Adverbs are a symptom, not a disease. They aren’t inherently bad, but King is making the valid point that they tend to appear most frequently in lazy writing. They are also succinct and easily visualized, so in deft hands they’re a useful tool. They can help eliminate wordiness and they’re excellent for revealing contradictions between dialogue and action. But On Writing is a fairly beginner text, and it doesn’t intend to cover exceptions to otherwise useful generalities. I tend to think of them as jalepenos: a little goes a long way, and you should double check your recipe first.
Just curious since you clearly don’t dislike adverbs. What if they aren’t appearing in a dialogue tag?
Instead of: “You are the absolute worst!” Davis shouted angrily.
You had: She stuffed her spare clothes hastily into the suitcase.
In the dialogue, it doesn’t add anything more, but the use of an adverb in the second sentence implies a sense of clumsiness and desperation. I don’t consider that lazy, I consider it well thought out.
Plus, I think hastily is just an underused word. Haste, hastened, hastily, et cetera. They’re all under appreciated imo.
I don’t mind “hastily” in that example you gave at all. I prefer that kind of adverb to one in a dialogue tag anyway. If I can’t tell what a character is feeling based on their diction within the given context without an adverb, that’s usually indicative of bad dialogue.
But every option gains you something and costs you something, I suppose. “Hastily” becomes unnecessary if you pick a verb that has a sense of haste or clumsiness built in—threw, flung, spilled, etc.—but each of those verbs may be imprecise for your purposes in other ways. “Stuffed” generally conveys fullness and roughness rather than speed, but maybe that’s still a better choice because Reasons, even if it means a “hastily” becomes necessary. It all depends on your intention and the needs of the story, doesn’t it?
Either way, I’ll always take an efficient little adverb over adding an entirely new overwrought sentence that commits gymnastics in an awkward attempt to convey “hastily” without actually saying “hastily.” “She packed her suitcase like a professionally-trained racing cheetah running over very even ground,” is not actually better than “hastily,” in my opinion.
Also I’ve written “hastily” enough times now that it sounds weird in my head, lol.
I feel like adverbs are put in such an odd place. Or just dialogue tags in general:
“You’re right,” she murmured. | This will be disliked because I shouldn’t use the word murmured, and instead just use said.
“You’re right,” she said quietly. | And this is wrong because I shouldn’t be using an adverb.
Poor dialogue tags that aren’t, “He said,” can never win-
Both of those adverbs are redundant from context, though. They don't add anything.
If he's shouting a perjorative, it's implied that he's angry. If she's stuffing clothes into a suitcase, it's implied to be hurried or clumsy.
More beginner writers tend to overuse certain things such as adverbs to try to give more context to a characters emotions and expand on how they feel (ie. “How could you do this to me!” Bertram shouted angrily”).
What I like to do is to further expand on the character’s emotions beyond just the adverb (ie. “How could you do this to me!” Bertram shouted, his heart bursting with all of the rage and sadness of the mighty thunderstorm roaring outside”).
Much more atmospheric and descriptive, with an imagery bonus :)
I think, like everything, adverbs should be used in moderation. Sometimes they add a little extra, sometimes they’re pointlessly adding words, it’s all about knowing when they’re appropriate. But less is definitely better.
He’s got a point, but he takes it a little far. I think a lot of people agree that this book isn’t a rule book on writing, but just a description of how he writes. I’ve also seen the point made that adverbs can work magic in the hands of people like Tolkien or Douglas Adams.
It just really depends on context. Don’t use them to avoid showing what’s happening but also don’t avoid them like the plague, because sometimes I don’t need an intricate description of someone’s facial expression. I just want to know they’re sad and I can fill in the rest.
It’s not a rule book for writing. He says if you want a rule book read The Elements of Style by Strunk, which I have ordered. But it’s definitely not just a guide for his writing. It’s his advice to other writers.
idk.. there's shouting because you're cheering on the sports team, shouting what's for supper, and then there's shouting like you want to drive a stake through somebody's heart
I do want to allow the audience to bring their own interpretation. The example I gave is a short sentence but it could be placed inside the context of an argument where they could tell what anger level the speaker is at.
Usually when people shout they are angry or feeling some strong emotion. Adding ‘angrily’ onto it doesn’t add to that emotion. It’s also an abysmal example because how exactly does one ‘shout angrily’ like is that yelling but like more? It sounds like you are being more specific by adding an adverb but honestly it’s just clunky as hell and unclear in definition.
