# Overcoming Adverbs



## Kyle R (Oct 23, 2013)

Here's another topic to fan the discussion fire. Adverbs. The proverbial sin of writers everywhere! (Well, not really, but I feel like being dramatic this morning.) Here's an interesting article I came across. What do you think of Janice's advice? Enjoy! :encouragement:
*
---

Overcoming Adversity Through Adverbs
*_by Janice Hardy_

You've no doubt heard it over and over: never use adverbs in your writing. Sound advice, but if you follow it to the extreme, you could miss out on their very useful properties.

As bad a rep as adverbs have, they're actually pretty handy during a first draft. They allow you to jot down how a character feels or how they say something without losing your momentum. You can keep writing, and go back and revise later.

They're wonderfully helpful red flags during revisions that point out "here's where you have a great opportunity to flesh out what your character is doing." They're like your brain telling you about the emotional state of your character, and pointing out a place you might want to examine further.

​I walked cautiously across the room to the back door.​
Here, cautiously is doing the explaining, telling that this person is nervous in some way. You could find another word for "walked cautiously" like tiptoed, or sneaked, or slipped, or whatever, but that only solves the lazy adverb problem. It doesn't do anything to capitalize on what your subconscious might be telling you. Instead, try looking deeper and showing someone _being _cautious in a way that helps characterize and further develop the scene.

​I scanned the room, checking for tripwires, pressure plates, anything that looked like it might be a trap. Looked clear. I darted for the door.​
Is it longer than the first adverb sentence? Sure, but it's more interesting and tells you a lot more about what's going on. Which probably saves you words somewhere else. Especially since there's a decent chance the description in that scene might be a little flat. If you had a better sense of the character's emotional state, you probably wouldn't have used the adverb in the first place.

Look at your adverbs and what those sentences are describing overall, and then think about other ways to get that idea across. It's not always about replacing it with a stronger word, though that certainly is an option. Sometimes those adverbs are pinpointing an important aspect that would really make the section sing if you fleshed it out.

Look at where you use adverbs and identify what you're trying to do with them. They're telling the reader what's going on, but if what's in your head doesn't make it to the page, you can wind up with a reader/writer disconnect.

​"That's just wrong," Bob said angrily.

​Here, the adverb is used to denote anger, but it's a lazy word because it makes the reader have to decide what Bob's anger looks like and how he acts when he's angry. And readers might get it wrong. One reader might think Bob screams and yells, another might think he gets real quiet and dangerous. But if _you _think Bob cracks jokes so he doesn't blow up, what you write for him won't connect right with the reader, because they'll have different ideas in their minds and read the words in that context.

I'd always thought of adverbs as placeholder words, but they can also play helpful role in editing. They're not the enemy, they're just your subconscious telling you to, "do more here."​


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 23, 2013)

I boldly read your comments.  I dispassionately set down my latte' and then feverishly pulled the keyboard toward me.  At first, I was decidedly against your position.  I think you foolishly pointed out a condition that I unconsciously support.

Can I steadfastly end this cycle?  Can I assertively make improvements in my writing.  Obviously I don't know.  But I shall aggressively begin.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 23, 2013)

I think it's the old case of mimesis/diegesis(unmediated/mediated narration, or 'show/tell' at it's most basic); adverbs reveal the narrator, or some other voice, because they are not matters of fact -they are judgments. They should therefore be used, or not used, with that effect in mind.

They are not intrinsically bad or useless and anyone who says they are is being lexist (I invented that word - discriminating against certain words) and won't be able to use them to their true potential. It's not their fault they constantly muck up our prose - it's ours!


----------



## Gumby (Oct 23, 2013)

I think it's pretty sound advice, Kyle. I like the idea of looking at adverbs as a opportunity to flesh out your character and the story.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 23, 2013)

Forgot to respond to the article: I like the idea of using them as flags for possible expansion (echoes of Chuck's 'unpacking' of sentences). Through expanding on them you may find that the adverb itself is the most useful word to use; however you conclude your editing, you'll be slightly wiser on how to use adverbs more effectively.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 23, 2013)

Yes, I agree that some adverbs can be used as post-it notes for future revision.  

There are a second group of adverbs I find in my writing that are just thrown there through sheer (bad) habit. - They don't add anything. They don't need replacing. They just need removing!


Loving these Kyle info-threads! :thumbr:


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 23, 2013)

In another post a (presumably) more experienced writer ripped me on my critique due to the fact that I questioned the use of adverbs. Then they stated that I must be the writer's equivalent of a virgin whose discovery of Stephen King's "On Writing" was like finding Playboy Magazines under his father's bureau. (Ok, they didn't really say that but it was such a cute little metaphor, I couldn't resist)

I did read Mr. King's diatribe on the art and I have to say, it may be the last thing I ever read by the man - mostly because of his "do what I say, not what I do" position. I decided to revisit his Magnus Opus "The Stand" and it is rife with adverbs. Rank with them actually. 

Apparently, after King's initial success, he decided he could manage his own editting chores - a huge error IMHO. 

But King isn't the only adverb hunter out there. 
I for one dislike the usage of 'some' adverbs in 'some' cases. Particularly within the dialogue tag - "........" he said jauntily. I'm bloody gagging here. If the words being quoted aren't strong enough to express "how" they were said, then no adverb can save the day. IMHO and that of others, Mr. King among them. 
As a general rule however, I never give any extra info in the dialogue tag with the exception of a possible action. (never meaning I break my own rule about .0005% of the time) 

Where I don't mind adverbs is in two areas. 1. Adverbs of time or of frequency. Alway to Never and everything in between. Kind of unavoidable and very useful vocabulary. Of course instead of saying usually you could say "he used to...." I word search these words at the end of the process (first draft) just in case they got overused.

IMHO adverbs are of no harm in conjunction with a verb like "to be". No idea why I feel that way except that with non-action verbs they don't seem to be taking the place of a better word choice. 
Which of these sounds redundant and poorly thought out to you?

The dog lunged abruptly toward the street.
I was abruptly awakened by the sound of my alarm. 

You can awaken little by little - as such, abruptly isn't redundant. You can ONLY lung abruptly - there is no need for the word. 

