Writing Outlaws -- Words and Phrases that should be put away

Strunk and White lists words and phrases that are often misused. This is an important chapter of their book. I want to write about words that are not misused, but rather, overused to the point that their meaning is lost. They may be common or have multiple appropriate meanings, but to better communicate the writer should swap them out for words that have innuendoes that add meaning to the writing. These words are shallow and they infect our writing with shallowness, preventing complexity that adds interest. These words are chameleons that blend in with any surrounding. We want words that stand out and stand for something, words that have meaning. Every word we write should add to the picture, like that individual brushstrokes of a master artist. The words are Jackson Pollack droolings that are hit and miss, and random.

The bandit for today is “only.” It is a word that comes from a dreaded family called adverbs. They only exist to torture your noble nouns, and vigilant verbs. You can tell by the family name “ly,” that only is meant to be wantonly weak. So by pedigree you should have an aversion for the wimpy word.

It can mean merely, lone, exclusively, simply, barely, no more than, or it can refer to occurrence such as “it only happened yesterday.” It can describe a number or amount, “it is only three feet deep.” It trivializes situations as in “the rescue only required guts.” Or “he was only a farmer’s daughter.” That might be an eye catcher, and a good use of only, maybe. Or it could be that “he was the only one left standing.” Only is a jerk of all trades and a master of only one, or maybe none.

I personally want to use it only when I have to. So I want to put it away where it can’t hurt my writing. I rarely parole it from the holding cell. I think you should banish it too.

If you have any words to nominate for incarceration please forward them with the reason why to  newsletter@monmouthwriters.com.  

A Person of Substance ... Oh really ... A Pusher???

Every book written on how to write novels includes a section on point of view. Third person, first person, don't wander in second person to long or you'll lose your readers. Person is the camera through which a scene is viewed, changing perspective. It creates closeness and intimacy or telescopic viewing of characters in another land.
But person filters the light that is recorded by the camera. The same view reported by different people is described differently. Is there a Japanese movie like that about Samuri? You know there is I just can't spell it.
I am not concerned with the language style of the narrator, proper versus vernacular, that's a character issue. I am concerned with the perspective and perceptions of the narrator. Is he observent or is he misinformed and lazy or sloppy. How much can the reader rely on his reporting, insights and conclusions. The writer misses an opportunity to create suspense or tension if his narrator is rock solid every time.
How easy is it to involve the reader when he is looking to evaluate the narrators statements. In the Great Gatsby is our narrator reliable or biased? Does he harbor any emotions that affect his analysis? Of course, and that is what the reader has to evaluate throughout the book. Is Gatsby as he is presented.
Good literature involves the reader. It is not just involvement as in caring for the characters, but it is involvement in the world the characters inhabit and form. They become real and we live with them for a time. Why cry at a sad ending unless you picture yourself in the scene.
Point of view allows the writer to filter the reader's information, and to make him question whether the narrator has all the facts? Don't you hate when someone has a secret and they won't tell you. Do you get involved to find out what it is?
Archie in the Nero Wolf series is accurate with what he knows. He's down right bland as buttered bread. He rarely even understands everything involved in the mystery. We try to beat him to the answer. We trust the information he gives us, but we know there is more.
Humans are incomplete, and inaccurate, so in creating realistic characters let human flaws add interest and character to your narrator, a side product is reader involvement.
If you want to hook the reader, pick a narrator that can be misled, or has a bias or is just lacking in intuition enough that he is a poor source of information, and let your reader do the leg work. It gets 'em every time.