Let me get this straight, if it's a great story, it can be written poorly?

[voodoo]

I ask because I find myself thoroughly overwhelmed
with all the writing rules. It's as if some of them
go out of style and then come back.
"In the past it was okay, but now it's considered blah-blah-blah..."

Example: Adverbial Dialogue Tags

I was listening to "Dead Heat" by Dick Francis
who apparently has a zillion books published. Not too shabby.
However, he uses far too many adverbial dialogue tags.
He leans on them a lot. At least in this novel.
Life would be easier if we could use those.
But we're told you cannot.
It's lazy writing.
I've read the "rule" over and over.
Once in awhile, sure...when necessary.
But to use it as a crutch is a no-no.

So...since his story was generally well told,
kept the suspense and what not...he can get away with it?

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags
one can use in a novel?" she asked angrily.

(I'm finding English worse than math.)

[veinglory]

Apparently not everyone thinks the amount he uses is "too many"? It is part of his style.

[voodoo]

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.

[seun]

OK, first thing you need to do is relax. Writing is work, yes, but it's also supposed to be enjoyable. Getting too focused on the rules will stop you enjoying. Note I said too focused. Learn the rules, be aware of them, but don't obsess.

Second thing is try not to compare yourself to a published writer as successful and prolific as Dick Francis. You're a beginner; he's not. He can get away with a lot more because of this.

Third thing is (as basic as it sounds) to write as well as you can. Write a shit hot story as well as you can. Give it fleshed out characters, intelligent dialogue, a decent and original plot and you're doing well.

Fourth thing is read a lot. Of everything. Even books you think are shit. Work out why they're shit and why other books aren't.

And enjoy yourself.

[suki]

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.

You can do anything if you do it well for an effective and engaging read.

But the more "rules" you break, or the more outside the expected norms of readers you go, the more brilliant your writing has to be.

~suki

[voodoo]

OK, first thing you need to do is relax. Writing is work, yes, but it's also supposed to be enjoyable. Getting too focused on the rules will stop you enjoying. Note I said too focused. Learn the rules, be aware of them, but don't obsess.

Second thing is try not to compare yourself to a published writer as successful and prolific as Dick Francis. You're a beginner; he's not. He can get away with a lot more because of this.

Third thing is (as basic as it sounds) to write as well as you can. Write a shit hot story as well as you can. Give it fleshed out characters, intelligent dialogue, a decent and original plot and you're doing well.

Fourth thing is read a lot. Of everything. Even books you think are shit. Work out why they're shit and why other books aren't.

And enjoy yourself.

Thank you.
Excellent advice.
I needed that.
:D

[sunandshadow]

]It's as if some of them go out of style and then come back.

They do.

There's no real need to learn all the "rules" at once. This is what beta readers and editors are for, to show you how applying a particular "rule" might improve your manuscript. Your job as writer is to produce a manuscript you think readers will find exciting to read (and secondarily, one which you enjoy writing). Produce something with a beginning, middle, and end first, then refine later.

[jclarkdawe]

DEAD HEAT was written by Dick Francis and his son, and was his first book written after his wife died. It showed. Do not view as an example of the quality of his other books.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

[Danthia]

Some trends do go in and out of style. And tastes change, and vary a great deal. And there's nothing wrong with adverbs if they're used correctly. And, some folks can get away with using them incorrectly.

If you do anything that breaks "the rules," have a good reason for it. If your excuse is "so and so did it and he got published" you're not doing it for the right reason. If you have a reason, and it makes sense, there a decent chance you can get away with it too.

You also have to remember that a lot of the big name authors started publishing a while back, when agents received a fraction of the queries they do now. Writing was a lot harder (typewriters) and what was "good" was a bit broader. These days, there's so much talent out there that editors can afford to be pickier. And what's considered "good" has changed and adapted.

And then, there's always the case where the author has sold so many books and has such pull with his publisher that he no longer edits what his editor asks him to. (not saying this is the case here, speaking generally). As long as people keep buying the books no matter how they're written, publishers will keep publishing them.

[Parametric]

DEAD HEAT was written by Dick Francis and his son, and was his first book written after his wife died. It showed. Do not view as an example of the quality of his other books.

