Adjectives pose a constant temptation in writing pieces--they can add color, excitement, emotion, not to mention take up space when those pesky facts are in low supply. The problem with adjectives is they tend to downgrade the quality of the writing, and as Carole Rich points out, "run the risk of inserting your opinions in the story" (Writing and Reporting News 192). Obviously news should be impartial, and whether intended or not adjectives are strong elements in writing--they can easily define a character or event one way or another. The devil's in the details, which for writers--and insults--means adjectives.
Just as important, adjectives can distract from the overall point of the piece. As Norman Miller so eloquently put it, "put 20 adjectives before a noun and no one will know you are describing a turd."(192)
Well said sir, well said.
Take in point the Washington Post piece, The Engine of Change . The actual story focuses on the demographics and economic struggles of one community as it faces the presidential election. The adjectives paint a very different story.
The setting is a "great old railroad and factory town". Okay so we're visiting the urban equivalent of Mulberry.
Populace is described as "excited, scared, "bitter"...hard-luck and high-pride[d]." The psychiatrist strokes his beard thoughtfully and scibbles notes at the question's response--how does that make you feel?
Do the people sound overburdened? Its okay, according to the reporter the community is "plucky...Never fear!" Throw in a St. Bernard and a blonde kid and we have a t.v Disney movie.
Between the adjective binge and bizarre commentary on the part of the reporter--"Chin up!"--the actual story is lost. The reader is so distracted by the writing the facts go unnoticed and fade into the background. It was not until the second half of the piece that the actual story started coming out and the ridiculous word choice and comments stopped.
Adjectives are great, but at what cost? Try decent writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment