The Same Old Song

 Every writer has heard the same advice a thousand times. Show don't tell. Avoid the passive voice. Eschew adverbs. Only use said in dialogue. Never use said in dialogue. Don't "info dump." Some of this advice is confusing or even contradictory. Why do passive voice and adverbs exist if we're not supposed to use them? As it turns out, most common writing advice oversimplifies the issue. Here's a clarification of the most common "writing rules" you'll hear.

"Show, don't tell."

Why Do People Say This? If you have ever written anything, you have heard this advice. Usually, it's sound: don't say "she was sad," show us her actions and body language. How do we know "she was sad"? Because she locked herself in her room and wouldn't talk to anyone.

The Flip Side: It's hard to get into your character's head if you can't tell readers what they are thinking. Sometimes a character's thoughts, beliefs, and emotions will show in their words, actions, and reactions, but if you're writing a particularly secretive or inhibited character, they might be very good at hiding how they truly feel from others. In these cases, a little skillful telling can't hurt.

A General Rule: Show the details a person would notice if they were in the room. Tell the parts that the reader needs to know and couldn't learn any other way.

"Avoid the passive voice."

Why Do People Say This? What's wrong with the passive voice? First, let's dive into active vs. passive voices. Voice and tense are not the same thing. "Tense" is based on whether you're writing "he creeps past the guards" or "he crept past the guard." It's all about when things happen. Voice doesn't comment on the past or present. It's all about to whom things happen. Let's look at two sentences:

Active: Mary threw the potato at Jack.

Passive 1: The potato was thrown at Jack by Mary.

Passive 2: Jack had a potato thrown at him by Mary.

These two sentences describe the same action, but from two different points of view. The active voice focuses on who is performing the action--Mary's chucking a potato at Jack. Maybe she has a good reason, maybe she doesn't, but we know that if Jack gets beaned with a potato, it's her fault. The passive voice is about the potato (the object of the sentence) or about Jack (the hapless victim of the potato wars). Grammatically, there is nothing wrong with passive sentence structures, but thematically, they serve an evil purpose. Watch what happens when I truncate the sentences:

Active: Mary threw the potato.

Passive 1: The potato was thrown at Jack.

Passive 2: Jack had a potato thrown at him.

In the active sentence, we leave poor Jack out of it, but Mary's still in trouble. In the passive sentence, she's off the hook and Jack has a nasty bruise on his noggin. That's why we're told not to use the passive voice: it has a "mistakes were made" effect that removes the blame from the guilty party.

The Flip Side: Sometimes the victim of the action is the most important person in the sentence. "The judge sentenced Larry to thirty years in jail for a crime he did not commit." This active sentence leads with the judge--but who cares about him? Poor Larry is going to jail! "Larry was sentenced to thirty years in jail for a crime he did not commit." This passive sentence showcases the most important person in the sentenced--Larry--and cuts out the fluff about the judge. The reader would assume a judge did the sentencing. (Tip: assume your readers are smart.)

A General Rule: Use the active voice to focus on the person performing the action--don't let them get away with their foul potato-y deeds. Use the passive voice when the victim is important, or the actor is irrelevant.

"Adverbs weaken writing."

Why Do People Say This? An adverb modifies a verb or adjective. Often, but not always, adverbs end in -ly. (Notable exceptions are very, just, often, always, today, tomorrow, and the like.) An adverb is a valid part of speech, and most writers--even those who decry them--use them. However, adverbs are considered "fluff" by many established writers--words that take up space without serving a purpose. Take a look at these two sentences:

"Jack ran quickly down the aisle."

"Mary shouted loudly at the cashier."

These are grammatically correct sentences, but they lack "oomph"--despite the action and drama they depict. One instinct might be to add words to the sentences: context and description. That could work. It could also result in a wordy or over-complicated sentence. Another solution is to remove the adverbs.

"Jack sprinted down the aisle."

"Mary shouted at the cashier."