This. I'm crazy in love with Dick Francis. His latter novels have been a sad decline - he's pushing 90 now, and his wife who used to collaborate with him has died. I still buy his new releases on the off chance that they might be a quarter as good as classic Dick Francis novels. :LilLove:

[thothguard51]

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags one can use in a novel?" she asked angrily.

I am not a big fan of using asked, when the punctuation clearly shows it is a question. It becomes redundant, and thus the tag is redundant.

What if you just wrote...

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags one can use in a novel?" she demanded.

she demanded, says it all, don't need angrily...

As to tags, adverbial or otherwise, they should be used sparringly either before or after the dialogue and should only show who is speaking when needed, and any associated actions. A lot of averbial tags are unneccessary if you consider the context of the whole scene as it is occuring. Is her anger becoming appearant, or did you just randomly decide to show it. Things like hand on hip, patting of feet, grinding of teeth, you know, images, all show more than the telling does...

IMHO...

[C.M.C.]

Keep in mind that the "rules" are only guidelines. Any can be broken by good writers in good writing. The key is to make sure you know what you're doing.

[DeleyanLee]

Mind you, there's a difference between "bad"--incomprehensible--writing and "bad"--comprehensible--writing.

You can get writing published that is comprehensible, that does the basic work needed to the point where the reader can still enjoy the story. You might be decried as a hack by other writers and/or critics, but you can get it published and make tons of money if your story is great.

You cannot get writing published that is incomprehensible, that where the grammar, spelling, construction, word choices are so bad that readers can't even puzzle out a single sentence or paragraph, let alone whatever story you're trying to tell.

Writing has to be competent, as the barest minimum. A bit of work, dedication and paying attention to what you're actually putting on the page vs. what you THINK you're putting on the page can get you to that point. And, honestly, it's not even that high of a bar.

That said, the less work the reader has to do to find, and understand the story, the more they're likely to enjoy it. That means that the work has to fall to the writer to put the story into words as well as they're capable of doing it.

A writer's first book is likely to be rough, maybe incomprehensible to anyone but them--but don't give it up. How many people are able to run--let alone win--a marathon the first time they put on running shoes? It's a process. Cut yourself some slack and start writing. See what comes out--and then make the next one better.

[Ruv Draba]

Writing is an interplay of style and substance. Strong style and substance sells best; strong style or substance also sells. Weak style and substance doesn't, unless you're famous.

For most writers, strong style is easier to learn than strong substance. So unless everything you're saying is earth-shaking, innovative and insightful, keep working on your style.

[Cyia]

Anything can be done if done well.

And yes, there are plenty of great storytellers who are lousy writers. If people are entertained enough, they ignore the latter in favor of the former - but DON'T count on anyone making an exception for you. Write the best book you can. The second you start qualifying something you know you should change because [whoever] got away with it, your MS will suffer.

Don't aspire to be "as good as" [whoever], aspire to be as good as you can make it .

[Lady Ice]

The Great Gatsby has tons of adverbs, but that's to help characterise the characters. Their adverbs act as a description of their personality.

It's not what you write; it's how you write it.

[bluebell80]

I'm going to play devils advocate here for a second. I'm against 99.9% of adverbial dialogue tags. I have two reasons for this. As a reader, I find them to be useless, they are an afterthought to what sort of tone I already read the dialogue in, and sometimes doesn't even correlate with the tone that the character should be using.

The other reason I dislike them, stems from my time in acting classes in college. Stage direction, for the most part, is ignored and rightfully so. When you absorb a character, get into their head, and feel what they are feeling, the tone of the dialogue should reflect the emotional level that the actor feels as the character.

When I read a book, I absorb and become the MC in my mind. When I read the dialog I watch the movie in my mind (I have a very overactive imagination) and adverb dialogue tags interrupt my movie like an annoying overly controlling director would, yelling "Cut" every five seconds to adjust how I'm perceiving the emotional state of the character and the tone that they should be using in any given scene.

I prefer beats over he/she said, I said, so'n'so said. Example:

"Mr. Wolf," I stared at his name plaque on his desk while I figitted with the buttons on my school uniform jacket, "you wanted to see me, sir?"

He leaned back in his high backed office chair, "Sam, I shouldn't be seeing you. You're on the honor roll. What's gotten into you?" He stretched forward and laced his meaty fingers together, "You're going to repaint the gym with your buddies as punishment, as well as give the entire school an apology tomorrow over the loud speaker."