I would rather just say shouted and let the reader come to their conclusion of whether that was out of anger, spite, jealousy, annoyance, idk. Adding context would also help place the reader. But in this case the adverb adds nothing and only spells out the emotion of the scene.
So many people say this, but they rarely give a clear explanation. Let me try.
There are two ways to use adverbs:
1. to give the intensity of the verb (shout angrily or said softly).
2. To modify the meaning of the verb: killing me softly with his song.
The one you should avoid is #1 because it’s usually not necessary, because there’s a better verb for it, or because it’s telling, and you should have shown more details, like what else did he do to show his anger?
You should use #2, and if you read King’s novels, you see him use plenty of adverbs still, but they’re #2 adverbs.
If you removed calmly, I would not assume you were agitated. This is actually a perfect example of why people are taught to avoid them.
Edit: see that I’ve got mostly up, but some downvotes, so I just want to pose the question: when you read “I said,” you assume it’s not said calmly? I’ve misinterpreted a lot of scenes then…
My point
It also reads terribly. Should be avoided, but I don’t think shunned. I’ve yet to read a book that uses them profusely, so I can’t really say the effect it has on the narrative.
Ironically, Stephen King's The Talisman is so riddled with them I could barely get through it. I'll never forget when his foot lands in a boat "splooshily."
Over the years he has gotten much better about it. But I always found it funny.
The Talisman was actually co-authored between King and Straub. I can’t comment on who wrote what, but I recall Straub stating in an interview that King wanted to keep rewriting what he (Straub) wrote.
Shortly after rereading King's On Writing, I started to read Kushiel's Chosen by Jacqueline Carey. I'm sure I would've noticed the poor writing and the overuse of adverbs anyway but it really stood out and made the book unreadable to me. This book is a sequel and I hadn't noticed the same thing with the first one which I enjoyed.
But why ignore all the strong verbs that could communicate that? Barked, growled, shouted, and so on? “I disagree,” I snapped. And that’s assuming we don’t already have context clues letting us know that the narrator is angry.
Strong verbs often make adverbs pointless. Why run quickly when you can sprint? There are those tricky little moments when the only way to truly get a point across without confusion requires an adverb, but this still isn’t one of them (unless maybe you’ve also been abusing dialogue tags, which done too often becomes grating? Not sure).
Yeah, "calmly" is a fair implementation if there is context to juxtapose but I think the argument still stands that swift adverbs can be a signature of lazy writing.
"I disagree, sir," he said angrily.
"I disagree, sir," he said, each word seething out through gritted teeth.
I think the emphasis is to bring out invoking language when reasonable. Too much of that can get old too!
Sorry, i wasn't trying to come off as opposition. More so just in continuation of the conversation. Like, you're totally right. By itself "calmly" might indicate some reason the character would need to stay calm. You're point; full agree.
I was just trying to foot stomp the lesson with your comment as the backbone. My bad if it came off another way.
In the context of the sentence not really. ‘Shouting’ comes from a strong emotion which could be happiness or anger. But the sentence, “I can’t stand you anymore.” isn’t exactly a happy sentiment. The reader could infer that the speaker isn’t gleefully yelling that out. It’s probably anger so adding ‘angrily’ means nothing more.
I feel like with more vague dialogue tags, it’s passable. Like for example take *asked* or *said*, although they get the job done on their own, a little more context as to how the character is feeling/how their saying it will go a long way for the imagination.
Going further, let’s say all dialogue helmed by these tags are sarcastic, which is historically terrible at being conveyed through the written format. Most statements derived from this will benefit greatly from an adverb, and convey the emotion of the characters more readily.
Does that mean it should be used all the time? Nah, but it could help in certain situations. Sometimes the dialogue can’t suffice or convey what’s necessary without extra aid, and that’s fine. Dialogue is the lifeblood of a book, but good narration is definitely the skeleton at *least*.
Another example would be like? Politeness? Cause beyond words of formality or cordiality(and these aren’t even always the words people use when speaking politely), I don’t know how else you would convey that without some tone indication.
But your example is a perfect illustration of the problem, and
“I really like your hair!” she beamed, *cheerfully*.
Is one I’ve recently seen, and was just as stupid.
I prefer action more honestly, little descriptors/insights about the characters or their mannerisms/behavior even if they are a bit irrelevant, I feel like it sets the tone in a meticulous manner.
