Forum: Author Hangout

readers understandably feel cheated of the event.

You know that any reader who isn't you would feel cheated how exactly?

This is stated as if it were a fact, but you can not have any basis to know this as a fact.

Removing "saw" from that sentence won't help much, since the sentence is still telling the reader that she cried, instead of showing her. A better approach, is to simply have her wiping her eye, with no explanation, letting the reader figure out, on their own, that it (whatever happened) impacted her emotionally. Both the "saw" and the "she cried" removed the reader from the scene, as they're no longer watching events unfold, instead being told, by someone else, what happened.

"I saw her cry" vs "Tears wet her cheeks" was the example I orginally objected in the "Filter Words" thread. If 'I saw her' isn't the message you want to impart, it's simply superflous to mention it, but it's not a good example for 'show' vs 'tell'. The verb 'cry'
doesn't need any showing. If you exchange "She cried" with 'tears wet her cheeks', you change the style of your writing from plain to flowery, not from telling to showing. Of course, that's only my opinion. Writing is no science and raising 'show' above 'tell' is also only a preference. There is no final truth rendered by an ultimate authority. However, there is the taste of time, and at the moment 'show' is undoubtly the preferred style.

ETA: I should have directed this comment at CW, no idea why I didn't.

the sentence (She cried.) is still telling

I knew I was not good at this, but I thought I could the the answers for two-word sentences correctly. :(

A final step, more difficult to implement but well worth the time involved, is to give each character their own motivations.

[An opinion stated as if fact and] not something I recall thinking about before, but I'm willing to accept that as an 'article of faith' already. :)

That's getting Way beyond mere showing and telling

And way before too ... don't even start until you've defined a central conflict and associated characters' motivations?

something that doesn't really impact anyone ... feel free to tell all the minor details.

I can see how briefer for that's not important is better. A greater proportion of the story is important.

That's why many author don't invest time in revising stories once they're posted

My little effort has not received any votes since a few weeks after it was posted. :(

Me : Can you suggest any ideas for a "Showing Lite"
You: You're right. Dialogue is perfect for this

Thanks. I've learnt a lot from that ... sadly including the fact the target is further way than I had thought. :(

EDIT TO ADD:

when something needs to be expanded ... hopefully ending up with a scene that shows a little more

That's a How To Guide with instructions I can understand, and possibly even follow. :)

I think we're ALL getting too involved with labels, giving them more weight than they're worth.

Yes, but a basic understanding of a label is needed to use a technique judiciously.
I didn't understand what the technique was until this clarified it for me as whether something shows the evidence rather tells tells the conclusion.
It then made sense to me that noticing telling should prompt the question whether something is important enough to expand the scene.
They seem like two simple questions novices can ask to begin achieving (what we agree are) the benefits of this technique.

@Ross at Play
... quote
Sorry CW ...

Just an FYI. You hit the wrong button to direct that at me.

Just an FYI. You hit the wrong button to direct that at me.

I noticed, just not sure how it happened, since I quoted CW. That's the second time today.

I noticed ... second time today.

And once it's there you cannot edit it out.
... and none taken. :)

In this context, the narrator is literally TELLING the reader what the character is doing. You're not allowing them to discover what's happening on their own (by reading about it), instead, the authors is telling them upfront: she cried, end of story, everyone pack up your bags and go home, there's no more story to tell in this scene.

Instead, I'm suggesting authors, in these situations, invest a little more time adding more to the scene than a simple summary of events they didn't bother to include.

I've been trying to read through as much as possible before responding, but here goes.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say here (and much of this is not in direct response to you), but what everyone has appeared to miss so far is why she's crying? Something happened, she cried in response, which then leads to something else.

These are a logical sequence of events unfolding in real times. Each new event is a consequence of something previous (or else it doesn't belong.)

She wiped her eyes as she stepped away from the casket.

In this case it's not the crying itself that's important, but why. It shows an emotional connection to the occupant of the casket.

Besides real time events you have backstory - things that have already happened that set the scene or establish facts about the characters but less directly cause the current events.

I prefer dialogue but sometimes the first person narrator is by themselves. They may walk down the hallway at school, describing the people around them and their opinions of those people. Technically it may be telling, but it's a sequential observation of real time events.

Back story and flashbacks (things which have already taken place) are best done in dialogue and should be spread out, unveiling things for the reader.

My names's Joe. Back in 1979 I was a nineteen year old college student living at home with my parents. Despite being good looking and having a ten inch cock, I'd never yet had a woman.

That's just info dumping. There is info about the characters and their past that we want the readers to know. We need to find a way to work that into the conversations. Have one character ask another, but only because the question was a reaction. I think of the story as a cord composed of threads wrapped around each other, those threads being a series of logically connected events. A to B to C, etc, down a thread must connect. Thread 1 and thread 2 exist in parallel, sometimes influencing each other.

My names's Joe. Back in 1979 I was a nineteen year old college student living at home with my parents. Despite being good looking and having a ten inch cock, I'd never yet had a woman.

That's just info dumping.

Don't I know it.
I recently gave an author some 'first impressions', having promised as an editor a very detailed review would follow.
The author was more experienced than I thought. They'd written a story and posted it some time ago on asstr, but they've given up posting there.
I said I found the story, once it got started, 'engaging' and I was not surprised it was scoring well. However, I thought the first paragraph was the 'worst I'd ever seen,' and if I'd opened this story myself I'd have 'abandoned it to look for something better before reaching the end of that paragraph.' (Note. I did have a specific other reason for needing to state how much I disliked this one paragraph.
The author responded with, "Wow, harsh ... but I do recall not being happy at the time with my opening."
The sins, of the info-dumping variety, I saw in it were:
* It began with the words, "My name is."
* It continued with a summary of narrator's background, then hundreds of words more up until they met the other MC.
* It included the obligatory list of numerical values of the girl's height and weight, descriptions of build and hair, and grade on the prettiness scale, i.e. the list obligatory for all writers of stroke stories who want to warn readers they haven't got a clue.
The author woke up in the middle of the night, re-read that paragraph for the first time in years, and emailed me he thought, 'it was awful.' :-)

Both are telling. You're not showing her crying; you're telling the reader she's crying.

She cried is a two word sentence, and not more than that. 'She cried, wildly waving her hands in the air and hopping from foot to foot. The janitor closing the door to the women's restroom walked away without a second glance in her direction.'

That is a showing scene, and 'she cried' is a part of it.

In your example, you told the reader she was crying, but showed her waving and hopping.

Some people, particularly some women will cry because they are excessively happy. Have you never heard of tears of joy?

"She cried" is no less telling than "He was angry."

Yes it is, that's why 'to cry' is a verb and 'angry' isn't. Anyway, I'd prefere we drop that silly example. It isn't helpful at all.

But since they're both telling it's not much different.

I interpreted your comments in the Filter Words thread as suggesting removing a filter word will change telling to showing.
This is an example when what is left is still telling.
In your opinion, is something acting as a filter word always going to result in something that is telling, but removing the filter word is not necessarily enough to create something showing?

With both "filler" and "filter" words, you're specifically removing the detritus of literature, (i.e. those spare words which add nothing of value, but which don't actually detract from the story either).