See, no saids in there anywhere, and no adverbs after saids either.

For the most part you can cut 99.9% of adverbs after the said in most stories. A few can be sprinkled here and there if you must, but I seriously could read an entire story without them and be happy.

[scarletpeaches]

Dick Francis has probably never written Dick Francis's books, at least on his own.

[veinglory]

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.

So long as an agent, editor, publisher and hundreds of thousands of readers agree with you... why yes, yes you can :)

[Jamesaritchie]

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.


Too much passive voice. probably not. Some dialogue tags, sure, why not?

But here's the thing. Don't try to judge the quality of writing by whether it follows all the rules you find on writer's forums and in how-to books.

Abverbial dialogue tags, as you phrase it, can get tiresome, and some otherwise very good writers overuse them. . .but unless done very badly, and it can be done so poorly the writer will have trouble, this is a nitpick, and doesn't take anything away from the quality of the writing itself.

It's also something an editor can easily cross out when it gets too excessive, again without harming the writing around it.

The simple fact is that the writing can't be horrible, or nothing is going to sell. But the writing does not have to be perfect, it just has to be competent (And you'd be amazed how rare competent writing is in the average slushpile), as long as the story and the characters do the job.

Too many writers concentrate so hard on how to say something that they forget it's what they say that matters most.

Really, horrible writing will get you rejected before a single page is finished, but you won't usually get rejected for using dialogue tags here and there, either. Or using them all over the place in some genres and markets.

The "rule" is there only to get writers to control their excesses, not to stop them from ever doing this, that, or the other.

[bonitakale]

There's a big problem with calling these things "rules." What they are, is a description of what seems to work most of the time, for most readers.

They aren't like, "Don't cross on a red light." They're more like, "If you drop that, it will break."

If you use a lot of adverbial tags, you will make it harder for your reader to enjoy the story. If you switch points of view without reason or warning, you will confuse the reader. If you begin every sentence with, "There was," your reader may fall asleep.

Formulating them as "do this, don't do that," is just shorter and easier, the way you'd tell a mountain climber "do this, don't do that." You don't always have to say, "If you do this, you may fall and be killed." But that doesn't make the 'do this' a "rule." It's advice, that's all, and it can be useful when you're clinging to the side of a mountain.

[voodoo]

On this...

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.

I was being sarcastic.
I guess I should have written "I said sarcastically" there at the end.
;)

Thank you for all the responses.
Really great advice...very helpful.
I will enjoy the process more now.

[rekirts]

Actually, I think adverbial dialogue tags would do wonders in alleviating misunderstandings on message boards. Because there's no body language or tone of voice misunderstandings are rampant--particularly when it comes to sarcasm. Some people miss sarcasm entirely and others take things as being sarcastic that aren't.

Anyway, I'm a bit off topic here. Sorry. Carry on.

[Kisatchie]

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags one can use in a novel?" she asked angrily.

I am not a big fan of using asked, when the punctuation clearly shows it is a question. It becomes redundant, and thus the tag is redundant.

What if you just wrote...

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags one can use in a novel?" she demanded.

she demanded, says it all, don't need angrily...



That's funny. I can demand something without being angry.

[The Lonely One]

Keep in mind that the "rules" are only guidelines. Any can be broken by good writers in good writing. The key is to make sure you know what you're doing.

God, CMC, why do I agree with you so often? This exactly.


Also, this is somewhat old hat, the "good story v. good writing" thing...I personally feel it's stupid to separate the two. You write the best you can to convey your story the best you can. Word choice and plot choice go hand in hand, and I don't see them as either less or more important concerns. However, I feel the goal of every writer is to get to a point where s/he is not bogged by rules and "heightened" talk of writing by writers--but these writers simply have the strength of voice to speak on the page. To edit simple mistakes quickly and ruthlessly, without losing creative steam, and having the foresight to leave larger problems well enough alone until they return in a later draft. As I've said so often, confidence seems to play so critically (or, at least, well-feigned confidence) into reader perception. I do not believe a writer's perception and heightened dialog on writing is the same as a reader's perception while immersed in a narrative.

Look, the whole point of the game is to keep the reader "in." If you can do that, fuck the rest.

