Adverbs after speaker attribution

nastyjman · May 24, 2015

RosyMaylor said:
Hmm. This is an interesting discussion! I'm surprised to see any disagreement at all. I thought there was a general consensus that using adverbs in dialogue tags is lazy writing that calls for revision. I didn't think about it as a "modern" standard. It makes me want to go back and re-read all the classics to see how often Tolstoy or Austen or Dickens used adverbs? Not to prove any particular point either. I'm really just curious.

@OP I prefer Roxxsmom's revisions. Even if a modern reader isn't distracted by adverbs, why use them when you can do better? I'd rather see someone pushing away their plate and then make up my own mind about how they feel about the fries. There's room for nuance and subtlety there. I guess I don't like to be told what to think. So I guess it comes down to personal taste and what kind of story you're telling.

Read John Steinbeck, or probably anything during that era. After reading Tortilla Flat, and Of Mine and Men, it got me thinking of the adverbs after dialogue. There was one dialogue that really stuck out. So much so that my writer-brain went, "ouch!"

But I think it was proper back then. I don't know when the trend of excising adverbs happened.

Roxxsmom · May 24, 2015

A timely discussion of this issue with a few numbers. Turns out that Rowling, at least, doesn't use those "said bookisms" as often as many people suppose (three quarters of the time, she still tagged with said).

http://www.jamiechavez.com/blog/2015/04/adventures-in-editorland-dialogue-tags-edition/

WWWalt · Jun 14, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
That sounds a lot like saying that if weak writing pulls the reader out of the story, the story wasn't strong enough to begin with. If this were true, then none of us would have to bother with craft at all.

Sorry, I apparently wasn't clear. I am not trying to defend weak writing, but to dispute the insistence that certain types of dialogue tags fall under that umbrella. My point isn't that craft is unimportant; it's that many of us immersed in the field see what are merely literary trends as a matter of craft, because we read contemporary literature with a discerning eye and assimilate these trends into our internal conception of craft. Perhaps an analogy will be clearer:

"Teacher, what shade of blue should I use to paint the sky?"
"Use the shade that most closely represents the sky you want to depict."
"So you're saying I needn't bother with craft?"
"No, I'm saying some decisions are a matter of craft, and some are a matter of aesthetics."
"But in today's art market, galleries and dealers refuse to display or carry paintings with skies of any hue lighter than turquoise."
"A keen observation. Yes, if you want to work within the established industry, you must follow its prevailing standards."

(Not award-winning dialogue by any means, but I did manage to avoid dialogue tags.

)

Duncan J Macdonald · Jun 15, 2015

WWWalt said:
Sorry, I apparently wasn't clear. I am not trying to defend weak writing, but to dispute the insistence that certain types of dialogue tags fall under that umbrella. My point isn't that craft is unimportant; it's that many of us immersed in the field see what are merely literary trends as a matter of craft, because we read contemporary literature with a discerning eye and assimilate these trends into our internal conception of craft. Perhaps an analogy will be clearer:

"Teacher, what shade of blue should I use to paint the sky?"
"Use the shade that most closely represents the sky you want to depict."
"So you're saying I needn't bother with craft?"
"No, I'm saying some decisions are a matter of craft, and some are a matter of aesthetics."
"But in today's art market, galleries and dealers refuse to display or carry paintings with skies of any hue lighter than turquoise."
"A keen observation. Yes, if you want to work within the established industry, you must follow its prevailing standards."

(Not award-winning dialogue by any means, but I did manage to avoid dialogue tags. )

And without prior scene-setting context, that conversation can be attributed to anywhere from one to five people. You avoided "said", and avoided clarity at the same time.

Bufty · Jun 15, 2015

As an illustration of dialogue not needing attribution it's perfectly clear to me. No idea why you read five people into what is obviously a dialogue between two persons.

Gilroy Cullen · Jun 15, 2015

nastyjman said:
1) "I don't like French Fries," said Bob angrily.
1) "He looks okay," said Bob awkwardly.

Isn't doing something like this called a Tom Swifty?

Duncan J Macdonald · Jun 16, 2015

Bufty said:
As an illustration of dialogue not needing attribution it's perfectly clear to me. No idea why you read five people into what is obviously a dialogue between two persons.

Which is why I mentioned prior scene setting that is missing.

Student 1: "Teacher, what shade of blue should I use to paint the sky?"
Teacher: "Use the shade that most closely represents the sky you want to depict."
Student 2: "So you're saying I needn't bother with craft?"
Teacher: "No, I'm saying some decisions are a matter of craft, and some are a matter of aesthetics."
Student 3: "But in today's art market, galleries and dealers refuse to display or carry paintings with skies of any hue lighter than turquoise."
Student 4: "A keen observation. Yes, if you want to work within the established industry, you must follow its prevailing standards."

Mix and match as needed.

WWWalt · Jun 16, 2015

Gilroy Cullen said:
1) "I don't like French Fries," said Bob angrily.
1) "He looks okay," said Bob awkwardly.

Isn't doing something like this called a Tom Swifty?

In a Tom Swifty, the dialog tag is a pun on what is inside the quotation marks.

"I didn't see that steamroller," Tom said flatly.
"Walk this way," Tom said stridently.

So your quoted examples aren't Tom Swifties, unless they contain some pun that's going over my head.

(Confidential to Duncan: Luckily, for my dialogue to express its point, it makes no difference whether it was spoken by two, three, four, or five people. Even with AW's forum software stripping out my paragraph indents, I see no way to conclude it was one person -- too many quotation marks.)

Gilroy Cullen · Jun 18, 2015

That's what I get for answering after a meeting at work. Fried brains. Gah.

Duncan J Macdonald · Jun 19, 2015

WWWalt said:
(Confidential to Duncan: Luckily, for my dialogue to express its point, it makes no difference whether it was spoken by two, three, four, or five people. Even with AW's forum software stripping out my paragraph indents, I see no way to conclude it was one person -- too many quotation marks.)

What about an inner monologue, with the POV character arguing both sides?

Still, the preceding context would help with determining the number of characters present, and therefore help with figuring it all out.

Adverbs after speaker attribution

nastyjman

not nasty at all

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

WWWalt

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!

Bufty

Where have the last ten years gone?

Gilroy Cullen

Handsome servant of a redhead

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!

WWWalt

Gilroy Cullen

Handsome servant of a redhead

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!