Note: King claims that the real threat are they "LY" adverbs. There are other adverbs just as cheesy and cliche that don't end in "LY." 
Can some writers get away with using adverbs - clearly. As the proverb goes, "where there's smoke, there's fire." Lot of talk about the adverb. Seems to me there must be something to consider. I use them with careful consideration.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Sam (Oct 23, 2013)

You said "remove all adverbs" and went on to pontificate about how Cormac McCarthy and Pulitzer-Prize-winning authors didn't use adverbs, in response to which I posted excerpts of their work which demonstrably proved that they did; because the advice about adverbs is the hobby-horse of some obscure writer (King was not the first to propagate the notion) who for some reason or other decided that those pesky adverbs were an annoyance. It's not even given consideration by serious writers. If you want me to continue proving that point, I'll post excerpts of the last ten novels to win the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize for literature, all of which will contain adverbs. I say that with complete and unwavering certainty, and I'm game if you are.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 23, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Here, the adverb is used to denote anger, but it's a lazy word because it makes the reader have to decide what Bob's anger looks like and how he acts when he's angry. And readers might get it wrong. One reader might think Bob screams and yells, another might think he gets real quiet and dangerous. But if _you _think Bob cracks jokes so he doesn't blow up, what you write for him won't connect right with the reader, because they'll have different ideas in their minds and read the words in that context.



What a remarkable collision of different writing philosophies.  First of all, why do we care if the reader "gets it wrong"? I've read many guides that suggest it's the writer's job to write, and it's the reader's job to interpret.  They may come to a different conclusion than you intended, and _that's okay_.

But let's say this article is correct, and it's crucial that the reader knows how Bob acts when he's angry.  How could we convey this?

"That's just wrong," Bob said angrily. <- adverb; open-ended
"That's just wrong!" Bob screamed. <- "said" verb, but unambiguous
"You can't use a spork to kill my friend when a knife would work so much better.  That's just wrong."  Bob always cracked jokes when he was angry. <- telling, but obvious what's going on
The rage built within Bob, and he felt his face heat up.  Eyebrows furrowed, voice low, he said, "That's just wrong." <- "unpacked" showing; painfully wordy

I really don't understand the hate for adverbs or "said" words.  Both convey in an instant what would otherwise take sentences to describe adequately.  If I say "Bob hissed," "Bob snapped," "Bob shouted," "Bob joked," "Bob grumbled," "Bob said quietly," "Bob said slowly," "Bob said furiously," or anything else, I'm conveying a completely different situation and state of mind for each set of just one or two words.  And really, what's the quantitative difference between "Voice low, Bob said" and "Bob whispered"?

The author suggests that adverbs are a good way to knock out a draft without losing momentum, but they neglect to mention that adverbs also maintain momentum for the reader.  Not everyone wants to read a paragraph describing a character's emotions every time that character speaks.  Not everyone cares about the detailed history behind a character's actions.

In short, while you can certainly make a story more descriptive by taking out adverbs, that's hardly the point of storytelling.  The reader cares about two things: what happens, and how it changes things.  Excess description just gets in the way.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 23, 2013)

Sam said:


> You said "remove all adverbs" and went on to pontificate about how Cormac McCarthy and Pulitzer-Prize-winning authors didn't use adverbs, in response to which I posted excerpts of their work which demonstrably proved that they did; because the advice about adverbs is the hobby-horse of some obscure writer (King was not the first to propagate the notion) who for some reason or other decided that those pesky adverbs were an annoyance. It's not even given consideration by serious writers. If you want me to continue proving that point, I'll post excerpts of the last ten novels to win the Pulitzer and the Nobel Prize for literature, all of which will contain adverbs. I say that with complete and unwavering certainty, and I'm game if you are.



Yes, my previous post was a massive overstatement and generalization.  The silly metaphor in this post was a way of lightening the topic and conceding that obvious point.


DGB


----------



## Terry D (Oct 23, 2013)

I think the point that usually gets lost in these discussions of 'adverb hunting' is that it is never the intent of the person (let's use King as an example) who advocates killing adverbs for the people reading his advice to actually eliminate every adverb--even the -ly- ones. The people reading his advice are not accomplished writers; they are hobbyists, and new writers. Writers who are prone to taking shortcuts and believing that almost every noun and verd need a modifier to make them impressive. Of course great writers use adverbs and adjectives, they just use them more appropriately than do bad writers.

I think the advice in the article Kyle posted is good. Let your adverbs be a clue to places where you have the opportunity to be more precise, or concise.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Oct 23, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I've read many guides that suggest it's the writer's job to write, and it's the reader's job to interpret. They may come to a different conclusion than you intended, and _that's okay_.
> 
> I really don't understand the hate for adverbs or "said" words. Both convey in an instant what would otherwise take sentences to describe adequately. If I say "Bob hissed," "Bob snapped," "Bob shouted," "Bob joked," "Bob grumbled," "Bob said quietly," "Bob said slowly," "Bob said furiously," or anything else, I'm conveying a completely different situation and state of mind for each set of just one or two words. And really, what's the quantitative difference between "Voice low, Bob said" and "Bob whispered"?
> 
> Excess description just gets in the way.



If you wrote "Bob hissed, snapped,"  shouted, joked, grumbled, said quietly,  said slowly, or said furiously and / or extras other than say, tell, ask and answer - (more than 'occassionally' I'm out of here as are the vast majority of readers.  IMHO. All that superfluous garble and gobbledeegoo after the quotation marks and the name just lays flat.  The why of it you answered for yourself - Excess description just gets in the way - and is an indication that something else, the writing per se, needs to be propped up.  

Obviously, it's a matter of taste and style.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 23, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:
			
		

> In short, while you can certainly make a story more descriptive by taking out adverbs, that's hardly the point of storytelling. The reader cares about two things: what happens, and how it changes things. Excess description just gets in the way.



I agree with your main point, Gamer. Sometimes people can unpack things to the point of slowing down the reading. But I believe that falls into the realm of _pacing_, and the writer's discretion. As far as adverbs go, though, I have a few talking points.



Gamer_2k4 said:


> And really, what's the quantitative difference between "Voice low, Bob said" and "Bob whispered"?



