The Ten Mistakes

Ten Mistakes Writers Don’t See (But Can Easily Fix When They Do)

Like many editorial consultants, I’ve been concerned about the amount of time I’ve been spending on easy fixes that the author shouldn’t have to pay for.

Sometimes the question of where to put a comma, how to use a verb or why not to repeat a word can be important, even strategic. But most of the time the author either missed that day’s grammar lesson in elementary school or is too close to the manuscript to make corrections before I see it.

So the following is a list I’ll be referring to people *before* they submit anything in writing to anybody (me, agent, publisher, your mom, your boss). From email messages and front-page news in the New York Times to published books and magazine articles, the 10 ouchies listed here crop up everywhere. They’re so pernicious that even respected Internet columnists are not immune.

The list also could be called, “10 COMMON PROBLEMS THAT DISMISS YOU AS AN AMATEUR,” because these mistakes are obvious to literary agents and editors, who may start wording their decline letter by page 5. What a tragedy that would be.

So here we go:


    Just about every writer unconsciously leans on a “crutch” word. Hillary
    Clinton’s repeated word is “eager” (can you believe it? the committee
    that wrote Living History should be ashamed). Cosmopolitan magazine
    editor Kate White uses “quickly” over a dozen times in A Body To Die
    For. Jack Kerouac’s crutch word in On the Road is “sad,” sometimes
    doubly so – “sad, sad.” Ann Packer’s in The Dive from Clausen’s Pier
    is “weird.”Crutch words are usually unremarkable. That’s why they slip under
    editorial radar – they’re not even worth repeating, but there you have
    it, pop, pop, pop, up they come. Readers, however, notice them, get
    irked by them and are eventually distracted by them, and down goes your
    book, never to be opened again.

    But even if the word is unusual, and even if you use it differently when
    you repeat it, don’t: Set a higher standard for yourself even if readers
    won’t notice. In Jennifer Egan’s Look at me, the core word – a good
    word, but because it’s good, you get *one* per book – is “abraded.”

    Here’s the problem:

    “Victoria’s blue gaze abraded me with the texture of ground glass.” page 202
    “…(metal trucks abrading the concrete)…” page 217
    “…he relished the abrasion of her skepticism…” page 256
    “…since his abrasion with Z …” page 272

    The same goes for repeats of several words together – a phrase or
    sentence that may seem fresh at first, but, restated many times, draws
    attention from the author’s strengths. Sheldon Siegel nearly bludgeons
    us in his otherwise witty and articulate courtroom thriller, Final
    , with a sentence construction that’s repeated throughout the

    “His tone oozes self-righteousness when he says…” page 188
    “His voice is barely audible when he says…” page 193
    “His tone is unapologetic when he says…” page 199
    “Rosie keeps her tone even when she says…” page 200
    “His tone is even when he says…” page 205
    “I switch to my lawyer voice when I say …” page 211
    “He sounds like Grace when he says…” page 211

    What a tragedy. I’m not saying all forms of this sentence should be
    lopped off. Lawyers find their rhythm in the courtroom by phrasing
    questions in the same or similar way. It’s just that you can’t do it too
    often on the page. After the third or fourth or 16th time, readers
    exclaim silently, “Where was the editor who shoulda caught this?” or
    “What was the author thinking?

    1. So if you are the author, don’t wait for the agent or house or even editorial consultant to catch this stuff *for* you. Attune your eye now. Vow to yourself, NO REPEATS.

    And by the way, even deliberate repeats should always be questioned: “Here are the documents.” says one character. “If these are the documents, I’ll oppose you,” says another. A repeat like that just keeps us on the surface. Figure out a different word; or rewrite the exchange. Repeats rarely allow you to probe deeper.