I think filter words are a different kind of detritus entirely. Removing them does change meaning. Doesn't removing words in bold from these change the meaning? I saw she was crying. He seemed angry. I thought I had made a mistake.
Isn't the difference the sentences state something rather than telling the conclusion of a character?

I think filter words are a different kind of detritus entirely.

I'd agree with that statement.

Isn't the difference the sentences state something rather than telling the conclusion of a character?

I saw she was crying.

No matter if he saw her or not, she was crying.

He seemed angry.

Indeed a conclusion. A 'telling' conclusion I might add.

I thought I had made a mistake.

Sounds like a conclusion, but since it's about himself he is an acceptable authority and it should count as a statement of fact. Mostly phrases like "I thought" at the end of a sentence are simply superflous.

But what if he didn't make a mistake, but only thought he did? Thought would be needed.

In that case we still could assume 'he thought', his thought just proved wrong.

And I mean, if it's not a dialog, and a first person narrative, the addition of 'I thought' is superflous, because it's obvious that the MC is thinking.

It should be to choose the correct word and remove those that make the sentence weaker.

Can you provide a clear and objective (not tied to personal aesthetics) definition of what it means to make a sentence weaker?

If not, how can this constitute useful advice?

In the case of "filler" words, it's words which don't add anything, like "that", or "then", which, when removed, don't change the meaning of the sentence at all.

Except you told Ross that it's not about word count.

If removing them doesn't change the meaning of the sentence at all, how (other than by a pure word count criteria) do those words make the sentence weaker?

Essentially, it's just glitter or fluff, extra material which does nothing but fill up space.

Again, that sounds to me like there is nothing to it but word count.

If you don't want to be bothered with it, then don't cry about how I'm 'insisting' you cut your word count. But for me, they're unnecessary words which take longer for readers to process.

I'm not crying about it and I am not accusing you of insisting on anything. I am honestly trying to understand something that is thus far incomprehensible to me.

If it takes the brain a few extra milliseconds to process each letter, then adding multiple words to each sentence is going to make the story start to plot along.

I assume you meant "plod" here, not "plot"

Beyond that, I simply can not agree with this statement without a strong proof, because it is utterly contrary to my own experience and preferences as a reader.

My personal preference coincides with yours. I find stories written with filler words included tend to flow better and be less tiring to read than those written like Twitter posts. I find sentences missing the word 'of' to be particularly jarring eg 'I held a pair aces in my hand'.

I can see a point where that is so.
I have seen writing where authors have struggled to eliminate "needless" words, but their solution requires the use of an introductory or parenthetic clause. Whether or not the author omits the extra comma(s) that would be required in technical writing, the effect can be readers must still parse the sentence as if it has a comma. At that point I probably would prefer a sentence with no interruptions and one simple preposition more. My personal definition of 'minimising word counts' includes considering any commas that would be needed in technical writing are about as bad as extra words.

I don't find your 'pair aces' examples relevant to this discussion. I consider that is simply non-standard usage of the word 'pair'. Every example in my dictionary has adjectives modifying the noun 'pair', but 'pair of' modifying other nouns.

However, evidence suggests that novice writers told to 'eliminate filler words' are taking (it TOO FAR). The meaning is still usually accessible (but ...)

DEFINITELY. I think there's a tipping point when reducing word counts becomes truly awful.
I see a tiny range just before the edge of the cliff. There is sometimes a trade-off between removing the last possible glue word and making the sentence more disjointed.
But within that range the language is still, not as grammatically correct as CMOS would dictate, but within the very broad church of almost all people would naturally say, except those using dialectic alternatives.
I've seen writers omitting the subjects and verbs of sentences, not just connecting words like prepositions and conjunctions, seemingly on the grounds readers are able to infer the meaning. I hate that. To me, that is not sparing me effort of reading one extra word, it's forcing me to work out the missing word and insert it in their text - a much more time-consuming task that simply reading a word.

A character went to the store for 'a couple pints milk'.

They could have gone one better, 'a quart milk'.

Again, that sounds to me like there is nothing to it but word count.

Not the word count itself but efficiently and accurately expressing the thought.

Not the word count itself but efficiently and accurately expressing the thought.

1. That's a contrived definition of efficiency that amounts to little more then sentence length.

2. It was stipulated up front by those proposing the examples that both the longer and the shorter version have exactly the same meaning.

If the shorter version has exactly the same meaning as the longer version it can not express the thought more accurately.

Accurate AND efficient. The less succinct the greater the opportunity for confusion. What my wife told me may well have been accurate, but after a thirty word sentence I'm lost.

*I had a word and lost it. The probability that the reader will understand what's being said. I use a lot of subtext, not directly saying something but leaving clues. I at least want to be clear in communicating those clues.

The less succinct the greater the opportunity for confusion.

If the meaning between the two versions is exactly the same then the opportunity for confusion is exactly the same between both versions.

What my wife told me may well have been accurate, but after a thirty word sentence I'm lost.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. The fact that I don't except one extreme as "best" does not mean that I believe that the opposite extreme is "best"

Simplicity and clarity are not synonymous. At some point, greater simplicity becomes less clear.

More complexity does not necessarily reduce clarity.

The example of political writing/speaking used above is false example for this. It is unclear not because it is complex, it is unclear because it is deliberately written to be devoid of meaning and complexity is deliberately used to hide the lack of any real meaning.

Simplicity and clarity are not synonymous. At some point, greater simplicity becomes less clear.

I agree. I said the first priority was word choice.

The second is more direct. Gets to the point quicker.

So it is all about word count for you?

Then going back to your example,

Get off of the horse.
Get off the horse.

If there isn't a difference in meaning between the two sentences and it isn't word count, what makes the second stronger?

It's more direct

Again, I do not agree that one can be more or less direct than the other if there is zero change in meaning.

"Get off of the horse" sounds like a command by someone trying to sound polite. "Get off the horse" sounds like someone unwilling to waste time with pleasantries.

Valid for the case of dialog for a particular character, but it is not a reason to remove such words from all of the stories text

"Get off of the horse" sounds like a command by someone trying to sound polite. "Get off the horse" sounds like someone unwilling to waste time with pleasantries.

There's also dialect and voice.

My story is set in my hometown in my youth. Nearly everyone I know here would say "Get off of the horse." There are just sum filler words (like "just") that they won't give up. Therefor I will use the longer form in dialogue.

The narrator, especially a first person, will have a voice that's usually similar to the time and place of the story. I view the narration as written language versus the spoken dialogue, so it's cleaner with generally better grammar, but will still include some idiosyncracies to keep the narrator in the world of the story.

So it is all about word count for you?

Redundancies are, in my opinion, an entirely different issue than "filler" words. Almost any word can be used redundantly.

It's not just about word count, nor 'filler' or 'filter' words. A shorter sentence with the same substance is a stronger statement because it's focused.

So it is all about word count for you?

It's about being clear. Even when my family is speaking to me they often ramble around, leaving me confused before they get to the point.

It's about being clear.

Shorter sentences are not necessarily more clear.

Okay, if your story is about giants, one might be a big giant, but if all you're doing is saying someone is large by calling him a giant, then "big" adds nothing to the sentence.

