h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Stuff which I had to repeatedly say when critiquing dialogue on another site:

1) For Pete's sake get the punctuation right.

2) Repeated use of reporting verbs like 'said' and 'asked' is not bad writing. Replacing them with things like 'exclaimed', 'hazarded', 'groaned', and so on, is.

3) No adverbs unless you are attempting to be funny (or achieve another specific effect).

No-one ever seemed to pay much attention though.

'You've hit the nail on the head,' said Tom forcefully.

Surely you mean:

'You've hit the nail on the head' expostulated Tom forcefully.

?

(Did you have 'Tom Swifties' growing up?)

I only became aware of the expression when Mr King used it in his book on writing in relation to this very subject...

Aha. I haven't read this, but I can imagine.

Although he does concede that JK Rowling routinely slathers her prose in adverbs and has achieved some degree of success regardless...

I'm afraid I don't bow to the modern orthodoxy as regards adverbs. They are just another kind of word, and like all other words the right ones in the right place are nothing to be afraid of.

They are just a special form af adjective. Should we ban those?

Some people come close...

(And the grammarian in me is gearing up for a different argument, but.)

The argument (which I broadly agree with) particularly relates to dialogue, but anyway: the reader should be able to infer the manner in which an action is carried out from the rest of the text. If you have to use an adverb to communicate their tone or manner there's something weird about the dialogue. Eg:

'It's such a wonderful day!' she said, happily.

The adverb is superfluous and thus not needed, unless she's being sarcastic or ironic (both possible exceptions, but even here context could potentially make up for a lot).

Writing is about making the reader feel or think what you want them to, but by hitting them over the head with adverbs you're not 'making' them, you're 'telling' them.

Yep. Show, don't tell.

Another annoyance about adverbs is placement.

The other night, we made the mistake of watching a 'documentary' made by the History Channel, on the history of radio and television. I gave it a scathing review on Netflix.

Aside from the factual errors and misleading use of recordings (that was NOT the original radio broadcast from KDKA, it was a re-enactment, and not mentioning Nicola Tesla at all is a crime), the narrative committed so many grammar and syntax crimes, the writers should have been arrested.

Why did the voice artist even agree to SAY 'had began'? I'd have gone on strike.

In one segment, every single sentence contained a dangling participle. Why do people do this, and then say, 'Oh, you know what I mean'? I don't.

Split infinitives. Infinitives split with all manner and kind of adverbs, mostly. Usually unnecessary adverbs, such as 'actually'.

Some people seem to think the quality of their imagination is shown in the selection of adverbs. Nope. Makes you sound like a dork. Floridly.

Hum. Not sure about the split infinitive issue. I recall that in Mother Tongue, Bill Bryson is scathing about people who criticise the use of splitties - I can't be sure but I think he may say it's an attempt to impose antiquated Latinate grammar on English.

Unfortunate Adverb Anecdote - I was at the Imperial War Museum/Shrine in Tokyo a few years ago and found a set of models of warships lost in the last major unpleasantness. The caption on one of them concluded 'The captain chose to engage three larger American vessels. The battle was lost and the ship sank bravely to the bottom of the sea.' A peculiar mental image if nothing else.

Great one.

I don't mean to be the language cops. I like people to boldly go just as much as the next fellow. But there are limits, and four or five sentences containing 'to actually...' is over mine.

In that film, somebody said, 'Each episode was more exciting than the next.'

Do they have no editors?

I'm afraid I think it's a question of fashion rather than good writing.

Hmm - I think not having enough faith that the bare bones of your own writing are doing enough to tell the story, and treating your reader like a dullard by beating them about the head with superfluous verbiage to make absolutely sure they get the point, is never really going to be in fashion. Other opinions are of course available (and there are valid exceptions to all rules).

I was going to say that by 2265 Starfleet has clearly decided splitties are acceptable usage after all.

Anyway, Dim, sounds like you had a bad case of people not thinking about what they were writing (Orwell would turn in his grave) and then it not being properly proofed. Can happen in the most reputable of places - I remember a major UK newspaper printing the obituary of a well-known TV producer which announced his contribution to the medium 'can not be under-estimated'. Correction was rushed out the following day, but by then it was too late...

Faar too late for the poor man's reputation, I imagine.

"Hmm - I think not having enough faith that the bare bones of your own writing are doing enough to tell the story, and treating your reader like a dullard by beating them about the head with superfluous verbiage to make absolutely sure they get the point, is never really going to be in fashion."

And I disagree that the demon known as Adverb is what causes all of the above.

To elaborate, I think it's an act of crass philistinism to warn against this or that category of word. There are only two kinds of words - the ones that work, and the ones that don't. And there's no short-cut for examining it case-by-case.

Well, you know, I've said all along that there are no absolute rules, but some very solid basic principles.

And one of the ones which shows up in style guides of all kinds is 'Omit unnecessary words.' Which, most (not all) of the time includes adverbs.

I think we're starting to chase each other around in circles here, but: except in special circumstances such as someone using sarcasm, all the information the viewer obtains from the adverb they should already have been able to obtain from elsewhere in the scene and dialogue.

If the writer goes ahead and sticks an adverb in on top of that, it's a kind of over-writing, which makes the reader aware of the writer's craft and thus boots them out of the story. The writer should be invisible, not popping into view all the time to make sure the reader's following the story.

Anyway, must dash. I'm on the roster to get Goliath his tea and there's a hell of a queue down the Ashkelon branch of Domino's.

'Eschew surplusage.' - Mark Twain.

Well, you say the writer should be invisible, but all the literary greats have a very identifiable style, as unique to them as their fingerprints. If people don't write like Charles Dickens these days, it doesn't mean he's a bad writer - it just means they're wearing something else on the cat-walks this season.

(As for James Joyce, nobody need worry about reading Molly Bloom's soliloquy. They can throw the book in the bin when they see the first word ends in "ly". )