    “He wanted to know but couldn’t understand what she had to say, so he waited until she was ready to tell him before asking what she meant.”Something is conveyed in this sentence, but who cares? The writing is so flat, it just dies on the page. You can’t fix it with a few replacement words – you have to give it depth, texture, character. Here’s another:”Bob looked at the clock and wondered if he would have time to stop for gas before driving to school to pick up his son after band practice.” True, this could be important – his wife might have hired a private investigator to document Bob’s inability to pick up his son on time – and it could be that making the sentence bland invests it with more tension. (This is the editorial consultant giving you the benefit of the doubt.) Most of the time, though, a sentence like this acts as filler. It gets us from A to B, all right, but not if we go to the kitchen to make a sandwich and find something else to read when we sit down.Flat writing is a sign that you’ve lost interest or are intimidated by your own narrative. It shows that you’re veering toward mediocrity, that your brain is fatigued, that you’ve lost your inspiration. So use it as a lesson. When you see flat writing on the page, it’s time to rethink, refuel and rewrite


    Actually, totally, absolutely, completely, continually, constantly, continuously, literally, really, unfortunately, ironically, incredibly, hopefully, finally – these and others are words that promise emphasis, but too often they do the reverse. They suck the meaning out of every sentence.I defer to People Magazine for larding its articles with empty adverbs. A recent issue refers to an “incredibly popular, groundbreakingly racy sitcom.” That’s tough to say even when your lips aren’t moving.In Still Life with Crows, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child describe a mysterious row of corn in the middle of a field: “It was, in fact, the only row that actually opened onto the creek.” Here are two attempts at emphasis (“in fact,” “actually”), but they just junk up the sentence. Remove them both and the word “only” carries the burden of the sentence with efficiency and precision.(When in doubt, try this mantra: Precise and spare; precise and spare; precise and spare.)In dialogue, empty adverbs may sound appropriate, even authentic, but that’s because they’ve crept into American conversation in a trendy way. If you’re not watchful, they’ll make your characters sound wordy, infantile and dated.In Julia Glass’s Three Junes, a character named Stavros is a forthright and matter-of-fact guy who talks to his lover without pretense or affectation. But when he mentions an offbeat tourist souvenir, he says, “It’s absolutely wild. I love it.” Now he sounds fey, spoiled, superficial.. (Granted, “wild” nearly does him in; but “absolutely” is the killer.)The word “actually” seems to emerge most frequently, I find. Ann Packer’s narrator recalls running in the rain with her boyfriend, “his hand clasping mine as if he could actually make me go fast.” Delete “actually” and the sentence is more powerful without it.

    The same holds true when the protagonist named Miles hears some information in Empire Falls by Richard Russo. “Actually, Miles had no doubt of it,” we’re told. Well, if he had no doubt, remove “actually” – it’s cleaner, clearer that way. “Actually” mushes up sentence after sentence; it gets in the way every time. I now think it should *never* be used.

    Another problem with empty adverbs: You can’t just stick them at the beginning of a sentence to introduce a general idea or wishful thinking, as in “Hopefully, the clock will run out.” Adverbs have to modify a verb or other adverb, and in this sentence, “run out” ain’t it.

    Look at this hilarious clunker from The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown: “Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino.”

    Ack, “almost inconceivably” – that’s like being a little bit infertile! Hopefully, that “enormous albino” will ironically go back to actually flogging himself while incredibly saying his prayers continually.


    Be careful of using dialogue to advance the plot. Readers can tell when characters talk about things they already know, or when the speakers appear to be having a conversation for our benefit. You never want one character to imply or say to the other, “Tell me again, Bruce: What are we doing next?”Avoid words that are fashionable in conversation. Ann Packer’s characters are so trendy the reader recoils. ” ‘What’s up with that?’ I said. ‘Is this a thing [love affair]?’ ” “We both smiled. ” ‘What is it with him?’ I said. ‘I mean, really.’ ” Her book is only a few years old, and already it’s dated.Dialogue offers glimpses into character the author can’t provide through description. Hidden wit, thoughtful observations, a shy revelation, a charming aside all come out in dialogue, so the characters *show* us what the author can’t *tell* us. But if dialogue helps the author distinguish each character, it also nails the culprit who’s promoting a hidden agenda by speaking out of character.An unfortunate pattern within the dialogue in Three Junes, by the way, is that all the male characters begin to sound like the author’s version of Noel Coward – fey, acerbic, witty, superior, puckish, diffident. Pretty soon the credibility of the entire novel is shot. You owe it to each character’s unique nature to make every one of them an original.Now don’t tell me that because Julia Glass won the National Book Award, you can get away with lack of credibility in dialogue. Setting your own high standards and sticking to them – being proud of *having* them – is the mark of a pro. Be one, write like one, and don’t cheat.