Redundancies are, in my opinion, an entirely different issue than "filler" words. Almost any word can be used redundantly.

Filler words add nothing.

Of course if they add nothing, by definition removing them adds nothing.

Are you trying to justify writing poorly just because you don't want to be bothered writing more efficiently?

No, I fundamentally disagree with your contention that what you consider writing "efficiently" is better, therefore I would not be writing poorly by not writing "efficiently".

Statements like this only move me further away from understanding or agreeing with your point of view.

I've tried to convey, all along, there there are NO requirements that you follow our techniques

And yet you continue to say that if I don't want to use your techniques that must mean I want to write poorly.

If you don't want me to keep pounding on this, stop saying that those who don't follow your aesthetic view write poorly.

Fine. We're argued the exact same points, ad-infinitum, endlessly, with you and a couple others effectively halting ALL discussion

You have the holy writ, divine truth passed down from God and none may question it.

Anyone who does not accept this on blind faith must WANT to be a poor writer.

But of course, I'm the one halting discussion.

It may or may not take much time, but why even bother with it if it doesn't add anything?

If removing it doesn't add anything and you wrote it in the first place, why bother with the time to look for it and remove it?

If removing it doesn't add anything and you wrote it in the first place, why bother with the time to look for it and remove it?

I often read long rambling speeches from politicians that could be easily reduced to 'I don't know, and I don't care'. Adapting your flawless logic, they also shouldn't change their style.

I often read long rambling speeches from politicians that could be easily reduced to 'I don't know, and I don't care'. Adapting your flawless logic, they also shouldn't change their style.

Of course they shouldn't change their style. If they actually said "I don't know and I don't care" directly, no one would vote for them.

Of course they shouldn't change their style. If they actually said "I don't know and I don't care" directly, no one would vote for them.

Right, because if they'd shorten their speeches to their essentials, everyone would notice their real statement. But thats what you try to achieve as an author. So shorten your statements makes them clearer and more significant.

So shorten your statements makes them clearer and more significant.

No, that is simply not true as an absolute statement.

Yes, wordy statements can be used to obfuscate, but simplification by shortening them does not add clarity in a infinite linear progression.

The shortest possible statement is an empty string.

He said ""

By your criteria, the clearest and most significant story is a series of blank pages.

By your criteria, the clearest and most significant story is a series of blank pages.

And what statement would that be?

No, that is simply not true as an absolute statement.
Yes, wordy statements can be used to obfuscate, but simplification by shortening them does not add clarity in a infinite linear progression.

We're not talking about religious dogmata. Why is it so hard for you to accept a simple concept, or call it a guideline? The fewer words you use to convey a message, the easier and clearer it is to understand.
'Would you please refrain from running away,' versus 'Stop.'

We're not talking about religious dogmata.

CW acts like that exactly what he's talking about.

Why is it so hard for you to accept a simple concept, or call it a guideline? The fewer words you use to convey a message, the easier and clearer it is to understand.

Because I do not believe that it's true as stated.

It is entirely possible to use too few words to convey some messages clearly.

If you can't clearly explain objective (as opposed to subjective aesthetics) criteria for both what is too much and what is too little, it's useless to me as a guideline.

'Would you please refrain from running away,' versus 'Stop.'

They don't mean remotely the same thing.

No, 'Stop' is not universally clearer.

What if the context is a conversation is between a parent and a child that has run away from home repeatedly already. Then 'Would you please refrain from running away' is clearer than 'Stop'

ETA: in the context free environment in which you posit these two examples, 'Stop' is far less clear than 'Would you please refrain from running away'.

Stop what? Stop moving? Stop asking stupid questions? Stop talking?

I've seen that adjective used a lot, along with 'cleaner', but I have yet to see a definition.

Strong in this context: intensive, powerful, acute. Meant is the expressiveness of a sentence, i.e. the message it conveys. A black coffee is usually described as stronger than a coffee with lots of milk and sugar.

Strong in this context: intensive, powerful, acute. Meant is the expressiveness of a sentence, i.e. the message it conveys.

Okay, solid definitions, but I still don't see how the strength of a sentence is separable from the meaning/message conveyed.

Okay, solid definitions, but I still don't see how the strength of a sentence is separable from the meaning/message conveyed.

The precision. The opportunity for it to be misunderstood. Those are correlated but not synonymous with fewer words. It's the best words.

The precision. The opportunity for it to be misunderstood. Those are correlated but not synonymous with fewer words.

Yes, but that correlation means that if one changes the other must change as well, even if they aren't synonymous.

Yes, but that correlation means that if one changes the other must change as well, even if they aren't synonymous.

Correlation is a general change. Some more precise sentences will have fewer words, some will have more. On average, there's likely to be fewer.

Correlation is a general change. Some more precise sentences will have fewer words, some will have more. On average, there's likely to be fewer.

A change can not make the sentence more precise if it doesn't make at least a subtle change in the meaning of the sentence.

If removing a given word has zero effect on meaning, then removing it has zero effect on precision.

If removing a given word has zero effect on meaning, then removing it has zero effect on precision.

You're again conflating the meaning with the probability that the meaning will be properly understood (precision.)

You're again conflating the meaning with the probability that the meaning will be properly understood (precision.)

No, I'm not. they are not synonymous, but they are inexorably linked together to the point that they can not change completely independently.

No, I'm not. they are not synonymous, but they are inexorably linked together to the point that they can not change completely independently.

OK, I can agree with that. Not the same, not independent, nut inexorably linked.

I don't think it makes the sentence stronger, not that I understand what 'stronger' means in this context, but I believe that the extra words can make the sentence read more smoothly.

I think introducing undefined terms like 'stronger' and 'cleaner' is only making this fight more difficult to end.
If I was SB I would stick to the term 'better', and add an 'in my opinion' - because it is value judgement and debatable.
Still, I see no reason for anyone to object that the words 'in my opinion' are omitted - it very clearly is just an opinion.
I can see no reason for anyone even asking for a clarification of that opinion.
SB provided a specific example and stated precisely what he would do: delete the word 'of'.
He stated the reason he would do that: it can be done without changing the meaning of the sentence.
That is all anyone else needs to make their own value judgement about whether or not it makes the sentence better.
Anything beyond simply stating - in a non-confrontational manner - they make a different value judgement, at most a couple of times, is just starting a fight for the sole purpose of starting of a fight.
You and DS have stated very similar opinions, but you have done so in a way which does not make others feel consistently compelled to defend themselves against personal attacks. :-)

You and DS have stated very similar opinions, but you have done so in a way which does not make others feel consistently compelled to defend themselves against personal attacks.

I have made no personal attacks. In point of fact, the only personal attack on this thread was made by CW when he said that if I don't accept his "opinion" of what's better and how to accomplish that I must want to write poorly.

the only personal attack on this thread was made by CW

AGREED!

I said 'others feel consistently compelled'. I did not say that was rational. I see lab rats becoming irrational after receiving a multitude of stimuli.

That's a subjective argument, just like mine.

It was a subjective opinion, just like yours, specified explicitly, unlike yours, as just an opinion.
It doesn't matter whether you agree with that opinion or not, it gives no cause for anyone to even raise an eyebrow.

