World, Writing, Wealth discussion

This opening paragraph has only 4 adjectives. How do you like it?

"I sell mayhem, scandal, murder, and doom. Oh, Jesus I do, I sell tragedy, vengeance, chaos, and fate. I sell the sufferings of the poor and the vanities of the rich. Children falling from windows, subway trains afire, rapists fleeing into the dark. I sell anger and redemption. I sell the muscled heroism of firemen and the wheezing greed of mob bosses. The stench of garbage, the rattle of gold. I sell black to white, white to black. To Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians and Muslims and transvestites and squatters on the Lower East Side. I sold John Gotti and O. J. Simpson and the bombers of the World Trade Center, and I’ll sell whoever else comes along next. I sell falsehood and what passes for truth and every gradation in between. I sell the newborn and the dead. I sell the wretched, magnificent city of New York back to its people. I sell newspapers."

(Manhattan Nocturne)
(The aforementioned paragraph was also quoted in https://janefriedman.com/common-entry...))

Here's the first four paragraphs of the opening to Storm Front. It only has 2 adverbs and 2 adjectives:

"I heard the mailman approach my office door, half an hour earlier than usual. He didn’t sound right. His footsteps more heavily, jauntily, and he whistled. A new guy. He whistled his way to my office door, then fell silent for a moment. Then he laughed.

Then he knocked.

I winced. My mail comes through the mail slot unless it’s registered. I get a really limited selection of registered mail, and it’s never good news. I got up out of my office chair and opened the door.

The new mailman, who looked like a basketball with arms and legs and a sunburned, balding head, was chuckling at the sign on the door glass. He glanced at me and hooked a thumb toward the sign. “You’re kidding, right?”

I love the first one the best since it matches my own writing, but the second one is more crisp and precise, to the point.

Elizabeth♛ Smart Girls Love Trashy Books♛ wrote: "I love the first one the best since it matches my own writing, but the second one is more crisp and precise, to the point."

then how about:

"Even the housekeeper knew about the terracotta bride before Siew Tsin did. Siew Tsin only found out when she ran down the stairs one day, a day like any other, and saw the girl coming in through the main doors in full bridal gear, her ornamented headdress tinkling.

Siew Tsin crouched on the stairs in her old same and felt the winds of change raise the hairs on the back of her neck. She had ten seconds before anyone looked at her, ten seconds to rearrange her face so that nobody would know what she felt."
(The Terracotta Bride)

or

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.

The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats. At one end of it a colored poster, too large for indoor display, had been tacked to the wall. It depicted simply an enormous face of a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black mustache and ruggedly handsome features. Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours. It was part of the economy drive in preparation for Hate Week. The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran."
(1984)

I like both, but the first one has an image in my mind I like better.

I prefer the first selection as it does not reek of boiled cabbage.

The first one in the first post is, in my opinion, more catching, more the "hook", except for me it is in danger of being overdone - what is going to follow it?

I disagree with your count on sample 2. Even apart from a cheat or so by calling two nouns, you still overdo it, not that I think that is bad. I get a bit sick of the war on poor little adverbs; what have they done to deserve such a plight?

Ian wrote: "T...

I get a bit sick of the war on poor little adverbs; what have they done to deserve such a plight? "

I agree. What's the big problem with adverbs?

When I worked on my novel where the story happens during the end of the Victorian era. I was surprised to find out British would be using adverbs more often than those speaking English in North America during that period. By doing some research, I learned that they preferred the use of adverbs because it would create an emotional distance between what one could speak out given social ethics and what one felt.

I believe such a linguistic approach is quite valuable and should allow for the 'resurrection' of the use of adverbs.

I wouldn't say it's the particular types of words that appeal or turn me off, it's how much of a balance between the descriptive and the plot an author achieves. I like the imagery and the descriptions for building a scene, a world, etc., but I get turned off if they take over and the plot goes nowhere.

One example: a couple years ago, I ready Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep followed by Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451. Admittedly I never ready either before and was curious over the hype for Fahrenheit. Essentially both books boil down to the same plot: a guy grows disenchanted with his job and has an existential crisis over it. PKD balances the imagery and world-building with the storyline in a way that kept me glued, but Bradbury overwhelmed his story with imagery, similes and metaphors to the point where I constantly tuned out and stopped caring because the story felt like an afterthought and went nowhere quickly.

Some people have complaints with world-building and info dumps in scifi, but frankly, I don't have a problem with either because it can be done and meshed with a story in ways that don't bring the whole book to a grinding halt. Adjectives, adverbs, or whatever other word use people complain about aren't the problem with books, it's authors who can't use their words in a way that keeps the language flowing, and the story moving.

I like to stick the main conflict in as early as possible.