    Don’t take a perfectly good word and give it a new backside so it functions as something else. The New York Times does this all the time. Instead of saying, “as a director, she is meticulous,” the reviewer will write, “as a director, she is known for her meticulousness.” Until she is known for her obtuseness.The “ness” words cause the eye to stumble, come back, reread: Mindlessness, characterlessness, courageousness, statuesqueness, preciousness – you get the idea. You might as well pour marbles into your readers’ mouths. Not all “ness” words are bad – goodness, no – but they are all suspect.The “ize” words are no better – finalize, conceptualize, fantasize, categorize. The “ize” hooks itself onto words as a short-cut but stays there like a parasite. Cops now say to each other about witnesses they’ve interrogated, “Did you statementize him?” Some shortcut. Not all “ize” words are bad, either, but they do have the ring of the vulgate to them – “he was brutalized by his father,” “she finalized her report.” Just try to use them rarely.Adding “ly” to “ing” words has a little history to it. Remember the old Tom Swifties? “I hate that incision,” the surgeon said cuttingly. “I got first prize!” the boy said winningly. But the point to a good Tom Swiftie is to make a punchline out of the last adverb. If you do that in your book, the reader is unnecessarily distracted. Serious writing suffers from such antics.Some “ingly” words do have their place. I can accept “swimmingly,” “annoyingly,” “surprisingly” as descriptive if overlong “ingly” words. But not “startlingly,” “harrowingly” or “angeringly,” “careeningly” – all hell to pronounce, even in silence, like the “groundbreakingly” used by People magazine above. Try to use all “ingly” words (can’t help it) sparingly.


    Once your eye is attuned to the frequent use of the “to be” words – “am,” “is,” “are,” “was,” “were,” “be,” “being,” “been” and others – you’ll be appalled at how quickly they flatten prose and slow your pace to a crawl.The “to be” words represent the existence of things – “I am here. You are there.” Think of Hamlet’s query, “to be, or not to be.” To exist is not to act, so the “to be” words pretty much just there sit on the page. “I am the maid.” “It was cold.” “You were away.”I blame mystery writers for turning the “to be” words into a trend: Look how much burden is placed on the word “was” in this sentence: “Around the corner, behind the stove, under the linoleum, was the gun.” All the suspense of finding the gun dissipates. The “to be” word is not fair to the gun, which gets lost in a sea of prepositions.Sometimes, “to be” words do earn a place in writing: “In a frenzy by now, he pushed the stove away from the wall and ripped up the linoleum. Cold metal glinted from under the floorboards. He peered closer. Sure enough, it was the gun.” Okay, I’m lousy at this, but you get the point: Don’t squander the “to be” words – save them for special moments.Not so long ago, “it was” *defined* emphasis. Even now, if you want to say, “It was Margaret who found the gun,” meaning nobody else but Margaret, fine. But watch out – “it was” can be habitual: “It was Jack who joined the Million Man March. It was Bob who said he would go, too. But it was Bill who went with them.” Flat, flat, flat.Try also to reserve the use of “there was” or “there is” for special occasions. If used too often, this crutch also bogs down sentence after sentence. “He couldn’t believe there was furniture in the room. There was an open dresser drawer. There was a sock on the bed. There was a stack of laundry in the corner. There was a handkerchief on the floor….” By this time, we’re dozing off, and you haven’t even gotten to the kitchen.One finds the dreaded “there was/is” in jacket copy all the time. “Smith’s book offers a range of lively characters: There is Jim, the puzzle-loving dad. There is Winky, the mom who sits on the 9th Court of Appeals. There is Barbie, brain surgeon to the stars….”

    Attune your eye to the “to be” words and you’ll see them everywhere. When in doubt, replace them with active, vivid, engaging verbs. Muscle up that prose.

  7. LISTS

    “She was entranced by the roses, hyacinths, impatiens, mums, carnations, pansies, irises, peonies, hollyhocks, daylillies, morning glories, larkspur…” Well, she may be entranced, but our eyes are glazing over.If you’re going to describe a number of items, jack up the visuals. Lay out the the scene as the eye sees it, with emphasis and emotion in unlikely places. When you list the items as though we’re checking them off with a clipboard, the internal eye will shut.It doesn’t matter what you list – nouns, adjectives, verbs – the result is always static. “He drove, he sighed, he swallowed, he yawned in impatience.” So do we. Dunk the whole thing. Rethink and rewrite. If you’ve got many ingredients and we aren’t transported, you’ve got a list.