Neither of those contain adverbs. The first one involves an adjective ("low"). The second one is just a normal verb ("whispered").

In this situation, you'd have to add something like:

_His voice low, Bob *angrily *said, "That's just wrong."

_or

_"That's just wrong," Bob whispered *angrily*.

_I agree that adverbs can work like verbal slipstreams—tagging along behind a verb (sometimes in front), ushering the reader along without the need to decipher a meaning.

I consider them shortcuts, both for the writer, and the reader. 

In the bad-case scenarios, adverbs can: 

*
A) Beat the reader over the head with the obvious*
_John slammed his fist against the table. His eyes were wild, his jaw clenched. "I am ticked off!" he shouted *angrily*._​
In this case, the context makes it obvious how John is shouting. The adverb isn't really needed.


*B) Skim over action without providing much substance to the reader*
_Kerrie moved *cautiously* through the building. Once outside, she headed for the parking lot. . ._​
What did her cautious moving look like? Did she crouch beneath the windows? Did she pause at each doorway and listen for footsteps? Did she press against the walls and synchronize her movements with the slow rotation of the security camera? And what exactly was she being cautious _of_? Zombies? Wild tigers? Gun-toting mercenaries? 


*C) Be overly vague, inhibiting reader comprehension*
_Adam leapt *awkwardly* from the roof. He landed *painfully *on the gutter of the adjacent building._​
How was his leap awkward? Did he jump off one foot and spin around in the air? Did he do a backflip? Did he slip on a banana peel? And what hurt? Did he hurt his head? His tailbone? His pride?

Expanding on this, a common answer would be to describe the things that the adverb is being unclear about. Taking the above example, one approach would be:
_Adam cartwheeled off the roof and tumbled *awkwardly* through the air, his body spinning like a pinwheel. His hip *painfully* broke his fall, smashing into the gutter of the adjacent building. A hot current streaked down his right leg. He yelled out, scattering a cluster of pigeons. Broken. His femur was broken.
_​
After expanding on the adverbs, suddenly, they are no longer needed. The prose works fine without them, and it gives the reader a better understanding, and a fuller immersion, into the story. (In my opinion.)

The end result, comparing the passage using adverbs, and the passage without them:

Relying on adverbs: 
_Adam leapt awkwardly from the roof. He landed painfully on the gutter of the adjacent building._​
"Unpacking" the adverbs: _
Adam cartwheeled off the roof and tumbled through the air, his body spinning like a pinwheel. His hip broke his fall, smashing into the gutter of the adjacent building. A hot current streaked down his right leg and he yelled out, scattering a cluster of pigeons. Broken. His femur was broken.
_​
There's definitely more description in the latter example. But would you say it makes the scene more vivid? That it aides reader involvement?


----------



## Sintalion (Oct 23, 2013)

I like adverbs in moderation.

My rule of thumb is that an adverb must bring something new to the story (and this extends to most everything else I write, not just adverbs). As a reader, redundancy is one of my least favorite things. For example, if Bob's dialogue is angry and his actions are angry then I won't attach an adverb unless it tells me something new about his anger.

Just as an aside, it's the -ly adverbs that tend to get a bad rap. I don't hear much complaining about flat adverbs and the like.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 23, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> A) Beat the reader over the head with the obvious
> 
> John slammed his fist against the table. His eyes were wild, his jaw clenched. "I am ticked off!" he shouted *angrily*.
> 
> In this case, the context makes it obvious how John is shouting. The adverb isn't really needed.



Agreed.



KyleColorado said:


> B) Skim over action without providing much substance to the reader
> 
> Kerrie moved *cautiously* through the building. Once outside, she headed for the parking lot. . .
> 
> What did her cautious moving look like? Did she crouch beneath the windows? Did she pause at each doorway and listen for footsteps? Did she press against the walls and synchronize her movements with the slow rotation of the security camera? And what exactly was she being cautious _of_? Zombies? Wild tigers? Gun-toting mercenaries?



I think here we simply have a fundamental difference in what we consider important to the story.  I would probably add a single phrase of explanation, but no more.

_Kerrie moved cautiously through the building, wary of patrolling guards.  Once outside..._

or

_Kerrie moved cautiously through the building, avoiding the many security cameras.  Once outside..._

or

_Kerrie moved cautiously through the building, taking care to remain silent.  Once outside..._

As long as you give the reader one reason for Kerrie to be cautious, the reader can work out for himself what that behavior entails.  If I'm told there are patrolling guards, I can imagine her hiding behind corners as they pass, then dashing to the next point of cover.  If it's security cameras, I can picture her looking about alertly, listening for a telltale beep (yes, all stealth is exactly like _Splinter Cell_), and avoiding the cameras' field of view.  If she's trying to be quiet, she'd be tiptoeing, slowly opening doors, and controller her breathing.

But that's all just me! That's what I think cautious movement is like, but someone else might envision it completely differently.  Why spell things out for the reader when they're perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions?



KyleColorado said:


> C) Be overly vague, inhibiting reader comprehension
> 
> Adam leapt *awkwardly* from the roof. He landed *painfully *on the gutter of the adjacent building.
> 
> ...



As before, this is something I'd leave to the reader.  When I read "leaped awkwardly," I think of him trying to push off the edge of the roof but having a foot slip, or the edge crumble, or even just him having to correct a mistimed stride.  But as a reader, I only take the time to consider the situation that the book suggests.  If I'm told Adam jumped awkwardly, that's all the thought I'll give it, and that's fine.  If the author didn't consider the specifics to be important, why should I?



KyleColorado said:


> The end result, comparing the passage using adverbs, and the passage without them:
> 
> Relying on adverbs: Adam leapt awkwardly from the roof. He landed painfully on the gutter of the adjacent building.
> 
> ...



I would say just the opposite, that it distances the reader.  We're probably looking at a chase scene, and chases should be quick.  Description just bogs down the pace.  Now, it's true that in this case, we're looking at the chase's end, where things would naturally slow down (especially due to the injury).  However, that injury is going to be in there either way if it's important to the story, since there's a huge difference between landing painfully and crippling yourself.  If Adam is walking on crutches for the rest of the story, by all means describe the injury.  If we never see him again, "landed painfully" is probably good enough.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 23, 2013)

After reading King's advice in On Writing, I quit using adverbs, even though he's unable--for whatever reason--to heed his own advice. I haven't looked back, and haven't written an adverb in even a first draft since. No harm, no foul, and I'm not missing out on anything.


