Each writer should figure out their own personal editing steps that work well for them. Because we all have different strengths and weaknesses, there's no general formula. Some will have to remove excess details, some (like me) are so lacking in visual detail that we devote an entire edit solely to adding it. My 55,000 word novel grew by 2,000-3,000 words when I did that.

Watch for uses of 'was', 'were', and 'had been.' Especially where used with an -ing verb. A lot of cases where those words are used, in beginning and professional writing alike, is actually passive voice ('he was running' instead of 'he ran'), past tense constructions (double past tense...i. e. 'he had been running'), or just lazy descriptions of details and/or action that could benefit from more interesting verbs. Those three verbs are about the most overused and boring words in every writer's vocabulary.

This advice sounds familiar. And is very good.

Keep a lookout for telling phrases where you should be showing. A common place these pop up are in dialogue tags. If you have to use adverbs like 'gruffly' to describe how someone is speaking, your dialogue itself is weak.

I actually disagree with this. I have seen far too many times when people tell me that changing the dialogue like this and removing the adverb (such as gruffly) works better and communicates the same thing, where I read the new thing and go "Actually, no, I definitely interpret those completely differently..."

I hope that wasn't excessively confusing...

I'm a bit of a rebel on this too, Arien. I say adverbs should generally be avoided, particularly in dialogue tags, and are way, way, way overused, but that they have their place. When sprinkled thoughtfully in things I read, they don't bother but rather help me.

Every single professional writer will tell you to remove the adverb. Especially 'sarcastically'. That's the worst one ever. If you're not good enough to give the dialogue the desired tone, nothing is going to make up for that.

Finally, there are myriads of better ways to describe how somebody is speaking other than using an adverb. You could say 'he said, his voice low and gruff.' Though it's still telling, in many cases it's much more interesting than an adverb. A very good and common technique is using body language in place of a dialogue tag to show the mood of the character.

“Put that down." He glared at the boy, thick eyebrows pulled into an angry V. “Come with me. This is no time to play games.”

I agree that such adverb use should generally be avoided. I don't agree with a blanket statement that it should never be needed.

There are difficulties, at times, such as the fact that it may be a character who just showed up, giving the reader no idea of how this person talks. Or perhaps someone is saying something surprising.

While variety can be useful, I see no way in which 'his voice low and gruff' is superior to 'gruffly'. And for your example here, with, of course, no context, I would take that as more angry than gruff.

Superior? Not only does it say that he said the words 'gruffly', it also tells you his voice was low, which adds a slightly different element to the tone than just saying his voice was gruff. Gruff is surly, angry, brusque. Curt. Low adds a certain quietly menacing tone. Aside from that, there's also the fact that you have one less adverb. There are so many adverbs in poor writing that they've become a mark of poor writing. If you use enough of them for them to be noticed, it's going to annoy smart readers.

And never, ever, ever, EVER use an adverb on a speaking verb. First, it is even more likely that the dialogue needs to be fixed, and secondly, if all else fails, just break the "only use said" rule and make it "snapped" or whatever. Breaking a rule and using one word is better than breaking a rules and using two words.

*still disagrees* There are definitely times to use adverbs. Rare, perhaps, but there are times. Yes, when a single word will do, go with that, but there isn't always a single word that will work. This also assumes that you don't want to deliberately use a weaker phrasing, in order to shift what the reader notices. I'm curious as to how you would make this one not use an adverb: “Why, you rotten, sneaking, low-down scoundrel,” she said appreciatively.

I am quite sure that I use too many adverbs on speaking at the moment, but there are reasons for that, and I'm not sure I should fix that until later, since I tend to have trouble with characters anyway, and it helps me form the character in my mind, and flows better while writing. On the other hand, with a quick look over my most recent writing, I didn't use nearly so many as I expected: one in one thousand words at the beginning, at least. Modifying speaking verbs, that is. I'm not sure about other adverbs, but I don't use those so much as I'd thought, either. I use more non-said speaking verbs than some people like, but I actually prefer that, as long as it isn't overdone, in books I read.

But as to rules such as don't use adverbs (on said, or at all) or even only use said, well, I disagree with calling them rules, and definitely disagree with using the word 'never' in there. But I think that might be a little off-topic...

OK, another issue here. If I came across "he said, his voice low and gruff," it would annoy me just as much as "he said gruffly." Partly because you've added weak structure to the mix, but mostly because these are generic, cliched words. Don't tell me his voice was low and gruff. Tell me how it rumbled up from somewhere in his gut.

I've seen new writers try - ahem, I mean when I was a new writer I tried - to fix this by using fifty scent words from the thesaurus. That makes it worse, calling attention to a word that shouldn't have it and probably messing with your style.

Thirdly, mods, are we in trouble for using language or not or what?

First, I'd like to read about that character. Secondly,

"Why you rotten, sneaking, low-down scoundrel." She pecked his cheek.

Obviously how I would fix that sentence depends on context and character relationships - which would make the sentence all that more connected to the rest of the story.

Thirdly, mods, are we in trouble for using language or not or what?

So if you're struggling with something these rules cover, why not follow them strictly, at the very least for now? Either you will decide you writing is better w/o adverbs or you'll fix your "too many adverbs problem" and have better command of writing the way you want to.

It's interesting you've mentioned a style change in what you like to read, because I was going to suggest you look at books you want to emulate and count their adverbs. Style gets all sorts of leeway, but those with good style have merely learned how to break the rules.

Yet you just admitted you would benefit from following these rules strictly. Sure, they're not REALLY rules, which is where the whole "only those who use the rules can break them" attitude comes in. Get good at what you do, using rules. Then get better, because you've learned when they are to be broken then - and only then.

Now there are all sort of psychological reasons to insist on calling them rules and using never, but that's off topic too. XD

Well, I have a tendency to not think about things like that when I write... And I have trouble with doing things in a way that doesn't seem 'right' just for the practice or whatever. It's hard, and makes my already often slow writing even slower, and the more I think about my writing consciously, the more danger I'm in of getting stopped and then stuck. I should try to use adverbs less, though, I suppose... *sigh* I'll just have to actually remember to think about it when I finally have time to write again. (Wait, that will be tomorrow. Maybe I will remember!)

What is the definition of a draft?