    If you say, “she was stunning and powerful,” you’re *telling* us. But if you say, “I was stunned by her elegant carriage as she strode past the jury – shoulders erect, elbows back, her eyes wide and watchful,” you’re *showing* us. The moment we can visualize the picture you’re trying to paint, you’re showing us, not telling us what we *should* see..Handsome, attractive, momentous, embarrassing, fabulous, powerful, hilarious, stupid, fascinating are all words that “tell” us in an arbitrary way what to think. They don’t reveal, don’t open up, don’t describe in specifics what is unique to the person or event described. Often they begin with cliches.Here is Gail Sheehy’s depiction of a former “surfer girl” from the New Jersey shore in Middletown, America:

    “This was a tall blond tomboy who grew up with all guy friends. A natural beauty who still had age on her side, being thirty; she didn’t give a thought to taming her flyaway hair or painting makeup on her smooth Swedish skin.”

    Here I *think* I know what Sheehy means, but I’m not sure. Don’t let the reader make such assumptions. You’re the author; it’s your charge to show us what you mean with authentic detail. Don’t pretend the job is accomplished by cliches such as “smooth Swedish skin,” “flyaway hair,” “tall blond tomboy,” “the surfer girl” – how smooth? how tall? how blond?

    Or try this from Faye Kellerman in Street Dreams:

    “[Louise’s] features were regular, and once she had been pretty. Now she was handsome in her black skirt, suit, and crisp, white blouse.”

    Well, that’s it for Louise, poor thing. Can you see the character in front of you? A previous sentence tells us that Louise has “blunt-cut hair” framing an “oval face,” which helps, but not much – millions of women have a face like that. What makes Louise distinctive? Again, we may think we know what Kellerman means by “pretty” and “handsome” (good luck), but the inexcusable word here is “regular,” as in “her features were regular.” What *are* “regular” features?

    The difference between telling and showing usually boils down to the physical senses. Visual, aural aromatic words take us out of our skin and place us in the scene you’ve created. In conventional narrative it’s fine to use a “to be” word to talk us into the distinctive word, such as “wandered” in this brief, easily imagined sentence by John Steinbeck in East of Eden. “His eyes were very blue, and when he was tired, one of them wandered outward a little.” We don’t care if he is “handsome” or “regular.”

    Granted, context is everything, as writing experts say, and certainly that’s true of the sweltering West African heat in Graham Greene’s The Heart of the Matter: “Her face had the ivory tinge of atabrine; her hair which had once been the color of bottled honey was dark and stringy with sweat.” Except for “atabrine” (a medicine for malaria), the words aren’t all that distinctive, but they quietly do the job – they don’t tell us; they show us.

    Commercial novels sometimes abound with the most revealing examples of this problem. The boss in Linda Lael Miller’s Don’t Look Now is “drop-dead gorgeous”; a former boyfriend is “seriously fine to look at: 35, half Irish and half Hispanic, his hair almost black, his eyes brown.” A friend, Betsy, is “a gorgeous, leggy blonde, thin as a model.” Careful of that word “gorgeous” – used too many times, it might lose its meaning.


    “Mrs. Fletcher’s face pinkened slightly.” Whoa. This is an author trying too hard. “I sat down and ran a finger up the bottom of his foot, and he startled so dramatically …. ” Egad, “he startled”? You mean “he started”?Awkward phrasing makes the reader stop in the midst of reading and ponder the meaning of a word or phrase. This you never want as an author. A rule of thumb – always give your work a little percolatin’ time before you come back to it. Never write right up to deadline. Return to it with fresh eyes. You’ll spot those overworked tangles of prose and know exactly how to fix them.

  10. COMMAS

    Compound sentences, most modifying clauses and many phrases *require* commas. You may find it necessary to break the rules from time to time, but you can’t delete commas just because you don’t like the pause they bring to a sentence or just because you want to add tension.”Bob ran up the stairs and looking down he realized his shoelace was untied but he couldn’t stop because they were after him so he decided to get to the roof where he’d retie it.” This is what happens when an author believes that omitting commas can make the narrative sound breathless and racy. Instead it sounds the reverse – it’s heavy and garbled.The Graham Greene quote above is dying for commas, which I’ll insert here: “Her face had the ivory tinge of atabrine; her hair, which had once been the color of bottled honey, was dark and stringy with sweat.” This makes the sentence accessible to the reader, an image one needs to slow down and absorb.Entire books have been written about punctuation. Get one. “The Chicago Manual of Style” shows why punctuation is necessary in specific instances. If you don’t know what the rules are for, your writing will show it.The point to the List above is that even the best writers make these mistakes, but you can’t afford to. The way manuscripts are thrown into the Rejection pile on the basis of early mistakes is a crime. Don’t be a victim.