[JulieHowe]

You make an interesting observation. I'm rereading one of my favorite novels, The Grapes of Wrath. In one page, the author uses The truck driver said, said the waitress... He said to the waitress and she replied.... he said... She said crossly... So long, he said... Yet this is one of the greatest American novels of the 20th Century, and one of my absolute favorite books. I don't think anyone ever accused Steinbeck of writing poorly. I've read biographies of the author which suggest his low-key folksy style was deliberate in writing The Grapes of Wrath, because he wanted the book to speak to as wide an audience as possible. The novel didn't become a classic because Steinbeck went overboard on the dialogue tags. He wrote a story which continues to speak to people, 71 years after it was first published.

[Izz]

There ain't no rules, voodoo. Ain't none, not really. There's understanding the mechanics of language and storytelling, and there's lazy people who create a list of things they say you gotta do. All that last does is make you lazy too, because then you figure you don't need no understanding of how language works or how to tell a good story. All you gotta do is follow some rules.

Not true.

Understand the mechanics of language and you can do whatever you damn well like and people'll read it. And, most of the time, it'll read just fine. Follow a list of rusty rules and you won't make no progress forward. Sure, it'll take some effort to figure out how it all works, but it's worth the pain.

On the other hand, grammar has rules. But they're a separate thing and once you understand the reasons for them you can play a bit too.

[Matera the Mad]

A great story can be spoiled rotten to hell by bad enough writing. I won't read anything for what it could have been. But don't fret about Roolz. Get the story written as well as you can, then polish it as well as you can. Somewhere along the way you will learn a lot without busting your brain with Roooooolz.

Cherryh’s Law: No rule should be followed off a cliff.

[voodoo]

Look, the whole point of the game is to keep the reader "in." If you can do that, fuck the rest.

Amen!
I should put that on a t-shirt.
:tongue

[Scoates]

I definitely think a story can have worse writing if the idea is good enough.

That's all I had to say.

[thothguard51]

That's funny. I can demand something without being angry.

I totally agree, but its all about the context of the scene. Adding angry to the tag does not show her anger if it was not there to start with. But if her anger is showing, then demanded reinforces her anger...I think.

Remember I also suggested body language shown in the scene helps to set the tone, or mood of the scene in which the dialogue is set within. Oh wait, did I or did I not add all that?

Unsure, I shoveled too much snow today and now light headed...

Ignore me...

[Inkblot]

People who sell a zillion books do get more latitude than the rest of us. They also make it possible for publishers to take a chance on the rest of us. So I don't resent their success -- whatever their formula is, it works. But only for them!

[IceCreamEmpress]

Here's what you can control: The professionalism of your writing, the attention you pay to your craft, the work you put into imagining your characters and plot and dialogue.

Here's what you can't control: The lightning that strikes for someone like Dan Brown or Stephenie Meyer or J.K. Rowling or Stephen King*, where a certain story--regardless of the skill of the teller--captures millions of people's imaginations.

So that's why everyone works to perfect their craft. Because you can't work to win the lottery.

There is a famous con game in which people sell stock tips (often hinting that they may be 'inside information' wink wink of course that's illegal but I know a guy) at ever-escalating prices. The basis of the con game is that you cover your bets, giving opposing tips at random, and then you press your marks (your victims) to pay more and more for the "amazingly accurate" tips.

So I have 60 marks, and I tell 30 of them to buy Coca-Cola stock and 30 of them to sell Coca-Cola stock. Coca-Cola tanks, so now the first group thinks I'm an idiot, and the second group thinks I'm a genius.

Now I have 30 people who think I'm a genius. I tell 15 of them to buy Microsoft and 15 of them to sell Microsoft. Microsoft goes up, so now the first group thinks I'm a double genius, and the second group thinks I'm an idiot who got lucky the first time.

So now I have 15 people who think I'm a double genius. I tell 8 of them to buy Harris Homes and 7 of them to sell Harris Homes. Harris Homes goes down, so now the second group thinks I'm the Greatest Stock Genius of All Time, and the first group thinks I'm an idiot who got lucky twice.

Now I have 7 people who will pay ungodly amounts of money for my stock advice, until they figure out that I'm just flipping a coin every time.


So how does this relate to best-selling authors with a shaky grasp of technique and craft? It's simply this: the unskilfully written best-sellers made their way through the slush pile, and their deficiencies in technique were overlooked because of how compelling their plots were.

It's like evolution: for every one that survived, there were countless others who couldn't make it.