Can you see how you have triggered this fight? All you needed to do was to include the words 'in my opinion' in your original statement. Don't get me wrong, I would sincerely love to drive down my phone line at this moment and viciously throttle DS, but why didn't you just respond when he first challenged you with just, 'That was an opinion. I didn't say so because it seemed so obvious it was just an opinion'? Then if he challenged you to justify your opinion you simply say, "I'm not going to do that. I've stated my reasons and others are welcome to draw their own conclusions."

If you don't want to fight about something that cannot be proven, just say it cannot be proven, ASAP and often.

I would sincerely love to drive down my phone line at this moment and viciously throttle DS

Communication skills have never been my strong point.

It's not even that I don't agree with their opinion, I don't understand it.

Despite what CW thinks, I am trying to make an honest effort to understand their point of view, even if I never end up agreeing with it.

I just can't seem to ask questions that will get me answers I can comprehend without pushing CW's buttons.

It's frustrating, and The frustration just make it harder for me to be nice about it.

It may not help but, CW seems to be saying that leaving unnecessary words in a story is the same as: 'putting 10 lbs of shit in a 5-lb bag' - if it isn't needed, get rid of it for the bag only holds 5 lbs.

I can't agree. CW has explicitly said that overall story length is not the issue, so it's not a 5lb bag, it's an infinite bag.

I just can't seem to ask questions that will get me answers I can comprehend without pushing CW's buttons.

Okay ... making the effort to specify at the start of your posts what you can find to agree with in their post will definitely lower the frequency they automatically go into battle mode when they see you have directed a post at them. Why-ever, it's not working well now.

You could try framing your questions more as snquiries. Beginning with 'would you explain' instead of 'how does' may lower their stress levels and result in them attempting to answer your in a calm, matter-of-opinion manner. You have sometimes say you are only asking a question, but to be frank, I hear the words 'I don't think so' screaming at me in many things you write using the words of questions.

Also, you may need to lower your standards for the answers they provide. The best you can possibly get for many questions here is a list of the reasons they have used in forming their opinions. If you can't understand their reasons, or you cannot see how those reasons led to their conclusions, that's tough. I think all you're entitled to do then is politely ask for a clarification, which they may be unable to do.

I understand your dilemma as someone who instinctively seeks to understand the how and why of various processes. We become better equipped than most to use processes effectively once we understand their internal mechanics, but sadly, that is not always possible here.

My approach when I cannot understand something fully is to accept I must make some, interim, decision. I try to do so on the balance of evidence I can see, and that often means relying on the opinions of those I find insightful and who usually express opinions close to what I see as the consensus for various topics. I cannot see how rejecting opinions I cannot fully understand leads to anything other than a lot of poor opinions.

making the effort to specify at the start of your posts what you can find to agree with in their post will definitely lower the frequency

To the the way my mind works, they speak in contradictions.

I refuse to agree with things I can not comprehend, and I find very little in their posts on the filler words topic that is comprehensible.

To the the way my mind works, they speak in contradictions.
I refuse to agree with things I can not comprehend, and I find very little in their posts on the filler words topic that is comprehensible.

If that really is so, respond with a simple list of statements that you do not understand, such as 'I don't understand this', I cannot see how this links to that.

The only possible way I can see for you to consider their statements contradictory or incomprehensible is for you to be approaching theor posts with a self-fulfilling negative attitude.
I see no evidence that you have ever tried to look for things you agree with.
I totally "get" your mind works differently to most. I suspect we both look at everything with a skeptical eye, seeking to understand how things work and looking for potential improvements. That is what those I edit for appreciate most about me.

Surely you are capable of framing your posts in ways that do not carry implication the others posts are incorrect or inadequate? You can frame them in ways that imply they are incomplete to your needs, or ways that make clear you are not disputing what they say, merely adding additional information or some contrary opinion.

I am not going to continue these exchanges any longer. To do so may allow you the maintain a delusion that the things I have suggested are in any way difficult. They are not! I have given you more than enough ideas for you to transform your relationships with others here. But you must try! Your current tone suggests you have no intention of doing that.

Prove to us why leaving the extra words in the sentence makes the sentence better/stronger. Not a subjective reason, an objective one.

I can't, nor have I claimed that it does.

My argument is that by your own premises removing the filler words makes zero change in meaning, therefore, both must be equally strong.

The point is, there are words that are not needed. Keeping them in is grammatically correct, but taking them out still makes the sentence clear but stronger

Again, by your own premises there is no change in meaning. With no change in meaning there can be not change in clarity or strength.

Unless of course all you mean by strength is sentence length.

CW at one point went on about shaving milliseconds off reading time.

Okay, pandering to the laziest readers might make your work more marketable to a broader group. However, not all of us are trying to sell our writing.

My argument is that by your own premises removing the filler words makes zero change in meaning, therefore, both must be equally strong.

That sentence makes no sense. The meaning of a sentense is not the same as its strength (i.e. expressiveness).
Pedantry needs more effort than that, try harder.

The meaning of a sentense is not the same as its strength (i.e. expressiveness).

To me, claiming that expressiveness is distinct from meaning makes no sense.

To me, claiming that expressiveness is distinct from meaning makes no sense.

I have a thought in my head that I want to communicate to a reader, either here or in a story. That's "meaning." It's a piece of information.

Expressiveness is the quality of how well that meaning is communicated. What percentage of people won't clearly understand the meaning I was attempting to convey?

Since I couldn't say it any better, I'll abstain to further comment on this subject.

I can't prove it reads better just like you can't prove it reads better with the extra words because it's subjective.

Here is part of the misunderstanding. it has never been my contention that it reads "better" with the extra words.

My position from the beginning of the first thread on this issue, it I don't think either is better.

That they are different does not mean one has to be better than the other.

It's how it sounds to the ear.

That's the first thing said on this topic that I have found remotely comprehensible.

That's ludicrous.

I agree, that would be ludicrous, but to me, CW frequently and you occasionally come across as that is exactly what you are advocating.

Why do I see CW and your posts that way?
Because I can't see any comprehensible limiting principle, no lower limit is defined for when you shouldn't remove them.

Then you misunderstood me.

I have never claimed otherwise.

How many times have I said they're guidelines and not rules? That there are no black and white rules in writing fiction.

Frequently, but then you turn around ad phrase the guidelines in terms that sound absolute while providing no comprehensible criteria for when the given guideline does or does not apply.

To my mind, this is an irreconcilable contradiction in your position.

That "show don't tell" does not mean never tell. That "don't use adverbs" doesn't mean never use adverbs.

I actually agree in general on the show don't tell issue, and I have been trying to use it. Our only disagreement from my perspective is in the details over whether or not certain specific things are "telling".

Frequently, but then you turn around ad phrase the guidelines in terms that sound absolute while providing no comprehensible criteria for when the given guideline does or does not apply.

But you should not object his statement sounds absolute. State he has done that in about six to ten words then move on! Why does it matter to you if he was careless in his statement? Think about what you really want. Ask, politely, what criteria he has for when the guideline does or does not apply.

But you should not object his statement sounds absolute.

That's not really what I am trying to do at this point.

