<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: “WAS” Gone Bad</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.reviewfuse.com/blog/2009/01/%e2%80%9cwas%e2%80%9d-gone-bad/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.reviewfuse.com/blog/2009/01/%e2%80%9cwas%e2%80%9d-gone-bad/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:37:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Odious Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.reviewfuse.com/blog/2009/01/%e2%80%9cwas%e2%80%9d-gone-bad/#comment-140</link>
		<dc:creator>Odious Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reviewfuse.com/blog/?p=114#comment-140</guid>
		<description>I disagree with the rules on one occasion. "Emily was embarrassed" is a relatively short and to the point sentence. "Emily's flushed cheeks," and "her desire for the ground to open up beneath her and swallow her" are considerably weaker sentences because they loose vigor through unnecessary words. This example, and rule, is also flawed by demonstrating a use of a cliché as replacement for a case of telling versus showing. Is the lesser of two evils to weaken a sentence by adding irrelevance or redundancy, or to tell one short sentence rather than show it?

Replacement can be viable. For example: “Emily was going” and the replacement “Emily went.” This still tells rather than shows, but it becomes a pleasantly concise thought that may have more added to it. 

As you said: “Using WAS isn’t always a bad thing, but often it is, because there’s generally a better (READ: STRONGER) way of saying what you’re trying to say.”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree with the rules on one occasion. &#8220;Emily was embarrassed&#8221; is a relatively short and to the point sentence. &#8220;Emily&#8217;s flushed cheeks,&#8221; and &#8220;her desire for the ground to open up beneath her and swallow her&#8221; are considerably weaker sentences because they loose vigor through unnecessary words. This example, and rule, is also flawed by demonstrating a use of a cliché as replacement for a case of telling versus showing. Is the lesser of two evils to weaken a sentence by adding irrelevance or redundancy, or to tell one short sentence rather than show it?</p>
<p>Replacement can be viable. For example: “Emily was going” and the replacement “Emily went.” This still tells rather than shows, but it becomes a pleasantly concise thought that may have more added to it. </p>
<p>As you said: “Using WAS isn’t always a bad thing, but often it is, because there’s generally a better (READ: STRONGER) way of saying what you’re trying to say.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