*Note: I think two of these writers are very skilled writers, in addition to being plot geniuses. You may think differently. Or think the same as I do, but about different writers.

[C.M.C.]

God, CMC, why do I agree with you so often?

Because I'm amazing?

[Jamesaritchie]

You make an interesting observation. I'm rereading one of my favorite novels, The Grapes of Wrath. In one page, the author uses The truck driver said, said the waitress... He said to the waitress and she replied.... he said... She said crossly... So long, he said... Yet this is one of the greatest American novels of the 20th Century, and one of my absolute favorite books. I don't think anyone ever accused Steinbeck of writing poorly. I've read biographies of the author which suggest his low-key folksy style was deliberate in writing The Grapes of Wrath, because he wanted the book to speak to as wide an audience as possible. The novel didn't become a classic because Steinbeck went overboard on the dialogue tags. He wrote a story which continues to speak to people, 71 years after it was first published.

Well, "he said" and "she said" are fine. So is "the waitress said." You can use as many of these as you want or think you need. There's nothing wrong with dialogue tags. It's the adverbs such as "closely" that you have to watch out for.

[Jamesaritchie]

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags one can use in a novel?" she asked angrily.

I am not a big fan of using asked, when the punctuation clearly shows it is a question. It becomes redundant, and thus the tag is redundant.

What if you just wrote...

"What is the magic number of adverbial dialogue tags one can use in a novel?" she demanded.

she demanded, says it all, don't need angrily...


IMHO...


I dislike verbs such as "demanded" as much as I dislike adverbs. I think both mean the dialogue isn't doing the job it's supposed to do.

[NeuroFizz]

Instead of trying to figure out what one can "get away with" and how many times one can use this or that form of writing, or break this or that "rule," might it not be better to work hard to continually improve one's writing, to strive for quality instead of minimally acceptable or merely competent? Make each word count so adverbs and other modifiers aren't so necessary. Let the dialogue and associated actions speak for themselves so tags either don't have to be there or can be of the more generic type. Challenge yourself to strive for excellence in writing as well as in storytelling. That's the best way to stay out of the slush pile. And it doesn't take many adverbs or overly descriptive dialogue tags to slide a new writer's work into the slush. If the reader doesn't get past the second or third page, there is no way that brilliant storytelling will ever see a contract.

[Lady Ice]

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.

People didn't spot it as sarcasm because writing in passive voice and dialogue tags aren't inherently bad.

If you want to show sarcasm online, you can do what they do in subtitles- put a bracketed exclamation mark afterwards:

I feel better already (!)

[voodoo]

Instead of trying to figure out what one can "get away with" and how many times one can use this or that form of writing, or break this or that "rule," might it not be better to work hard to continually improve one's writing, to strive for quality instead of minimally acceptable or merely competent?

Yes, of course.
I didn't mean to give the impression that I
wanted to find a way to be lazy and perhaps "trick" my way in.
I enjoy the work. I enjoy learning and improving.
I was a little frustrated with those freakin' rules
that many published writers are allowed to ignore.

But like several people said...those people are published!
They kinda get to do what they want
as long as they are selling books.

[Libbie]

All things in moderation.

If you rely on adverbial tags too heavily, your work will seem lacking in nuance. However, nobody is going to come and beat you with a stick if you use them once in a while.

[Libbie]

You make an interesting observation. I'm rereading one of my favorite novels, The Grapes of Wrath. In one page, the author uses The truck driver said, said the waitress... He said to the waitress and she replied.... he said... She said crossly... So long, he said... Yet this is one of the greatest American novels of the 20th Century, and one of my absolute favorite books. I don't think anyone ever accused Steinbeck of writing poorly. I've read biographies of the author which suggest his low-key folksy style was deliberate in writing The Grapes of Wrath, because he wanted the book to speak to as wide an audience as possible. The novel didn't become a classic because Steinbeck went overboard on the dialogue tags. He wrote a story which continues to speak to people, 71 years after it was first published.

I think you may be confusing the issue here. Nobody has ever said NOT to use "said." It's considered an "invisible word" that doesn't beat the reader over the head by saying, "LOOK, I AM WRITING!" Said is just hunky-dory. What the OP was fretting over was adverbial tags -- she said angrily, he said hotly, she said mysteriously, he said stupidly. As Ritchie pointed out, just about any tag other than "said" (and occasionally "asked" or a very small selection of other unobtrusive tags) means the dialog isn't doing its own work.