It's not about objecting to the absolute phrasing per se.

It's about finding comprehensible and usable criteria for when it does and does not apply.

Ask, politely, what criteria he has for when the guideline does or does not apply.

I have, worded almost exactly that way, and I got a snide non-answer out of CW and ignored by SB.

I try to explain, but only to a point. As I've said, it's not my job to convince anyone of anything.

I'm not looking to be convinced at this point, just for something I can comprehend.

How am I supposed to make up my mind if I can't understand.

So okay, filler words, I am going to make one last go at this on this thread.

For me, understanding and comprehension must start with why. When I ask why on this, I'm not asking for proof (unless you are claiming it as an objective fact) just a comprehensible reason.

Remove filler words.

I am fairly sure I comprehend what you mean by filler words.

You constantly say that you don't intend this as an absolute, but I can not comprehend it any other way without a comprehensible limiting principle, without a clear criteria for when it does and does not apply. Can you articulate one?

But why should they be removed?

You say clarity, but you also say that removing the filler words does not change the meaning.

As I understand clarity in this context, yes, it is not the same as meaning, but it is linked to meaning. I do not comprehend how clarity can change without meaning changing at least a little.

You say it's stronger without the filter words. I can not comprehend what you mean by this in any way that my mind doesn't link strength with meaning the same way clarity is, I can not comprehend how strength can change without meaning changing at all.

CW literally raised the issue of how long it takes to read each individual sentence and how that accumulates over the totality of the story (while denying that it was about word count???).

Is that what it's about? Pandering to the laziest readers?

I suppose that would improve marketability to a broader audience. For someone trying to sell their writing, I can understand that enough to at least leave it alone, as long as you and CW can refrain from saying or implying that those who don't see this as a desirable goal are uninterested in improving their writing.

I have, worded almost exactly that way, and I got a snide non-answer out of CW and ignored by SB.

You're welcome to send me an email if that happens, or anything else that seems egregious to you.
I'll be glad to explain why I think you're barking up the wrong tree, or piss on their tree for you. :-)

Why is it so hard for you to accept a simple concept, or call it a guideline? The fewer words you use to convey a message, the easier and clearer it is to understand.

CW and SB always start this with a pair of sentence that are the same except that the second is missing one or two words that they consider unnecessary.

They stipulate up front that both sentences have exactly the same meaning. That the words they suggest should be removed should be removed because removing them does not change the meaning.

If removing the words does not change the meaning of the sentence, then removing them can not make the sentence clearer or less ambiguous. A change in clarity necessarily requires a change in meaning.

To my mind the whole idea comes off as absurd.

Maybe you can find a way to explain it without the nonsense about not changing the meaning of the sentences that will make sense to me.

Maybe you can find a way to explain it without the nonsense about not changing the meaning of the sentences that will make sense to me.

That would only be possible if you would stop searching pedantically for any loopholes you can find in propositions meant as general guidelines.

Yes, 'Would you please refrain from running away,' and 'Stop,' are not exactly the same. The first is more polite and wordy, but the basic message they convey is the same. The guideline is, the more words you use to convey a mesage, the more it weakens its expressiveness. Simply because your audience will shift its focus from the message to how you worded it.

Well, I tried...

But previously someone stated that showing is wordier than telling.

I think the two statements taken in conjunction opens a can of worms :(

It wouldn't surprise me either, but actually there is no contradiction. 'Showing' takes more room because you cannot use all the nice discriptive adjectives invented for especially that purpose. If you want to 'show' someone is angry, you need to have him act angry, and describe visible expressions of his anger. But every sentence you use to do that, can individually be shortened to its essentials.

But every sentence you use to do that, can individually be shortened to its essentials.

Thank you. And up to a point close to taking that to the extreme I prefer writing which does that.

Not necessarily, in my opinion.

'He was incandescent.'

'His face turned the colour of ripe plums and spittle flew from his lips as he spoke.'

If you wanted to prove "showing" needs more words than "telling", you did admirably. But I understood that wasn't your intention.

that is simply not true as an absolute statement.

Please, just go away with this kind of nonsense.
It is not nonsense because you're not entitled to have and state an opinion; it is nonsense because what you're doing is harassment. I've seen you make the exact same trivial point here literally hundreds of times. We get it! We understand you do not agree that removing words (usually) improves the readers experience when doing so makes absolutely no change to meaning.
You know we already know what your opinion is.
What are you trying to achieve by constantly restating it?
The only reason I can imagine is that of a "troll": you enjoy causing annoyance to others.
I dare you! Are you prepared to ask others here to vote on whether they consider these forums would better serve our needs if you were banned?
My honest answer to that question has to be yes! You make some insightful contributions, but the damage you cause is far greater from all the times you stymie constructive exchanges by stating this opinion, and a few others, over and over and over and over again.
I expect you will not actually get banned, so I have searched for another "remedy" for the problems you cause.
I suggest a new acronym we should adopt in these forums. I'm sure it would make our lives much more pleasant if we responded to the many posts for which it's totally appropriate with nothing more than this acronym, TURDS, for The Usual Rubbish from Dominions Son.

You have complained about answers by others to questions you've raised being dismissive and making unsubstantiated statements. That is sometimes so. But is it any wonder people see a question from you and conclude it's a waste of their time to prepare a precise response? How many times does it take for a lab rat when they receive a nasty electric shock every time they do something before they start avoiding it? How often do you respond explanations of why someone believes something is generally desirable with objections it's either not possible to be sure those reasons are valid, or there are some times when it is not valid.

It's not just me who has similar opinions about your motivations. I just noticed this post above CW directed at you.

Then there's absolutely no point in continuing to demand answers you'll never listen do.
If there's no way you'll ever accept what the rest of us are trying to discuss, then WHAT the fuck are you doing in these discussions in the first place?
At least in REP's case, he honestly seems to be confused over what the issue is. In your case, it sounds like you simply couldn't care less what the point is.

That's a succinct way of expressing the same sentiments I have, except I have an answer for the question he put in bold. The only reason I can fathom for you making many of your posts is you enjoy being a troll.

You recently said you recognised you have some 'bad habits' you are 'trying to break'. I stated I had seen evidence of that, over a quite lengthy period, but it feels you've returned to the 'bad old days' recently.
May I make a constructive suggestion if you really want to stop annoying so many of us so very much. I suggest that every time you are about to write a post to make some contrary point, or that may sound negative, begin with a brief summary of what parts you agree with in the post you are responding to.
There was an example recently when I objected to a post you had made and you answered that you intended it to provide extra information. It did not sound anything like that. I read it as being nitpicking, nasty, and sarcastic. But, you would have changed the tone of your post entirely if you'd just started with "Agreed." It would then be clear you were not implying phrases you put in quotes were opinions of the person your post was directed at, rather things others had said before.
Please try this. I'm sure less people here will view you as someone who's often negative and nasty, and we'd be better off without.

they don't want to be understood

Exactly.

The goal isn't to remove stuff from the story, it's only to remove whatever doesn't ADD to the story.

Yes. Choose the words which conveys the thought clearly and succinctly ()whether in writing a novel or a response to a forum post)

If the reader comes to the conclusion on their own, it's showing.