----------



## Smith (Oct 23, 2013)

I think it's author discretion. We all have our own unique writing styles, perhaps some inspired and others completely unique. I'm not very experienced but I do use adverbs here or there. I took this advice (and thread in general) as more of a "be wary of adverbs, don't be too repetitive, doesn't hurt to beautifully describe something sometimes" rather than "go Tolkien on that mountain and describe it for 5 pages without a single adverb".


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 23, 2013)

Eh, you can "beautifully describe something" without adverbs, and probably in fewer words than you think. The key is to practice.

Reading JonM's story Clean (though it seems he's deleted it) is a great example of how to write beautiful prose as sharp and clean as a new hypodermic needle.


----------



## Smith (Oct 23, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Eh, you can "beautifully describe something" without adverbs, and probably in fewer words than you think. The key is to practice.
> 
> Reading JonM's story Clean (though it seems he's deleted it) is a great example of how to write beautiful prose as sharp and clean as a new hypodermic needle.



For sure.


----------



## alanmt (Oct 23, 2013)

Adverbs are not the devil.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 23, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> as *sharp*...as a new hypodermic needle.



FE, you know how easily I bruise!

You had a chance to make a simile on keenness, and you didn't choose a knife edge.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 23, 2013)

alanmt said:


> Adverbs are not the devil.



Depends who you ask. 



The Tourist said:


> FE, you know how easily I bruise!
> 
> You had a chance to make a simile on keenness, and you didn't choose a knife edge.



Clean was a story about a heroin addict. I tied the simile to the theme.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 23, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Clean was a story about a heroin addict. I tied the simile to the theme.



For the purposes of literary cohesiveness, I concur.

But *sigh* I'd have rather that you'd broken my leg.  In time that would have healed.  But a blow to my fragile heart will be a stripe I will bear forever...


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 24, 2013)

FleshEater said:
			
		

> I haven't looked back, and haven't written an adverb in even a first draft since. No harm, no foul, and I'm not missing out on anything.



I'm not so sure about denying myself any part of the empire that is the written word. - I can't comprehend why someone would make a decision to say "I'll never use an adverb again," but I do feel the need to understand why, in case the concept has merit.

I am sure it is not an arbitrary decision to make, nor based on literary purism, however no alternate description has been offered.

From a reader's perspective (and that is all I had until just over three years ago) I am often irritated with prose that rambles at a point when the pace should have picked up. - Adverbs can punch out a sentence, but I'd agree that if an alternative form can be found that does not add verbosity then the adverb should be dismissed. - BUT that is not always the case, is it? - Isn't eliminating EVERY adverb more about the writer, and less about the reader, or am I missing something?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 24, 2013)

Personally I think this is an example of "jungle voodoo."  That being, one guy eradicated all adverbs from his story, his pillow talk, his grocery list and underwear labels and wound up selling a book.  Now he thinks all adverbs were the thing that was holding him back.

Yikes, you have grown men painting their pot guts purple so field goal kickers can hit from the fifty.  One Sunday some guy somewhere ran out of purple paint and his team lost by three.  Now he paint rollers his flab every weekend, just in case.

Jungle voodoo.  I haven't washed my colors since I got them--in 1969.  I haven't been attacked by a sabertoothed tiger, so why mess with success?


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 24, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> I'm not so sure about denying myself any part of the empire that is the written word. - I can't comprehend why someone would make a decision to say "I'll never use an adverb again," but I do feel the need to understand why, in case the concept has merit.
> 
> I am sure it is not an arbitrary decision to make, nor based on literary purism, however no alternate description has been offered.
> 
> From a reader's perspective (and that is all I had until just over three years ago) I am often irritated with prose that rambles at a point when the pace should have picked up. - Adverbs can punch out a sentence, but I'd agree that if an alternative form can be found that does not add verbosity then the adverb should be dismissed. - BUT that is not always the case, is it? - Isn't eliminating EVERY adverb more about the writer, and less about the reader, or am I missing something?



I wouldn't call it denying at all. They really add nothing. However, if you don't share the same view as I do, you won't really understand, and there have been enough threads on the matter that I know converting someone usually doesn't happen.

And no, I don't feel this makes it more about the writer, because 95% of the reading population wouldn't even notice a lack of adverbs unless they were told to look for it.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 24, 2013)

I'll try and find these threads you've mentioned. - I am sure you understand it was a quest for knowledge, and not a desire for confrontation. (I am lower on the learning curve than most here.)


----------



## Sam (Oct 24, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> 95% of the reading population wouldn't even notice a lack of adverbs unless they were told to look for it.



Which makes removing them the most ridiculous exercise in futility there is.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 24, 2013)

Any way this link can be resurrected, or is it gone forever? 

http://www.writingforums.com/writing-discussion/126079-those-who-despise-adverbs.html

This is the most recent live adverb discussion link I could find: http://www.writingforums.com/threads/126745-Adverbs?highlight=adverb


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 24, 2013)

Sam said:


> Which makes removing them the most ridiculous exercise in futility there is.



Perhaps, but they bother me to no end now. It's personal preference. I don't care either way what a writer chooses to do with adverbs. Unless there is a gross misuse of them.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 24, 2013)

I really can't read your post and I really can't understand...


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> ..I'd always thought of adverbs as placeholder words, but they can also play helpful role in editing. They're not the enemy, they're just your subconscious telling you to, "do more here."



I've read that before, but it's no less true for reading it again.  Good advice.

(I'm not an adverb hater, but they can be sneaky little devils, just the same.)


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2013)

Kevin said:


> I really can't read your post and I really can't understand...



_Kevin stumbled over the words swimming on the page. It was as if a cloak had been thrown over his mind. Nothing made sense, not the letters he saw nor the words that he, himself, unknowingly recited in his futile attempt at comprehension. Faced with this magical ink, scrawled on the glowing parchment with the blood of some long-forgotten electronic beast, a man has no choice but to stand outside of himself and declare his efforts futile for his own sake.
_


Not necessarily worth reading, but it at least tries to be. That's more than can be said for "_I can't really read your post and I really can't understand_", isn't it? One is just a simple declaration, suitable for passing information from one person to another, but that's not the intent of the other collection of words, is it?