That is usually true, in my experience as a reader and as a writer.

[DeleyanLee]

I was a little frustrated with those freakin' rules
that many published writers are allowed to ignore.

But like several people said...those people are published!
They kinda get to do what they want
as long as they are selling books.

When you're a little kid, you're told you can't subtract or divide so the answer comes out lower than zero. That's a "rule".

When you're older, you're introduced to the weird concept of negative numbers, which are lower than zero.

When you start out, there's a lot of guidelines and "rules" that people will point out to you because these are things that are easy to get wrong and will mess up your ability to tell your story.

When you get more confident in your storytelling abilities and your comprehension of writing, you should be able to see the reasons behind the "rules" and learn when it's necessary to follow one and when not to follow one.

It's never a question of published authors breaking the "rules"--it's a question of whether or not the author understood the problem the "rule" addressed and if they have that problem. A beginning writer doesn't have that understanding of their abilties and the story's needs, just like a grade-schooler doesn't have the understanding and skills necessary to work with negative numbers.

[Alpha Echo]

When you're a little kid, you're told you can't subtract or divide so the answer comes out lower than zero. That's a "rule".

When you're older, you're introduced to the weird concept of negative numbers, which are lower than zero.

When you start out, there's a lot of guidelines and "rules" that people will point out to you because these are things that are easy to get wrong and will mess up your ability to tell your story.

When you get more confident in your storytelling abilities and your comprehension of writing, you should be able to see the reasons behind the "rules" and learn when it's necessary to follow one and when not to follow one.

It's never a question of published authors breaking the "rules"--it's a question of whether or not the author understood the problem the "rule" addressed and if they have that problem. A beginning writer doesn't have that understanding of their abilties and the story's needs, just like a grade-schooler doesn't have the understanding and skills necessary to work with negative numbers.

QFT. That is so well said! I never looked at it that way!

[lucidzfl]

When you're a little kid, you're told you can't subtract or divide so the answer comes out lower than zero. That's a "rule".

When you're older, you're introduced to the weird concept of negative numbers, which are lower than zero.

When you start out, there's a lot of guidelines and "rules" that people will point out to you because these are things that are easy to get wrong and will mess up your ability to tell your story.

When you get more confident in your storytelling abilities and your comprehension of writing, you should be able to see the reasons behind the "rules" and learn when it's necessary to follow one and when not to follow one.

It's never a question of published authors breaking the "rules"--it's a question of whether or not the author understood the problem the "rule" addressed and if they have that problem. A beginning writer doesn't have that understanding of their abilties and the story's needs, just like a grade-schooler doesn't have the understanding and skills necessary to work with negative numbers.

All of my writing is the equivalent of dividing by zero.

[Jamesaritchie]

All things in moderation.

If you rely on adverbial tags too heavily, your work will seem lacking in nuance. However, nobody is going to come and beat you with a stick if you use them once in a while.

No, but I'll beat myself with a stick because I know there's always a way to write dialogue that doesn't need verbs or adverbs. I think we havbe to be our own harsest critics.

[maestrowork]

Instead of trying to figure out what one can "get away with" and how many times one can use this or that form of writing, or break this or that "rule," might it not be better to work hard to continually improve one's writing, to strive for quality instead of minimally acceptable or merely competent?

QFT.

Stop finding the shortcuts, and just get to work and be the best you can be.

[LynnKHollander]

In 'Flowers for Algernon', Daniel Keyes used poor writing skills to add depth to the plot. Charlie started out demonstrating very poor grammar, spelling and punctuation. His gradual change to a 'good writer', and his eventual loss of his writing skills, added a great deal of atmosphere to the story.

In first person narrative, the author can have the character write in any mode she feels appropriate for that character. If readers point out the gaffs, her response could be that while she, of course, knows better, this is the way that character speaks.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Nobody has ever said NOT to use "said."

Bad writing teachers say this all the time.

It's the single worst piece of advice anyone ever gives about writing.

ETA: I have discovered the legendary "Said-Book"! (http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Guide-Sassy-Synonyms-Said/dp/0967740541)

[Parametric]

Bad writing teachers say this all the time.

It's the single worst piece of advice anyone ever gives about writing.

