Should the adverb rule apply to dialogues too?

[Gambit74]

(Skip to second paragraph if you already know what adverbs are)

For those who don't know, an adverb is a modifier that changes/simplifies a verb or adjective. That means most words that ends with -ly are adverbs (really, only, definitely, finally etc. Not all of them are adverbs, like apply for example). However, some of them, like only, is exempt depending on how it's used. One helpful tip I learned is that if you aren't sure if it's an adverb or not, you can type 'define:insertwordhere' (without quotes) in Google's search bar and it'll tell you. If it doesn't come up, it might not be a real word. Anyway, on to my question.

So I recently (see, there's an adverb) learned that when it comes to fictional/creative writing, adverbs are an absolute evil and should be banned from your work. The reasoning being is that it's consider a lazy form of writing. In other words, you're weakening the 'show' in the 'show, don't tell rule' basically. What I'm trying to get at here is, should this rule apply for dialogues between characters? Or should it only apply to text outside of dialogues?

Here's an example of what I mean:

"She really wants to get that ring, doesn't she?" said Paul.

vs

"She'll do anything to get that ring, won't she?" said Paul.

So yeah. Again, should the adverb rule apply to dialogues too?

[kisa]

"Banning" adverbs seems like a stupid ass thing to do.
It entirely depends upon the vernacular of the people speaking/thinking.
The writer's voice is what's most important when writing since without it, there would be absolutely no story. None, nada.
Putting up rules that have nothing to do with the actual grammar seems like a stupid ass thing to me.

And if this doesn't supply my opinion in a relevant fashion, feel free to ignore it.

[Gambit74]

Any opinion about the subject is relevant if you ask me, since it provides different viewpoints from other people.

To be honest though, I can see why they consider adverbs taboo. I mean, I was using them a lot until recently (my other topic with the my first chapter used to have them), and after switching it up, it does sound a little more creative. If your writing is geared towards a younger audience, adverbs are probably okay, since most younger people won't care how you describe it as long as it makes sense to them and they know what you mean. However, older people tend to nitpick at them, it seems.

Here are some articles I was just reading, which will explain it better than I can.

http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/ ... n-adverbs/
http://darcknyt.deviantart.com/journal/ ... -214175181

Sometimes it can be a bit daunting to rewrite if you already stuffed a lot of them in there, but at the same time I want to make my work sound more professional. Or maybe I'm just feeling a bit too lazy to change them right now since they're only in some of my dialogues, but I also feel that this question will help others in the future, as well as clearing any doubts I may have so that I don't repeat the same mistake.

[kisa]

Well, honestly... Applying the adverb rule to dialogues is more of a characterization thing than a writing choice...
The vernacular you use to have your character speak is important in telling you how they were raised, their attitude, etc.

[Gambit74]

While true, I don't exactly want to annoy my readers if it's possible. I do make some exceptions though, if they're saying something that I can't find a better way to express.

[kisa]

Express it how you want to and if it annoys the readers and they (actively) complain about it... THEN you change it.

[Sharm]

I've heard of that "rule" before but I've never heard of anyone who advocates it as an absolute thing in any case. It's just that writers who are still in the early stages of learning have a tendency to lean too heavily on adverbs to the detriment of their craft. It's not the adverbs that are the problem, but that they're used as a crutch to avoid doing things in more interesting ways. Really the whole "avoid adverbs" thing is meant to be a writing exercise, not as a hard and fast thing to stick to even in the final draft.

The only hard rule for writing is "do what works for your story". All other advice can be thrown out the window whenever needed.

[trooper6]

I think the rule is silly.

Can you overuse adverbs? Sure. But you can overuse any part of speech. You can also underuse any part of speech.

Stephen King once said of JK Rowling, "Rowling has never met an adverb she didn't like."

But JK Rowling has done pretty well for herself. And Stephen King, hater of the adverb, has adverbs all over The Stand, for example.

Here, let me grab my nearest Stephen King book (The Colorado Kid) and open up a page randomly. What do I find? Adverbs:

Dave smiled. It gave him a surprisingly foxy look that was not much like his usual expression of earnest and slightly stupid honesty. It occurred to Stephanie now that the intellect behind that chubby, rather childish face was probably as lean and quick as Vince Teague's.

