
Ways to avoid using the word 'very' - geeku
http://writerswrite.co.za/45-ways-to-avoid-using-the-word-very
======
notlisted
Let me disagree.

Many words in the "rather say" column hinder clear communication.

* If a dictionary visit is required, you've failed the audience.

* If multiple interpretations are possible, you've failed yourself.

Ex:

\- Sagacious is out of favor since 1920 (google ngram).

\- Solemn vs 'very serious' (implies religious aspects where there were none)

\- Accomplished vs 'very capable (implies having attained something, not the
potential to do so)

\- Unyielding vs 'very strong' (replacement rarely applies) etc etc

    
    
      Use of sagacious is not sagacious and a solemn problem indeed.
      This accomplished man, accomplished tiny.
      Behold, unyielding password encryption.

~~~
thirsteh
It's a bad idea to encrypt passwords, but that's beside the point.

> If a dictionary visit is required, you've failed the audience.

If you take this to its logical conclusion, we end up in a world where English
ceases to be the language of Shakespeare and more like dogespeak. No one will
be morose anymore, just very sad, and no one will know what it means to be
awestruck.

Someone will always need a dictionary. That shouldn't make us afraid to show
that we have a vocabulary spanning more than 500 words, or that we have an
education at all. God forbid we encourage others to stop talking or writing
like 16-year-olds on E! TV.

~~~
notlisted
Ooopsie. Deleted the word 'intended'.

Write for your _intended_ audience and not people like you/your friends (or
english professor). In our international/global economy the audience often
extends to non-native English speakers. Simple words on e-commerce sites
generate more international sales.

PS Morose is not "very sad" :-)

~~~
thirsteh
You missed both of my points:

No matter your intended audience, there is always somebody who will need a
dictionary. It's not shameful to look up words, and it's easier than ever to
do so. You've shifted to arguing about conversion rates for non-English
speakers, which is a fair, but separate point. (I'm also curious if small
words and simple sentences really do translate to higher conversion rates.) I
am talking about prose in general.

> PS Morose is not "very sad" :-)

Nor is awestruck "very amazed." The smaller your vocabulary is, the less you
can communicate (as redblacktree pointed out, this is demonstrated quite
dramatically by George Orwell's 1984, wherein the language is dumbed down so
much and has so many words removed that the citizenry can't express emotions
the state deems negative.)

This is the truly tragic thing about this incessant anti-intellectualism:
people lose some measure of ability to express what they really mean or feel,
all in the name of meeting the lowest common denominator.

(For the record, I am not a native speaker, and I _love_ seeing words that I
don't understand.)

~~~
notlisted
There's a difference between "somebody" needing a dictionary, and "20% of your
audience".

If you write a book, go ahead and insert "fluffy" words, if they are more
precise. If you write a blog post or create site copy, assume the worst and
keep it simple.

(PS Neither am I, and so do I, but I admire writers like Steinbeck and
Hemingway. Simple and powerful. It's actually harder, not easier.)

~~~
vacri
The problem is that you perceive them as 'fluffy' words. When you're used to
them, they increase precision in communication.

I agree that you should write to your audience, but at the same time, don't
aim for the lowest common denominator. That's a race to the bottom. Site copy
for a commercial site should be pitched at your customer's level. A personal
blog post should be written the way you want to write - it's _your_ voice.
It's okay to expect your audience to be of a given quality, or for them to
stretch themselves a little to understand you fluently. The other thing is
that the more detailed your language, the better you can write between the
lines. Not every concept needs to be explained directly when writing.

Keep in mind also that the article is talking about creative writing,
something people read to enjoy. Striking out tired common terms like 'very'
makes your writing more unique and interesting. The article isn't about how to
do copywriting, though you still wouldn't want to use 'very' all that much
there, either - repetitive phrases make for bad copy.

------
Maciek416
This reminds me of an English teacher I had in high school who disallowed us
from using a list of banned words in a writing assignment. In previous
assignments students had overused them to pad their word count and to inflate
the apparent sophistication of their vocabulary. Among these words were
"basically" and "essentially" which he told us were garbage words (as far as
essay-writing as concerned). It stuck with me.

There seem to be many words which are useful in conversation but for whatever
reason are not that good for efficient writing, or so overused in speech (for
lack of better words as one scrambles for word choice in real time) that it's
hard to avoid using them in writing.