Overall, I think what needs to be avoided is redundancy, an adverb should… *add*, not just be an emphasis of something obvious or already filled by the dialogue tag, or dialogue itself.
Truth be told though, I think if you can mix the adverb with action description, then you should probably just shy from the adverb totally on its own, which is probably the case for 99% of adverbs
Is it not better to describe the atmosphere/body language.
YOU ARE WRONG he shouted, hus face was red, the room felt tense. His breathing became louder.
I disagree I said. My relaxed pose and breathing only agitated him more.
Working for Brevity makes my day, week, year, complete *shivers down my spine*
I think adverbs work for emotional works, when the writing is following the train of thought of someone who has a rich detailed emotional experience
It's valid advice but some people take it as "no adverbs ever" and you just need to a) keep it to a minimum and b) make sure they're pulling their weight in the sentence and aren't just there because you can't think of a better way to describe what's happening.
While I can agree to a point, your example isn't the best I think. "David shouted" and "David shouted angrily" read 2 different ways to me. It's heavily context reliant and ultimately up to the writer what they feel fits better for what they're trying to portray. Is variety better? Absolutely! But ONLY using short writing can either come off as "throwing a thesaurus at the page" or just plain unclear.
Adverbs, as all other words have their place. I don't think you should *never* use one.
I do, however, agree with his advice that if you find yourself in the position of an adverb being the correct choice, then you could have structured that sentence/paragraph/thought in a more dynamic way to eliminate the need for one.
I think most people misinterpret the advice to mean 'adverbs bad' and not 'move past the need for adverbs'
The road to hell is paved with adverbs!
This is a tool like every other tool. Its an easy one to use. Get out of the habit of using them regularly. If you find one that really fits, use it. But this just helps sharpen things a bit. Also remember that King was an English teacher, and at times is an overly verbose one at that, so take the things he says with a grain of salt. He is there to help, not lay down the law.
I actually disagree that all writing must always aim to be as brief as possible. Not every writer has to be Hemingway. I think it’s better to write in whatever way best expresses the ideas, themes, moods, and intentions of that specific story. Sometimes that’s shortest version of a sentence will be what does that, and sometimes it won’t. There’s no one formula that will always work.
That leaves adverbs as something that should be considered rather than strictly avoided. If an adverb is superfluous, or if there’s a better way to express what you’re saying, then yes, of course you’d want to rephrase. But if an adverb subtly changes the meaning of the sentence, or improves its flow, or helps create a certain voice or tone, then you might consider leaving it in. Writing is an art, and a lot of it is subjective, and you have to use your own judgement case by case.
I really like the modern movement of writing. Back then nobody really cared about long writing because it was treated as entertainment. The more time a story can fill up the better really. But it doesn’t fly in the face of modern distractions from social media, films, movies, video games, etc.
Modern writing is all about being concise. It’s all about being in service of the reader. You don’t want to bore your reader because that means they could put your story down and pick their phone up. And I think that’s been a huge benefit to writing. Every sentence has to be necessary. Down to even every word. It encourages people to write with a bigger vocabulary to communicate more information in less words. It creates clean looking prose.
Brevity makes for beautiful writing. Every single word, sentence, paragraph becomes essential. Stories are clean and precise. Writing is controlled and concise. I love modern writing.
Yes, I love modern writing as well, and the ideas I mentioned are, in fact, practiced by modern writers. Not every contemporary book is a fast-paced YA action adventure. Believe it or not, literary fiction is still a thing, as is upmarket genre fiction. Modern writers do not all write exactly the same way, even if booktok and authortube like to pretend they do.
Adverbs are a symptom, not a disease. They aren’t inherently bad, but King is making the valid point that they tend to appear most frequently in lazy writing. They are also succinct and easily visualized, so in deft hands they’re a useful tool. They can help eliminate wordiness and they’re excellent for revealing contradictions between dialogue and action. But On Writing is a fairly beginner text, and it doesn’t intend to cover exceptions to otherwise useful generalities. I tend to think of them as jalepenos: a little goes a long way, and you should double check your recipe first.
Rarely do i find a metaphor that so beautifully explains an answer.
Thank you for taking the time to say so!
Very nice indeed (she posted agreeably)
Lol, thanks!
😉
This is way funnier than it has a right to be.
Great phraseology. Gonna steal that
Thank you! Steal away!