THANK YOU.
That is the kind of test I can use.

A story that is all tell is unlikely to be a good read, while a story that is all show is also unlikely to be a good read. Some scenes are better as show, and some are better as tell. A good read needs a mix of both, and the level of mix should vary with the needs of the story being told, and it's very hard to state what is needed for every story.

Add to it that 'Showing' generally needs much more space (i.e. words) and you'll come to the conclusion that you should use 'show' where the story improves from its higher intensity and not just add to it's word count.

Excellent. Now you're grasping the difference between the two.

I could have done without the 'Now', but thank you anyways.

He was a big giant.

He was a giant.

Okay, if your story is about giants, one might be a big giant, but if all you're doing is saying someone is large by calling him a giant, then "big" adds nothing to the sentence. If it adds nothing, it makes it weaker.

Absolutely, and the word of the day is tautology.

ETA: At least now I'm misdirecting my responses at myself.

Here's a guideline for scene construction.

goal, conflict, semi-disaster, react, dilemma, decision

I ask myself what each scene is supposed to accomplish for the story. There's one main thing and may be other subplots touched on.

The character has a goal, runs into a conflict blocking them from that goal which creates a semi-disaster. They react, not always well, and have to make a decision.

Again, a guideline. I don't always hit it 100% but I have those instructions pinned.

Here's a guideline for scene construction.
goal, conflict, semi-disaster, react, dilemma, decision

Thank you.
It actually occurred to me to ask CW to describe precisely that when he mentioned showing the motivations of characters was important when deciding how a scene should be expanded.

I think I shall raise you to the status of demi-resident-guru. :-)

IN MY OPINION, the version without the "both of" is cleaner, stronger, whatever adjective you want to use

I shall form my own opinion about that one. :-)

it sounds better to my ear.

I'll agree on this particular example.

But for many of the other examples you have used, while they are different, I can't see one as being better than the other outside of a larger context that makes one preferable to the other.

I just can't see a usable general principle out of all of this.

Didn't need "both." "Buttocks" is plural and she only has two. IN MY OPINION, the version without the "both of" is cleaner, stronger, whatever adjective you want to use to say it sounds better to my ear.

I also like the version the most, where he cupped her clean strong buttocks.

I also like the version the most, where he cupped her clean strong buttocks.

But what if she only cupped one? "She cupped a butt cheek in one hand and a breast in the other."

Makes perfect sense, except you need a comma before "palm up."

Sitting back down, he held out his palm.

That sounds unnatural to me. It suggests asking for money, rather than inviting.

It's asking for her hand.

I don't think it's necessary to mention the palm to imply that.
To my ear, holding out a palm has a definite connotation of wanting money.
If you can imagine a North American saying 'palm' then go with that. I can't really imagine an Australian saying it.

Did you ever watch a movie where the guy asks the girl to dance? He holds his hand out, palm up.

Yes. The gesture is palm up, but I would write or say 'hand'. If the intention was to invite I would assume the palm was up.
All examples I can find in dictionaries have negative connotations or suggest money: grease their palm, cross their palm, palm-off, in the palm of a hand.

That's why I suggested, "He offered [her] his hand"

Looks good

It's asking for her hand.

Without a larger context, it's also something that certain service workers who expect to be tipped do as a hint.

Either way, and dare I say the second is more succinct.

Sitting back down, he held out his hand. which Zhenzhen took.

Palm is a part of the hand which only has significance if you are stating that the palm is up, and I doubt it means much (unless it's something cultural that I'm unaware of.)

Sitting back down, he offered Zhenzhen his hand, which she accepted.

Lots of ways to do it.

I'm writing a new intro and posted it at a critique site. After some constructive feedback, I'm changing a few words here or there to best introduce the setting and protagonist. At some point I may be satisfied.

At some point I may be satisfied.

And here I was thinking thinking you're a real author. :-)

I spent a year going from a newbie to a decent writer when I decided I had to start over with my novel. Now it's nearly two years after that and I'm getting much more comfortable, but I see where my voice has evolved since the early chapters - and I'm drawn to go back and edit.

I prefer to write linearly, but right now scenes are popping into my head all over the story and I'm writing them down lest they be forgotten.

I spent a year going from a newbie

Did you miss my smiley face?
I meant real men don't eat quiche; real authors don't ever stop fiddling.

Oh, I know - I just launched into exposition about my history of fiddling. I've reached the 2/3 point twice, and each time have the urge to start over.

real authors don't ever stop fiddling.

I have a draft of the climax of the 3rd act. An important statement is, "I thought you hated me." Then I reconsidered a scene at the 60% mark where she was angry and refused him a BJ. I wanted a prequel statement. I simply wanted to add the sentence, "I just need to know you aren't mad at me" but I wanted it to be a serious moment and as soon as possible after they meet in the next scene. I had to rearrange around 200 words of dialogue, discarding some of it, to comfortably fit that new sentence into the scene.

Of course, this is subject to revision (They're in the bleachers at a high school football game)

Her head on my shoulder, Hannah said softly, "I'm so sorry."

"For what?"

"Yesterday, dummy."

"Oh, yeah."

"It wasn't your fault but I was taking it out on you. I just need to know that you're not mad at me."

"I'm not mad at you. I was disappointed but I figured I'd have other opportunities."

She punched me in the arm. "Oh, so now you're taking me for granted." Turning her head to face me, she continued. "This is serious. Do you understand how much I love being with you? Knowing you want me? Knowing I make you happy?"

"Maybe I don't, but you need to know that I love you and I wouldn't do anything to hurt you."

She poked a finger into my belly. "Better not! I'm still mad at my mom though. That'll take a while."

I kissed her on top of her head and pulled her in closer to me. Neither of us spoke much while we relaxed and watched the game, punctuated by her joining the folks around us in cheering whenever Pineland made a good play.

After a while I said, "You know, It's hard to root for my team over here. I'm afraid I'll get beat up if I yell too loud."

Hannah pointed to the far side of the field. "You're free to go sit in the visitor's section."

"Nah, I'm, good."

As the game approached halftime she squeezed my arm. "This is nice."

"You don't have to rub it in that you guys are winning."

"No, silly – us."

I smiled and pulled her closer. "Yes it is."

"Out here, spending time together, being like everybody else."

"Are you sure we want to be like other people?"

Hannah leaned forward and gazed to my left. "Like Susie? Eh - I don't know if I'd go that far."

"I heard that, little girl."

And even that little quip at the end is important - Hannah really doesn't want to be like Susie, as she's a one-man girl to Susie's bed-hopping ways, and Hannah tells him later, "She would do you in an instant."

I had to rearrange around 200 words of dialogue

... having been working in Annoying Pissant Mode when I noticed your post ... :-)
I would:
* Replace 'have other opportunities' with 'get other opportunities'
* Delete 'her head' from 'Turning her head to face me'
* Replace the full stop after that with a comma
* Change 'you guys' to 'your guys' - unless it's an idiom your character might use when speaking
* Change 'Are you sure we want' to 'Are you sure you want us'
* Delete three out of six uses of 'that'.
Then, to rub it in, "She'd do you in an instant."
Ending Annoying Pissant Mode ... Now!
I like it.

