Verbal Cues

 

I’m currently editing a story that needs some help. The tale lacks energy. It could use a verbal kick in the pants.

Cullen 328 Creative Commons

I culled out some of the crutch words—just, really, a lot, very, slightly—I’ve got a slew of them. They fill up the story without doing anything to advance it. They sneakily leaked in while I composed. When I pulled them out, the story became more efficient. The reader arrived at the point more quickly. But the piece still lacked vibrancy.

I blame the verbs. I’ve got some bland ones tucked into the tale. And I compensated by jacking up the adverbs. “But it’s not my fault,” he said defensively. “I think it’s in my biology,” he added genetically.

Stephen King, in his craft memoir, On Writing, should have taught me this. He reminds me of the elementary lesson that verbs come in two types—active and passive. With an active verb, the subject is doing something. With a passive verb, the subject is just letting it happen. Even when my subject is active, she sometimes moves into a room instead of gliding or stomping. Stronger verbs, like specific nouns, help the readers form a better picture.

As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, I’m not sure the blandness is entirely my fault. As a species, I believe that we have more trouble with verbs. Humans want to name things. We like to slap labels on stuff we see. If we name it, we’re on our way to understanding it. We give ourselves control. Linguist Jess Zafarris says that English has three times as many nouns as verbs. We’re skilled at naming things.

Down the road, Zafarris says, we back-form and create verbs from the pre-existing nouns. “Evaluation,” and “regurgitation,” for instance, both existed long before the verbs “evaluate,” or “regurgitate” came into existence. Our English verbs are always playing catch up.

William Shakespeare gets credit for inventing a host of new English words. Many of those were verbs that emerged from pre-existing nouns. Among the back-formed verbs he created are “negotiate” from “negotiation,” and “metamorphose” from “metamorphosis.”

We’re hardwired for the naming of things. The more analytical process of describing action, however, proves harder for humans. Motion is less tangible. Across languages, processing verbs in sentences is more neurologically demanding than processing nouns. From an evolutionary biology standpoint, our species wants to preserve that brain power. We may need those little gray cells suddenly to scheme our way out of becoming prey. Self-preserving authors, like me, tend to rely on forms of “to be,” and other simple, unimaginative verbs. Then when we need a little zest, we succumb to the temptation of adding adverbs.

That’s my story for the rough draft. I’m blaming Darwin and evolutionary biology.

Having identified the problem, the solution emerges—edit. I’ll live with getting the wrong words down initially. I can’t edit a blank screen, to paraphrase Jodi Picoult. Once something tumbles onto the page, I’ll test the verbs, asking if this is the best choice for the situation being described. Would it reinforce character if he “lumbered” rather than merely “walked”? Almost certainly.

The “be” verbs are easy fixes. They can reliably be traded for more interesting options.

“The body was in the den” becomes “The body lay in the den.” At least with “lay,” I’m describing the body doing something, as much as a dead body can reasonably be expected to do. Perhaps it morphs into “Sluggo carried the body into the den.” The focus gets changed off the body and onto the actor.

I’ll work through the short story and send it off. Someday, I hope, readers will see it. I don’t know where or when. All I know is that the version that eventually surfaces won’t look anything like the version I’m working through now. The nouns you might recognize, but the verbs will look very different.

I'll be traveling when this posts, on the hunt for good nouns and better verbs. 

Until next time.