ETA: I have discovered the legendary "Said-Book"! (http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Guide-Sassy-Synonyms-Said/dp/0967740541)

Oh, is that where the term "said-bookisms" comes from? I've learned something fascinating today. :D

[blacbird]

In 'Flowers for Algernon', Daniel Keyes used poor writing skills to add depth to the plot.

Not quite. Keyes adapted the narrative persona of a mentally-challenged barely literate adult, and used exceptionally skillful authorial writing skills to represent Charlie's mental acuity with great vividness. Not anywhere near the same thing as a writer using "poor writing skills".

caw

[Wayne K]

The only time I notice "Said" is when I read my own stuff. I agree with the people who say it's invisible other than that.

[Libbie]

No, but I'll beat myself with a stick because I know there's always a way to write dialogue that doesn't need verbs or adverbs. I think we havbe to be our own harsest critics.

I agree with that.

As a reader, I will forgive the very occasional use of an adverbial tag or a verb tag (i.e. "demanded.") As a writer, I route them and burn them at the stake.

[Libbie]

Bad writing teachers say this all the time.

It's the single worst piece of advice anyone ever gives about writing.

ETA: I have discovered the legendary "Said-Book"! (http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Guide-Sassy-Synonyms-Said/dp/0967740541)

Okay, true. I will amend my statement thusly: Nobody who knows his or her ass from a hole in the wall has ever said NOT to use said. :D

I look back with horror on a project my eighth-grade English teacher had us do for our creative writing unit. We had to come up with words to use in place of "said," write them on a bunch of pieces of paper, and plaster the walls with them. I still cringe in terror at the memory of that day. I mean, it was eighth-grade English, but still.

[DeadlyAccurate]

"Mr. Wolf," I stared at his name plaque on his desk while I figitted with the buttons on my school uniform jacket, "you wanted to see me, sir?"

He leaned back in his high backed office chair, "Sam, I shouldn't be seeing you. You're on the honor roll. What's gotten into you?" He stretched forward and laced his meaty fingers together, "You're going to repaint the gym with your buddies as punishment, as well as give the entire school an apology tomorrow over the loud speaker."

This is grammatically wrong. You can't use a comma here. You should be using a period and/or a question mark. The comma is used to tag a speaker. The period is used for an action beat.

Corrected:

"Mr. Wolf?" I stared at his name plaque on his desk while I [fidgeted] with the buttons on my school uniform jacket. "You wanted to see me, sir?"

He leaned back in his high backed office chair. "Sam, I shouldn't be seeing you. You're on the honor roll. What's gotten into you?" He stretched forward and laced his meaty fingers together. "You're going to repaint the gym with your buddies as punishment, as well as give the entire school an apology tomorrow over the loud speaker."If you wanted to use commas in the first dialog in order to make both parts one sentence, you'd do it like this (though it's clunky this way):

"Mr. Wolf," I said, staring at his name plaque on his desk while I [fidgeted] with the buttons on my school uniform jacket, "you wanted to see me, sir?"

[Jamesaritchie]

In 'Flowers for Algernon', Daniel Keyes used poor writing skills to add depth to the plot. Charlie started out demonstrating very poor grammar, spelling and punctuation. His gradual change to a 'good writer', and his eventual loss of his writing skills, added a great deal of atmosphere to the story.

In first person narrative, the author can have the character write in any mode she feels appropriate for that character. If readers point out the gaffs, her response could be that while she, of course, knows better, this is the way that character speaks.


Except that it isn't easy pulling this off. It probably takes more skill, and more knoweldge, to pull this off well than to simply write properly.

It isn't what the writer thinks that matters, it's what readers think.

[Fresie]

Yes, I'm sure a good story beats good writing every time and I've read some true pageturners which were abysmally poorly written (to my taste at least). But I personally think there're so many skills that go into good storytelling before you can even start to worry about actual writing. I'm sure if you look into it, some bestselling authors may not be great grammarians, but they have all the right storytelling skills in place, like pacing, conflict and characterisation. And this, in my opinion, is so much harder to master than style!

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes, I'm sure a good story beats good writing every time and I've read some true pageturners which were abysmally poorly written (to my taste at least). But I personally think there're so many skills that go into good storytelling before you can even start to worry about actual writing. I'm sure if you look into it, some bestselling authors may not be great grammarians, but they have all the right storytelling skills in place, like pacing, conflict and characterisation. And this, in my opinion, is so much harder to master than style!