Adverbs certainly have their place in day-to-day communication. They even have their place in novels and stories. But, slinging them _hastily_ around, when more care is called for, can cause opportunities to further entertain the reader to be missed.


----------



## alanmt (Oct 24, 2013)

"That's quite a monument you have there in St. Louis," he said archly.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 24, 2013)

Here's a passage from my most recent prose, with two adverbs. -I intend to keep both, and I don't think a reader would be distressed by them, but perhaps some writers would... My point is, perhaps we can write for readers or for critics, and perhaps those two goals can come into conflict.

I side with the reader!

My passage:
_
Geoff watched her until she was hidden in the trees. He felt a hand rest on his shoulder, and *instinctively* clutched it in his own. He heard the two soldiers mumble something before chuckling. A second later, Lenya barked something in her own language and the pair headed back towards the ship. “Sorry if I embarrassed you there,” he said.
_
_“I embarrassed myself,” Lenya said a little *gruffly*. “You did well there. She sees the truth now. It can be difficult to stare at hope and see it for what it is, when you've lived without it for so long.”_

_Geoff turned to face her, and Lenya looked away. At first, he’d thought she was talking about Jennifer, but now he was no longer sure. A strange thought entered his head, but he dismissed it as absurd. “You told me you brought me out here for two reasons...”_


I could lengthen the prose, I could write it another way, but I don't think I could write it any better (but of course I accept others reading this could). I don't use a lot of adverbs, but those I do are there through conscious choice.


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 24, 2013)

alanmt said:


> "That's quite a monument you have there in St. Louis," he said archly.



Nicely done. 



			
				Gavrushka said:
			
		

> “I embarrassed myself,” Lenya said a little *gruffly*.



Personally  , I'd choose to switch that to "_"I embarrassed *myself*," Lenya admitted._" (The bold is there for emphasis, if needed in order for it to read better. But, in the manuscript, it should be italicized. I just bolded it since I italicized all the exampled words.) and then I might insert "grudgingly" somewhere, but not in attributions following the quote, like "_she said, grudgingly_" - That's hackneyed, in my opinion, even if "grudgingly" in a preceding attribution is something I find acceptable: "_... and then, Lenya grudgingly admitted her mistake. "I'm sorry, I really shouldn't have done that.""_ Like "Instinctively", "Grudgingly" seems like an exception to the general adverb rule, but not in all cases.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 24, 2013)

Just my opinion, but I don't think it hurts the sentence at all to remove 'instinctively', nor does it bother me that it is there. While I don't use adverbs in dialogue tags, I wouldn't think a thing about 'gruffly' if it popped up in something I was reading. I do, however, have a problem with "a little gruffly". In my opinion qualifiers like 'little', 'somewhat', 'rather', etc. suck the vigor out of a sentence and indicate that there is probably a better word choice than 'gruffly'. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 24, 2013)

LOL... you got me in a pincer movement...   I Will make some changes tomorrow (and thanks to both of you!)

Off to a birthday celebration now, but I'll post the next few paragraphs for you both to edit tomorrow!


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 24, 2013)

In my personal opinion, Gavrushka, _instinctively_ sticks out like a sore thumb. It would seem to me that the character would be more apt to swatting the hand away rather than embracing it. Even more so if the character was unaware of what it was. 

And, _gruffly_. Is Lenya a female character? If so, that seems very unfitting of a woman or girl to say anything in a gruffy voice. 

However, remove both of them and your sentences don't lose an ounce of meaning, clarity, or impact at all. That's my point.

EDIT: Thinking about this more, if your character was expecting the hand to rest on his shoulder, it'd be a perfect moment to place a sentence of emotional thought before he takes it up in his own hand. It seems, in the short quip of context given, that it's an emotional moment. (?)


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 25, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> In my personal opinion, Gavrushka, _instinctively_ sticks out like a sore thumb. It would seem to me that the character would be more apt to swatting the hand away rather than embracing it. Even more so if the character was unaware of what it was.
> 
> And, _gruffly_. Is Lenya a female character? If so, that seems very unfitting of a woman or girl to say anything in a gruffy voice.
> 
> ...



Lenya's gruffness is very fitting*. She's not a girl or woman, but I can understand feeling that way from the excerpt. - I'm not sure why she would swat her own hand away, (or his for reacting) but I do accept the adverb can be removed by  placing emphasis on _myself_ as Morkonan suggested. - I can likewise admit that instinctively adds little, if anything.

None of my positions are entrenched with regards to writing, and I am at the delightful point where I can learn new things with most exchanges, so thank you. 


*She's a non-human military officer.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 25, 2013)

FleshEater, you touch upon a salient point that I've been pondering throughout this thread.  It centers on your connection of a woman and "gruff."

Lots of times a character acts in an inconsistent manner.  Without plot twists every character would become a Mary Sue.  Taking that into consideration, what if the adverb itself is the correct word and driving force?

In other words, what if the author wants to showcase the action--not the actor--in setting up a scene?


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> what if the adverb itself is the correct word and driving force?
> 
> In other words, what if the author wants to showcase the action--not the actor--in setting up a scene?



I think that's a good question.

For me: I'd look first at a basic description of the action. If that isn't enough, I'd then experiment with similes or metaphors to paint a picture for the reader. If those aren't enough (or if they are too much), _then_ I'd consider an adverb.

So, at least for me, adverbs aren't off-limits, but I treat them as a last resort. 

Sometimes that means the adverb is the _best_ choice.  But those instances, for me, come from a process of elimination, which is different from how adverbs are sometimes abused—plopping them as a first choice, without recognizing (or being aware of) the alternatives.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 25, 2013)

Kyle, good catch.  I was thinking of J'Lo's movie "Enough."

The whole plot turned on a woman acting out of character (that's why I focused on "gruff").  I could imagine a story about raw recruits being tossed into combat for the first time and doing things never before attempted.  It wouldn't be a story of "who," but a tale of "how."