And this from a guy who is anti-adverb.

Here is an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education from a professor of linguistics and co-author of the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Geoffrey Pullum defending the adverb:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca ... an-adverb/

Near the end of his piece he writes: "And I don’t mean just that fine writing with adverbs is possible; I mean that all fine writing in English has adverbs (just open any work of literature you respect and start reading)."

And commenting upon that article on a different website, poster Warsaw Will have a list of great works with adverbs with I reproduce here:

These are from the early paragraphs of a few classics. All of them, I suggest, would be poorer without their adverbs, some meaningless:

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.
Jane Austen - Pride and Prejudice

‘You are not, Cecilia Jupe,’ Thomas Gradgrind solemnly repeated, ‘to do anything of that kind.’
Charles Dickens - Hard Times

Afar, it offered a pale blank of mist and cloud; near a scene of wet lawn and storm-beat shrub, with ceaseless rain sweeping away wildly before a long and lamentable blast. Charlotte Bronte - Jane Eyre

All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind.
Conan Doyle - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

Then for an hour it was deadly dull, and I was fidgety
Mark Twain- Huckleberry Finn

Solemnly he came forward and mounted the round gunrest
James Joyce - Ulysses

and the ceaseless human chatter of Venice came in at my windows, to which I seem to myself to have been constantly driven,
Henry James - The Portrait of a Lady

Incidentally, verbs like "plod" and "trudge" have very specific meanings. I see nothing wrong with using "slowly" in a sentence like "She slowly made her way across the room" when I don't want her to "amble, meander, wander, saunter" etc, I just want her to walk slowly.

And not just the greats of literature, I'm a fan of pulp crime and noir books...hope to make a pulpy VN once my tenure book is done. And you know what? They are full of delicious adverbs.

Some people cultivate a writing style without adverbs. Which is awesome for them. But if you cultivate a writing style with adverbs that is effective and affecting. Then why should you drop them?

One last note: using adverbs or not, using passive or not, using adjective or not, using long sentences or not--these are not objective markers of good literature or bad literature, they are *fashion* and convention.

People wrote differently in the 19th Century. People write differently when doing pulp. People write differently when doing academic writing.

There is no one size fits all *proper* writing style.

[Gambit74]

Interesting responses so far. Then I guess the more ideal thing to do would be to keep them in check and use them only when there's no other way to convey a feeling without changing it's meaning.

[Mad Harlequin]

To be perfectly honest, I think you're misinterpreting the "rule." Truly skillful writing requires some care. If you have to rely on an adverb to strengthen a description or a piece of dialogue, chances are you could improve it some other way---though there are rare exceptions to the "rule." I'll refer to one of my favorite books, the excellent Self-Editing for Fiction Writers: How to Edit Yourself Into Print by Renni Browne and Dave King. I have the second edition from 2004. I don't think there has been a third edition printed yet, but I could be mistaken.

Anyway, here's one of the single most useful sections of the book, which refers to the problem of adverbs in dialogue attributions (but this advice definitely applies to narrative voice as well):

Perhaps it's a lack of confidence on the writer's part, perhaps it's simple laziness, or perhaps it's a misguided attempt to break up the monotony of using the unadorned said all the time (more about that in a minute) but all too many fiction writers tend to pepper their dialogue with -ly's. Which is a good reason to cut virtually every one you write. Ly adverbs almost always catch the writer in the act of explaining dialogue---smuggling emotions into speaker attributions that belong in the dialogue itself. Again, if your dialogue doesn't need the props, putting the props in will make it seem weak even when it isn't.

There are a few exceptions to this principle, and almost all of them are adverbs that actually modify the word said, sch as "he said softly" or "she said clearly." After all, you don't say something grimly in the same sense that you say something softly. The grimness comes across more by what you say and do---conveyed through word choice, body language, context---than by how you say it. Again, there are as many ways to be grim as there are people, and when you write, "he said grimly," what you are really saying is, "he said this, and he felt pretty grim about it." You need to show the grimness, to show what there is about your character that makes him seem grim.