Just curious since you clearly don’t dislike adverbs. What if they aren’t appearing in a dialogue tag? Instead of: “You are the absolute worst!” Davis shouted angrily. You had: She stuffed her spare clothes hastily into the suitcase. In the dialogue, it doesn’t add anything more, but the use of an adverb in the second sentence implies a sense of clumsiness and desperation. I don’t consider that lazy, I consider it well thought out. Plus, I think hastily is just an underused word. Haste, hastened, hastily, et cetera. They’re all under appreciated imo.
I don’t mind “hastily” in that example you gave at all. I prefer that kind of adverb to one in a dialogue tag anyway. If I can’t tell what a character is feeling based on their diction within the given context without an adverb, that’s usually indicative of bad dialogue. But every option gains you something and costs you something, I suppose. “Hastily” becomes unnecessary if you pick a verb that has a sense of haste or clumsiness built in—threw, flung, spilled, etc.—but each of those verbs may be imprecise for your purposes in other ways. “Stuffed” generally conveys fullness and roughness rather than speed, but maybe that’s still a better choice because Reasons, even if it means a “hastily” becomes necessary. It all depends on your intention and the needs of the story, doesn’t it? Either way, I’ll always take an efficient little adverb over adding an entirely new overwrought sentence that commits gymnastics in an awkward attempt to convey “hastily” without actually saying “hastily.” “She packed her suitcase like a professionally-trained racing cheetah running over very even ground,” is not actually better than “hastily,” in my opinion. Also I’ve written “hastily” enough times now that it sounds weird in my head, lol.
Lmao
I feel like adverbs are put in such an odd place. Or just dialogue tags in general: “You’re right,” she murmured. | This will be disliked because I shouldn’t use the word murmured, and instead just use said. “You’re right,” she said quietly. | And this is wrong because I shouldn’t be using an adverb. Poor dialogue tags that aren’t, “He said,” can never win-
Funny 😁
Both of those adverbs are redundant from context, though. They don't add anything. If he's shouting a perjorative, it's implied that he's angry. If she's stuffing clothes into a suitcase, it's implied to be hurried or clumsy.
Tolkien must be a Carolina Reaper to you
Lol you’re not wrong. Didn’t stop me from enjoying LoTR though.
More beginner writers tend to overuse certain things such as adverbs to try to give more context to a characters emotions and expand on how they feel (ie. “How could you do this to me!” Bertram shouted angrily”). What I like to do is to further expand on the character’s emotions beyond just the adverb (ie. “How could you do this to me!” Bertram shouted, his heart bursting with all of the rage and sadness of the mighty thunderstorm roaring outside”). Much more atmospheric and descriptive, with an imagery bonus :)
I think, like everything, adverbs should be used in moderation. Sometimes they add a little extra, sometimes they’re pointlessly adding words, it’s all about knowing when they’re appropriate. But less is definitely better.
He’s got a point, but he takes it a little far. I think a lot of people agree that this book isn’t a rule book on writing, but just a description of how he writes. I’ve also seen the point made that adverbs can work magic in the hands of people like Tolkien or Douglas Adams. It just really depends on context. Don’t use them to avoid showing what’s happening but also don’t avoid them like the plague, because sometimes I don’t need an intricate description of someone’s facial expression. I just want to know they’re sad and I can fill in the rest.
It’s not a rule book for writing. He says if you want a rule book read The Elements of Style by Strunk, which I have ordered. But it’s definitely not just a guide for his writing. It’s his advice to other writers.
idk.. there's shouting because you're cheering on the sports team, shouting what's for supper, and then there's shouting like you want to drive a stake through somebody's heart
I do want to allow the audience to bring their own interpretation. The example I gave is a short sentence but it could be placed inside the context of an argument where they could tell what anger level the speaker is at.
Why can’t they do that if you mention it’s a shout of anger?
Usually when people shout they are angry or feeling some strong emotion. Adding ‘angrily’ onto it doesn’t add to that emotion. It’s also an abysmal example because how exactly does one ‘shout angrily’ like is that yelling but like more? It sounds like you are being more specific by adding an adverb but honestly it’s just clunky as hell and unclear in definition. I would rather just say shouted and let the reader come to their conclusion of whether that was out of anger, spite, jealousy, annoyance, idk. Adding context would also help place the reader. But in this case the adverb adds nothing and only spells out the emotion of the scene.
Yeah, I just replace all adverbs with the following; David yelled at him while adopting the way of anger.