43 thoughts on “The Ten Mistakes

  1. Pingback: Holt Uncensored on Empty Adverbs |

  2. Pingback: Christian suspense novelist Adam Blumer » Blog Archive » Holt Uncensored The Ten Mistakes

  3. Pingback: (Hopefully) Helpful Article

  4. Pingback: useful reading « the adverb is not your friend

  5. Pingback: Don’t be an amateur « Aspiring Author

  6. Pingback: Ten Mistakes Writers Don’t See (But Can Easily Fix) « Cloud of Witnesses

  7. Pingback: More on Characters « Hope and Faith

  8. Pingback: Bad advice for stupid writers « The Critical I

  9. Pingback: Writer’s block busters « this space is mine

  10. Pingback: Great Advice for ALL Writers! «

  11. mountainh2o

    Great piece! I too write, and and will use these 10 tips constructively. A writer friend of mine turned me on to this.

    Writing cleanly, with punch, and still easy to read is an art. I have been working on it for thirty years. I put it on paper, then revise my work a dozen times before I like it. I look for anything that seems jumbled, so that it is smooth and the story, “keeps going”. I agree with you on not wanting them to stop and think about what you said.

    Thanks for sure! I have a full length novel on this site.


    1. kate pomeroy

      Bunk. You are criticizing not amateur writers, but brilliant accomplished authors like Doug Preston. What new writers need to know is the mistakes UNPUBLISHED writers are making. Those are the worst mistakes, and they’re the ones we never get a chance to see.

      1. Katie

        Is it just me, or do you need to take a step back and realize that authors, even “accomplished” ones like Douglas Preston, are human? No matter how famous authors are, they make mistakes, and often write like the two of us, but have paid through the nose for a fantastic editor. Sometimes editors fall short. I thought it was a wonderful article that gave examples of some better loved authors so that if we want a better understanding of what this person is saying, we can check the book out from the library and read it to get the big picture. We don’t have access to things people haven’t written; the TRUE amateurs. Until you realize the point was to give examples, and not criticism, you need to shut your mouth up, sit down, and take a freaking chill pill.

    2. Some1

      “Writing cleanly, with punch, and still easy to read is an art.” *scratches head* I’m sorry, but I believe you just ran afoul of rule #9 with that one. Maybe even #3 as well. The very construction hurts my brain! The closest I can come to your intended meaning is “Punchy, accessible writing is an art.” Again, I’m not trying to be mean, but I was so confused I had to comment!

  12. kate pomeroy

    Sorry, my comment “Bunk” was not meant to be a reply to Mountain2o, but a comment about the ten tips given above. (Don’t see the mechanics of how to submit just a plain comment.)

  13. B

    Informative. Thank you for your insight Pat. This is the type of advice one can refer to time and time again. Boo, to the nay-sayers! I want to put out the best piece I can. Information like this can only further me toward that goal.

  14. melayahm

    ‘Awkward phrasing makes the reader stop in the midst of reading and ponder the meaning of a word or phrase. This you never want as an author.’ Put me in mind of Umberto Eco, (a fairly high regarded author as far as I know,) and his book Foucault’s Pendulum. Almost every page had me going to the dictionary to find out what a word meant, cos it was so highbrow and obscure. Is this good writing, am I just showing my ignorance and so I should stick to Mills and Boon? (Never, ever!)

  15. Galen

    Does your blog have a contact page? I’m having trouble locating it but, I’d like to send you an e-mail.
    I’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in
    hearing. Either way, great blog and I look forward to seeing it
    improve over time.

  16. Mike

    I just did a search on Paul Auster’s New York Trilogy:

    -ness (various): 192 times
    Being: 65 times
    Been: 366 times
    Are: 209 times
    Was: 1899 times
    Really: 67 times
    Actually: 19 times
    Totally: 8 times
    Completely: 9 times
    -ingly: 13 times

    and so on. This never deterred me from reading the three stories without stopping two times. I think you are being to harsh in your article.