The adverbs in those sentences weren't necessary. In Jack's sentence, "ran quickly" could be replaced with a single, strong verb. In Mary's sentence, "shouted" implied "loudly," so the adverb could simply be removed. Here's some homework: look over your writing and circle or highlight all the adverbs. Where are the adverbs intensifying a word without changing its meaning (whirled wildly, glared angrily)? Where can a weak verb/adverb combo be replaced with a single, strong verb (spoke softly = whispered, mumbled, or muttered)?

Other inherently weak adverbs to avoid: totally, basically, just, very, really, truly, probably, mostly.

The Flip Side: This doesn't mean you have to eliminate every adverb in your writing. In some cases, the adverb sits beside a strong verb and modifies it, rather than intensifying it. For example, "the boy smiled happily" is bad adverb usage. "Smiled" implies "happily." But in "the boy smiled sadly," the adverb gives the verb new meaning and couldn't be replaced with a single verb that contained the same meaning. (Although sometimes context will supply the meaning for you--if we know based on information from a previous sentence that the boy is crying, we don't need the adverb here.)

A General Rule: Don't use an adverb when a strong verb or previously provided context would suffice. Use an adverb when it modifies the meaning of a strong verb, rather than merely intensifying it.

Said

Why Do People Say This? In school, you may have heard not to use "said" in a piece of writing. There are so many lovely synonyms that mean much more specific things and make you sound more intelligent than plain ol' "said." Indeed, unwavering usage of "said"--particularly in a "he said/she said" back-and-forth conversation--gets tiresome. If the situation permits, it's acceptable to sigh, shout, assert, or opine. If it's clear who is speaking, because of a character's unique voice or an action beat, then one could even elide the dialogue tag altogether.

The Flip Side: On writing websites, you may have heard that real writers don't sigh, shout, assert, or opine. This is because "said" has an invisible quality. It's such a common word that readers don't notice it until it's been severely overused, and it doesn't draw attention away from the dialogue itself. Long or obscure dialogue tags such as "she asseverated" or "he chortled" are a writer's way of showing off. "Look at me, I know what this big fancy word means!" This makes the reader focus less on the writing and more on the writer--or worse, it makes them stop reading altogether as they hunt down a dictionary.

A General Rule: Use common, invisible dialogue tags such as "asked" or "said" in most situations--just makes sure you vary your sentence structures with action beats or the occasional lack of dialogue tags (if it's clear who's speaking) to keep your writing from getting tiresome. If you want to specify volume with "she whispered" or "he yelled," that's okay, but make sure the situation calls for it. And under no circumstances use "smiled" or other non-speaking words as dialogue tags. "'What a lovely day,' he smiled." How is he talking if he's smiling at the same time? It sounds unprofessional.

"Don't dump information."

Why Do People Say This? First, because exposition can be tiresome if not done well. Describe only what your reader needs to know in the moment, and if you must write a thorough description of a place or person, don't fall into the trap of "purple prose," aka verbose, overwrought description. Second, because "backstory dumps"--revealing all about your character's tragic past at the beginning of the story--takes a lot of the fun and mystery out of the story. Reveal details about your character slowly over the course of the book. In either case, ask yourself: what does the reader need to know right now for the story to make sense? Is there a way to convey that information without a passage of exposition?

The Flip Side: Sometimes exposition is absolutely necessary--the reader can't learn something any other way, perhaps because the characters already know it and wouldn't discuss it except to loop others in, or because it's an integral part of the worldbuilding and the characters take it for granted. If you decide exposition is your only choice, keep it concise. Ask yourself: what would someone notice if they were actually in the room/with the person? What details of the past are vital, and what can be left for later?

A General Rule: Exposition isn't evil if it's done well. Reveal details carefully, based on what readers need to know and what surprises you want to set up for later.

In every piece of oversimplified writing advice, there is a grain of truth. Next time you hear a "rule" that seems too absolute or broad, use your common sense and good taste to sort out when to conform and when to break the mold.