The "I don't want to talk about AI" thread, and the new topic is: literary euphemisms

[Nightaelf]

I had a muscat from Amsterdam a few weeks ago. It was about as good as I expected it to be.

A muscat from Amsterdam? Bold choice. Our vineyards thrive mostly on fog, doubt, and salted soil.
Did you like it or did it taste like the grapes were homesick for France?

 

[onehitwanda]

And just to steal her thunder, here is @onehitwanda after she reads the previous post and sees the wine pairing for a milky tit.
View attachment 2574634

 

[StillStunned]

A muscat from Amsterdam? Bold choice. Our vineyards thrive mostly on fog, doubt, and salted soil.
Did you like it or did it taste like the grapes were homesick for France?

It lacked depth and had a sour aftertaste. An AI version of a muscat, as it were.

It was selected by a sommelier as part of a wine pairing. Sommeliers have a tendency to be a bit showy-offy in their choices sometimes, and this one definitely seemed like she was choosing novelty over quality.

 

[cw5523729]

. An AI version of a muscat, as it were.

Excuse me but the OP doesn't want us talking about AI in his thread

 

[cw5523729]

Try calling it ‘winter spice chicken’ and top it off with a squeeze of lemon. People panic less when they don’t realize it’s just cinnamon with a fancy squirt.

plus a name like "winter spice chicken" easily adds 25% to the price at a fancy restaurant

swap chicken for words like "free range ground fowl" and you can bump it to 50%

 

[Nightaelf]

It lacked depth and had a sour aftertaste. An AI version of a muscat, as it were.

Something you only drink when you are Allready druk enough not to be bothered about it....

 

[Statius]

Even Sangiovese through mildewed socks beats Dutch wine, which mostly tastes like wet soil and national dissapointment.

Not sure if that's funny or sad?

 

[cw5523729]

Not sure if that's funny or sad?

Why couldn't it be both?

 

[Statius]

Why couldn't it be both?

True

 

[Nightaelf]

Not sure if that's funny or sad?

Both

 

[cw5523729]

Why couldn't it be both?

Both

 

[Bamagan]

With apologies, I'm about to rail this thread towards writing again, rather than start a new thread for a relatively minor discussion.

Ambivalently Defending Adverbs

So, this is something that some writers have very strong feelings about. I'm somewhere in the middle, I guess, because I use adverbs heavily in some contexts but sparsely in others. Sometimes, a single adverb can be used in place of a sentence of explanation to convey the same meaning. I especially like to use adverbs in and around dialogue tags or when describing the way characters physically move. I think it helps 'animate' the characters in the reader's mind more accurately with how I imagine an interaction or a scene playing out. Doing so may be more important for me than for other authors since I'm inclined to leave their physical appearances very vaguely defined. On the other hand, I kind of dislike adverbs when used to describe the environment around the characters. I like knowing if the character is laughing shrilly or staring wistfully, but tend to feel it can be too much if the sun is shining happily or the wind is blowing belligerently. It makes more sense in some genres than others, but feels a little out of place to me in erotica.

Perhaps ironically, I have basically the reverse rationale when it comes to those vague descriptions of the way characters look. My assumption is that if I paint a blurry image of, say, a tall woman with an athletic figure and medium-brown hair, most readers will 'cast' the role with someone they know, or perhaps a celebrity of some kind. It's a way to avoid precise measurements, for one thing, and perhaps gives a slight sense of 'interactivity' to the story. They pick the actors, I direct the action. Some people dislike that vagueness of appearance, which is defensible for various reasons, though I wonder whether those who want clarity about the way a character looks also want commensurate detail about the way a character moves, speaks, or otherwise acts. Perhaps it's a side effect of having a culture that consumes so much visual media compared to the amount we read.

I expect someone will be happy to provide various reasons against using adverbs, or at least argue for more sparing use than I like, so I won't try to head them off by listing the rationales I've seen. I will say that I have a hazy hypothesis that using more of them helps establish a story as sounding 'human'. Adverbs are anathema in a lot of formal writing styles, after all, which I presume is why grammar checkers flag them as unnecessary and undesirable. So it's possible that we may be saving ourselves some frustration if we write about eyes, or even stars, twinkling merrily.

 

[NuclearFairy]

Laugh shrilly, I might use that at some point. I like adverbs, they let me know why someones eyes are wide. Are they wide eyed with wonder, shock, fear, anger, awe, stupidity. Narrator, why are they wide eyed?!

 

[TheLobster]

Adverbs are essential. How else would our characters be breasting boobily?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Laugh shrilly, I might use that at some point. I like adverbs, they let me know why someones eyes are wide. Are they wide eyed with wonder, shock, fear, anger, awe, stupidity. Narrator, why are they wide eyed?!

IRL when I see somebody with wide eyes, there's no neon sign over their head saying "angry" or whatever. I have to figure it out from context.

The record will show that I'm not dogmatically anti-adverb, but I think authors would often do better to let the context provide the "why" ahead of leaning on adverbs/adjectives.

 

[MrPixel]

IRL when I see somebody with wide eyes, there's no neon sign over their head...

Just search for images, "bug eyes fbi" and tell me what emotion(s) is/are conveyed.

 

[Bamagan]

IRL when I see somebody with wide eyes, there's no neon sign over their head saying "angry" or whatever. I have to figure it out from context.

The record will show that I'm not dogmatically anti-adverb, but I think authors would often do better to let the context provide the "why" ahead of leaning on adverbs/adjectives.

IRL, I would say the neon sign is their face. The context is usually things like the shape of the mouth, dilation of nostrils, color in the cheeks or ears, possibly posture and breathing. Most people (I think) perceive those things as a gestalt, rather than consciously running down a checklist to decide if it suggests anger or shock or whatever. Sometimes it might make sense to have the POV character provide that list to the reader, but it usually feels needlessly convoluted to me. I'd rather just say they glared angrily, or contemptuously, or incredulously. But as I said before, that's just the style I prefer. To each their own.

 

[iwatchus]

I think authors would often do better to let the context provide the "why" ahead of leaning on adverbs/adjectives.

So narration ahead of scene building, tell rather than show. Seems backwards to me. Let the reader recognize they are surprised from their expression and let them work out why rather than narrating about why their are surprised.

(I know you are a good writer, better than me. I would be surprised if you actually carried out your advice like this, but it certainly seems like the implication of it.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

Just search for images, "bug eyes fbi" and tell me what emotion(s) is/are conveyed.

My interpretation of the resulting images is heavily influenced by what I already know of their subject.

 

[Bramblethorn]

So narration ahead of scene building, tell rather than show.

No, that's not at all what I said.

 

[nice90sguy]

There are adverbs and adverbs. These are obviously okay, even necessary:

Walked quickly
Coughed quietly

I think the argument here is about whether the reader can have privileged access to people's inner state (which is also fine, if you're writing omniscient, which I never do).
So:
"I disagree," she said bravely (as I mentioned in another thread, JK Rowling does this a lot) - I avoid this, preferring e.g.
"I disagree", she said, meeting my gaze.

 

[stickygirl]

IRL, I would say the neon sign is their face. The context is usually things like the shape of the mouth, dilation of nostrils, color in the cheeks or ears, possibly posture and breathing. Most people (I think) perceive those things as a gestalt, rather than consciously running down a checklist to decide if it suggests anger or shock or whatever. Sometimes it might make sense to have the POV character provide that list to the reader, but it usually feels needlessly convoluted to me. I'd rather just say they glared angrily, or contemptuously, or incredulously. But as I said before, that's just the style I prefer. To each their own.

This puzzled me, because I'd assume it was the context that helps me anticipate, then confirm a person's emotion. Clearly the author controls the context, providing the reader with the character's background, the situation etc. so that the reaction is understood ( even if it is a surprise ). It could make sense to describe the facial expression as well if it further embellished the scene.

However.... I've heard of various psychological 'isms' where individuals have difficulty in recognising facial expressions. Perhaps they would benefit from your angry glare? In which case, full marks for being inclusive! Still curious, I discovered an online quiz to gauge ones ability to read expressions. I'll link them, just for fun
Science of People
Guardian ( never knew Sadly ill was a possible expression )

I didn't score especially well - just over half

 

[Bamagan]

There are adverbs and adverbs. These are obviously okay, even necessary:

Walked quickly
Coughed quietly

I think the argument here is about whether the reader can have privileged access to people's inner state (which is also fine, if you're writing omniscient, which I never do).
So:
"I disagree," she said bravely (as I mentioned in another thread, JK Rowling does this a lot) - I avoid this, preferring e.g.
"I disagree", she said, meeting my gaze.

I guess I like adverbs like that because they're kind of like an emoji to me. Whether or not I interpret it precisely as the author intended, my mind supplies details of posture and expression that seem relevant to my concept of bravery. For example, in addition to the 'meeting my gaze' aspect, I picture them with head tilted back (or chin raised, if you prefer), jaw set and mouth firm, standing more upright or rigidly, and perhaps other things if the larger context is suggestive. If I know the character is naturally timid, say, I might picture clenched fists, a quiver in the lips, blanched cheeks, etc.

So for me, adding that word tends to provide about a paragraph's worth of mental imagery that kind of gets automatically rendered without needing to be spelled out. That being said, I can sort of understand why an author might feel like it's either too 'leading' or prone to misinterpretation.

 

[Bamagan]

This puzzled me, because I'd assume it was the context helps me anticipate, then confirms a person's emotion. Clearly the author controls the context, providing the reader with the character's background, the situation etc. so that the reaction is understood ( even if it is a surprise ). It could make sense to describe the facial expression as well if it further embellished the scene.

However.... I've heard of various psychological 'isms' where individuals have difficulty in recognising facial expressions. Perhaps they would benefit from your angry glare? In which case, full marks for being inclusive! Still curious, I discovered an online quiz to gauge ones ability to read expressions. I'll link them, just for fun
Science of People
Guardian ( never knew Sadly ill was a possible expression )

I didn't score especially well - just over half

I am equally puzzled and not entirely sure we're on the same page. I fear any attempt to relieve the bafflement will only enhance it if I start addressing a point you weren't actually making.
As for difficulties recognizing expression, sure, obviously those exist and even people with 'average' abilities in that regard can overlook or misinterpret things, and it's not like people can't be feeling and expressing contradictory things at the same time. I am not really making any deliberate attempt at inclusivity when I express a preference for adverbs as 'shorthand' or 'emojis' for quickly addressing a character's tone and other emotional clues, but it's a happy coincidence if it makes things more accessible. That may mean the reader is getting a clearer perception of a character's emotional states than they would manage on their own in real life, and I can see how that might seem unrealistic or off-putting to some. Diff'rent strokes, as they say.

 

[TheLobster]

I guess I like adverbs like that because they're kind of like an emoji to me. (…)

They’re all fine in omniscient narration, as they require insight into character’s motivations and true emotions. But if the story is allegedly told in the close PoV of a different character, you can only do it so often before you are accused of head hopping (as opposed to what you are really doing, if you’re doing it consciously, i.e., conveying the PoV character’s impression of the other’s speech).

In this particular case, though, I’d probably use “defiantly” instead of “bravely”, and leave it to the reader’s interpretation whether the speaker exhibits actual courage or conceals his true fear.