~~~
sabbatic13
Rules like these aren't really good guide to style though. They are the sort
of guidelines suited to curing teenagers of bad habits. That's the problem I
have with articles like these. They aren't adult discussions of language; they
do not teach effective writing, and do not promote an understanding of
language. One should ideally outgrow such pedagogy by one's second year of
college.

~~~
joesmo
In this case, the rule is just not to use the word "very." I can't think of a
single context where "very" doesn't degrade from the semantics and syntax of a
sentence. I think this rule is appropriate to any and every style.

~~~
dllthomas
I don't know what it means to "degrade from the semantics and syntax of a
sentence".

~~~
joesmo
It makes for shitty writing.

~~~
dllthomas
That's a much more coherent claim, if subjective. I agree with the weak claim
("it is usually best to drop the very and possibly replace the word it
modified"). I disagree with the strong claim ("it is _always_ best ...").

------
coenhyde
When I first moved to America, my speech was interpreted as not enthusiastic.
A trick I use to now is to just put very in front of everything. I'm very
happy that this fixed the problem.

~~~
JetSpiegel
I thought that was, like, common knowledge. Everybody, like, speaks like that.

------
jeremysmyth
But what if I want to say "very terrified"?

As a side note, I was always amused by the number of generic superlatives
available in many languages. In English, we've already got "very", and "damn"
as the site mentions, along with "really", "extremely", "amazingly" and so on.
In British English, you can say "bloody" or "damnedly" or "shockingly" or
"terribly" or any of a vast number of other superlatives, not to ignore the
crass "fucking".

My favourite has to be the French "vachement", which could be translated as
"cowly".

~~~
tptacek
Terrified isn't a gradable adjective (it appears to be a textbook example, in
fact).

~~~
glomph
Some of the best writing of course breaks rules on gradable adjectives though.

------
samatman
This is the very model of a modern formal reference

The rule should be respected but not treated with due deference

The use for truth or 'verity' is evident but venerable

We very much avoid the use of very much in general.

~~~
gertef
This is the very model of a modern formal reference

The rule should be respected but with only its due deference

The use for truth or 'verity' is evident and venerable

We very much avoid the use of very much in general.

------
bane
The problem with style guides is that they're often conflated by both the
reader and the writer as rulebooks. They should instead be used as sources of
writing ideas, or communication improvement aids -- to target writing for
specific audiences.

English can be assembled in all kinds of wonderful and creative ways. The best
writing is when you coin a phrase that style guides insist shouldn't work, but
communicate something beautifully. "Most excellent", for example, is a
wonderful example. It's concise, it's nonstandard and it's brings about vivid
imagery of two time travelling wanna be rock stars.

The worst style guides are outright wrong. "very afraid" doesn't mean
"terrified". How lame does "be afraid, be very afraid" sounds as "be afraid,
be terrified"? "very poor" doesn't mean "destitute", I grew up very poor, but
we were never destitute. Being "very rude" is has a _very_ different
connotation from "vulgar". This guide takes finely graded connotations and
turns them into extremes.

It's worth using it to double check if what you mean is the extreme, and you
accidentally used something else, but beyond that, a search and replace of
"very <word>" with any of these suggestions is likely to make your writing
worse.

English can be beautiful, enjoy it.

------
sker
I was always bothered by the overuse of the word "pretty" on the Internet in
place of "very." As a non-native English speaker, I grew up thinking of
_pretty_ as synonym of beautiful. Now that I see everyone using it as they
would use _very_ , I find it hard to parse.

~~~
maw
Where I grew up we used "wicked" as an intensifier, as in "he is wicked nice."
Sound any better?