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 25, 2013)

Can we all agree that many great novels included adverbs?  If that's the case, doesn't it mean that adverbs are NOT bad?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 25, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> Can we all agree that many great novels included adverbs?  If that's the case, doesn't it mean that adverbs are NOT bad?



Oh, I think we're all on the same page.  For example, we could have just as easily been discussing the usage of a Mary Sue.  Let me give you an example.

There is a need for a character we might know as a "red shirt."  Not a follower of Garibaldi, but the pawn that dies in the first chapter.  I often use "spear carriers" to convey information unknown to the lead.

_But I do not overuse them!_

I believe it's the same with adverbs.  I think there's a time when an adverb is the absolute perfect method to move the plot.  But taken from the position of the OP, you wouldn't want to read an entire novel constructed on adverbs.

_"Egad, Mary Sue, look at how savagely, timely and figuratively Tettsuo killed that red shirt!"_


----------



## alanmt (Oct 25, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> And, _gruffly_. Is Lenya a female character? If so, that seems very unfitting of a woman or girl to say anything in a gruffy voice.



Have you not met Sergeant Calhoun?  

Because if she heard you say that she would pound you senseless while gruffly - very gruffly! -  denigrating your antiquated sexist attitude.  But don't worry. Her husband would fix you up.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 25, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Oh, I think we're all on the same page.  For example, we could have just as easily been discussing the usage of a Mary Sue.  Let me give you an example.
> 
> There is a need for a character we might know as a "red shirt."  Not a follower of Garibaldi, but the pawn that dies in the first chapter.  I often use "spear carriers" to convey information unknown to the lead.
> 
> ...


If you notice the title of the thread and some of the posts, you'll see that everyone is not on the same page.  This is another one of those nonsensical rules that people put out there, provide no context for the viewpoint, and thus in my opinion stunts the growth of other writers.

Adverbs are tools to be used when necessary.  End of story.  It's the same with using passive voice.  There are times when you should use it to get a point across.

If everyone did the same and obeyed all the same rules, you destroy diversity of expression.  We are artist at our core.  Let the artist express themselves however they will.  And please, don't take my words as an extreme.  I'm not saying use adverbs all the time.  I'm saying use it when it's needed.  Sprinkles are great when used lightly.  But, a tower of sprinkles is not appetizing.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 25, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> Can we all agree that many great novels included adverbs?  If that's the case, doesn't it mean that adverbs are NOT bad?



No, we can't logically reach that conclusion.  That's like saying, "<important, respected person> had an affair.  Therefore, affairs are respectable."

I'm not saying adverbs are the devil (or that they're perfectly fine), but you can't base their quality on the fact that some great novels happened to have them.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 25, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> No, we can't logically reach that conclusion.  That's like saying, "<important, respected person> had an affair.  Therefore, affairs are respectable."
> 
> I'm not saying adverbs are the devil (or that they're perfectly fine), but you can't base their quality on the fact that some great novels happened to have them.


In regards to your first point - Adverbs are not intrinsically bad.  So comparing them to affairs (which is a breach of trust) is not comparable.  So, your point is in and of itself, not applicable.

In regards to your second point - If great novels use adverbs, I can say with assurance, that it does indeed mean the use of adverbs do not make the writing no longer great.  If that were the case, those great novels that employ the use of adverbs wouldn't be great in the first place.

The majority advice I've read is meant to address the *overuse* of specific things (at least that's how I've decided to take it).  My problem is the people giving the advice rarely state that.  This, imo, harms those that are learning the craft.  It also homogenizes those that follow the rule, making their work all read exactly the same.  That's bad.  Art is about personal expression and communication.  Learning the craft helps with the communication aspect.  We all should learn how to best communicate via words, sentences and paragraphs.  False rules like "do away with adverbs" hurt the personal expression part of the artist and their work.

Use any and all things, but do it with knowledge and awareness of how it affects the reader and whether or not it aids in your expression and communication.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 25, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> In regards to your second point - If great novels use adverbs, I can say with assurance, that it does indeed mean the use of adverbs do not make the writing no longer great.  If that were the case, those great novels that employ the use of adverbs wouldn't be great in the first place.



Agreed, but that wasn't your original premise.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 25, 2013)

Aren't we all saying that "_sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't_"?

It's an adverb, not a tourniquet.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 25, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> FleshEater, you touch upon a salient point that I've been pondering throughout this thread.  It centers on your connection of a woman and "gruff."
> 
> Lots of times a character acts in an inconsistent manner.  Without plot twists every character would become a Mary Sue.  Taking that into consideration, what if the adverb itself is the correct word and driving force?
> 
> In other words, what if the author wants to showcase the action--not the actor--in setting up a scene?



I like this post a lot, and if I could give you reputation again (it claims I need to "spread it around"), I would.  I hit on this tangentially when talking with Kyle, but I think you really got to the root of the issue.  Sometimes the action is more important than the motivation.  Sometimes how something appears at a glance is more important than how something actually is.  And sometimes, using anything but the adverb itself defeats the purpose of that very adverb.  If I want something to come across as sudden, I'm going to use the word "suddenly."  If I replace "suddenly" with a synonymous phrase, I've lost the suddenness.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 25, 2013)

alanmt said:


> Have you not met Sergeant Calhoun?
> 
> Because if she heard you say that she would pound you senseless while gruffly - very gruffly! -  denigrating your antiquated sexist attitude.  But don't worry. Her husband would fix you up.



Ouch. Antiquated sexist attitude? I read a quick excerpt with no idea what the story was about. In most cases, a girl using a gruffy voice would be done so in a mocking manner. So, in context, what little there was, I found it out of place.


----------



## spartan928 (Oct 26, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Ouch. Antiquated sexist attitude? I read a quick excerpt with no idea what the story was about. In most cases, a girl using a gruffy voice would be done so in a mocking manner. So, in context, what little there was, I found it out of place.



