If writers took every bit of writing advice that was in the format ‘Don’t use X part of the English language’, all English fiction would read like Spot the dog
#Spot chases the ball#the ball chases Spot#the ball conquers nations#the ball still chases spot#see spot run#run spot run#the ball is coming
stop telling ppl to write like hemingway i promise u adverbs are not another face of the dark lord satan its ok
First they came for the verbs, and I said nothing, because verbing weirds language
Then they arrival for the nouns, and I speech nothing, because no verbs
Then they for the descriptive, and I silent because verbless and nounless
Then they for me, and, but no
REBLOGGING BECAUSE THE LAST POST IS BRILLIANT.
or maybe don’t use a poem originally about the holocaust to make this point as it’s wholly inappropriate?
I got kinda reminded of 1984 with the entire vibe, actually: the way that speech is gradually pared down, mainly. In the book, it talks a little about how their world’s vocabulary is decreasing steadily, with the idea being that ‘if there’s no word for betrayal, then the concept of not being loyal will also die out’, taken to an extreme.
In the book, it was used to systematically keep the status quo of the world that gave us the concept of Big Brother.
I really don’t understand why you’ve reblogged this off me or what point you are trying to make here?
I can only assume you have never heard the original poem that post is a take off of its here: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392 its about the holocaust – specifically its about complicity in it, therefore doing a take off of it about grammer was inappropriate.
I must say that if I was talking about the version in this post (which is I assume what you’re talking about?) and that was about the holocaust (it isnt – which is actually the issue here) saying in response that it makes you think more of 1984 is probably not the greatest idea even if 1984 wasnt fictional.
fearlessstateofmind backup 