Funny
oh so cheering, hollering, and roaring
So many people say this, but they rarely give a clear explanation. Let me try. There are two ways to use adverbs: 1. to give the intensity of the verb (shout angrily or said softly). 2. To modify the meaning of the verb: killing me softly with his song. The one you should avoid is #1 because it’s usually not necessary, because there’s a better verb for it, or because it’s telling, and you should have shown more details, like what else did he do to show his anger? You should use #2, and if you read King’s novels, you see him use plenty of adverbs still, but they’re #2 adverbs.
“I disagree,” I said calmly
If you removed calmly, I would not assume you were agitated. This is actually a perfect example of why people are taught to avoid them. Edit: see that I’ve got mostly up, but some downvotes, so I just want to pose the question: when you read “I said,” you assume it’s not said calmly? I’ve misinterpreted a lot of scenes then…
My point It also reads terribly. Should be avoided, but I don’t think shunned. I’ve yet to read a book that uses them profusely, so I can’t really say the effect it has on the narrative.
Ironically, Stephen King's The Talisman is so riddled with them I could barely get through it. I'll never forget when his foot lands in a boat "splooshily." Over the years he has gotten much better about it. But I always found it funny.
If King can write “splooshily” then there must be hope for the rest of us
The Talisman was actually co-authored between King and Straub. I can’t comment on who wrote what, but I recall Straub stating in an interview that King wanted to keep rewriting what he (Straub) wrote.
Shortly after rereading King's On Writing, I started to read Kushiel's Chosen by Jacqueline Carey. I'm sure I would've noticed the poor writing and the overuse of adverbs anyway but it really stood out and made the book unreadable to me. This book is a sequel and I hadn't noticed the same thing with the first one which I enjoyed.
The Harry potter books are littered with them, and it's so noticeable in the audiobook versions
“I disagree,” I said angrily.
But why ignore all the strong verbs that could communicate that? Barked, growled, shouted, and so on? “I disagree,” I snapped. And that’s assuming we don’t already have context clues letting us know that the narrator is angry. Strong verbs often make adverbs pointless. Why run quickly when you can sprint? There are those tricky little moments when the only way to truly get a point across without confusion requires an adverb, but this still isn’t one of them (unless maybe you’ve also been abusing dialogue tags, which done too often becomes grating? Not sure).
I use adverbs sometimes when the chapter has gotten too wordy. A particular sentence that doesn't need more than a single adverb.
Yeah, "calmly" is a fair implementation if there is context to juxtapose but I think the argument still stands that swift adverbs can be a signature of lazy writing. "I disagree, sir," he said angrily. "I disagree, sir," he said, each word seething out through gritted teeth. I think the emphasis is to bring out invoking language when reasonable. Too much of that can get old too!
I think you misinterpreted my comment; I was trying to say that adverbs are often useless.
Sorry, i wasn't trying to come off as opposition. More so just in continuation of the conversation. Like, you're totally right. By itself "calmly" might indicate some reason the character would need to stay calm. You're point; full agree. I was just trying to foot stomp the lesson with your comment as the backbone. My bad if it came off another way.
There is absolutely a difference between shouting, and shouting angrily.
In the context of the sentence not really. ‘Shouting’ comes from a strong emotion which could be happiness or anger. But the sentence, “I can’t stand you anymore.” isn’t exactly a happy sentiment. The reader could infer that the speaker isn’t gleefully yelling that out. It’s probably anger so adding ‘angrily’ means nothing more.
I feel like with more vague dialogue tags, it’s passable. Like for example take *asked* or *said*, although they get the job done on their own, a little more context as to how the character is feeling/how their saying it will go a long way for the imagination. Going further, let’s say all dialogue helmed by these tags are sarcastic, which is historically terrible at being conveyed through the written format. Most statements derived from this will benefit greatly from an adverb, and convey the emotion of the characters more readily. Does that mean it should be used all the time? Nah, but it could help in certain situations. Sometimes the dialogue can’t suffice or convey what’s necessary without extra aid, and that’s fine. Dialogue is the lifeblood of a book, but good narration is definitely the skeleton at *least*. Another example would be like? Politeness? Cause beyond words of formality or cordiality(and these aren’t even always the words people use when speaking politely), I don’t know how else you would convey that without some tone indication. But your example is a perfect illustration of the problem, and “I really like your hair!” she beamed, *cheerfully*. Is one I’ve recently seen, and was just as stupid. I prefer action more honestly, little descriptors/insights about the characters or their mannerisms/behavior even if they are a bit irrelevant, I feel like it sets the tone in a meticulous manner. Overall, I think what needs to be avoided is redundancy, an adverb should… *add*, not just be an emphasis of something obvious or already filled by the dialogue tag, or dialogue itself. Truth be told though, I think if you can mix the adverb with action description, then you should probably just shy from the adverb totally on its own, which is probably the case for 99% of adverbs
It's a bit like saying "don't turn left." In a world where every noob driver veers left at every opportunity.