Which I think goes to the heart of the subject. What is the impact of word choice upon the reader in terms of how the story holds their attention? Specifically with adverbs, but in the broadest sense as well. Overuse of adverbs, or any grammatical device, can either help or hurt the cause of writing a story that engages instead of distracts. You want to grip the reader not kick them away from your story so they don't come back. Too many adverbs or flowery, vague descriptions is like dumping sugar on a sirloin steak.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 27, 2013)

I've culled a fair few adverbs, and where I've left them I feel they don't harm the prose, even if they add little. I have ONE adverb that I can't see any other option for, and I'd like to know how others would write this sentence:

*Reflexively*, he looked skyward before stepping out into the meadow.

Now, there are various ways to rewrite it, but every one I have come up with is less effective. - It's a nothing sentence, but gets across exactly what I want - and as The Tourist put it in an earlier post, sometimes the adverb is meant to be the focus of a sentence. - To add context, if he didn't look skywards beforehand, he could die.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 27, 2013)

Easy.

He looked skyward before stepping out into the meadow. 

Yep. Got it. The action sequence is complete without the adverb.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 27, 2013)

Would looking to the sky be something your character would do before stepping into a new terrain? Would the reader know this? If so, the adverb is redundant. It's redundant anyways, I'm just trying to help justify it's redundancy.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 28, 2013)

Yes, I can see lack of context, which is why I added a qualifier. - I do understand what you are saying, and I've halved the number of adverbs I have used (from a low start number), but reflexively is the key word of the sentence for me. - I know that you will never use an adverb, so there is never a situation where you would concede the use of one by another, but I feel the alternate sentence does not inform the reader. - This is page two of the story, and the character is being introduced to the reader - This line is designed to reinforce the perilous nature of his existence, and removing the word without replacing it with something removes meaning.

So, what I am asking in this case is whether there is a way to reword the sentence that is equally short and punchy without losing its meaning.

In this instance, and from my perspective, I see there are exceptions to the removal of adverbs. (But I take it as a given your opinion differs.)


----------



## Sam (Oct 28, 2013)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> No, we can't logically reach that conclusion.  That's like saying, "<important, respected person> had an affair.  Therefore, affairs are respectable."
> 
> I'm not saying adverbs are the devil (or that they're perfectly fine), but you can't base their quality on the fact that some great novels happened to have them.



Not _great _novels; _all _novels. Every single novel ever written has had an adverb in it.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 28, 2013)

Sam said:


> Not _great _novels, _all _novels. Every single novel ever written has had an adverb in it.


What!  Are you saying adverbs aren't evil?!  But... that would mean that the advice to eliminate all adverbs from my work is *gulp* wrong!

/faint


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 28, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> Yes, I can see lack of context, which is why I added a qualifier. - I do understand what you are saying, and I've halved the number of adverbs I have used (from a low start number), but reflexively is the key word of the sentence for me. - I know that you will never use an adverb, so there is never a situation where you would concede the use of one by another, but I feel the alternate sentence does not inform the reader. - This is page two of the story, and the character is being introduced to the reader - This line is designed to reinforce the perilous nature of his existence, and removing the word without replacing it with something removes meaning.
> 
> So, what I am asking in this case is whether there is a way to reword the sentence that is equally short and punchy without losing its meaning.
> 
> In this instance, and from my perspective, I see there are exceptions to the removal of adverbs. (But I take it as a given your opinion differs.)



Okay, but reflexively still doesn't define the why. So he might be doing something reflexively, but if you're not establishing why, then it must not be important to know. 



Sam said:


> Not _great _novels; _all _novels. Every single novel ever written has had an adverb in it.



Well, I really need to get a novel written so this quote is no longer worthy.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 28, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> What!  Are you saying adverbs aren't evil?!  But... that would mean that the advice to eliminate all adverbs from my work is *gulp* wrong!
> 
> /faint



I don't think it's a question of good versus evil. But, I believe writers (especially new ones) should be aware of adverbs and their potential drawbacks. That doesn't mean adverbs should always be killed, but, often the writing can function well without them.

Perhaps a better way of putting it would be: Consider pruning adverbs from your work in order to improve the quality of the writing.

The discussion then becomes a question of, "Does removing/unpacking adverbs _improve_ the writing, or simply _change_ it?"

I'd say it goes on a case by case basis.

An example to consider:

*Tilting his head back, Grey Tail howled longingly at the moon.

*In this case, "longingly" would convey a general mood, as well as motivation, for the wolf's action (howling). It works, on a basic level. But, if you treat the adverb as a question mark:

*longingly?

*You can evaluate the reason for choosing such a word, and discovering if there is more that can be done with it. Is the wolf longing for the moon? Or perhaps, longing for his recently deceased mate? Maybe this winter has been particularly harsh, and the wolf is longing for warmer weather.

If we take any one of those examples, (picking one at random, I'll go with the deceased mate), we can expand upon the context of the sentence.

*Moonlight trickled through the branches, etching the snow with shadows. Grey Tail trudged through the powder with his head low, his ears flat. His paws punched through the crust. A season earlier, he walked this trail with White Chest, her soft flank pressed against his side. Now the hike through the valley was quiet. Desolate. He stopped in a clearing and glanced back at his tracks snaking up the ridge. He looked for White Chest's tracks, even though he knew he would not see them. His mate was dead. Her paws would never crunch through the glitter again. The wind picked up, scattering the clouds, bathing the clearing in light. Tilting his head back, Grey Tail howled at the moon.

*In the example, "longingly" was unpacked into a full paragraph, describing the setting, as well as providing exposition. The character's longing is, hopefully, implied, so the action of howling no longer needs an explanatory modifier. The reader knows Grey Tail longs for White Chest, and that is why he is howling.

The adverb has been unpacked, and as a result, its necessity has been removed.

Does that mean the writing has _improved_? That becomes a question of taste. To me, it has. Yes, it takes more work to unpack adverbs, but the benefits are worth it, in my opinion.

Does that mean all adverbs should be pruned? I don't think so. There are a multitude of reasons for why adverbs could be the best choice. But in a large percentage of the cases, I believe adverbs are used out of laziness, or a lack of awareness (or consideration) for the alternatives.

If the adverb has been questioned and concluded that it should stay, then, by all means, use it!  There are those cases where the use of an adverb is the best option. I have a few of those in my WiP, too. But only a few. I spend a large portion of my time unpacking all the adverbs I can find and seeing if the writing improves as a result. Most of the time, it does. 