I agree completely. New writers usually pay more attention to style than experienced writers, and it's been my experience that the longer a writer works at it, the less he cares about style.

This tends to get the writer in hot water with new writers, who tend to believe the well-known writer is "getting away" with something. He isn't.
I know this is going to get me in my own hot water, but what many experienced writers learn is that "good" writing often gets in the way of good story and good character.

They learn that you don't "write" the best way possible, you tell a story the best way possible, and this often means not writing as "well" as all the rules and advice tells you to write. Sometimes "poor" writing really does mean better story and character.

[bluebell80]

This is grammatically wrong. You can't use a comma here. You should be using a period and/or a question mark. The comma is used to tag a speaker. The period is used for an action beat.

Corrected:

If you wanted to use commas in the first dialog in order to make both parts one sentence, you'd do it like this (though it's clunky this way):


HA! I hate periods and commas when it comes to dialog, I always get them mixed up. The example, while, yes, I see that it was grammatically wrong now that you point it out, it was meant as a showing of not using said, or said + an LY word. So, the OP can look at your corrections and see what it should look like.

And as a side note, I do use said when I write dialog. I don't think it is ever fully avoidable, nor should it be avoided or replaced with more colorful terms. Plain old he said, she said, works fine in most cases.

However, it annoys me to no end to see a writer use , he said angrily, she said bitterly, Mike said laughingly. Any word that ends in an LY following a said, should be cut. I hate them, never use them.

[benbradley]

[QUOTE=voodoo;4597855...
(I'm finding English worse than math.)[/QUOTE]
English IS worse than math (or as they say across the pond, maths). In math everything is logical and self-consistent - not because there's something magic about math, but as it was developed people decided it was damned well going to be logical and self-consistent.

I should write a novel in math. No doubt it would be much easier.

But then there's selling it. How do you find an agent that represents math fiction?

[Cyia]

But then there's selling it. How do you find an agent that represents math fiction?

Check AgentQuery under "imaginary numbers".

:tongue

[Slushie]

English IS worse than math (or as they say across the pond, maths). In math everything is logical and self-consistent - not because there's something magic about math, but as it was developed people decided it was damned well going to be logical and self-consistent.

I should write a novel in math. No doubt it would be much easier.

But then there's selling it. How do you find an agent that represents math fiction?

Meh. When it comes to math fiction, you're better off skipping the agents. Just submit it to the US Federal Government. They're publishing math fiction all the time. :D

Sorry. I couldn't resist.

[Libbie]

Check AgentQuery under "imaginary numbers".

:tongue

Blahahaha!

badum-ching!

[wizzy812]

So I can write in passive voice, add dialogue tags and all that...
and just call it "my style"?
That's awesome!
I feel better already.

What is an adverbial tag? I've never writtin a book before. I don't know big words or compicated sentence structure. If I've got a good story line do I need to worry about those things?

[mccardey]

When you're a little kid, you're told you can't subtract or divide so the answer comes out lower than zero. That's a "rule".

When you're older, you're introduced to the weird concept of negative numbers, which are lower than zero.

When you start out, there's a lot of guidelines and "rules" that people will point out to you because these are things that are easy to get wrong and will mess up your ability to tell your story.

When you get more confident in your storytelling abilities and your comprehension of writing, you should be able to see the reasons behind the "rules" and learn when it's necessary to follow one and when not to follow one.

It's never a question of published authors breaking the "rules"--it's a question of whether or not the author understood the problem the "rule" addressed and if they have that problem. A beginning writer doesn't have that understanding of their abilties and the story's needs, just like a grade-schooler doesn't have the understanding and skills necessary to work with negative numbers.

That is beautifully put.

[IdiotsRUs]

What is an adverbial tag? I've never writtin a book before. I don't know big words or compicated sentence structure. If I've got a good story line do I need to worry about those things?

'It's one of these,' she said winsomely

'Or like this,' he said irritatingly

Used occasionally they're fine. But they are telling rather than showing and should be used sparingly.

And that's up to you - if you want to have your writing improve, then yes you should learn ( not worry, learn) about these things, particularly if you want to be published. I've even had to learn some *shudder* grammar. But we all had to start somewhere. Read, learn and inwardly digest:D