    1. Pat Holt Post author

      You’re right. I don’t think we should ever count the use of “to be” words and start cutting just because the numbers are high, and I apologize if that’s what comes across. (Thank you for showing the numbers as you do in the Auster countdown! Now there is a writer who should NOT count and cut his “to be” words!). I meant we should be careful of linking verbs and notice their effect when used too much. They can drain the life out of an otherwise strong narrative. Pat

  17. Google

    Everything is very open with a really clear explanation of
    the issues. It was definitely informative. Your website is useful.
    Thanks for sharing!

  18. Christine

    Sorry, I’ve been both an editor and writer for years, and this list, though well-meaning, is a bit off base. Too many rules = flat, bad, timid, stilted writing. I can think of many times any of these rules could be broken and the piece would be just fine.

    The no-adverbs thing can go a bit too far in my opinion. The use of the word “actually,” for instance, as listed here gives a slightly different sense to the sentence than when it is removed. (Just like my use of “slightly” to modify “different” here. In my view, “slightly different” does indeed have a different sense than “different.” Different enough for it to be “different” rather than “slightly different.” If you know what I mean.) Look for your “ly” words but you don’t necessarily have to cut all of them. You don’t have to cut all of them. (Hmm, maybe you do. Anyway.)

    Another example — does it really matter if dialogue sounds dated a few years later? Kind of an odd criticism. The style of the dialogue in fiction meant to take place “now” reflects the historical period in which it was written — what’s wrong with that? I mean, do you read George Eliot and say “Worthless — this dialogue is so dated?”

    I also think the advice about “to be” verbs goes too far. Nothing is worse than a story filled with a thesaurus’s worth of “vivid, engaging verbs” just for the sake of it, when “to be” is just fine. (It’s akin to suggesting you use any word but “said” when writing dialogue. A very occasional use of “laughed” or something is fine, but 95% of the time, “said” is your best bet.) Unless you are writing humor.

    Writers: Take this list with a grain of salt. Some of it is good (like the part about not using “there is” — you can ALWAYS cut “there is,” “there are”), but some of it sounds a little grouchy. (Of course, I haven’t spent years reading awful fiction manuscripts like Pat probably has. I’m a nonfiction editor, which has its own set of things to get grouchy about.) If you read your prose out loud — or have someone else read it out loud for you — you will catch many “mistakes” of the sort listed here.

    1. Pat Holt Post author

      What a joy to read your grouchy response to The Ten Mistakes! You’re right, it’s a list of rules meant to be broken (on special occasions) and I agree with you about the “to be” words (leave ’em in conversational writing! just keep an eye out for passivity) and the word “said” — it gets kind of hilarious when writers try to alternate “said” with something different like “replied,” but end up with increasingly silly words like “snapped,” “sighed,” “barked,” “rejoined,” “spat” and so forth. Anyway thank you for writing this longie! It reminds me that everybody needs an editor. Pat

      1. Steve

        Hi, great article. However, I must disagree completely with Christine, in her criticism of Pat (and, possibly, unfortunately also with Pat, herself) about repetition of the dialogue-tag: ‘said’. To me, nothing is more dull, turgid, unimaginitive or inexpressive than seeing the repeated use of ‘said’ a dozen times a page. I know that some (like my editorial consultant 🙂 will claim that ‘said’ does not register with the reader, and so doesn’t distract them. But hey… I thought creative writers were in the business of ‘distracting’ their readers! If you just use ‘said’ a million times in a novel, then I’m afraid that just sticks-out like a sore thumb to me, personally, and fails to carry the expressiveness of more eloquent verbs (snapped, sighed, barked, spat, as given above). What on earth is the point of us writing a novel in the first place (cf a history text) if not to convey information about our characters’ emotional states? ‘Write from your protagonist’s POV’ is a constant mantra these days. So how better to do that than by getting inside their head to explain their emotions via the simple & efficient use of a single-word alternative to ‘said’ as a dialogue tag? On a related point, my consultant recommends using ‘stronger verbs, in place of adverbs’, which makes sense. But then, if so, why not use ‘stronger verbs’ as dialogue tags? Not to do so smacks of a real contradiction in advice, if you ask me.
        Just my two cents 🙂

        1. Pat Holt Post author

          Dialogue writing is different than prose writing. “Snapped, sighed, barked, spat” etc. really do get in the way of the reader’s ability to absorb what people are saying in conversation. The only reason to put he said/she said in at all is to quickly remind the reader who’s talking, and then the author steps out. Emotional state, protagonists’ POV will be conveyed in what is said rather than an adverb showing how it’s said. I love your writing consultant! Use those stronger verbs but never ever in dialogue. And thanks for the two cents.