"She'd do you in an instant."

That will be in the next scene I write, about two weeks after this in the timeline. Susie is Hannah's brother's girlfriend. Two players trying to go steady (but she gives him a threesome for his 18th birthday)

Thanks for the comments. Set near Pittsburgh, there are some idioms. Check out this just released short film for excellent examples of culture & dialect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fFqcnuWam0&feature=youtu.be

Set near Pittsburgh, there are some idioms.

It's not as if it's an idiom readers will not have heard and would have difficulty understanding.

"She would do you in an instant."

I suggested 'She'd' instead of 'She would', but would also suggest 'a flash' instead of 'an instant'.
Severe insomnia has one collateral benefit. Sigh!

I suggested 'She'd' instead of 'She would', but would also suggest 'a flash' instead of 'an instant'.

I do like the contraction better and have changed it but 'a flash' isn't a phrase I commonly hear around here.

I do like the contraction better and have changed it but 'a flash' isn't a phrase I commonly hear around here.

Fair enough. That's a newsflash for me.

adultery in a romance novel is a no-no

How about deflowering your 14 year old cousin?

But what's better?

But if it's so hard to say what's better, and you have limited time to write, how does one decide what techniques to devote time to?

Oh, I know what's better to me.

Yeah, but that isn't exactly helpful to the those of us with less experience.

I still have a day job. I don't have as much time to spend writing as I would like. I don't have the capacity to just experiment with all these different techniques and see what I like and what I don't.

Maybe once I'm retired...

But what if she only cupped one? "She cupped a butt cheek in one hand and a breast in the other."

SB needs to rewrite the sentence. It obviously wasn't clear to you that 'Steele' is a second person, assumingly a man, who cupped her steely buttocks...no wait. Now I'm confused too.

ETA:

Steele stood and removed his clothes. Sitting back down, he held out his hand palm up. Zhenzhen took it. When he tugged, she climbed onto his lap, straddling it, and rocked back and forth, her soft pussy lips caressing his cock, spreading her juices on it. Steele cupped her buttocks, sinking his fingers into the flesh, pulling, mashing their groins together.

That cleared it up nicely.

who cupped her steely buttocks

Love those buttocks you can bounce a quarter off of.

There's an amateur photo forum going on at another site. I like them sort of short (4-10 to 5-3), thick, hard thighs, with hard butts that stick out in the back. Boobs not that important - smallish cones held way up high do just fine. And a cute face. That's a must.

, who cupped her steely buttocks

I had no idea that you were into fembots/cyborgs :)

I had no idea that you were into fembots/cyborgs :)

That would need a better man than me. I only can admire them from afar, but I lack the strength to get into anything steely.

When we encounter these filler and filter words during our review process, we as the author should first ask ourselves 'Why are the words there?' If in our judgment, there is a valid reason for the words to be there, then leave them. If not, then deleting them will get the reader through the passage quicker. Either way it is a judgment call.

Absolutely.

Googling images for "Denny's sign" it appears they come in

Denny's
Denny's Restaurant
Denny's Diner
Denny's - America's Diner

While writing We went from the meeting to a Denny's Diner will convey the full meaning to everyone.

I'm not sure that ends the confusion for most non-US readers.

A Diner is a very particular style of restaurant.

Diners were at the very heart of the start of the fast food movement, but wouldn't really be considered fast food by most in the US today.

The Diner style of restaurant falls under the current term short-order.

I used 'diner' because my research showed their signs say either "Denny's" or "Denny's Diner" so I used their name.

Yes, Denny's is a generally a diner style of restaurant. But the diner phenomenon is regional even in the US, The regions where the concept of a diner would be reasonably well known/understood are the US northeast, the US Midwest, Parts of Canada, particularly those parts that border the US regions and western Europe.

even in the US, The regions where the concept of a diner would be reasonably well known/understood are the US northeast, the US Midwest, Parts of Canada, particularly those parts that border the US regions and western Europe.

I'm sure that 'parts of Canada' and 'Western Europe' will be thrilled to learn they are now 'in the US'. :-)

I'm sure that 'parts of Canada' and 'Western Europe' will be thrilled to learn they are now 'in the US'. :-)

Not officially yet, but there is an ongoing cultural invasion. :)

I can only assume everyone finds the content of the informative part of the post as being perfectly correct

Because, hey, if we didn't agree we'd be quick to tell you, amirite?

I can only assume everyone finds the content of the informative part of the post as being perfectly correct, and they agree with it, despite them not commenting on that part of the post.

I agree with the informative part and think the examples are good ones: be willing to add an extra word so the meaning is clear to all readers, but ruthlessly murder 1,000 out of 1,200 darlings to spare readers details (you assess) don't add to their enjoyment.

The fact some people in the US choose to not understand the company name is their fault

I've been eating on occasion at Denny's for over 40 years and don't recall every hearing it referred to as "Denny's Diner" until this conversation, even though I myself have been able to Google up images of that sign.

"Hey, you guys want to go out and grab a bite?"

"How about Denny's?"

"Sounds good to me."

Correct - if they simply say "We went to Denny's" there's lots of ambiguity. It has to be put in context, such as in my example.

You are so accustomed to the term UTE that it never occurred to you that the rest of the world didn't know what a Ute was.

Running to the dictionary...Without context I would have never guessed a car.

I've heard 'utility vehicle' but not 'ute'

What would you expect of a Crossover? :)

What they call a Ute in Australia is not what we call a crossover in the US.

A crossover is a small SUV built on a car frame rather than a truck frame.

A Ute in Australia as I have recently had explained to me is a sedan or coup with a pick up truck style external cargo bed. For something a US citizen might be familiar with, think of something along the lines of the Chevy El Camino.

The Ute is to the Pickup Truck what the crossover is to the SUV.

Last year I bought my wife a Ford Flex which is described as a 'full-size crossover utility vehicle', but she insists on calling it a car.

If it's a crossover, it is a car.

But it looks like a minivan

But it looks like a minivan

If it doesn't have the sliding side doors, it's not a minivan. If it does, it isn't a crossover.

Things I learn at my age.

It does have the big lift hatch on the back and third row seating, but no sliding doors on the side.

tell me a Subaru Outback isn't a full off-road vehicle.

If you have to take it to a custom shop for mods, it isn't a full off-road vehicle. Most of the full size SUVs are off-road capable completely stock, fresh off the showroom floor.

In any case, off-road capability doesn't make it an SUV. The Jeep Wrangler, particularly the CJ which is a modernized version of the WWII army jeep is off road capable, but it isn't generally considered an SUV.

Again, all of the original SUVs were built on pickup truck frames, and that remains the defining characteristic of full SUVs, a fully enclosed vehicle built on a truck frame.

Yes, SUVs are marketed as vehicles to carry passengers and cargo, but the cargo capacity is not that much in volume or weight.

We managed to squeeze four adults, four children, an infant and a week's worth of luggage into our crossover for a fourteen hour drive each way to the beach.

Using a truck frame for a SUV has never made any sense to me. Trucks typically have a stiffer suspension, so a rougher ride.

The suspension may attach to the frame, but it isn't part of the frame.