~~~
brightsize
"Wicked" was extremely common in Vermont where I grew up, and I expect it
still is. I sometimes find myself using it in everyday speech and it never
seems to raise an eyebrow even out west here. "Friggin" is another word that I
think is mostly a New England thing.

~~~
Kluny
Where I am "friggin" has the context of a junior high kid who thinks it's a
bad swear word, but doesn't quite have the nerve to say "fuck". So you don't
generally hear it from people out of their teens.

------
gweinberg
Isn't this ass-backwards? It seems to me that if exhausted really does just
mean the same as "very tired", etc, we should be dumping all these other more
intense adjectives. If your purpose in writing is to communicate, then
needlessly complicating your speech with uncommon words is a bug, not a
feature.

~~~
grecy
I prefer 'double plus tired'.

~~~
jimmaswell
Reminds me of how I thought those forms in that book weren't really such a bad
idea but were presented in such a negative way.

~~~
qbrass
Imagine the comments section of every website filtered to Newspeak.

------
habosa
When I was in high school we couldn't use the verb "to be" in assignments for
English class. No is, am, are, was, were, has been, will be, etc.

Of course this is overly restrictive, but 80-90% of the time there was a
better way to phrase the sentence if you thought about removing the "be" verb.
10% of the time it was awkward, which sucked.

Aside: also taught me that MS Word has a very advanced find feature where I
could give it "be" and it would find me all of the above conjugations.

~~~
jimmaswell
That is just completely absurd. How would I even say that without using "is"?
That .. is, no .. Complete absurdity is , no.. Complete absurdity dwells in
that concept? That sounds like I'm trying to write some kind of poetry. The
verb "to be" is one of the most important verbs of the entire language. Of any
language, even in cases like Latin where it's not said but implied to be
there. It is a fundamental tool of communication to equate the existential
states of different concepts with the verb "to be". These writings must have
sounded awful. No real writing ever avoids the use of "to be". Being is too
important of a concept. Cogito ergo sum, as is said. Existential qualification
is too important to throw away.

~~~
RogerL
If you intend to emphasize the object in that first sentence, the passive
voice is correct (as in this sentence). However, we usually do not want to do
that. Consider:

The chair leg has been chewed by my bored dog.

vs

My bored dog chewed the chair leg.

The former, being passive, emphasizes the chair leg rather than the subject.

Anyway, a non-passive rewrite of your first sentence is: "I find that
completely absurd". Note the active voice. I find it a truer representation of
your thoughts. _You_ are making a judgement on the concept, and this wording
makes that clear.

~~~
jimmaswell
I guess I mostly prefer to emphasize the object when the actor isn't
necessary. I've known the deal with the passive voice. It's better used when
it makes the sentence shorter rather than longer.

------
tptacek
Consider not using the word "sagacious", though.

~~~
roflc0ptic
he said, sagaciously.

~~~
tptacek
Also, avoid adverbs. :)

~~~
igravious
he said, adverbially.

I see what you did there, isn't 'also' an adverb?

~~~
tptacek
:P

------
sdegutis
I can't agree with her article. These are legitimate words with their own
distinct connotations. Saying "very old" conveys a different idea than saying
"ancient".

She's encouraging sensationalist writing where down-to-earth content would
often be easier to understand and convey the author's meaning clearer and more
accurately.

------
susi22
OCR'd it since I'm going to add it to my dotfiles. Might help somebody:

[http://paste.ubuntu.com/6949984/](http://paste.ubuntu.com/6949984/)

~~~
oneeyedpigeon
I hadn't even realised that was an image. Text-as-images make me ver...
furious!

------
Zikes
'Very' isn't necessarily a bad modifier, it just shouldn't be used very often.

~~~
bagosm
Tee hee you used it! Really though, I think there is a big difference between
"Very tired" and "exhausted".

Although the technical mind I think is bugged more about precision rather than
flow or poeticness of speech Ι think we can appreciate it...

~~~
Zikes
Especially in certain situations like "I'm not very tired".