  19. Mark Hoult

    Word counts alone can be misleading. If every character in a novel spoke with perfect grammar and unfailingly well-chosen words, then characterisation would be flat and dull.

  20. Dylan

    If you spent all your time worrying about the language you are using, whether you’re being repetitive etc. many writers would give up. Nobody is perfect, and to me personally, the story matters more than how it is communicated across. That is for draft 2+ and when you’ve finalised the structure of the overall story. You could spend hours writing a paragraph that would be cut in a later draft anyway. Also, don’t make changes (you’re unsure of) until you’ve gotten someone else to read over your piece. The issues you might see your readers might not see as issues. Then you can go crazy editing and rewriting.

  21. Adam Green

    Terrific, though you’ve broken one of your own rules by using the word “fey” twice. It’s a good word–excellent, even–but, per you, “because it’s good, you get *one* per book.”

  22. Zain

    I think this article is a bit too cocky and contradicts itself over and over. Perhaps instead of critiquing, you should guide people on how not to make these mistakes. You’re talking at them and not to them. Making the reader feel uncomfortable and like they’re being lectured at.

  23. Z. hajar

    I don’t agree with all of it but well, you know better. For the dialogue, I don’t think we should forget that we write a life, the life of the characters. When was the last time you heard people speak in elaborated way? the dialogue should be more down to earth. It is true that using Said all the time make it sound dull, so I avoid even writing that.

    So, instead of this :

    “Your sarcasm is rather entretaining.” He said.

    I write this:

    “Your sarcasm is rather entertaining.” The vibrant anger in his tone said otherwise.

    I think it gives more life to the dialogue, since you describe how the person’s voice and feelings were as they said so.


    Thabks for any other wonderful post. Where
    else may anyone get that type of info in such a perfect way of writing?
    I have a prdsentation subsequent week, and I am on the search for such information.

  25. Eric Linden

    Thank you for the excellent article, and I shall look at the others shortly.
    I picked out your “crutch word” almost immediately! “So”.

    1. Pat Holt

      Holy cow! The Ten Mistakes has been circulating for a decade or more, but your message is the first to mention my overuse of the word “so.” I never noticed it, which goes to prove: Everybody needs an editor. SO: thank you! I think I’ll leave it in, just to show we’re all vulnerable to crutch words.

  26. ASorokina

    I enjoyed this list very much, Pat. Some people want to argue right away–claim your rules are rigid and can be broken with genius.
    As an amateur writer, I felt your rules were like those a still-functioning alcoholic makes in private: “Never drink before sundown unless you’ve had a good meal”…”Don’t answer emails after two beers”..”Don’t pick up the phone after eight PM”.
    Maybe others thought you were trying to strangle the future of writing, but I felt you were only reflecting on the past.
    Amateur writers need someone like you the morning after our first draft.
    We can rock back and forth together over a bowl chili, waiting for the Advil to absorb, and whispering “never again… no more adverbs ever again…”

  27. equity home loan mortgage reverse vs

    I hardly leave a response, however I read a ton of comments on this page The Ten Mistakes | Holt Uncensored:
    Patricia Holt on Books and the Publishing Revolution. I do have 2 questions for you if you do not mind.

    Is it just me or do a few of these comments look as
    if they are coming from brain dead people? 😛 And, if you
    are posting at additional online sites, I’d like to keep up with anything fresh you have to post.
    Could you list of all of your shared sites like your linkedin profile, Facebook page or twitter feed?

  28. Mikah

    Reading this reminds me of a conversation I had with my high school English teacher, Rita Hooten, over a poem I turned in that did not have any punctuation.
    Me: Why did I get a C-?
    Mrs. H: Your poem was incorrectly punctuated.
    Me: But ee cummings doesn’t use punctuation!
    Mrs. H: You aren’t ee cummings.
    Me: (silent shock)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *