Hacker News Reader

Comment by danso | Hacker News Reader

>> In writing. Don't use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the thing you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us a thing was "terrible," describe it so that we'll be terrified. Don't say it was "delightful"; make us say "delightful" when we've read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers, "Please will you do my job for me."

My high school journalism teacher (and I'm sure many others) phrased this as "Show, don't tell". I wish all writing/journalism classes devoted a week to this precept.

View on HN

It's funny; my fourth-grade English teacher had a sign on her wall that read "Eschew prolixity."

It's a safe bet that no fourth grader, no matter how extraordinary, has come across those two words by that point in his life. So, of course, everyone in the class was puzzled by them. The phrase might as well have been some ancient, Latin dictum -- and, for all we knew, it was.

Finally, one day, someone mustered the courage to ask her what the words meant.

"It's a rule for good writing," she said. "When you understand what it means, you're already in danger of breaking it."

A variation, actually, on Mark Twain's "eschew surplusage".

But "prolixity" does not mean using long words.

I'm aware, which makes the phrase technically incorrect in its intent. But I think it's still serviceable.

Hmm. When I read your comment I thought it was a funny variation on Strunk and White's "Omit needless words": funny because it goes them one fewer, variation because it means the same thing. So if you're saying it was intended as "don't use obscure words", then your teacher pulled a fast one. It's probably better (i.e. more age-appropriate) advice for smart fourth-graders, though, than the other one. (Though maybe not. One wouldn't want to inhibit a nascent vocabulary!)

My understanding is that it was intended as a variation on "omit needless words," but that said, "prolixity" is technically the wrong word for that job (as prolixity is more concerned with total word count, and less with individual word choice). That said, I think both its message, and its wording, served to teach both lessons: one directly, and one indirectly.

Incidentally, the same class also served as the first of my many introductions to Strunk & White. We were way too young for their book, but it never hurts to start early.

You reminded me of something I heard on NPR recently. When E.B. White was old and couldn't remember things, his son would sit and read to him. Sometimes he would read pieces that White had written, and White would say, "Who wrote that one?" And his son would say, "You did." And White would say, "Not bad."

Or the self-contradictory, "Eschew obfuscation."

Hey. Eschew is a perfectly good word.

Gesundheit.

Here's a nice list of common phases that can be eschewed without worry: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__oMEOi1B6Rc/TDxuvGxYfeI/AAAAAAAAAA...

You're preaching to the choir, believe me (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3794092). And "eschew" is a perfectly good word. It's different from "avoid" and "shun", etc., and when it's the right word, it's just right.

"Obfuscation" is too, for that matter, but I don't want to ask for too much here :)

Funny thing about words: each has its own peculiar niche, even the exceptionally arcane ones.

Totally agree! And what you said is far from obvious.

I recently read a bunch of old Lovecraft stories (to catch up, as it were.. I never read them when I was younger), and it was quite humorous to constantly read about how objects in the environment were "horrifying" or "terrible." Often he'd literally be talking about a hallway or a pattern on the wall, and just describe it as if it were the most hideous, horrible thing in the universe. I eventually started getting the impression that the main character was just kind of depressed or something, which made me laugh and groan rather than be scared.

Still very much fun to read these old classics, and the intention of the writer comes through despite these 1920's pulp idioms, so it was intensely enjoyable, but I would say that this style of writing definitely shows its age.

(I also recently read John Carter and the Princess of Mars, which was written around the same era, and it's equally silly but for different reasons.)

I'll quote Brazilian writer Alexandre Soares Silva (the translation is mine so please don't blame him if the quote doesn't match the original Lovecraft's):

> Critics always laugh at H. P. Lovecraft, the American horror writer -- they laught at his style. They laugh at stuff such as "the stars shone sinisterly". They ask how can a sinisterly-shining-star shine any differently from other stars. In short, they claim that the adverb is spurious. But it isn't so: that adverb makes feel that the stars are shining sinisterly. I can imagine a star shining sinisterly -- can't you?

> The prejudice against adjectives and adverbs will be regarded as a 20th century fad.

Some people, however, just tell you "Show, don't tell." The above paragraph shows it.

Good point. I'd also add something from George Orwell's Politics and the English Language: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm , where he has a bunch of rules like the ones in this thread: "(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous."

Rules aren't really rules—they're principles. Part of knowing how to write is knowing when and how to bend or break those principles.

>Part of knowing how to write is knowing when and how to bend or break those principles.

Definitely. I even think that verbosity is a completely acceptable choice given the right context and purpose.

> I wish all writing/journalism classes devoted a week to this precept.

I'm quite sure they already do. The persistence of writing that tells rather than shows owes to the usual causes, i.e. a shortage of motivation, confidence, ability and/or time on the part of the writer.

I've heard "Don't use adjectives" but not qualified in that way, which makes more sense.

"Show, don't tell" without any adjectives can only be pure narration of events and metaphor. Maybe that is good. But it can take more words to say the same thing, and it's difficult. A good exercise though.

Heh, I came to say much the same thing. When I was taught this idea my writing ability improved no end.

Critical advice.

Danso - agreed. this is a gem! will make me think of how I use adjectives for ever

"show, don't tell" = "get people to commit the fundamental attribution error".

-- @stevenkaas

> I wish all writing/journalism classes devoted a week to this precept.

Better yet, the entire year. It's the single most valuable concept they teach in high school writing.

In the essence of the message, I like the more elaborate version, more than "Show, don't tell" which I find just a clever play on words.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com