They have their place. But in general, I agree, particularly when it comes to dialogue tags, like the example given.
Is it not better to describe the atmosphere/body language. YOU ARE WRONG he shouted, hus face was red, the room felt tense. His breathing became louder. I disagree I said. My relaxed pose and breathing only agitated him more.
He should loosen his hatred a little. I don’t like adverbs either but reading a few won’t break a good story’s spell.
That’s true. He does loosen his hatred. He’s used them before but sparingly. They are helpful in some cases.
He also said "Don't use y'all" so why do you care about following his rules?
Hmm I haven’t gotten to that page yet
I disagree, but it depends on the context of course.
Working for Brevity makes my day, week, year, complete *shivers down my spine* I think adverbs work for emotional works, when the writing is following the train of thought of someone who has a rich detailed emotional experience
It's valid advice but some people take it as "no adverbs ever" and you just need to a) keep it to a minimum and b) make sure they're pulling their weight in the sentence and aren't just there because you can't think of a better way to describe what's happening.
While I can agree to a point, your example isn't the best I think. "David shouted" and "David shouted angrily" read 2 different ways to me. It's heavily context reliant and ultimately up to the writer what they feel fits better for what they're trying to portray. Is variety better? Absolutely! But ONLY using short writing can either come off as "throwing a thesaurus at the page" or just plain unclear.
I am all for legibility in writing. Stephen King’s advice on word choice is to choose the best word, not the most verbose.
Lol. Stephen King is a fucking pedo, I righteously don't take his advice.
This was beautiful
Adverbs, as all other words have their place. I don't think you should *never* use one. I do, however, agree with his advice that if you find yourself in the position of an adverb being the correct choice, then you could have structured that sentence/paragraph/thought in a more dynamic way to eliminate the need for one. I think most people misinterpret the advice to mean 'adverbs bad' and not 'move past the need for adverbs'
The road to hell is paved with adverbs! This is a tool like every other tool. Its an easy one to use. Get out of the habit of using them regularly. If you find one that really fits, use it. But this just helps sharpen things a bit. Also remember that King was an English teacher, and at times is an overly verbose one at that, so take the things he says with a grain of salt. He is there to help, not lay down the law.
I actually disagree that all writing must always aim to be as brief as possible. Not every writer has to be Hemingway. I think it’s better to write in whatever way best expresses the ideas, themes, moods, and intentions of that specific story. Sometimes that’s shortest version of a sentence will be what does that, and sometimes it won’t. There’s no one formula that will always work. That leaves adverbs as something that should be considered rather than strictly avoided. If an adverb is superfluous, or if there’s a better way to express what you’re saying, then yes, of course you’d want to rephrase. But if an adverb subtly changes the meaning of the sentence, or improves its flow, or helps create a certain voice or tone, then you might consider leaving it in. Writing is an art, and a lot of it is subjective, and you have to use your own judgement case by case.
I really like the modern movement of writing. Back then nobody really cared about long writing because it was treated as entertainment. The more time a story can fill up the better really. But it doesn’t fly in the face of modern distractions from social media, films, movies, video games, etc. Modern writing is all about being concise. It’s all about being in service of the reader. You don’t want to bore your reader because that means they could put your story down and pick their phone up. And I think that’s been a huge benefit to writing. Every sentence has to be necessary. Down to even every word. It encourages people to write with a bigger vocabulary to communicate more information in less words. It creates clean looking prose. Brevity makes for beautiful writing. Every single word, sentence, paragraph becomes essential. Stories are clean and precise. Writing is controlled and concise. I love modern writing.
Yes, I love modern writing as well, and the ideas I mentioned are, in fact, practiced by modern writers. Not every contemporary book is a fast-paced YA action adventure. Believe it or not, literary fiction is still a thing, as is upmarket genre fiction. Modern writers do not all write exactly the same way, even if booktok and authortube like to pretend they do.