He is correct. Adverbs are cringe and unnecessary in 90% of cases. When they're overused they become just a pain in the ass to read. >"how can this be?!" Billy said angrily >"the lord Satan has made it so" Johnny said smugly >"you won't get away with it Dick Dastardly" Jane said bitterly
Noob writers have a tendency to do this and it gets tiresome quick
I think 'sardonically' should the only adverb authors are allowed to use. I'm not even sure what it means, but I just pretend I do when I read it or hear it in an audiobook, and that makes me happy. It's like alchemy, but with words. Perchance.
If your dialogue is good, you don't need anything else. The reader will pick up on how the character spoke by himself. Adverbs are a crutch, as is this shit
If you repeat the word ‘said’ (or any other) three times in a row, you’re a lousy writer.
8 months ago
Anonymous
I don't even use dialogue attributions most of the time. If you've written your characters well enough and distinctly enough, then that combined with the context should always make it clear who is speaking. There's nothing wrong with just using said, but using any other verb or an adverb to do the lifting that the dialogue should be doing is lazy writing.
8 months ago
Anonymous
agreed, over-attributing is the tell tale sign of a noob. Every line doesnt need a tag.
Unless you're writing for children or are aiming for a very simple/journalistic tone
8 months ago
Anonymous
>aiming for a very simple/journalistic tone
Hell, even then you don't really need it. Amélie Nothomb's Hygiene of the Assassin is written almost entirely as a series of dialogues between various journalists and an author and Nothomb hardly ever uses attributions.
For the most part, yes. "Said" and "asked" are so pervasive that readers don't notice them. No one's gonna get distracted by repetition of these words unless it reaches absurd levels.
Adjectives should be used once to set the tone of the conversation and then the reader should be able to figure out the rest via verbal queues and phrases. for example if someone starts of pissed and eventually devolves into pity, the reader should be able to figure it out on their own without being told it like in a YA novel.
The worst thing about Stephen King is his self insert dialogue. In one of his recent books, a character starts describing the chord sequence of a beatles song even though they arent musically inlined.
What's worse is his inner monologues. He'll have many scenes where a character talks to themselves, even addresses themselves ("okay Joey, all I have to do is go down in the basement and throw the breaker, no sweat, your alcoholic father isn't here to beat you anymore"). It's fricking annoying, especially when said character is going to die at the end of the chapter.
He is correct. Adverbs are cringe and unnecessary in 90% of cases. When they're overused they become just a pain in the ass to read. >"how can this be?!" Billy said angrily >"the lord Satan has made it so" Johnny said smugly >"you won't get away with it Dick Dastardly" Jane said bitterly
Noob writers have a tendency to do this and it gets tiresome quick
As adverbs tastefully, not every sentence you dolt.
youre all wrong and im sick of this shit being regurgitated. adverbs are used all the time to great effect in pulp novels and they work really well. if you're taking prose advice from king it's over for you anyway. no one reads stephen king for his prose.
Only so many words can be spoken; and just like that their philosophical discussion was over. The silence hit, and as if expected, a sensual air took its que and filled the room. She leaned in closer; lustful eyes met. "Absurdity" he couldn't help but think.
The silence took pause for him to bargain with his devil; "Just because we acknowledge these desires– disgusting, base that they are– does not give pass to indulge them. An animal that claims to understand its own behaviour is still defined as animal; and aren't we owing to our Selves the transcendence of animal?" And bargain he did, threatening to resume their symposium.
"Even Seneca quoted Epicurus" pierced a wet whisper,
"That's not. . ." He mumbled internally; stopping short of reasoning– almost– until reason being she was only a woman; but truth being his mind had been made up from that first silent gaze. "Well, who's to say that disgusting is bad" his clumsy closing argument but a compulsion as his body set lustfully upon her in its turn.
Her quivering cries of 'Frick me!' transmuted that sensual air hence– to one of deeper red and cynical sexuality. "As above; so below", his sililoquos musings, now in jovial tone, no longer any deterrence– as a stimulation of a lower kind announced itself in earnest.
He is correct. Adverbs are cringe and unnecessary in 90% of cases. When they're overused they become just a pain in the ass to read.
>"how can this be?!" Billy said angrily
>"the lord Satan has made it so" Johnny said smugly
>"you won't get away with it Dick Dastardly" Jane said bitterly
Noob writers have a tendency to do this and it gets tiresome quick
What should be done instead? Just say "he said"?
I think 'sardonically' should the only adverb authors are allowed to use. I'm not even sure what it means, but I just pretend I do when I read it or hear it in an audiobook, and that makes me happy. It's like alchemy, but with words. Perchance.
m'lady
Laconically*
Use a different verb.
>he uttered
>he shouted
>he cried into existence
>he mumbled
>he stuttered
>he garbled
for me it's bellowed
>he growled
>he howled
>he intoned
>he surmised
>he whispered
>he threatened
>he sBlack personed
>he blathered on
>he blustered
>he billowed
>he boomed
>he beckoned
>he boasted
>he gibbered
If your dialogue is good, you don't need anything else. The reader will pick up on how the character spoke by himself. Adverbs are a crutch, as is this shit
If you repeat the word ‘said’ (or any other) three times in a row, you’re a lousy writer.