Old Mother Hubbard's kitchen had been painted a lurid red - with her blood. The doors of her pantry were strewn in splinters across her floor. Her cupboards were bare.
Robbery?
It was days like this where Papa Bear, 'Sheriff' Papa Bear, wished he was still a simple oat farmer. But he wasn't, and someone was going to have pay for this crime, of that, he was certain.

I personally strive for simple writing that quickly evokes an image. Emotional engagement is not evoked by the words used, but by the sequence of images presented.

I.e. It's the narrative structure that does the work. The key idea is to make sure the words do not get in the way of the telling of the story.

It's the basic 'show, don't tell' issue. One has to decide when and how much hiking he imposes upon his reader.

I enjoy James Lee Burke, and his descriptions have lots of adjectives. Can't really do description without them.

Scout wrote: "I enjoy James Lee Burke, and his descriptions have lots of adjectives. Can't really do description without them."

That suggests that it is really a question of style. As authors, we are all trying to tell a story. There is no "One True Way" to do it.

My thinking is that style is driven by (in no particular order) the subject matter, genre, the author's craft maturity and the author's natural voice.

My view is an author has to show a voice. Different authors have different voices, assuming they have one at all. Some will obviously be more descriptive. Nothing wrong with that. Me, I am a minimalist as far as descriptions go, but I don't expect everyone to like that.

Hi Ian, kinda like me. At least, that's how I see myself.

Hi Graeme. Good to know I'm not alone.

Adverbs are too often a failure to find a better construction in a sentence; definately best avoided m'thinks. Fist example, "more heavily" Ugh! And what about "in her old same"? Shorthand writing, can't be bothered to construct adjectives descriptively.

Just because you can construct dreadful phrases that contain adverbs does not mean adverbs are bad; it means you are when you do it. Try rewriting that sentence without adverbs.

"His footsepts were heavier and jauntier and he whistled."

I meant the sentence: Just because you can construct dreadful phrases that contain adverbs does not mean adverbs are bad; it means you are when you do it.

A good one Ian; clever. Let me see;
" I mean the sentence; just because you can construct dreadful phrases using proper adjectives does not mean alternative, unacceptable non-adjectival words are bad; it means that you are bad if you do it."

Biased me thinks mine was better :-) Also, I was picking on adverbs. You picked "when", but missed "just".

It struck me the other night, I've been reading a few of the Oz books by L. Frank Baum, and he consistently violates a lot of the "rules" you see pop up on these kinds of forums...

For example, dialogue tags taken from one conversation in one chapter of The Patchwork Girl:

...remarked the Shaggy Man, who was pleased to know his effort was appreciated.

...said the Patchwork Girl earnestly,

...said the Shaggy Man, yawning.

...replied the Shaggy Man, yawning again.

...rejoined the Shaggy Man, sleepily.

...

the Patchwork Girl pouted earnestly. spat the Patchwork Girl earnestly. the Shaggy Man yawned. the Shaggy Man yawned again (so did the reader). drawled the Shaggy Man, sleepily......
All good fun, but probably unnecessary. I have no idea in what context these tags were made but if it was a conversation between only two characters then after identifiying the first speaker there would be no need to identify the order of speech (see blog Accents & Vernacular). I suspect though, that this author is using a style to emphasise the message a la Lewis Carroll.

Ian wrote; "Also, I was picking on adverbs. You missed "when" but missed "just"

Probably because 'Just' is an adjective; don't mind those. But 'when' is an acceptable adverb because there is no alternative.

Just is an adjective in uses such as "the just man", but according to my Concise Oxford, in the use I made it is considered an adverb. If you want it to be an adjective, what noun does it modify?

Yes, you are right. But I would prefer to avoid that one too.

Avoiding it is optional, but I think it adds something, which is the purpose of my putting it in there. Also, of course, to show adverbs have uses. In our first rewrite, you included the just, so I guess you thought it did too :-)

Ian wrote: "Just is an adjective in uses such as "the just man", but according to my Concise Oxford, in the use I made it is considered an adverb. If you want it to be an adjective, what noun does it modify?"
Well, doesn't just modify man, a noun, "behaving according to what is morally right and fair"?

Scout, I said, "in the use I made" which was:

Just because you can construct dreadful phrases that contain adverbs does not mean adverbs are bad; it means you are when you do it.

Where is the noun it modifies?

Well, we are getting pedantic. In the sentence "Just because you can..."
"Because you can construct...." is adequate and proper

Being pedantic, yes, but it doesn't quite have the same impact, and of course I was trying to show you can use adverbs without falling into the mire :-)

Ian wrote: "Scout, I said, "in the use I made" which was:

Just because you can construct dreadful phrases that contain adverbs does not mean adverbs are bad; it means you are when you do it.

Where is the nou..."
You're right. I didn't back up far enough. Isn't there an adverb thread?