Besides, if you use them often enough, -ly adverbs begin to look like Tom Swifties---one-liners built around -ly adverbs that are named for the archetypal example: "'Hurry up,' Tom said swiftly."


[...]

Don't use speaker attributions as a way of slipping in explanations of your dialogue ("he growled," "she snapped"). As with all other types of explanations, either they're unnecessary or they are necessary but shouldn't be ("Do you consider that amusing?" she whined).

Anyone who wants to improve as a writer for any reason ought to read this book. I know it's helped me.

Also: Stephen King made that comment about J.K. Rowling's writing because she used speaker attributions to communicate emotions that should be understood through the dialogue itself ("hotly" and "coldly" are two of her favorites, if memory serves).

[Cith]

Using adverbs in dialogue is perfectly acceptable (a person talks how they talk.) It gets a bad rap with prose though.

Using adverbs in prose is more tricky. Are they used? Yes. Plenty of literature pieces and mass market works contain adverbs galore. Pat Ruthfuss has a masters in English and still uses adjectives and adverbs in his prose. But where?

From what I can understand, you should seriously limit adjectives and adverbs when you want to give a piece of prose 'atmosphere', and you're free to use them in bits you don't really care about (although don't OVERUSE them.) This is mainly done because adverbs and adjectives do a poor job of describing a thing or an action in detail. It will give you the general overview, but it doesn't actually describe how. 'She hastily left the apartment' - well that could mean anything. Did she walk, but quickly with furtive glances over her shoulder being careful never to break into a run? Did she out and out run from the room? Too many of these words can make a scene feel poorly defined and fleshed out. So, whether you use them or not depends on how detailed you want your description, because at the end of the day some detail is just unnecessary.

So creating an atmosphere relies on detail, details adverbs and adjectives don't REALLY provide, and that's why they're frowned upon. But for throwaway lines though they're perfectly fine, AND you can even use them to your advantage. For example, you can make those pieces you want to resonate with the reader feel more vibrant if you don't describe EVERY scene in detail. So maybe if you're rushing past something, some adjective descriptions will do, but if you stopped and looking at something in awe, then chuck the modifying words and really go into detail. And the difference in detail between the two will not only emulate how much attention the person is paying, but will help you make that place feel special.

You should take some time and study what works and what doesn't. There is no right or wrong in writing, really. In fact, some writers bemoan these rules (like don't write using adjectives and adverbs) as helping to remove individuality from author's works.

Hope that helps *shrugs*.

[Asceai]

Rules like this exist for a reason, and if you understand the reason, you're allowed to break them. "No adverbs" (in prose, not dialogue, of course) is a good rule that will make your writing stronger before it makes it weaker if you're a new writer. But it's okay to break that rule once you understand that.

[Morhighan]

Using adverbs in dialogue is perfectly acceptable (a person talks how they talk.)

I was just about to say this. So yes, I agree completely.
Dialogue doesn't have to be stiff or proper, unless the character is stiff and proper. People all speak in different ways with different mannerisms. It's important to figure out the "voice" of your character and stick with it for that particular character. Many writers have characters with completely different "voices," and I think that is a sign of a skilled author. Of course, they don't have to be 100% different, just enough so that it's not like reading clones talking to each other.
A good example is the anime Kill la Kill. Satsuki and Ryuko have different ways of speaking, though they were clearly written by the same people. Each of the characters in that anime has a different style of speaking, and it's not just the voice actor's delivery, it's definitely due to the writing.

[Taleweaver]

Okay, plain and simple:

Not using something that is an integral part of a language is stupid, unless it's done for a purpose. Overusing that same thing is just as stupid, again, unless it's done for a purpose. People using lots of adverbs in dialogue might just do that because the author wants to depict them as having a flowery, flamboyant language.

[Mad Harlequin]

Good advice from everybody. It's okay to have characters use adverbs in speech. Both lines from the original post work just fine.

People using lots of adverbs in dialogue might just do that because the author wants to depict them as having a flowery, flamboyant language.

I don't see how an abundance of adverbs in speech makes language more flowery---though a verbal tic of some kind can be used to build a character.