Forum: Author Hangout

Because of overuse, 'wonderful' is a low-impact adjective nowadays; the author might have been better off with an alternative. But yes, it conveys that her eyes are more affecting than run-of-the-mill green.

Maybe, but it's an indirect value. The sentence would be stronger with either "beautiful" or better yet, "captivating" or "entrancing". "Wonderful" itself doesn't convey anything about eyes.

"Wonderful" itself doesn't convey anything about eyes.

The author uses wonderful to express the character's opinion of her eyes.

Beautiful, captivating and entrancing would also be the character's opinion of her eyes.

It all comes down to which of the four words you like the most. We don't know if the author considered other words, but they thought wonderful to be an adequate word and possibly the best word for what they intended.

It all comes down to which of the four words you like the most. We don't know if the author considered other words, but they thought wonderful to be an adequate word and possibly the best word for what they intended.

I understood your point when you first expressed it, but IMHO, "wonderful" is simply a poor description of eyes. If they'd said "Her eyes are wonderful," that's a valid use, even if it's an incredibly weak sentence. If an opthamologist says "the structure of the eye is wonderful", that more meaningful. But to say "she had wonderful eyes" is essentially tossing in an utterly meaningless adjective, as it simply doesn't apply to eyes, as it's a value term (i.e. what is about them which makes her eyes more valuable than someone else's).

Normally, no one says "You're wonderful" without expanding the thought and listing the ways in which he finds them wonderful. Again "wonderful" isn't a descriptive word, its a comparative value word, which is meaningless without context.

Normally, no one says "You're wonderful" ... its a comparative value word, which is meaningless without context.

And I can say the same thing about beautiful, captivating and entrancing. They are all comparative words and meaningless without context.

And I can say the same thing about beautiful, captivating and entrancing. They are all comparative words and meaningless without context.

Hardly. If I write, "Her eyes were captivating," the meaning is immediately clear, without comparing their 'captivitiness' to anything else. But if I say "Her eyes are wonderful", you really can't understand it unless I explain WHY they're wonderful. Are they wonderful to see with? Because the match her necklace? Her dress? Because one is green and one is blue? Because she's an albino and both are white?

If they're captivating, they simply 'captivate MY attention'. No other detail is required, as 'captivate' only applies to the character in question.

For me, "amazing" add nothing specifically of value. It's value, as already observed, is indirect and NOT based on the meaning of "wonderful". It's akin to saying "her eyes were pretty". That's what's known as a faint complement, because it's measuring someone by a very low bar, essentially meaning I didn't roll my eyes when she walked into the room or turn away in disgust.

You are focusing on your personal opinion of wonderful CW. The rest of us may agree or disagree with your opinion. Consider the following:

Her eyes were more/less wonderful/beautiful/captivating/entrancing than ......

The 4 words are all relative to something so they are all meaningless without context. When they are used without context, the reader is left to interpret what is meant.

It all comes down to which of the four words you like the most.

I believe the OP was asking if the adjective added anything to it. Whether "an" adjective was necessary, not specifically the adjective "wonderful."

Adjectives have a place. Too many are bad.

Also, using an adjective to tell what you might show might also be bad.

The tall man entered the room.

vs

All eyes turned to the doorway when someone yelled, "Holy shit!" They couldn't see the top part of the man's face until he stooped to enter the room.

I understand what the OP was asking. My post addressed CW's opinion that another word would have been better, which is not what the OP addressed.

My personal opinion is wonderful is just as good as the other 3 words that CW preferred.

In response to the OP's post, yes wonderful adds something to the sentence. It indicates the speaker likes her green eyes.

Sorry, I wasn't responding specifically to you.

My personal opinion is wonderful is just as good as the other 3 words that CW preferred.

I would tend to disagree with that, but mainly because 'wonderful' has been so overused that it's now somewhat deprecated.

IMO, all four adjectives are similar in that they're subjective opinions and tell rather than show.

AJ

You think it's a cliche, right?

Good point. And there's a whole battalion of overused adjectives that are jostling to join it - 'fantastic', 'incredible', 'unbelievable' have all been grossly overused, particularly in sporting contexts.

Nowadays I mainly use 'wonderful' in a sarcastic sense.

AJ

"The lad's done well today, he's given 110%. He's literally run himself into the ground."

And there's a real cliche for you - how many users consider what 'run into the ground' really means.

AJ

all been grossly overused

Words like wonderful may be overused, but they fit what the user of the words want to say. That is why they are over used. Yes you can substitute a different word, but that word may not convey what you want to say.

Words like wonderful may be overused, but they fit what the user of the words want to say. That is why they are over used.

The problem is that 'wonderful', along with the other adjectives I named in a sporting context, are used to mean 'slightly better than average'. So you may use it, meaning it to have its original meaning (extremely good, pleasant or remarkable), but overloaded readers will think, 'Oh, so nothing too great then'.

AJ

I sincerely doubt the major of readers even think about a word being overused. They will most likely be so involved in the story, they don't think about things like that.

eaders even think about a word being overused. They will most likely be so involved in the story, they don't think about things like that.

Until a word, phrase, etc. pulls them out of the story. That's the cardinal sin — to pull the reader out of the story.

Agreed. But an overused word that is used appropriately is unlikely to pull the reader out of the story. If the word does pull the reader out of the story, the word was probably used inappropriately.

I imagine if they went in opposite directions, no one would call them wonderful. A better question would be, "how can you enjoy a story if you nitpick it to death?"

Once again, if a story is strong, readers will overlook just about anything. If you have a fast-paced action scene, they'll skip over typos as if they're not even there. However, when a story slows down, and begins to drone on and they lose interest, they'll pick out each and every typo or grammar mistake available. So I wouldn't question the readers intent, but instead the author's incompetence in properly pacing the story.

There are a finite number of words that can be used to convey the same meaning. Most of those are also overused in some stories. By the 50th time you see 'beautiful' in a story, you are wondering if the author's vocabulary is extremely limited.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

You can pick what you deem to be an ugly woman and there will be men who think she is beautiful.

More likely in the bar at closing time. :)

by looking for one strong verb to use instead of a weak verb "enhanced" and an adjective of value.

No verb is involved. The adjective "beautiful" is modifying the noun "eyes."