And almost always, I'm grateful to have discovered the advice to weigh adverbs with a critical eye. The occasional adverb stays, but the majority are axed, and my writing (I feel) improves as a result. :encouragement:


----------



## Pluralized (Oct 28, 2013)

> Well, I really need to get a novel written so this quote is no longer worthy. :wink:


You absolutely do.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 28, 2013)

FleshEater said:


> Okay, but reflexively still doesn't define the why. So he might be doing something reflexively, but if you're not establishing why, then it must not be important to know.



That's covered in the sentences and paragraphs that came before.


And yes, I do hope to read this adverb free novel in due course


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 28, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I don't think it's a question of good versus evil. But, I believe writers (especially new ones) should be aware of adverbs and their potential drawbacks. That doesn't mean adverbs should always be killed, but, often the writing can function well without them...



Without a doubt, this thread has helped me cleanse my misbegotten prose just a little more. 

I am a little concerned, however; soon I am going to run out of technical excuses for poor prose...:ambivalence:


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 28, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> That's covered in the sentences and paragraphs that came before.
> 
> 
> And yes, I do hope to read this adverb free novel in due course



Well then, it seems a reader would already expect him to check the sky. So, no need to reiterate that it's reflexive...right?

The furthest I made it was 12,000 words. And no adverbs.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 29, 2013)

LOL! Flesheater, you are determined to judge every adverb unworthy! 

No, it doesn't work without it, but that is my judgement call. - I think the slight issue I have is that when you argue from a predefined position, you can appear inflexible.

Do you struggle with published prose now, as much of it is awash with adverbs? - And yes, I will concede that many of them are pointless, or just plain lazy.


----------



## FleshEater (Oct 29, 2013)

Yes, with my writing I'm inflexible when discussing adverbs. However, that's because I can be. 

When I read a good novel that uses adverbs, no I don't have a problem. Though some novels I read only have an adverb every twenty-five pages or more.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 29, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> *Does that mean the writing has improved? That becomes a question of taste*. To me, it has. Yes, it takes more work to unpack adverbs, but the benefits are worth it, in my opinion.
> 
> Does that mean all adverbs should be pruned? I don't think so. *There are a multitude of reasons for why adverbs could be the best choice. But in a large percentage of the cases, I believe adverbs are used out of laziness, or a lack of awareness (or consideration) for the alternatives.*


Do you not see how you've already made a judgment regarding adverbs?  All I'm saying is adverbs are not bad, they are not things to "overcome".  Adverbs are not a weakness born from laziness, they are tools just like every other tool in the writer's box.  Even in your example, one could simply want to use the word longingly as the backstory was already explain.  Or maybe the writer simply doesn't want to go into the details of why just yet, so the adverb is used as foreshadowing.  There are a multitude of reasons why a writer wants to use an adverb as opposed to unpacking everything every single time.

I'm not knocking your choice to avoid adverbs.  I'm opposed to telling anyone that adverbs must be overcome or they're some sign of a weakness in the writing.  If writers are overusing adverbs, their problem is the overuse of it, not the adverbs.  Heck, overusing proper nouns can hurt your writing, but we don't say you have "overcome" proper nouns do we?


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 30, 2013)

Good points, Tetsuo!

The "Overcoming Adverbs" was from the original title of the article (not an implication on my part.) I do agree with you that it'd be dogmatic to deprive oneself of any sort of writing technique, but at the same time, I find many writers use adverbs as a crutch, rather than a tool in the manners you suggested. 

It's less common to see published authors rely on adverbs, but it happens there as well. The majority of today's editors will hammer you for using adverbs, for the same reasons. 

Mostly, I agree with you. Adverbs aren't necessarily bad. But I do think it's good practice to be aware of the ones you use, to question their reasons for being there, and to be aware of the alternatives.

For some writers, thinking critically about adverbs is a new concept. I know it was for me at one point, and I was glad have encountered it. Whether or not it's a reliable method for improving one's writing is still up for debate, but I think it's worthwhile at times to investigate the tools we use as writers.

Sometimes, a screwdriver works better than a hammer. If we advocate, "Just use whatever works," as advice, we run the risk of being generic and unhelpful. I think of this thread as an example of, "Let's discuss the screwdriver, when its applicable, and when a hammer might work better."

:encouragement:


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 30, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Sometimes, a screwdriver works better than a hammer. If we advocate, "Just use whatever works," as advice, we run the risk of being generic and unhelpful.



I don't think that's what Tettsuo is saying.  Let me give you an example.

If you think creative writing forums can be a cauldron, join a knife enthusiast board.  If you say something as innocuous as "I like Kershaw," then nine guys will flame you with, "Why do you hate Spyderco?"  It's an all or nothing, us against them mentality which muddies the water.

Saying "do as you choose" is not copping out.  It's telling an adult to utilize the freedom he has.  Granted, you might choose a differing style than mine, but that does not automatically imply you're lazy, unschooled or selling out to popular trends.  It means you got up, mulled over you likes and dislikes, and then pulled the voting lever.

I think the real crime is writing Mary Sue-edly.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 4, 2013)

> Even in your example, one could simply want to use the word longingly as the backstory was already explain.



In Kyle's example, the use of 'longingly' reveals the narrator as it falls into the mode of comment; it's a judgement, not a fact. Whereas the unpacked paragraph hides the narrator (to some extent) more, as it uses description and report.

One is not better than the other; the latter is usually preferred because a covert narrator is usually preferred nowadays. Regardless, one must make a choice as to which they use. Revealing the narrator can be useful in some cases, even essential. 'Enduring Love' is a good example of this, though McEwan doesn't use many adverbs either. 

I see adverbs as a stumbling block for many writers, including myself, but they are in no way, shape or form 'bad'. They just do stuff we could often do without.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 4, 2013)

Here's a great post about adverbs.

http://mattmoorewrites.wordpress.com/2012/10/18/the-avoid-adverbs-rule-is-very-wrong/



> [h=4]What’s wrong with adverbs?[/h]Not using adverbs is the bastard mutant off-spring of some excellent writing advice: *be  precise in your wording.*
> 
> Don’t say “very big”. Say “enormous” or “huge”.
> Don’t say “said quietly” but rather “whispered”.
> ...


----------