Offhand you could say "I'm not overly tired" or "I'm not too tired", but those
could subtly change the meaning of what you're trying to say or sound
unnatural in everyday speech.

~~~
sliverstorm
Both of those are modifiers as well, and could fall victim to the same
overuse. The only surefire remedy is picking more words that describe a
variety of degrees of tiredness.

Tired, exhausted, washed up, worn out, fatigued, beat, weary, run down,
depleted...

------
chc
And then next week we will get an article on how not to alienate your readers
with pointless, highfalutin language like "sagacious" and "jubilant."

It's a huge blind spot for writers to believe that repetition has a cost, but
large vocabularies don't. This is ingrained in them by English teachers,
because avoiding repetition and using lots of fancy words is hard work, and
thus that is what teachers value.

For most readers, though, the opposite is closer to the truth: They will
ignore repetition (or might even interpret it as useful structure) until the
point where it becomes ridiculous, but they quickly get stuck on odd words or
language usage that requires them to _work_ to read a piece.

------
oneeyedpigeon
A small minority of prescriptive linguists: "People are saying FOO a lot. We
don't like them saying FOO. Let's tell them not to say FOO and try to teach
them alternatives."

Everybody else: "FOO"

And the world keeps on turning.

------
the_af
I wonder what Orwell would think. As mentioned in an article on writing by
Orwell, posted here some time ago, didn't he prefer simple constructions such
as "very poor" to "destitute"? I wonder if he would think most of the
recommendations are actually snobbish and more complex to understand.

Not saying Orwell is right and the article wrong. Just that this kind of
recommendations is very subjective (quick, someone find me a replacement for
"very subjective"!). A matter of taste, actually, and not all accomplished
writers agree on this.

------
xvolter
Have you ever read 1984.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak)

I'm of the opinion we should dispose of useless words. Why even have the word
terrified in the dictionary when you can use very afraid?

Very good and you'd use superb? Over the dozens of other words that can be
used to replace good? I say get rid of them all. I'd also go with the idea of
removing antonyms in exchange for un- prefixed words because you do have the
issue that antonyms are not exact opposite.

You also have the issue with the comparisons that very can be less intensive.
Very wet does not mean soaked. Additionally, being anxious modernly implies a
mixture of stress, worry, possibly fright. Potentially changing your meaning
is not usually desired.

However, this article only describes how to avoid using very, and that may be
a good goal. There are many times when you can better describe your meaning
without using very. However, you cannot do it in every instance.

------
gruseom
That "substitute 'damn'" quote is damn good, but the attribution to Twain is
damn bogus:

[http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/08/29/substitute-
damn/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/08/29/substitute-damn/)

He never said that the coldest winter he spent was a summer in San Francisco
either. Damn.

------
Houshalter
Avoiding words seems rather arbitrary. English has a lot of over-used words,
for example the words "of", "a", "the", "with", etc, etc. It seems more likely
to me that people just associate certain styles of writing with professional
or amateur writers. Rather than the style of writing being objectively
superior.

For example use of slang or misspellings becomes highly associated with the
education or intelligence of the writer. This creates a feedback loop where
people trying to appear as high-status as possible imitate the writing style,
look up standardized spellings, avoid "less-formal" words, etc.

I'm not saying that this is true in this case, it's just something I notice.

------
cliveowen
This naturally lends itself to being implemented inside a tool that searches
for the word "very" in a text and if the next word is one of those listed,
replaces both with that occurrence.

~~~
tptacek
Yeah, the list of alternates doesn't do much for me, but the notion of doing
an edit pass looking for "very" so I can spot bad sentences does sound useful.

~~~
Zikes
Sounds like something that could be integrated into that Hemingway [1] tool
that was posted here a few days ago.

Edit: It looks like the tool already marks "very" for omission.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7223969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7223969)

------
JadeNB
The advice attributed to Kleinbaum is actually from the movie Dead Poets
Society, written by Tom Schulman
([http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097165](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097165)).
Googling for "Kleinbaum + Dead Poets Society" suggests that it is a
novelisation that came later: [http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Poets-Society-N-
Kleinbaum/dp/1401...](http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Poets-Society-N-
Kleinbaum/dp/1401308775).

------
ctdonath
I find such tips handy for writing. Don't use "very"; avoid starting a
sentence with "I" [1]; don't end words with "ly"; avoid "to be"; etc.

An excellent summary of such tips is Stephen King's _On Writing_. While the
bulk of it is interesting (autobiography), the 16-page section "Toolbox" is a
fantastic collection of writing guidance. Highly recommended, to the point
that I look for opportunities to mention it.

[1] - I know. Selective breaking of rules has its place too.