I don't even use dialogue attributions most of the time. If you've written your characters well enough and distinctly enough, then that combined with the context should always make it clear who is speaking. There's nothing wrong with just using said, but using any other verb or an adverb to do the lifting that the dialogue should be doing is lazy writing.
agreed, over-attributing is the tell tale sign of a noob. Every line doesnt need a tag.
Unless you're writing for children or are aiming for a very simple/journalistic tone
>aiming for a very simple/journalistic tone
Hell, even then you don't really need it. Amélie Nothomb's Hygiene of the Assassin is written almost entirely as a series of dialogues between various journalists and an author and Nothomb hardly ever uses attributions.
That's pretty much what SK does.
For the most part, yes. "Said" and "asked" are so pervasive that readers don't notice them. No one's gonna get distracted by repetition of these words unless it reaches absurd levels.
They don't read. It's like explaining a silhouette of an object to a blind man.
>He is correct. Adverbs are cringe and unnecessary in 90% of cases.
*Ms.Rowling glares angrily*
Adjectives should be used once to set the tone of the conversation and then the reader should be able to figure out the rest via verbal queues and phrases. for example if someone starts of pissed and eventually devolves into pity, the reader should be able to figure it out on their own without being told it like in a YA novel.
The worst thing about Stephen King is his self insert dialogue. In one of his recent books, a character starts describing the chord sequence of a beatles song even though they arent musically inlined.
What's worse is his inner monologues. He'll have many scenes where a character talks to themselves, even addresses themselves ("okay Joey, all I have to do is go down in the basement and throw the breaker, no sweat, your alcoholic father isn't here to beat you anymore"). It's fricking annoying, especially when said character is going to die at the end of the chapter.
>musically
MFW
Why all horror boomer goyslopers look like pedophiles?
Thats just how authors looked in the 70s.
As adverbs tastefully, not every sentence you dolt.
>posts Steven King
>MFW
are you a space lizard?
youre all wrong and im sick of this shit being regurgitated. adverbs are used all the time to great effect in pulp novels and they work really well. if you're taking prose advice from king it's over for you anyway. no one reads stephen king for his prose.
Why are you reading pulp novels?
why are you reading instructional manuals by stephen king? i'll read what I want, frick off.
>no one reads stephen king for his prose.
Form is content.
Imagine taking advices from Steven King. He ruined a generation of new writers.
>he said, angry.
>With an air of aloof superiority he spoke.
>"Irene and I had sex last night."
there
done
stiffin keeng eat your heart out
>With an air of aloof superiority he spoke.
MFW.
Too didactic. Too wordy. Shorten it.
Hemmingwaygay spotted
>Hemmingway
>mm
MFW.
How the frick has no woman ever accused him of rape or sexual assault
I mean just look at him
>Hemmingway
I couldn't be bothered to spell it right. Shows how little I care or respect him.
>I-I'm not a moron, I'm just le flippant punk who's too cool to care
UMO grad here8) suck it losers
Does Stephen ever come to give speeches or addresses? What's the library like?
>he spat
He's obnoxiously political. Has turned me off from ever reading his slop.
Adverbs should be used only when the proper verb does not exist, i.e. very rarely given how verby english is
>he said, in an angered tone.
>in an angered tone
Expository and too many words. Cut it. Instead say: “he growled”
Stephen King basically based most of his ideas on comic books and B movies that he saw as a kid.
Only so many words can be spoken; and just like that their philosophical discussion was over. The silence hit, and as if expected, a sensual air took its que and filled the room. She leaned in closer; lustful eyes met. "Absurdity" he couldn't help but think.
The silence took pause for him to bargain with his devil; "Just because we acknowledge these desires– disgusting, base that they are– does not give pass to indulge them. An animal that claims to understand its own behaviour is still defined as animal; and aren't we owing to our Selves the transcendence of animal?" And bargain he did, threatening to resume their symposium.
"Even Seneca quoted Epicurus" pierced a wet whisper,
"That's not. . ." He mumbled internally; stopping short of reasoning– almost– until reason being she was only a woman; but truth being his mind had been made up from that first silent gaze. "Well, who's to say that disgusting is bad" his clumsy closing argument but a compulsion as his body set lustfully upon her in its turn.
Her quivering cries of 'Frick me!' transmuted that sensual air hence– to one of deeper red and cynical sexuality. "As above; so below", his sililoquos musings, now in jovial tone, no longer any deterrence– as a stimulation of a lower kind announced itself in earnest.
MFW.
Too wordy. Rewrite.
Girl: "wow your smart let's frick"
Boy (man): "hmm ok"
That is a good point, however, his books are shit. Keep seething about Kubrick, you hack
Kubrick is a poor man's Orson Welles. Movies can never reach the same sublime heights as literature (Parnassus).