Yes, SUVs are marketed as vehicles to carry passengers and cargo, but the cargo capacity is not that much in volume or weight.

Mid and full size SUVs are also marketed for their towing capacity. The strength of the frame and how much added stress it can handle are important factors.

Mid size SUVs (not a large category) have a towing capacity around 5,000 pounds, Full size SUVs run from 8,000 to 10,000 pounds of towing capacity.

ETA: Crossover SUV towing capacities are under 3,000 pounds, even with a towing package that includes engine and transmission mods. Without a towing package, they typically max out at 1,500 pounds.

I'm addressing the vehicle itself only.

Just because an SUV is built on a truck frame, that doesn't mean is has to have a truck suspension.

but it does. When I bought my first Highlander, it was the only SUV using a car frame and suspension. The rest used truck frames and suspensions.

No, they have heavier suspensions than cars, but it's not because they are built from truck frames, it's because they are built for off-roading and towing. An 8000 lb trailer is going to put an extra 500-600 pounds on the hitch and therefore on the rear suspension.

However, there is no technical reason why if you were willing to forgo towing and off road use, you couldn't build a vehicle with car suspension on a truck frame.

Most SUV bodies are mounted on existing truck frames that use the existing suspension systems designed for that truck frame.

I didn't miss your original point, you have apparently missed mine.

It's true that truck frame based SUV's typically use the suspension designed for the applicable truck. This is required by function not form.

There is no reason you couldn't design a suspension as smooth as that that of the Camry to fit a truck frame.

The main reason that they don't do that for most SUVs built on truck frames is that such a suspension is unlikely to be able to stand up to either off road use or heavy towing.

SUVs need the heavy truck suspension for their intended uses for the same reason that they need the heavier truck frame, not because they use the truck frame.

Way to rig the question!

Yeah. I seriously expected others would view as a subset, they would agree with, of a general principle they do not.

I'm not keen on the two smells though, they sound clumsy together.

Would you be more inclined to agree if my question was reworded to remove its bias and limited to the sub-subset of less common "major words", nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs; but excluded the more common and connecting words, pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, articles and determiners?

I like the three hers - to me it adds a quality of wistfulness or longing.

Okay? I guess all I can do is to go back and un-enjoy your stories that I've already read. :-)

I like the three hers - to me it adds a quality of wistfulness or longing.

Or being caught up in the moment.

Her x, her y, her z. It shows the emphasis is on 'her' and the other stuff is interchangeable. It all reminds him of her.

So it can be used for effect, but only sparingly in a targeted way.

That should have been addressed to AJ.

I wouldn't want anyone to think I'd contemplate using a word like 'her' more than once in a single sentence with some damn good reason for doing that.

I agree - it takes a reason, and perhaps I was giving the original author too much credit.

I agree - it takes a reason, and perhaps I was giving the original author too much credit.

Yeah, and a wistful tone might not have seemed such a good thing if AJ had seen the entire paragraph.

So assuming it's not important enough to justify unnecessary uses of 'her', any ideas for how to reword it?
I cannot find anything that sounds okay using the three words 'fresh', 'shampoo', and 'perfume'.

I could smell her fresh hair, the smell of her shampoo and her perfume.

Hair and shampoo seem redundant, as the hair likely is acquiring it's smell from the shampoo.

If you're going to highlight 'her' I could go with "I could smell her hair, her shampoo, her perfume" but 'fresh' is getting in the way unless each noun has it's own adjective.

"I snuggled in close and lost myself in the fresh smells of her hair, her shampoo, her perfume."

"I drank in the fresh smell the shampoo had left in her hair, mixed with that of the perfume dabbed behind her ear."

"I snuggled in close and lost myself in the fresh smells of her hair, her shampoo, her perfume."
"I drank in the fresh smell the shampoo had left in her hair, mixed with that of the perfume she had dabbed behind her ear."

Thanks.
I'll suggest the author reads those for ideas.
They are quite different to the original version which seems to me like of dump of details that actually doesn't provide any new information to the reader. 'He smelled ... ...' Okay, but I already guessed he was probably breathing.

They are quite different to the original version which seems to me like of dump of details that actually doesn't provide any new information to the reader. 'He smelled ... ...' Okay, but I already guessed he was probably breathing.

I like to visualize so I got a picture of what might have been happening and then reworded, leaving the key nouns.

I cannot find anything that sounds okay using the three words 'fresh', 'shampoo', and 'perfume'.

I guess I'm not romantic enough. I would go with, 'I could smell her freshly shampooed hair and perfume'.

Visualize it.

He has to be close to be able to sense those smells. They are likely embraced, either standing or reclining on a couch or bed.

The smells are only a vehicle. Describe the closeness and the effect that and the then detectable smells have on him.

To me, it reeks of intimacy.

To me, it reeks of intimacy.

Whatever it reeks of to you, intimacy is no excuse for writing rubbish. 'I could smell her fresh hair, the smell of her shampoo and her perfume.' That line is rubbish, and that's all I smell.

I didn't say it was well written. I meant that I visualized it as an intimate setting - which needed rewriting.

That's definitely a man's opinion, and supports my theory that men are better at explicit sex scenes rather than erotica.

You are correct, I am a man, so there is no need to appologize. That aside, I'm sure women are as versed at smelling rubbish as men are.

ETA: Your theory is just a prejudice. It misses falsifiability to be viewed as a proper theory.

Please could you explain that. I don't understand what you're saying.

Your theory neither can be proven right, nor can it be proven wrong. That's a necessity halmark of anything counting as a theory.

You're welcome to do your own research to either confirm or rebut my own.

I'll pass on it. Actually I like all the differences between men and women. My initial objection was directed at your implied observation, that I called a line rubbish because I'm a man, not because it is rubbish, gender independent.

A whole scene written in that style would indicate to me that the writer was almost certainly a woman. However, since Ross implied that the sample wasn't representative of the whole scene, I guess the point is moot.

But the point does give me something that my get through to the author better. His, and yes he is a he, initial response suggested he thought my main objection was to the words 'her' and 'smell' being needlessly repeated. That was merely a symptom of the real problem I saw, that it was waffling and not achieving anything. Perhaps he'll understand better if I say, "It makes you sound like a girl!"

Me:
Perhaps he'll understand better if I say, "It makes you sound like a girl!"
You:
But that would be a compliment!

Not with the intonation I will use when saying it. :-)

Audio file required!

Nah! Real writers can manage it with only punctuation and fonts ...

It makes you sound like a GIRL!

But that would be a compliment!

Are you a girl? (Just wondering)

my stories regularly achieved a probability of my gender being female of about two thirds.

But this is still a non-answer answer. You're making me search the thread to find which gender is alleged to not be able to write erotica well.

BTW, are you not going to finish Evelyn? (my favorite was Harriet)

But this is still a non-answer answer. You're making me search the thread to find which gender is alleged to not be able to write erotica well.

awnlee jawking:

Unfortunately the big giveaway is my sex scenes - I can't seem to master the art of making them truly erotic. My real gender is betrayed by their "Insert Tab A into Slot B, rinse and repeat" nature :(

HE answered your question.

HE answered your question.

Not directly. I did search the thread, and now I know!

Both the statements you quote are correct.