[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 400x400, 1587483366731.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
15855774 No.15855774 [Reply] [Original]

Is the use of adjectives inherently bad in any language? In Spanish? Do I write like shit?

>> No.15855818

>>15855774
No, just don't throw them away aimlessly. I normally don't like obvious descriptions. Depict something if it is out of common otherwise don't bother.

>> No.15855822

Adjectives are fine, now adverbs, these are truly for niggers

>> No.15855832

>>15855822
Examples?

>> No.15855849

>>15855774
just don't give a shit lmao

>> No.15855854

>>15855774
In fiction or creative nonfiction, neither adjectives nor adverbs are strictly bad, but they need to be doing some heavy lifting with narrative distance and should, therefore, be deployed strategically. In argumentative or expositive writing, they should be used to aid precision or rhetorical effect and cut otherwise.

>> No.15855859

>>15855774
any advice that tells you to throw away an entire class of word is so obviously idiotic that it shouldn't even need arguing against
trust your ear and study other people's writing if your ear don't work

>> No.15855865

>>15855832
She talked sincerely, he listened heartily
X
She talked, he listened

>> No.15855879

>>15855822
>truly

>> No.15855880

>>15855822
>truly

>> No.15855885

>>15855854
To add to this, I've used seven adjectives and three adverbs, and while we could quibble about all of them, I don't find that I overused either. I think the issue of moratoriums may stem from the general overuse of adjectives and adverbs in school, particularly in AP lit and language courses, where fancy, complicated sentences are often rewarded with higher grades. The rubrics for the various standardized test essays suffer from the same preoccupation.

>> No.15855940

>>15855822
>truly

>> No.15855961

>>15855822
>truly

>> No.15855972

>>15855822
> truly

>> No.15855978

>>15855822
>truly

>> No.15855986

>>15855822
>this many retards not getting the obvious joke

>> No.15856001

>>15855986
Sorry to disappoint man, it was an honest mistake. The joke is that I simply wanted to say "niggers"

>> No.15856172

No? Are you retarded? Write naturally. Not using adjectives or adverbs is very unnatural. Imposing ignorant and restrictive prescriptions leads to ugly and absurd writing, as you can see in a lot of 'educated' writing.

>> No.15856176

>>15856172
>Are you retarded?
Perhaps.

>> No.15856185

>>15856172
>Write naturally
What the hell does it mean? Why do people say things that are devoid of meaning?

>> No.15856273

>>15856172
Fun, if perhaps a bit overwritten. For example, "very" is one of those adverbs that never seems to do enough work to justify inclusion, except in maybe dialogue.

>> No.15856301

>>15856185
Naturally means to write from impetus to words without a niggling middleman that makes it artificial or awkward, e.g. using preset words or constructions just to use them instead of unthinkingly using them (or better ones) as you communicate (write) and very carefully imposing braindead things like no adverbs, no split infinitives, no dangling prepositions, exchanging for useless synonyms, avoiding certain constructions and overusing others, etc.

Language and communication isn't something conscious or deliberated, that's when it becomes overwrought and unnatural. This is probably why it's hard to write both well and complexly. Aligning to normal speech is a good rule but obviously literature and abnormal speech can go beyond this, the core of what makes it natural remains. Some of this naturality may be dependent on time and fashion, but I suppose that the basics are cognitive and universal. Perhaps you could quantify this with elaborate descriptions of syntax but that misses the point. It's not to be conscious of what makes it natural because what makes it natural is letting your brain do its thing.

>>15856273
I'm really bad at writing lol. I might be talking about my own problems here.

>> No.15856311

>>15856185
Reading means expanding your vocabulary, so someone who doesn't read and tries to write with words they hardly use will come off as artificial. That expression usually means to write with the words you use in everyday speech, which don't force you to look shit in a thesaurus. The better you know your words the better you'll employ them. You want to write like a 19 century purple prosist paid by the word? Better start talking and interiorizing that.

Makes perfect sense and it's more of a rookie advise rather than a rule. It would be too limiting otherwise.

>> No.15856354

>>15856301
>I'm really bad at writing lol.
Your point was made, and didn't quibble with the adjectives you used. "Very" and, as we're seeing with your explanation, "naturally" aren't really doing anything: the former because it adds nothing useful and the latter because it was unclear. I agree that slavish adherence to any rules will invariably lead to unnecessary limits in our expression, but I strongly disagree with your claim that language is neither conscious nor deliberate. Maybe it isn't always, but good speaking and good writing require conscious thought and deliberation. True, we can choose to overwrite, but hell, the advice against adjectives and adverbs exists because it's a simple--if often too simple--short hand for paying attention to what we're writing.

>> No.15856809

>>15855885
>where fancy, complicated sentences are often rewarded with higher grades.
this, it took quite some time before realizing that purple shit is retarded most of the time

>> No.15856818

>>15855859
best post

>> No.15856988

>>15855859
take the earpill

>> No.15857001

>>15855774
Yes describing things is for retards. Only nouns and verbs are necessary.