Adverbs can be your friends WAS: Re: The Return of Tom Swift

[melclaros]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "junediamanti" > Yes, but a 
good dialogue writer can add the (genuine) flavourings to 
> the speech itself, whereas adverbs are more like a fake essence.  
> Think fine vintage claret as opposed to wine flavouring for cooking.
> > 

Jumping in after a long absence Mel adds:

I agree. However the key is "a good dialogue writer". These are few 
and far between. I simply can not read a story/book with bad or 
unbelievable dialogue. I can't count the number of books I've tossed 
on 
the reject pile after my brain shuts down from the effort of trying 
to rationalize badly written or impossible dialog. 

I'll take a good adverb any day, or "he said with a sneer" if sneered 
comment is something someone--that character in particular would 
*actually* say.






> June:
> There's generally no need for any attribution in a two-hander 
> scene.  Once it is established who spoke first, all but the very 
> stupid reader should be able to keep up.

And here we have the opposite rule. While good writers of dialogue 
seem to be a dying breed, very stupid readers seem to be multiplying 
(I'll leave out the adverb). Look at the best seller lists for 
further elaboration on this. 

Yes, I am a snob.


>June:
> One way is to skip 
> attribution entirely and use a sentence to describe a gesture or 
> action by the speaker:  "I hate you!" She slapped his face hard.  


Much needed, yes. Another example is in cases of irony or sarcasm. An 
astute reader may not need a signpost, and if a character is 
succesfully portrayed and the dialog in character and believable it 
should be obvious to even the more dim ones, but again one has to 
assume that the reader is coming in to the conversation as an 
unknowing stranger and may need a nudge. A nudge, mind you--not a 
hammer over the head. "He said sarcastically" is a pet peeve of mine. 
Consider the misunderstandings in emails and on forums such as this 
and you'll see why in some cases it is necessary to clarify how a 
line is said or meant to a reader. It's either throw in an adverb or 
an emoticon and PLEASE let's not go there!



>June:
>  If someone says "I hate you" we can be fairly sure that they said 
>it angrily.  


Can we? Really? I can think of a few examples where that would most 
certainly be a misreading. Of course most of them are in mushy 
romantic scenes, but those do occasionally creep into stories, even 
great literature.


>Essentially, I find "swifties" rather intrusive when I'm reading. 

If they're overused, yes. I agree. They become distracting. My point, 
and I do have one, is that there is a happy medium. There are adverbs 
in the language and they are there for good reason. They have a 
valuable job to do. Is less more? Perhaps in some cases, yes.


Mel