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

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

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.

voodoo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

jclarkdawe said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

"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...

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

voodoo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

voodoo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

thothguard51 said:

"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...

Click to expand...

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

C.M.C. said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.