades of blue that normally graced the glassy surface were shot through with angry greens and the waves carried white crowns of foam. Her delicate hand idly stroked the cool marble of the railing as her eyes tried to penetrate the mists that obscured the horizon. A storm was blowing in, which was unusual for this time of year.

[revised, expanded]
Gusts of wind roiled the sea, its surface losing the look of glass, which, in times of calm, was graced in pure cerulean. From her place on the balcony, Penelope saw sickly greens marking the turbulence of the currents that drew the white-caps racing past her and to the west. Swells reaching the height of a man swept before the wind. Here and there floated bits of kelp torn from their moorings. Only a single gull, marker of her hopes, could be seen--the rest had abandoned this shore for lands further south or secreted themselves among the crags of the shoreline. Mists, driven in by the gale, obscured the horizon and kept her from seeing any sign that might have relieved her uncertainty. Her hand idly stroked the marble of the railing, already taking on the chill she felt penetrating her light dress. Her ears felt the bite of the gusts. This was not the season for a storm like this, whose fury could snatch away the lives of those in boats that lacked the seaworthiness to survive combat with the tempest rushing in.

What'ya think. I let in a couple adjectives so you wouldn't feel deprived.

Pure said:

Hi Colly,

While this para is evocative, you have achived this through a slight alteration of my ON POV. You have in effect brought the narrator much closer to Penelope, giving an almost 1st person POV. This allows you to describe much more of her feelings, thoughts etc. while not using adjectives. It allows you to reach for the apparently holy grail of "show don't tell", by letting you show how Penelope feels rather than telling about her surroundings.

My understanding is that the characteristics of omniscience are 1) getting into people's heads, and 2) more freedom as to time. I'd lean the other way, in characterizing the change: yours is more first person, in that it's the sea as it looks to the protagonist; one doesn't need an omniscient narrator to talk about the look of the surface of the sea.



What you failed significantly to do here is paint the scene. You don't mention the ocean view (significant because she is watching vainly for her husband's ship), I don't get a "view" here as much as I do a "feel". The POV shift allows you to dispense with many of the adjectives because you are no longer concerned with a reader "seeing" anything, you are more concernd with them "feeling" the character out. While my para remains external yours quickly moves internal to the character.

Point taken, from the first sentence. So is the only issue how much to describe the sea?

That cant be decided by looking at a para, so you decided it according to the demands of the story. No problem. However, IF the sea is to be described, there are more and less adjective rich descriptions. So, IMO, it is NOT the mental focus that diminishes the adjectives. An quick example of dubious quality, taking a page from Uther about nouns,

[orig para being discussed]
Penelope stood at the marble rail of her balcony and stared out at the roiling sea. The vivid shades of blue that normally graced the glassy surface were shot through with angry greens and the waves carried white crowns of foam. Her delicate hand idly stroked the cool marble of the railing as her eyes tried to penetrate the mists that obscured the horizon. A storm was blowing in, which was unusual for this time of year.

[revised, expanded]
Gusts of wind roiled the sea, its surface losing the look of glass, which, in times of calm, was graced in pure cerulean. From her place on the balcony, Penelope saw sickly greens marking the turbulence of the currents that drew the white-caps racing past her and to the west. Swells reaching the height of a man swept before the wind. Here and there floated bits of kelp torn from their moorings. Only a single gull, marker of her hopes, could be seen--the rest had abandoned this shore for lands further south or secreted themselves among the crags of the shoreline. Mists, driven in by the gale, obscured the horizon and kept her from seeing any sign that might have relieved her uncertainty. Her hand idly stroked the marble of the railing, already taking on the chill she felt penetrating her light dress. Her ears felt the bite of the gusts. This was not the season for a storm like this, whose fury could snatch away the lives of those in boats that lacked the seaworthiness to survive combat with the tempest rushing in.

What'ya think. I let in a couple adjectives so you wouldn't feel deprived.

Click to expand...

LOL,

There is a very significant reason for using ON. In my case it's cause my use of limited POVs is so bad you would rather spend the evening with Dick & Jane I mention the sea only because I know apriori that the ocean plays a central role in the tale.

What I was trying to convey was that you could dispense with a lot of adjectives because you went into feelings, inside the character. If we both took the same general story idea and wrote a story I have no doubt yours would be shorter and read much easier than mine. You have a command of economical prose and use it to get across what you want fully as well as I do with my flowery style if not better.

I can't write that way. It's uncomfortable for me, feels forced, everything looks stiltted and colorless. Limited POVs are even worse, I just have no command of the style. Similarly my works are verbose, filled with flowery desriptive passages and probably overkill on detail. It's how I write.

I work to improve myself as a writer, but trying to change certain aspects of my writing style makes writing work rather than a pleasure. I over use adjectives. I am far to wordy to be commercially successful. I use the ON to allow me to describe things in great detail and let the reader know what the characters are thingking as well as feeling and what is going on in the world around them.

-Colly

Please comment on the above, more adjective sparse depiction of the woman, balcony, and esp. the sea.

How does this affect your claim that adjective are more necessary for the ocean than for the mind?

How does the *greater length affect your claim that
"I have no doubt yours [version] would be shorter" [presumably because of fewer adjectives].

As Uther has stated we are not merely chopping out adjectives, leading to "the woman saw the storm coming"; we are looking for better nouns and verbs, and I would add, sentence structures.

(Did anyone ever tell you you were stubborn?),

Me stubborn?

Starting with my mom and running through every friend and lover I ever had

This conversation has gotten out of my depth. While I am stubborn I am not arrogant. I don't have any room to speak really because in using adjectives I overkill. A more accomplished author could no doubt do it better, with fewer adjectives, perhaps stronger adjectives and prose or perhaps doing away with many of them entierly.

How does the *greater length affect your claim that
"I have no doubt yours [version] would be shorter" [presumably because of fewer adjectives].

Not only fewer adjectives, but stronger more economical prose. I tend to overkill with adjectives, wander into things that are perhaps not essential to the story and use odd constructions. I haven't noticed that tendency in your posts or excerpts and simply assumed your works carry the same traits.

-Colly

Adjectives

I think the number of adjectives depends mostly on what you are trying to write. A good stroke story depends on adjectives because they help the reader picture what is happening. I can say "her pussy" or I can say "her dripping-wet pussy with the pouty lips and the engorged clit". I can say "his cock" or I can say "his big, stiff cock with the purple, wedge-shaped head, protruding from the jungle of pubic hair. Words like "with" and "and" and "from" are not actually adjectives but they are part of adjectival phrases. Personally, I like to use a lot of adjectives, but even I would consider the two examples at the start of the thread to be overdone.

In the 1930's, there was said to be an editor of the NY Times who instructed his writers, whenever they were tempted to use any unnecessary descriptive word, to substitute the word "fucking" and it would be removed in editing.

So, assuming no unfortunate {fucking} oversights, only the editing staff would ever see:

("The fucking perpetrator is alleged to have been fucking insane at the time of the heinous, no, fucking, axe-murders.")

That won't work with erotica, though, will it.