~~~
jerf
"Avoiding starting with 'I'" sounds context-dependent. In a journal article,
sure, that's bad form, but here on HN in a more conversational environment I
don't see a problem.

------
dpcan
This is a good list and lesson.

I remember learning about this in my creative writing classes in college, and
the other great tip we got at about the same time was to do something similar
when writing in past tense by ditching the "ings" and changing references like
"he was running home" with "he ran home" or "she was burning the papers" with
"she burned the papers". It turns out that too many "ings" can make a story
drag.

~~~
sabbatic13
There's a difference in meaning between "he ran home" and "he was running
home." Most people aren't aware enough of the language they use to avoid
overusing certain things, but mechanical transformations aren't the answer.
One should aspire to learn how language works, and then use it appropriately.

~~~
dpcan
Yeah, bad example. I was referring more to removing "was" and "ing" if you are
overusing it too much, particularly when writing scenes that include action.

It really does work though. Through peer review, I found that making some
changes along these lines vastly improved some of my stories.

------
caiob
Wow. Such article, Very informative, Much useful, So cool.

------
buckbova
A useless word I see used often is "just" as in "you just do" or "i just
need". For me, it implies triviality or adds nothing.

------
aytekin
I have been using Hemingway App on my medium essays since last week and every
time I removed the word "very", the sentence became better.

------
j2kun
I would love to see a dataset of English word-pairs rated by their severity
(i.e., how much "very" applies to modify the first to get the second on a
scale from -1 to 1).

For example, "quiet" would have "silent" rated as 1, "roomy" might have
"spacious" listed close to 0, and "gorgeous" would have "pretty" as negative.

------
emmelaich
The old 'diction' command distributed the Writers Workbench on Unix systems of
yore had this warning (among many others). I used it a lot!

    
    
        http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/diction/diction.1.html
    

I _think_ its available in source but a quick web search didn't find such.

------
snake_plissken
A hyena can be fierce. And lions can be ferocious. But honey badgers are
always very ferocious.

------
sdegutis
That's text. Very plain text. It even fits perfectly in a plain old HTML
table. But it's an image?

Wat.

~~~
jameshart
Shows up on facebook walls when article is shared. Gets more clicks. Also
pinnable.

------
farginay
Very good article.

~~~
felipellrocha
Agreed. Very useful, indeed.

------
coldtea
That was a very good article. I've wanted to read something like that for a
very long time, but it's very difficult to find such material of very hiqh
quality.

To whoever posted this, thank you very much.

------
hmsimha
What's the preferred replacement to 'very currency'?

------
gertef
s/very/insanely/

Other acceptable alternatives:

s/very/fantastically/

s/very/heart-breakingly/

s/very/awesomely/

s/very/literally/

~~~
snogglethorpe
My personal favorite: s/very/mind-bogglingly/

------
SkyMarshal
Avoid "exciting" and "passionate" as well, two other words so overused as to
be meaningless.

------
jotm
Most of those words can (and often are) still be emphasized by "very" :-).
There's no escaping it

------
JoeAltmaier
Simple: find/replace 'very' for ''. The meaning is unchanged.

------
mcv
Is "very, very" okay? Or "really really"? I use that a lot.

~~~
TheSOB888
Nope, anything you use a lot loses its punch. (That's the idea behind the
article)

------
trekky1700
Way #1: Don't right an article about not using the world 'very'

------
SeanDav
I find myself using the word "nice" too much sometimes!

------
davidw
"Come on, it'll be very."

\-- Heathers

------
vezzy-fnord
Quite useful, I'll say.

------
boobsbr
very cold != freezing

be careful not to overuse hyperboles.

------
dksidana
very rude = vulgar ?

------
joesmo
“Rather, very, little, pretty -- these are the leeches that infest the pond of
prose, sucking the blood of words." \-- William Strunk Jr.

I find it hard to argue with Strunk on this and most other things related to
writing.

