Yet one more category of word is being cut from the writer's arsenal: the -ing words, as in winding, bubbling, and so on. Once again we're being told a word is "bad" and shouldn’t be a part of our writing if at all possible. While I understand the need to watch the words we use as writers, this tendency to make entire categories of words no-no's is beyond me. Why would any writer want to reduce the number of tools they have at their disposal? Since when are words themselves bad? Without words, we could not write, and taking words away makes a job that's hard enough even harder.

The overuse of any word or category of words could indeed hurt more than help, but just because some people have overused them doesn't make these words something we all should avoid at all costs. Adverbs serve their purpose and occasionally a sentence needs that passive 'to be' construction. But instead of telling writers to use them in moderation or to make sure they convey what the author wishes to have conveyed, we are being told not to use them at all. Yet there are times when a word doesn't have an alternate choice that conveys not only the motion of the verb but also the description of that motion that would be included in the adverb. If we are to try to get our ideas across, shouldn't we use the adverb if we need it? Far too many would answer no to that question.

Words are the tools of the writer. When you start to take them away, you reduce what you have to work with to make your story shine. You cripple your ability to tell the story as it's meant to be told, as you see it. There are those who would have stories told in so few words that it's up to the reader to create the images that bring the story to life. As a reader who would just like to sit back and read and enjoy the images that the writer's conjure up, I find the trend of minimalizing makes it harder to find things I want to read. I want to enjoy the writer's vision. Yet, over and over again, I see authors who don't describe, don't detail, and use as few words as possible in the belief that it brings readers into the story telling process. Perhaps it does for some, but most the readers I know enjoy rich, vivid stories where they don't have to work quite so hard to visualize the people, the setting, and the events.

'To be' verbs were the first to get hit with this need to cut the words, followed soon after by adverbs. We're taught in school to vary the word 'said' with other words such as 'exclaimed', 'warned', 'shouted', and so on--a habit we find ourselves trying to unlearn as we grow up and start taking our writing seriously. And yet, other writers can get away with replacing said and become quite famous in the process. The literary types may look down their noses, but those writers are the ones making their money at actually writing their stories as they see them.

Lean and mean doesn't always make for good writing. Choosing not to use words that other writers claim should be cut does nothing except give a writer less to work with. Absolutes don’t work in art, and writing is most definitely an art. It's the art of conveying our stories, for entertainment, for learning, for enrichment, in the best way we can. To do that and do it well, we need to have every tool, every word, at our disposal. The best stories come from crafting the writing to fit the story itself, not by obeying some arbitrary rules. Write your stories in the way they need to be told.